Sitting of 22 July 1834

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Arms Importation (Ireland).—Read a second time:—Four Courts (Dublin); Royal Burghs (Scotland); Burghs (Scotland).—Read a third time and passed:—Prisoners' Counsel; Highways.
Petitions presented. By Mr. SANFORD, from Wellington (Somerset), for the Better Observance of the Sabbath; from two Places, for altering the Sale of Beer Act; from Uxbridge, for Protection from Incendiarism.—By Mr. HODGES, from Sandridge, for Protection to the Established Church.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.
Lord G. Somerset Lord G. Somerset moved, that the Amendments made in the Committee be read a second time.
Mr. Robert Palmerrose to oppose the Motion. The principal grounds of objection to the proposed rail-road were, that the line was incomplete, and that no security was afforded to those who embarked their capital in the project that it would ever be completed. The original prospectus stated, that the line of road would extend from London to Bristol, whereas it was now proposed to carry it from London to Reading, and from Bath to Bristol only, leaving no sort of communication between Reading and Bath. He had opposed the principle of the Bill, upon the second reading, on these grounds, that it was suffered to go into a Committee, and after having been there for the unprecedented space of fifty-seven days, it presented a much stronger case in favour of the opponents to the measure than existed before. It was originally proposed, that Vauxhall should be the London terminus of the projected line; but in order to avoid the opposition of two noble Lords and some hon. Gentlemen, that course was abandoned, and it was now proposed, that it should have one termination at Brompton. It became necessary for the promoters of the measure to show, in the next place, the great public utility of carrying the road only as far as Reading in the first instance, contrary to the scheme proposed in the original prospectus. For this purpose, a great variety of evidence was entered into by the promoters of the Bill, and when their case had closed, and the evidence on the part of the opponents of the Bill was brought forward, the parties who bore testimony to the injurious effects of the project were as respectable in their character, and as well acquainted with the interests of the town of Reading, as those who had given evidence in its support. It

335
was proved by them, that there was no town in the kingdom more conveniently situated for commercial intercourse, both by land and water, than the town of Reading, nor any place that stood less in need of the proposed rail-road. It was a somewhat curious fact, that in the list of subscribers to the scheme which proposed to carry the line no further than Reading, there was a very small number of persons residing there whose names appeared as shareholders in a project which was to confer such inestimable benefits on the town. It was commonly the case, that where great advantages were expected to result from any proposed scheme, the inhabitants of the town were extremely eager to become subscribers to it. He recollected very well when it was proposed to light the town with gas, and 10,000 l. was required for the purpose, it was not found necessary to resort to persons residing at a distance from the town to complete the subscription. No; it was raised in the town, because it really was a benefit to it; and if this scheme were of any real advantage to the people generally, the subscribers would have been as numerous as they were in London or any other part of the country. There was a great difference of opinion among those who had made an estimate of the sum required to carry the railroad into effect, as to the amount that would be actually necessary, and the evidence given upon that part of the question was of a most conflicting character. It appeared also, from the evidence, that of the proprietors of the soil through which the rail-way was proposed to run, those who possessed by far the greater portion were hostile to the project. It was shown, that out of twenty miles of the line the landed proprietors to whom two miles belonged assented to the rail-road, those dissenting possessed fifteen miles, and the neutrals, three miles. From the county of Middlesex alone, seventeen petitions had been presented against it, which showed the feeling entertained by the proprietors of the soil in the small part of that county through which it would pass. It was said the south of Ireland would experience great benefit from the railway, and he did not deny that a perfect line of road to Bristol would be of considerable advantage; but he would ask whether that benefit would not be conferred by a measure to which the House had al-
336
ready given its sanction—he alluded to the London and Southampton Rail-way? The objections to the Bill were so numerous, that he hoped the House would never give its sanction to it, particularly when it was considered that this was not a "great western rail-way," and that no assurance was given to the public, that the line would ever be completed, or the money necessary for that purpose would be raised. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that the Amendments be read a second time that day six months.
The Marquess of Chandosseconded the Amendment. The Bill, as now shaped, was totally different from the original project, and he concurred in what had fallen from the hon. member for Berkshire.
Mr. Gore Langtongave his most strenuous opposition to the measure. Instead of proving advantageous to the West of England, it would have a diametrically opposite effect. Moreover, it was a most unconstitutional proceeding, and a gross invasion of the rights of private property.
Sir Richard Vyvyangave the Bill his most cordial support. The evidence taken before the Committee was, he stated, of a most conflicting nature; yet it established this fact beyond dispute, that fifty-eight miles of the whole extent of road passed through the lands of those who either assented to the measure or stood neuter, and twenty-one miles through the lands of those who dissented. He would remind the House, that in the Birmingham rail-way the possessors of seventy miles of the road dissented, and forty-two only assented, and yet that Bill had passed, by a great majority. The case made out in support of that Bill was far inferior to the claim of the supporters of this. The hon. member for Berkshire had expressed his surprise that no interest had been taken by the town of Reading, upon which so much benefit would be conferred. He denied, however, that no interest had been taken by that town in the project. Had not a petition, signed by the mayor and 800 of the inhabitants, been presented in favour of the measure? One of the hon. members for Reading had taken a very active part in the Committee on behalf of the scheme; and it could not be supposed he would have done so if it would have been of no advantage to his constituents. He supported the measure because he believed it would not only confer great benefit on

