Sitting of 30 July 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Public Walk and Public Institutions.
Petitions presented. By Mr. HUME, from Mr. Macinries, High Sheriff of New South Wales, for an Inquiry into the Conduct of General Darling; and by Mr. H. L. BULWER, from Marylebone, to the same effect.

LEITH HARBOUR.
Colonel Leith Haymoved that the Report of the Trinity (North Leith) Harbour Bill be taken into consideration.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose with reluctance to oppose what might be termed a private Bill. He was of opinion that the Government ought not to interfere with the private business of the House as a Government. Such had been his uniform practice during the time he had been in office. There were, however, occasions when it became the duty of the Government to take part in such business, as for instance, when a private Bill touched or trenched upon the interests of the public generally; it was then the bounden duty of the Government to lay the case, as it affected the public, before the House. He was unwilling to lead the House to suppose, that he intended to throw the slightest blame upon his hon. Friends who had the care of the Bill—their conduct had been most fair and open; but as the collateral interests of the public were likely to be interfered with by the present Bill, he found that his duty compelled him to oppose them. It would be in the recollection of the House, that a sum of 240,000 l. was advanced by the Treasury for the purpose of completing the Leith harbour and docks; that money was advanced upon the security of these docks In the present state of the affairs of the city of Edinburgh, there was very considerable difficulty in providing means that the money should be repaid. He did not mean to be understood as saying, that it was to be considered as altogether irrecoverable, but there were considerable doubts on the matter. Now, the interests of the Crown and the public were likely to be much prejudiced by this Bill. If it were allowed to pass in its present state, no doubt the value of the property would become less, and the consequence would be, that the Government could have no other object

1245
left to pursue but that of directing immediate steps to be taken against Leith and Edinburgh for enforcing the rights of the Crown — a course which he should be very unwilling to see adopted, for it might be productive of consequences impolitic to hazard. His right hon. Friend, the Lord Advocate had abandoned his intention of bringing forward his Bill this Session, and, therefore, he was constrained, as an act of public duty, to oppose the further progress of the present measure. The parties had been all along forewarned that, if they did proceed in this matter, they did so at their peril. He had told them, that at some future day he must oppose them; therefore the question of the stage at which the opposition was offered was disposed of. He referred the House to the Report of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the present state of the harbour of Leith, a Committee in every way calculated to inspire the House with confidence, of which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) was the Chairman. The recommendation of that Committee, was, recommending the Government to abandon the debt. But the Government could not abandon that debt unless they saw that some good were to be the result, which point could not be ascertained without local inquiry. If this Bill were persisted in, under present circumstances, Government would be deprived of that opportunity. He did not oppose the principle of the Bill, and next Session it might be supported by the Government. It was important for the Government to inquire how far the sacrifice of such an immense sum of the public money would be productive of public benefit. Upon these grounds he moved the postponement of the further consideration of the report until that day two months.
Mr. Tookewas ready to give the fullest credit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his disinclination to interfere with private Bills, but he thought that he had taken a most severe course on the present occasion; the parties had come into the House a second Session in the hope that they might succeed. The question was, whether the Government should, by negotiating for the recovery of a bad debt, obstruct a good measure. He considered it a matter of extreme hardship to those parties that they should be driven to the enormous expense of coming before Parliament a third Session to procure that
1246
which the whole course of the evidence proved to be fraught with great public advantages. There was no pretence for alleging that this harbour was not desirable, but the promoters of it were to be put to the expense and delay of another twelve months, without any compensation for the anxiety and expense of two Sessions, during which they had been endeavouring to get this Bill passed. He did not think that this was a Measure on which the strength of the Government ought to be put forth.
Admiral Adamobserved that he had not only considerable local knowledge, but from his profession, great experience on the subject under discussion, and he would state most decidedly, that his reason for opposing the Bill was, that he did not believe it would effect the objects which the public desired, and the Bill professed to keep in view—namely, constructing the best possible low water harbour that could be placed upon the shores of the Frith of Forth. He was of opinion that the harbour, as laid down, would not be the best possible low water harbour. There were so many faults and defects in the plan, that, in his opinion, it would be improper to allow this Bill to proceed, as it would prevent others, at a future period, from constructing an adequate harbour. Looking at the Question in another point of view, he would oppose it. Immense sums had been laid out on the works at Leith, and it would be only justice to the public, who advanced those large sums of money, and to those who were connected with the place, that an opportunity should be given to them to place a low water harbour in such a position as would adapt these great, he might say, stupendous works, to it. It was ridiculous to sacrifice so large a sum of money, when by a small delay, arrangements might be made so as to make the best possible harbour, and profit by the works already constructed. The evidence completely supported him in his opinion, and he had not the least hesitation in opposing this measure.
Sir William Raeunhesitatingly concurred in the remarks that had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member. He did not think there was any hardship in the case, and the House, in his opinion, would do perfectly right in opposing the Bill.
Colonel Leith Haysaid, that in taking charge of the present Bill, he considered he was doing that which would not only

1247
be for the benefit of his own country, but of that of the country at large. The situation of the harbour of Leith was such as to render it impossible to be of much service, and the sooner some other harbour was erected the better. He must do his Majesty's Ministers the justice to say, that they had not, during the present Session, concealed from the parties bringing forward this Bill, their intention to oppose it. He, however, put it to the House, whether the measure were necessary or not. Was it right, he would ask, to go on year after year, putting off measures that were calculated for the good of the harbour of Leith? If it were the opinion of the House that the Bill compromised any public good, the House should take its own course. He considered he had done his duty in advocating the introduction of this Measure, which was not a private, but a most important public Bill.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that if the House passed the present Bill, they would affect most materially the rights of private property and the claims of the public, the object of the Bill being to erect a rival harbour, to the great detriment of the property belonging to the city of Edinburgh. As the Chairman of the Committee that had been appointed to inquire into the subject, he must say, that they had devoted many weeks to the consideration of the subject, and were unanimous in their opinion. He trusted the House would support his Majesty's Government in the course it had thought right to adopt.
Mr. Brothertonwas of opinion, that the postponement of the Bill would be a very great hardship to the petitioners.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that no person was more sincerely desirous than he was of having a good harbour established for Edinburgh, the city which he had the honour to represent. It seemed to him, however, that it would be for the benefit of all parties that this Measure should be deferred till another Session. He should give his vote for the postponement.
Mr. Humeresisted the postponement, because he wished to see a good harbour created for the city of Edinburgh. The whole weight of the evidence taken before the Committee seemed to him to be against the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He trusted the parties would be allowed to judge for themselves in the present case, and if they suffered in their
1248
purses by this speculation, it was nothing to the House, provided the public benefit contemplated were attained. He hoped the House would do justice between the city of Edinburgh and the petitioners. The inhabitants of Leith wished for a good harbour, and admitted that the present was not a good one. Was it not a fact, that no more money could be raised upon the credit of the harbour dues of Leith? Was it not certain that the Government would advance no more money, and these two positions proved the injustice and inconsistency of the present attempt at postponement? If the Government were a creditor to a great amount, that should not tempt them to stand in the way of improvement in other quarters. Such conduct was contrary to every principle of justice and public utility.
Sir James Grahamwas in favour of postponing the Bill, in order to see whether it were not possible to recover from the almost bankrupt estate of Edinburgh and Leith the large advance which had been so improvidently made by Government.
The House divided on the original Motion: Ayes 22; Noes 55—Majority 33.

List of the AYES.

Bish, T.

O'Coner Don

Brotherton, J.

O'Connell, Maurice

Buckingham, J. S.

Oswald, J.

Chalmers, P.

Sinclair, G.

Chisholm, A.

Stuart, Lord D.

Crawford, S.

Tooke, W.

Fitzsimon, C.

Wakley, T.

Hector, C. J.

Wallace, R.

Lucas, E.

Wilks, J.

Marsland, H.

TELLERS:

M'Taggart, J.

Hay, Colonel L.

M'Cance, J.

Hume, J.

The Bill postponed for two months.

IPSWICH ELECTION.— CASE OF MR. CLIPPERTON.
Mr. J. Clippertonwas brought to the Bar, when the Speaker addressed him to the following effect: —"John Clipperton, this House has resolved that you have been guilty of a breach of its privileges; as you have aided and abetted witnesses who have absconded for the purpose of evading the service of the Speaker's warrant. This is conduct which, in your case, admits of no palliation. The knowledge which you have acquired in the practice of the profession to which you belong, ought to have warned you against the commission of such an offence, by impressing you with a just

1249
sense of its injurious consequences to your own character, and to the administration of justice. On the contrary, you have neglected that duty which you owe to yourself and to public justice. You have supplied the witnesses when abroad with money for their support, and when they were living under feigned names; and thus you have become deeply implicated in a serious and aggravated obstruction to the due authority of this House. Under these circumstances, this House, which ought always to be prompt and vigilant in the vindication of its useful and acknowledged privileges, which are as essential to maintain the due authority of this House as to protect the course of justice, has found itself imperatively called upon to visit your offence with severe punishment. Trusting that the contrition which yon have expressed is real and sincere, and that you will never cease to feel regret and sorrow that you have so mis-conducted yourself as to have incurred the heavy displeasure of the assembled representatives of the people, I have now to acquaint you that, on the payment of your fees, you are discharged."
The Speaker's address was ordered to be entered on the Journals.

YARMOUTH ELECTION.—BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Lord Franris Eyertonbrought up a Report from the Committee on the Petition from Great Yarmouth and York, complaining of corruption. The Report having been read, stating that a witness of the name of William Prentice had this day refused to answer a question, on the ground that it would criminate himself, although informed by the Committee that he was bound to answer it, the noble lord moved that William Prentice be ordered to attend at the Bar of the House tomorrow.
Mr.WilliamsWynn agreed in this opinion; and, on the motion of
Mr. Hume, the short-hand writer was called to the Bar, and read his notes of the testimony given by Prentice this day, which showed that he distinctly and repeatedly refused to answer questions put to him, because he believed by so doing he should criminate himself.
The evidence was ordered to be printed, and Mr. Prentice to attend at the Bar on the following day.

