Sitting of 13 April 1840

MINUTES,
Bills. Read a first time:—Metropolitan Police Courts; Grand Jury Cess (Ireland).—Read a second time:—Insolvent Debtors (Ireland); Poddle River; Vaccination.
Petitions presented. By Sir S. Lushington, Messrs. Villiers, Brotherton, Wakley, and Hume, from a number of places, for, and by Lord Ingestrie, from one place, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. Brotherton, Mr. H. Berkeley, and Mr. Hume, from several places, against, and by Sir R. H. Inglis, Lord Sandon, Sir R. Peel, Mr. Wakley, Mr. Darby, Mr. Chapman, Mr. Gordon, and Captain Alsager, from a great number of places, for, Church Extension.—By Major Macnamara, Mr. Villiers, and Mr. Hume, from three places, for Universal Suffrage, Annual Parliaments, and Vote by Ballot.—By Sir S. Lushington, from five places, against the Opium Trade; from Chelsea, against Sunday Trading; from the Tower Hamlets, against portions of the New Poor-law.—By Mr. Archbold, from Carlow, against the Importation of Foreign Flour into Ireland.—By Mr. L. Bruges, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Pakington, Sir W. Follett, and Mr. Pemberton, from a number of places, against the Clergy Reserves Bill.—By Sir R. Peel, and Lord Castlereagh, from three places, in favour of Non-Intrusion.—By Mr. E. Tennent, from several places, in favour of Non-Intrusion.—By Sir Eardley Wilmot, from Thame, in favour of the Grammar School Bill.—By Mr. Callaghan, from the Medical Practitioners of Cork, for Medical Reform.—By Mr. Wakley, from the Working Men of London, for the Release of Lovett and Collins.

LUDLOW ELECTION.
Mr. A. Sanfordappeared at the bar and stated, that he was directed by the Select Committee appointed to try and determine the merits of a petition complaining of an undue return for the borough of Ludlow at the last election, to report that the Committee had determined that Mr. Alcock was not duly elected a burgess for the said borough, that the last election was a void election, and that neither the petition against the return, nor the opposition thereto, was frivolous or vexatious. He was further directed to state that the Select Committee had come to the following resolutions:—
"That it appears to the committee that Mr. Alcock and Mr. H. Clive were, by their agents, guilty of bribery and treating at the last election for the borough of Ludlow, and that a general system of treating prevailed previous to and during the last election for the said borough."
Mr. R. Clivesaid, that as the word "agents "was used in the resolutions in reference to bribery practised during the last election for Ludlow, at which his hon. relative was a candidate, he wished to ask his hon. Friend the Member for West Somersetshire whether the Committee intended to imply that any hon. Member of that House was concerned in the transaction.
Mr. A. Sanfordwas sure his hon. Friend would excuse him for not answering the question. Though Chairman of that Committee, he could, if he were now to reply to the question, give only his individual opinion; and his hon. Friend must be aware that he should be transgressing the orders and rules which a Chairman of a Committee ought to lay down for his guidance, if he were to give an opinion as to the grounds on which the Committee had come to their resolution.
Viscount Sandonthought he might be allowed to satisfy the natural anxiety of the hon. Gentleman. He could appeal to every Member of the Committee to confirm his statement, that the conclusion as to bribery come to by the Committee rested on a few cases—one on each side—and in neither of those cases was a Member of that House implicated. It perhaps, would have been better for the Committee before breaking up, to have come to some resolution as to the grounds on which they founded their report; but he appealed to every Member of the Committee as to the correctness of the statement he had just made.
Mr. Wakleyexpected a great deal more information than had been conveyed in the answer of the noble Lord, and he was much surprised that the Chairman of the Committee had not moved that the evidence be printed. If a report of this nature were allowed to lie on the Table, as if it were a mere matter of ordinary and common occurrence, a degree of disgrace would be reflected on the character of the House which scarcely any future proceedings could remove. Was it possible that in this Reformed House no more should be heard of so extensive a system of bribery and treating, which was calculated to corrupt to the very vitals the system of representation? He should move, and he expected no opposition to the motion, that the evidence taken before the Committee be printed with a view to the suspension of the issue of the writ to a future period.
Mr. Holmesbegged leave to second the motion of the hon. Member, and he would state the reason why he did so. In the Ludlow Committee, the speech of counsel in opening the case of the returned Member was of a most extraordinary character, and it was attempted to be supported by the evidence of an individual, of which he was quite certain the Members of the

1025
Committee did not believe one word; at least, if they had done so, they would have been bound to make a special report. The cross-examination of the individual whose testimony alone applied to him (Mr. Holmes) convinced every Member of the Committee, he believed, of the intentional perjury of that man. He trusted the House would accede to the motion for the printing of the whole of the evidence.
Mr. A. Sanfordrose to exculpate the Committee from the charge, that they had any desire that the evidence should not go before the country. Such was by no means the case; but, as Chairman of the Committee, having received no instructions to move that the evidence be printed, it seemed to him to be his duty merely to present the report, leaving the House to deal with it as justice should dictate.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for West Somersetshire had very properly discharged his duty as chairman of the Committee, and he trusted it would not be inferred from what had fallen from the hon. Member for Finsbury that the House was ready, now that the report was made, to issue a new writ as a matter of course. He conceived that the House would wait for some time until an opportunity was afforded of properly considering the evidence. He presumed that, under the circumstances, a motion for a new writ would not be made without notice, and if it were he should certainly feel it his duty to oppose it.
Evidence reported, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Wakley Mr. Wakley moved that the issue of the writ for a new election at Ludlow be suspended until the 1st of June next. [" No, no."] He thought the matter of so much importance to the character of the House, that some proceeding ought to be adopted to mark the sense of the House on the subject.
Lord J. Russellthought the hon. Member's motion premature. It might be concluded that no hon. Member would move the issue of a new writ without notice, and until the evidence was printed.
Mr. Goulburnconcurred with the noble Lord. It appeared that the Committee had only reported that a general system of treating had prevailed, and, therefore, it might be inferred that a general system of bribery did not prevail. It would not
1026
be proper on the mere statement of an individual Member to suspend the issue of the writ. He agreed with the noble Lord that with respect to a motion for issuing the writ, notice should be given.
Mr. Humesaid, that the hon. Member for Finsbury moved the suspension of the writ, not on his own mere statement, but on the report of the Committee. It was not possible that any hon. Member could read the evidence and form an opinion on it before the 1st of June.
Motion withdrawn.

CANADA—CLERGY RESERVES.
Mr. Pakingtonsaid, that considerable misapprehension having arisen respecting what had passed in another place with regard to the Canada Clergy Reserves Bill, he wished to remind the noble Lord that he had admitted the other night that the bill was illegal, so far as it repealed the 7th and 8th George 4th, and he wished to ask the noble Lord whether what was represented to have been stated in another place had actually been stated—namely, that the bill was illegal, and that in consequence of that illegality the bill was so far invalid that no consent of the Crown could make it valid?
Lord J. Russellsaid, that what he had stated before was, that after the lapse of the thirty days and an additional period, in consequence of doubts which had been entertained respecting the vacation, he should consult the Law Officers of the Crown and take their opinion before he advised the Crown on the subject. To that statement he adhered. It had, he believed, been stated in another place, that on the supposition that the judges gave certain answers to certain questions which were to be proposed to them, it would be impossible for the advisers of the Crown to recommend that the Royal Assent should be given to the bill. But that must depend upon what the judges might answer, and was quite a different question from this.
Mr. Pakingtonsaid, his question was, whether the bill being admitted to be illegal so far as it repealed the 7th and 8th George 4th, that, in the opinion of the Government, disabled the Crown from giving the Royal Assent.
Lord J. Russellsaid, what he had stated the other night was, that the bill went to repeal a clause of the Act of the 7th and 8th George 4th, and that it could so far

1027
have no legal effect unless it were confirmed by Act of Parliament. What he now stated was, that after the judges should hare answered the questions to be put to them, he should have to consult the Law Officers and the Lord Chancellor.
Sir R. Peel: I think that I can answer the question on the part of her Majesty's Government more satisfactorily than the noble Lord. I was in another place, which I must not name, the other night, and I heard from the highest authority that if the bill was in any part illegal, that would invalidate the whole.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he should not advise the assent of the Crown until after he had taken the opinion of Parliament on a bill which he should bring in. This was a very material question, and there should be no omission on his part to make the settlement of it such as should be satisfactory to the colonies and to Parliament.
Subject at an end.

BILL TO AUTHORISE PUBLICATION.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved the order of the day, that the Lords' amendments to the Printed Papers Bill be considered. The noble Lord said, that the bill as it then stood, as returned from the House of Lords, contained all the former part of the preamble which it contained when it left the House of Commons. It, therefore, began by stating that
"It is essential to the due and effectual exercise and discharge of the functions and duties of Parliament, and to the promotion of wise legislation, that no obstructions or impediments should exist to the publication of such of the reports, papers, votes, or proceedings of either House of Parliament as such House of Parliament may deem fit or necessary to be published."
The bill, therefore, as sent down from the other House, began by the assertion, by both Houses of Parliament, of that great principle, that in order to the due discharge of their legislative functions, they must have the power of publishing such reports of their proceedings as they might see fit. The House of Lords, in the amendments which they had introduced, had not in any degree varied the object of the bill, or the general mode of proceeding; but they had varied it in this respect, that instead of the certificate going from the Speaker of that or the other House of Parliament to the clerk or officer of the court, it should go before the judge in
1028
court; and the bill went on to enact, that thereupon the judge should order proceedings to be stayed. Thus, therefore, the alteration merely was, that instead of the certificate going before an inferior officer, it should go before the judge himself, leaving, however, no discretion to the judge. He thought that any judge, having that act of Parliament before him, would consider that those words were conclusive and binding upon him to put a stop to such action. He had understood that the reason of this amendment was, that it would be thought a proceeding rather derogatory and discourteous to the judges of Westminster-hall to order the certificate to go forth to an inferior officer. He would not suppose that, having the act of Parliament before them, the judges would endeavour, by any captious objections, to defeat that which was the evident object of the Legislature. Therefore, until some case should arise, demonstrating such an intention, he would rather leave the bill as it then was. He thought the mode proposed by the House of Lords was as satisfactory and sufficient as the mode adopted by that House. He should, therefore, propose to agree to the amendments of the House of Lords in that respect. The clause with respect to actions now pending had been left out of the bill; and therefore, in the actions that had been commenced against the sergeant-at-arms, he would plead. His own opinion was, that it would have been well that the action should have been stopped, but he did not think it was necessary to insist upon the clause. The only objection he had to the amendment made by the House of Lords was with respect to the notice; and, without offering any opinion of his own, he would leave it to the House to deal with the amendments in that respect as they thought right. The other clause was with regard to extracts, to which he saw no objection. As that part of the bill with respect to actions now pending had been left out, of course it followed that the preamble referring to those actions had likewise been omitted. Such being the alterations made by the Lords, and, as he understood, several others having been proposed but rejected, he confessed it appeared to him on the whole that the other House of Parliament had been willing to concur in the general principle and in the enactments of the bill, and the Lords had been unwilling lo introduce any thing into the bill that

1029
might lead to any serious difference of opinion between the two Houses of Parliament. He thought the bill would have the effect of maintaining, in an easy and practicable way, the power of publication, for which they had always contended. It was with great satisfaction he found that upon a question of this kind, means could be found of defending the privileges of that House without resorting to those measures, which, however justifiable on the part of the House, in order to maintain those privileges which they thought necessary, were at least exceedingly painful to those who had to insist upon them. Undoubtedly the question as to the attempts of courts of law to interfere with the other privileges of that House was entirely left open; and if he was persuaded that it was clearly the deliberate intention of the courts of law to fritter away, or to dispute, or to undermine, the necessary privileges of that House, he should certainly have some hesitation as to the expediency of agreeing to any act of Parliament on this subject. But he did not believe that any such intention had existed. He believed that the feelings of the judges was, that this was a point that had never been decided; that it was open to them to decide it; and, on their conscientious examination of all the authorities on the subject, they came to an opinion which great legal authorities in that House declared to be contrary to law, and which all the leading Members of the House considered to be contrary to its privileges, and which he believed the great body of the public considered to be inconsistent with the power to communicate information, which the people ought to receive respecting the proceedings of Parliament. He did not believe that decision to be grounded upon any wilful intention of the judges to diminish or destroy the privileges of the House of Commons, but, upon their conscientious opinion, they were doing their duty, as the judges of the land. Believing that to be their real and bona fide intention, he had no apprehensions that the judges would think it their duty oft future occasions to question or dispute the privileges of the House; but if that should prove to be the case, he should be found ready, together with other Members, to maintain all the privileges necessary to the doe performance of the functions of that House. He would be among the first to defend, and he hoped the last to
1030
abandon, the cause of the privileges of the Commons of England. The noble Lord, moved the second reading of the amendments.
The Solicitor-Generalhad attentively considered the amendments, as they were called, which had been made in the bill, and it appeared right to him to call the attention of the House to their effects. He thought it would be inconvenient to again agitate, in that House, a question which had been already decided, that is, the propriety or impropriety of passing the bill as it went up to the House of Lords. But this he would say, that the bill, as it had come back, appeared to him tenfold more objectionable than it was on leaving that House; that every objection that before could be urged had been carried to the extreme, doing that which was professed to be disclaimed. If there had been but one privilege at stake in making that avowal, there might have been some reason in making it; but it appeared to him that such an avowal, under circumstances in which it was made, might lead to great embarrassment, and possibly great difficulty, on future occasions. The wisdom of taking care not by any present step to produce that future embarrassment, he should have thought had been made pretty distinctly apparent. When measures were proposed to be taken in the former cause, it was suggested that those measures would lead to an apprehension that the House intended to submit its privileges to the decision of the courts of law. That intention was distinctly disclaimed, and the proposed course was taken. Contrary, however, to all expectation, the court decided against the privileges of the House. The House then found itself extremely embarrassed by the course that had been taken, and the effect of which had been pointed out at the time it was adopted. That embarrassment had followed the House up to the present moment. He thought, therefore, that the House had had a pretty distinct and severe caution as to the necessity of taking care by no present step, by no attempt to avoid a momentary and temporary difficulty, to lay the foundation for future embarrassments and difficulties in maintaining its privileges. The bill having been brought in after the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench—a decision inconsistent, he would venture to say, with a higher stream of

1031
authority than any to which a judicial bench had ever before opposed itself—the bill being so brought in, and passing the judgment of the court wholly by, without any expression of opinion by Parliament, it was thought by some, and by himself amongst others, that it would be taken to be an acquiescence in the judgment of the court, and that nothing could prevent such an inference being drawn at a future day, whilst, at the same time, the bill did not appear calculated to release the House from the difficulty from which it ought to escape. The bill, however, passed the House of Commons, and was sent up to the House of Lords. It was now returned: and he begged to call the attention of the House to the effect of the amendment, that had been introduced into it as applied to the jurisdiction of the courts of law, which, if once established in cases of that kind, the House of Commons would for ever lose its place in the constitution. The Court of Queen's Bench laid down, not only that the House of Commons had not the privilege of printing, but that the court (and with it all the other courts in the kingdom) had a right to review every privilege which the House of Commons claimed. After such a judgment, it behoved that House to be extremely careful as to how it proceeded. But, independent of the judgment to which he had referred, it was to be remembered that when the sheriffs were brought up upon habeas corpus before the Court of' Queen's Bench, language was used by the judges which, fairly and candidly considered, could not be interpreted otherwise than as bringing into doubt the power of the House to commit—a power which had stood undisputed by any judge for many years past, but which could not now be considered as standing upon the same ground on which it did before these recent transactions. He repeated, therefore, that it behoved the House to be exceedingly cautious how it proceeded. He (the Solicitor-general) was disposed to pay every possible respect to the courts at Westminster-hall. With respect to the Court of Queen's Bench, no man could have received more kindness or greater courtesy from every one of its judges than he had done. For the character and learning of the Lord Chief Justice he had the highest respect and esteem—he had also a personal regard for that noble and learned Lord, which would lead him to be the
1032
last man in the world to do anything that could disparage him. But he was not prepared to compliment the courts of law at the expense of the people of England, nor to the detriment of the authority of Parliament. That matter should be put into a bill to compliment the Court of Queen's Bench, because Parliament thought fit to take measures to stay proceedings in certain actions, was a thing unheard of; that any court in the kingdom should demand a sort of apology from the Legislature, because it thought fit to adopt such a course of proceeding, was also a thing unheard of. Such a principle had never yet been dreamed of; and, although he could not believe that any one had introduced this amendment with the view of offering an affront to the House of Commons, and gaining a triumph over it, he must say, that if such an intention had been entertained, a better mode of effecting it could not have been adopted. What would be the effect of the amendment? In the bill sent up to the House of Lords, proceedings in certain actions were to be stayed—not by the authority of the House of Commons, not by the authority of the House of Lords, but by the authority of the Act of Parliament, upon certain documents being lodged. Was a precedent wanted for such a course? By no means. It had been adopted on repeated occasions when it was found necessary to pass acts of indemnity. In what form had it been done? Why, by declaring that all actions should be discharged and made void by virtue of the act. No judge was asked to interpose to stay the proceedings. No court was called upon to make any order. No notice was required to be given to any of the parties who, it might be admitted, had suffered contrary to law, but who had suffered for the public good. Even in the Revenue Act, as late as the 26th Geo. 3rd, the same thing was done, and also in the Act for arranging the Prince of Wales's debts. Why, then, upon the present occasion, were the courts to be called upon to interfere? Were they to have any discretion? If they were not, and he heard the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) say," no"—if they were not, for what reason but to affront the House of Commons, could it be asked that they should interfere? He maintained that such an unusual and unnecessary course of proceeding could not in any way be justified. But his main objection to the amendment was

