Sitting of 4 June 1834

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Admission of Freemen.—Committed:—Punishment of Death.
Petitions presented. By Mr. BARING, from Christian Residents in London, for removing the Civil Disabilities of the Jews.—By Sir RONALD FERGUSON, from Sweinton, for the Separation of Church and State.—By Mr. ROBERT FERGUSON, Mr. INGHAM, Sir GEORGE CAYLEY, and Mr. BETHEL, from four Places,——for the Repeal of the Reciprocity of Duties Act.—By Mr. LITTLETON, from the Proprietors of Coal Mines in Staffordshire, against such Mines being Assessed to the Poor Rate.—By the same, and by Colonel WOOD, Mr. HUGHES HUGHES, Sir RICHARD SIMEON, Mr. DUFFIELD, and Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET, from several Places, against the University Admission Bill.—By Mr. E. BULLER, from Stone, for Relief to the Agricultural interest.—By Mr. WILKS, Colonel CONOLLY, Mr. GEORGE BERKELEY and Mr. PLUMPTRE, from several Places, for an inquiry into the Causes of Drunkenness.—By Mr. GEORGE BERKELEY, from several Places, for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Lord ROBERT MANNERS and Mr. RICE TREVOR, from several Places, for Protection to the Established Church.—By the same, and Mr. POINTZ, from several Places,—against the Claims of the Dissenters.—By Sir WILLIAM CHAYTOR and Sergeant SPANKIE, from Islington, and two other Places,—against the Poor Law Amendment Bill; and by Mr. JERVIS, Mr. GEORGE BERKELEY, and another HON. MEMBER, from several Places,—against Clauses in the above Bill.—By Mr. GROTE, Mr. WILKS, Mr. N. SHAWE, and Mr. BROCKLEHURST, from several Places,—against Church Rates.—By Mr. GROTE, from the Tower Hamlets, for a Clause in the Justices of the Peace Bill.—By Mr. FEARGUS D O'CONNOR, from Rathcormick, and other Places, against the Tithes (Ireland) Bill; from two Places, for the Repeal of the Union.—By Mr. JERVIS, from Chester, for a Clause in the County Rates Bill.—By Mr. FORT, Lord MORPETH, and Mr. WILKS, from several Places, for Relief to the Dissenters.—By Lord MORPETH, Sir D. K. SANDFORD, Dr. LUSHINGTON, Colonel DAVIES, and Mr. ROEBUCK, from a Number of Places,—against the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill.—By Lord MORPETH and Mr. HERRIES, from several Places,—for Protection to the Established Church.—By Lord G. LENNOX, Colonel LYGON, and Mr. HEATHCOTE, from several Places,—for the Continuance of the Labour Rate Act.—By Sir C. BURRELL. and Mr. H. HANDLEY, from three Places,—against the Sale of Beer Act.—By Sir GEORGE STAUNTON, from Emsworth, for Protection to the Fisheries in that Neighbourhood.—By Mr. PLUMPTRE, from Stapleford, for Protecting Members of the Church of England, against a Compulsory Attendance on Popish and other Religious Ceremonies.—By Mr. G. BERKELEY, from Westbury upon Severn, for Poor Laws to Ireland.—By Mr. S. MACKENZIE, from the Parochial Schoolmasters of Dingwall, &c., for an increased Stipend.

EMPLOYMENT OF LABOURERS.
Sir Charles Burrellhaving moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Labourer's Employment Bill, expressed his sincere regret at finding that it was likely to be opposed. He hoped he should be able to induce the noble Lord opposite to allow the Bill to be read a second time, and committed, as he thought the most convenient course to pursue would be to
148
take the debate on the principle of the measure after it came out of the Committee in an amended shape. The present measure was merely a continuation of the Bill of last year, which had been most beneficial in its operation. A petition had been presented that night, in favour of its reenactment, signed by all the Magistrates belonging to the western district of Sussex, with the exception of one, and that Magistrate declined to attach his signature to the petition simply because he was not well enough acquainted with the subject. He held a similar petition in his hand from the inhabitants of Farnham, in Surrey, to which he begged to call the attention of the House. The clerk, on the call of the hon. Baronet, read the petition. He thought the statement contained in that petition would be sufficient to satisfy the House of the great benefit which had attended the operation of the Labourers' Employment Bill. He had paid some attention to the manner in which that Bill had worked; and he knew that certain parishes had, by the application of that measure, succeeded in reducing the number of their unemployed labourers from 536 to 243. The Poor-rates had also been reduced from 700 l. 8s. 10 d. per month to 299 l.15 s. 7d.; being a diminution of no less an amount than 400 l. 13 s. 3d. per month, or about 4,897 l. a-year. He thought he need scarcely state any further proof of the beneficial operation of the Labourers' Employment Bill. He knew that the Poor-law Commissioners had expressed an objection to the Bill, on the ground of its not being in unison with the original intention of the Poor-laws; but he believed that the plan they recommended of employing paupers in Poor-houses was not less at variance with the principle of the 43rd of Elizabeth. Besides, the fact of Mr. Sturges Bourne, a gentleman so well acquainted with the operation of the Poor-laws, and whose opinion on any point connected with them was well entitled to respect, having refused to sign a paper which had been transmitted to the Exchequer by the other Poor-law Commissioners, was a circumstance which he thought told very much in favour of the present measure. The case of the parish of Pulborough had been referred to by the Poor-law Commissioners, as demonstrating the injustice which the present Bill was calculated to inflict; but, to prove what an erroneous inference those learned Commissioners had drawn from the facts of the case, he would take the liberty of reading

