Sitting of 14 April 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time.— Glass Duties; Poor-law Commission Continuance; Chimney Sweepers Poor-law Amendment.— Read a second time: — Grammar Schools.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Grote, from the Merchants of London, for Protection to the British Trade with Cracow.— By Mr. Villiers, from several places, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.— By Mr. Plumptre, from one

1091
place, against the Grant to Maynooth College.— By Mr. Ewart, and Mr. C. Lushington, from two places, against Church Extension.— By Mr. Hume, from Glasgow, and Springfield, for Universal Suffrage, and Vote by Ballot.

TOTNESS ELECTION.
Sir T. Fremantlepresented a petition, which materially concerned the privileges of that House, and involved a charge of a serious character against the returning officer for Totness. The petition came from certain electors of that borough. The House would recollect, that on the termination of the investigation before the election committee on "Wednesday last, the chairman moved, that a new writ should issue for the borough. That writ was received by the under-sheriff at Exeter on Friday, and in the afternoon of the same day he endeavoured to serve the precept on the returning officer. His messenger accordingly proceeded to the house of the mayor, next to the house of the Gentleman appointed to officiate in the absence of the mayor, and then to the town-clerk, but was unable to find any of them in Totness. The messenger made application to their respective wives, who said they knew nothing about them, but he was told by the wife of the town-clerk, that he would come home by the day's mail. He, however, did not arrive at Totness, and on Saturday the messenger, leaving duplicate copies of the precept at the houses of the mayor and the town-clerk, returned with the original to the sheriff at Exeter; for the Act of Parliament required him not only to serve the precept on the officer entitled to hold the election, but also to obtain his endorsement to it. This was the statement of the petitioners, that the mayor, the deputy-mayor, and town-clerk were absent with the intention of avoiding the service of the precept. He was not prepared to prove this allegation, but he might pledge himself to prove, that they were in London at the time the election committee was sitting, and in the room when the decision of the committee was announced to the parties. There was no doubt, too, though at that moment he had no witnesses ready to prove the fact, that they were aware of the issue of the new writ. The importance of this case did not turn on the misconduct of the mayor, endeavouring to gain time improperly, but the circumstances which he had stated had a tendency to invalidate any election held under the writ which had been issued, because the sheriff was bound within three
1092
days to serve the precept on the mayor, and a question might arise whether any election held under the precept received by the mayor subsequent to the three days was good? Supposing the mayor to have had the intention to render invalid any election under the writ, he would have been guilty of a gross dereliction of duty, and it would, no doubt, be the duty of the House to visit him with some mark of its severe displeasure. Since this petition had been put into his hand, he had been informed that the mayor of Totness arrived in that town on the last of the three days; but as no sheriff's officer was then present to serve the precept, it might be doubtful whether the copy of the precept left in the mayor's house was a good service. He was not prepared at the present moment to submit a motion to the House, but he thought he had stated enough to justify him in proposing, that the petition be printed. If it should turn out that the conduct of the mayor arose merely from inadvertence, he should certainly make no motion on the subject, but he should certainly call the attention of the House to it to-morrow, if it should appear that the mayor had acted purposely. He trusted, too, if the service of the precept under the circumstances he had stated was informal, the House, instead of putting the parties to the inconvenience of proceeding to an election which might be void, would at once supersede the writ, and issue a fresh one? He did not mean to pledge himself as to the course he should think right to take to-morrow.
The Altorney-Generalsaid, that though he had no objection to the petition being received and printed, it seemed to him to fail in making out a primâ facie case against the mayor.
Petition to be printed.

CHIMNEY SWEEPS— CLIMBING BOYS.
Mr. F. Maule Mr. F. Maule moved, that the House should resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, for the purpose of passing a resolution recommending that leave be given to bring in a bill for the regulation of chimney sweepers and chimnies.
House in Committee.
Mr. F. Maulesaid, that the Committee, in his opinion, ought to take this opportunity of superseding the use as chimneysweepers of poor little creatures who had nobody to protect them. If they did not effect some alteration in this respect, they

1093
would deserve the reprobation of the country. His principal object was, that the practice of sweeping chimnies by means of little children should altogether be done away with, and that those who employed for this purpose children under a certain age should be subjected to severe penalties. He moved a resolution, recommending leave to be given to bring in a bill to prevent sweeping chimnies by children.
Mr. Humesaid, that severe and cruel as was the treatment of children in this trade, he had very little hopes, from what he had seen of the results of legislative interference with trades, that this attempt would be successful.
Sir R. Inglissaid, this measure only carried out the same principle according to which they had interfered in the negro slave trade, by interfering in this case to prevent the cruelties exercised upon these poor boys.
Lord Ashleyshould be ashamed of himself if he did not express to the Government his most sincere and heartfelt thanks for the manner in which they had taken up this measure. The House had been very kind and benevolent to the children employed in factories, but from personal inquiry into both cases he could say, that the condition of those children was tenfold better than that of the chimney sweepers. Every fire insurance company in London, except one, had adopted machines for sweeping chimnies, and recommended their adoption to others. He trusted that the system of sweeping chimnies by children would shortly pass away, for it had led to more misery and more degradation than prevailed in any other Christian country.
Resolution agreed to, and the House resumed, and bill ordered to be brought in.

THE CASE OF NATHANIEL CAVE.
Mr. Easthope rose, pursuant to notice, to move the consideration of the petition of Nathaniel Cave, complaining of illegal imprisonment. He reminded the House, that when he presented the above petition on Wednesday last, and gave notice of his intention to call the attention of the House to it, he had abstained from entering into particulars, thinking that the jus and proper course then was to refrain as much as possible from doing so, and wait till the time when it could be fully stated and fairly met. He then informed the
1094
House that he had availed himself of every means in his power to give to the party accused the fullest information, and the most ample opportunity for making any explanation of the circumstances which he might think proper. He had communicated the contents of the petition to one of the hon. Members for the county of Hertford, who had forwarded it to the rev. Mr. Mountain, and the answer received was, that that reverend gentleman did not feel it necessary to enter into any explanation whatever. He was quite sure that the House of Commons would never sanction the doctrine, that there should be one law for the poor man and another for the rich man. He was not there to complain of the administration of the law as propounded by Lord Abinger, but he thought he should have the opinion of the House with him when he said, that the aw, as it was propounded by that learned person, was most unjust— that it subjected accused persons to great hardship, and permitted the infliction upon them of unmerited sufferings. The petitioner, Nathaniel Cave, while working for his master, Mr. Wootton, a surgeon, at King's Langley, was apprehended, handcuffed,' confined all night, and then taken before the rev. Mr. Mountain, of Hemel Hampstead, a magistrate for the county of Hertford. A statement was then made by John Wilson, gardener to the rev. J. W. Butt, of King's Langley, to the effect that he had found, on the preceding day, that some of Mr. Butt's young trees, growing in his garden, had been lately destroyed, and that he afterwards went into a beer shop at King's Langley, kept by Richard Sturman, and there heard two of his sons (named Richard and Thomas) say, that they had heard the petitioner say, that the trees had been cut on the preceding Friday night. No other evidence was given against the petitioner. The rev. Jacob Henry Brooke Mountain, however, thereupon made out a warrant of commitment of the petitioner to the House of Correction at Berkhampstead for eight days, and refused to take bail for his appearance, and said to the petitioner, "there is quite sufficient evidence to transport you." It should be observed, that that was the first account given by Wilson of the statement of the two boys, namely, "that Mr. Butt's trees had been cut." It was then, as alleged by Cave, afterwards stated by Wilson in his deposition, that what the boys had stated was, that "they

