Sitting of 20 April 1841

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Nottingham Town, Vice Sir Ronald Crawfurd Ferguson, Deceased.
Bills. Read a second time:—Dublin Wide Streets.—Read a third time:—Indemnity.
Petitions presented. By Captain A. Duncombe, from places in Nottinghamshire, the Earl of Darlington, from Shropshire, Mr. Kemble, from Croydon, and other places in Surrey, Sir R. Inglis, from several places in Derbyshire, and General Lygon, from Droitwich, for Church Extension.—By Mr. Brotherton, from Baptist Congregations at Manchester, Halesworth, Suffolk, Stamford, and Deeping St. James, Lincolnshire, for the Exemption of Baptists from Compulsory Oaths.—By Sir R. Inglis, from Stoke Newington, Derby and other places, against any further Grants of Public Money to Maynooth College.—By Mr. Fox Maule, and Sir G. Sinclair, from various places in Perthshire, and Lanarkshire, against Church Patronage (Scotland)—By Mr. Hume, from Dunfermline, and other places, against the Corn-laws.—By Mr. Hawes, from Loddiswell, Slanelly, and other places, for the Abolition of Church Rates.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Devonport, against the Poor-law Bill; and from Leicester, for the Release of Imprisoned Chartists.

FLOGGING ON THE SABBATH—THE EARL OF CARDIGAN.
Mr. Hume, seeing the Secretary-at-War in his place, begged to ask him whether the statements which had appeared in the public papers were correct, that a soldier of the 11th Hussars had been flogged on Sunday, the 11th inst., and whether there were any regulations at the Horse-guards with respect to military punishments on that day?
Mr. Macaulayreplied, that, although the discipline of the army was not immediately connected with his department, yet,

957
as he might be supposed to be more connected with the army from the office which he held than other Members of her Majesty's Government, he had felt it to be his duty, in anticipation of any questions being put to him, to obtain such information as would enable him to give an answer. With respect to this case, the facts were not precisely as they had been stated in the public prints. It was not the case that the punishment had been inflicted on the soldier under such circumstances as if it were a continuance of divine service. It was not the case that the troops were kept in the place where divine worship was performed, for the purpose of seeing this punishment inflicted, nor was it the case that the soldiers of another regiment, which attended divine worship at the same place, were detained for this purpose. He was assured that the soldiers of the 11th regiment were marched out of the riding school, and the other regiment was marched to its quarters. The former regiment was then inspected for about half-an-hour, and then marched back to the riding-school, where the punishment was inflicted. On the ground of a want of humanity, he believed that no one could throw a charge on the officer commanding this regiment. As long as they retained corporal punishment for the preservation of the discipline of the army, the offence of which the soldier who underwent the punishment was guilty, was one for which it should be inflicted. Whatever other imputations there might be cast on Lord Cardigan, a disposition for the infliction of corporal punishment was not one which could justly be thrown on him. From inquiries which he had made, he had found that since 1839, up to the recent case, there was not an instance of the infliction of corporal punishment in this regiment. The charge, however, for which he 1 was justly liable to public censure, was the immediate infliction of punishment on a Sunday after divine service. Such a proceeding was clearly contrary to the religious feelings and habits of the people of this country, and could not be reconciled with either good sense or good feeling. Under such circumstance, he (Mr. Macaulay) never could appear as the advocate of such proceedings. The case, however, was not peculiar, as similar instances had occurred in the army, as well as in the other branches of the service; but all the officers he had consulted on the subject, distinctly stated that such a proceeding could only be justified under circumstances of extreme
958
exigency. Such notice, however, had been taken of this proceeding, and such further notice would be taken, as to render it impossible that a recurrence of it could take place.

PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS—IRELAND.
Sir R. Peel, seeing the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, in hit place, and observing that the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, was absent, wished to ask whether it were intended, according to the promise of the noble Lord, to inform the House this evening what course the Government meant to take on Monday night next, in respect to the Parliamentary Voters' Bill, (Ireland.)
Lord Morpethsaid, that in the absence of his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) he was unable to give an answer as to the views of the Government, to which his noble Friend's statement had reference. He could only say, at present, that it was his intention to proceed with the Bill. Whatever modifications of particular clauses he might think it right to introduce, he should explain to the House tomorrow or Thursday.

