Sitting of 8 July 1834

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Imprisonment for Debt; Customs.
Petitions presented. By Mr. GROTE, Mr. HUME, and Mr. BAINES, from Alehouse Keepers and others of various Places,—against the Sale of Beer Act Amendment Bill.—By Mr. DIVETT, from Dissenters at Chudleigh, for Relief.—By Sir G. GREY, from Devonport, against the Claims of the Dissenters.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
On the Motion of Mr. Ord, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Friendly Societies Bill.
On the 2nd Clause being put,
Mr. Bernaltook that opportunity to make several objections to the general principle of the Bill. Few subjects were more difficult to legislate upon than that of Friendly Societies; scarcely any two societies were agreed among themselves as to the rules and regulations by which they should be governed. All which the Legislature had to do with the question was, to see that the operation of the rules which were made by them was not injurious to the rest of the community. Several Representatives of Friendly Societies had waited upon him on the subject of the Bill, and the great objection they entertained to this clause was, that it proposed a separate account should be kept of all monies expended by the Friendly Societies for any other purposes than affording relief in cases of sickness and

1293
old age. To this provision the delegates strongly objected. They also took another objection to the Bill. They considered it a great grievance to be compelled to employ a barrister to revise the rules and regulations they thought proper to adopt. He hoped, therefore, the Committee would not agree too hastily to the provisions of this Bill, but would resist, as far as it was possible, any enactment that should have the effect of depriving the Societies of their own management.
Mr. Ordconcurred in the observation of the hon. Member, that it was desirable, as far as possible, to leave the management of these Societies entirely in their own hands. The principle upon which this Bill proceeded was, to relax some of the provisions of the 10th of George 4th. Societies which were willing to remain according to their present constitution would not be affected by this Bill; but if they wished to enjoy the advantages of suing and being sued in the name of their officers, they would become subject to this Bill. He could not, however, consent to abandon the clause.
Mr. Wilkssaid, that those hon. Members who were desirous to relieve the Friendly Societies from the restraints under which they now laboured would feel this clause worthy their support. These institutions were of the greatest importance to the country, and were well calculated to counteract many of the evils of the Poor-laws.
Mr. Baineshad been informed by a gaoler in a populous district, situate in the county of York, that out of 10,000 prisoners who had been committed to his charge, not one member of a Friendly Society was ever to be found among their number. This he considered a very striking instance of the great advantage which had resulted from these Societies. It appeared to him that a facility would be given by the Bill to the principle upon which these Societies were founded, and he should therefore give it his cordial support.
Mr. Bernal, finding that the opinion of the Committee was against him would not divide on the clause. He had discharged his duty in stating his objections to the Bill.
The Clause was agreed to.
Mr. Forsterproposed a clause to regulate the investment of the funds of Friendly Societies.
Mr. Ord opposed the clause.
The Committee divided: Ayes 21; Noes 30; Majority 9.

List of the AYES.

Attwood, T.

Maxwell, J.

Baillie, J. E.

Parrott, J.

Baines, E.

Phillips, M.

Bernal, R.

Ruthven, E.

Briggs, R.

Seale, Colonel,

Cayley, E. S.

Stanley, E. J.

Duncombe, T.

Wilbraham, G.

Gordon, Captain,

Williams, Colonel

Gully, J.

Hawkes, T.

TELLERS.

Lister, E. C.

Forster, C.

The House resumed, and the Report was brought up.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord Morpeth, in moving the Resolution of which he had given notice, that for the remainde rof the Session, Orders of the Day should have precedence of notices, said that in bringing forward a Motion for the express purpose of saving the time of the House, he should not address it at any length; indeed the subject was one which, at this period of the Session, required little to be said in its support; however as he was determined to take the sense of the House upon it, he would briefly state the grounds on which he brought it forward. In the first place, for a precedent, he would refer to a similar motion which he proposed, and which the House adopted, last Session. Then as to the necessity for such a Motion, he thought that that was obvious. Whatever differences of opinion might exist as to the change that had taken place in the Constitution of the House, it would be agreed by all that it stood upon a totally different footing from formerly. Then the conducting of the whole business was vested in the leader of the two parties into which the House was divided. But now the House was divided into various and different parties, and there were numbers of stragglers—he meant not the phrase in an offensive sense—who considered themselves amenable to no party banner at all. Notices without number, and of every shade of variety, appeared on the books, not representing the concentrated views of a party, but the individual opinions and sentiments of the respective members who had given such notices. The result was, that now, approaching the dog-days,