1033
one of a stronger character; The House of Commons had denied (and he ventured to say upon as sound principles of law as could be stated) that the Court of Queen's Bench had any jurisdiction in this matter. Yet by the bill, as it now stood, the House would be appealing to the court to interfere in this very action. The House having denied the jurisdiction of the court on the one hand, and the court, on the other, having solemnly declared that it had a jurisdiction—after exercising that jurisdiction, and going as far as it could to overrule the privileges of the House, the House, by the operation of this bill, as it was now amended, would be compelled, having many precedents to the contrary, to go to the court to ask it to stay proceedings. This was carrying the mischief, which he thought belonged to the bill as it originally stood, infinitely further. He knew of no ground upon which such an amendment could be justified. Great as was his respect for the courts of Westminster-hall, he could not consent to pay them a compliment at the expense of an insult to the House of Commons. He believed that this amendment, if admitted, would lay the foundation for future arguments in support of the jurisdiction of the courts, the effect of which would be extremely mischievous. He objected, therefore, in principle to that amendment. The bill, since it left that House, had been altered in such a manner as to induce him to believe, that it had fallen into the hands of some person not quite familiar with such proceedings. One of the amendments struck him as being of a very extraordinary character. In consequence of the inconvenience which was found from proceedings in causes being limited to the judges of the court in which those proceedings were instituted, an act of Parliament was passed some years ago, allowing the whole of the fifteen judges to act in any causes pending in any of the courts of Westminster-hall. For what reason he could not tell, the present bill was so altered as to compel the parties to go, not to any of the judges of any of the superior courts, but to the judge of the particular court in which the action was brought. What would be the effect of this alteration? Chief Justice Tindal, who presided in the Court of Common Pleas, had been the only judge remaining in town during the recent assizes. An action, therefore, might have been brought
1034
in the Court of Queen's Bench, and judgment might have been obtained before a judge could have been found to stay proceedings; and so, during any long vacation, or between Hilary Term and Easter Term, it would be in the power of any party to bring an action, and to proceed to judgment, unless at least one judge of each of the superior courts remained in town. But observe, this was only in the case of actions brought against the officers of the House, for as applied to all other persons, the law, as it originally stood, remained unchanged. He apprehended, that the exception to the disadvantage of the officers of the House could not be allowed to stand part of the bill, and that the words "or before any judge of the same" must be struck out. His objection to the words was, that they were unnecessary, that they tended to public inconvenience, and might destroy the object of the whole bill. In the next place he objected to the twenty-four hours notice. What necessity was there for such a length of notice? When it was contrasted with the omission of any notice in actions brought against persons not acting under the order of the House, it became the more remarkable. Twenty-four hours' notice were to be given to the plaintiff. But, suppose the plaintiff sued by attorney, how then was the notice to be served? Was it to be personal notice, or was it to be notice at the plaintiff's house? The bill did not declare which. Ambiguities of this kind ought net to exist. Hon. Members who passed bills upon the expectation, that by mere words they could secure an object when there was a disposition against it, were likely to find themselves grievously mistaken. He never found words so distinct and so positive as to enable him to be quite sure that another person would not attribute to them a different meaning. He referred to a case on a former occasion, which his hon. and learned Friend had combated with his usual dexterity, but which he maintained was directly in point. By the act of Parliament relating to contested elections, it was declared, that the Speaker's certificate should operate as a warrant of attorney, and that the court should give judgment accordingly. The words were as positive as words could be. The court was asked to give judgment upon a certificate regularly attested. What did the court do? They said, "As

1035
the court is asked to give effect to this certificate of the Speaker's, we must look to see that it is a certificate warranted by the act of Parliament." The act directed that the certificate of the Speaker should be conclusive, and that the court should give judgment, but the court said, "We are asked to give effect to this certificate; but before we do so we must look to see that it is in conformity with the principles of justice," and they ultimately refused to give judgment. Vet the words of the act requiring them to do so were as distinct as words could be. The court, however, refused to yield obedience to them, and before it gave judgment, insisted on seeing how far the committee had been properly constituted, and because the committee was not properly constituted, it refused to give effect to the mandatory words of the certificate. In the same way fifty reasons might be found to give the court a loophole to escape from the binding effect of the words contained in the present bill. He had no want of confidence in the present judges further than this—that he never would confide to the judges the decision of that which by law they were not entitled to decide. Although he respected the judges as much as any man, yet when he found that they had come to a conclusion in which they declared, that the claim of privilege as set forth by the House was monstrous, a tyranny under which no Englishman ought to live, and when he found, that the claim so designated by the judges was stated by both Houses of Parliament to be absolutely necessary to the due discharge of their functions, he thought that the infirmity of human judgment was such, that giving credit for all integrity of purpose to the judges, it became absolutely essential that the Legislature should adopt some measure which would place its intentions and its views entirely out of doubt. But the constitution of this country was not framed under the supposition that it would be executed by honest judges: it was framed to protect the country against dishonest judges. He did not for one moment intend to include within the meaning of the latter phrase any one of the learned personages who now occupied the judicial bench; but he maintained that for the House to legislate on the principle of confidence in the present judges, and to withdraw from the public any portion of the protection which
1036
consisted in the House having the power to defend and uphold its own principles—inferring that all future judges would be like those who now occupied the bench—was to legislate upon very imperfect, and he thought upon very unwise grounds. It was incumbent upon the House to protect the Commons of England against the possibility of dishonesty—against the possibility of mistake on the part of any of the judges. He hoped that the day when such a possibility might occur would never arrive; but the guards and protections of the constitution were not made for mere parade in fair weather, but to protect the people in troubled times against the power of the Crown, the power of the Lords, and the improper exercise of power on the part of the courts of justice. He thought that the House would be weakening its privileges and sanctioning a jurisdiction in the courts of law that might operate most mischievously if it assented to the amendments made in this bill by the House of Lords. Some of them to which he had not yet referred had excited his surprise. In the first place it was said, "It is monstrous that the House of Commons should have the power of publishing libels; they never can have occasion for it: the power, therefore, is most mischievous, and ought not to be tolerated." Yet he found amendments introduced into the bill not to limit the publications of the House, but to extend them universally. A great difficulty had arisen as to giving a summary remedy to the officers of the House; but no such difficulty arose as to giving a summary remedy to every one else? How was this done? The clause introduced by the Lords upon this point, if the House of Commons should think fit to adopt it, would certainly require some amendment if it was to be of any value, for he had seldom seen one so carelessly drawn. It said:—
"And be it enacted, that in case of any civil or criminal proceeding hereafter to be commenced or prosecuted, for or on account or in respect of the publication of any copy of such report, paper, votes or proceedings, it shall be lawful for the defendant or defendants, at any stage of the proceedings, to lay before the court or judge such report, paper, or proceedings, and such copy, with an affidavit verifying such report, paper, votes or proceedings, and the correctness of such copy, and the court or judge shall immediately stay such civil or criminal proceedings and the name and every writ or process issued therein, shall

1037
be, and shall be deemed and taken to be finally put an end to, determined and superseded by virtue of this act."
How was the defendant to do this? The prosecutor possessed the copy—how was the defendant to obtain it? The prosecutor, when he commenced proceedings against the defendant, of course took great care to retain possession of his copy, in order to produce it in evidence in support of his case? How, then, was the defendant to obtain it? What provision was there for him to obtain it? He knew of none. He was at a loss, also, to know what was meant when it was said that the defendant was to produce the report. Was it meant that he was to produce the printed report or the manuscript report? He was called upon to produce something, but there was no intelligible explanation as to what that something was to be. He thought that a defendant would find some difficulty in availing himself of the benefit of a clause so strangely constructed. Then the defendant was to verify, by affidavit, the copy that had been published; but how the defendant was to get the copy and examine it he was at a loss to know. Again, as to the staying of the proceedings, how was that to be effected? Suppose a man were to be indicted at the Surrey assizes for the publication of a report. The assizes were held under a commission, and as soon as the assizes were over the commission was dissolved, and no court remained. He did not believe that any judge of assize would interfere to stay proceedings after the dissolution of the commission; he doubted, indeed, whether, at such a time, the judge would have any jurisdiction at all. It was plain, then, that a defendant could obtain no benefit under this clause, except in places where the sittings of the judge were permanent. He came next to consider how the bill would operate as applied to publications made without the authority of Parliament. When the House published a report, either respecting grievances, or anything else, they were well assured that their officer would publish only in the ordinary way, and without the view of injuring any person mentioned in the report. But if a person obtained a copy of the report, and went into the immediate neighbourhood of a party whose conduct might be impugned, and hawked it about for sale with a loud and noisy proclamation of the particular passages referring to this individual, was
1038
such a person to be justified? By the bill, as it now stood, the House lost all power of stopping the publication of anything it might desire not to become public. As an instance of the inconvenience that might result from this, he might mention that a libel, and a very gross one, against the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas was presented to that House, in the shape of a petition, towards the close of the last session of Parliament. Whether it was published or not he could not undertake to state; but he would venture to say that it never was sold. If it ever had been sold, he had no hesitation in saying, that every one would have regretted it. It was printed by a mere act of inadvertence, during the absence of the Members of the committee on public petitions, and had been a source of great distress to the clerk, by whose oversight it happened to get into type. Chief-Justice Tindal was the very last man against whom even a whisper should be breathed; for a more learned, more just, or more patient man never adorned the bench. He happened to be counsel in the cause to which the petition referred, and, therefore, knew that there was no foundation whatever for the allegations it contained. Under such circumstances, he was satisfied, that if the attention of the House had been called to the petition when printed, it would have taken immediate steps to recal every copy. But by the bill as it now stood, it would possess no such power. He would take the case of an individual not so well known as the learned and excellent Chief-Justice, for the purpose of showing how important it was that the House should retain the power of stopping the publication of papers which it had ordered to be printed. Some time since, the House printed a report upon the subject of New Zealand. To make that report perfect, a map was attached to it. That map, it appeared, had been drawn up by an individual, who immediately complained to the Treasury that his copyright had been invaded. His complaint was entertained, and compensation afforded, but it was necessary that the publication should be stayed, or the injury to this individual would have gone on increasing. It was unnecessary to multiply cases of this kind, in which policy, justice, common sense, required that the publication should be stayed. By the bill, as it now stood, that power would be lost. He came now to

1039
the last amendment, which he held to be very objectionable, although it did not seem capable of effecting much harm. It was in these terms—
"And be it enacted, that it shall be lawful in any civil or criminal proceeding to be commenced or prosecuted for printing any extract from or abstract of such report, paper, votes or proceedings, to give in evidence, under the general issue such report, paper, votes or proceedings, and to show that such extract or abstract was published bonâ fide and without malice; and if such shall be the opinion of the jury, a verdict of not guilty shall be entered for the defendant or defendants."
This was evidently a mistake, because it supposed no prosecution to be commenced except for printing, and then prescribed the act of publication as a justification, supposing it to be bonâ fide, and without malice. To enact that extracts or abstracts might be published all over England, by every bookseller who published them bonâ fide and without malice, appeared to him to be laying the Legislature open to some of those strong remarks about injustice which were so freely and, he thought, so improperly applied to other parts of the case. He apprehended, therefore, that this was a mistake which must be corrected. These, then, were the grounds upon which he objected to the bill as amended by the other House of Parliament. He objected to the first amendment, because it admitted, or tended to admit, the jurisdiction of the courts of law for acts done in obedience to the orders of the House. This, indeed, was his chief objection; and it was one that he thought the House could not too seriously consider. He, therefore, submitted to the House, with respect to these amendments, if the House should be of opinion that the impressions he entertained were well-founded, they would not consent to adopt a bill that would carry the mischief so much further than the original bill would have gone. At the same time he begged to say, that by striking out Mr. Howard's clause, he was satisfied the House would not find itself in any degree relieved from the evil which the bill was originally intended to remedy.
The Attorney-Generalfelt himself bound upon this occasion to express his opinion upon the amendments made by the House of Lords. Although he agreed with some of the criticisms and arguments
1040
used by his hon. and learned Friend, yet he felt bound to say, that upon the whole his opinion was, that these amendments ought to be agreed to. The introduction of the bill was a measure, the necessity of which he could have wished had not existed. He had always been anxious for the House to have maintained its own privileges without legislation. But they were placed in very great difficulties. He had seen many strong objections to the bill, but it had seemed to him, upon the whole, that they would be avoiding greater difficulties and dangers by agreeing to the bill as originally framed, than by persisting in asserting their own inherent powers. He never doubted for a moment the power of the House to exercise the jurisdiction which his hon. and learned Friend had contended for. Both Houses had exercised it for centuries; and it was a power which he hoped they never would part with: for he could easily imagine that a time might come when Parliament might be compelled to proceed to exert that power by commitment against plaintiffs, attornies, attornies' clerks, sheriffs, or any other parties executing the processes of any of the courts of Westminster-hall, or any other court in the kingdom, contrary to the privileges of that House. But the question at present was, whether they ought to agree to these amendments. If these amendments had given any discretionary power to the courts of law, he should have most strenuously resisted them. If he had found in the bill a provision giving the defendant the power of applying to the court to stay proceedings, upon such terms as the court might think fit to impose, he should have considered such a clause an insult to the House of Commons, and should most undoubtedly have contended that the House ought to reject it. Because that would have been putting the House in the situation of humbly going before the court to solicit its interference in their favour; and the court might have said in reply—
"We have thought fit to stay proceedings on payment of costs, as between attorney and client, and likewise on condition of the defendants making the plaintiff compensation in damages."
In fact, it would have been making the Speaker of the House of Commons go to the court and make his bow, and humbly submit to the terms the court might think fit to impose, Again, if he bad found

1041
there was among these amendments a proposal that there should be no sale of the reports and proceedings of that House, he should have opposed it, as a most improper interference with the privileges of the House. The House had resolved that a sale was expedient—that they thought it the best mode of distributing their papers. The result of this had, he believed, been, that though the number of copies had not been multiplied, yet information had been much better communicated to the public than before the right of sale was established; although it ought always to be recollected that there was no novelty in the principle of sale, the practice having subsisted for two centuries. Ever since the Revolution, petitions, even of the most delicate nature—namely, those against private grievances, had always been sold with the votes. But he found, in these amendments, nothing to give to the courts of law a discretionary power. In fact, he found nothing in them to which the House might not agree. His hon. and learned Friend had objected to the certificate of the Speaker being lodged with the judge instead of with the officer of the court, as originally proposed. But that was merely placing the judge in the situation of the officer. The judge, would only have ministerial functions to perform; he would be bound to stay proceedings; and would be liable to be impeached if he refused. It was the act of the Legislature that stayed the proceedings, and not the judges of the court. If there were an action pending in a court of Common Pleas, and the judges were to hesitate about staying proceedings, so completely ministerial were the functions of the judges, that the Court of Queen's Bench might grant a mandamus to compel the Court of Common Pleas to stay proceedings. There was no wish on the part of the House to show any disrespect to the courts of law; nor at the same time did he think that their privileges could be at all endangered by this act. The next objection of his noble and learned Friend was, that twenty-four hours' previous notice was required before the certificate of the Speaker could be made use of. Why, so strongly was it felt that the plaintiff should not be taken by surprise, that by the bill as originally framed it was provided that notice should be given to the plaintiff within forty-eight hours after the delivery of the certificate.
1042
It would be monstrous to say that proceedings should be stayed behind the back, as it were, of the plaintiff. Instead, however, of forty eight hours' notice after the certificate was obtained, the amendment was, that the notice should be given twenty-four hours before. He did not consider this amendment a sufficient reason for refusing his assent to the bill. His hon. and learned Friend regretted (and so did he) that the clause staying the action brought by Mr. Howard had not been allowed to remain part of the bill. But that clause was no essential part of the measure. After the bill had been sent up to the House of Lords, the officers of the House of Commons had been authorised, by a very large majority, to appear and defend the action brought against them by Mr. Howard. This was granted upon the statement by the plaintiff that the action had not been brought to call in question any of the privileges of the House; on the contrary, he admitted the validity of the process of the House; but it was brought in consequence of excess on the part of the officers of the House in staying too long in Mr. Howard's dwelling. It did not appear, therefore, to him, that any of the privileges of the House would be in jeopardy by their agreeing to strike out that clause. His hon. and learned Friend had further complained of the clauses which the Lords had introduced. It certainly did cause him an agreeable surprise at seeing a clause introduced for protecting newspapers and other publications that should re-publish any copy of the reports or other proceedings of the House. He was very glad to see such a clause adopted. He had been afraid that if any such clause had been originally introduced, it would have been a clog to its progress elsewhere, because, if there existed so great a difficulty in getting the sanction of Parliament to a publication of a limited nature, the difficulty would have been greatly increased if the proposition had been made to extend protection to are-publication by all mankind. Here, however, was the clause, and he was not at all sorry for it. He thought his hon. and learned Friend was wrong in thinking that either this clause or any of the preceding clauses would at all compromise the privileges of the House. All that they did was to give a summary mode of proceeding to enforce those privileges which the House had the

1043
inherent right to exercise. The bill admitted the existence of the privilege. The preamble of the bill admitted the right of sale. It stated that it was essential to the due and effectual exercise and discharge of the functions and duties of Parliament that these publications should be dispersed, and that information should be communicated to the public; and that it was necessary that a more speedy protection should be afforded against actions or prosecutions for such publications; thus acknowledging that there already existed a power on the part of the House to stay proceedings, but at the same time saying that it was necessary a more speedy remedy should be provided. That speedy remedy was provided by this bill. It would be effectual when Parliament was sitting. It would relieve the House from a great deal of painful inquiry, and it would be more particularly useful and necessary during the recess. His hon. and learned Friend had also objected that greater advantage was given to parties publishing these reports in newspapers than to the officers of the House. He thought his hon. and learned Friend had not put a proper construction upon that clause of the bill; because the court or judge who was to stay the proceedings was the court, or judge of the court, in which the action was brought. He was not at all alarmed by the notion that the machinery of this bill would be found ineffectual. From the time this bill received the royal assent, he most firmly believed that no action for such a publication ever would be thought of: neither actions nor indictments would be brought. But if there were, even in the case supposed, an indictment preferred at the assizes, the judges in commission remained the judges of that court until the following assizes, and would always be open to an application for staying proceedings. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Exeter would remember that no longer ago than last term there was an application to the judges of oyer and terminer of York assizes, respecting the non-return of à certiorari, and those judges were unquestionably in commission as the judges of oyer and terminer until the following assizes, as much as Lord Denman, Chief Justice Tindal, or Mr. Justice Pattison, were judges of the Court of Queen's Bench; and application might be made to them to stay proceedings just as much
1044
as any application might be made to any of the judges of the superior courts. He thought he had now answered all the objections of his hon. and learned Friend. He owned that he should have been better pleased if no bill at all had been necessary; and if this House had been unanimous in proceeding propriâ manu. At the same time, as the House had not agreed unanimously to enforce its own privileges, he felt no difficulty in admitting that great good would be effected by the passing of this bill, and he therefore hoped the Lords' amendments would be received. It seemed to him that these amendments evinced, on the part of the House of Lords, a spirit of conciliation and moderation, and a desire to treat the House of Commons with respect; and he thought they would not be displaying the same disposition to conciliate, or evincing on their part a desire to bring about an accommodation of those differences, the existence of which all good citizens must regret, if they were to refuse to allow these amendments to pass.
Sir Robert Peelobserved, that if this bill were required to be passed for the purpose of preventing the necessity of resorting to harsh measures, it was necessary that it should be passed at an early period. The House was about to separate, and if they involved themselves in a conference with the Lords upon technical points, the bill might be protracted to a time when all the evils to be prevented might have occurred. He thought it would be much better, in order to effect a great object, to risk some imperfection in the details, than run the chance of becoming embarrassed in a technical argument. If he had found in the bill any provisions inconsistent with the privileges of the House, or that would in any degree be a disparagement to the House to assent to, he for one should have been prepared to have taken his stand in support of the privileges of the House, and should have been ready to go the length of refusing to accept these amendments. But looking at the bill with its amendments, he must say that it manifested a sincere desire on the part of the House of Lords to protect the privileges of the House of Commons. There were no conditions imposed, no enactments introduced inconsistent with the main object that was sought to be carried out. He would not look to any casual expressions that might have been used in the course of the debate, He

