Sitting of 31 July 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Parochial Rates; Parliamentary Franchise (Ireland).—Read a second time: —Coal Duties (London); Consolidated Fund; Exchequer Bills (10,751,5.550 l); Dublin Police; Ecclesiastical Courts (No. 1); Ecclesiastical Courts (No. 2).—Read a third time:—Slave Trade (Venezuela); Notice of Elections; Population (Ireland); Bank (Ireland); Parochial Assessments; Joint Stock Banking Companies; Regency.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Hodges, from Fruit Growers of Kent, to raise the Duties on Foreign Fruit.—By the Earl of Darlington, from the Solicitors of Oswestry, and Shrewsbury, to remove the Courts of Law.—By Mr. Tennent, from Wesleyan Methodists, for the Discouragement of Idolatry in India.—By Mr. Warburton, from Aliens residing in the City of London, for Inquiry into the Restrictions on them.

REGENCY BILL.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved the third reading of the Regency Bill.
Agreed to.
On the motion that the bill do pass,
Mr. Freshfieldbegged to call the attention of the House to some contingencies, which in his opinion, were not sufficiently provided for by the bill as it stood. He thought it was right, if not absolutely necessary, to provide for the immediate assembling of Parliament in case of the death or legal disqualification of the regent, in the event of this bill ever becom-
1178
ing operative. He hoped that the clauses of which he had given notice, and which provided for such a contingency, would be agreed to, in which case there would be a constitutional mode of calling together Parliament. The hon. Gentleman then moved that the following clauses be added to the bill:—
"And be it further enacted, that if his Royal Highness Prince Albert shall depart this life during the continuance of the regency by this act established, or cease to be regent under any of the provisions thereof, the lords of the Privy Council then in being, shall forthwith cause a proclamation to be issued in the name of the King or Queen for whom such regent shall have been appointed, under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, declaring the same; and in case the Parliament in being at the time of the issuing of any proclamation declaring the death of the regent, or that he has ceased to be regent under any of the provisions of this act, shall then be separated by any adjournment or prorogation, such Parliament shall forthwith meet and sit.
"Provided always, and be it further enacted, that in case any such proclamation as aforesaid shall issue in any or either of such cases as aforesaid, at any time subsequent to the dissolution or expiration of a Parliament, and before the day appointed by any writs of summons then issued for assembling a new Parliament, then and in such case the last preceding Parliament shall immediately convene and sit at Westminster, and be a Parliament, and continue during the space of six months, and no longer, to all intents and purposes as if the same Parliament had not been dissolved or expired, but subject to be sooner prorogued or dissolved. Provided also, that if any such proclamation as aforesaid shall issue in any or either of such cases as aforesaid, upon or at any time after the day appointed by any writs of summons then issued for calling and assembling a new Parliament, and before such new Parliament shall have met and sat as a Parliament, such new Parliament shall immediately after such proclamation convene and sit at Westminster, and be deemed to be a Parliament in being to all intents and purposes under the provisions of this act."
Lord J. Russellhad considered the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, and it seemed to him better upon the whole to take the bill as it had been sent down from the House of Lords, and on the principle on which it was framed in conformity with the regency bill of 1830. The bill provided fully for the first contingency that could arise, and he thought it better to leave future contingencies to be provided for by the Parliament of the time.

1179
Such Parliament would have the case fully before it, and he must say, that in his opinion, they would on that account be better able to meet the case. He thought that there was no necessity whatever for providing now for any such improbable event as he thought contemplated by these clauses, and he would, therefore oppose them.
Clauses negatived. Bill passed.

RAILWAYS.
On the motion of Lord Seymour, the Railways' Bill was read a third time.
Some verbal amendments to the third clause having been moved,
Mr. Finchwas desirous of expressing his hope, that this clause was so worded as to enable the Board of Trade to obtain from all railway companies such accounts as would show what was the amount charged by them for tolls, and what for locomotive power. It seemed to be the policy, and it certainly was the practice, of all the railways to heap the whole sum into a gross charge, and not to separate the sum asked for toll from that required for locomotive power. In order to illustrate what he intended, he would call the attention of the House to the charge made by the London and Birmingham Railway Company. The charge of the London and Birmingham Railway was, for the conveyance of carriages 3l. 15 s. Now he found on looking at their Act of Parliament, that they were not allowed to charge for a carriage not exceeding a ton in weight, more than 4d. per ton per mile for toll, the maximum charge, therefore, for toll, would be 1l. 17 s. 4d. The difference between that sum and 3l. 15 s. was a charge entirely for locomotive power, and inasmuch as the public had, under the act, no control over the charge for locomotive power, it might be doubled at the will of the company. So was it with the charge for horses. The toll for each horse was 1½d. per mile, that would amount to 14 s., the charge is 3l. 10 s., the difference between the two sums was the charge for locomotive power, and that amounted to 2l. 16 s. He had had the opinions of many competent persons, that one farthing for each passenger per mile, and a farthing for each ton of goods per mile, would be a sufficient remuneration for locomotive power, and if that were a sufficient charge, he looked upon the amount now demanded as outrageous.
1180
He knew that Parliament was not yet sufficiently aware of the actual cost of locomotive power to determine whether the charge was sufficient or not, but he asked the Government to require from the companies such an account as would inform the Government, and let the public know what was charged for each object. Again, the charge for passengers allowed for toll at 2d. a mile, that would amount to 18 s. 8d., the charge for locomotive power at a farthing a mile would not be more than 2s. 4d., the charge was 1l. 10 s., and there was thus a difference of 11 s. 4d., more than four and half times as much as in the opinion of engineers was necessary. He hoped that the noble Lord would direct his attention to this part of the subject, because the public, as passengers, were at the mercy of the railway companies. So also was it with respect to the conveyance of goods. The London and Birmingham Railway Company would not enable all parties to carry goods. He saw by looking into their Act of Parliament, that their tolls were divided into three classes, one class was 1½ d. per ton per mile, the second was 2d. per ton per mile, and the third was 2d. per ton per mile. The company, however, charged one gross sum of 1l. 13 s. per ton for all these classes. They, therefore, made a charge upon the first class of 9s. 4d. for toll, and 1l. 3s. 8d. for locomotive power, and they thus charged 2½ to 1 as compared with the toll, for locomotive power, and if one farthing a ton per mile was ample, they were charging 600 per cent, more than was sufficient. He, therefore, trusted that the Board of Trade would, when the act should come into operation, turn their attention to these points, because so great a revolution was about to take place in the method of transit for goods and passengers, and the public, in consequence of the breaking up of the old methods of travelling, were so much at the mercy of the railway proprietors, that unless attention was directed to these points the public would never consent quietly to the continuance of the monopoly. Some one would be found to start up and claim the right, which, as he contended, they had, of using the railroads upon payment of the tolls.
Lord Seymoursaid, that the clause did not enter into the details which the hon. Member required. The House was aware, that he had prepared the clause in pur

