Sitting of 12 March 1840

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Messrs. Strutt, W. Evans, Baines, Dennistoun, Brotherton, Easthope, Grey, Aglionby, E. Buller, Gisborne, Hume, Wyse, Ewart, and Sir George Strickland, from an immense number of places, for the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Lord Eliot, and Mr. Waddington, from several places, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Messrs. F. W. Campbell, G. Craig, Lockhart, Houston, and Duff, from a number of places, in favour of Non-Intrusion.—By Mr. P. Howard, from Carlisle, and Mr. Lascelles, from Wakefield, against any Interference with the Internal Laws and Regulations of China.—By Mr. Corbally, from Meath, against the Importation of Foreign Flour into Ireland.—By Mr. Dennistoun, from Glasgow, for Universal Suffrage, and in favour of the Designs Copyright Bill.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Clerkenwell, for a Free Pardon to Frost, Jones, and Williams—By Messrs. Baines, Hawes, Swart, and Easthope, from several places, for the Release of John Thorogood, and the Abolition of Church Rates, and of the Jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts.—By Mr. Brotherton, from Salford, for the Abolition of the Rural Police.—By Sir R. Inglis, from three places, against the Irish Municipal Bill.—By Sir G. Clerk, from Dalkeith, for an Alteration in the Laws of Patronage.—By Sir T. Acland, from one place, for Church Extension; and from others, against any further Grant to Maynooth College.—By Messrs. Wyse, and S. O'Brien, from two places, against the Importation of Foreign Flour into Ireland.—By Mr. Stansfield, from Huddersfield, in favour of the Copyright Assignment Bill.

PRIVILEGE—STOCKDALE v. HANSARD—MR. HOWARD'S ACTION.
The Speakerhad to acquaint the House that the Sergeant-at-Arms had a communication to make with regard to certain summonses or writs which had been served upon some of the officers of that House.
The Sergeant was then called to the bar, and stated that notices of action had

1155
been served by Thomas Burton Howard upon the following officers of the House:—Charles Stein, William Bellamy, John Lead, John Mitchell, and the assistant-secretary, Captain Gossett. The notices were delivered in, and the Sergeant was proceeding to read a memorandum which he made at the time, when
The Attorney-Generalsaid, he very much doubted the expediency and propriety of the Sergeant-at-Arms making any statements concerning this matter at the bar.
The Sergeant delivered in a copy of the notice, which was read by the clerk.
Sir E. Sugdenwas understood to inquire why that notice had not been brought forward before?
Lord J. Russellsaid, he really did not know until the previous day that such a paper was in existence. He was told by the Sergeant-at-Arms that he had received some notice, but he never had any positive information that he could act upon. He was informed by the Speaker—yesterday, he thought—that this notice had been received. He moved that the whole subject be taken into consideration to-morrow.
Ordered.

WAR WITH CHINA.
Mr. Mackinnonwished to ask the noble Lord whether there was any truth in a report very generally believed, that war had been declared against China?
Lord J. Russellsaid, there had been no official intelligence amounting to what the hon. Member stated, namely, a declaration of war against China. Instructions had been given to the Governor-general of India to make some active preparations, and, although no intelligence of the nature alluded to had been received, he presumed that some directions given, or some act done, by the Governor-general, had given rise to the report of a declaration of war having been made.
Sir R. Peelsaid, supposing that the declaration should prove to be true, and that, in consequence of instructions which had been given to the Governor-general of India, a declaration of war was made, and some document was published containing that declaration, he wished to ask the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, two questions. First, whether that war, if proclaimed, would be carried on on account of the supreme authority of this country and at the expense of the united empire? And, second, whether
1156
or no the Government would bring down any message to Parliament announcing the intention of her Majesty to resort to hostilities?
Viscount Palmerstonapprehended that any communication which might take place with the government of China would be carried on in the name of the Queen of this country, and that whatever assistance might be afforded by the Governor-general of India to any operations which might be carried on in China would be assistance lent to this country under the responsibility of the Government of this country, and not of the East India Company. With regard to the other question, it was not at present the intention to send down any message of the kind.
Sir R. Peelwas only supposing it to be the case that war had been proclaimed on account of our present position with regard to China, which was very different from that in which we stood previous to the renewal of the charter of the East India Company. His question was whether, in the event of hostilities being resolved on, any formal message would be sent down to the House?
Viscount Palmerstonreplied, that the communications, whatever they might be, which took place between this country and China would be carried on in the name of the Queen of Great Britain, and not in the name of the Governor-general of India.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that was the very reason why he had put the question. In the case of an Indian war, he could quite understand why no message should be sent down to Parliament; that course was prescribed by ordinary usage. But in this case the noble Lord had stated that hostilities were to be carried on at the charge of the country and in the name of her Majesty. He presumed, therefore, that some formal communication should be made to Parliament on so important a measure as that of war, if a recourse to it were found necessary.
Viscount Palmerston: I used the word "communications" not "hostilities."
Mr. G. Palmerinquired whether or not other instructions besides those which had been communicated to the House, had been forwarded to the British Superintendent in China?
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that undoubtedly, besides the instructions founded on those papers which had been laid on the table of the House, sent to her