1045
knew of nothing except what appeared on the face of the bill, and judging of the intention of the House of Lords by the amendments they had introduced, he must declare, that he saw nothing but a sincere desire on their part to co-operate with the House of Commons in defence of the privileges which the latter asserted. If it were the wish of the House to get rid of the bill, one half of the ingenuity displayed by the Solicitor-general would have been sufficient. He would venture to say, that if one half of that ingenuity had been exercised in the House of Lords, it would have been quite sufficient to have induced the House of Lords not to have passed the bill. Suppose he had urged in the House of Lords, that it was impossible to assent to this bill, because it was a disparagement to the Court of Queen's Bench. By the preamble of the bill the legality of the privilege was admitted, whereas the judges had declared that it was illegal. The necessity of the privilege being admitted, the legality of it was established, and therefore the illegality of the judgment was established. If that had been urged as an argument, it would have afforded a stronger ground for rejecting the bill than any the Solicitor-general had advanced. But the House of Lords permitted the preamble to pass. Both Houses of Parliament had agreed, that the House of Commons possessed the right of free publication, and that it was essential to the due performance of their functions. Finding that this great principle was admitted, he was ready to overlook minor considerations and matters of detail. Those defects were not intentional, nor introduced by way of disparaging the House of Commons. He should therefore advise the House to adopt the bill. He had never evaded declaring his opinion upon this question. He was perfectly convinced, that those who had strenuously opposed the exercise of the privilege, for which he had contended, were acting from conscientious motives. He had acted with them in many instances, but when he thought they were giving bad advice, he did not hesitate to differ from them. And he must say, that, judging now by past experience, he did not regret any portion of the advice he tad given the House. He rejoiced that he bad advised the House to insist upon the possession of this privilege, as absolutely essential to the proper discharge of their functions, He did not regret the House
1046
having exerted its own inherent right. He did not regret the exertion of their power of committal; and he rejoiced, that they had it established, that they possessed the power to commit. He rejoiced, that they had obtained the judgment of the court that they could not question their right of committal. Having that power unquestioned, he did not hesitate to declare, that he thought it proper and right to procure, by legislation, a more speedy and sovereign remedy to enforce it, rather than enter into a conflict that would have led to a total absorption of the time of the House. Their threats of imprisonment, or their actual imprisonment, would not, he was convinced, have been sufficient to deter men—ay, and honourable men too, from contesting with them; for the contest would have been transferred from the Stockdales and persons of his stamp to men of much higher character, who, while they entirely differed from Stockdale, also differed from the House of Commons as to the mode of maintaining and vindicating the privilege of the House. This would have involved them in a contest from which they had not the power to extricate themselves, and therefore he did not regret the advice he had given, that they should try by legislation to secure a more summary power. At the same time he had not advised them to part with any power they already possessed. He trusted they never would part with that. But if they could procure by the assent of the Legislature an acquiescence of the House of Lords in their own views of their privileges, he thought it was wise to make the attempt; and he must say, that the result had justified the attempt. He considered that their privilege would stand upon a better footing after the passing of this bill than it did before; in addition to which they would have a more summary power of asserting it. Whether the judge or the officer of the court should have the power to stay proceedings, he really thought was no objection at all. By the bill as sent up to the House of Lords, it was provided that the certificate should be served upon the officer of the court. It was objected, that it was not right to give power to an officer to do a certain act of which the judge would have no cognizance whatever; that it had an appearance of disrespect to the judges. It was therefore proposed, that instead of a subordinate officer the judge should be compelled to do the act,

1047
he having no discretion whatever. If the judge declined to do it, there was, as the Attorney-general had said, an ulterior power to effect it. But he must say, that where there was an imperative order by act of Parliament for a judge to do a certain act, it was unfair to presume that he would depart from the spirit of the act, and refuse to carry into effect the intention of the legislature. With respect to the other clauses, they related to matters entirely apart from the object of the bill. There was not only an indemnity given to the officers of the House, but to all other persons. He certainly was surprised at this. He had himself been disposed to carry their privileges very far, still he shrunk from proposing so wide a provision. He found, however, the proposal in the amendments, and although he might see some technical objections, yet be, for one, would not enter into any technical discussion, but accept the substance of the amendment, under the strong conviction expressed by the Attorney general, that practically the bill would never be required to be enforced. He might mention, if he were disposed to dwell on technical objections, that while the servants of the House were protected, and the republishers of their reports were protected, a third party, the vendor of the original reports, as printed by order of the House, had no protection. But he confessed, that if they were to attempt to remedy every one of these objections, it would involve the House in a long and tedious conference with the Lords that might be the cause of frustrating the very object of the bill itself. Upon the whole matter, he had only to repeat that the sole object he had in view from the beginning was the maintenance of what he deemed to be an indispensable privilege of the House. In advocating the views he entertained he had not shrunk from the unpopularity that he knew would necessarily attend that course. Some of his friends had condemned him for the warmth with which he had supported those views; others, from whom he often differed, had commended him; but alike indifferent to praise or censure, he had always acted with one sole intention—the maintenance of that power which he judged to be essential for the due discharge of the functions that devolved upon them as one branch of the Legislature. Having acted upon that principle, he found himself perfectly justified by the
1048
course taken by the House of Lords. In his opinion, the House of Lords had shown a spirit of conciliation, and had evinced a wish to do every thing in order to protect this privilege. He did not find in any part of the amendments the least sign of an intention to offer any species of insult to the House of Commons. He, therefore, thought the House would act wisely by accepting these amendments.
Mr. Wakley: When the right hon. Baronet rose to address the House, he expected the right hon. Baronet would say, "If you pass this bill, it is my intention to abdicate my seat." [Sir Robert Peel: I always advised the bill.] Not this bill. He had heard the right hon. Gentleman say, some months since, that if he could not maintain the privilege of publication, he would abdicate his seat. Had the House succeeded in maintaining that privilege? What! as a privilege of this House? No: on the contrary, every body knew the reverse. There was not a person of any understanding, discretion, or sagacity, who did not fully understand that the majority of that House was beaten, and wofully beaten on this subject. Had they maintained their privilege? He said, no! And that, as a privilege of the House, it was gone. They had been under the necessity of going to the House of Lords, and beseeching that lordly Assembly to concur with them in passing a law to enable them to make a publication of their proceedings; and this was the miserable figure they were now cutting in the face of the people of England. This privilege being gone—for it was gone—they had abandoned it—was there one privilege that was safe? The privilege of commitment would be next questioned. It would not be deemed sufficient to issue the Speaker's warrant without specifying the grounds of the committal. Thus, in turn, every one of the privileges which the people of England possessed might at last be questioned before the hereditary branch of the Legislature, and in turn every one might be as prostrate as the one now under discussion. The party who had opposed this privilege were the party who had on this occasion driven the majority to ask permission of the House of Lords that they might be allowed to publish their own reports. That which had been deemed by the judges of the land to be a most atrocious tyranny, and an

1049
abandonment of every just and sound principle, was now admitted by those very judges themselves—the chief of them Lord Denman, among the number, to be essential to the due and effectual exercise of the functions of the House of Commons. The two hon. and learned Gentlemen—the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General—had given their opinions freely upon this question. In turn those Gentlemen would both be on the bench. They now differed widely in their opinions. Would their altered position, as judges, change the opinions they now entertained? They were not then arguing as advocates, but they were acting honestly and faithfully as senators on the oaths which they had taken. When they were on the bench they would still act in the same way. Yet the House saw how much they now differed in opinion as to the construction of this Act; and other persons seeing this difference of opinion would, when those persons came to be chief justices (and that they would do according to the usual order), try to obtain different interpretations of the Act. Seeing, then, the nature of the bill—seeing how the House had abandoned the high ground on which it had at first stood—deploring the introduction of the bill, and hoping that it would never become law—if no one else voted against it he certainly would.
Mr. Pembertoncould see nothing in the bill in the least degree inconsistent with those doctrines which had been maintained by the noble Lord opposite, and his right hon. Friend, the Member for Tamworth. It did not in the slightest degree interfere with the rights or privileges of the House, as far as those rights and privileges could be insisted upon as such. When this bill should become law, it would still be competent for the House to assert its privileges by every means it was now in its power to resort to. The House would not be debarred by this bill from punishing any individual who might be guilty of contempt towards it, nor could it be urged in opposition to the Speaker's warrant committing a person for contempt, for it expressly provided, that neither directly nor indirectly, expressly or by implication, should it be construed to abridge the privileges of either House of Parliament. It left those privileges precisely where they were, while it afforded an additional, an easier, and a more complete mode—not of asserting
1050
their privileges he could not say, for he was one of those who had not conceded them—but of establishing for both Houses the full enjoyment of the same powers they now possessed, and of adopting a remedy against every obstruction of those powers. He contended, therefore, that it was in no manner inconsistent to call for the interposition of the Legislature to enable the House of Commons to exercise its authority with greater effect. Parliament now granted that protection which that House could give, if at all, only imperfectly. The only difference was this, that they must, according to the first clause, apply to the Court to stop the action. But then it was to be recollected, that every Act of Parliament must be construed by the judges. Somebody, at all events, must construe them, and the whole question now really was, whether the certificate by means of which the action was to be suspended, should be produced to the superior or inferior officer. There was no discretion left by this bill in its present shape to anybody. It merely required that the application, instead of being made to an inferior officer, should be made to a judge. Many hon. Members and noble Lords elsewhere had waived their objections upon the general question, for the purpose of carrying this bill, and it was unfair for the hon. and learned Solicitor-general to assert, that the whole object of those who had produced those new clauses was to make an invidious distinction between the officers of the House of Commons and those persons who were not clothed with the same authority. A more groundless, a more wild notion could not have entered into the mind of a human being. The object of those clauses, he believed to be no other than to give effect to this measure, which the House of Commons itself, and without any previous communication with the House of Lords, proposed. He, however, hoped, that when this bill should have received the royal assent, the noble Lord would give further effect to the spirit upon which it was founded, by liberating those individuals who were now incarcerated for actions which this bill would put an end to.
Sir R. Inglisobserved, that like many other hon. Members, he felt he was conceding much in giving his support to this bill, as amended by the House of Lords, and he sincerely hoped that the noble Lord opposite would attend to the suggestion of

1051
his hon. and learned Friend, and relieve those individuals to whom his hon. Friend had just alluded, from the punishment they were so unjustly suffering.
Mr. T. Hobhousesaid, that as no answer had been given to the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor-general, he would feel it his duty to support the opposition to the amendments made to the bill. It was a measure that was boasted of as a concession, but the only concession that he could find in it was, that Lord Denman in his judgment admitted that whatever was necessary to enable the House to discharge its duty it had as a privilege, but that the right of publication was not so necessary, and was not possessed by the House, whilst now in the preamble to this bill it was distinctly admitted by both Houses, that the power of publication was necessary and was possessed by the House. This contradiction was all the concession he saw, and as he was at first opposed to the bill, he would still vote against it.
Mr. Freshfieldhoped, that when this bill was passed, the House would take more care, and give more consideration to the papers before they were ordered to be printed. The House would surrender no one of its privileges by the passing of this bill; they would only obtain a short mode of redress, rendering unnecessary the assertion of the powers of the House, and without a resort to those means to which they had now had recourse; they were not abandoning their right to have recourse to those means if they should be found desirable. With respect to the second clause, however, he intended to move an amendment, requiring the same twenty-four hours' notice to be given to the plaintiff in an action for copying a publication as was required in an action for the original publication by order of the House.
The House divided on the question that the amendment be read a second time: Ayes 68; Noes 28; Majority 40.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Brodie, W. B.

Archbold, R.

Brotherton, J.

Baring, F. T.

Buller, C.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Barnard, E. G.

Campbell, Sir J.

Bernal, R.

Clay, W.

Briscoe, J. I.

Dalmeny, Lord

Broadley, H.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Brocklehurst, J.

Darby, G.

1052

Duff, J.

Pakington, J. S.

Duke, Sir J.

Peel, Sir R.

Duncombe, T.

Pemberton, T.

Dundas, D.

Pigot, D. R.

Ellice, E.

Polhill, F.

Ellis, J.

Price, Sir R.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Russell, Lord J.

Freshfield, J. W.

Rutherfurd, A.

Gaskell, J. M.

Smith, B.

Goulburn, H.

Smith, R. V.

Graham, Sir J.

Stewart, J.

Greene, T.

Stork, Dr.

Grey, Sir C.

Teignmouth, Lord

Hope, G. W.

Thesiger, F.

Hoskins, K.

Trench, Sir F.

Howard, P. H.

Tufnell, H.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Vernon, G. H.

Kemble, H.

Vivian, Sir R. H.

Knight, H. G.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Lockhart, A. M.

Wood, Col. T.

M'Taggart, J.

Wyse, T.

Mahon, Viscount

Young, J.

Morpeth, Viscount

O'Brien, W. S.

TELLERS.

Packe, C. W.

Stanley, E.

Paget, Lord A.

Parker, J.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Salwey, Colonel

Bridgeman, H.

Strutt, E.

Callaghan, D.

Tancred, H. W.

Courtenay, P.

Thornely, T.

Ellis, W.

Turner, E.

Evans, W.

Vigors, N. A.

Hawes, B.

Villiers, hon. C.

Heathcote, G. J.

Warburton, H.

Hector, C. J.

Wilbraham, G.

Howick, Viscount

Wilde, Sergeant

Hume, J.

Williams, W.

James, W.

Wood, B.

Lushington, C.

Morris, D.

TELLERS.

O'Connell, M. J.

Wakley, T.

Rundle, J.

Hobhouse, J.

Amendments agreed to as far as clause A. On clause A,
Mr. Freshfieldmoved the amendment of which he had given notice, viz., that twenty-four hours' notice should be given in case of any action for the publication of any copy of a report or other paper, to the plaintiff of the intention to lay a certificate before the court from the Speaker, &c, as in the first clause.
Lord J. Russellhad had some intention to move an amendment similar to that which had now been brought forward by the hon. Gentleman, but upon full consideration he had thought it better to allow the clause to remain as it stood. There were several amendments which could be suggested, but as the clauses as they stood did not affect the privileges of the House

1053
or interfere with any of its officers, be trusted the hon. Gentleman would not press his motion.
The amendment negatived.
Mr. S. O'Brienhoped the noble Lord would have now no objection to state what course he intended to pursue with regard to the prisoners confined under the orders of the House.
Viscount Howickhoped his noble Friend, before he answered the question which had been put to him, would consider well the propriety or rather the impropriety of discharging those persons without a petition from them and without their making any submission to the House. The parties now in confinement had not as the sheriffs had done, shown any anxiety to obey their orders, but had actually gone out of their way to oppose the House.
Lord J. Russellwould reserve his answer to the question which had been put to him till to-morrow. He had, however, no objection to state generally his impression on the subject. He thought the persons now remaining in confinement stood in a different position from the sheriffs. The sheriffs had come under the orders of the courts of law, and they were placed in the difficult position of either opposing the orders of the Court of Queen's Bench or the orders of that House, and they had ever manifested an anxiety to consult the wishes of the House. The House would, therefore, probably be of opinion that the attendance of the sheriff at the time appointed would not now be necessary. As regarded the son and clerk of Mr. Howard, they had both held an inferior situation, and had only acted under the authority of others. With regard to Mr. Stockdale, that person had originated these proceedings, and had done everything to thwart the House, and to set its orders at defiance Mr. Howard had aided Mr. Stockdale in those proceedings, and he was now carrying on an action against one of the officers of the House, and that action would not be put a stop to by the present bill. As he said before, he should, however, take till to-morrow to consider the case of the different prisoners.
The Lords' amendments were agreed to, the bill to be returned to the Hours of Peers.

