Sitting of 18 June 1841

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Court of Chancery.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Villiers, from Districts in the neighbourhood of London, and from places in Herts, and Bucks, by Mr. Callaghan, from Cork, by Mr. Hastie, from different parts of Scotland, by Lord John Russell, from Lambeth, St. George's-in-the-East, and other places in the vicinity of the Metropolis, from Peebles, Dumfermline, Roxburgh, and other parts of Scotland, and by Colonel Evans, from the Tower Hamlets, and neighbouring places, for an Alteration of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. Bethell, from different parts of Yorkshire, by Mr. Round, from Maldon, Essex, by Sir George Clerk, from a place in Berwickshire, and by Colonel Perceval, from Cork, against any Alteration of the Corn-laws.—By Lord John Russell, from various Dissenting bodies in Stroud, and other places in Gloucestershire, for the Admission of Dissenting Ministers to Union Workhouses.—By Mr. Wakley, from James Nelson, a labouring man at Man-
1574
chester, for Reform of Parliament.—By Mr, Hume, from Middlesborough, in favour of the Government propositions. —By Mr. Etwall, from Baptists of Andover, against Church Rates.—By Mr. Etwall, from Ratepayers of Stockbrirtge, Hants, against the Poor-law.

SOUND DUES.
Mr. Huttseeing the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in his place, was anxious to learn from the right hon. Gentleman whether any progress had been made towards effecting a revision of the Sound duties, in accordance with the motion which he had submitted to the House in the month of March last.
Mr. Laboucheretrusted, the answer he was enabled to give to the question put to him by the hon. Member for Hull would be satisfactory to the House, and to the great mercantile interests affected by this question. He was enabled to state, that a protocol had been signed by his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and by the Danish Minister, by which he (Mr. Labouchere) hoped the foundation had been laid which would speedily lead to a satisfactory adjustment of the matter. The protocol had not yet been ratified by the King of Denmark, but he believed it was the intention of his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Department to lay it upon the table of the House, and thus enable hon. Members to see the terms of the arrangement which had been entered into. With regard to the revision of the tariff, commissioners for that purpose would be appointed to proceed immediately with that revision, and he trusted that the whole of this important question would be settled at no distant period.

PUBLIC MONUMENTS—SIR SIDNEY SMITH.
Sir F. Burdettrose to put a question to the noble Lord with reference to a motion which the House would recollect that he had intended to bring before the House upon the erection of a monument to the late Sir Sidney Smith, but which he was prevented from submitting to the House by an assurance that it was the intention of the Government to take tip the subject, and he was willing to leave it in their hands, conceiving them be the fittest persons to conduct the necessary arrangements. He was, however, much surprised and disappointed when he found that amongst the supplies proposed by the Government no grant for such a purpose was mentioned, and, that in fact,

1575
no further notice was taken of the matter. He really had expected that some intimation of carrying out this object would be made by the Government, and he felt the disappointment the more because he was anxious to have said a few words respecting the gallant individual in question, with whom he had been formerly acquainted. Only the night before last he received a note from the noble Lord, stating that it was not the intention of the Government to do anything in the business during the present Session. He believed that there was a concurrent desire on the part of the public that a monument should be erected to the memory of Sir S. Smith, and some explanation of the intentions of Government was due to the House, to the Friends and relations of that gallant person, to the profession of which he was an ornament, to the country at large, and he might be permitted to add, to himself, because he felt that he was in rather an awkward predicament, not knowing what answers to give to those applicants who wished to be in-formed what had become of the project. All he knew at present was, that a promise had been made on the part of the Government, which had not been carried into effect.
Lord John Russellreplied, that he certainly undertook that a sum sufficient for the erection of a monument to Sir Sidney Smith should be provided out of the public funds, if the House of Commons would consent to such a vote; but upon taking the matter further into consideration, the cases of some other officers who had also been engaged in the service of the country, were brought before the Government; and there were two of those cases, which seemed to be of sufficient importance to induce the Government to consider whether, in those instances, as well as in the instance of Sir Sidney Smith, it would not be proper to erect monuments at the public expense. He alluded to Lords Ex-mouth and Saumarez. If the Session had proceeded in the ordinary manner, it was his intention either to have taken out of the civil contingencies, a sum sufficient for the erection of the proposed monuments, or to have obtained the amount by a separate vote in the miscellaneous estimates. The hon. Baronet was, however, aware that an interruption had occurred in the ordinary proceedings of public business; and, for that reason, Government
1576
had thought it better not to bring forward any supplementary estimates, but merely to take those which were necessary for carrying on the public service. Such, indeed, was the understanding of both sides of the House, and it seemed to him the better course, to reserve the application for such a sum, until Parliament met again. He could assure the hon. Baronet, that his opinions in favour of erecting a monument to Sir Sidney Smith had undergone no change, and that the delay in bringing the subject forward had entirely arisen from the peculiar circumstances of the present Session.
Sir F. Burdettunderstood the noble Lord to say, that the delay had occurred, not from any change in his opinion as to the propriety of erecting a monument to Sir Sidney Smith, but from the unlooked-for circumstances which cut short the present Session. The family of Sir Sidney Smith, and the public, might then expect to see the promise of erecting a monument fulfilled, for he understood the noble Lord to say, that he had not given up his intention of taking the matter in hand.
Mr. Humesaid, that the monuments ought to be erected in some place where the public could see them. They had thirty or forty public monuments, which had cost the country upwards of 100,000 l., but to which the public had no access. He hoped, therefore, that in future, no monuments would be placed in a situation to which the people were debarred access, and he trusted the noble Lord would give his attention to this part of the subject.
Conversation at an end.

