Sitting of 27 June 1834

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. WARBURTON, from Bridport, against Employing Children in Sweeping Chimneys; from Dumfries, and two other Places, for an Inquiry into the Medical Profession; from Bridport, and by Mr. ROBERTS, from Maidstone, against the Church Rates Bill.—By Mr. R. TREVOR, from one Place, for Protection to the Established Church—By Lord SANDON, from Liverpool; and by Mr. BLAMIRE, from Frome, Selwood,—against a Clause in the Poor-Law Amendment Bill—By Mr. ELLICE, from Foleshill, for Relief to the Dissenters.—By Lord SANDON, from Liverpool, against the Universities Admission Bill.—By Sir D. K. SANDFORD, from the Schoolmasters of Paisley, for an increased Stipend.—By Mr. GULLY, from Arkworth, against the Sale of Beer Act Amendment Bill.—By Sir ANDREW AGNEW, from two Places, against Drunkenness.—By Mr. HARDY, from Bradford, in favour of Captain Atcheson.—By Sir HARRY NEALE, Messrs. GOULBURN, PARKER, MOSTYN, BYNG, and F. SHAW, from a Number of Places,—for Protection to the Church of England.—By Admiral FLEMING, from Balfour, for a Separation of Church and State; from two Places, for altering the Reform (Scotland) Act.—By Admiral ADAM, from Clackmannan, for an Alteration in the Game Laws.—By Sir ANDREW AGNEW, from a Number of Places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Mr. PARKER, and Mr. HALL DARE, from four Places,—against the Claims of the Dissenters.—By Mr. T. ATTWOOD, from Stoke-upon-Trent, for remitting the Sentence of the Dorchester Labourers; from Birmingham, for amending the Friendly Societies Act.—By Colonel PERCEVAL, from Sligo, for an Inquiry into the State of the Irish Fisheries.—By Mr. G. LANGTON, from Shepton Mallet, for an Inquiry into the Charities of that Town.—By Mr. A. SANFORD, from Taunton, against the Claims of the Dissenters.—By Mr. R. N. SHAWE, and Sir JAMES GRAHAM, from three Places,—for Relief to the Agricultural Interest.—By the former, from several Places,

913
against the Church Rates Bill.—By Mr. TOOKE, from Jamaica, for compensating Congregations for the Destruction of their Chapels.—By Mr. DUFFIELD, Mr. HALL DARE, and Mr. R. N. SHAWE,—against Clauses in the Poor-Law Amendment Bill.—By Sir HENRY PARNELL, from three Places, for an Alteration in the present System of Church Patronage in Scotland; from Dundee, in favour of the Bankrupts (Scotland) Bill—By Mr. BLACKBURNE, from Huddersfield, against the Sentence passed upon Captain Atcheson and Lieutenant Dawson.—By Sir A. HOPE, from Linlithgow, for Protection to the Church of Scotland.

POOR LAWS' AMENDMENT-REPORT.
The Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report on the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill having been read, Lord Althorp moved, that the Amendments be read a second time.
Lord Granville Somersetwas afraid, that under this Bill it would be impossible for poor persons to obtain relief if they should be opposed by the parochial authorities. The pauper had no means of enforcing his claim to assistance, except by appeal to a distant central board, or by indicting the parish officers. That might lead to starvation and cruelty. He wished to give Magistrates a power of enforcing relief in cases of extreme emergency. He was also desirous, that the Secretary of State should exercise the same supervision with regard to any suspension or alteration of existing regulations by the Commissioners as in the case of new rules.
Mr. Waltersaid, that the Bill being in this advanced stage, he apprehended it was the duty of those who, like himself, had opposed it on its first introduction, to state whether their aversion was removed or diminished by the modifications it had undergone. It was possible, certainly, that the character of a measure might be totally altered by the various provisions introduced with a view to regulate its operation in detail: and he heard it said, with respect to this Bill, when objections were stated: "Oh, it will come out of the Committee a totally different thing." It had now come out of the Committee, and he asserted that it did not come out of it a totally different thing, but that whatever objections were entertained with respect to the principles of the measure at first, remained undiminished, or very little diminished, in its present stage. It was, in truth, as it had been justly called,—so far as related to the management and support of the poor, and in reference to the long-established Poorlaws,—a revolutionary measure. He did not think the statesmen of this age and nation wiser than the statesmen in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and that there-
914
fore the principles first laid down by the Ministers of that illustrious princess, however they might be modified in their application to existing circumstances, should be wholly cast away, and other principles, the invention of speculative heads, substituted in their place. There was this difference also between the law of Elizabeth and the present Bill—the former was an Act of Parliament, containing in itself a complete code of Poor-laws, in twenty brief and intelligible clauses, upon which the country acted from 1601 to 1662; whilst the latter, containing upwards of four-score clauses, neither brief nor very intelligible, was only part and parcel of a code consisting at present of 118 statutes. If from such a nucleus, for the present Bill was no more than a nucleus of what was to be, it increased with proportionate rapidity, he concluded that the new Poor-laws of England, before the natural death of the present Parliament, if it lasted the usual time, would he equal to those massive volumes of which a sample was lately produced by the right hon. member for Tamworth. For the sake of clearness and conciseness, he should confine his remarks to three of the chief provisions—the Central Board, the workhouse system, and the emigration scheme. Now, with respect to the Central Board, besides its despotic power, the objection was, that it created not merely fresh patronage, for one might have seen some bounds to that, but a fresh source of patronage which was immeasurable in its effect and extent. We could have found fault before, for example, with the Board of Taxes, the Victualling Board, the office of the Commander-in-chief, and many others, each as having too much patronage attached to it; but then these were old institutions, carried perhaps to a considerable excess. But who could calculate beforehand what would be the expense of a Central Board of Poor-law Commissioners, now first invented, and to push forth its arms into every parish of the kingdom? The only change under this head was, that the new Commissioners were not to have the same power, immunity, and irresponsibility as the ancient Judges of the realm; they were not to be allowed to imprison at will upon summary process; but the Commissioners were themselves, in one word, patronage,—newly created patronage—patronage liable to yearly and indefinite increase. All objection, therefore, to the Bill under this head was undiminished. Whatever were the evils

915
of the present Poor-law system, it at least possessed no patronage. With respect to the workhouses, had the Bill in Committee received improvement of so important a character as to do away with the objections on this head? Workhouses certainly existed before, but the change which this Bill suggested in them was of a most severe and oppressive character. The poor were liable to be removed from the vicinage of their friends, and all those little occasional helps which might soothe their distress in their native villages—removed to new faces, and to the severe custody of persons unacquainted with their previous habits. But what he would most particularly wish the House to mark under this head was, that the whole principle of the new law and the motives for its introduction were entirely violated and set aside by the most important provision in the 44th clause. What said the Report of the Commissioners on which the Bill was founded? That the present local authorities were often illiterate and ignorant men—that their motives were often as faulty as their capacity for business was deficient—that they were swayed by local habits, passions, and interests, and that they were liable to intimidation. And what said the Bill itself? Why, that at that very moment, when the inefficacy of the present local authorities was most glaring, and might be most fatal, the poor were at that very time to be tossed back from the central or provincial boards upon the despised and rejected local authorities. The professed principle of the Report was, that the poor should not be brought into contact with the local authorities, whilst the act and operation of the Bill was positively to put them into contact, and perhaps into collision with each other, and that at a time when both were in a state of the greatest excitement; for it appeared by the 44th clause as it now stood, that "if the overseers or guardians of any parish or union deem it advisable that relief should be given to any able-bodied persons out of the workhouse, or his or their families, who at the time of applying for such relief shall be wholly or partially in employment, it shall be lawful for such overseers or guardians, under the special circumstances of the case, to grant relief to such able bodied persons and their families, although they may at the time be wholly or partially employed. Here, therefore, he said, the overseers were brought in direct contact with those poor, which contact it was the professed object of the Bill
916
to prevent. The Poor-law Commissioners suggested, that the new local authorities should be divested of all discretionary power in the administration of relief, and the enactment gave them that discretion at a time when they were likely to be torn in pieces if they did not exercise it in a manner to please those with whom they were in contact. The third head on which he should speak was emigration, which the Commissioners had been pleased to call "an innocent palliative" of the evils of the present system, and they said, that "the abolition of partial relief will remove the main discouragement to emigration. It will increase the disposition to emigrate on the part of those whose emigration is to be desired." Objecting generally to the principle and details of the Bill, he should particularly mark this clause with respect to emigration, as cruel, impolitic, and in the result not likely to admit of complete execution. It appeared to him to be a clause by which one portion of any parish might be allowed to transport another for no other crime than that of poverty; and because the transporting party did not give itself the trouble to find employment for those whom it might choose to send out of the country; for it must be observed that the "emigrants," as they were mildly called, must be people capable of work—must be the young, the healthy, and the vigorous; or else sending them out of the country was but sending them to certain death and destruction. But it might be said, that the persons emigrating were to be voluntary fugitives; the clause stated that they were to be persons willing to emigrate. Now, he said that the will to emigrate—the inclination to be removed from your home—to break through all the ties of nature and the bonds of long habitude—to quit the place of your birth—to divest yourself of the love of ancient associates and the love of country—the inclination to break through all these ties, he said, did not depend on a man's self, but upon the treatment which he received from others at his home, at the place where he first saw the light, and where he must naturally wish to lay his bones. There might, no doubt, be here and there voluntary ramblers; but in general you must reduce a man to the most abject state of misery before you could drive him to that heart-rending condition, in which he should voluntarily apply to he removed for ever from his native land to he knew not whither. The will, therefore, to emigrate

