Sitting of 30 June 1834

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Sale of Tea.
Petitions presented. By Mr. SLANEY, from three Places, against the Church Rates Bill.—By Viscount PALMERSTON, from Romsey, for Protection to the Church of England.—By Messrs. BAINES and WILKS, from several Places,—for Relief to the Dissenters.—By the same, and Messrs. TURNER, DIVETT, TODD, PARKER, and WATSON, from Canterbury, and other Places,—against the Church Rates Bill.—By Colonel WOOD, and Messrs. STANLEY, BARING, DUGDALE, EGERTON, Sir JOHN TYRELL, Sir JOHN REID, Sir E. WILLIAMS, Sir G. STAUNTON, Viscount CASTLEREAGH, and Lord OSSULTON, from a great Number of Places,—for Protection to the Church of England.—By Mr. DUGDALE, and Mr. TODD, from three Places,—against granting the Claims of the Dissenters.—By Lord SANDON, from Liverpool, for the Repeal of the Duty on Stamp Receipts.—By Mr. VIGORS, from Carlow, for Restrictions on the Sale of Drugs.—By Mr. LAMBERT, from two Places, against Tithes.—By Mr. FINCH, from Stamford, against Bull and Bear Baiting.—By Viscounts CASTLEREAGH, and COLE, Sir EDWARD HAYES, Colonels PERCEVAL and VERNER, and Messrs. SHAW, LEFROY, FINCH, and BELL, from a Number of Places,—for Protection to the Church of Ireland.—By Mr. TOWNLEY, from Wisbeach, against Drunkenness; from the same Place, and from Alverstoke, against the Poor-Law Amendment Bill.—By Mr. BANNERMAN, from Aberdeen, for altering the present Law of Church Patronage in Scotland; from the Schoolmasters of Dalkeith, for an increased Stipend.—By Lord OSSULTON, Viscount CASTLEREAGH, Sir G. STAUNTON, Sir J. READ, Sir J. TYRELL, Sir E. WILLIAMS, Messrs. DUGDALE and EGERTON, from a Number of Places,—for Protection to the Church of England.

TITHES (IRELAND).
Mr. Littleton(on moving the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Irish Tithes Bill,) wished first to state the nature of another considerable alteration, which, after deliberation, Ministers had deemed it expedient to recommend for adoption. For the last six months, they had been daily more impressed with the necessity of adopting, in the present Session, some measure to prevent the total annihilation in Ireland of tithe property; nevertheless, they had never ceased to feel the greatest solicitude to accomplish their wishes in a manner the least injurious and oppressive. He particularly alluded to the interest of the landlords, through whose instrumentality Ministers could alone hope to effect any considerable change. The House was aware, that there existed on the part of Irish landlords an objection to being compulsorily made liable to a rent charge,

979
without the power of relieving themselves from it. They looked to the redemption clauses as the means of relief, but Ministers having thought it expedient to omit that portion of the Bill, the landlords would be left without those means. The measures, therefore, being restricted to the conversion of tithes into a land-tax, and of a land-tax into a rent-charge, the subject which had naturally occupied the attention of Ministers was, the best means of relieving the owner of the first estate of inheritance of the rent-charge. They had determined to recommend a provision of which the following was an outline. First, they proposed to provide what they hoped might prove a considerable inducement to the owners of first estates of inheritance to incur the rent-charge voluntarily. Where the owner should think proper before November 1st, 1836, to incur the rent-charge, he should be at liberty to do so, and his land should forthwith cease to be subject to the land-tax. Then arose the question in what way the rent-charge should be ascertained, and it was proposed that the amount should be determined by the relative number of years purchase fairly applicable to the land. The Commissioners of Land Revenue were to ascertain the number of years purchase, and then the Land-tax was to be multiplied by four-fifths of the number of years purchase applicable to the land, which was to constitute the amount of the rent-charge on the particular estate. It was proposed, by way of inducement to the land-owners, that they should be subject to no higher rate of interest than three and a-half per cent, and it had been judged expedient, that the difference between the amount of the Land-tax and of the rent-charge should not be less than twenty, nor more than forty per cent on the amount of the rent-charge. This arrangement would obviously give a considerable bonus to the land-owners, who would not have to pay more than two and a-half per cent as the expense of collection. It would naturally occur to everybody, that the amount of the bonus thus offered would create a considerable debt, and it was proposed, in the first instance, that the Consolidated Fund should be made chargeable with the deficit by reason of the difference between the amount of the bonus to the land-owner and the amount of reduction to the tithe-owner. Then came the question in what
980
manner should the charge on the Consolidated Fund be made up, since it was too much to expect, that the State would incur such a burthen, though Ministers were thoroughly persuaded, that it would be the general sense of Parliament and the country, that the money would be well sacrificed if it purchased the peace of Ireland, which never could be obtained but by a satisfactory settlement of the Tithe question. After a full consideration of all the difficulties and exigencies of the case, Ministers had resolved to apply to it the amount of the perpetuity purchase fund in the hands of the Commissioners, and indemnify the country for the loss. He would state what was the amount of the fund; but first, he might observe, that there were already two funds in hand. One was a fund for the augmentation of small benefices, consisting almost exclusively, at present, of Primate Boulter's and Robinson's bequests, amounting, in the whole, to about 16,500 l. There was also the principal fund in the hands of the Commissioners for the general purposes named in the Act, to pay salaries of certain clerks and officers, to provide necessaries for the performance of divine service, for the repair of 1,250 churches, the expenses of the Commission, &c. The whole amount of indispensable charges might be stated at 66,000 l. per annum. He would now state the amount of the fund to be derived from other sources. First, there was the nett income of ten suppressed sees, of 50,873 l. To this was to be added 10,600 l., the reduction in the revenues of Down and Derry; and 22,000 l., the produce of the annual tax on benefices exceeding 300 l. a-year. The repayment by instalments of advances on glebe-houses would afford 7,500 l.; and, on the whole, the amount of the fund in the hands of the ecclesiastical Commissioners might be stated at 91,033 l., which, after deducting 60,000 l., which would probably be the amount required for the purpose he had mentioned, would leave a balance of 25,000 l. for such other optional purposes for the improvement of the Church of Ireland as the Commissioners might think fit. In addition to this, there was the perpetuity fund, which already amounted to about 60,000 l. and would probably amount on the whole to not less than 1,200,000 l., affording an annual income of 42,000 l. at an interest of three and a half per cent. He was of opinion that no detriment

981
could arise from applying this money to other purposes than those to which it was originally destined, while great additional security would be given to the Church, by inducing land-owners to take the rent-charge voluntarily on themselves. Hence Ministers had deemed this the most prudent course, and he had no doubt that such would be the sense of all parties in Ireland. Ministers were also persuaded that on a full and calm consideration of the merits of the question, the plan would be equally approved by the people of England, and they had not hesitated to recommend it to the adoption of Parliament. He would only remark in conclusion, that it was not intended that landlords incurring the rent-charge, either voluntarily or compulsorily, should be permitted to levy more from their tenants than the amount they themselves actually paid. He moved, that the Speaker leave the Chair.
Mr. Shawsaid, that it was extremely difficult to follow the right hon. Gentleman through the proposed changes of the Bill; he wished at present only to put to him one question:—Was it intended to make the rent-charge in any case compulsory on the landlord?
Mr. Littletonanswered, that the rent-charge might be incurred voluntarily before November 1836: the land-tax would continue for five years afterwards, and those who had not then incurred the rent-charge voluntarily would then be compulsorily subject to it.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman recommended this Bill to the House after cool and calm consideration; but what time had he given to the House for cool and calm consideration. Was it fair, he would ask, to press going into Committee upon that alteration, which was different from anything that had hitherto been offered to the House. It was different in principle from the Bill that had been read a second time. The original Bill had been printed months ago; but this Bill was no more like what had been then printed than it was like the English Poor-law Bill. It had been altered over and over again, and since it was first printed eight or ten new clauses had been introduced into it, and now an alteration was proposed, which rendered it virtually a new Bill. He could form some conjecture as to the nature of the proposed alteration, but he was by no
982
means sure that he understood it, and he felt quite certain that nine-tenths of the House did not fully comprehend its import. Before they proceeded further he would suggest that the Bill with these alterations should be printed, in order that they might see what it was. He paused for an answer. There surely could be no objection to give a respite for publication, and the strongest argument he could use in favour of postponement was the nature of the amendments themselves. He hoped he might be allowed to pause and inquire if the right hon. Gentleman would postpone going into Committee until the House should have an opportunity of understanding this new project?
Mr. Littletonthought the proposal for delay unnecessary, for the alterations would not have to be discussed until the Committee should have arrived at the 152nd clause.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the proposed charges were an alteration in the principles of the Bill, a solid and substantial alteration. There was no part of the empire for which Government would attempt to legislate in this way except Ireland. The Bill was one of vital importance to Ireland, and surely time ought to be afforded to understand it, particularly as it appeared that the Government itself after all its deliberations had not agreed upon its measures until that very day. It had not decided what measure it would adopt against the people of Ireland, nor what should be its details. At one time they came forward with a proposition under the pretence of serving the people, and at another they offered a bonus to the landholder, and endeavoured to screen themselves behind his prejudices, or what was still worse, his interests. He was never so astonished as he was at the plan proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. Let the House take up this Bill and endeavour to understand its principle, and see its tendency. He would ask the House if it was ready to declare war against the people of Ireland l.war unmitigated in its evils? Would it support a Government which did not appear to understand its own measures for one half hour? Would it suffer that Government to commit the country into the worst species of civil war? They might do it if they pleased, and if they had confidence in the present Ministry; but he wished them to understand distinctly how near a pro-

983
clamation of war the Bill was. He called upon the House to recollect the course hitherto taken on this Bill. He had in the first instance proposed a plan which would have taken less from the Church than would be taken by the proposed alteration, and would ultimately extinguish tithes in name, while it would have preserved four-fifths of the amount for the purposes of religion. He now boldly denounced the measure as one not of conciliation towards, but of actual war upon the people of his native country. He, in lieu of such a measure, so fraught with objections, had proposed that one-fifth of the tithe should be raised compulsorily on the landlord. It would be easy to effect it by loan if not otherwise, as soon as they had the sanction of an Act of Parliament to enable them to raise it; that one-fifth of the charge for tithe should be abated: that another fifth should be paid by Government out of the Consolidated Fund; and that two-fifths, or eight shillings in the pound should be paid by the tenant. Four-fifths of the tithes of Ireland were available for ecclesiastical purposes until the Legislature should decide otherwise. He had proposed this plan in contradiction to the popular feeling in Ireland, though no part of the plan was to give a boon to the landlord. It was in his mind enough that they were left what they already had; but it would have ensured that four-fifths of the tithes in Ireland would have been preserved in monies numbered for the use of the Protestant clergy. The plan of the right hon. Gentleman was now to give, as he had explained, one-fourth of the whole for the benefit of the landlord. No relief to the tithe-payers was to follow from the plan of the right hon. Gentleman. Nothing would be taken off which pressed on the poor farmers and the poorer peasantry. The former Bill contained a clause of appropriation, to which there was a strong moral objection taken. There was a division of opinion among the members of Government, and no greater diversity of note was to be found in the music-shop over the way, from the deep bass of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to the shrill treble of the right hon. member for Cambridge, than amongst the members of his Majesty's Government. But he had the misfortune to find that the resolution he had proposed was negatived. To speak with historic reference to the course
984
he had pursued, he would observe, that he had first proposed that there should be an arrangement made for the diminution of the amount of tithe, so as to effect the extinction of part of the charge upon the land. But, taking even the Bill as it now stood, he should call upon the House to postpone the Committee on a Bill, upon which they had been deceived and tricked by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland. This Bill, in truth, had yet never been before the House. That which they had read once and twice was not this Bill at all. Many supported that Bill, looking to the clause of redemption of the charge in it. But not one member, who supported the Motion of the right hon. Secretary that this Bill should be read, supported this Bill. It was not the Bill, but the shadow of that Bill that was now under discussion. On this ground he must vote for its postponement. Until 1825 the remedies given by law against the defaulters for tithes were the same as in England. In 1825 the law was changed without producing any good effect, and to the old law they should have returned. But no, A new project was broached to-day. A Bill was brought on in a new shape; and both the clergyman and the lay impropriator were to be thrown aside. "You have," said the hon. Member, "been from ancient times the robbers, the plunderers of Ireland; true to the principle which, then and since, has actuated you, and which Lord Clare admitted had been pursued undeviatingly towards Ireland beyond any precedent in the history of civilised nations. The sword of the King is now to be raised against his liege subjects in Ireland, with the object of raising by the troops there a compulsory and reluctant land-tax. You declare you are the owners of the tithe, and are prepared, by the assistance of the army, navy, and police, to enforce tithe in this new shape. The old stories of oppression, outrage, and massacre, of which Lord Clare spoke, are all about to be reduced to reality by the King's Government. De te fabula narratur. You are the actors, appointed to figure in the tragedy, and will you do that which will make it necessary you should again attempt by blood and destruction the re-conquest of Ireland? The King is the owner of the tithes by the Bill. Is it not so? If I had to address men at all acquainted with Ireland and her condition, I might hope for an impar-