1181
suance of the general understanding, that it should include the charge to the public, but should not enter into the amount of profit derived by the companies. Now, if they called for a return of the charge for locomotive power as a separate item, it would be of no use unless they also had some proof of the cost which the companies were put to for that power. It would, therefore, be of no avail to ask for the charge for locomotive power alone. He had strictly adhered to the wish of the House, and endeavoured to classify the different heads of tolls, rates, and charges on the public, and he had limited the clause to that object.
Mr. Finchsaid, that it turned out just as he had expected, there would be no protection to the public by this clause against unlimited charge for locomotive power.
Lord Granville Somersetdiffered wholly from the hon. Member for Walsall, for he thought there should be no specific return of the charge for locomotive power, first, because he thought, that it would be very difficult to obtain from the railroad companies what they did charge for this power, and next, because under that head there were many sums that were not included in the toll, he meant the charge for the different stations, porters, &c, which it was impossible to break up into particulars. He did not see why they should ask any question as to the general management of the railroads, he did not know any reason to suppose that the companies charged more for locomotive power than was necessary, and if they wanted to see a difference in the price of the conveyance of different classes of the community maintained, they must not look too closely into the charge for locomotive power. The charge to the company for the poor man's conveyance was the same as for the rich man's, and if they made the charge to the public uniform, they would raise the price for the carriage of the poor man. Therefore, looking at things practically, he was glad that the noble Lord had confined his clause within its present limits.
Mr. Hindleyentertained the same opinion. He saw in the observations of the hon. Member for Walsall a great jealousy of railroad companies. But when they looked at the patriotic spirit with which these undertakings had been carried on, when they saw the facilities which they afforded to the public, enabling an
1182
hon. Member with ease to pop over to Dublin, and to be back in his place in the House in a few days, and when they knew how little profit had been yet realised, he thought that Parliament had no right in this early stage of the proceeding, to object to the remuneration they obtained.
Mr. Ewartobserved, that the railway proprietors did not arrogate to themselves any more patriotism than canals or other public companies, but they did not want to be interfered with any more than those other bodies. He recollected, that when he was on the committee for the first railroad, it was strongly opposed by a canal company that had been in existence seventy years, and was paying 33 per cent, upon each share, whilst the 100 l. shares sold for 1,200 l. There was, then, no jealousy of the canals. Why did not the hon. Member for Walsall, who might be considered as representing the water affairs in that House, subject the companies with which he was connected to the same rules? It was his firm belief, if such inquisitorial proceedings were encouraged, all such bold undertakings as had given this country a name above other nations, would be materially checked, and they would lose the advantages which these undertakings were likely to confer.
Mr. Henry Baringsaid, that whereas a maximum price existed for tolls for the transit of goods and passengers, the railway companies might charge any sum for locomotive power, and were not limited to any particular price. He thought that the statement of the hon. Member for Walsall went more to that point than any other, and it was one which was well worthy of consideration.
Mr. Aglionbythought, that great injustice had been done to his hon. Friend, the Member for Walsall, by representing him as representing the water interest. His hon. Friend assured him, that he had no share in any water or canal company. He believed, that some Members of that House could not say so much with respect to railways. He thought that the hon. Member had only the interest of the public at heart. He did not understand his hon. Friend to desire, that inquisitorial powers should be given with respect to the proceedings of railway companies, but merely that it was necessary to have a salutary check upon them as regarded the public. All he said was, that they had cut up the country—that they had in-