1295
there was no diminution of such notices, and that the public business was in every way retarded. He thought, that under such circumstances Parliament would be justified in adopting some definite arrangement upon the subject for future Sessions. In his opinion the practice that had been adopted in regard to private business might be advantageously extended to the public business of the House. The Motion which he was about to submit was, however, limited to the present Session. As might be expected, each individual Member who had a notice on the books was always ready to admit, that the public business should take precedence of all other notices but his own. In fact, no one would give up his own Motion, and the public business was retarded. To get rid of such Motions the House was frequently counted out as on the 8th and 16th of May, the 10th, 17th, and 24th of June, and the 3rd of July, and thus in the very heart of the Session, a whole week was lost. On all such occasions too the House was counted out at an early hour. He could not be charged with having taken the House by surprise, and his proposition, which he should conclude by moving, was, "that for the remainder of the Session, Orders of the Day should take precedence of notices of motion."
Mr. Humesaid, that if the House should adopt the Resolution proposed by the noble Lord, it would preclude the possibility of hon. Members bringing forward any new matter, however important, because the Bills which his Majesty's Government now had before the House would occupy every hour of the time which yet remained of the present Session. He hoped the House would hesitate before it adopted the Resolution, as it would drive hon. Members to the inconvenient alternative of bringing forward their Motions as Amendments upon the Orders of the Day. It had been very convenient for the Government to have the House counted out upon any discussion that was unpalatable to them, and the adoption of this proposition would enable his Majesty's Government to defer bringing in their Bills for the future until towards the end of the Session, and then get some Member to assist them by moving such a proposition as the present. For his own part, he would rather that the House should sit for the next two months than
1296
that so important a privilege of the Representatives of the people should be given up. He should therefore most certainly oppose the Motion.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that if he stood alone he would divide the House against the proposition. It was a curious coincidence that this proposition should be made just as it was proposed to hurry the Bill through the House which took away the liberties of the people of Ireland. He could tell the noble Lord, that his plan could not succeed if carried, nor should it succeed, for hon. Members would certainly take the more inconvenient course of moving the Motions which they contemplated by way of Amendments upon the Orders of the Day. Formerly motions always took precedence, but at length three days were appropriated to Orders, and now the remaining two days were sought to be added, though on those days when the Motions to be brought forward were unpalatable to the Government, the House had been counted out. The Government whipper-in had then stood at the door of the House to prevent Members from entering, and thus even now the House was deprived of its old constitutional mode of proceeding. He hoped either that the Motion would be abandoned by the noble Lord, or that the House would reject it.
Mr. Buckinghamhad suffered from the House having been counted out; but he would not complain, though he conceived it to be a mean course of defeating or evading the discussion of a question. He deprecated such a practice on important motions such as that submitted by the hon. member for Liverpool on the subject of the East India trade, and that with reference to the currency. With respect to the Motion now before the House he should oppose it.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonrepelled the charge, that the Government had obtained the counting-out of the House on the two occasions which had been alluded to. On both occasions he had been present, and with respect to one—he meant the Motion of the hon. member for Liverpool—he felt deep regret, that the discussion had been so interrupted, because it allowed the statement of the hon. member for Liverpool to go forth to the public without a reply on the part of the Government.
Mr. Tennysonsaid, the Motion would interfere with the ancient and undoubted

