Sitting of 7 August 1834

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Creditors (Scotland); Post Roads' Act Continuance (Ireland); Court of Chancery (Ireland); Cinque Ports Pilots; Fines and Recoveries (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. LITTLETON, from Dublin, for the Better Licensing of Public Carriages.—By Mr. HERRIES, from Harwich, against any increase in the Duty on Spirit Licenses.—By Lords EBRINGTON and BRUDENELL, and Mr. GOULBURN, from several Places,—for Protection to the Church of England; and by the first, from several Places, against the Separation of Church and State.—By Captain GORDON, from Gariosh and other Places, for Protection to the Church of Scotland.—By Mr. Alderman WOOD, from the Newsvenders of London and Westminster, against Unstamped Papers.—By the same, Col. PERCEVAL, and Mr. JONES, from a Number of Places, for Protection to the Protestant Church of Ireland—By Mr. HAWES, from Peckham, and Mr. HUGHES HUGHERS, from Oxford, against Flogging in the Army and Navy.—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Kilmarnock, against Tithes; from Dublin, for a moderate Tonnage to encourage the Irish Fisheries; from Manchester, for the Repeal of the Taxes on Knowledge.—By Dr. LUSHINGTON, from Hackney, against compelling the Attendance of British Soldiers on Catholic Ceremonies.

FLOGGING IN THE ARMY.
Mr. Hughes Hugheswas charged to present to the House a Petition, signed by no fewer than 1,648 of the resident inhabitants of Oxford. It stated that the revolting practice of corporeal punishment in the British army and navy, is derogatory to man, and in opposition to the mild spirit of Christianity; and that the case of Hutchinson, whose flesh was lately torn from his back at St. George's Barracks, Charing-cross, amid the noise of drums to drown his piteous cries, would persuade us that we were living in a nation of savages; for none but savages of the most ferocious character could witness unmoved the cruel torture of their fellow man; and it humbly prayed the House to take into its most serious consideration the necessity of immediately abolishing a practice that reflected equal disgrace on the man who received and the nation that
1018
awarded such a disreputable, cowardly, unmanly, unfeeling, brutal, inhuman, and bloody mode of punishment, or ultimately the blood-stained lash must cease to be used amid the execrations of an enlightened and indignant people. A letter accompanied the petition, signed by five of the individuals who had promoted its signature, and containing their assurance, "that the expressions of disgust against tearing the living flesh from our fellow-creatures were both loud and deep, as the individuals, in succession, signed their names." In addition to the observations he (Mr. H.) had made on a former day in a debate he had made on the same subject, he would only remark that, if, instead of abhorring the practice of corporeal punishment as mach as any one of those of his constituents, who appeared to want words sufficiently strong to express their indignation at its continuance, he were disposed to approve that mode of punishment, he should, nevertheless, say, that a practice which, every time it was had recourse to, called forth the commiseration of the public in favour of the offender, whatever might be his crime, and execration of the officer called upon to adopt it, however high his character (and he believed the Colonel in question to be deservedly esteemed), should at once and for ever be abolished, and another more consonant with public feeling be substituted for it.
Petition to lie on the Table.

CROWN LANDS (IRELAND) MESSAGE FROM HIS MAJESTY.
Lord Althorpbrought down the following message from his Majesty:—
"W. R.:—His Majesty acquaints the House of Commons, that, having taken into consideration the present state of reversions or remainders of estates in Ireland vested in the Crown, his Majesty deems it proper that measures may be taken to enable the proprietors of estates in Ireland forfeited by attainder, and where the reversion or remainder is vested in the Crown, to bar such reversion or remainder."
Lord Althorp, in rising to move "that an Address be presented to the King in answer to his gracious Message," begged to observe, that the step taken by his Majesty involved a considerable sacrifice on the part of the Crown. He considered it to be an act of great kindness and ge-

1019
nerosity, and one which would be very advantageous to Ireland. He therefore felt great pleasure in having brought down this message; and in moving that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, to return the grateful thanks of that House for his Majesty's most gracious Message.
Mr. O'Connellfelt it his duty to say, that the step taken by his Majesty was not only one of kindness and generosity, but also one of eminent utility to the landed proprietors of Ireland. He could state, from his experience as a professional man, that great difficulty was experienced in making out titles in consequence of the number of reversions vested in the Crown, arising out of a multitude of attainders. The proposed measure would place the landed proprietors of Ireland on the same footing as the landed proprietors of England. It had been anxiously expected, and would be received with gratitude by the landed interest of Ireland.
Mr. Lynchsaid, that the step taken by his Majesty would confer a great boon on Ireland, and thanked the Ministers for having advised it. The power which his Majesty expressed his willingness to give to proprietors of estates in Ireland would enable them to render titles more secure, and remove all obstacles and impediments in the way of the sale of landed property.
Mr. Shawalso expressed his gratitude for the concession which his Majesty had been pleased to make to the proprietors of estates in Ireland. It would prove of the greatest benefit to the landed interest of that country.
The Motion for the Address agreed to.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
The Order of the Day for taking into consideration the Lords' Amendments to the Bribery at Elections Bill having been read,
Lord John Russellrose, and said, that the Amendments which had been made by the Lords in this Bill were of so wide and extensive a character as almost to render it entirely a new measure. At the same time, he begged the House to consider the very inconvenient situation in which matters of this kind now stood: whether it was the fault of the House of Commons or Lords he would not pretend to say, but certainly the result was, that, after a very long, expensive, and vexatious inquiry with respect to the boroughs immediately in question, there seemed
1020
hardly any chance of arriving at any conclusion in which the two Houses of Parliament would agree. This inconvenience was not new, because he remembered when, some years ago, he carried up a Bill, agreed to by the Commons, to the House of Lords, with respect to Penryn, after a very long examination: their Lordships, taking a different view of the matter from that House, threw out the Bill. Feeling that inconvenience, he was disposed to concur in any proposal by which it was possible to secure an impartial tribunal, by which neither House objecting, cases of that nature could adequately be tried. The manner in which they (the Commons) proposed to effect this was by the appointment of a Select Committee of impartial men, the evidence before them being taken upon oath, and afterwards sent up to the Lords. That proposal, however, was not assented to by their Lordships; and they had proposed instead of it, a tribunal totally new in its character, consisting of a certain number (five) of their Lordships, and seven members of the House of Commons, who, together, were to form a court to try such matters. When he stated that such a tribunal was altogether new, it was necessary to observe, that a Court of the same character was provided for in an Act of Parliament respecting East-India judicature; but it had neither been constituted nor acted upon. But, although this proposal was so totally new, he did not think there were sufficient objections to the proposal in itself to prevent the House agreeing to make an experiment of such a tribunal. He observed with satisfaction, that the Lords' Amendment in this respect proposed that the Commission constituting the Court should only issue in cases where the House of Commons thought fit to address his Majesty to that effect; so that if it were found, on experiment, that the tribunal was totally unsatisfactory, the House would still maintain its perfect and undiminished right, without addressing his Majesty, to proceed, as formerly, by bill, which might afterwards be sent up to the other House. But while he did not think that a Court constituted as he had described, of seven members of that House and five of the Lords would form a bad or unfair tribunal for the trial of bribery cases, there was another change which had been proposed in the Bill, namely,—that one of the Judges should