COUNTY COURTS.
Sir E. Sugdenasked, was it intended to proceed on Thursday with the Counties' Courts Bill?
Mr. Fox Maulesaid it was so. The bill would be proceeded with, and several modifications would be proposed, at the suggestion of gentlemen of both sides of the House, who had taken great interest in the measure, and to whose attention he was much indebted.

REGENT'S PARK.
Mr. Ewartrose to move an address to the Crown for opening the Regent's Park to the public. The hon. Member said the object he had in view was to increase the sources of rational amusements which were now enjoyed by the inhabitants of the metropolis. At present the Park was open from Portland-place almost in a direct line to the Zoological Gardens; but if hon. Members had extended their vision beyond the walks, they could not have failed to have observed that there was about twice as large a portion from which the public were excluded. His object was to throw open that further portion. It had been stated as an objection that certain clauses in the leases of the villas would exclude the public from

959
that portion of the park. He had consulted the best authorities, namely the lessees under those leases, and they had informed him that there was no such reserving clause. It had next been stated, that if there was no special clause, there was an understanding with the lessees. He protested against the House being bound by anything which did not appear in the lease. Therefore he believed that there was no legal claim that was valid against his motion—on the other hand immense public benefit would attend the accomplishment of the object of his motion. The population around the park had of late, and was, greatly increasing, and the boon he sought would be to them of immense value, and would be attended with no detriment to any one individual. He understood that the Government had very wisely made an arrangement which would retain Primrose Hill—that classical spot to all the citizens of London—for the use of the public—that was an additional argument in favour of his motion for the portion of the park he wished to have thrown open was the direct road to that spot to all coming from the City. He would ask why the public should be shut out from the Regent's Park any more than from Hyde Park? However, he did not think it was necessary for him to say more in favour of his motion, the onus probandi lay upon the Government to show why the park should not be opened. He would therefore conclude by moving,
"That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to take into her consideration the advantage which would accrue to the public, from throwing open to the public the remainder of the Regent's Park."
Mr. E. J. Stanleysaid, in reply to the observations of the hon. Gentleman, he could assure the House that there was no one at all times more anxious to do everything for the public accommodation than the noble Lord at the head of this department. It must be well known to the hon. Member that a large portion of the park was leased to different persons, portions of it to the Toxopholite and other societies, and with respect to other portions, they had been let off to persons who had expended considerable sums of money on them, and who had entered into engagements with the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, by which they were guaranteed against the intrusion of the
960
public, and similar inconveniences. There was one portion of the park, however, which he agreed with his hon. Friend might be extended to the public. It was that tract of ground which extended from the gravel walk, which had been lately made, towards Macclesfield-bridge. But at the same time he thought it impossible, without a large body of police, and a great deal more expense than it was desirable to incur, to give the public access to those parts in the neighbourhood of the water and the villas he had already mentioned. His noble Friend would do all he could to give access to the public, and he therefore trusted the hon. Gentleman would not press his motion.
Mr. Humethought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley) could not have understood the motion, because the part which he stated as about to be opened had been open a considerable time. The part the public were anxious for was that immediately east of Cornwall-terrace. He understood that the large space from the Marquis of Hertford's house to the Zoological Gardens was not leased at present, and therefore there was no reason why it should not be open to the public. He wished to know whether any measure had been taken for affording similar accommodation to the public at the northeast and east of the City of London Unless the opportunity were now taken would be altogether lost, and the population would become so dense that, without such accommodation, it would be most unhealthy to live in the neighbourhood.
Lord Teignmouthsaid, that out of 286 acres in the park, 200 might be opened to the public, and certainly he had not heard any good reason why they should not be so applied. The only argument that he had heard against opening the whole was that the indulgence might be abused, but he thought that it would not be difficult or expensive to prevent such abuse.
Sir B. Hallsaid, that he had seconded the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Wigan, but he should, nevertheless, request of him not to take the sense of the House upon the subject, as he had received a guarantee from the Government that almost the whole of the park should be opened for the use and gratification of the public.
Sir R. Inglisso seldom agreed with the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that he was happy to express his entire concurrence