149
to the House the opinion of the reverend Mr. Austin on the subject. The hon. Baronet read the following letter, which was laid before the Select Committee on Emigration in 1827, by Walter Burrell, Esq.:—
Sir,—I send you the expenses of the parish of Pulborough, in the county of Sussex, for one year. You will see, that 318 l. of the Poor-rates are thrown away on idle men on the roads; and that, in five years, including the highway rates, 3,552 l. have been expended on the roads, of which 1,932 l. have been taken from the Poor-rates. In the years ending April, 1824 and 1825, the occupiers of land employed one man on their farms for every 25 l. a-year rating in the poor-book, which continued partly through the year 1826, except by one person occupying 400 acres, who will not take his proportion, which has induced the other occupiers of land to discontinue their proportion: and we have now ninety-five men on the roads, many of them without tools. Is it not worth considering whether the determination of a large majority of a parish to employ the agricultural labourers in any way which shall not favour one more than another, with the approbation of the Magistrates in Petty or Quarter Sessions, might not be made legally binding on the minority? I
am aware much care must be taken to prevent an unequal pressure, especially on small parishes.
I am, Sir, with great respect,
Your obedient humble servant,
J. AUSTIN, Rector.
Pulborough, Dec. 14,1826.
In his opinion, any enactment compelling labourers, who were thrown out of employment by temporary illness, or same accidental circumstance, to go to the poor-house would be regarded with an ill feeling by the poor; and he therefore thought, that those gentlemen who were opposed to the Poor-laws' Amendment Bill ought to support the present Bill, as he was confident it would be found to act in some degree as a safety-valve to the measure of Government. What he wanted to see was the labourer employed and well paid, and good will and harmony prevailing in the agricultural parishes of the country; and, believing that the present Bill would tend to produce that desirable state of things, he trusted that the House would consent to read the Bill a second time. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill, which Motion having been seconded,
Mr. Leech, as a practical agriculturist, could speak to the beneficial effects of the former Labour-rate Act, the renewal of which merited the approbation of the House. The Bill was only a permissive
150
Bill, and no parish need adopt it unless three-fourths of the rate-payers in vestry assembled were desirous so to do. It would in no case compel any one to pay more than he at present paid; and it had the great advantage of taking the labourers from unprofitable labour, and employing them in the improvement of the soil by engaging them in purely agricultural labour, thereby rendering them much more moral in their conduct, industrious in their habits, and more comfortable in their families, than when employed in parish work; for it was well known, that very little attention was paid to the labourers engaged in parish work; and they were consequently enabled to pass much their time in beer-houses. The former Bill had proved highly satisfactory to the labourers themselves as well as to the farmers. He therefore trusted, that the House would allow the Bill to go into Committee, where any improvements that could be suggested might be introduced.
Mr. Slaneythought the Bill would be prejudicial in its effects. There was this difference between the Bill passed in the last Session and the present Bill—that whereas the former measure required, previous to its application to any parish, that the consent of three-fourths of the rate-payers should be obtained, the Bill now under consideration made the consent of three-fourths of those in vestry assembled only requisite; thus putting it in the power of a few busybodies in a parish to force the measure upon their fellow ratepayers. In the former Bill, a clause was introduced, providing that the measure should not apply to any parish in which the Poor-rates were not above 5s. in the pound on the rack-rent, thereby exempting from its operation all parishes in which good management prevailed. In the present Bill, however, that salutary provision was entirely omitted. But he rested his main objection to the Bill on the ground, that its provisions were contrary to all principle, inasmuch as they compelled a man to employ a certain number of labourers whether he needed them or not. He thought, that the Bill would prove mischievous, inasmuch as it gave the Magistrates too great a power of interference, and placed the bad and good labourer on the same level. The Poor-law Commissioners were decidedly opposed to the principle of the Labourer's Employment Bill; and seeing that a measure founded on their report, and calculated to remove the evils of

151
which the hon. Baronet complained, was now before the House, he should certainly vote against the second reading of the present Bill. In addition to the other disadvantages which he had mentioned, he might state that, in the course of time, he had no doubt it would have the effect of doubling the rates which it was the object of the Bill to lighten. On these grounds, he should give the Bill his decided opposition.
Mr. Denisonexpressed his concurrence in all that had fallen from the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Burrell) as to the benefits which might be, and had been, derived from the application of the principle of this Bill. He could state that, in sixteen parishes in Surrey, where it had been applied, the Poor-rate had been reduced one-half; the number of paupers had been diminished in the same proportion; besides which, the condition of the land had been considerably improved. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Bill would receive the sanction of the House. If there were any objectionable parts in it, they might be modified in the Committee. It should be recollected that it was only an experiment, and intended to be temporary; but even as a temporary measure, it would tend to improve the operation of the Poor-laws' Amendment Bill.
Mr. Heathcote, having presented a number of petitions to the House in favour of this measure from the county which he represented, felt himself called upon to say a few words in support of it, which he considered well worthy the attention of the House, from the many advantages that were likely to arise from it. One great comfort that it would produce to the country generally was, the application of a much greater quantity of labour to land than could be afforded at present. This would occur by the removal of all the useless labour that was now thrown away upon roads to the cultivation of the land. He approved too, of the principle maintained by this Bill, that the majority in each parish was to bind the minority, if they chose, to regulate the labour of the parish under the provisions of the Bill, or on the principles which it laid down. He had no doubt that this measure would prove a most useful auxiliary to the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill.
Mr. Robert Palmerconsidered it very desirable that the inhabitants of a parish should be compelled to pay the sums which they might agree to pay, for it was well
152
known, that many persons in a parish, after having voluntarily agreed to pay a certain sum towards the labour fund, had, in less than a month after, refused to continue their payments. He approved of the general principle of the Bill, and, feeling assured that it would also work well in practice, he should give it his support.
Colonel Torrensviewed this Bill as most erroneous in principle and mischievous in practice. There could be nothing just in compelling people to pay for labour over and above what they required. A parish might as well be called upon at once to support a thousand or any other given number of labourers, although it might not require half that number. This was nothing better than an agrarian law, or at least was calculated to lead to such a law. Nothing could be worse in principle than accumulating idle labourers in a parish, and deducting from the productive industry of others to support them. If there were a surplus of labourers in a parish, the proper way to deal with them would be, if they could not be employed on the land, to apply them to the increase of the trade and commerce of the country. Convinced that this measure would prove to be practically injurious, he should give it his decided opposition.
Mr. Baringwould look rather to the manner in which this Bill was likely to work than to any general principle which it might involve. He had inquired into this subject, and found that there were various opinions in different parts of the country. Some of the witnesses who had been examined before the Committee, had spoken most favourably of the measure, whilst others disapproved of its practical results. He entertained no doubt of its beneficial effects in parishes that were purely agricultural, and where no other species of labour was going on; but he considered it oppressive to make small tradespeople pay for labour which they did not want. He should have been glad if his hon. friend had not for the present pressed this Bill until the Poor Law Amendment Bill had been disposed of, and it could be known what was done with that important measure. He could have wished, that his hon. friend had waited to see how that Bill would work, and, in the next Session, the measure might be more fitly introduced as an auxiliary, if it should be deemed requisite. He had undoubtedly found that, in some parishes in his own immediate neighbourhood, the Labour Rate Bill operated