985
tial division; but how do I laugh to scorn the assurances given by hon. Members in debate that there are in this Housechivalrous spirits which will extenuate the faults of my country to make national sacrifices for the securing to her peace and prosperity." It was not in nature, the hon. Member continued, that, uninformed as most who heard him were on these topics, they should be prepared to act otherwise than they did; to make war in fact on Ireland. That war was first commenced by determining to get, by process of law and military force, 60,000 l. for the aid of the Irish clergy. But their wicked scheme was unproductive; it cost 28,000 l. to enforce the collection of 12,000 l., and they gave up the struggle, but not until the British troops were forced to take shelter behind the buildings of a close town from the fury of an irritated unarmed peasantry. But he would tell them it would require all the force they could spare to send to Ireland to accomplish the enforcement of tithes by this Bill. He would point to them as a ministry, found four or five times wavering on this very subject, and he would ask them as English gentlemen, would the majority in that House halloo on that Ministry to injustice and bloodshed, in order to keep them in place, which they had already more than once done as by a miracle? But let the high-flying Protestants about him beware. The abstraction of the 147th clause let out a secret. It was a step from the high-flyers to his party as the Consolidated Fund was to pay for this manœuvring. But he would tell those Ministers, that this juggle and manœuvring deceived nobody. The amount of lay and ecclesiastical property in tithes was about 600,000 l. a-year, according to the report; but suppose, for example, they struck off 150,000 l. and took it at 450,000 l. This Bill provided, that the 450,000 l. was to be paid hereafter out of the Consolidated Fund, and the clergyman or impropriator was to receive it by Exchequer Bills the day it was due, bearing five per cent interest. This was a bank note in effect, receivable at the Custom-house or Excise-offices. So far, then, it was a sort of stock with which— mark! the British Treasury was hereafter to be encumbered, and the British people burthened. He was sorry the hon. member for Middlesex was absent through illness; because he should have been happy to have heard his opinion of this useless
986
extravagance in this department of our finances. Because it was to be observed, that whether this sum in tithes were to be collected or not, the clergy and the lay impropriator were to be paid by the treasury the whole 450,000 l. It would have been a magnificent thing, worthy of the Legislature, and for which boon they would have received an equivalent in the peace and tranquillity of Ireland, had they voted the whole sum should be paid for the pacification of Ireland, as they had done the twenty millions to settle the question of negro slavery. But now, he would ask, would 500,000 l. or 1,000,000 l. pay the expense the country would be put to by enforcing payment of these tithes? Well, then, the expense altogether would be two millions to the public treasury, and to collect this 450,000 l., if ever collected, war would be waged on the people by the Irish army from one end of the island to the other. Did they ever read the Irish newspapers?—if so, they would find how he had been found fault with and carped at, for having at all listened to any terms short of extinction of tithes in Ireland. He warned the high Protestant party, that if this Bill were passed, they would find a dreadful reaction carried on, not in the open field of battle, in the public streets, but at midnight, and in secret the hand of the incendiary would fire the tithe-payer's barn, the farmer's homestead. The assassin and the lawless band of infuriated men would render darkness dreadful to the peaceful and unoffending. Oh! it was a dreadful consideration—but no exaggeration, and borne out by the experience of the deadly war waged in Ireland in this way for the last seventy-four years. It was not worthy of the title of a Government which saw not the throbbing of the public mind through the national press of her country. It deserved not the name. But the object of this measure was to put the landlords between the Ministers and the tithes. Let them beware, however, lest the distinction were lost in the public mind between that which was extorted as tithe, and demandable as rents. This was dangerous ground, and might be fatal to the interests of the landlords. Let them keep aloof from such a confusion of rent with tithe. The war levied against tithe might serve—nay, would serve—as a pretext for a war against rent—all rent, particularly absentee rent. The Bill originally brought in had proceeded on principles

987
known and recognised, not by him, it was true; but now the Government proposed alterations which sacrificed nine-tenths of its principles. The first Bill had a redemption clause; but that was struck out. What next? It had an appropriation clause; but that also was struck out, after a shock which split the Cabinet asunder. What in Heaven's name would be the next alteration? None knew—not even the right hon. Gentleman and the Cabinet. Now, before 1831, there was a market price tithe in Ireland; it was twelve years' purchase, whilst the price of land was twenty-two years' purchase in the very same counties. The right hon. Gentleman was by this Bill going to add one-fourth to the burthen of tithes in Ireland. Was there any meaning in their Bill? Was Ireland better under this Reformed House of Commons or the present Government, than under an unreformed House and the Tories? Not a whit. Were the Ministers not unanimous in coercion, but plentifully divided whenever measures of concession were about to be adopted? Indeed, they not only did nothing; but they promised nothing; except, perhaps, that dreadful promise that the power of the State was to be used to force the payment of that which the voice of the nation proclaimed to be an exaction. Would it not proclaim to the people of Ireland, trumpet-tongued, their degradation, in consequence of the want of a domestic legislation? He required of the House the postponement at least of this measure till after this Session. That was much more reasonable than to go into Committee on a Bill admitted to be no longer the Bill they had read a first and second time. He would throw out a hint—they were a new Cabinet—let them pause; take time to consider what they were about, as to this measure, so as to be certain, they were now thinking and acting together. Aye, but it was apprehended, that if the law was left as it was, there would be some difficulty in getting in this year's tithes. He would suggest they should take a vote for 300,000 l., in addition to the vote of last year, and apply it to the payment of the tithe proctor, and thus purchase peace for next winter, till they could bring in a proper measure. Had they done rightly, they would have taken the advice of Irish Members on a Bill which was to heal animosities, and give peace to all classes. He had given
988
them his advice, he had obtruded it; but they would not notice it. No one else had been, he believed, consulted. They would not fail to put all the people of Ireland in array against them by this Bill. His conviction was, they were endangering the peace of Ireland, the lives of thousands, by playing off this fearful game of their enemy. Since their accession to office, their system of Government had led to twice as many prosecutions as had taken place in the same period during the former Tory Administration. Their Attorney General was mischievously and constantly busy, and three times as much blood had been shed in their time of power, as had been shed in a similar period of the Tory Administration. Litigation and bloodshed marked their course of political power. He again conjured the Cabinet to pause in its design—to think not so much of the majority they always had for all their measures in that House, but of the people and those interests to which this law was to apply. It was a mistake: they were not called to govern a great country by means of exaction and coercion, but by mingling with a consistent firmness the attributes of all good Government—kindly concession and redress of admitted grievances. He felt it his duty to oppose this frightful Bill, and should therefore move, that it be committed this day six months.
Lord Clementshad heard with surprise and regret, many of the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman. There were others of his statements from which he dissented. He denied, that there had been, as alleged by the hon. and learned Gentleman, more blood shed in Ireland for the last few years than at any former period of Irish history. The hon. and learned Gentleman had forgotten the insurrection and bloodshed of 1798. He regretted the highly-coloured statements of the hon. and learned Member on other points, to which he would not more particularly allude. He thought, that though there were points in the measure which were not sufficiently understood, that Government nevertheless deserved great credit for it. The subject of tithes was one which was surrounded with difficulties, and, therefore, the measure now before the House ought, he conceived, to be allowed to go into Committee.
Mr. O'Connellrose to make one remark in explanation. When he said, that

989
there had been more disturbances and a greater quantity of blood shed in Ireland within the last few years than at any former period, he meant since the union of the two countries, and consequently did not intend to include the period of the Rebellion in his observations.
Mr. Littletonsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman's temper had so completely got the better of, and forestalled his reason, that the House, he was sure, would not be at all surprised to hear him state, that he could not understand the Bill. He trusted, nevertheless, that in his calmer moments the hon. and learned Gentleman would have the candour to admit, that the present measure included many of the provisions of his plan, or, in other words, that the plan which he (Mr. Littleton) had now submitted to the House was, in a great measure, the same as the plan of the hon. and learned Member. He trusted, that hon. Members would concur with him, when he said that it was extremely desirable, that, at this late period of the Session, they should be allowed to go into Committee at once. With regard to what had been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman, in the way of complaint that the Bill had not been printed, he could assure the House, that the fault did not rest with him (Mr. Littleton). He was desirous, that the Bill should have been printed a fortnight ago, and intended that it should be so; but had been induced to change his opinion in consequence of a suggestion to that effect made by the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin. He was, therefore, not to blame for the Bill not being printed. The hon. and learned Gentleman next proceeded to complain that the Irish Members had not been consulted about this Bill when it was in the course of preparation. The complaint of the hon. and learned Gentleman was altogether unfounded: he could not have preferred one more groundless. Never was there any Bill respecting Ireland in the framing of which the Members for that country were so much consulted. For more than a fortnight almost the whole of his time had been occupied in corresponding with the Irish Members on the subject of this Bill; and the house of his noble friend (Lord Althorp) had always been open to the Irish Members, whenever they wished to communicate with him on the subject. He would, therefore, repeat, that there never was an
990
Irish measure in which the Irish Members had been so much consulted. He would not refer to the splenetic assertions of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that nothing had been done by the present Government for Ireland. He was sure the House were aware, that they had done every thing they could for that country, and that they had conferred several important boons upon it. Had they done nothing for Ireland on the subject of tithes? Had they not done everything in their power to conciliate the Irish people, by a plan of commutation? And not only had the present Government persevered in its efforts to bring about an adjustment of tithes; but they would still persevere in their endeavours to accomplish that object, as they knew it was necessary to the peace and tranquillity of the country. Was it, he would ask, no boon to the people of Ireland, that fifteen per cent was to be remitted to those who were liable to the composition? [Mr. Shaw: No.] Did the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin mean to say, that that reduction was no relief to the tenantry of Ireland? It was impossible to carry the reduction of the amount of tithes much further without seriously injuring the property of those affected. He had only to express his hope, that the House would consent to the measure going at once into Committee, when he should be able to satisfy the Committee, that the alterations he proposed were great improvements in the Bill.
Mr. Stanleyhad not before thought, that any one could have proposed a plan with regard to the Church of Ireland which could by possibility have brought the hon. and learned member for Dublin and himself to vote upon the same side. He must confess that he had great doubts whether, after the declaration made by his right hon. friend, it would not be better to await and have the Bill printed, for the purpose of allowing the House and the country to judge of the alterations which had been made in it. His right hon. friend admitted, that the measure was not the same as when first introduced. That was with him a reason for postponing the consideration of the measure. Though, therefore, under such circumstances, he should vote with the hon. and learned member for Dublin, yet still he felt great hesitation on the subject, because he knew the responsibility that would de-

991
volve on that House, and on himself in taking such a step in the present state of tithe property in Ireland; and because he was persuaded it was the intention of the Government to propose what they considered the best and most effective measure for the enforcement of the law and the preservation of property in Ireland. His right hon. friend said, in answer to the objection of the hon. and learned Member against going into Committee on the Bill, that it was not his fault that the Bill had not been printed a fortnight ago for the consideration of the House; that he was then ready to go into Committee pro formâ, for the purpose of having it so printed; but that in consequence of the hon. member for the University of Dublin declaring at the time, that he would take the opportunity to raise a discussion upon the principle, he was prevented from doing so. The alterations which, at that period, had been made in the Bill were merely alterations of omission; but the clauses which his right hon. friend now proposed, must be viewed in a different light; could they, he asked, be looked upon as part and parcel of the original Bill? He would ask, whether it was not intended to omit a great portion of the Bill for the purpose of introducing the clauses that his right hon. friend had indicated to the House, and whether, amongst them, there was not the introduction of a new principle by which out of funds that had hitherto been devoted to ecclesiastical purposes, the Government proposed to give a bonus of 100,000 l. a-year to the landlords of Ireland? ["No, no!"] He thought so. He had no means of knowing whether he was right or wrong. His right hon. friend did not afford him such means. At the last moment, his right hon. friend came forward with a Bill so different from that which had been formerly introduced—so exceedingly different from it, not merely on account of the clauses that were to be omitted, but also on account of those which were to be inserted, that he (Mr. Stanley) could hardly conceive it possible that those who had voted on principle for the first Bill could support this as the same Bill. He would call the attention of the House to the state in which the Bill was. He begged the House to observe, that last year difficulties, especially with regard to individual clergymen, had been thrown in the way of collecting tithes to such an extent, that
992
it was necessary for the Ministers to ask the House for an advance of 1,000,000 l., in order that a measure finally to put an end to tithes might be submitted in the present Session of Parliament. What had been the argument upon that occasion? Why, that nothing would satisfy the interests of Ireland, or permanently secure the tranquillity of that country, unless the tithe question was put an end to, not by temporary measures, but by altogether redeeming the tithes. Such was originally the main principle and object of the Bill which he held in his hand. It was that principle which had justified strong measures. Those measures had been adopted for the purpose of encouraging redemption, and thereby securing the extinction of the payment of tithes in any shape, and that redemption and extinction consequent thereupon could only be effectually accomplished by a conversion of tithes into a Land-tax. Of this the Government was to undertake the collection, and almost all parties united in saying that it was the duty of the Government to secure that from the individuals who were bound and able to pay it. The Government had consented to waive the objections which might arise from the substitution of the claims of the State for those of the Church, and the payment was made from the Consolidated Fund by and at the risk of the country. The House could not forget, that all former measures had proceeded on the principle that the miserable cottier—he meant the occupier— should not be the party liable to the payment of tithes, or, the person to be brought in collision with the tithe-owner. In all previous measures also the Legislature and the Government had studiously abstained from interfering in any shape with existing interests, created by bargains made and entered into between landlord and tenant, and on the contrary the Government had taken upon itself the inconvenience of collection, in order to support the rights and claims of both parties. What, however, would the present Bill, with its amendments, effect? Formerly the doctrine, had been admitted, that the rent charge should be paid, not by the occupying tenant, but by the landlord; and though it had been felt that such a course would be an interference with property, yet it was vindicated on the ground that the ultimate object—namely, the extinction, by redemption, of