LONDON UNIVERSITY.
Mr. Tooke 1250
said, it had been intimated to him that some determination had been come to, by his Majesty in Council, respecting the proposed charter to the University of London: he begged to ask the Attorney-General what was proposed to be done in pursuance of the answer of his Majesty to the Address of this House?
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that in answer to the hon. Member, he had to state, that with the sanction of his Majesty's Government he bad prepared two Charters, which he hoped would be in complete concurrence with the Address from this House, and with his Majesty's gracious answer. One of these Charters was to the University of London—not as a University but as a College; it being proposed that it should be called the London University College. No power, however, of granting academical degrees, was to be conferred by this Charter; it would only enable that body to conduct all their own affairs, in the same way as they had hitherto done. The other Charter was for the purpose of establishing a Metropolitan University, with power to grant academical degrees to those who should study at the London University College, or at any similar institution which his Majesty might please hereafter to name.
Subject dropped.

IPSWICH ELECTION.—CASE OF MR. MOORE KEITH.
The adjourned debate, on the case of Mr. Thomas Moore Keith was resumed.
Mr. Humesaid, that that Committee had come to the resolution, that John Pilgrim and others were guilty of absconding to avoid being served with the Speaker's warrant; and that the said John Pilgrim, having at length been served with the Chairman's warrant, was prevented attending the Committee by being arrested on a charge of embezzlement, made against him by Messrs. Sewell, Blake, Keith, and Blake, under very suspicious circumstances. He (Mr. Hume) believed there was no objection to the House taking the proper and usual course on this occasion; he therefore begged to move that Thomas Moore Keith be taken into custody by the Sergeant-at-arms, and that the Speaker do issue his warrant for that purpose.
Mr. Williams Wynndid not think it desirable (though he was aware there were precedents in favour of such a course) that

1251
the House should act merely upon the opinion of a Committee. The House had the evidence before them; it was, therefore, competent for them to adopt the decision of the Committee, and upon that decision they might proceed.
Mr. Humemoved that the Report of the Committee be read.
Report read accordingly, and on the motion of Mr. Hume it was agreed to.
Mr. Humemoved, that Thomas Moore Keith he taken into custody by the Sergeant-at-arms.
Mr. Scarlettdid not doubt that the majority of the Committee came to a decision upon the most conscientious grounds; still there was much contradictory evidence before them, sufficient indeed to create a division in the Committee. He felt it his duty to remind the House of the extremely unfavourable position in which a person was placed who was brought before a Committee of the House of Commons. A disadvantage of such a tribunal was, that the defendant was submitted to an examination and cross-examination. On looking over the evidence before the Committee, he could not find any to substantiate the offence which Mr. Keith was reported to have committed. He was reported to have instituted a prosecution against Pilgrim, to induce his absence from the Committee; but there was no evidence of the fact.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsubmitted, that as the House had agreed to the Resolution of the Committee, it was not competent for Mr. Scarlett to go into the evidence to show that Mr. Keith was not guilty.
Mr. Scarlettdid not mean to impugn the decision of the Committee; his object was to show that that decision was not formed upon evidence of fact, but of words; and Home Tooke had said that it was true words were things, but they should be well proved by unsuspected testimony. Mr. Keith made a journey to Calais to make certain inquiries of Pilgrim respecting frauds alleged to have been committed by him (Pilgrim). The evidence of Mr. Wood, who accompanied Mr. Keith to Calais, was in complete contradiction to what Pilgrim deposed as to what passed at Calais. Surely, Mr. Keith's and Mr. Wood's evidence, together, ought to outweigh that of Pilgrim alone. He submitted, therefore, that the evidence of Pilgrim thus contradicted ought not to have been believed.
Mr. Aglionbybegged pardon of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but without wishing to prevent him from urging these things, he would put it to the House whether this was the time to do it. The question now before the House was, that Keith should be taken into custody. It followed, as a matter of course, that having committed a breach of the privileges of the House he should be taken into custody. If the hon. and learned Gentleman should afterwards think proper to argue upon the evidence in mitigation of punishment, he should then be able to meet him.
Mr. Scarlettdid not wish to take up the time of the House unnecessarily, but the decision of the House on the question before them might affect the liberty of the subject. Nothing, therefore, could be of more importance. The effect of the arguments he wished to urge might be the difference between Mr. Keith being committed to Newgate, and his being discharged. Mr. Keith laboured under many disadvantages, some of which he had already stated. Another disadvantage arose from the peculiarly unfortunate manner in which that Gentleman gave his testimony; though he believed, that it was given in a manner perfectly consistent with a desire to tell the whole truth. Under all these circumstances he thought that Mr. Keith ought not to be committed to prison, but that he should be reprimanded, and discharged.
Mr. Humemoved, that Mr. Keith should be brought to the Bar now.
Agreed to.
Mr. Keithbeing placed at the Bar of he House,
Mr. Humemoved that he be committed to his Majesty's gaol of Newgate.
Mr. Scarlettmoved, that Mr. Keith be reprimanded by the Speaker, and discharged.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Norwich had misunderstood a very large portion of the evidence. He did not wish to press hard upon the individual, but still something was due to justice and to the public, when a case of guilt so clearly established came before the House. Besides, it was not competent for the hon. and learned Gentleman now to argue that Mr. Keith was not guilty of the charge made against him, because the House had already declared that he did aid and abet in pre-

1253
venting the attendance of Pilgrim to give evidence before the Committee. The proper period when that charge should have been disputed was, when the evidence was taken before the Committee, whose resolution the House had adopted. The decision of the Committee was not, he admitted, on all points unanimous; but there was not the slightest dissent expressed against the resolution which alleged the guilt of Mr. Keith. He might most justly say, that, as to that gentleman having aided in getting Pilgrim out of the way, there was no difference of opinion whatever in the Committee.
Lord Stormontsupported the amendment, in order that Mr. Keith might be enabled to go down to Norwich, to prefer the bill of indictment against Pilgrim on the 1st of August.
Mr. Lawregretted the resolution at which the Committee had arrived, as having the effect of prejudging a case which would come before a criminal court. He must express a hope in concurrence with the liberal spirit of the noble Lord (Stormont) that no sentence of imprisonment would prevent Mr. Keith from appearing as a witness on the trial of Pilgrim, as he was bound to do by his recognizances.
Mr. Williams Wynnobserved, that there could be no difficulty in the House making an order permitting Mr. Keith to be taken down to Norwich, in the custody of one of its officers to give evidence on Pilgrim's trial.
Mr. Hawessaid, the conduct of the Committee was justified by the evidence. He would recommend the friends of Mr. Keith to urge his case ad misericordiam, rather than by impugning its decision or the evidence on which the report was founded. There was not much reason to praise Mr. Keith's veracity while the charge against Pilgrim seemed merely got up as a device to prevent his being examined by the House.
Lord Stormontcould testify to the high character and placed great confidence in the testimony of Mr. Keith. He could not sufficiently deprecate the resting the case on the testimony of such a man as Pilgrim. The Committee in fact gave at once a verdict in favour of an accused, and stigmatized at the outset the veracity of an individual who was subsequently to be examined as a witness on the trial.
The question carried.—The Speaker to
1254
issue his warrant to commit Mr. Thomas Moore Keith to Newgate.

CASE OF MR. PILGRIM.
Mr. Wasonpresented a petition from John Pilgrim, stating, that Mr. Keith was a necessary witness in his trial which was about to take place at Norwich and praying the House to permit Thomas Moore Keith to proceed to Norwich in custody of the Sergeant-at-arms, or of the gaoler of Newgate, on the 1st day of August for the purpose of giving evidence on the trial.
On the question that the petition do lie upon the Table,
Lord Stormontsaid, that his recommendation to the parties would be to drop the prosecution against Pilgrim altogether, if this course were to be pursued; for if Mr. Keith went down to give his evidence in any but the ordinary manner, the effect of his doing so must be to prejudge the case.
Mr. Hawessaw no necessity for his being sent down at all. The charge against Pilgrim was one of embezzlement against the firm, and any one of the partners could prove it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersuggested, that as the subject would be brought forward again to-morrow, the discussion had better be allowed to terminate at once.
Petition to lie upon the Table.

GENERAL DARLING.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellsaid, that it was with great unwillingness that he troubled the House at this late period of the Session, but he begged to say, that it was not his fault if the subject was not brought forward at an earlier period. He would state the facts of the case as they were related to him, and he would state them in the briefest way possible. At the outset he would state the nature of his motion. It was for a "Select Committee to inquire into the conduct of General Darling while Governor of New South Wales, particularly with reference to the grants of the Crown lands made by him, his treatment of the public press, the case of Captain Robison and the New South Wales Veteran Companies, and the alleged instances of cruelty towards the two soldiers Sudds and Thompson, and other persons, and to report thereon to the House." In the first place it would be found that the grants of the Crown lands made by the

