Sitting of 28 May 1839

ROYAL APPROBATION OF THE SPEAKER.
The Deputy Usher of the Black Rod en-

1059
tered, and summoned the House to the House of Lords.
The Speaker,on his return, having taken the chair, said, I have to acquaint the House, that the House has been to the House of Peers, where the Lords, authorised by her Majesty's Commission, have declared, that her Majesty approves of the choice which this House has made in electing me to be its Speaker; and I hope I may be permitted to take this opportunity of again expressing my sincere and heart-felt thanks for the honourable mark of confidence which the House has conferred upon me: I feel I shall have in finite occasion to call for their indulgence and support; but I know that indulgence and support will never be withheld from me, if I proceed fearlessly, faithfully, and honestly, in the discharge of my public duty.

CITY OF LONDON POLICE.
Mr. Pattisonmoved the second reading of the City of London Police Bill.
Mr. Grotepresented a petition from St. Mildred Ward, in favour of the bill.
Mr. Haweswished to shorten the discussion that might take place on this bill, first, by asking the Under-Secretary of State a question, and then ascertaining whether the promoters of the bill were willing to accede to what he understood would be the proposition of her Majesty's Ministers. He, therefore, now begged to ask the hon. Gentleman below him, whether he was disposed to refer the bill to a committee up stairs, and the House would probably allow him to state his objection to the bill should that proposition be refused.
Mr. Fox Maulesaid, the hon. Member for Lambeth had taken rather an unusual course. The natural course would have been, first to assent to the second reading, and then to have raised the question to what committee the bill should be referred. He thought it would be more satisfactory to the public, that the bill should be referred to a public committee, where all its details could be fully and more fairly discussed.
Mr. Hawessaid, that perhaps his hon. Friend, the Member for London, would state whether he intended to oppose that proposition.
Sir Matthew Woodcould assure the hon. Member, that he should oppose every proposition that came from any opponent
1060
of the bill in every possible way. When there was a probability of a change in the Administration—he went to the noble Lord to announce his intention of having the second reading on the Friday, and understood that a letter had been received from the hon. Member for Lambeth, stating that he should not oppose the second reading of the bill, but making it a condition that the Under Secretary of State should be put on the committee. To this he consented. Not a word was said about a Select Committee. Was this bill to go to a Select Committee chosen by the hon. Member for Lambeth? Was there ever such a thing heard of as a private bill which was paid for by the corporation of London, being referred to a Select Committee? He was sure the House would treat this as they did other questions of a private nature. After they had changed the bill and made it suitable to the Commissioners of Police, it was not right thus at the last moment, to take such a step as that proposed.
Lord John Russellmust deny, that he had been guilty of any breach of faith. Having consented to the introduction of the bill, he certainly wished to see it passed. It was for the House to consider whether the bill should be sent to a Select Committee or be dealt with in the usual manner. So far as it was of public importance, he thought that a Select Committee would be the best tribunal, but he did not consider it of much importance which Committee was selected.
Mr. Haweswould be enabled at one to clear himself from the unjust and unfounded aspersions cast upon him by the hon. Alderman. The hon. Alderman was, in that House, very loose in his statements. ["Order, order."]
The Speakerconsidered that the hon. Member was out of order in making use of an expression imputing to the hon. Alderman, that he was very loose in the statements he made in that House.
Mr. Haweswould, at once, bow to the authority of the Chair, and would instantly recall the expression which was thought offensive; but, at the same time, he would proceed to show that the hon. Alderman had then made a statement not founded upon fact. The hon. Alderman had stated, that the bill and all its clauses had been approved of and agreed to by the Commissioners of Police. He would undertake to say, that there was not the