337
the city of Bristol, but because it would confer equal advantages upon Devonshire, Cornwall, Somersetshire, and the whole of the west of England, as well as that it would be of the utmost importance to the south of Ireland. He believed the objection of the great landed proprietors of Berkshire was not confined to this particular road; but that they opposed in the abstract every improvement effected by means of a rail-road throughout the kingdom. He was fully aware, the original intention was to have carried the line of road directly from London to Bristol; but it was afterwards considered inexpedient, and that it would be much better to proceed according to the course now proposed, inasmuch as it was considered that the permission to establish a rail-way between London and Bristol having once been obtained, there would be less difficulty in obtaining the means to complete the entire line. He trusted, that the Bill would come as safely out of the House as it had out of the Committee, feeling convinced it would confer as much benefit upon the west of England as the Liverpool rail-way had conferred on that part of the country through which it ran.
Mr. Mildmaywas of opinion it would be much better for the south of Ireland if the Bill were not suffered to pass. The House had given its consent to the establishment of a line of rail-road, which would be entirely destroyed if the present scheme succeeded. The landowners had been taunted with coming forward from interested motives, merely to protect their own interests. This was a very serious complaint, because it so seldom happened that the manufacturers, or any other class, were actuated by similar motives. He hoped the House would never sanction so imperfect a measure, which, like a "scotched" snake, with only a head and a tail, and no middle, the projectors imagined would join together of itself, and which, instead of conferring any benefit on the west of England and the south of Ireland, would destroy itself, and another rail-way, that promised the greatest advantages.
Mr. Methuendid not impute to the promoters of this measure any intention wilfully to deceive the public; but he assured the House the inhabitants were deluded into a belief that the rail-road would pass through those towns, or they would never have given their support to the project. He had just received a letter
338
from Trowbridge, and he believed it fairly represented the feelings of all the towns in that part of Wiltshire, declaring they had been grossly deceived, and calling upon him to give the measure his most decided resistance. Seeing, therefore, that the general feeling of his constituents was opposed to the Bill, he considered it his duty to give it all the opposition in his power.
Lord Lowtherwas not one of those who were hostile to the formation of rail-roads in the country. He had himself afforded considerable assistance in passing the Birmingham and Liverpool rail-road, considering them a great improvement to the commerce of the country; but he should oppose the present Bill, because he viewed it as the most offensive and annoying line that could possibly have been proposed. He was of opinion, if the line had commenced at Paddington instead of Brompton, it would have produced much greater advantages to the metropolis, from being a more central point.
Lord Granville Somersettotally differed from the view taken by the noble Lord who last addressed the House. The noble Lord had said this was the worst line of road that could have been selected. He gave the noble Lord credit for a great deal of general information, but if he had heard the evidence of ten or twelve very eminent civil engineers, who entertained very different opinions, each having a proposition of his own, and treating the others with contempt, the noble Lord would agree with him, that the recommendation of the Committee was the best course that could be pursued. He believed there was no measure more calculated to be productive of benefit to that part of the country through which it was intended to pass, as well as the whole of the west of England and the south of Ireland; and yet no scheme had ever met with such great and unwearied opposition.
Mr. Baringwas friendly to a rail-road communication between the metropolis and the west of England, but thought, if two schemes of the same kind were attempted, they would necessarily destroy each other. He did not know which was the best, but as one had already been sanctioned by the Legislature with little or no opposition, and as the other was hostile to the wishes of nine-tenths of those whose property would be affected by it, and was imperfect, he should vote against it.
Sir Charles Burrellsupported the Amendment, observing, that as the measure had only passed the Committee by a majority of six out of fifty-eight, the decision of the Committee ought not to have very great weight with the House.
Mr. Peasesaid, he should vote for the principle of the Bill, as it had passed the Committee by what he considered a great majority, after a long and deep consideration.
The House divided on the original Question:—Ayes 83; Noes 55: Majority 28.
The Amendments were read a second time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord Morpeth Lord Morpeth moved, that for the remainder of the Session Orders of the Day should take precedence of notices. The noble Lord observed, that whatever arguments he had employed on the former occasion of his bringing this Motion forward were now much strengthened by the advance of the Session.
Mr. George F. Youngobjected to the proposition of the noble Lord, as palpably unjust to those Members who had not had an opportunity of bringing forward their Motions, particularly as a critical attention to the Orders showed that they were in many instances no better entitled to the attention of the House than notices. Another reason for his objecting to it was the impracticability of the scheme, for those Members who were disappointed in bringing on Motions in the usual way would certainly bring them on as Amendments on the Orders of the Day.
Mr. H. Hugheshoped the noble Lord opposite would not press a Motion that was aimed at the privileges of the House.
Colonel Evansagreed with the hon. Member who had last spoken, and thought it absurd to contend against the addition of two or three days to the Session, when that would be ended in ten or eleven days, or at any rate in a fortnight. He had no doubt the hon. Gentlemen opposite would do all they could to shorten it; but the privileges of the House were of more importance than the curtailment of the Session.
Mr. Sheilobserved, that the Motion came recommended by high authority, as it was brought forward by the son of one Cabinet Minister, and seconded by the son (the Earl of Kerry) of another. Ministers were to blame if the Session was
340
too much advanced. They had had a recess of three weeks to forget their official cares, while Members of the Opposition were believed from their assiduous attention to the interests of the people. As the Government had been happily instrumental in producing this delay, they ought not to complain of it.
Sir Henry Hardingewas in favour of the motion, but feared it would not succeed in its aim, if notices were brought forward as Amendments on the Orders of the Day.
Lord Althorpsaid, that if the Motion did not meet with the general consent of the House, it would be perfectly useless; but if hon. Gentlemen would really consider what Motions might be brought on without disadvantage next Session, and if they would consent to withdraw mere abstract questions, an understanding might be come to, which would make the motion of his noble friend unnecessary.
Mr. Humehoped that the noble Lord would not call on the House to come to any such understanding. He trusted the House would not give up its rights.
Mr. Littletonsaid, he would prefer having a general understanding at the close of the Session to a precise arrangement. He should wish it to be understood, that it was the opinion of the House collectively that the Orders of the Day should be proceeded with as speedily as possible.
Mr. O'Connellthought, that it would be advisable to have all bills withdrawn which had not been read a second time, as there was no chance of carrying them this session. He hoped they would all put their shoulders to the work, and endeavour to get through it with all possible despatch. The Irish Tithe Bill alone would take a considerable length of time.
Lord Morpethwould be unwilling to press his Motion to a division against the sense of a majority of the House. He was willing to put it amended after the following manner:—"That for the remainder of the Session Orders of the Day should take precedence of notices on every day of the week, excepting Thursday." If this were not agreed to, he should certainly divide.
The House divided—Ayes 85; Noes 45: Majority 40.

List of the NOES.

Arbuthnot, General

Baring, H.

Barnard, E. G.

Bernal, R.

341

Blake, Sir F.

O'Connell, John

Blake, M.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Bruce, Lord E.

O'Grady, Colonel

Callaghan, D.

O'Reilly, W.

Clay, W.

Palmer, R.

Duncombe, T.

Parrot, J.

Evans, Colonel

Perceval, Colonel

Fancourt, Major,

Perrin, L.

Grattan, H.

Potter, R.

Gronow, Captain

Roche, W.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Ruthven, E.

Hughes, W. H.

Scholefield, J.

Jones, Captain

Sullivan, R.

Kennedy, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Langdale, Hon. C.

Young, G. F.

Lincoln, Earl of

Wallace, R.

Nagle, Sir R.

Walker, C. A.

Oswald, R. A.

Wilks, J.

O'Connor, F.

O'Conor, Don

TELLERS.

O'Connell, D.

Hume, J.

O'Connell, M.

Sheil, R. L.

COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY.
Mr. J. Kennedysaid, it might appear ungracious of him to proceed with his Motion after the vote to which the House had just come but he did so without the intention of pressing it. He was only anxious to obtain information, and he felt, that the question was not likely to occupy much time. He proposed to move for a Select Committee to consider the expenses incurred and the services rendered to the country under the several Commissions of Inquiry, and certain other Commissions now existing, with a view to the discontinuance of such as shall be found unnecessary or inexpedient, particularly that for building additional churches. He was aware that at this late period of the Session he could not expect that a Committee would be granted; but he was most anxious to call the noble Lord's (Lord Althorp's) attention to the subject, which was one of very great importance. A number of Commissions were now in existence, and had been in existence for a long time past —the Charities Commission, the Corporation Commission, the Record Commission, the Law Commission, and the Commission for building additional Churches. Now, he should wish much to know what were the merits and what were the benefits which had arisen from these Commissions to compensate the country for the immense sums of money which had been expended. By the one Commission—that for building additional Churches—1,500,000 l. had been expended, and Church-rates had been increased. As to the Corporation Commission, the result of it had
342
very much disappointed the country. Those towns which had unpopular corporations were very much irritated at the delay. Now, what he wanted to know was, whether this Commission was to be suffered to go on at an expense of 100 l. a-month for each of its Members, or whether some understanding should not be entered into to the effect that their Report should be ready next Session. The cost of it indeed, was enormous, when the aggregate expense was stated. The Commissioners were twenty in number, and their salaries, together with all expenses, amounted to nearly 3,000 l. per month. This single Corporation Commission would cost the country about 70,000 l.; and what possible advantage could be expected from it to compensate such an outlay, when by the adoption of a Bill similar to that which he proposed last year, extending the Corporation Reforms into England which had been introduced into Scotland, the end might at once have been easily obtained? That course however, had not been pursued; the Report of the Commissioners, should therefore be brought forward as early as possible. He should content himself with merely bringing his present Motion before the House, refraining from pressing it, but at the same time hoping that the attention of the noble Lord might be drawn to the subject. He begged leave to move—"That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the expenses incurred, and the services rendered to the country, under the several Commissions of Inquiry now existing, and also under that appointed by virtue of an Act of 58 George 3rd, c. 45, intitled 'An Act for building and promoting the building of additional Churches in populous parishes,' and also that of Public Records, appointed the 12th of March 1831."
Mr. Humeseconded the Motion. His hon. friend could not have a Select Committee this Session, but he wished the noble Lord would make inquiries during the recess touching the slow progress of those Commissions. He particularly alluded to the Law Commission and the Charities Commission.
Lord Althorpobserved, that as the hon. Gentleman did not propose to press for a Committee this Session, it was unnecessary for him to say a word upon the subject. He concurred with the hon. member for Middlesex in stating, that

