Sitting of 16 July 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Administration of Justice.—Read a second time:—Toll on Lime; Commerce and Navigation; Church Discipline; Grand Jury Cess (Ireland); Court Houses (Ireland); Insolvent Debtors (Ireland).—Read a third time:—County Constabulary; Turnpike Trusts; Juvenile Offenders.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Mr. W. O. Stanleyrose to call the attention of the House to what he considered to be a breach of privilege. It consisted of the following extract from a petition which had been presented to that House, and which had been signed by the hon. Member for Shropshire (Mr. O. Gore), for Carnarvonshire (Mr. J. R. O. Gore), and for the borough of Carnarvon (Mr. W. B. Hughes).
"Early in the present Session a petition was presented to Parliament, entitled The Petition of the undersigned landowners, and others, of the county of Carnarvon,' which bore the signatures of John Williams, high sheriff, the Lord Newborough, the Members for the county and borough, twelve justices of the peace, the mayor, and various other residents at Carnarvon, and which contained the following passages:—' That the interests of various landowners along the existing mail coach line through North Wales are deeply affected by the projects at issue; and that persons enjoying property at Holyhead, and in the island of Anglesea, have the deepest stake in the inquiry. That, under these circumstances, the strictest impartiality was called for, both as to the persons to be selected and the proceedings to be adopted in carrying the Address of the House of Commons into execution. That such impartiality in the choice of persons appears to your petitioners not to have been exercised, and that, under all the circumstances of the case, there is every reason to believe, that any report these persons may make in favour of a particular harbour and line of railway will be deemed by the public prejudiced and unsatisfactory. That the grounds upon which your petitioners have been induced to form the belief stated are as follow. That various public meetings and other proceedings took place before the address already cited was moved, at which the relative merits of Holyhead Harbour and the Harbour of Port Dynllaen, for the purposes intended, were canvassed and discussed. That at sundry meetings of this kind great pains were taken on the part of Lord Stanley, of Alderley, who is reputed to possess considerable property in the town of Holyhead and the island of Anglesea, and whose son, the hon. William Owen Stanley, represents the county in Parliament, to show that Holyhead was the fittest harbour for communicating with Ireland, and that a line of railway from Holy-

761
head to a point in the London and Birmingham Railway was superior to a competing project from Port Dynllaen. That it appeared at one meeting (of which the hon. William Owen Stanley was the chairman) that Captain Beechy, R.N., had, for or at the instance of the parties interested, surveyed the Harbour of Holyhead, and reported upon its fitness for the intended purpose, and that his opinion in favour of Holyhead, had been delivered in and was quoted to the meeting by Captain W. J. Deans Dundas, Secretary to the Ordnance. That, under such circumstances, and after the decided part taken in the matters in dispute by the promoters of the Holyhead line and the Secretary to the Ordnance, the appointment of the said Captain Beechy, R.N., who had already given judgment professionally in favour of that conclusion which so greatly served the purpose and interests of the interested parties, was not, in the opinion of your petitioners, consistent with that impartiality and that perfect fairness to all persons or interests concerned or affected, which ought to be inseparable from the proceedings of Government acting on behalf of the Crown upon a public question of the very greatest importance."
He had made enquiry, and he could not find that any such petition as was here referred to had been presented to that House, but he found that such a petition had been presented in the other House of Parliament; and he held it to be a breach of the privileges of this House to allude to a petition which had not been presented. He must also complain of want of courtesy, in the fact that a petition which alluded to him by name had been presented without his receiving any notice of it.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that admitting all that had been said by the hon. Gentleman, he did not see in what way a breach of privilege had been committed. He wished the right hon. Gentleman, the Speaker, would give his opinion upon the point.
The Speakersaid, he had no hesitation in stating that he did not understand the petition in any way to involve a breach of privilege. The words referred to by the hon. Gentleman could only be taken as part of a petition that had been presented to that House. The petition certainly reflected upon the conduct of persons employed by the Government, and of Members of that House; but it referred to them in their private capacity, and not to their conduct as Members of that House. If any breach of privilege had been committed, it had been a breach of the privileges of the House of Lords.
Subject at an end.

COUNTY CONSTABULARY.
On the order of the day for the third reading of the County Constabulary bill,
Captain Pechellobjected to the third reading of the bill on several grounds. He had resisted the measure in every stage last Session, but he had been foiled in his endeavour to exempt the towns that had a police force, and the present bill remained in its original objectionable form. The bill gave unqualified dissatisfaction to men of all parties in the towns, Tories, Whigs, and Radicals. If, however, this bill were rejected, the Act of last Session, which was not liked, would still remain. He hardly knew whether he ought to divide against the third reading; he felt inclined to give the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fox Maule) a chance of re-considering his opinion, and to agree now to a clause exempting the large towns.
Mr. Law Hodgessaid, that although the Act of last year might be required in some counties, yet the desperate remedy proposed was not wanted in several; and, therefore, it was that he had introduced his own bill. As a remedy for the defects of the existing Act he did not object to the present bill.
Bill read a third time.
On the question that the bill do pass,
Mr. Denison Mr. Denison moved the re-insertion of the 24th clause, which prevented magistrates in Middlesex, Kent, Essex, Hertfordshire, and Surrey, from voting at Quarter Sessions upon questions on this bill, unless they were possessed of a certain property qualification within the district, and which had been rejected in committee. Unless this clause were introduced, the metropolitan magistrates, having no property in the district, might saddle the counties with heavy expenses.
Mr. Rowland Alstonsaid, there were many magistrates in Hertfordshire who had acted with great credit, who would consider this clause a great stigma cast upon them; and as he thought no such implied censure ought to be passed by the House, he would oppose the clause.
Mr. Fox Maulehaving withdrawn the clause in obedience to what he deemed the general feeling of the House, although he retained his former opinion of its utility, could not now consent to its re-introduction.
Sir Edward Knatchbullsaid, that if this clause were inserted, they would lose in Kent the valuable services of the chairman