153
with a very beneficial effect, although this might not be generally the case throughout the country. He hoped, that his hon. friend would withdraw the Bill for the present.
Sir Harry Verneysaid, that there were many parishes where there was but little occasion for labour, and it would be hard to compel small annuitants and others who did not require labourers to pay for their support. He was, however, favourable to the general principle of the Bill, but he felt some difficulty as to how he should vote, lest this measure should in any degree clash with the Poor Law Amendment Bill which the noble Lord near him had introduced, and which he hoped to see brought to a successful issue.
Mr. Halcombewould support the Bill of the hon. Baronet. It was intended to be in operation only for one year, and would enable the farmers to get over the winter. He did not think it would in any respect interfere with the Bill of the noble Lord.
Mr. Poulett Scropewas understood to say, that the Bill would be subversive of the benefits which were likely to accrue from the noble Lord's Bill for the Amendment of the Poor Laws. At any rate, the present Bill ought not to be passed till the Poor Law Amendment Bill had been carried into execution. The Labour-rate was nothing but the allowance system in disguise, and he felt compelled to give his opposition to this Bill.
Mr. Divettsaid, that as nobody had yet moved, he would move, as an Amendment, that this Bill be read a second time this day six months. His reason for doing so was, that he considered it to be bad in principle, and likely to prove worse when reduced to practice. It confined in parishes a portion of labourers who could not be productively employed within them, and compelled individuals who did not want labour, and received no benefit from it, to employ their capital in support of it. The Labour-rate might have produced some benefit in a few parishes, but he believed that that benefit was more apparent than real, and that it would be productive of much future evil.
Mr. Warburtonseconded the Amendment. It was preposterous to introduce a Bill like this, which was at best a mere palliative, when there was before the House a comprehensive Bill for the Amendment of the Poor-laws founded on the best principles. This Bill was founded on the worst principles; and if there was no other
154
objection to it, and there were many, he should oppose it on this ground—that it took away every incentive to good conduct, by placing the independent and industrious labourer on a level with the indolent and profligate pauper.
Mr. Hodgessupported the Bill. If he considered it likely to embarrass the noble Lord's Poor-laws' Amendment Bill, he should not give it his support, as he was quite sure that that Bill would have embarrassments enough of its own to contend with. He thought that this Bill would act beneficially in smoothing the way for the operation of that Bill, and he should therefore give it his support.
Lord Althorpsaid, that this Bill was founded upon incorrect principles. He had formerly been ready to agree to it, incorrect as its principles were, because there was no effectual measure before Parliament for the Amendment of the Poor-laws. Until such a measure was introduced, he had always felt that they must adopt palliatives, to mitigate the evils of the present system. But now an efficient remedy was introduced; and he felt, that the Legislature would act more wisely by adopting that measure, which was correct in principle and complete in itself, than by adopting a palliative which was incorrect in principle and only partial in its operation. By this Bill all the rate-payers of the parish were compelled to employ all the labourers in that parish, whether they were desirous of doing so or not. They were compelled, too, to employ labour which could not produce them any return, because in the words of the Bill, it was "labour more than was wanted for the cultivation of the soil." He contended that this Bill was also objectionable on account of its having a rapid tendency to produce a maximum of wages. He admitted that in many parishes where this measure had been tried the amount of Poor-rates had apparently diminished. He said apparently, for the amount was not really less, if the parishioners were paying more for labour in another shape. The effect was the same upon them, whether their money was paid in the shape of Poor-rates or in the shape of increased wages for labour which yielded them no return. As far as labourers were concerned, this Bill injured the independent and industrious portion of them by giving them no advantage over the indolent and profligate portion; on the contrary, it took from the steady and hardworking man the benefit which he had hitherto derived from

155
his industry and good conduct. The Bill was also objectionable as affecting the freedom of labour in the country. It was nothing but a palliative; and as there was a Bill before the House which he trusted would prove a complete remedy for most of the evils of the present system, he should certainly give his support to the Amendment.
Mr. Estcourtsaid, that as the Bill of the noble Lord was not to come into operation till the next spring, no improvement in the condition of the poor could be expected during the next winter. If, therefore, the noble Lord had thought this a good measure, though founded on principles which he considered incorrect, before a general measure for the improvement of the Poor-laws was introduced, he ought to think it a good measure till that general measure came into practical operation. This Bill was only to have force for one year, and therefore he called upon the noble Lord not to abandon it until his own bill became practically the law. It appeared from the Agricultural Report that the farmers did not at present employ all the labour that was practically for the due cultivation of the soil—they only employed that quantity of labour which was just sufficient to keep it in a state of inferior cultivation. There were few parts of the country in which the surplus labour, as it was called, could not be beneficially employed in the cultivation of the soil. By the Poor-laws, as now administered, the farmers were compelled to maintain the surplus labourers without employment. By the present Bill the labourers would be kept in employment for their maintenance, and he would ask, was not that in itself an advantage? He admitted, that the principles of this Bill were not correct; but the state of the country was such, that the passing of this Bill was likely to prove a valuable auxiliary to the noble Lord's Bill during the ensuing winter.
Mr. Handleywas of opinion, that this Bill would be found productive of great advantage to the occupiers of land, as it would give them something for those rates for which they now got nothing. After the concurrent evidence given by every country Gentleman who had yet addressed the House, he did hope that the House would grant this Bill as a boon to the agricultural interest.
Sir George Stricklandsupported the Amendment. This measure had been admitted by many to be bad in principle,
156
but they supported it on the ground that it was a palliative for a worse state of things. In fact, it had been brought forward when things were in a bad state and there was no prospect of amending them. But the necessity for a measure of the kind being about to be obviated by the Bill to which the noble Lord had referred, he did not see why it should be forced on the country, when the effect of it was likely to be to bring them all to the same state of misery, pauperism, and destitution.
Mr. Curteissaid, that after what had fallen from the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should feel it his duty to vote against this measure. It was quite true, that this measure was desired in West Sussex; but with regard to East Sussex, he would state that the same anxiety did not exist for such a measure. He agreed with the noble Lord that this measure should now be merged in the greater measure which had been introduced for the reformation of the administration of the Poor-laws.
Mr. Wilkssaid, that if the Poor-law Bill had been passed and was in operation, producing the effects that were anticipated from it, the argument of the hon. Member who had last spoken might be a forcible one, but not till then; he was not disposed, when he found such concurrent testimony in favour of the practical effects of this measure, to cast it away either in favour of the theories of hon. Members, or in favour of the measure brought forward by the noble Lord. He supported this as a temporary measure, preparatory rather than detrimental to the measure brought forward by the noble Lord with regard to the administration of the Poor-laws.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that the very reasons assigned by the hon. Member for supporting this measure appeared to him arguments for opposing it. The hon. Member asked the House to agree to this measure because the measure of his noble friend (Lord Althorp) was not passed. Surely, seeing that that greater and more comprehensive measure was in course of being passed, it was unnecessary, indeed it would be mischievous, to adopt a measure like this, of an avowedly temporary nature, and which would, in fact, stand in the way of the beneficial effects to be anticipated from the Poor-laws Amendment Bill. One half, at least, of the hon.

