Sitting of 20 June 1832

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Representative Peers (Ireland); Tithe Prescription.—Read a second time:—Union of Parishes (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Colonel PERCEVAL, from Killala, and nine other Places;—by Mr. ANTHONY LEFROY, from Waterford, and three other Places;—by Mr. PIGOTT, from Osmaston by Ashbourn;—by Mr. SINCLAIR, from the Clergy of the Diocess of Exeter, and from Dumbarton; and by Mr. MILLS, from Marden, Kent,—against the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland.)—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Dublin; and by Mr. RUTHVEN, from Newport Pratt, and Tiernar,—in favour of that Plan.—By Sir RICHARD MUSGRAVE, from Cappoquin;—by Mr. O'CONNELL, from Frome Selwood;—by Mr. RUTHVEN, from certain Inhabitants of Dublin; and by Mr. CHICHESTER, from Barnstaple,—for an efficient Reform in Ireland.—By Sir RICHARD MUSGRAVE, from Killrossenty and Rathcormack;—by Mr. RUTHVEN, from eight Places in Ireland; and by Mr. HENRY GRATTAN, from Ardbraccan and Courtown,—against Tithes.—By Sir GEORGE ROBINSON, from Northampton, in favour of the Registration of Births' Bill,—By Sir THOMAS FREEMANTLE, from Winslow;—by Captain BERKELEY, from Bosham:—and by an HON. MEMBER, from Shipley, and two other Places,—for means to employ the Poor.—By Mr. HENRY GRATTAN, from the Birmingham Political Union;—by Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Hull Political Union,—against the Privileges of Parliament Bill.—By Mr. SINCLAIR, from Caithness, for Stopping the Supplies.—By Sir ANDREW AGNEW, from St. Mary, Islington, for a better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Mr. MILLS, from Bristol, for Relief and Compensation to the West-India Interest.—By Sir WILLIAM.GUISE, from Gloucester, for increased Allowances to Coroners.—By Mr. RUTHVEN, from Tuam, for an Equalization of the Elective Franchise.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—"THE TIMES."
Mr. O'Connellrose to call the attention of the House to a complaint personal to himself, relating to what he considered an infringement of the privileges of that House. No man living could be less disposed than he was to trench upon the liberty of the Press, being thoroughly convinced, that it could not do injury to any man who did not deserve, to a certain extent, to be injured, and no man had ever demonstrated the truth of his proposition more strongly than the humble individual who now addressed the House; for, during the last thirty years, more calumnies had been poured out against him than had ever been uttered against any one before, and he did not feel himself one bit the worse at the end of those thirty years in consequence. But he thought it rather too bad to be made to calumniate himself, as he appeared to do in The Times of that morning. He could bear that others should calumniate him, but it was going too far to make him traduce himself, and state a falsehood of himself that he might have the pleasure of being calumniated by himself. In a speech which was attributed to him in the debate of last
906
night, the greater part was pure invention, and especially that part in which he was made to calumniate himself, and this was done in such a manner that it could not have happened by mistake. The report began by stating—'Mr. O'Connell would oppose the hon. Member's proposition. It was true that in doing so he was acting in the teeth of his reiterated pledges to his countrymen.' This mode of phraseology was totally untrue, for no such pledges existed It went on—'But as he had then his reasons for making those pledges, he trusted to his influence with his countrymen to convince them that his reasons for now opposing the introduction of Poor laws into Ireland, which he had so often and so earnestly advocated, were cogent, and valid, and reasonable.' All he had said was, that his affections and his disposition had overpowered his judgment, and that he had two or three times acceded to the proposition of Poor laws without his reason being convinced—that his anxiety for the relief of the distressed had got the better of his judgment, and that it was from motives of compassion he had changed his opinion. He was then reported as saying that—'He had formerly stated it to be his opinion, that a main source of the wretched condition of the poor of Ireland, was the total absence of a legislative provision for their wants.' He had neither said this yesterday nor any other day. It would have involved a calumny upon himself if he had. 'It was now his equally conscientious opinion, that Poor laws would but aggravate that wretched condition,—[hear, from Mr. Rice.]' It was too bad to be made to make a speech against himself, grossly calumniating his own sentiments, introducing opinions for the purpose of retracting them, and representing him as giving pledges for the purpose of violating them. The report went on, and represented him as saying—'That owing to the wretched condition of the poor, the expectation of life was much less there than in this country, and its mortality much higher.' He had not said a word on this subject at all. A speech had been also attributed to the hon. member for Preston, who would be good enough to say whether the report was a faithful one. He should wait to hear what the hon. Gentleman would say on that point.
Mr. Huntsaid, that the hon. member for Kerry might be able to form a judgment on the subject himself, for he was in the House during the whole time that he (Mr. Hunt) was speaking. He must say, that great part of the speech attributed to him on the subject of the Poor laws was pure invention. There were many points in it, not one word of which he had ever given utterance to or thought of. This was not to be attributed to the Editor of the paper, but to the Reporter for the hour; because afterwards, at a later period of the night, in the speech which he made on the subject of flogging in the army, he must say that he was very fairly reported. On this occasion, however, a speech was put into his mouth, not a word of which he had uttered.
The Speakerinquired whether the hon. and learned Member meant to press this matter any further? The explanation of the hon. Member would seem to show that the error was involuntary. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had any ground for supposing that an intentional misrepresentation had been made, the House would owe it to themselves to take further notice of the matter; but, if the hon. and learned Member conceived that what he complained of arose from error, and was not intentional, it rested with him whether he would propose any further steps upon it.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that his principal motive in noticing the subject was, that he was afraid lest some hon. Gentlemen might say hereafter, that they recollected what, in fact, he had not said. As he could not trace it to any personal malice, he would not at present press the subject further, but he would consider of it, and if he could trace to any malicious motive the cause of his being so grossly misrepresented, he would again call the attention of the House to the subject.
Mr. Cramptonsaid, that he would not undertake to defend the statement of the speech attributed to the hon. member for Kerry last night. He did not know whether it was correct or not, but as the hon. and learned Gentleman had mentioned recollection, he must say, that if he wished to look for an accurate report of the proceedings of that House on former occasions, he would look to the contemporary statements in the newspapers, as well as to "Hansard's Parliamentary Debates," and the "Mirror of Parliament," and he would put those documents
908
against the recollection of any Gentleman, in or out of that House, or of most hon. Gentlemen, even as to what they themselves said in the House.
The Speakersaid, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman did so refer to those documents, he would do that in which that House, as a House of Commons, would not support him.
Mr. O'Connellwas understood to say, that those documents would furnish a confirmation of his statements as he had explained them, and a contradiction of those attributed to him by the newspaper in question.
Mr. Dawsonsaid, there had been a time when the proceedings of that House were correctly reported, but to say that they were so now was a mere delusion. He knew that their proceedings did go forth to the public, and, until within the last year, the persons engaged in that labour had executed it in a highly praiseworthy and creditable manner. He admitted that he had seen, both in the contemporary journals and in "Hansard's Parliamentary Debates," most faithful records of what took place in that House, but during the last year, a shameful degree of party spirit had been exhibited by those who undertook to enlighten the public mind as to what passed there. They not only misrepresented, but they took their own view of a subject, and put in reports of their favourite speakers. If they were Reformers, as he believed they all were, they took down only the speeches of Reformers. If they were Anti-reformers, they did the same. He thought it right, therefore, to tell the people of England, that most shameful partiality and misrepresentation of what was said in that House prevailed. They had done more—they had gone out of their way to use expressions, and add notes or exclamations, and describe noises which had never taken place, necessarily giving the people a contemptuous opinion of the proceedings of that House. It was impossible, indeed, to read the reports of the last year without feeling a degree of contempt for their proceedings, and the dignity of the House was compromised in the opinions of the people of England by the way in which the reports of its proceedings were given. He had never proposed it before, but he should propose, that one of the first objects of a reformed Parliament should be, to take means that the reports of their proceedings

909
should be sent forth to the public in an official shape. No man would be tolerated now in saying that their proceedings did not go forth to the public, but, as they did, they ought to go forth in an impartial and official shape. He hoped that one of the first objects of a reformed Parliament would be, that the front row of the gallery should be occupied by gentlemen under the control and superintendence of the House, and who should be responsible to it for the discharge of their duty in giving authentic, impartial, and official reports of the debates in that House.

CORONERS' BILL.
Mr. Cripps moved the order of the Day for the recommittal of the Coroners' Bill.
Sir Edward Sugdencomplained of the mode in which the four Bills of the hon. member for Stafford had been passed through that House, they having been disposed of at so late an hour on Saturday morning as to preclude any discussion of their merits. He thought that was highly improper; they were not party measures, but measures requiring a great deal of calm consideration.

ATTACK ON HIS MAJESTY AT ASCOT HEATH.
A Message from the Lords was here announced to the Speaker, who, by order of the House, called the Messengers in, and announced to the House that the Lords desired a present conference with the Commons in the Painted Chamber, on a subject materially affecting the safety of his most sacred Majesty's person, and also the happiness of his people.
Lord Althorp moved that the house do instanter agree to the conference with their Lordships' House.
Question agreed to unanimously.
Managers appointed, and a conference immediately held.
Lord Althorpshortly afterwards brought up the Report of the conference which had been held (his Lordship stated) with the House of Lords, for the purpose of requiring the assent of that House to an Address to his Majesty, on the subject of the atrocious and treasonable attack which had been made on the most sacred person of his Majesty.
The noble Lord then brought up the Address which was read. [For the Address, see the Resolutions in the Lords' Debates, p. 903.] His Lordship then said, it was not necessary for him to use any argument
910
to induce the House to concur in the Address just read. Every man, not only in that House, but throughout the country, must feel indignant, that so atrocious and violent an attack should have been committed on his Majesty's person, when appearing before his subjects yesterday, when an individual chose to throw a stone, which hit his Majesty on the head. Fortunately his Majesty received no injury; and it was gratifying to reflect, that whenever his Majesty appeared before his people, he was received with the strongest expressions of applause, and with an enthusiasm which must have convinced his Majesty that every person concurred in the indignation by which they were all animated. The noble Lord proceeded to say, that the expressions of indignation to which he had alluded, were such as would be felt at any period, by every one of good feeling; but doubly strong must they be at the present time, when the country owed so much to his Majesty. And, indeed. when they considered what pains his Majesty had taken to make himself popular, and the whole course of conduct which he had pursued, it must excite the greatest astonishment that any individual could be found in these realms to be guilty of so flagitious and atrocious an attack upon his sacred person. He would not detain the House longer than by these few words, and would conclude by moving the House to concur in the Address.
Sir Robert Peelseconded the Motion, and remarked, that all observations to induce that House to give a ready and unanimous consent to the Address must be superfluous. No man could contemplate the facts of an assault so wanton and so audacious as that upon the sacred person of his Majesty, or of that some time previous, upon the Duke of Wellington, without the utmost indignation. But he did not understand from the noble Lord that the wretched individual who made this assault was in a state of mental derangement; and, if he did not happen so to be, he (Sir Robert Peel) conceived that this wild conduct could have arisen only from the state of political excitement which prevailed, an excitement which he trusted all loyal subjects would see the necessity of calming; and of inducing a return to that strain of sentiment and course of action for which Englishmen in former days were distinguished. Such was the duty of every loyal man; but he maintained, that it was