917
depended not upon those who were thus transported, but upon those who transported them. In general there neither was nor could be any such thing as a voluntary emigrant for life. External circumstances, over which the individual had no control, drove the inclination in at the chinks of a breaking heart. Milton thus described certain emigrants of his day, who quitted their native country on account of religious persecution, and his remarks were equally applicable to those who quitted it under the persecution of want and hard treatment:—"There cannot be a more ill-boding sign to a nation (God avert the omen from us!) than when the inhabitants, to avoid insufferable grievances at home, were enforced by heaps to quit their native country." He had said, that this clause was never likely to admit of complete execution, and for this reason—it could not be said to be so completed till the debt contracted by the parish sending forth the emigrants was repaid. And when was that likely to be, he asked? You contracted your debt for the purpose of sending these voluntary emigrants out of the land. Your rates were therefore so much diminished by the interest due upon the debt; the residue would not be more than sufficient to supply a comfortable provision for the remaining paupers. The time for repayment approached—the clause limited it to five years. In the mean time, what was doing? Could you stop the course of nature? A fresh pauper population had been born, was growing up, and required support. What were you to do with them? Why, instead of the parish paying off its old debt, it must, if this dreadful system continued, borrow a fresh sum to send the new race out to Australia, to Canada, or wherever else it might be. He did say, therefore, that the clause was unnatural, and that it would never admit of complete execution. With respect to emigration itself, it addition to its violating the tenderest feelings of our nature, was it not liable to occasional terrors, arising from accidental causes? Who could have read without shuddering the various melancholy accounts which had very recently appeared of the sufferings of emigrants in their outward bound voyage? Several ships and many hundred lives had been lost. Now, although these might be accidents which could no be reckoned upon as of frequent occurrence yet they must naturally increase the terror of emigration, and render our population,
918
particularly the female part, the female part also with children, more averse to quit their quiet homes. Let it be observed, also, that ships for emigration had not the same appointments—not the same securities, as British ships of war, or even the trading vessels of rich commercial houses. Were he to venture further into the details of the Bill, he thought he could show more at large its severity and probable inefficiency. Whoever would take the trouble of comparing it with the Bill introduced by Mr. Pitt in 1796, and which actually passed through a Committee of that House, would find that the measure of that eminent statesman breathed a spirit of humanity and tenderness towards those who were the objects of it; whilst the present measure was harsh, and totally unaccommodating to the feelings of the poor. He felt very strongly that there was no occasion for this measure, and that the amendment of the old system was all that was necessary for the future management of the poor. But what he had already observed under the three chief heads, of the Central Board, the workhouses, and emigration, was sufficient to determine him with respect to the vote he should give, if the sense of the House should be taken upon the propriety of such a Bill passing into a law.
Mr. George Frederick Youngconsidered that it would be an act of moral cowardice on his part if he did not now say, that he still entertained towards the measure the same feelings of opposition which he expressed in the beginning of the discussion. He charged the promoters of the measure at the time of violating the soundest doctrines and principles of legislation when he saw them introducing a measure into that House based on opinions formed from partial conclusions. He knew many instances in which local abuses had been remedied without having recourse to general measures when parties on the spot wished to interfere. The Constitution of this country was dependent on the habits of the people, and he particularly thought all matters relating to charity, such as the relief of the poor, should be left to the feeling and good sense of the people without any interference on the part of the Government. He cordially concurred in several of the remarks made by the hon. member for Berkshire. It seemed that the noble Lord meant to make experiments upon the institutions of the country. He had one consolation however. The Bill

919
would not do all the injury expected from it, because it would not be long in existence. It would not practically work, and therefore would come to an end. The only clause of the Bill that met with his consent was that which limited the power of the Commissioners as to the duration of time, and he only wished that their powers were also limited as to space. He wished that their power was confined to agricultural parishes, and did not extend to towns. He had hoped for a modification of this measure; he had got none; and he was now determined to vindicate his former opinions by voting against all the future stages of the measure.
Mr. Benettconsidered the powers granted to the Commissioners as being most outrageous, and he was surprised that any hon. Gentleman could consent to that portion of the Bill which conferred those powers. The intention of uniting parishes was monstrous. The parishes in the country and in country towns would never consent to be united with the parishes of manufacturing towns. It would be very easy, however, to find guardians of the poor who would wish to unite such parishes, and to make the union between them permanent. It was, therefore, his opinion that the clause which related to the union of parishes was an excessively unjust one. By that, of course, he meant unjust towards the agricultural parishes. He did not like the plan of having the parishes taken out of the hands of their provisional managers and placed in those of a Central Board of Commissioners. He objected strongly to the cramming of adults into workhouses, for in his county there would not be found more than one workhouse in every seven parishes. In looking to the Report of the Poor Law Commissioners he found them stating that small parishes were well managed, but the large ones were badly managed, though the overseers of them were paid. He was convinced that the Bill never could be carried into operation.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, that although attempts had been made in the Committee to alter the objectionable character of this Bill, yet he did not think such alterations had been made as to justify the House in passing it at a late period of the Session. He would ask what evidence there was that the people out of doors entertained opinions favourable to the Bill, as there had been no petitions presented in favour of it, while a great many had been laid on the Table against it, and the latter were
920
signed by men practically conversant with the operation of the Poor-laws. The Magistates and Overseers of the poor had almost unanimously pronounced their opinion against the Bill. The only reason why so little opposition had been given to it in that House was, that it had been held out as a measure of relief to the landed interest. Indeed the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) had stated, that he considered the Tithe Bill and this both to be measures of this nature. He had said more than once, that this Bill would tend to lessen the amount of the poor-rates, and thus benefit the agriculturist; but he was satisfied that it would be many years before there could be any material reduction in the poor-rates under this Bill, as it would be necessary to erect workhouses and incur other heavy charges. He never recollected any Bill of importance in that House with respect to which there was such a desire to give support to Government in every point. He recommended that the Bill should be withdrawn, and in the meantime it could be circulated throughout the country in its amended form, and it could then be brought forward under better circumstances early in the next Session. He regretted that he should feel it to be his duty to oppose the third reading of the Bill; it might not be with any prospect of success, but it would show his sense of the conduct of the Government.
Mr. Slaneycontended, that no subject had ever been submitted to the Legislature which had been more attentively examined by the House and the country than the present. For the sake of the poor and humble classes of the community, and if the House was constituted of those who were truly the Representatives of the people, they must be desirous of bettering the condition of the labouring classes, they should at once pass either this or some other Bill equally efficient. If he could for a moment think, that this Act would prove in the least degree injurious to the poor he would oppose it to the utmost of his power; but he was satisfied that it would have the effect of enabling the industrious poor to better their situation, and would, at the same time, afford great relief to the landed interest. The present Government had been the first to grapple with this extremely troublesome and difficult question, while other Administrations had merely applied palliatives, which, instead of affording relief, had tended to increase the evil. He congratulated his noble friend (Lord Althorp) at having brought

921
forward a measure to amend a system which, if allowed to continue, would ultimately ruin all the property in the country. His hon. friend the member for Wiltshire (Mr. Benett) never appeared to understand the sound principles which were acted upon in the north of England, where better wages were given to the good workman than to those who were idle and profligate, instead of giving all men the same rate of wages. He trusted, however, that in the course of a few years, he should see the labourers of Wiltshire in the same situation as those of Northumberland and Cumberland, and, instead of an uniform scale of wages, that the industrious man would be enabled to support his family without going to the parish for his pay, and that relief would only be given to the helpless. He had no doubt if the Bill passed, that in the course of a few years, even in the south of England, the poorer classes would make provision for themselves, by means either of the Savings' Bank or the Friendly Societies, and that a sense of pride would prevent their resorting to the poor-rates.
Mr. Richardshad, when the Bill was originally introduced, recommended that the powers of the Commissioners should be curtailed or controlled. Much had been done in the Committee to satisfy him on this point, and he should rejoice extremely to see it pass into a law. He was glad, notwithstanding the attempts made by the public Press to excite a feeling against this House in consequence of the support given to this Bill, that there was such a determination on the part of the Government and hon. Gentlemen to carry the measure into effect. He trusted, notwithstanding the violent articles which had appeared in one leading newspaper, and especially in the paper of that morning, which were utterly disgraceful to that journal, that Government would continue to rely upon the good sense of the House and the country. He almost felt called upon by a sense of duty to call the publisher of The Times newspaper to the Bar of the House for three articles; and the only thing which induced him to abstain from taking that step, was, that he was a young Member not much acquainted with the forms of the House. He was satisfied that this measure would be attended with the greatest advantages to the country, although he felt bound to state, that he believed that it might be amended with advantage in some of its details. If the present system, however, were not put a stop to all classes of the
922
community would be involved in common ruin; and, if it should not work so well as he wished he should still feel bound to give the Government the greatest credit for the manner in which they had introduced it into the House. But great a benefit as he thought the Bill would confer on property, it was much more for the benefit of the poor than for that of any other class. He trusted, that the Ministers would extend the principle of the Bill to Ireland, for if that country were left without Poor-laws it was quite clear that no improvement in their administration in England would tend to better the condition of the labouring classes. Permanently to improve the condition of the labouring classes in this country, it was absolutely necessary that they should also better the situation of the Irish poor. Merely to raise the condition of the labouring classes here without passing Poor-laws for Ireland, would only cause such an immigration of the Irish poor as would bear down the rate of wages to nearly the level of what they were in Ireland, and throw a large portion of the labourers on the poor-rates. He called upon the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) not to suffer Ireland to remain in its present condition, as it was a by-word throughout Europe, and most injurious to the interests of all classes in this country. He would only, in conclusion, express his earnest hope, that hon. Gentlemen, whether they were supporters or opponents of the Bill, would, if it should pass, exert themselves to see that its enactments were carried into effect in a mild but, at the same time, a firm manner.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodsaid, it had been asserted, that the present system had almost doubled the Poor-rates in the last twenty years; but such was not the fact. The amount now levied for the Poor-rates was only 300,000 l. more than the amount raised in 1814, twenty years ago. The amount raised in 1814 was 6,400,000 l., and the amount raised last year was 6,700,000 l. It appeared, from the population returns, that the population had increased one-third during that period. If the Poor-rates had increased in the same proportion, they would be now 9,000,000 l. The effect of this Bill would be, not to raise wages, but to lower them. Knowing the state of the public mind on this subject, he could not but consider that this Bill was like a firebrand thrown into a magazine of gunpowder; and he called upon the noble Lord to pause before he

923
made such a dangerous experiment. He protested against every part of the Bill—against that monstrous part of it relating to illegitimate children—against that part of it which created a parcel of bashaws to rule the country, but to whose rule he was sure the people of England would never submit. He protested against the part of it intended for forcing the people into workhouses, as cruel, futile, and unconstitutional, and, in fine, he protested against the whole Bill, and against all its clauses and enactments.
Mr. Baringthought, that Government deserved praise for endeavouring to apply a remedy to the evils and abuses of the Poor-law system; but he had great apprehensions as to the consequences to be anticipated from this measure. Unless great care was taken in the administration of it, especially in the country districts, he looked forward with dismay to the effects that might arise from it. The country was certainly indebted to the Government for endeavouring to apply a remedy in this case, and those who objected to the remedy were undoubtedly bound to bring forward some other. He did not think, that they should deal so abruptly with the labouring population of the country. No doubt, the final result of the measure would be to effect an improvement in the condition of the people. He was sure, that that was the object of the Bill, and that the measure would not be for a moment countenanced by the Members of that House if such were not its object. If it did not ultimately effect an improvement in the condition of the labouring classes in this country, the measure would be good for nothing. It was no answer to him to point out the evils and difficulties of the present system, or of the situation in which the labouring classes of this country were at present placed, unless an easy exit out of those difficulties by some defined measure was submitted. Even if it were in his power to carry an opposition to the present Bill, he should propose that opposition with extreme reluctance: but he must remind the House of one, in his judgment, of the most essential parts of the Bill; he alluded to that which refused parochial assistance to able-bodied labourers who might from circumstances be unable to gain any part of the means necessary for their own subsistence. After the month of June next, the labourer could not have any wages made up by the aid or assistance of the parish; and if hon. Members
924
would for a moment recollect what was the condition of the labouring classes of a great portion of the country, at all events in his own district, he thought they would concur with him in his apprehensions that this change, effected by the clause to which he had alluded, would be brought most abruptly in operation. He confessed himself alarmed at the abruptness of the contemplated change, and he was of opinion, that to its effects the labouring classes ought to have been brought by degrees, and by such a course the alteration might have been effected with the most perfect safety; but now, by this particular clause of the Bill, the labouring classes would have almost immediately to meet the alteration under the infliction of all the encumbrances under which they at present laboured. If the provisions of the clause had been confined to the assistance to be afforded to children hereafter to be born, the minds of labouring men, who could not be supposed to be conversant with Acts of Parliament, or to be competent to entertain a notion of what might be the result of the measure coming upon them, would have accommodated themselves during the lapse of time to the preparation for the coming change. This portion of the Bill, in his opinion, required and justly called for, a more gradual and easy course of legislation than had been pursued, and in this feeling he was borne out by the evidence of one respectable and intelligent witness examined before the Committee upon agriculture of last year. He admitted, that the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) was entitled to the thanks of the country for having introduced some measure for the improvement of the existing Poor-laws. He, therefore, could hardly make up his mind to oppose the passing of the present Bill, though he could not but repeat his apprehensions that the Legislature was thereby effecting too abrupt and rapid a change.
Lord Althorpexpressed the satisfaction with which he had heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, because the hon. Gentleman seemed to concur with his Majesty's Government, that the present Bill was calculated to effect that for which it was intended, namely, the amelioration of the poorer classes of the community. His hon. friend had expressed his fears as to the abrupt mode in which that amelioration would be effected; and if the clause to which his hon. friend had referred was unaccompanied by other enactments, he should himself look to the

