Sitting of 11 June 1839

PRINTING THE BIBLE—SCOTLAND.
Sir J Grahamhoped that the noble Lord opposite would not consider him pertinacious or troublesome, if he again ventured to request some information from him on the subject of the expiration of the patent held by the Queen's printer in Scotland. On a former occasion, the noble Lord told him what the Government did not intend to do. The noble Lord stated, that it was not intended to renew the patent, or to give the exclusive power of printing the Bible in. Scotland to any corporate body, which might derive a profit from that exclusive privilege, and avail themselves of it to enhance the price. The noble Lord said also, that at the same time measures would be taken

141
which should insure the authenticity of all copies of the Bible hereafter to be printed in Scotland. If, in order to carry this object into effect, the noble Lord intended to proceed by a legislative measure, ample opportunity would be afforded for the discussion of its details; but he believed, that an opinion was entertained that precautionary measures might be taken, without the intervention of Parliament. If so, he hoped, as the people of Scotland regarded this question with much interest, that he might be excused for saying, that they would be glad if the noble Lord would give them an outline of those precautionary measures.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the right hon. Baronet had correctly stated what had passed on the former occasion. It was not intended to give to any individual, or to any corporation, the right of printing the Bible, or to grant any monopoly which would enhance the price. The right hon. Baronet was perfectly justified in asking what precautions were proposed on the part of the Crown, to prevent the chance of error. It was proposed to incorporate a limited number of persons—say five, to whom would be granted the exclusive right of printing and publishing the Bible. One of these was to be the Moderator of the Assembly of the Church of Scotland, two others were to be divines of the Church of Scotland, and two others were to be laymen, but members of the Church of Scotland; and if any larger number than five should constitute the board, it would still be constituted on the same principle. It was proposed, that this board should have the exclusive right of printing and publishing the Bible, upon condition of allowing the free importation of the authorised version of the Bible, printed by authority in England. Another condition was, that the board should have power to grant an imprimatur for Bibles to be published by certain publishers, but that such liberty should not be granted, unless the board appointed correctors of the press, or unless some person was appointed by the board to supervise the Bibles so printed, and see that the version was correct. With these limitations, it was proposed generally, that no preference should be given to particular publishers, but the publishers must, in addition, enter into an agreement, by bond, to pay any costs that might ensue from a failure in the performance of any one of the conditions, or the costs occasioned by any in-
142
correct version which might be circulated in consequence of the imprimatur granted to them. In case of any pirating any former edition of the Bible, it would be competent to the board to proceed by injunction, and to prevent such unauthorized and fraudulent publications. The mode by which this plan was to be carried out was jure coronœ—it was to be done by the power possessed by the Crown, under which, by the well-known judgment of Lord Lyndhurst, the Crown might grant a right to persons to print the Bible, and under which it was competent to proceed by injunction, to prevent any fraudulent or unauthorised publication. The right hon. Baronet had also asked whether it was proposed to proceed by statute during the present Session. He (Lord John Russell) had consulted his right hon. and learned Friend, the Lord Advocate, and he had also taken the opinion of his hon. Friend the Attorney-general, and they were of opinion that it was not necessary to proceed by statute, but that the Crown had the authority requisite to insist on all the conditions necessary for the purpose. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman would understand, that it was not the intention of her Majesty's Government to propose any bill, as they were of opinion the present authority of the Crown was sufficient for the purpose. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman required it, he (Lord J. Russell) would furnish him, in writing, with a copy of the exact conditions which were proposed, that he might consult those who were interested in the subject. The intention was not to enhance the price of the Scriptures to the people of Scotland, but, at the same time, to secure the perfect accuracy of the text.
Sir J. Grahamthanked the noble Lord for the candour and fairness with which he had made this statement. It would be irregular for him to express any opinion upon the merits of the plan, and he should therefore not do so. Nothing could be fairer than the noble Lord's proposition to give him, in writing, a detailed statement of the conditions under which the proposed privilege was to be conferred. He should be able to communicate this to the authorities in Scotland, and he would then let the noble Lord know, whether it was satisfactory to them.
Conversation dropped.

