Sitting of 29 April 1839

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Purchasers Protection; Sewers.—Read a first time:—Exchequer Bills.
Petitions presented. By Messrs. DUFFIELD, DENNISON, BAINES, RAIKES, CURRIE, M. PHILIPS, WAKLEY, DUNDAS, and A. WHITE, from a great number of places, for a Uniform Penny Postage.—By Mr. O. GORE, from the county of Salop, against the Bastardy Clauses in the New Poor-law Act.—By Sir W. SOMERVILLE, from Donegal, for Corporate Reform; and Extension of the Franchise in Ireland.—By Mr. RICKARDS, from several places, against the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill.—By Mr. KINNAIRD, from several places, against any further Grant to the Scotch Church; and from two places, in favour of the Prisons (Scotland) Bill.—By Lord FRANCIS EGERTON, from Frome, in favour of the Rating of Small Tenements Bill.—By Mr. WYNN, from Montgomeryshire, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws.
626
By Mr. M. PHILIPS, from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, for Reducing the Duty on Raw Cotton.

DIVERTHNG PRIVATE FUNDS TO BUILD CHURCHES.
Lord G. Somersetmoved the third reading of the Rhymney Iron Company's Bill.
Mr. Bainesconsidered the object of the Bill a laudable one, as it was to afford the means of church accommodation to the men employed at the works. But the objection he had to the third reading was, that the Bill proposed to take away and appropriate funds for the building and endowment of a church that had been subscribed for another purpose. If such a principle were once sanctioned by Parliament, he did not see where it was to stop. If called upon to divert funds to endow and build a church this year, they might be taken for a chapel next, and perhaps for a theatre, because in all these cases it might be said, that those buildings would afford accommodation to the parties who required it. What he particularly insisted upon, was, that a clause should be introduced to protect those who objected to this mode of employing their money without their consent, and which had never been contemplated by them when they gave their subscriptions.
Lord G. Somersetunderstood by what had fallen from the hon. Member, that he wished to have the third reading of the Bill postponed. The hon. Member had spoken of some such clause as that which he had now proposed when the report was ordered to be brought up, but he trusted the House would not entertain it at this stage. The Bill provided the means of church worship for 8,000 persons. What were the facts? The company had 10,000 shares, of which the holders of 9,985 agreed to this Bill; so that there were only fifteen shareholders out of the whole body, who could be supposed as in any way objecting to the passing of the Bill. It was a fact, which reflected much credit upon the shareholders, and there was Dissenters and Roman Catholics among their number, all approving of the object which the Bill went to accomplish; and he did not think that the opinions of one or two individual proprietors were to be of so weighty a nature as to induce the House to pause about the propriety of proceeding to pass it into a law. In regard to the clause which the hon. Member wished to introduce, it was enough to mention that it was not competent, because notice of his

627
intention to move the clause had not been given in the manner prescribed by the Standing Orders. He must, therefore, press the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. Baineswas very reluctant to divide the House against the third reading. He would suggest to the noble Lord, that the further progress might be postponed for a few days, to give time for arrangement. He wished to know whether the large number of assents mentioned by the noble Lord, were within his own knowledge, or merely conjecture? As the noble Lord seemed determined to press the third reading, he had no alternative but to divide the House, as the principle involved by the Bill was important to joint stock companies generally and the country.
The House divided; Ayes 71; Noes 8: Majority 63.

List of the AYES.

Ainsworth, P.

James, Sir W. C.

Bailey, J.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Baker, E.

Kirk, P.

Barneby, J.

Law, hon. C. E.

Bethell, R.

Lefevre, C. S.

Bowes, J.

Lister, E. C.

Buller, E.

Lowther, Lord Visct.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Mackenzie, T.

Cavendish, hon. G.H.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Chapman, A.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Christopher, R. A.

Mildmay, P. St. John

Crawford, W.

Morris, D.

Currie, R.

Packe, C. W.

Denison, W. J.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Duffield, T.

Philips, M.

Duke, Sir J.

Richards, R.

Duncombe, T.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Duncombe, hon. W.

Sanford, E. A.

Dundas, Sir R.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Egerton, W. T.

Speirs, A.

Egerton, Lord F.

Stuart, Lord J.

Ellis, W.

Strutt, E.

Evans, W.

Teignmouth, Lord

Feilden, W.

Thomas, Col. H.

Freshfield, J. W.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Turner, W.