1061
slightest foundation whatever for that statement. He positively assured the House, that they objected to the bill and to every clause contained in it. That was a fact, and he challenged the hon. Alderman to make good his statement. The whole question was a simple one. A Committee of that House sat for two Sessions. It was composed of Members of every shade of opinion, and their report had been unanimously agreed to. He would again repeat, that the Committee sat two years and took evidence, and on the evidence of the witnesses produced by the hon. Alderman himself, the Committee came to an unanimous determination to recommend, that a bill should be brought in placing the whole police of the metropolis under one head—viz., the Commissioners of Police. That report had been agreed to unanimously, and was in direct contravention with the present bill. Every Committee that had sat from 1792 to the present time had all agreed in recommending similar measures, and he would add, that the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Corporation of the City of London, had recommended a measure founded on the same principles. The City of London professed to say, that the bill they now introduced was a bill founded on similar principles, as the Metropolitan Police Bill. He would undertake to show the House that such was not the case. The corporation appointed a committee, which was annually elected—they had the sole control over the police, acting under the instructions of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Councilmen; so that the police of a district, containing 123,000 inhabitants, instead of being under one head, was under the control of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, Common Councilmen, and the committee annually elected. The bill was also defective on another point, and he was surprised to find, that the bill did not state by whom the men were to be appointed. It stated, that the men belonging to the police force should not canvas or vote at elections, but the most important officer in the force was capable of having a seat in that House. The commissioners of the police, the magistrates of Westminster, were by special Act of Parliament prevented from having seats in that House, and he would put it to the. House, if they would permit the officer at the head of the City Police to be capable of being elected a Member of that
1062
House; because, if the Police Commissioner might become a Member of that House, he might be engaged in contested elections, and he would ask the House if they thought it was right and proper that such an officer should be so engaged. He was surprised to hear the noble Lord say, that he saw no material objection to this bill, when one of the most important officers under it, and who was to be in the receipt of a large salary, had the power of sitting in Parliament. He hoped that the House would not suffer this part of the bill to stand. The Police Commissioner was not a magistrate—possessed no authority as a magistrate. There was no positive law under which he could be recognised, and this officer would have the command of 500 men, and not be responsible for his conduct to any one except to the Corporation of London. If this officer were to be appointed a magistrate, the City would withdraw this bill, for so jealous were they on this subject, that they would not even permit the Aldermen to have the superintendence of the police. Another objection to the bill was, that it did not place the whole of the police under a commissioner, because by one of the clauses, it was enacted, that ward constables and ward beadles should be elected under the authority of the Aldermen and deputies, and wholly independent of the Commissioners of Police of the City of London. This bill, which the City had now introduced, was decidedly opposed to the Report which had been presented to the House in 1834, and to the recommendation of the Corporation Commissioners. It would not be difficult for him to refer to various reports to show, that what lie## had stated was correct, but if the House were disposed to give up the report of its own Committee, and the Government were inclined to give up the report of its own Commissioner—it was impossible for a single individual like himself to stand up against it; but when he saw that the western part of the metropolis bad been governed by a system of police without any complaint against them, and when he well knew that the expense of the present system of police was one-third less than the system proposed, he thought it was very much to be lamented that the opposition of the City of London was put forth in order to prevent a uniform, sound, and excellent system of police being appointed throughout

1063
the metropolis. It had been stated, that very few burglaries had been committed in the City, now he could prove from the Report of the Commissioners themselves that such was not the case, and he was enabled to show, that during those very years in which it had been stated, that no burglaries had been committed in the City a great number had taken place. There was no part of the metropolis in which crime was more prevalent than in the City of London, and, therefore, it was, that the metropolitan districts were entitled to require, that a similar system of police should be established there as existed in the surrounding districts. With regard to referring the Bill to a Select Committee, there were plenty of precedents for that. The present, it was true, was a private bill; but it related to public objects of great importance. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, when he introduced the bill with respect to the British Museum, proposed, that it should be referred to a Select Committee, and he did not see why the same course should not be adopted with the present bill. If he was compelled to divide the House on the second reading, he should do so; but if the Government were disposed bonâ fide, for there had been so much change in their opinions lately,—but if they were disposed, bonâ fide, to support the motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, then he should have no objection to the second reading; if not, he should oppose it even if he stood alone.
Sir Matthew Woodsaid, that such alterations had been made in the bill as appeared to the noble Lord, and the Under Secretary, in the meetings they had had with the Commissioners, necessary. The hon. Member for Lambeth wished to have the bill referred to a Committee, and he had made a very fine show by referring to the names of Gentlemen who had sat on the Police Committee of that House. He believed the hon. Member for Lambeth was Chairman of that Committee, and discharged his duties as such most assiduously, but he believed the Chairman was very often there all day by himself.
Mr. Hawes: I hope the House will allow me to give a distinct and indignant denial to that statement.
Sir Matthew Woodbelieved, that when the very report which had been referred
1064
to was carried unanimously, there were only five hon. Members present, and he had a list of them in his hand. The noble Lord appeared to think the words he had used, in regard to the breach of faith, were too strong. He could assure the noble Lord that he left the room with the impression that the Government would support the second reading, but when he came down to the House he found the Under Secretary supporting the hon. Member for Lambeth in a very exclusive manner.
Mr. Fox Maulesaid, it had been his intention to support the bill, because he approved generally of the various clauses, but on looking over the clauses of the Bill he found the suggestions that had been made, of giving control to the public officer of the Horne Department, together with the Magistrates of the City of London, were altogether omitted. However, that might, no doubt, be rectified.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, Sir, I am sure the public are under very great obligations to the hon. Member for Lambeth for his consistent and unremitting exertions on this subject. The course he has pursued throughout has been most useful as well as laborious. Nothing, indeed, could be more fair than the part he has taken to perfect this important establishment, and I have no hesitation in stating my earnest conviction that his conduct has been most public spirited and most disinterested. As to the absence of members of a committee, that does not detract from the value of a report, for if they do not attend, the chairman has every right to take it for granted, that he has their perfect confidence, and to proceed accordingly. If they dissented from him, or disagreed in any thing, it would have been easy for them to attend and overbear his views by their votes or arguments. For my own part, I could not attend the committee, but if I had felt inclined to dissent from the general opinion of those who did, I should have stated my objections. Not having done so, I consider myself as having fully incurred the responsibility, in common with the rest, of conclusions set forth in the report, which was ultimately adopted. I can state, in confirmation of the assurance of the hon. Member for Lambeth, that the opposition since manifested, was not heard of while the committee was sitting. I do, for my own part, exceedingly regret, that when I con-