1255
various Governors of New South Wales were made on a smaller scale and with less partiality than those made by GeneralDar-ling. That General had made double the quantity of grants of Crown lands that any former Governor had made. That Governor who preceded him, granted, in twelve years, 400,000 acres of those lands. General Darling, in the same space of time, gave away upwards of a million of acres of the Crown lands. Besides this he had to charge General Darling with great partiality in the manner he disposed of those lands. To a brother-in-law, who was in the full receipt of an income of 600 l. a-year, he made a free grant of 10,000 acres of land, though there was an order from the Government at home that no grant should exceed 9,600 acres. To the Colonial Secretary he made a grant of 1,280 acres in the first instance, and to a cousin of his General Darling gave no less than 2,568 acres. It would be found on inspecting the documents that the aforesaid Colonial Secretary received in all upwards of 10,000 acres of the Crown lands. Captain Robison was refused a grant of land, on the plea that he was in the receipt of full pay in his Majesty's service, whilst the two other persons received grants of land though they were also on full pay. He thought that he had established sufficient grounds for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the partiality with which those grants were made. A stronger case remained behind. Close to Sidney, about two miles to the southward lay a tract of land to the extent of 180 acres, which was particularly rich and fertile. It was Crown land, and Government at one time intended to erect upon it a lunatic asylum. However, General Darling had authority to divide it among eight or nine officers, to all of whom except one he gave about nine or ten acres each. To one person, however, a Mr. M'Kay, he gave fifty-four acres, and those acres were the very best of the lot. Several years ago each acre was valued at fifty pounds, and lately a very large sum (upwards of 500 l.), was refused for one acre. He thought something ought to be done to prevent Governors wasting the public property in this way. In 1828 a person of the name of Onslow arrived in New South Wales. At first he was not known to any one in the Colony. He soon, however, became acquainted with M'Kay, and through him was intro-
1256
duced to the Governor. Onslow held an office of 500 l. a-year under the East-India Company, besides another in the Colony, and on marrying a daughter of M'Kay he received a grant of land in one of the very best situations, together with other assistance. In 1828 a large number of convicts were landed, and they were distributed with partiality. To the Lieutenant-Governor were given twenty-four. The hon. and learned Member next alluded to the case of a person named Hall, who was stated to have been formerly a hot-headed and rather violent person, but who was now under General Bourke a very quiet citizen. It appeared that Hall, in a newspaper, said that the Archdeacon of Sidney was not a man of peace. This was considered a libel, and he was tried before a military tribunal. Hall wished to have the case deferred, in order to have Captain Green, a liberal and humane man, upon the Jury; but three successive times when it came to be Captain Green's turn to be on the Jury that Officer was sent to perform other duties. Hall, finding it impossible to have Captain Green on the Jury went to trial, and was convicted—the sentence being a certain imprisonment, and a certain fine. Some of the Officers sat twenty, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, and fifteen days and they were all paid by the Governor at the rate of 15 s. a day. Hall commented on this in another paper, and the result was a new trial for libel. No less than six ex officio informations were issued against him—his recognizances were estreated—and he was condemned to three years' imprisonment and a fine of 1,000 l. He suffered sixteen months' imprisonment, and was let out on bail only in consequence of the general pardon granted by his Majesty to such offenders. Hall then proceeded legally against the Governor and other persons, and in every instance recovered damages and costs, which were paid by the Governor out of the Colonial funds. He would now come to the case of Captain Robison, who had been a number of years in his Majesty's service, and who had received his first education at the Military College of Great Marlow. He entered the service in 1805 and commanded for six or seven years a cavalry regiment in India. On his return to this country he was appointed to the command of a veteran company and proceeded to New South Wales. On arriving in the

1257
colony he was appointed to the Bathurst district, the most important district in the Colony. Captain Robison soon perceived several abuses, particularly in the way convicts were disposed of by the Lieutenant-Governor, Stewart, and represented the matter to the Governor. A copy of the representations he made to the Governor he sent home. He, however, received no answer, and instead of the charge being inquired into, he was recalled to head quarters; and as, according to the rules of the colony, he could not be superseded, the district which he commanded was done away with, solely for the purpose of depriving him of the command. Upon tins he asked leave to return home, and was not only promised leave, but was also promised the charge of troops and a free passage; yet in the very next Government order he found that he was commanded to proceed to Norfolk Island, the penal settlement, although that order was afterwards superseded, on account of his being a married man. He was then sent to Newcastle, and while in that station, it was so contrived that he was unjustly deprived of the Government-house and allowances. The hon. Member then alluded to the charge which had been brought against Captain Robison, of feloniously breaking open the mail bags, and contended that there was nothing in Captain Robison's conduct in regard to that matter which deserved punishment. The next charge brought against Captain Robison was for reading a private letter from Captain Sturt, the Colonial Secretary, to Lieutenant Sweeney, without Lieutenant Sweeney's leave. Upon this charge Captain Robison was tried by Court-martial, and dismissed the service, although it was proved, upon the evidence of Lieutenant Sweeney himself, that he had given permission to Captain Robison to read the letter. The Court-martial acted in a most singular manner; it rejected Mr. Sweeney's evidence in justification of Captain Robison—namely, that liberty had been given him to read the letter by Lieutenant Sweeney, but the Court listened to all the evidence implicating in any degree the conduct of Robison. He did not mean to impugn the character of the officers who sat on this Court-martial, but he could not help feeling some surprise at their conduct, which probably arose from want of experience in matters of the kind. It should
1258
also not escape recollection that the Judge-Advocate who presided at the trial was a man of but little experience. From the period of Captain Robison's return to this country, he had pertinaciously endeavoured to obtain inquiry into his conduct, with a view of getting redress. He (Mr. O'Connell) had seen a good deal of that officer lately, and he had never remarked anything in his conduct which was not characteristic of a gentleman, and at the same time he manifested a fixed determination not to relax in his endeavours to obtain justice. Captain Robison had written a pamphlet respecting the conduct of General Darling in the colony, and had brought a number of charges against him for acts done by him in the performance of his official duties. In consequence of this General Darling had instituted proceedings against him for a libel, and from the course pursued, Captain Robison was prevented from proving any of the charges he had made. The result was, that he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and had now been some months in prison. The next thing he came to was the conduct of General Darling in the cases of Alexander Edwards and Dennis Mac Hugh. Edwards had been an attorney at the Cape, and had been transported to New South Wales in consequence of a libel he had written on Lord Charles Somerset. He had been allowed to reside at Bathurst, without direct control being exercised over him, but in consequence of removing for a short period to some distance, he was seized and brought back to Bathurst. He was then sentenced to seven years' transportation to Norfolk Island, on a charge of having attempted to escape from the colony before the termination of his sentence. The next case was that of one of the persons who had been transported from Ireland in consequence of some political offence—he believed under the Insurrection Act, for being out after dark. He had a ticket of leave in the colony, and was married to a woman in good circumstances, to whom he had been assigned as a servant. On one occasion he went to the Bank to get some notes exchanged which belonged to his wife. On his presenting them, the clerk asked him how long he had had them? and he replied, six months. He was asked whether he would swear to this? He consented to do so, and the oath was administered. It

1259
appeared, however, that the notes had only been issued about five months. He was prosecuted for perjury, and was sentenced to a long term of imprisonment. He applied to the Judges, and was taken before them under a writ of habeas corpus; the case was argued before them, and the sentence was declared to be illegal; but, notwithstanding this, he was sent to a penal settlement, on the plea that the Governor could revoke a letter of leave, or withdraw an assigned servant. The wife of this man had then demanded the notes or the money, but it was refused, and she had never been able to obtain it. The next case he would advert to was that of Sudds and Thomson, two soldiers of the 57th regiment. It appeared that the former did not bear a very high character in the regiment, but this was not the case with the latter. The regiment was about to proceed from New South Wales to India, and these men being unwilling to go, determined to commit some offence, which would lead to their detention in the colony. They went into a linendraper's shop in Sidney, and openly committed some act of larceny. They were tried by a Court-martial and sentenced to seven years' transportation. The Governor, by the authority vested in him, reversed the sentence, and commuted it to working on the road in irons for four years. They were clothed in a military dress, and had irons rivetted on them. These irons were of such construction that they inflicted the most cruel torture on these men. Indeed such was the sufferings of these men, that Sudds died in the course of a few days. A post mortem examination took place, and the surgeons declared that they could not account for his death otherwise than from the treatment he had experienced. An inquiry had taken place into the circumstances of the case before the Legislative Council of the Colony, but the Governor presided on the occasion, and directed the inquiry. He need hardly say, that such an investigation was anything but satisfactory. After this the Governor ordered Thomson to be released from his irons. He contended that the trial itself was illegal, as well as the commutation of the sentence. The Colonial Office had declared that the latter was so. He thought that there would be no difficulty in showing that the death of Sudds was occasioned by the treatment he had experienced, Mr. M'Intire, the surgeon,
1260
said, Unit the death of the man had been caused by putting him into irons too small for him, and by the harsh conduct pursued towards him. The irons were in all respects too small, and the collar which was placed round his neck was so tight that he could hardly breathe. A spike, six inches long, projected in front and behind the collar, and there were also bars of iron on the breast and back of the men. A person who had seen Sudds in his irons said that nothing could be inserted between the collar and neck. This man never held up his head afterwards, nor was he able to take anything; but died in a miserable condition. It had been asserted that he was in irons only for a short time; but Mr. M'Intire said that he was kept in them twenty-eight hours. The irons that Thomson wore were lighter than those placed on Sudds. When they were taken from the former, they were exhibited as those worn by the latter. The weight of the irons Thomson wore was thirty-five pounds; but the others were considerably heavier. Sudds died five days after the infliction of this punishment, and the surgeons gave it as their decided opinion that his death had resulted from being placed in these irons. Was not this a case which called for inquiry? It had been brought before the House in 1830, and some of the papers then moved for were granted; but circumstances had since taken place, and new facts, which were not previously before the House, had been adduced. This he thought was a sufficient reason to justify the House in granting an inquiry before a Committee. It was stated that there were no precedents, but he would refer to the case of Governor Wall, who had been capitally punished for having illegally tried some soldiers before a Court-martial, and for having inflicted extremely cruel punishment en them. He contended that the two men he had alluded to had been illegally tried and convicted; that the commutation of their sentence was illegal, and that one of them had died in consequence of the infliction of this illegal punishment. If these men had been made to work in the irons commonly put on persons sentenced to labour on the roads, Sudds would probably be alive at the present time. He might be told that it was too late to call for inquiry, but he contended that it was not too late to do justice. He thought that he had shown sufficient