763
of sessions in West Kent, and he could not consent to its introduction.
Motion withdrawn.
Sir Adolphus Dalrymple next moved the insertion of the clause of which he had given notice, to exempt large towns, in the following words:—
"And be it further enacted, that the power to appoint, and pay, and to make and levy rates for paying constables, under any act of Parliament made for watching any town, parish, or place, which by the last parliamentary enumeration of the population contained more than 30,000 inhabitants, and the powers and duties of all constables appointed by the commissioners for the execution of any such act, shall continue and be in force, notwithstanding anything in this act contained, or any law or act to the contrary."
Mr. Craven Berkeleyassured the hon. Baronet that the town which he represented would be very glad if his amendment were rejected. If the hon. Baronet would move to exempt Brighton alone he would vote with him, but he could not agree to a general clause, which would exempt all large towns.
Mr. Fox Maulethought it unadvisable to adopt this clause, because it was not desirable that a town situated in the centre of a county should have a police differently governed from that by which the county was watched. There was a broad distinction upon the case of an incorporated town, because in that case the officers by whom the police was governed were selected by the inhabitants.
Mr. Darbythought that large towns, being without corporations, had a right to be placed upon the same footing as incorporated cities.
The House divided on the question that the clause be added to the bill:—Ayes 20; Noes 46: Majority 26.

List of the AYES.

Baker, E.

Perceval Colonel

Darby, G.

Pryme, G.

Gladstone, W. E.

Round, J.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Vigors, N. A.

Grimsditch, T.

Wakley, T.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Williams, W.

Hawkes, T.

Wood, Colonel

Hector, C. J.

Wood, Colonel T.

Johnson, General

Wyndham, W.

Knatchbull, rt. hon. Sir. E.

TELLERS.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Mackenzie, T.

Pechell, Captain

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Alston, R.

Acland, T. D.

Baldwin, C. B.

764

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Muskett, G. A.

Barnard, E. G.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Berkeley, hon. C.

O'Connell, M. J.

Bernal, R.

Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.

Bewes, T.

Pendarves, E.W.W.

Brotherton, J.

Rice, E. R.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Rundle, J.

Buller, C.

Sanford, E. A.

Campbell, Sir J.

Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.

Cavendish, hn. C.

Somers, J. P.

Clay, W.

Thornely, T.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Dalmeny, Lord

Tufnell, H.

Denison, W. J.

Vernon, G, H..

Divett, E.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Harcourt, G. G.

Wood, G. W.

Hawkins, J. H..

Wood, B.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wyse, T.

Hodges, T. L.

Yates, J. A.

Hoskins, K.

Inglia, Sir R. H..

TELLERS.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Maule, hon. F.

Morris, D.

Stanley, E. J.

Captain Pechell Captain Pechell moved that the following clause be brought up:—
"Provided always, and be it enacted, that nothing in this act contained shall extend to any town, parish, or place, now under any act of Parliament for watching such town, parish, or place, which by the last Parliamentary enumeration of the population contained more than 30,000 inhabitants."
Clause brought up and read a first time.
On the question that it be read a second time,
Mr. F. Maulesubmitted that the House had already expressed an opinion upon a clause exactly similar in its provisions, and that it was out of order to discuss and decide upon two clauses of the same description.
The Speakerwas of opinion that there was a sufficient difference between the two clauses to render it competent to the hon. Member for Brighton to persist in the present motion.
The House divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 37: Majority 17.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Polhill, F.

Baker, E.

Pryme, G.

Brotherton, J.

Round, J.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Vigors, N. A.

Darby, G.

Wakley, T.

Hawkes, T.

Williams, W.

Hector, C. J.

Wood, Colonel

Hodges, T. L.

Wood, Colonel T.

Hodgson, R.

Wyndham, W.

Knatchbull, rt. hon. Sir. E.

TELLERS.

Pechell, Captain

Perceval, Colonel

Johnson, General

765

List of the NOES.

Alston, R.

Muntz, G. F.

Baldwin, C. B.

Muskett, G. A.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Barnard, E. G.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Rice, E. R.

Bewes, T.

Rundle, J.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Sanford, E. A.

Clay, W.

Scholefield, J.

Clive, hon. R. H..

Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.

Dalmeny, Lord

Somers, J. P.

Denison, W. J,

Thornely, T.

Divett, E.

Tioubridge, Sir E. T.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Tufnell, H.

Gladstone, W. E.

Vernon, G. H..

Harcourt, G. G.

Wood, G. W.

Hawkins, J. H.

Wood, B.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Yates, J. A.

Hoskins, K.

TELLERS.

Loch, J.

Maule, hon. F.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Bernal, R.

Bill passed.

CUSTOMS, &c. DUTIES BILL.
Mr. Labouchere Mr. Labouchere moved the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Customs. Acts. He proposed logo into committee pro forma, merely in order to introduce a bill, and he would defer his statement until a future stage.
Mr. Goulburnobjected to the course which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to state at once what modifications he proposed to make in the customs duties. It was most desirable that the country should be made acquainted with them. The more regular course would be for the right hon. Gentleman to move the schedule of duties in committee.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that was undoubtedly the proper course when it was proposed to increase any duties. But in the present case they did not propose to increase a single duty, only to reduce some duties.
Sir E. Knatchbullobjected to the introduction of so important a measure so late in the Session as the 16th of July. Serious injury might be sustained by the various interests in the country by the delay. In his own part of the country parties were suffering very severely from the uncertainty which existed with regard to the intentions of Government.
Mr. Laboucherewould at once state, that the only alteration in the existing duties that could at all affect the agricultural interest, was one on the duty on mustard seed and mustard flour.
House in Committee.
Acts read.
Resolution, "That the chairman be directed to move the House for leave to bring in a bill to amend and alter the laws relating to the Customs Duties," agreed to..
House resumed; Resolution reported; Bill ordered to be brought in.

METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS.
House in Committee on the Metropolitan Police Courts Bill.
On the 6th clause,
Colonel Wood Colonel Wood moved the omission of the latter part of the clause, for he could not consent to the ambulatory paid police magistrates under this bill, being permitted to supersede the county magistrates in their own courts.
Mr. F. Maulecould not consent to omit any part of the clause.
Mr. Hawessaid, some provision of the sort was necessary, unless measures were taken for carrying the Police Act thoroughly into effect.
The Committee divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause: Ayes 51; Noes 29: Majority 22.

List of the AYES.

Baines, E.

Morpeth, Viscount

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Morris, D.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Muntz, G. F.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Muskett, G. A.

Bridgeman, H.

Parker, J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Pechell, Captain

Brotherton, J.

Pigot, D. R.

Campbell, Sir J.

Protheroe, E.

Chichester, Sir B.

Pryme, G.

Dashwood, G. H.

Rice, E. R.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Sanford, E. A.

Evans, Sir De L.

Scholefield, J.

Finch, F.

Smith, R. V.

Gordon, R.

Somers, J. P.

Hall, Sir B.

Steuart, R.

Hawes, B.

Strutt, E.

Hawkins, J. H.

Thornely, T.

Hayter, W. G.

Vigors, N. A.

Hector, C. J.

Wakley, T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Warburton, H..

Hoskins, K.

Williams, W.

Humphery, J.

Winnington, H. J.

Hutton, R.

Wood, G. W.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H

Yates, J. A.

Langdale, hon. C.

TELLERS.

Marshall, W.

Seymour, Lord

Maule, hon. Fox

Tufnell, H.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Blair, J.

Attwood, W.

Bramslon; T. W.

767

Bruges, W. H. L.

Patten, J. W.

Buck, L. W.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Darby, G.

Perceval, Colonel

Farnham, E. B.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Rushout, G.

Grimsditch, T.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hayes, Sir E.

Teignmouth, Lord

Hodges, T. L.

Thompson, Mr. Aid.

Hodgson, R.

Wood, Col.

Hurt, F.

Wood, B.

Jackson, Mr. Serg.

Wyndham, W.

Knatchbull, rt. hon. Sir E.

TELLERS.

Knight, H. G.

Kemble, H.

Miles, W.

Wood, Col. T.

Clause agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
The House resumed. Bill to be reported.

JUVENILE OFFENDERS.
Mr. Fox Maule Mr. Fox Maule moved the third reading of the Juvenile Offenders Bill.
General Johnsonopposed the motion, and said he should divide the House against a measure which proposed to do away with trial by jury in cases of offenders under fourteen years of age.
The House divided—Ayes 71; Noes 16: Majority 55.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hope, G. W.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Hoskins, K.

Barrington, Viscount

Howard, Sir R.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Hume, J.

Bernal, R.

Humphery, J.

Bewes, T.

Hurt, F.

Blake, W. J.

Hutton, H..

Bramston, T. W.

Jervis, S.

Bridgeman, H.

Knight, H. G.

Brocklehurst, J.

Labouchere, rt hon. H.

Brotherton, J.

Langdale, hon. C.

Buck, L. W.

Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.

Buller, E.

Marshall, W.

Campbell, Sir J.

Melgund, Viscount

Chetwynd, Major

Morpeth, Viscount

Chichester, Sir B.

Morris, D.

Clay, W.

Muntz, G. F.

Clerk, Sir G.

Muskett, G. A.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Pakington, J. S.

Euston, Earl of

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Ewart, W.

Pigot, D. R.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Rickford, W.

Finch, F.

Rundle, J.

Gordon, R.

Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Sanford, E. A.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Seymour, Lord

Hall, Sir B.

Somers, J. P.

Hawes, B.

Steuart, R.

Hawkins, J. H.

Strutt, E.

Hayes, Sir E.

Style, Sir C.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Thornely, T.

Hodgson, R;

Tufnell, H.

768

Vigors, N. A.

Wood, B.

Warburton, H.

Wilshere, W.

TELLERS.

Wood, Colonel

Maule, hon. F.

Wood, Colonel T.

Parker, J.

List of the NOES.

Attwood, W.

Perceval, Colonel

Darby, G.

Pryme, G.

Evans, Sir De L.

Scholefield, J.

Grimsditch, T.

Thompson, Mr. Aid.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Wakley, T.

Hector, C. J.

Williams, W.

Kemble, H.

Miles, W.

TELLERS.

Nicholl, J.

Johnson, General

Pechell, Captain

Fielden, J.

Bill read a third time and passed.