157
Members who had supported that Bill bad admitted, that it was erroneous in principle, but then, said they, let us adopt it as a palliative for the existing state of things. Now, if the proposed palliative was one that was congenial with, and would be conducive to, the great objects of the Poor-laws Amendment Bill, he could then very well understand the force of the arguments urged in favour of the adoption of such a measure by the House. But the present was a measure admitted even by its advocates to be founded on principles opposed to those contained in the Poor-laws Amendment Bill. Another class of the supporters of this Bill consisted of those who avowed that they had a great contempt for general principles and general theories, and that practical principles (such was always their expression) alone met with their regard. He would just observe, in reply to those Gentlemen who were so strenuous in objecting to general principles, and so self-complacently triumphant in their appeal to what they called "practical principles," that theories founded, as general theories were, upon large and extensive observation, were much more likely to be correct than theories like theirs, founded upon their own narrow and particular experience, and that they were themselves not less dealers in principles, and not less theory-mongers, because their principles were founded merely on particular observation, and because their theories were formed, not from general, but from confined and necessarily incorrect experience. This measure could not by any possibility have a tendency to lower the amount of the Poor-rates. It would take merely from the capital of the farmer in another shape, and under another name. The avowed intention in fact of the Bill was to compel the farmer to employ and to pay for labour that he did not want. Now the true principle, a principle surely it was not necessary to enlarge upon at this time of day was, that every man should be left to manage his concerns as he thought best for his own interest. Did any man suppose that the farmer would not employ as much labour as he would find profitable and for his interest? The truth was, that this measure would only take the capital out of the pockets of the farmers to employ it in forced labour. It was a Bill quite opposed in principle to the great measure that had
158
been brought forward for the amendment of the Poor-laws. It was, he begged to remark, extremely incorrect to suppose that that great measure would not come into operation until March, 1835. The Poor-law Bill would come into operation immediately it was passed, with the exception of one portion of it, which had been already mentioned by his noble friend, and which would not come into operation until March, 1835.
Sir Charles Burrellbriefly replied; contending that the provisions of the Bill applied to clergymen and declaring that the arguments of the opponents of the measure had been already so triumphantly defeated, that it was unnecessary for him to go again over the same ground.
The House divided on the Amendment.—Ayes 80; Noes 36: Majority 44. The Bill put off for six months.

List of the AYES.

Astley, Sir J.

Maxfield, Wm.

Attwood, M.

O'Brien, C.

Barnard, E. G.

Palmer, C. F.

Bulkeley, Sir R. W.

Parker, Sir Hyde

Brocklehurst, J.

Poulter, T. S.

Dare, R. W. Hall

Price, R.

Duffield, Thomas

Rider, Thomas

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Rickford, Wm.

Faithfull, G.

Rooper, J. B.

Fleetwood, P. H.

Ruthven, E.

Godson, R.

Tower, C.

Goring, H. D.

Tyrrell, Charles

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Walter, J.

Guise, Sir Wm.

Watson, R.

Halcombe, John

Wilks, John

Handley, B.

TELLERS.

Henniker, Lord

Burrell, Sir Charles

Hodges, T. L.

Handley, H.

Hurst, R. H.

PAIRED OFF.

Leech, John

Holdsworth, Thomas

Mangles, James

PRISONERS' COUNSEL BILL.
Mr. Ewartrose to move the second reading of the Prisoners' Counsel Bill. As the subject had, on former occasions, been repeatedly before the public, it would not be necessary for him to trespass on its attention at any length. It was a fact which he wished to press on the attention of the House, that England stood alone, with one solitary exception in the civilized world, in her refusal to allow prisoners the assistance of Counsel. In Scotland, France, Italy, Germany, and the United States of America, prisoners were all defended by counsel; and none of those inconveniences which it was often alleged would be the necessary consequences of adopting the