1183
fringed private interests on the plea that they would effect a great public good— that they had, in fact, a monopoly—and that it was not fair they should pay 30 l. or 40 l. per cent, profit, and if they did, they ought at least to produce their ac counts.
Mr. Easthopecould not suffer any observations as to the individual interests of Members, to be introduced into the debates of the House without making some remarks. It was notorious that he was interested in railway property, but was that a reason why he should not be convinced that it was for the benefit of the proprietors that the public convenience should be promoted at the least possible cost? This being the opinion of all interested in railway property, they were naturally anxious to take part in a matter in which their own welfare, and the advantage of the public were identical. If such a doctrine as that which he had just heard were to be made use of in that House, it must necessarily happen, that when an hon. Member rose in his place to discuss the question of the corn-laws, it would be held that he was to be suspected and looked upon with jealousy, and that his observations were not to be received without apprehension, should he happen to be a landlord. Now, he held that because he was a landlord he would be so much the more anxious that the corn-laws should be placed on a good basis, and accord with the general interests of the community, and instead of this militating against his remarks, it was a ground why his observations should be received with greater attention.
Mr. Muntzcould not but recollect that it was not a long time since the railway proprietors were laughed at, and told that they would never get any return for their money. Having risked their capital, they were fairly entitled to the profits. Suppose there had been a great loss on their speculations, would the public have consented to give them an indemnification? Certainly not; He knew a canal in which the 100 l. shares sold for 3,500 l. each, yet did they hear any one say that the tolls on this canal ought to be lowered. Individuals who had subscribed their money at a great risk for a public improvement ought to have a fair chance of great profits if they were made.
Sir Charles Burrellthought that any inquisitorial power would cramp the ener-
1184
gies of the country. They ought not further to inquire into the affairs of these companies than to protect the public interests. They ought to see to steam-vessels as well as railroads, for he knew a case in which lives had been lost because no boat was kept on board a steamer.
Amendments agreed to.—Bill passed.

INFANT FELONS.
On the Order of the Day for the Committee of the Infant Felons' Bill,
Lord Granville Somersetsaid, the House did not seem to have sufficiently attended to the principle of this bill. The object of it was to give the Lord Chancellor a power of transferring children who may have committed felony to the care of any benevolent persons who might undertake thereafter to educate and provide for them. No doubt such a measure had arisen from a benevolent feeling, but he called on the House to pause before they sanctioned such an interference with the rights of parents. He had many objections to the details of the bill, but he would then content himself by moving that it be committed that day three months.
Lord John Russellsaid that this bill had come down to them with the sanction of the Lord Chancellor and the other House of Parliament. The object of the bill was to remove children from the influence of vicious parents. Hitherto the law had been directly opposed to the benevolent views of those individuals and societies who had exerted themselves to save children from further perversion, and the object of this bill was to place a discretionary power in the Lord Chancellor for the purpose of facilitating their efforts. If the House went into committee, he would be prepared to strike out that part of the bill which gave it an ex post facto effect as regarded offenders already convicted.
Mr. Wakleyobjected to the bill as throwing additional duty on the Lord Chancellor, when he was too much burthened already. He also objected to the bill, as an arbitrary interference with the rights of parents, and as affording a ground for stigmatising parents with the faults of their children.
Amendment withdrawn. House in Committee.
On the first Clause,
Mr. Briscoe Mr. Briscoe moved an amendment that fourteen years be substituted for twenty-one.
Mr. Wakleywas opposed to the bill altogether, as giving too much power to the Lord Chancellor, who might transport a child beyond seas, or imprison him for an indefinite period.
Mr. Aglionbysaid the hon. Member for Finsbury had an entire misconception as to the effect of the bill.
Mr. Ewartthought it advisable to postpone the bill till next Session.
The Committee divided on the question that twenty-one stand part of the clause: —Ayes 37; Noes 4—Majority 33.
Mr. Briscoethen moved that no infant under this bill be sent out of the United Kingdom.
The Committee divided on the question that those words be inserted:—Ayes 7; Noes 33—Majority 26.

List of the AYES.

Blackstone, W. S.

Somerset, Lord G.*

Ewart, W.*

Turner, E.

Finch, F.

TELLERS.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir C.*

Briscoe, J. I.

Polhill, F.

Wakley, T.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Philips, M.

Ashley, Lord

Russell, Lord J.

Baines, E.

Salwey, Colonel

Baldwin, C. B.

Scholefield, J.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Smith, B.

Barnard, E. G.

Somers, J. P.

Brotherton, J.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Clay, W,

Thornely, T.

Estcourt, T.

Tufnell, H.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Vigors, N. A.

Hindley, C.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wall, C. B.

Hoskins, K.

Warburton, H.

Morris, D.

Wood, G. W.

Muntz, G. F.

Wyse, T.

Muskett, G. A.

TELLERS.

Nicholl, J.

Maule, hon. F.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Bill went through the Committee and was reported.

GREEN PARK.
Mr. Baring Wallsaid, that in making the motion of which he had given notice he did not mean to cast any reflection on the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests; on the contrary, no one was more anxious than he was to compliment the noble Lord for his general management of the parks. He thought the public were greatly indebted to him for the increased facilities that had been given for admission to
*Voted with the Ayes on the first division.
1186
Hampton Court, and for the improvements that had taken place in Hyde-park. In reference to this present motion, he understood that it was not the intention of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to inclose any part of the Green-park, and he was glad that this was the case; for it might be considered the great play-ground of the people of London. The House would recollect that a committee had sat this year on the subject, and any hon. Member who had read their proceedings, would be convinced of the great evils that were caused by the want of open spaces in large towns. He was not the advocate of the rights or privileges of the higher classes; but of those classes to whom the open space in the Green-park was of great value. He did not think that there was much force in the objection of his hon. Friend (Mr. Stanley) as to the want of a proper police. If the police regulations were defective, there was no police so effective as a row of gas-lamps. He suggested that it would be desirable to have a row of gas-lamps on the outside fence, like those in St. James's-park. He had no objection to any new regulation of police that might be necessary, but he thought it strange that those persons who possessed houses between Piccadilly and St. James's-park should turn round on the Department of Woods and Forests (to whose kindness they were much indebted) and ask for additional police regulations. Why had they not keepers for their gardens, as was the case in the different squares in London. The hon. Member then suggested several improvements which he wished to see done—particularly a broad gravel walk from the reservoir to St. James's, and a foot gate opposite Devonshire-house. He had no wish to prevent kite-flying or ball-playing, or to deprive the boys of their only play-ground, but he objected very much to any inclosure. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend would assure the House that there was no intention to make any inclosure on a large scale. It was more as a matter of form than with any intention to divide the House, that he moved for the production of plans with reference to any proposed alterations in the Green-park.
Mr. E. J. Stanleywas afraid that it was impossible that any plan could be laid before the House, as several had been given, and none as yet adopted. In reference to the observations of the hon.