BANK OF IRELAND.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in stating his intentions with respect to the Bank of Ireland, felt that it was necessary to explain the object of the bill which he proposed to ask for leave to introduce. The charter of the Bank of Ireland was granted for a certain time, which terminated in 1837. After that period the condition was, that it should continue, but be terminable at a year's notice. At the present moment, the charter would cease at the end of twelve months, after notice duly given by the Government. There were two sums of money lent under different conditions by the Bank of Ireland to the Government. One of those sums amounted to about 1,000,000 l., which bore interest at five per cent. That sum was payable upon the termination of the charter. There was no power on the part of Government to repay that sum before the charter of the Bank terminated. If the Government desired to repay it, they could not do so until they had dissolved the charter. The other sum amounted to l,615,000 l., and was originally repayable in 1838, but the repayment had subsequently been postponed from year to year, and had not as yet taken place. It was this sum, still unpaid, that rendered it necessary for him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to come to Parliament. As far as regarded the charter, no Act of Parliament would have been necessary; but as this sum of upwards of a million and a half was repayable on the 1st of January next, it was necessary that he should come to Parliament, either to postpone the payment or to obtain the means of effecting rt. This was the position in which the question now

769
stood; and he had felt it necessary to explain it, because he found, that a very erroneous impression existed with respect to the terms on which the charter of the Bank of Ireland was now held. He would now call the attention of the House to the points which he proposed to effect by the bill he sought to introduce. First, with regard to the charter itself. It was a question whether it were desirable, under present circumstances, to bring in any measure that would make a permanent provision with respect to the charter. His noble Friend, who preceded him in the Exchequer, originally proposed that up to the time when Parliament had it in its power to terminate the Bank of England charter, the same arrangement that existed with respect to that institution should apply also to the Bank of Ireland. That view, however, was abandoned. Soon after the commencement of the present Session, the House appointed a committee to inquire into the whole question of the monetary circulation of the country, and amongst other matters that came under its consideration, the effect of the issuing of notes payable by the Bank of Ireland was necessarily one. That committee was still continuing its inquiries, and one of the reasons why he had deferred till this late period of the Session the bringing in of any measure relating to the Bank of Ireland, arose from the circumstance, that he had waited to see whether it was likely that the committee would report during the present Session, or offer any opinion or suggestion which might serve as a guide to him in introducing any bill which he might think it advisable to call upon the House to adopt in reference to this question. From the advanced period of the year, however, at which he was now speaking, it was quite clear that no such recommendation could come from them during the present Session, as could be of any service to him in dealing with the subject. It was necessary, therefore, that he should lose no further time in making such an arrangement as, under the circumstances, should seem to be most desirable. It appeared to him that, with the inquiry still going on before the committee, it would not be advisable to come to any decision with regard to this question which might afterwards interfere with the permanent arrangement to be made in reference to the Bank of Ireland charter. Whatever opinions he might
770
personally entertain upon the subject, it appeared to him that it would justly be open to the strongest objection if any permanent arrangement of the points to which he had referred were proposed whilst a committee expressly appointed by the House to investigate the whole matter was still prosecuting its inquiries. The various points connected with this subject, such as whether they should content themselves with the present machinery of the Bank, or whether it would be expedient to extend the circulation, or whether they should continue in existence a partial monopoly—on all such points as these it clearly appeared to him to be absurd to come to any decision while the committee were still pursuing their inquiries. The charter of the Bank of Ireland continued in force unless Government gave a year's notice to the contrary. This was a provision which, he thought, might fairly be allowed to remain till Parliament had all the information they could get before them. It was not necessary, therefore, to introduce any new enactment in respect of the charter, nor was it his intention now, or at any other time, to give such a notice without first bringing the case before Parliament. In reference to the sums lent to the Government, the one which bore 4 per cent, interest was payable on the 1st January next. He had stated that these sums were not connected with the charter, and might be payable without affecting rt. He thought, however, that the present conditions annexed to the charter gave rise to much inconvenience and uncertainty, to which he did not think any establishment like the Bank of Ireland ought to be subject. He proposed to consolidate the two sums. The one bearing interest at five per cent, was payable on the termination of the charter; but if Parliament, under all the circumstances, thought it advisable to continue the charter until they received the report of the committee, he could not conceive that they would be told that they could not make payment of this money without putting an end to the charter. Under these circumstances he proposed to take a power to repay the whole of the money now advanced upon the condition of giving the Bank six months' notice of their intention, to repay them the sum. Between the present time and the 1st January he should have frequent opportunities of communicating with the parties, and it might not

771
be necessary to give the six months' notice before the repayment. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by asking for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the repayment of certain sums advanced by the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland.
Leave given.

MR. F. O'CONNOR.
Mr. Aglionbyrose to make the motion of which he had given notice relative to the treatment of Mr. Feargus O'Connor in York Castle. That treatment had been so atrocious that he would venture to say no Member of that House would stand up in defence of it if the truth was only known. Mr. O'Connor was a man who was undergoing a most severe sentence, and was entitled to have the truth sifted. He begged the House to remember that the visiting justices had not dared to deny the treatment which Mr. O'Connor said that he had endured. All that they said was, that he was not now subject to the same treatment. If it turned out to be true that Mr. O'Connor was subject to the most menial services, besides being treated as a common felon, he hoped that this would form some foundation for the House agreeing to an address to her Majesty for some remission of those sufferings which the law never before recognised. Mr. Crawford had been sent down to inquire into this subject in consequence of the motion which he (Mr. Aglionby) had formerly made, but why was that Gentleman's report not produced? The House ought to have the whole of the information which he had received. It was not to be tolerated, that a gentleman moving in, Mr. O'Connor's sphere in life should be treated as a common felon, and his petition withheld from that House; it was not to be tolerated that he should continue branded, on the authority of an inspector, as a person of no credibility when the documents which would prove his credibility were in the Home Office. The hon. Member concluded by moving for a
"Copy of any examinations, reports, or other papers received from any inspector of prisons or other person with regard to the treatment of Mr. Feargus O'Connor in York Castle; also, of any correspondence that has passed between Mr. Feargus O'Connor and any inspector of prisons, or any visiting justice, on the same subject; and also for any medical certificates, affidavits, or correspondence sent to the Home Office by Dr. Thompson, and by Messrs. Jago and Cooper, surgeons, with the dates thereof.
Mr. Wakleyseconded the motion. He could not conceive upon what principle it could be opposed. Conciliatory attempts to settle the question had been made, and he was sorry to say had failed. The House had resolved not by any act of its own to interfere. If the hon. Under Secretary refused to allow Mr. Crawford's report to be produced he must bear the odium. Nearly three hundred persons were now confined in prison for political offences—that was for merely expressing their feelings in strong language. He had received a letter from Mr. O'Connor, describing his treatment, which, with the permission of the House, he would read. [The hon. Member read the letter.] He had not read this letter on a former occasion, because he had hoped that the Government would relent, and see the propriety of altering the treatment to which Mr. O'Connor had been subjected. He had hoped that the Government would have reprobated such conduct, and that they would have laid before the House every document that could have thrown any light upon the subject, that hon. Members might form a fair judgment as to who was to blame. He cordially seconded the motion.
Mr. F. Maulecould not assent to the motion. Mr. O'Connor had been condemned for the publication of a political libel, not of a common description, but one of such a nature that the Attorney, general had told the jury—a fair and impartial jury of Englishmen—that if they did not consider it was calculated to stir up and inflame the minds of the people, they were bound to acquit the prisoner of the charge. The jury found Mr. O'Connor guilty of publishing an inflammatory libel, and for that offence he was brought before the Court of Queen's Bench to receive judgment. During the interval he was confined in the Queen's Bench Prison. The sentence was, that he was to be confined in York Castle. However, upon receiving accounts that the removal would be injurious to the health of Mr. O'Connor, the Secretary of State did not insist upon his removal on the Saturday morning, but deferred it until the Monday. During that time other applications were made, but not of a nature to induce the Secretary of State to interfere. Had Mr. O'Connor not been in a fitting state for removal on Monday morning, the Marshal of the Queen's Bench would have