993
tithes—was of so great importance, that the rights of landlords, and the rights of property ought not to stand in the way. He (Mr. Stanley) had always thought, that the landlords of Ireland ought not to escape from this burthen, subject, however, to being redeemed by them. But, by the present Bill the burthen was left, and at the same time it took away all chance of redemption, which was the object chiefly proposed by former Bills. This was a manifest departure, not merely from the details, but the main principles of all the measures which had previously been submitted to the consideration of the Legislature. His right hon. friend the Secretary for Ireland, however, said that this might be rectified in Committee, and down came he with a proposal which had been brought forward by the hon. and learned member for Dublin on a former occasion. It was not easy to follow his right hon. friend, but he had understood him to suggest, that it would be very desirable that the landlords should take upon themselves the rent-charge for the period of five years, holding out an inducement to them to take upon themselves the burthen. Formerly fifteen per cent had been held out as an inducement, but now that did not appear a sufficient boon, and therefore forty per cent was suggested. This was most undoubtedly an enormous bonus to be enforced by a most summary proceeding. If the landlords did not complain, on being thus made responsible, the people of England had a right to complain; and the Church of Ireland was also justified in raising the voice of complaint. After much discussion and great deliberation, the House of Commons had, under the expected difference of opinion with another branch of the Legislature, abandoned the principle of converting to the use of the State that very property which his right hon. friend now called upon the House to appropriate. Because the Parliament would not do that, the 147th clause of the Bill of last year had been abandoned. On the discussion which ensued upon that clause the doctrine of appropriation of Church property to State purposes was repudiated by the House. It was true, his right hon. friend had said, that it was not an appropriation to the State, but a bonus to the Irish landlords of forty per cent. With all these considerations he must ask the House whether it would not at least he
994
more decent to give them time for the consideration of the great alterations, now proposed, and the deviations from the principles adopted which were now in contemplation. He conceived, that the change ought at least to be made after the fullest opportunities for full and impartial deliberation. He spoke under very great doubts as to the course which, upon the present occasion, he ought to pursue, but he sincerely trusted his right hon. friend would not now press for the House to go into a Committee on the Bill. He felt all the responsibility which would devolve upon those who divided against going into Committee upon the Bill; but he confessed that, in voting with the hon. and learned member for Dublin, he did not think he should vote against this Bill or any other which might be introduced with reference to the same subject. He certainly thought, that his right hon. friend would do well to postpone further proceeding with this measure until the Bill, as proposed to be amended, was again printed, and in the hands of hon. Members. In the mean time he must call upon the House and the Government to consider, that upon them ultimately must rest the responsibility of supporting the laws of property. Satisfied that the Government had this responsibility, he should be inclined to be guided by their judgment rather than his own. It was for the Government to protect tithe property as much as the property of any other of his Majesty's subjects, and he should therefore be disposed, as far as he could, to yield his own judgment to that of those who, with the introduction of this Bill, were also charged with carrying the existing laws into effect. He, however, did trust, that the House would be allowed a better opportunity of acquiring a knowledge of this Bill than it could have from the mere statement of his right hon. friend, before hon. Members were called upon to deal with its provisions.
Lord Althorpsaid, that, notwithstanding his right hon. friend had declared it to be his intention to vote with the hon. member for Dublin, he very distinctly understood the principles upon which he so voted to be widely different from those upon which the hon. Member's Amendment was based. The Amendment was framed for the purpose of obtaining the defeat of the Bill; his right hon. friend's opposition was offered with a view to obtain the postponement of the Bill till the new clauses were

995
fairly before the House. It might, however, be observed, that even if the House did go into Committee now, the clauses to which his right hon. friend referred were not likely to come under their consideration, for the previous clauses would occupy their time, for some nights, perhaps; and, therefore, there would be plenty of time for their being printed and laid before the House previous to their consideration. But he would go even further, and say, that if the House desired, and expressed that desire, that the clauses should be printed before they went into Committee on the Bill, there was nothing unreasonable in that desire, or unfair in his right hon. friend's demanding it. The change in the principle of this Bill might be resisted as well in the Committee as at present. His right hon. friend had very fairly stated the fact, that the chief object of the Bill originally was the commutation of the tithes into land, so as to get rid of them for ever. But he forgot to state that the principle upon which the advantage now proposed to be given to the landlord had been already admitted on a former occasion. His right hon. friend had stated, that by leaving out the redemption clauses, the Government pressed hardly on the Irish landlord, more hardly, indeed, than according to his conviction the Government desired. But then it ought to be recollected, that the landlords had the alternative offered them solely in consequence of this circumstance; and as a compulsory rent-charge on the land, in lieu of the existing bargains relative to the tithes, appeared to be a hard measure, the Government resolved to offer them the boon now proposed, by way of mitigating hat hardship. Besides, it was no boon; it was only a fair equivalent for what was taken from them. With respect to the other part of the question entered into by his right hon. friend—the difference, namely, in the amount received by the Government on account of tithes, and that paid by them to the clergy—his right hon. friend had overstated the sum at 100,000 1. It was not so much as that. He admitted, that in thus applying the perpetuity fund, the Government went back to the principle contained in the 147th clause of the Bill of last year; but the difference was this—that according to the Church Temporalities Bill, the perpetuity fund was to be applied to state purposes, while by the present measure
996
it was to be applied to increasing the security of the revenues of the Church, as an inducement to the landlords to take upon themselves the rent-charges, the effect of which would be greatly to facilitate the collection of the impost, and secure the safety of those who were to receive it. He thought, however, that his right hon. friend could hardly with any consistency go the length of voting against the Bill. He had declared it to be the duty of Government to protect the property of his Majesty's subjects, amongst whom the Irish clergy must of course be included; but he must remind his right hon. friend, that if the House at his instigation, and by his aid, deprived the Government of the means of affording them protection, it was hardly fair to look for it at their hands. If, therefore, the House would consent merely to go into Committee on the Bill, he would consent to postpone the discussion of the principle of the new clauses until the House was in full possession of their purport, and with this understanding he trusted the Amendment would not be persevered in.
Mr. More O'Ferrallwas not altogether surprised at the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman, the late Secretary for the Colonies, but he was at the course taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Dublin; he had never expected to see them join in anything, but above all in opposing an Irish Tithe Bill. Lest misconception should exist in any quarter, he thought it right that Irish Members particularly, should understand the position in which they stood with regard to the question before them. The law under which tithes in Ireland would be collected in November next, was the 2nd and 3rd of William 4th, which had been introduced by the late Secretary for the Colonies in 1832, the object of which was, to place every parish in Ireland under composition. Under that Act a compulsory composition took place throughout Ireland last year, which had the effect of raising the value of tithes to a higher amount than under the old law. When the present Bill was first brought forward by the Chief Secretary for Ireland he (Mr. O'Ferrall) had joined in opposing it, because it provided that the redemption money should be invested in land, which would have conferred great political power upon the Protestant clergy. That Bill was now entirely altered. In the first place the

997
new clauses which it was proposed to insert, provided a remedy for the excessive and objectionable valuation — the principle which they had so recently contended for, namely, the appropriation of the property of the Church to useful and public purposes, was conceded in the proposition of the Secretary for Ireland, for the right hon. Secretary stated, that the sum allowed as a reduction to the land-owners would be made up out of the Church fund. If these alterations were made, he certainly thought the Bill before the House would be a great improvement on the Bill of 1832, but if by any extraordinary combination of the hon. and learned member for Dublin with the late Secretary for the Colonies, those alterations should be prevented from taking place, he would then reserve to himself the right of voting against this Bill upon its third reading. He would advert to the proposition which had been made by the hon. member for Limerick, and adopted by the hon. and learned member for Dublin. That proposition claimed a new valuation, and a reduction of two-fifths; one-fifth to be paid by the Consolidated Fund, the other deducted from the clergy. The Bill before the House adopted these two propositions, and, under circumstances, would give a reduction of three-fifths. As he understood, it was proposed by this Bill, that the rate at which land sold should regulate the price of redemption of tithe; and where the value of land amounted to twenty years' purchase, the reduction per cent on the tithe would be to the amount of 40 l. Although the proposed alterations did not go the length which he and many others desired, was that a reason, when so many positive advantages was offered, that they should reject it altogether? Would they, by rejecting the present proposal of Government, leave the tithes to be collected under the Bill of 32—would they expose the people to the renewed evils of a harassing persecution? He was placed in that House to represent not the passions but the interests of his constituents, and the question for him to decide was, whether it was better for his constituents, that reduced tithes should be collected from the landlords, for the relief of the tenants under this Bill, as was proposed, or under the Compulsory Composition Act of 1832. He defied any Member of that House to assert, that this
998
Bill, with the proposed alterations which he had described, was not an improvement on the present law, and so far a benefit to the people. He repeated, if the Amendments were not carried in Committee, he would vote against the third reading—but because he felt anxious to see these improvements introduced into the Bill, he would support the Motion for going into Committee on the Bill.
Mr. Shawhad no objection to any course which might be for the convenience of the House, provided it did not involve a sacrifice of principle. He would not oppose the formal introduction of the new matter stated that evening by the right hon. Gentleman in order to its full discussion, but he never could agree to the omission pro forma, without the question being discussed and decided by a vote of the House, of the redemption and appropriation clauses—because they were of the very essence of the measure as first brought in by the Government—in short, all the rest of the Bill, and all that the Government now proposed to retain of it was, the mere machinery to promote redemption and appropriation, and thereby to abolish all yearly payment in the nature of tithe, by whatever name it was called, whether tithe, composition, land-tax, or rent-charge. To accomplish that object the friends of the Church had, although somewhat reluctantly, consented to vest the property of the Church, for the limited period of five years, in the Crown, as a private individual might his estate in trustees; that during that time the law might be enforced, the rights of property asserted, and then the whole restored to the Church again. On the other hand, the rent-charge was to be imposed after the same period of five years, as a strong inducement to redemption, while the most advantageous and tempting terms were offered by the Bill to the landlords upon which to redeem; but now the whole plan of the Bill was altered; all that was substantial in it was omitted, and nothing kept but its form and machinery—intended for a far different purpose, but to be used for that of divesting the clergy permanently of their property, and rendering the landlord liable to a perpetual irredeemable rent-charge. The Bill was most objectionable, and the conduct of Government evasive in the extreme—shifting their ground from day to day, and not having yet discovered any one principle, in re-

999
spect of Church property, on which they could agree. Under these circumstances of indecision and vacillation, on the part of his Majesty's Ministers—seeing that the Bill was brought forward in a new form every night, so that one could not tell to-day in what shape it would appear to-morrow, he was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley) should feel disposed to agree with the hon. and learned member for Dublin, in postponing the measure altogether; but, admitting, as he did most willingly, that every respect and deference was due to the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman upon a question, in reference to which he had made a great and honorable sacrifice; yet he was very apprehensive, that by voting with the hon. and learned member for Dublin, a way of escape would be opened to the Government, of which they would gladly avail themselves from the vast and fearful responsibility they had incurred, by re-opening and re-agitating the whole of the tithe question in Ireland, and which was to have been permanently settled under the Act of 1832, introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, then Secretary for Ireland. He had never concealed his opinion, that the failure of the Government in their proceedings under what was called the 60,000 l. Act, was attributable to themselves—first, because they expunged from the Bill the power of charging costs in any case, no matter how litigious or vexatious the resistance to a just demand; but, even after that difficulty had been overcome, and the force of the law had prevailed over the tumultuous resistance of those who systematically opposed it, came the act of unaccountable infatuation of the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) in declaring, at the very moment that the tithe was being universally paid in Ireland, that the Government would enforce it no longer. He did not mean to impute to the noble Lord personally any sinister motive in that declaration; but he verily believed, that it could alone have been induced by the wilful misrepresentations of some person or power acting behind the scenes, whose object was, to produce disturbance, and to prevent the settlement of Church-property in Ireland. The confusion caused by the noble Lord's declaration led to the necessity of the Million Act of last year, which he had always sincerely deprecated, as one of those miserable shifts and temporary
1000
expedients which it was vainly attempted to substitute for the ordinary law and the established rights of property. What he now dreaded was some similar device of the Government, for the purpose of enabling them to scramble over the present Session, and keep the ill-used and persecuted clergy of Ireland for another year in a state of cruel uncertainty and suspense. He felt the strongest objections both to the principle and details of the Bill at present proposed by the Government, as far as it was possible to understand it; though that was not easy, for it was as changeable, unfixed, and inconsistent, as Ministers themselves; but what he was desirous to avoid was, affording the Government an excuse for throwing up a measure which they were incompetent to conduct, and transferring to others the blame with which they themselves were most justly chargeable. Let them not suppose, that by now abandoning this Bill, they could restore matters to the condition in which they would have been if they had never introduced it. The great interests of society could not thus be made the sport of every idle speculation and ill-digested theory. If a Government used their influence to unsettle men's minds, in the expectation of great changes—to disturb the usual course of vested rights, and shake the foundations of property—they would be grievously deceived, if they imagined that, by the abandonment of the particular measure which had produced the evil, the evil itself would be remedied, and that the various relations of society could re-adjust themselves as if they had never been deranged. While he was persuaded, therefore, that the measure would fail in the end, he did not wish to enable Government to get rid of it in the indirect manner proposed by the hon. member for Dublin; but to leave the entire responsibility of such failure where it ought to rest—upon the Government themselves. He would consent to any postponement necessary for informing Members what was the last edition of the alterations proposed by Government; but he would certainly resist the withdrawal, as a matter of form, of the redemption and appropriation clauses.
Mr. O'Connell's Amendment was withdrawn, and the Committee postponed to a future day.