1187
Member, he could only repeat what he had stated on a former occasion, that there was no intention on the part of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to inclose any part of the Green-park. With regard to the other observations of the hon. Member, he would take care to mention them to the noble Lord at the head of the Department of Woods and Forests, certain as he was that that noble Lord would be always inclined to give every facility to the public in their admission to the parks.
Subject at an end.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Notice of Elections; Slave Trade Treaties; Venezuela; Bank of Ireland; Railways; Parochial Assessment; Joint Stock Banking Companies; Population (Ireland). — Read a second time:—Fisheries; Insolvent Debtors (India); Stock in Trade; Church Temporalities (Ireland); Sugar (Excise Duties).
Petitions presented. By Lord Lyndhurst, from Medical Practitioners, in favour of Medical Inquiry.—By Lord Brougham, from Huddersfield, for the Better Treatment of Political Prisoners.

COURTS OF EQUITY.
Lord Broughambegged to call their Lordships' attention, especially that of his noble and learned Friend on ths woolsack, and his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Lyndhurst), to a bill which he was about to introduce to their notice. It was not usual to state the objects of a measure on the first reading, but there were reasons which induced him, on the present occasion, to break through that rule. A very important measure had been withdrawn from the other House, which he deeply lamented. That bill amongst other things, empowered the heads of the Court of Chancery to make such alterations and improvements in the proceedings of the court, with regard to taking evidence and other matters, as would have been of the greatest benefit to the suitors. On this point there was no difference of opinion whatever; but the bill had, he was sorry to say, excited considerable opposition. The bill which he now brought forward, however, referred exclusively to this single point. On this a unanimous opinion had been expressed, both in a select committee up stairs and by their Lordships. He, therefore, trusted, that the House of Commons would receive the bill, and pass it without any opposition. On Monday he should move the second reading of the measure, and the suspension of the standing orders, in order that it might be sent down to the House of Commons without any delay.
Lord Lyndhurstperfectly concurred in what his noble and learned Friend had said, and he approved of the present bill; but he was not very sanguine as to the course which it might meet with elsewhere. He must say, he deeply regretted the failure of that bill in the other House, after the care which had been bestowed upon it by their Lordships. He was sure that the public, and the profession, and, above all, the suitors, would have derived the greatest benefit from that measure. For
1164
his own part, he could not help thinking, that there must have been some misunderstanding in the other House of Parliament, for he could not conceive, that it was the intention of the parties to put the bill off.
The Lord Chancellorthinking as he did, that every part of the bill was essential to the public interest, regretted it had not passed the other House. As regarded the fate of the present bill, he confessed be was not so sanguine as his noble and learned Friend, seeing the determined opposition that was given to the other bill.
Bill read a first time.

COURT HOUSES, (IRELAND).
Viscount Duncannonhaving moved that the House go into committee on the Court Houses (Ireland) Bill,
The Earl of Charlevilleobjected to proceeding with that measure at so late a period of the Session, when there was not time to investigate it. He was, therefore, disposed to move an amendment, that the committee be deferred to this day three months.
Viscount Duncannonstated, that the bill was founded on the memorials and statements of several of the Irish counties.
Their Lordships divided: — Contents 33; Not-contents 24: Majority 9.
Bill went through committee.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE.
The Marquess of Lansdowne The Marquess of Lansdowne moved that the House resolve itself into committee on the Bills of Exchange Act Continuance Bill. The object of this bill was to continue the Act now in force, for the period of a year, (as we understood) beyond the time at which it would otherwise have expired. The present Act had produced most beneficial effects in the commercial world; but unless it were continued, bills of exchange which might be drawn in the spring of 1841, would not be renewable in the spring of 1842, as they would then lose the benefit of the exemption from the usury laws.
Lord Wharncliffeobjected to this bill being passed without due inquiry being made as to the grounds on which the usury laws were to be done away with. He believed, that he should be able to produce before a committee of inquiry, some, most grievous cases of oppression upon tradesmen and small annuitants by

