Sitting of 9 April 1835

INVESTIGATIONS IN ARMAGH.
On the Motion that the House do now adjourn,
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that before this Motion was put, he could, not refrain from calling the attention of the House to the course of proceeding adopted by a noble Member (Lord Mandeville) who, after giving notice of a Motion for last night, in which very serious charges were brought against a Member of the Upper House (the Earl of Gosford), had, without the slightest notice of postponement, or even intimating such an intention across the Table, thought proper to absent himself altogether from the House, and had that morning left town. He (Mr. Spring Rice) did not intend to go into the merits of the case, in the noble Member's absence, but he had thought it right to express his opinion, that, in thus neglecting, without even a verbal notice, to proceed with his Motion, the noble Member had been guilty of much discourtesy towards the House, and of extreme injustice towards the noble Lord, whose character was involved, and over whom this Motion had been kept hanging for some time past, without any opportunity having been given him or his friends of vindicating him.
Mr. Shansaid, that the noble Lord (Lord Mandeville), after the understanding which had been come to, in consequence of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had left the House under the full impression that it would not be possible
992
to proceed with his Motion; and he had probably considered that the same understanding would sufficiently explain his reason for not proceeding with it to the parties interested in the Motion. The noble Lord had, accordingly, left town for Ireland, whither he was called by the most urgent business.
Viscount Achesondid not see, that the complaint against the noble Lord was at all answered. What he had been justly found fault with for was, that, day after day, he had kept a Motion like this impending over a noble Earl who could not be present to defend himself, and that on the day when he had promised to bring it forward he had, without even the most indirect intimation of his intention to do so, altogether neglected to proceed with his motion, and left town.
The conversation was dropped, and the House adjourned.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Oaths' Abolition.
Petitions presented. By the Dukes of SUTHERLAND and ARGYLE, the Marquess of BUTE, the Earl of OXFORD, and another NOBLE LORD, from a Number of Places, for Additional Accommodation in Scotch Churches.

IRISH EDUCATION COMMISSION.
Viscount Duncannonseeing the right reverend Prelate opposite, rose to request that he would postpone, till Monday, presenting the petition complaining of the conduct of the Irish Education Commissioners, on the ground he had stated yesterday, namely, that he had not yet received from Ireland an answer to his communication, so that he was not prepared to go into the subject of the petition.
The Bishop of Exeter said, that it was impossible for him to resist the application of the noble Lord, though the granting it was highly inconvenient to him, as he hoped to be in his diocese by that time. However, as the noble Lord had made the request, he felt it imperative on him to stay till Monday. Perhaps he might now be permitted to move that an humble address be presented to his Majesty praying that he would be pleased to direct that there might be laid on the Table of the House copies of the instructions given to the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of religious and other education in Ireland, and also a copy of the appointment of Mr. Gibson Craig. The last part of his Motion he made because in the petition reference was made to the supposed instructions given to the Commissioner.
Viscount Duncannonstated, that he believed Mr. Craig was not included in the first commission. Only eight persons had been named in it, and it was afterwards found that more were required, and Mr. Craig was then placed in the Commission. If there was no objection on the part of the Government, and the right reverend Prelate would move for the second Commission, dated in August last, he would obtain the names of all the Commissioners and would then get the instructions given to them.
The Duke of Wellingtondid not know that there would be any objection if made at the proper time, but he submitted that under existing circumstances it was not regular to move for a grant of papers. The right reverend Prelate should wait until his Majesty had appointed his responsible advisers when the papers might properly be moved for. Under these circum-

987
stances he thought it was desirable that some delay should take place in calling for these papers.
Lord Broughamsaid, that nothing could be more correct than the observation of the noble Duke opposite. The King could do no act without responsible advisers. It was in this instance a matter of mere form, but form was sometimes of the essence of a proceeding, and for form's sake the Motion for papers ought to be postponed. He had no doubt that the right rev. Prelate would not object to the postponement. As to Mr. Craig himself, he thought that that gentleman's name might not be even in the second Commission, for one, if not two names, had been omitted; certainly Mr. Craig was not in the first Commission. He should consider it peculiarly unfortunate if anything could be alleged against Mr. Craig; for he had himself recommended Mr. Craig, whom he had known from childhood, who was the son of Sir James Gibson Craig, a gentleman well known to their Lordships, and who was the personal representative of Sir Thomas Craig, the celebrated feudal lawyer. Mr. Craig was himself a barrister of ten years standing, and to considerable attainments he joined an excellent understanding, and an unexceptionable character in point of integrity, as well as being judicious and courteous in his disposition; and this last quality he had thought most important, in reference to the task which Mr. Craig would be called on to perform.
Motion postponed.