Gore, O. W.

Vernon, G. H.

Greene, T.

Wakley, T.

Grimsditch, T.

Wilbraham, G.

Harvey, D. W.

Winnington, T. E.

Hastie, A.

Wood, Sir M.

Hayter, W. G.

Wood, T.

Heathcote, G. J.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Young, J.

Hodges, T. L.

TELLERS.

Hodgson, R.

Lord G. Somerset.

Humphrey, J.

Mr. W. Patten.

List of the NOES.

Ewart, W.

Parrott, J.

Muskett, G. A.

Pattison, J.

Palmer, C. F.

Salwey, Colonel

628

TELLERS.

Style, Sir C.

Mr. Baines.

White, A.

Sir G. Strickland.

Bill read a third time.

PRISONS.
Lord John Russellmoved the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Prisons' Bill.
Colonel Woodwished to ask the noble Lord opposite, as the proposed Bill would be likely to overturn the present system of prison discipline in this country, and as the intention of erecting a model prison in the metropolis, had been expressed, a thing which would be attended with some expense, whether he would not postpone it for a short time to give those Gentlemen who took an interest in the matter, time to consider it.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he should be happy to correct any defects in the Bill which might be pointed out; but he thought that some further legislation, such as that included in the Bill, ought to take place. He wished that such justices as desired to establish a system which he as Secretary of State, and which they believed to be best, should not be prohibited by law from so doing. Now, the effect of the present law, as to classification and other points, was, totally to prevent the best plan from being adopted. It was to remove this evil that the he had introduced this measure.
Mr. Gibsonwished to know, whether it was the intention of the Government to provide some asylum for offenders after they had been discharged, and previous to emigration, for which he understood it was intended to afford every facility?
Lord John Russellsaid, that a system of emigration had been recommended by the committee which sat on this question last year, and many benevolent individuals had recommended that asylums should be provided for offenders when they were discharged from prison. He knew that there were many evils resulting from prisoners being discharged at once from prison, as they had no means of procuring employment, and were, therefore, generally driven to the same course of life as before their being confined; but if the system suggested were adopted to the extent which had been recommended, it required some consideration to make it equally as severe a punishment to prisoners as they now suffered from having lost the confidence of the world, and so

629
as not to prevent the natural feelings of mankind being raised against them for their misconduct. During the last year he had seen a very large prison, and the gaoler, speaking to him on the subject, had observed, that it was looked upon as an advantage to young boys to be imprisoned if they were sent to sea; and he had been assured that there had been applications made for the sons of most respectable parents to be sent to sea in the same manner. He thought, that whatever evils might result from persons being discharged at once from prison and not finding employment, the House should be very cautious of taking such a step as that which was proposed; because it was likely that thieves and pilferers would be better provided for than those young persons who had never committed any offence. He said this, too, because in a foreign country a person who had had the superintendence of an establishment for young offenders had told a friend of his that the exceeding comfort of this prison had caused in the metropolis of that country a great increase in the number of offenders. It was not until he saw that some considerable punishment could be connected with these advantages, that he would call on the House to support such a system.
Mr. Humeagreed with the noble Lord that to secure to either young or old persons, upon their enlargement upon the completion of their periods of imprisonment under sentence, any certain means of employment, would, strictly speaking, have the effect of holding out an inducement to crime and to criminals upon their enlargement. It was true, that in nine out of ten cases those unhappy persons had recourse to their old practices upon their enlargement. To prevent this, and their association anew with their former companions, it might be worth while to devise, in committee, means for the subsistence for, perhaps, a few weeks, of such as were desirous of turning their backs altogether upon temptation, by emigrating to the colonies.
The House went into Committee on the first clause.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonsuggested the propriety of exempting the prisons of 13ridewell in the City, and of the House of Occupation, in St. George's-fields, which were endowed by bequests under particular regulations and limitations by the donors.
Lord John Russellwould content himself with stating that this subject had been already sufficiently discussed in the debate upon the Uniformity of Prisons Discipline Act. He could see no reason on this occasion to depart from the principle which on that occasion swayed the decision of the House, which was in favour of a perfect conformity in the mode of treatment of prisoners in all prisons without exception.—Clause agreed to.
On clause 3 being read, which enacts amongst other things, that, in order to prevent contamination arising from the association of prisoners, any prisoner may be separately confined during the whole or any part of the term of his imprisonment; and such separate confinement shall not be deemed solitary confinement within the meaning of any act forbidding the continuance of solitary confinement for more than a limited time,
Mr. Darbyobjected to so great a discretionary power being given to the magistrates as that of extending solitary confinement during the whole of the period of imprisonment of the prisoner. The hon. Member moved that the first part of the clause down to the word imprisonment be left out.
Sir G. H. Smythwas also very strongly opposed to the clause. Two years' solitary confinement was more than the human constitution could bear.
Mr. Hawessaid, the great object of legislation on the subject of imprisonment was, to prevent the prisoner from being made worse during the period of his confinement. With that object in view, the old Gaol Act provided fur a system of classification, and Howard and others recommended that prisoners should be separately confined. In regard to the separate system, the report of the Inspectors of Prisons said, that no case of illness had conic under their notice attributable to that system, nor any instance of a prisoner having been made worse. The reports of the French and Prussian corn-missions had been to the same effect, and the Commissioners had unanimously recommended the adoption of separate confinement. No instance, he contended, could be furnished of illness or deterioration in the morals of the prisoners resulting from the separate system, although he was willing to admit that in America, under the silent system, both the minds and bodies of the prisoners had sunk. But