1021
preside in that Court. Now, he owned that, even admitting some persons of legal knowledge ought to assist the deliberations of such a Court, he should have greatly wished the House of Lords had not chosen one of the Judges of the land for that purpose. So far, however, he thought they might agree to the Amendments of the House of Lords. But there were some proposals contained in the Bill to which he proposed the House should not agree. It was proposed, that the Judge should have the sole power of admitting or rejecting evidence,—a proposal which he thought must have the effect of restricting the inquiries of Parliament within improper limits, and subjecting them to rules to which they had never submitted, and which might prove extremely injurious as far as the prevention of bribery and corruption was concerned; he, therefore, proposed, that they should disagree from that Amendment; and he proposed, instead, that the Court of twelve members should decide on any question as to whether evidence should be received or rejected, and that only in cases of an equality of votes the Judge should have the power of determining. There was another proposal with respect to the Judge which he thought highly objectionable, namely,—that the Court of twelve members having come to a species of finding, the Judge should declare whether or not he was satisfied with it. He did not think that members of the highest judicial tribunals in the kingdom should be subjected to the remarks of the Judge, provided he were not satisfied with their finding. But he had a still stronger objection to that proposal. With respect to themselves, whether members of that or the other House of Parliament, acting with respect to political affairs, it was to be expected that they must submit to whatever censures or imputations might be thrown upon them by public opinion or the Press for the course of conduct which they might pursue; and it was quite fair that they should be subject to that censure; but he should very much dread the case of a Judge, who usually kept himself free from such imputations, being placed in such a situation, where public opinion should be disposed to impute political bias or partiality of conduct with respect to any of those boroughs which might come under the jurisdiction of the Court. There were some other respects in which the Lords'
1022
Amendments ought, as he considered, to be altered. Some of these were merely formal, with respect to the time of sitting and excuses to be allowed by either House of Parliament; but others were more material. The House of Lords had left out, as he conceived purposely, the clause respecting costs, which were to be paid by the Treasury. Now, he thought, if a Select Committee were appointed, the House finding that there was ground for the allegations, and the parties having gone to the expense of inquiry, there being a sufficient case for proceeding against a borough, it would not be right that those who made the complaint should be subject to the further expense of inquiry; and therefore, whenever the Commission should be issued, the expense of prosecuting a petition should be defrayed by the Treasury, in the same manner as the Bill originally proposed with respect to the Committee. There was another Amendment with respect to a clause which, although it had not been altogether introduced, was very much added to—he alluded to the inquiries now going on before Parliament with regard to Carrickfergus, Liverpool, and Stafford. The clause to which he alluded only mentioned inquiries with respect to bribery at the last election. Now he thought that there should be no inquiry, unless a ground for it were made with reference to the last election; but an inquiry having been granted, it should, he thought, be allowed to extend further back. The House would clearly understand the ground upon which he put this, when he referred to the gross, notorious, and scandalous corruption which had taken place at former elections in Liverpool, and which they would agree with him in thinking should be comprised within the jurisdiction of the Court. He had therefore to propose, that instead of limiting the inquiry to the last election, it should be extended to the last and previous elections. He certainly felt the difficulty that there was in proposing that the House should agree to such extensive alterations; but at the same time he felt seriously the evils and inconvenience of the present state of things with respect to inquiries as to boroughs charged with bribery and corruption; and the public either did now, or very soon would, feel, how unjust it was to impose on men the burthen of extensive inquiries without leading to any

1023
useful or good result; it was for that reason that he wished the House to try the experiment of this Court; it being still within the power of the House of Commons, by refraining from addressing the Crown, and leaving the whole commission aside, either to proceed in the former method, or propose some new Bill for the purpose of trying any particular case. He really believed, however, that those Amendments had been made in a spirit of fairness, with the view, if possible, of obtaining some tribunal in which all parties should agree, and avoiding that conflict which manifestly subsisted between the manner of receiving evidence in the two Houses of Parliament; that which obtained in the House of Commons being by some considered too slight and hasty, and their Lordships' practice in that respect being thought by them (the Commons) a great deal too restricted and uselessly protracted. He regretted much that the House should be called upon at that late period of the Session to deal with so important a subject, but upon the whole he thought it as well that they should proceed to the further consideration of the Lords' Amendments to this Bill. The noble Lord concluded by moving that the Amendments be read a first time.
Mr. Warburtonagreed with the noble Lord in thinking that the Amendments made in this Bill were perfectly new, and it was perfectly necessary that they should have an opportunity of solemnly and deliberately considering them. It was clear, that if any justice was to be done to the public, if an opportunity was to be afforded of disfranchising a borough in which bribery prevailed, some new mode of conducting the process had become absolutely necessary. He considered, however, if those Amendments were agreed to, they must abandon not only all hope, but the very possibility of succeeding in such an attempt. He hoped, therefore, the noble Lord would not press the Motion at the present period of the Session. They could not consider deliberately the propositions which had been brought forward without going into Committee, and going through all the stages of a new measure. He would, therefore, with the noble Lord's leave, move that the Amendments be taken into further consideration that day six months.
Mr. O'Connellseconded the Amendment. At so late a period of the Session it was utterly impossible duly to consider so extensive a change in one of the most important constitutional tribunals of the country. It appeared to him to be extremely objectionable to allow the House of Lords to have anything to do in the first instance with the determination of what cases of alleged bribery in the election of Members of the House of Commons should be proceeded with. That decision should be exclusively retained by the House of Commons, and no communication upon the subject ought to be made to the other House until that House had arrived at a judgment upon the point. They ought no more to allow the House of Lords to have anything to do with originating a measure referring to the election of a member of the House of Commons, than they would allow the House of Lords to have anything to do with originating a pecuniary measure. He did not think that the tribunal proposed by the House of Lords was a good one. The proposition went to suppose that seven Members of the House of Commons, and five Members of the Lords could act together cordially on such a subject. Now, recollecting the proceedings on the Reform Bill, and recollecting the efforts which were then made, and made ineffectually, to get rid of the intermeddling of Peers at the elections of members of the House of Commons, he was at a loss to understand the kind of logic which would admit Peers to be members of a Court in the first instance to sit upon such subjects. At any rate it was a point of great importance, and ought to stand over until it could be deliberately considered. To the appointment of the judge of one of the Courts of Record to preside over the proposed tribunal, he had a great objection. He did not wish to see a Judge mingling legislative with his judicial functions. And with respect to evidence, a Judge would have his legal notions constantly outraged by having that kind of evidence brought before him to prove cases of bribery at elections which he would not listen to in one of the Courts of Westminster Hall. When it was also considered that a Judge so placed would have to enter into all the bustle and turbulence of a Committee-room, and would be subjected to the influence of all the bad passions of a

1025
contested election, he put it to the House whether it would be right to drag the pure ermine of the judicial robe through so much filth? They were now in the mouth of August; it would be much better to wait till February; and the noble Lord might then come forward with some matured proposition on the subject. If such a tribunal as that proposed by the House of Lords were established, it might prove wholly inoperative. By Mr. Pitt's India Bill a similar tribunal was instituted for the trial of offenders in India. That tribunal had existed for above forty years, during which time there had certainly been many offenders, but not a single trial by that tribunal had taken place. He hoped, therefore, the noble Lord would relinquish all further proceedings this Session.
Mr. Hardythought it would really be a matter of much importance to get rid of the long, tedious, and expensive investigations before the other House of Parliament antecedently to the disfranchisement of any borough. In his opinion, the suggestion which had been made, that so far as evidence was concerned, the decisions of the Legislature ought to be founded upon the Report of a Jury composed of five Peers and seven Commoners assisted by a Judge, was a suggestion well worthy the serious consideration of the House. After the best reflection which he could bestow upon the subject, he felt disposed to support the Amendment, and hoped that the noble Lord opposite would not press the Bill.
Lord John Russelldid not conceive that the objection to the Bill founded upon the length and general character of the investigations before the Lords was at all conclusive against the measure. Hon. Members must be aware that no Bill could be passed without an inquiry if the Lords insisted upon it, and he did not see how that practice could be done away with. However, he believed the feeling then prevailing in that House was adverse to such a measure, that they were not prepared for so great a change, whatever might be its merits or demerits; for the present, therefore, he would not press forward the Bill.
The Amendment was negatived.
Consideration of the Lords' Amendment postponed for six months.

ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGES.
Mr. Langdale Mr.
1026
Langdale moved the third reading of the Roman Catholic Marriages Bill.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he had no objection to the principle of the Bill so far as it went; but he thought it inexpedient to introduce a Bill for the Relief of a certain portion of Dissenters from the Established Church to the exclusion of others. He could assure the House, that it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to introduce as early as possible in the next Session a measure of relief for Dissenters generally, with respect to marriages and other grievances under which they laboured.
Mr. Humesaid, that after what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite as to the determination of the Government to relieve the Dissenters generally, and to place all upon an equal footing, he hoped the hon. member for Beverley would consent to postpone his measure for the present Session. He was quite sure that the statements just made by the noble Lord would prove most satisfactory to the country in general.
Mr. Wilksthought, that though time grievances under which the Dissenters laboured were severely felt, those of the Roman Catholics were of a pressing nature. As the law now stood, every Roman Catholic marriage contracted in England, unless legalized by a Protestant marriage also, was null; and the children, the fruit of that marriage, would be bastardized and unable to inherit property. Nay, more, under the new law the mother could be compelled to support the children. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would press the measure during the present Session.
Mr. O'Connellthought it of the utmost importance that the feelings of the Roman Catholics should be set at rest on this question. As far as the measure regarded the Irish Roman Catholics, he thought it of importance. In their own country they could be married by the Catholic priest, and the marriage was legal. In England they wished to be married in the same way; but no persuasion could induce them to legalize the marriage by calling in the aid of a Protestant clergyman. Thus a married woman, however respectable, and who had never done anything to violate the laws of society, might, at the end of eight or ten years, if her husband thought proper to select a younger or more pleasing partner, be left upon the parish with eight

1027
or ten children, the whole of whom would be bastardized. As far as the measure might affect Ireland herself, he did not think it would be satisfactory; and it contained provisions which the Irish people would not submit to. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. friend would not press the measure further during the present Session.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, it was in the power of the Roman Catholics themselves, to prevent the evil arising from their marriages in this way—let the Roman Catholic clergyman, for the next six months, refuse to celebrate any marriage between Roman Catholics, unless they produced to him a certificate of the marriage having been legalized by the act of the Protestant clergyman.
Mr. O'Connell. The Catholic clergyman could not do any such thing; he dared not do it; he dared not oppose any impediment.
Dr. Lushingtonbegged pardon; he was not aware of the clerical objection which existed. He therefore would join with the hon. and learned Gentleman in begging that the measure might be postponed for the present.
Mr. Langdalesaid, that after the appeal which had been made to him by the noble Lord, whose opinions he felt always bound to respect, he trusted the House would pardon him, while he made a few observations as to the motives which had induced him to bring in this Bill. The fact was, that he had undertaken it with the greatest repugnance, feeling that an individual so humble as himself was unfit to take charge of a measure of such importance. But when the House considered the pressing nature of the case, when they reflected that a dozen cases likely to cause bastardy occurred in a single day, they would, he was sure, see, that he had a right to persevere in the measure. It had been made a charge against him, that he was pressing this measure through the House against the wishes of the Roman Catholic clergy; but those who knew anything of him would acquit him of such a charge. He had the highest respect and honour for that body, and would be sorry to do anything contrary to their wishes or feelings. On the contrary, the moment the Bill was introduced, he sent copies of it to the two Roman Catholic Bishops, to all the leading Roman Catholic clergy, and to other persons whom he conceived felt an interest in the question: and although it was true that some objections had been raised on
1028
certain points, yet upon the general principle, he had the concurrence of the whole body. If he were allowed to indulge in his own opinion, he would say, that the carrying of this Bill would facilitate the more general measure of relief for Dissenters, contemplated by the noble Lord in the next Session. Under all the circumstances of the case, he would leave it to the House to decide whether he ought to abandon the Bill, or to proceed with it.
Mr. Tennysonsaid, that in acceding to the wishes of the House, no blame could attach to the hon. Member, who had, with great zeal and talent, urged it forward to its present stage.
Mr. Langdalesaid, that under these circumstances, and after the promise of the noble Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would withdraw the Bill.
Mr. Philip Howard, in consequence of what had fallen from the noble Lord, concurred in recommending the withdrawal of the Bill. It would be open to his hon. friend to introduce the measure next Session, should any Bill brought in by the noble Lord not come up to the wishes of his hon. friend.
Bill withdrawn.

THE CINQUE PORTS' PILOT.
On the Motion that this Bill be read a third time,
Mr. Humesaid, that in a country so eminently naval, the question of the pilot duties and dues should be placed under one general system.
Mr. Ewartconcurred in the opinion of the hon. Member, and hoped that before next Session of Parliament some general plan would be devised for the regulation of this matter.
Mr. Harriessaid, that if any change took place upon this subject it should originate with the Government; above all things no sacrifices should be made to any particular interest. Looking at the Bill as it stood, it could not answer the object proposed by the gallant Member. It was an imperfect piece of legislation, and as such it was objectionable.
Sir Thomas Troubridgesaid, his object was to facilitate the putting pilots on board homeward-bound ships at Dungeness. He had consulted the Admiralty, the Trinity House, and other bodies interested in the subject, and this Bill had their entire sanction. In short, he should not be doing his duty if he did not advocate the interests of the boatmen of Deal, as

1029
well as the safety of the shipping interest.
Mr. Halcombeopposed the Bill, as liked to be ruinous to the boatmen of Deal and Dover, and moved, that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.
The Amendment was not seconded, and the Bill was read a third time, and some additional clauses was passed.

SESSIONAL ADDRESSES—NEW HOUSE OF COMMONS.
On the Motion of Lord Althorp the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Sessional Addresses.
The first grant proposed was 1,200 l. to Mr. Bernal as Chairman of Ways and Means.
Mr. Humedid not mean to offer any opposition to the grant, but he would avail himself of the opportunity to repeat his opinions upon the necessity of finding further accommodation for Members in that House. He complained of the dreadful manner in which hon. Members were crowded together on nights of interesting debates, and of the pestilential air which prevailed in the neighbourhood where he sat. Indeed, he was almost poisoned by it. It was hard to see barracks erecting here, and buildings there, and yet no fit edifice prepared for the accommodation of the Representatives of the people. Much of the disturbance and confusion which took place in the House, and which impeded the progress of public business, arose from the impatience of hon. Gentlemen who found it absolutely impossible to hear what occurred in the course of the debate. If the noble Lord would only change his position in the House and sit a few yards further down, he would find, that he would not be able to hear much of what was spoken in the upper part of the House. He thought that a fit House should be built forthwith, because the change in the constitution of the House which had been effected by the Reform Bill had caused many more Members to attend to the debates than were usually present in former Parliaments.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the subject which his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, had brought forward, was one to which Government would feel bound to give its attention, if it were found to be the general wish of the House. He thought, however, that it was not right to discuss such a question, except when a large number of Members were in town and able to take part in the discussion.
1030
It was certainly desirable that the business of the House should be carried on in the way that was most agreeable to hon. Members. He admitted, that when there was a full attendance of Members much inconvenience was felt; but they were bound to look at the ordinary attendance, and if they did so, they would find that little or rather no inconvenience was the result. If the House were larger than at present, it would, in his opinion, be more inconvenient, for then they would suffer quite as much from cold as they did now from heat. The question certainly required consideration. He thought that even the hon. member for Middlesex would not, deny that the attendance for the last three or four weeks had not been such as to render any alteration necessary.
Colonel Daviesconcurred in the suggestion of the hon. member for Middlesex. There was not sufficient room for the accommodation of Members in the House. They could neither sit nor stand, and when so great numbers were present not one-half could hear the debate. He hoped, therefore, that the Ministers would take the subject into their serious consideration.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that the seats in the House were so inconvenient and irksome that hon. Members could not sit upon them night after night without serious injury to their health. There were various reasons why the noble Lord ought to take into consideration the necessity of building a new House on a site where there might be a sufficient access of fresh air from all sides to keep it thoroughly ventilated.
Mr. Benettwas surprised at finding hon. Gentlemen who were generally staunch friends of economy so eager to put the country to the expense of building a new House of Commons. The seats could not be very inconvenient, as he had seen in the course of his experience many Gentlemen sleeping very comfortably upon them. He was afraid, that if they were rendered less irksome, the only result would be that, what with easy seats and dullish speeches, the propensity of Members to sleep would be still further promoted.
Mr. Ewartwas certain, that in building a new and convenient place for their meeting the House would have the glad assent of the constituent body. There was another reform which he thought still