RAILWAY TRAVELLING.
Lord R. Grosvenor, as we understood, wished to know why passengers were excluded from travelling by certain lines of railroad on which the mails were carried. For instance, persons going to Dublin were obliged to go round by Warrington to Liverpool, while the mails were sent by a shorter route. He wished to know whether the Board of Trade had not the power of remedying the evil.
Mr. Sheilthought that passengers had a right to be conveyed by the shortest route; but he would make enquiry on the subject, and answer the noble Lord on Monday.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid,

1577
the point had been raised in regard to other parts of the country, besides that alluded to by the noble Lord, and he apprehended that, though by law the Government had power to compel railway proprietors to forward the mails, they had no power to oblige them to carry passengers.
The House then adjourned.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Highway Rates. —Read a third time:—Metropolis Improvements; County Bridges; Bribery at Elections.
Petitions presented. By Lord Ashburton, the Duke of Buckingham, the Marquess of Londonderry, the Earl of Aberdeen, the Earl of Haddington, the Earl of Ripon, Viscount Strangford, and the Earl of Harrington, from Norfolk, Great Dunmow, Newtownards, Kirkaldy, Hootham, Coldstream, Canterbury, Surrey, and other places, against any Alteration of the Corn-laws.—By Lord Brougham, from a great many places, against any Grant of Public Money for Church Extension, and for the Abolition of Church Rates.

CORN-LAWS (IRELAND.)
The Marquess of Londonderrypresented a petition from Newtownards, in the county Down, against any alteration of the Corn-laws. In presenting this petition, the noble Marquess begged to call the attention of their Lordships to the facts connected with it, and to the circumstances under which it had been signed. In order that the House might fully understand those circumstances, and might rightly appreciate the value which ought to be attached to this petition, he must inform them that a universal movement had been made in Ulster by the Radicals and Repealers of that district in favour of an alteration of the existing Corn-laws. This movement took place

1567
on Tuesday, the 23rd of May, andher would be right for him to mention a circumstance which would exhibit the description of persons who took a part in this Anti Corn-law agitation, and the nature of such agitation. In almost all the instances, the meetings appeared to have been held at the Roman Catholic chapels, and to have been got up entirely by the priests. Many of the inhabitants of Newtownards, Comber, and its vicinity, gentlemen of wealth and respectability, however, entertaining entirely opposite views, and having no sympathy with the proceedings of these Radical meetings to which he had alluded, were determined to express their sentiments, and to remove from the district the stigma which had been thus attached to it. They accordingly requested Mr. Andrews, his agent, to call a counter-meeting, and at this meeting, attended by all the men of station and property in the neighbourhood, the petition which he now begged to present had been signed. The Newtownards meeting was solely in consequence of a most insignificant gathering in the Roman Catholic chapel, headed by the priest and a small linen draper, backed by a few weavers. All these Radical meetings had been organised and ordered by Mr. O'Connell, and were in absolute subserviency to the Roman Catholic priests. He was bound also to inform their Lordships, that a general requisition from the county of Down had been signed for a public meeting; but it had been abandoned, because the magistrates of the county had been unwilling to excite agitation on so important a subject as a change in the Corn-laws. The feeling throughout the province of Ulster and all the northern parts of Ireland of the respectable farmers and men of station or property, was unanimously opposed to an alteration of the present system. With these remarks he begged to lay upon the Table the petition to which he had called their attention.
The Marquess of Downshirebore testimony to the almost universal feeling which prevailed through the north of Ireland in favour of the present Corn-laws. From his own personal knowledge he could testify to the respectability, and wealth, and station, of the petitioners whose petition the noble Marquess had presented.
Petition laid on the Table.