773
been responsible if he removed him. The Marshal took that responsibility upon himself, and Mr. O'Connor arrived at the end of his journey at two o'clock on Tuesday, not the worse for his removal—so little indeed, that he spent the afternoon in viewing the town of York, the Minster, &c. &c, and it was not until ten at night that he arrived at the prison, and Mr. O'Connor was not on his first reception placed in confinement which was not fitting for him. As soon as the circumstances that were afterwards complained of came to the knowledge of the Home Secretary, he sent down to the magistrates, recommending a mitigation of Mr. O'Connor's treatment. After that he was allowed every indulgence, except, indeed, that, he was not allowed to carry on and conduct the publication of that paper for the publication of a libel in which he had been already condemned. But as doubts still existed in the minds of some as to whether those instructions for mitigation had been carried into effect, the Secretary of State in order to remove those doubts, and to ascertain whether the indulgences had been granted, sent down a person to make the necessary inquiries. The only report made to the Secretary of State by that person was that the indulgences set forth in his instructions had been granted to Mr. O'Connor; and that he was then, as far as the visiting justices could carry out the wishes of the Secretary of State, enjoying the benefit of them. As to the examinations moved for by the hon. Member, the only examinations that had taken place were not conducted by Mr. Crawford at all, but by the visiting justices. All the report from Mr. Crawford would be a simple negative or affirmative to the question he was sent to resolve. With respect to the correspondence between Mr. O'Connor and the inspectors, Mr. O'Connor might certainly have written to Mr. Crawford as well as to any other gentleman, but he knew of no such letters, and the Secretary of State had no power to call for them. As far as regarded medical certificates, he did not see what they had to do with Mr. O'Connor's confinement in York Castle. Those medical gentlemen had not, as far as he was aware, visited Mr. O'Connor there. The certificates were confined to the point whether it was right or wrong that he should be removed from the Queen's Bench prison to York Castle. The marshal of the
774
Queen's Bench had supplied him (Mr. Fox Maule) with an account of Mr. O'Connor's dietary and exercise while confined there; and with regard to the latter he could inform the House that rackets formed a part of Mr. O'Connor's amusements. The marshal had stated also that he had not observed any symptoms of Mr. O'Connor being in the sickly state that had been described, and there was no doubt that, if called upon, the marshal would give a certificate to that effect.
Mr. Humesaid, this was the first time that any public officer who had been sent by the Government to institute an inquiry into a case of a public nature, had made merely a verbal answer; but as that was the case, of course the House could not obtain any return.
Mr. Aglionbyreplied, and the House divided:—Ayes 12; Noes 19: Majority 7; but there not being a sufficient number of Members present to constitute a House, the Speaker left the Chair, and the division went for nothing.

List of the AYES.

Bridgeman, H.

Pryme, G.

Euston, Earl of

Scholefield, J.

Fielden, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Finch, F.

Williams, W.

Hume, J.

Jackson, Sergt.

TELLERS.

Johnson, General

Aglionby, H. A.

Perceval, Colonel

Wakley, T.

List of the NOES.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Hutton, R.

Blake, W. J.

Miles, W.

Brotherton, J.

Pigot, D. R.

Campbell, Sir J.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Strutt, E.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Tufnell, H.

Gordon, R.

Wood, G. W.

Hawes, B.

TELLERS.

Hoskins, K.

Maule, hon. F.

Hughes, W. B.

Stanley, E. J.

The House adjourned.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:— Convicted Infants; Education.
Petitions presented. By the Bishop of London, from various places in his Diocese, for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.— By Lord Kenyon, from Bradford (Somerset), Wellcombe, and other places, against any further Grant of Money to Maynooth College.— By the Earl of Haddington, from Whittingham, in favour of the Scotch Benefices Bill.— By the Bishop of Exeter, from Exeter, against the Grammar Schools Bill.— By the Marquess of Westminster, and Lord Stanley (of Aldersley), from the Inhabitants of the Township of Clive, various places in Chester, and other places, against the Weaver Churches Bill.— By the Duke of Richmond, from Liverpool, against the Beer Act Amendment Bill.