PRINTING PETITIONS.
Mr. W. Williamswished to call the attention of the House

143
to the fact, that some days ago he presented a petition from Mr. Samuel Wells, a barrister, relative to the financial affairs of this country, which, upon his motion, was ordered to be printed, but that had not been done.
The Speaker suggested, that the hon. Member should renew his motion to have the petition printed.
Mr. Williamsbegged to move, that the petition be ordered to be printed forthwith.
Sir G. Clerksaid, the hon. Member for Coventry had stated no reason why the petition should be printed, nor had he intimated that it was his intention to bring forward any motion founded upon the petition. He could not think, that it would be wise for the House to order petitions of this kind to be printed at the public expense. When grievances were complained of, the House was bound to give every facility to the printing of petitions, if motions were to be founded upon them; but it could not be proper for the House to order financial pamphlets to be printed at the expense of the public. This petition made suggestions relative to the management of the revenue, and complained of no grievance; he thought it would be highly improper for the House to sanction the printing of such a document. In his opinion, it ought to have been forwarded, not to the House, but to-the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Williamssaid, that when he presented the petition he had distinctly stated, that he would call the attention of the House to the statements which it contained on Tuesday next.
Lord J. Russellagreed with the hon. Baronet opposite, that there was a wide distinction to be made between petitions complaining of actual grievances and petitions presented merely for the purpose of giving publicity to the theories of private individuals. He thought it would be highly improper to order the publication of petitions which could only be considered as the speeches of individuals who, from not being Members of Parliament, were unable to state their views and opinions personally in that House. If the petition alluded to came under that description, it certainly would not be proper to order it to be printed at the public expense.
Mr. Williamscontended, that it was not a speech, but a petition on a subject of the highest importance, and containing matter well deserving the attention of the House.
The Speakersaid, that when the hon. Member for Coventry presented the petition he had given notice, that it was his intention, on a subsequent day, to call the attention of the House to the statements which it contained. The hon. Member had then moved, that the petition be printed, and to that motion the House at the time assented. The committee on petitions had, however, refused to order the printing of the petition, and the question now was, whether the order of the House should be discharged. The order having once been made, must be complied with, unless rescinded.
Sir G. Clerkwould move that the order be now discharged.
Mr. Williamshoped the hon. Baronet would state some reason in justification of that motion. He believed, if the hon. Baronet would read the petition, he would find, that it related to matters worthy of the gravest consideration, and that it contained a statement of facts founded upon Acts of Parliament. If there was anything disrespectful to the House in the petition, or anything improper, he should be glad to have it pointed out. He knew Mr. Wells to be a most respectable person, who had devoted much of his time to the subject of finance, and, as he intended to call the attention of the House to the petition he had presented, he trusted the hon. Baronet would withdraw his motion.
Mr. Wakleybelieved, that the hon. Baronet opposite had no intention to read the petition himself, and that he was inclined to prevent every other person from reading it. He had no doubt that it contained matter worthy of the most serious consideration, for Mr. Wells had devoted much of his attention to the subject of finance. The House, too, had ordered the petition to be printed, and let hon. Members consider what the effect would be if its authority was to be set at defiance or its orders disregarded. In this case the House had ordered a petition to be printed, but here was a committee placing itself above the House, and refusing to allow the order to be complied with. In his opinion, hon. Members were not aware of the effect on the public mind of the manner in which petitions to that House were presented. The people were complaining, and justly, of the way in which their petitions were treated; and the restraints which were imposed upon hon. Members of that House, relative to the presentation of petitions, were rendering the other House of Parlia-