343
from what came out on the Finance Committee much time had been lost by the Charity Commission. He hoped, that these Commissioners were now proceeding in a different manner. He thought the best principle on which Commissioners could be paid was not by annual salary, but by so much for the inquiry altogether. It was on this latter principle the present Government had always proceeded. With respect to the Corporation Commission, the inquiry in which they were engaged was one which could not be satisfactorily carried on by a Committee of the House for that had been tried. He admitted, that the progress of the Commission had been rather slow, but then it was desirable that when the question concerning corporations came before them, as it would next Session, that the Report of the Commissioners should be so full as to enable them to legislate forthwith upon the information which was supplied; and the labours of the Poor-law Commissioners he might remark were of such advantage, as to show that a Commission was not an undesirable mode of bringing information before the House. He considered that it ought to be made the interest of the Commissioners to be diligent, and moreover, they should be inspected. In conclusion he must say, that he was not one of those who regarded a Commission as a bad mode of prosecuting an inquiry.
Colonel Evanshoped, that when the Report of the Corporation Commission was brought before the House, they would not be called upon to decide upon its merits, to come to a result in the same hasty way in which they had been compelled to do with respect to the Report of the Poor-law Commissioners. That Report was very voluminous, and yet before some of the volumes were published, they were called upon to come to a decision. He trusted that this would not occur again; but that, in the instance of Corporation inquiry, proper time would be given for consideration and deliberation before they were forced to legislate.
Sir Henry Hardingeobserved, that the system of acquiring information by Commissioners was a desirable one; but that the efficiency of the mode depended upon the character and efficiency of the persons employed. It would appear from public report, that some very improper persons had been placed upon the Corporation Commission.
Mr. O'Connellsuggested, that there was another ingredient wanting to secure the efficiency of a Commission—namely, sufficient authority. The Commissioners should be entitled to examine witnesses upon oath, and to commit those for contempt who refused to give testimony when called upon. Corporators anxious to shield abuses from the view, he stated, had obstructed the progress of the Commissioners, and made some of them appear inefficient who, if they had had sufficient power, would have done good service.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that the Law Commissioners had honourably and beneficially proceeded with their labours for the last three years, without pay or the expectation of pay. He stated, without answering for individual members of the Corporation Commission, that the body in general had been most carefully selected by the Government. It should be recollected, that since the days of the Conqueror, when the Doomsday-book was compiled, no such extensive Commission as this Corporation Commission, had been issued.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the services of the Law Commissioners had been most disinterested and most valuable for the last three years, and he knew not on what principle it was, they were unrewarded. His experience did certainly contradict the common charge preferred against lawyers, of being unwilling to improve the law. As to the hon. Gentleman's Motion, he thought it a very proper one, and hoped he would renew it next Session. He would advise him, however, to alter the terms. He did not think "services" was a good word. It was too vague. It would be difficult to Report concerning "services." He would suggest to him to move for a Select Committee to inquire what practical recommendations had been made by the several Commissions, and when and to what extent they had been carried into effect by the Legislature. While expressing his approbation of Commissions as a mode of obtaining information in certain cases, he must at the same time express his hope that they might not fall into the constant habit of making use of Commissions, and so throwing their own business upon other shoulders. It was difficult, he admitted, to make a general rule on the subject. Measures, however, should be taken to prevent the constant recurrence to Commissions, which would leave the

345
House occupied only with party disputes. The House should be, in order to do business properly, familiar with the consideration of details, as well as with that of principles.
Mr. Wilksbore testimony to the dissatisfaction which generally prevailed on account of the slowness of the Corporation Commission and other Commissions, especially the Charity Commission.
Motion withdrawn.

FOREIGN COMMERCIAL RELATIONS.
Mr. Humerose, according to notice, to move that Copies of the Report of Messrs. Villiers and Bowring on Foreign Commercial Relations, and of the Reports from the Commissioners of Inquiry into the Excise, be laid before the House for the use of the Members. The hon. Member observed, that the first Commission in question had been appointed in the year 1831, and the information which they had collected was necessarily of a highly interesting and valuable nature, yet, up to the present moment, no Copies of it had been placed in the hands of the Members of that House. It appeared from part of the Commissioners' Report, that the Government of France had evinced every disposition, far beyond what had been expected of them, to follow the example of England in the liberal policy which she had recently adopted. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord opposite would continue in the course he had commenced, and forthwith remove the shackles and impediments which still remained to interfere with it. With regard to the Excise Commission, eight Reports were understood to have been already sent in by them. He wanted to know whether Government had acted upon, or intended to act upon, any of their recommendations? In any case it was highly important that Members should make themselves masters of the subject before Parliament reassembled, and he hoped the Reports in question would be put into their hands.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, his hon. friend could not be more anxious than he was himself that the highly valuable Report of Messrs. Villiers and Bowring should be perused without unnecessary delay by the House. He believed he could show, however, that no blame could fairly be attached to him, or any in his office, for the delay which had hitherto taken place. It was some time since he
346
(Mr. Thomson) had moved for the production of the Report in question, and he had subsequently presented it to the House. There was this circumstance to account for the printed Copies not having been delivered to hon. Members as expeditiously as might have been expected by them, that the Report was not printed by the ordinary printer of the House, but by one employed by the Board of Trade. Another cause of delay was, that the proofs of important and laborious tables, &c., had to be sent to Paris for revision, in order to ensure their accuracy. Notwithstanding these circumstances, however, he had been enabled on the 7th of the present month to send down 700 Copies of the work to the Vote Office of the House, as a first step towards their distribution amongst hon. Members. Some accident or oversight had doubtless delayed their delivery from thence up to the present period.
Mr. George Frederick Youngadmitted, that the establishment of a more liberal commercial policy between France and England was highly to be desired, provided both countries united in carrying such liberal views into effect. But he thought that a commercial treaty would be a far better mode of ensuring such a mutual line of accommodation than by leaving it to the discretion of France to follow or not as her government pleased the liberal policy which England had already extended to her.
Mr. Humecomplained, that the servants of the House should have neglected to deliver the Copies of the Report in question, which, it appeared, had been in their hands some time.
The Speakerexplained to the hon. Member, that any papers or Reports which were printed by the parliamentary printer, and under the authority of the House, it was the duty of himself, as Speaker, to cause to be distributed without delay. But papers which, like the present Report, were printed by the Government it was the business of Government to distribute; and they had just as much, and more, means of so doing as he or the House had. The Report in question had been sent down to one of the officers of the House, without any communication having been made to the House of such having been done. There, therefore, existed no authority by which the printed Copies could be distributed

347
by the servants of the House. If, however, the House gave him their authority he would certainly undertake to have them distributed.
Motion withdrawn.

BONDING SYSTEM.
Lord Sandon Lord Sandon moved for Copies of all the correspondence between the Board of Trade and the Boards of Customs and Excise, on the subject of extending to inland towns the privilege of bonding or warehousing. The noble Lord observed, that he would not enter into the details of a subject which was so soon to be brought before the House. He wished to inquire of the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) however, whether it was the intention of Government to persevere in making alterations, which would so much interfere with very valuable properties in many towns, Liverpool amongst the number.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, he would show to morrow, when the Bill was to be brought on, that the present proposition should not be adopted, as being calculated to destroy that confidence between the several Boards alluded to, and that confidence between local and inferior departments of Government and the superior, the violation of which tended to impair the public service. It was quite wrong to forestal the discussion that should take place to-morrow. He must oppose the noble Lord's Motion, as to grant it would put an end to all confidential correspondence between the Ministers and the persons under them.
The Motion was withdrawn.