159
practice in this country were found to result from it. The strongest objection, however, and that which was most frequently urged against allowing prisoners the benefit of Counsel, was the quantity of time which the practice would necessarily consume in our Criminal Courts. The late Sir Samuel Romilly had completely answered that objection, when he said, that too much time could never be consumed, where the object was to discover truth, and administer justice. The next objection to the measure was, that it was unnecessary, because the Judge on the bench was the prisoner's advocate. If this were so—if the Judge was indeed the advocate of the prisoner—then he lost his character of Judge in that of advocate. But if impartial justice were administered by the Judge between the prosecutor and the prisoner, then the latter must go undefended; so that those who urged this objection placed themselves between the horns of a dilemma. The argument which had been urged against allowing prisoners the assistance of Counsel, on the ground that counsel would injure their cause, was absurd; for if the prisoner had any apprehension of that, he need not allow Counsel to defend him. The Bill was not compulsory in its provisions; it did not force counsel upon a prisoner, but gave him the power of engaging professional assistance if he pleased. A very ingenious addition had been made to the objections raised, by a proposition to take away counsel from both sides, and leave the case to be decided by the merits of the evidence. But he thought that the purposes of justice would not be answered by a bare exposition of the evidence, either for the defence or the accusation, and that the connecting statements of counsel would be required to show the evidence in its proper light. In America, the Counsel for the prosecution had a right of reply. To this he objected, because it gave the prosecutor a great advantage over the prisoner. In France, the custom was, to let the Counsel for the prisoner have the last word. This was an arrangement to which he was also opposed, as he did not think the ends of justice were likely to be promoted by it. The system of criminal jurisprudence in Scotland was free from both the objections to which he had alluded. Their system of defending prisoners was worthy of the consideration of the House. It succeeded completely in securing the prisoner a fair trial, but nothing more. The evidence
160
was for and against; the prisoner's case was first of all gone into, and then the Court was addressed by Counsel both for the Crown and the prisoner. In those cases where the evidence was so strong against the prisoner that nothing could stand against it, neither the Counsel for the Crown nor the prisoner took up the time of the Court by any speech. The ends of justice, in all criminal cases in Scotland were, by means of this system, completely answered. This system had been pursued since the year 1587, and he had a very high authority, that of Mr. Allison, to support him in his favourable opinion of it. He thought, that it was something like a reflection on this country that she should be so tardy to acknowledge a principle which almost every country had long since admitted. The rule in Justinian was "non debet actori dicere quod non reo permittitur." Was it not a strong argument ad verecundiam against our country, that the practice of the United States had been changed in this respect, contrary to the old English law, and contrary to the spirit of defence which they had inherited from their ancestors? His reasons for bringing this Bill forward were, that it would give defence to those who were unprotected, that it would subserve the ends of truth and justice, and remove from the Judge his character as an advocate; thus enabling him to sway the balance with an impartial hand, and give freedom, certainty, and vigour to the arm of justice.
Mr. Hillrose to second the Motion. Anxious as he was to uphold the system of our jurisprudence, and the laws as administered under our happy Constitution, as the best altogether in the civilized world, he was, nevertheless, bound to confess, that he had seen more than two or three cases of verdicts of guilty in felony, in which the verdicts were not borne out by the evidence; and this expressly because the prisoner had not had the benefit of a speech from his Counsel—in other words, the innocent might be deprived of protection by the present practice of our Criminal-laws. It was to be observed, that if we were right in this anomaly, we were right in direct opposition to the practice of all civilized Europe, and even that of our colonies on the other side of the Atlantic. The origin of our present practice was to be found in the same system which adjudicated men to death on paper depositions, without confronting the prisoner with the witnesses

161
against him, and inflicted torture on the prisoner, in order to extract from his own mouth evidence against him. Under such an iniquitous system was it, that Lord Essex was sacrificed, and that great and illustrious man, Sir Walter Raleigh, was brow-beaten, insulted by a tyrannical Attorney-General, and finally suffered on the block! It was said, that the present system worked well, and though faulty in Principle, it was excellent in practice. He felt that, from the natural infirmity of humanity, Judges would be often found to take a false view of evidence unintentionally, or neglect some very important point of evidence which must make in favour of the prisoner. And this was an occurrence which never would have taken place, had the prisoner the benefit of Counsel to point out to the Bench and Jury the real nature of the evidence. The judicial murder, for so he must call it, of Eliza Fenning, never could have taken place in 1815, had she had Counsel to insist upon the circumstance, that she had herself taken the poison which was administered to her master's family, and had suffered severely from its operation. The hon. and learned Member detailed three other cases of criminal convictions, which he was certain never could have taken place, had the prisoners been allowed to be defended by Counsel. It was highly absurd, that the course of our criminal proceedings denied a man arraigned for felony the advantage of Counsel, but gave him two to speak for him, and conduct his defence, when the prisoner was charged with the very highest felony—namely, high treason!
Sir George Stricklandwas confident, that many more Sessions could not pass, before the present anomalous state of the law with regard to criminal trials must be corrected. He had often heard, with most painful feelings, that part of criminal proceedings in which prisoners were denied the right of reply by their Counsel, and had always determined, if ever it was in his power, to give his support to that alteration of the law now proposed. Even in Italy, where no other semblance of a fair trial was given, the prisoner had the right to have his Counsel to plead for him, before Courts as ill constituted, he would admit, as any in the most despotic countries of Europe.
Mr. Poulterwas not disposed to place much reliance on the conviction entertained by Counsel engaged in the defence of prisoners, that their clients, though convicted, were innocent. The real question
162
before the House, in his opinion, was, had not a prisoner, upon the whole, a fairer trial, and a fairer hope of justice, under our form of criminal trial, than either in Italy, France, Germany, or even the United States of America? The administration of our Criminal Law was, in his opinion, already too mild, and afforded too great a chance of escape to prisoners. To draw an inference in favour of the alteration in our laws, from the dreadful prosecution and cruel ill-treatment experienced by that illustrious man, Sir Walter Raleigh, on his trial, by that severe and insolent Attorney General, Sir Edward Coke, was altogether unfair. The spirit of the age, and of our times, was altogether changed and amazingly improved since then, and now such brow-beating, insulting conduct, would not be tolerated in any legal officer of the Crown by a criminal Judge. The most serious consequence of altering our laws as was proposed by this Bill, he feared the House was scarcely able to appreciate justly—namely, that it would tend to withdraw attention from the evidence itself, and lower the present standard of evidence in criminal cases. This would be a consequence of a change in our law as to evidence, which would be most seriously felt by prisoners, even more seriously than they felt the inconvenience of being denied Counsel. If the hon. Member (Mr. Ewart) would consent to withdraw the first clause of his Bill, he would have no objection to let the Bill go to a Committee. As he understood, however, that this would not be conceded, he should conclude by moving, "that the Bill be read a second time this day six months."
Mr. Sergeant Spankiesaid, that it was generally admitted, on all hands, that justice was administered in a satisfactory and impartial manner in this country; and he could not see, that there was any practical ground for the change now proposed to be introduced, inasmuch as there was no practical abuse to be remedied. He thought it would be found, that, if Counsel were allowed to address the Jury in defence of prisoners on charges of felony, it would be the junior Counsel, who would generally be employed in their cause, who, by their injudicious manner of proceeding, might often do more harm than good to their clients. They would naturally endeavour to put the points of their case in the strongest light, and the Counsel for the prosecution would be compelled to combat them by all the eloquence and ingenuity he could com-