OATHS' ABOLITION BILL.
The Duke of Richmond The Duke of Richmond moved that this Bill be read a Third Time.
Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Wicklow The Earl of Wicklow moved an Amendment to the eighth clause, the object of which was to make the Bill extend to Ireland. He said, that it had been his intention to propose a clause that would have abolished all oaths to be taken by persons connected with the gaols and fever hospitals of Ireland, but as he had not been present when the Bill went through its earlier stages, he should not do so now. This Bill set a precedent, which he was sure must be more extensively followed up, and larger alterations must be made in the law relating to oaths. He was convinced that in the course of the next Session the Government must take up the matter. He should, therefore, refrain from pressing his more extensive Amendment, and should confine
988
himself to the introduction of one word that would make the Bill applicable to Ireland. As the clause now stood, it contained only the words "turnpike roads," and "highways." There were but few of the first, and the last would not be taken to include roads, at least so he was informed by the lawyers of Ireland. He, therefore, moved that the word "roads" be added to the clause.
The Duke of Richmondhad not the least objection to the proposed alteration.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that their Lordships must not consider their work as done, but must look on what had been done as an encouragement to further labours. They must appoint a Committee to inquire into the subject. The time of the appointment of the Committee would be when the Government took the matter, as they must do, into their own hands, with a view to make an extensive alteration of the present system, an alteration which was required by the best interests of religion and morality.
Lord Broughamthought, that the clause desired by the noble Earl relative to the oaths taken by persons connected with gaols and fever hospitals might be introduced as an Amendment in a single line of the Bill, or there might afterwards be a Bill with one clause passed for the purpose in the present Session, for this Bill like others had a clause declaring, that the Bill might be amended in the present Session.
The Duke of Richmondhad proposed this Bill as the beginning of a Reform on this subject, that he hoped would before long relieve the Statute-book from the great majority of oaths now required in different cases.
The Earl of Wicklowdid not wish to introduce his clause by way of Amendment at this stage of the Bill, and perhaps the necessity for a short Bill, as suggested by the noble and learned Lord, might be avoided, as perhaps the Bill might be returned to them from the Commons so amended.
The Clause agreed to, and the Bill was passed.

INDEMNITY OF WITNESSES.
The Earl of Mulgrave The Earl of Mulgrave moved, that the Witnesses Indemnity in Bribery Cases' Bill be committed, and said, that he should not trouble their Lordships with any observations upon it, as they had already agreed to the principle of the measure, and the details might be taken in Committee.
The Earl of Wicklowwas much surprised that the noble Earl opposite had introduced such a Bill as this, sitting, as he did, on a bench that was the property of the Whigs (the Opposition Bench), without any further notice than he had thought proper to give it. It was true that other Bills of the same sort had passed their Lordships' House, but then all those Bills were passed for specific purposes, and particular reasons were assigned for passing them. A certain advantage was obtained by those particular Bills; but this Bill was of a different nature—it introduced a new principle as the law of the land. In the better times of our history, in the better times of the Whig party, the Whigs did not pursue such conduct. The first Bill on this subject was introduced in the year 17–12. At that time there was a combination of men of all parties, for the purpose of driving a most able Minister from public life, and on succeeding in that, for the purpose of persecuting him in private life. He need hardly say that he alluded to that celebrated Minister Walpole. When the witnesses as to his conduct were first brought forward, they refused to give evidence before the Committee, and a Bill of indemnity was then proposed for their security. The proceeding, at that time, was so far from being countenanced by the Whigs, that it was justly and forcibly condemned by a great Whig historian, who called it "an Inquisitorial Bill." The Bill passed the Commons, but when it was brought up to their Lordships' House, it was rejected by a majority of fifty-seven, the numbers being fifty-two for, and 109 against it. The Lord Cardigan, though a bitter enemy of Walpole, denounced it as unconstitutional; and the greatest constitutional lawyer, that, perhaps, had ever sat upon that Woolsack (Lord Hardwicke) gave the same opinion. He should not take the sense of their Lordships on his objections to the measure, but he could not let it pass without stating them.
The Lord Chancellorrecommended that the Bill should now be committed, and these objections could be discussed in the Committee—not at that moment, but after the Government was formed. In the mean time the Bill might be printed.
Lord Broughamfully concurred with that suggestion. In justice to his noble Friend, he ought to remind the noble Earl opposite that the Bill had been much discussed—that he himself had opened it to
990
the House last year, when it underwent much discussion. There certainly was one clause in the present Bill that was as ill-framed as he had ever seen a clause in his life, and it had been agreed that that clause should be fully considered in Committee. The noble Earl opposite had been so anxious to make an historical parallel that he not only altered and amended, but had made a little history for the purpose; for such an extraordinary combination of parties as the noble Earl had described in former days certainly had not taken place in those days, and he would tell their Lordships why—it was because they were days in which parties had little principle of any sort to guide them. He was sure that the noble Earl's history was not quite so correctly given as usual, for though true it was, that there were now Tories and Whigs, and so far the two periods were alike, there was this difference between them, that not only there were then Tories and Whigs, but sections of Tories and sections of Whigs, which was not the case in the present day; and the questions that divided all these parties were not, as now, questions of great principles, but questions how power should be distributed in this great family or the other. He was quite clear in his own mind, that if the noble Earl had really felt all that he had now stated about the Whigs of the present time, as compared with those of better times, he would have stepped forward before, and have said so; for it was not the part of a very kind friend to keep back his opinion till it was too late to be of service; and if the noble Earl had stated these things before, there was no saying what might have been the consequence.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that there certainly was this resemblance between the Whigs of former times and those of the present, that now they were called the Radical Whigs, and then they were called the Disaffected Whigs. There was some resemblance, too, in the anecdote told of Pulteney, afterwards Earl of Bath, who, when sent for to form a coalition Ministry, said that the heads of parties were like the heads of snakes—they were impelled by their tails.
Lord Broughamwas glad that he had given the noble Earl the opportunity of explaining the meaning of his references, and of showing where the supposed applicability of them was to be found. The anecdote just related by the noble Earl, of which he had never heard before, certainly

991
did show that there was some applicability in the circumstances of past times to the language of the present times, but he could not say how far the language was applicable to the facts.
The Earl of Mulgravereally did not see, at that particular moment, the point of the joke about those (the Opposition) Benches being the property of the Whigs. The noble Earl had said, that these Benches were the property of the Whigs, but whether they were or not, or whether the noble Earl was of those who occupied them or not, as the noble Earl had the reputation always of being in the majority in that House, had he maintained these objections to the principle of the Bill, they might probably have been successful and he should have brought them forward before.
The Bill went pro Committee.