925
doing away with the allowance system with considerable apprehensions. But his hon. friend must remember, that the clause was accompanied by provisions, enabling the Commissioners to bring the operation of the change in the allowance system gradually into effect. Under such circumstances, he hoped his hon. friend would see that his objection was removed. A noble Lord, not then in his place, (Lord G. Somerset) had expresssed an opinion, that too much power was given by this measure to the parochial authorities to refuse relief in cases of emergency. He must say, that he thought the Bill strengthened the law under which, as he believed, overseers were indictable, if they did not afford relief in cases of extreme necessity. Though the noble Lord wished that Magistrates should have the power to order relief in cases of emergency, he should bear in mind that one of the provisions in Mr. Sturges Bourne's Bill made that measure nugatory. In reference to the observation of the noble Lord, that too much power was given by this Bill to the Commissioners to rescind and make orders, he (Lord Althorp) thought the objection of the noble Lord was met by the necessity, under this measure, of such proceedings being referred, before adopted, to the Secretary of State. The hon. member for Berkshire had said, that the Bill had not been materially altered in its passage through Committee. The hon. Member had previously thought, that the Bill would have been cut into pieces in Committee; but he was glad to find that the hon. Member could now admit, that, in that ordeal, no material change had been effected. The hon. member for Worcester had alluded to the number of petitions which had been presented against the Bill; but the hon. Member had forgotten that though on the Journals the petitions appeared to have been presented against the Bill generally, yet the majority of them were directed against particular clauses, and not against the measure as a whole, to which he was satisfied the objections were comparatively but few. He admitted, that the opposition had been more general in the metropolitan than in the country districts; but from what he had heard and seen in the country journals, he was satisfied, that the present Bill was, generally speaking, a popular measure. He was convinced, that this Bill would be productive of the greatest possible good to those very individuals with respect to whom it had been described as a harsh mea-
926
sure. The farmer and his labourer would both be benefited; the latter being made independent by increased wages, and the former, in consequence of that increase, would have his work much more effectually and zealously done and performed. Under all these circumstances, he confidently trusted the House would give its continued support to the measure.
The Clauses, from A to E inclusive, were agreed to.
Clause F was withdrawn.
On Clause G being put from the Chair,
Mr. Langdalesaid, that he had met with frequent instances where parents at the point of death were extremely anxious that their children should be brought up in the tenets of the religion to which they themselves belonged; and he should therefore propose, that where the children of persons dying in workhouses were directed by their parents to be educated according to a particular form of religion, their instructions should be attended to. He alluded more particularly to those whose religion he himself professed, and, in some parts of the kingdom, especially Lancashire, a great part of the inmates of workhouses were Roman Catholics. He acknowledged, that his object was to protect those individuals, who, it was well known, were very desirous that their children should be taught the form of religion which they themselves believed the true one. He moved an Amendment accordingly.
Lord Althorpobserved, if parents did object to their children being educated according to the doctrines of the Established Church, they certainly ought to have the power of preventing it.
Amendment agreed to.
On Clause O being proposed,
Mr. Jervisrose to repeat objections which he had formerly urged against the immunity given to the Commissioners by this clause. It had been agreed upon all hands, that these Commissioners were to be regarded merely as agents for carrying the Poor-laws' Amendment Bill into effect; and that they were not to be at all regarded in the light of Judges; it was, consequently, an anomaly in legislation to exempt them from the liability to actions; nor was it necessary for the due performance of their duties. The House, he would assume, was willing to give these Commissioners great authority, and to repose great confidence in them; but the greater the authority committed to them, the greater the confidence reposed in them, the less

927
reason was there why they should receive this extraordinary protection. It was possible that, acting as a Board in a judicial capacity, they might be guilty of gross injustice and oppression; and yet the individual injured by them, if he happened to be poor, was to be virtually denied all redress. To proceed against a Commissioner by indictment was a course which no poor person could adopt. It would be productive of no pecuniary remuneration to him; on the contrary, he would be exposed to a heavy expense. He also protested against allowing Commissioners treble costs, which would not alone cover the expenses to which they were exposed, but actually exceed them.
Lord Althorpobserved, that the question really was, would they allow actions to be brought against the Commissioners sitting as a Board. There was no desire or intention to screen individual Commissioners from the consequences of any misconduct of which they might be guilty. He apprehended, that the practical meaning of treble costs was, in fact, that no action should be brought against the Commissioners under the circumstances to which he had alluded. He thought, that if actions were allowed against them, they would be so annoyed, so cramped thereby, as to be rendered altogether inefficient. Actions on the most frivolous and vexatious subjects would be brought against them, and he did not believe they could get on at all with the business, if they were exposed to the multiplied annoyances that would ensue.
Mr. Peasethought, it would be enough to give the Commissioners full costs, as between solicitor and client.
The Attorney Generalrecommended his noble friend to substitute for 'treble costs' the words 'full costs' as between attorney and client.
This Amendment was carried, and the Clause agreed to.
Mr. Poulett Scrope Mr. Poulett Scrope moved a clause to be added after the 84th clause, as follows:—"And whereas it is contrary to the humane spirit of the English laws, that any individual shall be permitted to perish for want of the necessaries of life, or of medical assistance, and that whoever is by sudden emergency, or urgent distress, deprived of the ordinary means of subsistence, ought to be relieved immediately by the overseers of the parish in which he may be at the time, whether his legal settlement be there or not; be it enacted, that in case any overseer of any parish or union
928
shall refuse or wilfully neglect to afford due relief, according to the circumstances of the case, to any poor person so situated, every such overseer shall, upon conviction thereof before any two Justices, forfeit and pay for every such offence, any sum not exceeding 5l. Provided, also, that when such offence shall appear to any two Justices to be of a nature to merit a heavier punishment, it shall be lawful for such Justices to direct such overseer to be indicted for such offence as a misdemeanour at the next general Quarter Sessions for the county in which the said parish or union shall be situate; and the said Court of Quarter Sessions shall have power, if they think fit, to direct the costs of such prosecution by indictment to be paid out of the Poor-rate of the said parish or union."
Lord Althorpthought, that the hon. Member was mistaken in his view of the necessity for this clause. Overseers were liable under the existing law to indictment, if they refused relief in cases of extreme distress, and might be indicted for murder if death was the consequence; but he did not think that, in cases of prosecution, the costs should be paid out of the rates, and he therefore could not see the advantage of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member, the effect of which might be to produce indictments where there was no ground for them. By the present law, overseers were bound to afford relief in emergency.
Sir Thomas Freemantlesaid, that the Bill, as it at present stood, left the pauper at the mercy of the vestry, without any control or appeal whatever. Much as he approved of the Bill, he was not prepared to go the length of leaving him without control or appeal. There were intermediate cases between ordinary ones, and where the pauper was dying for want of relief. He saw no objection to the introduction of the clause.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that the allowance of costs in such cases led to inconvenience; it often swelled the criminal calendar. Overseers were now liable to punishment, as proposed; but if the costs of a prosecution were to be paid out of the rates, it would tend to encourage unnecessary indictments.
Mr. Poulett Scrope, in reply, observed, that by the existing law of Elizabeth, Magistrates, had the power of compelling overseers to grant relief; that power, however, would not exist under the present Bill.
The Clause was negatived.
Mr. Bainesproposed a clause to restrain the Commissioners from the exercise of their powers in any parish or township maintaining its own poor, where the rates, on an average of the three last years, shall not have exceeded 2s. 6d. in the pound, unless at the requisition of the rate-payers in special vestry. The hon. Member observed, that the majority of the petitions presented to the House against this Bill were opposed to the power given to the Commissioners, and its extension to all parts of the country, where, such as at Manchester, and other places, there was no necessity for the exercise of that power, the parishes being well administered. Instead of 5s. and 15 s. in the pound, in most of the manufacturing parishes, the rates were scarcely one-eighth of the annua rental. The measure here recommended would with-draw one quarter of the population of the country from the operation of the Bill, and the remaining three-fourths were quite sufficient for the Administration of the Commissioners. If these three-fourths were well administered, then it would be an inducement to parishes to require their superintendence. The exception he proposed would not vitiate the Bill, or prevent the experiment being tried; on the contrary, it would facilitate the experiment.
On the Question that the Clause be read a second time,
Lord Althorpsaid, that he could not think the clause an improvement. It would destroy one of the principal advantages of the measure, namely, uniformity of practice, to exempt some patches of the country from its operation. He could not conceive that good could arise from the adoption of the proposition. The hon. Member said, that many parishes were averse to the interference of the Commissioners. If that interference was likely to increase the amount of the rates, that might be a reason for the objection; but the effect of the Bill would not be to increase the amount. The object of this measure was, that the poor should be raised from their present condition; but, in the manufacturing and other places, however low might be the rates in many cases, the situation of the poor was not what it ought to be. If the House acted upon the principle of lowering the rates merely, it would make the Bill what they had been accused of wishing to make it, a plan to save the pockets of the ratepayers only.
The Clause was negatived.
Mr. Tookeproposed to add the following clause to the Bill:—"And whereas there are several districts, precincts, or places in England and Wales which, not having been rated to the relief of the poor of the respective parishes or townships in or near which they are situated, are through such usage alleged to be extra-parochial, and the occupiers of lands, tenements, and hereditaments and premises within the same, claim to be exempt from payment of the rates made for the relief of the poor of such parishes or townships, but support the poor within their own respective districts, precincts or places: and whereas it is expedient for the purpose of simplifying and equalizing the payment and collection of the rates for the relief of the poor, and their settlement and maintenance, that such districts, precincts, and places, should be rated with the parishes or townships in or near which they are situated; and that the poor within the same should be relieved and maintained in common with such parishes or townships;—be it therefore enacted, that all and every such districts, precincts, and places, whether having overseers or not (save and except any district, precinct, or place within the two Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and any place declared by Act of Parliament to be extra-parochial), shall for the purpose of making and collecting such rates for the relief of the poor, and for their settlement, maintenance, and relief, from and after the time at which this Act is to take effect, be deemed and taken to be within and part and parcel of the parish or township in which they are respectively situated, or of the parish or township to which they are respectively nearest or adjoin for the greatest space; and if any such district, precinct, or place, shall be equally near, and adjoin two or more parishes or townships then, and in such case, the district, precinct, or place shall be deemed to be within the most populous of such parishes, according to the last census for the time being."
Mr. Pollock, in rising to oppose this clause, said that he did not rise to perform an act of self-denial. This clause was calculated to bring a charge varying from ten to twenty per cent, on property that had hitherto been exempt from it. In Gray's-inn, for instance—a society with which he was not connected—the chambers were not the property of the society, but of individuals, who had purchased leases