1261
ground to justify inquiry into the whole question, and especially as to whether or not Captain Robison had been properly tried and convicted. He concluded with moving, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the conduct of General Darling, while Governor of New South Wales, particularly with reference to the grants of Crown lands made by him; his treatment of the public press: the case of Captain Robison and the New South Wales veteran companies; and the alleged instances of cruelty towards the soldiers, Sudds and Thomson, and other persons, and to report thereon to the House."
Sir George Greysaid, that it was with great pain that he felt called upon to say anything respecting two officers, who had both served their country well. They had to decide between two officers, one of whom was now in prison, and against the other charges of the most serious nature had been brought, and the most opprobrious epithets had been applied to him. It was not necessary for him to go into many of these charges or accusations, it would be sufficient for him to confine himself to some of the chief points of the case. The main question they had to decide was, whether this was a fit case for the House to take up, and refer to a Committee up stairs for the purpose of investigation. Did it appear that inquiry would lead to any useful practical result? He thought that that had not been shown. It was proposed also that it should extend over the whole period of time that General Darling was Governor of the Colony. The first charge was relative to the grants of land that had been made during his administration of the affairs of the Colony. Now, what was the object and use of inquiry into this part of the case, even if the facts which had been stated were admitted? It was undoubtedly true that most improvident grants of land had been made, but this was rather the fault of the old system than of any individual, and such steps had been taken as would prevent the recurrence of any such grants. It had been admitted that the regulations which had been sanctioned by the Colonial Office in 1831, as to grants of land in New South Wales, had been found sufficient to put a stop to this ground of complaint. What more then could a Committee do on this point after inquiry, than to express their satisfaction at the
1262
result, and to state that the object they had in view had been anticipated, and future improvidence in the grant of lands prevented. With regard to General Darling, and in justice to that Gentleman, he was bound to observe, that the large grant of land made to his brother-in-law had been made by his predecessor in the governorship of the Colony. With regard to the refusal of the grant of land to Captain Robison, he would only state that General Darling was not responsible for it, for, according to the regulation long in force in the Colony, no officer on full pay could have a grant of land made to him. However much he (Sir G. Grey) might regret the apparent hardships this officer was subsequently exposed to, he felt bound to say that General Darling could not have complied with the request. It had also been stated that Captain Robison had been refused the grant of land which was always given when a person married the daughter of a settler in the Colony. There certainly was much difference between this case and the former, but still the regulations of the service might have been an impediment. If, however, on inquiry, it should appear that no satisfactory reason could be assigned for what had taken place, he would take care that Captain Robison should receive the grant of land usually given under the circumstances of the case, notwithstanding what had taken place subsequent to the former refusal. If injustice had been done in this case, nothing which had since transpired should prevent reparation being made. With respect to the charge of libel being tried before a military tribunal, he had only to state, that at the time there was no other tribunal before which the trial could take place. Civil tribunals now existed, and charges of the nature he had alluded to were tried before a jury of twelve persons, as in this country, instead of before a military tribunal. The Libel Law was not passed at the period alluded to. He was anxious to bury everything connected with this subject in oblivion, for he feared that the recital of it would risk the renewal of excitement in the colony. He was satisfied that inquiry before a Committee, on this point, would not lead to any satisfactory result; and the less so as there appeared something like the manifestation of a vindictive feeling in some of the charges preferred against General Darling. He was satisfied, that the House

1263
would not take up the subject with the view of supporting the cause of either General Darling or Captain Robison, but would adopt such a course as seemed most likely to promote the general interests of the colonists and the rights of the subject. He was sure, therefore, that the House would agree with him, that inquiry into the libel case could not be pursued with advantage. With respect to the next charge, all that he could say was, that the Governor of this penal colony had ever possessed the right of removing any assigned servants who were convicts from the persons with whom they had been placed. If objection were made to the principle, the subject was rather a matter of inquiry before the Committee on Secondary Punishments, than before that now moved for. As to the case of Captain Robison, he must observe that this was a military case, on which he was not a competent person to decide, but no doubt his right hon. Friend, the Judge-Advocate, would give his opinion on the subject. The charge against Captain Robison was a military charge, and was tried before a military tribunal, composed, as he sincerely believed, of men of integrity, anxious to perform their duty faithfully. With respect to the case of Thomson and Sudds, General Darling had nothing to do with the passing of the sentence; therefore, whether it was legal or illegal did not affect him; his only interference was after the sentence was passed, and then he commuted it, the power of commutation resting with him. If the sentence were illegal, an application to a court of law would have set it aside. It was the desire of General Darling to put a stop to certain abominable practices that had crept into the army, and in determining upon the commutation of the sentence General Darling kept that object in view. Whether the sentence was illegal in the first instance, or whether the punishment under the commutation was improper in the second instance, it did not appear from the evidence, which he had read with great care, that any improper motive could fairly be imputed to General Darling. Everybody who knew him—and he was known to many hon. Gentlemen in that House—must bear testimony to his being a man of high integrity. As to the chains that were put upon the man, and the substitution of a heavier for a lighter set, it did not appear that the charges which had
1264
been made were borne out by the evidence. He must confess he did not think that the use of the iron collar was a punishment that ought to have been resorted to, except in a case of extreme necessity; but General Darling believed that a case of extreme necessity had arisen. It was also the foundation of a part of the charge, that one of the parties suffered much in his health in consequence of the severity of the punishment he underwent; but there was no tittle of evidence to show that General Darling was acquainted with that fact. Under all the circumstances, he was prepared to contend, that every paper in the case having been laid upon the Table of the House, and hon. Members having had the opportunity of acquainting themselves fully with the facts, the appointment of a Committee offered no particular advantage. It was, by giving publicity to the acts of public officers, that such persons were best made to feel the full weight of the responsibility which devolved upon them: and that publicity having been in this case obtained, he did not see that the appointment of a Committee would afford any additional security for the due observance in future of the public interests. Allusions had been made to the trial instituted by General Darling in the King's Bench; General Darling, himself, regretted the form of proceeding which was adopted on that occasion. The course then taken was advised by others. But it was fair to say, that an inquiry into the merits was not altogether shut out from that trial. Affidavits were put in on both sides, and the Judge, in summing up, said, looking at all that had been proved, there was no reason to impute improper motives to General Darling; at the same time, he admitted, that a different mode of proceeding would have been more satisfactory. In conclusion, the hon. Baronet called the attention of the House to the address which was presented to General Darling on his leaving the colony; that address described him as having laboured during his Administration for the benefit of the colonists, and was signed by a numerous body of official and professional individuals—merchants and residents— who inasmuch as they lived on the spot, must be supposed to have had the best opportunity of forming a fair estimate of their Governor's public character.
Mr. Humesaid, that this subject had been before Parliament for the last nine

1265
years; but, if late Governments had acted on such opinions as those which had been expressed this evening by the hon. Baronet, it would have been disposed of long ago. Unfortunately, however, it had been the policy of late Governments to defend all abuses, and to sanction a system of oppression which had the very worst effect on our colonial Governments. Captain Robison was only one of twenty or thirty who had appeared at the Bar of the House as complainants against the conduct of General Darling. Some of these individuals were now dead, and others had returned to the colony, bad as their situation there might be, despairing of being able ever to obtain justice here. Last year, when the case was brought forward, the question was put, would the House institute an inquiry, with a view to come to a judgment in a matter which was about to undergo investigation before a legal tribunal? It was said, let them only wait, and upon the trial of the cause there would, of course, come out all the evidence. He felt the full force of this objection, and acquiesced in it. Surely from this the natural inference was, that General Darling would bring his action against Captain Robison in such a form as would allow him the opportunity of proving the truth of his charges, and the notice of proceedings which was first given was to that purport; but the course was subsequently altered, and instead of bringing an action to recover damages for defamation, he filed an ex officio information, by which the Court was shut out from receiving every proof that might have been offered of the truth of the charges. Did that look like meeting the case fairly? With regard to the address to which the hon. Baronet alluded, he had expected that document to be used, and was prepared with an answer to it. The same address was produced in this House three years ago, in the course of a debate which then took place on the subject of General Darling's conduct. Shortly afterwards he sent a copy of the address to the colony, and in due course received a reply. The question was asked, Did the learned puisne Judge sign the address? And the answer was, No. Did Major Mitchell, a private friend of General Darling, sign the address? No. Did the Colonel of the 57th regiment, who had retired from the army, sign it? No. Did any of the independent members of the Bar? No. Indeed it was signed by
1266
only two legal functionaries, by the Attorney-General and the Commissioner of the Court of Requests. Out of twenty-five solicitors, only one could be prevailed upon to sign it. Of the clergymen, seventeen in number, but four had affixed their names. Of the magistrates, 127 in number, only nine not connected with the Government had signed; the remaining fourteen all held offices at the will of the Governor. In the Surveyor-General's department, out of twenty-six only one had signed, and all were requested to do so; in short, out of the whole body of persons constituting the Colonial Government, only thirty signatures were obtained. Out of the merchants, who might be estimated at 1,000, only 100 had signed. Lastly, out of the free population, amounting to 21,000 souls, only 111 signatures were obtained, notwithstanding that every possible influence had been exerted to induce people to subscribe their names. Such was the true character of the address which had been produced. He was further informed that it was got up at a private meeting, the previous addresses to Governors on their quitting the colony having been agreed to at public meetings, and then signed. No piece of plate had been voted to him as to former Governors; no request had been made to him to allow his portrait to be taken, as had been made to former Governors. In short, his departure was hailed with rejoicing—in the evening of the day on which he quitted there was a general illumination. Captain Robison was at this moment a prisoner for publishing a pamphlet in answer to a libel written by General Darling himself. On the 12th of July, 1831, he presented a petition to the House, complaining of General Darling's conduct, and then made such observations as the facts justified. General Darling and his brother thereupon published a pamphlet on the colony, abusing him, and representing his statements as false. A copy was sent to him, and he forwarded it to the colony, saying that he would take no further notice of it than to move in that House for documents which would show that every statement he made was accurate. The pamphlet was circulated privately, but the one he sent to the colony was noticed in The Sidney Monitor, and in short taken completely to pieces, every paragraph of it being examined, and their misstatements exposed. Captain Robison applied to him