1095
had heard Cave say he had cut the trees." Now, what was the next step? Instead of the allegations being inquired into, when the poor man was brought up before the magistrate on the morrow after his apprehension, he was sent to Berkhamp-stead gaol, and there confined for eight days on bread and water, upon the trumpery evidence set out in the petition. He submitted to the House, whether this were not a case that claimed consideration? A man was taken up, incarcerated for eight days in a gaol, and restricted to the fare of a common felon, upon the mere hearsay, confused, and highly improbable tale of two boys, either that certain trees had been cut, or that the party had been heard to say that he had cut them. What followed? When the man was brought up at the petty sessions, the whole case was found to be of a most ridiculous and trumpery character, and he was instantly discharged. Discharged he was, certainly; but he went again to his daily toil, in the midst of his own circle, after having been confined for eight days like a felon, and after having been told by the magistrate that there was evidence enough to transport him. He trusted that the feeling of the House would go with him when he said, that this was a case of great hardship and oppression. He certainly did not personally vouch for the facts; he knew nothing of them till he read the petition; but this he did vouch for, that the petition came to him from a most respectable person, who stated that Nathaniel Cave was a worthy, honest man, and that such was the excitement produced in his favour amongst his neighbours, that it induced him to bring an action against the rev. Mr. Mountain. He brought his action; but the learned judge who expounded the law said, that the law did not provide for the case: a verdict consequently passed for the defendant; and thus this poor man, after having endured eight days' imprisonment. — after having been fed with the food of felons, and finally mulcted in the sum of 100 l. for costs, was told, that however hard his case might be— though he had suffered unjust imprisonment— his oppressor was not liable by law to make him any compensation; but that whatever of misfortune and disgrace he had endured from his incarceration in a gaol upon the trumped-up story of two boys, he must abide the operation of a law which involved him in
1096
immense expenses, and still believe this was a law made equally for the benefit of the poor man as for the rich. He appealed to the good sense and candour of the House to say, whether a person moving in a higher sphere— whether the son of a gentleman charged with an offence like this would have been handcuffed, sent to prison upon such mere hearsay evidence, brought up and examined, recommitted for further examination, and finally detained in gaol upon felon's allowance for eight days to await the petty sessions. He was sure there was no Gentleman in the House who would say, that this could have happened to any man above the class of a labourer. He regretted this occurrence as furnishing evidence of the apparent truth, and gave force to the taunt, that we had in this country one law for the rich and another for the poor. He complained not of Lord Abinger for his interpretation of the law. It would be very presumptuous in him to do so. He was bound to believe, that Lord Abinger had carefully considered and rightly interpreted the law; but if his interpretation were correct— if a poor man like the petitioner in this case, who had nothing to trust to but his labour— nothing to look to but his good name— whose daily toil was only relieved by the consciousness of his own integrity and worth: if such a man, upon a mere tale told by a couple of young and idle boys, was to be subject to eight days' confinement in a gaol, and afterwards to be told by one of the expounders of the law that he had no redress, then he should say, that such a law was not to be endured, and required some amendment. When this poor man was released from gaol, he applied to the gentleman who had committed him, in the hope of obtaining from him some expression of regret and some reasonable compensation, which, when known amongst his neighbours, would serve to wipe away the stain which his eight days' confinement had thrown upon his character; but he was met with a cold rebuff. He was told, that if he chose to enter an action, the attorneys were ready to receive the proceedings. Finding that he had no other alternative, he adopted that course. The action was entered— the cause was tried — and by the law the poor man was thrown out of court, and subjected to the additional penalty of having to pay his own costs and the costs of the

1097
defendant. Unless he was greatly mistaken in the feeling of the House, it would not refuse to institute an inquiry into the facts of this case; and when these facts had been ascertained to be truly stated in the petition of Cave, it would be for the House to declare whether the law as it now stood, was such a law as ought in policy and justice to exist in this country. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the case of Nathaniel Cave, and to report the facts connected therewith to the House.
Lord Grimstonewould leave it to the House to determine how far it was consistent, with propriety, to bring under the consideration of the Legislature, a case which had already been decided in the courts of justice. He had not been able to discover exactly the merits of this case; but this he knew, that when the judgment of the court was known in the village of King's Langley, where this, man resided, it was received with universal delight and satisfaction. He, therefore, intreated the House, if a committee were appointed, not to trust to the ex parte statement which had now been made, without hearing the explanations that might be offered on the other side.
Mr. Fox Maulewas not disposed to under-rate or under-value the importance of any petition which an individual might present to that House; but he confessed it appeared to him, that this was a case that might be dealt with otherwise than by a reference to a select committee. He thought, that if the inquiry were left in the hands of the proper officer of the Government, namely, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the end that his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Easthope) had in view would most probably be fully attained. He was sure that his hon. Friend wished nothing more than that the public should be in full possession of all the facts of the case. If the words attributed to the magistrate were true— if he had really said to the petitioner when he was brought before him, "There is quite sufficient to transport you." It was very right that the matter should be investigated. But with respect to the number of days that this unfortunate man had been imprisoned, he (Mr. Fox Maule) should say, that that was rather the fault of the law than of the magistrate. As the law at present
1098
stood, it was not always possible to avoid these long imprisonments previous to trial. If his hon. Friend would leave the case in his (Mr. F. Maule's) hands, he pledged himself that every inquiry should be made into it, and that the result of the inquiry should be laid before the House.
Sir Eardley Wilmotalluded to the absurdity of the law, which made the cutting of a stick in a plantation felony, whilst the carrying off of a large and valuable piece of timber was merely a malicious trespass.
The Attorney-Generalwas rather surprised at hearing the law so laid down by the hon. Baronet, who was a Warwickshire magistrate, because, in point of fact, the law as it really stood, was directly the contrary of what the hon. Baronet had stated.
Mr. R. Alstonsaid, that having been applied to by the hon. Member for Leicester upon this subject, he had forwarded a copy of the petition to the rev. gentleman whose conduct it impugned, and had asked whether there was any explanation he wished to make. The answer which he (Mr. Alston) received, was one of the shortest description. The rev. gentleman merely said, that he had no explanation whatever to give. Under all the circumstances that had been stated, he thought the subject was one that might very properly be referred to the consideration of a select committee.
Mr. T. Duncombefeared that the House would be relying on a broken reed, if it assented to leave this matter in the hands of the Under Secretary, for it appeared that the party had already made an application to the Secretary of State without success, and that he now came to the House of Commons, because the Home Secretary had taken no notice of the matter of which he complained. He thought, therefore, that the petitioner would not gain much, if his case should now be referred to the Under Secretary. He confessed, that the imprisonment of the petitioner did not appear to him to be altogether the fault of the law, but the fault of Mr. Mountain, the rev. administrator of the law. What did the rev. Mr. Mountain do? This person, whom he committed on hearsay evidence, offered bail, which bail the rev. Mr. Mountain refused, sending the man off to the House of Correction, with the pleasing assurance that