145
ment, instead of that House, the popular branch of the Legislature. The other House of Parliament was ever ready to attend to the complaints of the people, and to allow their petitions to be read and discussed, but in that House, hon. Members were not even allowed to read the petitions which were intrusted to them. If an hon. Member attempted to read a portion of a petition in that House, or to state at any length the complaints it contained, he was instantly assailed with groans, and a noise was raised, which absolutely prevented him from calmly directing his mind to the complaints of the petitioners. Was that fair to the public, or was it possible that such proceedings could have any other effect than that of lowering the House in the estimation of the country? If a Member said he would read any petition intrusted to him, he immediately found himself addressing empty benches—no one would listen to him. He hoped the resolutions of the House relative to petitions would be reconsidered and revised; for if they were not altered, so as to allow the complaints of the people to be fully stated, that House must fall into disrepute with the country, and the House of Lords become the popular assembly. How were petitions treated? They were laid on the Table, backed by Mr. Ley, and then sent into a room where they were never more heard of. Ay, they went before a committee, and that committee followed the example of Mr. Ley, few of them being printed, and nothing being done to make them public. In his opinion, every Member ought to be allowed to state fully the nature and object of the petitions which had been intrusted to him, and he hoped the day would come when petitions would be discussed also.
Colonel Conollysaid, it was evident that the hon. Member for Finsbury was totally ignorant of the mode in which the Committee upon Petitions disposed of the petitions presented to that House. So far from obstructing the printing of petions, or interfering with the orders of the House, the Committee afforded every facility to the publication of the complaints of the people. He did not think it was fair to say that the Committee treated petitions slightly, for every one acquainted with the subject knew that the reverse was the case. From his own experience, he was bound to say that, in his opinion, the present system was the best, and if they were to discuss petitions, it would be impossible to transact the public business,
Mr. Aglionbysaid, the House had already ordered the printing of the petition, and he was, therefore, of opinion that the hon. Baronet by the rules of the House was bound to give notice before bringing forward a motion for discharging that order.
Sir G. Clerkhad no objection to withdraw his motion for the present, and to give notice for a future day, if such was the wish of the House. He was perfectly sensible that if the attention of the House had been called to the petition at the time it was presented, it never would have been ordered to be printed. The reason why it had escaped the attention of the House was well known. Hon. Members could not fail to recollect the state of the House on Friday. Before hearing counsel on the Jamaica Bill the House was nearly empty, and the Members who were present were employed in conversation, as all the public business had, most strangely, been disposed of. It was at that time the petition had been presented, and the motion for printing had in consequence escaped the notice of the House. The votes of Friday, the House would observe, contained no order for the printing of the petition, for it was only stated, that it was ordered to lie on the table. It was not till the votes of Monday were published, that they found an order for printing the petition. He did not mean to say, that the petition contained anything improper, nor did he question in the very least the respectability of the petitioner; but he must again repeat, that the document was not of that character which entitled it to be printed at the public expense. When petitions were presented, complaining of grievances, the House was always ready to give its attention to the prayer of the petitioners, and when a motion was to be founded upon a petition, there was never any unwillingness to allow it to be printed. But if the House were to allow those who were unable to obtain such publicity for their opinions as they might wish—if they were to allow every theorist and speculator, whether in finance, medicine, or law, to forward pamphlets to that House in the shape of petitions, and if they were to order those pamphlets to be published at the public expense, they would, in his opinion, be doing great injustice to those who had signed the 8,600 petitions which had been presented during the Session,