1267
to know whether he would publish what appeared on the subject in The Sidney Monitor: his answer was, that he would not. In reply to another application made to him by Captain Robison, he said he should not object to Captain Robison undertaking the publication, provided he did so on his own responsibility. That publication was the libel for which Captain Robison was now in prison. Would it be said that a trial in which the truth of the charges brought were not allowed to be proved was satisfactory to the character of a public officer? It appeared that fourteen convictions were obtained in three years by General Darling against the newspapers of the colony, the party having been tried by a Court-martial, the officers of which were appointed by the Governor. The party was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, and to be fined 2,000 l. It appeared that he subsequently brought his actions in a Civil Court for the illegal prosecutions, and obtained damages in every one case. The Judges of that Court declared that the conduct of General Darling had been oppressive and illegal. He trusted it would not be said that this was a case which was not worth notice. It had been said that vindictive feelings had been entertained towards General Darling. Might nothing be said of the vindictive proceeding of General Darling towards Captain Robison? The result of the trial upon the action brought by him against that individual, and the Judge's charge on that occasion, sufficiently proved that General Darling had unjustifiably injured the character of Captain Robison. Justice required that there should be a full inquiry into all the circumstances of the case, in order that truth might be elicited, and some redress afforded for the wrongs which had been inflicted upon many individuals.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonwould confine his observations to the point of Captain Robison having been found guilty of opening a letter marked "private and confidential," and mentioning its contents to General Darling, after having pledged his honour to Lieutenant Sweeney, to whom it had been addressed, not to divulge them. That point had been brought fully under the notice of his right hon. Predecessor, who had since left this country; by him the most diligent and careful consideration had been given to it, and the result had been a conclusion that the finding of the
1268
Court-martial was just. He was quite sure that nothing could have induced a man of so mild and forbearing a character as was his right hon. Friend, to do an act of injustice to Captain Robison or any other man; and had he, after a full consideration of the minutes of the Court-martial— every word of which he had stated himself to have read—been led to the conviction that their finding was not strictly correct, he would unquestionably have thought it his duty to declare that Captain Robison had not had justice done to him. The subject had been also under his own consideration; and after giving to it most complete attention, the conclusion to which he felt bound to come was, that Captain Robison had not suffered any injustice in reference to it, and that the Court-martial having before them the evidence which they possessed, and viewing it as they did, were justified in the finding to which they came. Before the House could pass so grave a censure upon that tribunal as to refer it to a Committee to inquire, whether their finding was just or not, they ought to be satisfied not only that the judgment of the individuals composing it was wrong, but also that they had been actuated by corrupt motives in coming to it. It had been said, indeed, that General Darling had packed the Court. In that respect the greatest justice had been done towards Captain Robison; for the individuals selected to form it were men of the highest and most unimpeachable character. The judgment in question was that which had been come to on the eighth charge, or rather upon that portion of it which said that Captain Robison had been guilty of an act derogatory to the character of an officer and a gentleman, in possessing himself of a private letter, addressed by Captain Sturt to Lieutenant Sweeney, containing the subject matter of his accusation against Captain Robison, and informing the Lieutenant-General (Governor Darling) of Captain Sturt's having so written privately, after having pledged his honour to Lieutenant Sweeney that he would not divulge the same. The charge having been found true, there was no discretion in the hands of the Court-martial as to awarding the sentence of dismissal. He did not mean to justify the letter itself, which had been written by Captain Sturt; on the contrary, he thought it a most imprudent and indiscreet letter; but it ought not to be concluded that the

1269
object of it was to suborn Lieutenant Sweeney as a witness to the accusations against Captain Robison, still less that General Darling was privy to its contents. In fact, it was distinctly sworn in the affidavit of Captain Sturt, that the Governor was in no wise aware of it. It should be recollected, however, that there were other grave charges against Captain Robison, which might justify the sentence of the Court. The propriety of the sentence removing Captain Robison from the army might be justified, on the ground of his having opened and read a secret and confidential letter to a brother officer (Lieutenant Sweeney), and communicated its contents. The judgment of the Court of King's Bench, before which Captain Robison had been brought by General Darling, fully confirmed the finding of the Court-martial. Mr. Justice Littledale said, it was the opinion of the Court, that no person of correct feelings could do otherwise than condemn Captain Robison's conduct with regard to the secret and confidential letter. Would the House, then, he asked, send this case to be tried over again by a Committee of that House? Captain Robison, he must observe, had had opportunities afforded to him by his hon. Friend the former Judge Advocate General, such as had never before been accorded to any individual similarly circumstanced. He had been allowed to inspect the proceedings of the Court-martial from day to day in the office of his hon. Friend.
Mr. Richardssupported the Motion. He believed Captain Robison was a most ill-used man. He had been persecuted by General Darling in a most shameful manner, and that House was bound to inquire into the conduct of that General. Captain Robison had usefully and honourably served his country for five-and-twenty years. That House possessed a power which they might properly exercise in this case, of reversing the finding of a Court-martial. The only point the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fergusson) could make against Captain Robison was, that he had read a confidential letter written to a friend, with the permission of that friend. Now really it was absurd to say, that a man ought to be tried by a Court-martial for such an offence. Nothing was more common than for officers living in a state of social intimacy, to read each other's letters; and a man who viewed such a
1270
practice as a grave offence, was not fit for the business of the world, but should be sent to live in some El-Dorado grove. The conduct of Governors in distant colonies ought to be closely watched by that House.
Lord Dudley Stuartsaid, the Motion involved the honour and fortune of one distinguished Officer, and the honour, and probably the happiness of another. He knew nothing of either party, and therefore his opinions were unbiassed by partiality, prejudgment, or friendship. He should give his hearty support to the Motion; and he believed that those who opposed inquiry were not the true friends of General Darling. Avoiding inquiry was a presumption of anything but innocence. He believed, on the best evidence which had been adduced as yet, that Captain Robison was an injured man; how far that belief might be changed if inquiry were instituted it was not for him to say. He should support it for the sole purpose of eliciting truth and doing justice. The charges against General Darling were two-fold:—first, on account of the Court-martial which tried Captain Robison; and, second, on account of the illegal punishment of two soldiers, one of whom died. The complaints against the Court-martial were three in number — 1st. Against its constitution. 2nd. Against the course of proceeding relative to the evidence adopted by it. 3rd. Against its sentence. The Court was, no doubt perfectly legal, as though there were actually nine Officers present five were sufficient by the Mutiny-laws. But then the general number was thirteen; and where there was no want of Officers to make up that number, any lesser one was rather against than for it. It was said that it was a packed Court. He did not mean for a moment to impugn the high honour of the Officers who composed it, but still he could not help thinking that human nature was liable to receive unfavourable impressions in a moment of excitement or under other circumstances, as well as it was liable to err in all cases. But there were still greater objections to the Court than either of these, and one of them which he should particularly adduce was that part of the evidence which related to the letter alleged to have been opened by Captain Robison. Captain Sturt, General Darling's private Secretary, swore on his oath that he believed Cap-

1271
tain Robison incapable of opening a letter; and yet the Court rejected this testimony, as well as the denial on oath of the facts put in by Captain Robison, in favour of a letter written by the same Captain Sturt, in which the charge against Captain Robison was repeated. There was another charge against the evidence. Captain Sturt, it was alleged, was allowed to see his testimony after it had been taken down, for the purpose of correcting it, which, if true, would be a departure from all justice, and would vitiate the whole proceedings in any Court of law or equity. He saw no way in which his right hon. Friend could satisfy the House that these allegations were unfounded, except by producing a copy of the minutes of the Court-martial. There was another charge also, that General Darling had tampered with one of the witnesses, and which was very faintly attempted to be rebutted on the trial, by the testimony of a third party. Surely a case like that required investigation. The second branch of the charge against General Darling, that of the death of the soldier Sudds during his illegal punishment, came next. It was a strong case, and one deserving the fullest consideration. The soldiers Sudds and Thomson were, according to a printed statement of General Darling, convicted of felony, and the utmost of his offence in this respect was changing their punishment; extenuating he termed it, but he should feel disposed to call it a great aggravation. The printed statement said that irons of the weight of a musket were put on the soldiers; but that Sudds was unwell, and consequently could receive no inconvenience from them as he was unwell, and therefore quiescent. As if a sick man should be ironed—as if a man in a state of avowed illness, when perhaps even his clothes were an intolerable burthen to him, should be ironed! But what right had General Darling to change the mode of punishment prescribed by the law? He (Lord D. Stuart) much questioned whether the survivor Thomson could not have his action of damages for false imprisonment against him, and recover too; backed, as his application for justice would be, by the letter of the Secretary for the Colonies to the Governor, General Darling, declaring his conduct in regard to these men illegal, and pointing out the discharge of Thomson as the only remedy
1272
left for the evil. Besides, there was another strong objection to the proceedings, equally in a military and in a humane point of view. The punishment was inflicted without a surgeon's advice and without a surgeon's presence. He was surprised to hear his hon. Friend pour out on Captain Robison the vial of his wrath, when the only fault of that unfortunate Gentleman was lifting up his head against tyranny. General Darling might call him a troublesome fellow; but every opponent of tyranny was a trouble to a tyrant. Hampden was, no doubt a troublesome fellow in his day. The prosecution of General Darling was in pursuance of vengeance. It was said, that he repented the proceeding. If so he gave no sign of repentance; for Captain Robison still languished in prison. The noble Lord concluded by expressing his determination to support the Motion.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that as he was able to judge, not a shadow of charge was intended to be brought against the present excellent Governor of New South Wales. The hon. and gallant Member opposite had made a suggestion, but it was under the misconception that the present Motion accused Captain Robison as an individual, and that, if carried, it would immediately affect his interests and condition. It was no such thing, for the Motion related only to General Darling, and was merely for an inquiry to be instituted upon the conduct of that person. Let the House, however, bear in mind, that Captain Robison was now actually in gaol, suffering under a very severe construction of the very dubious law of libel, and let it also be recollected, that the very man who had contributed to put him in his present miserable condition had avoided—had shirked the witness-box on the trial of the indictment, and thus had evaded the cross-examination to which he would have been subjected on behalf of his victim. There were four distinct grounds of complaint, or rather charges against General Darling, into all of which it was competent and even incumbent on the House to institute an inquiry. The first related to the malversation of which the General was alleged to be guilty, in misusing his power of granting Government lands by partial allotments of those lands amongst his own connexions. The second related to his tyrannical prosecution of the press of Sydney, no less than fourteen or fifteen