1099
"there was quite enough to transport him." That might be called clerical charity; but it appeared to him to be an act of gross injustice and oppression towards an innocent and unoffending man. He thought it would be quite right to have this matter referred to a select committee; and for this reason— that it was expedient to know how it happened that this unconvicted man was kept upon bread and water, and lodged in a solitary cell in the gaol at Berkhampstead previous to his trial, when it was to be assumed that he was as innocent as he ultimately proved to be. This, he thought, was fit matter for inquiry before a committee. There was, also, a greater and a wider question that required to be investigated — whether the law of the country, as administered by the unpaid magistracy, was properly administered. He believed that real and substantial justice would never be done to the working classes until stipendiary magistrates were established throughout the country. If this select committee should be appointed, he was satisfied it would come to the conclusion that the unpaid magistracy, and particularly the clerical magistrates, did not do their duty.
Lord GranvilleSomerset was obliged to the hon. Member for Finsbury, for informing the House what was the real object of the present motion. He was obliged to the hon. Gentleman for making it manifest that the real object of the motion was to attack the magistracy generally throughout the kingdom. ["No, no."] Then the speech of the hon. Member for Finsbury was wholly irrelevant. For what did the hon. Gentleman say? "There can be no justice for poor men until stipendiary magistrates shall be established throughout the kingdom." Was the House prepared to embark in such a question? He, for one, was not; and, therefore, he should vote against the proposition of the hon. Member for Leicester. He regretted as much as any one, that a poor man should have been committed upon insufficient evidence for further examination; but he must observe, that the man obtained an advantage by the committal, in so far that if he had been subjected to summary jurisdiction, he would probably have been convicted and sentenced, which would have placed him in a worst position than the being committed for further examination,
1100
There certainly appeared to have been some want of caution in the conduct of the magistrate in this case; but after the decision of the court of law, that he had not acted from malice, he did not see how this House could properly be called upon to interpose for the purpose of passing a censure upon him. He was afraid that the Under Secretary of State had undertaken a rather difficult task. Indeed, he did not know how the Secretary of State could interfere in a matter of this kind. The question was, whether the magistrate had acted bonâ fide in the discharge of his duty, or from malice towards the party whom he imprisoned. The court had decided that he had not acted from malice. Was the Secretary of State, then, to sit in judgment on the decision of the court? Was the office of the Secretary of State to become a court of appeal from the decisions of the courts all over the kingdom? As to the concluding observations of the hon. Member for Finsbury, he would only observe, that he should be sorry to see the day when stipendiary magistrates should be established throughout the country, being satisfied that nine-tenths of the people had more confidence in the unpaid than in the paid magistrates.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, that if the hon. Member for Leicester should divide the House upon this question, he should feel it his duty, upon the statements made in the petition, to divide with him. He certainly thought that it was not expedient constantly to introduce into that House questions that might be decided, or had been decided in the courts of law; but, at the same time, he held that the House of Commons was the grand court of appeal to which every subject, who had suffered a grievance, had a right to look for protection. His vote in favour of the appointment of the committee would be based chiefly on two grounds— first, that it was alleged in the petition that the depositions were altered— a very important point, which did not appear to have come before the judge and jury at the trial; and secondly, because it was stated to be a practice in the district where this transaction occurred, not to remand as a matter of discretion or justice for two or three days, or even for a fortnight, according to the circumstances of the case, but to1 commit at once to the next petty sessions. He thought that magistrates as well as the country would derive an advantage

1101
from an inquiry upon these points— points which he apprehended could not be properly inquired into by the Secretary of Stale, and which ought, therefore, to be referred to a select committee.
Mr. Humethought, that the time had arrived when the unpaid magistrates should be put an end to. It was stated, that application had already been made to the Secretary of State without success. That was a sufficient reason to induce him to support the motion for the appointment of a select committee. To what tribunal were aggrieved persons to look for justice if not to the House of Commons? He hoped that his hon. Friend would take the sense of the House upon the motion.
Mr. Easthope, in reply, observed, that the noble Lord, the Member for Mon-mouth, overlooking entirely the manner in which the motion had been brought forward, had attempted to assign to it an object wholly different from that which it really had in view. He appealed to the candour of the noble Lord, to his sense of justice and of propriety, to say whether his motives were to be construed by anything that might strike the mind, and fall from the lips of his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury. He put it to the House whether, in any part of the statement he had made, there was anything like an attempt to impugn the conduct of any class of the magistracy— whether, in speaking of the judge who presided at the trial, he had uttered one word in disparagement either of his learning or of his judgment— whether, from beginning to end, he had not adhered closely to the facts of the case, rather understating than overstating them; and whether, at the very outset of his observations, he had not stated, that before he undertook to present the petition, he had communicated with one of the Members for Hertfordshire, and requested that a copy of the petition might be sent to the rev. Gentleman whose conduct it impugned, in order that he might have the opportunity of offering an explanation? He believed that improper committals, such as that complained of in the present instance, were by lawyers termed "slips" on the part of the magistrates: he thought that the noble Lord (Lord G. Somerset) had been guilty of a "slip" when he undertook to construe his motives by what had fallen from his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury. Then the noble Lord said, that it was rather an advantage than
1102
otherwise, that this poor man's case was delayed, and that he was sent to gaol for eight days, instead of having the matter at once fully inquired into. How was that possible? How was it possible to imagine that any advantage could result to this man from eight days' imprisonment? Be it remembered too, that the petitioner had tendered bail, which was refused; and that when he was apprehended, he was brought in handcuffed, the whole of the evidence against him being, that he himself had told two beer-house keeper's boys, that certain trees were cut. Was this the way to treat a man arrested upon a frivolous charge like this? The annals of story-telling could not furnish a tale more utterly absurd and ridiculous than that upon which this poor man was consigned to the cell of a prison. He was confident that the noble Lord, who had rather a leaning towards the magistracy, regretted the conduct of the magistrate in the present instance. He was satisfied that the noble Lord did not appear, with much comfort to himself, as the apologist of a gentleman who had so far forgotten himself as to listen to such an improbable cock-and-bull story as that told by the beer housekeeper's boys, and upon the strength of it to send a poor man to gaol, upon felon's food, for the space of eight days. Fie assured the House, that this subject had been to him a matter of greater pain than than many Gentlemen, perhaps, would imagine. Rarely addressing the House at all, he was the more reluctant to be the instrument of bringing under its attention a case of this painful nature. But he had yielded to a sense of duty. He had not engaged in the matter from pleasure, and feared he had not engaged in it with much effect. If it should be the temper of the House to fall in with the suggestion of his hon. Friend, the Under Secretary for the Home Department, he should be ready to adopt that course, and to withdraw his motion, relying upon his hon. Friend to give to the subject such an anxious and careful investigation as should satisfy the ends of justice. If, however, the investigation of his hon. Friend should not be satisfactory, he believed he should then have the support of the House, in moving for the appointment of a select committee, and that the petitioner, in addition to his other wrongs, would not have to complain, that he had appealed in vain to the justice of the House of Commons,

1103
Lord G. Somerset explained. What he said was simply this; that if this man had been subjected to a summary jurisdiction, he might have been convicted and sentenced, which would place him in a worse situation than the being committed for re-examination.
Motion withdrawn.

LOVETT AND COLLINS.
Mr. Warburtonrose to submit a motion to the House, in reference to Messrs, Lovett and Collins, parties who were convicted of seditious libels at Warwick. The sedition was published by them after the riot that took place at Birmingham. In former times, when parties were found guilty of seditious libels, it was considered quite sufficient to make provision for the safe detention of the persons found guilty, but nothing in the shape of punishment, or of a penitentiary was ever considered necessary. He might refer to almost innumerable instances of that kind. The first instance was that of a person found guilty before the passing of the three recent acts. It the case of an hon. Baronet, now a Member of the House, the hon. Member for Wiltshire (Sir Francis Burdett). Everybody would recollect, that after the Manchester massacre, the hon. Baronet published an address to his constituents, the inhabitants of Westminster, for which he was tried and found guilty of a seditious libel. He was first confined in the gaol at Leicester, but was transferred from thence to the King's Bench, where he resided, in the custody of the marshal, where he wrote and corresponded as he pleased, and where all his friends had access to him; in short, no restriction was placed upon his conduct, except what was required for the safe detention of his person. He might also refer to the case of Gilbert Wakefield, who was, as every one knew, an eminent scholar. He was allowed free access to his friends, and had the use of books, pens, ink, and paper, lie could mention the case of another eminent literary character, Leigh Hunt, who was confined in Horsemonger-lane gaol. The late Mr. Mill, the historian of India, he remembered, told him that he once drank tea with Mr. Leigh Hunt within the walls of the prison, and that that gentleman had two apartments tastefully fitted up. Again, Mr. Cobbett resided in an apartment in the keeper's house at Newgate, and had every facility afforded him consistent with
1104
the safe custody of his person. Since the Acts of Parliament had passed, he would mention instances of similar treatment. The first he would name was the case of a banker of Warwick, of the name of Lloyd, who was convicted of an assault, with an attempt to commit a rape. He was transferred to the debtor's side of the prison, where every indulgence was allowed him, although his case belonged to one of the most grievous classes of misdemeanours; and this lenient treatment, he begged to repeat, occurred since the passing of the 4th George 4th., by which the regulations with regard to prisons were enacted. Then there was the case of the rev. Robert Taylor, who was convicted of blasphemy. The visiting magistrates allowed him to see his friends for four hours in the day, from eleven to three. This was in 1831, also after the passing of the Prisons' Act. Under the authority of the twenty-eighth rule for the government of the gaol, his attendance at the chapel was dispensed with; and under the thirty-first rule, he was allowed to procure for himself food, bedding, clothing, and other necessaries, and also malt liquor not exceeding a quart; a writing-desk, chest of drawers, table, chairs, and candles. Mr. Taylor having complained, that when he look exercise he was compelled to do so with other criminals, the magistrates allowed him to walk in another part of the prison, where he was permitted to converse with his friends. He was also allowed the use of a daily newspaper, and works on science, history, belles lettres, and likewise works in any foreign language, subject to the approbation of any two magistrates. There was the still more recent case of the rev. Mr. Stevens. He did not know to what extent indulgence had been granted to that individual, but he understood that Mr. Stevens had been transferred to Lancaster gaol, and that he was allowed to see his family and children. He would now ask what had been the mode of treating Lovett and Collins? He could not describe the treatment of those individuals in more emphatic language than was used in their own letter, addressed to the hon. Member for Warwick (Mr. Collins), whose conduct in this matter did him the highest credit and honour. The letter was dated the 20th of August, 1839, and was among the published correspondence. They stated, that
"Feeling it impossible to preserve their