631
the two systems were essentially different. The separate system had been tested by experience, and it had this great recommendation, that it was the only system under which the prisoner was made no worse during his confinement. To establish that system was the object of the clause under consideration, and which he trusted would receive the sanction of the House.
Mr. Pakingtonwas strongly indisposed to give any one such extensive powers as this clause would confer. He held in his hand a report relative to the Philadelphia Penitentiary, from which it appeared that the mortality in that prison was greater than in any other of the prisons in the United States, and in that prison the separate system was in operation. Madness also had prevailed amongst the prisoners to a frightful extent, and the morals of the persons confined did not, notwithstanding the severe punishment to which they were subjected, appear to have been improved in a greater degree than in the other gaols. He sincerely hoped he should never see such a system adopted in England, for, in his opinion, there was no distinction between the separate and silent systems. They were in reality the same, and he could not therefore give his consent to the clause under consideration, by which it was provided, that any prisoner may be separately confined during the whole or any part of the period of his imprisonment.
Mr. Hawessaid, that the hon. Member who had just sat down had taken his statement relative to the Philadelphia Penitentiary from the report of the Society for the Improvement of Prison Discipline, and not from the report of the official board.
Mr. Pakingtonsaid, the report he had alluded to was founded on the Penitentiary returns.
Sir G. Smythsaid, that the present system was a very severe one. The prisoners were confined in their cells during the night, and were not permitted to have any intercourse. In the morning they were placed upon the treadmill, when silence was enforced, and in the afternoon again returned to their cells, no communication being permitted between them even at the hours when they got their meals. Surely such a system was already sufficiently severe.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that in estimating
632
the merits and demerits of any system the only way to arrive at the truth was by comparison. The old system under which the prisoners were permitted to associate had been generally condemned, and a system of classification had in consequence been adopted. That system was better than the old, but it was not a sufficient remedy for the evils arising from association. Since the system of classification had been adopted the present system had been introduced, and he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that the existing system, which imposed silence upon the prisoners at all times, was a most severe one. That system indeed was, in his opinion, far more severe than that which it was now proposed to introduce. By the clause under consideration it was provided, that the prisoner should have the means of enabling him to communicate at any time with an officer of the prison, that his health should be carefully attended to, that he should have the means of taking air and exercise, that he should be furnished with the means of moral and religious instruction, and with such suitable books as may be selected by the chaplain; and that he should also be provided with labour or employment. Punishment of that nature was certainly calculated to deter from crime, but it was not likely to cause such a continual irritation as the system in operation. His object was, to introduce a more effectual, but not a more severe punishment for crime, and, in his opinion, the provisions of the clause were well calculated for the attainment of that end. With regard to the question of mortality, he did not think that any statement had been made which could controvert those made in the prisons report. He thought the system could not be charged with either inhumanity or cruelty, but that the silent system was much more severe. He, therefore, hoped there would be no opposition to the clause.
Mr. Estcourtobjected to giving an unlimited power to inflict solitary confinement on prisoners, and recommended the withdrawal of the clause, which appeared to have been hastily drawn up, and that the noble Lord would bring in some distinct measure on the subject.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, if a discretionary power were given to gaolers and other officers to enforce the system of separation as they pleased, it would be