ROADS' ACT AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
On the Question, that the Speaker

1001
leave the Chair, to go into a Committee on the Roads' Act Amendment (Ireland) Bill,
Mr. O'Connelllamented, that there should be so much of legislation in gross ignorance of the state of the country in Ireland. There was no necessity for this measure, which would only tend to bring the police into continual collision with the peasantry. He hoped, that the right hon. Member would withdraw it.
Mr. Littletonreplied, that the aim of this Bill was, to prevent the very circumstance to which the hon. and learned Member had objected. Much blood had been shed in affrays between the police and the peasantry, in consequence of the former impounding the stray cattle of the cottagers, and the measures which this Bill contemplated would, he thought, do away with this unfortunate state of things.
Colonel Percevaltook a very different view of the nature and tendency of the Bill to that entertained by the hon. and learned member for Dublin.
Mr. O'Reillysaid, that nothing was more likely to provoke the peasantry, and bring the Government of the country into odium than this species of petty legislation. Formerly a Magistrate, whose importance was offended by seeing a pig upon the road, might have had the pig taken to the pound, and thus the owner, at least, might be found out. But now a policeman might act in a much more summary manner. He put it to every Magistrate, who had ever attended Petty Sessions in Ireland, whether it was not better to give up these petty prosecutions? The unfortunate peasant could not live, if this system of legislation were pursued against him, and if every policeman and informer were allowed to harass the population in this manner, and by merely saying, "I saw such a one's pig, or such a one's cow, on the road," get the poor owner fined.
The House divided on the Motion for going into Committee: Ayes 72; Noes 25 —Majority 47.
House went into the Committee.
On Clause 4 being put,
Mr. Littletonsaid, that in Ireland, according to the existing law, cattle found straying on the high roads were to be impounded. When the police, in discharge of their bounden duty, interfered to remove the cattle to the pound, the people resisted, and constant scenes of bloodshed
1002
were the consequence. The Lord-lieutenant seeing this issued an order, that the police should not interfere. It was then proposed to put an end to the pounding of cattle, and in lieu of the present penalty to inflict a small fine. If the fine were large, the object would be defeated, as the people would resist.
Mr. O'Reillydid not like legislation which operated exclusively against the poor. He knew a poor widow, the support of whose large family was a single cow that was allowed to graze on the road side, watched by an infant of five years old. To impound that cow, would be considered such wanton inhumanity that no policeman ever attempted it, and if he did, no Magistrate would sanction it. But if the present law passed, it would be imperative on the Magistrates to impose a fine which the widow could not, in all human probability pay. Gentlemen who had large demesnes, and contrived to improve them at the public expense, could afford to keep their cows off the road. He did not think the police should have the power of summoning poor persons for allowing a cow to graze on the road side, and keeping it locked up till the following day.
Mr. Littletonsaid, as the cattle should of necessity be pounded at present, there was no other way of getting over that evil than by adopting the present Bill.
Mr. O'Reillysaid, that the police should be punished if they interfered wrongfully, and a provision to that effect should be introduced. He knew the pig-stye and cow-house to have been maliciously opened at night, in order that the animals might get out and be then impounded. Not only that, but the parties were kept for a long time without remedy or trial.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that within the last six months, five hundred families were turned out to live or die by the ditches. The Magistracy were the cause of much of the calamities of the people.
Sir Robert Batesonsaid, as the hon. member for Dublin volunteered such sweeping accusations against the Magistrates of Ireland, he called on him and defied him to name the parties. He would contradict the hon. and learned Member in the strongest terms the English language would admit.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, Magistrates were in the habit of issuing blank summonses to be filled up by their underlings at their

1003
pleasure, and according to circumstances.
The Committee divided—Ayes 58; Noes 14; Majority 44.
Mr. O'Reillymust repeat the accusations of the hon. and learned member for Dublin against the Magistracy of Ireland, who used to levy fines for the sake of their favourites.
Major Macnamarasaid, that in his county (Clare) no such practice existed; and he would testify for the humanity of the landlords of that county.
Mr. O'Reillysaid, that it was the severe conduct of those eulogised landlords which notoriously drove the peasantry of that county into the late insurrection.
The Bill passed through the Committee; the House resumed; and the Report to be received.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
The House resolved into Committee on the Central Criminal Court Bill.
On Clause 17 being read, restraining the Quarter Sessions from trying certain offences,
Mr. Hughes Hughessaid, he rose to propose the omission of two offences enumerated in the clause,—larceny from the person, and larcenies after a previous conviction. He moved their erasure upon distinct and different grounds. If the Sessions were capable of trying any offence, it was that of larceny from the person, which, in the district comprised within the limits of the Bill, would, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, be stealing a handkerchief from the pocket. Now, surely, the time of the Judges of the land might be better employed than in trying trivial cases of that description. His (Mr. Hughes Hughes') objections to the offence of larceny, after a previous conviction, being included in the Clause were these. A person brought before the proposed tribunal for that offence would, in a manner, be prejudged, being branded with a former conviction, but for which he would not be tryable in that Court but by the Sessions. Under one of the statutes known as Peel's Acts, the punishment on a second conviction was increased from seven to fourteen years transportation; but the fact of a former conviction was a separate issue to be tried by the Jury after the finding of Guilty of the offence charged in the indictment. The circumstance of its being a second offence did
1004
not make the case more difficult of decision by the Jury and Justices at Quarter Sessions. Another and serious difficulty he foresaw. The fact of a previous conviction of the prisoner could very seldom be known to the committing Magistrate, who must therefore commit to the Sessions; the discovery being made just previously to the trial, a re-committal to the New Court, and fresh recognizances of witnesses would become necessary, and, in half the instances in question, the consequence would be, that the prosecutor refusing to incur the additional trouble and expense, the prisoner would escape. For the reasons he had assigned, he moved the erasure of the two offences from the Clause.
The Attorney Generalagreed with the hon. Member, that larceny from the person was an offence, in the trial of which the superior Judges need not be employed, and he, therefore, consented to its erasure from the Clause. To the other proposal of the hon. Member he could not agree, because the second conviction of larceny was punishable with fourteen years' transportation, and because the Sessions would have power to try the case of a second offence sent to that Court by mistake, only that no mention must be made in the indictment, of the previous conviction, but it must be taken to be the prisoner's first offence.
Mr. Hughes Hughessaid, that after the explanation the Committee had just heard; and if the hon. and learned Attorney General thought it expedient, in the case he (Mr. Hughes Hughes) had supposed, to forego the provisions of Mr. Peel's Act, so far as regarded a second conviction for larceny, he could have no objection to abandon that part of his Motion, and confine himself to the erasure of larceny from the person.
Amendment agreed to, as altered.
The other Clauses of the Bill having been agreed to,
Mr. Hughes Hughessaid, he rose to move pursuant to notice, for leave to bring up a Clause to provide, that all and singular the enactments, powers, and authorities, made and given in and by the Act 4th George 4, cap. 48, for enabling Courts to abstain from pronouncing sentence of death in certain capital felonies, should be deemed to extend, and should extend, to the proposed Court. As many hon. Members might perhaps remember, he

1005
(Mr. Hughes Hughes) moved, in the Parliament of 1832, for leave to bring in a Bill to the effect of his present proposition, and had the honour to be seconded by his Majesty's then Attorney General, the present Lord Chief Justice of England, who prepared and brought in the Bill with him, which passed the House of Commons, and literally had one opponent only in any of its stages; it was, however, thrown out in the House of Lords, in consequence of a difficulty which arose not upon the Bill itself, but upon an amendment proposed to be made in it. An additional reason for now making the enactment, which only sought to assimilate the practice at the Old Bailey to that which prevailed at the Assizes throughout the kingdom, of recording, instead of passing, sentence of death upon criminals not likely to be executed, might be urged from the circumstance, that the new Court would include certain districts of the Home Circuit, which enjoyed the benefit (for so he must consider it) of the Act to which he had referred. As he (Mr. Hughes Hughes) could not anticipate any objection to this humane proposal, he would not further trouble the Committee, but move, that the Clause be brought up.
The Attorney Generalhad great pleasure in seconding the proposition, and begged to compliment the hon. Member on his perseverance in its introduction. It was certainly high time, that the solemn mockery of the Judge putting on his black cap, and formally passing the awful sentence of death upon criminals which were not to be executed, should be done away with at the Old Bailey, as it already had been in every other Criminal Court in the country.
Clause brought up, read, and agreed to, and added to the Bill.
The House resumed, and the Bill to be reported.

POOR LAWS' AMENDMENT.
Lord Althorprose to move, according to notice, that the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Poor laws' Amendment Bill have precedence of Notices on Tuesday. He believed, that this application was not an unusual one in Parliamentary practice, and he hoped, therefore, that hon. Members who had notices for tomorrow, would give way on the present occasion.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodhad made several attempts in the course of the present Session, to bring forward motions of which he had given notice, but had always been interrupted by some stop-gap Bill or other, like the present. As it was, he had a motion on the list for to-morrow; and, therefore, if the noble Lord persisted in his motion, he would do all in his power, by moving the adjournment of the House, to frustrate his intentions.
Mr. Pottercomplained of the speed with which the present measure was urged forward. It was only on Tuesday, that the amended Bill was put into their hands, and they had not had time to ascertain the sentiments of their constituents on the subject.
Mr. Grotehoped the noble Lord would persist in his motion.
Motion agreed to.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of WELLINGTON, Earl CAWDOR, and Lord ROLLE, from a great Number of Places,—for Protection to the Established Church, and against the Separation of Church and State.—By Earl CAWDOR, from certain Individuals, in favour of the London and Westminster Bank Bill.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—MORNING POST.
Mr. Bittleston,the editor of the Morning Post, in obedience to the order of their Lordships, appeared at the Bar;

947
and the Lord Chancellor, having cautioned him that he was not bound to make any answer which might tend to criminate him proceeded to put the following among other questions to him:—
Q. Were you the acting editor of the Morning Post last week—on Thursday and Friday last week, for instance?
A. I was.
Q. In consequence of your situation as the acting editor do you see the matters published in the paper before they are inserted?
A. I do.
Q. Before they are printed?
A. Yes, before they are printed.
Q. Have you the power of inserting, rejecting, and altering articles for publication in that paper?
A. I have.
Q. Do you know the leading articles, those that are in larger characters and wider lines? Did you see those articles?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you read them?
A. I did.
Q. Could you have suppressed or prevented their being printed?
A. I could.
Q. Were those articles inserted by your authority?
A. They were.
Q. Now, have you anything to say respecting the article in the Morning Post of Friday which the House has thought proper to declare a gross breach of the privileges of this House? You are aware of the vote of the House I suppose?
A. I am.
Q. Was that article—and for the third time I caution you that no one can injure you; it will be no contempt in any way if you refuse to answer the question I am about to put—did you write that article, or get it from any other person?
A. I object to answer that question.
Q. Very well. Do I understand you to say—mind I do not blame you—that you decline giving any further information, not only as to who is the author, but as to the hand from which you received it?
A. I respectfully decline giving any further information, excepting that I admit my responsibility for the article.
Q. That is a conclusion in law; but you decline answering the question?
A. I do.
The Lord Chancellor: Before any other Peer puts any question to you, I ask you whether you have any thing to state to the House respecting the article upon which the House has expressed an opinion, with a view to alter that opinion, which you may be able to do, notwithstanding the vote of the House; or if you have anything to offer in extenuation of the offence?
Mr. Bittleston: I thank your Lordship for
948
the permission you have given me to address you in extenuation, but, as in the painful novelty of my present situation, I cannot trust to my own self-possession, I hope I may be indulged in the liberty of referring to written memoranda.
The Lord Chancellor: (concurrently with several Peers)—Certainly. Perhaps it would be more advisable if any other Peer has any question to put that it should be put before the gentleman proceeds with his address.
Earl Grey: I find in the paper the following passage:—
"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 Herald is not alone. The solicitors, the short-hand writers, the Peers, all concur in asserting that Lord Brougham moved, "that the judgment be affirmed," and that the judgment was "affirmed accordingly."
Now, I wish the witness to be asked if it is meant that the information here alluded to was furnished by certain Peers?
Mr. Bittleston—I do not understand it so.
The Lord Chancellor: Do you mean that you do not think that is the meaning of the passage?
A. I am sure it is not the meaning of the passage.
Earl Grey: You say, that the meaning is not that it was founded on the information of Peers?
A. I am sure that is not the meaning.
Earl Greyconcurred entirely in the propriety of the practice of cautioning persons under examination that they were not under the necessity of answering any questions tending to criminate themselves. It appeared, however, to him that the person at the Bar could say nothing that could criminate himself more than what he had already stated. He admitted that he was the editor, that he had the general superintendence of the paper, and directed the publication of all the articles that appeared in it; that he had the inspection of all, and approved, rejected, or inserted at pleasure. He had further admitted that he was fully responsible for the publication; and it did not appear to him that the House could desire further information to criminate the individual at the Bar. Under these circumstances he wished to put it to the House whether this individual could claim the benefit of the rule of exemption, upon the ground