147
and who were legitimate petitioners, because they complained of grievances, and asked for redress. As he said before, the petition ought to have been forwarded to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and as he now saw the right hon. Gentleman in his place, perhaps, he would have the goodness to state whether he was of opinion that the petition was of sufficient importance to be published at the public expense.
Mr. Freshfieldwould not allow what had fallen from the hon. Member for Finsbury relative to the Committee on Petitions to pass without notice. The hon. Member was far from being correct when he said that the petitions sent to the Committee were never afterwards heard of. The Committee had already presented to the House twenty-seven reports upon petitions, each of which was of considerable bulk.
Mr. Yatessaid, the Committee examined fully and with great care the petitions confided to them, and always ordered the publication of every petition which they considered important, or which they deemed it necessary that the House and the public should be made acquainted with.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, a copy of the petition had certainly been forwarded to him, and he ought, therefore, perhaps, to be the last person to raise any objection to its being printed. He could not, however, help saying, that if the House were once to sanction the printing of petitions complaining of no grievance, and only making suggestions, they would soon, in his opinion, have cause to regret such a proceeding. It was not merely the expense which he objected to, but such a course, if once adopted, would not fail seriously to obstruct the public business. He thought there could be no difficulty in postponing the motion; but if it was postponed, hon. Members would do well to consider the nature of the paper before voting for its being printed.
General Johnsonunderstood that the order for printing the petition had been made on Friday, and he could not think that it was fair to move that the order be now discharged. Surely notice ought to have been given.
On the question that the order be discharged, the House divided—Ayes 81; Noes 23:—Majority 58.

ABUSES UNDER THE FACTORY ACT.
Lord Ashleywished to ask the hon. Member for Finsbury whether, as it was not likely there would be much chance of the attendance of the House affording him an opportunity of bringing forward his motion relating to the three Scotch witnesses examined in regard to the operation of the Factory Act, whose petition had been presented to the House, it was his intention to postpone it; and if so, whether he would bring it forward on a future day.
Mr. Wakleysaid, it certainly was his determination to bring forward the motion to which the noble Lord had referred, but he very much regretted, that there was little chance of his doing so that night with the slightest chance of success. The hon. Member for Penryn had a motion on the paper which was likely to occupy several hours, and, more than that, he found that her Majesty's Government were determined to oppose him. It was, therefore, his intention to postpone his motion until that day three weeks, when he should certainly bring it forward, and press it to a division.
Mr. F. Maulecould not allow this motion to be postponed without protesting against the course which the hon. Member for Finsbury had taken. The motion carried with it an attack upon a public servant, and he must say that putting it off from day to day—this being the second time it had been deferred—was most unfair, not only to that individual, but to those who had to defend his character, and who had a considerable quantity of other business, both in and out of the House, to attend to. He had come down to the House prepared to meet the motion of his hon. Friend, and he thought it rather hard that it should be put off in this way.
Mr. Wakleysaid, he had not before postponed his motion at all. He had fixed on a day for bringing it before the House, and he had lost no opportunity of doing so; but he now found that the Government were strongly opposed to it, and that they had "whipped" for it. He had no means of "whipping" in support of the motion. He could see very well what the state of the benches was at this moment, and he knew equally well what it would be when the time came for him to be called upon by the Chair,

149
He had made no attack on the character of Mr. Stuart; but if he had done so, he should not have acted worse than that individual had behaved towards three helpless men. He felt convinced that he should be able to prove that, when he had a proper opportunity of bringing the case before the House.