CANADA GOVERNMENT BILL.
Lord J. Russell Lord J. Russell moved the order of the day for
1054
the second reading of the Canada Government Bill,
Mr. Pakingtonsaid, he rose to appeal once more to the noble Lord, and to request him not to push on this important stage of this most important measure at the present moment, when the House was so thin, and when there had been no time to consider maturely its provisions. A great number of hon. Members had gone out of town, and he sincerely trusted that the noble Lord would not press the second reading till after Easter. Since he had last made an appeal to the noble Lord on this subject, he had discovered a precedent for postponement, which was so closely in point, that he hoped it would have some influence upon the decision of the noble Lord. In 1791, Mr. Pitt brought forward the Canada bill, which the noble Lord now sought to repeal by the present bill. Mr. Pitt appointed the 21st of April for the House going into committee on that bill, and it had been agreed that the discussion should be taken on that stage of the measure. The discussion had in fact, as in the present case, been fixed for a day immediately before Easter, and Mr. Sheridan objected to that course, and asked for postponement on the grounds that hon. Members had gone out of town, and that there had not been sufficient time to consider the provisions of the bill. Mr. Pitt at once said, that if there was one gentleman in the House who was not ready to enter upon the consideration of the measures, he would put off the discussion at once, and it was accordingly put off till after Easter. Now, the two cases he thought were perfectly analogous, and he fully believed that there was not one Member then present who was ready to go on with the present bill, and to give it that full discussion which it ought to have, before it went through so important a stage as the second reading. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Lord would follow the example of Mr. Pitt, and postpone the second reading of this bill till after Easter. If the noble Lord determined to persevere, he would not allow himself to be drawn into a discussion on the merits of the bill at that time, and he would only state that he objected to a union of the provinces so soon after the troubles by which the colony had been disturbed. If the noble Lord was determined to gain this stage, he could only declare his disapprobation of such a course, and he would reserve to himself

1055
the right of entering fully into the merits of the bill before the House went into committee upon it.
Sir R. Ingliswished to make the same appeal to the noble Lord, as had just been made by the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken. The House was very thin, and no one could suppose that his hon. Friends would not have been present, if they had understood, that the noble Lord would positively have brought on the second reading of this important measure. He sincerely trusted, that the bill would be postponed till after Easter.
Lord J. Russellhad on a former occasion stated the reasons which induced him to press the second reading of this bill at the present time, and he did not think that those reasons had been weakened or set aside by what had just fallen from hon. Members opposite. He did not think there was any analogy between the present case, and the case which had been cited by the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Pitt had carried the second reading, and had got the sanction of the House to the principle of his bill. It had even gone through committee, and it was upon the question of recommittal that Mr. Pitt had agreed to a postponement. It was of very great importance that this bill should receive a second reading as early as possible, and even after Easter, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, had given notice of another motion regarding the corn-laws, and he might again be asked for postponement, as that motion might give rise to a long debate. If he were to postpone the second reading of this bill, upon such grounds as those which had been stated by the hon. Gentleman opposite, he should not have been justified in bringing it forward at all. He must persist in moving this order of the day for the second reading. He should not, however, fix an early day for the committee, so that hon. Members would have full time to consider the subject before they were called upon to discuss the details.
Order of the day read.
Mr. Humethought no delay ought to take place in the progress of this measure through that House. Looking at the present state of Canada, he thought every person must be anxious to see an end put to the arbitrary system of government which at present existed in that colony. There would be plenty of time before the re-assembling of the House after Easter,
1056
for hon. Members to consider the details of the measure, and he hoped no opposition would be offered to the present stage of the bill. For himself, he was anxious to see an imperfect bill passed as early as possible, in order that there might be an end to the arbitrary system of government which had been established in Canada. It would be much better that this bill should pass forthwith, than that any further delay should take place. He should, therefore, offer no opposition to the progress of the bill, though he might suggest some amendments hereafter. At the same time, he did not think that the bill would meet the object in view, of satisfying the people of Canada, and produce peace and unanimity. The principal complaint on their part was the want of responsibility in the councils, and he did not see in this bill any security for responsibility. Opposition to the wishes of the people had led to the state of things which had brought about the revolution. Want of responsibility had been pointed out by Lord Durham, who had suggested a proper remedy. It appeared to him that a great injustice was about to be perpetrated against the French population of Canada. The bill violated the principle of equal justice promised by the noble Lord in his letter to the two colonies. It was intended to swamp the French population, by not giving them a fair share in the representation. He was confident that the same cause of complaint which existed in Upper Canada existed in Lower Canada. The inhabitants of both colonies desired free institutions. Did the noble Lord imagine, that when the two provinces were united, they would abate one jot of their claim for popular institutions, or that things would go on better than they did before, when there was nothing in the bill to make the councils in harmony with the people? The Executive Council was to be the same as before; the governor was to choose the members as before. What security, then, had the people of Canada that they should have persons in whom they could confide? There was no measure to render the judges independent of the Crown, and they had seen judges removed by Sir John Colborne for their just administration of the law. It was true there was a civil list, and the colonial legislature might give the judges salaries as they pleased; but there ought to be a clause rendering the judges independent

1057
of the governor. In the next place, the revenues were put under the control of the Home Government, and it was a sine qua non with the people of Canada that the revenues should he placed under the absolute control of the Government of the country; they wanted to have the management of their own affairs; this was the source of all the disputes, and the noble Lord might depend upon it, that the assembly of the united provinces would not let the revenues be administered by Downing-street, the abuses of which had been pointed out by Lord Durham. He therefore repeated that the revenues ought to be managed in the colony, and not at home. Another great cause of complaint was the Crown lands. Was it intended that the Crown lands were to be governed, or misgoverned, as before? No man could say that they had not been mismanaged, and yet, according to the bill, they were to be placed under the management of the Home Government. This was not doing what he expected would have been done—namely, let the Crown lands be administered according to the wishes and interests of the people of Canada. Another subject was the Church revenues. There was a separate bill respecting the clergy reserves, and to think that it would give content to the people of Canada! What did Lord Durham say?—that it was one of the most important subjects, and that a great part of the troubles of Canada might be attributed to it; for Lord Durham said that a great many well informed persons in Canada had informed him that the state of the clergy reserves had led many to take up arms, and that they should be placed under the local Legislature. He contended that the bill, so far from satisfying the people of Canada, would lead to fresh disturbances, and would prevent that unanimity and harmony so essential to the country. He therefore entered his protest against the principle of the bill. The bill purported to remove grievances and to promote concord; but, so far as he could see, not one grievance was removed, and there would be the same series of troubles as before. If the causes of complaint were allowed to remain, after the examples we had had, it was not to be expected that the measure would be satisfactory to the people of Canada.
Mr. H. G. Knightsaid, that, as the second reading of this bill was not to be postponed, he wished to say a few words,
1058
for it did not appear to him that any man who entertained the wish that the Canadas should remain a part of her Majesty's dominions could behold this day without heaviness of heart; for every man must see in the projected union of the two provinces, and in the form of government which it was proposed to give them, if not the immediate separation of the colony from the mother country, yet a preparation for that separation, and the certainty of its taking place at a greater distance of time; whenever this Bill should become a law he should regard the Canadas as gone; a few years, more or less, might intervene; but this was the beginning of the end. Under these circumstances he thought the House would do well to pause a moment, and inquire what it was that had led to the present state of things—what it was that had led to the measure which was now before the House? Because, unless you ascertained the true cause of any disease, how was it possible to judge what remedy would be best? He knew he should be told at once that the true cause of this disease was misgovernment, and misgovernment he admitted it to have been; but not that sort of misgovernment which was commonly imputed. It had not been hard usage; it had not been tyranny or oppression; it had been the very reverse; it had been a long series of mistaken conciliation and the premature gift of a free constitution. He would endeavour to prove what he said, and he would remind the House that when England first became possessed of the Canadas, they were almost exclusively inhabited by a French population not accustomed to British notions, but to the despotic sway of then despotic France. Our first measure was by enactment to substitute the laws and language of England, and it would have been well if this change had been matured before free institutions, neither understood nor desired by the French, had been imparted to the colony. But, from mistaken kindness, by the 14th and 31st of George 3d., the French laws were restored, and a representative Assembly was introduced. To this premature concession might be traced all the evils which had afterwards ensued; for the French, unamalgamated with the English, still attached to France, still hating those by whom they had been subdued, made use of their new power not for the purpose of good legislation, but in

1059
attempting gradually to emancipate themselves from the yoke of the conqueror. This was the true solution of the problem which had exploded in the rebellion of 1838. All along a few demagogues were the instigators of the movement. The people, long habituated to passive obedience, took little part—and it must be remembered that amongst such a people there existed no public opinion—in one way or the other to affect the proceedings of the representatives. Hatred of England was the one impelling principle, masked under the name of the love of freedom; and this specious pretext induced many British sympathizers to take up the cause of those who said they were oppressed. These were generous men seduced by an exciting sound; and by what had ensued might be seen what might be done by generous men who suffered themselves to be led away. Others took up the cause from more questionable motives—all combined to embarrass the Government. Grievance after grievance was brought forward by the House of Assembly to keep the caldron bubbling—grievances which a spirit of conciliation laboured to redress; but no sooner was one cause of complaint removed than another was brought forward; whilst by each concession the opponents of Government acquired additional power to prosecute their designs. They derived no little advantage from the use which they made of the celebrated act of 1831; and, accordingly, when it was thought that every complaint had been attended to, in 1834 the House of Assembly produced an unexpected and astounding catalogue of ninety-two fresh grievances. England went on hoping and believing, that it was still possible to conciliate; but how could this be done, when the real object was to get rid of England altogether? By this time British republicans in the colony, and men of the same opinions in this country, began to take part with the French demagogues in the name of liberty and independence, and lent their aid to subvert what they termed the baneful domination of the mother country. At last the demands of an elective Legislature, a responsible executive, and the unconditional surrender of the revenues of the Crown, unmasked the real design. The traitors, finding themselves detected, had recourse to open violence, and the insurrection took place. If the lessons of
1060
experience were not to be disregarded, we should be taught by the example of the Canadas, not to give constitutions to colonies, at any rate not before they were in a condition to receive them.—Such, continued the hon. Member, has been the progress of events; and can we cast our eyes on this sketch, however imperfectly drawn, without perceiving that the true cause of all the disturbances in the Canadas is to be found in the unaltered feelings and ideas of the French, and in the premature concession of free institutions? and, if this is the true cause of the disease, what should be the remedy? always taking into account that the French Canadian of 1840 differs very little from the French Canadian of 1749.—What, however, is the remedy proposed? A plan is laid before us, in the concoction of which it is not, I fear, the loyal who have been consulted—a plan which will give a triumph to those who resisted her Majesty's arms—a plan which is objectionable in many respects, but which, as it has once been announced, it is difficult to withhold. Some persons of weight and experience still recommend that the Provinces should not be united, that Upper and Lower Canada should be kept distinct, that Upper Canada, or the British Province, should be governed by a Representative Assembly, and that, in Lower Canada, the Constitution should, for some years, continue to be suspended. But I cannot think that so anomalous a state of things would work well. I cannot think that such a juxta position of freedom and despotism could be sustained, or that the Canadas would be tranquillized by being half of them under an interdict, which would appear to be so penal and so vindictive. Neither could you keep the provinces distinct, and establish a Representative Assembly in each—for that would only be reviving the pest. But allow me to ask, what will be the feelings of men, what will be the state of parties, in the Canadas, should this bill pass into a law? Of the British part, the loyal will be dispirited, and the disloyal elated;—and what will be the temper of the French? The French who, at this moment, are silent only because they are gagged—the French who struggled for years, and at last rebelled, to shake off the British yoke, to preserve their nationality—the French, who are now plainly told that they are to be swamped, yet whom you cannot prevent

1061
from obtaining an influential position in the new House of Assembly, if not the preponderance. Is it to be believed that they will submit to the operation of swamping in quiet resignation? Will they not struggle for their laws, their language, their beloved nationality? And if they do, what part will the British republicans take, many of whom will find their way into the new House of Assembly? Admitting that they no longer side with the French—admitting that all the British pull together, and, for a time, accept the support and assistance of England, till the swamping is accomplished, and the amalgamation complete, yet, whenever that is effected, the separation of the colony from the mother country will take place. This Bill will lay the first stone of another independent republic. But the Canadas must be settled, no doubt, just as there must be a settlement in the case of a bankruptcy, when by a long course of injudicious proceedings, a merchant has failed, his affairs must be wound up—but was an assignment ever considered a triumph? Did any man ever think of rejoicing in such a termination? This settlement of the Canadas is no better than an assignment, and to trustees who will very likely apply what they get hold of to their own purposes. But the noble Lord will be able to say, what, no doubt, he has long been anxious to say, "Now the Canadas are done with." In the present state of things, however, I have no alternative to propose—we are driven up into a corner. There is no option left, and therefore, without entertaining a hope that this measure will long preserve the colony to the mother country, or that it will give the Canadas the form of government which will be best for themselves when they become independent, I feel it my duty not to oppose the second reading of this bill—but I rather submit to a necessity, than support what I approve.
Mr. Goulburnwould give no opposition to the second reading of the bill, as he intended to discuss it at the next stage.
Sir R. Inglissaid, he should follow the example of his right hon. Friend, and not discuss the measure at the present stage. He believed that no person who had been delegated to govern the province concurred in the propriety of the present measure.
Mr. Ellicesaid, that as it was understood the discussion should be taken on going into committee, he should abstain
1062
from troubling the House at any length on the present occasion. He had had considerable doubts himself on the subject of the union of the two provinces, and they had only been removed by the general expression of the opinion of the inhabitants of both provinces in favour of the measure. In justice to his right hon. Friend, now Governor of Canada, he must bear witness to the able and conciliatory manner in which he had executed his duties, and by which he had reconciled all classes of persons in that country to the principle of the measure now before the House. It was also a great satisfaction to him to see the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) in the office he now filled, because that circumstance gave him a confidence that they were now approaching, after many years, the best settlement of which this question was susceptible. He had an objection to one particular part, and only one, of the present bill, which gave to the Governor-general the power of establishing district councils throughout the two provinces. He was ready to admit that the more the administration of local affairs in each locality was encouraged the better, and it was not therefore against the principle of establishing these district councils that he objected. Nor did he object in principle to the taxation of wild land. But it was the intention of this measure to take very great securities consistently with the concession of what was advantageous to the Canadians. It was intended to take a very large civil list, and to cripple the powers heretofore left to the representatives of the people. It could not, however, be wished to take from them the jurisdiction over the arrangement of their local affairs, which they had objected to vest in the hands of any government. But it would be unsuitable for him then to state his views at any length as he would reserve for the future stages of the discussion the grounds on which he had formed his opinions. In the mean time he would cordially consent to the second reading.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that the hon. Gentlemen opposite having stated that they would reserve their opinions until the House should go into committee on the bill, he must appeal to what was undeniably the rule and practice of the House, that the discussion of the principle of the bill should be taken on the second read-

1063
ing, and that unless such a discussion were raised, the House should be considered as affirming the principle of the bill. He must certainly take it in this light. After the speech which he had made upon introducing this motion, he did not think it necessary at present to enter into the details which had been referred to by hon. Members. The points which had been raised by the hon. Member for Kilkenny were almost all points for the committee. It was proposed by this bill to create a constitution on an extensive scale, resting on a broad basis, with an enlarged system of representation, which could not fail to command the attention of any statesman connected with the management of affairs in England. The object of any measure which he should be disposed to propose would but strengthen and render permanent the connexion between this country and Canada. He could listen to no proposition having for its object to lead to a separation between the two countries, believing it to be for the best interests of both that the connexion should subsist. He considered our colonies to form an inherent part of the strength of this empire, and, deeply impressed with that conviction, he said without hesitation, that they could not continue to govern Canada without going back to the principles of representative government. But they could hardly again constitute an assembly consisting almost wholly of French Canadians, without incurring the greatest risk; and the representative union of the two provinces appeared to him therefore, to be the most judicious mode of solving the difficulty.
Sir R. Peelhad observed the progress of no other question with greater anxiety than this. He held that it would be quite inconsistent with the honour of this country to abandon this colony. Considering the influence of example with regard to our Indian and other colonial possessions, he was of opinion that to abandon this colony might be productive of the most: serious results. Not merely the honour, but the permanent interests of this country, required us to maintain the connexion. But in maintaining that connexion it was out of the question that they could run counter to the wishes of the inhabitants. If they were to be involved in war at the immense distance of 3,000 miles, with the most powerful interests to contend against, without sympathy on the
1064
part of the great mass of the inhabitants, the weak portion of the British empire would be the Canadas. The cost would far exceed the advantage of maintaining them. If they were to continue this connexion, they might be compelled to enter upon a war on a point of honour, and, unless supported by the goodwill of at least the British residents, the most difficult contest, perhaps, in which this country could become engaged would be the war in North America. The British inhabitants both of Upper and Lower Canada were decidedly in favour of the continued connexion. They had afforded a noble example not only of the valour, but of the feeling of pride which they entertained for their British extraction. It was assuredly, therefore, the bounden duty of this country to maintain the connexion. Every pretext for delay, with a view to making further inquiry, was now removed, and the time had arrived when something must be done. Three plans had been proposed for the future government of these colonies. The first was the union of the two provinces. The second was the maintenance of Lower Canada for a series of years, as it existed at present, with a governor, a legislative council, and no representative assembly—in short, the maintenance of arbitrary government in one province, and the concession of liberal institutions to the other. The third form was a division of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada into three parts, each to have its Legislative Council and popular Parliament. Nothing could be easier than to state very formidable objections to any suggestion which might be offered upon this subject, for he could conceive no more embarrassing question. It was quite certain, however, that they could not presume on the goodwill of a large majority of the population of Lower Canada. The abettors of this third plan advised that the island of Montreal, in conjunction with another district, should be detached from Lower and attached to Upper Canada. This part of the proposition did not seem unreasonable, because it was right that Upper Canada should have an outlet for the export of its produce. The new district, of which Montreal was to form a part, was also to contain a portion of the present province of Upper Canada. But such an arrangement as this would have the effect of materially prejudicing the

1065
state of the English inhabitants of the province of Lower Canada, who would thus be left in a still smaller minority. Even such of the residents of the island of Montreal as were of British extraction had in numerous cases protested strongly against their separation from Lower Canada. He had been desirous that the present division of the provinces should continue to subsist, that each should have its representative assembly, but that the government of our entire North American colonies might be under one supreme control;—in short, that there should be local legislation for the local wants of each, but that a governing body should be deputed from both provinces for superintending the general interests of the whole. This was a proposition which might be hereafter taken into consideration. He thought the maintenance of a despotic form of government in Lower Canada to be deprecated; still against the proposed union very formidable objections might be raised. With such an opposition of forces in the new Legislature, it might be very difficult to conduct the public business. There were to be thirty-nine members for the province of Lower Canada, and thirty-nine for that of Upper Canada. This portion of the project might, he feared, lead to great difficulty. He thought that the independence of the judicial authorities, and the placing of the civil list apart from popular control, which would be secured by the proposed measure, would be of the greatest possible utility. But a new source of evil might arise in the fostering of religious animosities. Considering the differences which already pervaded the mother country upon this subject, it must be deeply deplored that any measure should be adopted by which religious feuds were calculated to be promoted in this colony. Religious differences were not known there at present; and the Roman Catholic population had, during the late disturbances, shown themselves well affected towards the mother country; and, in Lower Canada, they were opposed by the inhabitants, not because they were Catholic, but French. But no permanent settlement of this question could be expected, unless it were made in conformity with the sentiments and wishes of the majority of the English inhabitants of Canada. When, therefore, he found that the assent of all the constituted authorities of that colony was
1066
given to this measure—when he found that the Legislative Council of Lower Canada, a body not selected for that purpose, but for a wholly different purpose—a body as fairly selected as could be selected to represent the wishes of the whole French Canadian population of Lower Canada, gave their assent to the measure—when he found that in the Upper Province the great majority of the House of Assembly were favourable to the measure, and that the Legislative Council of the Upper Province was also favourable, by a great majority, to the measure—when he referred to the addresses of the constituted authorities expressing, in distinct terms, their approbation of the union—when he found in those addresses such expressions as those of the 3rd resolution of the representative body in Lower Canada, which stated that the reunion of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada was become indispensable for the maintenance of good government and the preservation of their interests in connexion with the parent state—when he saw the constituted authorities of a country situate at the distance of 3,000 miles from England concurring in this measure, he felt that for him, with his necessarily limited knowledge of the wants and interests of those provinces, to speculate on the probable effects of such a measure would be unwarrantable, and he could not, therefore, feel that he could with propriety object to a measure which they both considered to be essential to the maintenance of British connexion, and to the advancement of their own individual interests. Whatever, therefore, might have been his own individual opinion, he felt that it was impossible for him to refuse his assent to the principle of this measure; he could not undertake so onerous a responsibility. With respect, however, to the terms of the union he reserved his opinion; for he was not now aware what might be offered in the committee to remove the objections which he entertained to some of the details of the proposed plan. He assented, therefore, and fully agreed to the constitution of the future government of Canada on the principle of this bill; the consideration of the details belonged to a future stage. While on the subject, he must say one word on a question closely connected with this—he meant the question of the Clergy Reserves Bill. He hoped that the noble Lord would consider well the pro-

1067
position which he appeared inclined to make of passing an act—namely, for the purpose of enabling the Crown to give the Royal Assent to the bill. If the measure of the Canadian Legislature were invalid, it was deserving of deep consideration whether they ought to think of setting it up in that manner. It would be infinitely better, as appeared to him, to legislate for; the clergy reserves by a separate bill, rather than to pass an act to enable the Crown to assent to this bill. He thought that the noble Lord would find upon consideration that the greatest objections existed in point of principle to that course. If it were invalid, to pass an act to make it valid would, in his opinion, be open to the gravest objections. He made these remarks in no party spirit, for he hoped that this Session would not be allowed to pass without some mode being adopted of settling this most important question in a satisfactory manner, as well as the long agitated question of the clergy reserves, and he thought that it was infinitely better for him to state the opinion which he had exprsssed before the House was pledged to any particular course on the Canadian bill, rather than to wait until the noble Lord declared what course he intended to take, and then to state his opinion on the subject. Again, he must assure the House, that it was with no wish to throw impediments in the way of legislating on the question that he had spoken, for he earnestly prayed that the deliberations of Parliament might be successful in making the Canadas a source of strength to this country.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that with respect to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, in regard to the Clergy Reserves Bill, he had to state, that on the question of law the inquiry he had made of the law officers of the Crown had reference to a clause or part of a clause of the bill, and therefore was not so general as that which had been proposed in the other House to the judges. He did not intend to move for any bill on the subject until after the recess, when full time would have been afforded for consulting the best authorities on the subject as to the question whether they should proceed with the present bill, or take some new steps for the settlement of the question. He was very much obliged to the tight hon. Gentleman for his opinion and suggestions, which always must be of great authority,
1068
and he was also quite sure, that they were not given in a party spirit, but with a view to serve the best interests of the country. With regard to what might be called the material part of the question, the amount, namely, of money to be received from the rent or sale of the clergy reserves, he should only say, that he hoped no assertion of right, or of the point of honour, on the part of one party or the other, would stand in the way of its satisfactory adjustment. The House might be assured, that he should not propose any measure for their adoption without mature deliberation and consultation with his colleagues, and with those who were the most likely to assist them in coming to a proper conclusion on the subject. Bill read a second time.