1297
rights of the people conferred on their representatives. While he protested against the innovation upon the privileges of the House, he left it to hon. Members to use their discretion in bowing to the urgency of public affairs. If, however, the proposition were carried, he should make a point of submitting a Motion without any notice whatever.
Sir John Wrottesleyconcurred in the sentiments expressed by the right hon. member for Lambeth. Parliament had, however, already sat five months, and in that period sufficient time had been given for hon. Members to bring forward any measures of importance. With respect to not making or rather counting out the House, he begged to say, that this step had last week been taken under peculiar circumstances. The House would remember, that the right hon. Gentleman who filled the chair had sat on the previous day from 12 to 3 o'clock, and again from 5 till half-past 4 o'clock in the morning; and though the right hon. Gentleman would be the last to complain, yet the House ought to pay some deference to his feelings, health, and convenience.
Mr. Robinsonobjected to the Motion, though he hoped, as it had been submitted to the House, that hon. Members whose names appeared with notices of Motions on the Order-book, would be induced to suspend them. Rather than call for so fatal a precedent against the privileges of the House as would ensue from the adoption of this proposition, he trusted the noble Lord would, after this conversation, consent to withdraw it. If not, he should feel it his duty on principle to vote against the Motion.
Sir Robert Peeldid not think it unreasonable that, in the present state of public business, some course should be pursued by which the attention of the House should be devoted to it. He thought the public looked to the disposal of the Orders of the Day with quite as deep an interest as on any other description of public business, though no one ought to be prevented from bringing forward any Motion which might be important. This, however, ought to be left to the judgment, common sense, and good feeling of hon. Members themselves, for he could not believe that any good could result from such a regulation as was proposed. The Order-book at present contained so many notices for each night,
1298
that it was impossible to know which would be brought forward. The list for this night consisted of twenty notices, including notices of clauses; and though he had been assured last night by the hon. member for Sheffield (Mr. Buckingham), whose notice stood first, that he was determined to bring it forward this evening, yet he (Sir Robert Peel) had entertained somehow the internal conviction, that the hon. Member would not do so. True enough, his opinion was not ill-founded, and his confidence in the hon. Gentleman's good sense, which exceeded his confidence in the hon. Gentleman's promises, had been justified. He trusted, the noble Lord would leave the subject to the discretion of hon. Members, rather than call for a vote upon his proposition.
Mr. Secretary Ricesaid, that much convenience would result from hon. Members not pressing motions which could lead to no practical effect. As to the imputation, that this Motion was made to favour the Government, other Members had as much interest in the Orders of the Day being admitted to precedence as the Government. For his own part, he was indifferent whether the noble Lord's Motion was carried, or hon. Gentlemen, in their discretion, consented to give way to the public convenience.
Mr. Baringobjected to the Motion. As yet the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had not brought forward his Budget, and in giving a general notice the noble Lord had fixed on no particular day, and he had in consequence been unable to move for certain Papers relative to the mode of conducting the financial business of the country. He had asked the noble Lord for those papers, but the noble Lord thought it his duty to refuse them.
Lord Morpeth, in reply, said, that he really found nothing so difficult to collect as the sense of the House. He found that every Member felt the inconvenience which attended the fact of Motions having precedence, but was unwilling in his own case to give way. Whatever motives might be assigned to him, he had no wish but to consult the convenience of the House, and it was his opinion, after the experience of this and the last Session, that some such measure was absolutely necessary to expedite public business. As to his accidental co-operation with the Government, as the hon. and learned member for Dublin was pleased to term

1299
it, in hastening forward the Coercion Bill, he could not of course expect that the hon. and learned Gentleman would place more reliance on his verbal disclaimer than on the intimation he gave the hon. and learned Member; but he could say, that he gave notice of this Motion before the Government had determined to bring forward the Coercion Bill; namely, on the 18th of June. He was, however, willing to suspend his Motion for the present, if a farther experiment of the discretion of Members would be attended with any advantage.
The Motion was withdrawn.