163
mind. The Courts would thus be turned into an arena for ingenious display, which would be anything but advantageous to the prisoner. As it was at present, the Counsel for the prosecution generally contented himself with a calm and dispassionate statement of the facts of the case, and it was the Judge's duty to watch over the interest of the prisoner. Whilst, therefore, he could see no practical advantage to the prisoner that could result from the change now proposed, the inconvenience on the other hand would be very considerable. The Assizes would be extended to three or four times their present duration, and the expense to the country proportionably increased. From these considerations, he should support the amendment.
Lord Althorpsaid, he had given this subject much consideration, and he thought some change was desirable. It appeared to him, that the arguments which had been urged against allowing Counsel to prisoners in cases of felony would equally apply against permitting Counsel to defendants in cases of misdemeanour. In the course of his experience and observation, which had been confined to the more trifling class of felonies, he had felt, that it was exceedingly painful to hear Counsel address the Jury against a prisoner, who was denied the privilege of being heard by Counsel in reply. What they had to consider was, not whether the change proposed would prove to the advantage of the prisoner, but whether it was calculated to lead to a fuller and more perfect development of the truth, and a more certain administration of justice. They should consider whether the truth was likely to be, in all instances, fairly elicited by a system under which cases could be put strongly on the one side, without allowing an answer to be given by equal talents from the opposite side. He would particularly instance the cases depending on circumstantial evidence, in which Counsel for the prosecution had, in their address to the Jury, to make out the necessary chain of evidence; and it appeared to him, that the privilege of reply on behalf of the prisoner ought to be allowed, in order that an opportunity might be afforded of showing in what respect improper inferences might have been drawn. Entertaining these views, he hoped the House would allow the Bill to go into a Committee, that they might examine if in detail, and see whether the objections urged against it, some of them being of weight, might not be removed.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the noble Lord had condensed in his speech so much good sense and practical wisdom on this subject, that it might appear to the House unnecessary for him to offer any further observations in support of the same views. He might, however, be permitted to make one or two remarks. The hon. and learned Sergeant who had preceded him had opposed the Bill upon an economical consideration of the county rates, and other matters totally foreign to the spirit of the question. He had also opposed the allowing of Counsel to prisoners on charges of felony, on account of the inexperience and indiscretions of young Counsel. He would say, that he had known many old Counsel who were just as indiscreet as their juniors. The fact was, that the present mode of proceeding in our Criminal Courts was anything but the fair and straightforward course which it should be. The Criminal Code itself was too cruel and bloody; that was a great evil, which it was endeavoured to counteract by throwing all sorts of impediments in its way, to prevent the discovery of the truth. Criminals and witnesses were continually cautioned against saying anything that could possibly implicate themselves; and time even given them, to reflect upon what they should say, lest they should unwittingly let an unwelcome truth escape. The hon. and learned Sergeant had said, that the prosecuting Counsel generally confined himself to a calm and circumstantial account of the facts of the case, and that the Judge was to watch over the interests of the prisoner. That was a very plausible statement, indeed; but was it borne out by experience? He, in the course of his practice, had seen great mischief and great injustice result from an exaggerated statement made by the Counsel for the prosecution, but he had seen much more harm and hardship result to the unfortunate prisoner from an assumed moderation on the part of his accuser. In Ireland, the Crown prosecutor, not uncommonly, came down and addressed violent harangues to the Jury, calculated to rouse their fears and their prejudices against the prisoners whom they were called upon to try. "Gentlemen of the Jury," it would be said, "the Crown has sent down this Special Commission for your own protection. Will you not protect yourselves?" which meant, as he understood it, "Will you be pleased to hang the prisoners at my request?" No weight ought to be attached to the objection, that allowing Counsel to

165
prisoners would lead to young Counsel being employed, who would needlessly sacrifice the time of the Court to their desire to exercise and display their powers. Was it not from the Bar that they took their Judges, on the efficiency of whom depended matters of the greatest importance—even the life and death of individuals? He had, some time since, been engaged in a trial at Cork to defend three men, brothers, who were charged with being implicated in the murder of Franks. The principal witness was a female. She had been before called on to identify the individuals who had been present, mid who were active, at the murder. The persons arrested were subjected to her recognition, amongst them were the three prisoners; she had known them before, but she passed them over, and picked out others, who were tried, convicted, and executed. Again the three men, in company with others, were brought before her, and again she failed to identify them. It was then thought proper to bring the three men into a room by themselves, in order that the attention of the woman might not be diverted; but, on being ushered into their presence, she declared that she had not seen them at the murder. The men were then discharged. In about six months after, she changed her mind, and deposed to facts against these men. They were arrested at their houses, subsequently brought to trial, and she identified them, swearing to them most positively. These facts he drew from her at the trial; many of them she admitted with considerable reluctance; but having exposed them to the Court, he left shortly before the trial was concluded, his firm conviction being, that the men must be acquitted. He had scarcely reached his apartment before he heard a shriek—such a shriek as was often heard in an assize town in Ireland when men were capitally convicted. The Judge had so summed up to the Jury that they found the prisoners guilty. He went to his window, and saw the three men in a square of soldiers. The mother of the prisoners, a widow, was endeavouring to force her way through the soldiers to her sons. She continued her struggles, and the soldiers presented their bayonets; but the officers at last desired that she might be allowed to approach them. She rushed in and embraced her eldest son, who was not twenty-one years of age; she then embraced her second son, and next her third and youngest, from whose peck she fell
166
upon the pavement, bathed in blood. He turned away from his window, and saw no more. The men were murdered. The next year the same female, who had before given evidence in three cases, tried her hand at implicating some more individuals. Two other men were brought to trial on her evidence. The Judge on this occasion was Baron Pennefather, who, in a ten minutes address to the Jury, put the case to them in a manner that led to the prisoners' acquittal. Now, could there be a stronger illustration of the propriety of granting Counsel to prisoners than was afforded in the proceedings he had just described to the House? If he had had the opportunity of addressing to the Jury, in the case or the three prisoners, some such observations as were addressed to the Jury by Baron Pennefather in the case of the two prisoners, the former as well as the latter would, in all human probability, have been acquitted. He had seen justice perverted; he had seen human lives sacrificed; he had seen the violence of Counsel against prisoners, and the not less malignant mischief of a speech of great caution—of great affected moderation, professed in such terms as "Heaven forbid I should force a point against a prisoner—Gentlemen of the Jury, I would not for the world exaggerate a point;" and the very next moment they would hear—"But justice must be done—the peace of the country demands it;" in short, from persons who had assumed extraordinary moderation of tone and manner, he had heard these most cutting, cruel, and deadly insinuations. He felt certain, that the Bill would be highly beneficial, and he gave it his cordial support.
Mr. Goulburnopposed the Bill. From any thing he had heard or seen, he had no reason to believe, that in any case quoted, the verdict would have been different from what it was, had the prisoners been allowed to have Counsel. If the Counsel for the prosecution was allowed to reply, there would be an absence of the calmness at present prevailing in criminal trials, and passion and prejudice would appear there. He believed, too, that it would tend to make Judges partizans. He conceived, therefore, that the present system was better calculated to elicit truth, than the one proposed by the Bill. It was on that account, too, better calculated to ensure an impartial administration of justice, and he therefore should vote against the Bill.
Mr. Robert Grantsaid, that it was im-