949
of not criminating himself, and refuse to answer the question as to whether he received the article, voted by their Lordships a breach of privilege, from any other person, and from whom.
The Lord Chancelloradmitted, that his noble friend had, as he always did, very fairly submitted the question to the consideration of their Lordships. He differed from his noble friend; and it was his duty to give their Lordships his opinion as a lawyer, which he did with all possible deference and humility. If he could see that the answering this question could not tend to criminate or injure the witness, he should say that his protection was at an end, for it was clear he could not refuse to criminate another, although he was himself protected. No person was protected there or in the Courts of Law from disclosing the authorship of others. Although entitled to protection for himself as a witness, no individual was entitled to extend that protection to another. Now, if their Lordships would attend to the tendency of the course of examination proposed by his noble friend, they would see that the witness would be entitled to claim exemption. The witness had avowed his responsibility. Quoad hoc, then, he was answerable and punishable, and no disclosure of any other party's culpability would relieve him, for his hand had given the article to be printed. But there were two things to be determined: first, whether the party at the Bar was guilty or not guilty; and next, what ought to be the amount of punishment. Now the question proposed by his noble friend could not be answered either one way or the other without bringing the witness within the scope of the second head of inquiry, viz., what amount of punishment was to be inflicted upon him? For, suppose he answered the question by stating that he alone was concerned in composing the article in question, suppose he said that he himself wrote it, that would be an answer in aggravation of punishment, for he would avow himself to be the uninstigated author of a deliberate and wilful act in violation of their Lordships privileges. If, on the other hand, he disclosed the names of one or more persons as partners with him, then would his conduct fall within another description of offence. He would then stand at the Bar of their Lordships' House as having confessedly conspired with others to violate their
950
Lordships' privileges, and conspiracy was always an aggravation of every offence. The mildest form of that offence, in the present case, would be that the individual at the Bar had printed what another had written; but even that would be a grave offence. If the witness said, that he had written the article it would be an offence, and punishment must follow; but if he said, that he had partly composed it with another, then he would appear as having embarked in a conspiracy with another wilfully and scandalously to violate their Lordships' privileges. The mode of further examination proposed by his noble friend was not such as ought to receive the sanction of their Lordships. If his noble friend, however, thought fit to ask if A. B. gave the article in question to the witness, that was a different matter, and that question the individual at the Bar could safely answer. But that was not the nature of his noble friend's question.
Earl Greywas in candour bound to state, that he was not convinced by the argument of his noble friend that the course of examination he had proposed was not such as he might with propriety follow. The person at the Bar having avowed his responsibility for the article which had appeared in the paper of which he was editor, he merely wished to ask him who was the writer of that article, and he could not see, that the question of conspiracy could be brought into the matter at all, in the event of the answer being that he had received it from some other person. He would not, however, persevere in putting a question which his noble and learned friend had stated to be an improper question.
The Lord Chancellorfeared he had been ill understood. There was a difference between the conspiracy of two persons to commit an offence, and the commission of that offence by concert between two or more individuals. If his noble friend asked whether John Nokes gave the particular article complained of, and the answer was in the affirmative, that would not prove a conspiracy. It would be no conspiracy according even to the technical, refined, and subtle definition of conspiracy that one man printed what another wrote. But the case would be very different if two or more persons laid their heads together to compose a calumny to the injury of another.
Earl Greyobserved, that the question

951
he proposed was, whether any other person gave the article in question to the individual at the bar.
The Lord Chancellorcontended, that in whatever way the question could be answered the same result, that of making the situation of the witness worse, must be the consequence.
Mr. Bittlestonaddressed their Lordships as follows:—
My Lords—I trust I may be allowed, in the first place, to state to your Lordships, that I have been advised that since I am not entered at the Stamp office as in any way connected with this paper, I might with safety have declined to answer any questions put to me today. But it seems to me, my Lords, that I best show how little I have been influenced by any malignant motive when I come forward to give to your Lordships all the information which I can give, consistently with my duty to my employers—justifying where justification is possible, apologising where apology is manifestly due, and professing my readiness to submit to punishment where no justification can be attempted, and no apology received.
My Lords—I cannot for a moment dispute, that a breach of the privileges of this House has been committed, because I know that any mention of the proceedings of this House in a newspaper is a breach of those privileges. But I trust that the observations which the indulgence of your Lordships allows me to address to you will, in some respects, materially alter your impressions as to the nature and extent of the offence.
My Lords—The paper which your Lordships have pronounced to be a libel, contains two allegations respecting the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. The first allegation is, that as a Judge he has reproved and punished parties for following a course which, as counsel, he recommended. The second allegation is, that upon the discovery of this circumstance, an improper interference took place in the entry of the occurrence upon your Lordships' minutes. I beg to remark separately upon these two allegations, because the defence which I shall respectfully offer as to one of them would be wholly inapplicable to the other.
Beginning, therefore, my Lords, with the first allegation, that which imputes to the noble and learned Lord the condemnation of the course he had himself advised, I beg to recall to your recollection the case upon which the allegation is made. The case of Solarte v. Palmer was tried before Lord Tenterden in the year 1828. It was afterwards taken by a Bill of Exceptions into the Exchequer Chamber;—and finally brought by a writ of error before your Lordships.
My Lords—It was always perfectly understood, that when the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber was pronounced upon the Bill
952
of exceptions, the noble and learned Lord occupied the situation which he now occupies; and it never was suspected or insinuated, that the noble and learned Lord on that occasion advised an appeal to your Lordships against that judgment.
But, my Lords, it was asserted, that at the trial in 1828, in which the noble and learned Lord was concerned as Counsel, Lord Tenterden clearly expressed his opinion, that the point raised was so doubtful, and the sum disputed so considerable, that the question ought to be brought before the highest tribunal in the country, by which he can have meant no tribunal but this House. And it was further asserted, that the noble and learned Lord at that time, and on that occasion, testified his perfect acquiescence in the opinion so expressed by Lord Tenterden. The course, my Lords, pursued by the parties was, as I am instructed, the only course by which they could, in compliance with the opinion of the Chief Justice, and the advice of their Counsel, bring the case before this House.
My Lords—The fact that the noble and learned Lord did on that occasion testify his acquiescence in Lord Tenterden's opinion was not first stated in the Morning Post. It was stated in other papers, and by the solicitors for one of the parties in the cause, who vouched, by the addition of their names, for the truth of their assertion. Before the statement was repeated in the Morning Post, every effort was made to test its accuracy. The shorthand writers' notes of the original trial were referred to. The impression on the mind of the eminent counsel who were employed with the noble and learned Lord was ascertained. My Lords, after making every inquiry, there seemed no reason to doubt that the fact was as it was stated to be.
My Lords—I understand that it has been urged in aggravation of the offence, that the truth of this statement was re-asserted after the noble and learned Lord had denied it. In the re-assertion of it, there was not the most remote purpose of imputing a wilful suppression of the truth to the noble and learned Lord; and I very humbly hope, that your Lordships will not find anything in the paragraph referred to, which demonstrates such a purpose. It was imagined from the first, that the noble and learned Lord, when he moved the judgment of your Lordships, did not recollect the opinion he had formerly expressed as counsel in the cause. It appeared, that in moving the judgment of your Lordships, the noble and learned Lord treated the point raised as one of clear and indisputable law, without any allusion to the circumstance that he had formerly concurred with Lord Tenterden in a very different view of it. It appeared also, that the noble and learned Lord assumed the case to be entirely and absolutely governed by the precedent of Hartley v. Case, without any allusion to the circumstance, that Lord Tenterden had suggested the refer-

953
ence of the case to the highest tribunal in the country, expressly that the precedent of Hartley v. Case might be reconsidered by your Lordships. These circumstances, my Lords, induced a belief, that the memory of the noble and learned Lord was inaccurate in this particular. Confidence was placed rather on the notes of the short-hand writer, and in the recollection of other individuals concerned in the cause. My Lords, I most respectfully submit, that a suggestion that a noble and learned Lord does not distinctly remember in 1834, all that happened in one of the many causes which engaged his attention in 1828, even if it can be construed into a breach of privilege, can scarcely be held a very malignant libel; and I am bound to say, however reluctant I may be to incur your Lordships' further displeasure, that I have not yet seen reason to alter the opinion which, upon such testimony as I have described, I could not hesitate to form.
My Lords—I have dwelt thus long upon this allegation, because I should regret much to be supposed to have wantonly aggravated my offence by a repetition of it, after it had attracted your Lordships' notice. I humbly assure your Lordships that, in re-asserting my belief in the statement which had been made in other papers and transferred to the Morning Post, I had no suspicion that I was repeating any part of the offence of which the noble and learned Lord had complained.
My Lords—It had appeared to me that the second allegation in the paper before you—the allegation that the minutes of your Lordships' House had been garbled—was the allegation which had subjected me to the displeasure of your Lordships.
My Lords—I shall say little upon this point, because I am aware that it is impossible to justify what has been done. I had information from an informant on whom I could perfectly rely, that a judgment had been 'affirmed' by your Lordships, and that it was entered as 'postponed sine die.' I confess it did not occur to my mind that any existing usage of this House, could by possibility reconcile the discrepancy between the fact and the record. If such an idea had occurred to me, I should have undoubtedly made further inquiry before I suffered myself to suppose that the minutes of this House had been garbled. But having ascertained the correctness of the facts, I thought the inference drawn followed of necessity from them. My Lords, I understand that the facts are actually true; that the printed minute of your Lordships' vote differs from the written minute; and that neither the printed minute nor the written minute records correctly the vote actually passed. I am informed further, my Lords, that the facts by which I was misled, misled also many of your Lordships; and that the inference which I improperly drew seemed to some of your Lordships the only inference that could be drawn. To the noble and learned Lord I
954
have already tendered the apology, which is the only atonement I can offer him for my attack upon his character; and I desire to express to your Lordships the sincere regret I feel for the violation of your privileges, which that attack involved.
My Lords—I have already trespassed long upon your Lordships' time. But I beg to be permitted to say further, that I have been for many years in various situations connected with this paper, and that during that time I have so conducted myself as to fear no inquiry into the motives by which I have been personally influenced. Since I have had the exclusive responsibility of the Morning Post, that journal has been severe in its strictures upon the public character of public men; but it has never violated, by calumnious scandal, the sanctity of domestic life. It has frequently urged direct accusations against many individuals which might be met and disproved; but it has scrupulously avoided dark innuendo and ambiguous insinuation. In the very example before you, the distinctness with which the facts are stated, and the inferences drawn, is surely a proof that the facts were believed to be true, and the inferences supposed to be correct. And, my Lords, whatever may be the legal interpretation of the offence for which I now await the censure of your Lordships, I trust I may without presumption remark, that it is not possible you can attribute a desire to infringe your privileges to the conductors of a journal in which those privileges have been uniformly supported with humble ability, indeed, but with conscientious zeal."
The Lord Chancellorwished to say a few words to their Lordships before they proceeded to take any steps with regard to the individual who had just addressed them, who, of course, was supposed to have withdrawn. As few of their Lordships were acquainted with the course of the proceedings in appeals, he was anxious to state that the attorneys in the cause on the losing side, had put into the hands of the individual at the Bar a letter which was calculated most grossly to mislead. He (the Lord Chancellor) could not believe that Lord Tenterden had doubted at all in the matter of "Hartley v. Case." That decision in that case had never been doubted by any Judge, and it was the decision of Lord Tenterden himself. What probability was there then of his having doubted it? He argued it, and Lord Tenterden gave judgment for himself and all his learned brethren. It was not the practice of that noble and learned Lord to call for the re-consideration of a case involving no principle, but merely a question of practice. Supposing, however, that it was true that that noble and