633
most objectionable; but in point of fact, the clause provided that solitary confinement was only to be inflicted after a communication by the magistrates with the Home Secretary.
Mr. Pakingtonunderstood, then, that there was no difference to be made before or after trial.
Sir H. Verneyhoped the noble Lord would not make any difference. The object of the clause was to prevent the gaol being a place of corruption to prisoners. The separate system ought to be applied to the whole time the prisoners were confined in the gaol, or not at all.
Mr. W. Evanshoped the clause would not be withdrawn.
Lord GranvilleSomerset said there was much difficulty in understanding what was the real principle of the bill. By one clause one thing might be inferred, and by another clause another. He thought the clause under discussion should be amended before it was further discussed, and he could not subscribe to the doctrine of placing prisoners under solitary confinement before trial. This was most unjust.
Colonel Daviesinferred, that the noble Lord had confounded separate confinement and solitary confinement together. The first prevented contamination before trial; the other was absolute punishment for the offence for which the prisoner had been found guilty.
Mr. Barnebyobjected to separate confinement before trial, and suggested, that before the system should be generally adopted, it should be fully tried in a model prison, provided with a proper number of cells.
Mr Briscoewas not prepared to consent to the clause as it stood, because it gave an unlimited power of separate confinement for any time during sentence. He doubted whether the health did not suffer by separate confinement, if prolonged beyond two years, or perhaps beyond one year; and he therefore suggested a limitation of the power to the latter period. Fourteen cases of insanity had actually occurred in the very prison from which they were about to take this system; and he thought, therefore, that they should pause till they had better evidence, that the health did not suffer. A sentence of one year under the amended system would be equal to two or three years
634
under the present rules; and if the noble Lord would limit the period of separate confinement to one year, he would unite all parties in the house.
Sir E. Knatchbulldoubted whether it would be prudent to adopt at once the separate system, and carry it out so extensively as was proposed by the bill.
Lord John Russellsaid, that it was his intention to propose to the House a vote for the erection of a model prison; but that ought not to prevent the House allowing the proper authorities to consent in any particular instance to separate confinement. He doubted, however, whether for each prison power should be given to the magistrates to build separate cells; not from any fear of the final progression of the amended system of prison discipline, but from an alarm lest any authority having power to build separate cells, should erect close and inefficient cells, and that the evils arising from such cells would be attributed to the separate confinement. He would take the division on the first words, so as to affirm the principle of separate confinement; and he would amend the clause afterwards, so as to insert all proper guards.
Lord G. Somersetsaid, that if be were called upon to affirm or negative the simple question of principle, he must vote against the present clause; but at the same time he urged the noble Lord as he intended to amend the wording of the clause, to postpone the division till the amended clause was before the House.
Mr. Fox Maulesaid, that last year the House bad affirmed the very principle now in dispute, for it was included in the Scotch Prison Bill passed last Session, and if the House now decided against this clause, they would oppose this year what they affirmed last. It was of great importance as a step towards the improvement of prisoners, and the noble Lord was quite right to divide the House upon it. They could do nothing towards improving prisoners unless they had power to separate them as well before as after trial, and if he (Mr. Fox Maule) had a choice between the two, he would rather prefer the power to separate before trial.
The House divided on the question, that the clause stand as originally proposed:—Ayes 117; Noes 58:—Majority 59.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Ainsworth, P.

635

Baines, E.

Kemble, H.

Barneby, J.

Langdale, hon. C.

Barry, G. S.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Beamish, F. B.

Lockhart, A. M.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Marsland, H.

Bethell, R.

Morpeth, Lord Visct.

Bewes, T.

Morris, D.

Bodkin, J. J.

Murray, A.

Brabazon, Lord

Muskett, G. A.

Briscoe, J. I.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Broadley, H.

O'Brien, C.

Brocklehurst, J.

O'Brien, W. S.

Brodie, W. B.

O'Connell, D.

Brotherton, J.

O'Connell, J.

Burroughes, H. N.

Parker, J.

Cayley, E. S.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Chester, H.

Pease, J.

Chetwynd, Major

Pigot, R.

Clay, W.

Pinney, W.

Collier, J.

Protheroe, E.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Rice, E. R.

Cripps, J.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Curry, W.

Rundle, J.

Dalmeny, Lord

Russell, Lord J.