1165
parties under the protection of this law. All he asked was, that this bill should not be prolonged for a greater lime than was necessary to meet the bills now out.
Lord Ashburtonsaid, he had listened with some anxiety to hear from the noble Marquess opposite what possible inconvenience could result from the postponement of this bill for another Session. The noble Marquess was greatly mistaken, if he supposed, that the great mass of the business of this country was carried on upon bills of twelve months, or six months, or even of longer date than three months. The information which he had received, and upon which the Government had proceeded in framing this measure, had come from bankers and great money-lenders, who all had a distinct interest in making what were formerly considered usurious practices legal. The greatest mischief had resulted from lending money at a high rate of interest, and the conduct of the Bank of England in this respect had led to its own embarrassment, and driven it to within a hair's breadth of stopping payment, and to the discreditable necessity of borrowing money itself. This bill would not correct the evils with which the money market was infected; it would only enable rich money-lenders to profit by the necessities of their poorer neighbours. The real question which their Lordships had to consider at that moment was, whether the noble Marquess had proved that there was the slightest necessity for hurrying this bill through Parliament within a few days of its prorogation. He earnestly recommended their Lordships not to think of extending the measure to the period proposed without further inquiry.
Lord Monteaglerejoiced to hear that his noble Friends were disposed to entertain, even next Session, an inquiry into the operation of the usury laws heretofore, and into the effects produced by the alterations which had been made in those laws. With respect to the remarks of the noble Lord upon the evidence of bankers and great money-lenders, he would ask, was not their evidence one of the elements upon which legislation in this matter should proceed? But it would be asked, will you not hear the other classes who have paid large sums of money for the accommodation they have received? No doubt they ought to be heard; and at the same time it would be as well to consider whether
1166
under the former state of the law, they could have got any such accommodation at all. To a certain extent the principle of the usury laws had been abolished; for as soon as the Legislature had sanctioned the lending of money, it destroyed the principle of usury. Persons were not now compelled to pay more than 5 or 6 per cent, for loans. [Lord Wharncliffe: 50 or 60 per cent.] Was it possible to conceive that such was the case? Why, if 50 or 60 per cent, could be made in any branch, the effect would be to make all the capital of the country flow into that traffic. He would refer their Lordships to the evidence which had been taken on this subject. In 1832 evidence was taken before the Bank Charter Committee, upon the expediency, usefulness, and probable benefits that might be derived from an alteration of the law. In 1838 further evidence was taken, and the governor of the Bank of England was asked, "What effects do you think were produced by the repeal of the usury laws in relation to bills of exchange during the late commercial crisis?" The answer was, "I think the effect was very good in general, as a general principle of law." He was asked, "Do you consider the extension of that law with regard to ninety-one days bills to bills of a longer date advantageous?" The reply was, "Certainly, because otherwise Indian bills would be excluded." Their Lordships would find that Mr. Jones Loyd had given to the public in a printed paper the result of his experience of the pressure on the money market during the years 1838 and 1839, in which he remarked, "It is difficult to say to what extremity the Bank' would not have been, reduced, if there had not been a partial repeal of the usury laws." He admitted, that this opinion was mere authority, but had he nothing beyond authority? Let their Lordships look to the three periods of commercial pressure in 1825, and again in 1837 and 1839. He contended, that on such occasions the danger to the commercial interests of the country must be materially lessened by allowing money, like everything else, to find its value in the market. Let their Lordships look at the number of banking houses which failed in 1825, and compare them with the failures in 1837 and 1839. He did not say, that these circumstances were conclusive on the subject, but they were at any rate deserving of their Lordships'

1167
attention. He sincerely trusted, that the question of the propriety of a total repeal of the usury laws, would be fully investigated by a committee of their Lordships' House. On a subject of so much importance to a commercial country like this, the Legislature ought to make up their minds, and he did not think, that the continuing of a bill like the present from year to year, was exactly the way in which the question should be treated. He rejoiced therefore at the prospect of there being a full inquiry into the subject, and of an opportunity being afforded for a calm consideration of the policy of continuing the present relaxation of the usury laws, or of abandoning it altogether.
The Marquess of Lansdowne,had no doubt that the capital which had come into the market since the partial repeal of the usury laws would not have been left unemployed, even if those laws had not been relaxed, but it would have gone to other countries, and have been invested in illegal and fraudulent speculations. The great merit of the present bill was, that it put an end to the great mass of illegal and fraudulent transactions which formerly were carried on. He was quite ready to close with the proposition made by the noble baron opposite, that the question of the operation of the usury laws, one most important to the interests of the country, should be the subject of a grave and full inquiry before a committee, and he agreed that it would not be desirable to consider it in connexion with the affairs of the Bank and the future administration of that body. He was perfectly prepared, therefore, to omit the word "two" in the bill, and continue the present law for one year longer only, with the understanding that in the course of the next session their Lordships should go into a full inquiry on the subject.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that if the noble Marquess would confine the operation of this bill to one year, and would undertake that there should be a full inquiry next session, that would quite answer his purpose.
Their Lordships went into committee.
Bill went through committee, and was reported.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
On the motion of Viscount Duncannon the Municipal Corporations (Ire land) Bill was read a third time.
Lord Lyndhursthad two or three amendments to propose, to which he begged to call the attention of their Lordships. The first of these was that which related to the Recorder of Dublin. An alteration had been made in the bill in committee, but he believed that their lordships were not aware of all the circumstances under which that alteration had been made. He therefore proposed to strike out of the 161st clause these words, "or as the Lord-lieutenant shall from time to time think fit to direct." Three years ago an agreement had been made between the Recorder of Dublin and the law officers of the Crown, meaning by them the law officers of the Crown in Ireland, by which it was stipulated that no alteration should be made in the office of the Recorder of Dublin. The law officers of the Crown, however, had since been changed, and it was said that with new men came new measures, and in consequence an alteration had taken place in the bill of the present year. Now, if the object of that alteration was to exclude the present Recorder of Dublin from Parliament, that object should be carried into effect by a direct clause, and not by a side-wind, which it was the object of the present bill to accomplish. It had been said, "why should not the Recorder of Dublin be placed on the same footing as other recorders?" Why, for this plain reason, because the office which he held was different in its nature from that filled by other recorders in Ireland. The office of the Recorder of Dublin was an ancient office. He held a Court of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery for all crimes except that of high treason. He also held a court for the trial of civil causes of which he had cognizance to any amount. Their Lordships would find also that his office was regulated, not only by charter, but by Act of Parliament. The Recorder of Dublin held a session eight times a-year, which he was obliged to do by Act of Parliament, so that he held a court every six weeks. Did he perform his duty and carry into effect the provisions of the Act of Parliament? He did more, he held a court for the trial of criminals twelve times a-year. He also held a court four times a-year for the purpose of discharging persons who were out on bail. Further, he held sessions four times a-year for the purpose of hearing appeals. He also held a court four times a-year for