TURNPIKE TRUSTS.
Mr. Mackinnon, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the laws regarding turnpike trusts, and to allow of unions of the same, said, he hoped to be able, by the statements he was about to make, to show that such a measure was necessary. He moved for leave to bring in this Bill in his capacity as Chairman of a Committee which had sat to consider the-subject, and, although it was a dry one, the House would be convinced that it was an important one, when he reminded them that these trusts were at the present time in debt to the extent of 9,000,000 l. sterling, and that they had no means of discharging the debt. On the contrary, it was increasing every day from various causes. One of the chief causes was, that those who managed the trusts, finding themselves unable to pay the interest of the debt, gave bonds for that interest, thus converting the interest into principal, and, in fact, increasing; their debt at the rate of compound interest. Another cause was the establishment of railroads, of which there were now no fewer than six lines diverging from the Metropolis and extending into different parts of the country. It must also be recollected, that by the Act of George 3rd, cap. 123, any creditor of a trust bad the power of taking possession of the tolls, and dividing the produce as he should think proper among the other creditors of the trust. It was impossible not to foresee the ruinous consequences which were likely to result from such a course. Another point of great moment in this question was the entire abolition of statute labour, by which these trusts had sustained a loss of not less than 200,000 l. annually. A bill was brought in last Session to remedy that evil; but, though it passed through that House, it did not unfortunately get through the other House. But he confessed that there would be considerable difficulty in suggesting any remedy far the distressed state of the tolls. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State had brought in
150
a bill, in which he made an attempt to consolidate all the turnpike trusts into one, and to have them managed solely by a Board in London. Although the hon. Gentleman was supported by the whole of the interest of the Government, such was the opposition he met with that he was unable to carry his measure. He believed the chief cause of the opposition to that bill was the system of centralization which he adopted. The country gentlemen of England felt averse to any plan of that kind, and they thought the power of superintendence and management should remain in their hands. Another cause was the arrangement which the hon. Gentleman made, that trusts of every description should be consolidated together; and that, he (Mr. Mackinnon) thought, was the great error of his bill. Moreover, he gave the commissioners to be appointed to carry out the measure, sitting in London, power to unite wealthy trusts with poor ones, and thus saddle them with debts which others ought to pay. Another objection to the plan of the hon. Gentleman was, that he left all the machinery of the old trusts without any means of subsistence; the solicitors, secretaries, clerks, and others employed by the old trusts were left wholly unprovided for, and they of course raised such a clatter throughout the country, and made such strong appeals to hon. Members representing places in their respective localities, that his hon. Friend was at last compelled to throw up the bill altogether. Now, the Committee had endeavoured to meet all these objections: they proposed that there should be unions, not a consolidation of turnpike trusts; and that those unions should be under the superintendence, not of a board in London, but of persons selected by the trustees, who were to have the whole management of the same. Still it would be impossible to carry this plan into effect without allowing the Government to have a central board, but not with such powers as were contemplated by the former bill; because without some such central authority the other board could not be made to act in a satisfactory manner. The bill he wished to bring in would also have for its object the catching of the traffic which now ran to the railways by by-roads and cross-roads. The traffic on all the cross and by-roads which led to the termini of railways had very much increased, and his object was to give these trusts a power to

151