911
peculiarly the duty of those in high station, or possessed of great influence, to inculcate obedience to the laws. He had heard doctrines promulgated in that House, calculated to produce consequences, which he was convinced never were intended by those who uttered them. If Members of that House maintained, that in cases of supposed grievance, the resort to physical force was justifiable and even laudable, who could doubt that the very worst effects must be thereby produced upon the ignorant classes. The natural conclusion for such persons to draw from such doctrines was, that they also would be justified in avenging their fancied wrongs by physical force. He hoped, therefore, that at a time, when it was so easy to inflame, they would all see the necessity of being guarded in the expressions they used and the doctrines they set forth; and that they would remember that one of their first duties, as Legislators and Representatives of the people, was, to inculcate obedience to the laws.
Mr. Stanleyhad hoped that, on such an occasion as the present, the feeling, not only of both Houses of Parliament, but of all loyal subjects, would have been in perfect unison, whatever might have been the individual differences in political opinion, and that no string would have been touched by any hon. Member, which was calculated to introduce a jarring feeling, or an interruption of that full current of harmony which they were about to pour forth before his Majesty. It was upon that account that, although not differing from the sentiments of the right hon. Baronet, he regretted the intermixture with their loyal expressions—their utter indignation, and deep abhorrence of the atrocious and treasonable attack upon his Majesty—of any sentiments which might lead, if the House were disposed to enter upon it, into a discussion of great political questions which had long distracted this country, and which had produced an excitement that, he agreed with the right hon. Baronet, it was the duty of every loyal subject to allay and assuage. It was impossible that any man could contemplate the atrocious attack on the Duke of Wellington without the utmost disgust—the utmost shame—if such conduct could be attributed to any large body of the public. No man could hesitate to say, that the attack on the noble Duke was most deeply disgraceful; and doubly disgraceful, when
912
it was considered that it took place on the anniversary of that event which, while it permanently established the peace of Europe, added fresh laurels to the head of the conqueror, and from him reflected imperishable glory upon the country—a glory which every Englishman must be ashamed to think had been tarnished by throwing insult upon the Hero of Waterloo. But now they were looking to a higher character—to a higher and more sacred object—to one who, personally and constitutionally, had a claim upon the loyalty and affection of the people of England. No man could hesitate to declare, that the attack upon his Majesty had been most atrocious; and he, therefore, regretted that the right hon. Baronet had mixed up this question with political considerations with which it could not properly be connected. From both attacks the people of England shrunk with horror; no less from the attack on the noble Duke, the conquering hero of a hundred battles, than from that upon his most gracious Majesty, the father of his people, the constitutional Sovereign; whose situation personally, and whose public character, claimed alike the affection and the reverence of all Englishmen. The attack, however, upon his Majesty, was still more deeply to be reprobated; but he denied that there was anything of politics mixed up in it. It was the atrocious act of an individual; it originated in no political feeling; and he again regretted that the right hon. Baronet had introduced any allusion to politics, and expressed his conviction, that every body must look upon the act with the greatest abhorrence, and that the House could not fail to concur in its reprobation.
Sir Robert Peelexplained, that he never intended to say, or had said, that the attack upon the Duke of Wellington was of equal enormity with the attack upon the King. He had only intimated that each was referable to the same cause—namely, the political excitement which prevailed—not solely on account of the Reform Bill, but from a variety of concurrent causes on which he had not touched. He had said, and he now repeated it, that both those events ought to be a warning to them how they propounded doctrines, and used language, which might produce the worst effects upon the ignorant classes—effects which, he had no doubt, had not been intended by the persons who incautiously maintained

913
the doctrines to which he referred. He denied that he had introduced any question of party or political feeling. It was true he had alluded to the hon. member for Middlesex. He remembered other occasions on which that Member had used language in his place in that House which had been misconstrued, and had produced effects which were greatly to be lamented. He remembered that, in November, 1830, when great excitement prevailed, the hon. Member had used the expressions which were before quoted in that House—namely, that the day of vengeance was come. Now, he asked, if a member for the metropolitan county told the people that they should resort to the use of physical force, if their grievances were not redressed, and boasted that the day of vengeance was come, could they wonder that an ignorant man should be misled by the promulgation of such opinions, and fancy that he had a right to vindicate his personal wrongs by physical force? He, therefore, once more urged upon the House, that these things should be a warning to them to be moderate in their language, and cautious in the doctrines they propounded.
Mr. Stanleyquite agreed with the right hon. Baronet in the sentiments he expressed, but only objected to the admixture of a political feeling with that expression of indignation at the assault, and congratulation to the Monarch on his escape, in which all men must agree.
Mr. Humesaid, that after the unfair attempt of the right hon. Baronet to join the recent attacks upon the Duke of Wellington and the King, with words used by him, he could not avoid making one remark. He had already, at the time, explained those words, and his explanation remained uncontradicted; it was, therefore, uncandid and illiberal for the right hon. Baronet, to again put an erroneous interpretation upon them. And as to the quotation respecting the words attributed to him in November, nobody could refuse to allow that he had always deprecated violence. If the right hon. Baronet objected to any phrase he had used, he ought in fairness to have moved at the moment that it be taken down. It was an illiberal attempt to make it appear to the country that there was a connexion between his words and the recent events. He felt as indignant at these attacks as any man could—they were most atrocious in themselves, and most deeply to
914
be regretted from the time at which they were made.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that although his right hon. friend had been not less than four times castigated by the right hon. Secretary, for introducing the subject of the outrage on the noble Duke into this discussion, he was clearly of opinion, that this outrage was by no means foreign to the subject before them. That right hon. Gentleman had charged his right hon. friend with introducing party and political topics into this discussion. The only topic of this kind to which it was possible he could have alluded, was the Reform Question; and he would be satisfied to put it to the whole House whether his right hon. friend had come within 100 leagues of that topic, in anything he said to-night. But it was enough to raise such an inference that his right hon. friend had deprecated all encouragement, by Members in that House, in their speeches to the people, to make an appeal to physical force; for, if there were anything in which the right hon. Secretary for Ireland throve pre-eminently in debate, it was in dexterously and insidiously attributing to men what they had never said, or had never entered their minds. It reminded him of what George Selwyn had said, that an accomplished debater was a man who had the dexterity to charge his adversary with advocating doctrines he had never supported. Thus the right hon. Secretary, having adopted this practice, and having secured from those able Gentlemen around him their cheers, he went on swimmingly, assuming all along that his right hon. friend, the member for Tam-worth, was all in the wrong, and he, of course, in the right. The hon. and learned Member concluded by reprobating, in strong language, the cowardly attacks made in the last and this week, on the Duke of Wellington by the populace, goaded on to it, as they had been, he acknowledged, by language delivered, in different speeches of late, by persons in and out of Parliament; and by stating that he should, however, most cordially support the Motion for the Address.
Sir Francis Burdettsaid, he felt so strongly on this subject, that he was unwilling to speak lest he might fall into the error he should deprecate in others. He had heard of these attacks with great regret. It was most deeply to be lamented that anybody could be found in England

915
to commit an outrage upon the person of the Duke of Wellington, whose fame and whose reputation was a part of the public property, and whose name our children's children, to the most remote generations, could never hear without an overflowing feeling of gratitude. It was shocking, therefore, to think that there should now be persons in existence, at a period so little remote from the glorious actions and distinguished services of that great man, who could be guilty of such an abominable display of the vulgar malignity proper to their base natures. He should have thought that there was not a man in England capable of exhibiting himself in so horrible a character. And with respect to the wretched man who had assaulted his Majesty, if he were not absolutely a maniac, he must certainly be a strangely-excited individual. But this obnoxious conduct of his was no shame to the country; because any country might have the misfortune to give birth to such a person. The learned Gentleman opposite had, he thought, read a lecture rather to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) than to the right hon. Secretary (Mr. Stanley); and he concurred with the latter in regretting that the indignation which they all felt should be mixed up with any extraneous matter. He protested not only against the attacks alluded to, but against others of an even more atrocious description, which had not been alluded to, and which must excite disgust unutterable in every true-hearted Englishman—in every manly mind—he alluded to the vile, the loathsome, the execrable attacks, upon one whose sex, not less than her illustrious station, ought to have been her protection—the attacks upon an illustrious lady, who had been brought forward in a way most deeply disgraceful to Englishmen, and which made him doubtful and apprehensive where this incipient spirit of baseness might lead to. He had finished. He was anxious to stop at the point where all must concur. His only feeling of apprehension with respect to the Motion was, lest it might appear to give too much importance in the eyes of the people, and in the eyes of foreign powers, to an event which was only important from its reference to the highest quarter in the realm.
Mr. Crokerhad heard the hon. Baronet with great pleasure. He agreed with him in every syllable he had uttered, except, perhaps, in some of the inci-
916
dental arguments, which were hardly worth noticing. He was particularly glad that such observations had fallen from the hon. Baronet, who had, in the first instance, complained of his right hon. friend having unnecessarily introduced political subjects. But, in fact, the hon. Baronet had gone much further than his right hon. friend. Had his right hon. friend thought it necessary to allude to the brutal attacks that had been made by the Press on a personage whose sex and character, if not her station, ought to have protected her? No. He had alluded generally to the state of excitement which prevailed, and he left each man to draw his own conclusions from the particular atrocities which might have struck his mind. But the hon. Baronet followed this up, and alluded, with a feeling that did him honour, to attacks still more atrocious, as he had justly called them, than those before adverted to. He must say for himself, that he believed that the attack on his Majesty was the work of an individual maniac. He believed the wretch was mad. At least, if it were true that he professed to have assaulted his Majesty in order to obtain justice from the Directors of Greenwich Hospital, he was as mad as any man in Bedlam. But it did not follow that this conduct of his arose entirely from madness. Was not the mania stimulated, excited and directed by exterior causes? Was he not pursuing the same course with others, whom no one suspected of being mad? Was this the first insult which had been offered to his Majesty? Had he not read in the papers of the day, that his Majesty, in coming to town from his palace at Windsor, had been obliged to change the road by which his grandfather, his father, and his brother, had been wont to travel? And was it possible not to connect this with the other insult to his Majesty? He did not mean to connect them personally—he did not mean to connect the two sets of people. He only spoke as to the prevalence of the excitement which acted upon both—an excitement which, he maintained, it was the duty of all men, and especially of his Majesty's Ministers, to endeavour to allay; and certainly, not one word would he say which was calculated to increase it. There was one instrument of excitement—one provocative to such violences, to which he must call the attention of his Majesty's Ministers—he meant those