LORD SEATON'S ANNUITY.
On bringing up the report of Lord Seaton's Annuity Bill,
Mr. S. O'Briensaid, that though he had voted for the principle of an annuity to Lord Seaton, and though he was willing to continue it for the life of the legitimate heir of the noble Lord, yet he was opposed to letting it run to the third generation. The hon. Member then moved the omission of the words "two next heirs," and insert other alterations in the first clause calculated to effect his object of limiting the annuity to Lord Seaton and his next heir.
The House divided on the original question:—Ayes 104; Noes 33: Majority 71.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Dundas, D

Adam, Admiral

Du Pre, G,

Adare, Lord

East, J. B.

Arbuthnott, H.

Egerton, W. T.

Barnard, E. G.

Estcourt, T.

Bernal, R.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Blackburne, I.

Gaskell, J. M.

Blair, J.

Gladstone, W. E.

Bradshaw, J.

Gordon, R.

Bramston, T. W.

Gordon, Captain

Broadley, H.

Goulburn, H.

Bruges, W. H.

Graham, Sir J.

Buller, C.

Grey, Sir C.

Buller, E.

Grey, Sir G.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Harcourt, G. G.

Campbell, Sir J.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Clive, E. B.

Henniker, Lord

Copeland, Alderman

Hillsborough, Earl of

Dalmeny, Lord

Hope, G. W.

Darby, G.

Hoskins, K.

Duff, J.

Hotham, Lord

Duncombe, W,

Howard, P. H.

1069

Hurt, F.

Scarlett, hon. J.

Hutt, W.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Sheppard, T.

James, W.

Smith, R. V.

Jones, J.

Somerset, Lord G.

Kemble, H.

Stewart, J.

Lemon, Sir C.

Stock, Dr.

Lennox, Lord G,

Surrey, Earl of

Lennox, Lord A.

Sutton, hon. J. H.

Lushington, S.

Tancred, H. W.

Lygon, hon. G.

Teignmouth, Lord

Mahon, Lord

Thesiger, F.

Maule, hon. F.

Thompson, Alderman

Murray, A.

Trench, Sir F.

Neeld, J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Noel, hon. C. G.

Tufnell, H.

Norreys, Lord

Vere, Sir C. B.

O'Ferral, R. M.

Villiers, Lord

Ord, W.

Vivian, Sir R. H.

Packe, C. W.

Welby, G. E.

Paget, F.

Wilbraham, G.

Palmerston, Lord

Wilde, Mr. Sergeant

Parker, R. T.

Wilshere, W.

Peel, Sir R.

Wodehouse, E.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Wood, Colonel T.

Pigot, D. R.

Wrightson, W. B.

Plumptre, J. P.

Wyse, T.

Price, Sir R.

Young, J.

Round, J.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

TELLERS.

Russell, Lord J.

Seymour, Lord

Sanford, E. A.

Clay, W.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Muntz, G. F.

Berkeley, hon. C.

O'Connell, M. J.

Bridgeman, H.

Pease, J.

Brodie, W. B.

Pechell, Captain

Divett, E.

Salwey, Colonel

Duncombe, T.

Strutt, E.

Evans, G.

Vigors, N. A.

Evans, W.

Wakley, T.

Ewart, W.

Wall, C. B.

Finch, F.

Warburton, H.

Gillon, W. D.

White, A.

Hawkins, J. H.

Williams, W.

Hector, C. J.

Wood, G. W.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Wood, B.

Hindley, C.

Yates, J. A.

Jervis, S.

TELLERS.

Lushington, C.

Hume, J.

Morris, D.

O'Brien, W. S.

Report received.

ADMIRALTY COURTS (JUDGE'S SALARY).
The House in Committee on the Admiralty Courts (Judges Salary, &c.) Bill.
On the first Clause, and on the question that the blank be filled up with the words four thousand pounds,
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume moved to substitute 3,000 l. instead of 4,000 l. It appeared that in 1836 the judge of the Admiralty Courts sat twenty days; in 1837, twenty-one
1070
days; in 1838, twenty-four days; and in 1839, twenty-six days. On the average, in the Consistory Court, and the Admiralty Court, the judge sat forty-five days per year, and the salary was between 80 l. and 90 l. a day. He thought 3,000 l. a year was quite enough.
Mr. W. Williamsseconded the motion. On the average of the last four years the salary and fees had amounted to 2,609 l., and 3,000 l. a year would, he thought, be sufficient. He considered the proposition of his hon. Friend a most liberal one, and he should, therefore, support his amendment.
Mr. M. O'Ferrallsaid, the hon. Member for Kilkenny should have opposed the previous bill in common justice, as he now offered opposition to the present, because that measure considerably increased the duties of the judge of the Admiralty Court, whose salary the hon. Gentleman now wished to curtail. It was true, that the judge of the Admiralty Court only sat on the average twenty-six days yearly in his court, but then he also sat in the Privy Council, and adjudicated there on questions pertaining to his office. He likewise lost more in practice, as an advocate, than was proposed to give him as a judge. The office had been offered to the right hon. Gentleman who now held it, in consideration of his having discharged the duties of a Privy Councillor, the duties of a Judge in ecclesiastical matters, and the duties of an Admiralty Judge for a very small consideration. Those duties were now increased by the preceding bill, and if the House did not increase the salary commensurately, it would be quite idle to suppose that any man of high professional eminence would ever accept the office. The opposition given to the present proposition appeared to him to be improper and unworthy.
Mr. Wakleyobserved, that though it was true the Judge of the Admiralty had onerous and important functions to perform occasionally, it was also true that these functions had been heretofore satisfactorily performed for a less salary even than that proposed by his hon. Friend—3,000 l. He thought it, therefore, a profligate expenditure of the public money. He (Mr. Wakley), however, was opposed to the original sum on other grounds, which were shortly, that in his belief, whatever might be the learning, whatever the ingenuity, and whatever

1071
the skill of the man, no lawyer ever was, or, in his opinion, ever would be, worth more than 3,000 l. a-year to this or any other country. He should, therefore, vote for the amendment.
Lord J. Russell: The right hon. Member for Finsbury put his opposition to this motion on one ground, and the hon. Member for Kilkenny on another. Which of them is right? As to the argument of the former hon. Gentleman, that the duty of the Judge of the Admiralty Court was performed for less than 3,000 l. a-year before, that goes for nothing, inasmuch as the situation was given to Dr. Lushington by my Lord Melbourne, on the express understanding that a bill to the effect of increasing the salary of the office to the sum at present proposed should be brought in. I do not know what the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was to the proposition; but every one knows that his income as an advocate was much larger; and notwithstanding what has been urged against this measure, if you only pay a judge 3,000 l. a-year, while an advocate may obtain in the way of his practice three times as much, the consequence will be, that you will have the bar superior to the bench, for no man of eminence will be found to relinquish the one for the other. The whole question is, whether the judge of the Admiralty Court, exercising as he does, such large powers, and performing such important functions, shall have the remuneration for his services fixed at 3,000 l. I think it advisable for the dignity of the office, and the good of the public at large, that it should not be at so low a sum, and, therefore, I shall oppose the amendment.
The Committee divided on the amendment:—Ayes 41; Noes 100: Majority 59.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Egerton, W. T.

Baillie, H. J.

Ewart, W.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Pector, J. M.

Blackburne, I.

Finch, F.

Blackstone, W. S.

Gillon, W. D.

Blair, J.

Hector, C. J.

Broadley, H.

Hillsborough, Earl

Brotherton, J.

Hurt, F.

Bruges, W, H.

Jones, J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Lygon, General

Copeland, Alderman

Morris, D.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Neeld, J.

Duke, Sir J.

Norreys, Lord

Duncombe, T.

Packe, C. W.

Du Pre, G.

Parker, R. T.

East, J. B.

Round, J.

1072

Salwey, Colonel

Wakley, T.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Warburton, H.

Sheppard, T.

Welby, G. E.

Spry, Sir S. T.

TELLERS.

Tancred, H. W.

Hume, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Williams, W.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

M'Taggart, J.

Adam, Admiral

Maule, hon. F.

Adare, Lord

Maxwell, hon. S.

Archbold, R.

Murray, A.

Baillie, Colonel

O'Connell, J.

Baring, F. T.

O'Connell, M. J.

Barnard, E. G.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Blennerhassett, A.

Ord, W.

Bradshaw, J.

Paget, F.

Bramston, T. W.

Palmerston, Lord

Bridgeman, H.

Parker, J.

Biodie, W. B.

Pechell, Captain

Buller, C.

Peel, Sir R.

Byng, G. S.

Perceval, hon. G.

Callaghan, D.

Pigot, D. R.

Campbell, Sir J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Clay, W.

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Clive, E. B.

Price, Sir R.

Dalmeny, Lord

Rundle, J.

Divett, E.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Duff, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Duncombe, W.

Rutherford, A.

Dundas, D.

Sandon, Lord

Elliot, J.

Sanford, E. A.

Evans, G.

Seymour, Lord

Evans, W.

Smith, R. V.

Gladstone, W.

Somerset, Lord G.

Gordon, R.

Stanley, W. O.

Goulburn, H.

Stewart, J.

Graham, Sir J.

Stock, Dr.

Grey, Sir C.

Strutt, E.

Grey, Sir G.

Sutton, hon. J. H.

Grimston, Lord

Teignmouth, Lord

Grimston, E.

Thesiger, F.

Hawkes, T.

Trench, Sir F.

Hawkins, J. H.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Tufnell, H.

Henniker, Lord

Vere, Sir C. B.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Vivian, Sir R. H.

Hobhouse, T. B

Wall, C. B.

Hope, G. W.

Wilde, Sergeant

Hoskins, K.

Wilshere, W.

Hotham, Lord

Wood, G. W.

Howard, R. H.

Wood, Col. T.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Wrightson, W. B.

James, W.

Wyse, T.

Kemble, H.

Yates, J. A.

Lemon, Sir C.

Young, J.

Lennox, Lord G.

Lennox, Lord A.

TELLERS.

Lockhart, A. M.

Stanley, E. J.

Macaulay, T. B.

Steuart, R.

On the question that the words originally proposed be added,
Mr. Joneswas understood to designate transaction as an "infamous job."
The Attorney-Generallooked on the office of a judge of the Admiralty Court

1073
as of as much importance as that of a judge in any other court whatever. He had in times of peace, as well as in times of war, to decide on the most difficult and delicate questions—on the right of search, for instance, the validity of blockades, and other matters of the nicest nature. And though at present the average time of his sitting in a year might not amount to more than twenty-six days, yet, in time of war, he might be occupied for full three hundred, all his attention absorbed by the business of his court. In time of war he was paid more than any judge in Westminster Hall, in time of peace he was paid less than an officer of the court. It became, therefore, absolutely necessary to award him an adequate compensation. And if the judges in Westminster Hall were not (as he believed to be the case) overpaid with 5,000 l. a-year, neither would the judge of the Admiralty Court be more than properly remunerated with 4,000 l. It was on public and not on personal grounds that he should vote against the amendment.
Mr. Kemblethought it was no economy to pay low salaries to judges. The Court of Admiralty required a man of commanding talent to preside over it; and that talent could not be had without an adequate remuneration.
Clause ordered to be filled up with the words "four thousand pounds."
On the question that the clause stand part of the bill,
Lord Hothamrose to move as a proviso to be added to the end of the clause, "That the judge of the Admiralty Court shall, after the present Parliament, be incapable of being elected or sitting as a Member of the House of Commons." In making this motion he (Lord Hotham) was actuated by no personal or party feeling whatever. He did it purely on public grounds, and because he thought it would benefit the country. It would be in the recollection of the House, that in the year 1823, during Lord Grey's Government, a committee was appointed to inquire into the Admiralty, Ecclesiastical, and Consistory Courts. The report of that committee recommended the abolition of the practice which prevailed of paying the judge of the Admiralty Court by fees, the adoption of a fixed salary in lieu thereof, and the making him incapable to sit in the House of Commons. All these recommendations, with the exception of the
1074
last, were attended to. Why that was neglected no satisfactory reason had been offered to show. He should not enter on the subject of the duties of that office, as the Attorney-General had already pointed out their great difficulty and importance; but he could not help adverting to the very singular and improper situation in. which a judge of the Admiralty, sitting in the House of Commons for the largest metropolitan constituency, was placed, having at the same time such duties to discharge. In saying that it was the largest constituency in the metropolis he believed he was quite right; and he believed he was equally so in saying that no other constituency in the country furnished a greater proportion of business to the Admiralty Court. He did not, for a moment, mean to insinuate or suggest, that there was the slightest possibility of bias one way or the other on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentlemen who now held that situation; but it was not what he thought, or what any other hon. Gentleman thought, but what opinion the public would come to on the subject, which ought to be the chief consideration. And when people from the country saw the right hon. Gentleman on one day sitting as judge in his own court, and on the next engaging as a partisan in the House of Commons, it was, he maintained, impossible for them to come to any other than a conclusion unfavourable to the connexion of the two functions in one man. He could not, therefore, help thinking that it would be infinitely better to remove the Judge of the Admiralty Court from the possibility of any such imputation as partiality or bias of any kind. As it was deemed advisable to adopt the recommendations of the committee, in regard to extending the business of the Court, and increasing the salary of the Judges, he also thought it advisable to withdraw that functionary from the contentions of party and political warfare: to take him away altogether from the House of Commons; and to leave him no longer exposed to suspicion, or even the chance of censure. On these general grounds, he hoped the House would agree to the proviso.
Lord J. Russellsaid; Sir, the noble Lord has proposed the present motion in a manner which, I am sure, nobody could object to, limited as it is to the constitutional grounds on which he has based it. Sir, I have a different feeling on this

1075
question; and, on equally constitutional grounds, I hope to maintain the right he seeks to annul. I think, Sir, that the effect of this motion would be to injure the House of Commons and lower it considerably in the eyes of the country by depriving it of the services of persons of weight, talents, and legal acquirements, whom they might wish to send hither to represent them. I think, Sir, it is most desirable and most consistent with the effective performance of the business of the nation, that we should have persons sent to this House, who can give us sound information on the various questions coming under our consideration, and can take an active part in their discussion. You must either maintain things in their present position, or you must go much further in your exclusion than you are now prepared to do; when you have done that, you will find yourself in a very inferior position to the other House. There are two judges of criminal courts in this House, (the Recorders of London and Dublin,) who, by your principle, ought to be excluded; but I should be very sorry to see the idea carried to such a length, and would give a clause to that effect my most decided opposition. I was happy to find, one hon. and learned Gentleman taking such a warm and active part as he did on many interesting questions, and to listen to him stating his opinion with such force, clearness, and eloquence. It was stated, that the appointment of the Recorder of Dublin was not vested in the Crown; but you have latterly altered the law affecting this nomination, and vested the appointment (if he should vacate his judicial seat at any time) in the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland for the time being; yet you have not thought it necessary to insert a clause also providing that he should not sit in Parliament. As you have sanctioned the principle of confiding the nomination of the judicial office in Dublin to the Crown, I hope you will, on the next opportunity, extend it to a similar office in London. But, Sir, with respect to the present motion, I do not like to see invidious distinctions made between judges. It would look very invidious, and probably lead to most injurious party distinctions. Shall we, suppose the proposition extended to the other branch of the Legislature, and for consistency sake, exclude the Master of the Rolls and the other judicial dignitaries? I have known the Lord Chief Justice and the
1076
Lord Chief Baron taking an active share in party debates; the latter, in the case of the Reform Bill, with very great effect, in reference to the sensation it created through the country. Would you, then, allow those learned Lords to continue to take part in political debates, in the other House, to be mixed up and contaminated, as the noble Lord expresses it with party matters, while you would exclude for ever such functionaries as the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets from your own House, and exclude, at the same time, all the learning and talent and eloquence which they bring to aid your debates? I will allude only to the question which formerly occupied the attention of this House at the time of the French revolution, when one of the ablest speeches that appeared on the subject of the Sedition Bill and the suppression of public meetings was made by Sir William Grant; and you are now asked to enact, that whenever some similar important occasion occurs, you will deprive yourself of the opportunity of having the light which the Judge of the Admiralty may be able to throw upon the law of nations for your information and guidance? It is true, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is returned Member for the Tower Hamlets, which is, perhaps, a misfortune. It would certainly be desirable that he should not have been the representative of so large a constituency, but he had no choice in the matter, as they were well satisfied with his conduct, and determined to re-elect him. I think, Sir, there is very little disadvantage in the present system, but that there would be a considerable one in disqualifying the learned individuals aimed at, both as against the people, who claim the right of sending them, and against ourselves, who require their information. I am, Sir, decidedly opposed to altering the constitution of the country without any benefit likely to result.
Mr. Wakleywas far from thinking it an unfortunate circumstance that the learned Judge of the Admiralty should have been elected for the large constituency of the Tower Hamlets—on the contrary, he considered it very fortunate that, after having been selected by the Government for a high judicial office, the right learned and right hon. Gentleman should have been declared by his constituents qualified to represent them, His