COURT OF CHANCERY—(IRELAND.)
The Solicitor General The Solicitor General moved, that the House do resolve itself into a Committee, to consider of compensation to officers in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, for losses they may sustain by the Bill for the Amendment of the practice of that Court.
Mr. Humethought, that the course proposed to be pursued by the hon. and learned Gentleman was truly an Irish way of doing business. They ere called upon to go into a Committee that night, and to-morrow they were to receive the information upon which the Motion for that Committee was founded. He would, however, prefer a more simple, and, at the same time, a more regular course. As the question now stood, he felt that they
348
had not sufficient information upon which to act. The hon. and learned Gentleman ought to be prepared to lay before the House the loss sustained by each individual to whom compensation was proposed to be given. This, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman had not attempted to do, and therefore he (Mr. Hume) must oppose the Motion for going into a Committee.
Mr. O'Reillywas anxious to support the Motion, as he considered it preliminary to a Reform in the Irish Court of Chancery.
Mr. O'Connellthought the measure highly useful, and one which did not admit of delay. The alterations now in contemplation, would have the effect of making Chancery suits both expeditious and cheap—two great points most desirable to be attained.
Mr. Francis Baringsaid, the plan proposed was, that there should be submitted to the Lords of the Treasury, the amount of compensation considered to be due to each individual, and that they should be at liberty to deal with each case as they thought fit and just.
Mr. Feargus O'Connorwas opposed to any measure having for its object the granting of compensation in cases of this description. The true supporters of Reform were bound to oppose all unnecessary expenditure, and upon that ground he would oppose the Motion.
Mr. Lynchsaid, the question for their consideration was, whether any compensation ought to be given, and if so, what the amount of it ought to be in each case. That some compensation ought to be given where injury was suffered, was a point upon which he thought very few hon. Members would entertain a difference of opinion.
Mr. Humesaid, he understood that six officers in that Court had given 43,000 l. for their offices, and therefore it was to be presumed, that those offices were of a highly lucrative description, and that they had been no losers by their bargains.
The House went into a Committee, and Resolutions for granting compensation to certain officers of the Irish Court of Chancery (to be charged on the Consolidated Fund) were agreed to.
The House resumed.

SUPPRESSION OF DISTURBANCES (IRELAND).
Lord Althorp Lord Althorp moved that

349
the House should resolve itself into a Committee upon the Suppression of Disturbances' (Ireland) Bill.
Mr. Barryhad a petition to present from a district in the county of Cork, praying that that Bill might not be renewed.
Mr. Humeobserved, that having voted against every clause of the former Bill, he felt equally called upon to give his opposition to that before the House, although it was presented to them deserted of its most objectionable clauses. There were still, however, some clauses in it so objectionable, that he was determined to resist them. The clauses to which he more particularly alluded, were the 12th and the 28th, the one taking away from public officers all responsibility, and the other requiring the sanction of the Lord-Lieutenant to the holding of meetings to petition that House for a redress of grievances. The Bill, but more particularly those clauses of it was, in his opinion, altogether uncalled for, and calculated to irritate and render discontented the people of Ireland. As to the clause taking away responsibility from public officers, he thought it one of a most mischievous tendency. It ought to be known throughout Ireland as well as in this country, that every public servant, from the Crown down to the most humble individual, was responsible for his public conduct. He hoped the noble Lord would consider this matter before he pressed these clauses.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, it was not his intention to divide the House in that stage of the proceedings, as it was his intention to move the omission of certain clauses when the Bill went into Committee. He would, however, take leave to assure the noble Lord opposite, that this measure was a bad remedy with which to attempt to allay or soften down the irritated feelings of the Irish people. If the noble Lord wished to take such a course, he would advise him so to mitigate the Bill as to render it merely a prohibition of, or a punishment for, agrarian disturbance. For God's sake, let it not be said, that the English Legislature was only known to Ireland by the severe, oppressive, and persecuting measures which it enacted against that unhappy country.
The House went into a Committee.
On the first Clause of the Bill being read, to renew the Bill till next year,
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he was aware that
350
if the Bill were to be enacted at all, it must pass into a law before the first of August. As it now stood, it was merely a renewal of certain clauses of the Act of last year, with certain indefinite exceptions. Some of the clauses still remaining in the Bill he was determined to oppose.
Mr. Feargus O'Connorwas determined to oppose the Bill, no matter in what shape it might be brought under the consideration of the Committee. He would oppose it clause by clause, line by line, because he felt convinced that it was altogether uncalled for.
Mr. O'Connellasked his hon. friend whether, after having opposed the first clause and defeated it, he would go on to oppose the second, which would then become the first?
Mr. Feargus O'Connorsaid, he was at a loss to understand the meaning of the laugh which had been raised against him, and he was equally at a loss to understand how his hon. and learned friend, the member for Dublin, could point out the course he (Mr. O'Connor) meant to take. He would certainly oppose the first clause, and the second clause, and every other which he felt injurious to the feelings and interests of his country.
Mr. Barronsupported the Motion, and quoted the evidence given by Dr. Doyle, and the reverend Mr. O'Connor in support of his views, that the measure was necessary. He was prepared to oppose that part of the Bill which went against the right of petitioning, inasmuch as he considered it the safety-valve of the Constitution. If you coerced the people, you would drive them to secret associations, than which nothing could be more dangerous. He would put down predial disturbances, but not the right of petitioning. He believed this Bill, with some modifications, and as a temporary measure, would prove a measure of protection and not of coercion.
Mr. Feargus O'Connorsaid, if all the priesthood in Ireland, and Dr. Doyle to boot, supported the Bill, he would not do so against his conscientious conviction. He must say, that he stood in that House as the Representative of one of the most peaceable counties in Ireland.
Mr. Ruthvenobjected to the clause as unnecessary,
The Committee divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 21; Majority 69.
The second Clause was agreed to.
Mr. O'Connellrose to propose the modification of which he had given notice. The first clause of the Act to which he had to call the attention of the Committee, was the eleventh. It provided, that it should be unlawful in any proclaimed district to hold any meeting, whether for the purpose or under the pretence of petitioning Parliament or otherwise, unless ten days' previous notice had been given, and the assent of the Lord-lieutenant had been expressed in writing. Such a clause he considered totally unnecessary, and as it was impossible to deny, that it was exceedingly unconstitutional, he trusted there would be no objection to modify it so as not to prohibit meetings convened for the mere purpose of petitioning Parliament. By the Bill, the Lord Lieutenant could capriciously proclaim any peaceable district, and he had proclaimed the city of Kilkenny without any other grounds than an alleged convenience. In such cases, the right of petitioning was taken away. All he proposed was, to keep so much of the clause as would enable the people to petition Parliament in meetings convened without the disapprobation of the Lord-lieutenant. He wished to license no meetings but those held for the purpose of petitioning Parliament; and all he contended for was, that in disturbed districts, no meeting for petitioning Parliament should be prevented, if ten days' notice of it was given to Government. By the first and second of William 4th, which embodied all the Whiteboy Acts, it was provided that a person making use of inflammatory language, to excite any one to the commission of disturbances, or any Whiteboy offence, should be liable to transportation. They had, therefore, a very good safeguard against the introduction of exciting topics at meetings convened to petition Parliament on subjects connected with the Church and State. By the previous notice of the meeting, the Government would be enabled to send their policemen and note-takers to the assembly, and the law left the power of adopting a legitimate course for punishing any one who was bold enough to make use of inflammatory language. He submitted, therefore, to the House, that the law was strong enough as it stood. He had drawn up a clause to the effect, that all meetings should be held for the purpose of petitioning Parliament,
352
provided ten days' notice of the meeting was given to the Government.
Mr. Littletonsaid, it would be highly inexpedient to omit the clause as it stood in the Bill. There was no practical evil, in consequence of no political meetings having taken place in the proclaimed districts; and, so far as that went, he could not accede to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He should be sorry to throw any obstacles in the way of exercising the right of petition, but he certainly would object to inflammatory meetings. In the Baronies of Delvin and Ballibeg, there was decided insubordination, and as such they were properly proclaimed.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the few remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were in favour of his Amendment. All that he required was, that the people should have the right to petition Parliament at an open meeting. The value of public meetings was to act upon this House and the Government, for if it had not that effect, the right of petition would be of no use.
Lord Althorpsaid, in an ordinary case he would not support the clause in this Bill; but the question was whether, in a proclaimed district, public meetings should be held tending to disturb the public peace? He considered it would be imprudent to omit the clause, although the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that persons using exciting language would be liable to punishment under the Whiteboy Acts. In that doctrine he could not agree; but this he would say, that no Lord-lieutenant would proclaim a county or a district merely to prevent public meetings. For these reasons, he would support the clause as it now stood.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that in all the Insurrection Acts for Ireland, from 1796 to 1833, there was no such clause as that which the present Government now called for. In 1812, the Catholic Board and Committee was put down by the law of the land. Mr. Saurin, the then Attorney General, asked for no new law; but the then Secretary of State for Ireland called for a new Bill—an Insurrection Act—and he readily obtained it. Agitation was then put down in Ireland, although a class of persons, called "Carders," had committed outrages in various parts of the North of Ireland. In 1807, 1813, 1822 and 1824, a series of measures were brought forward by the Tories to put