DIVISIONS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Ward, on bringing up the Report of the Committee, appointed to consider the best mode of taking authentic Lists of the Divisions in the House, after recapitulating the plans which had fallen under the consideration of the Committee, and been rejected by them, proceeded to explain the mode which the Committee recommended for the adoption of the House. As long as the Members met in the building which was at present appropriated to their Debates, it was impossible that the plan which the Committee thought the best could be carried into execution. That plan was, that the ayes and the noes should both leave the body of the House, and retire into rooms at the opposite ends of it, and as they re-entered the House the name of each Member might be declared aloud by one of the clerks of the House stationedat each door, and taken down by a person. But as this method was at present impracticable, the Committee thought it best, that those Members who were presumed to be the minority should, as was the rule at present, go into the lobby, and then the names of those in the House having been taken down, the names of the minority should be collected and written down. He need say nothing of the inconvenience resulting from the present method of preparing these lists. There appeared in the newspapers a constant succession of protests from Members against their inaccuracy, and he had sometimes seen as many as eight or nine letters in one day, to correct the mistakes that had been made. The editor of The Times had been so pestered with the applications, that notices continually were appearing in that periodical on the subject. On one occasion he read,
1300
"We have repeated usque ad nauseam that we have nothing to do with making out these lists; why does not the House find the means of correcting this anomaly?" To be sure, why did not the House adopt some method to authenticate the lists? He hoped that they would agree to his experiment, and he should therefore move that the House take the Report into consideration with a view to the adoption of its recommendation at the commencement of the next Session.
Mr. Haweshoped, that the independent Members of the House would unite, and work out one good measure at least during their prolonged session. He seconded the Motion.
Mr. Humeconsidered the question of very great importance. Lists had been made out for a considerable period; but hitherto, for want of some authorized system, it had been done very partially and incorrectly. They had been prepared with a great deal of trouble, and had occasioned much loss of time to those Members who had undertaken the task of furnishing them. He himself had for many years taken as much trouble to make out lists as any Member in the House. Indeed, it was only within the last twelve months that, having been anxious to get other Members to attend to the matter, he had given to it comparatively less attention. He hoped that no man who came to this House was afraid of its being known how he voted. Every Member ought to be prepared to defend his vote, be it in accordance with or against the views of his constituents. He believed, that the effect of publishing the divisions would be to cause a fuller attendance of Members, though the limited attendance, deficient as were the present accommodations of the House, was rather in favour of those who were the more hard-working Members, and who regularly discharged their duties there. They ought, however, to have regard to what was the intention of the Reform Act, which unquestionably was, that every Member should be at his post. His opinion was, that till a new House of Commons was built, it would be impossible that divisions could be taken in the manner that was most desirable. Several plans had been submitted to the Committee, and only one of them met with unanimous approbation; but it was impossible to carry it into effect for want of more room. According to this plan