931
of them from the society. The larger part of the Inner Temple, and a still larger part of the Middle Temple, was in the hands of individuals who had purchased chambers on leases for one or two lives, and who had hitherto received a fair rate of interest on their purchase-money. These extra parochial places created no charge on the parishes to which they were contiguous. If they did create any charge, he had no objection to compel them by the Bill to provide for all persons reduced to distress within their boundaries. Now, in the case of Gray's-inn, which was extra-parochial, and contained property to the amount of 10,000 l. or 12,000 l., was it fair to pass a clause of this kind, which would impose a tax of 3s. or 4s. in the pound on that property? What would be said if a law were passed inflicting a rate of 3s. or 4s. in the pound all over the country? Would it not be called a monstrous—he would not say a dishonest—piece of legislation? Would it not be to that extent a confiscation of property? However his hon. and learned friend might be pressed by parties out of the House, he could not pretend to call this proposition of his a proposition of justice. But why should this new tax be imposed upon this species of property? The property had grown up long before the enactment of the Poor-laws. He would also ask his hon. and learned friend whether he thought it fair, after having been beaten in the claim which he made upon Gray's-inn on behalf of the parish of St. Andrew's Holborn, to endeavour to reverse the solemn verdict of a Jury given against him by a clause of this nature? He thought that it was not, and he should therefore give his most strenuous opposition to the Bill.
Mr. Littletonhoped that the House would not look upon this clause as one merely affecting the Inns of Court. It affected the country generally. He thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not considered it fairly. He said, that these extra-parochial places ought to maintain their own poor. But the hon. Member said, that they ought to maintain the poor of the adjoining parishes. Now that went, as he thought, beyond the necessity of the case. He should be glad to support the proposition of the hon. member for Chester, which met, as he conceived, the evil of the case. This clause went far beyond the necessity of the case, and as such he should oppose it.
Mr. Tookesaid, that he had no personal
932
interest in the question, for he was a member of the Temple and a proprietor of Gray's-inn. His object in moving the clause was to render the system of Poor-laws uniform.
Mr. Blackburnesaid, it was a strange uniformity which the hon. Member wished to produce, when his own clause contained five exceptions to it.
Clause withdrawn.
Colonel Wood Colonel Wood moved a clause authorizing the Justices of Peace assembled in Session to appoint a suitor for the poor in each county. His reason for making the proposition was, that the nine assistant-commissioners would have more business in settling the complaints of the poor than they could by any possibility accomplish. It also prescribed the mode of their election, but we were unable to catch the details of it.
Lord Althorpthought, that such a clause was quite unnecessary. He considered that a separate visitor in each separate county would not be wanted. If such a provision were necessary to assist the execution of the Bill, the mode of electing the officers proposed by this clause was not advisable. When the regulations of the Commissioners were published, it would be found, that no such violent changes as gentlemen expected would take place, nor would there be any difficulty in carrying the regulations into effect. The new arrangements would not require many persons to carry them into execution. The provision of the gallant Officer was unnecessary, and if it were necessary, it was by no means the best mode of effecting the object which he had at heart.
The Clause was negatived.
Mr. Hodgesproposed a clause giving to the mayor and corporation of borough towns jurisdiction over the workhouses of such towns, in cases where the workhouse was in the parish, but not the corporate town. This clause, he said, was necessary to meet a set of cases, in which the parish being larger than the borough town, the borough Magistrates had no authority over the workhouse, because it was out of the borough whilst it was in the parish.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he could not consent to this clause at present, as he had not had sufficient time to consider its bearing.
The Clause was negatived.
Mr. Cayleyproposed to leave out clause 60, and to insert the following clause:—"And be it further enacted, that from and

933
after the passing of this Act, no settlement shall be acquired or completed by occupying a tenement, unless such tenement shall have been assessed, or have been liable to be assessed, to the poor-rate for one year, during the occupancy of the party claiming the settlement." He thought the adoption of this amendment would be for the relief of the agricultural interest.
Lord Althorpdid not see any material difference between the clause in the Bill and that proposed by his hon. friend. He did not believe, that even under the clause proposed by his hon. friend any House under 10 l. would confer a good settlement. The clause in the Bill as it stood did not alter the law as to giving settlement by occupancy. He only added to the existing law that the persons so occupying should be rated. His hon. friend's proposals was, that the houses should be rated. The clause which his hon. friend proposed would not effect the object which he had in view, nor would it give any advantage to the agricultural interest.
The Clause was negatived.
Sir Henry Willoughbyproposed the insertion of a clause to the effect:—'that the powers of the Poor-law Commissioners and the Asssistent Commissioners shall not be exercised in any parish or township maintaining its own poor, in which relief is confined to the aged, to the orphan, to the maimed, to the lame, to the blind, to the idiot, to the lunatic, and to those who suffer from sickness, accident, or infirmity.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the power of inspection, even in well administered parishes, would not in his opinion, be a hardship. He was sure that the measure would not be a law of pains and penalties, as some had described, but that it would effect general good for the country.
Mr. Hodgesalso supported the clause. He wished to know from the noble Lord with regard to the power of inspection, whether it would be the duty of the Commissioners to include in unions all the parishes in England and Wales. If such should be the case, the Bill would really be a Bill of pains and penalties.
Lord Althorpsaid, they would do no such thing. The power was merely given to the Commissioners to unite parishes as might to them seem expedient.
The clause was negatived.
The Bill with the amendments, to be engrossed, and to be read a third time.
On the Motion of Sir James Graham the Merchant Seamen's Registration Bill was recommitted.
On the 3rd clause being put, which compelled masters of vessels, on clearing out of port, to deposit with the collector or comptroller of the Customs, a true copy of the agreement entered into with the crew,
Mr. George F. Youngobjected to the clause, on the ground that it would be impossible, from the nature of his duties on leaving port, for a captain to make out the required copy, in order to return it by the pilot. The hon. Member moved an Amendment to the effect, that all masters of vessels should have the option of delivering copies of their agreements with their crews either to the pilots on board, for the purpose of being transmitted to the Register-office, or to the consul or vice-consul at the first foreign port at which the ships touched.
Sir James Grahamsupported the clause, which he said, had been prepared with every view to the convenience of the shipowners and the masters of vessels. The hon. Member had failed to point out any inconvenience which would arise from the operation of the clause as it at present stood.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the clause had been met by objections put forward by the chambers of commerce both of Belfast and Dublin. Those objections were, that ships frequently left port with only a portion of their crews on board, but completed them at other places where men could be obtained at a cheaper rate. Under such circumstances, it would be impossible for the captain on leaving port to make the return required of him; and though the alternative remained of his lodging it at the first port at which he might touch with the consul or vice-consul, yet the clause contained no provision to exempt the captain from the penalty imposed in case of the neglect of those officers to make the return to this country prior to the arrival at home of the particular ship.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that the great object of the clause was, to protect the sailors from the liability when they entered for an outward and homeward voyage, of being left ashore on foreign stations, where other hands could be procured at a cheaper rate to work the vessel home, while the British seaman was left to perish from disease and other causes attendant upon foreign climates. From this system much injury was done to the men, and to prevent it was the object of this clause.
Mr. George F. Youngsaid, that so far from the sailors being so treated, it was well known, that many secreted themselves in foreign ports in order to get higher wages for the voyage home. Indeed, to such an extent did this at one time prevail, that an Act of Parliament was passed, the object of which was, to limit sailors working home from a foreign port to double wages.
Admiral Flemingconcurred with the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) in condemning the present system, and which was well known by every individual who had visited the West Indies to prevail to a great extent. He should support the clause.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that if time were allowed him, he could move for returns of documents which had been received from consuls abroad, which described scenes, especially in the Pacific, of a most heart-rending character, arising from the circumstance of sailors being left on shore and otherwise being most barbarously treated by the captains of vessels, and which documents would fully bear out his assertion.
The Committee divided on Mr. George Young's Amendment:—Ayes 35; Noes 47; Majority 12.
Several Clauses were agreed to. The House resumed—the Committee to sit again.

List of the AYES.

Attwood, T.

O'Brien, C.

Barnard, E. G.

O'Connor, F.

Blake, M. J.

O'Connell, Daniel

Buckingham, J. S.

O'Connell, J.

Chapman, A.

Pease, J.

Cayley, Sir G.

Rippon, Cuthbert

Cayley, E. S.

Rumbold, C. E.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Ruthven, E.

Ewart, W.

Ruthven, E.S.

Ewing, J.

Sandon, Lord

Fitzsimon, C.

Stewart, Sir M. S.

Gully, J.

Sullivan, R.

Henniker, Lord

Vigors, N. A.

Hutt, W.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Jacob, E.

Wallace, R.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Williamson, Sir H.

Lowther, Lord

Lyall, G.

TELLERS.

Marjoribanks, S.

Young, G. F.

POSTAGE ON NEWSPAPERS ACT.
The House in Committee on Postage on Newspapers Act.
Mr. Vernon Smiththen moved, that a charge of 2d. be made on each British newspaper sent by packet to the colonies or foreign countries, and that there should
936
also be a charge of 2d. on every foreign newspaper sent by post to this country. The hon. Gentleman stated, that the object of this Resolution was, to enable the Government to enter into arrangements with foreign countries with reference to the transmission of newspapers, so as to enable the Post-office to reduce the charges of postage for newspapers from those countries which admitted English newspapers on similar terms.
Lord Lowthercomplained, that a greater charge was made at the Post-office at Charing-cross for sending a Newspaper abroad, than was made at the General Post-office in the city.
Mr. Vernon Smithadmitted, that such was the case. The main object of his Resolution was, to enable foreign countries to send newspapers to England almost free of expense, provided English newspapers were admitted to those countries on equal terms. He had another Resolution to propose, by which this ground of complaint would be got rid of; namely, by giving compensation to the clerks, so as to get rid of the fees now allowed to them by the conveyance of newspapers. He did not know how any arrangement could be entered into on other terms than those he had proposed.
The Resolution was agreed to.
Mr. Vernon Smiththen proposed a Resolution to the effect that it was the opinion of the Committee, that the Postmaster-General be empowered to send by post certain stamped papers free of expense; and also that he be allowed to make compensation to the clerks of the roads and others now entitled to fees. It was considered but just, that compensation should be given to the clerks for the privileges that were to be abolished.
Lord Lowtherregretted, that the hon. Gentleman was not prepared to go a little further towards breaking down the old system. He wished to know why there was such an enormous charge made for the postage of foreign letters? In consequence of this charge, letters from abroad were sent by private individuals, and every Ambassador's bag was filled with the private letters of those who had the least influence. In most foreign countries, the postage was not one half of the charge for letters from England as it was in this country for letters from the continent.
Mr. Vernon Smithknew, that the rate of postage for foreign letters was high in this country, and agreed that it was a fit

937
subject for the consideration of the Postmaster-General to see whether a remedy could not be applied.
The Resolution was agreed to, and the House resumed.