1031
more necessary; the House ought not to keep hours which appeared a paradox to all men of business.
Mr. Wardsaid, that on a former occasion, when the hon. member for Middlesex had brought forward a distinct Motion on this subject, he voted against it because he thought it premature. But if the same Motion were brought forward in another Session, he should be inclined to support it, and he had no doubt, from the change which had taken place in the opinions of other Members also, that a different result from the last would be then produced.
Mr. Goulburnmerely rose to express his dissent from the suggestion of Mr. Hume, in order that the noble Lord might not be induced erroneously to suppose that the call for a new House was unanimous. At a proper season he could urge many reasons, and strong reasons too, why the noble Lord should not embark in the task of building a new House of Commons.
Mr. Lennardsupported the proposition of Mr. Hume, and said, that he had introduced many foreigners into the body of the House, who had all concurred in deprecating the inconvenience to which the crowded state of the Benches nightly exposed hon. Members.
Mr. Hawesexpressed a hope that, if a new House were not built, some improvements would be made immediately in the construction of the present House.
Mr. Humewas surprised at the taunt which the hon. member for Wiltshire had cast upon him, for that hon. Member had long supported all measures of economy as well as he had, and might, therefore, suppose that he (Mr. Hume) would not be desirous of putting the people to the expense of building a new House of Commons unless it were absolutely necessary. He was convinced that the money so expended would be well laid out, and he had never objected to any grant of public money which was well laid out.
Mr. Benettdid not intend to throw any taunts on the hon. member for Middlesex; but he would not consent to the destruction of the House on account of the associations connected with it. When Gentlemen complained of their health being affected by it, he must say, that it appeared to him that it was not the shop, but the work that was done in the shop, that acted injuriously on their constitutions.
Grant agreed to. The House resumed.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
Mr. Ewartrose to call the attention of the House to the Amendments made by the Lords in the Bill which had been sent up from this House. The Bill, as originally brought in, consisted of three parts. Capital Punishment was repealed by it; first, for letter stealing; next, for returning from transportation; and thirdly, for constructive burglary. At an advanced stage of the Bill the Attorney General obtained the rejection of that part which repealed the punishment of death for constructive burglary, and when it went up to the Lords they expunged that part which repealed capital punishment for letter-stealing. Now the latter provision was the most important part of the Bill, for no execution had taken place for returning from transportation for seven years; and his only object in introducing a provision on that subject had been to make the enactments accordant with the practice of the law. It would be perfectly illusory to pass a law of this kind, and he thought the House would best consult its dignity and its consistency by not passing the Bill in its present shape. However, he would be guided by the wish of the House.
Mr. Lennardconcurred with his hon. friend, that it would be advisable, altered and mutilated as the Bill now was, that the House should altogether reject it. The measure was completely spoiled by the other House; and those who had thus spoiled it ought to bear all the responsibility. He trusted that, as that House had so strongly expressed itself against the punishment of death, in one of the cases in which the Lords had retained the capital penalty, that capital penalty would not in those cases be enforced. It was only four years ago that the present Lord Chancellor, then Mr. Brougham, had, in the case of Sir James Mackintosh's Bill for doing away with the punishment of death for forgery, expressed the same opinion. "If, he said, the law, as it still stood, had little weight in public estimation before, then in what light was it likely to be looked on henceforward? If men's feelings rebelled against it before, would not their opinions and prepossessions be for ever rooted and confirmed by such a division of the House of Commons? Would it not operate practically on prosecutors, on witnesses, on jurors—aye, and on Judges themselves? Not six months ago had a Judge declared to him, in reference

1033
to the probable change of the law as it regarded this offence (forgery), that sitting as Judge he could not think of leaving a man for execution at a time when Parliament was engaged in a deliberation, the result of which might be, that his blood would be the last which should ever be shed for the crime of forgery." Before sitting down he could not help adverting to certain observations which had been lately made by a learned Judge, when on the judicial bench in Devonshire, with respect to this Bill. That learned Judge, to whom he referred, had on that occasion spoken in terms of strong condemnation of this Bill, and some other Bills that were before the House. He was disposed to regard all that came from so high a quarter with the respect which it merited, but he must observe, that the judgment seat was not the proper place to discuss the merits of a pending Act. It was the duty of a Judge to confine himself to administering the existing law. Jus dicere, non jus dare was the province of every Judge. He protested against the observations of the Judge to whom he alluded being drawn into a precedent, though he might have been pleased to see the observations of that learned person, had they been conveyed to those interested in the Bills in a different manner.
Lord Althorpsaid, the state of the question was this. The House had passed a Bill taking away the punishment of death in two cases, but the Lords had returned the Bill taking away capital punishment only in one case, in which, as the hon. Gentleman very properly said, it was very rarely inflicted. Undoubtedly it would be a great advantage to make the enactments of the law as nearly in accordance with the practice as possible. If a Bill had been brought in simply taking away the punishment of death for returning from transportation, he should have supported it, because it would have been accommodating the law to the practice. Now the question was, would the House reject this Bill because other provisions which they thought desirable had not been passed? It might be a great disappointment to Gentlemen who attached more value to those other provisions, and he would admit that they might be the most important provisions of the Bill; but he did not think that the House ought to reject that which was good because it could not get better. He hoped, there-
1034
fore, that the House would not, on this ground at least, reject the Bill. His hon. friend behind him (Mr. Lennard) seemed to think, that because a Bill had passed one House of Parliament, it was not justifiable to inflict the punishment which it went to repeal. That appeared to him a very dangerous doctrine. As long as a law continued it must be enforced at the discretion of the Crown. He hoped that discretion would never be exercised in any sanguinary manner; and he was sure that his Majesty would always be actuated by the greatest mercy in the execution of the law; but it would be a very dangerous doctrine to contend, because a Bill had passed one branch of the Legislature, that the existing law could not be carried into effect in any case, however extreme.
Mr. O' Dwyerthought that this was not a measure of sufficient importance to justify a collision with the House of Lords. There were other measures more important and more popular on which the Lords seemed disposed to prevent the people from exercising their rights.
Lord John Russellsaid, that though he should not have consented to the omission of the clause which had been struck out by the other House in the first instance, yet, as the Bill in its present shape saved the country from the necessity of condemning criminals to death in some cases to which the penalty of death was attached as the law now stood, he was glad to take the Bill as amended, in preference to losing it altogether. With regard to that portion of the Bill which had been left out, he would say, that he thought the punishment of death ought not to be affixed even to that crime. If the most extensive forgeries were not to be punished by death, he could see no reason why stealing a letter should be subject to such a penalty. If the hon. Member should propose a Bill next Session, for the purpose of removing the penalty of death from that crime, it should have its support; but it was not because this Bill did not effect that object, that, containing as it did a provision abolishing the punishment of death in another case, it should therefore be rejected. The time had arrived when some general measure relating to the criminal code was become necessary. In consequence of the exertions of Sir James Mackintosh, the experiment had been tried in reference to some crimes; and, having made that experiment, he thought it time to try it on

1035
a general scale, with a view to the relaxation of the criminal code. There was no subject whatever which was more deserving the attention of the House, as the crimes to which capital punishment ought to be applied were very few.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, that the greatest inconvenience was felt, owing to the want of one general system. This want of system was owing to particular enactments being passed at different times to meet particular cases. It was far better therefore, to have a general system and a general scale of punishments, which, however, could not be effected by partial legislation. The Bill, as amended, had still the advantage of removing the punishment of death from one offence, and he should therefore support it.
The Lords' Amendments were agreed to.