Duke, Sir J.

Salwey, Colonel

Dundas, C. W. D.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Eaton, R. J.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Ellis, W.

Seymour, Lord

Evans, W.

Smith, R. V.

Ewart, W.

Stanley, E.

Farnham, E. B.

Stanley, W. O.

Fector, J. M.

Steuart, R.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Stewart, J.

Gibson, T. M.

Stock, Dr.

Gordon, R.

Strickland, Sir G.

Grant, F. W.

Strutt, E.

Greene, T.

Style, Sir C.

Greenaway, C.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir C.

Thornely, T.

Grote, G.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Halford, H.

Turner, W.

Hawkes, T.

Verney, Sir H.

Hawkins, J. H.

Vigors, N. A.

Hector, C. J.

Vivian, Major C.

Hindley, C.

Vivian, J. H.

Hobhouse, right hon.

Wall, C. B.

Sir J.

Warburton, H.

Hobhouse, T. B.

White, A.

Hodges, T. L.

Williams, W. A.

Hodgson, R.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Hope, hon. C.

Wilshere, W.

Hope, G. W.

Winnington, T. E.

Houstoun, G.

Worsley, Lord,

Hume, J.

Wrightson, W. B.

Hurt, F.

Wynne, rt. hn. C. W.

Hutton, R.

Yates, J. A.

Jackson, Mr. Sergeant

James, Sir W. C.

TELLERS.

Johnstone, H.

Maule, F.

Jones, J.

Hawes, B.

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Baring, H. B.

Bagge, W.

Blackstone, W. S.

Bailey, J.

Bolling, W. M.

Bailey, J. jun.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Baker, E.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

636

Darlington, Earl of

Pakington, J. S.

Davies, Colonel

Palmer G,

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Parker, M.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Parker, R. T.

Egerton, Sir P.

Planta, right hon. J.

Estcourt, T.

Plumptre, J. P.

Filmer, Sir E.

Polhill, F.

Freshaeld, J. W.

Pryme, G.

Gladstone, W. E.

Rolleston, L.

Goddard, A.

Round, C. G.

Grimsditch, T.

Round, J.

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Heathcote, Sir W.

Sheppard, T.

Irton, S.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Lincoln, Earl of

Smyth, Sir G. H.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Somerset, Lord G.

Mackenzie, T.

Teignmouth, Lord

Mahon, Lord Visct.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Marton, G.

Waddington, H. S.

Maunsell, T. P.

Wakley, T.

Maxwell, hon. S. R.

Wood, Colonel T.

Neeld, J.

Young, Sir W.

Nicholl, J.

Noel, hon. W. M.

TELLERS.

O'Neill, hon. J. B. R

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Packe, C. W.

Darby, G.

Clause agreed to.
On the 13th clause, relating to the power of the magistrates to grant superannuation allowances to the chaplains, officers, and servants of the gaols,
Mr. Humeobjected to the clause on the ground that the principle of allowing superannuations to public servants, was a bad one. He wished the public servants to be properly paid, and then that they should make that provision for their old age out of their incomes which other parties were obliged to do out of their earnings. This clause would give the magistrate the power of creating pension lists, and as he feared it might lead to jobbing, it not to a wasteful expenditure of the county funds, he must strongly object to it. A pension of 400 l. had been granted to one chaplain by the Middlesex magistrates recently for fourteen years' service, and another of 200 l. to another chaplain for two years' service. Against such a system, therefore, he must protest. The hon. Member then moved that the clause should be omitted from the bill.
Colonel Wooddefended the superannuations to which the hon. Member for Kilkenny referred, and thought that the magistrates ought to have the power of rewarding long and faithful services, which this clause intended to place in their hands.
Captain Woodsaid, that as they were about to adopt a new system, it was most important that they should obtain the ser-

637
vices of the most efficient officers they could find. This could not be done unless some provision of this kind were made for persons who entered into the public service.
Mr. F. Mauleexpressed a hope that the hon. Member for Kilkenny would not press his motion.
Mr. O'Connellsupported the clause, and thought the economy of his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, on this occasion was, a mistaken economy.
The Committee divided on the clause, Ayes 144; Noes 21: Majority 123.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Fector, J. M.

Acland, T. D.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Adare, Viscount

Gladstone, W. E.

Ainsworth, P.

Goddard, A.

Ashley, Lord

Gordon, R.

Bagge, W.