1301
two additional rooms were necessary, in order that one party might go out at one door, and another party at the other door; it was proposed that as the Members went out they should be counted, thus both sides could be counted at the same moment, and the time of the House would not be lost as at present. The want of the requisite accommodation induced the Committee to recommend the plan now before the House. He thought that in ordinary divisions it would answer very well; but when they had such divisions as they had the other night, when between 300 and 400 divided, the Members of necessity would be sitting so close, that the tellers, unless they had very good eyes, would not be able to distinguish one from the other.
Sir Robert Peelwas against the plan altogether. He would leave every man who gave his vote according to his conscience to state to his constituents, if he pleased, what his vote was on any particular occasion. As to the liability of being called on by his constituents to inform them as to such vote, if the principle of the Motion now before the House was a good one, there ought to be a division on every question on which there was not a perfect unanimity of opinion. He thought that the tendency of the proposed plan would be to multiply divisions. Thus, if 200 took one view of a question, and only ten the other view, there must be a division and a publication of the list, that the constituents of the ten virtuous patriots might know how they voted on the particular motion. He thought that most erroneous inferences would frequently be drawn from records of the names unaccompanied by explanation. What could the constituents understand from the mere statement of the Motion according to the forms of the House? For example, they would sometimes find it recorded thus:—That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question; the "ayes" voted in this way, and the "noes" in the other way. It would be necessary for Members to explain the grounds on which they gave their votes. It did not appear to him that they were in a situation to adopt any of the plans submitted to the Committee. The first was, that the names of all the Members should be called over; this the Committee objected to, on account of the loss of time that would be occasioned.
1302
The second was, that Members should inscribe their names in a book on entering the House; this also the Committee rejected as inconvenient. The third was, that the Members should go one side into one lobby, and the other side into another lobby; but to carry this plan into execution, extra room would be necessary. The fourth plan was, that now under the consideration of the House; and it appeared the hon. Gentleman who made the Motion had himself no great confidence in his proposition. The two tellers must be acquainted with every Member in the House; this was one great difficulty to be overcome. Then were the tellers to be appointed now at the latter end of the Session? If so, they would have a comfortable office during the recess. [Mr. Ward did not propose to try the experiment till next Session.] Then he would put it to the House whether the question had not better be postponed altogether. Why should they be called on to pledge their successors the succeeding Session.
Mr. Grotehoped the House would not be induced to negative the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. It was unjust to the people of England to say, that when the votes were laid before them they would not have intelligence enough to understand on what principle their Representatives had acted. The Reform Bill having passed, the people should be placed in the best possible situation as regarded their means of obtaining accounts of information as to the votes of their Representatives, in order that they might be able to form a proper estimate of the claims of the candidates who might offer themselves. As to the principle of the Motion, he was strongly in its favour; but as regarded the means by which it was proposed to carry that principle into effect, he spoke with considerable diffidence, because the experiment had yet to be made.
Mr. Secretary Ricesaid, the House had decided that this was a fit subject for the inquiry of a Committee, but there was still the question before them as to the means by which the object was to be effected. He would, in the first instance, ask whether, by the course pursued at present, their constituents did not obtain a competent knowledge of the votes of Members of that House? In all important questions the divisions were published, and they were generally accurate. When they were not so, he knew that Members were

1303
put to the trouble of writing letters to correct them, and he could easily understand why they should be desirous of relieving themselves from the performance of this task; but, on the other hand, if they adopted either of the plans proposed to remedy the evil, he feared that the sacrifice of time on the part of the House would be considerable.
Mr. Kennedythought the thanks of the country eminently due to the hon. member for St. Alban's, for his zeal in bringing this subject before the House, and trusted he would persevere and bring it to a happy conclusion. Whoever had seen the facility with which names were taken in such large assemblies as the halls of Lincoln's Inn and the Middle Temple, could have no doubt of the practicability of the recommendation of the Committee. He trusted the House would agree to the measure, and carry it into effect, as he considered it only next in importance to Triennial Parliaments.
Mr. Wynnopposed the plan. He thought, firstly, that it was impracticable to any good purpose; and secondly, that the attempt to carry it into effect would only cause an increase in the number of divisions, and the consequent obstruction of public business.
Sir Matthew White Ridleywished the consideration of the question to be put off until next Session.
The House divided: Ayes 76; Noes 32—Majority 44.
Mr. Wardthen moved, "That the plan proposed by the Committee be acted upon before the close of the present Session, and that clerks be appointed for the purpose of carrying it into effect."
Motion agreed to.

List of the AYES.

Baines, E.

Ellis, W.

Barnard, E. G.

Evans, G.

Beauclerk, A. W.

Ewart, W.

Bellew, R. M.

Faithfull, G.

Bernard, Hon. W.

Fenton, L.

Bewes, T.

Fergusson, R. C.

Blackburne, J.

Fitzsimon, C.

Blake, M.

Fleetwood, P. H.

Blamire, W.

Gisborne, T.

Brodie, W. B.

Goring, H. D.

Brotherton, J.

Grote, G.

Buckingham, J. S.

Hawes, B.

Chapham, M. L.

Hoskins, K.

Clay, W.

Hume, J.

Divett, E.

Humphery, J.

Dobbin, D.

Jacob, E.

Dundas, J. W. D.

James, W.

1304

Jervis, J.

Ruthven, E. S.

Kennedy, J.

Shawe, R. N.

Lister, E. C.

Sheil, R. L.

Lloyd, J. H.