BOROUGH OF WARWICK.
Lord John Russellsaid, that it was not his intention to occupy the time of the House respecting the Motion which he had to make. It used to be formerly the custom in that House concerning delinquent boroughs to withhold the issuing of writs to them as a punishment to those boroughs. It was not with that view, however, that he brought forward the present motion. But it was with the view of allowing time to prosecute those inquiries which had been begun so that they might be concluded before the writs should be issued. On that ground he meant to propose that the writs should not be issued till after the next Session of Parliament. The House was aware that Bills had been sent up to the Lords concerning Hertford, Carrickfergus, and Warwick. With respect to one of them—the borough of Warwick—a Bill had passed that House, and had been sent up to the House of Lords, which, after some inquiry, had been thrown out by the other House for the present Session. He did not intend to enter into the grounds upon which that Bill had been thrown out in the Upper House, nor into the nature of the evidence that led to that result. It was sufficient for him to state, that 115 witnesses had been examined, and that their evidence filled several hundred folio pages. He had not attended to the evidence that had been laid before either House; but as an hon. Baronet, one of the members for Nottingham, had informed him that he intended to bring forward next Session a measure respecting the borough of War-
1036
wick, he considered that, as the Bill had been thrown out elsewhere, time ought to be given to examine the evidence that led to that result before they finally decided upon the question. He thought it, therefore, but reasonable in the House to consent to what he meant to propose, viz., the suspension of the writ to that borough until next Session. He begged to repeat, that he did not move the suspension of that writ by way of punishment, but for the reasons he already stated. He would alter his Motion as it stood on the notice book in order to render it conformable to precedent. The noble Lord then moved separately for each borough, "that no writs be issued before the 20th of February next for the boroughs of Hertford, Carrickfergus, Stafford, and Warwick."
The Motions respecting the boroughs of Hertford and Carrickfergus were agreed to.
On the Motion, that no writ do issue before the 20th of February next for the borough of Warwick,
Mr. Goulburnrose and assured the House, that he did not mean to enter largely into the various questions that had been agitated relative to the borough of Warwick. He would confine himself strictly to the question, whether it was or was not fit and proper that a writ should issue for that borough until the time specified in the noble Lord's Motion. He had not one word to say respecting the boroughs of Hertford and Carrickfergus, because they stood on an entirely different footing from the borough of Warwick, and because the House was consequently bound to pursue a very different course as regarded them, and as regarded that latter borough. It was the duty of that House, one which they owed to themselves and to the country, to keep their numbers as complete as possible; and it would be a great evil to the country, as well as to individual electors, that there should be boroughs allowed to remain without returning the usual number of Members they had a right to return. It certainly was the privilege of that House to interfere; but the gravest case alone could justify them in interfering to prevent boroughs from returning Members to serve in Parliament. Did any grave case exist with respect to the borough of Warwick? Did the noble Lord, who brought forward the present motion, state, that any such case did exist? No; the noble Lord made no such statement; he said nothing to induce

1037
the House to consent to the Motion he brought forward. If the House sanctioned such a Motion, they would do a great injury to the country: they would show what might be done by a majority of that House when they had certain objects in view. He asked the House, knowing as they did what occurred in the case of Warwick, whether that borough had been disfranchised by a vote of both Houses of the Legislature? It had not; but a vote of that House had passed against it; yet the noble Lord seemed to think that the borough had been disfranchised by the opinion of both Houses of Parliament, for the noble Lord wanted to stop the borough from sending Representatives to Parliament, by making a motion to prevent the issuing of the writ. The Bill passed by them had been sent up to the other House; and no one could impute to their Lordships, that it had not been attentively considered by them. It had been as accurately scrutinized by their Lordships as any measure ever submitted to them. The parties concerned the complaining parties, had been heard by their Lordships with the greatest patience and attention throughout, and money had been allowed them by Government to enable them to carry on the prosecution. Every means had been afforded them to bring forward the best and fullest evidence. Bills had been passed to indemnify witnesses from the penalties they might render themselves liable to by giving evidence on this question. After hearing a number of witnesses, and, mind, all of them on the side of the prosecution—after a long and patient examination, and without hearing evidence in favour of the borough, their Lordships pronounced, in terms as explicit as possible, that the preamble of the Bill was not proved, and that, according to the evidence (the evidence against the borough alone having been adduced), the Bill could not be carried through. No partiality had been made use of on the occasion. Why, even the proposition for rejecting the Bill came from a noble and learned Lord in the other House to whom it was impossible to impute a want of liberality on such occasions, or a wish of not punishing corruption in boroughs when it was found really to exist in them, or to whom it was impossible to impute a desire of defeating any measure sanctioned in any way by the present Government, since the noble and leaned Lord alluded to was
1038
a member of that Government. That noble and learned Lord, who sat as a Judge and a Peer in the other House, thought it necessary to declare in both those capacities that there was no ground for passing the Bill alluded to. He would ask the noble Lord, then, whether there were any precedent for denying the right to the borough of Warwick of returning another Member? Was there any ground to deny that right, and could it be proved by referring to the cases of any other boroughs? He could not understand upon what grounds the noble Lord proceeded. The other House said there was no evidence to disfranchise the borough, and acquitted it; but after all this the noble Lord said, the borough had not been acquitted, for that must be meant when the noble Lord proposed that no writ should be issued for it until next Session, in order that another Bill to disfranchise it might be brought in. What was made the rule in 1834 might be made the rule again in 1835, 1836, 1837, 1838; in fine, as long as any hon. Member had any idea of bringing a similar proposition forward respecting the borough of Warwick, and by doing so that borough might be continually deprived of its Representatives. But, suppose that its two Representatives were to be left to the borough, would that render the noble Lord less able next Session to bring forward a measure respecting it? He had heard it stated by hon. Members opposite, that it was good to allow the Representatives of boroughs attacked to remain in that House until the question was decided, in order to give them an opportunity of repelling those attacks, of defending themselves, and of correcting misstatements. He called upon the House to consider the fatal precedent they would establish if they sanctioned the present Motion. Whenever majorities of that House were desirous to get rid of the Representatives of particular places, in order to accomplish particular objects, they would be encouraged by the example set them if this Motion were agreed to. He knew that there had been times when the Crown so interfered in order to get rid of persons that were adverse to its interests, and the time might arrive when there would be parties in that House who had as strong interests as the Crown formerly had to get rid of obnoxious boroughs. Would they by the course pursued that night set an example