1169
the hearing of civil bill causes, so that their Lordships would find, that he held about twenty-eight sittings in the course of a-year And in what manner did he conduct himself? Fie never quitted his court when one prisoner remained to be tried, or when one cause was undisposed of, unless a special application had been made for postponement. Why, then, should the Lord-lieutenant dictate to the Recorder of Dublin the times of holding his court any more than he should interfere with the superior courts in Ireland? Who was the proper person to decide— the judge who held the court, or the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, or he should rather say the Secretary for Ireland? It had been said in debate that the judges were not satisfied with the conduct of the Recorder. That, however, was not correct. The profession were satisfied and so were the judges, with one exception, and that exception was Mr. Justice Perrin. It was far from being his intention to speak of Mr. Justice Perrin with disrespect, but at the same time he knew him as a violent political partisan, and one who had throughout opposed himself to the Recorder and the corporation of Dublin. Their Lordships knew that Mr. Justice Perrin formerly sat for the city of Dublin, and that, on the prosecution of the parties connected with the corporation, he was convicted of bribery, and disabled from sitting again for that city. He confessed, therefore, that when he found that all parties were satisfied with the administration of justice in the Recorder's Court except Mr. Justice Perrin, he was not much disposed to lay any great stress upon the authority of his opinion. Now what did the commissioners say? He did not rely upon the evidence, because that evidence was given ex parte, and he bad been too much accustomed to the administration of justice to attribute much weight to evidence given where no opportunity was afforded for cross examination. But what did the commissioners say? Why, they said this—that the Recorder had discharged his duties efficiently. He saw no reason, therefore, why this alteration should have been introduced in the present bill. It was not in the bill of last year, nor in the bill of 1838; and with these few observations he should move that the words which he had read be omitted from the clause.
Viscount Duncannonregretted that he
1170
could not accede to the proposition of the noble and learned Lord. In the first place the provision in the present bill was the same which stood in the bills of 1835, 1836, and 1837. In 1838 certainly an alteration was made. He could not see why the Recorder of Dublin should not be placed on the same footing as the recorders of other parts of Ireland. The gaol of Dublin was, as their Lordships well knew, filled with prisoners, and the Recorder in Cork held a court every week. The present regulation was to enable the Lord-lieutenant, if he should think fit, to empty the gaols by directing the recorder to hold courts at shorter intervals than at present. He could not see why an exception should be made in favour of the Recorder of Dublin, and he should, therefore, take the sense of the House on the subject.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, the Recorder of Cork did not hold an office of the same magnitude as that of the Recorder of Dublin, nor did he hold a Court of Oyer and Terminer. The noble Viscount opposite said, that he should like to know what difference there was between the Recorder of Dublin and other recorders in Ireland. He would tell the noble Viscount. The Recorder of Dublin, happened to be a Member of the other House of Parliament, and the whole object of the bill was to prevent him from sitting there. Now, if it were right that the Recorder of Dublin should not have a seat in Parliament, in Heaven's name let a bill be brought in with that avowed object, but he would resist any measure which, like this, attempted to effect that object in an underhand manner.
The Marquess of Lansdownehad heard with some surprise from his noble Friend opposite, that there was a difference between the Recorder of Cork and the Recorder of Dublin. He believed, that the words which his noble Friend used were, that the office of Recorder of Cork was not an office of great magnitude, and it was exactly because the office of Recorder of the city of Dublin was one of great magnitude, that he thought that the Recorder ought to render efficient services to the population of that city. The recorder of Dublin had a very large salary assigned to him, and he ought to discharge his duties in a way not inferior to the manner in which they were executed by the recorders of other large towns. He said nothing