167
possible to defend the present anomalous practice, nor had any Gentleman who had spoken on the opposite side attempted to defend it. It had been overlooked by the hon. and learned Sergeant, who referred to the confusion and inconveniences which would ensue from allowing prisoners, charged with criminal offences, Counsel, that acts of the Legislature had of late made many offences, which were before felonies, misdemeanours, in which the defendants were allowed Counsel. Now, whatever inconveniences and evils could be supposed to exist in allowing Counsel to prisoners charged with felonies ought to be shown to exist in those cases where felonies had been made misdemeanours and Counsel were allowed to the accused. It was said, that the advantages of allowing prisoners Counsel were exaggerated, and it might be so; but whenever a benefit was denied, its advantages were exaggerated, and the way to stop the exaggeration, was to take away its materials. In the case of treason, again, they had Counsel, without the evils of which the learned Sergeant had drawn so strong a picture. All these anomalies he had never seen even plausibly excused. They had come down to us by accident; and were they, therefore, to be preserved? If there was any practice in the law for which there was something to be said upon both sides, the reasons for and against were examined, and the right had fair chance of being successful; but let any point arise in favour of which nothing could be said, and they were called upon to consider it as founded upon some indescribable, mysterious wisdom, and therefore to be preserved. They acted in this respect somewhat in the fashion of certain nations of the East, who properly estimated a man of little or no talent, but directly they met an idiot worshipped him as inspired by the Deity. At one time Counsel were not allowed to prisoners even to cross-examine witnesses, and that happened, which happened now, when the poverty of a prisoner prevented him employing Counsel, viz. all the barristers present lent him what assistance they could, by suggesting questions to the Judge, and raising points for his benefit; but what weight was there in the arguments of those who, when it was proposed to allow prisoners the assistance of Counsel, urged Parliament not to disturb the excellent state of the law, which gave the prisoner all the bar for Counsel, instead of one only? The Legislature thought no weight was due to such arguments, and he
168
trusted that the Legislature would now think, that no weight was due to the arguments which opposed a prisoner's Counsel speaking for him, because, from his having no help of that kind, the Judge was now called his Counsel. As to the excitement of passion and contention of Counsel for victory, which had been dwelt upon, it was from the contention of Counsel that truth was elicited for the judgment of the Jury and Judge in civil causes, and he thought that truth would equally result from the contention in criminal cases.
Mr. Pollockwas obliged, from a sense of duty, to vote for the second reading of the Bill. Under the present practice, many who were guilty escaped, and many who were innocent were convicted. Now, if Counsel were allowed to speak on both sides instead of one only, more guilty persons would be convicted; and what was more important, more innocent persons would escape, because they would have better means of defending themselves. He recollected, when he was young at the Bar, being present at a trial in the country, in which the prisoner was charged with an offence which, of all others, required that the accused should have the assistance of Counsel: it was a trial for rape. The man was found guilty and sentenced to death; but so convinced was he of the man's innocence, that he intended the next day to have started for London, in order humbly to lay his opinion before the Secretary of State; but he was prevented by the other Judge of Assize respiting the condemned, whose punishment was first commuted to transportation, then to two years' imprisonment, and ultimately he was set at large. There was another case, at the trial of which he was also present, although not concerned in it as Counsel, more than in the first case, in which the accused was found guilty of murder, and was executed in forty-eight hours. He was satisfied, that that man was innocent, and that his innocence would have been established had he had the means of making a defence. The opinion was not his alone; for he had, not many days back, mentioned the circumstance to one who was at the time Counsel on the Northern Circuit, and who was now one of the Judges of the land; and that Judge said, that he had a perfect recollection of the circumstance, and that it was the opinion of the whole Bar, that the man was wrongfully convicted and executed. He recollected, on another occasion, four men were tried be-

169
fore Mr. Baron Wood at Durham, for a capital offence. The Judge summed up as regarded two of them, for an acquittal; but the Jury misunderstanding the Judge, found them guilty. He was obliged to pronounce sentence of death upon them, but immediately respited them; and the witnesses who had given evidence against them, were afterwards convicted of perjury. The Jury found the other two also guilty; but one of them declared, that he alone was guilty, and that his companion was innocent. In all these cases he was satisfied, that had Counsel been allowed to address the Jury for the prisoners, they would have been acquitted. He agreed, however, that no reply should be allowed to the Counsel for the prosecution, for it would introduce feelings fatal to the calm investigation of truth. He thought it would be even better to allow the law to remain as it was, than to permit the prosecutor's Counsel to reply. He could state that, in consequence of the prosecutor's Counsel being allowed to reply in some cases of misdemeanours—as conspiracy—four defendants out of five were unjustly convicted. When certain returns for which he had moved were laid upon the Table, the House would see what an enormous amount of injustice had been perpetrated in cases of conspiracy by allowing Counsel for the prosecution to reply. There was a very great difference between allowing Counsel for a plaintiff in a civil case to reply, and allowing a prosecutor's Counsel to reply. The plaintiff had an interest at stake; and if the defendant called witnesses, the plaintiff must be allowed to reply upon this evidence; but the King had no interest in making out the guilt of his subjects; and therefore he said, give the accused the last word. A great legal character had said, at the close of a long professional life, that he had got many verdicts to which he was not entitled, and had not many to which he was entitled; but that, upon the whole, the balance of justice was even. Now, that was precisely the argument now used. It was true, that there were innocent persons convicted of crimes they had never committed; but then, look at how favourable the practice was to prisoners, and how many escaped. That was not exactly the balance of justice of which he approved. He was for having the guilty convicted; and, above all, for having the innocent acquitted.
Mr. Poulter withdrew his Amendment, and the Bill was read a second time.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Dukes of BEAUFORT and WELLINGTON, Earls SHAFTESBURY, BROWNLOW, and ELDON, the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, and Lord TENTERDEN, from several Places,—for Protection to the Established Church.—By Earl BROWNLOW and Lord TENTERDEN, from several Places,—against the Admission of Dissenters to the Universities; and by the same, from several Places, against any Alteration in the Corn Laws.—By Lord WYNFORD, from four Places, against employing Children in the Sweeping of Chimneys.—By the Earl of DURHAM and Lord WYNFORD, from several Places,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Lord SUFFIELD, from Baldock, for Relief to the Dissenters; and by the Bishop of BATH and WELLS, from four Places, against the Claims of the Dissenters.—By the same, from Shepton Mallet, for an Act to regulate the Appointment of Trustees, &c.