Grant, F. W.

Bailey, J., jun.

Greene, T.

Baker, E.

Greenaway, C.

Baring, F. T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Barneby, J.

Grimsditch, T.

Barrington, Visct.

Grimston, Viscount

Barry, G. S.

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Beamish, F. B.

Halford, H.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Harland, W. C.

Bethell, R.

Hawkes, T.

Bewes, T.

Hawkins, J. H.

Blackburne, I.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Blackstone, W. S.

Hobhouse, right hon.

Blair, J.

Sir J.

Bodkin, J. J.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Brabazon, Lord

Hodgson, R.

Broadley, H.

Hope, hon. C.

Broad wood, H.

Hurt, F.

Brodie, W. B.

Hutt, W.

Burroughes, H. N.

Hutton, R.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Ingestrie, Visct.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Irton, S.

Cavendish, hn. G. H.

Jackson, Mr. Sergeant

Cayley, E. S.

James, Sir W. C.

Chester, H.

Johnstone, H.

Chetwynd, Major

Jones, J.

Christopher, R. A.

Kemble, H.

Clay, W.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Collier, J.

Knatchbull, right hon.

Cresswell, C.

Sir E.

Curry, W.

Langdale, hon. C.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Lefevre, C. S.

Darby, G.

Lemon, Sir C.

Darlington, Earl of

Lincoln, Earl of

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Dowdeswell, W.

Mackenzie, T.

Duke, Sir J.

Maunsell, T. P.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Maxwell, hon. S. R.

Dundas, Sir R.

Mildmay, Paulet St. J.

Egerton, W. T.

Miles, P. W. S.

Egerton, Sir P.

Morpeth, Lord Visct.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Morris, D.

Estcourt, T.

Neeld, J.

Evans, W.,

Neeld, John

638

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Sinclair, Sir G.

O'Brien, C.

Smith, R. V.

O'Brien, W. S.

Smyth, Sir G. H.

O'Connell, D.

Stanley, E. J.

O'Connell, J.

Stanley, E.

O'Connell, M. J.

Stanley, W. O.

O'Connell, M.

Strutt, E.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Style, Sir C.

Packe, C. W.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Pakington, J. S.

Teignmouth, Lord

Palmer, R.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

Parnell, rt hon. Sir H.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Plumptre, J. P.

Verner, Colonel

Rice, E. R.

Vivian, Major C.

Richards, R.

Waddington, H. S.

Roche, E. B.

Wilbraham, G.

Roche, Sir D.

Wilshere, W.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Winnington, T. E.

Rolleston, L.

Winnington, H. J.

Round, C. G.

Wood, Colonel T.

Round, J.

Wood, G. W.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Wood, T.

Russell, Lord J.

Young, J.

Seymour, Lord

TELLERS.

Sheppard, T.

Maule, F.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Hawes, B.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Salwey, Colonel

Baines, E.

Scholefield, J.

Brotherton, J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Thorneley, T.

Ellis, W.

Vigors, N. A.

Finch, F.

Warburton, H.

Hodges, T. L.

Williams, W.

Jervis, J.

Williams, W. A.

Maher, J.

Worsley, Lord

Marsland, H.

TELLERS.

Pease, J.

Hume, J.

Rundle, J.

Hector, C. J.

Clause to stand part of the bill.
On the fourteenth clause,
Mr. Blackstoneobjected to the appointment of Roman Catholic priests to the gaols, on the ground, that such a course would operate injuriously to the Established Church. The hon. Member moved the rejection of the clause.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he must move, that the Chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again, in order that this question might be discussed at an earlier hour of the night. He did not think the opposition of the hon. Gentleman opposite to the clause even decent.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that as the matter had already been discussed, he did not think it could now occupy any great length of time, and therefore, he hoped the Committee would proceed with the bill.
Mr. M. J. O'Connellsaid, that as the rule had been violated in Ireland, he saw

639
no reason why the same principle should not be adopted in this country. Roman Catholic priests were appointed to the gaols in Ireland.
Lord Teignmouthwas opposed to the precedent which had been adopted in Ireland, and therefore should resist its being followed in this country.
The House resumed, Committee to sit again.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time;—Designs Copyright; Designs Copyright Extension; Bishops' Residences; Church Disciplins.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of RICHMOND, the Earl of BANDON, and Lords BROUGHAM, GLENELG, and PORTMAN, from a great number of places, for a Uniform Penny Postage.—By the Marquess of BREADALBANE, from several places, against any further Grant to the Scotch Church.—By the Earl of HARRINGTON, and the Bishop of LLANDAFF, from two places, for Church Extension in Scotland.—By the Earl of RIPON, from one place, for Church Extension in Canada; and from Leeds, against forwarding Letters through the Post on the Sabbath.—By the Earl of HARDWICIKE, from Wisbeaeh, against Beer Shops.—By the Earl of BANDON, from the County of Cork, against the Establishment of any College likely to follow a plan of Instruction not founded on Religious Truth.