DRAINAGE AND BUILDINGS.
The Earl of Wicklowwished to ask a question of the noble Marquess opposite, relative to two bills, which, after having been duly considered in their Lordships' House, had been passed, and sent to the other House of Parliament. One of these bills was for the better drainage of towns, the other for the improvement of buildings. He wished to know what had been done with those measures?
The Marquess of Normanbyregretted to state, that the bills had been abandoned, in consequence of the termination of the Session at an earlier period than had been expected. He had, however, one consolation, that it was not his fault, nor did it arise from any want of zeal on the part of the Government, that the bills had not been passed.

PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.
The Marquess of Normanbymoved the resumption of the adjourned debate on the amendments proposed to the abolition of the Punishment of Death Bill, after the third reading.
The Earl of Haddingtonwould not, after the discussion which had taken place, persist in pressing his amendment (for the continuance of capital punishment in cases of rape in which more persons than one were engaged). He, therefore begged leave to withdraw it.
The Earl of Winchilseawas of opinion, that the third clause exempted from the punishment of death the perpetrators of certain crimes that ought to be visited with the heaviest punishment. The crime to which the first part of the clause related, was one which he thought ought especially to remain a subject for capital punishment. He implored their Lordships not to withdraw the punishment of death from a crime so utterly abhorrent to the feelings of human nature. It was to be observed, that a conviction for that crime could not be obtained unless on the clearest and most undoubted evidence. Their Lordships, he was convinced, would do great violence to the moral feelings of a very large class of the community, if they exempted this crime from the punishment of death. He, therefore, moved, that all the words of the 3rd clause from the word "that" in the fifth line to the word "felon" in the seventh line be omitted.
The Marquess of Normanbywas glad that the noble Earl had proposed his

1569
amendment with so much brevity, because one of the worst things their Lordships could do was to enter into a discussion on an amendment of this kind. He thought there was some difficulty in dealing with this offence. Retaining the capital punishment, prosecution would in many instances be nugatory, and if they commuted the punishment to transportation for life, that would necessarily imply communion of the offenders with other prisoners, which would be highly improper; at the same time he should be ready to bow to the opinion of the House in this matter.—Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Winchilseaagain rose to move the other amendment of which he had given notice. His object was, to keep the law in its present state. If the capital punishment in cases of rape were remitted, he very much feared the offence would alarmingly increase. He therefore begged leave to move, that the clause be omitted.
The Marquess of Normanbydefended the clause. If capital punishment were retained, the convictions would be greatly diminished. He hoped their Lordships would not be induced to depart from the principle of this clause, which they had already affirmed in a very full House.
Lord Ashburtonthought the commutation of the capital punishment would secure conviction where the offence had been committed, whereas the retention of the extreme penalty would in many cases not only prevent prosecution, but interfere with conviction.
The Earl of Wicklowwas favourable to the amendment. He admitted, that the reasonings of the law lords the other evening in favour of the clause would have been extremely cogent if they had been founded on fact, but he denied that such was the case. He could not agree that the paucity of convictions arose from an impression in the public mind, that the punishment was at all disproportioned to the offence. It arose entirely from the peculiarity of the proof in each case.
Their Lordships divided on the question that the clause stand part of the bill:— Contents 64; Not-Contents 60: Majority 4.
The Earl of Wicklowhoped, that the noble Marquess would extend the operation of this bill to Ireland.
The Marquess of Normanbyreplied, that it was his intention to extend it, at
1570
the earliest period, both to Ireland and, Scotland.
Bill passed.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN BOROUGHS.
On the motion of the Marquess of Normanby, the Criminal Justice in Boroughs Bill was read a second time. The Standing Orders were suspended, and it was moved the House go into committee on the bill.
The Earl of Wiltonobjected to the bill proceeding in its present state, his object being to exempt Manchester from its operation. He therefore objected to the motion that the bill go into committee. The reason why he proposed this was, that the clerk of the peace of Manchester had had no compensation given to him, and this bill would therefore inflict great injustice on him.
The Earl of Warwickwould consent to this exemption, as it would not endanger the bill, as it was a good bill as far as it concerned Warwickshire.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, when this bill had been brought forward on a former occasion a complaint,had been made, that certain officers whose offices were to be put an end to by the bill had not had compensation, and it was agreed that the bill should stand over in order that compensation might be given and a bill brought into the House of Commons for that purpose. The House of Commons had given compensation in two instances, but had refused it in the case of Manchester. Their Lordships having previously allowed the bill to stand over till compensation was granted, and that having been refused as to Manchester, it appeared to him that this bill ought not to pass as regarded Manchester. The bill applied to various boroughs, and if they left out the borough of Manchester there would be no hardship as to rates on the other boroughs, as the charges relating to Manchester would be left out.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that if the noble Lord pressed his amendment, he would decidedly endanger the passing of the bill. He thought if they exempted Manchester from the operation of the bill, a heavier rate must fall on other places. It would in fact, transfer the payment of the rates from one party to another.
The Marquess of Salisburymust object to the manner in which the noble Marquess was pressing on this bill.
The Marquess of Normanbydenied, that he was pressing this bill at all improperly upon the House. It had been for a considerable time under discussion in the other House, as well as in that of their Lordships, and came up now in its due course from the House of Commons.
Viscount Duncannonsaid, he did not know how they could leave out Manchester from the operation, so as to render the measure efficient or satisfactory.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he was certain that the noble Lord opposite could not be aware of the great inconvenience which would be produced in Manchester and elsewhere if the amendment were to be carried. It would, in fact, be impossible for him to overstate the serious consequences which would then arise, and the great confusion which it would cause in those places. He begged to inform the noble Lord that it was to the clerk of the peace, and the clerk of the peace only, that compensation was to be granted. He would hope, that under all these circumstances, the noble Lord would not endanger the bill itself, by pressing his amendment to a division.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, their Lordships were perhaps not aware of the extensive objects of this bill to facilitate the administration of the criminal law in all the new boroughs. They could not proceed to the administration of justice without the assistance of this bill. The bill had come before the House, and objections had been made that certain persons supposed to be entitled to compensation were not provided for; and to a certain extent the clerk of the peace of the Duchy of Lancaster appeared to be entitled to compensation. There were other claims also, and it was clear that their Lordships would not support the measure without such provision. But their Lordships could not introduce this provision, and they had suspended the proceedings on the bill, in order to see what the House of Commons would do as to compensation. The case of the individual that the noble Earl advocated was subjected to discussion in the House of Commons, and that House decided against the claim. Their Lordships had been in the habit of considering that compensation was not a subject for the jurisdiction of that (the Lords) House, and the question now, therefore, was whether the House of Commons were competent to decide that ques-
1572
tion; and, having decided that this individual was not entitled to any compensation, whether their Lordships would deny to all these borough towns the benefit of this act, in order to compel the House of Commons to grant this compensation. The party having failed this Session in obtaining compensation, was not at all precluded from making another attempt in the House of Commons next Session.
Lord Broughamreminded noble Lords that this had not been treated as any party question by the other House of Parliament, as it appeared that Sir Robert Peel as well as Lord John Russell had voted against any compensation. In mentioning this fact, he only spoke in vindication of the course which the other House had thought proper to pursue upon this subject.
The Earl of Wiltonhaving pressed his motion, the House divided on the question that the bill be committed—Contents 32: Not Contents 32.
The numbers being equal, the contents carried the motion, in conformity with the practice of the House.
House in committee.
The Earl of Wiltonthen moved a proviso to the effect, "that nothing in the act should be construed as affecting the borough of Manchester."
The Marquess of Normanbyobserved, that the effect of the proviso, if carried, would be to defeat the bill.
The House again divided on the proviso—Contents 31 i Not Contents 32: Majority 1.
Bill passed through committee and was reported.