LORD COREHOUSE.
Lord Lyndhurst 750
wished to put a question to the noble Marquess, the President of the Council, relative to Mr. Cranstoun, Lord Core-house, lately one of the judges of the Court of Session in Scotland. He had not the honour of being personally known to that eminent individual; but he, in common with many of their Lordships in that House, had often heard him with admiration, when pleading at their Lordships' bar; and he would say, that a more acute, a more able, or a more profound advocate, never adorned the profession to which he belonged, and to which he was, in every respect, an honour. The same talents which he displayed at the bar that highly-gifted individual carried with him to the bench. If there were any necessity to adduce a proof of the high estimation in which Mr. Cranstoun was held, he had only to refer to a fact that was well known to their Lordships. It was proposed in the time of the late Lord Liverpool to reduce the burden of their Lordships judicial duties, by appointing a person for the purpose of hearing and deciding appeals from Scotland; and on that occasion all who were consulted, as if by common consent, pointed to Mr. Cranstoun as the individual best calculated to fill that very high and responsible situation. Unfortunately, during the last Session of Parliament this eminent individual, in consequence of ill health, was obliged to retire from his situation as one of the judges of the Court of Session. Previous to that event, a bill had been brought into the other House of Parliament for regulating and augmenting the retiring salaries of the judges of Scotland. That bill passed into a law; but there was no provision for extending any of the benefits of that measure to the distinguished individual to whom he referred. This was entirely different from the practice which had usually prevailed in similar cases. By the 6th George 4th (the last bill for augmenting the salaries of the judges of England), provision was made, not merely for those judges who might retire in future, but for those who had retired before the passing of the act; and those eminent men Sir John Richardson and Sir William Grant, though they had left the bench several years before the passing of the act, received the benefit of its provisions. Another act of Parliament passed in 1813 (the 53d George 3rd), conferred a similar benefit on judges of England already retired; and by the 54th

751
of George 3rd, which applied to Scotland, a similar benefit was extended to judges who had retired before the act was passed. He did not on this occasion ask the reason of this difference between the measures to which he had alluded and the last bill, nor did he mean to make any complaint. He should merely confine himself to the expression of a hope that, by depriving Mr. Cranstoun of this additional emolument it was not intended to pass any slight on him, nor in any way whatsoever to express any disparagement of his services, his knowledge, or his abilities. He pressed this question on the noble Marquess, because the noble Marquess was intimately acquainted with this eminent individual, because he had had a peculiar opportunity of knowing and appreciating his distinguished abilities, and because he possessed the means of judging accurately of his eminent services.
The Marquess of Lansdownewas not only perfectly willing to answer the question of the noble and learned Lord, but was extremely obliged to the noble and learned Lord for the opportunity which it afforded him of stating his concurrence in the character which be had so justly given of this eminent individual. For no person, neither the noble and learned Lord nor any other individual, could feel more deeply than he did, if there was the possibility of any shadow of a doubt, or of a particle of misunderstanding existing in the mind of the noble and learned Lord, or in the mind of that eminent person, on the subject to which the question referred, that the matter should be set perfectly right and that doubt completely dissipated, and that he was enabled to do in the most distinct and decided terms. Because, though he was not himself officially consulted, or officially a party to the transaction of which the noble and learned Lord spoke, still, from the sincere feeling of respect which he bore to Mr. Cranstoun, whom he had known all his life, and he was proud to have known him from the earliest period, he endeavoured to make himself fully acquainted with the nature of the transaction and all its circumstances. He would not enter into those circumstances, because the noble and learned Lord had said that he did not rise to make any complaint on the subject. But the result of that inquiry he could truly declare was, that, in the whole proceeding, not the least slur was intended to be cast
752
on the character of Mr. Cranstoun. On the contrary, the most sincere feeling of respect was entertained for the services of that excellent individual, and of admiration for his great talents. His knowledge was not restricted or confined to his eminent legal acquirements, with respect to which the noble and learned Lord was so much better instructed to speak than he was, but it extended to every species of information. Mr. Cranstoun was, indeed, distinguished for universal knowledge. He combined those rare qualities with high legal attainments. At the bar he was an able and eloquent advocate; and, finally, for a period of 18 or 20 years, he was one of the most eminent and distinguished judges that had ever been known in the northern part of this country. When the bill was introduced for the purpose of regulating and new-modelling certain matters connected with the Court of Session, it was intended that the proposed increase of allowance should be granted to him. That, however, was prevented by the omission of a particular clause. But the Government had the satisfaction and gratification of knowing that Mr. Cranstoun had retired upon an honourable independence, attended by the respect, the esteem, and the sincere approbation of all those who knew him. He trusted that he might be permitted, for the purpose of showing that Government were not insensible to the merits of this excellent man, to read a paragraph from" a letter written by Lord J. Russell, who was at the time at the head of that department which was immediately connected with the administration of justice. In that letter, which he held in his hand, Lord J. Russell said, "I cannot refrain from expressing my deep regret that abilities of so high a character should be lost to the country, and that the administration of justice should be so suddenly deprived of those services by which the public has been so long benefitted." These were the sentiments of Lord J. Russell on the retirement of Mr. Cranstoun from his situation, and the same feelings of regret which were there expressed were, he believed, felt by every class of society.
Lord Broughamsaid, that in point of strict justice to Mr. Cranstoun, he could not allow this opportunity to pass without making one or two observations. His genius, talent, and ability were such that to see his equal hereafter on the bench