IRISH CHURCH.—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
The Earl of Wicklowgave notice, that, on Friday, he would move, that a copy of the Commission issued to inquire into the state of the property of the Church of Ireland should be laid before that House. Having given this notice, the noble Earl stated, that he thought it a duty he owed to the House, to detail the circumstances which prevented him from giving it last night. He came down to the House at four o'clock, with the intention, in the course of the evening, of giving this notice. He was prevented from executing his intention, by the sudden manner in which the House was adjourned. He did not mean to cast blame anywhere, but he was anxious that they should have a clear understanding as to the forms of the House, and the hour at which business
144
was to commence. He had been for several years a member of that House, and during the whole of his experience, public business had commenced at five o'clock. Lord Liverpool, many years ago, had introduced that practice, and ever since it had been strictly adhered to. He was aware, that the House met for other business at other hours. It met at ten o'clock for appeals. Sometimes the House assembled at three o'clock for Committees of Privilege; at present it was in the habit of meeting at four o'clock expressly to hear evidence upon the Warwick Disfranchisement Bill. He had never understood, however, that the meeting upon the Warwick Bill at four, was to interfere in any manner with the regular business of the House at five. This was his impression, and he believed it was the impression of many noble Lords besides himself, as he met a considerable number coming down to the House yesterday at twenty minutes to five o'clock, as he was going away, the House being then adjourned. He did not mean to say, that yesterday it was not competent to the House to have adjourned itself before five, or for a noble Lord to move the adjournment; but some notice of the intention to do so ought to have been given. He was in the House when the adjournment took place, but it took him by surprise. The adjournment, he believed, was put by the noble and learned Lord from the Woolsack, without any noble Lord having made a motion to that effect. He admitted, that the noble and learned Lord had a right to originate that or any other Motion in that House; but if he had acted conformably with the orders of the House, he would have left the Woolsack for the purpose of making it; instead of which the noble and learned Lord rose in his place, and at once moved the adjournment. He, for one, certainly did not hear the Motion. He had thus thought it right to explain the cause of his having allowed a single day to pass without giving notice of a Motion for the production of a copy of a Commission to which he had referred.
The Lord Chancellorbegged to state, for the information of their Lordships, some circumstances which the noble Earl had not stated in the account he had just given. He had twice put the question from the Woolsack, whether any noble Lord had any petition to present, or any Motion to make. He then asked if there

145
was any more business before the House. Half-a-dozen noble Lords announced, that there was none. The Warwick business, then, being over, he did not see why he was to sit there from half-past four till five o'clock, doing nothing, because noble Lords did not choose to come down before. He should certainly learn for the first time, that that was his duty, if he should be so instructed that night. He had at least fifty times adjourned the House at a quarter past four o'clock when there was no business or notice in the order-book, and no noble Lords present. It was generally his practice to ask some noble Lord, mostly the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), to move the adjournment before he put it from the Woolsack; and he (the Lord Chancellor) did not know that he had not done so yesterday. The House was of course aware, that such a Motion was a very simple thing; that it was done almost by a nod of the head; no argument or long speech was necessary in making it; and it might, therefore, easily pass unperceived. As a Member of that House, he had a right to move the adjournment. The noble Earl admitted this, but alleged that he had not stepped out from the Woolsack as he ought to have done. Really he ought to be proud to think, that this was the only charge of irregularity that could be brought against him. If he had but thought of taking one step to the left, and then one step to the right, backwards, and had then again returned to the Woolsack, he would have performed all the evolutions of office, and done all that the duties of regularity and etiquette which he owed to their Lordships required of him. Had he but made these simple movements, he would have been the most regular of all mortal Speakers of their Lordships' House. But the noble Earl was present, and did not set him right, or complain of the adjournment. He had asked more than once if any noble Lord had any Motion to make, and the noble Earl made no answer. The question he would ask, however, was, "Had substantial injustice been done?" The noble Earl's notice was for Friday; and was it not in time on Wednesday? Moreover, when he was told by the noble Earl last evening, that the noble Earl had a notice to give, he offered to come back; but several noble Lords, upon hearing that it was a notice for Friday, observed, that Wednesday would be time enough for it,
146
and that it could not signify. He should certainly be sorry, for the sake of going half an hour sooner, to violate any of their Lordships' rules, or do an act of injustice to any noble Lord. He certainly did avail himself of the opportunity to get, what was very rare with him, a little air and exercise. If he should he told, that it was his duty to sit there till the index of the hour stood exactly over the figure of 5 upon the dial, he would wait till then; but he thought it would be a very useless expenditure of time.
The Earl of Wicklowthought the question was, not what mischief had been done, but what mischief might accrue from the system of the noble and learned Lord. The question of adjournment ought to be put in an audible manner, so as to be heard by all Members of the House. This the noble and learned Lord had certainly not done. Then the noble and learned Lord told them that he was willing to return after having adjourned the House. This was another instance of the noble Lord's ignorance of the forms of the House. There should be some regular understanding as to the hour of commencing business.
The Lord Chancellorutterly denied that he had not put the question in a tone sufficiently audible to be heard in the back seat of the gallery. The noble Earl, he believed, was too much occupied to hear him. That was not his fault, for he was not bound to find ears for any of their Lordships. He acknowledged the superiority of the noble Earl over him in an acquaintance with the forms of the House. He was willing to admit, that the noble Earl's knowledge was as much superior to his, as the noble Earl himself believed it to be; and he could not carry concession to a higher point. To the noble Earl that House was, as it were, native; to him (the Lord Chancellor) it was only "hospitable." But it was really too bad of the noble Earl, with his knowledge of the forms, first to mislead him into the belief that he could come back to the Woolsack after adjourning the House—for he it was that recommended it—and then to condemn him for contemplating such a thing. The noble Baron, a son of a Lord Chief Justice (Lord Ellen-borough), it was who fired up, he might say constitutionally fired up, at the proposal, and saved him from putting it into execution.
The House again examined witnesses on the Warwick Borough Bill.