Sitting of 28 January 1841

Preamble
The House only met for the purpose of going in procession to Buckingham Palace, to present the Address to her Majesty, in answer to the Speech from the Throne.

MINUTES.
NEW PEER.—Earl Somers took his Seat on the death of his Father.
Bills. Read a first time:—Copyhold Enfranchisement.

ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
The Lord Chancellorannounced to the House that the Lords appointed to present the Address of the House to her Majesty had waited on her Majesty accordingly, and that her Majesty had been graciously pleased to return the following answer;—
"MY LORDS,
"I thank you for your loyal and affectionate address. I entirely rely upon your assistance in the maintenance of the best interests of the country, in the preservation of peace, and the promotion of the general welfare of my people."
Answer to be entered upon the journals of the House.

TRIAL OF THE EARL OF CARDIGAN.
The Lord Chancellorhad to inform their Lordships that he had felt it his duty to hold a communication with Mr. Justice Bosanquet, who presided as senior judge at a recent sitting of the Central Criminal Court, upon a matter connected with certain proceedings which had taken place respecting a Member of their Lordships' House. He had received from Mr. Justice Bosanquet the following answer:—
"Montague-place, Jan. 28, 1841.
"My Lord—In answer to your Lordship's inquiry respecting the proceeding at the Central Criminal Court, in the case of the Karl of Cardigan, in October last: I have the honour to acquaint your Lordship, that an indictment having been found by the grand jury against the Earl of Cardigan for feloniously shooting, with a loaded pistol, at Harvey Garnell Phipp Tuckett, with intent to murder, to maim, and disable him, and to do him grievous bodily harm against the form of the statute in that case made and provided, Mr. Adolphus (as counsel for the Earl) moved the court to direct, that the recognizances of the Earl and his sureties for his appearance at the Central Criminal Court might be respited to the ensuing sessions, on the ground, that the Earl being a Peer could not be tried in that court, whereupon it was ordered, that the recognizances should be respited accordingly, to afford an opportunity of removing the indictment to be tried before a proper tribunal, either of the Lord High Steward, or of the [Souse of Peers. I have further ascertained by inquiry of the clerk of arraigns, that similar orders have been made at each subsequent sessions for the respite of the recognizances. —I have the honour to be, my Lord, your Lordship's obedient servant.
J. B. BOSANQUET."
"The right hon. the Lord High Chancellor."
Their Lordships being thus, by the authority of the judge before whom the question arose, put into possession of a knowledge of the facts, it was for their Lordships to say, whether they thought it right, that the course which had been adopted in all similar cases should be adopted on the present occasion, and that

137
would be for their Lordships to appoint a committee to inquire into the course of proceeding which it would be proper for the House to pursue upon the information laid before them. If it should meet the pleasure of their Lordships, he would propose that a committee be appointed. He found, upon consulting the journals of the House, that the practice in cases of this sort had not been uniform. Sometimes Peers had been individually selected to form a committee, but in the majority of cases the committee consisted of all Peers who had attended during the existing session. This was the course adopted in the last case of a similar nature that came before that House. His Lordship then moved, that a committee be appointed, consisting of all Peers who had attended during the present Session, to inspect the journals of the House with respect to the trials of Peers in criminal cases, and to report thereupon.
Motion agreed to, Committee to meet on Monday.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
The Earl of Haddingtoncalled the attention of the House to the unhappy dissensions that had so long prevailed in the Church of Scotland, and to the position in which the civil court and the church courts stood towards each other. He wished to ask the noble Viscount opposite whether it was the intention of Government to introduce any measure with a view to allay the prevailing heats and animosities, and to produce, as much as any legislative measure could effect that object, a settlement of the question; or whether, being satisfied with the existing state of the law, seeing no ground for alteration, and being determined that the law should have its full effect, and that those who obeyed it should receive protection, the Government thought it better to make no application to Parliament for any change of the law?
Viscount Melbourneentirely agreed with the noble Earl as to the great importance of this question. He could assure the noble Earl that Government had given the most serious consideration to the question, and having done so, he must say, that he was not prepared to bring in any measure at present to alter the law respecting the Church of Scotland.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that as
138
the noble Viscount was disposed to leave the law as it stood, he wished to ask him if he was equally disposed to see the law effectually administered for the protection of those who were determined to obey it?
Viscount Melbourne: That is a matter of course.
The Earl of Haddingtonwas exceedingly glad to hear the noble Viscount say so; but from the nature of the discussions that had taken place, and from all the circumstances of the case, he thought it was impossible that the question could be brought to a satisfactory termination without the intervention of Parliament.
House adjourned.