1065
structed my Police Act, I had not the opportunity of making the improvements suggested in the valuable report of the committee. I did then (under the pressure of circumstances which I could not control, and to secure the introduction of a system which was denounced as rash, experimental, and dangerous)—I did consent that the city of London should not be included within its operation. Then, as now, the ancient privileges of the city of London were powerfully pleaded in exemption prejudices were awakened respecting interference with the ancient rights of freemen, and eventually the anomaly was established, by which we behold a small civic district, the population of which does not exceed 58,000 or 60,000 inhabitants, permitted to be arbitrarily governed by its own police, or a system different and distinct from that by which the peace and security of the whole surrounding district are preserved. Looking in the abstract to the inconsistency of this state of things, it is impossible that I should sanction or assent to it, as the incongruity and absurdity of the position must be apparent, on a moment's reflection. Indeed, I was in hopes that the natural feelings of justice, nay, even of convenience to themselves, on the part of the citizens of London, would have ere this induced them to consent to the more consistent and comprehensive plan proposed by the committee in their report; but now, looking to the case as it stands, and viewing the still existing and serious opposition on the part of the city, we are to consider whether, if it were forced on them against their inclination and consent, it would work so well as to warrant the hazard of the experiment. For my own part, Sir, I fear it would not, seeing the strong impression they entertain of such an arrangement being in violation of the ancient corporate privileges for which they so earnestly contend, though it must be confessed they did not make any such energetic remonstrances on behalf of other corporations when threatened with the interference of reforming legislation. However, I honour and respect them for their efforts in behalf of privileges they deem so valuable (though at the same time I feel they are decidedly in error as to the facts), and I confess I should anticipate little practical advantage from pressing a measure so contrary to their opinion, however abstractly consistent or beneficial as
1066
an act of legislation. I do think it perfectly fair, Sir, to defer to the general opinion of such an influential body as the citizens of London, in such a case as the present; and though I think the hon. Member for Lambeth is entitled to the highest credit for his persevering exertions, and has been quite right throughout in the course he has taken, I doubt the advantage that will result from his further opposition to the Bill, under the circumstances. I very much wish the city would consent to adopt the system recommended by his committee, and I think, Sir, they ought; but, as they are determined to reject it, I would advise him not to vote against the second reading. But I think we ought to fully understand the result of the present proceeding, and vote accordingly. If I am to force the plan recommended in the report on the city, I will vote first for the second reading, and afterwards for a select committee, to be chosen by the hon. Member for Lambeth, to accomplish that object; but if we understand, that the Bill before us is to pass without any attempt to force on the city of London more than it is prepared to adopt, I will vote (after it has been read a second time) for an open committee, in which such improvements shall be made as will harmonize with the Bill as it stands. Therefore, though I will vote for the second reading, I will not consent to the appointment of a select committee that will defeat the principle of the Bill. I want a perfectly fair committee, that will improve without attempting alterations which, though really good in principle, are altogether inapplicable in the present state of public opinion in the city of London.
Mr. Hawesexpressed himself desirous of following the course recommended by the right hon. Baronet, and hoped he should have his assistance to form a good committee. There had, within the last two years, been so many false foundations built upon, that had given way when the least pressure was felt, that he scarcely knew what to depend on, and seeing no better path to pursue, he would follow that pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir R. Peel. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, if he finds things go well in this case, be tempted in future to extend his confidence a little further.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a select committee.