753
was to him rather a matter of hope than of expectation. His noble and learned Friend had alluded to what had taken place under the government of Lord Liverpool; but he would remind his noble and learned Friend, that it was not one minister only, but successive Governments, that having considered of the plan for lightening the judicial business in that House, had, by the common consent of all parties, fixed on this eminent man, as he who was best calculated to carry their ideas on the subject into effect. If that plan had been acted upon, that accomplished man and venerable judge would undoubtedly have become an ornament of that assembly which he then had the honour of addressing.
Lord Denmansaid, it was his misfortune not to be able to speak of Mr. Cranstoun from personal acquaintance or from any great familiarity with his legal acquirements; but, from the character which he had received from his noble and learned Friends, and from what he himself knew, he believed that he was highly honoured and respected by the whole profession to which he belonged, from the highest to the lowest department. He trusted that at some future period it would be admitted that a debt of justice was due to this gentleman, and that debt he hoped would be paid to him.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, he rose simply as a gentleman connected with that part of the United Kingdom in one of the courts of which Mr. Cranstoun had presided, to express the extreme satisfaction he felt at what had been said by the noble Lords who had preceded him. What had fallen from his noble and learned Friend near him, and from the noble Marquess opposite, would, he was convinced, be most gratifying to Mr. Cranstoun. That individual, independent of his various acquirements, and of his unparalleled reputation as a lawyer, was, he would say, one of the most accomplished gentlemen of his time.
Conversation at an end.

PUBLIC EDUCATION.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid he was anxious, before the order of the day was read, to move for the minutes of the proceedings of the Education Committee of the Privy Council. The noble Marquess expressed his confident hope that the labours of the committee would be productive of very
754
great benefit, especially as certain differences which had previously existed with other parties had been in a great degree removed.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, the proper time for entering into a discussion on the subject of education would be when the minutes were laid on the table; but still he felt it incumbent on him to express the great satisfaction which he experienced at the adjustment of the differences which had existed between the friends of church education and the committee of the Privy Council. The chief difficulty related to the appointment of inspectors, and that difficulty, he was happy to say, had been overcome. Should the arrangements which had been made be fully and fairly carried into effect, which he believed would be the case, he had no doubt, judging from the nature of the discussions and negotiations which had taken place in reference to them, that they would be found to operate very beneficially.
Motion agreed to.

THE REGENCY.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I trust your Lordships will be of opinion that the importance of the subject to which I am about to call your Lordships' attention justifies me in departing from that which is the custom of your Lordships House, namely, not to make a statement on any bill until it comes to the second reading. But, my Lords, I am anxious that your Lordships should be put in possession of the general provisions of this bill before it is placed in your Lordships' hands. Your Lordships will recollect that immediately before the accession of her Majesty to the Throne, it was thought necessary by Parliament to make a provision for the only contingency which at that time appeared to be within the limit of probability to occur—of the Crown descending to an illustrious individual who, from his important position as the Sovereign of another country, might not be in these dominions at the time of his accession to the sovereignty. For that contingency your Lordships and the other House of Parliament thought it proper to make a provision for the government of the country, and for securing the succession to that illustrious person until he should be able to arrive in this country to assume his regal position, and fulfil the duties and prerogatives which so devolved upon him,

755
That is not the only contingency, my Lords, which is now to be guarded against. Your Lordships will understand that events may occur by which for a long series of years the country may be left in this state—namely, that the heir to the throne, whether apparent or presumptive, may be an infant of tender years, and incapable of administering the duties and exercising the prerogatives of a sovereign. It is true, my Lords, that is a contingency which your Lordships would be most unwilling to contemplate, and which, if the prayers of the nation be heard, will never occur. The nation, my Lord, hopes, and has reason to hope, that the life of her Majesty will be prolonged far beyond the period at which an heir apparent would arrive at a majority. But, my Lords, whilst we trust in the goodness of Providence, it is likewise necessary for the wisdom of Parliament to guard against every contingency, and your Lordships are called upon to make provision for that event which may happen at any time for a long series of years, during which the heir to the throne would be an infant. Your Lordships have therefore to consider whether it is not expedient to guard against this possibility, and to provide the means by which, under any contingency, the duties and prerogatives of the Crown may be exercised and secured. If that should be your Lordships' opinion of the duty of Parliament, and if any of your Lordships should think it expedient now to make the provision, the question then will be—First, to whom the important trust of exercising the royal powers, during the infancy of the Sovereign, shall be confided, and whether there shall be any provision made as to the mode in which that individual shall exercise those functions. It is a great relief to me in submitting a measure for this purpose to your Lordships' consideration, to find that under circumstances very similar to the present, the opinion of Parliament was declared in an act which passed in the year 1830. I say it is a great satisfaction to me, because that act passed under circumstances which entitled it pre-eminently to the consideration of this House, and not only received the sanction of both Houses, but became the law of the land, and was introduced by a noble and learned Friend, a Member of the then Administration. It made but little progress before that Administration changed; but it contained provisions so
756
much approved of by Parliament, that it was taken up by the Government which followed, and became law by the unanimous approbation of all parties in Parliament. I said it was a great satisfaction to me to find that precedent, because it enables me to recal to your Lordships' recollection the provisions introduced into that measure on the two subjects I have referred to, and therefore supersedes in a great measure the necessity of travelling back to an earlier period of our history, and to the discussions of former Parliaments. The Act of 1830 was passed on the accession of his late Majesty, her present Majesty being then of tender years; of years that it would have been impossible, if the Crown had descended to her, for her personally to have administered its duties. The provisions of that act were, that in that event the Illustrious Mother of her Majesty should have the guardianship of the person of the Queen, and exercise the duties of the Crown, and act as Regent for her Majesty until she should attain the age of eighteen years, under certain restrictions. This act contemplated the Crown descending on a minor, and made provisions for the government. That to which I now call your Lordships' attention, also provides for the possible event of the Crown's descending to a minor. My Lords, the surviving parent, so identified with the interests of the infant Sovereign, is the person to whom you would naturally look as the proper person to have the care and guardianship of the infant, and to have the administration of the duties of the regal office. It was so considered in 1830, and I trust your Lordships will entertain the same opinion now. My Lords, the question then remains, whether the Regent so appointed should be fettered by any parliamentary restrictions, or whether the Regent should be permitted to exercise all the power, all the duties, and all the functions of the Sovereign? My Lords, a case may undoubtedly occur in which Parliament may think it necessary, for some temporary absence, or some temporary illness of the Sovereign, to provide the means of exercising the Royal authority, and yet the great object may be to preserve the Royal authority unimpaired to the Sovereign when he may return. Such was the object of the bill to which I have before adverted, and which passed in the first year of her Majesty's reign. That bill did not appoint a