1171
disrespectful, he meant nothing disrespectful to the learned Gentleman who at present filled that office, and who he knew had discharged his duty most honourably, most faithfully, and most ably. But he was not to be told, because that learned Person was a Member of Parliament, the people of Dublin were to be deprived of the services of their recorder. He cared not whether the Recorder of Dublin was a Member of Parliament or not, but he did care whether there was or was not an efficient recorder. In Cork the population had the benefit of a weekly delivery of criminals; the population of Dublin had not that benefit; but it was contended, that they ought to want it, because the recorder was a Member of the other House of Parliament. He held in his hand a return of the accumulated number of prisoners at present in the gaol of Dublin, which amounted in the whole to 212, 90 of whom were females. Now, was that fit or right? He asked the noble and learned Lord who had paid so much attention to the subject of prisons generally, whether he thought that this ought to be the permanent state of the prisoners in the city of Dublin? He could not think, that their Lordships ought to come back to the consideration of this subject after having introduced an alteration in the committee which gave to the Lord-lieutenant the power of relieving the gaols, and he hoped that his noble Friend would take the sense of the House upon the question. The name of "justice to Ireland" might often have been abused, but if ever justice to the inhabitants of a particular city was at stake, he thought that it was in the present instance.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that after the lapse of several years it had at last been discovered that the recorder, who was an officer, proved to their Lordships to hold his court twenty-eight times in the course of a year, and to have been most effective, most zealous, and most able, in performing his duties, and against whom no complaint whatever had been made, ought to be excluded from Parliament. The question for their Lordships to decide was, whether the Recorder of Dublin, only because he was a Member of Parliament, and had not exactly pursued the course which was agreeable to certain persons, should for that reason be excluded from his situation in Parliament, and branded as a criminal, in order to satisfy a particular party. "Come
1172
forward fairly," said the noble Duke, come forward fairly with a clause in the bill, and say that the right hon. Frederic Shaw shall not sit in Parliament—do that, if you please, and see what Parliament will say to that proposition. But do not come forward with a proposition, and throw upon the Lord-lieutenant the necessity of relieving the gaols by way of making a specious proposition which you well know could not be otherwise made without opposition, and which is introduced for the first time on this occasion. I for one will vote against that proposition. If I did not vote against it, I should accede to an unjust party proposition, made for the purpose of gratifying those who have a disinclination—for I will not use any more forcible term—to Mr. Shaw. It is a proposition made to gratify a particular party in Ireland, and directed against a gentleman by whom it is undeserved in every way, because I declare my firm belief is, that there is no public officer in the service of the state who has performed his duties in a more zealous, a more meritorious, a more able, and a more satisfactory manner than that right hon. gentleman.
The Marquess of Lansdownewished to say, in explanation, that this was not the first time on which this provision had been introduced into the Irish Municipal Bill, but that, on the contrary, it had been introduced into every bill but one. He wished also to state, that he did not say that no complaints had been made in Ireland against the Recorder of Dublin. He had stated, that no complaints whatever had been made against the great talents and integrity of that learned gentleman, but there was a complaint made that the gaols were not delivered. [Lord Lyndhurst: By whom]? I make it. It is in this paper. I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he does not think there is cause for complaint when 212 prisoners, 90 of whom are females, are left untried? I state most solemnly on my part that I have no party feeling to gratify in this matter, but I think that whether the Recorder of Dublin be Whig, Tory, or Radical, the Lord-lieutenant ought to be able to make arrangements to make him do his duty.
The Marquess of Normanbywould only say in answer to the question as to where the complaint was made, that it was a complaint not made now for the first time,

1173
and made upon an occasion when he did not think their lordships would say there was a party object to be served. In 1837 the judge whose duty it was to charge the Lord Mayor of Dublin—[Lord Lyndhurst: What judge?] Mr. Justice Perrin. [Lord Lyndhurst: That is sufficient to account for the complaint]. Mr. Justice Perrin called his attention on that occasion to the state of the gaol, and the result of the inquiries which he had instituted in consequence convinced him that it would be of the greatest benefit to the city of Dublin if there were more frequent gaol deliveries. The noble and learned Lord had taken particular notice that it was Mr. Justice Perrin who had charged the Lord Mayor on the occasion to which he had referred. He had named Mr. Justice Perrin as the judge who had performed that duty, and in naming him he named a judge who had devoted more time than perhaps any other person in Ireland to the subject of prisons generally, and whose opinion was consequently entitled to the greatest weight.
Lord Wharncliffeasked if it was intended that in all towns which had a large population the recorder should sit every week? Was it so in London; and if not, although the population was much larger, why should it be necessary in Dublin?
The Marquess of Clanricardeobserved, that the whole debate showed that the amendment was supported upon party and personal motives. The measure was considered solely with reference to the right hon. Mr. Shaw, an able, an upright, and a learned judge, he admitted; just as if he were immortal, and was to be Recorder of Dublin for ever. Not one word had been said about the welfare of the people of Dublin on the other side of the House. Exactly the same thing was done when this measure was passed, and that measure rejected, because it would be disagreeable or agreeable to Mr. O'Connell; and now, because Mr. Shaw was concerned, the cause of good legislation and the due administration of justice in Ireland was sacrificed. As to the comparison made between London and Dublin, it proved nothing, for experience showed that a gaol delivery once a month was not sufficient in Dublin.
Their Lordships divided: Contents 58; Not-contents 42; Majority 16.
Amendment agreed to.
On the 185th clause.
The Earl of Haddingtonproposed an amendment, enabling the Lord Mayor elect of Dublin to fill the office of President of the Court of Conscience for one year.
The Marquess of Normanbyopposed it, on the ground that the gentleman who was Lord Mayor elect had once already filled the offices of Lord Mayor and President of the Court of Conscience, and had gone out of his way to fill the latter situation again, knowing that this bill was sure to pass into law.
Their Lordships divided on the question that the amendment be added: Contents 58; Not-contents 39; Majority 19.
Clause added to the bill.
The Bishop of Exeterrose for the purpose of proposing an amendment relative to the interests of the Protestant Church in the advowsons of livings in the gift of the Irish corporations. He had been told that the amendment which he was about to propose was a money clause, and therefore an interference with the privileges of the other House of Parliament. If it were so, he would not press his amendment to a division. He intended to propose that when these advowsons should be sold, the proceeds, instead of being paid into the hands of the treasurer of the borough to which they belonged, should be paid into the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to be by them expended for the purpose of building a church or churches in that borough, or for such other religious purposes as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners might think necessary within the limits of the borough. Their lordships must be aware, that as the bill now stood they were giving away funds from the Church of Ireland to corporations which would prove its deadly enemy.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that it had always been the study of their Lordships to avoid interference with the privileges of the other House of Parliament. Now this amendment was a decided interference with those privileges, and as such he must oppose it.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that after the peremptory declaration of the noble Duke, which he had no doubt was made after due deliberation, he should withdraw his amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.
On the question that the bill do now pass.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that it was