1039
that might lead to the grossest infringement on the rights of the people—to a great accession of undue power to interested parties? On those grounds, and even though he should stand alone, he would resist the suspension of the writ as moved for by the noble Lord.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonwas not surprised at the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman, nor at his argument; for he was one of those who had opposed the Bill for the extension of the borough franchise. When, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the borough of Warwick having been acquitted, he spoke of it as confirmatory of the opinion he had formerly held. But, having voted for the Bill, he did not consider that, by the rejection of it in the other House, the borough was acquitted. The borough of Warwick had been convicted in this House; and, though it might have been exculpated by the other House, that did not invalidate the judgment of this House,—it did not follow that the other House was right, and this House wrong. It was necessary to reconsider the question; and, for this purpose, time ought to be given, and an opportunity of examining the evidence, and of considering the grounds of the decision of the House of Lords. If this House were called upon to reverse its decision, let it be after fair and due consideration; and let not the House be required in a hurry to set aside its own deliberate judgment. He put it to the House whether such a course of proceeding was befitting its dignity? The House of Lords, on different evidence from that which had been taken in that House, and of which the Commons knew nothing, had come to a different conclusion from the House of Commons, which could not reverse its judgment without examining and considering that evidence. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that the House would act in an unconstitutional way, and unjustly towards the constituency of the country, by depriving any portions of that constituency of their Representatives. But the proposition was, that no writ should issue for this borough till the next Session of Parliament and what advantage would the constituency lose by having one Member less during the time Parliament was prorogued? Whilst the House was of opinion that the constituency of a certain borough was not in a fit state to return a Member to this House, it was
1040
next to a mockery that, with a view to ulterior measures,—for the right hon. Gentleman admitted, that ulterior measures must be had,—a new writ should be sent to a place in this disordered state, in order that it might send a Member to Parliament. He would much rather make up his mind one way or other—either that the borough was in a fit state, or not—than to say, "We will not determine the point: we will have the old Members, and then determine it." He hoped, without prejudging the question, as it would be ridiculous, if the case required consideration, to issue a writ, that the House would consent to the motion of his noble friend, and postpone the issuing of the writ.
Mr. Humeconcurred in opinion with the right hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, and thought that, without seeing the evidence adduced before the House of Lords, they ought not to undo their former decision upon this Bill. He was not a little surprised at the course pursued by the right hon. member for Cambridge; for the right hon. Gentleman was not often in the habit of manifesting any very strong degree of sympathy for the privileges of the people. It would be unfair to say, that the right hon. Gentleman was interested in the matter; and it might be equally unfair if he were to say, that he had seen an address from a Mr. Edward Goulburn (perhaps not a relative of the right hon. Gentleman), who was burning with anxiety to represent the borough of Warwick. He was only supposing a case, in order to show that different people might have different interests. He thought the best course of proceeding would be that of bringing forward a Motion for the production of the evidence taken before the House of Lords, in order to see if any new facts had been elicited to warrant the rejection of the Bill. If on the perusal it should appear, that the evidence taken before the House of Commons was not to be credited, then, of course, the writs would be suffered to issue. Surely justice and even respect to the House of Lords, as well as to themselves, should induce them to postpone the writs until after they should have had an opportunity of reading the evidence. He trusted the House would support its own decision until then.
Mr. Rolfedid not, of course, see that the decision of that House should be put

1041
at all upon comparison with that of the Upper House; the latter House did not sit as a House of Appeal from the House of Commons. Both Houses had sat to form their independent decision; but, if they did not concur in their decisions, it was hardly right to deprive the borough of the right to elect their Representatives.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, the House was bound to support its own verdict by suspending the writ. It was absurd to suppose that, on the mere authority of the Lords, the Commons would consent to act so absurd, so inconsistent a part, as that required from them by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Shawsaid, that everybody now knew that the borough of Warwick was not disfranchised. A Bill to that effect had been sent up to the Lords, but had been rejected by them. To make the case stronger, their Lordships threw out the Bill without going into any evidence in favour of the borough. Was the noble Lord prepared to support the opinion, that no writ should ever issue for this borough?—for his Motion went that length. Was sending the Bill up to the Lords, and their rejecting of it, to be treated as a mere mockery by that House? They ought to bring forward some special case to justify this Motion. If, indeed, they could show that the Lords had not had sufficient evidence to form their decision, then would they have some ground for not consenting to that decision. But no such special case was assigned. If the House only considered the effect of this Motion, they would see that it would go to disfranchising the borough altogether. It was quite clear that, if the Motion were agreed to, a majority of that House might next Session agree to a Bill similar to the former, which would be sent up to the other House; and which, if rejected, would lead to a repetition of the present proceeding. In this way the borough would be excluded from returning Members, since its writ would be continually suspended.
Mr. Thomas Duncombethought, that no writ should issue for the borough of Warwick until they saw the evidence upon which the other House had come to the decision. He would vote for the Motion of the noble Lord, because the House was placed in a peculiar situation. Two noble Lords, members of his Majesty's Government,
1042
pursued opposite courses on this question. The one, a noble and learned Lord in the other House, said that the Bill ought to be rejected; and the other, the noble Lord who brought forward the present Motion, contended, notwithstanding the decision of his colleague, that no writ should issue for the borough in question. Therefore it was left to the House to decide for themselves; and they ought to do so according to the Report of the Committee. That Report showed, that there was gross bribery practised in Warwick. Nobody could deny that; and he was not aware that anything was proved to prevent the suspension of the writ. He believed that gross bribery prevailed, and he was prepared to support the Report. As reformers, they were bound to carry out their principles, and not allow the writ to be issued until they had secured in the borough of Warwick freedom of election.
Captain Gordonsaid, that it was not constitutional, nor had it been the practice of that House, to examine into the reasons the Lords might have for rejecting a measure; and he did not see anything that required their doing so in the present instance. He hoped the noble Lord would not press his Motion to a division.
Mr. Halcombecontended, that the Motion of the noble Lord was a gross violation of the dearest liberties of Englishmen; and he should be surprised if, when it came before the public, the noble Paymaster of the Forces did not fall off in their opinion as a sound defender of their rights. All the ground which the noble Lord had advanced for the Motion was, that a gallant friend of his intended to bring forward another Bill affecting Warwick early next Session: but, even if the writ issued, any measure they thought proper could be brought forward next Session. He had read through the evidence on which they had passed the Bill; and he defied any man to say, that there were more than four clear cases of bribery established besides the cases of the ten men who voted against the candidate who bribed them; and even the four actually guilty were not 10 l. householders. But this question was to be decided, not upon the merits of the case, but constitutional principles; unless, indeed, the House was prepared to act upon the republican principles,—yes, the democratic and republican principles,—into which the arguments of the hon. members for Middlesex