TURKEY AND EGYPT.
Mr. Humewished to ask the noble Lord, in the absence of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Government had received any information of the Turkish army having crossed the Euphrates? He also wished to ask, whether the statement was true, that the Russians had demanded from Mehemet Ali that he should retire altogether from Syria?
Lord J. Russellsaid, in answer to the first question of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, he begged to state that the Government had received no intimation of the Turkish army having crossed the Euphrates. The latest intelligence which the Government had received was from the British Consul at Damascus, who had informed the Government of the advance of the Turkish army to the eastern bank of the Euphrates, but there was no information of that army having crossed over to the western bank. The Consul had also stated, that the forces of Mehemet Ali were concentrating in the same quarter. He must say, also, that there was nothing in the accounts. received by the Government to show that war had commenced, or that the efforts which had been made by the great European Powers to prevent hostilities between the Sultan and Mehemet Ali, would not be attended with ultimate success. With regard to the second question which had been put to him, he had to state, that the Government had received no intimation of any such demand as that to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, as having been made to Mehemet Ali on the part of the Russian Government; and he did not believe that any such demand had been made.

CHILDREN'S FRIEND SOCIETY.
Mr. Finchwished to ask the noble Lord, whether any inquiry had been made by the Government relative to certain proceedings of a body called the Children's Friend Society, and which had of late occupied much of the attention of the public?
Lord J. Russellsaid, his attention had been called to the subject by the statements which had been made public, and also by certain documents which had been forwarded to him. On receiving those documents, he had directed that all the papers should be forwarded to his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonial Department, and an investigation of the proceedings of the Children's Friend Society
1068
had in consequence taken place. He was not prepared to answer all the statements which had been made, but he must say, that the result of the inquiry, so far as it had gone, was favourable to the society; and he did not believe, that there was any want of fairness in its proceedings. He believed, on the contrary, that the intentions of the society were praiseworthy, and that it had done a great deal of good.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—PARRETT NAVIGATION.
Sir C. Burrellrose to call the attention of the House to the report of the Committee on the Parrett Navigation Petition, alleging forgery in the petition against the bill. On the 22d of April, a petition was presented from the Company of the Proprietors of the Parrett Navigation, alleging that
"Previously to a bill for granting further powers to the company being referred to a Committee of your honourable House, a petition was presented against the same, purporting to be a petition of the merchants, traders, and other persons interested in the navigation of the River Parrett, in the county of Somerset, and of the inhabitants of the several towns, villages, or districts supplied with goods or merchandise by means of the said river, and purporting to be signed by upwards of two thousand persons, which petition was referred by your honourable House to the Committee upon the said bill. That the Committee of your honourable House met to take the said bill into consideration upon Tuesday, the 12th day of March last, and continued its sittings fur eight subsequent days, when they reported to the House the result of their inquiry upon the said bill and petition. That on Monday, the 8th day of April instant, Mr. Henry Lovibond, a merchant in Langport, an individual whose name appeared to the petition presented against the said bill, informed Mr. Broad-mead, your petitioners' solicitor, that the petition which had been so presented to your honourable House was not the real petition which was actually signed, the two petitions containing different allegations. That he was always decidedly opposed to having any tolls transferred to the canal, and he joined the opposition on the express ground that no such transfer should be proposed. That the petition signed was sent to town by Jacob Stower and Job Bradford, and before he (Lovibond) arrived there, the real petition was cut off, and another, with an allegation that the tolls should, in a given event, be transferred to the canal, substituted for it, and he never signed the new petition at all. That he remonstrated with the other parties upon the change that had been made in the petition. That he was to have been examined as a witness against the bill to prove certain calculations against the com-