1157
Majesty's superintendent at Canton, there were others; but they were of such a nature that he apprehended they could not be laid before the House.
Mr. G. Palmerasked whether there were not other instructions besides those which were given to Sir F. Maitland?
Viscount Palmerston.—There were not any other instructions bearing on the subject to which the papers relate.
Mr. Herrieswished to know whether the noble Lord, could communicate to the House anything further upon the subject of compensation for the opium destroyed. No communication was to be found in the papers already produced of a later date than the 13th of June, 1839, from the superintendent at Canton. Were those all the papers that the noble Lord meant to lay before Parliament.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that every paper had been laid on the Table of the House which had been moved for, and which it appeared to be expedient to lay before the Home, and necessary to give full information on the subject.
Subject dropped.

HILL COOLIES.
Sir. J. Grahamsaid, be had reason to believe, that the commission which was appointed by the Governor-general of India in Council in 1838, had made a report with respect to the emigration of Hill Coolies. Was the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies cognizant of any such document?
Lord J. Russellwas quite aware of the appointment of the commissioners, but he had not received any report made by the commission, neither had his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Control.
Sir J. Grahamwished to know from the noble Lord opposite whether, in the absence of such a document, it was intended to reverse the decision prohibiting the emigration of Hill Coolies, or whether it was intended to suspend any further proceedings in reference to the subject until the next Session of Parliament.
Lord J. Russellwished again to rise for the purpose of saying, that he should be very glad to produce the document sought for if he possessed it, provided he had any reason to think that it bore upon the subject to which the right hon. Baronet wished to call the attention of the House. He differed altogether from the right hon. Baronet as to its bearing on
1158
the case of the Hill Coolies, antecedently to the period at which the prohibition was issued. He must once more repeat, that he did not think the papers which the right hon. Baronet wished to see produced would affect the general question.
Lord Stanleysaid, he understood that an act had passed the legislature of Demerara, regulating immigration to that colony. He observed that no papers relating to that subject had been laid upon the Table of the House, and he wished to know from the noble Lord opposite whether it was intended to produce them.
Lord J. Russellreplied, that an order had been sent by the legislature of Demerara which had been disallowed, and the papers explanatory of those proceedings had been laid upon the Table of the House. There had not been any order from the Government here forwarded to Demerara, but a sketch or draught of an order had been sent which, if published in Demerara, would, he had no doubt, prove satisfactory to the Government at home. As to the production of such documents, he believed it was very unusual.
Subject at an end.

LIGHTING THE HOUSE.
Lord Eliotwould not obtrude at any very great length on the time of the House; but as he was about to request the House, if not to rescind a resolution which they had recently come to, at least to recede from a previous determination, he thought he was bound to give a sufficient reason for asking the House to reconsider this question. Mr. Gurney had presented a petition relative to the Bude light, which had already been adopted by the Trinity House. The Bude light was the invention of Mr. Gurney, and consisted of passing a stream of oxygen gas through an Argand burner, and the light was so brilliant that the Trinity House adopted it. Mr. Gurney offered to light the House with the Bude light, and to be at the expense of the experiment. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, had objected to this being done at Mr. Gurney's expense, but had granted 100 l. towards making the experiment, which had been conducted under the superintendence of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. This experiment had proved so satisfactory that the House had appointed a select committee to consider the subject.