353
down predial agitation, but in none of those measures was there any clause to suppress public meetings. The refusal of Government to allow meetings in Kilkenny had created a reaction in the public mind, and the result of that reaction was, that a great number of petitions were signed. Would Whig Members allow the introduction of a clause putting down political agitation by a sidewind?—an object which Government, although they wished, could not otherwise obtain. Was it not true, that Government would have carried the whole of the three clauses if they could have so done? They could not do so in consequence of a discovery which was more fortunate than fortuitous. Would the House of Commons allow Ministers to do that by subterfuge which they could not do in the open day? If they were to give up the political part of the Bill, why not give it up entirely? By this Bill the Lord-lieutenant could act without the concurrence of the Magistrates; he could, ex mero motu, proclaim a district, and the moment he did so there was an end to petition. Was it not better to adopt the principle of the English Bill in 1819, to put down seditious meetings than to follow the precedent of the Coercion Bill of 1833? Why adopt a course for Ireland which you did not adopt with respect to England? This clause was far more severe than any clause in any Act which had been resorted to in this county. If Ministers adhered to this clause, they would raise up a spirit of resentment against the Government nearly as great as if they had not left out the political clauses.
Mr. Feargus O'Connorentreated of his Majesty's Ministers not to persevere in this clause. The object of all laws should be the prevention of evil, and it was clear, that this clause would not prevent the recurrence of those evils which it was designed to meet. It would have no effect in putting down the meetings of the people. In the year 1822, when Ireland was almost deluged with blood in the conflicts that took place between his Majesty's troops, and the people in that country, when the people were regularly encamped and came forth in battle array to meet the soldiers, the Tory Government of that day never thought of having recourse to such an Act as this. So far from this clause preventing meetings, it
354
would be made the subject of discussion at meetings all over Ireland during the approaching recess. It would be the very means of again making the people look up to agitators. He declared, that he had no wish for agitation; all he wished for was peace and comfort for the people of that unhappy country; but it was too bad, that such a Bill as this should to them be the only fruits of the great measure of Reform which they had so strenuously supported.
Sir Robert Peel, considering that the most important clauses of this Bill, the Court-martial clause, and the political clauses, had been omitted, thought it would have been far better if his Majesty's Government had brought in a new Bill altogether, with the clauses that were deemed necessary to preserve tranquillity in the present state of Ireland, than to have altered the present Bill in such a manner as to render it almost unintelligible. This was a penal enactment, which ought to be clear and defined, whereas, by leaving several of the clauses of the other Bill, part whole, and part mutilated, the law was made a mass of confusion. It was usual to look at the preamble to a Bill, to know its meaning: by the present Bill, the whole of the preamble of the former Bill was left in full force, and referred to: three-fourths of this preamble were directed against large assemblages of the people; and yet it was not now intended, as it appeared, to interfere with these meetings. Of some clauses three-fourths were struck out, of other clauses two-thirds, but none were repealed in a clear or satisfactory manner; so that, in his opinion, it would not be possible to carry this new Bill into execution. One Act said, that the Lord-lieutenant should not have the power to prevent meetings of the people for certain purposes; but another Act said, that he should have the power to withhold his consent from such meetings. That was confused and contradictory, and left in doubt the provisions of a penal statute, that should never be obscure. By leaving out certain clauses, the Government admitted, that they did not believe there was any connection between political and agrarian disturbances in Ireland, and yet by another new clause they said there must be that connection, for they gave the Lord-lieutenant the power to with-hold his consent to the holding of meet-

355
ings that might bear a political character. If the meetings were to be only for the purpose of petition, and not of a political nature, why should the Lord-lieutenant have the power to withhold his consent? It did not appear, that the Act passed in the last Session had the effect of preventing petitions, for there were never more petitions got up at Kilkenny, than since the district had been proclaimed under the Coercion Bill. Indeed it seemed to be a Petition Generating Bill. But, after all, were the Whigs going to put down meetings held for the purpose of petitioning—going to stop up their own favorite safety-valves? To be sure, petitions might still be got up, as was done at Kilkenny, by carrying them round for signature from house to house. ["Hear, hear."] The noble Lords, and right hon. Gentlemen opposite cheered; but surely they would not as yet altogether repudiate the old Whig doctrine, that petitions emanating from meetings of large bodies of the people were of more value and importance than petitions carried about for signature from house to house. Such as the present Bill was, he must support it with a view to preserve the tranquillity of Ireland; but he was sorry, that his Majesty's present Government had not the manliness to follow the example of Lord Grey, and adhere to the opinions which that noble Lord had expressed when he introduced the measure in the other House of Parliament.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that if the right hon. member for Tamworth had devoted himself to the law he would have been an admirable hand at arguing special demurrers. If Judges were to argue as the hon. Baronet had argued, this law would never be carried into effect; but Judges would not so argue because they would be actuated by a sense of justice, and put a fair construction on the language of the Legislature. It was better to study brevity than have a long Act which might occasion doubts. By the manner in which this short Act was drawn, no man who proceeded reasonably, and who sincerely wished to discover its meaning, could have the slightest difficulty in putting the correct construction upon it. All the clauses which gave the Lord-lieutenant the power of preventing public meetings, in any districts in Ireland, which were not proclaimed, were repealed—all the clauses which related to the trial of
356
civil offences by Courts-martial were repealed. The remaining parts of the old Bill were continued as before. The preamble spoke the language of the Legislature in 1833, when the original Bill was passed; but not of 1834 when it was renewed. The preamble recited the former Bill, and declared that it was expedient it should be renewed, but it did not embody the former preamble. The three distinct parts of the Bill were kept as much apart as was possible. The right hon. Baronet had, with a great deal of ingenuity, endeavoured to show that there was an ambiguity in the Bill with respect to the power of the Lord-lieutenant in prohibiting meetings; but there was no ambiguity with regard to meetings in districts which were not proclaimed. The Lord Lieutenant must take an active part. He must issue his proclamation, which must be published in the Dublin Gazette; but in districts which were proclaimed no meeting would be legal unless it had his written sanction. It required all the ingenuity of the right hon. Baronet to point out any thing like ambiguity in the Bill. He would ask whether the right hon. Baronet approved of the continuance of the eleventh clause of the old Bill? If he did, he thought it was inconsistent on his part to endeavour to throw discredit upon the framers of the Bill. As to the connection between political meetings and agrarian disturbances, it was obvious, that there must be a connection between them in disturbed districts, which were in such a state as, that the King might, by his prerogative, almost, place them under the operation of martial law. There might be districts in such a state, that the Lord-lieutenant would not fulfil his duty, if he did not proclaim them; and he said, that to allow political meetings to be held in such districts must tend to produce the most fatal consequences. For instance, if a meeting were held for the Repeal of the Union in a disturbed district, and speeches made there, setting forth the grievances of Ireland, there must, in such a case, be a close connection between political and agrarian disturbances. But when a district was not proclaimed, such meetings might be held, only under the restriction, that if they were made illegal by any thing that was said or done at them, the parties should be amenable. He thought it would have