1105
health on the kind of food allowed them by the prison regulations, they begged to be permitted to purchase for themselves a little tea, sugar, and butter, and occasionally a small quantity of meat. They felt it very cold in their cell, and more especially as they were not allowed to use their shoes on the brick flooring; they believed it to be essential to their health to be allowed to find their own bedding, and to wear their shoes. That being weakly in health, they begged they might not be locked out in the open air, but that they might have free access to a fire to warm themselves, and to prepare their food, and that they might have the use of a knife and fork, and plate; that they might be allowed the use of pens, ink, and paper, and be permitted to correspond with their relations, and to see their friends, unrestrained by the presence of the gaoler; that they might be allowed to retire by themselves during the day time, for the purpose of reading and writing, and that they might not be locked up for fifteen or sixteen hours a day during the winter season, without fire or candle. That they were induced to make these requests from a knowledge that like indulgences had been granted to persons convicted of similar offences; and that if their requests were complied with, they promised that they would not, in any way, make an improper use of them."
This was the substance of the letter of these persons, and he admitted that some relaxation of the prison discipline had been made in consequence of the representations made by various parties— by the wife of Mr. Lovett, by the Working Men's Association, and by the hon. Member for Warwick. The first indulgence was the permission to have some tea. One of the restrictions was, that they should not be allowed to see any individual, however nearly related, except once a quarter. The wife of Collins had applied for leave to visit her husband, but it was not till the quarter had expired that she was allowed to visit him. Some indulgence had also been granted with respect to carrying on their correspondence. The restriction originally was, that they might use pens, ink, and paper, but they could not send any letter out of the prison until it had been read and allowed to pass. That restriction, he believed, still continued, but a relaxation as to the number of letters they might write had been made. They were also allowed to have a fire, and to have as many books as might be approved of by the chaplain. He would now say a word or two with regard to the particular circumstances under which these restrictions arose. These restrictions grew
1106
out of the three Acts of Parliament passed for regulating all the prisons in the kingdom. According to the first of these acts, prisoners were to be divided into four classes; first, those who were committed for trial, and not convicted; next, those who had been committed, and who had been convicted; and then there was this subdivision: first, of persons committed for misdemeanours, and convicted; second, persons committed for misdemeanours, and not convicted; third, persons committed for graver crimes, and convicted; and fourth, persons committed for graver offences, and not convicted. There were regulations applicable to each of these four divisions; and it had been contended— and he thought properly contended— that when the regulations had once been made, there was no power either in the visiting magistrates or in the Secretary of State to vary or alter the terms of any of them, in behalf of any particular prisoner. There was a power to alter them in the case of any large class of prisoners; but not with respect to any individual prisoner. He thought the magistrates of Warwick and the Secretary of State had performed their duty in saying that they had no power to alter the regulation, unless by some general measure affecting all classes of prisoners. There out arose the grievance of which these individuals complained. It was the Legislature that was to blame when, in making these regulations, it committed the oversight of not seeing how the regulations would apply with respect to this particular class of prisoners — they being included in the class of misdemeanants. He would ask the House to consider what was comprehended under the general term misdemeanour. It was not a defined description of offence, but included almost every offence that could be committed, even from offences often of a worse nature than what were defined felonies down to the lowest offences, such as stealing half-a-doze apples. Indeed, every person committed a misdemeanour who violated an Act of Parliament, and where there was no pecuniary or distinct penalty attached to its violation. The offence for which Lovett and Collins were convicted was never considered a degrading offence in the eyes of society. Had the hon. Member for Wiltshire — formerly Member for Westminster— suffered in the estimation of society because he had committed an exactly

1107
similar offence? Everybody knew that from the feelings of society, and from the habits of men, no disgrace was attached to it. The hon. Baronet might still move in the highest circles of society, and enjoy the friendship of the most exalted and most Virtuous of men, who would not feel themselves disgraced by the association. Why, then, were these individuals, whose offence was no greater, to be treated as if they were criminals of the very lowest description; why were they to be stripped naked on entering the gaol, and be compelled to associate and sleep in the same cell with convicted felons. It was against the common Feelings of society and of mankind that they should be so treated. He would dare any government to treat a person in the exalted station of the hon. Baronet the Member for Wiltshire, in such a manner if he should be found guilty of a similar offence. He would dare any government or any magistrate to cause him to be stripped naked on entering into prison, and to be treated like a criminal misdemeanant; and yet the grounds— and he must admit the legal ground— taken by the visiting magistrates for treating Lovett and Collins in this way was, that their cases were comprehended Within that class of offences termed misdemeanor, and both they and the Secretary of State, when applied to for a relaxation of this treatment, gave this uniform answer:—
"These rules are general; we have no power to relax them, and under these circumstances We cannot afford you any relief."
He believed this to be true; but still there was one power which they did possess. They possessed the power under one of the prison regulations to remove these individuals from one gaol to another. Now knowing, as they must have known, that the treatment of this class of misdemeanants was much less severe in some of the metropolitan prisons than in other prisons in the country (as he had shown in the case of Mr. Taylor, who was confined in Horsemonger-lane prison), they might have inquired where this class of misdemeanants was likely to meet with most indulgence, and they might then have removed them to the prison where a milder treatment would have been adopted towards them. He was happy to know that there were, among the magistrates of Warwick, gentlemen who had obtained great credit for their humanity, and he
1108
might mention the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir E. Wilmot) as one of that number. That hon. Baronet had written a letter to Lord John Russell on the subject of the treatment experienced by Lovett and Collins which was contained in the published correspondence. While the hon. Baronet justified and exonerated the magistracy in general from any injustice or inhumanity in refusing the application of those two persons, and in considering them precisely in the same point of view as other prisoners, still he expressed his sincere regret that the Prisons Regulations Acts should have subjected that class of misdemeanants to which Lovett and Collins belonged to the same description of treatment as was applicable to criminal misdemeanants; and he declared himself decidedly in favour of some appropriate and distinct rules being established with respect to that class of offenders. The hon. Baronet gave a description of the situation in which he found Collins and Lovett, and expressed his regret at seeing two such men placed under such painful and degrading circumstances. The whole of the letter reflected the greatest credit and honour on the hon. Baronet's feelings. This, however, was the way in which under the existing gaol regulations persons convicted of seditious libels were liable to be treated, and when he compared this treatment with that to which similar offenders were before subjected, he felt convinced, and he was sure the Legislature would admit, that in passing the Prisons' Regulations Act they had unawares rendered this class of offenders liable to a degree of punishment which they themselves never Contemplated. Let them just consider, that with regard to all other descriptions of crime there were statutes defining the crime, but in the case of libel it was totally otherwise. There, it was an ex post facto law. The jury defined the crime, and convicted the party as a criminal, at one and the same moment. This was, therefore, a totally different offence from every other, it was for this and for many other reasons, therefore, that these parties were entitled to a lower degree of punishment than other offenders. He was bound to say, that in consequence Of the humane interference of the hon. Baronet (Sir E. Wilmot) in one respect the condition of all the convicted misdemeanants in Warwick gaol was amended; for the