Sullivan, R.

Lynch, A. W.

Talbot, J. H.

Murray, J. H.

Tennyson, Rt. Hon. C.

Nagle, Sir R.

Torrens, Colonel

O'Connell, D.

Tower, C.

O'Connell, J.

Vigors, N. A.

O'Connor, F.

Walker, C. A.

O'Conor, Don

Walker, R.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Wallace, T.

O'Reilly, W.

Walter, J.

Oswald, J.

Ward, H. G.

Parrott, J.

Wason, R.

Pease, J.

Williams, Colonel

Phillipps, C. M.

Williams, A.

Plumptre, J.

Wood, Alderman

Potter, R.

Young, G. F.

Richards, J.

Rider, T.

TELLERS.

Robinson, G. R.

Ward, H. G.

Roche, D.

Hawes, B.

List of the NOES.

Berkeley, Hon. C.

Lyall, G.

Bolling, W.

Mangles, J.

Bruce, C. L.

Newark, Viscount

Calvert, N.

Peel, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

Cartwright, W. R.

Pepys, Sir C.

Cayley, E. S.

Reid, Sir J.

Elliot, Hon. Capt. G.

Rice, Rt. Hon. T. S.

Forster, C. S.

Ridley, Sir M.

Gladstone, W.

Ross, C.

Graham, Sir J.

Rumbold, C. E.

Grosvenor, Earl

Tracy, C. H.

Hardy, J.

Tyrell, C.

Harland, W. C.

Vernon, G. H.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Villiers, Viscount

Lefevre, C. S.

Wynn, Rt. Hon. C.

Lefroy, T.

TELLERS.

Lefroy, A.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Littleton, Rt. Hon. E. J.

Ross, C.

THE ROYAL MARRIAGE ACT.
Colonel Williams Colonel Williams moved for leave to bring in a Bill "to repeal the 12th Geo. 3rd, c. 11, called the Royal Marriage Act, for the purpose of restoring to the Members of the Royal Family their just and natural rights, and to afford a prospect that the Government of England will, in time, be under an influence entirely English."
The Attorney Generalsaid, that he could hardly believe the hon. Member was serious in submitting such a Motion under existing circumstances, and at a time when there were so many practical measures waiting for discussion. At all events, he would enter into no debate upon the subject. He would merely observe, that it was a gross mistake to suppose that members of the British Royal Family were prevented by the Royal

1305
Marriage Act from marrying any but foreigners. The fact was, they might marry with any British-born subject if they obtained the King's consent.
Mr. O'Connellthought, that the Royal Marriage Act operated oppressively, and ought to be repealed. It did not prevent disputed claims, and, in fact, a serious case of that nature at present existed. He believed, that the operation of the Act was much more limited than was generally supposed, and that it did not touch marriages made out of England.
Motion withdrawn.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Religious Assemblies.—Read a second time:—County Coroners.—Read a third time:—Securities (Ireland); Four-per-Cent Annuities.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of MALMESBURY, Lord SKELMERSDALE, the Earl of HADDINGTON, the Earl of WINCHILSEA, Lord FARNHAM, the Duke of GLOUCESTER, the Duke of WELLINGTON, and Lord BEXLEY, from various Places,—for Protection to the Established Church, and against the Claims of the Dissenters.—By Lord FARNHAM, from various Places in Ireland, for the Preservation of the Privileges guaranteed to the Protestant Church of Ireland at the Union.—By the Bishop of LONDON, from Shopkeepers of London, in favour of the Sabbath Observance Bill.—By the Earl of MALMESBURY, from St. Mary's, Whitechapel; and from St. Martin's, against the Poor-Laws' Amendment Bill.—By the Earl of POWIS, from Salop, for Relief to the Agriculturists; from Nettlestead, Salop, for an Alteration in the Sale of Beer Act, and against the Admission of Dissenters to the Universities.—By Lord WYNFORD, from Astbury and other Places; by the Earl of HADDINGTON, from Broadway and Ewelme Dorsetshire, with the same Prayer.—By the Earl of LIVERPOOL, from Lindfield, in favour of the Poor-Law Amendment Bill.