1069
pany, but he was not examined lest the fraud should be discovered. That the above statement was made in the presence of Mr. Murly, the solicitor to the said Henry Lovibond, and Mr. Broadmead appealed to him for the truth of it, who admitted that it was true, and that, if the said statement so made by the said Henry Lovibond be true, a forgery must have been committed in the petition so presented to your honourable House, such petition containing the name of Henry Lovibond, and there being no other person of that name interested in the said bill."
On the 23d of April, the House had appointed a Committee to inquire into those allegations, and on the 1st of May that Committee had reported that the petition which had been presented to the House was not the real petition which was actually signed, the two petitions containing different allegations. The report said,
"That the statement made by Henry Lovibond, that the petition so presented, though bearing his signature, was not signed by him or with his consent,' had been proved, and that therefore a forgery had been committed in the petition so presented to the House, and that it appeared to the Committee that Benjamin Lovibond, an agent for the petitioners, was cognizant of the forgery before the petition was presented to the House."
He (Sir C. Burrell) considered that this was a gross breach of the privileges of the House, and he therefore moved that Benjamin Lovibond be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Mr. Williams Wynnseconded the motion, which was immediately agreed to.
Mr. BenjaminLovibond was then brought to the Bar of the House, and
The Speakeraddressing him, said, that his conduct had been under the consideration of a Select Committee of that House, who had reported that a petition presented to the House on the Parrett Navigation was not a petition which had been actually signed by all the parties whose signatures it professed to bear. He was charged with having forged the name of Henry Lovibond and John Lovibond and others. This was the report of the Select Committee, and he had now to ask him what he had to say in his defence.
Mr. Lovibondaccordingly read from a written paper which he held in his hand a statement, in which he alleged that he had been retained as a solicitor to oppose the bill, and that the retainer was signed by all the parties whose names were appended to the petition which he had presented. On the 7th of March he arrived
1070
in town for the purpose of preparing a draught of a petition in accordance with his instructions; and having, with the best assistance he was able to obtain, prepared such a petition, he sent it down to his agent in the country for signature. Subsequently two of the merchants who were opposed to the bill came up to town, with a petition signed by the opposing parties, which did not contain some allegations contained in the other petition, and contained one allegation not made in the original draught. No reason was assigned for the alteration, and acting under the advice of his Parliamentary agents, he deemed it most advisable, no material alteration having been made, to present the first petition. Henry Lovibond had never repudiated his signature, but had recognized it by subsequent acts; and he submitted, therefore, that no forgery had been committed either by the statute or the common law of this realm, since the subsequent recognition of an agent's acts by a principal, was equivalent to a previous authority given by the principal to the agent. The object of both petitions was the same, and no inconvenience had resulted or could result from what he had done. If, however, the House was of opinion that he had invaded their privileges, he must express his deep regret for the irregularity which had been committed, as an invasion of their privileges was entirely unintentional on his part.
Mr. Lovibondwas then ordered to withdraw, and withdrew accordingly.
In answer to questions put by several hon. Members, the witness stated, that Messrs. Jones and Walmisley were the Parliamentary agents who advised him to substitute one petition for the other, they both being present at the time, and he did so under the impression that he was acting perfectly right, and that he should be imposing on the House by not doing so; that on the 8th of April Mr. Broadley agreed to give Mr. Henry Lovibond 160 l. for his railway, which the House had refused to give; and then Mr. Broadley got a clause moved on the third reading of the bill fixing that amount on the public by means of a toll; that the number of 2,000 signatures were collected at Langport, the parties signing under the impression that they were opposing the Company, and petitioning against any further toll being levied on the river Parrett; but the petition sent up