DOG CARTS.
The Earl of Chichestermoved the committal of the Dog Carts Bill.
Lord Portmanopposed the bill, as he did not see the necessity of extending the operations of such a measure into the rural districts; and in the large towns it would not be necessary, as the Municipal Corporations Act would enable the authorities of those places to forbid dogcarts by by-laws if they thought proper. Yet, of all those towns, the only one that had made a by-law against dog-carts was Oxford, probably in order that the riding of the students should not be impeded. But he objected to the bill on principle, as it was excessively severe, for it would be a great hardship to fine a baker, for in-

1573
stance, who might have a dog under his cart, while he went to serve his customers. As for hydrophobia there were no grounds whatever for assuming that this bill would tend to check that terrible malady, for he would ask the noble Lord whether he could state, as a fact proved by experience in this or any other country, that hydrophobia had been caused by over-working clogs? Further, the whole structure of the bill was absurd: for instance, it would make the person working a dog in a cart guilty of misdemeanor; now misdemeanor was an indictable offence, and yet a subsequent clause ordered that the misdemeanant should be carried before a justice of the peace. He moved as an amendment, that the bill be committed that day three months.
The Earl of Wicklowobserved that in the former stage there was not a single dissentient, for humanity strongly demanded that dogs should be rescued from the brutal treatment we had long seen inflicted upon them by their inhuman masters. He therefore hoped his noble Friend would not persevere in his opposition.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, it would be most cruel to fine a baker, as this bill proposed, who should leave a dog to take care of his cart while he went to' serve a customer. He thought this was going too far. However, he would support the general principle of protecting dogs from the cruelty of their masters.
The Marquess of Normanbysuggested to his noble Friend the propriety of postponing the further progress of this measure until next Session.
Bill postponed.—Adjourned.