917
detestable publications which were circulated in the streets, and forced even gratuitously, into the hands of passengers, and which excited to outrages on the King and Queen more horrible than that of which they were about to express their detestation. But this was not all: he had also heard that in a theatre of this town—and they all knew the effect of scenic representations on the people—there had been a representation directly tending to bring the King and Queen into odium; and, lest the application of the ridicule in the piece itself should not be sufficiently obvious, the play bills gave at full length the grossest libels upon the King and Queen. He held in his hand one of those play bills, and he ventured to say, a grosser libel never was published. He mentioned this as a warning to the Ministers. They might not have heard of this. He happened to have received the bill from a person who brought it from the theatre. They might not have seen it, though he certainly should think it strange that, in a well governed town, so gross and so public an outrage should have continued for so long a time unknown to the police and the Government. But to revert to the treasonable insult at Ascot. The act of this individual maniac was to be dealt with as the act of a maniac, but it was not on that account to be despised; for the nature of the disease of political maniacs was, to be excited by public events and public agitation. There was no instance in which such persons were not excited and urged forward by some great degree of public commotion, produced by agitation, by the Press, and by violent and gross attacks upon the King and Queen, and other high personages of the realm. Therefore, it was not irrelevant to connect these matters with the subject before them; and he hoped the Government would take them into consideration. It was not to be endured that while the wretched offender at Ascot was made the subject of public indignation and legal vengeance, those persons should not be visited with the highest penalty of the law, who, with no excuse of grievance or insanity, presumed, for base lucre, to make such gross and atrocious attacks upon the Sovereign and her Majesty, that they might fill their filthy house with the still filthier rabble. But, above all, he, at least, would not consent that the great agitators—the prime movers of all this
918
commotion and sedition—should escape without notice or animadversion, while they were lavishing so much loyal indignation on the comparatively less important offence of one miserable madman.
Lord John Russellthought, that on the present occasion it would have been well to avoid all allusion to words used on a former occasion by a Member of that House; because the contrary course could hardly fail to insure an intermixture of unpleasant and irrelevant matters with the subject under immediate consideration. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last had wisely abstained from all political or party allusions. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman respecting the noxious character of the libels in circulation. The only question was, how they were to be put down. He had observed with great regret, with pain, and with disgust, that the presence of their Majesties in the Capital had been accompanied with insult; and, particularly had he been affected with indignation at the vile attack directed against a person, illustrious by her rank, and deserving of all respect and regard from the character which she had maintained ever since she reached her present exalted situation. With regard to the libels in the street, he really knew not what course should be pursued. He feared that prosecution would only have the effect of giving them increased circulation. But as to the performance at the theatre, he had now only heard of it for the first time, and he had no hesitation in saving, that in this case, the law of the country ought not to permit such proceedings. He was told, however, that the theatre in question was not within the Lord Chamberlain's jurisdiction. He repeated, that this theatre ought to be visited with the execution of the law, and that such performances should not be suffered to exist, as being a disgrace to the British metropolis.
Mr. Crokersaid, the theatre was an obscure one, under the jurisdiction of the Surrey Magistrates. He pledged himself that the play bill was as atrocious a libel on the King and Queen as ever was published, and he would take care to transmit it to the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Mr. Alderman Venablessaid, it was only the lowest rabble who had attacked the Duke of Wellington in the city, and the assault on him had excited universal indignation.
Mr. Duncombestated, that the Dramatic Committee had had Davidge, the manager of the Coburg, before them, and that he had stated this bill was published during his absence from town, and that he had suppressed it on his return: the play alluded to was Tom Thumb. It was performed in the usual manner, and had not been by any means attractive in consequence of the play-bill. He understood, too, from what he considered good authority, that an illustrious Duke, * the object of one of these attacks, had gone in person to this theatre to witness the performance, and had returned perfectly satisfied that Tom Thumb there, was just the same as it was everywhere else.
Mr. Huntconcurred in the Motion, but wondered very much at the speeches made by hon. Members opposite, when he remembered how they cheered when the Member who spoke last but one had alluded on former occasions to attacks upon the person and property of the Duke of Wellington. It was wrong, after having connived at the great excitement which had been produced in the public mind, to talk of paltry little publications, and pass over that great giant, The Times. He should feel that he acted most unworthily if he did not say, that the columns of The Times had been filled with articles tending to produce excitement. Had not Gentlemen opposite heard of the manner in which the King and Queen had been treated in going through Hounslow and Brentford? Had they not heard of the gross insults which they had received on their visit to the exhibition at Somerset House? Yet nothing was said of those matters then. If, therefore, they connived at those matters when they occurred, it was a little too late to express extraordinary astonishment at what had recently happened. Day after day there had been published attacks on the King and Queen in The Times. The King was accused of having been led by the Queen, and the most opprobrious epithets were used on the occasion. He should be ashamed of himself when he heard little publications
* The illustrious Duke referred to in the text, is the Duke of Wellington; and in reference to Mr. Duncombe's remark, Mr. Croker in the course of the evening, took an opportunity of stating, that subsequent to Mr. Duncombe's making that remark, he had learned that the noble Duke had not seen the exhibition, or any other, at the same place.
920
accused of creating excitement, if he did not say that The Times was much more culpable [a laugh]. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland might laugh; he congratulated him on being able to do so. To him it did not appear to be a laughing matter. He thought it a most dastardly and cowardly act to attack an individual, as the Duke of Wellington had been attacked, however unpopular he might be. But enough of excitement had appeared in The Times, without charging smaller publications. Did not The Times say it was possible the mob might tear the Duke of Wellington to pieces, as they had done De Witt? And was it not too bad to at tack little publications for exciting the people, when such articles had appeared in The Times? He very much regretted that such an insult should have been offered to the King, as that which had been offered to him yesterday. But his Majesty had been insulted elsewhere. An individual keeping the turnpike at Hammersmith, had offered his Majesty a gross insult in the presence of the Queen. But who was it that had brought his Majesty into such a state of unpopularity to be thus insulted and hissed? He hoped they would always be ready to denounce an attack upon an individual, whether that individual was the King or the Duke of Wellington. Such an attack was most disgraceful and cowardly; and he should consider himself as acting in a most dastardly manner if he did not do everything in his power to reprobate it.
Sir Edward Sugdenobserved, with reference to the attack on the Duke of Wellington, that it was made by the lowest of the rabble. Several gentlemen came forward, and gave him their strenuous support; and the matter ended in a sort of triumph to his Grace, who was attended home with the greatest demonstrations of honour and respect.
Mr. Lamballowed that there were many publications which had laid themselves perfectly open to prosecution for libel; but the policy of prosecuting sometimes became very doubtful. With respect to the play performed at the Coburg, there was no alteration in the usual manner of performing it. So soon as the Magistrates at Bow-street heard of the circumstance, they sent for Mr. Davidge, and the piece was stopped. It was but justice, however, to Mr. Davidge, to say, that he had expressed his intention of stopping the piece

921
before the interposition of the Magistrates.
Mr. Crokerrepeated, that it was the commentary in the Bill which was the offence. That commentary went through the piece scene by scene, and song by song, and pointed out the parts which the writer supposed applicable to the King and Queen; so that, although the play might have been performed as usual, yet, by this commentary in the bill, it was rendered a most atrocious libel.
Mr. Lambsaid, that of course he could not be understood as vindicating the occurrence in question; he had merely adverted to the nature of it rendering the consideration of its prosecution a difficult question.
The Address agreed to; and it was ordered that the House of Lords should be informed of the concurrence of the House of Commons.
Lord Althorp and the other members of the conference immediately left the House for that purpose.