961
in the observations which he had made with reference to the formation of a park in the eastern extremity of London. He was not one who attached any importance to parks as forming moral character; but he did feel that they were sources of rational enjoyment, and means of promoting the public health. He trusted that if any other Member of her Majesty's Government should address the House on this subject, he would be able to state what were the views they entertained, and how they proposed to carry out the recommendations of the committee which had been appointed to inquire into the subject.
Sir De Lacy Evansthought it was high time the park should be opened to the public, to whom his hon. Friend had rendered a useful service by bringing the subject under the notice of the House.
Mr. E. J. Stanleythought the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone went too far, and he was not empowered to state that the whole of the Regent's Park, from the water to the Zoological Gardens, would be thrown open to the public. It was the intention of his noble Friend to throw open a portion of the grass-land between Lord Hertford's villa and the Zoological Gardens; but objections were entertained to opening the park as far as the water at present.
Mr. Wakleywas much obliged to the hon. Member for Wigan for bringing forward the motion, but he thought they were treating the question more lightly than it deserved. The right hon. Baronet who had just sat down had pointed out the importance of forming a park in the eastern part of the town, but he had forgotten to say a word on the question before the House. He had not said a word about a park of which the people were the owners, and from which they were shut out. He thought they ought to give the people a place to which they were entitled before they devised means of creating other parks. It was a serious ground of complaint that the people had been for some time excluded from the greater portion of the Regent's-park. The noble Lord opposite had stated that that park had been originally Marylebone fields, and that it had been enclosed in order to fit it for the reception of the people, but since these villas had been erected, certain favoured individuals had obtained leases, and were not to be disturbed. It was clear, from the tone in which the hon.
962
Under-Secretary of the Treasury had spoken, that some obstacles still existed to making the Regent's-park what Hyde park at present was, where the public could enjoy themselves over every part o it. He hoped that the conversation would not be allowed to drop without any result but that the enormous evil would be redressed. It was quite monstrous that the fastidious feelings of a few persons who rented dwellings round the part should be consulted so far as to exclude the real owners of the property.
Mr. Ewartsaid, that before he tool that step with which he intended to conclude, he wished to obtain from the Government some more explicit statement as to what their views and intentions were He could not feel that he had satisfactorily performed his duty without obtaining a clear understanding on the subject. There were 200 acres of the park from which the public were now excluded; the object of his motion was to have that space thrown open, and unless there were some clear understanding upon that point he should certainly feel it his duty to take the sense of the House.
Mr. E. J. Stanleysaid, he could not state fully and precisely at that moment what might be the views of the head of the department to which the matter belonged, but he really thought the best course would be to leave the subject for the present in the hands of his noble Friend, and if the measures which he took did not prove satisfactory, it would of course be open to the hon. Member for Wigan to bring forward any motion upon the subject which he thought proper at any future time.
Motion withdrawn.

ARMS (IRELAND).
Viscount Morpeth Viscount Morpeth moved the second reading of the Arms (Ireland) Bill.
Mr. Humethought the time had now arrived for putting an end to such bills as the present. They might be all very well in times of anarchy and confusion, but as Ireland was now more free from crime than England he thought there was no necessity for them now. We ought to place confidence in men who behaved well.
Viscount Morpethbelieved that the statement of the hon. Gentleman, with respect to the proportion of crime between the two countries, was correct; but at the

963
same time offences of such a nature were still committed in that country, that he could not recommend to the House to dispense with the renewal of these bills at present.
Bills read a second time.

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES.
Colonel Sibthorpinquired when the civil contingencies and the miscellaneous estimates would be laid on the Table of the House. They had been promised before the recess, and had they been delivered there would have been time for their proper examination. It had been stated by the press that he had been at Nottingham assisting Mr. Walter, whereas he had not left London during the recess, and he wished to have studied the papers. He should oppose the grant to Dr. Bowring.
Mr. Gordonsaid that the estimates would be ready to day or to-morrow. This was the usual time for laying them on the Table of the House.
Adjourned.