GENERAL MORENO—Mr. BOYD.
Mr. O'Dwyerexpressed a hope, that although at that late hour, (it was past two o'clock) the House would not object to receive the Motion of which he had given notice. The subject was one of very considerable importance, which deeply affected the honour and character of this country. His Motion was for documents relating to the conduct of General Moreno, who, it was well known, had invited the brave General Torrijos, and several of his companions to Malaga, and had there become the instrument of their destruction, and, what more immediately concerned this country, the destruction of Mr. Boyd, an Englishman. Moreno was now in this country, having recently landed on our shores, and for the character of the country itself, and for the future security of the lives of British subjects, some steps ought to be immediately taken to obtain satisfaction for this violent outrage. It was well known, that at the time of this transaction the British authorities in Malaga had strongly remonstrated against the assassination of Mr. Boyd, though, unfortunately, without effect. It could be proved, he understood, that Torrijos and his companions had been not only invited, but strongly urged by Moreno to come to Malaga. He had been informed, that there were at this moment, documents within reach of the Government, which would fully show the nature of the invitation that had been sent. There was one letter in which, as he was instructed to state, would be found these words—"We burn to join your glorious constitutional cause." This letter was from Moreno, and professed to speak the sentiments of himself and the people of Malaga. This letter, he understood, was at this moment in possession of a person connected with the Government. It would be for the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) to make inquiry into this subject, for Government was bound to see the honour of the country asserted, and to bring, if possible, the murderer of one of its subjects to justice. He would move "An address for a return of the names of all male persons accompanying Don Carlos, the Infant of Spain, to this country, whose arrival has been notified to the Foreign Department: copy of
938
all correspondence between the Foreign Department and the authorities of Spain, regarding the seizure, and putting to death of Mr. Boyd, a subject of his Majesty."
Viscount Palmerstonhad no objection to the hon. Member's Motion, but he would suggest to him an alteration in the latter part of it, making it rather for the correspondence of this Government with our Minister at Madrid, and also with the authorities at Malaga, on the subject of the detention and execution of Mr. Boyd. These letters, when produced, would speak for themselves. On one point he must say, the hon. Gentleman was mistaken and misinformed, and that was in supposing that he, or that the Government, was in possession of any such letter as that to which he had alluded, or even that he had ever read any such letter. The circumstances of General Torrijos's entry into Spain were well known. In 1831 General Torrijos went from this country, accompanied by several of his countrymen, with the intention of landing in Spain for the purpose of forwarding their own particular political views. They first got to Gibraltar, and their presence and object there becoming known to the Spanish government, a representation was made by that government to this country, remonstrating against an English garrison being allowed to harbour persons menacing with a hostile attack a country in amity and alliance with us. This Government felt, that our garrison ought not to be used for such a purpose, and the Governor of Gibraltar, as he had authority to do, took steps to find out the parties in order to prevent their making a descent on Spain from that place. Unfortunately, he was not successful in his search; he said unfortunately, for if they had been found they would have been placed on board a British ship, and thus the fate which they afterwards met would have been averted. The parties went from Gibraltar to Malaga, in pursuance of an invitation from some persons there, and an intimation that they would be kindly received. This was his belief. The moment they arrived at Malaga they were arrested, and an account was transmitted by Moreno to Madrid stating the fact. In five days after that, an order came from the Spanish government directing that they should all be shot. A claim was made on the part of the British authorities in behalf of Mr. Boyd, as a British subject; that claim was not recognized, and the demands transmitted by the British authorities were of

939
no avail. The execution took place, and he believed, that in strictness, as far as the Spaniards were concerned, it was quite in accordance with the laws of Spain. As to Mr. Boyd, he was afraid, however they might lament his fate, that his death was justifiable according to the law of nations. Mr. Boyd was found in arms acting against Spain, acting against its authorities, in union with persons who were considered traitors to its government. This was not merely his own opinion, but that of persons much better qualified to form an opinion on the subject than he was. The remonstrances of Mr. Mark at Malaga, and of Mr. Addington, at Madrid, had been very strong to the Spanish government on the subject, but Mr. Boyd had ceased to exist before any intimation of the fact reached Government here. All the Ministers here could do, was to remonstrate with the government of Spain against the course it had pursued, and that had been done. The nature of the remonstrances that had been thus made would be seen when the papers were laid before the House. He hoped, after what he had stated, the hon. and learned Gentleman would alter his Motion, so as that it should include the documents to which he had just referred.
Mr. O'Dwyerhad no objection to adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord, but he would beg to ask whether, since the arrival of Moreno in this country, any reference had been made to the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether any and what mode existed of bringing that man to punishment.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that he had directed such reference to be made for the satisfaction of the public feeling on this subject, but though he had adopted that course, he himself had very little doubt what the nature of the answer returned would be.
Mr. Cuthbert Ripponsaid, that there was a letter in the possession of an individual at this moment in this country, addressed by Moreno to General Torrijos, in which the words referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, "I burn to join your constitutional expedition," occurred. He was ready to put this letter into the hands of the noble Lord. Now, after this fact, could the noble Lord hesitate to go into an immediate inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining how far the country could receive satisfaction for the outrage committed on one of its subjects?
Mr. O'Connellwas sure, that the law of nations would not permit that a man who
940
was in our power, who had enticed a British subject into his hands and then cruelly murdered him, should be suffered to escape with impunity. In the law of nations some provisions must exist, and no doubt did exist, to punish the subject of one country for the murder of the subject of another. It would not permit that a monster of this kind should be suffered to escape, and he was sure that every good man would rejoice at seeing a murderer of this description brought to justice.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, the question was, whether Mr. Boyd was placed in such a situation as that he could be protected by the law of nations? Was an enterprise which had been previously undertaken against Spain, but which had been accelerated by the acts of others—he would not say how fairly—was not that, he would ask, such a circumstance as took the case of Mr. Boyd out of the protection of the law of nations? He could not think that that law could be construed to afford protection to an individual circumstanced as Mr. Boyd was.
Mr. O'Connellthought, that if an agent of a foreign government enticed a British subject into his power, and then put him to death, there must be some law which would reach an act of that kind; and if so, our Government ought at least, now that this monster was in its power, to put the question into a train of judicial investigation. Language was not strong enough to express the feelings of detestation which every man must have for atrocious perfidy of this kind; and yet this wretch had polluted the Press of this country by his name affixed to an attempted vindication of his horrid deed. He must repeat, that he did think this was a case to which the law of nations would apply, and he hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord would take steps for having an opinion on the subject from proper quarters.
Viscount Palmerston: I have done so.
Mr. Huttsaid, he had known the brave General Torrijos intimately, and he was aware of the cruel treachery by which he had been invited to Malaga, and there betrayed by the blood-thirsty Moreno. He knew that the General and his companions were sacrificed to the blood-thirsty ambition of that cruel tyrant, who had made their bodies the steps by which to ascend to power and favour under the Spanish government. If that man were now in this country, if he were in our power, he ought not to be suffered to depart until some

941
means had been tried to bring him to justice. Human nature recoiled at the cold-blooded atrocity of inviting a man under the mask of friendship and attachment to a meeting that he might be lured to his destruction, for the mere selfish purpose of personal advancement. If then, he repeated, there were any means by which this dastardly and blood-thirsty coward could be brought to justice, he hoped the noble Lord would not fail to have recourse to them.
The Motion agreed to.

MINUTES.
Bills. The Royal Assent was given by Commission to Escheats, and twenty-seven private Bills.—Read a second time:—Administration of Justice in Boroughs.
Petitions presented. By the Bishops of CARLISLE and LONDON, from several Places,—against the Claims of the Dissenters.—By Lord KINNAIRD, from Glasgow, for altering the present System of Church Patronage; from a District of Perthshire, for a Separation of Church and State; and from two Places, for Protection to the Established Church of Scotland.—By the Dukes of RICHMOND and WELLINGTON, Earl DELAWARR, Lords KENYON and ROLLE, Archbishop of CASHEL, and the Bishops of LINCOLN, LONDON, CARLISLE, and GLOUCESTER, from a Number of Places,—for Protection to the Established Church.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—THE MORNING POST.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he was about to take a step which, after being more than twenty-four years a Member of either House of Parliament, he had forborne to take, though God knew not from any want of occasion being afforded, but from that habitual forbearance which he had always exercised on this point. He was about to bring before their Lordships a breach of the privileges of that House, which, had it been committed against any other Member than himself,

893
he should have felt only the reluctance he had ever entertained at the principle of this kind of interference, but which, being against himself, he assured their Lordships that nothing but an absolute overruling necessity could have induced him to notice it; for, where the grossest falsehoods—the most palpable, apparent, and audacious falsehoods—concurred with the most despicable ignorance and malice, he thought he might venture to say, that it would have been perfectly safe for him to have done as he had heretofore done, and had never repented doing, viz., to have let the at-attack upon him pass unheeded, to have treated it with the contempt it deserved and he really felt, and to have contented himself calmly and quietly, as he had done before, with living over the calumny. Such might have been his course, such was the course he would have preferred; but he should not have read to the end of what he was about to lay before their Lordships before they would perceive, that he was left no choice upon the present occasion, and that those noble Lords who were kind enough to call his attention to the article in question, and which but for their kindness, he should never have seen, were right in holding that his taking notice of it was no matter of choice. He understood that in the same quarter there had been going on for the last six or eight months a series of systematic attacks against him, of a like nature to the present, directed to one object, viz., to misrepresent in the foulest manner (of which the present was a specimen), and to those acquainted with the facts sometimes in the most ridiculous manner, the whole of his judicial conduct both in the Court of Chancery and in that House. When the authors of these attacks—for he did not blame the miserable tools whom they had obtained to do their work—found that it was not true as they asserted, that it was false that the business of the Court of Chancery was in arrear, that, on the contrary, it was reduced to so low an ebb that he should be obliged to close the Court until November, excepting for two causes, in which the parties were not quite ready, and pass by the regular Seal days, an event which had never before occurred—when they found, that all the charges they brought about the backward state of the business in that House were equally false, for that the business there also had been reduced so low that inevitably no one cause of any sort or kind would be in arrear for weeks before the end of the Session—when
894
they found all these falsehoods cut away, and that they had no longer any ground of plausibility even upon which to found an attack, they invented one, of a most calumnious nature, severely bearing upon his character as a Judge, and as a Member of their Lordships' House, but one which he would not further describe, as they were about to judge of it for themselves. A cause, as their Lordships knew, had lately been tried in that House, in which, after hearing the opinion of the learned Judges, a unanimous opinion was come to. Having looked attentively into the case, made him- self master of the argument, attended to the opinion of the Judges, and looked closely into the authorities, he came down to that House and gave his opinion to their Lordships, and called for their judgment. Upon that occasion he gave their Lordships a very decided opinion, very clearly formed, and upon further reflection fully confirmed and confidently and boldly held by, that a more groundless writ of error never came before that House, and that their Lordships were bound in justice to decide against the appeal with costs, the costs not to exceed 350 l. Having moved the affirmation of the judgment of the learned Judges, the entry was made by the clerk, as was usual, in the form in which it always was made, and according to a rule introduced in recent times, but which was firmly established before he had a seat in the House, and with which he had never, in reality, either in form or substance, interfered in the slightest particular, excepting to obey it. No one thing was said, or done, or withheld, with reference to the judgment given, the order of proceedings, or the entry made, but what was in the habitual, regular, and constant course of proceeding, and according to the literal forms of the House as daily observed in every case of the like kind that came before their Lordships. He would next proceed to read to their Lordships the comment that had been made upon these proceedings passing by the ribaldry by which it war introduced. Their Lordships would thereby see that a most serious accusation was made against him, that he, a Member of that House, a Judge presiding over its judicial proceedings, finding that he had done wrong in that capacity, had actually garbled the minutes, and falsified the entry of those proceedings. This charge was made in the most direct and unequivocal manner, although the interrogative mode was adopted He would read the article to