357
been better if the right hon. Baronet had opposed the Bill openly than attacked the framers of it in this indirect way.
Mr. Denis O'Connorsaid, that this clause was wholly unnecessary, and, let what might be said of it, tyrannical. He hoped the Government would withdraw it.
Sir Robert Peel, while he thanked the hon. and learned Attorney General for the lecture he had read him as to the model he should adopt in his Parliamentary conduct, begged the hon. and learned Gentleman would excuse him if he took his own course. The Committee was now discussing a clause of the Bill, which he considered to be drawn up in a most clumsy form, and he was directing his attention to that which was the particular duty of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and considering what appeared to him a most blundering specimen of legislation. There was a preamble to the Bill, of course, but it was a preamble which suited the Bill of 1833, and did not suit the measure which the Committee was now discussing; and, when he referred to this, he was told by the hon. and learned Gentleman that such was the meaning of the Legislature in 1833, but not now. There was a positive enactment in the Bill, that the Lord-lieutenant should not have power to prevent any meeting in Ireland. He understood what the hon. and learned Gentleman said the Bill was intended to mean, but he considered it obscure. When he supported the Bill, he said in express terms that he did so because he considered political disturbances connected with agrarian disturbances, and thought that this measure would in some degree remedy them; but he thought it would be more consistent with the dignity of the Government to do that directly which this clause did indirectly.
Mr. O'Reillysaid, the Bill was full of doubt and mystification, particularly this clause. Penal laws should not he left in such a state. As Ministers had once passed the Rubicon, it would have been better if they went further. They would get no credit for what they left out, but have all the odium of a Coercion Bill.
Mr. Charles Bullercontended, that the clauses were sufficiently clear; and no confusion could arise from applying the preamble of the Bill of 1833 to the present Bill. He opposed the Bill of 1833, because he did not think political agita-
358
tion was connected with agrarian outrage. He was one of those who did not wish to see agitation cease in Ireland till the grievances of the country were removed. Too much importance was attached by this Bill to political meetings. He considered the right of walking out at night quite as valuable as the liberty of meeting. After all, the Bill provided no remedy against the most effectual mode of political agitation—he meant, agitation by the public press. He supported this clause, though not with a view to prevent agitation; for he was not disposed to prevent anything which had a tendency to put down that abominable institution, the Church of Ireland.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) admitted, if he heard him correctly, that the Lord-lieutenant would be liable to impeachment if he proclaimed a district for the purpose of preventing meetings, a district not openly in a state of disturbance, in which martial law might be proclaimed. Now, the right hon. Secretary for Ireland admitted that Balliboy was not disturbed; and yet it was proclaimed, because it was situated between two districts that were disturbed. How was this contradiction to be explained?
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that to say that there was any connexion between political and agrarian disturbances showed either the grossest ignorance of the present and former states of Ireland, or a wilful attempt to delude the people of England on the subject; for there never were two subjects more distinct.
The Committee divided on the Amendment—Ayes 38; Noes 121: Majority 83.

List of the AYES.

Barron, H. W.

O'Connell, J.

Barry, G. S.

O'Connor, Don

Bellew, R. M.

O'Connor, F.

Blake, M.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Callaghan, D.

O'Reilly, W.

Ewart, W.

Pease, J.

Faithfull, G.

Perrin, Sergeant

Grattan, H.

Potter, R.

Hall, B.

Rippon, C.

Hutt, W.

Roche, W.

James, W.

Roe, J.

Lynch, A. H.

Ronayne, D.

Martin, T. B.

Ruthven, E.

Mullins, F. W.

Ruthven, E. S.

Nagle, Sir R.

Scholefield, J.

O'Connell, D.

Sheil, R. L.

O'Connell, M.

Sullivan, R.

359

Vigors, N. A.

Williams, Colonel

Walker, C. A.

TELLER.

Wallace, R.

O'Connell, M.

Mr. O'Connell Mr. O'Connell moved an Amendment to repeal the clause which exempted officers and soldiers doing any act under the authority of the Bill from the jurisdiction of any other Courts than Courts-martial.
The Attorney Generaldefended the clause, and said it was intended as a sequel to the Court-martial clause, and to protect the military when acting without malice, and merely in the execution of their duty. If they did anything contrary to military discipline, they would still have to be tried by the ordinary tribunals. This protection was, therefore, necessary to enable the military to do their duty with firmness and constancy.
Mr. O'Connelloffered to consent that there should be a clause substituted in the Bill, that it should be a good defence in any Court of law, civil or criminal, that the acts done had been done bonâ fide in execution of the provisions of the Act, and that they had not been done wilfully or maliciously. All he was anxious for was, that the Judges of the land should alone have the power of deciding that question.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that a similar proposition had been made last year, and the answer given to it then, was the answer he would give to it now—namely, that the words introduced into this clause were well known, time out of mind, as settled terms in Courts of Justice in England and Ireland; and that it was better to adhere to words of a well-known and defined interpretation, than to have recourse to a new form of words. Every lawyer knew that, notwithstanding the existence of this clause in the Bill, an action could be brought against a man, in any of the Four Courts in Dublin, for acts done under this Bill; and that the only defence he could set up would be, that such acts had been done bonâ fide in execution of, and pursuant to, the provisions of the Act, and that question a Judge and Jury would have to decide. That would be the civil remedy. Then there would be the criminal remedy. A man might be indicted for acts done under this Bill, and he would be obliged to make a similar defence to such indictment.
Mr. Serjeant Perrindeclared, that by
360
the clause the Army was protected, whether acting legally or illegally, provided they were acting in the performance of their military duty. The protecting clause was of an unprecedented and unconstitutional character. The meaning of the clause was not such as had been ascribed to it by the learned Attorney General; for it provided, that no officer should be "questioned," except by Court-martial.
Mr. O'Connelloffered to withdraw the Amendment for the present, and propose it again on bringing up the Report, if his Majesty's Government would intimate that, in the meantime, the clause should be taken into consideration, as to whether it should be acceded to or not.
The Attorney Generalcalled the attention of the learned Sergeant who spoke last but one to the words preceding those that he had quoted, and he would find, that an officer was only to be questioned by Court-martial for anything done "in pursuance of this Act." Of course, if he did anything not in pursuance of the Act, he might be questioned for it in a Court of Law.
Mr. Charles Bullersaid, that the clause would then be useless; for without it, a party accused might plead, that what he had done was done in pursuance of the Act.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that no doubt but he might; but, if he happened ever so innocently to exceed the powers of the Act, his plea would be good for nothing.
Mr. Ronaynethought, that one o'clock in the morning was not a fit hour to proceed with a discussion like this, and should, therefore, move, that the Chairman do report progress.
The Amendment having been put,
Mr. Littletonsaid, he thought that, after the discussion they had had, they were ripe for the decision of this clause. When they employed soldiers in a service of this kind, they were bound to give them every possible protection against acts of inadvertence. The Bill, as it stood, would do that, whilst it would not protect them in any wanton exercise of power.
Mr. Henry Grattanthought the proposition of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, to let the matter stand over for the present, a fair one.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that all they wanted was to give the Government an opportunity