1109
magistrates of the county, finding that they I could not grant one pound of salutary meat as an indulgence to these particular prisoners, they very humanely made a general regulation that all convicted misdemeanants should receive one pound of meat a week. He had thus briefly stated the outline of this case, and what he wished to observe upon it was this. In the first place, the Legislature was bound to make provision that that degree of punishment to which this class of offenders was now subjected, but which he was persuaded was never intended, but was the result of a mere oversight in passing the Prisons Regulations Act, should be remedied. He understood that his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State was prepared to introduce into the Prisons' Bill, then before the House, a particular system of regulations applicable to offenders of this description. He hoped also that, in consequence of the severe punishment to which these individuals had been subjected— first, before they were convicted, they having been, on their committal, compelled to strip naked, and submit to a variety of indignities, which were set forth in their petition, presented to both Houses of Parliament last session, and respecting which a noble and learned Lord said, in another place, that they having been confined for nine days and subjected to this treatment, he thought that nine days' imprisonment was an ample expiation of their offence— he (Mr. Warburton) hoped, in consequence of these indignities, and they having now been confined under these severe regulations, not for nine days, but for nine months (their sentence being twelve months' imprisonment), that her Majesty's Government would consider that the three remaining months might be remitted. The bon. Gentleman concluded by moving, "That there be added to the correspondence already laid before the House a copy of the letter addressed by the hon. Member for Warwick to the Secretary of State, Lord John Russell, dated the 27th of August, 1839, and not included in the printed correspondence."
Mr. Sergeant Talfourdfelt great pleasure in seconding the motion of his hon. Friend. It had happened to him to have had the honour of knowing, for he considered it to be a high honour to know, several persons who had been convicted of offences of this description, because there had been amongst them those whom he believed
1110
to have rendered the best service, to society. He had the pleasure of knowing Mr. Leigh Hunt at the time when he was confined in Horsemonger-lane prison, his brother John being at the same time confined for the same offence in Coldbath-fields prison; and he knew that, so far from there being any restriction upon their comforts, they were living in a certain degree of splendour, and gathering around them men of kindred genius. And while he mentioned the name of Leigh Hunt, he could not refrain from expressing a wish that her Majesty's Government would consider, when they were dispensing the liberal bounty of the Crown to men eminent for services rendered to literature and the arts, the claim he had upon them, nor forget one who, in its darkest days, never forgot the cause of freedom. He remembered, when a schoolboy, seeing Mr. Cobbett in the Court of King's Bench, sentenced to two years' imprisonment in Newgate, where he afterwards found him with books and music, and surrounded with all the elegancies of life; and, so far from being subjected to any restriction, he was carrying on his "Register," and publishing his "Paper against Gold" twice every week, and, he believed, was writing quite as strongly and powerfully as he had ever written before. He would also take leave to mention the case, not of a misdemeanant, but of a person who was convicted of felony, and who remained under the sentence of capital punishment for many months; he meant the case of Mr. Aslett, who very narrowly escaped, on two occasions, the ignominy of suffering at the gallows. He was convicted of embezzling exchequer-bills to the amount of many thousands of pounds: having escaped capital punishment for that offence, he was again convicted for embezzling bank effects, and for that offence was sentenced to death. He actually remained under that sentence for a long period, a majority of the judges holding out against him, but Lord Eldon coinciding with the minority. During that time he occupied well-furnished apartments, and gave splendid dinner-parties, and entertained distinguished persons, Lord Erskine and Mr. Garrow frequently visiting him there: he experienced no kind of restraint, except a restriction on the liberty of his person. He also remembered the case of Mr. Winterbottom, an eminent dissenting minister, who in times (they might, perhaps, be disposed to say) not so good as

1111
these, was convicted for preaching two sermons with respect to the French Revolution, and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for each of them. So far from his wife being denied access to him, he was actually permitted to marry during his confinement in prison; and, while there, he composed the "History of America," which reflected great credit on his name. His children were now living, and he believed were extremely proud of the merits of their parent, of his imprisonment, and of the cause of it. He could not help thinking that it was a most unworthy thing of any government to pursue and persecute persons guilty of what might be called intellectual offences, and who might happen, in their search after truth, to overstep the bounds of propriety, and to subject them, as these persons had been subjected, to degradations that were far more severe in their poignancy than any actual bodily torture that could be inflicted upon them. And while he was upon this subject, he wished just to call to the mind of his hon. Friend whom he saw before him, and to the Government generally, the fact that he had had the duty of twice prosecuting at Monmouth assizes a person of the name of Vincent for sedition. On the former trial he did not defend himself; but on the last he did, and conducted his defence with a discretion, with a modesty, and with a grace, which interested him certainly very greatly in Mr. Vincent's favour, and convinced him that such a man was capable of better things, and was one upon whom kind treatment would not be lost; but who might, by gentler means, be led from dangerous courses, and be made a most useful, honourable, and able member of society. He had heard that Vincent had lately been transmitted from Monmouth gaol to the Penitentiary; and he could not help expressing his earnest hope, that that young man, who he believed might be reclaimed from dangerous associations, and who naturally possessed a good heart and pure mind, might meet with no personal degradation while in that prison.
Mr. Fox Mauleconsidered that, under all the circumstances, his hon. Friend was perfectly justified in making the statement to the House which he had on this occasion made. He certainly thought, that in passing the Prisons' Act, the Legislature were guilty of some omissions respecting the treatment of persons con-
1112
victed of seditious libels, and so far he agreed with his hon. Friend, the Member for Bridport, that when in committee on the Prisons' Act (into which he proposed to go to-night), he should not have the least objection to adopt the amendment which his hon. Friend had suggested. But something had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend who seconded the motion, in which he could not exactly concur. His hon. and learned Friend had drawn a parallel between the cases of Mr. Leigh Hunt and others, and those of Lovett and Collins. Now, it appeared to him, that the character of the two descriptions of libel very much differed. It must be borne in memory, that the seditious libel for which Lovett and Collins were convicted, was uttered at a time when the country was in considerable danger from a high state of excitement, partly from the public mind being much acted upon by various individuals, and partly from the existence of that body which was called "the National Convention," and of which Mr. Lovett was not only a member, but of which he was the secretary. He thought that Mr. Lovett might have found a situation more worthy of his talents than the secretaryship to such a body. The libel, of which he had been convicted, had had the effect of influencing strongly the public mind in a very dangerous manner, and it was desirable that those who had had the care of the public peace should institute the prosecution, and if a jury of his countrymen should think, as they did think, that he had been guilty of a criminal act, that they should follow it up by pressing for judgment. He could not help thinking, however, that the punishment of those individuals had been very severe, and, indeed, severer than could have been anticipated, but it was not in the power of the Secretary of State, or of the visiting magistrates, to mitigate it more than had been done. Mr. Vincent's offence was of a grave character, and any Gentleman who had read the Western Vindicator would see that Mr. Vincent proclaimed, that the constitution of this country, however much it might be altered, and after the most extensive reforms that the hon. Member for Kilkenny would ever wish to carry out, would be good for nothing. Until Mr. Vincent should reform that opinion it was impossible that he could be other than a dangerous member of society. To