895
their Lordships, who would see that his statements were not exaggerated.
These circumstances (the noble Lord read) are already, perhaps, known to and remembered by our readers; but what follows will surprise them, however familiar they may be with Lord Brougham's eccentricities.
He had not the slightest objection to plead guilty to the charge of eccentricity, if that offence consisted in going to business early in the morning, and continuing at it till late in the evening, and getting through all the business that was to be done both there and elsewhere; if that was eccentricity he had no objection to plead guilty to it. The article proceeded:
The Morning Herald, which contains the fullest report of Lord Brougham's speech in moving the judgment of the House of Lords upon the case, states that Lord Brougham concluded in these words:—"I move, my Lords, that the judgment of the Court below be affirmed, with costs not exceeding 350 l." And the Morning Herald proceeds to tell us that the judgment of the Court below was "affirmed accordingly."
The Morning Heraldis not alone. The solicitors, the short-hand writers, the Peers—(What Peers? Your Lordships are slandered also by this paper)—all concur in asserting that Lord Brougham moved, "that the judgment be affirmed," and that the judgment was "affirmed accordingly."
Now, how do we find the Motion of Lord Brougham and the acquiescence of the House recorded in the Journals of the House of Lords?
Thus—"Solarte v. Palmer. Further considered; and judgment thereupon POSTPONED sine die!"
(The word "postponed" printed in large capitals.)
Is it true, that the Lord Chief Justice hinted to the Lord Chancellor that the point which had appeared to the Lord Chancellor much too plain for doubt, appeared to the Lord Chief Justice far too dark for certainty?
Is it true, that a friendly functionary hinted to Lord Brougham that he had formerly been Counsel in the cause upon which he was now Judge, and that he had strongly advised the course in the one capacity which he coarsely condemned in the other?
Is it true, that upon the one hint, or the other hint, or both hints, Lord Brougham prohibited the insertion upon the Journals of the House of the Motion which had been made by himself, and the assent which had been given to it by their Lordships?
We cannot answer these questions; and we do not advise Lord Brougham to attempt an answer to them. We know, however, quite enough. Lord Brougham has done an act of such wanton oppression, of such cruel injustice,
896
that the Journals of the House of Lords must be garbled for the reversal or the concealment of it.
("Concealment from the parties who suffered by it!" observed the noble and learned Lord.)
If there is one Nobleman in the Upper House solicitous in the very least degree for the dignity of his order this matter must be noticed without delay. If what we tell is true, Lord Brougham is unfit to preside in the Court of Chancery as a Judge, to sit in Parliament as a Peer, to move in society as a Gentleman.
(Then came a proposition with which he thought their Lordships would fully agree)—
If what we tell is false—there never was committed a grosser breach of privilege than that of which we are to-day guilty.
Therefore it was, as he had already told their Lordships, that be could not read to the end of this article without satisfying them that it was hardly matter of choice with him whether he would bring this matter before them. He was compelled to do so. With all his respect for the freedom of discussion—with all his good-will towards the Press of this country—with all his anxiety that every man's conduct, public and private, for he did not stop at his public conduct merely—with all his disposition to throw open his own public and private conduct to free canvass and inquiry, it was impossible for him to sit on the Woolsack without calling attention to this breach of their privileges. It was really painful to go back to this publication to answer the questions it contained; but he would do so. They were, indeed, as ridiculous as false. It was asked—"Is it true, that the Lord Chief Justice hinted to the Lord Chancellor that the point which had appeared to the Lord Chancellor much too plain for doubt, appeared to the Lord Chief Justice far too dark for certainty?" My Lords, said the Lord Chancellor—It is not true. "Is it true, that a friendly functionary hinted to Lord Brougham that he had formerly been Counsel in the cause upon which he was now Judge, and that he had strongly advised the course in the one capacity which he coarsely condemned in the other? It is not true. I know not to which functionary allusion can here be made. I know of no friendly functionary, or hostile functionary, or person or functionary, who is neither one nor the other, from whom I received any hint, excepting always a public newspaper, in which I saw it stated, that I was Counsel in the cause.

897
Undoubtedly it is true, that I was Counsel in the cause; but that was in a very early stage of it, and not when it was near the stage upon which alone a single observation is made in this paper. "Is it true, that upon the one hint, or the other hint, or both hints, Lord Brougham prohibited the insertion upon the Journals of the House of the motion which had been made by himself, and the assent which had been given to it by their Lordships?"—It is utterly untrue, scandalously false, wickedly libellous, and slanderous every one must see, and not more scandalous than it is from beginning to end an entire fiction. I know the origin of this, my Lords. It proceeds from some person who is ignorant of the forms of this House in judicial proceedings. You see how dangerous a little learning is. If this person had never known the forms of this House—if he had never dabbled in these forms—if he had not known so little, he would not have got his victim—his dupe, who has been prompted by his malignity—into this gross blunder. By merely looking at the Journals of the House he has been led into this gross fabrication. When the order is made, and your Lordships have agreed to affirm a decree, with a certain amount of costs, the costs are stated pro formâ, not to exceed 350 l., but the real amount is left to be ascertained. 350 l. is the maximum sum. The costs cannot exceed that sum, but they might be less; they might be 250 l. or 200 l. The judgment is afterwards entered up, together with the real amount of the costs. This great improvement, which was directed by one of my noble and learned predecessors, was made years and years before I entered this House. On all occasions, ever since this rule has been in force, the order has been pronounced as I pronounced it, but the judgment has never been entered up till the real amount of the costs has been ascertained. In every one case, I repeat, the judgment is moved to be affirmed with a certain amount of costs, but it is entered in the way I have described to your Lordships—"Judgment postponed." In the case of Solarte v. Palmer, the gentleman at the table, who, I have no doubt, will remember the matter better than I do, after I had moved that the decree be affirmed, made the entry in the usual way. That gentleman did not communicate with me in any way; not a word, nor a hint, nor a wink, passed between us. This has happened twenty times since I have been on the woolsack.
898
It has happened almost every day; the business never took any other course, and by no possibility could it have taken any other course. Your Lorships now see how these worthy and disinterested inquirers into my judicial proceedings—these maldroit adepts—these bungling, blundering libellers—who, with all the venom that can be distilled from their base and crawling natures, have not the common sense that even the lowest animals, who are endowed with such poisonous gifts possess, of running into their holes and concealing their deformity—have laid themselves open to every species of exposure. No man can regret this, but I do feel some regret for their unhappy victims. They primed their instruments with information, saying, "I had this from such a one—he knows a great deal, and it must be true,"—and then they wrote their own comments, or got their journeymen to write it for them. In this way has been ushered into the world this mendacious composition—as despicable and as malicious in the origin, as blundering in the execution, showing as great a want of common tact as of common honesty. All this is the consequence of the kind of machinery which I have stated to your Lordships. I do not look at it with asperity. In my mind, it produces no other feeling than that of unmeasured contempt. I can't pretend to say, that I feel injured; on the contrary, I am not wounded in the slightest way in any one of my feelings. So that, if that was one of the objects of the slanderers, they have totally failed. I must now say something respecting the advice which I am stated to have given when at the Bar, relative to this case, and which is alluded to in another part of this article. My Lords, I have made it my business, since I entered this House, to apply myself in the closest manner that I can to the duties which my situation entails upon me. Wanting the vast learning and the long experience of some of my predecessors, I have endeavoured, in assisting your Lordships in the exercise of your judicial functions, to make up for that want by deep and unremitted attention to the business brought before me; I am sure that no one who has had an opportunity of observing my conduct will fail to corroborate what I say. I have not adopted the usual plan of saying nothing when judgments were affirmed, and which had almost grown up into a practice. Before the decision of the Roxburgh case, it was the constant practice to say nothing on those occa-

899
sions when judgments were merely affirmed. Two of my predecessors have certainly given reasons for affirming decrees, but not often. I have, however, made it an invariable rule in all cases where intricate points of law have been involved, or where the question at issue has been of much importance, to give my opinion at length to your Lordships. I find, that it is more satisfactory to the suitors and to the Courts of Law regulated by the judgment of your Lordships, to adopt that course. I acted up to that rule on the present occasion; but, although I stated my opinion unreservedly, it did not, I am sure, betoken the slightest exasperation. I was in no way vexed by the time which this appeal occupied, nor by the attention which I gave to the arguments. It was your Lordships' time which was wasted. With regard to the statement that I on one occasion advised that this appeal should be made, I will premise, that I should be ashamed if, after having given a certain opinion when I was counsel, when I might have been blinded by some obliquity of view, I should feel myself; as a judge, bound to adhere to that opinion, however ill-founded. A counsel is apt to say, in the first moment after defeat, that he is right, and that the court is wrong, but let a month or six weeks pass away, and let him have time to reflect on that hasty opinion, and it is then more than probable that he will admit his error, and say there is not a shadow of a ground for adopting his advice. If I had been in such a situation, if I had advanced an opinion of that kind, I am sure I should have been the first person to say, that my advice was wrong, that there was not a word of truth in it, and that it must be wholly disregarded. I was counsel for Mr. Solarte when the case was tried at Guildhall; but I never complained of a bill of exceptions not being tendered. Lord Tenterden might have advised, that a bill of exceptions should be tendered, but that does not prove that Lord Tenterden considered, that the verdict was wrong, but that he thought it was better that the case should be decided in another court if the plaintiff was of opinion that the verdict could not be maintained, and that his direction to the jury was erroneous. But, my Lords, this cause afterwards came before the Court of Exchequer—it was there argued before all the Judges, and consequently a decision was given in this case, first by Lord Tenterden, and then by the Court of Exchequer, where all the twelve Judges were
900
assembled. An elaborate opinion was expressed upon the question, and the decision of Lord Tenterden was confirmed without one dissentient voice, it being considered a clear case, respecting which no difference of opinion could exist. The point on which this decision turned referred to the notice of a bill of exchange, and the learned Judges were of opinion that there was no colour for saying that a due notice had been given. Your Lordships now see how utterly false—how entirely fabricated is the assertion in this article, that I advised this proceeding, which I afterwards expressed astonishment should have been adopted. The decision given in this case in the Court of King's Bench was brought before the Judges in the Exchequer Chamber, and till judgment was pronounced by them upon it, there could be no appeal in the House of Lords. Now that judgment was not pronounced till the 7th of May, 1831, seven or eight months after I became a Peer, and took my seat as Chancellor; and, therefore, I could not by any possibility have advised upon the subject of an appeal to "the highest tribunal in the country." In the course of that judgment I observe, that the Court says, "There is a stronger case against the party before us than appeared in Hartley v. Case, which was decided in 1825." Now, my Lords, I argued that very case myself, and therefore, am well acquainted with the points of law to which it referred—so that here is another reason to show that I should not have advised this proceeding, which I have already demonstrated is physically impossible. With regard to the tone of other parts of this article, which I have not thought it necessary to read to your Lordships, I will make some observations. I certainly did dwell on one circumstance when this appeal was before me, and I did so because it appeared to merit reproof. I allude to the manner in which the authorities were cited to bear out the case of one of these parties. The counsel very carefully cited a case which was forty years' old, having been tried by Lord Mansfield, in 1787, but they took not the slightest notice of Hartley v. Case, which was tried so recently as 1825, and which was referred to by the Judges in the Exchequer Chamber. That is not all, my Lords. They cited the high authority of Mr. Justice Bayley On Bills of Exchange, as having laid down the law in their favour; but how did they cite him? Why, they cited from the fourth edition of that learned