1077
chief objection to the motion, however, was, that it tended to limit and restrain the choice of the people, and to deprive them of the services of honest and talented men—as they would be compelled to look to the House of Lords alone for dignity and elevation, and would, therefore, become trucklers to the Ministry of the day. As to the judge being excluded for fear he should be interested in judicial questions affecting his constituents—if that principle were good, why not send out all the landholders from that House on the discussion of the Corn-laws—because they were personally, and pecuniarily interested in voting against the repeal in order to keep up their high rents?—["Question."] Why it was too much to the question.—This was a great constitutional question. And he begged the House to recollect that the present Lord Chancellor, when Master of the Rolls, had sat in the House, and was now so noble an ornament to the bench, that the House could not but deem itself honoured by having numbered him among its Members. He thought the constitutional rights of the people would be violated if any more security were required than that they should exercise on any individual appointed to the judicial office the same choice which was required to be exercised at the re-election of those who had been appointed to Ministerial offices.
Mr. Hume: Sir, I differ entirely from my hon. Friend. I think any Member, elected by a large constituency, must, if he performs his duty to them, have the whole of his time thereby occupied. And I think in the same way that the public, after having made an ample provision for the remuneration of the judge are entitled to the whole of his time and energy. Indeed, Sir, I think that no paid officer of the Crown should sit in this House.
Colonel Sibthorpthought the noble Lord was very politic in keeping all the friendly votes he could in the House, otherwise he would have been out of office long ago. If the hon. Member for Kilkenny brought forward a motion that every person who received public money should walk out of the House he would support him.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, that the noble Lord had advocated the propriety of having the Master of the Rolls in the House on important questions, on account of the information he could afford them? but
1078
there were other public functionaries in a similar predicament. There was Mr. Harvey, who lately held a very important office, and the House resolved on his expulsion. There were the Poor-law Commissioners, the Police Commissioners, and the Tithe Commissioners, whom it might be desirable to have on the same principle. The noble Lord said it was desirable the Judge of the Admiralty ought not to have a large constituency; but what number did he think he ought to have? Old Sarum would serve his purpose. Some snug patronage borough. He would venture to say, that they would always find such an individual to vote thin and thick with the Government of the day. He thought the fewer placemen they had in the House the better, and he was happy to see this reform coming from the other side of the House, for, as the thing stood, it was too absurd.
The House divided on the question, that the proviso be added:—Ayes 81; Noes 99: Majority 18.

List of the AYES.

Adare, Lord

Heathcote, Sir W.

Arbuthnot, H.

Hector, C. J.

Baillie, Col.

Henniker, Lord

Baillie, H.J.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Baring, hon. F.

Hodgson, R.

Blackburn, I.

Holmes, W.

Blackstone, W.

Hope, G. W.

Blair, J.

Howard, P. H.

Blennerhassett, A.

Hurt, F.

Boldero, H. G.

Ingestrie, Lord

Bradshaw, J.

Jones, J.

Bramston, T. W.

Kemble, H.

Broadley, H.

Lockhart, A. M.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Lowther, J. H.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Lygon, hon. General

Copeland, Ald.

Mahon, Lord

Darlington, Earl of

Maxwell, hon. S. R.

Dick, Q.

Neeld, J.

Douglas, Sir C.

Norreys, Lord

Duncombe, T.

Packe, C. W.

Duncombe, W.

Parker, R. T.

Du Pre, G.

Peel, Sir R.

East, J. B.

Pemberton, T.

Eaton, R. J.

Perceval, J. G.

Egerton, W. T.

Plumptre, J. P.

Estcourt, T.

Round, J.

Fector, J. M.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Finch, F.

Salwey, Colonel

Gaskell, J. M.

Sandon, Lord

Gladstone, W. E.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Gordon, Capt.

Sheppard, T.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Somerset, Lord G.

Grimston, Lord

Spry, Sir S. T.

Grimston, E. H.

Sutton, hon. J. H.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Teignmouth, Lord

Hawes, B.

Thesiger, F.

1079

Trench, Sir F.

Young, J.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Villiers, Lord

TELLERS.

Williams, W.

Hotham, Lord

Wood, Col. T.

Hume, J.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Maule, hon. F.

Adam, Admiral

Melgund, Visct.

Aglionby, H. A.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Anson, hon. Col.

Moreton, A.

Archbold, R.

Morpeth, Visct.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Morris, D.

Barnard, E. G.

Murray, A.

Bellew, R. M.

O'Brien, W. S.

Berkeley, hon. H.

O'Connell, J.

Berkeley, hon. C.

O'Connell, M. J.

Bridgeman, H.

O'Ferrall, K. M.

Brocklehurst, J.

Ord, W.

Brodie, W. H.

Paget, Lord A.

Brotherton, J.

Paget, F.

Buller, C.

Palmerston, Visct.

Bulwer, Sir L.

Parker, J.

Byng, right hon. G.

Pease, J.

Callaghan, D.

Pechell, Capt.

Campbell, Sir J.

Philips, M.

Cavendish, C.

Pigot, D. R.

Clay, W.

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Clive, E. B.

Price, Sir R.

Dalmeny, Lord

Rundle, J.

Divett, K.

Russell, Lord J.

Duff, J.

Rutherfurd, A.

Duke, Sir J.

Sanford, E. A.

Dundas, D

Seymour, Lord

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Smith, R. V.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Stanley, hon. W.

Evans, G.

Stewart, J.

Evans, W.

Stock, Dr.

Ewart, W.

Strutt, E.

Gillon, W. D.

Tancred, H. W.

Gordon, R.

Townley, R. G.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Tufnell, H.

Harcourt, G. G.

Vigors, N. A.

Hawkins, J. H.

Vivian, Sir R. H.

Heathcoat, J.

Wakley, T,

Hill, Lord A. M.

Wall, C. B.

Hindley, C.

Warburton, H.

Hobhouse, T. B.

White, A.

Horsman, E.

Wilde, Sergeant

Hoskins, K.

Wilshere, W.

Hutt, W.

Wood, G. W.

James, W.

Wrightson, W.

Lemon, Sir C.

Wyse, T.

Lennox, Lord G.

Yates, J.A.

Lennox, Lord A.

TELLERS.

Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

M'Taggart, J.

Steuart, R.

On clause 5, providing for a retiring pension of 2,000 l. for the judge of the Admiralty and the Dean of Arches, being put,
Mr. W. Williamswished to know upon what grounds it was proposed for the first time to give a retiring pension to the judge of the Admiralty? He desired to be in-
1080
formed why this retiring pension should be sought for the present judge of the Admiralty, when Lord Stowell and his predecessors required no such provision? Still more was he anxious to be informed why the Dean of Arches, an officer appointed not by the Crown, but by the Archbishop of Canterbury, should have the boon extended to him? To adopt this proposition would be to throw away the public money without consideration. Last year he had moved to expunge this clause and he begged to make the same motion now.
Mr. Humeseconded the amendment. The proposition for retiring pensions to the judges of the Bankruptcy Court had been rejected, and on the same grounds he trusted the committee would altogether reject the present new pension.
Mr. M. O'Ferrallsaid, he thought the opponents of the clause ought to have stated some grounds why this pension should not be granted. They had not done so, though there were strong reasons why it should be given. One reason was, that an able and learned man would undertake the important duties of the office when secured a retiring pension in the event of his health failing him, and thus the best talent would be secured to fill the important office. The case of Lord Stowell had no analogy to the present proposition, for Lord Stowell, in addition to his office as judge of the Admiralty, held the offices of judge of the Consistory Court, Dean of the Arches, Master of the Faculties, and other similar appointments, which produced him a revenue of 7,350 l. per annum. It had now been determined to fix the salary at 4,000 l., and he thought ample grounds existed for a retiring pension of 2,000 l.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, this was one of a series of jobs unparalleled in the history of the House of Commons. If one pension could be considered worse than another, it was this.
Mr. Humeobserved, that the effect of the measure would be to give a pension to the servant of the archbishop, and not the servant of the Crown.
Sir J. Grahamobserved, that there was no provision made in the present bill for the independence of the judge of the Admiralty Court. It was not declared that he was only removable upon address to the Crown by the two Houses of Parliament.
The Attorney-Generalfully agreed with the right hon. Baronet, that the judge of the Admiralty Court ought to be independent; and no doubt he was so, without the necessity of any provision being made in the present bill for that purpose. The other judges held their offices quamdiu se bene gesserint, and so did he.
The House divided on the question that the clause stand part of the bill—Ayes 46; Noes 22; Majority 24.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Morpeth, Viscount

Archbold, R.

O'Brien, W. B.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

O'Connell, M J.

Boldero, H. G.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Bridgeman, H.

Palmerston, Viscount

Campbell, Sir J.

Pechell, Captain

Dalmeny, Lord

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Duncombe, T.

Pigot, D. R.

Du Pre

Price, Sir R.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Ruslibrooke, Colonel

Estcourt, T.

Russell, Lord J.

Evans, W.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Gordon, R.

Sandon, Viscount

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Seymour, Lord

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Strutt, E.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hawes, B.

Warburton, H.

Hawkins, J. H.

Wilde, Sergeant

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wodehouse, E.

Hodgson, R.

Wood, G. W.

Horsman, E.

Young, J.

Hoskins, K.

Hutt, W.

TELLERS.

Maule, hon. F.

Parker, J.

Moreton, hon. A. H

Tufnell, H.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Morris, D.

Blackstone, W. S.

Parker, R. T.

Brotherton, J.

Philips, M.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Round, J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Salwey, Colonel

Duke, Sir J.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Ewart, W.

Trench, Sir F.

Finch, F.

Vigors, N. A.

Gillon, W. D.

Wakley, T.

Hector, C. J.

Ingestrie, Viscount

TELLERS.

Jones, J.

Hume, J.

Lowther, J. H.

Williams, W.

Remaining clauses agreed to, the House resumed; bill to be reported.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Tithe Composition (Ireland).—Read a second time:—Frivilous Suits Act Amendment—Read a third time:—Exchequer Bills.
Petitions presented. By Lord Kenyon, from Northumberland, against the Grant to Maynooth College.—By the Earl of Rosebery, from Cupar, and other places, against the Union of Church and State, and for the Release of John Thorogood.—By the Marquess of Westminster, from Temperance Societies, for promoting the Growth of Assam Tea.—By the Duke of Wellington, from the University of Oxford, against the Clergy Reserves Bill.—By the Marquess of Londonderry, from Down, in favour of Non-Intrusion.—By the Earl of Haddington, from one place, for the same.—By the Earl of Radnor, from one place, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of London, from several places, against the Clergy Reserves Bill; and by the latter, from several places, for Church Extension, and against the Grant to Maynooth College.—By Lord Redesdale, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, from two places, for facilitating the Collection of Tithes.—By the Earl of Winchilsea, from East Kent, for Church Extension; and from Liverpool, against the Irish Municipal Bill.—By the Earl of Montcashel, from Dublin, against the same.—By the Earl of Glengall, from one place, against the Importation of Flour into Ireland.

ASSAM TEA.
The Marquess of Westminsterpresented five petitions from temperance societies, praying for encouragement to the growth of Assam tea. He had no sort of doubt that her Majesty's Ministers would do every thing in their power to restore amicable relations with China, at the same time that they would not allow the honour of this country to be tarnished. He had heard a great deal said about the trade in opium, but he was sure that it would be very difficult to persuade the people of the eastern coasts of China, to abandon the use or abuse of a drug to which they had been so long habituated, and it would also be very difficult to prevent adventurous traders from supplying a commodity from the traffic, in which they derived such large gains. However, if our relations with China should be interrupted for a long time, it would be a great advantage to derive a sufficient supply of tea (which had

999
become to this nation almost a necessary of life) from our own dominions. He had no doubt that with encouragement, Assam would soon be able to furnish a sufficient quantity of tea for our consumption; and having tried the quality of the tea grown in that province, he could say that it was very palatable, and he could not doubt that it would before long be equal to the best of Chinese growth. The demand for tea would be greatly increased by the extensive progress of the "temperance pledge" in all parts of the United Kingdom, and especially in Ireland, where the progress of the pledge had been so great as to alarm the noble Marquess opposite, (Westmeath,) perhaps more than the uncourteous allusion to the "bilious scion of the house of Derby." He hoped the prayers of the petitioners would have some weight, and that the Legislature would give every encouragement to the growing of tea in the East Indies.
The Marquess of Westmeathhad heard, that the people who took the temperance pledge in Ireland, did really abstain from drinking spirits, but he did not believe they had yet taken to drinking tea. If the only manifestation at the temperance meetings in Ireland, had been that of a desire to abstain from spirits and to drink tea, he should have been very little alarmed.

ANGLO-SPANISH LEGION.
The Marquess of Londonderrymust again press upon the attention of the noble Viscount, the subject of the claims of the late unfortunate British legion. This was, it was well known, a subject on which he took the greatest interest, and he trusted, that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Clarendon) had seen the letter lately published by a gallant officer, who held a high command in the legion, repelling the taunt which had been cast on the officers of the British auxiliary legion, of a want of esprit du corps, and of a proper sense of dignity and decorum in having applied to the Marquess of Londonderry to support their claims in the House of Lords. He was also desirous of calling the noble Viscount's attention to a great grievance, which arose from the circulation of the certificates granted by the Spanish government. Some of them had got into the hands of honest tradesmen and citizens in this town, and they would either be ruined or put to the greatest inconvenience, if they were not paid. The following letter had been transmitted to him on this subject, which he would read to their Lordships:
1000
"7, Paul-street, Finsbury-square,
April 9, 1840.
"My Lord—I know and feel that I am taking a great liberty in occupying one moment of your Lordship's valuable time. I beg, however, most humbly, your Lordship will please to read my letter, and humbly trust to your Lordship's humanity to pardon me.
"Some months back, in my little industrious pursuits, I took, in the way of business, a Spanish certificate for 16 l. 15 s. 6d., signed by two commissioners, and also by General Alava, for which I gave good and honest value, but not till I ascertained from General Alava himself that it was correct and would be paid. Since that, owing to illness in my family, I fell into great distress. I endeavoured to sell the certificate, but could not get half the amount. Having seen it stated in the Morning Chronicle that the amount of the certificates would be all paid, in consequence of an arrangement made by Lord Melbourne, I wrote to his Lordship in deep distress. I received his answer, desiring, me to apply to the Foreign Office. I received Lord Palmerston's answer, desiring me to apply to General Alava, the Spanish Ambassador at this Court. I did so, and presented both the letters, and, after calling every day for a week, his secretary said the General was very sorry, but if he paid me it would be a precedent, and he would be troubled, and I must wait till the time of payment arrived. My daughters were ill, and we were literally starving. A respectable tradesman in this neighbourhood lent me four pounds on the certificate. He has got it, the Morning Chronicle which I purchased, and the letters of Lords Melbourne and Palmerston.
"I humbly beg to state to your Lordship that the amount of the certificate, or less, would enable me to earn a living. My daughters are, thank God, recovered, but I am in a state of total destitution, and know not what to do. I have no claim on your Lordship more than being an Irishman in great distress, and pray your Lordship to pardon me. I have the honour to be, with the greatest respect, your Lordship's most humble and obedient servant,
"THOMAS FITZGERALD.
"I beg most humbly to state to your Lordship that I have been extensively in business in London for twenty years as an importer of Irish provisions, but have been unfortunate and lost all; and, small as the amount of the certificate is, it is enough for me to earn an honest living and be happy the remainder of my life. If your Lordship will benevolently condescend to notice my appeal to your humanity, my gratitude will never cease. I have not this moment the command of one shilling, and know not what to do."
The notice in the Morning Chronicle to which the poor man referred, was this:—

1001
"British Auxiliary Legion—We have great pleasure in stating from authority that the claims of the officers and men of the unfortunate legion upon the Spanish Government are now in a fair way of being speedily settled."
The notice then stated some other particulars, which it was not now necessary to mention. The answer which the noble Viscount (Melbourne) sent was as follows:—
"Downing-street, February 3, 1840.
"Sir—I am desired by Viscount Melbourne to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 1st instant, and to inform you that you should make your communication to the Foreign Office.—I am, your obedient servant,
"Thomas Fitzgerald, Esq. "C. HOWARD."
This poor man was told that he should make his communication to the Foreign Office. He did so, and he was referred to General Alava, the Spanish Ambassador. The answer of the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office was as follows:—
"Foreign Office, Feb. 5, 1840.
"Sir—I am directed by Viscount Palmerston to acknowledge the receipt of your letters of the 31st ult. and the 4th instant, stating that you hold a Spanish certificate for 16 l. 15 s., signed by General Alava, and requesting to be informed how you are to obtain payment of the same; and I am to acquaint you in reply that his Lordship is not in possession of the information required by you, but his Lordship suggests that you should apply to General Alava, the Spanish Minister at this Court—I am, Sir, your most obedient, humble servant,
"W. F. STRANGWAYS."
"Thomas Fitzgerald.
Mr. Fitzgerald then applied to General Alava. He saw the secretary of the Embassy, and was told the General was sorry—that if he paid him it would be a precedent, and that he must wait till the time for payment arrived. The consequence of this was that this poor man was thrown into a starving condition. This case was quite disgraceful to the Government and to the Spanish Embassy, and therefore he trusted that during the Easter recess some steps would be taken towards the final settlement of these claims. The certificate was in itself a curiosity. It had on the back some twenty names of parties to whom it had been transferred. He again repeated that he trusted these claims would be settled, because if they were not, these certificates would be in circulation, inflicting injury on all those who had purchased them. Now with respect to the Bergara
1002
papers, he must say that he had never seen so meagre a compilation. He hoped, as had been the case with the China papers, that the Government would be induced to dole out a little more information. He wished now to state certain questions on which he should be glad to receive to-morrow some information from the noble Earl (Clarendon). First, whether Lord John Hay had any instructions to open a communication with General Maroto; secondly, whether that gallant Officer was instructed to aid the views of Munagorri, notwithstanding that his attempt was not recognised by the Christino government; thirdly, whether it was promised to preserve the Basque fueros as far as they were consistent with the Spanish representative government; and, lastly, whether in the proceedings which had been taken between Espartero and Maroto it was the determination of the British Government that the fueros should be fully preserved.
Subject at an end.