1113
the other part of his hon. and learned Friend's suggestion, he could say, that he might rely upon it Mr. Vincent was in a prison in which he would meet with no improper treatment, for he was not aware that any complaints had ever been made to the committee who managed the Penitentiary, of anything improper. With regard to the general question of prisoners committed for seditious and political libels, it ought to be in the power of the magistrates, and of the Secretary of State, to separate them from other classes of offenders, or even from others of their own class of offenders. There were, indeed, some libels to which it might be desirable to give the extreme penalty of the class, yet the majority of these libels was not of such a grave character, and it ought to be in the power of those in authority to give a greater or lesser degree of punishment, and this alteration he would adopt in the Prisons' Act, which would be proceeded with that evening.
Mr. Humewas glad to hear, that the hon. Gentleman proposed to remedy the evil which had been complained of. Still, with regard to the hon. Gentleman's allegation about Mr. Vincent's paper, he must say, that no judicial or criminal allegation had ever been made against the Western Vindicator, and therefore, no such allegation ought now to be brought forward in that House. As far as regarded the talents of Mr. Lovett, he had known him for some time, and had seen some of his writings in favour of general liberty, which had excelled any that had yet appeared on the same branches of the subject. Such a man must have felt most severely the punishment' he had suffered. Having presented several petitions from the working classes, he could state, that the general feeling among them was, that these parties had been more severely treated than others in a higher station had been, or would be, and he trusted that the remedy which was to be applied now, would place the Government in a situation to prevent a recurrence of such complaints. The treatment that others had received was so different from that received by Mr. Lovett and Mr. Collins, that it was impossible to compare it without feeling involuntary indignation, although he was glad that their sufferings had led to this alteration.
Mr. T. Duncombethought, that the statement of the hon. Gentleman, the
1114
Under Secretary of State, was very satisfactory as to the future, and he hoped, that he would say something more than he had to make it satisfactory as to the past. As he understood the hon. Gentleman, he admitted, that some of the prisoners had suffered great wrong, but he had not explained why a distinction was made between the cases of Lovett and Collins, and of Mr. Stevens, who had also been convicted of a seditious libel. He believed, that the latter was in Lancaster gaol, having the governor's apartments, and that he had a much more extended power of seeing his friends. There was also one part of the treatment of those at Warwick which to him required, or appeared to require, an immediate alteration. The two prisoners were required to sleep in one bed, and that a bed not wider than three feet six inches, whilst there was another bed in the same cell in which slept a convicted felon. And this, be it recollected, was the treatment of superior men. For he believed that there was not a better disposed, or a more amiable man in private lift', than Mr. Lovett, and he believed, also, that Mr. Collins's private life was without blemish. Why were such men so treated? Why should it continue one hour longer? That was what he wanted to know from the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Mr. Lovett's libel, after all, was only for the publication of what he had heard over and over again stated in that House— that the introduction of the London police was the cause of all the rioting. The two hon. Members for Birmingham had said that again and again; and that was all that was stated in the resolutions forming the groundwork of the libel, and which called upon the people to resist their introduction. The burning did not take place till afterwards; and for that Lovett and Collins were in nowise responsible— they were at that time safely locked up in Warwick gaol. The treatment of the prisoners having been so severe, and so contrary to former precedents, would, he hoped, induce the Government now to discharge them. He only wished that he had seen in their places the hon. Baronet, the Member for Wilts (Sir F. Burdett), and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Nottingham (Sir J. C. Hobhouse); who were the Lovetts and Collinses of former days, for he would have asked them how they would

1115
have liked the treatment which had been detailed to the House by the hon. Member for Bridport; a detail that he hoped Would have its due effect upon the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Mr. Fox Maulemust deny that the London police was the cause of the rioting. The inspector of the police had been tried at the late assizes for his conduct during the riots, and had been acquitted by the jury, and praised by the authorities.
Viscount Sandondid not rise for the purpose of palliating the offence committed by these persons, but he must Say that their situation, as detailed by the hon. Member for Bridport, was such as it ought not to have been. He thought that the Legislature ought to accommodate punishment to the general condition of the parties, and by no means impose any that public feeling did not go along with. With these views, although he believe it the crimes of which the prisoners had been convicted were of a very mischievous description, yet they belonged not to any degradation of mind, and indeed were frequently the errors of a generous character. He joined in offering his support to the recommendation which had been given to the hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary Of State, to consider again these cases, with the view of mitigating the sentence.
Sir Eardley Wilmotfelt, that after the statements of the hon. Member for Bridport, and of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State, it was not necessary to say any thing in defence of the magistrates" of Warwickshire. The hon. mover had indeed admitted that they only carried out the law as they found it, and that it was not their fault, but the fault of the law itself. For himself, he thought that misdemeanours of words and misdemeanours of deeds ought to be treated differently. There was one point he would notice in answer to the hon. Member for Finsbury. It was known that the charter For Birmingham Was in the course of litigation, and Was not likely to be settled for Some time, as one party or the other Would appeal against the jury's decision whichever way it was. In the interval all the prisoners committed from Birmingham were sent to Warwick gaol, and the consequence Was, that it was so crowded that he believed the prisoners were obliged to sleep three in a bed all over the prison,
1116
and the magistrates hardly knew what to do. With reference to the appeal which had been made to the Secretary of State to remit the remainder of the punishment, he believed that the visiting magistrates had the power, upon application from the Secretary of State, to report the conduct of prisoners under sentence, and if it had been good the Secretary of State could, upon that ground, remit the punishment. He was sure that he had known such reports sent up from Warwick, and the punishment thereupon remitted. If the hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary, would allow him to apply to the visiting magistrates to report, and if that report should be that the prisoners' conduct had been exemplary, there would then be fair, legal, and constitutional grounds for exercising mercy towards them. He had himself inquired of the gaoler what their conduct had been, and the answer was,
"I have had to complain of no single thing; their conduct has been unexceptionable— no two persons could act better."
If the Secretary of State would have the same inquiry made, he would doubtless receive a similar reply, and the wishes of hon. Members could be thus gratified.
Mr. C. P. Villiershoped that for what the hon. Baronet suggested the magistrates of Warwickshire Would not wait for any request from the Home-office, but that the hon. Baronet and the visiting justices would feel no hesitation in taking the course which they had the power to do. A discretion as to the report of good conduct was placed in their hands, and they ought to exercise it, even if they were not asked by the Secretary of State.
Mr. Hawesobserved, that under the 16th section of the Gaol Act the magistrate could recommend the prisoners to the mercy of the Secretary of State, and then the punishment could be remitted. As no one Member on the opposition side of the House had dissented from the appeal that had been made, and as he was sure that no one would dissent, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman, the Under-Secretary of State, would communicate to the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, the general feeling that prevailed upon this point.
Mr. Warburtonwould not go into a discussion on the new ground to which he was invited by the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, the Under-Secretary of State, as to the difference between the offences

1117
of the present prisoners, and those of the hon. Members for Wilts and for Nottingham; he would only state the description which was given in the papers already laid upon the table of the House of Mr. Lovett's character. He was said to be a mild, civil, moral man, self-instructed, but very diligent in inquiring after knowledge. And, after the general discussion that had taken place this session as to the superior efficacy of mild punishments, he hoped that the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, would approve of the general principle, and under all the circumstances of this case, and with persons who had borne such a character, extend to the prisoners the benefit of a mitigated sentence.
Motion agreed to.

GRAMMAR SCHOOLS.
Sir Eardley Wilmot, in moving the second reading of the Grammar Schools' Bill, said that it in no way interfered with, or altered the foundation of the grammar schools, or the objects of the founders; it was intended to carry out, enlarge, confirm, and improve the schools, so as to make them what the founders intended— useful means of affording education to the public. It was strange that with 430 grammar schools in the country, owing to the change in the times, &c, in some instances to neglect, but chiefly to the expense of appeals for proper regulations to the Court of Chancery, the schools should in many instances be useless, and the legacy of our forefathers thus flung away. The only purpose of this bill was to give a remedy to trustees of grammar schools, for the better application of the funds, at an expense of 30 l;. or 50 l., which they could not now obtain under 500 l. or 1,000 l. When they went into committee, many amendments would doubtless suggest themselves, but even as it stood, he thought the bill was as good a bill as could be adopted.
Bill read a second time.

PRISON REGULATIONS.
Mr. Fox Maule, on moving the further consideration of the report of the committee on the Prison Regulations' Bill, said that he would take that opportunity of introducing the alterations giving power to the proper parties to make rules and regulations for the classification of those convicted of misdemeanours so as to reach persons convicted of libels.
House in committee.
The following words were added to the preamble:—" And whereas several of such rules and regulations ought not to be applied to persons suffering imprisonment upon convictions for writing and publishing, or for procuring to be written and published seditious libels, or for uttering seditious words;" and the other necessary alterations having been made in the clauses, the House resumed, the report to be received.