1071
by Mr. Merley was, in fact, not the petition that had been first signed; and his attention was drawn to that fact by Joseph Stours and Robert Wallis, upon which he made the alteration. In appending the name of Henry Lovibond to the petition, he did so because he thought he was justified by his general retainer, not thinking that Henry Lovibond would not sign the petition.
The witness having withdrawn,
Sir C. Burrellsaid, in justice to Mr. Walmisley, he would remind the House, that he denied the account of the transaction given by the witness in his evidence before the Select Committee. He should move, that Mr. Walmisley be called in and examined.
Mr. Wynnsaid, the only ground for calling Mr. Benjamin Lovibond to the bar of the House was, to hear if he bad any thing to advance in explanation of the charge made against him in the report of the Select Committee; but he could not see any use in calling in Mr. Walmisley, whose evidence was already on record and before the House. He thought the case was now sufficiently before the House, and that they might proceed to act upon it. The House had heard Mr. Lovibond, who had admitted the act with which he was charged, although he had endeavoured to excuse himself by an allegation, or an argument as he had called it, that he thought he had a right to do so. But it was quite clear that he had been guilty of tampering with a petition which had been presented to that House.
Mr. Humeconcurred in the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman, that the hearing of further evidence was unnecessary; he was satisfied with what he had already heard.
Lord John Russellthought the evidence already before the house quite sufficient to guide its judgment. He was at a loss to conceive how any man of education could think of making such an excuse as that which the party had offered to the House; and how he could have supposed that it would be admitted as a sufficient warrant for his conduct that he had been advised to act as he had done by a Parliamentary agent. He (Lord John Russell) really thought that a man's own sense of propriety would have taught him better. He would suggest, therefore, that Benjamin Lovibond should be given into custody,
1072
and brought to the bar to be reprimanded by the Speaker.
Sir C. Burrellthought a mere reprimand for this offence, particularly in the present state of the House, was wholly insufficient. He, therefore, hoped the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) would not think him discourteous if he (Sir C. Burrell) proposed (as he had originally intended to do) that this Gentleman be put into the hands of the Sergeant-at-Arms:
Mr. Peasedid not think, that, on inquiry, the offence would be found so grievous as at first sight it appeared. The whole proceeding had certainly been one of gross irregularity, but he concurred with the noble Lord below him, in thinking that the course proposed by the noble Lord would entirely satisfy the justice of the case.
Mr. Jonessaid, he had always been opposed to the House acting as jury and judge in their own matters; but when a contempt like the present had been committed—a contempt by which the jurisdiction and rules of the House had been violated—it must be punished summarily if it was to be punished at all. Looking at the nature of this offence, he was prepared to agree to the motion for the committal of this Gentleman to the custody of the Sergeant.
Lord John Russellremarked, that it was extremely desirable that in matters of this sort the House should come to some opinion on which a division would be unnecessary. He did not at all wish to insist upon his own opinion, supposing the hon. Baronet opposite did not mean that this party should undergo a protracted confinement, but that he should be brought up on the next meeting of the House.
Sir C. Burrellwas understood to say he had no personal feeling in the matter: he was ready to meet the views of the House generally.
Mr. Erlesaid, that it appeared to him that the real facts of the case were not at present understood by the House. Those facts, as he collected them from the report, were, that the party who had appeared at the bar came up to London to oppose the bill in question on behalf of the merchants of Langport; that in London he prepared a petition, and sent it down to an agent in the country to obtain signatures; the agent struck out a ma-