CORONERS' BILL.
The House then reverted to the Order of the Day for the re-committal of the Coroners' Bill.
Mr. John Campbellrose to vindicate himself from the charge of precipitancy in the conduct of the four Bills alluded to by his hon. and learned friend; and observed, that they were measures in which he had no personal interest, and that he had been induced to introduce them only in consequence of his conviction that they would be of great public utility. He must say, that no Bill could have been proceeded with in a more deliberate manner.
The House went into a Committee.
On coming to Clause 8,
Mr. Humesaid, he thought it was of importance that Coroners should understand the value of medical evidence, and he should, therefore, propose, that at the end of clause 8, there should be inserted words by which it should be required that before any man was admitted to be a Coroner, he should produce certificates of having attended two courses of lectures on medical jurisprudence.
Lord Althorpsaid, that men might be called on to offer themselves for the vacant office of Coroner, who had not anticipated that they should do so, and who, though perfectly fit, from previous education as lawyers, to fill the office, would not be able to produce the certificates required by the hon. Member, and then who was to
922
act as the substitute, until these persons had qualified themselves? However practicable such a plan might be in the metropolis, it could not be carried into execution in the distant parts of the country.
Mr. C. W. Wynnthought it unnecessary that the Coroner should be a medical man, for that was the object of this Motion; but he was clearly of opinion, that it was absolutely necessary for the Coroner to know the general rules of the law of evidence. He was ready at once to say, that no knowledge could be misplaced in a judicial officer of this kind, and that if the Coroner was acquainted with medical jurisprudence, he might discharge his duties in a better manner; but that knowledge was not, like a knowledge of the law, actually necessary to the discharge of the duties of his office. If it was necessary, as the hon. member for Middlesex seemed to presume, that a Coroner should have medical knowledge, the same argument would apply with equal, if not greater force, to the Judges, who ought not, therefore, to be appointed, without proof of having received similar medical instruction.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that when a case of a charge of poisoning came before a Coroner's Jury, the Coroner could not properly direct the Jury as to the value of the medical evidence given before them, unless he had received the instruction proposed by the hon. member for Middlesex. He should, therefore, support the Amendment.
Mr. Stricklandobserved that legal knowledge was absolutely necessary for a Coroner, and he believed that the profits of the office were in general much too small to obtain men to fill it who, in addition to their professional education as lawyers, had also obtained a knowledge of medicine. He knew that there was a mistaken notion abroad as to the profits of the office, because there had been a contest for it once or twice; but he believed that those contests proceeded from very different causes, and he knew with respect to one of them—the most expensive that had occurred—he meant in the county of Stafford—that it was a contest between two political parties, who wanted to try their strength, and who gladly adopted the opportunity offered them by the election of a Coroner. The expenses of that contest were defrayed by them. He should oppose the Amendment.
Mr. Frankland Lewiswould also oppose it. He recollected an instance in early life, when the greatest inconvenience had occurred because the Coroner was not acquainted with the law; and on that occasion the Grand Jury were advised by the Judges then on the Circuit, to select a man who knew the rules of evidence, for that legal knowledge was absolutely necessary for the situation. Every subsequent event had only confirmed him in the justice of that opinion. He thought the emoluments were too small to require medical in addition to legal knowledge in the candidates for it. Besides this, two courses of lectures would give the student but a very superficial knowledge, more likely to mislead him into a false opinion of his own knowledge, than to give him much valuable information; and by the advance of science, that which he learnt at one time would, perhaps, be superseded in ten years afterwards; so that, in fact, the result would be, that none but a thoroughly educated medical man would be fit for the office. Now, it seemed to him more important for the medical man to state his evidence as a witness than to lay down the law as a Judge; and he should, therefore, oppose the Amendment, which would lead to the opposite course.
Mr. Schonswarlikewise opposed the Amendment, and expressed his belief that it was of the utmost importance that the Coroner should be acquainted with the law, and be assisted by the evidence of medical men. There could be no objection to that practice, for the expenses of medical men on such occasions were always allowed. If the Coroner were to be taken from the medical profession, so much would the duty of a Coroner interfere with a medical man's practice, that none who were at all eminent in their profession would think of undertaking the office. The medical candidates would generally be men who were not particularly successful in their professions.
Mr. Humesaid, with regard to the observations as to the small profits of the office, that when it appeared the emoluments were not sufficient, they might be increased. Medical education, too, might easily be had at the King's College, or the London University.
Mr. Bernalobserved, that one of the effects of this clause would be, that Coroners must absolutely be medical men.
924
This must especially be the case in poor counties, where young men could serve their articles as attorney's clerks, without coming to London, and might fit themselves in that manner to be attorneys and Coroners, but they could only obtain medical knowledge by coming to London, an expense that would, of course, never be incurred merely for the chance of afterwards being Coroners.
Sir Charles Forbessaid, that in India a surgeon was attached to the office of Coroner, whose duty it was to attend all inquests.
Mr. Huntrecollected, when all the Coroners of Wiltshire were medical men. In his opinion, a man of plain common sense would be better than either a lawyer or a medical man. The manner in which Coroners performed their duty wanted revision, for he knew an instance of a man being murdered in gaol by the Gaoler; the Coroner held an inquest on the body in the prison, and, by carefully excluding all witnesses, brought in a verdict of accidental death.
Mr. Cramptonadmitted, that the knowledge required by the hon. member for Middlesex was desirable, but he thought the best way to secure the election of a proper person was, not to hamper the office with too many conditions.
Sir Charles Wetherellhoped that the hon. member for Middlesex would also move, that those who produced a certificate of having attended two courses of lectures, should also produce a certificate of having understood them. If the Amendment were agreed to, it ought to be carried further, and no Judge should be allowed to try a man for murder who had not received a medical education.
Mr. O'Connellthought, at least, the certificate of having two courses of lectures was quite as useful as a certificate that a man had eaten thirty-six dinners as the qualification to become a Barrister.
Mr. Courtenayadmitted that it would be desirable for a Coroner to be a man of eminent abilities, to decide between the conflicting medical testimony which might be produced before him; but, if he were only to have a smattering of knowledge, he had better be without it. Medicine, it was well known, was divided into schools, and the members of the profession embraced rival theories. On that account, he was convinced, as they could not have eminent medical men for Coro-

925
ners, that lawyers would be better able than half-instructed medical men to decide between conflicting testimony, and to charge the Jury properly.
Mr. Crippscould not consent to the Amendment. If the Coroner were a legal man, he could call a medical man to his aid; but, if he were a medical man, he did not know how he could summons a legal man to assist him.
The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 11; Noes 80—Majority 69.

List of the YES:

Bulwer, H. L.

O'Connell, M.

Evans, Colonel

Stephenson, W.

Ewart, W.

Warburton, H.

Hunt, H.

Wood, Alderman

James, W.

Morrison, J.

TELLER.

O'Connell, D.

Hume, J.

Mr. Warburtonrose to propose the insertion of a clause, declaring that all inquests should be public. He said that he never heard of an instance of an inquest having taken place privately, which had not given rise to greater excitement, dissatisfaction, and suspicion, than had ever arisen from a public inquiry. In the words of a great man lately deceased, "publicity is the soul of justice." The necessity for making Coroners' Inquests matters of publicity, in a country where almost all the proceedings of criminal justice were conducted openly, was so manifest, that He felt it quite unnecessary to say any thing more in support of his proposition. He would therefore move the insertion of the following clause:—"Be it enacted, that any Inquest upon the body of any person shall be held in open Court, and that the evidence of witnesses and the charge of the Coroner be delivered in open Court, and that all proceedings be carried on in open court, with the exception of the deliberation of the Jury, if they think fit to retire."
Mr. Crippssaid, it would be extremely inconvenient to have inquests held in open Court in private houses. The feelings of the family of a man who had destroyed himself, would be wounded, by having a crowd of curious persons assemble in their house. He could riot see how this objection could be surmounted; but, if it could, he would not object to the clause.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that if there were any obstacle opposed to the publicity of
926
an inquest, on the ground that it was to be held in a private house, the Coroner could adjourn to any other place. Having seen something of private inquests, he could understand why so many persons were desirous of becoming Coroners. Having the power to exclude witnesses and reporters, they might expect to turn the office to account. To put such a case as had been stated by the hon. member for Preston, he would suppose that a man had died in gaol—had been murdered in gaol—and such things had sometimes happened!—what security was there that the Coroner's inquiry would lead to a full and fair investigation, if the inquest could be held in secret? In all such cases, the only protection which the people could have was by the free admission of the reporters of the public Press. He looked upon the impunity of those who were concerned in the celebrated murders at Manchester to have been secured by the imperfection of the law respecting the Coroner's Court. The highest Courts of Law were open, although in them there was some guarantee for justice, in the education, experience, previous character, and responsibility of the Judge; whereas, neither experience, nor education, nor any qualification whatever was required in the Coroner, who had the power of deciding absolutely and in secret.
Mr. Stricklandsaid, that in several instances that had come under his own observation, in which private inquests had been held, the greatest public excitement had prevailed; and he thought that the time had arrived when the House should decide—aye or no—whether Coroners should have the power of excluding the public from their Courts. He would support the proposition of the hon. member for Bridport, because he believed that no inconvenience, but much benefit, would result from it.
Sir Robert Inglisthought, that Coroners should possess the discretionary power, which they seldom exercised except in extreme cases, of excluding the public from their Courts. It sometimes happened that the publication of the evidence taken before a Coroner facilitated the escape of a prisoner, and in other cases it operated to the prejudice of a prisoner, by creating an unfavourable impression against him previously to his trial. What was meant by publicity was, that reporters should be present to send

927
forth to the world every thing which occurred before the Coroner, and to that he decidedly objected, for the reason which he had stated.
Mr. O'Connellobserved, that prisoners might adduce evidence in their favour at inquests. A verdict of murder given by a Coroner's Jury was as likely to prejudice the minds of the public against a prisoner as the publication of the evidence on which the verdict was founded. The law which gave the Coroner the right of excluding the public was of very recent date. It was only known to the profession within the last fourteen or fifteen years. It was new, and Judge-made law.
Mr. Huntsaid, that the objection which the hon. member for Oxford made to the publication of evidence before Coroner's juries might, with equal justice, be urged against the publication of proceedings in police-offices. It was notorious, however, that the latter, in many instances, led to the apprehension of criminals. He had lately seen a report of some proceedings which took place upon an application against an individual for making some observations upon an inquest which was held in a palace in this country. He hoped a clause would be introduced into the Bill to prevent a Coroner, when murder was committed in a palace, from getting rid of the first Jury summoned to inquire into it, and summoning another which was packed. That dark and bloody transaction had never been fully cleared up yet, because the principal person engaged in it was not examined before either Jury. That transaction must yet be inquired into, if there was any justice in the country. The right of excluding the public from Coroner's Inquests was first assumed, twelve years ago, at Manchester. He would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in times like these, he would allow the law to remain as it was. In fact, a Coroner's Inquest, as the law now stood, was little better than the Star Chamber or the Inquisition.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that since he had been a Member of that House, he had never heard any subject more improperly introduced than the topic which the hon. member for Preston had dragged into the discussion. The hon. Member had thought fit to state that the transaction to which he alluded had not been examined into. He would tell the hon.
928
Member, that it had been inquired into, and he would further tell him, that if he had read over, as it appeared he had, the pages of the abominable libel which had recently come under the notice of a Court of Justice, he ought not to have repeated any of its intolerable atrocities in that House. If the hon. Member permitted himself to allude to it, at least he ought not to have been the copyist of the infamous language of an infamous libel.
Mr. Hunthad read the libel as it appeared in the reports of the hon. and learned Member's speeches.
Sir Charles Wetherellasked, what then was it that the hon. member for Preston had dared to say? [hear, hear,] He would ask again, what was it that the hon. member for Preston had dared to state, in allusion to the case in which the name of a certain illustrious person was implicated? The hon. Member had dared to say that, on the occasion to which he referred, and with respect to a transaction in which the name of an illustrious individual was implicated, the Coroner discharged one Jury, and summoned another, which was a packed one. The hon. Member asserted what was untrue when he made that statement. The hon. Member had made use of language almost as libellous as that which was at present in the course of prosecution, when he talked of a murder having been committed in the royal palace. The first Jury was dismissed because it was composed of the servants employed in the palace, and a second Jury was convened from the parish at large, in order that there might be no suspicion of partiality. When a Member of that House made a statement implicating the character of another man, and was informed that it was not correct, it was his bounden duty, as a gentleman, an honest man, and a Member of Parliament, to rise and say that he had not intentionally, but inadvertently, stated what was not true [hear, hear]. The House cheered, as if to call upon the hon. Member to rise and make that declaration. There was not a particle, or a speck, or atom of truth in the statement made by the hon. Member. The hon. Member said that the principal person in the transaction was not examined before the Jury. Undoubtedly, the unfortunate man who put an end to his existence, and who, he supposed, was the person designated in the slander of the hon. Member, was not examined. The hon. Member