SOAP EXCISE ACTS.
Mr. Robert Gordon Mr. Robert Gordon moved that the House should go into committee on these acts. At present there were forty acts affecting the regulation of the excise duties on soap. He intended to consolidate these acts into one, and also to carry into effect the recommendations of the Commissioners of Excise Inquiry, which had met with the approbation of the trade generally. The present regulations materially interfered with the manufacture, and prevented our competing with foreigners. He did not, however, propose to proceed with the bill till every person had had time to consider the act, and to make every necessary inquiry.
House in committee, and resolutions agreed to.

MINUTES.
Bills. The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the following Bills:—Printed Papers; Exchequer Bills; and a number of Private Bills.—Read a first time:—Augmentation of Maintenance.—Read a third time;—Rated Inhabitants Evidence.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of Lansdowne, from several Dissenting Bodies, for the Abolition of Church Rates, and of Ecclesiastical Courts, and against any Grant to the Clergy of the Established Church for Education.—By the Duke of Newcastle, from Derby, and the Duke of Wellington, from Southampton, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws,—By the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of London, from several places, against the Clergy Reserves Bill.—By the Marquess of Bute, from several places, in favour of Non-Intrusion.—By the Marquess of Westminster, and Lord Ashburton, from several places, for Church Extension.— By the Earl of Charleville, from the Coroners of Clare, for Amending the Law relating to their Office.— By Lord Redesdale, from Norwich, for Medical Reform.— By the Marquess of Bute, from Ayr, against the Sale of Spirits during Divine Service.

DISTURBANCES IN LIMERICK.
The Earl of Charlevillebegged to remind the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, of the question he had asked on the 30th of last month— whether the Government had received any information respecting the disturbed state of the county of Limerick, and particularly the outrages which had been committed on the farm of Mr. Hill? He wished to know whether any information had been received as to the state of the district, and what steps had been taken for the restoration of the tranquillity of the county.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that having perused all the accounts which had been published respecting the occurrences to which the noble Earl had drawn his attention, and having compared them with the constabulary reports— making allowance for some degree of exaggeration — he must say, that the statements of the noble Earl were in the main well founded. Some outrages, of an agrarian character (he did not mean by that expression to qualify this violence) had taken place in two parishes of the county of Limerick— land had been turned up— and a threatening letter of a very atrocious character had been sent to Mr. Hill, reminding him of the death of Mr. Fox. But as the event which was so alluded to by way of threat had taken place four years ago, he (the Marquess of Normanby) was inclined to believe that the county had been in a comparatively peaceable state since that time. As soon as the reports of the outrages in January last reached the Irish Government, rewards were offered and an increased constabulary force, amounting to sixty, was sent to Limerick from Longford, where they were unnecessary, and peace had since been effectually maintained in Limerick,

1083
He had come down to the House several evenings, with the intention of giving the noble Earl that explanation, but he was prevented from doing so by the whole of the early part of the evening being occupied by the discussions introduced by the noble Marquess opposite (Westmeath). When ever similar accounts reached the Irish government, every exertion would promptly be made in all cases to repress disorder, and bring the delinquents to punishment.
The Earl of Charlevillehad received last night a letter from Mr. Hill, in which, after describing the alarming state of the district, he said he had been offered the assistance of some police; but the authorities refused to give him less than four or five, and insisted on his paying a certain sum daily for each of the men. Until the noble Marquess became Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, such a demand had never been made. The order then given called forth the strong reprobation of all the magistrates; and in a case which occurred in the county with which he was connected, where a person having had the assistance of the constabulary, refused to pay the sum required, he had not heard that the Government had been enabled to enforce the claim. The first duty of the Government and of the police was undoubtedly to give protection to the loyal and peaceable inhabitants, and to preserve, if possible, the peace of the country. But it was at once grievous and insulting, to tell a farmer, "We know your life is in danger, and your property insecure, but if you have the protection of the police force, you must pay 5s. a-day for it." If it was the opinion of the authorities, that the protection of the police was necessary, it should be given without payment.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that the noble Earl spoke under a misapprehension. The general rule was, that persons could not claim the exclusive service of the police, without remunerating them for the period in which they were at their command, though if the Government, on inquiry, saw reason for their being sent to protect any particular person, no charge was made. The mere fancy of an individual was not deemed a sufficient ground for transferring them to his disposal.

BERGARA CONVENTION.
The Marquess of Londonderrywished to have an answer to the questions of which he had given notice last night, in order to enable
1084
him to bring the whole subject of the Bergara convention before the House in a substantive shape immediately after the holy-days. The questions he had to put to the noble Viscount were the following: — 1. Lord John Hay is stated in No. 4 despatch from Colonel Wylde to Lord Palmerston, to have first sought the Carlist General Maroto. Had he any instructions for such proceedings as early as July, 1839, to authorize his being the bearer of communications between Maroto and the Duke of Vittoria? 2. It appears in Lord John Hay's letter to the Earl of Minto, No. 22, that the Christino Government, in whose cause the war was carried on, did not approve or sanction the raising of the Muniagorri standard of Paz y Fueros.' Had Lord John Hay instructions to act independently of the Christino Government in aiding the views of that chief in a plan which terminated in disgrace, and who was so despicable a character, that no Basque had the slightest confidence in him, although he represented himself as being patronized by the agents of our Government? 3. In consequence of the part her Britannic Majesty's Government have borne in the negotiations carried on between Maroto and Espartero, is it their determination to urge on the Spanish Government that the Fueros should be fully accorded to the Basque provinces? It appears that in the opinion of her Britannic Majesty's Government the local privileges of the Basques and their institutions should be preserved as far as they are compatible with the representative system of Government, which has been adopted for the whole of Spain, and as far as they are consistent with the unity of the Spanish monarchy. Were these, then, the grounds and principles on which Lord John Hay supported Muniagorri's standard of 'Paz y Fueros,' and were no further hopes than these held out?"
Viscount Melbournehad to state, in reference to the first question, that Lord John Hay had no precise instructions, but acted on the general knowledge he had of the views, intentions, and wishes of her Majesty's Government. His conduct in that respect had been subsequently entirely approved of. As to the affair of Muniagorri, the whole of the facts had already been laid on the table. Lord John Hay, in that instance, also acted without precise instructions, and solely on his

1085
acquaintance with the general views of the Government, and the purposes of the service on which he was employed. With respect to the other question, whether we were bound to see the treaty of Bergara executed, he begged leave to state, that the British Government had not been guarantees of that treaty; they had been no party to it, and although they were anxious that the Spanish Government should fulfil its stipulations, and indeed entertained no doubt that it would strictly and faithfully execute the treaty, yet the British Government were in no respect bound to see it carried into effect. The Marquess of Londonderry thought it could be proved by the papers which had been laid on the table, that the British authorities had so directly interfered throughout the whole arrangement, that they must be considered pledged to see the terms of the convention carried into effect.— Subject at an end.