361
of changing its mind, which, he thought, it could not help doing after what had been urged from his side of the House. He granted, that the clause had been both attacked and defended by legal subtleties; but were they to sacrifice a constitutional principle to the spirit of sophistry?
Lord Althorpdid not pretend to the knowledge of the law possessed by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had conducted the discussion on this clause; but he would adopt the view taken by the Attorney General, more especially as it appeared, that the clause did not partake of the objection which lay against Courts-martial. The objection against Courts-martial was, that civilians would be tried before them; whereas, the present clause only subjected the soldiery to the jurisdiction of this court.
The Committee divided on the Motion, that the Chairman report progress:— Ayes 29; Noes 88; Majority 59.
Lord Althorpsaid, he should have no objection, as there were conflicting opinions delivered by legal gentlemen on the tendency of the eleventh clause, to allow this clause to stand over till the bringing up of the Report.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, upon that understanding, he should withdraw his Amendment. He had, however, objections to the 27th and 31st clauses, which he should press upon the proper occasion.
House resumed. Committee to sit again.

SUPPLY—BATTLE OF NAVARINO.
Mr. Laboucherehoped he might be allowed to bring up the Report of the Committee of Supply, in order that the men interested might receive their shares immediately.
On the first Resolution being read,
Mr. George F. Youngobjected to the grant being treated on the principle of the Proclamation Act. There was no analogy between it and capture or prize-money: it was an act of bounty, to which former precedents would not apply; and it ought to be distributed so as to afford larger shares to the poor men who took part in the battle.
Mr. Hughes Hughesobjected to the proposed distribution. Out of 60,000 l., the Commander was to get upwards of 7,000 1., the sailor but 4l. 10 s., and the boys only 1l. 10 s.
Mr. Secretary Ricesaid, that the grant was made by the House in consideration
362
of there not having been any prize-money; the House stepped in and supplied that deficiency; and he thought that the money ought to be distributed in the same proportions in which it would have been, had it been distributed as prize-money immediately after the battle.
Mr. Sheilconsidered this a pure act of honesty on the part of the House; and, under all the circumstances, the grant ought not to be subject to the Prize Act.
Mr. Hughes Hughes, to afford his Majesty's Ministers the opportunity of considering a more just distribution, begged to move as an Amendment, "That the further consideration of the Report be postponed till Monday next."
Mr. Laboucheresaid, all that was asked was, that it should be left to the Crown to distribute the money in the manner that it might consider most advisable. He ought to add, however, that the Crown would most likely act on the recommendation of the Lords of the Admiralty, who had given their attention to the subject, and who were of opinion, that the money ought to be distributed in the proportions in which the prize-money was distributed after the battle of Algiers. Between that battle and the battle of Navarino there was a great resemblance, and the distribution in the former case gave perfect satisfaction.
Mr. Secretary Ricewould remind the hon. Gentleman, that the object of his Amendment was to give time to his Majesty's Government to consider this matter, but it was proposed by the hon. Gentleman to give only until Monday next for that purpose; whereas, if the Bill were passed, inasmuch as it left the distribution entirely to his Majesty's Government, they would have as much time for consideration as could be desirable, and a much longer period than the hon. Gentleman himself contemplated.
Mr. Hughes Hugheswas much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his instruction, which he was always very ready to afford to Gentlemen sitting on that (the Opposition) side of the House; but he (Mr. Hughes) begged to inform the right hon. Gentleman that he moved the Amendment he proposed to instruct his Majesty's Government to reconsider the subject between now and Monday, and then to report the result of their re-consideration to the House. He would press his Amendment to a division.
The House divided on the Amendment —Ayes 14; Noes 30; Majority 16.
The Bill was reported, and the Resolutions agreed to.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Capital Punishment; Newspaper Stamps (Ireland); Sale of Tea; Greenwich Hospital Annuity; Port of London Dues.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of CLANRICARDE, from the City of London, for amending the Poor-Law Amendment Bill.—By the Marquess of BUTE, from the Shareholders of the London and Westminster Bank, in favour of that Bank.—By Lord SUFFIELD, from three Places, for Altering the Law relating to Arson.—By the Earl of RADNOR, from Fenstanton, against Altering the Sale of Beer Act; from Dunning, for the Separation of Church and State.—By the Bishop of GLOUCESTER, from South Carlton, against the Claims of the Dissenters.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, the Marquess of CHOLMONDELEY, the Earls of SHAFTESBURY and WINCHILSEA, and the Bishop of GLOUCESTER, from a great Number of Places,—for Protection to the Established Church.—By the Bishop of GLOUCESTER, from the Clergy of Shaftesbury, for a fair Equivalent in Case of a Commutation of Tithes.

LIBELLOUS LANGUAGE.
The Marquess of Westmeathrose to move for the correspondence of which he had yesterday given notice, and asked if he, or any other noble Lord, should introduce a Bill into that House, to prevent Members of either House of Parliament from using slanderous language towards each other—the noble and learned Lord would give it his support? He could not conceive what right any person had, in the discharge of his public duty as a Member of the Legislature, to attack the character of another Member, whether of the same or a different House of Parliament. He was aware that a publisher or editor of a publication was liable to answer for the slander that might be inserted in his publication; but this was a course of proceeding which he (the Marquess of Westmeath)
328
did not choose to have recourse to. It was high time that a stop should be put to the practice of which he had spoken. In the unfortunate state of the country with which he was more immediately connected, such was the state of party feeling that nothing was easier than to raise up a charge against an individual. Nothing more was needed than to get a letter inserted in the broad sheet, send it to a Member, and if that Member would use it in his place in Parliament, the accusation was published, and it went forth, to the serious prejudice of a party who had been thus innocently brought forward.
Lord Wharnclifferose to order. There was no question before the House.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the noble Marquess was about to move for papers; "but," added the Lord Chancellor, "perhaps I had better now answer the question which the noble Marquess has put to me."
Lord Wharncliffesaid, there was already an order of the House of Lords to prevent improper language or attacks being made. He begged to call the attention of the noble Marquess and their Lordships to that order. It was in these terms:—"To prevent misunderstanding, and for avoiding of offensive speeches, when matters are debating, either in the House or at Committees, it is for honour sake thought fit, and so ordered, that all personal, sharp, or taxing speeches be forborne."
The Marquess of Westmeathhad nearly concluded all that he was about saying, when he was interrupted by the noble Baron. What he had to complain of was, that the attack could be thus made, and the mischief be done, and the individual, the object of the attack, might have had his life put in jeopardy, without having any means of proceeding against the party through whom it was thus made public. He thought it was a species of injustice which required some remedy, and it might, he was inclined to believe, be accomplished without trenching on the freedom of debate. The noble Marquess then concluded with moving for a copy of an extract from a letter written by himself, on the 2nd of May, 1834, to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, commencing with the words "I feel confident," and proceeding to the end of the letter—
The Lord Chancellorthought, that this was the first time that any motion had