transfer the toll-gates to those cross and bye roads; in fact, to use a simile which the hon. Member for Finsbury would understand, to make the veins of traffic arteries, and the arteries veins. He was the last man who would wish to stand forward on a question of this importance, but as Chairman of the Committee which had sat upon this subject, he did not feel himself justified in withdrawing from the task until he had at least elicited from her Majesty's Government whether or not the Commission which had been appointed was likely to lead to legislation in this matter upon their authority. He should, therefore, now move for leave to bring in a bill for making Unions of Turnpike Trusts in England, and for consolidating the bonded debts of those trusts.
Mr. F. Mauledid not rise to throw any difficulty in the way of the introduction of the bill. He felt that the hon. Gentleman opposite, as Chairman of the Committee, to which he had alluded, could not have taken any other course than that which he had pursued; but he feared that the hon. Member's Bill would, in the face of the commission which had been appointed, share the same fate as the bill formerly introduced. The bill he had introduced had a recommendation which the bill proposed by the hon. Member had not—namely, that under his bill the Government proposed to advance a considerable sum of money for the purpose of consolidating the debts due by turnpike trusts. At present it was impossible the Government could propose any such measure, and it was in order to get some more grave authority than the report of a committee, an authority on which the country gentlemen could place reliance, that the Government had been induced to issue a commission, consisting of the Duke of Richmond, the Marquess of Salisbury, Lord Hatherton, and Lord Eliot, to inquire into the best mode of treating this subject. It was a subject which might not, perhaps, interest many persons in that House, but in it the poorer classes were deeply concerned, because many individuals who had lent their "little all" on the security of turnpike trusts, the best security on which to advance money at the time of lending, were now absolutely in despair as to the probability of recovering one farthing of their money. That this state of things ought to be remedied, nobody could deny. He thought
152
the efforts of the hon. Member most praiseworthy, and he was ready to consider and give him every assistance in aid of his measure, but at the same time he must say that at this period of the Session it would be impossible successfully to legislate. Next year the commission which had been appointed would, he thought, present such a report as that the Government might found upon it a measure which would then be fairly and fully considered by Parliament.
Colonel Woodthought the House was indebted to his hon. Friend, the Member for Lymington for having elicited the statement just made by the hon. Under Secretary. He rejoiced that the Government had issued this commission, because he was of opinion that unless Government took up the matter, the difficulties that surrounded it would never be got rid of. He saw no way out of those difficulties except by the Government taking the whole tolls, paying the debts of the trusts, and establishing one uniform rate of toll throughout the country.
Leave given to bring in the bill.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Mr. Freshfieldrose to move, pursuant to his notice, for a "Return of the number of days the Court of Exchequer, as a Court of Equity, sat for the despatch of business for ten years, ending 1838 inclusive, showing the number of days the Court sat in each term and at the sittings after each term," and was proceeding to state to the House the grounds of the motion, when the House was counted out.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Promotion of Education Clerks of the Peace.
Petitions presented. By the Marquesses of Bristol, and Breadalbane, the Earls of Lovelace, Stanhope, and Camperdown, and Lord Portman, from a number of places, for a Uniform Penny Postage.—By the Bishop of Exeter, from places in the county of Durham, against the Government Flan of National Education.—By the Marquess of Breadalbane, from the counties of Argyle, and Forfar, for Church Extension in Scotland—By Lord Wrottesley, from a place in Suffolk, against the carrying on of any Business on the Sabbath.—By the Earl of Lovelace, from the Keepers of Beer Houses at Liverpool, for equal Rights and Laws with the Licensed Victuallers.