1273
Government prosecutions being at one time pending against its conductors. The third and fourth charges related to the conduct of General Darling with respect to the Court-martial on Captain Robison. The Court-martial was ordered to try that person upon two grounds—first, for having broken open the mail; and, secondly, for having dishonourably read and used a confidential communication not sent to him. Now, with respect to the first charge, let it be recollected that Captain Robison had already been acquitted of any guilt in opening the mail-bag by the civil Magistrate of Sydney, who, moreover, declared the prosecution to be frivolous and vexatious. Yet, in despite and defiance of the civil authority, the Governor made this one of the charges before the Court-martial, and actually got Captain Robison condemned upon it. The second charge was supported by the evidence of Mr. Sweeney, and let him state what sort of evidence that was. Mr. Sweeney, in his viva voce evidence given upon oath, acquitted Captain Robison of the charge of having dishonourably used a private and confidential communication; but to counteract this, a letter of the same Mr. Sweeney was brought forward, and actually made the means not only of contradicting that person's evidence upon oath, but of illegally convicting Captain Robison. Now, with all respect for the learned Judge-Advocate, he totally dissented from his opinion on this matter, and would state his conviction that the sentence and finding of the Court-martial were illegal. And there was a feature in the case which Ought not to be over-looked, and which was to be found in the letter addressed by the Governor's Military Secretary to Mr. Sweeney relative to this case, wherein the witness is cautioned not to be guilty of any rashness, lest he himself be implicated. Now, what did the word rashness mean there? Was it not a direct tampering with this Mr. Sweeney, and could it be denied that this was done by a confidential servant of General Darling, the prosecutor, aye, and with his privity, too, as it subsequently appeared? Why, such an act deserved to be stamped with the opprobrium of felony, and as such ought it to be treated; yet it was upon such testimony as this Sweeney's that Captain Robison was first deprived of his rank and pay, and next cast into gaol, whilst his miserable family were destitute and starving.
1274
Another circumstance attending this letter was, that the man who was concerned in it denied its having been sent or received, in an affidavit before a police Magistrate; but he did not venture to do so when placed in the witness-box in the Court of King's Bench; nor had General Darling, upon oath, denied its having been written by the Secretary. In point of fact, he was instructed to put the point of Captain Robison's infamy or honour upon this single issue— namely, the fact that General Darling had not denied in his affidavit the circumstance that Mr. Sweeney had received this letter: and if this hideous, this unparalleled incident should be established, what could it be termed but tampering with a witness, and the principal witness too, in this case. Now, was that not enough to induce the House to grant the Committee demanded—aye, or even to warrant them in calling General Darling to the Bar of the House, in order to let the country see how the Colonies had been governed in past times, and how they might again be governed; but of that, thank God, there was no immediate prospect. The hon. and learned Member concluded, by emphatically declaring that there never was a case, since that of a too celebrated Governor, which more imperiously demanded inquiry than did this of General Darling's conduct.
Mr. Horace Twisssaid, that the present case between General Darling and Captain Robison called for no such proceeding as that which was demanded on the other side of the House. The only instances in which the House could ever with propriety interfere, were those wherein the Judges below had misconducted themselves; for if they were to grant Committees of inquiry upon all individual cases which, under the plea, as was the case in the present instance, of injustice, they would never have done. The charges against General Darling were comprised within narrow bounds. He was accused of having made grants of Government land to his own connexions. His conduct herein had been bounded and guided by the law, and certainly it was natural he should favour his own connexions. He was accused of having instituted prosecutions against the Press of Sydney, but did the House know, as he had the ample means of knowing, the turbulent and disorderly condition of the Sydney Press, more especially of one journal, called the Sydney

1275
Monitor, they would be aware, as he was, of the impossibility that the Government could be advantageously carried on, unless this libertinage of the Press was repressed and punished. The next charge was, the vindictive prosecution of Captain Robison, before the Court-martial; and herein he must not only vindicate General Darling-, but he must declare that the Court-martial had been impartially chosen, and had, moreover, impartially discharged their duty. Captain Robison was honourably acquitted on the charge of opening the mail bag, and it was only on the charge of communicating the contents of a private and confidential letter, which he had promised not to disclose, that he was found guilty. This it was quite clear placed him out of the pale of honour. The Court of King's Bench had decided the question, and exculpated General Darling. Now, what sort of person was Captain Robison? He was clearly a gentleman who, on all proceedings, viewed circumstances with a warm and irritable temper. He was sent to Norfolk Island, where another officer would have considered it an honour to be sent, and he deemed it a degradation. Necessity demanded that a man should be imprisoned and put in irons. The irons weighed 14lbs, and Captain Robison marks them 30 or 40lbs,, and persists in believing that they were 40lbs., He trebled all his grievances and more than trebled them. The court of King's Bench had decided the seventh time against him, and an eighth and now a ninth time the case was brought before Parliament. He contended that the decision of the court of King's Bench had completely exculpated General Darling, and that no person had ever been subjected to a more grievous persecution than that gentleman.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellbriefly replied, and the House divided—Ayes 55; Noes 47; Majority 8

List of the AYES.

Attwood, T.

Cayley, E. S.

Bannerman, A.

Chalmers, P.

Barnard, E. G.

Crawford, N. S.

Bewes, T.

Dunlop, J.

Blake, M. J.

Elphinstone, H.

Bowring, Doctor

Easton, Earl of

Brady, D. C.

Ewart, W.

Bridgeman, H.

Fergus, J.

Brotherton, J.

Fielden, J.

Buckingham, J. S.

Hector, C. J.

Bulwer, H. L.

Jephson, C. D. O.

1276

Macleod, R.

Sheldon, E. R. C.

Marsland. H.

Smith, B.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Stuart, Lord D.

O'Brien, C.

Strutt, E.

O'Connell, D.

Thornely, T.

O'Connell, Morgan

Trelawney, Sir W.

O'Connell M. J.

Tulk, C. A.

O'Connell, J.

Wakley, T.

Oswald, J.

Wallace, R.

Palmer, General

Walter, J.

Pease, J.

Walker, C. A.

Pelham, Hon. C. A.

Warburton, H.

Power, P.

Wason, R.

Pryse, Pryse

Williams, W.

Raphael, A.

Wyse, T.

Richards, J.

TELLERS.

Scholefield, J.

Hume, J.

Sheil, R. L.

O'Connell, Maurice.

List of the NOES.

Arbuthnot, Hon. H.

Grimston Hon. E.

Barclay, C.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Baines, J.

Hawse, B.

Baring, F. T.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Blackburne, J. J.

Hogg, J. W.

Bonham, F. R.

Howard, P.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Inglis, Sir R.

Campbell, Sir J.

Irton, S.

Cole, Hon. A.

Lincoln, Earl of

Cole, Viscount.

Lygon, Hon. Colonel

Compton, H. C.

Nicholl, J.

Dalbiac, Sir C.

Patten, J. W.

Darlington, Earl of

Pringle, A.

Dundas, Hon. T.

Rice, Rt. Hon. T. S.

Egerton, Sir P.

Rolfe, Sir M. R.

Egerton, W. T.

Scarlett, Hon. R. C.

Elley, Sir J.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. F.

Fergusson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

Stormont, Viscount

Forbes, W.

Twiss, H.

Forster, C.

Vere, Sir C.

Freshfield, J.

Verney, Sir H.

Goulburne, Rt. Hn. H.

Wilbraham, Hn. R.B.

Gordon, Hon. W.

TELLERS.

Grey, Sir G.

O'Ferrall, M.

Grimston, Viscount

Stuart, R.

MINUTES.
The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the following Bills:—Stamp Duties Offices' Consolidation; Merchant Seamen; Property in Infants' (Ireland); Contempt in Equity (Ireland); General Turnpike Act Amendment; as a Number of private Bills.—Read athirdtime:— Lunatic Act Continuance.
Petitions presented. By the Dukes of NEWCASTLE and WELLINGTON, the Marquess CAMDEN, Earls VERULAM, HAREWOOD, and SHAFTESBURY, Lords SKELMERSDALE and LYNDHURST, from a Number of Places,—against the Municipal Corporations' Bill.—By the Earls of WEST-MORELAND and BEAUCHAMP, and Viscount STRANGFORD, from a Number of Places, against the same Bill—By Lord FOLEY and Lord BROUGHAM, from several Places,—in favour of the same.