757
Regent; it appointed lords justices, and the object of the bill was to do as little as might be, but to preserve things in that state that the Sovereign on coming into this country to assume the reins of government might find public affairs in the same state, as nearly as possible, as they had been left by the preceding Sovereign. But, my Lords, when your Lordships are making provision, the object of which must be to provide for the Government of the country for a long series of years, your Lordships will be of opinion, that it is not prudent, that it is not safe, and that it is not consistent with the principles of the constitution, that the Sovereign power should be fettered in the hands of the Regent. The power and prerogatives of the Crown are given to the Crown to preserve the balance of the different parts of the Constitution of the country, they are given to the Crown in order to preserve the power of the Crown in that state in which it is most beneficial to the public it should be preserved. They are not, therefore, given to the Crown for any other purpose than that of being exercised, and as occasion may require, of adding to or strengthening the power of the Crown, or dealing with the affairs of the State, in such manner as it is the duty of the Crown, according to the Constitution, to exercise or deal with them. They are not larger than the Constitution of the country thought necessary, and if they were necessary so to be exercised in the person of the Sovereign sitting on the Throne, in his own right, and in the plenitude of the power a Sovereign exercises, how much more necessary must they be when the powers of the Sovereign are exercised by a person with the diminished powers and authority of a Regent, by one not acting in his own right, and wielding his own powers, but as a substitute for another? To impose fetters and restrictions in such a case would be to set a dangerous precedent, which I trust your Lordships will not be disposed to set. There are, however, certain restrictions which cannot interfere with the due exercise of the prerogative of the Crown, and which it might be thought proper to impose upon a Regent. I refer to those which were introduced in 1830, and which appear to be so proper and reasonable, that I have introduced them into the present measure. It is obvious that a Regent acting for and on the behalf of a
758
Sovereign incapable of acting for himself, should not have the power of assenting to any bill by which the succession to the Throne could be in any manner altered. Your Lordships, I apprehend, will be of opinion, that such a power should not be confided to a Regent. I do conceive, that your Lordships will also be of opinion, that no power should be given to a Regent of altering the laws which relate to the uniformity of worship in the Church of England. Neither should the Regent have power to interfere with the rights of the Church of Scotland. These powers should not be intrusted to a Re gent, but should be preserved entire to the Sovereign. But, my Lords, with these restrictions, with these exceptions, I trust your Lordships will be of opinion, that the Regent ought not to be called upon to exercise the functions of the Sovereign with fettered and restricted powers. Your Lordships are aware, that if it should seem fit to Providence to inflict upon the country the misfortune of a termination to the life of the Sovereign before the time at which the heir apparent could assume the reins of Government, and your Lordships should then be called upon to make the necessary provisions, the country would be in a state of anxiety from which your Lordships would be most anxious to relieve it, because this important question would then come to be discussed at a time when the Constitution would not be entire—in which there would be no one to exercise the royal function, and prerogatives, whereas your Lordships are now called upon at a time when the Constitution is perfect to provide for an event which may by possibility happen. It therefore, as I apprehend, becomes the duty of Parliament now to provide for that contingency. My Lords, I have now briefly stated what are to be the provisions of the bill, and it would be highly satisfactory, in a matter so interesting to every individual in the kingdom, to find, in adopting the provisions and restrictions contained in the act of 1830, that the proposition received unanimous approbation. Bill read a first time.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
The Lord Chancellor moved the third reading of the Administration of Justice Bill.
Lord Denmanwas of opinion, that it would be advisable to remove the present defects of the Court of Chancery by im-

759
proving the forms and processes by which the business was carried on, as well as by adding to the judicial force of the court, although its present state might render that measure also absolutely necessary. The numerous petitions on this subject presented to their Lordships were not merely in favour of the present bill, but prayed likewise for further reforms. He was persuaded, that it was the duty of the heads of every department to cherish the spirit of reform as far as that could wisely be done, and this object could not be attained without calling in the aid of public opinion to sanction their efforts. On one part of this bill he looked with great satisfaction, he meant, that which abolished the equity jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer—not that he presumed to form any opinion as to the propriety of dealing with the Exchequer as an equity court, but that he believed the common law of the country would derive great benefit from the constant attention of the Chief Baron. The bill of 1830 had removed many of the difficulties which stood in the way of the Exchequer becoming a good common law court, and had led to the appointment of the great judges who had since sat in the court, and had rendered it one of the most important in the country. Bill read a third time and passed.

GRAMMAR SCHOOLS.
The Earl of Devon moved the second reading of the Grammar Schools Bill.
The Bishop of Salisburyhad no other object in rising than to express his deep gratification that a bill should have come up from the other House of Parliament, and would shortly receive their Lordships' attention, having for its object to remedy existing evils of a very serious nature in these most important institutions. A large proportion of these schools had become extremely limited in the range of their utility, and, from the general scope of this bill, and the mode in which its provisions were shaped, it was extremely likely to meet with a general concurrence.
The Lord Chancellorremarked, that the grievance was felt in all parts of the country, and that nothing but an Act of Parliament could prevent any attempt at improvement from being foiled by the continued existence of the old regulations.
Bill read a second time, and referred to a select committee.