955
learned Lord recommended the reconsideration of the case, that was not after it had been argued in the Exchequer Chamber. If it had come at once to that House upon the recommendation of the noble and learned Lord, should he have visited the party with costs? Certainly not. The reason of his indignation, and which he still felt, was, that a vexatious, unnecessary, and most costly writ of error was brought into that House, after the opinion of the Exchequer Chamber was given. Not satisfied with the opinion of all the Judges who decided the matter in the Exchequer Chamber, and upon the authority of "Hartley v. Case," which was directly in point, the parties insisted upon coming to that House; and for what? For the purpose merely of having the same Judges, who had all unanimously, unhesitatingly, given their opinion in the Exchequer Chamber, step across the Hall, after two years delay and a great expense, to repeat their opinion. And this the gentleman at the Bar, who was evidently a very acute man, with all the attention he had given to the subject, could not see. He could not see that the only result of the proceeding would be, that the learned Judges would step across the Hall to deliver the same opinion in that House that they had delivered elsewhere two years ago. If the object of the appeal had been, to obtain a reversal of any judgment in Chancery it might have been a different thing; but who could not see the absurdity of expecting that the learned Judges would one day entertain one opinion and the next day another, and that upon a matter of every-day common law practice? That part of the matter, therefore, was wide of the question, and had nothing whatever to do with it. He could not help remarking upon one statement which he had heard from Mr. Bittleston with great astonishment. He had told their Lordships that he was misled by the entry upon their minutes; but why suppose that the Speaker of that House had garbled the minutes? That construction surely was an uncharitable one, another being open. But, not content with that false construction, he said that many of their Lordships fell into the same error. He and the Lord Chief Justice had heard Mr. Bittleston so express himself, and he thought he ought to have an opportunity of explaining if there was any ground for doubt on the subject. If he had said so,
956
it was supposing that some of their Lordships were not only uncharitable, but that they were not very wise. He would explain how this was. Mr. Bittleston said that he must have garbled the minutes, and that some of their Lordships were of the same opinion upon the same facts. Now, the same persons, if they saw one of their Lordships with another's hat, would conclude that that noble Lord had been guilty of larceny; but in his case the conclusion was much more illogical, more foul, slanderous, and uncharitable. Mr. Bittleston told them that because the minutes did not appear to him to correspond with the acts done by their Lordships, he was led to imagine that the Lord Chancellor had been guilty of the baseness of garbling the minutes. He wondered it had not struck the author of this composition, that of all the follies man could commit, none could be equal to that imputed to him, for the judgment was delivered not only before several of their Lordships, but in presence of the parties in the cause against whom the decision was, and whom he had severely censured. Most wicked men, he thanked God, were foolish; but here would have been such a mixture of folly, meanness, and wickedness as it would baffle the keenest ingenuity to say which predominated. With these observations he would leave the matter in the hands of their Lordships.
Lord Denmansaid, that it was with the greatest reluctance, he rose to address their Lordships; but he was induced to do so because this question was one of very great importance, especially with reference to the administration of justice in that House, and in every court throughout the country. If the offence against their Lordships' privileges—an offence which had been proved—was lightly passed over, there was not a judge in the land who could feel that he had any protection against the foulest and basest calumny which it might please any interested and disappointed party to pour upon him. God knew that all persons in official situations were sufficiently exposed to such malicious attacks! God knew that there was too prevalent a feeling in society, arising from various motives,— from disappointed interest, from defeated speculations— to raise an outcry against those who presided in courts of justice. There was, and it grieved him to state it,

957
a disposition to decry individuals who filled high situations, although the charges advanced against them by disappointed and unprincipled men, rested only on the loosest rumour. This was the course pursued from the abandoned renegade down to the money-making libeller, who sent forth his daily venom against those who ought to be respected and revered. He believed that there was no Judge in or out of that House who wished unnecessarily to call for any summary proceeding. Everything in the nature of a contempt, the Judges had it in their own power to punish. Thus far they could protect themselves. But he hoped that they would always feel that their best security was to be found in the upright character which they maintained, and in the honourable course of conduct which they pursued. In the same manner, if any of their Lordships body were made the subject of even severe observation, he for one would be anxious, if it were possible, to pass it over. He said this, because he felt that there would be no safety for the liberty of the press if a very nice and critical feeling should be exercised with reference to observations on the conduct of public men. This, however, was a most peculiar case; and he begged their Lordships to consider in what situation those individuals who were most liable to attack would be placed, if they permitted the most groundless and the foulest abuse to be poured on them with impunity. In this instance, the charge was one of the foulest which could be imagined, at the same time that the circumstances to which it referred were ludicrously trifling in themselves; but, trifling as they were, they became matters of vast importance when they were made the foundation upon which virulent attacks, levelled at those individuals who acted judicially in their Lordships' House, were founded. He wished, for himself, to know in what situation he should be placed hereafter if his motives were to be impugned, as those of his noble and learned friend had been? He should wish to know in what situation he should stand if, at some future time, some unknown individual should impute falsehood and forgery to him—falsehood and forgery perpetrated in the course of his judicial career? Was such an attack to be suffered to pass by unnoticed? He knew that the power which their Lordships had in their hands was, at the best, an insufficient, an
958
invidious, an unsatisfactory kind of protection; but their Lordships would permit him to say, that it was the only remedy which they possessed. As to the case immediately before them, he was astonished that blind malignity and vile party spirit could have worked any person up to cast forth such an imputation as had been cast on his noble and learned friend. Good God! was there ever such a miserable attack as that which had been thus sent forth against his noble and learned friend? It was stated, that he had given to the Lord Chancellor some hint on the case when it was under consideration. It was asserted that he insinuated certain doubts on the question. When he read the case some time ago, he candidly confessed that he thought there was a room for doubt. With a faded recollection of the case, he came to his learned friend, and he believed he said that the case might have been decided either way. But was the Morning Post present? Was the observation of the Chief Justice of the King's Bench to the Lord Chancellor to be reported by somebody who thought proper to listen? If he were to be thus reported, it ought to have been added, that he had approved of all that had been done, and that his opinion had been completely altered before he left that House. He was now quite certain that this case could not properly have been otherwise decided than it was. Unless he had it under the hand of Lord Tenterden himself, or from some one upon whose authority he could implicitly rely, he would not believe that Lord Tenterden ever entertained any doubt on the subject. That noble and learned Lord had decided another case on exactly the same grounds. The fact was, that no principle was involved in this question: they all knew, that when a Bill was dishonoured, it was necessary to give due notice to the party who was liable; and in this case the whole point at issue, was the construction to be put upon a letter from Solarte to Palmer, the parties in the case. Now, was it because this case was removed from a Court of Law and brought before the twelve Judges in the first instance, that costs were awarded to the amount of 350 l.? No such thing. It was because, after the opinion of the Judges had been received in the Exchequer Chamber, the same opinion came from the same parties in that House. There was no point of law in the case; the thing was perfectly clear,

959
and that Lord Tenterden wished it to come before that House he totally disbelieved. What Lord Tenterden stated with respect to going before a superior Court did not alter his opinion on that subject. He knew that it was very common for Judges to say, even when they felt no doubt whatsoever with respect to a case, "If you are dissatisfied with my decision, you may take this case to a higher tribunal, if you please." Lord Tenterden had said this, and the case was taken to the Exchequer Chamber. There Chief Justice Tindal gave the unanimous opinion of all the assembled Judges in favour of the original decision of Lord Tenterden. After three years had elapsed the losing parties came forward and called on the same Judges to revise and alter their solemn decision. Such were the facts. The case stood on its own merits; and he must say that if there ever was a case in which an appellant was called on to pay costs that was unquestionably the case. His noble and learned friend on the Woolsack was right in coming to the decision that he had, and if those who had made the application to that House supposed that his noble and learned friend, because he entertained a particular opinion when he was at the Bar with respect to the case, would, in consequence, favour their application in his judicial capacity, that was a reason that made it more proper and more just that those who entertained such an idea should be visited with costs. With respect to the entry on the journals, it could not be inserted that the case was at an end, and that judgment was finally given, until the amount of costs was ascertained. Some of their Lordships thought it strange that a difference should appear between that which was stated in their minutes and that which they supposed was the fact. That discrepancy was, however, fully accounted for. But he would ask how came it that the Morning Post should be acquainted with the written Minutes of their Lordships' House. That was a matter worthy of their Lordships' attention. But was his noble and learned friend, in consequence of that discrepancy, which had been fully explained, to be dragged beneath the chariot-wheels of this Juggernaut of slander? Were their Lordships to be told, that his noble and learned friend was ready to falsify their Journals, in order to screen himself from censure for a judgment he had given?
960
When the gentleman who had been at the Bar, stated in his address, that it was supposed that some of their Lordships thought, that the statement contained in this paragraph was true, he would say, that it was a libel upon any individual to suppose for a moment that a feeling of that description existed in the mind of any person. It was monstrous to think that the great organ of Justice in that House should be thus attacked, and attacked on grounds that did not even justify suspicion. If suspicion existed, it was only necessary to have called for an explanation, and such an explanation would at once have been given as would have satisfied every reasonable and unbiassed mind. The whole case was now before their Lordships. The individual who had published the libel was also before them, and it was with extreme reluctance that he had troubled their Lordships in addressing them at this length. He deeply, regretted, that the first Motion he made in their Lordships' House should be one of this description. He should take what he believed to be the ordinary course upon such occasions; but God knew, that he acted without the slightest personal feeling towards this man. He also must say, that he proceeded without having had the slightest communication with his noble and learned friend on the subject; but perhaps he might have a feeling of sympathy with reference to what his own case might hereafter be, if Judges were allowed to be libelled with impunity. His Lordship concluded by moving, "That Thomas Bittleston be taken into custody."
Motion agreed to.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he had listened attentively to the dignified and impressive statement of his noble and learned friend. He agreed with him in the necessity of protecting the Judges of the land, and the judicial functionaries of their Lordships' House, and those on whom the duties connected with those functions devolved. But, although he was duly impressed with these sentiments, and was of opinion, that as against their Lordships a grave, unjustifiable, and unpalliative offence had been committed, he craved their attention to a single observation in his own behalf. He entreated their Lordships, as a favour to himself personally, he being the individual against whom this gross breach of the privileges of the House had been perpetrated—he being the only

961
person individually aggrieved—and if it had been any other Member of the House his mouth would be sealed; but, as he was the only one attacked, he preferred to their Lordships his humble solicitations, that no further punishment might be visited upon the individual in custody. In making this request, he would enter into a solemn engagement, that if they would grant his suit, and allow the individual to be reprimanded and discharged, in no case in which their privileges should be again violated, either in his person or in the person of any one else engaged in the judicial duties of their Lordships' House, would he interfere to beg off the offender. He intreated their Lordships to consider, that it was the request of the party sought to be injured,—he would not say injured,—that justice might be tempered with mercy, and that the offending individual might be discharged after being reprimanded. Was it the pleasure of their Lordships, that Thomas Bittleston should be brought to the Bar, reprimanded, and thereupon discharged?
Earl Greywas ready to pay every respect to the appeal of his noble and learned friend in mitigation of punishment. It was with great reluctance that he appeared to address their Lordships in aggravation; but considering how grave was the offence, and still more the manner in which it had been attempted to justify it, and agreeing entirely in the character which the Lord Chief Justice had given to the offence, he thought the House ought to consider, setting aside all personal feeling, and desiring only to maintain its character, and, above all, the interests of justice, whether it could possibly allow this case to pass over as proposed by his noble and learned friend? He certainly was not disposed to deal severely with persons in the situation of the individual at the Bar, and he should be ready to bow with deference to their Lordships' opinion; but, referring to former proceedings of a similar nature, he must say, that he looked upon this as the most aggravated case which had ever come under his notice, because it was an invasion of the administration of justice by that House. For these reasons, he did not think it would be right for them to dismiss the person at the Bar upon so slight a visitation of the displeasure of the House. He threw out these observations for the consideration of
962
their Lordships. He doubted the propriety of adopting the course proposed by his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack; but be should be ready to concur in any decision their Lordships might be disposed to come to.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that as he was the person who, upon a former discussion upon this question, had given his opinion respecting the manner in which the Records of that House were kept, and particularly upon this subject, and as this point had been adverted to by the gentleman at the Bar, who had been misunderstood, he thought, in that part of his address—he would venture to offer a few observations to their Lordships. It would be recollected, that the appeal out of which this question arose was one which attracted particularly the attention of their Lordships. The Report of the Judges, as their Lordships would recollect, had been received by a noble Lord who did not belong to the legal profession, and that circumstance had been adverted to by a noble and learned friend of his in that House. The subject, therefore, had attracted the public attention. When he first saw the paragraph in question, he confessed he was much surprised, and he was induced to make inquiries. The result of those inquiries was, that, although he found the Lord Chancellor had moved the House to confirm the judgment referred to, and although particular proceedings were had upon that occasion, yet not only was there no written record of those proceedings giving an accurate account of them for the information of the House or the public, but there was a printed record which did not give an accurate account. Both these records, the written and the printed, differed from each other, and both differed from the fact. He did not mean to blame the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in this transaction, neither did he blame the gentlemen at the Table of the House; but he could not help observing, that such a state of things was productive of great inconvenience. He meant by what he formerly said, to observe, that this state of things might have misled the gentleman at the Bar. He understood that gentleman to have referred in his address to what fell from him on a former evening. He could only say, that if he had been instrumental in misleading that gentleman to form an erroneous judgment he regretted it. Nothing was further