1175
not his intention to divide the House on this question; but he could not suffer this motion to pass without expressing his deep regret, and he must even add, his great astonishment, that such a vote should be carried in their Lordships' House. In passing this bill their Lordships were not, as in 1829, passing a bill which they believed would pacify Ireland, and give stability to the Protestant Church in that country. On the contrary, they were passing a bill, which they saw must be destructive to that Church; they were passing it knowingly and deliberately, against warning, against experience, and, he firmly believed, against their own conviction. "It will not, and it cannot, come to good,"
Bill passed.
The following; protest was entered by the Bishop of Exeter against the passing of the bill.
DISSENTIENT—
1. Because no sufficient proofs of delinquency or misconduct were adduced against the municipal corporations of Ireland, to justify so sweeping a measure pf destruction, in contempt of the sacredness of ancient charters, and in defiance of those principles which, till within the last few years, were wont to distinguish the legislation of the British Parliament, and especially of this House.
2. Because, in the admitted absence of such proofs of delinquency, the plea, on which the measure was mainly rested, the exclusive character of the existing corporations did in effect establish the fidelity of those bodies to the one great end for which they were all alike created, the maintenance of the British interest in Ire land; the more ancient corporations having been founded as fortresses and fastnesses to protect that interest against the rebellious attempts of the native Irish, and of the descendants of the earliest English settlers; the more modern combining, with this great common object, the still greater and more sacred purpose of maintaining the cause of true religion against the unceasing efforts of the Papists to re-establish the domination of their own priesthood in its grossest and most revolting form.
3. Because, if it be true that the continuance of bodies in practice exclusively Protest ant, be no longer consistent with the, policy which seeks to deal with all distinctions of religious faith, as equally unworthy of peculiar favour in the political institutions of the empire, common sense and common justice alike point out the only proper course to be pursued —the simple abolition of those bodies, when the cause for which they were created is sup posed to have ceased.
4. Because the adoption of a measure, which is admitted by all to ensure the establishment
1176
of bodies of Roman Catholics equally exclusive as those which they are made to supersede, is not only contrary to common sense and common justice, but also to the spirit of most solemn promises and engagements repeatedly made by those who advised, and ultimately carried, the Act for the relief of her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in 1829. The leaders in that great and perilous experiment pledged themselves to propose to Parliament the reenactment of the statutes which were then repealed, or the adoption of still more stringent restraints, if the parties, who were freed from the restrictions before imposed, should prove (as they notoriously have proved) themselves unworthy of the confidence then reposed in them, and should renew their attempts against the Protestant Church in Ireland. If any unhappy concurrence of circumstances has prevented the literal redemption of that pledge, yet the least and lowest obligation which it can justly be understood to have imposed was, the duty of a resolute and firm resistance to every new proposition for increasing the power of so bitter, so unrelenting, and so perfidious, an enemy.
5. Because, although it was declared by high authority, on the second reading of the bill, that it would be unworthy of finally passing into a law, unless such amendments were introduced as should give security against the establishment of other bodies equally exclusive with those which are abolished, yet the amendments actually made not only give no such security, but do not even attempt nor profess to give it, their only object being to mitigate the acknowledged mischiefs of the measure, and in some trifling degree to limit the power with which it arms the Popish democracy of the cities and towns in Ireland to tyrannize over the Protestant and more opulent classes of inhabitants, and to extort from them funds for the more speedy and effectual execution of their own unhallowed designs.
6. Because there is strong reason to believe, that the final passing of the measure was the result rather of considerations of party convenience, than of any large and liberal views of national policy—none of those who had it in their power to decide on the ultimate fate of the bill venturing to pronounce it a measure either just or safe in itself, or worthy of favour on any other account, than that it put an end to a question which could no longer remain unsettled, without dividing public men, who, from the purest motives, wish to continue to act together. Thus were the gravest interests of the country forgotten in personal considerations—the end was sacrificed to the means, and the only plea which can justify the combination of statesmen, the more effectual assertion and maintenance of a great common principle, was here openly abandoned.
7. Because the House of Lords having, since the passing of the Act for the Reform of the Commons House of Parliament, been practically deprived of what was wont to be deemed

1177
its constitutional share of control over the Executive power of the Crown, was yet enabled, till the present disastrous Session, to retain, and to assert, its legislative independence; and by the wise and efficient exercise of its just privilege, or rather of its highest duty, in the correction or rejection of bad bills, had continued to earn and to enjoy the grateful veneration of the English people. That lofty position it has, in this instance, voluntarily surrendered; and has thus, by its own act, gone far towards realising the prophetic declaration of Sir W. Blackstone, that the constitution of England would be destroyed, and could only be destroyed, by one of the three branches of the Legislature losing its constitutional weight, and submitting to the domination of the other two.
8. Lastly, and above all, because by this wilful and deliberate abandonment of the cause of true religion, and of the security of the Church in Ireland, to which the fundamental laws of the constitution, the Act of Union, the oath of our Sovereign, and all the most sacred duties of subjects to their ruler, and of men to their Maker, alike bind us, we have provoked the justice of Almighty God, and have given too much reason to apprehend the visitation of Divine vengeance for this presumptuous act of national disobedience.
H. EXETER.