PRIVILEGES OF THE PEERS.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, that he had a petition to present, to which he called their Lordships' particular attention. It was in favour of the Established Church, and came from Dissenting congregations meeting in the city of Dublin; it was signed by 500 individuals; and he wished it to be read at length, as he had reason to believe that it spoke the general opinion of the Dissenters of Ireland.
The Clerk proceeded to read the petition; when he came to a passage in the petition in which the petitioners alluded to the reported sentiments of an exalted personage connected with his Majesty's Government—namely, that "the spirit of the age must be followed," and further,
1288
"that certain individuals of the Roman Catholic religion, who had sworn not to use any political power which might be granted to them to disturb or overthrow hereafter the Protestant religion, had not adhered to that oath."
Earl Greydesired the passage to be read again, which having been done, the noble Earl said, it could not be doubted, that this petition referred to certain expressions that were used by him in that House. To allude to such expressions was contrary to their Lordships' privileges, and therefore he was of opinion, that the petition could not be received.
The Earl of Winchilseacontended, that it was the right of the petitioners to animadvert on any expression that might fall from the noble Earl or any other individual in that House, and which had gone forth to the public, especially if they conceived that it was likely to affect great interests in the State.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he should not discharge his duty to their Lordships, as Speaker of that House, if he did not dissent entirely from the doctrine of the noble Earl. Nobody was more ready than he was to give credit to the noble Earl for the candour which he evinced on all occasions, and he would rely on that candour for having a proper interpretation put upon the few words which he should offer to their Lordships. It was a breach of the privileges of that House to make known the sentiments of any of its Members; therefore no person, strictly and legally speaking, could learn what was transacted within those walls except by their Lordships' votes. It was clear, then, that nobody had a right to publish their proceedings, and still less to comment on them. This, however, in reality took no right from the King's subjects, because if they chose to couch or draw up their petitions with a little more dexterity, they could evade (and he was sorry for it) their Lordships' privileges, just as effectually as their Lordships exposed themselves by the publicity of their proceedings to animadversion. With respect to remarks made at out-of-door meetings, or comments in pamphlets or newspapers, nobody ever thought of objecting to them; but it was not consistent with their privileges to receive petitions in which their expressions were thus noticed. This was the doctrine on which he acted last night when he presented the petition of John Lawless. He

1289
then stated, that he could not allow that petition to be received, because it contained a passage from a speech delivered in their Lordships' House.
The Earl of Winchilseaadmitted, that the doctrine laid down by the noble and learned Lord was correct; but he objected to its being only partially acted on. He could not see why that which was allowed to be given to the public might not be quoted in a petition. If it were declared, that not one word of their proceedings should go out to the public, he could understand the principle, and he would bow to it; but if they allowed their proceedings to be used in one respect, he could not conceive why they should not allow the same latitude in another. If acted on at all, let the principle be acted on generally. He certainly was not aware that the words alluded to were in the petition when he presented it. He laid it before their Lordships as emanating from a body of Dissenters who expressed their anxiety to support the established institutions of the country.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the difference between the more publication of their proceedings and the noticing them in a petition was this—they shut their eyes on what appeared out of doors—they had no right to know anything about it; but when matter of this nature was inserted in a petition, it was thrust directly into their faces.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, if this petition had expressly recited any words as having been used in that House by a Member of the House, such a proceeding would be irregular, and it ought to be rejected; but the petition did not state that they were uttered by a Member of that House; and though the noble Earl claimed them as his, it did not follow that other persons might not have advanced the same sentiments. For his own part, he had no doubt that the petitioners alluded to what had occurred in that House; but, while he respected everything that was connected with their Lordships' privileges, he thought that in a case of this nature, when a petition related to a subject the most precious—the subject of religion—their Lordships ought to be very tardy in rejecting a petition on any other than the most indisputable grounds. But, supposing that this petition did not recall any words which had been used in that House, or by any Member of that House,
1290
still he thought that the petition must be rejected on another ground, because (though the passage had not excited the notice, or called forth the animadversion, of the noble Earl) the petitioners charged certain Members of the Imperial Parliament with perjury. That was the part which, in his opinion, rendered the petition unfit to be received by that House. He therefore should not object to its rejection on the latter, but not on the former, ground.
The Earl of Shaftesburystated his conviction, that consistently with their Lordships' privileges, the petition could not be received.
The Earl of Winchilseahad no doubt at all about the fact, that allusion was made in the petition to what had been said by a Member of that House, where the expression "the spirit of the age must be followed" was quoted; but let the House consider the situation in which they were placed, when they allowed their sentiments to be noticed in one shape and not in another.
Earl Greysaid, he had never been willing to stand in the way of any petition; and in this instance he was not inclined to make an objection on his own account. He had noticed the matter, lost a precedent might be established for permitting allusion to be made in petitions to what had occurred in that House. With respect to what the right reverend Prelate had stated, he did not think that it removed the difficulty. The right reverend Prelate said, that it was not expressly set forth in the petition that the words quoted were used by a Member of that House, but he affirmed the proposition, when he stated that the words were of such a nature as to leave no doubt on his mind that they had been used by a Member of that House. Now, in a Court of Common law, if it could be proved to the satisfaction of the Court and Jury, that the general meaning and intent of certain words were such as to leave no doubt that they had been used in a certain place, and on a certain occasion, such evidence was deemed conclusive. When those words were used which had been referred to, the individual who used them was speaking in the discharge of his duty in that House. It therefore appeared to him, that with a due regard to their privileges, they could not receive this petition. With respect to the other point of which the