929
spoke of a "bloody transaction;" certainly, suicide was a bloody act. If the hon. Member had, as he ought to have done, read over the accounts of the investigation before the Jury, he would have found, that it was a matter of physical demonstration, that the unfortunate individual, whose death was the subject of investigation, fell a sacrifice to a suicidal act. This fact did not depend upon the opinion of any person, but was a matter of demonstration to those who examined the body and the apartments. The Jury were unanimous in their verdict. The hon. Member was pleased to say, that the Jury was packed. Did he know of whom that. Jury was composed? The hon. Member might know Mr. Place, who was a public-spirited man in Westminster, and was the Foreman of the Jury. The hon. Member would not have dared to state before Mr. Place one-tenth part of what he had stated in that House; or, if he had, he would have been desirous that any person should stand in his coat and waistcoat rather than himself. He was quite sure that the hon. Member would not have dared to tell Mr. Place what he had untruly stated in that House—namely, that the Jury was packed by the Coroner, in order to prevent justice being done in that as in other cases. He hoped the hon. Member would recant the false statement which he had audaciously made, and which no other man but himself in the House would have had the temerity to make. With respect to the Motion before the House, he would certainly oppose it. He believed that no abuse resulted from the holding of inquests privately, any more than in the case of Grand Juries.
Mr. Huntsaid, that the hon. and learned Member had complained of him for attacking other persons; but he thought that he had a right to complain of the attack which the hon. and learned Member had made upon him. The hon. Member had spoken of his having dared to do this thing, and of having had the audacity to do the other thing, though, to be sure, according to the usual parliamentary courtesy, he had acquitted him of intentionally stating an untruth. The hon. and learned Gentleman had accused him of quoting from a libel. He had never read any part of that libel, except what the hon. and learned Member had himself read in Court upon affidavit. He, how-
930
ever, had stated a fact, which the hon. and learned Member, with all his audacity, had not dared to answer. He stated that the principal person concerned in the transaction to which he alluded, had not been examined before the Jury. To that statement the hon. and learned Gentleman shrunk from replying. The Duke of Cumberland was not examined, and therefore he said, that it was a mysterious and bloody transaction. He had made no accusation against any person but the Jury, for not having done their duty. The hon. and learned Member said, that he (Mr. Hunt) would not dare to state to Mr. Place what he had stated to the House. It happened, however, that he made the same statements to Mr. Place, years ago, four days after the Jury found their verdict. At the time the event occurred, he saw Mrs. Sellis, and the mother of Mr. Sellis, and communicated with them on the subject. He did not hesitate to say that, looking at the situation in which the body was found in bed, the marks of blood, the position of the basin and the razor, it was impossible for any man of common sense to believe that the man could have cut his own head off. That was his opinion, and he had the audacity to state it. No doubt the hon. and learned Member believed what he had stated to be true, but he had been instructed as to only one part of the case. The transaction was one which must be investigated yet. The hon. and learned Member, with some ingenuity, said, that the principal person engaged in the transaction could not be examined, because he had cut his throat. That was only an attempt to mislead the House; for the hon. and learned Member knew that he could not allude to that unfortunate individual.
Mr. Crippssaid, that he could state a fact which had removed the impression that had, in the first instance, been made upon his mind by the position in which the razor was found. It would be recollected that the razor was found upon the bureau: and it was surmised that it was impossible that it could have been placed there, if the man had destroyed himself. As he lived in the neighbourhood where the transaction took place, he went early in the morning and mentioned the circumstance of the razor to a Bow-street officer who was on duty at the palace. The man's answer was, "God bless me, I am sorry to hear

931
that any such reports should get abroad, for I myself took the razor up unconsciously, and placed it upon the bureau. I was blamed for doing so at the time, and I am sorry that it has produced a false impression."
Mr. Adeanesaid, he was sorry the Committee had been led away from the subject before it, by the consideration of a topic calculated to excite painful feelings in the breast of every man. He should state his opinion, that though publicity was a leading feature in the English law, yet there were exceptions to every rule, and he saw no reason why the existing exception should not continue in existence. An inquest was not a final inquiry, but only a preliminary proceeding.
Mr. O'Connellcontended, that there ought to be no secrecy before a Coroner, for it was a Court of Inquiry, and, like every Court of Justice, that Court ought to be an open one. Publicity was a great corrective of abuse, which otherwise would creep in were Courts kept closed.
Mr. Portmansupported the clause as proposed by the hon. member for Bridport; but he could never agree with the doctrine which had been advanced, that the Grand Jury Court ought to be an open one. At the same time, he was anxious that all Courts of Justice, save that, should be open; for the greatest possible benefit had occurred from such a course being acted upon in this country.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that the question respecting Grand Juries, which had been introduced, was not properly before the Committee. From the importance of the subject, he certainly should press the clause he had submitted to a division.
Mr. Crippssaid, he did not wish to have the public excluded from the investigation before the Coroner, but as the Judges had declared the Court to be a close one, and to be opened only at the discretion of the Coroner, he was desirous of having the law in that respect left as it now stood.
Mr. C. W. Wynnargued in favour of the principle of open Courts of Justice, but as the Judges of the land had declared that the Coroner's Court was not an open Court, he thought it better that the law of the land should remain as it now stood, leaving the Coroner a discretionary power.
The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 94; Noes 54—Majority 40.

List of the AYES.

Althorp, Lord

M'Leod, R.

Baring, F. B.

M'Namara, Major R.

Berkeley, Captain

Morrison, J.

Brougham, J.

Mullins, F.

Brougham, W.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Bulwer, H. L.

North, F.

Burrell, Sir C.

Nugent, Lord

Chichester, A.

O'Connell, D.

Chichester, J. P.

O'Connell, M.

Copeland, Alderman

O'Conor, Don

Creevy, T.

Paget, T.

Curteis, H.

Paine, Sir P.

Denman, Sir T.

Pelham, Hon. A.

Evans, W. B.

Penleaze, J. S.

Evans, W.

Petit, L. H.

Evans, Col. De Lacy

Petre, E.

Ewart, W.

Ponsonby, Hon. G.

Fazakerly, J. N.

Portman, E. B.

Fergusson, General

Power, R.

Folkes, Sir W.

Ramsden, J. C.

French, A.

Rider, T.

Gisborne, T.

Rooper, J. B.

Gordon, R.

Russell, Lord J.

Grattan, J.

Russell, R.

Grattan, H.

Scott, Sir W.

Guise, Sir W. B.

Sheil, R. L.

Handley, F.

Strickland, G.

Harvey, D. W.

Stuart, Lord D.

Heneage, G. F.

Tennyson, C.

Heywood, B.

Thicknesse, R.

Hodges, T. L.

Thompson, P. B.

Horne, Sir W.

Throckmorton, R. G.

Hoskins, K.

Tomes, J.

Howard, P.

Townley, R. G.

Howick, Lord

Tracey, H.

Hughes, Hughes

Tyrell, C.

Hume, J.

Venables, Alderman

Hunt, H.

Vernon, Hon. G.

James, W.

Villiers, H.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Vincent, Sir F.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Walker, A. C.

Kenyon, C.

Warre, J. A.

King, E B.

Wason, R.

Labouchere, H.

Watson, Hon. R.

Lambert, H.

Webb, Colonel

Lawley, F.

Wellesley, Hon. W.

Leigh, T.

Weyland, Major

Littleton, E.

White, H.

Loch, J.

White, S.

Marryatt, J.

Williams, A. W.

Mangles, J.

Wood, Alderman

Mayhew, W.

TELLER.

M'Kenzie, S.

Warburton, H.

On the clause being put as amended,
Mr. Frankland Lewisexpressed a strong feeling of surprise that his Majesty's Ministers had taken no decided part in the discussion of a question of so much importance, and one brought under the consideration of the House at a time when all the institutions of the country were undergoing such extensive and fundamental changes. He really thought it was the

933
duty of the King's Government, possessing as they did, the means of influencing a majority of that House, to protect the country from such violent and sudden changes as those which the Amendment then agreed to had the effect of producing. Neither did he think it was fair that the law officers of the Crown should abstain from delivering an opinion upon a subject of so much importance, and one so intimately connected with the administration of justice. He, and those with whom he was in the habit of acting, looked with the most feverish anxiety towards the progress of events; and regarded changes of that and a similar nature with minds full of apprehension; and they had, therefore, a right to have their votes guided by the authority and judgment of the law officers of the Crown, on a question involving such an important change. The Coroner's Jury was one of the oldest institutions of the country; and he thought, that when the nature and constitution of that institution were invaded, the leader of the Ministerial party in that House—the chief of the Government in that House—should do something more than merely state his own individual opinion; he should assume the responsibility of the measure, or oppose it altogether; for it was one of too much importance to be treated otherwise.
Lord Althorpwas never more surprised in his life than by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House. In the early part of the present discussion he certainly had given an opinion; but he had done so merely in his individual capacity, nor did he feel himself called upon to address the House in any other upon the present occasion. If the right hon. Member desired to know the grounds upon which he (Lord Althorp) supported the proposition of the hon. member for Bridport, he should state them to be, that he had always been of opinion that all Courts of Justice should be open to the public, and, especially, that every proceeding should be open to the public which involved, or which had any tendency to interfere with, the liberty of the subject. After all, it was a mistake to suppose that the present was any great innovation; practically, the Court of the Coroner had always been open, and it surely was not too much to support an Act of Parliament which merely went to declare that to be the law which was in perfect conformity with the acknowledged practice. Some
934
cases had been adverted to, in which it was stated that much difficulty and disadvantage had arisen from the disclosure of the facts; but, in all those cases, the facts had been published, and in every one of them the publication proved advantageous. In fact, experience had fully established the truth, that the evil of admitting strangers to these Courts was much less than the evil of their exclusion. Up to the present time the right of their admission was doubtful, but it was now, for the first time, proposed to place it beyond all doubt, and the proposition had certainly received his support, in his individual capacity, for he thought that no inconvenience of moment would arise from it, and it might be productive of much advantage. All this he thought himself fully at liberty to do, and he knew not upon what authority it would be required of him to make every question of that nature a Government question.
The Solicitor Generalcould not deny that he had remained silent during the present discussion, for having been kept away from the House by accident, and coming in towards the latter end of the conversation, he did not feel himself in a situation to do more than to give his vote, which he did without the slightest hesitation, convinced as he had previously been, that in supporting the Amendment be could not go wrong,. He never for a moment doubted that the Court of the Coroner should be an open Court. The oath of the Coroner's Jury binds the Juror to no secresy, while that of the Grand Juror does; then the inference which he should draw from that, as a lawyer, was, that the law of England did not authorise a Coroner to exclude the public from his Court; and, as some uncertainty hung about the matter, he could have no objection to a clause in an Act which went to declare that to be the law which, as a lawyer, he had always held to be the law. There was no Court in the country had the right to exclude the public, and why should the Coroner's?
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that it was incumbent on the law officers of the Crown to give their opinion upon the doctrine put forth by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—namely, that all Courts, the proceedings of which tended to take away the liberty of the subject, should be open to the public—a doctrine which be would maintain was contrary to the established practice of the country. He felt himself called upon to complain of the declaration made by the