MUNICIPAL PROPERTY (IRELAND).
The Marquess of Westmeathbegged to ask whether the noble Viscount intended to lay upon the table the evidence which had been given respecting the corporation of Dublin before the committee of inquiry?
Viscount Duncannondid not know what evidence the noble Marquess referred to.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, it was a most extraordinary thing that her Majesty's Ministers should bring forward a measure of this description without even knowing that evidence had been given on the subject. What an exhibition to make to the country! He was not bound to inform her Majesty's Ministers where they were to find the evidence.
Viscount Melbourneapprehended, that if the noble Marquess alluded to evidence which had been given before the committee of inquiry, the evidence which the noble Marquess required was already before the House.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, the impression of the noble Viscount was erroneous, as the evidence before the House did not contain any statements as to the corporation of Dublin. It was the business of her Majesty's Ministers, when they brought forward a measure, to have all the evidence appertaining to it ready.
Lord Cloncurryhoped, that if evidence were heard in opposition to the bill, evidence would also be heard respecting the

1003
rights of which corporations had been robbed by patrons and others.
The Marquess of Westmeaththought such an inquiry also very desirable. In fact, he thought, the case of each individual corporation should be referred to a select committee. [Much laughter.] This suggestion appeared to amuse noble Lords opposite; but when their Lordships were about to interfere with vested rights, they ought not to consider the trouble which it might cost them to act fairly and justly. He knew that corporate property had been invaded by patrons in some corporate towns. With regard, however, to the city of Dublin, the present bill would take away property which would be worth 100,000 l. a year, and it was the duty of the Government to lay before their Lordships every document which it could to justify such a proceeding.
Viscount Duncannonthought really that the best course the noble Marquess could adopt would be to specify in a notice the documents which he desired to have laid upon the table.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid his motion would be for all the evidence which had been given before any committee of inquiry respecting corporate property, and the manner in which the judicial and other functions of corporations had been discharged. He should wish to take the largest description of the evidence which could be given.
Subject at an end.

PREVENTION OF FRIVOLOUS SUITS.
Lord Denman Lord Denman moved the second reading of the Frivolous Suits Prevention Bill. In doing so he would not trouble their Lordships with any remarks on the details of the measure, as the bill had been laying on their table for some time, and consequently their Lordships would be fully acquainted with it. He would merely say, that the object of the bill was to render that clear which was formerly obscure in preventing parties from bringing frivolous suits. He had received many letters from parties whose opinions were entitled to respect, and they all expressed their approbation of the principle of the measure. He had fixed the sum of 40 s. as the test of the frivolity of a suit in which the damages were laid at that amount. But he had subsequently considered that this should not refer to actions brought for the recovery of damages in cases of trespass on land. Considerable injury might be done to gar-
1004
dens and such property by trespass, though the damages could only be laid at or under 40 s. He had, therefore, thought it fit not to consider that sum the test in cases of trespass. He believed that no objection was raised to the principle of this measure, and he could therefore at once, without further observation, move that the bill be now read a second time.
Lord Wynfordwas understood to express his opinion in favour of the principle of the bill, but he at the same time thought, that some beneficial alterations might be introduced in its details. He would, however, willingly agree to its second reading.
Bill read a second time.

TITHE COMMUTATION ACT AMENDMENT.
The Marquess of Lansdownerose to move the second reading of the Tithe Commutation Act Amendment Bill. He trusted that his motion would meet with no objection on the part of their Lordships, as it had met with no objection on the part of the right rev, Prelate at the head of the church. He would not detain the House by explaining to them the details of the measure, but he would merely apprise them of the nature and object of the bill. In any great change of property, especially during the time when the change itself was taking place, some evil, inconvenience, irritation, and injury, were sure to arise. This had occurred with regard to this measure. The aim of this bill was to render as effective and as practicable as possible the change that had taken place with regard to the payment of tithes. The bill provided, that when the rent-charge was settled the tithe payer should have the option of taking upon himself the payment of the rent-charge, and that he should be able to give security to the tithe proprietor. He expected that in its operation this measure would be found beneficial to all parties. He would not detain their Lordships by any further remarks. Some of the clauses might require consideration, though he could assure the House that they had been prepared with diligence and care.
Bill read a second time.

POOR-LAW GUARDIANS.—(IRELAND.)
The Marquess of Westmeaththen rose to move, pursuant to his notice, for a Select Committee to inquire into certain elections of poor-law guardians in Ireland. He had felt himself impelled by a sense of duty to bring this subject under the notice of their Lordships, though he would readily admit

1005
it was a very dry one. Their Lordships would recollect that in the session before the last a hill passed through Parliament for the relief of the poor in Ireland. The language in this House on that occasion was that of congratulation on all sides, because it was said, that party views and feelings could not be allowed to enter into the question, and that the only consideration was the benefit of the poor. The Act in the outset provided a certain constituency for the election of Poor-law guardians in Ireland, and in another part directed all persons who were liable to the county cess should vote in the first instance of such an election. It appeared, however, that Parliament, relying, as he supposed, on the commissioners to be appointed for the purposes of the act, did not direct any scrutiny into the manner in which those votes were tendered. But their Lordships would be surprised to find that those commissioners had not prescribed any rules on the subject. A bill was introduced in the last session by a Member of her Majesty's Government, the effect of which, according to his reading, was to do away with all the stringent provisions which Parliament had intended in the Poor-law Bill to apply to that part of the subject, and to insure that all elections should take place under the influence of these boards, though it was described merely as a bill to rectify former errors, and regulate certain matters relating to the quarter sessions. Into that bill, as had been only lately discovered, a clause was introduced on the third reading, without any of her Majesty's Ministers having alluded to it, which provided that all persons who were liable to pay the poor-rates should be entitled to vote for the Poor-law guardians. Now, their Lordships would have to infer from his statement, that the conduct of the Government as to the patronage given to them by this act, was not only unjustifiable, but that positively a high crime attached to them in that respect. Now, the Poor-law commissioner for his part of the country, a Dr. Phelan, who, as he was informed, had been an apothecary first in Dundalk, and subsequently in Clonmel, had, it appeared, after he had been appointed to his responsible situation by the Government, attended a meeting which was exclusively composed of Roman Catholic priests. That was the qualification he had shown for the confidence which the Government had reposed in him. In the county of Westmeath, a few months after
1006
the different electoral divisions of the county had been made, in July, 1838, that same Gentleman had, on his own authority, at the instigation, no doubt, of the Roman Catholic archbishop and his clergy, undertaken totally to change that arrangement, and thereby after the effect of the rating. He spoke of that arbitrary act to show the manner in which that Gentleman had acquitted himself. He also understood that in the county of Louth Dr. Phelan had proceeded to divide all the large properties, so as to assist the Roman Catholics by dividing those properties into fractions, and thereby reducing their influence. Having alluded to the part the Roman Catholic clergy had taken in these matters, he might say that their whole conduct was marked by a reckless indifference to the peace of the country and the expense of having contested elections. In fact, three-fourths of these elections had been made objects of contest through the influence of the priests against the wishes of the landed proprietors. The next subject he would call their Lordships' attention to was the appointment of returning officers. He thought he was correct in stating that the noble Lord the present Secretary for Ireland had urged the necessity of making those appointments as much as possible from among high constables. Now, in the county of Clare a gentleman named O'Connell was made returning officer, and the following account, with which he had been furnished, would show the partial manner in which that gentleman had acted:—
"At the Poor-law meeting held in Ennistimon, in the county of Clare, on the 4th of September, 1839, Mr. Charles O'Connell, being returning officer, was charged by Mr. George Macnamara with partial conduct, when Mr. O'Connell said, 'I will now tell you what I did. In the first instance I gave notice by printed bills, that as there were a good many persons paying cess whose names did not appear on the constables' books, and who were entitled to vote, if they came to me with a certificate, signed by their landlord, or a certificate from a Roman Catholic clergyman, stating his own knowledge of it, I would give them voting papers. He also caused this to be proclaimed by the public bellman during the fair-day of Ennistimon—a day which was of course a public one, and on which it was to be supposed both landlord and tenant would be present. He did not think that by any possibility he could more effectually ascertain the right to the franchise. When he was first appointed he went to Kilrush and explained to Mr. M'Donnell, the returning officer there,

1007
the nature of his plan, and he had the gratification to say he had pleased Mr. Hawley, one of the assistant ccommissioners,"
It further appeared in evidence, at an inquiry held by the Poor-law Commissioners, that the priest of the parish recommended from the altar the names of the persons who ought to be elected as Poor-law Guardians; and still further, it appeared that Mr. C. O'Connell, he being the returning officer, harangued the people after mass, and said,
"As returning officer, I am precluded from interfering with the election of Poor-law Guardians, but vote for the men that the priest desired you."
Now, the instructions of the Commissioners to the Poor-law returning officers concluded thus:—
"In conclusion, the commissioners desire to remind you of the responsibility you incur by the acceptance of this office; your duty is easily performed, if you only bring honesty of purpose, impartiality, and reasonable activity to the task. On the other hand, if you should be guilty of wilful carelessness or disobedience of the commissioners' orders, or if you should manifest any disposition to use your office and the means it gives you to influence improperly the return of any candidate, you will forfeit your title to any remuneration and expose yourself to the penalties prescribed by the 102d section of the act. These penalties may be enforced by any one; and it would be the imperative duty of the commissioners to take proceedings against you if complaint of wilful misconduct should be substantiated. All persons employed by you are equally bound to observe strict impartiality and a conscientious obedience to the directions they receive, and it will therefore be incumbent on you to warn them of the penalties they will incur by an opposite course."
The Poor-law Commissioners having taken up the subject had then given the following opinion as to the wilful misconduct of Mr. O'Connell:—
"Poor-law Commission-office, Dublin,
October 16,1839.
"Sir,—The Poor-law Commissioners desire to inform you that the Assistant-Commissioner in charge of the district comprising the Ennistimon Union, having inquired into the charges made by you against the returning officer, Mr. Charles O'Connell, except those in your letters of the 22d of August and the 5th ult, which, it appears, you did not press, they have received a report thereon, together with the evidence which was taken on that occasion, and they are of opinion that the charge of having addressed a meeting of the cess-payers at the
1008
chapel of Chanay on the 18th of August last, as asserted by you, has been proved against him, and the Commissioners have therefore written to him, expressing their strong disapprobation of such an interference on his part, and their reprehension of the observations which he then made, and he has been informed that a repetition of such conduct would be held to disqualify him from filling the office of returning officer in future. By order of the board, W. Stanley, Assistant Secretary.
J. Macnamara, Esq."
The following further quotation from the instructions of the Poor-law Commissioners to the Assistant-commissioners would put their conduct in its true light:—
"The board feels it to be its duty, under the heavy responsibility devolved upon it, to point out to the Assistant Commissioners the vital importance of their avoiding even the semblance of party bias, either in politics or religion, which are unhappily the two great points of disseverance and contention in this country. The commission has been constituted for the benefit of the whole community, not of a part or party, and it cannot be too constantly borne in mind that it is only by acting up to this principle in appearance as well as reality that public confidence can be secured, and the great object of the Commissioners be realized."
After laying down these creditable rules, what would the Commissioners say for not dismissing Mr. C. O'Connell? Who could appeal to such a body in expectation of justice? And yet, notwithstanding the proof of partial conduct which had been given, Mr. C. O'Counell still filled the same situation. The next flagrant case to which he would allude, was slated in papers which were now lying on their Lordships' table. It was the proceeding at the election of guardians in the Clonmel and Clare divisions. Mr. Butler had been appointed returning officer for the Clonmel division, and the liberal clerk of that district had circulated vast numbers of names, signed, he believed, by a Mr. Ronan, who recommended that out of that list, the poor law guardians should be put in nomination. It appeared however, that at the meeting a person named Lawrence Davis, who was qualified to do so, had put in nomination two persons; but during the election, the name of Davis was withdrawn by somebody or other, as recommending those guardians, it being supposed that it was done because they were objectionable to the liberal party. The appointment of Mr. Butler, he must add, had taken place at the instance of Dr. Phelan, to whose character

1009
and conduct he had previously called their Lordships' attention. As to the election of poor law guardians in Dublin, nothing could exceed the violence which had been practised upon that occasion, and there existed the strongest reason to believe, that upwards of fifty of the voting papers had been forged. He should only trouble their Lordships with referring to one specimen of the spirit in which these elections were carried on. A Mr. Campbell, a gentleman of high respectability, was put in nomination. Opposed to him was a candidate of the name of M'Kenna. Pending the election a placard was issued in which this question was put to the electors: "Where was Campbell when the repeal of the Union was agitated? Was not M'Kenna at his post?" Hence it was evident that the character most in demand for a poor law guardian was that of a political agitator. In one of the unions of the county of Limerick, two individuals, one named Gaffney, the other Gubbins, were rival candidates. The election of the Protestant candidate was opposed with every species of violence and threat. The Roman Catholic electors were told that all Protestants were children of hell, and descended from Henry the 8th. In Youghal, five guardians were elected, all of whom had previously been nominated from the altar. In the county of Leitrim a case had attracted his particular attention, from having occurred in a parish near Carrick-on-Shannon, where he possessed some property. On the occasion of the election he called his tenants together, and advised them to elect such guardians as were solvent men, for if the guardians became defaulters, the inhabitants would be liable to pay the rate over again. He thought that one Roman Catholic ought to be elected; and he stated to his tenants, that he should not oppose the election of any respectable Roman Catholic whom they might wish to choose; but as he had so much property in the parish, he thought that his recommendation of another guardian ought to be accepted. The inhabitants of the parish all quitted him with the most perfect willingness to be guided by his advice, for they saw that it was just and rational, and he felt persuaded, that they would not have disregarded his suggestions, had they not been assailed by that sinister influence so prevalent in Ireland. The person whom he had proposed, on the next occasion of his meeting the priest of that parish, was accosted by him in these terms, "How
1010
dare you presume to let yourself be put in nomination without my consent?" This was followed by the most violent language. When the man went home, he found that his father's displeasure had been raised against him by the representations of the agitating party, and his father refused to let him enter his dwelling, till he gave a distinct and positive assurance that he would not allow himself to be put in nomination. He could mention twenty cases in the same county where the conduct of the priests at those occasions, had been the most outrageous that language could describe. There was one instance, however, in which their influence was equally indubitable, though their violence was not quite so conspicuous. A man had been put in nomination, against whom no objection was felt by either party, but he was not elected, the priest accounting for his rejection by saying to him, "Why did you not apply to me, and you should have been elected without difficulty?'' Before he sat down he wished to call attention to the proximity of the poor-houses in some places. At French Park, in the county of Roscommon, or rather in its vicinity, there were three poor-houses within nine miles. It would be for the noble Marquess (Normanby) to make out the best case he could, but he professed himself much at a loss to imagine what that case could be. He moved, that a select Committee be appointed to inquire into the election of certain poor law guardians in Ireland.
The Marquess of Normanbyhad given notice, that whenever this motion came before their Lordships he should oppose it, still he hardly expected that the noble Marquess would have thought of coming forward with a case so weak and frivolous as that which the House had just heard. He was sure the House would pause before they agreed to such a proposition, upon statements so vague, and in all respects so unsatisfactory. He hoped that noble Lords would recollect, that a distinction ought to be drawn between decisions of the Poor-law Commissioners in England and the cases in Ireland, in which there had been no representations or remonstrances offered. He also hoped, that they would not forget the imputations thrown out, that a clause had been smuggled into the present bill, allowing persons belonging to different electoral divisions, to vote according to the scale on which their property had been rated in each. Now the clause in question, had been copied from the 81st

1011
clause of the original bill. The noble Marquess had said, that the Government had made certain appointments in compliance with a, pressure from without, and a sort of undue influence which they dared not resist. That he begged to deny. With regard to Mr. Phelan, for instance, whom he believed to be a most respectable man, and by his qualifications and talents peculiarly fitted for his office, he was not appointed by the Government, nor in consequence of any force applied to the Government in any way; but the commissioners of their own free will, upon a due estimation of his abilities, appointed him. In fact, he could state, that the Government had refrained from even giving any recommendation of any person to any one of these appointments. Therefore, if the noble Marquess should succeed in carrying his motion, it would not be because it was necessary or desirable, but because it would take the form of a party motion. He believed, that there never was perhaps a more difficult and delicate task undertaken by any body of men, than that which had been performed by the Poor-law Commissioners for Ireland; nor could it have been executed with more zeal, ability, and, as far as the experiment had yet proceeded, with more success. He feared, that the noble Marquess hardly took sufficient pains to inform himself upon the matters which he ventured to bring under the notice of their Lordships, for he should be able to show presently, that the noble Marquess had omitted a most important fact, either from ignorance or from some other cause. The first complaint showed, that after all there was but little advanced to induce their Lordships to agree to this motion. The noble Marquess had brought forward that motion upon public grounds, and perhaps was not aware, that it was rather extraordinary, that the first complaint was against a gentleman who was employed in his own neighbourhood; and the case which the noble Marquess had made out with respect to that gentleman was, that he had made some unpleasing division of the property of the noble Marquess, though, as he (the Marquess of Normanby) had been informed, the property in the district could not otherwise be divided. [The Marquess of Westmeath: I did not say a single word with respect to my own property.] He had understood the noble Marquess to refer to Mullingar. He certainly did not specifically mention it, but it was involved in the inquiry which was made, He be-
1012
lieved that the noble Marquess had shown no want of courtesy to the gentleman, or that there was any ground of complaint on the other side. But the property of the noble Marquess was not sufficient in itself in that district to make a division of itself, and it was there placed with that of some other gentlemen. If the noble Marquess was dissatisfied with that arrangement, he ought to have referred the case to the commissioners, rather than to have brought it in this shape under the notice of their Lordships. With regard to the remarks of the noble Marquess upon the interference of the Roman Catholic priests, it should be remembered, that for many years the priests had been the channels for the administration of the spontaneous charity of the benevolent; to them also the poor of that persuasion had been in the habit of going as their last resort. Therefore, it was not unnatural, that both the yeomanry and the peasantry, upon the introduction of a measure so entirely new to them, should appeal to the priests for information and advice; and he would tell the noble Marquess, that a more rigorous hand than his, would be required to wrench the people from the influence of the priests; and one reason why he was most anxious to press upon their Lordships the impolicy of agreeing to this motion was, that the effect of it would be to drive the priests to further interference. If there was any doubt upon their minds—if they were at all wavering as to what course they should pursue—he repeated, that the effect of agreeing to the motion of the noble Marquess, would be to induce the priests in their present position to resort to further interference. The office of guardian of the poor was not a desirable office; neither power nor popularity was attached to it; and if it had already been found difficult to get persons of that class which the noble Marquess would prefer to act as guardians, he felt assured, that it would be much more difficult to get such persons to become guardians hereafter. The case of Mr. Charles O'Connell had been much dwelt upon by the noble Marquess, and it was one about which he (the Marquess of Normanby) had written to Ireland, and he was therefore enabled to declare, that the noble Marquess had committed several mistakes in his relation of the facts. It was true that Mr. Macnamara had made some complaints against Mr. C. O'Connell, and as those complaints were written complaints, he thought their Lordships ought to have the papers before