329
been ever made for a garbled or imperfect communication.
The Marquess of Westmeath: I am anxious to explain, my Lords, why—
The Lord Chancellor: Not now. The House would consider well before it made a precedent for an order worded as this Motion was, for a part of a letter.
The Marquess of Westmeath: I desire to explain, my Lords.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, it would be very convenient if only one noble Lord would speak at a time. The noble Marquess had asked him whether, if any one brought in a Bill to prevent Members of Parliament from slandering other persons, and he believed that the noble Marquess would not confine himself only to slander, he (the Lord Chancellor) would support that Bill? In answer, he would at once say, that he would not support any such measure; but, on the contrary, he should most decidedly oppose it. He would go further, and say, that he did not think the Parliament could pass such a Bill. It would be, in fact, virtually repealing the Bill of Rights. A most important, a most sacred section of the Bill of Rights, gave perfect impunity to every Member of Parliament, with respect to what he said in his place in Parliament; for that he was not amenable to any tribunal; and it was not possible that they could have absolute freedom of discussion if any line of limitation were marked out. If such a line were laid down, the privilege of speech in the great Council of the nation would depend upon the dictum of Judges, or upon the caprice of Juries. One Jury might think that was slander which another Jury might view in a very different light; so that there would be no end to nice and minute distinctions. There was one point, however, which ought not to be lost sight of. Under certain circumstances, an individual who felt himself aggrieved had his remedy—not a nominal remedy, but a remedy which was perfectly available, not merely against printers and publishers, but against Members of the Legislature themselves. If any Member took upon himself to print the slander which he had uttered, he was, to all intents and purposes, answerable for it. Such a person had no right to complain that he was so answerable, because the public would not be at all the worse if they did not hear those slanders, which was not the case with respect to discus-
330
sions touching political affairs. As a proof of what he stated, he could adduce the case of a noble Lord, a Member of that House, who had made and who had published a libellous speech, for which he was sent to prison for two months. Another individual, a Member of the House of Commons, for whom he was counsel, made a speech in his place in that House, reflecting on the character of a tax-gatherer in the town of Liverpool, which he thought proper to publish. An incorrect account of what he had said had got abroad, and to show how untrue that account was, and to let those who were concerned know what he really did say, he caused his speech to be printed. It contained libellous matter; he was prosecuted for the publication, and he was convicted. It was in vain, that he pleaded the privilege of Parliament—it was in vain, that the late Michael Angelo Taylor made a Motion on the subject in the House of Commons. It was held, that he was not protected for publishing what he had said in Parliament, although he had made the statement without any malicious motive, his object having been merely to correct a mistake. That this was a great protection to the subject certainly could not be denied. Things were often said in the heat of debate, and he feared also not unfrequently with design and in cold blood, which ought not to have been uttered, but which, at all events, the parties introducing them ought not themselves to publish. He, however, would fain hope that the good sense, the feeling of propriety, and the just taste of the audience to which they were in the habit of addressing themselves, would correct the aptitude of giving way to hasty expressions. This they might hope for, but that any legislative interference could reach the evil of which the noble Marquess complained was, he conceived, utterly out of the question.
The Marquess of Westmeathregretted very much, that no means could be devised to shield unoffending individuals from the iron rod, the tyrannical scourge which was wielded by unprincipled men, who made use of the privilege of Parliament to send forth their calumnies with impunity. With respect to the Motion itself, he had shaped it in the way which had been suggested by his Majesty's Ministers.
The Motion, as amended upon the suggestion of Lord Melbourne, was agreed to.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
Lord Wynford Lord Wynford moved, that the amendments made by the Commons to the Central Criminal Court Bill be taken into consideration.
Motion agreed to. Some of the amendments, being verbal, were agreed to; but one altering the extent of the Bill was negatived.
Lord Wynfordsaid, the present was the only opportunity which was afforded him of reminding the noble Lord on the Woolsack, that he promised, when this Bill was introduced, to take into consideration the propriety of granting some compensation to such officers as were deprived by its operation of their employment, and the noble Lord then admitted, that such a principle was fair and ought to be affirmed in all cases of reform in the institutions of the country. Now, this compensation had not been awarded to the Clerks of the Peace, the Clerks of Assize, and the other persons deprived of their offices by this Bill; and if such compensation were not granted, it would lay the House of Commons open to the charge of being ready to grant full compensation to the rich and powerful in such cases, whilst they denied it to the humble and needy. The omission of such a clause was, he thought, a great neglect on the part of the House of Commons. He should, therefore, beg to move, "That a Conference be demanded of the Commons, with a view to bring this subject more particularly under their consideration, in order that justice might be done to these deprived Clerks."
The Lord Chancelloragreed that, in all cases where persons were deprived of their offices to make way for any improvements and reform in the institutions, the loss sustained by them ought to be in part borne by the community at large; and it was with this feeling, that he had made the promise his noble friend alluded to. He was very sorry to find, that the Bill had come up from the House of Commons without any provisions for the compensation of the deprived clerks (of whom, by the way, he must observe, that the Clerks of Assize were provided for); the grant of some annual allowance had been proposed, and had been thrown out by a vote of the House of Commons, and he doubted very much if the House would retrace its steps in this matter. He should, however, make an application
332
to the noble Lord in charge of the finances of the country, who, he knew, was disposed to do justice to these persons, to see whether it could not yet be done. The Motion for a conference he found would, if agreed to, be of no use, for the Commons, with that jealousy which characterised their proceedings in money matters, would inevitably refuse to confer with their Lordships on such a subject; and perhaps, after all, the only way to amend the omission would be by the introduction of some Bill for the purpose next Session.
Lord Wynfordwas satisfied with the view taken by his noble and learned friend, and would not press the matter.

PUNISHMENT OF DEATH FOR THEFT.
Lord Suffield, in moving, that this Bill be read a first time, reminded their Lordships, that on a former evening he had stated, that he understood it to be the intention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to introduce in the next Session of Parliament a more general measure for the mitigation of the Criminal Law, which should embrace, among others, the offence of letter-stealing, lately excepted from another Bill, which had just passed their Lordships' House. He hoped that such measure for removing the punishment of death, when brought forward, would be of a very comprehensive description.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that it would be advisable that some general and systematic measure upon this subject should be introduced; because, when a Bill of this kind originated with one person, however good the intention, it was likely to differ from the measure introduced by some other person of similar good intention; and, moreover, such alterations of the law sometimes went so far, that they were driven to alter another part of the law which, originally, they did not mean to alter. It was for this reason that he approved of the Bill lately before their Lordships being restricted to repealing the capital punishment for returning from transportation; the change it effected was a limited one, for the sentence would not be found to have been carried into effect on referring back for the last fifty-two years, and perhaps not within the memory of man. A general and systematic report would be prepared by the Criminal Law Commissioners appointed last year; and; said the noble and learned

333
Lord, "I pledge myself, that as soon as this Report shall have been duly considered,—I pledge myself—to bring in a general measure, without waiting for the other House of Parliament, and at such a period of the next Session as will leave your Lordships plenty of time for its due consideration." Such a measure would proceed with a much better grace from their Lordships, who formed the highest branch of judicature in the empire, than from any other branch of the Legislature; and with the understanding, therefore, that the measure which he promised should embrace the whole subject of Criminal Law, perhaps the noble Lord would consent to postpone his Motion. If in the recent measures for mitigating the severity of the law, it should be proved, that the Legislature had erred in going too far(not that he had reason to suppose the fact would turn out so), he would not pledge himself to confirm such changes.
Lord Wynfordwas indebted to the noble Lord on the Woolsack for what had just been stated by him, and affirmed, that in a few years he doubted not to see such a system of secondary punishments in force as would render the punishment of death an occurrence of great rarity.
Lord Suffieldwas glad to hear the declaration of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as to his intention to introduce a general measure for the mitigation of the Criminal Law; but, in reply to his last observation, he (Lord Suffield) thought there was no danger of its turning out that the Legislature had committed an error in already having proceeded too fast, or too far, for, on investigation of the official criminal returns for the last three years, as compared with a preceding period of three years, it would be found that so far from danger having arisen by mitigating the punishment of death, it had had the salutary effect of repressing the commission of crime; for it was proved, and it was a most important fact, that in these cases of mitigated punishment, the aggregate commitments for offences had increased only two per cent over the former three years, while the crimes still punished with death had increased to the enormous extent of forty-four per cent in the same period, notwithstanding the executions.
The Bill was withdrawn.