935
hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Solicitor General), respecting the power of the judicial authorities, put forward as it had been at the termination of a Parliament, and near the season of the elections—perhaps with a view to them.
Lord Althorphad not used the expressions attributed to him by the right hon. Gentleman. He had not stated that all Courts should be open which had a tendency to take away the liberty of the subject (for that would include the proceedings before Magistrates); but he had said, that, in his opinion, those Courts should be open which had the power to deprive the subject of his liberty.
The Solicitor Generalthought that it would not be decorous for him to take a part in their proceedings, arriving, as he did, at so late a period of the Debate.
Mr. O'Connellconfessed, that it did appear to him the oddest charge that could possibly be brought against his Majesty's Ministers, that they had left the House to its own unbiassed choice; the present Government, in adopting that course, was certainly not imitating the example of the Government to which the right hon. Gentleman had belonged. By a vote of the Court of King's Bench—it could not be called a legal decision—they had declared their opinion to be, that it would be more convenient to leave the Coroner to himself, as to the expediency of making his Court open or closed upon any particular occasion; but now an Act of Parliament would put an end to that piece of Judge-made law, leading the way to a better state of things.
Sir Robert Ingliscomplained that the Ministers, on a great constitutional question, had suffered the House to come to a decision without favouring the House with their opinions. He complained, too, of the law officers of the Crown not having given an opinion previously. He was surprised at hearing the opinion of the Solicitor General, when every Justice of the Peace could exclude every person from his Court.
Mr. Frankland Lewisexplained, that he had complained of Ministers sitting and voting, and giving an effective influence on this question, without having stated their reasons for giving that support. If the doctrine of the Solicitor General were carried to the utmost extent, it would get rid of the oath of the Grand Jury, and would make the Grand Jury Court open.
936
What, then, would become of the Court of the Privy Council? Was that also to be an open Court? He wished for time to deliberate on the question further, as it was of great importance.
Lord Eastnorthought, from what had passed, that he had voted for what was the law, and was therefore much surprised to hear what had fallen from the Solicitor General.
Mr. Warburtonwas glad to learn, from the Solicitor General, that his Amendment was consistent, not only with general reason, on which ground alone he had defended it, but was also consistent with the old constitutional law. There would be means for hereafter considering the clause, so as to prevent any surprise.
Mr. Baringsaid, he was not aware of any abuse having taken place which called for this change. He was anxious to know whether, if this became law, it would be imperative upon the Coroner to throw open the doors of any house where a catastrophe might occur, and let all the blackguards in the street have entrance?
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman had been present at the early part of the Debate, he would have heard it fully explained, that it was only necessary for the Coroner and Jury to see the body, but not to hold the inquest in the same house. The Judge of any Court had power to exclude any improper person or persons who might interrupt the proceedings, and the Coroner would have the same power. He did not know what was meant by "all the blackguards in the street," but he would remind the hon. Gentleman, that the Coroner had, at present, power to admit "all the blackguards in the street" to his Court.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, he was sure that by using the terms "all the blackguards in the streets," his hon. friend did not mean to cast an imputation upon those who were in the habit of attending Courts of Justice, but merely that, if the public at large were to be admitted into any house where a sudden death might occur, it would be impossible to exclude persons whose presence might be extremely offensive to the feelings of the survivors. It was true that the inquest might be held elsewhere than in the house where a death took place; but then, as the view of the body was a judicial act, and one which, he conceived, was the most important part of the proceeding, it appeared to him, that

937
if the principle were adopted of admitting the public to the Coroner's Inquest, they would have an equal right to be present at the whole proceedings. He wished to be informed whether such would be the effect of the present measure?
Mr. Pettitsaid, as he understood it, the Jury would view the body for the satisfaction of their own consciences and understanding, at which process it was not necessary that the public should be present, and that they would then retire to the place which was fixed upon for the holding of the inquest, to which the public would have the right of admission.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, it seemed to him that there would be no doubt upon this point. The public would have a right of admission; but the public were only as many as could be conveniently and decently accommodated.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that the hon. Baronet had pointed out what certainly might be some inconvenience attending on the re-establishment of what he believed to be the ancient law. His opinion was, that the Coroner's Inquest should be perfectly open; that the witnesses should be examined publicly, and all the proceedings take place without any appearance of secresy. He looked upon Coroners' Inquests as a kind of advertisements, calling upon all who could give any information to come forward. It was not to be supposed that the public would be likely to rush into the chamber where a dead body lay, in order to wound the feelings of a family; but, if anything of the kind were likely to occur, the Coroner had power to employ a sufficient force to prevent such a brutal incursion, and to remove the body. He was sure the benefit which would arise from the protection of human life would amply counterbalance any trifling inconveniences which might arise from the measure.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, that for the sake of individuals and the public, it was of the last importance that there should be no appearance of secresy in the proceedings of Coroners' Inquests. The Court of King's Bench had decided that Magistrates sitting at Petty Sessions formed an open Court, and that the public were entitled to admission—blackguards and all.
Mr. Huntexpressed his satisfaction at hearing the Attorney General's confirmation of the old law of the country.
Mr. Freshfieldsaid, that if Coroners' Inquests were not, by the law as it at present stood, close Courts, abundant opportunities had offered for trying the question, as any party who was removed might have brought an action for the removal. The Judges had twice decided that they were close Courts, and he thought that House ought not hastily to overthrow their decision.
Mr. Humeprotested against the doctrine that the House was to be bound by the decisions of Judges. It was the duty of the Judges to execute the laws—that House was to make them.
Clause added to the Bill.
On the suggestion of Mr. O'Connell, a clause was added, declaring that the Bill should not extend to Ireland or Scotland.
The House resumed, and the Report was brought up.

BIRTHS REGISTRATION BILL.
Lord Nugent moved the re-committal of this Bill.
Sir Robert Inglishad already told the noble Lord that it was impossible he could support the Bill; that he considered it a specimen of that pruriency of legislation which had of late years afflicted this country; that he entertained objections to the Bill in point of principle, and that his objections were not less considerable to its details. He had told his noble friend, that the Bill must either be compulsory or not. If the registration he proposed were compulsory, by what pains or penalties did his hon. friend propose to enforce its provisions? If it were not to be compulsory, then what possible advantage, if advantage it could be called, would result from this legislative enactment, by which those who might possibly have to consult 10,000 registers now, would, by the provisions of this Bill, have to consult 20,000? If this Bill were compulsory, he could understand how some advantages might arise from its adoption, though not by any means sufficient to compensate for the disadvantages that would follow from it; but, if it were not compulsory, then nothing but vexation would result from it to those persons who acted upon its provisions; a great inconvenience and risk to those who relied upon the accuracy of the registries, which might be in some cases made under it, while others, after a laborious research, would have nothing but the burthen of their in-

939
quiry for their trouble. If it were not compulsory, it was obvious that it would not be carried fully into effect. If it were left altogether to the discretion of the parent, or person representing the parent, to enter the birth of the child, what evidence would there be that the registry of any certain parish, in any given year, contained all the births which occurred in that parish? And if it did not contain all the births, then the Bill was of no use. As a principle of legislation, the supposed case of grievance ought to be proved before proceeding to legislate for a remedy. Three months ago he had asked his noble friend to state his grievance, and, in the present pressure of public business, the House had a right to expect that it should not be called upon to legislate until the necessity and expediency of legislating at all upon the subject had been fully shown. These were his objections to the principle of the Bill, but almost all the details of it were not less objectionable. His noble friend proposed to invest an order of persons called Parish Clerks with the execution of a great part of this Bill. Every Gentleman then present could decide upon the character of Parish Clerks. He should like to ask any hon. Gentleman what proportion of Parish Clerks could write? According to the information given to him, there was a county not 100 miles from this place, and in the neighbourhood of the noble Lord himself, where two-thirds of the Parish Clerks did not know how to write. But it was a necessary preliminary that the persons whom his noble friend would employ should be able to write as well as read. Again, how did his noble friend propose to remunerate these Parish Clerks? By certain fees for extracts which they might be called upon to make from the registers. He apprehended that this would not apply to more than one in fifty of all the entries which they would be required to make. And how was this registry to be entered? It was to be entered in certain books; and had the noble Lord considered what the mere expense of those books would be, besides the expense of the attendance on the Justice of the Peace every quarter to certify those books? The least charge, for the smallest parish in the kingdom, would be 2l. a year; an additional burthen of 20,000 l. or 30,000 l. would thus be imposed upon the parishes throughout England, for the performance of a work which
940
was not at all necessary, and which would be perfectly inoperative unless made compulsory; so that, looking at the question in a fiscal point of view, the Bill was very objectionable. The House had not been told what degree of labour was to be imposed on the Justices of the Peace by this Bill. He apprehended that one Justice would have to superintend the Clerks of every ten or twelve parishes—that was to say, rural parishes; of course the argument applied with tenfold force to such parishes as Lambeth, Marylebone, and others of that description. He would ask his noble friend, who was himself a country gentleman, what consolation or recreation he would deem it to be, to have, every morning, the Parish Clerks coming with their books, requiring him to look over the entries of all the Johnsons, and Thomsons, and Williamsons, of the parish? But, if this objection held good with respect to the rural parishes, how much more strongly did it apply to the town population—for the Bill made, it was true, no distinction—and it was the utmost that could be said in favour of it, that it would benefit the different classes of Dissenters: with respect to the members of the Established Church, the births of all their children were necessarily registered in the parish registries, by the entries of their baptisms. If the great object of the Bill were, that it would facilitate the proofs of title to property by Dissenters, he would call the attention of his noble friend to this point: the parish priest registered the birth, because he registered the baptism, of the child; but what, under this Bill, was to hinder any person coming to the Parish Clerk, without any child in his arms, and obtaining the registry of a fictitious person? Even in small parishes this would not be very easily detected, but in large parishes it could not be detected at all. For instance, St. Margaret's, or St. Giles's; let any Member look at the number of births taking place there every day, and then say, whether it was not necessary that there should be some additional evidence beyond what this Bill provided, that a child had been born? The great security for the accuracy of the present registry was, that no entry was therein made until the clergyman had had the child in his arms. It was perfectly clear, without imputing a corrupt motive, that a Parish Clerk might enter a child as born, which might, in fact, never have been born, as there would be