1043
and Bridport resolved themselves. He was anxious to hear the opinions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this question, for he had some reliance upon the constitutional principles on which he guided his party in the House; but he had no confidence in the constitutional principles of the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, or in the right hon. member for Manchester (Mr. Poulett Thomson). He hoped the noble Lord would oppose the Motion.
Sir Francis Vincentdid not understand the hon. member for Bridport to contend that they were bound, under all circumstances, to refuse issuing the writ to Warwick; but simply that they should rehear the case ["No, no!"]. It came to the same thing: for the Bill, having been rejected, they had to reconsider it. At any rate, they would reconsider it. If, upon examination of further evidence, their opinion remained unchanged, it would be their duty to abide by their former verdict: but if, upon an examination of the evidence, they found reason to alter their opinion, of course they would not be bound to abide by a measure proved to be bad. He had great respect for the hereditary legislators; but he could not allow them to dictate to him what his opinions should be, and oblige him to change them without even seeing the grounds on which he was to do so.
Mr. Mark Philipssaid, that, having conscientiously voted for the Warwick disfranchisement, on what he thought good evidence, he could not at once stultify his former vote, merely because other parties had taken a different view of the case. The House was entitled to have an opportunity of considering the evidence which had induced the Lords to differ with them.
Mr. Towerthought it was quite impossible, consistently with their own dignity, to vote for the suspension of the writ.
Sir George Murrayentreated the House to consider whether they were not about to establish an exceedingly dangerous precedent. The Motion of the noble Lord might take the popular side of the question, but that was a circumstance which ought to put them more upon their guard against it. The question was, whether they were to adopt the result of the argument of the hon. member for Bridport, viz. that the House of Lords should have
1044
nothing to say to these questions at all. A decision against issuing the writ, because the House of Lords had not agreed with the House of Commons, would amount to that. If it were wise to make such an alteration in the mode of disposing of election cases, let a proposition be regularly brought forward with that view; but, let them not change the practice in the manner now proposed.
Mr. Lynchthought the House had the power of suspending a writ for a time, with a view to examine further evidence.
Mr. Herriesthought the examination of the case was concluded, unless indeed they meant to establish the doctrine, that no such case should be concluded except as they chose. Although not directly advanced by the noble Lord who made the Motion, that doctrine lurked in the argument he advanced. It might have the support of a majority, but it would not stand the test of common sense. Those who supported that Motion should at least have stated what course it was intended to pursue; but all they had heard upon that head was, that the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, had had an intimation from a gallant friend that he intended to bring in a Bill upon the subject next Session. Could this mean more than that there was a resolution, by all possible means, to prevent the issuing of the writ? He could not help calling the attention of the House to a short passage in the judgment, for so he might call it, of the Lord Chancellor upon this case, as it appeared by the short-hand writer's notes to have been delivered. After stating very fully all the reasons which should make him wish, as an individual, to see the Bill pass, his Lordship expressed himself to this effect:—"The writ is suspended for the present, although I hope it will not long be suspended; for the House of Commons ought to issue the writ, in order to make its number complete." He agreed with the learned Chancellor, that they ought to make their number complete; and should therefore vote for the issuing of the writ.
Lord John Russellsaid, that, after what had fallen from the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite, he felt bound, in it few words, to restate the grounds on which he rested his Motion. He did not rest it upon general but upon peculiar grounds. The House of Lords had been occupied between eighty and ninety days

1045
in taking evidence, which filled a large folio volume, and had decided on the 4th of August that there were not sufficient grounds for them to proceed with this Bill. The question, under these circumstances, was, whether they were, three days afterwards, so near the close of the Session, to preclude themselves from all opportunity of examining this evidence with any view to a useful result. They should reserve their decision till they had an opportunity of seeing what that evidence was. He stated, merely in addition, and not, as had been represented, as the main reason of his Motion, that an hon. and gallant friend, whom illness prevented being in his place, had it in contemplation to propose some measure on the subject early next Session. He had stated this, with a view to show the House, that it would come before them early next Session; but whether his hon. and gallant friend did or did not bring forward his Motion, he thought they ought at the commencement of next Session to have an opportunity of deciding whether they should pursue their inquiries into the Warwick case further. The opinion of the Lord Chancellor had been referred to, but his Lordship had no more right to point out what course they should pursue with respect to the writ than they had to direct the Lords what they should do with the Bill. Allusion had been made to the candidates for the representation of Warwick, but they would not be injured by the delay of the writ till the next Session. They would during the vacation have full opportunity of canvassing the electors, and of making them so well acquainted with their sentiments on the concessions to be made to the Dissenters, and other subjects likely to come under discussion, as to prevent, perhaps, any discrepancy appearing between their professions on the hustings, and their votes in Parliament.
Sir Henry Willoughbydenied, that further investigation would be precluded by issuing a new writ for the borough of Warwick, or by the presence of a second Member for that borough in the House. He should certainly vote against the noble Lord's Motion.
The House divided on the original Motion: Ayes 67; Noes 18;—Majority 49.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Maxwell, J.

Althorp, Lord

Methuen, P.

Attwood, T.

Murray, J. A.

Baring, F.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Barnard, G.

O'Ferrall, M.

Barry, S.

Oliphant, L.

Bainbridge, E. T.

O'Reilly, W.

Berkeley, C.

Oswald, J.

Bish, T.

Palmerston, Lord

Blake, M.

Pelham, Hon C.A.W.

Blamire, W.

Pepys, Sir C.

Briggs, R.

Perrin, Serjeant

Burton, H.

Petre, W.

Byng, Sir J.

Philips, Mark

Callaghan, D.

Potter, R.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Price, Sir R.

Codrington, Sir E.

Pryme, G.

Davies, Col.

Romilly, J.

Donkin, Sir R.

Russell, Lord J.

Duncombe, T.

Ruthven, E.

Ewart, W.

Stawell, Colonel

Gordon, R.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. P.

Hawes, B.

Tower, C. T.

Hoskins, K.

Troubridge, Sir T.

Howard, P.

Tooke, W.

Hume, J.

Vincent, Sir F.

Kemp, T. R.

Walker, C. A.

Labouchere, H.

Walter, J.

Langdale, Hon. C.

Warburton, H.

Lennard, T. B.

Wedgwood, J.

Lester, B. L.

White, Col

Lynch, A. H.

Wood, G. W.

Marjoribanks, S.

TELLERS.

M'Leod, R.

Elliott, Hon. Capt.

Mackenzie, S.

Hay, Col. L.

List of the NOES.

Archdall, N.

Philips, C. M.

Brudenell, Lord

Rolfe, R. M.

Gordon, Hon. Capt.

Ross, C.

Halcombe, J.

Stormont, Lord

Hayes, Sir E.

Tullamore, Lord

Herries, Rt. Hon. C.J.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Hotham, Lord

Willoughby, Sir H.

Houldsworth, T.

TELLERS.

Irton, S.

Goulburn, Rt. Hn. H.

Murray, Sir G.

Shaw, Frederick

Perceval, Colonel

PAIRED OFF.

FOR

AGAINST

Childers, T. W.

Ashley, Hon. H.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Norfolk Island; House of Commons Offices; Exchequer Bills; County Bridges (Ireland); Pensions (Civil Offices) Act Amendment.—Read a third time:—General Turnpike Act Amendment; Excise Revenue Management; Lancaster Court of Common Pleas.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from Barbadoes, for a larger Share of the Fund granted by Parliament for Compensation to Slave Owners; from Grimstone, against the Poor-Law Amendment Bill; from Farnham, against admitting Dissenters to the Universities.—By the Duke of GLOUCESTER, the Earl of NORTHERN, the Bishop of LONDON, and Lord REDESDALE, from several Places,—for Protection to the Church of England, and against its Separation from the State.—By the Bishop of MEATH, from a Number of Places, for Protection to the Protestant Church of Ireland.

POOR LAWS AMENDMENT.
The Marquess of Lansdown The Marquess of Lansdown moved the bringing up of the Report of the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill.
The Bishop of Exetergave notice, that he should to-morrow, on the third reading of this Bill, move for the omission of all the clauses which related to bastardy.
Lord Wharncliffewas aware, that a strong feeling existed, not only in the
1012
House of Commons, but indeed throughout the country generally, respecting the alteration proposed to be made in the law of bastardy. Nevertheless he, for one, must confess, that he approved of the principle of the Bill as it stood, because he believed the best way to get rid of the evil of bastardy would be to throw the whole burthen of the child upon the woman alone, without rendering the putative father liable to contribute towards its support. That was his own opinion; but as both the House of Commons and the country generally had manifested a repugnance to follow in this principle, though recommended by the Poor-law Commissioners, he was afraid if the Legislature were now to pass these clauses as they stood in the Bill, Parliament would, before very long, be called upon to alter the measure in this respect.
The Lord Chancellorsuggested, that if the noble Baron meant to propose an Amendment, the proper time for doing so would be on the third reading.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that it was not his intention to propose any Amendment. He could not come down to the House to-morrow, and that was the reason he had taken the present opportunity to express his sentiments with reference to this part of the Bill. He had carefully looked into the Report, and he certainly was bound to admit, that he could find nothing, in it which bore out the recommendation made by the Commissioners. The Commissioners had spoken of Bingham and other parishes in which they said the principle of making the mother support the child was acted upon; but he was satisfied a reference to the practice of these parishes would show, not only that the statement was incorrect, but that the Bastardy Laws were enforced against the putative father whenever the child became chargeable; care only being taken, that the mother derived no advantage from the money contributed by him. It would, therefore, appear that when the present laws were properly administered, they were not so productive of evil as was said; and that being the case, their Lordships should pause a little before they agreed to an alteration which certainly would introduce a new principle into the laws of this country. He entirely agreed, that the annuity system, that was, increasing a woman's income according to the number of her children, should be done