CORPORATION COMMISSIONERS (TIVERTON).
The Earl of Harrowbybegged leave, on presenting a petition from the Corporation of Tiverton, against the Municipal Corporation Bill, to rectify
1232
some statements respecting his own conduct, in the Appendix to the Report of the Commissioners. The noble Earl then proceeded:—It is stated that there was produced to them a copy of a letter, without address, in the handwriting of Mr. Bevis Wood, a late Town Clerk, desiring the person to whom it is addressed to use his influence to procure the appointment of Duntze as Receiver General of one of the districts of the county of Devon.— This letter is written in the name of the corporators, said to be thereunto subscribed. The postscript is as follows:— "You will please to remember that this our recommendation of S. Duntze is on this condition, that he reside and keep his offices in the town of Tiverton, and that he agree to make an annual allowance to the corporators of the sum of 20 l. for every shilling in the pound land-tax, which now amounts to 80 l. yearly." It is further stated, that this letter was sent to me, and that P. S. Duntze was appointed, and regularly paid the Corporation the stipulated sum of 80 l. per annum for a certain period. It is, however, added, that the late Town Clerk, Mr. John Wood, said that I was not a party to the condition attached to the recommendation of P. S. Duntze. I cannot rest satisfied with this half-accusation and half-acquittal. If these were, in reality, all the facts of the case—if I had been really cognizant of this transaction, and acquiesced in it, I must plead guilty to the implied charge of having been a party to it. The whole of the facts, however, are these; and although at the distance of thirty-four years, my recollection of them is sufficiently accurate to enable me to verify the substance of them in the most solemn manner. On the occurrence of the vacancy, P. S. Duntze, who was the son of my late colleague, and a personal friend of mine, applied to me to procure for him the vacant office. At his personal request alone I asked this favour of Mr. Pitt, and received every possible encouragement short of an absolute promise. Subsequently to this interview an intimation reached me (whether by the receipt of the above letter and postscript, or by some other written communication I cannot now be certain, but it is of no importance) that some arrangement of the nature there mentioned had been in contemplation. I took this communication to Mr. Pitt, and told him that unless I received the most

1233
unequivocal assurances that all ideas of such an arrangement was abandoned, I must withdraw my application. I wrote to that effect to Tiverton. I received those assurances—I communicated them to Mr. Pitt, to whom, as well as myself, they were perfectly satisfactory, and P. S. Duntze was appointed. The fact of annual payments having been made by him is stated in the appendix. He may have made them voluntarily, under an erroneous impression that his appointment was in fact owing to the recommendation of the Corporation, whereas it was that interference which produced the only difficulty. It was certainly kept carefully out of my knowledge, as when I served the office of mayor some years afterwards I never heard of any such payment. It is further stated that a similar payment was made by Mr. Hamilton, also one of the Receivers General; but as his appointment was made in 1765, I do not think it necessary to say anything in my own behalf, or in that of the present Corporation. The Commissioners proceed to say that the extraordinary nature of these arrangements induced them to institute a strict inquiry as to this portion of the corporate revenues (as if it were a regular item.) "We found that very numerous appointments in the Church, as well as in various departments of the public service, had been obtained by members of the Corporation, and by their friends and connexions; but it did not appear that the Corporation derived any direct pecuniary benefit from any of the appointments so obtained, except in the cases of P. S. Duntze and Mr. Hamilton. It must, however, be stated, that, from the negligent manner in which the accounts of the Corporation have been kept, it was impossible to obtain any accurate or satisfactory account of the receipt or expenditure for very many years." This insinuation I can positively aver to be perfectly groundless. No application, to the best of my recollection, was ever made by the Corporation, except in one case for an office of very small amount, as a mere matter of charity. To the accusation, as far as it respects myself, of having as opportunity offered, during a connexion of forty-seven years, done service to those who were doing service to me and to my family, I should be sorry to be able to plead not guilty. Such an interchange of good offices is a legitimate bond of friend-
1234
ship in public as in private life; and if any noble Lord who has been connected with Parliamentary interest will assert that he has not done the same—is not now doing the same—and will not persist in so doing —I am willing to submit to the whole weight of his censure. Petition laid on the Table.

CORPORATION REFORM — HEARING COUNSEL.
Lord Brougham: My Lords, I take this opportunity to notice a misrepresentation as to my conduct with regard to hearing Counsel upon the Municipal Corporations' Bill. There is no one who cares less than I do for what is said about him, whether it be with regard to what I say and do here or in any other place. No man, my Lords, can have lived as long as I have lived in the world without knowing that it is the common lot of humanity to be occasionally abused and misrepresented. Without expressing what I feel as to the charge that has been made against me, I am entitled to state that there never was any charge move utterly groundless than that which has been brought against me by a Ministerial newspaper. Newspapers I will not say having the patronage of the Government, nor will I say under the protection of the Government, certainly not the patronage and protection of my noble Friend; but newspapers which have taken my noble Friend under their protection. I do not think if I were allowed to give an opinion on the subject, that the attack is a very judicious one; because one like myself, unconnected with the Government—never saying one word against the Government—and I am happy to say that I have not had occasion to do so—but uniformly defending and supporting it: I therefore say I do not think it the most judicious course—because sometimes my advice may have been deemed useless advice—although it was ever humble, sincere, and well meant, and I gave it at all times conscientiously —that I should be attacked in the manner I have been by those who are under my noble Friends' protection, or who have taken my noble Friends under their protection. I am sure that the attacks did not proceed from my noble Friends. I am sure that they disapprove altogether of such attacks. I know them too well to believe that they had any hand whatever in it; for they are men of sense—but their underlings are those who have made the

1235
attacks. One man is disappointed at not getting anything while I was in office. Another is vexed for some similar reason. It is they who are the authors of these attacks. It is not, I repeat, the principals who have done this; it is the underlings instigated by the sort of motive I have described. One of the charges made against me, my Lords, is that which, probably, many of your Lordships would think no charge at all. The whole blame is thrown upon me of the delay which is to be occasioned by hearing Counsel against this Bill, I know that I have the answer to that charge in the breasts of your Lordships; but I have also another antidote to it—I have the antidote in another part of the same paper; for the honest and faithful reporters tell what I really did say, but the writer, not choosing to look at what I did say, but with the vile purpose of misrepresenting me, had recourse to his own fancy, and fancied things which I never did say—things which were never done— though the first page of the same paper contained a true statement of what was said and what was done. But people will not always read fair statements before they make comments on them: they had rather have recourse to imagination. Perhaps it is more pleasant to utter reproof than to yield praise, or even than to be silent; and the reader may not read the report of the debates, but may turn to the leading article to get a knowledge of them. Your Lordships know what I did say. I said, and I argued, perhaps at too great length, against hearing Counsel at all. I said that if you heard them on one side, you could not refuse, if required, to hear them on the other. I entered into calculations on the subject. I told you that it was not done in the Irish 40 s. freeholders' case— all my arguments were directed against hearing Counsel at all. I said, now let it be distinctly understood what I say—let it not be misunderstood,—that I am decidedly against hearing Counsel; I resist, I oppose it altogether; but I see a great number of your Lordships, and in fact the majority, to be in favour of hearing Counsel, and therefore I shall be glad if I can make any proposal that will meet the view of the noble Duke. That is what these men think deserving of censure. As they advise me in the conduct of a case of an action at law, they would advise the noble Duke opposite in the conduct of an action Of another sort—in the conduct of a bat-
1236
tle; but I prefer, as he would prefer, to fight my own battle in my own way. My Lords, I consider that this Bill is my own battle—I was the author of the Commission—I originated the Bill in this House —I shall fight as good a battle as I can in favour of the Bill, and with great submission to them, I will not make an exception to that rule of the practice of our Courts, which declares that where you have Counsel and leaders, if the leadership be worth having, you shall be guided in the conduct of the cause by your own judgment, and by your leader's judgment, but not by the wishes of your client. I shall do so here, and my client will thank me in a few days for having pursued that course. I was not to lose the battle at once, as these persons advise; for such really is their advice—"Oh, lose it, to show your pluck." That is what they advise. Why not divide and stand alone? My Lords, that was not my plan. My plan was to get as good a bargain as I could; and to tell your Lordships the truth, I think that I did make a good bargain. I was ready to consent to hear two Counsel in order to get rid of the proposition of hearing Counsel for every borough that chose to ask it.—[Viscount Strangford intimated that that was not his proposition.]—I see what my noble Friend means—he does not want such long arguments of Counsel, he shrinks from the idea of it—animus meminisse fugit. I only mean to state this, that I did my best to avoid the consequences of the proposition then made. I shall not say more, than that I feel it necessary to make this statement of what really did occur; for otherwise it would be represented out of doors, that any long speech of Counsel that may take place, will be the consequence of my conduct, when, in fact, my plan was to avoid this as much as possible. I hope that the event will prove that I made an admirable compromise. It is represented that the only object of hearing Counsel is to delay the Bill. My Lords, there is no wish for delay. I say that, first upon the authority of the positive assertion of the noble Duke, and next because no man could obtain delay in the progress of the Bill; for if I am ready, as I am, to sit here from morning till night up to next Christmas, to hear Counsel on the Bill, there can be no hope of delaying it by that means.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that there were several petitions praying to be heard by

1237
Counsel against the Bill, and he thought that their Lordships should make an order on the subject; for at present there were only a few of the boroughs about to be heard by Counsel, and it was important to regulate who should be heard.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, that the House had agreed that two Counsel on behalf of certain parties should now be heard, to argue against the principle of the Bill. That was all the House had to do now.
The Marquess of Lansdownehoped, that nothing would ever induce the House to hear Counsel on the principle of the Corporation or any other Bill. If their Lordships should once agree to do that, they would be laying down a most inconvenient, and indeed a most dangerous precedent, and one on which, if he had divided alone, he would have taken the sense of the House before agreeing to it. He concurred with his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) in the wish to limit the hearing of Counsel as much as possible. Of course they could not shut out the consideration of the principle of the Bill altogether; but the Counsel were to be heard on the details, and on the details should have the opportunity of stating the degree in which the Corporations they appeared for thought their rights and privileges would be affected. In that view he found their Lordships concurred. He really thought it most material, not with a view to this case alone, but with a view to the order of the proceedings of their Lordships' House, not to let it go forth, that their Lordships would call Counsel to the Bar to argue on the principle of a Bill, which principle it was their duty and their right to discuss, determine, and decide for themselves.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, that the noble Marquess had misunderstood what he meant. He meant, that Counsel were not to be precluded from entering into observations on the principle of the Bill.
The Earl of Mansfieldunderstood the intention of their Lordships to be to hear the arguments of Counsel upon the principle of the Bill—not as a legislative measure, but as it would affect those towns which had petitioned against it; and further, he understood, that besides being heard on the principle, Counsel should be at liberty to be heard on the conduct of the Commissioners in procur-
1238
ing the evidence on which the Bill was founded. With regard to the details of the Bill, he certainly did not apprehend that it was the intention of the House to preclude corporate towns from presenting petitions claiming to be heard on those parts of the Bill which particularly affected their interests. The House had made no order upon the subject, but he certainly understood that it was open to Counsel to be heard on those points of detail as well as upon the general principle. He merely mentioned this, that there might be no misunderstanding.
The Marquess of Clanricardedid not think that they had even yet come to a proper understanding upon the point; because, if the noble Earl's view were correct, it would appear, that the two speeches, of which the noble and learned Lord spoke the other evening, were not the only two speeches that the House would have to listen to. In that case the arrangement was not so good as it was supposed to be.
Lord Broughamreally did not understand the noble Marquess. Did the noble Marquess mean to say, that he would have recommended coming to a division against the majority of seventy or eighty who were ranged on the opposite side of the House, and who were determined not to be satisfied unless Counsel were heard? It appeared, that the noble Marquess was one of those who, out of doors, attributed to him a desire to delay the progress of the Bill. But let the noble Marquess take his place, and ask himself whether, as a sincere advocate of the Bill, he would not have pursued the same course?
The Marquess of Clanricardewas not one of those who, out of doors, took notice of the conduct of the noble and learned Lord; but he claimed his privilege of appearing in that House, and finding fault with a course of proceeding which he thought neither convenient nor proper. He should have stated his objections to it the other evening, and more than once rose for the purpose of doing so, but was prevented by the three or four times repeated speeches of the noble and learned Lord. He appealed to the common sense and common understanding of their Lordships, to say whether the opinion expressed by the noble and learned Lord, as to the understanding come to the other evening was not widely different from that ex-