1159
On the committee which had been appointed he (Lord Eliot) had been a member, and he certainly admitted, that, knowing the abilities of Mr. Gurney, and from his experience of the Bude light, he was pre-disposed in its favour, yet not so much as to be unalterably prejudiced against any evidence. Even this slight pre-disposition, however, could not be alleged against any other Gentleman on the committee, who were entirely disinterested either way. The committee had examined Professor Faraday, Sir D. Brewster, Dr. Ure, and Dr. Arnot, and not one of them expressed an unfavourable opinion of the light; nay, they were decidedly in its favour. They, however, stated, that there was a great necessity for adopting some means to improve the ventilation of the House, and that this light would afford facilities for that object, by giving opportunity for having a descending current: at all events, an improvement of the ventilation would prevent the annoyance of dust through the chinks in the floor of the House. The noble Lord had stated further, that many practical gentlemen, such as Mr. Rixon (of Hancock and Rixon's), had declared that a finer light than the Bude never was witnessed. The chandeliers now in use weighed several hundred weight each, with the massy shades (many yards in circumference), and that, suspended to a small chain, their safety was at least questionable—indeed, a day or two ago one had fallen and grievously injured a workman Then, as to the expense of the Bude light, it had cost some 700 l., but that included a stock which would last through the Session, and the chandeliers had already cost upwards of 500 l., and divers decorations had been added by the gallant Officer (Colonel Sir F. Trench.) He considered that the experiments with the Bude light had not been fully and fairly made, and that, therefore, the wishes of the committee and the orders of the House had not been complied with. He trusted, therefore, that the House would accede to his motion, and if, after a fair trial, the House should be convinced, under all the circumstances, that the present mode of lighting was preferable to the Bude light, he, for one, would not again venture to become its advocate. The noble Lord concluded by moving, that opportunities for further experiment be afforded to Mr. Gurney.
Mr. Jamesseconded the motion. He did not believe, that there was any Member in that House who suffered more from defective sight than he did, and he must confess, that he experienced the greatest possible relief when the unseemly chandeliers were taken away and the Bude light substituted, and which he hoped soon to see restored.
Sir F. Trenchsaid, the only object he had in view was, that hon. Members should have that light that was most agreeable to them. He would not say one word in favour or against either mode of lighting, as hon. Members were competent from the experiments that had been made, to form their own opinions. There was one circumstance, however, to which he was anxious to call the attention of the House. It had been stated that an accident had occurred on Monday, in consequence of the weight of the chandeliers. Now in consequence of that, he had taken the trouble to obtain an account of the weight of different chandeliers in public buildings. The lustres in the National Gallery weighed 17 cwt.; those of the Opera House, 14 cwt.; Covent-garden theatre, 18 cwt.; in Drury-lane theatre, 7 cwt.; and in some public show room, 15 cwt. The lustres of the House, with shades and chains, amounted to 6 cwt. only. The shades, too, could be formed of lighter material, so as to render them less cumbrous. With respect to the expense of candles, there was an error in the calculation made by the noble Lord, because the 6l. which had been quoted as the expense each night, did not extend to the candles used in the House merely, but to lights consumed in the coffee room, reading room, and other apartments also. The experiments on the Bude light, which had cost the country already 750 l., had been fairly tested, and found insufficient.
Sir C. Lemonconsidered that the experiments which had been made respecting the Bude light afforded a safe guide to the lighting of the future Houses of Parliament which were in the course of construction. At the commencement of the Session, he had been struck with the appearance of the interior of the House, by the introduction of that light; but since the introduction of these domestic lights, the wax candles, with the overhanging opaque bodies, flanked on one side with a petticoat, and on the other with an apron, the whole architectural

1161
beauty of the House had been destroyed. He would support the motion.
Mr. Goulburnagreed with the hon. Member, who said, that this was a question of feeling and not of argument, and he must confess, that he saw better by the wax lights than by the new light. The hon. Member had spoken of the experiment being made with reference to the future houses of Parliament; but he must protest against being made the corpus vile of such experiments.
Sir Thomas Aclandsaid, that the half-perfected Bude light had been found superior to the wax lights, and for that reason, he would support the motion.
The House divided:—Ayes 136; Noes 86: Majority 50.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Forester, hon. G.

Aglionby, H. A.

Gisborne, T.

Aglionby, Major

Goring, H. D.

Alston, R.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Archbold, R.

Guest, Sir J.

Baines, E.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Barnard, E. G.

Harland, W. G.

Barron, H. W.

Hawes, B.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Heathcote, J.

Bewes, T.

Hector, C. J.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Bramston, T. W.

Hindley, C.

Bridgeman, H

Hobhouse, T. B.

Briscoe, J. I.

Hope, H. T.

Brodie, W. B.

Horsman, E.

Brotherton, J.

Howard, F. J.

Brownrigg, S.

Howard, P. H

Buller, C.

Hume, J.

Busfeild, W.

Humphrey, J.

Clay, W.