901
Judge's work, published in 1822, in which only the old case of Tyndal v. Brown was quoted as applicable to their view of the question. Now, my Lords, I produced to them a fifth edition; but I will first show that that edition might have been known to them. It was published in 1830, and
judgment was not given in the Court of Exchequer till 1831. Now, if the fifth edition was published, why should they cite from the fourth? It happens that the fourth edition gives a case in their favour, which is completely overturned by the case of Hartley v. Case, and which is contained in the fifth edition. I produced that case, my Lords, and I did feel called upon, under such circumstances, to make some comments upon the course which had been pursued. I certainly thought, that your Lordships should not have been so treated. When I gave my reasons for affirming the decree, and when I made those comments, I heard nothing from my Lord Chief Justice, I heard nothing from any friendly functionary. I formed my opinion from my own impartial consideration of the case; and when I had delivered it I heard no reflection made which could induce me to recede from it. It was my candid opinion, and I have met with no grounds to induce me to change it. If I could have been suspected of entertaining any feeling, was it not more probable that I should have leaned towards that party whose cause I had advocated, and with whose interests I had partially identified myself? But here the charge is the reverse. I am accused of leaning towards the opposite party. My Lords, I trust that it is needless for me to go further into this subject, and to reply to the gross charges which I have brought under your notice. Forgive me for saying that there will be an end to the judicature of the House of Lords, there will be an end of this Assembly judicating at all, if ever we shall live to see the day—which may God forbid, for there would be an end not only of this House, but an end of the administration of justice in England—when personal feelings, when party prejudices, or factious animosities, shall cross the path shadowless, which ought to be of the pure, undefiled, and bright course which your Lordships' predecessors have always held in the administration of justice. I say, my Lords, that if there should appear, from any sinister motive, any disposition in any quarter to afford these libellers shelter—to give them any encouragement, or to speak for them, we shall then have ap-
902
proached the verge, if not fallen down the precipice, of those dangers which I trust we shall never have cause to fear. I should not have discharged my duty as the humble instrument of the judicial functions vested in your Lordships' hands, if I had allowed this publication to pass by unheeded and unnoticed, after my attention had been called to it. As to the deluded parties who have been made the dupes in this most calumnious attack, I feel pity for them; and as to those who are the prime movers in it, and who have brought about only their own shame and discomfiture, I care nothing for them. This provocation, great as it is, may give me cause for some regret, but I can truly say that I am affected in no other way. His Lordship resumed his seat amidst much cheering, and general cries of "Move, Move!"
Earl Greyrose, and was understood to say, that after the circumstances which had just been stated by the noble and learned Lord—after their Lordships had been made acquainted with the nature of the attack which had been so unjustifiably made upon the public anti private character of that noble and learned Lord, and also upon the privileges of the House, he thought that there could be but one opinion as to the course which ought to be taken, namely, that the publisher of the libel should be called to the Bar of the, House. He had read with indignation the paragraph, which was written in such gross and insolent language, and which accused the noble and learned Lord, who was invested with the highest judicial functions, of having falsified an entry in the Journals of their Lordships, for the alleged purpose of concealing an erroneous judgment. This, it clearly appeared, was totally unfounded in fact, no entry having been made, but that which was usually made. He should, without entering further into the subject, move that the paragraph which had been read to their Lordships was a gross breach of the privileges of the House.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that it was impossible to deny that there had been a gross breach of the privileges of the House, and that the noble and learned Lord could not have done otherwise than have taken the course which he had. The explanation which his noble and learned friend had given of the mode of entering up judgment by their Lordships was quite correct; but at the same time he wished to state, that the form was calculated to deceive many as to its true import.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he did not wish to interfere one way or the other. Why should he? He was not injured in the least by the publication. He did not care one farthing about it. He had always strongly recommended the House not to get into contests on breaches of privilege, for he had observed that on such occasions both Houses of Parliament generally had the worst of it. He must, however, take the liberty to say, if there ever was a case which ought to be brought forward it was the present. With respect to Lord Tenterden's having entertained any doubt upon the case, this was a great mistake. His Lordship had had no doubt whatever finally. The whole of the Judges had unanimously decided one way. The only operation of a writ of error was the imposition of a great expense on the party bringing the judgment out of Westminster Hall, merely to have the case decided in that House by the very persons who had already decided it elsewhere. A case of pure common law, as to a point of what was or what was not evidence on a bill of exchange, never could be decided by that House against the unanimous opinion of all the Judges. He would leave the case to their Lordships, and if they voted the paragraph a breach of privilege, he might probably interfere upon subsequent proceedings.
Earl Greysaid, that he was sure that their Lordships would be of opinion that personal considerations ought not in any manner to influence their judgment on this question, as it was impossible for the House not to vindicate its privileges on such an occasion. He had never been a friend to proceedings against publications, although their Lordships well knew that he had not passed through his political life without experiencing ample provocation. He had not, however, in any one case, ever made a complaint to that House. The breach of privilege now brought forward was capable of no other construction than that it was a most premeditated, malignant attack on the character of an individual, a violation of the privileges of that House; and he was rather surprised that his noble and learned friend should have treated it with so much contempt. The writer of the libel said—"We cannot answer these questions; and we do not advise Lord Brougham to attempt an answer to them. We know, however, quite enough. Lord Brougham has done an act of such wanton oppression, of such cruel injustice, that the Journals of
904
the House of Lords must be garbled for the reversal or the concealment of it!" Here the writer charged Lord Brougham in his judicial capacity as Member of that House, of garbling and mutilating the Journals of the House, either to conceal or misrepresent a judgment he had given. The writer proceeded—"If there is one nobleman in the Upper House solicitous in the very least degree for the dignity of his order, this matter must be noticed without delay." It was impossible for his noble and learned friend not to have noticed this passage, and, it being noticed, it was impossible for the House not to take the course he pointed out to vindicate its privileges. The writer then continued—"If what we tell is true, Lord Brougham is unfit to preside in the Court of Chancery as a Judge, to sit in Parliament as a Peer, to move in society as a gentleman. If what we tell is false,—there never was a greater breach of privilege than that of which we are to-day guilty." Were their Lordships prepared to hear any Member of that House vilified in such a manner upon a charge totally false? If it were false, he contended that never had there been committed a greater breach of privilege, and it appeared to him impossible for the House to refrain from treating it as such. Let the printer be called to the Bar, and if he could urge any thing in palliation or extenuation of what he had done, their Lordships were too just not to be willing to hear his plea, and to allow him the full benefit of what he might be able to urge.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, that the paragraph was scandalous and base, and if the noble and learned Lord had not taken notice of it, he should have felt it his duty to have brought the subject forward. If the printer should not be able to justify himself entirely, the House ought to adopt severe proceedings.
The Duke of Wellingtonentirely concurred in the view, that this was a breach of their Lordships privileges. With reference to the mode of recording the judgment, he believed that the question had been put from the Woolsack, that the judgment of the Court below be affirmed. It appeared to him impossible that that House could pass a vote of such a nature, and that there should be no record of that vote. There must have been a record, but the record which had been printed was, that the judgment had been, not passed, but postponed. Any man would be misled by the discrepancy between the record or

905
entry by the clerk and the printed paper, which professed to be a copy of it. He could assure their Lordships that he had himself been entirely misled by the entry on the vote upon this occasion. When he had perused the libel that morning, he had referred to the printed votes, and he had found them different from the record. He thought it but fair and just to state this to their Lordships, leaving it to their Lordships to do with the case what they might think advisable.
The Lord Chancellorexplained, that the entry of the judgment on the record was, in the first instance provisional. In every case where the judgment of the House coincided with that of the tribunal below, until the amount of costs was ascertained, the judgment could not be, even though affirmed, entered as finally passed; and consequently, as in the case which gave rise to the present discussion, the printed vote of their Lordships House stated that the case was postponed for further consideration.
The Earl of Mansfieldthought it was but due to the persons accused of having committed a breach of their Lordships' privileges, to state, that he originally laboured under the same misapprehension respecting the judgment of the House, as the noble Duke who had but just addressed them. He saw in one of the newspapers an account of the speech made by the noble and learned Lord when delivering judgment in the case; and as in that account the noble and learned Lord was made to conclude by moving "that the judgment of the Court below be affirmed with costs," he did not entertain a doubt that such a judgment had been given. His attention, however, was more particularly called to the subject by a friend, who asked him if, such a judgment had been given, and, on referring to the printed minutes of their Lordships' proceedings, somewhat to his surprise he found that no such judgment had been entered, but, on the contrary, that the case had been postponed till a future day. Wishing, then, naturally to ascertain what was the real fact, he availed himself of the earliest opportunity to examine the written minutes, and these certainly he found to be very different from the printed minutes. Whether they ought in terms to correspond with each other he knew not; but in point of fact they did not correspond, and he would shortly state what constituted the difference. In the written minutes above the word "affirmed"
906
were inserted in hand-writing differing from that of the body of the document the words "to be;" but in the printed votes the word "affirmed" was not used at all, the judgment being there stated to be postponed. The meaning of the interlineation in the written minute, he took to be that stated by the noble and learned Lord, but how far the wording of the printed vote was correct he had yet to learn. The statement of the noble and learned Lord respecting the practice of the House, he believed to be perfectly correct. In cases where judgment was given, affirming the judgment of the Court below, with a fixed and determined amount of costs, he would say, for instance, with 100 l. costs, the vote of the House would be entered as finally affirmed; but in cases where the judgment of the Court below was affirmed with an amount of costs to be ascertained on a future occasion, the proper entry would be, that the case was postponed until the amount of such costs was ascertained. In the present case, as the judgment was affirmed with amount of costs as yet unascertained, the proper entry would have been "to be postponed until amount of costs ascertained;" instead of which it was stated in the written minutes that the case was "to be affirmed," and in the printed minutes, that it was "postponed sine die." That there was a considerable degree of confusion in the taking down and printing of the minutes was evident, and of course it would be a question with their Lordships how far that confusion ought to go in palliation of the breach of privilege, should they decide upon calling the printer to the Bar. He did not state the circumstance in defence of the person accused of the breach of their Lordship's privileges. In the propriety of calling that person to the Bar to answer for his offence, he entirely concurred; and even though, as was the case on a former occasion, their Lordships might be accused of prejudging the case, by designating it as a breach of privilege before the party was brought to the Bar, he had no objection to assent to the noble Earl's present Motion.
The Lord Chancellorbegged to set the noble Earl right upon the question of privilege. It was absolutely necessary that the article in question should be declared a breach of privilege before any proceedings were taken to bring the printer to the Bar. The printer of the paper, in fact, could not be brought to the Bar unless their Lordships decided that the article in question was a violation of their privileges. He