1239
pressed by the noble Earl (Earl Mansfield) who spoke from the opposite side of the House. Before they adopted the course of hearing Counsel at the Bar, he wished to know whether it were possible to reconcile that with justice, common sense, or precedent; it was true they had been told of precedents, but he was at a loss to find one exactly in point. It was obviously necessary, before Counsel were called to the Bar, that an exact understanding should be entered into as to the points to which their argument should be limited, if, indeed, it were to be limited at all. No order of any kind had been made upon the subject. The Motion, as he understood it, was, that all those who had petitioned against the Bill should be heard by Counsel, and that the Counsel called in should be at liberty to argue the case of all.
Lord Ellenborough: What I propose is, that an order shall be made directing that all who have petitioned to be heard shall be allowed to be heard, in order to enable the Counsel to appear at the Bar. If no such order be made they cannot appear at all.
The Marquess of Clanricardeknew that there were precedents for hearing Counsel at the Bar; but then Counsel were appointed for every particular person who claimed to be heard, as, for instance, in the case of the slave-trade. He did not mean to say that there was not as much reason to hear Counsel in the present case as there was in the case of the slave-trade; all that he wanted to know distinctly was, whether there was to be any limit to the argument of Counsel. If there were to be no limit, at least let there be no delusion upon the subject; let it be known that they were going to hear every person who had petitioned against the Bill by Counsel at the Bar of the House.
Lord Broughamwould again endeavour to explain to his noble Friend. It was distinctly laid down the other night, and distinctly admitted by all sides of the House, that no person had a right to be heard—that it was a matter wholly and exclusively within the grace of the House, as to whether a party should be allowed to be heard by Counsel or not; that the House would allow all these various boroughs, eighteen in number, or thereabout, which had petitioned, to be heard by two Counsel. The House gave that right to no other party—it let in no other party—it
1240
did nothing by which a pretext could be raised for hearing any other party, or any other Counsel whatever. His noble Friend opposite had justly observed, that there were petitioners come in that night who were not included in the first order; but who, as their complaints were the same, ought not, in his opinion, to be excluded from it. His noble Friend's suggestion was a very fair and very proper one, and all they now did was, to allow these later petitioners to be heard, if they pleased, through the medium of the two Counsel who were to appear for the rest. And this was the great delay of which the noble Marquess stood in so much horror. Why, in point of fact, the few observations that the Counsel would find it necessary to address to the individual cases of the boroughs, which, if they pleased, might be let in in the manner he had just stated, would not create so great a delay as the interposition of the noble Marquess had already created. If the parties in question should not elect to be heard by the two Counsel who appeared for the rest, it would be for their Lordships to say whether they would allow them to be heard by any one else. He for one should require very good reasons to induce him to assent to such a course. But then the noble Marquess said, "The precedents are all the other way; if you profess to be guided by precedents, you are bound to hear every party separately." Moreover, the noble Marquess had complained of his having made four speeches; but as often as men did not understand what was said, and did not keep their misunderstanding in silence, but broke out and charged those with creating delay who did not create delay, but took the best course for avoiding delay —as often as he found men obstinately persisting in that mistaken course, he was bound to rise and set them right. "But (said the noble Marquess) the course now proposed to be taken is contrary to precedent." That showed, that however frequently be might have troubled the House the other night, he had, at least, spoken once too seldom, because on that occasion he expressly stated an instance—not the instance of the slave-trade only, but another case in which there had been a consolidation similar to that now proposed with respect to the hearing of Counsel. He alluded to a case in which he acted as Counsel, in which five different persons, having five different petitions, and five

1241
different cases, all consolidated their applications into one case, intrusted that case to him (Lord Brougham), and he spoke once, and but once, for all those five parties. If the noble Marquess would refer to the Journals of the House in the months of April and May 1808, he would find that they bore witness to the accuracy of what he was then stating. Their Lordships, in fact, had always the matter in their own hands. If on any day, or any hour of any day, they found that the arguments were conducted in such a way as to create so serious a delay as to threaten the defeat of the Bill, it would be in their power at once to put a stop to their proceedings. And he asked any man of common sense, which course was most likely to succeed—who was most likely to carry that House and the country along with him in his principle and his object—he who, in the exercise of his best judgment, and as the hearty friend and firm supporter of the measure, recommended the adoption of such a course as he had suggested—he who ventured to make a compromise with a large majority of the House, or he, who setting that majority at defiance, at once induced it to demonstrate its power by a decisive vote? He maintained that the course he had proposed was the course most likely to carry the measure through.
The Marquess of Clanricardewas far from accusing the noble Lord of desiring to create delay, but he did not think that the noble and learned Lord was justified in presuming that the friends of the Bill were in a minority in that House. He did not believe that they were so. He believed that a majority of their Lordships were prepared to accept the Bill, and until he were convinced to the contrary his opinion as to the course pursued must necessarily be different from that of the noble Lord.
The Question that Counsel be called in was put and carried. Sir Charles Wetherell and Mr. Knight appeared at the Bar and proceeded to address the House on behalf of the Corporations. Only Sir Charles Wetherell spoke, and his address lasted three hours.
Lord Broughamsaid it was almost unnecessary for him to remind their Lordships that the learned Counsel must be in a tate of great exhaustion, from the length at which he had addressed their Lordships; and that it would be but granting an indulgence which ought certainly to be extended to him, if he were allowed to retire
1242
for ten minutes. Their Lordships too, no doubt, required some slight relief after the fatigue they had undergone, and he should therefore move that the House adjourn for ten minutes.
Motion agreed to.
Lord Kenyoninformed their Lordships that the learned Counsel, from the extreme heat of the House, and the great exertion he had made, found it quite impossible to proceed with his address that night. He was sure that their Lordships would extend their indulgence to the learned Counsel so far as to allow him to resume his address to-morrow.
Lord Broughamobserved that nothing was more proper than to take into consideration the great exertions made by the learned Counsel, and also the extreme heat of the House. It would, however, he thought, be well if the learned Counsel were to proceed with his address at three o'clock to-morrow.
Viscount Melbournedid not think that the learned Counsel could, under the circumstances, be fairly called on to go on with his address at present; but when he made that admission he could not help reminding their Lordships that it was agreed on all sides, and in every quarter, that this proceeding should be dispatched with as little delay as possible. If their Lordships were not to meet until the usual hour to-morrow, he was afraid that the learned Counsel would occupy a greater portion of time in their addresses than the two days to which it was, in the first instance, intended that they should be confined. He therefore suggested that means should be taken to shorten the delay occasioned by this proceeding as far as possible, and that their Lordships should, with that view, meet at an early hour to-morrow, in order, if possible, to insure a compliance with the general arrangement which had been entered into.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that they had still to-morrow and Saturday to hear the speeches of Counsel; but if their Lordships were to meet at an earlier hour than five o'clock, great inconvenience would ensue to those Peers who had to attend Committees, or were engaged in matters of a similar description. They might, however, obviate the danger of delay, by postponing all other business which might precede the hearing of Counsel. All he desired was, that it should be impressed on their Lordships that sufficient time

1243
ought to be allowed them to consider the information with which they were furnished, before they proceeded to the discussion of this Bill.
Lord Broughamquite agreed with the noble Duke who spoke last, that the business of Committees, and other business of that nature would be interfered with, if their Lordships met to hear Counsel on this Bill at an early hour, such as ten or twelve o'clock. But no such difficulty lay in the way of their meeting at three o'clock, for the Committees would then be over. With respect to the delay which had, it was said, been caused by the hearing of Counsel, he should only say that as far as the address of the learned Counsel had gone, his predictions that, so far from any unnecessary delay being caused by allowing Counsel to address that House, their own debates would be much shortened by their so doing, were completely verified. The learned Counsel, had with great distinctness, and by a very judicious mode of statement, referred to the principal points of objection to this Bill; the minds of their Lordships were brought to bear upon these points, and, instead of floundering amidst a vague mass of objections, they came prepared to discuss the measure in a much more concise and distinct manner than if they had no such statement as that of the learned Counsel for their guide.
The Duke of Cumberland: Supposing that their Lordships were to meet at three, the best course would certainly be that they should proceed without interruption in this proceeding.
Lord Lyndhurstwas of opinion that their Lordships might meet at the usual hour (five o'clock), and yet get over this proceeding in the prescribed time. By commencing at five o'clock, the learned Counsel who had addressed the House that night, might, he thought, finish his address by eight o'clock, and thus afford time to his brother Counsel to conclude within the appointed time. He would take that opportunity of expressing his concurrence in the opinions expressed by the noble and learned Lord (Brougham) for the reasons which he had stated, because the learned Counsel had, as far as he had gone, brought under review all the strong points of objection to this measure, and thus directed the attention of their Lordships at both sides to them, for the purpose either of supporting or opposing the Bill.
It was finally arranged that the House should meet at the usual time.