1291
right reverend Prelate had taken notice, he did not put the same construction on the passage as the right reverend Prelate had done. The allegation there made was quite general. The petitioners alleged, that certain persons professing the Roman Catholic religion had acted in a manner contrary to their oath, which bound them not to use any power that might be granted to them for the purpose of overthrowing the Protestant religion. Such a statement was too vague to be noticed.
The petition was withdrawn.

SUPPRESSION OF DISTURBANCES (IRELAND).
Earl Grey rose to postpone until to-morrow the Order of the Day for taking into consideration the Report of the Irish Coercion Bill.
The Duke of Buckinghamexpressed his surprise at the postponement without any reason having been assigned for taking such a course. It must be in the recollection of their Lordships, that the day had very nearly arrived when the Bill now in existence would expire. They had been told of the absolute necessity for the renewal of that Bill as soon as possible, and now a delay was requested. It had been rumoured that doubts at one time had arisen as to the necessity which existed for passing this Bill; but it had since been collected from other sources, that the necessity was admitted still to exist. A delay of even twenty-four hours was important with reference to a measure which was stated to be indispensable for the preservation of the security, safety, and peace of the country. He was surprised, that the noble Earl had offered no explanation on the subject, and he felt that the noble Earl was bound, under the circumstances of the case, to state some reason for his very extraordinary request.
Earl Greysaid, that if, by the delay of twenty-four hours, the safety of the country was likely to be affected, that certainly would be a sufficient reason to justify the noble Duke in calling for an explanation. The short way, however, to meet that point was, to state his conviction that the delay called for could have no such effect. He did not think it possible, that the noble Duke could conceive that he would, at this period, ask even for a day's postponement of the measure, without having sufficient reasons for doing so. Those reasons, however, he must decline stating
1292
at that moment. But, in moving for the discharge of the Order of the Day, he would state, that he was as strongly impressed as he ever was with respect to the necessity of passing this measure in its present form, with all its provisions and all its powers. He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would extend to him that indulgence which he required, and postpone the consideration of the Report until to-morrow.
The Duke of Buckinghamsaid, if the noble Earl would state what the reason was which rendered this delay necessary, he should have no objection to it. The noble Earl had declared the absolute necessity of the measure yesterday, and he should like to know what was his reason for putting it off to-day.
The Motion was agreed to.
The Poor-laws' Amendment Bill was also, on the Motion of Earl Grey, postponed.