907
could resist the Order to attend, and no officer would be safe in arresting him, unless he could produce in his justification the Resolution of their Lordships, declaring that a breach of privilege had been committed by the publication of an article in his paper. By that Resolution the case was not at all prejudged; it was only placed in a situation to be considered by the House. His principal object in again obtruding himself upon their Lordships' notice was to say, that with the drawing up of the Minutes of their proceedings he had nothing whatever to do. He never saw the entry made in the Minute-book in the case alluded to until his attention was called to it. Nay, more, in the whole course of his life he never saw a single Minute of any proceedings in that House until that day at five o'clock, when, in consequence of the article in the paper, he referred to the Clerk's-book to see in what terms the Minute in question was entered. There certainly was some confusion in the entries, and his wish was, that that confusion might operate in favour of the accused party. His wish was, that the unfortunate printer might get out of the scrape into which he had been unwillingly brought by others. He bore no ill-will whatever to the poor man who would be obliged to appear at the Bar to answer for what persons beyond the reach of their Lordships' authority had done. He should, indeed, be glad to get at the real authors of the libel, and it was in the hope it might be possible to reach them through the individual who would have to stand at the Bar, that he was disposed not to regret the Motion which had been made by his noble friend. With respect to the insertion of the words "to be" in the written Minute, he could only say, he knew nothing whatever about it. It was stated, and with somewhat of a marked emphasis, by the noble Earl who last spoke, that the insertion was in a hand-writing different from that of the general entry; but he desired distinctly to say, that he had nothing whatever to do with it. It would be easy for their Lordships to examine the Clerks at the Table upon the point, and he was satisfied it would appear, that the inter-lineation was in the hand-writing of one of them. He (the Lord Chancellor) at all events never saw it until that day, and was in nowise responsible for any incorrectness which it might display. With the Clerks of the House, and with them alone, the mistake, if any, rested; and whenever the printer of the paper was brought to the Bar,
908
he would certainly insist upon their being examined, with a view to show that he had never in any way interfered with the entry, and particularly that he had not himself inserted or directed the insertion of the words "to be" as they then stood in the written Minute. This would be but due to himself, and he was sure their Lordships would not refuse such an examination whenever he should request it.
Earl Greyobserved, that the manner in which the entry upon the Minutes of the House was made had nothing whatever to do with the question under consideration; it might, perhaps, be a proper subject for future consideraation; but certainly did not properly belong to the matter under discussion. The only question for present consideration was, whether the article alluded to was or was not a breach of the privileges of their Lord-ships' House, and whether the Minute was correctly entered or not made no difference whatever. In his opinion their Lordships could not help acceding to the Resolution he proposed. It was but a necessary foundation for future proceedings, and by adopting it they decided nothing as to the character of the publication in question—nothing as to the guilt of the person whose name appeared to the paper as its printer. By admitting that the article was a breach of privilege they merely took the necessary preliminary stage to ascertain whether it was written with a malicious intent, or whether the writer of it was sincere in the opinions he therein expressed. How far the article was malicious, or how far it was justifiable, would remain for consideration when the printer was at the Bar, and the case would not, he repeated, be in the smallest degree prejudiced by their then deciding, that it constituted a breach of privilege.
The Question, that the article complained of was a breach of privilege, was agreed to.
Earl Grey Earl Grey moved, "That Thomas Payne, whose name appeared as printer and publisher of the Morning Post, be ordered to attend at the Bar of the House on Monday next;" but at the suggestion of some noble Lord who stated, that in cases involving a breach of privilege, a day should not be allowed to intervene, the noble Earl altered the time, and Mr. Payne was ordered to attend on the following day (Saturday),

DRAMATIC LICENSES BILL.
The Order of the Day for the Committee on the Dramatic Licenses Bill having been read,
The Marquess of Clanricarde The Marquess of Clanricarde moved, that the House resolve itself into Committee.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, it was not his intention to move, that the Bill be committed this day six months, neither did he intend to oppose it, but he must be permitted to repeat now what be stated last year, namely, that the theatres of the metropolis were conducted in a manner that was a scandal to a moral people and a Christian country. He repeated this, notwithstanding all the obloquy and odium to which he had been subjected in consequence of his former declaration to the same effect. He felt, that the mode in which plays were represented at the theatres was subversive of the moral feelings of the people; and if not checked would ultimately tend to shake the State itself, because whatever tended to demoralize the people, would endanger the institutions of the country. He repeated, that he should not oppose the Bill, but if it should go into Committee it was his intention to move, "That the words in the preamble representing theatrical entertainments as having a moral tendency should be expunged."
Lord Segraveopposed the Bill because he considered it was calculated to interfere with the interests of the two patent theatres. He contended, that additional theatres were not wanted in the metropolis, for the town was already overstocked. With the exception of Mr. Sheridan Knowles, there was hardly a dramatic writer whose works were worthy of being produced on the stage, and therefore it could not be said, that the Bill was required to forward the interest of dramatic authors. Neither could it be urged, that it was necessary to give scope to the talents of good actors, for of actors of eminence there was at present a remarkable scarcity. If this Bill were allowed to pass, the consequence would be, that an unlimited number of theatres would start up from time to time, for the power of licensing them would be vested not only in the Lord Chamberlain, but in the Lord Mayor of London also; so if these two official persons happened to be theatrically inclined, the metropolis would be inundated with minor theatres. Regarding, therefore, the interests of the two great theatres, and considering that the Bill was in other respects likely to be injurious, he felt it his duty to oppose it, and should therefore move, as an Amendment, "that it be committed that day six months."
Lord Wharncliffealso objected to the Bill, not only because it would infringe upon the rights of the two great theatres, but because it gave the Lord Chamberlain and the Lord Mayor the unlimited power of licensing as many theatres as they should think fit. He denied, that the patent theatres established a monopoly, for it could not be contended that the regular drama was not acted at many of the lesser theatres now established. At the Victoria theatre the plays of Shakspeare were constantly performed, and he believed that at other minor theatres—at least if he could judge by the bills—the regular drama was occasionally resorted to. He believed, however, that the taste of the public was no longer inclined for the regular drama; and that being the case, he owned he could not see the justice of charging the two great theatres with monopoly. A sufficient number of theatres were open throughout the year to gratify the desire of the public; and he could not but feel, therefore, that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde), by the introduction of this Bill, had treated too lightly the rights and privileges of the patent theatres. A Bill for the better regulation of the theatres now established might be passed with advantage, and therefore as a question of police he should be inclined to give his support to such a measure. As, however, the objects of this Bill were of a different nature, he must say, that he could not give it his support. He believed that the real object of the Bill was, to promote the interest of two or three theatres that were now good speculations, and would be still more profitable if it were allowed to pass. Some of the smaller theatres were open all the year round; and on the whole, considering that the public had no case of grievance to complain of, he called upon their Lordships not to give their sanction to the Bill, but to vote for the Amendment which had been moved.
The Earl of Mulgravewas in favour of the principle of the Bill, and considered that it ought to go into Committee, in order that its several provisions might be duly considered. Some measure of the kind was necessary, for the increased and still increasing size of the metropolis called for additional accommodation and greater facilities to meet the inclination of the public to attend theatrical entertainments. The patent theatres exercised a monopoly which ought no longer to exist. The ob-

911
ject of the Bill was misunderstood, it was not to increase the number of theatres already established, but rather to place them under certain regulations by which the public would be better accommodated. If the House would allow the Bill to go into Committee, he believed there would be no difficulty in expunging any clause against which reasonable objections could be urged. He was aware, that their Lordships as a body, did not take much interest in theatrical entertainments. Indeed, it was useless to deny, that their Lordships' tastes were not inclined that way. Whether it was owing to any change which had taken place in their feelings or habits, or whether it was to be attributed to the manner in which the theatres were conducted, he would not stop to inquire; but such was the fact. Their Lordships should consider, however, that as the great body of the people were deeply interested in the drama, it was their duty to afford them every reasonable facility, in order to indulge their tastes for an amusement so rational, and to which they naturally attached so great a degree of interest. Under these circumstances, he hoped that the House would not adopt the amendment proposed, but would rather allow the Bill to go into Committee, for the purpose of considering how far it might be advisable to adopt its provisions.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that as the proprietors of the two great theatres had vested large sums of money in them, he considered it would be very unjust to interfere with the rights which they enjoyed under the patents which they held. He considered that the number of theatres now established were amply sufficient to meet the wants of the public; and he believed that, as far as the interests of the proprietors of the patent theatres were concerned, they would have no objection that the theatres now existing should continue, provided they were closed according to their licences, and that no others were established within a distance of two miles of the metropolis. If the noble Marquess, who introduced the Bill should not feel disposed to accept that offer on behalf of those whose cause he advocated, he should feel it his duty to oppose the Bill, as he did not think it right that the property vested in the patent theatres should be sacrificed.
The Earl of Malmesburyobjected to the power given to the Lord Chamberlain and the Lord Mayor of London to license any
912
number of theatres they might think fit. He confessed, also, that he could not see why every theatre established under the Bill should be made to contain 1,500 persons. The Haymarket theatre, he believed, did not contain so many. For his own part, he preferred a small theatre, where he could see the faces of the performers, and enjoy what was passing much more to his satisfaction than in the larger houses. Under a good regulation, he should have no objection that the number of theatres should be extended, and with that impression he should vote for the Committee.
The Marquess of Westmeathsuggested to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) to withdraw the Bill, in order to bring it forward in an amended form.
The House divided on the Amendment: Contents 22; Not-contents 8—Majority 14.
Committee postponed for six months.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

Clanricarde, Marq. of

Mulgrave, Earl of

Denman, Lord

Radnor, Earl of

Malmesbury, Earl of

Somerset, Duke of

Melbourne, Lord

Torrington, Lord