MINISTERIAL CIRCULAR, ARMING THE PEOPLE.
The Duke of Beaufortwished to receive some information with regard to a circular letter that had been lately addressed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the Lords-lieutenant of certain counties, on the subject of allowing individuals to arm for the protection of property. It appeared to him that the meaning of that letter was very imperfectly understood in the country, and that some explanation with reference to it was necessary. Their Lordships were probably aware that a communication had been made by a body denominating themselves "the Salford Radical Association" to the Lord-lieutenant of the county of Lancaster, calling on him to supply them with 1,200 stand of arms, in consequence

135
of the circular to which he had alluded. An application of the same nature had also been made from Bath, which communication he should read to their Lordships. The noble Duke read the communication, which, in effect, stated, that" certain householders of Bath, having volunteered their services for the protection of life and property, requested to be supplied with arms." He had himself received several applications from persons who wished to arm in this manner; but he had advised them not, because, in his opinion, nothing could be worse than for bodies of men to enrol and to arm themselves in this manner, without being placed under any regular military control. Such associations were, he was convinced, calculated to do more mischief than good. He had no doubt that it never was the intention of Government to encourage assemblies of this kind; but it would seem, from these applications, that the intention of Government was misunderstood. These sort of meetings of individuals for the protection of life and property might become very dangerous, unless they were placed under efficient military control.
Viscount Melbourneentirely agreed in the general principle laid down by the noble Duke—that it was not proper or expedient for any body of men to assemble and arm themselves unless under the control of some person bearing her Majesty's commission. That principle could not, however, be applied to all cases. It might be necessary, on some particular occasions, when great danger was apprehended, to depart from the strict principle. With respect to the case referred to by the noble Duke, his (Lord Melbourne's) noble Friend, the Secretary for the Home Department, in consequence of the menacing appearance which many parts of the country had assumed, had deemed it necessary to transmit a circular to the Lords-lieutenant of certain counties where the danger seemed to be most threatening, and where the greatest apprehension prevailed. In that circular the Lords-lieutenant were allowed, on their responsibility, to accept the services of any body of men who they might think proper to be employed for the preservation of the public peace, and who they conceived might be intrusted with arms. Reliance was placed on their prudence in ascertaining the respectability and general good conduct of those who might be so em-
136
ployed. To that extent only the circular of his noble Friend proceeded. He trusted that it would not be necessary to act on it to a greater extent than it had already been acted on, and that it would not be drawn into precedent beyond the immediate occasion.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas not one of those Lords-lieutenant to whom the circular in question had been addressed, but he should be glad to see it, as well as any instructions which might have been issued at the same time in order to render it efficient. Two or three things struck him on this subject, on which he wished to ask a question. He requested to know whether the noble Viscount, in what he had stated, had or had not adverted to the powers given to magistrates by certain acts of the late King's reign, empowering them to swear in special constables—whether that was the class of persons whom it was the intention of the Government to arm under the instructions given by the Secretary of State? If that were the case he could understand it. He should now state another question which he wished to ask. He understood, that under the act for regulating corporations, which was passed in 1835, and was much discussed in that House, powers were given to those corporations to form a police, they were enabled to raise funds to maintain that police, and the acts to which he referred also empowered them, if necessary, to raise a body of men to keep watch and ward. Now, he wished to know whether these were the people intended to be armed, under the circular, as a constitutional safeguard? What had been stated to their Lordships just now showed the enormous power which was granted by this circular, and showed also how dangerously it might operate. Suppose, this year, the mayor of a town, holding particular opinions, allowed one portion of the inhabitants to arm, when he was turned out of office, in the following November, he might be succeeded by another mayor, holding the opinions of a different party, which party, in his turn, he would permit to bear arms; might not, in such a case, very serious consequences arise from such a system? The mayor of Bath might, for instance, arm one party this day, and, in the course of a few months, another mayor might arm another party of very different principles. This point, in his opinion, afforded matter for

137
serious consideration. He conceived, that Government ought to let their Lordships know what instructions Lords-lieutenant were directed to give to magistrates for the purpose of carrying into effect the intentions of the Secretary of State.
Viscount Melbournesaid, he had no objection to lay on the Table the circular and any papers connected with it. As to the question of the noble Duke, he had no hesitation in stating, that it was not the intention of the Government to employ the persons to whom he had alluded. They did not contemplate arming either the police or the constables. It was, however, in the power of the corporations and magistrates to employ them, if they thought proper.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas aware that it was in the power of the corporations to arm the police. He begged leave, however, to say, that if they did so, they became responsible to the law for their act. But if bodies armed under this circular, that certainly would be a proceeding of a very peculiar nature, for which nobody at all would be responsible. As he had before observed, the Mayor of Bath this year might think proper to arm 1,000 men, and in the month of November a gentleman of another party having come into office, might arm 1,000 other persons of his party. Thus a very dangerous state of things might arise.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, he understood that two circulars had been issued; under one circular, arms might be supplied to persons for the protection of property; whilst, by the other, the magistrates were directed to prevent persons from assembling for the purpose of military exercise. Now, it happened, that under the first circular, certain persons procured arms, and proceeded to train themselves in their use; but those very parties who had taken arms under the first circular, were informed against under the second, were arrested, and were called on to find bail. So much for the uniformity of the sytem.
Lord Portmancould assure his noble Friend that no disposition existed in Bath to take any improper advantage of the power granted by the circular. If any such disposition should appear, he could assure the noble Duke that the magistrates would speedily put an end to it.