Hutchins, E. J.

Clive, E. B.

Hutt, W.

Cole, Viscount

Hutton, R.

Collier, J.

James, W.

Courtenay, P.

Knight, H. G.

Craig, W. G.

Langdale, hon. C.

Cripps, J.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Currie, R.

Lemon, Sir C.

Curry, Mr. Sergeant

Lincoln, Earl of

Denison, W. J.

Lister, E. C.

Divett, E.

Loch, J.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Lushington, C.

Dundas, F.

Lynch, A. H.

Du Pre, G.

Macaulay, rt. hon. T.

Easthope, J.

M'Taggart, J.

Egerton, W. T.

Martin, J.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Maule, hon. F.

Ellice, E.

Melgund, Viscount

Ellis, W.

Milnes, R. M.

Evans, Sir De L.

Morpeth, Viscount

Evans, W.

O'Connell, J.

Ewart, W.

O'Connell, M. J.

Feilden, W.

O'Conor Don

Fielden, J.

Ord, W.

Fenton, J.

Paget, F.

1162

Palmer, R.

Style, Sir C.

Palmerston, Viscount

Thornely, T.

Parker, J.

Townley, R. G.

Patten, J. W.

Tufnell, H.

Pattison, J.

Turner, E.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Verney, Sir H.

Phillips, M.

Vernon, G. H.

Pigot, D. R.

Vigors, N. A.

Pigot, R.

Vivian, J. H.

Price, Sir R.

Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R.

Protheroe, E.

Wall, C. B.

Pusey, P.

Wallace, R.

Rickford, W.

Warburton, H.

Roche, W.

Ward, H. G.

Rundle, J.

White, A.

Seymour, Lord

Wilbraham, G.

Sharpe, General

Williams, W.

Slaney, R. A.

Williams, W. A.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Worsley, Lord

Stansfield, W. R.

Wyse, T.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Yates, J. A.

Steuart, R.

Stuart, Lord J.

TELLERS.

Strickland, Sir G.

Acland, Sir T.

Strutt, E.

Eliot, Lord

List of the NOES.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Hope, hon. C.

Ashley, Lord

Hope, G. W.

Baker, E.

Houstoun, G.

Baring, H. B.

Hurt, F.

Baring, hn. W. B.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Blackstone, W. S.

Irving, J.

Bradshaw, J.

Jones, J.

Broadwood, H.

Lambton, H

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lockhart, A.

Chapman, Sir M.L.C.

Mackenzie, T.

Chapman, A.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Chute, W. L. W.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Mahon, Viscount

Copeland, Mr. Ald.

Maunsell, T. P.

Corry, hon. H.

Miles, P. W S.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Morris, D.

Darby, G.

Nicholl, J.

De Horsey, S. H.

Palmer, G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Peel, J.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Pemberton, T.

Ellis, J.

Polhill, F.

Farnham, E. B.

Powerscourt, Visct.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Gaskell, J. M.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Gladstone, W. E.

Richards, R.

Gordon, hn. Captain

Rose rt. hon. Sir G.

Gordon, R.

Salwey, Colonel

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Scrope, G. P.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Grimsditch, T.

Smith, R. V.

Grimston, Viscount

Somerset, Lord G.

Hastie, A.

Stanley, Lord

Henniker, Lord

Sugden, rt. hn. Sir E.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Surrey, Earl of

Herbert, hon. S.

Sutton, hn. J. H. T. M.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Tancred, H. W.

Hodgson, F.

Turner, W.

Hodgson, R.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Holmes, hon. W. A.

Villiers, Lord

1163

Waddington, H. S.

Wrightson, W. B.

Walsh, Sir J.

Young, J.

Whitmore, T. C.

Williams, R.

TELLERS.

Wodehouse, E.

Fremantle, Sir T

Wood, Colonel

Trench Sir F.