1013
away with; and if any noble Lord should propose a clause having that object in view, he for one should give it his best support; but although he said this, he was at the same time bound to admit, that he went the whole length of the principles asserted in these clauses of the Bill as they now stood. Being, however, unable to attend the House to-morrow, he must leave the whole matter in the hands of their Lordships.
On the Question being put, that the Clause (with the Amendment) for establishing Provident Institutions, be agreed to,
The Duke of Richmondobjected to the principle of imposing a tax upon the owners and occupiers of land for the maintenance of Provident Institutions. He had no doubt, that such Establishments might be productive of great good, but he could never, for his part, consent to any portion of the poor-rates being applied otherwise than in the maintenance of the poor. The adoption of such a principle would open the door to all the abuses that now existed in respect to the county rate, and he would rather set about reforming the present Provident Institutions than expose the owner and occupier of land to a burthen from which he never could hope to derive any benefit. No principle, he contended, could be more objectionable than that of raising money for the support of the poor, and afterwards converting it to other purposes.
The Lord Chancelloradmitted, that there was great weight in the objection which his noble friend had made. This clause would undoubtedly introduce into the Bill a new principle, and one which he feared the Commons would not concur in. He therefore would not press the adoption of the clause.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that nothing was more common than for parishes to apply sums out of the poor-rates in support of hospitals and other charitable institutions; but, for the reason which the noble and learned Lord had stated, it might not be desirable to retain the clause.
The Clause was omitted.
On the 65th Clause, relating to settlements,
The Duke of Richmondproposed, that the words "by apprenticeship," which had been inserted on the Motion of Lord Wynford in the Committee, should be struck
1014
out. The noble Duke said, that this was the most objectionable means by which a settlement could be obtained, and led to more litigation than almost any other that he knew of.
Lord Wharncliffehoped, their Lordships would not disturb the clause, but admitted that some other arrangement with respect to settlement should be made.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that diminishing settlements by servitude went, pro tanto, to increase derivative settlements. This was, he admitted, objectionable. It was, however, his intention to devise a plan for making settlement depend upon residence rather than servitude; but then such an alteration would take time, in order that it might be based upon sound and safe principles. In Scotland a residence of, he believed, two or three years conferred the right of settlement upon the pauper, and that arrangement had been found to work well; but whether it would answer in this country was another question. He had considered the practicability of introducing such a change into the present measure; but he was convinced that it could not be done; that to effect it, a little care would be necessary, and therefore he hoped their Lordships would be satisfied with the plan contained in this clause, and accept his assurance, that a measure on the subject of settlement by residence should be framed before the next Session. There was another reason why he did not wish to make any alteration in this clause, and that was, the situation in which the introduction of new matter would place the other House of Parliament. They could have but one vote upon it, and, therefore, the only course they could pursue would be to reject it as they had that day done one of the best amendments that had ever been made in any measure—namely, that which their Lordships had made in the Bribery Bill.
Lord Wynfordthought, that making a residence of three years or any other period a ground for settlement would introduce an anomaly into the laws of this country, which, whatever might be its advantage in Scotland, would be highly inexpedient in England.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that when the Bastardy Clauses were under discussion in the Committee many noble Lords expressed themselves anxious to

1015
soften the operation of some parts of them. An Amendment had been introduced in the original Bill in the Commons to enable the overseer to make the man pay a part of the expenses of a child if it should become chargeable to the parish. The objection to this Amendment was that in operation it would be liable to many of the objections urged against the present Bastardy-laws. In consequence of this, their Lordships in Committee rejected the clause, but at the same time a general opinion seemed to prevail, that it was objectionable and somewhat harsh to make the woman's parish bear all the expenses of supporting the bastard. Under these circumstances his noble friend (Lord Wharncliffe) gave notice, that he should on a future stage move certain clauses which would provide for this object. His noble friend had that night stated, that he should not persist in his intention of proposing those clauses, as he should not be present to-morrow. Now he (the Duke of Wellington) thought that something should be done to relieve the public mind on the subject, and also because it was the opinion of the House of Commons, as well as of very many of their Lordships, that they ought to do something to soften the extreme harshness of that part of the Bill. Under these circumstances, it was his (the Duke of Wellington's) intention to propose to their Lordships on the third reading to consider whether the three clauses of which his noble friend had given notice, and which had been printed, should not be inserted.
The Earl of Radnorhoped, their Lordships would not agree to the clauses, as they would be in their operation much worse than the clause that had been struck out. As for their softening down the hardships of the situation of the woman and relieving her, he denied that they would do anything of the kind, for now by these clauses, if she were able to do so, she would have to support the child; if, however, she were thrown on the parish, then a portion of the expense was to be defrayed by the man. The argument of the noble Duke was therefore fallacious. He was satisfied, that the plan the noble Duke intended to pursue would tend greatly to increase all the evils of the present system. It would give the woman the opportunity of fathering the child upon whom she pleased, and thus lead to the commission of perjury. Again, it was
1016
proposed to throw upon her the great disgrace of exposing herself to shame in an open Court by declaring who was the father of the child. It was most objectionable to make a woman proclaim her shame before the Magistrates in Petty Sessions; but by one of the clauses of the noble Baron (Wharncliffe) the woman was to do this in open Court—namely, before the Magistrates at Quarter Sessions. Again, these clauses enabled the Magistrates to send the reputed father of a bastard child to prison if he could not find security to indemnify the parish. In short, those clauses appeared to him to open the door to all the evils of the old system.
Lord Wharncliffewas perfectly satisfied that the noble Earl had not read the clauses, or, if he had, he had completely misunderstood them. The only question was whether they would or would not give any relief to the parish when bastard children were thrown on it. It had been stated that, according to the present law, the father and mother of a bastard child could be punished. This, however, was an error. He admitted, that a woman was liable to be sent to the House of Correction as a lewd woman for having a bastard which became chargeable to the parish; but not the man. He thought, that they should not depart from the principle of throwing at least a portion of the charge of maintaining the bastard on the father. The noble Earl said, that a man might be sent to prison if he could not get securities to indemnify the parish, whereas the fact was, that the man was only to be called upon to enter into his own recognizances. The man also was not to be made liable to the expenses on the evidence of the woman alone, but it must be supported by corroborative evidence. Again, if a woman had a second bastard child, she would not be entitled to relief. They gave relief to the woman as regarded the first bastard child in the presumption that there had been seduction; but when a woman had a second bastard, he thought all argument as to seduction was at an end. He considered that the clauses had been sufficiently guarded to get rid of such objections as those made by the noble Earl.
The Lord Chancellorsuggested, whether it would not be better to take the discussion on these clauses to-morrow, when the question would be brought. forward on the Amendment of a right reve-

1017
rend Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter). Indeed, he had told the right reverend Prelate, that there was no chance of going into the discussion of these clauses to-night, and he had in consequence gone away. If the right reverend Prelate's Amendment to strike out all the clauses relative to bastardy were adopted, which he (the Lord Chancellor) hoped was impossible, it would be unnecessary to discuss those clauses; if it were rejected then they could afterwards be debated.
The Report was agreed to.