941
no other evidence of the circumstance than the testimony of the party requiring the entry to be made. The facilities to commit fraud, with a view to the descent of property, would be, therefore, very great under this Bill. This, indeed, was a strong argument against it, that while it did not secure a bona fide entry of children who were actually born, because there was no compulsion on parties to make such entries, it did facilitate the entries as of children having been born where no such children were born, because the Parish Clerk was empowered and, indeed required, to make the entry upon the assertion of any person. It behoved the House, therefore, to pause before they sanctioned so ready a means of committing fraud. Then there was the risk incurred by the kind of custody to which these registries were proposed to be intrusted. Every quarter of a year the Parish Clerk was to carry this book to a Justice of the Peace. Under the present system, the register must remain in the custody of the Minister of the parish, and was deposited by him in the iron chest; but, by this Bill, a document which was to have the force of law, and upon which the security of all the property in the country might depend, was to be in the custody of a man who, in many instances, could not himself write, and who, in some of the parishes in the kingdom, had a salary of the lowest nature, not exceeding 5l. or 10 l. a year, and who would be required to give up a portion of his time without remuneration, and would, necessarily, be in many cases too accessible to the commission of fraud. Under these circumstances his noble friend, had not laid down, either when he introduced the measure, or in its intermediate stages, any ground for altering the present law. He had not, by the Bill, avoided any of the evils that might exist, under the present system, while he (Sir Robert Inglis) certainly perceived many objections to the Bill, both in principle and detail, which were not to be remedied in Committee. Under these circumstances, he felt bound to move as an Amendment, that the Bill be re-committed this clay six months.
Mr. John Campbellseconded the Amendment, because he believed that the Bill would not answer its intended object, and he thought there ought to be one bill for the registration of births, deaths, and marriages. A large portion of the people of this country had no registry whatever.
942
This Bill, however, did not go far enough to remedy the evils, and he would recommend the noble Lord to make it more extensive, and then it would be a real blessing to the country.
Mr. Ruthvenwas quite aware that some measure on the subject was requisite, and, though it was much wanted in Ireland, this Bill would not answer the purpose, inasmuch as it imposed a duty on Parish Clerks, which the Clerks of Ireland would be inadequate to perform, and which had hitherto been performed by the clergymen He hoped the noble Lord would keep the subject in mind, but would at present postpone the Bill.
Mr. Vernon Smithsupported the Bill, but would be glad to see some alterations in it. The Bill was principally intended to benefit the Dissenters, and that it would effect to a considerable degree. He should be sorry to see the Bill rejected altogether because it did not effect all the good possible.
The Solicitor Generalconcurred with the hon. member for Stafford, as to the propriety of a general measure for the registration of deaths, births, and marriages, but recommended the withdrawal of the present measure, as it had not been sufficiently considered. If the Bill were postponed, as he was sensible of the great importance of the subject, he would render all the assistance in his power to make it a complete measure.
Mr. Goulburnalso recommended the withdrawal of the Bill for the present Session. The plan had no pretensions to form an accurate record out of the register, and it would, in some cases, impose great hardships on Justices of the Peace.
Mr. Cramptonwas aware of the difficulties attending this question, but would vote for going into Committee, being deeply impressed with the advantages of a general registration. The registry was bad in England, but it was still worse in Ireland. Many difficulties, however, stood in the way of extending the Bill to Ireland, and it would require much consideration to get over them.
Lord Nugentwould, in the first place, deny that any labour was thrown on the Magistrates; all the labour would be imposed on their clerks, who would receive Is. for every such entry; it, therefore, would not be a gratuitous labour. With respect to the objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that errors might be

943
made in copying those registers, and that there might, in certain cases, be conflicting evidence, and that even fraudulent entries would be made; if common care were exercised there would be but few errors in copying, and the latter evil would be avoided, as the transcripts were lodged in different places, and under the care of different persons, so that the insertion of a false entry would easily be detected. His hon. friend said, that no sufficient ground had been urged to call for this change, but the numerous cases which had been brought forward of the present registry of births being very imperfect, was, in his opinion, sufficient ground for the change. The present registration only showed that the child was alive at the date of the entry, but it had no reference to the age. He knew of cases in which great inconvenience had arisen, in consequence of this; he would mention one. In a parish a short distance from his residence, a couple went to church to be married, and the clergyman asked the parties whether they had been baptized? The man answered in the negative, and the clergyman refused to perform the marriage ceremony until he had been christened. The man at last submitted, and was baptized and married on the same day. Now it happened that the bridegroom had a younger brother, who had been baptized several years before. After a lapse of time, litigation arose between the descendants of these brothers, as to some property, founded on the dates in the registration; but, after some difficulty, the matter was explained. Now, if the time of registration were taken as a proof of the date of birth, the right of primogeniture might be destroyed. The present mode of registration was hard on the Dissenters, and peculiarly so on the Baptists. Again, the present mode was open to several gross abuses. The House was aware that in the public schools there were numerous exhibitions to Oxford and Cambridge. It was necessary that the young men who were sent on these exhibitions should go before they attained a certain age. Now, parents were often guilty of this abuse, that when they intended to send their children to a public school, they did not get them baptized until they were three or four years old; so that they were younger, according to the register, than they really were; and if they did not pass their examination successfully, they were enabled
944
to have another trial. He was sure his hon. friend would agree with him, that a more abominable desecration of a holy sacrament could not be conceived. He would not then proceed to meet the various objections that had been urged, as that could be done better when the House went into Committee. With reference, however, to a suggestion made by his hon. and learned friend, that he should extend this Bill to marriages and deaths, he would only observe, that he felt the difficulties attending even this partial measure to be so strong, that if he were to combine the other two, he was afraid he should find them to be insuperable. He had no objection to increase the fees to be given to the Magistrates' clerks for the examination of the registers, or for making extracts; and the parties who made application for this purpose would not, he was sure, object, as they generally had some personal advantage in view in these applications. He had no wish to divide the House, as, in point of fact, it would lead to an adjournment; he would, therefore, consent to postpone the Committee on this Bill.
Further consideration deferred.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Churches Building Acts Amendment; Consolidated Fund; Tithe Prescription.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of RADNOR, from Barnstaple and Pilton, to join the latter to the former for the purpose of Electing a Representative in Parliament.—By Earl GREY, from Alton, for a Revision of the Criminal Code.

MAGISTRATES OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE.
Lord Middletonsaid, that though he had been a Member of their Lordships' House now thirty years, he had never attempted but once, and that very shortly, to address their Lordships. He therefore trusted that he should meet with the courteous attention of their Lordships, whilst he trespassed very shortly upon their notice, to perform an act of justice to the Magistracy of the County with which he was connected. Their conduct had been so traduced by the Press, that he was obliged to say, that scarcely one word which had been stated on the subject resembled the truth. The statements of the Press respecting the conduct of the Magistrates of Nottinghamshire,
898
during the riots which recently disgraced the county, and during the continuance of the Special Commission sent into Nottinghamshire for the trial of the rioters, had been embodied into a petition, which had been presented by the hon. member for Preston, the other night, to the House of Commons. Connected as he was with the county, he felt it to be his duty to inform the noble Secretary for the Home Department, that the Magistrates of that part of the county were determined never to come forward again on any occasion of public emergency, unless they now received some sanction for their past proceedings from the noble Lord. He then held in his hand a Letter from the Magistrates, written to the noble Lord, in answer to the application which the noble Lord had made to them for some explanation of certain charges which had been preferred against them. He likewise held in his hand a Letter, voluntarily written by Mr. Payne, the able, and intelligent, and zealous Attorney for the prisoners, exculpating not only the Magistrates, but also the Gaoler and the Turnkeys, from the various charges brought against them in this petition. He was unwilling to trouble their Lordships with it, but if they would allow him to read it they would see the true nature of the case [read, read]. The noble Lord accordingly read Mr. Payne's Letter, as follows:—
"Nottingham, 3rd February, 1832.
"My Lord:—I have the honour to inform your Lordship, that I have been permitted to read your Lordship's communication, dated the 31st of January, 1832, addressed to the committing Magistrates in the cases of the late rioters under sentence of death in Nottingham Gaol; and also the extract of a petition to the House of Commons in favour of the convicts. I have likewise to communicate to your Lordship, that the High Sheriff allowed me to inspect similar documents which had been transmitted to him, and came to hand on the morning of Wednesday, the 1st instant, prior to the execution of the three culprits, Beck, Hearson, and Armstrong. The prisoners not having made any complaints to me of any circumstances to justify the imputations stated in the extract of the petition, I considered it to be my duty, as the Attorney in whom those unhappy men professed to have confidence, to inquire of them whether those allegations were correct, or if they had any such, or any kind of complaints to make; and I beg to assure your Lordship, that all the prisoners answered my questions, by declaring that they did not know of any mysterious events having transpired in the prison, and that neither threats nor privations of any kind were inflicted to elicit their confessions; and, as a last state-