1073
terial allegation in the petition, and having obtained the signatures, returned it to town. He should state, that the petition was not sent round, but slips of paper, for signatures against any increase of tolls, were sent about the country, and then appended to the petition, and, therefore, in point of fact, the signatures really did not belong more to the original than to the altered petition. On reading the petition on its return, Mr. Benjamin Lovibond discovered that an allegation (of importance in his judgment) bad been left out by the agent in the country, and he, therefore, took the list of names which had been merely pasted to the petition sent up from the country, and added them to the petition containing that allegation as originally prepared. He had stated to the House that he consulted his Parliamentary agents, and that they having advised him to get some names affixed to the sheet on which the petition itself was written, he went to one of the merchants of Langport, who was in London, as part of a deputation sent to oppose the bill. That Gentleman signed his own name and that of his partner, and the name of Mr. Henry Lovibond was also added to the petition, but not by that gentleman himself. Mr. Henry Lovibond, however, heard the petition read in the committee-room; he paid money from time to time to Mr. Benjamin Lovibond for his attendance and services under that very petition now objected to, and for nine days he never raised an objection to it. Thus the matter rested until the parties were about to proceed with the bill in the House of Lords, when the company of the Parrett Navigation proposed to Mr. Henry Lovibond to give him 160 l.. to leave the opponents of the bill and to join the promoters, and then it was, that Mr. Henry Lovibond came forward and said, that his name to the petition in question was a forgery. Now he submitted, that as it appeared from the statements, that in the opinion of Mr. Austen the one petition would have answered as well as the other, that as no fraud was intended, however gross the irregularity had been, the House would deal with mercy, and concur in the proposition for a reprimand. He could not avoid reminding the House, that in the Southampton election case, where the petition having been altered after signed by the petitioners was objected to, the committee, finding that no fraud was in-
1074
tended, proceeded with the inquiry without attending to the alterations and interlineations.
Mr. Freshfieldconcurred in the opinion, that this was a case in which the least possible punishment would be sufficient.
Mr. Humethought, as there had been no attempt at fraud, the adoption of the proposition of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, would amply satisfy the justice of the case.
Mr. Milessaid, that the individual who had appeared at the bar had applied to him to undertake the opposition to the bill, and had stated, that he had a petition signed by 2,000 persons of the first weight and respectability. He (Mr. Miles) was engaged on other matters, but recommended him to put the petition of such weight and character in the hands of some other Member who could attend to the case. Now, he had given that advice, not on the recommendation of the case by Mr. B. Lovibond, but on his representation of that which now turned out to be what he must call a forged document, and therefore a fraud had been endeavoured to be committed, by his being asked to present a petition which actually had not been agreed to by those whose signatures were affixed to it. At the same time be trusted, that a reprimand would have the same effect as if the individual were placed in custody. He was sure, that if this party appeared again as agent before the House, he would never forget the mercy dealt to him, or the reprimand so properly awarded.
Mr. Williams Wynnremarked, that though a reprimand might be amply sufficient to prevent this party from offending again, still it was desirable to show the public that the practice, now too prevalent, of tampering with petitions would not be suffered with impunity. The case had been fully made out before the committee to whom the inquiry had been delegated, and he must say, it was necessary to mark the offence with a punishment of a higher nature than a mere reprimand. He thought the party ought to be committed—it would only be for two days, when on the next sitting he might present a petition and be discharged. He should not move this at present, but if the House fell into his views, he was ready to do so.
Sir C. Burrellsaid, that he was of opinion the course suggested by his right

1075
hon. Friend would be most likely to maintain the privileges of the House and to prevent a repetition of any such irregularities in future. He should therefore now, in the first place, move, that the report of the committee be agreed to.
Motion carried.
Sir C. Burrellthen moved, that Mr. Benjamin Lovibond be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
The Solicitor-Generalmoved as an amendment, that Mr. Lovibond be called to the bar of the House on Thursday, to receive a reprimand from the Speaker. By taking this course he thought they would be making a sufficient example.
Mr. Williams Wynndid not conceive, that this was at all the proper course. If the House thought, that a reprimand was sufficient, that reprimand should certainly take place immediately. He could see no possible advantage which could result from the postponement of the reprimand for two days.
It was then ordered that Mr. Lovibond be brought up to the bar, and be reprimanded by the Speaker.
Benjamin Lovibond was accordingly called to the bar, where he was reprimanded by Mr. Speaker, as followeth:—
Benjamin Lovibond, The House has considered the report of the select committee to which your conduct has been referred, and I am directed by the House to acquaint you, that you have incurred the severe displeasure of this House; that you allowed a petition to be presented, connected with a bill of which you were the agent, knowing that at least one of the names appended to that petition was a forgery. You have also misrepresented the opinions of a considerable body of the petitioners, who were desirous of placing those opinions before this House, with reference to a bill then in progress. You have been decidedly guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House, in tampering with a petition; and if such conduct was to pass without censure, it is manifest, that petitions would either cease to be regarded as authentic, or, if regarded, the House would be led, without intending it, to do injustice to individuals, whose interests are affected by the petitions.
You have expressed your sorrow for the offence, and the House in its lenity has thereupon directed that you be reprimanded; and you are reprimanded accordingly.—Entered in the journals.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a first time:—Legislative Authority in the Colonies.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of RICHMOND, the Earl of MANSFIELD, Lords SEGRAVE, and BROUGHAM, from a number of places, for a Uniform Penny Postage.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Torrington, against the proposed plan of National Education.—By the Earl of RIPON, from Yarmouth, for Church Extension in Canada.