MAGISTERIAL DUTIES.
The Earl of Hardwicke,on presenting a petition for the amendment of the Sale of Beer Act, observed upon the extreme difficulty which magistrates experienced in the administration of this act, for, with the greatest desire on their part to carry it into effect fairly and impartially, the purposes of justice were frequently defeated. He hoped that the noble and learned Lord, who had given notice of a bill on the subject, would turn his attention to the difficulty he had mentioned, and try, if possible, to afford the magistrates some relief.
Lord Broughamsaid, that everything encouraged him to bring forward the bill in question, but he was prevented by a noble Friend of his in the other House, the Member for South Lancashire, giving notice of a motion which he (Lord Brougham) hoped would have superseded the necessity of his proceeding in the matter. However, he would now say, that on one day next week he would move the second reading of his Bill.
The Earl of Hardwickesaid, that country gentlemen and magistrates had the greatest difficulty in doing anything with beer houses. He might quote himself as a proof of the way in which a person, desiring to do nothing but strict justice, had been treated. Some time ago a conviction had been made out by him, inflicting certain penalties on a beer-house keeper; but the beer-house keeper brought an action against him on the ground of informality. The judge at Cambridge sent the matter to the courts above, where he was cast, and costs to a considerable amount given against him, although he had understood the superior courts always dealt very leniently with the mistakes of magistrates.
Lord Broughamsaid, that similar instances were very common, in which the law left now power to the judges of showing indulgence to technical errors of magistrates.
Petition laid on the Table.

SLAVERY IN THE MAURITIUS.
Lord Broughamwished to know whether there would be any objection to produce a dispatch from his noble Friend, the former Secretary for the Colonies, to the government of the Mauritius. It had given the greatest satisfaction to him (Lord Brougham) and to all who took an interest in the emancipation of the slaves there, to see the judicious and vigorous step taken by his noble Friend, for he had given notice to the government of the Mauritius that if the Council refuse of themselves to carry into effect the emancipation, he should do it for them without waiting for communications from this side of the world. This had saved six months in the liberty of the slave in the Mauritius, but he (Lord Brougham) was sorry to find that no news had come from thence that any thing had been done. In no place was the measure of emancipation one of such absolute necessity, or of such strict justice as in the Mauritius. There might be some title in Jamaica, but in the Mauritius at least one slave in three was detained by an act of felony. He wanted to know whether there would be any objection to the production of the dispatch. If there were, he would give notice.
Lord Glenelg,in reference to the receipt of intelligence from the Mauritius, was understood to say, that there had not been time to receive an answer to his dispatch.

DESIGNS COPYRIGHT BILL.
Viscount Duncannon,in moving the second reading of the Designs Copyright Bill, and the Designs Copyright Extension Bill, said, that the first of these Bills was intended to grant protection to those engaged in the arts of design. Under the present system, no sooner had a manufacturer brought forward a design which met with the public approbation but it was immediately pirated and imitated. Every person claiming the protection of the present bill would be required, within a limited period, to register his design, and the time of protection would be computed from the day of registration. The second bill extended the provision to certain articles not mentioned in the other bill, and also extended the provisions of the whole of these bills to Ireland.
Lord Broughamsaid, that he spoke the sentiments of his noble and learned Friend, at whose request the second reading of these bills had been deferred, as well as his own, in stating that these bills were well worthy the attention of their Lordships. He considered they effected a great improvement in the present law, by affording protection to those deserving and ingenious persons who were engaged in inventing designs. He thought they were calculated to produce great good, and his only objection to the bills was, that they did not go far enough, that they protected the Manchester designs only, and not the Yorkshire, which were models, and could not be described as drawings. He hoped that, in the committee, the protection would be extended to those models as well as to the designs contemplated by the bill in its present state.
Bills read a second time.