899
ment, the prisoners, in the most feeling, and affectionate manner, desired to make their grateful acknowledgments and sincere thanks to the Gaoler and Turnkey, for their humane kindness towards them. I was induced to make inquiry of the prisoners at that awful period, not from any notion that the statements were true, but that I might know from the prisoners themselves, for the satisfaction of their friends, how far they had reason or occasion to make such complaints; and no men could behave better than these poor creatures did. It would, my Lord, have been somewhat singular, if any ground for such complaint had existed, that I, as the Attorney acting for the prisoners, and in daily personal communication with them in the prison, and their friends out of it, for nearly a month, should not have been informed by any of them of the imputed grievance.
"My Lord, I venture to say, that the two quoted allegations upon which I have observed are not true, or at least I am not acquainted with any circumstances to justify the statement. With regard to the last clause in the extract which more immediately concerns myself, and requires my attention, I beg leave to assert and assure your Lordship that there is not the slightest ground for it; on the contrary, every facility was given to me that I could wish or require as the Attorney acting for the prisoners, as the connecting link between the prisoners and their Counsel. I was always in Court, and never experienced any interruption to my communications in the progress of my duty. It is due to my own character to have these matters cleared up and distinctly understood, or the Magistrates might imagine that I was privy to the contents of the petition, and assenting to false allegations. I hope your Lordship will please to understand that I disavow the petition to the House of Commons. I was acquainted with the contents of the petition to your Lordship, and none other. It is due from me to the High Sheriff, and to the Magistrates of the county, and, indeed, to all their subordinate officers, to declare and avow, for myself individually, and for the prisoners collectively, that every assistance and facility was afforded to me at all times, not only during the trials, but in the progress of my preparing for the prisoner's defence, or I could not have accomplished so arduous an undertaking within the short period of three days. I assure your Lordship that I felt mortified and hurt on reading the extract of a petition, fearing that it might be attributed to my pen, or that I should be presumed to be acquainted with, and assenting to its contents. I shall transmit a copy of this Letter to the visiting Magistrates of the county gaol, and at all times be ready to afford any and every explanation in my power. I have the honour to be, my Lord, Your Lordship's humble Servant,
"SAMUEL PAYNE.
"To the Right Hon. Viscount Melbourne, Secretary of State, &c. &c. &c."
900
Such was Mr. Payne's letter, and he hoped that the noble Viscount would exonerate the Magistrates. He must indeed state, that unless they were exonerated from these charges by the noble Secretary, he knew not how they could go on with public business. He would rather forfeit his life than his honour, and he declared upon his honour, that he thought that his friends and neighbours, the Magistrates of Nottinghamshire, had, during those riots, behaved with the most praiseworthy firmness and resolution.
Viscount Melbourneexperienced the greatest happiness in being able to give a satisfactory answer to the noble Lord. He rose with great pleasure to bear testimony in the fullest manner to the able and energetic conduct of the Magistrates of Nottinghamshire last winter. Both before and after the Special Commission was opened, the Magistrates of that county, and especially of that hundred in which the town of Nottingham was situated, had conducted themselves with the greatest resolution, energy, and capacity. In his opinion, that county owed its acting Magistrates many thanks. As to the charges which had been brought against the Magistrates, in the petition which the hon. member for Preston had presented to the House of Commons, he had only to say this—that those charges had, some months since, been brought under his notice. He could now state that, from the inquiries which he had made, and from the very frank and manly declaration made by Mr. Payne, who had distinguished himself so much by his exertions as Attorney for the prisoners, he was convinced that the charges mentioned in the petition referred to were baseless, and without authority.
Lord Middleton: I am quite satisfied with what has just fallen from the noble Lord.

ATTACK ON HIS MAJESTY AT ASCOT HEATH.
Earl Greysaid, that he rose to perform a necessary act of duty, in calling upon their Lordships to express their horror and indignation at the outrageous and flagitious attack which was yesterday made at Ascot upon the sacred person of his Majesty. Unfortunately, there were precedents for the proceedings to be adopted on occasions of this kind; and upon referring to them, he found that the two Houses of Parliament had generally, by a joint Address to the Throne, expressed their indignation and abhorrence at such

901
outrages, and declared their sentiments of affection and loyalty to the Prince on the Throne. The first case of this kind occurred in the year 1787, when an insane woman, of the name of Nicholson, made an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate his late most gracious Majesty, George 3rd. That attempt was made during the recess of Parliament. But, on the first day after the assembling of Parliament, though the subject was not even so much as alluded to in the Speech from the Throne, a paragraph was inserted in the Address of both Houses, expressive of the grateful feelings which they, as loyal subjects, experienced at the providential interposition of the Almighty in the preservation of a life so valuable to the British nation. The next case occurred in the year 1795, when, on the 3rd of October, an attack was made on the carriage in which his Majesty, George 3rd, was returning from the House of Lords, after opening the Session of Parliament in State, either by a stone or by a bullet—it was uncertain which—proceeding from some person unknown, but under circumstances which left it in doubt whether the outrage was confined to an individual, or was the result of some secret but organized conspiracy. On that occasion the House of Lords proceeded immediately to examine witnesses as to the extent of the outrage, and, after its examination was concluded, requested a present conference in the Painted Chamber with the House of Commons, on a subject materially affecting the safety of his Majesty's person, and the honour and dignity of the Crown. The conference was held, and a joint Address was in consequence presented to his Majesty, expressive of their loyalty to his person, and of their indignation at the treasonable attempt to injure and destroy him. The third, and by far the most serious case, occurred in the year 1800, when a person of the name of Hatfield, who had been in his Majesty's military service, and had received several dangerous wounds in the head, drew a pistol in the theatre, and fired it at his late Majesty. This precedent, though differing much in the degree of danger, was the precedent most in point upon the present occasion. At that time, on the very day after the outrage was committed, an Address was voted to George 3rd by the two Houses of Parliament, without any other evidence having been sought, that the outrage had been committed, than the mere notoriety of the fact. Another precedent occurred in the year 1817, when his
902
late Majesty, George 4th, then exercising the powers of the Sovereign as Prince Regent, was exposed, on his return from opening the Session of Parliament, to a similar attack to that which his august father, George 3rd, had been exposed in the year 1795. The precedent set in 1795 was followed in the year 1817, and a joint Address of condolence at the attack, and of congratulation at the escape from it, was presented by the two Houses to his late Majesty. These were the precedents to which he was desirous of calling the attention of their Lordships; and in following those precedents on the present occasion, their Lordships would see, that they were only performing their duty to a Sovereign who was well entitled, on every account, to the affectionate attachment and loyalty of all his subjects. The precedent the most in point on this occasion was that of Hatfield, in the reign of his Majesty's august parent, George 3rd. The circumstances of that case were matter of public notoriety; so also were the circumstances of the present. Here a stone was thrown from a person in the crowd against his Majesty with great violence. The stone struck his Majesty, and would have done him great injury, but for the protection which his hat afforded his head. The person who committed this extraordinary outrage was immediately taken into custody. He had seen the depositions which had been taken against this individual, and, upon reading them, it seemed to him that the outrage in question, was the act of a man with a mind perverted by derangement, or by excitement of some description or other, and that it had no connexion with any thing but the sense—no matter how created in the man's mind—of individual injury. The man was at present in custody, and in custody on a charge of high treason. He had assigned his motives for committing this outrage—they were such as could only have proceeded from a mind excited by liquor or derangement—and there was not even the shadow of a shade of ground for supposing that they were connected with any political reasons whatever. This was to him, and he had no doubt but that it would prove to the country, a source of great consolation. But he had also another ground of consolation, and that was, the great and universal feeling which had been displayed by the people on this occasion—a feeling which it was natural to expect from any loyal people, and still more so from a people like that of England, whose loyalty was based

903
on their affection to a King who himself revered the law. He thought that this outrage, which, though it was in itself treasonable, had fortunately not assumed the appearance of dangerous treason, was such as would make every noble Lord feel it to be his duty to concur in voting an address to his Majesty, expressive of that feeling of attachment to his person which was justified by his Majesty's attachment to the principles of the Constitution, and to the interests of his people, and by his desire to bestow upon the nation all the blessings of a mild and just government. He would not do their Lordships the injustice of saying more to induce them to concur in the appeal which he had just made to them; he would, therefore, without further preface, conclude by moving,
"That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, to express to his Majesty our horror and indignation at the late atrocious and treasonable attempt upon his Majesty, and our heartfelt congratulations that his Majesty escaped from it without injury to his sacred person.
"To express to his Majesty the deep concern which we feel at there having been found within his Majesty's dominions, a person capable of so flagitious an attempt; and that we make it our earnest prayer to Almighty God, that he will preserve to us the blessings which we enjoy under his Majesty's just and mild government, and continue to watch over and protect a life so justly dear to us."
The Earl of Eldonsaid, that he should have regretted that this Motion was not made in a fuller House, had he not been certain that men of all parties would join in this loyal and affectionate Address. It was a duty which their Lordships owed to his most gracious Majesty to present this Address—it was a duty which they owed themselves, to assure their Sovereign that they were ready to protect him against every outrage that might be attempted against his sacred person. He made this declaration upon his own part, and he believed that he might also make it on behalf of every noble Lord, a member of that House, absent or present.
The Lord Chancellorwas glad that his noble and learned friend had called the attention of the House to the thinness of the attendance on the present occasion. That was owing to its being Wednesday, a day set apart by common compact in both Houses for relaxation—a compact, however, which, he was sorry to say, by some strange
904
and lamentable fatality, had of late been more honoured in the breach than in the observance. If this Motion had been delayed till to-morrow, the House would never have presented a more gratifying spectacle than would have been presented in the numerous attendance of Peers, all eager to testify their pride and gratification at hearing that his Majesty had escaped in safety from the flagitious outrage attempted to be committed on his person. But, under existing circumstances, it was quite evident that such delay was totally inadmissible.
The Earl of Eldonbelieved that his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack had stated the case fairly. None of his own noble political friends and associates would have absented themselves on the present occasion, had they been aware of the probability of such a motion being made as had just been submitted to the consideration of their Lordships. He believed that none of his noble friends who were then absent would have thought it right to let the proposition of this Address be postponed for a single night in consequence of their absence.
Earl Greyassured the House that he was out of town when he first heard of the commission of this outrage. On hearing of it he had come to town with the utmost speed; but he had not arrived in time to give notice to their Lordships of his intention to move this Address to-night. If this Motion could have been deferred till to-morrow, which he was sure their Lordships would deem impossible, he was certain that it would have assembled one of the fullest Houses that had been ever known.
Resolution carried nemine contradicente.
Earl Grey then moved, that a Committee be appointed to prepare the Address to his Majesty.—The Motion was carried, and an Address, which was the echo of the Resolution, was then proposed to, and adopted by, their Lordships.
Earl Grey then moved, that the said Address should be sent to the Commons for their approbation, and that a message should be sent to the House of Commons, desiring a present conference in the Painted Chamber, on a subject materially affecting the safety of his Majesty's sacred person.—Motion carried unanimously.
The House of Commons agreed to the Conference, which was accordingly held; and the Commons signified their concurrence in the Address, which was ordered to be presented to his Majesty by the whole House.