1013
them before they granted a committee to inquire into the case. Mr. Macnamara was a respectable gentleman and brother of Mr. Macnamara, M. P. for the county of Clare, and the principal persons engaged in the transaction out of which the complaint had arisen, were persons of the same political party, being the two Members for the county of Clare, and he trusted very good friends. The origin of the affair was this:—Mr. Cornelius O'Brien, the other M. P. for Clare, had been rejected as an ex officio guardian by a partisan of Mr. Macnamara; and of the three accusations which were brought against Mr. C. O'Connell for his interference on that occasion, two were withdrawn; and, therefore, the noble Marquess had stated that which had never been brought under the notice of the commissioners.
The Marquess of Westmeath: The Poor-law Commissioners expressly stated in their letter, that they had found him guilty.
The Marquess of Normanbywas coining to the second charge. The Poor-law Commissioners did censure Mr. C. O'Connell, and most properly, for having addressed the voters at the election of guardians. But it appeared, that though it was quite true he had addressed them in the chapel in which they were assembled, he did not do so in his capacity of returning-officer, as it was stated he had acted; the duties of his office having ceased, he ought to be considered as acting in his private capacity. The case of Mr. Falconer was one in which much indiscretion was manifested; but he was nevertheless a very respectable man. But, however respectable either he or Mr. C. O'Connell might be, he thought it was Clear that there was no indisposition on the part of the commissioners to correct them when wrong. Indeed, the only cases which the noble Lord had made out with any degree of success, were those which had been properly taken up and censured by the commissioners. With reference to the Clonmel case, he must say that the noble Marquess had shown, either unpardonable negligence in collecting information, or most lamentable ignorance of the subject. He doubted not that the noble Marquess believed all he had stated, for he had exclaimed, "What possible course could these persons take except that of bringing their case before Parliament?" But would the noble Marquess have said that, if he had known that the very case of the election of guardians for Clonmel, was at that moment before the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland,
1014
having been brought thither by a criminal information? The question was, whether Mr. Lawrence Davis had or had not signed a certain paper, and he there made an affidavit that he did not sign it; and if the question was not so far set at liberty for their Lordships to judge of it, that was because the prosecutor had required the case to be postponed until next term, which term was not yet arrived. But the noble Marquess desired that their Lordships should take this case and others out of the law courts, and decide upon it by a select committee. He could hardly think they would agree to any such proposition. With regard to the case of Air. Butler, which was under the consideration of a court of law, if he had neglected his duty, if he had violated his instructions, he hoped he would be punished. But he trusted that their Lordships would not be induced by the noble Marquess to interpose their authority, and interfere with the courts of law. He doubted not that whatever committee might be appointed by their Lordships at any time, that committee would do its duty faithfully and fairly; but in the present state of the Poor-law in Ireland, much of its salutary operation and ultimate success would depend upon the authority and weight of the commissioners. It was the duty of their Lordships to pause before they consented to a motion for a select committee, to inquire into cases which had been dealt with by the Poor-law Commissioners, or which were under litigation, and, therefore, brought forward in that House before the proper time, besides others which it would appear were without foundation. Their Lordships, he trusted, would well consider the fearful evils which would result to that important measure, the Irish Poor-law, if they were to take the course proposed by the noble Marquess. It could not be denied that there were some incidents which were to be regretted. It was to be regretted, for instance, that a noble Lord opposite, feeling disposed to become a guardian of the poor, could not be elected, though in the midst of his own tenantry: but then he could not see how by any motion or proceeding of that House, the election of a noble Lord could be compelled. Upon all these grounds, he could not but earnestly implore their Lordships to give this motion a direct negative.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, the first part of the subject which had made an impression on his mind was the alteration made in the Act of Parliament. When that

1015
Act was before their Lordships in the shape of a bill, and read a second time upon the motion of the noble Viscount opposite, he (the Duke of Wellington) stated that he for one had no objection to the amendments of the Irish Poor-law Bill, as stated by the noble Lord opposite, as he considered, from his statement of them, that all the amendments proposed were consistent with the enactments of the original Act of Parliament. That was stated on the 25th of February, upon the second reading of the bill; on the 26th the bill was considered in committee, and no amendments were made when it was committed; the report was made on the following day, the 27th; and the bill was read a third time on the 28th, on which day the amendments were introduced of which the noble Marquess had complained. Now, the noble Marquess had complained that that amendment was inconsistent with the original Act of Parliament. It certainly did appear on reading the clause that persons should not have the power of voting for Poor-law guardians with-out having paid the rates, which the original Act of Parliament required they should pay previous to their voting for the election to this office of guardian. He was aware that there was a doubt whether the 85th clause of the original Act did not govern the new clause introduced into the Amendment Act. He understood that there existed a great difference of opinion on that subject. He was sure that he heard a similar question argued in that House between his noble and learned Friend who sat behind him and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, when the London and Westminster Metropolitan Police Bill was before the House, and it appeared at least doubtful whether or not a proviso in a former Act of Parliament governed the enacting clause in a subsequent Act of Parliament. The noble Marquess, however, who had just addressed their Lordships, admitted that there was a doubt on the question, and that doubt ought to be cleared up. All that he could say was, that he must beg leave to call to the recollection of their Lordships the part which he had taken when the Irish Poor-law Bill was brought into Parliament. He had certainly supported that measure, and had proposed many amendments in it, and he believed that the amendments which he had proposed, and had persuaded their Lordships to adopt, were the means of getting the measure through that House, and of obtaining for it the sanction of the other House of Parlia-
1016
ment. He must say, therefore, that when he first heard of this amendment he did not consider himself very well used, because he had consented to a bill to amend the former act solely on the ground that no amendment was to be introduced inconsistent with the enactments of the former bill; and it certainly did happen that he was out of town, on his public duty, in another part of the country, in Hants, where he was her Majesty's lieutenant, for three days, on the 26th, 27th, and 28th of February, on which days this bill went into committee, was reported and read a third time, the amendment being made neither in the Committee nor on the report, but upon the third reading. He certainly must say this, that he was thoroughly convinced that the noble Lord ought not to have carried an amendment of this description, more particularly in his (the Duke of Wellington's) absence, if there was any doubt on the subject. He confessed that he had looked at this amendment with a good deal of suspicion. He had every reason to believe, when the Poor-law Bill was passed in 1838, that it would have been fairly carried into execution by the Poor-law commissioners, and that the plan pursued in this country would have been followed in Ireland; and further that when such sacrifices were made on the part of the proprietors of Ireland which they had manifested the intention to make, political partisanship would be kept out of the affair altogether, and that the law would be really administered for the benefit of the poor, and to promote the objects which Parliament had in view in adopting the measure. Now, he could not say that he was satisfied that that had been the case, and he confessed that he had looked at this particular measure with suspicion, because there was no doubt whatever that it did alter the complexion of the original measure; for the 85th clause of the act did not govern the new clause introduced into the Amendment Act. That, then, was one ground on which he should certainly be disposed to vote for the Committee proposed by the noble Marquess. With respect to another ground stated by the noble Marquess, he was perfectly aware that those Acts of Parliament—namely, the Poor-law Act in England, and the Poor-law Act in Ireland—afforded great facilities for ascertaining all that passed in respect to the execution of the act between the commissioners and those who were employed under them in carrying the act into execution, The whole business was

1017
carried on in writing, and nothing could be so easy—as copies were required to be kept—as to procure copies of the correspondence which had taken place. Under these circumstances he must say, that whenever a case had to be inquired into, in which the conduct of the commissioners was involved, it was expedient that the House should, in the first instance, have before it the correspondence between the commissioners and the persons whose conduct was complained of, in order that the House might see exactly where the mischief lay. The circumstance, however, of a noble Lord, a Member of that House, not having been elected a guardian, was certainly not a matter for inquiry before a Committee of that House, unless some charge was meant to be brought against the commissioners for their conduct on that particular occasion, and he did not understand any such charge to have been made. He certainly thought it desirable that the inquiry should be limited to those papers before the House, on which the House could form its judgment with respect to that particular act of Parliament. He should think that it was so obvious that the clause in the Amendment Act did make a material alteration in the meaning of the original bill, that he should suggest to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State the propriety of introducing a bill to declare what the meaning of the act was and that it was not intended to after the meaning of the original Act of Parliament. He should, therefore, suggest the convenience of postponing the debate for a certain time, in order that time might be given to inquire if there were any papers which might be produced, and also to give the noble Lord an opportunity of bringing in a declaratory bill.
Viscount Duncannonsaid, that as far as he recollected, it was stated to him that there were some reasons why the amendment Bill should pass before a certain time. He recollected perfectly well that he objected at the time when the bill was introduced to move any amendment which would make an alteration in the original bill. The Gentleman who drew the bill stated to him that the amendment which he then proposed was absolutely necessary to carry the objects of the bill into effect; but he had assured him that it would make no alteration whatever with respect to the governing clause in the other bill. He could assure the noble Duke that it was only upon that ground that he had introduced the bill.
The Lord Chancellorremarked, that by the 81st clause in the original act the number of votes was made to depend on the quantity of property which a person bad in an union. A difficulty was occasioned by these words, as it did not explain what number of votes he would have in each electoral division. The amendment subsequently made was to remove that difficulty. That was the whole object of the clause, and he had no doubt that was the whole effect of it. The clause spoke of the election as to take place under the provisions of the former act, and the 85th clause of that act provided that no person should vote unless he had paid rates for six months.
The Earl of Wicklowthought there could be no doubt that the two clauses, the 81st of the original bill and the clause which had been alluded to of the bill of last Session, were precisely the same. But with regard to the 85th, which was the protective clause of the original bill, he feared that the interpretation that would be put on the clause of the bill of last Session would be, that it went to repeal the 85th clause of the original Act. He agreed with the noble Duke (Wellington), that if there were not some satisfactory statement made by the Government, it might be necessary to go into committee, in order to ascertain the meaning of the clauses; but he hoped that would be avoided, and, if they could obtain such a statement, he trusted that his noble Friend (the Marquess of Westmeath) would not press his motion to a division. He knew nothing that was likely to be more prejudicial to the well working of the Poor-law Act in Ireland, than the appointment of a committee such as that proposed. If such an inquiry were entered into now, before the measure was in full operation, it would lead the people of Ireland to suppose that it was intended by their Lordships to make some radical change in the measure itself. He, for one, should deeply regret that such an impression should go forth, and, therefore, without very strong grounds being shown, he could not agree to the appointment of a committee. He hoped the Government would make an inquiry upon the subject, as to the effect of the clause of the bill of last year, and, if they found that there was not sufficient protection, that they would bring in a declaratory act. He thought, also, if such an act should be found ne-

1019
cessary, there were other alterations which might be effected at the same time. At present, it was not imposed upon the returning officer to allow a scrutiny in the case of a disputed election. He knew a case in which a scrutiny had been demanded, and was refused by the returning officer. The party then appealed to the commissioners at Dublin, and their answer was, that the officer had acted perfectly right, and that the Act of Parliament did not require that he should give any satisfaction to the party complaining. If they were to have the principle of popular election, it ought not to be left to the returning officer to declare who was elected, without giving the unsuccessful party the right of scrutinizing the votes. He was aware that it was true, as his noble Friend had stated, that improper persons had, in some cases, been appointed as returning officers. He did not mean this as a charge against the commissioners; but he thought they ought to guard against the impression going abroad, that the election depended upon the will of the returning officer. Another matter that required amendment was this:—In the bill it was provided that a certain number of magistrates should act as ex officio guardians. Now there were instances of ex officio guardians being also elected by the rate-payers as guardians. The consequence of this was, that that balance of power which was intended by the Legislature to be given when they provided for the election of ex officio guardians was to a certain extent lost. No doubt some strong facts had been brought forward by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Westmeath) in moving for this committee; but he thought those facts would scarcely justify the inquiry proposed. There was no occasion for a committee to ascertain that the priests in Ireland exercised a most undue influence in the election for guardians. But the same complaint of improper influence on the part of the priests existed with regard to the election for Members of Parliament. That was an evil, he might almost say, inherent in the state of society in Ireland, and which time alone could cure. The people would, he trusted, ere long, rely on their own judgment; but he was quite confident the appointment of the committee his noble Friend proposed would not have the effect of establishing any plan that would be successful in removing the evil. He had had some experience in the
1020
conduct of the commissioners, and so far as that experience went, he was bound to bear his testimony to the highly satisfactory manner in which, as far as they were concerned, the bill had been carried out. He had seen the instruction that had been given by them to their sub-commissioners, and in which they were directed to pay especial attention to the wishes of the landlords and the proprietors of the soil. He hoped his noble Friend would not persevere in his motion; if he did, he could not support him.
The Marquess of Normanbyhad not the least objection to state that, if there were any doubt as to the construction of the clause of the act of the last Session that had been alluded to, he should be willing to bring in a declaratory bill to set that doubt at rest.
The Earl of Glengallremarked that, if the facts of the case had been accurately stated, and he had no doubt they had, by his noble Friend, he saw no reason why their Lordships should not enter upon the investigation proposed. No one could deny that many irregularities had taken place in the election of guardians under the Irish Poor-law Bill. He thought that the Clonmel case, which had been brought forward by his noble Friend who originated the motion, was of itself a sufficient reason for appointing the committee. But there was much more in this matter of the election of guardians than at first met the eye. The valuator was chosen by the guardians, who might be improperly returned; and in the hands of the valuator rested, in a great measure, the Parliamentary franchise, as he had the valuing of the property out of which that franchise arose. The primâ facie case was such as made out clearly the necessity for an inquiry into it by their Lordships. Mr. Butler, it appeared, had elected the Poor-law guardians, and to return the favour the Poor-law guardians elected Mr. Butler, their nominator, as the valuator of the town. The Poor-law commissioners, however, defeated their object, and refused their acquiescence in this appointment. The Poor-law guardians, determined in one way or other to repay the compliment conferred, proceeded to another election; and who did their Lordships think they returned as valuator of the town? Why, Mr. Butler's own nephew! These were facts which he knew he could prove at the bar of the House; and he, therefore,

1021
thought a case for inquiry was fully made out.
The Marquess of Londonderrythought that the contradictions which the noble Marquess opposite had given to the speeches of the noble Lords on his side of the House, and the contradictions which they had in turn given to the speech of the noble Marquess, were sufficient causes for an inquiry into this subject by a committee. In the north of Ireland, and especially in that part of it with which he was most particularly connected, Mr. Gunstone, a gentleman of the most exemplary character, had gained universal approbation by his conduct as Poor-law Commissioner. In the south of Ireland, however, the case, he understood, was very different. If one of the cases stated by his noble Friend near him (the Marquess of Westmeath) were correct, the necessity for inquiry was apparent. The noble Marquess on the opposite side had said, that the statement of his noble Friend who opened the debate was a very weak one. Now, he would tell the noble Marquess that his reply to it was still weaker. His speech was mere milk and water. It was perfectly insipid. He was not suprised that the noble Marquess was not fond of having committees appointed to examine into the state of affairs in Ireland. They had not been quite so satisfactory to the noble Marquess as they had been to the country at large. The country at large was convinced, that great good had been accomplished by the committees already appointed to inquire into the state of Ireland.
The Duke of Wellingtonin explanation, said, there was only one case, that of Mr. Butler, of which the papers were now before the House. He knew nothing of the case of Charles O'Connell. He also begged leave to submit to their Lordships, that the case of Mr. Butler was at present under inquiry in the courts at Dublin. With respect to the propriety of altering the act as had been suggested, the noble Marquess had declared his readiness to inquire into that point, and to bring in a declaratory act, if the present act were ambiguous or insufficient for the objects for which it was intended. It might be necessary to have all these cases inquired into; but let us have all the papers first, and if we find that either the commissioners or any other parties are to blame,
1022
then, but not till then, it may be proper to institute further inquiries.
The Earl of Fingallsaid, that no man could have acted more fairly and uprightly than Dr. Phelan. He had obtained his situation as assistant-commissioner, in consequence of a book which he had written on the medical charities of Ireland. He believed that no good, but that considerable harm, would arise from any inquiry at present into the operation of the Poor-laws in Ireland. The noble Marquess, who brought forward the motion, had spoken much of the exertions and of the influence of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland. It was impossible to deny the existence of such exertions and of such influence. But then such exertions and such influence were not confined to the Roman Catholic clergy exclusively. They were exercised without restriction on the other side also. The fact was, that in Ireland every man was a partisan, and that in that country a struggle was now going on, which, as long as it lasted, must produce such exertions and such influence. He was aware of one union, the Union of Kells, where all the ex-officio guardians appointed were Protestants. In thirteen districts included in that union, there had been no contest showing the good feeling which prevailed, and of thirty-two elected guardians, seventeen were Roman Catholics; not, he thought, an unfair proportion.
The Marquess of Headfortdefended the conduct of the Catholic priests. He held in his hand a paper relative to the union of Ballyborough, in the county of Cavan, from which it appeared that the electors, being Catholics, had elected Protestants as guardians. He was convinced that this motion, if granted, would produce great mischief in Ireland.
The Marquess of Westmeathin consequence of the suggestion of the noble Duke, was not desirous to persist in his motion; on the contrary, he would postpone it till further information was laid on the table. He declared that he was not actuated by party motives in bringing this subject forward. If he did not receive a more satisfactory answer than he had done that evening, he would proceed with his motion after the Easter recess.
Motion withdrawn.