ROYAL APPROBATION OF THE SPEAKER.
The Lord Chancellor, the Marquess of Lansdowne, Viscount Duncannon, the Earl of Shaftesbury, and Lord Falkland sat as Royal Commissioners to give her Majesty's assent to the Speaker chosen by the House of Commons.
Mr. Shaw Lefevre,attended by the Mover, Seconder, and a large body of Members, having appeared at the bar,
The Clerk having read the royal Commission,
Mr. Shaw Lefevresaid—My Lords, I have to acquaint your Lordships, that, in obedience to her Majesty's commands, and in exercise of their undoubted right, her Majesty's most faithful Commons have proceeded to the election of a Speaker, and that their choice had fallen upon me. Deeply impressed with a sense of my own unworthiness, I now present myself at your bar, and submit myself to her Majesty's royal approbation.
The Lord Chancellor—Mr. Shaw Lefevre, we have it in command from her Majesty, to declare her Majesty's entire confidence in your talents, diligence, and efficiency, to fulfil the important duties of the high office of Speaker of the House of Commons, to which you have been chosen by that House. In obedience to the communication which has been just read, by virtue of the authority therein contained, we do now declare her Majesty's royal approbation and allowance of you,

1057
Sir, as Speaker of the House of Commons.
The Speaker—My Lords, I submit myself, with all humility, to her Majesty's royal will and pleasure, and if, in the discharge of my duty, and in the maintenance of the rights of the Commons' House of Parliament, I am led into any involuntary error, I humbly entreat that it may be imputed to me alone, and not to her Majesty's faithful Commons.
The Speaker and the other Members retired.

CANADA—COLONEL PRINCE.
Lord Broughamwished to know whether it would not be convenient to the House, that he should postpone his motion relative to the correspondence that had taken place with respect to the affair of Colonel Prince until Monday next.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, the charge against Colonel Prince was of so gross a nature, that he did not think it ought to be delayed. He observed, that Colonel Prince had made a statement in his own defence already, and he should take the liberty of reading parts of that statement. He should have done so to-night if he could have expected that so many noble Lords would have been in their places.
The Marquess of Normanbyshould be ready, on Thursday, to enter into everything that he was aware of relating to Colonel Prince's conduct.
Lord Ellenboroughknew nothing of Colonel Prince himself, he had only read his defence.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas of opinion that it would be absolutely impossible to consider this question in reference to this gentleman, without considering the whole question out of which the war had sprung. He knew nothing of it, except from what he heard in the House last night, but he thought he should be able to show, that the act complained of was owing to the system of warfare which had been carried on, and that that system was to be traced to some other quarter.
Lord Broughamhad no doubt that the noble Duke might be able to show that: but whoever might be responsible for this wild outbreak, his observations should be strictly confined to the conduct of Colonel Prince.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, it ought to be remembered, that when his noble and
1058
learned Friend was bringing this charge of murder against Colonel Prince, he at the same time brought a strong charge against the officers who had sat on the Committee of Inquiry.
Lord Broughamsaid, that the sentence of the Court of Inquiry had been printed in the Gazette, by Sir George Arthur, which he bad seen, and the sentence did not acquit Colonel Prince of having killed four or five men (the noble and learned Lord believed the question was between four and five), after the battle was over; but it stated, the charges brought against Mr. Elliott, and confirmed by Mr. Charles Elliott, were very much exaggerated, therefore those persons were reprimanded, and one of them had been dismissed. But Sir G. Arthur stated (and upon his, the noble and learned Lord's statement was founded) that he severely reproved Colonel Prince for having put to death the four or five men who had surrendered, without any trial or legal proceeding whatever. That was the charge brought by Sir George Arthur against Colonel Prince; and he added, that his conduct could only be palliated by a reference to the excited state of his feelings at the moment.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that Colonel Prince's statement was, that the five men (for there were five) were put to death after the action was over, but while they were yet in momentary expectation of an attack.
Lord Broughamsaid, that Colonel Arthur's statement was, that they were put to death without any legal proceeding.
The Marquess of Normanbybelieved the explanation of Colonel Prince was, that they were put to death immediately after, or at the conclusion of the action; and that they were shot upon the spot.
Lord Broughamsaid, it was very true that it appeared they were shot upon the spot, and that they were fired upon one after the other, upon the spot, and killed dead upon the spot, but that was after they had been surrendered up by the Indians, and to whom it had been said, in answer to an inquiry if the men were safe—can't you trust a British officer?
Subject dropped.