FIRST-FRUITS AND TENTHS.
Mr. Aglionby, as chairman of the Committee on the First Fruits and Tenths of the Clergy, brought up the report of the whole House, by which it was resolved:—
"That it is expedient to make provision for the abolition of the First Fruits and Tenths of the Clergy as at present enforced in England and Wales, after the next avoidance; and in lieu thereof to levy an assessment of one-tenth part of the clear annual value upon all archbishoprics and bishoprics, and all dignities and benefices and other spiritual promotions above the clear yearly value of 300 l., to be applied in the first instance to the augmentation of the maintenance of the poor clergy, and afterwards to the building and re-building of churches, and to such other purposes as may conduce to the interests of religion, and that a bill be brought into Parliament grounded on this resolution."
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that having already explained his sentiments on this measure, he should move to negative the report.
Mr. Baineswould merely say, that in the bill, which, with the leave of the House he should introduce, it was not his intention to adhere rigidly to the assessment of annual Tenths, though he conceived that this would generally be considered very productive. He should, however, leave it to the House, in the progress pf the bill, to regulate the amount of payment to be made out of the higher livings for the augmentation of the lower, and to award to the labouring clergy such proportion of the real annual income of all livings above 300 l. a-year, when they ceased to be held by the present incumbents, as Parliament might think necessary to maintain the station of the labouring clergy, and to secure to them and their families a competent support.
The House divided on the question that the report be brought up:—Ayes 46; Noes 54: Majority 8.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, Major

Bellew, R. M.

Archbold, R.

Bewes, T.

Barnard, E. G.

Bridgeman, H.

Barry, G. S.

Brotherton, J.

1164

Busfield, W.

Staunton, Sir G.

Collier, J.

Stuart, Lord J.

Elliot, J. E.

Strickland, Sir G.

Heathcoat, J.

Style, Sir C.

Hector, C. J.

Tancred, H. W.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Turner, E.

Hume, J.

Vigors, W. A.

Hutt, W.

Walker, R.

James, W.

Wallace, R.

Knight, H. G.

Warburton, H.

Lemon, Sir C.

Ward, H. G.

Lister, E. C.

White, A.

Lushington, C.

Wilbraham, G.

Martin, J.

Williams, W.

Pechell, Captain

Williams, W. A.

Pendarves, E. W.

Worsley, Lord

Roche, W.

Yates, J. A.

Rundle, J.

Slaney, R. A.

TELLERS.

Smith, J. A.

Baines, E.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Aglionby, H. A.

List of the NOES.

Bagge, W.

Mackinnon, W.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Mahon, Lord

Bramston, T. W.

Neeld, J.

Broadley, H.

Nicholl, J.

Brownrigg, S.

Palmer, G.

Clay, W.

Palmerston, Lord

Courtenay, P.

Peel, J.

Cripps, J.

Polhill, F.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Pusey, P.

Darby, G.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Eaton, R. J.

Rose, Sir G.

Egerton, W. T.

Russell, Lord J.

Eliot, Lord

Shaw, F.

Ellis, J.

Sheppard, T.

Estcourt, T.

Somerset, Lord G.

Freshfield, J. W.

Stanley, Lord

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Vere, Sir C. B.

Gordon, R.

Vernon, G. H.

Graham, Sir J.

Villiers, Lord

Grimston, Lord

Vivian, J. E.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Wodehouse, E.

Harland, W. C.

Wood, Colonel

Henniker, Lord

Wood, Colonel T.

Hepburn, Sir T.

Wyse, T.

Herries, J. C.

Young, J.

Hodgson, R.

Holmes, W.

TELLERS.

Hope, hon. C.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Irving, J.

Goulburn, H.

Report thrown out.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a first time:—Marine Mutiny; Mutiny.
Petitions presented. By Lords Colborne, and Ellenborough, from several places, against Altering the Duties

1151
on West India Produce.—By the Marquess of Bute, and the Earl of Rosebery, from the Presbytery of Dalkeith, and other places, in favour of Non-Intrusion—By Lord Dacre, from Hetching, against the Rating of Small Tenements.

EAST AND WEST INDIA PRODUCE.
Lord Seafordstated that he had an important petition to present from the body of West India proprietors residing in London, on the subject of the relaxation of the present duties on East India produce, respecting which petitions had been presented to both Houses of Parliament, and committees had been appointed to inquire into the subject. The petitioners deprecated any measure which was likely to interfere with the productions or to injure the West India colonies at the present crisis, not merely from regard to their own interests, but to the population of those colonies which had been so recently manumitted, and who now were so utterly dependent on this country as the great market for the produce of their labour. They strongly deprecate any alteration of the relative duties of East and West India produce at the present moment, and pray that they maybe heard by counsel against it. On presenting this petition, he could not help calling the attention of the House to the great experiment which had recently been tried in the West India colonies, which in some respects had hitherto succeeded to a degree that those most interested in the subject had not anticipated; but, at the same time, it must be admitted that some inconveniences had arisen, and that, in the extent of cultivation, and in the amount of produce, there had been a great diminution in the staple produce of those colonies, as compared with what it formerly was. The price of West India produce had risen in the market, and if the Legislature resorted to the system that had been urged upon it, of admitting East India produce at greatly reduced duties, while the expense of cultivation had increased in the West Indies, the effect would be most detrimental, and would materially interfere with the cultivation of those colonies. The difficulties now felt chiefly arose from the high rate of wages in our colonies since the Emancipation Act, and they were now in a condition which required all the protection which the mother country could afford to them. They, therefore, entreated the House to weigh with caution any measure which involved an experiment with matters
1152
in which the first principles of humanity were involved, as well as the highest commercial and mercantile interests. The noble Lord concluded with moving that the petition be referred to the committee then sitting, to inquire respecting the duties on East India produce.
Ordered.