963
from his intention than to cast any reflection on the noble and learned Lord. If he had entertained any opinion of that kind he should have said so without any hesitation; but he fully acquitted the noble and learned Lord upon that subject. He must say, however, that the mode of keeping the records of that House, both written and printed, was anything but satisfactory.
The Lord Chancellorwished to explain on behalf of the clerks of the Table. He need not remind their Lordships, that whatever had been done in this case as to the minutes, had not been done by him. The mode might be right, or it might be wrong; but he was not the author of the practice. Upon this occasion, as upon all others, he gave no direction either to write or to leave out anything. But the mode complained of was not peculiar to that House. The same practice was followed in every Court in Westminster Hall. They must, therefore, take a little time to reflect before they altered it. The judgment was never regularly entered up on the postea until the costs were taxed. The case might be decided and reported in Barnewall and Alderson, or any other reports, and yet the postea not finally entered until the costs were precisely ascertained. The entry alluded to was a mere private memorandum of the clerk of the House, and formed no part whatever of the Minutes of their Lordships' House. It was only meant as a security, that the regular entry should afterwards be made upon the Journals.
The Earl of Limericksaid, that in justice to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, he must say, that the noble and learned Lord treated with great moderation the groundless attack that had been made upon him. It did not seem that the noble and learned Lord had done anything wrong in the performance of his judicial functions. It was the duty of the noble and learned Lord to give his opinion on the case that had come before him for judgment. He was a great friend to the safe and proper administration of justice, and he should therefore be always ready to protect the judicial authorities of the country in the discharge of their duties. He recollected a former occasion, when a person brought to the Bar under similar circumstances to the present, for a breach of privilege, declined to give any explanation or information whatever to their
964
Lordships, or to make any apology, and that person had the advantage of receiving a very lenient judgment, as well as having had the advocacy of the noble and learned Lord. He thought that the individual who had that day been called to the Bar had a better claim to the lenient consideration of their Lordships than the person to whom he had alluded. He trusted, therefore, that the Motion of the noble and learned Lord for calling him again to the Bar, and ordering his discharge after a reprimand, would be acceded to by the House. He should be one of the last men living to sanction the publication of any matter that might be hurtful to the feelings of another; and in supporting the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, his only object was, to have justice administered in mercy.
The Marquess of Londonderrycould not see why the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) should wish to visit with a different and more severe degree of punishment a person who might offend against the Ministerial party in the House, than one who might, in like manner unjustly assail an individual attached to the Opposition side. He trusted the noble Earl would not press his interference between the generosity of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the individual at the Bar. He should be sorry to see any difference made between the cases of two persons who had offended alike because their offence applied to different parties in that House.
Earl Greywas sure their Lordships would acquit him of entertaining any other feeling upon this occasion than a desire to uphold the character, the dignity, and the privileges of that House. He could have no personal feeling whatever on the matter. He confessed that he was surprised, often as he had been subjected to the attacks of the noble Marquess who spoke last, that that noble Marquess should attribute to him the disposition to visit with different degrees of punishment any persons who might offend against their Lordships' privileges because they were the advocates of different opinions. He did not, he confessed, expect this imputation from the noble Marquess, much as he was opposed to him. This was a difference to which he never for a moment gave the slightest consideration. In the case that had been alluded to by the noble Earl (the Earl of Limerick), as

965
well as in the present case, a breach of the privileges of their Lordships' House had been committed, and in coming to a judgment upon either, he hoped he should not be suspected of being influenced by any other feeling than purely a sense of justice and duty, and that no private consideration could enter into his mind in giving his opinion. He had but one object, namely, to maintain the character of that House and the proper administration of justice. Nothing could be more necessary to the due administration of justice than to protect the judicial authorities against such attacks as had been levelled at his noble and learned friend. On this ground chiefly it was, that he was not disposed to pass over the present case in the lenient manner which had been suggested by the generosity of his noble and learned friend. As to the entry which had been made in the Journals of the House, to which so much allusion had been made, he looked upon it as a question not at all connected in the present case. With respect to the other case, that had been quoted, he begged leave to say, that he was not one of those who on any occasion of this nature recommended a severe measure of punishment. But let the House see what was the course pursued in that case. A very atrocious libel had been published on the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Limerick) and it was quite impossible that the offending party could be suffered to escape; and the course then taken was precisely what he recommended now, namely, that the offending party was committed to the custody of the Usher of the Black Rod, and was not discharged until after he had presented a petition to their Lordships, and had been reprimanded at their Bar. God knew he entertained no other feeling or desire as regarded the individual at the Bar than to see, that the character and privileges of their Lordships were maintained, although he certainly looked upon the present case to be by far the most aggravated that had been brought under the notice of their Lordships; and he did not think, that it would stand well upon their Lordships' Journals, if such a case, after having been noticed, were passed over without the visitation of severe punishment. Having said thus much, he was quite willing to acquiesce in the suggestion of his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack; but he could assure the House, that he was not biassed in any
966
opinion he had given by a wish to deal out one measure of justice to the advocates of one side of the House, and another to those of the opposite side.
The Marquess Camdenlooked upon this libel as a most atrocious one, and which many would imagine could not have been made unless there had been some foundation. It had, however, no foundation whatever. It was proved to be as false as it was virulent, and he thought it should not be suffered to escape without some marked expression of their Lordships' censure. Their Lordships were bound to protect those who were engaged in the administration of justice. He was not disposed to visit this case with any unusual severity; but he could not prevail upon himself to let the party at the Bar escape altogether. He would, therefore, move that he be taken into the custody of the Black Rod."
The Lord Chancellor: He is already in custody.
The Duke of Hamiltonwas anxious that some conciliatory course should be adopted. He admired the moderation of the noble and learned Lord in the course which he had suggested. That noble and learned Lord had come forward to request their Lordships to treat the person at the Bar with lenity; and he (the noble Duke) hoped that that suggestion would be adopted, and that their Lordships would be lenient towards the person at the Bar. From what appeared to be the general feeling of their Lordships, he trusted they would pass the matter over leniently. He would not apologize for the gross libels which appeared in every public paper every day in the week—that he would admit was no defence for this, but it might be looked upon as a sort of palliation, that he followed a too general custom.
The Earl of Harrowbysaid, he was not disposed to visit this libel with all the severity it deserved, but still he thought it was one which ought not to be allowed to escape with impunity. He should like to follow the precedent established in the case of the publisher of another paper who had been brought before their Lordships. That individual had been ordered into the custody of the Black Rod, and was discharged only on his petition. There was, however, a difference between the two cases. The former, though an

967
atrocious libel, was only an attack on an individual Peer, and valuable as must be the character of every Member of that House, an attack upon any individual Member must fall short of a gross charge upon the noble and learned Lord who represented the House in its judicial functions. They had visited an attack upon the character of a noble Lord by ordering the publisher of the paper in which the attack was made into custody, and he did not think, that an attack on the noble and learned Lord who represented that House in its judicial character should be visited more lightly than one on any other individual Member. Instead, therefore, of reprimanding the person at the Bar, and ordering his discharge, he thought, that their Lordships ought to mark the sense of the libel by extending the punishment.
The Earl of Radnorcould well see why his noble and learned friend should not wish to press the case against the person at the Bar; but, with every respect for the feelings of his noble and learned friend on this occasion, he did not think that they ought to weigh with the House. The attack made was not only a gross charge on an individual member, but it was an attack on the House itself in its judicial character. It was a charge that its records had been garbled and falsified. It was, therefore, the affair of the House itself and not of any individual Peer. Under these circumstances, he concurred with the noble Earl (Harrowby) and the noble Marquess (Camden), that something further ought to be done than merely reprimanding the person at the Bar. Indeed, there was no precedent, after a vote declaring that a gross breach of the privileges of that House had been committed, for discharging the person at the Bar without sending him to Newgate, or ordering him into custody; and then the practice was, not to discharge the party except on his petition, acknowledging his offence, and expressing his regret for it. If, therefore, their Lordships had a due regard for their privileges, they would not suffer such an attack on them to pass with impunity, and an attack made on the most futile grounds; for if the party who wrote that article had sought for an explanation from the clerks at the Table, he could easily have ascertained the fact, and then he might have avoided the gross charge he had made.
968
The Earl of Harrowby moved, that the House pass to the Order of the Day.
The Motion agreed to, and Mr. Bittleston was removed in custody.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
The Marquess of Lansdownerose for the purpose of moving the second reading of a Bill, which had been sent up from the other House of Parliament, having for its object the more effectual prevention of bribery at elections. This Bill could not be strictly called a Government measure, though it had been introduced into the House of Commons by a member of his Majesty's Government; but it had the advantage of having been formed on suggestions proceeding from various quarters, and of receiving the support of men of different parties, who were all equally anxious to give their aid in checking, as far as possible, the practice of bribery and corruption at elections. On the necessity of maintaining the elections of the representatives of the people pure and unpolluted, there could exist no difference of opinion whatever; and while he admitted, that it was difficult to propose any plan by which this desirable object might effectually be attained (as generally, in cases of bribery, no third person was present, and both the person bribed and the person bribing were interested in the concealment of their corruption), yet the Bill, which he trusted their Lordships would be induced to read a second time, would so far amend the existing law as to furnish additional facilities for the detection and punishment of bribery. If the Bill were allowed to go to a Committee, it was his intention to propose an Amendment to that clause which empowered the Committee appointed by the other House to issue a Commission for the purpose of taking evidence. He thought, the more convenient course would be to enact, that the Committee should report to the House on the subject of the appointment of a Commission, and that the whole House should, on the receipt of such report, address the Crown to appoint a Commission. He was of opinion, that the proceeding which he proposed to substitute in the place of that which the Bill, as it stood at present, made necessary, would give more weight and authority to the Commission. This was the only Amendment which he at present thought fit to propose; but if any objection should be made to a particular provision in the

969
Bill, which possessed, in some degree, an ex-post-facto character—he alluded to the clause which directed, that the enactments contained in the present measure should extend to proceedings now pending as to the borough of Carrickfergus—he, for one, not deeming that clause to be connected with the general provisions of the Bill, should not resist any proposition for its removal. The noble Marquess moved, "that the Bill be read a second time."
Lord Farnhamdid not mean to offer any opposition to the principle of the measure, and he thought, the machinery which it created well calculated to effect the object in view, as far as the other House of Parliament was concerned; but he was of opinion, that their Lordships would not be acting rightly in agreeing to address the Crown to deprive any borough of the important right of sending representatives to Parliament without having first instituted an inquiry at the bar of their House, or before some tribunal within their own body, as to the general prevalence of bribery and corruption alleged against that borough. He was ready to admit, that some mode ought to be adopted by which their Lordships might be relieved from the trouble and loss of time of going through such a painful investigation at the bar of the House; and, though he could not give his consent to disfranchise any borough on evidence collected by a board of Commissioners, he believed, that all the information required by their Lordships might be satisfactorily obtained by the appointment of Committees up-stairs, acting simultaneously, whenever two or more Bills of disfranchisement happened to be sent up to that House at one time.
The Marquess of Lansdownobserved, that the House of Lords would not be obliged, on the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons, to concur in an address praying the Crown to withhold the issuing of the writ to any borough which it might be proposed to disfranchise; but cases might occur, in which the House of Lords would be satisfied with the evidence collected by the Commission appointed by the Crown, provided the House of Commons was satisfied with it.
Lord Ellenboroughwas sure, that their Lordships, if they bore in mind the long period which the proceedings in the Warwick case had already occupied, and if they recollected the time consumed in the
970
examination of witnesses in the East Retford case, must be of opinion, that it was absolutely necessary to consider of some mode of proceeding on Bills of disfranchisement, by which the general business of the House might not be interfered with. This was a subject which he trusted their Lordships, whether they agreed to or rejected, as he hoped they would, this Bill, in its present stage, would appoint a Committee to take into consideration. He admitted, that the Bill did not expressly prohibit their Lordships from entering into such investigation with respect to boroughs which it might hereafter be proposed to disfranchise as they thought fit; but still its whole object was, to give to the inquiries instituted by the House of Commons an exclusive importance, and to pass by the House of Lords, except in so far as its concurrence in an address for disfranchisement was necessary. By one single vote, from which there would be no appeal, they would proceed to denounce a whole borough; but if it should be desired to alter the limits, or increase the number of electors of a borough, it would then be necessary to resort to the usual and constitutional mode of introducing a Bill; but all that would be necessary to deprive a borough entirely of its elective franchise was a joint address of both Houses of Parliament. Thus for a minor case they were to proceed by Bill, and, in the more important case, they were to be content with an address. To that he could not consent; and it was a mode of proceeding which their Lordships, he trusted, would never sanction. If, however, their Lordships should refuse to concur in the proposed address, it would then become necessary to proceed by Bill, which would thus, contrary to all precedent, originate in that House. With respect to the Amendment which the noble Marquess had intimated his intention of proposing to the clause relative to the Commission, he believed, that its only effect would be to give to the Government, instead of the Committee of the House of Commons, the appointment of the three barristers, who were to act as Commissioners. It was provided by the Bill, that parties petitioning the House of Commons against any borough, on the ground of general bribery, must deliver in a list of the persons whom it was intended to charge with the offence of bribery, and give to such persons fourteen days' notice