SALE OF BEER.
The Beer Act in Part Repeal Bill was reported with amendments.
Lord Brougham,in consequence of the absence of his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury), would postpone the third reading of the bill till Monday next.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, though he doubted the expediency of the House passing such a bill, still it was important to know whether it would really be pressed during the present Session. He confessed it was very unlikely that it would be postponed, still, as that seemed to be the order of the day with all important measures, such a thing might happen.
Lord Broughamsaid, there was not the lightest chance of the bill being postponed—not till the year 1842—but beyond next Monday. His object, when he introduced a measure, was for the purpose of carrying, and not postponing it. In this instance, he would not have postponed the bill till Monday, had not illness in the noble Marquess's family obliged him to be absent. He had no wish to postpone any measure brought forward by him to the Greek kalends, or what was now synonymous with them, the year 1842. His noble Friend had talked of capital invested in these beer shops, but the report of the constabulary commissioners, who had inquired into the facts, proved that many of these beer shops were kept by paupers, who scarcely possessed more furniture than a table, a chair, and a few broken jugs, in which they doled out their liquor. Though he was not friendly to frequent or long postponements, still as his bill did not compromise the good government of a whole province, he thought he might safely put it off till Monday.
The Marquess of Westminstercontended that much property was embarked in these houses, and the bill would, therefore, injure many individuals.
Earl Stanhopeimpugned the correctness of the report to which the noble and learned Lord had alluded. The parties ought not to be condemned in their absence. They ought to be allowed to adduce evidence in support of their interests.
Lord Broughamwould ask why, when the bill was referred to a Select Committee, did not the noble Earl attend and make his objection? Why did he not do so when it was before a Committee of the whole House? But no; now, on the third reading, the noble Earl wanted to have witnesses called, and evidence received. Why, if they sanctioned hearing evidence

139
in that stage of a bill, they never could get through any business. He believed that the excitement of the noble Earl was not so much elicited by the report which he had attacked as by the name which was attached to it—the name of Lefevre, the name of the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Earl Stanhopesaid, that to assail the interests or the character of any class of their fellow-citizens without hearing them, was to commit the grossest injustice. That report, he would affirm, was not only false, but notoriously false.
Lord Broughamsaid, the noble Earl made a most serious charge against the Speaker of the House of Commons, and two other Gentlemen who had merely stated what they firmly and conscientiously believed with as much truth and sincerity as the noble Earl or any other noble Lord, could possibly feel.
Lord Ellenboroughthought there was much valuable information contained in the report.
Earl Stanhopeobjected, not only to the matter of the Report, but also entirely against the recommendations contained in it. He was sure, also, that he was supported in that objection by the great mass of the people.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, the noble Earl had said that Gentlemen had put their names to a report which was notoriously false. It was impossible for the noble Earl to affirm that the statements of the report were notoriously false. He (the Earl of Radnor) should say that the statements which the noble Earl had said were notoriously false were notoriously true, so far as his experience went.
Earl Stanhopesaid, some isolated facts might be true, but as a general report, the inferences were notoriously false.
The Earl of Falmouthdid not think their Lordships were inclined to pass a measure, which would inflict much injustice, without affording the parties the opportunity of opposing it. The publicans had been sacrificed by hundreds, because it was said the Beer Bill would be for the good of the country. He firmly believed that there never was a more pernicious Act of Parliament passed than the Sale of Beer Act. Much of the bad spirit which now prevailed in the country, had been begun in the beer-shops. Would their Lordships protract the alteration required, because the noble Earl (Stanhope) happened to
140
think that a Select Committee was necessary? He hoped another Parliament would not be allowed to pass over without their finding a remedy for this monstrous grievance.
The Earl of Malmesburywas convinced that Colonel Rowan would not put his name to a Report, without being convinced of its truth.
Earl Stanhopewas perfectly aware that the report was signed by Colonel Rowan amongst others. He had no doubt that certain facts stated in the report were true, but general inferences were deduced from particular facts, and he again averred that they were false.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, his noble Friend, the Secretary for the Home Department, had made the best selection of persons he could to carry on the inquiry, and he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) did not think the noble Lord could have found three persons more fitted for the purpose, from their talents, acquaintance with facts, and unquestionable integrity. It was true, that these commissioners had had reference only to particular facts in drawing inferences as to generals, but those particular facts were collected from various parts of the country, from various classes, and referring to different periods of time. The individuals selected to make the report, had discharged their duty satisfactorily to the Government, and, he trusted, satisfactorily to Parliament.
Report received, and bill to be read a third time.