POOR LAW (IRELAND).
The Marquess of Westmeath The Marquess of Westmeath moved for copies of "any correspondence on the records of the Poor-law commissioners, on the necessity of the provisions of the act 2nd and 3rd Victoria, cap. 1, to amend the Irish Poor-law of the 1st and 2nd Victoria, cap. 56, particularly respecting the 5th section."
Viscount Melbournecould not undertake to say that any such correspondence existed. If it did exist anywhere, it would be impossible to find it under the vague terms of such a notice as that of the noble Marquess.
The Duke of Wellingtonthought it would be but fair, after the course which had been taken last night, that every information should be given by the Government, why so important an amendment had been introduced at the very last stage of such a bill. The Poor-law commissioners were bound to keep copies of all their correspondence, and their Lordships had a right to know in what quarter that amendment had been suggested.
Viscount Duncannonwas quite ready to produce all the information in his possession, but he believed no correspondence had taken place on the subject. The fact was, the commissioner had been in London at the time, and suggested to him in the lobby the necessity of introducing this amendment, even at the last stage of the bill.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he had certainly seen a great many instances of surprises upon his side of the House, by noble Lords on the other side, but the introduction of this clause into the bill, upon the third reading, was the most flagrant case of surprise that had ever been practised in that House. Upon the 25th of February, he had stated, that he saw no objection to the measure as explained by the noble Viscount opposite, in his speech on the second reading. On the 26th of February he was absent from the House. Now, he was never absent from the House, except when he was prevented from attending by illness, which very seldom happened, or by public duties elsewhere. On the 26th, when he had left town to attend the judges upon circuit, the bill was committed; and no amendment was made, nor any notice of amendment given. On the 27th, he had the honour of receiving the judges at his House, and on that day the bill was reported, but no notice was then given of any proposed amendment. On the 28th, when he was not in the House, and without any notice, this objectionable amendment was introduced.' Now, what he wanted to know was this— who it was that suggested this amendment? Was it suggested by Mr. Nicholls? or had there been any correspondence with any magistrate upon the subject? It could not be suggested without communications of some kind passing. Some correspondence must have taken place beforehand, and if no such correspondence were forthcoming, the Poor-law commissioners had not done their duty, for they were bound to keep copies of all correspondence, and to be prepared today them before the Houses of Parliament. His desire was to sift the matter completely, for he considered the amendment to be a very gross violation of the principles of the bill, and if it had formed part of the bill originally, he, for one, should have voted against it. He hoped, therefore, his noble Friend would persevere in his motion. If the return to it were nil, be it so; then it would appear that the Poor-law commissioners had not performed their duty.
The Earl of Wickowfelt confident, that when his noble Friend opposite had introduced this amendment, he had no idea he was departing from the usual course of proceeding, or introducing a clause which was in any way inconsistent with the general objects of the measure.

1087
But the result proved the necessity of making some regulation for the future, as to the introduction of new clauses upon third readings. They ought not to be introduced, except with notice, and after the proposed amendments had been printed.
Viscount Duncannonsaid, that there was a necessity for the bill to pass by a certain time, and, so far as he could recollect, the amendment had, just before the third reading, been put into his hands by one of the Poor-law commissioners, who assured him that it was absolutely necessary to insure the working of the bill, and did not interfere with its principle. If he had conceived that the amendment would in any manner change the nature of the bill, he certainly should not have introduced it in the absence of the noble Duke opposite.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that if any correspondence had taken place with the Poor-law commissioners on the subject, it should be laid on the table. It was not intended, by the amendment, to alter the right of voting for guardians, and if such were conceived to be the effect of the amendment, there could be no objection to pass a declaratory act on the subject.
The Earl of Winchilseathought it extraordinary that the noble Viscount opposite should, at the suggestion of any individual, come down to the House with such an amendment, without being fully acquainted with its nature and effect.
Motion agreed to.

REGISTRATION OF ARMS (IRELAND).
The Earl of Glengallrose to call the attention of their Lordships to the subject of the registration of arms in Ireland, and to the laws connected with it, and in so doing he should take the liberty of asking the Noble Marquess opposite (Normanby) whether it were the intention of the Government to propose any alterations of the law now existing on that subject? He was not desirous of getting up a debate on the state of tranquillity in Ireland, and he would, therefore, in the remarks which he intended to make, confine himself exclusively to the possession of arms by improper characters. He would not trouble their Lordships at any great length as the subject had previously been before them, and no doubt they were well acquainted with it. It was a fact perfectly notorious
1088
that there was a great quantity of unregistered arms in the possession of persons of the worst description. This fact was so universally known and admitted, that no proof was necessary on the point. It was admitted on all hands, and by no parties more unequivocally than by the magistrates and gentlemen who were examined by the committee of their Lordships, up stairs, during the course of the last session. To prevent this great and alarming evil a bill was introduced into the lower House of Parliament by Lord Stanley, when his Lordship was Secretary for Ireland. The object of that measure was to tranquillise the country. But notwithstanding the necessity for some change, and the beneficial change proposed by Lord Stanley's bill, a great outcry was raised against it in Ireland. This bill, either by the dissolution of Parliament or the demise of the Crown, or some similar cause, fell to the ground. No measure, consequently, was adopted to remedy the evil which existed, and which had increased to a frightful extent. To prove to their Lordships that the evil had not been exaggerated, he would read a return of the number of outrages which had occurred from the 1st of January, 1836, to the 1st of January, 1838, which arose solely from the possession of arms by improper characters, and which were immediately and directly connected with the bad state of the registration:— Robbery of arms, 238; firing upon persons, 70; firing upon dwelling-houses, 23; and attacking houses, 411. This was the general return throughout Ireland. In some counties, of course, the evil was greater than in others. In Tipperary during fourteen months previous to February last, there had been 185 cases of outrage arising from the improper possession of arms. In other places the cases were very numerous. Cases of outrage in different counties of Ireland, originating from the improper state of the law on the subject of the registration of arms, were unfortunately numerous. The evil had in a great measure been increased by the loose and careless manner in which the punishments for carrying and having arms on the person were regarded. The custom of carrying arms had been allowed to go on to such a length that it was almost considered legal. This subject also was most worthy of the attention of the Government. He was not desirous of making this a party question, but

1089
there was a stringent necessity to alter the law, to give security to the well-disposed inhabitants of the country. He would therefore ask the noble Marquess if it were the intention of the Government to introduce any law on the subject? The noble Earl moved at the same time for returns of the number and expense of the police, and of rewards offered, and outrages committed in Ireland, since 1838.
The Marquess of Normanbyhad no objection to the production of the returns moved for by the noble Earl. They were connected with a subject which had engaged the very serious attention of the Government. During his residence in Ireland several places had been submitted to him for a more strict registration of arms in that country. He could not at present say that it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to alter the law connected with the subject; but he would at the same time state that he had been in communication with a learned Gentleman connected with the law department of Ireland, and that he intended to correspond on the subject with his noble Friend, the present Viceroy. When he had done so, he should then be able lo give a more explicit answer as to the intention of the Government. As to the returns which the noble Earl had read, showing the number of outrages which had been committed from the improper and illegal possession of arms; regretting as he did their amount, he could not refrain from congratulating himself that their number had diminished, and was still diminishing. The returns read by the noble Earl only brought down the cases to 1838; now he would read the number which had since occurred. In the three first months of 1838, there were 122 cases; in the whole of 1839, there were seventy-three; and in 1840, there had only been sixty-one. So, though the number was deplorably great, he was rejoiced to say that the outrages were diminishing.
The Earl of Wicklowobserved, that the noble Lord had not stated under what circumstances it was that the bill which was introduced for the purpose of remedying the evil was not proceeded with after being allowed to go so far as the second reading.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, there were certain reasons which had induced the Government, on mature consideration, to abandon the measure.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that
1090
under the present law persons were obliged to register their arms at the quarter sessions, which left it open to the ruffians of the country to consider whether the houses of those persons were in such a state as to give them any chance of seizing the arms which were so advertised. He thought, therefore, it was one of the first duties of the Government to consider this subject, and make the necessary alteration in the present law.
Lord Monteaglesaid, that the subject was one in which they ought not to act in haste or without deliberation. The registration law had not served as a protection to the peaceably-disposed inhabitants of the country, but had produced an entirely contrary effect, and therefore when any change was about to be proposed, they ought to take that circumstance into consideration. A false and unfair inference had been drawn from the returns read by the noble Earl. From his division of the subject, each outrage was divided into three separate crimes— 1st, being in possession of unregistered arms— 2nd, attacking the house— and 3rd,deprivingtheown-ers of their arms. And this, of course, swelled the list to a great amount.
The Earl of Glengallassured the noble Lord and their Lordships that this was not the case. The latter were taken from the returns of the stipendary magistrates, and the cases were placed seriatim. He wished, indeed, that the fact had been as represented by the noble Lord; but he could assure the House that the gross number consisted of separate and distinct cases. Nothing could be worse than the state of some parts of the country. The condition of the northern parts of Tipperary was fearful. Under such circumstances, he trusted that the Government would take upon themselves the introduction of some measure to remedy the evils existing.
Returns ordered.
House adjourned until the 30th April.