VACCINATION.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that in the conversation that took place a few nights ago on the subject of vaccination, he had suggested that the noble Marquess should bring in a bill, giving powers to the board of guardians to appoint persons to perform this duty; but as he did not wish to thrust a duty on others which he would not perform himself, he had prepared a bill on the subject, which he would place on the table. This bill, at present, would only apply to England, but he had prepared clauses which could be added to it, so as to extend it to Ireland by the same machinery, namely, the Poor-law unions. If the noble Marquess had no objection, he should be glad to have the bill read a second time tomorrow, and the discussion, if any was thought necessary, could be taken on Monday. It was desirable to pass the bill at once, as the guardians on the 25th of March made their new contracts with medical men for the several unions.
The Marquess of Normanbyhad no objection to the principle of the bill; he should, therefore, not object to the course proposed by the noble Lord; at the same time, he should be glad to learn the opinion of those more conversant with the subject. Did the bill make no reference to Scotland?
Lord Ellenboroughhad found that it was extremely difficult to apply this bill to Scotland. He believed that the only local bodies under which they could place the control of the vaccination were the Kirk Sessions, and he did not think that it would be advisable to do so.
The Earl of Haddingtonobserved, that if the bill should be found to work well, machinery could be devised for Scotland to carry it out, independent of the Kirk Sessions. He thought that his noble Friend had done wisely in the first place in not entrusting the power to those bodies.
Bill read a first time.

REPRIEVE OF LYNAM.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that in consequence of the question put to him on a former night, he had made inquiries, and found that (he statement made by the noble Marquess (Westmeath), as to the commutation of the sentence of death passed upon a man named Lynam, convicted for murder recently in Dublin, was correct. He had received a communication from his noble Friend, the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, in which he was informed that the sentence had been commuted into transportation for life. His noble Friend also stated, that there had already been executed for that crime four of that man's accomplices, and another afterwards, convicted during the viceroyalty of the noble Earl opposite (Earl of Haddington) had received a commutation of the sentence of death to transportation for life. Under these circumstances, and considering the length of time that had elapsed since the murder, as well as for other reasons, the man had beet, reprieved in the way which he had described. To discuss the grounds of this commutation, or of the exercise of the prerogative, would be very inconvenient.
The Marquess of Westmeathasked whether sentence had been commuted after communication with the judges who tried the prisoner; for he thought their Lordships must, in some degree, refer to the evidence which came before the committee which had sat last year, when it was proved by a most respectable witness, that in that unfortunate country there was a sympathy with murderers among certain classes. A very respectable witness, who had been examined, alluded very pointedly to this sympathy, and stated the instance of a man who was taken near Roscrea. He was a person who had been employed by some of the police to look out for some persons who had been guilty of grievous offences, against whom warrants had been issued. The witness stated, that he had asked him where he slept, and he replied at a farmer's house, and he could always get entertainment and lodging, by saying that he was on his keeping for murder; that was, that it was sufficient that he had committed murder and was flying from justice, to insure him the hospitality and protection of the neighbourhood. It was a matter of pain to him, as an Irishman, to dwell on what he believed to be a most disgraceful characteristic of certain classes of his countrymen, but he felt bound to do so. Under these circumstances, the
1154
government of that country could not be too cautious how they interposed between the verdicts of the jury and the conviction and condemnation of persons who had been engaged in so atrocious a murder as this; and it would be more satisfactory to him to hear that the noble Viscount (the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland) had taken for his guide the practice which obtained in this country, of laying all the circumstances of the case before the judges who had tried the prisoners, before the prerogative of the Crown was exercised. He, therefore, begged to ask again, whether the sentence had been commuted upon the opinion of the judge who tried the offence?
The Marquess of Normanbycould not answer the question without entering into a discussion on the subject; therefore he declined doing so.
House adjourned.