971
previous to the sitting of the Committee, in order that they might be prepared to defend themselves either in person or by counsel against that charge. But, by a subsequent part of the Bill, power was given to charge other persons not included in the list delivered to the clerk of the House of Commons, who were not to be permitted, without leave of the Committee, to attend either personally, or by counsel, to cross-examine the witnesses produced against them, or call evidence in their own defence. And in what situation were those persons placed? They had no power to appear by themselves or counsel; they had no power to cross-examine witnesses for the petition; to call witnesses on their own part; and to take other means of rebutting the charges against them. It was true the Committee, if they chose, might give them that power, but of what use would it be to them when they were not aware of the precise nature of the charge? If, indeed, a Commission were appointed to investigate the charge in the country, then, indeed, the persons who were not comprehended in the list given in by the petitioners were as competent as the persons comprehended in that list to examine witnesses and rebut the charge. As soon, however, as the report was made by the Commissioners in town, all those equal advantages ceased, and the persons who were not comprehended in the list given in by the petitioners were no longer entitled to the privileges of the persons who were comprehended in that list. But that was not all. The report of the Committee, when made, was at once published, and the names of persons charged with being guilty of bribery and corruption, and who had had no possible opportunity of rebuting that charge, were liable to be posted upon Church doors and in Town-halls, and the parties themselves exposed to all that derision which was the necessary consequence of such an exposure. He could not imagine how it was, that such an enactment had been proposed by the collective wisdom, which, according to the statement of the noble Marquess, assisted in the concoction of the present measure; or how it had contrived to escape the observation of the noble Marquess himself, who now appeared to be reading the provisions of the Bill for the first time. By one part of the measure, provision was made for the payment of the expenses of
972
those who brought a charge of bribery against a borough; but there was no such provision in favour of those who had to defend themselves against that charge, unless the petition should be declared frivolous and vexatious—an event which was likely to occur but seldom. But when proceedings were instituted, in consequence of the special report of the Committee of the other House of Parliament, in that case, however frivolous and vexatious the charge might be, the parties defending themselves would have no relief whatever. This was a matter worthy of their Lordships' serious consideration, because, relating as it did to costs, their Lordships had not the power of making any alteration, and if they resolved to pass the Bill, they would be obliged to pass it with all its imperfections. He had every desire to give the House of Commons power to establish a better tribunal than at present existed for the investigation of cases of bribery and corruption, and he thought it would be advantageous if the witnesses summoned in such cases were always examined on oath; yet he could not give his assent to the plan contained in the present measure. A very important principle was involved in the enactment which empowered the Speaker of the other House of Parliament to select eleven persons out of thirty-three drawn by ballot, for the purpose of investigating charges of bribery and corruption. He had great confidence in the honour and impartiality of the right hon. Gentleman who now filled the chair of the House of Commons; but this was a question not to be determined by personal considerations. It was well known that the Speaker of the House of Commons, being appointed by the majority of that House, in general partook of the predominating political opinions of that House. The Speaker was appointed immediately after the election, and the power which he possessed of reducing the number of Members contemplated by the present Bill, from thirty-three to eleven, gave him the means of disfranchising any borough in the kingdom. It gave him the power of selecting, not merely the Jury, but the Judge and Jury. By adopting the proposition their Lordships would abandon that privilege of challenging a Jury, which was one of the most powerful safeguards of the rights of Englishmen. A valuable principle was sacrificed, and for no beneficial purpose.

973
Under all these circumstances, he was desirous, that the second reading of the Bill might be postponed, and a Select Committee of their Lordships might be appointed to consider of the best mode of proceeding in the measure. He repeated that he was desirous to give the House of Commons additional facilities in the prosecution of cases of bribery and corruption, while at the same time he felt that there was great difficulty as to the way in which those facilities should be furnished. Above all, he was desirous that means of securing the purity of the exercise of the elective franchise should be devised, without exposing innocent persons to the injury, insult, and degradation to which they were exposed under present circumstances.
The Lord Chancellorfully agreed with the noble Baron who spoke last as to the importance of the Bill, and he was sure that the House generally would agree with him that there was an absolute necessity to pass some such Bill. The present measure, as it stood, he should attempt to support on two grounds, the first of which was one of principle. No man could entertain the slightest doubt that if each inquiry arising out of the alleged delinquency of any place returning Members to Parliament became the subject of a legislative inquiry, they must go fully through all the forms, through every stage of proceeding necessary to a Bill, and witnesses must be examined at the Bar of both Houses. That cumbrous, inconvenient, expensive, and tedious—and because cumbrous, inconvenient, expensive, and tedious, therefore less efficient — remedy, would not by any means be so frequently pursued as the modes of punishment and prevention provided by the Bill. The reluctance to have recourse to the remedy, as it at present existed, would always be in proportion to the inconvenience, expense and delay consequent upon establishing the claim for a remedy. If all those difficulties, then, were experienced — as undoubtedly they would be in any given case—a second accusation, though standing upon similar grounds, would be brought forward, if at all, with still greater reluctance than the first, for the severity of such a lesson could scarcely be thrown away upon parties feeling a disposition to prosecute in any supposable instance. The other ground which he purposed to submit to their Lordships'
974
consideration was one of practice, and was suggested to his mind by the late proceedings with respect to the borough of Warwick. He did not, he assured the House, think of those examinations with any sentiments of revenge, although he certainly had suffered most severely under them. Well, the inquiry was proceeding, and in the fulness of time, they might arrive at a conclusion, and eventually pass the Bill. Upon the merits of that question, toward the elucidation of which that enquiry was directed, he, of course, could not think of pronouncing any opinion, when, as they at present were in the middle of that inquiry, it would be, to say the least of it, indecent in him to give expression to any opinion; but thus much, at least, he might without any impropriety, be permitted to say, that no man who paid the most cursory attention to the progress of the measure could permit himself to entertain the shadow of a doubt that the costs, the annoyance which it had occasioned, would effectually prevent the repetition of similar inquiries; and the necessary consequence of the present state of the law would be, that after the Warwick Borough Bill, no parties would be found to come forward, were the grounds of complaint tenfold stronger. The inevitable result of permitting the law to remain in its present state must be perfect impunity to the corruption of boroughs. He begged their Lordships' attention to the principle of the Bill then before them; it was, that the Crown should, on receiving a joint address from both Houses, issue a Commission to inquire into the accusation made, and the grounds upon which it rested, and to examine witnesses. Did any noble Lord suppose if a Bill were introduced for disfranchising any borough, that it was read a first time, and a second time, and committed, and finally read a third time, that anything contained in the Bill then before their Lordships would preclude either House of Parliament from proceeding with the examination of witnesses at their Bar, if to them such a proceeding appeared to be necessary? But he need scarcely remind their Lordships that long experience had proved that that mode was not, and could not be satisfactory; and that there must exist, under all circumstances, the greatest repugnance to have recourse to it. Under the Bill it was provided, that before the Petition was proceeded with, due notice

975
should be given, that the Crown might issue a Commission which was to report to both Houses. He was not sure that the Report by the Bill was to be made to both Houses, but he thought it ought to be so made, and he was quite sure, that from thence, and from the general operation of the Bill, would arise a system and mode of proceeding in such cases, much more compendious, economical, and satisfactory, than had ever yet been applied to borough corruptions. He should now come to that point upon which he dissented from the noble Baron who spoke last. That noble Baron had said, the remedy proposed under the Bill would supersede the power of Parliament by the creation of a new body to do that which hitherto Parliament alone was considered to be competent to. Surely it took away no power from Parliament; it would still be in the power of either House to originate a Bill for the disfranchisement of any borough. In his apprehension, it would be anything but degrading to the dignity, or injurious to the privileges, of either House, that they should be required to concur in an address to the Crown before a Commission issued. It had long been the practice for the House of Commons to delegate its powers to a Committee for the purpose of inquiring into proceedings connected with one of its most important privileges—namely, who should or who should not sit for any particular place: they were, as he said, in the habit of delegating that power to a Committee which formerly the whole House itself exercised, and a worse tribunal there could not possibly be, unless, indeed the Irish House of Commons. How was that most important matter at present decided? Why a Committee of eleven possessed that power, which nothing less than the House of Commons before exercised. Under this Bill, Commissioners appointed at the instance of both Houses would perform those duties which at present were so imperfectly performed. But would the House of Lords or the House of Commons be bound by the report of the Commissioners? Certainly not.—If their Lordships did not find that Report to be perfectly clear and satisfactory, they might refuse to join in the subsequent proceedings, and thereby put an end to them. But the existence of that power, which the Bill before them asserted and recognized, would strike
976
terror into the minds of evil doers, and a knowledge of the fact that it might, at short notice, be called into full activity would, he felt assured, deter them from the commission of those acts, the prevalence of which had given occasion for the Bill; and he should, without the slightest qualification affirm, that nothing could be further than was that Bill from tending to diminish the power, degrade the dignity, or lower the authority of that House. In the cases of tithes, Church property, or criminal law, they proceeded to legislate upon the Reports of Committees; were they by that in the slightest degree degraded, or did any man for a single moment suppose that reference to a Committee bound the House to abide by the decision of that Committee? In like manner, any noble Lord might, after the inquiry by the Commissioners, declare in his place in Parliament that such Report did not satisfy his mind,—that it did not go direct to the object in view,—that it was scanty or meagre,—or that wrong questions had been put. Such noble Lord might then, if he thought proper, move that the whole matter be referred to a Committee up-stairs; or even, if he saw it necessary, might move according to the old practice, that witnesses be examined at the Bar of the House. In that respect, therefore, their Lordships would be in the same situation after the passing of this Bill, as they were at present. The Bill comprehended, therefore, no infringement of the legislative, or of the inquisitorial functions of the House. As he had already observed, the evil in the present mode of proceeding was not so much in the first or second reading of the Bill, or in the Committee, as in the receiving of evidence—a subject on which, after his late experience, he could hardly speak without yawning. Indeed the House ought to be deterred from a repetition of such an experiment by their physical incapacity to repeat it; for unless they could put eight-and-forty hours into their day instead of four-and-twenty, they could not possibly get through two such Bills in one Session. Let a better mode be shown him of collecting evidence than that proposed in the Bill, and he would gladly adopt it. But he could not see why they might not engraft on that Bill, not the proceeding by address perhaps, (which he allowed was somewhat objectionable), but the grand improvement

977
of avoiding taking evidence at the Bar. The noble Baron complained loudly of the enormity of posting the names of persons charged with bribery and corruption on Church-doors, and Town-halls. What the noble Baron characterised as a hardship was a common occurrence. Suppose any individual chose to present a petition to either House of Parliament, charging fifty persons—or, what was worse, five persons—or, what was worst of all, one person, with bribery and corruption, what was the consequence? That the speech of the Member of Parliament who presented that petition, and who opened the subject in the House, appeared in all the newspapers, obtaining thereby a publicity much more extensive than that of any placards on Church-doors. Nay, more, the petition was printed in the votes; and it had been decided by the Court of King's Bench, after a solemn argument, that those votes might be posted on Church-doors. It was clear, therefore, that any slanderous libel which a petitioner might think proper to introduce into a petition might be pasted on Church-doors with the authority of Parliament. If it were thought necessary, however, some protection against this grievance might be introduced into the Bill under their Lordships' consideration. One objection that had been made to the Bill was, to ask, why not leave the law as it at present stands; and in any particular case, if the House liked to do so, address the Crown to issue a Commission for the purpose of obtaining evidence? The answer was, that in that case the Commission would be only, pro hac vice, a Commission for a particular purpose. But if they adopted a systematic measure, which chalked out the general course of proceeding, that would be to tell the subject that whatever borough was guilty of corruption, Parliament was pledged and bound to investigate the case, with the view of punishing the wrong-doer. For all these reasons, he was certainly favourable to the second reading of the Bill.
The Duke of Wellingtonthought, that under the Bill, in its present shape, there could be but one mode of dealing with any borough in which corruption was proved to exist—namely, that of disfranchising it. A Bill to disfranchise a borough might also be founded on an inquiry, originating in the other House of Parliament, over which that House had no control
978
whatever. He should wish before proceeding with such a measure that a Select Committee should investigate it.
The Bill was read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee.