Sitting of 3 May 1841

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Turnpike Roads.—Read a third time:—Dublin Wide Streets.
Petitions presented. By Lord Castlereagh, from the Remonstrant Synod of Ulster, in favour of the Total Abolition of the Punishment of Death.—By Sir R. Inglis, Mr. Plumptre, Mr. Neeld, Colonel Sibthorp, Mr. Kemble, and others, from Stafford, Torquay, places in Lincolnshire, Surrey, Wiltshire, and other counties, for Church Extension.—By Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Mark Phillips, Mr. W. Evans, Mr. E. Buller, Mr. Baines,.Sir G. Strickland, and others, from Bury, London, Saddleworth, and a great

1403
many other places, for a Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Sir R. Inglis, from a place in York, and Colonel Verner, from Armagh, against Maynooth.—By Captain Douglas, from the Board of Guardians of Brentford, against certain parts of the Poor-law.—By Mr. W. O. Stanley, from a place in Anglesea, for the Repeal of the Poor-law.—By Sir W. Somerville, from Drogheda, against Lord Stanley's Irish Registration Bill.—By Mr. E. Buller, and Mr. A. Sandford, from several places, against Church Rates.

RESIGNATIONS.
Colonel Sibthorpwished to ask the noble Lord opposite whether it were true, as reported at the west end of the town, that the hon. Member for Windsor had resigned the situation that he held under the Government? and next, whether it were the intention of the noble Lord to bring forward the civil contingencies that evening?
Lord John Russellsaid, that he should not answer the first question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman; and, with respect to the civil contingencies, he said that it was not his intention to proceed with them that evening.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. Smith O'Brienwished to ask the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), whether it was his intention to proceed with his Registration of Voters Bill on Wednesday next?
Lord Stanleysaid, it was riot his intention to proceed with the bill on Wednesday. He should, for the present, postpone it for a fortnight, and he should take care that Gentlemen, on both sides of the House, should have ample notice of the time when he intended to bring it forward.
Bill postponed.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—" MORNING CHRONICLE."
Mr. Hundleyrose, he said, for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the case of a breach of privilege. He could not have supposed it possible, that any occasion could have arisen on which he could have felt justified in attempting to occupy their attention on a matter that was merely personal to himself; but when he was made the object of misrepresentation, as gross and unjustifiable as it was calculated to prejudice him out of doors, he had no other means of defence left to him but to throw himself on the kindness and indulgence of the House. It would be in the recollection of many hon. Members, that on Friday last, the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire had thought fit to make some re-
1404
marks savouring, as he thought, to use the hon. Member's own expression, of an election clap-trap, which affected both his noble Colleague and himself; and, on that occasion, he himself had stated that whenever the Corn-law should be under discussion, he should be prepared to meet it, and that the interests of Lincolnshire would not be neglected by his noble Friend or himself; and he further said, that from whatever quarter the subject was presented, he should, when called upon, be found to do his duty, to his constituents, and to the public. These were, he believed, the precise words, and the only words that he had used. The House would, therefore, judge of his surprise upon reading the Morning Chronicle of the next morning; and, although he did not wish to say anything Unpleasant, it was a paper that seemed disposed to misrepresent, more or less, all Gentlemen on his side of the House, except the hon. Member for Leicester; but, he said, to his surprise, he found himself reported to have made these observations:—
"Mr. Handley approved of the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had mentioned the Corn-laws, and said, that when the proper time came, he should be quite ready to second the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with the various details of this important subject."

Laughter.
This might be laughing matter for hon. Gentlemen; but he thought that he need not declare to hon. Members who were present on the occasion, that not one single sentence here attributed to him had fallen from his lips. He said nothing from which such an opinion could be inferred. He entertained no such opinion, and he did not hesitate to say, that not only did he not approve of the mode in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced the subject of the Corn-laws, and so far was he from being ready to second the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with the various details of this important subject, that he was determined, if it depended upon his vote, not to afford him the opportunity of considering it at all. There was no man more willing than himself to allow for the onerous duties of gentlemen connected with the press, who reported the proceedings of that House; though, on most occasions, they sedulously took care not to report him at all, and, in doing so, no doubt they exercised that which was a sound discretion. When re-

1405
marks had been made by him before, that had been mistaken, he had thought it sufficient to request that the same columns that had conveyed the mistake ought also to convey the correction. But he thought and hon. Members would agree with him in thinking, that it would be no reparation to him that the Morning Chronicle should offer him a small corner in its columns to contradict such a misrepresentation as this. He thought the antidote ought to be conveyed through the same channels by which the poison had been infused. It was well known that the reports of the morning papers were conveyed into the London evening, and the provincial papers, and it might be somewhat difficult for him to give his correction to the world, otherwise than by the mode he had adopted, although even then it might be doubted whether the correction would be conveyed to his nine thousand constituents, spread over a million of acres. It must be obvious to every one that the announcement of his right hon. Friend below him had placed him in a situation, not of difficulty—for an honest man had but one course to pursue—but of laying him for a time under a cloud and suspicion. He could not but feel that a representation like this could not have originated in inadvertence or mistake. It was painful to him to attribute motives, but he was at a loss to know why so gross an injustice should be done to him. He was quite sure that no hon. Member opposite would avail himself of such dirty means to injure him. He was inclined to think that whoever represented the words to the Morning Chronicle thought that some little advantage might be obtained to carry out the principle that they advocated, by having it in their power to show that the opinions of so humble an individual as himself, representing a large agricultural district, had undergone a change. Such was not the case. It was enough for him to say, that it was not the case. He felt that he must leave the matter entirely in the hands of the House. He felt grateful for the indulgence it had afforded him in making this statement; but he would only observe, that what had happened lo him to-day, might happen to other hon. Members to-morrow. If they thought it was for their advantage, and the vindication of the privileges of the House, and for free discussion, that further notice should be taken, the matter was in their hands. It
1406
only remained for him, in the common form to move, that the printer of the Morning Chronicle do appear at the bar of this House.
Mr. Humesubmitted to the hon. Member—
The formal order was read, that "Thomas Nicholson do attend at the bar of the House."
Lord J. Russellsuggested, that it would be better lo have the paragraph that had been complained of read.
The Clerk read the paragraph at the Table of the House.
Mr. Humehaving been present when the hon. Member spoke on Friday night, could confirm the accuracy of his statement as to the words that fell from him on that occasion, and also say, that the paper did not contain a report of his words; but totally misrepresented him. But admitting such to be the case, he put it to the hon. Member whether he had not served his object in giving publicity to his denial, and refuting the charge that had been made against him. He put it to the hon. Member whether he would take up the time of the House in bringing editors or printers before it. He would submit to the hon. Member, that at a time like the present this should not be done. He trusted that the hon. Member would be satisfied with the vindication which he had now so amply obtained.
Sir De Lacy Evansdeclared that he was perfectly surprised that his hon. Friend below him should have brought forward this matter. Humble as he was, he had been often very much misrepresented, and yet he never had the presumption to intrude upon the House on any occasion. He could not suppose that any one would believe that the Morning Chronicle would intentionally misrepresent the hon. Member. It was evidently done through mistake. He must say that it really appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman seemed to desire to make an electioneering speech; for he had not contented himself with correcting the mistake of which he complained, but he had in very formidable terms declared his opposition to her Majesty's Government. He did not think that, in correcting an error, the hon. Member should have shown a bad example to other Members; because other Members might, on the eve of an election, deliver themselves of electioneering speeches, by making similar motions.
Mr. Handleysaid, in reference to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member behind him, when he talked of his not having had the presumption to introduce such a subject, he could only say that it was not his good fortune to be possessed of the hon. and gallant officer's modesty. The hon. and gallant Member might get a meeting of his constituents at the "Cat and Gridiron," or any where else, on any evening he pleased; but the hon. and gallant Member would find it a tedious and difficult matter to go through the constituency of Lincolnshire, in order to set himself right with them. The hon. and gallant Member might moreover have so many strong and overwhelming claims upon his constituents, as to induce them to overlook such a dereliction of duty as he was represented to have been guilty of. He could tell the hon. and gallant Member that he did not, and he thought he might add that the House did not, participate in the feelings which had induced the hon. and gallant Member to interfere on the present occasion. He had, according to the forms of the House, concluded with a motion; but as he was quite satisfied that the only reparation he could obtain, at all commensurate with the injury done, had now been afforded, he begged leave to withdraw it, thanking the House for their patient attention.
Motion withdrawn.

CORN-LAWS.
Lord John Russell, in reply to a question proposed to him by an hon. Member on the Opposition benches, said that he did state the other night that he would be prepared on Friday next to state the amount of duty that he proposed to fix on corn. He should be ready to do so.

SUGAR DUTIES.
Viscount Sandonsaid, that on Friday night, previous to the House going into Committee of Ways and Means, for the purpose of fixing the duties on sugar, he meant to propose a resolution, by which the sense of the House might be taken in opposition to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman; and he would take an early opportunity of apprising the House of the words of the resolution.
Lord J. Russellunderstood the noble Lord would propose a resolution in opposition to the proposition of his right hon. Friend.
Viscount Sandonmeant to propose a resolution, by which the sense of the House might be taken in opposition to the proposition of the Goverment.
Sir R. H. Inglishoped, that in the resolution, words would be introduced declaring against this country having anything to do with slave-grown sugar.
Subject at an end.

PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.
House in Committee on the Punishment of Death Bill.
On the second clause being read,
"Wilfully and maliciously setting fire to any of her Majesty's ships, arsenals, dock-yards, &c. &c):—If any person shall be convicted of any of the said offences, such person shall not be subject to any sentence, judgment, or punishment of death, but shall, instead thereof, be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be transported beyond the seas for the term of the natural life of such person, or for any term not less than seven years, or to be imprisoned for any time not exceeding three years,"
Lord J. Russellsaid, he could not consent to the clause as amended. He thought it would be a most dangerous act to abolish the punishment of death in cases where persons were convicted of setting fire to her Majesty's dockyard in time of war.
Sir R. H. Inglisentirely concurred with the noble Lord's objection. When a similar proposition was made to the House, he (Sir R. H. Inglis) opposed it on the same ground, and the justice of his view with regard to the paramount necessity of protecting the property of the Crown was, he thought, confirmed by the attempt which was made, two months afterwards, to set fire to one of her Majesty's dockyards.
Viscount Dungannonalso took the same view. He approved of the mitigation of crimes to which capital punishments had been hitherto applied, but he thought if the Legislature, from motives of mistaken clemency, were to proceed much farther, they would make a most fatal inroad on the security of life and property in this country.
Mr. Humethought the noble Lord was bound to show that a further diminution of the application of capital punishments would have the effect he apprehended before the committee could be expected to share in those apprehensions. Did the hon. Gentleman who opposed the clause mean to say that protection to life and property had been in a degree taken away

1409
by the humane enactments that had already passed, abolishing nine-tenths of our capital punishments? He, on the contrary, thought that taking away the life of a fellow-creature did not tend to the prevention of crime;—this was his conviction, founded on long and close observation. He admitted it was essential to the public safety that the property of the Crown should be effectually protected, but life should not be sacrificed as a punishment for its destruction, any more than for the destruction of private property; or, if any difference should be made, it ought to be for a severer punishment for those who destroyed the property of poor and helpless individuals. As to the moral effects of an execution in public, a shocking spectacle that took place since they last met must have proved that the approach of the punishment of death would have no terrors for a desperate individual, and that the ignominious ceremonies of the gallows were merely treated by the mob as exhibitions to be laughed at. These brutalising scenes had no certain effect but to harden the hearts of criminals and spectators, and knowing this to be the fact, he thought it high time that they should now be altogether done away with, and, therefore, he gave his most hearty concurrence to the clause, and he thought that the noble Lord was bound either to join them in agreeing to the clause, or to prove that the punishment of death was a protection to life and property.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, had made a mistake in calling capital punishment the strongest arm of the Jaw for the prevention of crime. The question was, was it the strongest arm of the law? In his opinion that arm of the law was in reality the stronger which acted with a more speedy and certain result, and undoubtedly secondary punishments being inflicted with certainty when capital ones might be evaded, the former were more likely to terrify offenders, and to prevent the commission of crime. The noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman talked of the necessity of the present statute to prevent persons from setting fire to dockyards, but the recent attempt proved that the present law did not prevent that crime. Why was it that capital punishments did not check crime? Because they were generally regarded as too severe, according to the calculations of men of human-
1410
ity, and this feeling was now becoming universal with the public. If, then, the legislature continued to brutalise society by accustoming it to ignominious capital punishment, a hardened class of men would still be created, who seeing human life destroyed by the law, would also disregard the destruction of human life themselves. In fact the spectacles of capital punishment would make criminals value their own lives less, and would in some degree familiarise them with the commission of murder. The right hon. Baronet said, if this clause were adopted, what punishment would remain for persons convicted of setting fire to ships in the face of an enemy? Why this would be high treason, and the crime would come under the statute providing for that offence. His opinion was, that the punishment of death ought to be altogether abolished, but in the case supposed by the right hon. Baronet, it would be still punishable by capital punishment under the present bill. He trusted the House would continue to legislate in that spirit of humanity that distinguished the present day. Thus the efficacy of the secondary punishment being certain, would be increased. And the nature of the highest degree of secondary punishment was by no means light. They had heard in the evidence of medical witnesses that prolonged periods of imprisonment tended to the death of the criminal, for they were in effect sentences of death, though the period of their execution was spread over a long period of time. The abolition of the present capital code would prevent the horrible possibility of the execution of innocent men. They had heard of the recent case of a wretched man, who died with every appearance of contrition, but at the last solemn moment solemnly calling upon the God who was about to judge him that he was innocent of the crime for which he was just going to be executed. He would not dwell upon the circumstance, that the judge before whom that man was tried procured more convictions than other judges; but when the fact of this probability got abroad that a man was more likely to be hanged if he were tried before one judge, and would have a better chance of escape if he were tried before another, it must induce criminal men to venture on a sort of game of hazard, calculating the chance of escape on the possibility of being tried before one judge rather than another, and so attack-

1411
ing or sparing life according to the impression made upon them. One great reason, then, for abolishing the punishment of death should arise from the defectiveness of tribunals, through the fallibility natural to man. Let the House lessen the danger attending this fallibility, and judges would at least escape the responsibility of sentencing, by mistake, innocent men to death. And as, upon the showing of other hon. Gentlemen, the effect of the mitigation already enacted had not been to augment but to diminish crimes, he thought that justice as well as humanity encouraged them to proceed in the work of bloodless legislation. The Acts of Parliament awarding capital punishment must be mitigated—indeed they had been already greatly modified by the humanity of judges and juries.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourdhoped the clause would pass into a law. He entirely concurred with his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, and differed from the hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Oxford. However he did not concur in the apprehension of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, with respect to some recent cases, especially that of Misters. He (Mr. Sergeant Talfourd) was convinced that that criminal, though persisting in declaring his innocence to the last, was guilty of the crime for which he had been indicted. He was at Shrewsbury at the time of the trial, though not professionally, and there was no doubt on his mind that Misters was properly convicted, if not properly executed. There could be no doubt of the justice of the verdict; but in cases of that kind the sympathy of the public went with the sufferer, and not with the law; for if Misters had been sentenced to transportation for life, instead of to hanging, no one would have protested against the severity of his doom. The fact was, the punishment of death threw a sort of sanclity around the memory of the sufferer who was suddenly sent into eternity, and in the contemplations associated with the awful transit from this life into the other an interest was naturally created in behalf of the criminal. But such feelings would end with the capital punishment, and in most cases the operation of the law would be supported by the concurrence of the public.
Mr. Ewartsaid, if the legislature con-
1412
tinued capital punishments, it would also continue that uncertainty which now gave a hope of impunity or acquittal to a criminal; whereas secondary punishments contributed to deter of. fenders by their certainty. From these feelings of humanity, and other causes which had been just alluded to, it appeared that executions, on the contrary, tended to a greater number of acquittals in subsequent cases. He begged leave to read to the House an interesting document drawn up by Mr. Wrightson, which would explain the relative effects of capital and secondary punishments. The hon. Gentleman read the following document:—
"PROOFS OF THE TENDENCY OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT TO PRODUCE IMPUNITY.
"If the convictions for the following crimes, from the year 1810 down to the end of the year in which the law was mitigated in each case, had been in the same proportion to the commitments that they have been since, they would have exceeded the actual number convicted
by 215 for Forgery.
—103—Horse-stealing.
—237—Sheep-stealing.
—363—Stealing in dwelling-house.
—29—Coining.
—423—Housebreaking.
—1,101—Robbery.
—1,064—Burglary.
—393—Attempts to murder, &c.
—168—Arson and other wilful burning.
4,096 Total.
"The total number executed for the above crimes from the year 1810 down to the mitigation of the law was 1,242, so that every execution appears to have produced rather more than three acquittals. The executions for each crime separately were as follows:

Forgery

221

Horse-stealing

68

Sheep-stealing

74

Stealing in a dwelling-house

52

Coining

13

Burglary

308

Robbery

268

Attempts to murder, &c.

101

Arson and other wilful burning

104

Housebreaking

55

Total

1,264

If we compare the number executed for each crime with the additional number who would have been convicted if the juries had convicted in the same proportion 'before' as they have done 'since' the mitigation of the law, we shall arrive at the impunity produced by capital punishment in each particular case as follows:

1413
"Forgery.—The executions were 221, and the impunity produced 215; so that every execution led to nearly one acquittal.
"Horse-stealing.—Executions 68, impunity produced 103; so that every execution led to more than one acquittal.
"Sheep-stealing.—Executions 74, impunity produced 237; so that each execution led to three acquittals.
"Stealing in a dwelling-house.—Executions 52, impunity produced 363 so that each execution led to seven acquittals.
"Coining.—Executions 13, impunity produced 29; so that each execution led to two acquittals.
"Burglary.—Executions 308, impunity produced, 1,064; so that each execution led to three acquittals.
Robbery.—Executions 268, impunity produced 1,101; so that each execution led to four acquittals.
"Attempts to murder, &c.—Executions 101, impunity produced 393: so that each execution led to nearly four acquittals.
"Arson, &c.—Executions 104, impunity produced 168; so that each execution led to more than one acquittal.
"Housebreaking.-—Executions 55, impunity produced 423; so that each execution led to seven acquittals.
Thus it appeared, said the hem. Member, that facts and figures, as well as humanity, were against the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman, and he hoped, therefore, they might be induced to reconsider the conclusions they had come to.
Viscount Dungannonexplained, and repented his opinion that a farther mitigation of the capital code would be dangerous to the safety of life and property. As for the case of Misters, his noble Friend near him had been on the grand jury which found the bill against the prisoner, and it was quite impossible to come to any other decision, so strong was the evidence they had received. Great modifications had already been made in the punishment of forgery, stealing from dwelling-houses, sheep-stealing, horse-stealing. He rejoiced at the mitigation; but if this were extended to the malefactor who set a house on fire, or committed murder, or wounded with intent to kill, a most dangerous encouragement would be held out by the House of Commons to the desperate characters who infested the country.
Mr. W. Rochesupported the clause, contending that the uncertainty of capital punishments encouraged desperate characters.
The Committee divided on the question that the clause as amended stand part of
1414
the bill.—Ayes 110; Noes 122: Majority 12.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lennox, Lord A.

Alford, Viscount

Lister, E. C.

Alston, R.

Litton, E.

Archbold, R.

Lushington, C.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Lushinglon, rt. hn. S.

Baines, E.

Marsland, H.

Barron, H. W.

Milnes, R. M.

Barry, G. S.

Morris, D.

Beamish, F. B.

Muntz, G. F.

Bethell, R.

Murray, A.

Blackburne, I.

Muskett, G. A.

Blake, M. J.

Nagle, Sir R.

Bodkin, J. J.

O'Brien, W. S.

Bridgeman, H.

O'Connell, D.

Briscoe, J. I.

O'Connell, J.

Broadley, H.

O'Connell, M.

Brotherton, J.

Paget, Colonel

Bruges, W. H. L.

Pattison, J.

Buller, E.

Pease, J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Pechell, Captain

Castlereagh, Viscount

Plumptre, J. P.

Cayley, E. S.

Power, J.

Chichester, Sir B.

Protheroe, E.

Currie, R.

Rice, E. R.

Dennistoun, J.

Roche, E. B.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.

Roche, W.

Round, J.

Divett, E.

Salwey, Colonel

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Scholefield, J.

Duncombe, T.

Smith, B.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Smythe, hon. G.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Ellice, E.

Stansfteld, W. R. C.

Fielden, J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Fenton, J.

Style, Sir C.

Ferguson, Colonel

Talbot, J. H.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Talfourd, Mr. Serg.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Tancred, H. W.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Thornely, T.

Fort, J.

Turner, E.

Godson, R.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Greig, D.

Waddington, H. S.

Hall, Sir B.

Wakley, T.

Hawes, B.

Wall, C. B.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Wallace, R.

Hinde, J. H.

Warburton, H.

Hindley, C.

Ward, H. G.

Hobhouse, T. B.

White, A.

Hodgson, R.

Wilbraham, G.

Hoskins, K.

Williams, W.

Hughes, W. B.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Hume, J.

Winnington, H. J.

Hutt, W.

Wood, B.

Hutton, R.

Yates, J. A.

Jones, J.

TELLERS.

Langdale, hon. C.

Kelly, F.

Leader, J. T.

Ewarl, W.

List of the NOES.

Acheson, Viscount

Bagge, W.

A'Court, Captain

Bagot, hon. W.

Adam, Admiral

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Attwood, M.

Baring, H. B.

1415

Barrington, Viscount

Lygon, hon. General

Bell, M.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Bewes, T.

Mahon, Viscount

Blake, W. J.

Marsland, T.

Botfield, B.

Martin, J.

Bowes, J.

Morgan, C. M. R.

Brabazon, Lord

Morgan, O.

Brodie, W. B.

Noel, hon. C. G.

Bruce, Lord E.

Norreys, Lord

Buck, L. W.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Buller, C.

Pakington, J. S.

Burrell, Sir C.

Palmer, G.

Busfield, W.

Parker, J.

Byng, G.

Parker, R. T.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Calcraft, J. H.

Pigot, rt. hon. D.

Campbell, Sir J.

Pinney, W.

Clay, W.

Polhill, F.

Clive, E. B.

Rawdon, Col. J. D.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Collier, J.

Richards, R.

Conolly, E.

Rickford, W.

Dalmeny, Lord

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Darby, G.

Round, C. G.

Darlington, Earl of

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Dunbar, G.

Russell, Lord J.

Eliot, Lord

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Estcourt, T.

Sheil, right hon. R. L.

Evans, W.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Fellowes, E.

Slaney, R. A.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Smith, J. A.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Somerset, Lord G.

Gillon, W. D.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Gladstone, W. E.

Sotheron, T. E.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Stanley, E.

Grey, rt. hon Sir G.

Stanley, Lord

Grimsditch, T.

Steuart, R.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Stuart, W. V.

Guest, Sir J.

Stock, Mr. Serg.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Strutt, E.

Harcourt, G. G.

Surrey, Earl of

Hawkes, T.

Teignmouth, Lord

Hawkins, J. H.

Townley, R. G.

Herbert, hon. S.

Trotter, J.

Heron, Sir R.

Tufnell, H.

Hodgson, F.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Horsman, E.

Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R. H.

Houldsworth, T.

Walter, J.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Wemyss, Captain

Howick, Viscount

White, L.

Hurt, F.

White, S.

Ingestre, Viscount

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Irving, J.

Wood, C.

Kemble, H.

Worsley, Lord

Law, hon. C. E.

TELLERS.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Dungannon, Viscount

Lowther, hon. Col.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Clause rejected.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4, (Unnatural crimes, rape, &c. "Any person convicted of any of the said offences not to be subject to the punishment of death, but to be transported beyond the seas for the term of the natural life of such person;—
Question being put,
Sir C. Douglasproposed the following addition:
"That in cases of rape, and of unlawfully and carnally knowing and abusing any girl under the age of 10 years, whenever either of the said offences shall be committed by any two or more persons, and such person or persons shall be convicted of either of the said offences, such person or persons so convicted shall be subject to the sentence of death, and shall suffer death, as in and by the said statute of the 9th year of the reign of his late Majesty George 4th is provided."
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that that was a clause of great importance and very difficult to deal with. The offence of rape was the most atrocious crime in some cases, while in other cases, although the offence might be in a legal sense committed, no one would think of inflicting the capital punishment. He had devoted a great deal of his attention to the question to see if he could define a particular species of this offence, for which it would be right for the safeguard op society still to retain the capital punishment; but he had altogether failed in the attempt, and had come, therefore, to the conclusion, that it would be better to take away the punishment of death in all cases. He did not think the amendment now proposed would be of any avail; for it would still leave the offence undefined. Suppose a common prostitute violated without her consent by three or four men that would be rape in construction of the law; but no judge would leave that man, if convicted, for execution. He thought, therefore, that if they changed the law at all, they should abolish the punishment altogether.
Sir R. Inglisthought, that hon. Gentlemen should consider this question very seriously before they came to the conclusion which the hon. and learned Gentleman recommended by his example. What punishment would they think the ruffian deserved who should ill-use one of their daughters, or any one dear to them. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had said, that long imprisonment was lingering death, and much more cruel in its effect than hanging? Would it not be more humane, then, to punish with speedy death than to protract the suffering of a culprit? He thought it would be better to let the law remain as it was; but if the House would not go to that extent with him, let them at least concur

1417
in the amendment of the hon. Member for Warwick.
Viscount Dungannoncould not consent to the remission of the punishment of death in such cases. He would rather have it left to the discretion of the judges as to whether or not there were any circumstances calling for any deviation from the ordinary course.
Mr. O'Connelldeprecated the system of leaving too much discretion, in case of life or death, in the hands of the judges. Such a system was apt to produce an impression on the mind of the public that a prisoner was left for execution, not because he was guilty, but because such or such a judge had tried him. He could not agree to the doctrine that in legislating for this offence they should proceed on those vindictive feelings which might naturally be supposed to actuate the relatives of the injured female. Prevention, not vengeance, should be the primary object of the House; and the best method of preventing the offence, and of saving the feelings of relatives, was to make conviction and punishment more certain. The committee would recollect the case of the gipsies, who, about four years since, were convicted of robbery, accompanied with great personal violence, near Monmouth, and sentenced to transportation. Their innocence was afterwards clearly proved, the real criminals being detected, and they were brought back at the expense of Government. If the conviction of these gipsies had taken place a few years further back, they would have been executed, and what, then, would have been the feelings of the jury, the judge, and all parties whose duty obliged them to take part in the proceedings? Though lengthened imprisonment was calculated to produce death, it had this advantage, that it left time for full inquiry and examination.
The Earl of Darlingtonthought the case under discussion was one of those which with the greatest propriety might be left to the discretion of the judge. He defended the character of the excellent and upright judge, who had been attacked that night by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. In the case alluded to by the hon. and learned Member, he was one of the grand jury, and he believed no one could have been present at the trial without agreeing that a clearer case was never made out.
Mr. Hobhouseobserved, that there was one point of view in which the question had not been looked at. In cases of robbery and violence, rendering the offending party liable to death, there was often an inducement to commit murder us a mode of getting rid of the chief, or perhaps the only, evidence. To do away with the punishment of death, therefore, would be to remove one very frequent cause of murder being committed.
Mr. Godsoncited some cases to show the unwillingness of juries to convict persons indicted for commiting one offence in company; and also a case in which two men, after having been tried for a rape and acquitted, were tried for murder; and the prejudice which the former charge excited against them procured their conviction, and they were executed; but circumstances afterwards transpired which showed that they were innocent of the murder. He was one of the counsel in the case, and he had no doubt of their innocence. He should support the clause as it stood.
Lord John Russellsaid, if the House looked to the moral enormity of the offences proposed to be exempted from the clause, there could be no doubt that the more atrocious cases of the kind were as deserving of death as any crime; but if they looked at the great object of prevention, he was convinced that the commission of the offence would not be so effectually prevented by the present state of the law. The noble Lord, in allusion to one of the cases mentioned by Mr. Godson, said, that in one, where the crime had been perpetrated by three men, the judge had suggested that the Crown should interfere. In subsequent instances of the kind other judges had pursued the same course. This being the state of the case, and being likely to continue, he must express his opinion that merely retaining the punishment of death on the statute book, when that punishment was not likely to be inflicted, could not tend to prevent the offence, though it might operate to prevent conviction. He should vote against the amendment.
Sir Robert Peel: If the House was of opinion that the punishment of death in ordinary cases of rape should be done away with, inconvenience might arise from making any particular and specific exceptions. As to the distinction that had been drawn with respect to the possibility

1419
of reparation in one case, and of the impossibility of such reparation in the other, he did not attach much weight to that argument. He could not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, that they should reflect what their own feelings would be if any member of their families were suffering a grievous injury of the kind alluded to, or that they should bring their own indignation into play upon their legislation. The main consideration was what course should be taken which, upon the whole, was most calculated to prevent offences. If the House concurred in doing away with the capital punishment, he did not think they ought to enter into the specific circumstances, as to the perpetration of the offence by one individual or by many, for he considered that steps of prevention, not the moral enormity of the offence, should form the principal element of their legislation. He was not, however, satisfied of the policy of remitting the capital punishment in cases of rape. He could conceive cases where the offence was committed by members of the higher classes of society, for the gratification of the most brutal passions, where, if the punishment was remitted, public indignation might be so great that the House would find it expedient to retrace its course. Their object should be to carry public opinion along with them. He approved of the plan of gradually abolishing severe punishments. He would retain capital punishments for murder, for attempt to murder, and for rape, an offence which he considered involved not only the highest criminality but the greatest personal in. jury that could be sustained by that class of society the most likely to suffer, because they were the weakest, and who were therefore the more entitled to protection. The general argument against capital punishments was, that their effect was lessened by awarding them too indiscriminately. He thought that might be the case with respect to cases not marked by deep moral guilt. He did not think that the crime of rape was of frequent commission in this country, or that the expectation of acquittal by juries under the present law had been very frequently fulfilled. He admitted it to be a question of great difficulty, but, looking at the great criminality of the offence, and the irreparable injury inflicted on the victim, he was not prepared to remit capital punishment.
Mr. C. Bullersaid, there were no capital convictions which so little satisfied the public mind as those for rape, or in which doubts were so frequently expressed of the guilt of a prisoner after his execution. It was a great hardship to throw upon a judge the responsibility of the discretion which was at present given him. The Legislature should take that responsibility on themselves.
Captain Polhillwas altogether opposed to the clause. He advised his hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment, and the question could be taken on the clause itself.
Sir C. Douglasconsented. Amendment withdrawn.
The Committee divided on the question that the clause, as amended stand part of the bill:—Ayes 123; Noes 61—Majority 62.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Hayter, W. G.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hill, Lord A. M. G.

Ainsworth, P,

Hindley, C.

Alston, R.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Archbold, R.

Hodgson, R.

Armstrong, A.

Hope, H. T.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Horsman, E.

Baines, E.

Hoskins, K.

Barrington, Viscount

Hughes, W. B.

Beamish, F. B.

Hume, J.

Bewes, T.

Hutt, W.

Bodkin, J. J.

Hutton, R.

Bowes, J.

Ingham, R.

Bridgeman, H

Jervis, S.

Briscoe, J. I.

Jones, J.

Brodie, W. B.

Kemble, H.

Brotherton, J.

Leader, J. T.

Buller, C.

Lennox, Lord A.

Campbell, Sir J.

Lister, E. C.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Litton, E.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Lushington, C.

Cayley, E. S.

Mackenzie, T.

Collier, J.

Marsland, H.

Currie, R.

Marsland, T.

Dalmeny, Lord

Maule, hon. F.

D'Eyncourt, rt. h. C. T.

Milnes, R. M.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Moreton, hon. A. H.

Dundas, D.

Morpeth, Viacount

Ellis, J.

Morris, D.

Fielden, J.

Muntz, G. F.

Fenton, J.

Murray, A.

Ferguson, Col.

O'Brien, C.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

O'Brien, W. S.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

O'Connell, D.

Godson, R.

O'Connell, J.

Gordon, R.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Greg, R. H.

Parker, J.

Greig, D.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Pattison, J.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Pease,

Hall, Sir B.

Pechell, Captain

Harcourt, G. G.

Philips, M.

1421

Plumptre, J. P.

Thornely, T.

Protheroe, E.

Tufnell, H.

Pryme, G.

Turner, E.

Rice, hon. E. R.

Vivian, J. H.

Roche, E. B.

Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R. H.

Roche, W.

Wakley, T.

Round, J.

Wallace, R.

Rundle, J.

Warburton, H.

Russell, Lord J.

Wilbraham, G.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Wilde, Sir T.

Salwey, Colonel

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Scholefield, J.

Winnington, H. J.

Smith, B.

Wood, C.

Stansfield, W. R.C.

Wood, B

Stewart, R.

Worsley, Lord

Stuart, W. V.

Wyse, T.

Strickland, Sir G.

Yates, J. A.

Strutt, E.

Style, Sir C.

TELLERS.

Talfourd, Mr. Sergt.

Kelly, F.

Teignmouth, Lord

Ewart, W.

List of the NOES.

A'Court, Captain

Hodgson, F.

Bagge, W.

Howard, P. H.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Ingestre, Viscount

Blake, W. J.

Langdale, hon. C.

Botfield, B.

Law, hon. C. E.

Broadley, H.

Liddell, hon. H. T

Bruges, W. H. L.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Bryan, G.

Morgan, C. M.

Burrell, Sir C.

Morgan, O.

Busfeild, W.

Noel, hon. C. G.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Palmer, G.

Byng, G.

Parker, R. T.

Calcraft, J. H.

Patten, J. W.

Clements, Viscount

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Darby, G.

Polhill, F.

Darlington, Earl of

Richards, R.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Rickford, W.

Dugdale, W. S.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Duke, Sir J.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Dunbar, G.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Sibthorp, Colonel

East, J. B.

Slaney, R. A.

Egerton, Lord F.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Egerton, Sir P.

Stanley, E.

Fellowes, E.

Stanley, Lord

Fort, J.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Gisborne, T.

Trotter, J.

Gladstone, W. E.

Ward, H. G.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Hawkins, J. H.

TELLERS.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Hinde, J. H.

Dungannon, Viscount

Clause agreed to.
On the 5th Clause(administering poison, wounding with intent to murder):—
"Any person convicted of any of the said offences, not to be subject to the punishment of death, but to be liable to be transported for the term of the natural life of such person, or for any term not less than seven years, or to be imprisoned for any time not exceeding three years."
Lord J. Russellsaid, there could be no second opinion as to the atrocity of the offence, or as to its being deserving of the most severe punishment. The only question to be considered was, as to the alleged repugnance of juries to convict. For his own part, he could not find that any repugnance existed which was likely to prevent a verdict of "guilty" in cases of attempt to murder which had been supposed; for, in the year 1839, the number of persons committed for trial for offences of that kind were thirty-four, out of whom twenty-two were convicted and twelve only were acquitted, whilst in the same year there were forty-six persons committed for trial for murder, of whom as many as thirty-three were acquitted, and only thirteen convicted. On that account he did not think it necessary, on the point involved in the clause, to alter the present law.
Mr. F. Kellyhad hoped to have the noble Lord's concurrence, especially after having heard him say that the enormity of criminality was not to be considered so much as the best means of deterring the evil-disposed from its perpetration. He with equal regret and surprise, perceived that principle was lost sight of in the speech of his right hon. Friend, the Member for Tamworth. The principle of all punishment should be to prevent crime. The clause exempted all attempts short of murder from capital punishment. The question then was, whether the abolition of capital punishment left society with a sufficient protection. The knowledge that the capital punishment would not be inflicted, would in his opinion, prevent the commission of murder, while the knowledge that it existed for the attempt to kill as well as the act itself, would be no doubt, in most instances, an inducement to the crime. Therefore, there was all the protection possible for society in the clause, while the capital punishment was inflicted for murder. But there was another ground in favour of the clause—namely the uncertainty of conviction, and the uncertainty of execution. Of forty-five indictments preferred for the crime in question during the last three years, only twenty procured a conviction; and of this twenty only two were executed—or one in ten. Therefore it was clear, that certainty of conviction and certainty of punishment was not obtained under the law as it stood; and the natural inference followed, that

1423
the ends of punishment were defeated. And yet the case was not where there was the greatest difficulty to get juries to convict. He, however, believed, that from henceforward the law in this respect would be still more inoperative, in consequence of the practice of framing indictments with two counts—the capital and the minor—introduced in 1837, and the inclination juries had always manifested to acquit on the one, and convict only on the other—the lesser offence of aggravated assault. He was of opinion, however, that to suffer the punishment of death to remain for the offence, would be to create uncertainty in the minds of men, and thus lead to the commission of crime without the certainty of conviction. It was on those grounds that he proposed the clause.
Viscount Dungannoncould not see the justice or the propriety of permitting the man who deliberately attempted murder to escape the severest punishment that could be inflicted by the law. He could not comprehend the distinction between the attempt, with the intention to kill, and the successful issue of that attempt, and he should therefore oppose the clause.
Mr. Monckton Milnessupported the clause, because he believed that capital punishment should be reduced to the minimum consistent with the safety of the public.
Sir R. Inglisobjected to the clause being debated on the ground of expediency rather than on that of morality. He could not agree with the principle that the sole end of punishment should be to deter from crime. Those who argued that because juries would not convict for capital crimes capital punishment should be abolished argued from one abuse to another. In his opinion, such a circumstance was not sufficient to justify the alteration proposed in the law. He would give the public a stronger and a higher sense of the obligation of an oath or a declaration, and then there would be no more preference on the part of juries of theoretical opinions to the dictates of conscience. He called on the House, therefore, not to prostitute the law to the theoretical scruples of juries, and he should, under the circumstances, oppose the clause.
Mr. Lawwas surprised at the charge made against juries by implication in the observations of the hon. and learned Mover of the clause. He, in a twenty
1424
years' experience, had known very few instances of indisposition on the part of juries to convict upon sufficient evidence, and it was to the judge the interposition in favour of the prisoner was chiefly owing, when reason for it existed. He did not concur in that or in the other argument on which the clause was grounded, and he should, therefore, not support it.
Mr. Brothertonthought the House should not lightly recognize the principle, that the object of the law was the punishment, and not the prevention, of crime. He declared it to be his opinion, that man had no right to take the life of man, and that the sacred precepts as strongly condemned the executioner as the murderer.
Viscount Mahonsaid, that the prerogative of the Crown had been always sufficient to provide for secondary punishment when it was shown to be necessary, and therefore there existed no good reason for the abolition of capital punishment. Supposing the case of a man who, having been convicted of wounding with intent to murder, perpetrated a second offence of the same nature against his gaoler. How would the lion, and learned Gentleman deal with that case? The highest secondary punishment having been inflicted for the first offence, the law could inflict no additional punishment for the second. On the ground that there were many cases which could not be properly dealt with if the punishment of death were abolished, he was willing to leave that punishment on the statute books, trusting for any necessary mitigation of it to a wise exercise of the prerogative of mercy.
Mr. Slaneythought, that the apprehension of death was a powerful motive to deter men from the commission of crime, but in inflicting it he would distinguish between such as were perpetrated for the sake of gain, and such as were the result of violent passions, visiting the latter much more severely than the former.
Mr. Elliotcould not understand upon what principle they distinguished between murder and an attack with intent to murder. Would they keep the prisoner waiting for his trial till they ascertained whether the victim would die? Would they try a man to day for the minor offence, when the next day his crime might be murder? He should certainly vote against the clause.
The Committee divided on the question, that the clause as amended stand part

1425
of the bill:—Ayes 75; Noes 83: Majority 8.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Litton, E.

Ainsworth, P.

Marsland, H.

Alston, R.

Milnes, R. M.

Archbold, R.

Moreton, hon. A. H.

Beamish, F. B.

Morris, D.

Blewitt, R. J.

Muntz, G. F.

Bridgeman, H.

Muskett, G. A.

Briscoe, J. I.

O'Brien, C.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. T.

O'Brien, W.

O'Connell, J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Pattison, J.

Duke, Sir J.

Pease, J.

Dunbar, G.

Pechell, Captain

Ellis, J.

Pryme, G.

Ewart, W.

Rice, hon. E. R.

Fielden, J.

Roche, W.

Fenton, J.

Round, J.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Rundle, J.

Fort, J.

Salwey, Colonel

Gisborne, T.

Scholefield, J.

Godson, R.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Greig, D.

Smith, B.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Hayter, W. G.

Stuart, W. V.

Hector, C. J.

Style, Sir C.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Talfourd, Mr. Serg.

Hindley, C.

Thornely, T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Vivian, J. H.

Hodgson, F.

Wakley, T.

Hodgson, R.

Warburton, H.

Hoskins, K.

White, A.

Hughes, W. B.

Wilbraham, G.

Hume, J.

Williams, W.

Ingham, R.

Wilmington, Sir T. E.

Jervis, S.

Wood, B.

Jones, J.

Yates, J. A.

Langdale, hon. C.

Leader, J. T.

TELLERS.

Lennox, Lord A.

Kelly, F.

Lister, E. C.

Brotherton, H.

List of the NOES.

Abercromby, hn. G. R.

Dungannon, Viscount

Adam, Adm.

East, J. B.

Bailey, J.

Egerton, W. T.

Bewes, T.

Egerton, Lord F.

Blake, W. J.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Blennerhassett, A.

Evans, W.

Botfield, B.

Farnham, E. B.

Broadley, H.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Brodie, W. B.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Bryan, G.

Greg, R. H.

Butler, Sir J. Y.

Hawkins, J.

Busfeild, W.

Heathcoat, J.

Campbell, Sir J.

Hinde, J. H.

Clay, W.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Clements, Viscount

Howard, P. H.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Hutton, R.

Collier, J.

Kemble, H.

Dalmeny, Lord

Knatchbull, rt. hon. Sir E.

Darlington, Earl of

Dugdale, W. S.

Law, hon. C. E.

1426

Liddell, hon.H. T.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Lynch, A. H.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Mackenzie, T.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Mackenzie, W. F.

Slaney, R. A.

Mahon, Viscount

Somenrville, Sir W. M.

Marsland, T.

Stanley, E.

Morgan, O.

Stanley, Lord

Morpeth, Viscount

Strutt, E.

Morrison, J.

Teignmouth, Lord

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Tufnell, H.

Palmer, G.

Vivian, rt hn. Sir R. H.

Parker, J.

Ward, H. G.

Parker, R. T.

Wemyss, Captain

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Patten, J. W.

Wilde, Sir T.

Philips, M.

Wodehouse, E.

Pigot, rt. hon. D.

Wood, G. W.

Polhill, F.

Wood, Colonel T.

Rae, rt. hn. Sir W.

Wyse, T.

Richards, R.

Rickford, W.

TELLERS.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Maule, hon. F.

Russell, Lord J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Clause rejected.
On the 6th Clause (burglariously breaking and entering any dwelling house and assaulting, with intent to murder, any person being therein, and stabbing, cutting, wounding, beating, or striking such person):—
"Any person convicted of any of the said offences not to be subject to the punishment of death, but to be liable to be transported for the natural life of such person, or for any term not less than seven years, or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding three years."
Lord John Russellsaid, that he could not agree to that clause either. The law as established four years ago drew a distinction between burglary with violence to the person, and many offences amounting to burglary which were comparatively of a trifling nature, but all of which had been indiscriminately punished with death. The consequence was, that in more than 300 cases of all that had occurred the punishment of death had not been inflicted, and, indeed, there were very few in which it had. Within the last year seven persons had been tried for that offence, but of them four had been convicted—a sufficient proof that this was not one of that class of offences in which juries had exhibited a reluctance to convict. He need not enlarge upon the heinous nature of the offence—breaking into a house in the dead of the night and committing violence upon the inmates. At first the abolition of the capital punishment might not increase the amount of crime, but he was by no means sure that they could reckon

1427
upon that as a permanent effect. Times might come when distress or other causes might produce a great deal of crime, and when, in order to arrest the course of that crime, it might become necessary to inflict the punishment of death. He had heard nothing to persuade him that the fear of death was not likely to deter men from the commission of crime—of course, if the punishment was not to be inflicted it would not deter, but, if it were, the argument that it would not deter men from committing crimes seemed to him a refinement incompatible with all their experience.
Mr. Kellyagreed with the noble Lord as to the heinous nature of the offence, and should be the last man to make any proposal which, in his opinion, could diminish that protection which the community had a right to expect from the law; but he proposed this measure because it would rather increase than diminish that protection. He would not repeat the arguments which he had before urged, and which had not been answered by the noble Lord; but he begged to point out to the noble Lord the evidence of a determination on the part of the people to make considerable advances on this subject: that was to be found in the decision which had taken place to-night, when the whole weight of the Government had only been sufficient in rather a full House to obtain a majority of 122 over 110. He entreated the House to consider whether by continuing these punishments it would not increase and extend crime.
Mr. Ewartbelieved that there had been no execution during the last three years for this kind of offence, and the consequence was, that juries were willing to convict, acting upon the belief that the capital punishment would not be inflicted.
Viscount Dungannonbelieved that juries paid a little more regard to their oaths than the hon. Member gave them credit for. His objection was as strong to this clause as to the one which preceded it. Midnight burglary was one of the most heinous offences, and he could not understand how this mistaken philanthropy would afford the community protection against it.
Mr. Humesaid, that, in his support of this measure, he was actuated by no false philanthropy—but he was convinced that, by making men accustomed to blood, they also made them more regardless of shed-
1428
ding it; they made them brutes, and then they complained that they were brutes. The noble Lord opposite had given no answer to the remark of the hon. Member for Wigan. The question was, not what juries ought to do, but what they did do? Had the noble Lord never heard of juries finding that 7l. 10 s. 6d. of the current coin of the realm was less than 40 s.; because, if the sum were above that amount the crime became capital? Many such instances had occurred, and would again, unless the degree and nature of punishment were adapted to the state of feeling in the community. Numerous executions did not prevent crime; let the House look to the result of the amelioration of the law which took place in 1833 as to burglary. In the six years ending December, 1832, fifty-six persons had been executed for that crime; and in the six years ending December, 1838, three persons had been executed; and during the former period there had been 5,199 committals, whilst during the latter there had only been 4,621. And the same was the effect throughout the whole catalogue of crimes. He agreed in the observation of the hon. and learned Member, that if the independent voice of the House had been taken on a former clause it would have been carried, but the votes of the Treasury bench had turned the scale.
The Committee divided on the question that the clause as amended stand part of the bill:—Ayes 73; Noes 100: Majority 27.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hindley, C.

Ainsworth, P.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Alston, R.

Hodgson, R.

Archbold, R.

Hollond, R.

Barry, G. S.

Hoskins, K.

Blewitt, R. J.

Hughes, W. B.

Bridgeman, H.

Hume, J.

Briscoe, J. I.

Hurt, F.

Brotherton, J.

Ingham, R.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Jervis, S.

Dennistoun, J.

Jones, J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Kemble, H.

Duke, Sir J.

Langdale, hon. C.

Eliot, Lord

Leader, J. T.

Ellis, J.

Lennox, Lord A.

Fielden, J.

Lister, E. C.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Lynch, A. H.

Fort, J.

Mackenzie, T.

Gisborne, T.

Marsland, H.

Grosvenor Lord R.

Milnes, R. M.

Hayter, W. G.

Morris D.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Muntz, G. F.

Hinde, J. H.

Muskett, G. A.

1429

O'Brien, W. S.

Style, Sir C.

O'Connell, J.

Talfourd, Mr. Serg.

Pattison, J.

Tennent, J. E.

Pease, J.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

Pechell, Captain

Thornely, T.

Price, R.

Vivian, J. H.

Pryme, G.

Wallace, R.

Rice, hon. E. R.

Warburton, H.

Round, J.

White, A.

Salwey, Colonel

Williams, W.

Scholefield, J.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Smith, B.

Wood, B.

Stanley, E.

TELLERS.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Ewart, W.

Stuart, W. V.

Kelly, F.

List of the NOES.

Abercromby, hn. G. R.

Houstoun, G.

A'Court, Captain

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Adam, Admiral

Howard, P. H.

Armstrong, A.

Hutton, R.

Bailey, J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bellew, R. M.

Knatchbull, right, hn. Sir E.

Bewes, T.

Blackburne, I,

Law, hon. C. E.

Blake, W. J.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Botfield, B.

Lygon, hon. General

Bramston, T. W.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Broadley, H.

Maunsell, T. P.

Brodie, W. B.

Miles, P. W. S.

Bryan, G.

Morgan, O.

Bailer, Sir J. Y.

Morpeth, Viscount

Busfield, W.

Morrison, J.

Campbell, Sir J.

Noel, hon. C. G.

Clay, W.

O'Brien, C.

Clements, Viscount

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Packe, C. W.

Collier, J.

Pakington, J. S.

Dalmeny, Lord

Palmer, G.

Darlington, Earl of

Parker, R. T.

D'Eyncourt, right hn. C. T.

Parker, J.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Dugdale, W. S.

Patten, J. W.

Dungannon, Viscount

Philips, M.

Egerton, W. T.

Philips, G. R.

Egerton, Lord F.

Pigot, right hon. D.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Polhill, F.

Evans, W.

Praed, W. T.

Farnham, E. B.

Rae, right hn. Sir W.

Fellowes, E.

Richards, R.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Rickford, W.

French, F.

Round, C. G.

Gladstone, J. N.

Rumbold, C. E.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Gordon, R.

Russell, Lord J.

Goulburn, rt hon. H.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Greg, R. H.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Grimsditch, T.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Hawkes, T.

Smith, R. V.

Hawkins, J. H.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hayes, Sir E.

Strutt, E.

Heathcoat, J.

Teignmouth, Lord

Hector, C. J.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R H.

Houldsworth, T.

Wilbraham, G.

1430

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Wilde, Sir T.

TELLERS.

Wood, Colonel T.

Mahon, Viscount

Yates, J. A.

Maule, hon. Fox

Clause rejected.
Mr. F. Kellythen said, that he should not proceed farther with the bill at present. He had introduced it with no other intention than that of ameliorating the criminal laws of the country, and he thought it due to the many hon. Gentlemen who had supported him to say that, had it not been opposed in its principal clauses by the whole weight of the Government, he should have been enabled to carry it. But when he found the public opinion, and the opinion of so many hon. Members in the House, were opposed by the whole power of Government, it would be vain for him to continue, and he felt that he would best consult the convenience of the House and the interests involved in the bill itself by not proposing to carry it further that evening. The noble Lord had himself brought forward a bill for the amendment of criminal punishment, in which in some cases capital punishment was abolished. Should the noble Lord go on with that bill with the expedition which he had it in his power to command, and use that influence which would show a prospect of its being carried immediately, he should not further trouble the House with his present bill. Although the Government would not thus go the length which he could wish, they would still do much. He should beg leave to move, that the Chairman report progress.
Mr. Aglionbybegged to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman, that it was from that the Ministerial side of the House that the bill had been supported, and that it had met its opposition from the other side. He hoped that, under some Government, a bill carrying out the full principle of the hon. and learned Member, would be made the law of the land.
Mr. Kellysaid, the hon. Member had mistaken him, if he thought that he was not conscious that he had received the warmest and most effective support from the other side of the House. He felt that if the bill, or any similar bill, should ever be brought into that House, it would be at least supported by a great majority of those who sat on the other side of the House.
Lord J. Russell: I cannot but think

1431
that it was my duty, as a Member of the Government and as Secretary of State, taking a great part in the administration of the criminal laws, and who had some part in the amendment of the criminal laws, to state my opinion of the general propositions made by the lion, and learned Gentleman which to me went to justify me in supporting them, after the best judgment I could form upon them. In so far the hon. and learned Gentleman has no right to complain of me. He has no right to complain either of my influence upon the Gentlemen of this side of the House, for the support he had received was from this side, while my views were supported by Gentlemen opposite. But this question has, in fact, been as fairly debated in this House as it could be expected. It. is my intention to go on with the bills which I have introduced, and as the hon. Gentleman will not proceed with this further at present, I shall lose no time in going on with mine. I understand that the chief points of the bill have been agreed to.
Sir R. H. Inglissaid, it would never have entered into any other person's head than that of the hon. Member for Cockermouth, to think of this bill as a party question.
House resumed.
The Chairman reported progress, committee to sit again.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
On the motion of the Attorney General, the House went into committee on the Criminal Justice Bill.
Upon the first clause,
Mr. Wilson Fattenhad resolutions to propose relative to the corporation of Manchester, which he wished to explain. A contest had been going on in Manchester with reference to the validity of the charter of incorporation, and he, although unconnected with the town, had been asked to arbitrate between the contending parties. He had consented to do so, when his attention was called to this bill, and it was suggested to him that the fairest mode would be, not to oppose the bill, but to get inserted in it clauses embodying the principle of his arbitration. In that way he had undertaken the clauses which he now wished to have inserted. In the first clause he should propose to confirm the charter of incorporation and the commission of the peace, and the grant of a separate Court of Quarter Sessions of the
1432
Peace; and that the costs of obtaining or opposing such grants should be paid by both sides. The other clauses would be to grant compensation to three officers, the coroner, the clerk of the peace, and the clerk of the town of Manchester. The only argument he had heard against the compensation to the coroner was, that the corporation had advertised for a coroner, and he was coroner previous to the Corporation Act being applied. It was said, that he was therefore out of the pale. The hon. Member further observed, that the Gentleman for whom he was desirous of obtaining compensation, had held the office of clerk to the magistrates for thirty-five years—under magistrates of all parties and politics, and he would still have been in that office, had it not been for the granting of the new charter of incorporation to Manchester. He could say much, too, were it necessary to do so, of the good private character of that Gentleman. He had it also in his power to say, that lawyers of considerable eminence had given a very decided opinion, that though these cases might not come under the Corporation Act, yet that they comprised the strongest claim to compensation. He (Mr. Patten) was anxious to set himself right with the hon. Member for Manchester, whom he then saw before him, with respect to what had been said of his having unnecessarily put himself forward in this matter, and meddled with cases which did not come under his province to interfere with. The fact was, that he was one of those to whose arbitration it had been agreed to leave the subject, the council of the corporation, as he understood, having agreed, should the decision be favourable to the claim, to give compensation. Indeed, he had been at last asked by both parties to bring the question forward, and had consequently done so. He therefore trusted the House would consent to the clauses he had to propose. The hon. Member concluded by proposing the two following clauses:—
"And whereas, questions are pending as to the validity of the charter of incorporation granted to the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the borough of Manchester, in pursuance of the said act of the 6th year of the reign of his late Majesty, or of some subsequent act, be it declared and enacted, that the said charter of incorporation, and also the commission of the peace, and grant of a separate court of quarter sessions of the peace, issued or granted to the said borough, and all acts and proceed-

1433
ings done or had in pursuance thereof, shall be deemed good and lawful from the time of such grant, acts, and proceedings, and that all costs and expenses which have been incurred before the passing of this act in and about the obtaining, establishing, or opposing any such grant, act, or proceeding, or in or about the holding of any inquest by any coroner within the said borough, or all costs already incurred, or to be hereafter incurred, in or about the prosecution, conveyance, or maintenance of any persons having committed any offences within the said borough by the said corporation, or person or persons whomsoever, shall be paid and discharged by the council of the said borough, and out of a rate to be made assessed, and levied for that purpose by the council of the said borough, in the nature of a borough-rate or otherwise, as the said council shall think fit, which rate may be recovered in the same manner as any borough-rate is recoverable under the said act of the 6th year of the reign of his late Majesty, or under any subsequent act framed for the amendment thereof, such costs and charges, without prejudice to any contract respecting the maintenance of prisoners, being ascertained and settled in each case by the recorder of tin borough.
"And whereas, by reason of a grant of a charter of incorporation to the borough of Manchester, the coroner for the county palatine of Lancaster, acting within the division of Manchester, the clerk of the peace for the said county palatine, and the clerk of the justices of the peace appointed under an act passed in the 53rd year of the reign of King George the 3rd, for the more effectual administration of the office of a justice of the peace, and to the other justices of the peace acting within the said division of Manchester, have been deprived of their fees and emoluments arising from their respective offices within the said borough, and it is expedient that compensation be therefore made to them in like manner as if they had been officers of a borough before the passing of the said act of the 6th year of the reign of his late Majesty, who were removed from their offices under the provisions of that act; be it therefore enacted, that the said coroner, and clerk of the peace, and clerk to the justices shall be entitled to have an adequate compensation, to be assessed by the council, and paid out of the borough fund of the said borough, for the fees and emoluments of their several offices arising within such borough, and that all provisions of the said act of the 6th year of the reign of his late Majesty relating to the claim of any corporate officer for compensation, on account of being removed from his office, and to the manner of securing and determining the amount of such compensation, shall apply, except as hereinafter provided, to the said coroners, clerk of the peace, and clerk to the justices; provided always, that the statement to be delivered to the town-clerk by each such officer shall set forth the amount of
1434
the fees and emoluments in respect whereof he shall claim compensation during five years next preceding the grant of the charter of incorporation to the borough respecting which such claim is made, and that, in estimating the amount of compensation, each of the said officers shall be deemed to have held his office for the term of his life."
Mr. M. Philipsdisclaimed any imputation against the hon. Gentleman of having brought these cases forward on frivolous grounds, and that was not what he rose to complain of. What he complained of was, that the hon. Gentleman should have paid too much attention to communications which had been made to him subsequently to the periods to which he had referred. He had presented many petitions to that House against these claims, and the strongest which he had presented had been drawn up by a gentleman who was of decidedly conservative opinions. The case was now in this state—its opponents were absolutely asked to be bought off by a sum of money to be paid by the ratepayers of Manchester, in order to prevent the corporation question from going before the House of Lords. He could not speak in too strong terms of the petition which had been got up by the anti-corporators, out of all the signatures to which only 6,000 had been found to be genuine. He considered, then, that the ratepayers of the borough would be very forgetful of what was due to themselves if they were to be led into paying the money which they were called on to pay by the clauses brought forward by the hon. Member. The ratepayers had had immense expenses to encounter, and they were now called upon to make further sacrifices by the payment of money in quarters in which they were not bound to pay it. He had lately been at Manchester, and he had not met with a single individual who did not deprecate the idea of such clauses as those now proposed to be inserted in the bill before the House. The borough of Manchester would rather go on as it now did, and remain without a court of quarter sessions, and he must confess he had rather see that alteration than that it should petition Parliament in favour of those claims; and it was worthy of remark, that one of the gentlemen with whom the hon. Member had been in consultation upon the subject was a gentle-man who was himself personally interested in the question, and ought not, therefore, to have ventured to give the

1435
advice he had. Besides, it was notorious, that the gentleman who claimed compensation as town-clerk of Manchester had, some years ago, when a bill had been brought forward in that House, the object of which was to give stipendiary magistrates to that borough, tried his utmost to have his own name inserted as clerk to the magistrates for life. That attempt was, however, rejected at the time, but it certainly was one which ought to be mentioned, in connexion with the present efforts to compensate that gentleman, as an additional argument against the propriety of doing so. With regard to the bill of the hon. and learned Attorney-general, they might throw it out if they thought proper to do so, for there certainly could not be supposed to be any particular desire on the part of the ratepayers of Manchester to have thrown on their shoulders expenses which would be the consequence of the measure. But the ratepayers were honourable men, and had no wish to throw upon others the burdens to which they would themselves be exposed. They would discharge their duties like honest men, but, he was sure, they would never consent to be bullied into an arrangement to which they had no right to be expected to consent. The gentleman who had had the door shut against him as coroner had no one but himself to blame for the position in which he found himself, and he had done himself great injury by the course he had since taken, by holding double inquests, and pursuing a Vexatious course. If all parties in the position of those who made these claims, were to come forward and ask for compensation, it would be establishing a precedent for all other towns which might hereafter find it necessary, that they should have their courts held more frequently than they were under their present system. Besides, if it was so necessary, that these officers should be compensated, why was it that some few years ago, the deputy-constable of Manchester had not been compensated when he was obliged to give up his office from infirmity, and was left in a destitute state? With regard to the charter of the corporation of Manchester, the judges had decided it to be a good one, and it would be most unjust to a great community such as that of the town he had the honour to represent, to attempt to saddle them with the consequences of clauses like those now proposed, and with
1436
the introduction of which the rate-payers had nothing whatever to do. With respect to what had been elsewhere said of a compromise having been desired on their part upon the subject, all he could say was, that the greatest misrepresentations had gone abroad upon the matter, and the council and the rate-payers had never entertained any such desire. He hoped, therefore, these clauses would be withdrawn, or if not, that the committee would reject them.
Mr. W. Pattenobserved, that whereas it had been said, that the corporation had had nothing to do with the recommendation of these clauses, it was a member of the corporation, and a rate-payer, who had called upon him at his Own house, upon the subject of them.
Mr. Mark Philipsasserted, that no member of the corporation had ever been authorised by that body to make any application to any one in favour of the objects of the hon. Gentleman's clauses.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that this was a public bill, and the object of it was to enable the borough, without having a gaol, to contract with the adjoining county for the maintenance of its prisoners. It gave the borough the power to do that, and to build one for itself if it thought proper to do so, providing for the rate which was to pay for it. But certain clauses were now proposed to be inserted in a public bill, which were intended only to apply to Manchester, and which would not apply to Birmingham, for instance, or to other places. He must, therefore, give such clauses his opposition. And he hoped the committee would let the bill pass in the shape in which he had introduced it, because it would thus allow the quarter sessions to proceed with the necessary business, and the counties of Lancaster and Warwick to be relieved from burdens from which they ought to be liberated.
Mr. Cresswelltrusted, that the House would not pass the bill without providing compensation for the officers who would have lost their places by the incorporation of Manchester, and thereby carry out the principle of the Municipal Reform Bill. With regard to the charter itself, the opinion of the judges had certainly been given, but it had not been given on the main question connected with that subject, which, be the fault where it might, in that he expressed no opinion, had never been brought before them. Let the com-

1437
mittee suppose for a moment, that the case before them had been that of an office in any other town, and the holder of it had been deprived of it by the operation of the Municipal Reform Bill, would not the officer, in such case, be entitled to compensation? Would it not be injustice then, to deprive an officer of a borough of compensation under a bill which carried out the principle of that measure? When a charter was granted which took away his office, would they deprive him of the power of bringing his action to try his right and title to compensation for his loss? That House would never, he was sure, reconcile itself to such an act of injustice, when it had allowed compensation in cases which arose under the Municipal Corporation Reform Bill. If the corporation had wanted to avoid compensating the coroner, they should have made him, at least, a tender of continuance in the office he held. But, because, for sooth, the coroner of Manchester would not consent to ask the new corporation of that borough to continue him in his office, therefore, he was to be deprived of it, and without compensation ! He trusted, however, that the House would not pass this bill without including compensation in its provisions. It was said there was a coroner for Bolton, and a coroner for Birmingham also, but was that any ground why the coroner for Manchester should not be compensated because the other coroners were not? If so, the Attorney-general was bound to bring in a bill to provide for their compensation also, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman, or some other Member should do so, he would certainly give it his support. The hon. and learned Member concluded by urging on the committee the propriety of making no exception as to the cases included in the proposed clauses.
Mr. C. Bullersaid, that hon. Gentlemen seemed to be discussing anything but the clause really under consideration; and, with respect to that clause, he thought it the summit of human impudence. It was neither more nor less than an offer of compromise by the parties opposed to the corporation of Manchester, and went the length of saying, that if the whole of their expenses were paid, they would terminate all further litigation, and this notwithstanding they had been defeated at nisi prius, in the Queen's Bench, and before the Exchequer Chamber. He trusted,
1438
however, that the House would not sanction a proposition at the same time so impudent and preposterous.
Mr. Cresswelldenied that there had been any decision by the Court of Queen's Bench or Exchequer Chamber, in favour of the charter of the corporation of Manchester, because the Judges had, in point of fact, decided nothing.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that the matter had been fully argued, both by his hon. and learned Friend and himself before the Exchequer Chamber, and that although his hon. and learned Friend had raised a score of objections, they were all over-ruled by a majority of the judges present. The parties, it was true, might appeal to the House of Lords; but their doing so would be fruitless.
Mr. Creswellwould not say what the House of Lords might or might not do, but this he would say, that although the matter had been argued in the Exchequer Chamber, owing to the form of the bill of exceptions to the ruling of the judge at nisi prius, the judges in the Exchequer Chamber declined to give any opinion.
Mr. W. Pattenwithdrew the first clause, and proposed to take the sense of the House on the second or compensation clause.
Mr. Wakleysupported the claim of the coroner to compensation, and said, that if public officers, elected by the people for life, were to be deprived of their offices without redress of any kind, great injustice would be inflicted. If this were liberty, all he could say was, that the less they heard of it the better. He would suggest to the hon. Gentleman who moved the clause, whether it would not be better to make distinct propositions of each case, and propose that of the coroner first.
Mr. W. Pattensaid, he should be glad to adopt the suggestion, if he could do so, but he feared he could not.
Mr. M. Philipssaid, that he was quite willing to entertain the case of the coroner, but with respect to the other cases, he would give them his strenuous opposition.
Mr. W. Pattenwas perfectly ready to go seriatim through the case, and to commence with that of the coroner, provided the House allowed the clause to be read a second time.
Mr. Aglionbyknew nothing of the

1439
merits of the cases of these parties, but he thought the better way would be to introduce a general clause for compensation, and leave it to another tribunal to decide upon the claims of each party. This was the course adopted under the Corporation Reform Bill. At present, he was not in a situation to vote in either way.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, in several cases where additional coroners had been appointed, the Treasury decided that the old coroner was not entitled to compensation.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that this was not only the opinion of the law-officers of the Crown, but likewise of the Court of Queen's Bench. Although coroners were elected by the people, still, if they became incapable of discharging the functions of their office by any means, the Lord Chancellor had power to appoint additional coroners to assist them, who would not only participate in their duties, but fees. This might, before long, be the case in the instance of the hon. Member for Fins-bury. With respect to the clause, it applied only to the coroner of Manchester, and he wished it to apply to all the other coroners likely to be affected by this bill.
Mr. Grimsditchobserved, that in those cases where additional coroners had been appointed, the magistrates were empowered to award compensation to the party sustaining loss by the arrangement.
Mr. Wakleyagain supported the claim of the coroner of Manchester, and said, that even if the Lord Chancellor were to exercise his power of appointing other coroners in Middlesex, he would not trouble the House with any claim for compensation.
Mr. Humewished to know what was the question before the House?
The Chairmanreplied, that the clause be read a first time.
Mr. Gisbornesuggested, whether it would not be better to alter the clause in such a way as would enable them to take the sense of the committee on the individual claim of the coroner?
Mr. W. Pattenreplied, that he was anxious to do so if he could, but he feared he could not, unless they allowed the clause to be read a second time.
Mr. Brothertonsaid, that the hon. Gentleman might strike out from the clause
1440
everything except that which related to the coroner.
Mr. Gisbornethought it would be better to drop the clause altogether, and bring it up in another form on the third reading of the bill.
Mr. W. Pattensaid, he would endeavour to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen, by making each claim a distinct clause.
The Attorney-Generalsaid that, although he wished justice to be done to all parties, still he could not see why the coroners and officers of other boroughs whom the bill would effect, should not be placed in as good a situation as the coroner of Manchester.
Mr. W. Pattenhad no objection to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but, with respect to the clerk of the peace of Lancaster, his claim stood on peculiar grounds, and, therefore, he could not risk losing a vote in favour of it.
Mr. Jervisthought the better way would be to withdraw the clause, and propose one generally for compensation.
Sir C. Douglasthought the committee ought to allow the clause to be read a second time.
Mr. Humesaid, if they proceeded in this way, the better course for the House to pursue would be, to reject any clause for compensation.
Mr. M. Philipshad no objection to the claim of the coroner, but he must oppose the claims of the other parties. He wished a division on the clause as it stood.
Mr. W. Pattensaid, that such being the case, he must adhere to the clause.
Clause read a first time. On the question that it be read a second time, the committee divided:—Ayes 73, Noes 128: Majority 55.

List of the AYES.

A'Court, Captain

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Bailey, J.

Drummond, H. H.

Basset, J.

Dugdale, W. S.

Blackburne, I.

Dungannon, Viscount

Bolling, W.

Eaton, R. J.

Botfield, B.

Egerton, W. T.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Egerton, Lord F.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Eliot, Lord

Codrington, C. W.

Ellis, J.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Farnham, E. B.

Darby, G.

Fellowes, E.

Darlington, Earl of

Gladstone, J. N.

De Horsey, S. H.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

1441

Godson, R.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Morgan, O.

Greene, T.

Norreys, Lord

Grimsditch, T.

Packe, C. W.

Hale, R. B.

Pakington, J. S.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Palmer, G.

Hawkes, T.

Parker, R. T.

Henniker, Lord

Plumptre, J. P.

Hodgson, R.

Praed, W. T.

Holmes, W.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Houstoun, G.

Richards, R.

Hughes, W. B.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Hurt, F.

Shirley, E. J.

Ingestre, Viscount

Somerset, Lord G.

Ingham, R.

Sotheron, T. E.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Stewart, J.

Kelly, F.

Thompson, Alderman

Kemble, H.

Villiers, Viscount

Knight, H. G.

Vivian, J. E.

Law, hon. C. E.

Waddington, H. S.

Lowther, J. H.

Wakley, T.

Lygon, hon. General

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Mackenzie, W. F.

TELLERS.

Marsland, T.

Cresswell, C.

Maunsell, T. P.

Patten, W.

List of the NOES.

Abercromby, hn. G. R.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Adam, Admiral

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Aglionby, H. A.

Fort, J.

Ainsworth, P.

Gisborne, T.

Alston, R.

Gordon, R.

Archbold, R.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Armstrong, A.

Handley, H.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Hawes, B.

Barry, G. S.

Hawkins, J. H.

Beamish, F. B.

Hayter, W. G.

Bellew, R. M.

Heathcoat, J.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Hector, C. J.

Bewes, T.

Heron, Sir R.

Blake, W. J.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Blewitt, R. J.

Hindley, C.

Bowes, J.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Bridgeman, H.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Briscoe, J. I.

Hollond, R.

Brocklehurst, J.

Horsman, E.

Brotherton, J.

Howard, P. H.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Buller, C

Hume, J.

Busfeild, W.

Hutt, W.

Campbell, Sir J.

Hutton, R.

Chalmers, P.

Jervis, J.

Clay, W.

Jervis, S.

Clements, Viscount

Langdale, hon. C.

Clive, E. B.

Marsland, H.

Collier, J.

Maule, hon. Fox

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Morpeth, Viscount

Craig, W. G.

Morris, D.

Divett, E.

Morrison, J.

Duke, Sir J.

Muntz, G. F.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Noel, hon. C. G.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

O'Brien, C.

Ellice, E.

O'Corniell, J.

Evans, W.

O'Connell, M. J.

Ewart, W.

Parker, J.

Fielden, J.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Fenton, J.

Pattison, J.

1442

Pease, J.

Strutt, E.

Pechell, Captain

Talbot, C. R. M.

Philips, G. R.

Talfourd, Mr. Serg.

Phillpotts, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Pigot, rt. hon. D.

Thornely, T.

Ponsonby, C. F. A. C.

Townley, R. G.

Pryme, G.

Tufnell, H.

Rawdon, Col. J. D.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Rice, hon. E. R.

Vivian, J. H.

Rich, H.

Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R. H.

Rundle, J.

Walker, R.

Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.

Wallace, R.

Salwey, Colonel

Warburton, H.

Scholefield, J.

Ward, H. G.

Seale, Sir J. H.

White, A.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Wilbraham, G.

Smith, J. A.

Wilde, Sir T.

Smith, R. V.

Williams, W.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Wood, C.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Wood, G. W.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Wyse, T.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Yates, J. A.

Steuart, R.

Stuart, Lord J.

TELLERS.

Stuart, W. V.

Greg, R. H.

Stock, Mr. Sergeant

Philips, M.

Clause rejected.
Sir C. Douglas Sir C. Douglas moved the insertion of a clause providing compensation for the clerk of the peace of the county of Warwick, and for the coroner of the said county, sitting within the Hundred of Hemlingford.
Mr. Humecomplained, that the clause had not been printed, and moved "That the Chairman do report progress." He had understood, that it had been decided that the clerk of the peace for the county of Warwick was not entitled to compensation.
Mr. M. Philipscould not vote for the clause until it had properly come under consideration.
Mr. Jervissaid, that by voting for this clause for the compensation of coroners the House would only affirm, that coroners were entitled to compensation. Hon. Members would afterwards have an opportunity of considering the application of the clause to this particular case.
Mr. Humemust persist upon principle against proceeding with this clause until it had been previously printed.
The Attorney-Generalthought the hon. Member for Warwick, would best gain his object by withdrawing his clause for the present.
Sir C. Douglassaid, he would have the clause printed, with a view to its being brought up with the report.
Clause withdrawn.
Lord Francis Egertonthen moved the clause of which he had given notice, ex-

1443
empting the borough of Bolton from the operation of the bill. He knew he might be told that the bill did not go directly to confirm the Bolton Charter, but still it would have the effect of confirming it in an indirect manner. Several of the ratepayers had determined to litigate the question at the earliest possible opportunity, and this case was a perfectly different case, and a much stronger one than the case of Manchester, to which allusion had already been made, and they were apprehensive that they should by this bill be put in a worse situation than the one they at present occupied. They were desirous of bringing the question to trial, and did not wish to be deprived of the opportunity of trying the case by the indirect operation of this bill. In order that the House might understand distinctly the operation which the clause of the Attorney-general would have upon Bolton, it was necessary that he should explain, that at present the corporation was unable to levy a borough rate, because the township and the borough were not coterminous. Now the Attorney-general's clause would enable them to levy a borough-rate, and deprive those persons of the opportunity of trying the question of the charter, which they were anxious to do, should the rate be levied. Such were shortly the grounds on which he entreated the House to exempt the borough of Bolton from the operation of the bill. He would be glad to give any explanation that might be required, but at that late hour he did not wish to occupy the attention of the House longer than was necessary.
Clause read a first time. On the motion that it be read a second time.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, he should be under the necessity of opposing the clause, as he considered that entirely to exempt Bolton from the operation of the bill would be highly objectionable. If it were sought by that bill to deprive the inhabitants of Bolton of the right to question the validity of the charter, such a proceeding would be manifestly unjust; but no such thing was attempted to be done. The inhabitants of Bolton would still have the power to take any steps they might think fit to question the validity of the charter. The consequence of exempting Bolton from the operation of the bill would be, that they would not be able to make any arrangement with the county of Lancaster for the custody and maintenance of their prisoners, and the county of Lancaster would suffer great injustice in consequence.
1444
To correct this inequality, it was necessary that the bill should apply to Bolton as well as to Manchester or Birmingham, and there was no reason assigned by the noble Lord to induce him to assent to the exemption.
Mr. Bollingcould assure the Attorney-general that Bolton was peculiarly situated; it was divided into three townships, Great Bolton, Little Bolton, and the northern part. Great Bolton being only within the borough, all the expense relating to that could be taken out of the poors'-rate. But with regard to the other portions, they were obliged to levy a second rate, which was objected to. The parties agreed to levy in a friendly manner, for the rate, in order to try the question; but after carrying the proceedings to a certain point, the corporation party had given up the contest. The bill would go to legalise the levying of rates other than those authorised by the Municipal Act, and on that ground he claimed the exemption sought. The Queen could grant a charter, but she could not grant the power of levying money. He did not oppose the charter per se, but they were desirous of trying whether they could be legally saddled with this rate; 5,000 rate-payers had petitioned not to be saddled with the useless expenditure for the gaol and quarter sessions, when they were within ten miles of Manchester, to the prison of which place their prisoners might be conveyed by railroad at a, shilling a head. Two years ago they had had a police force imposed on them by the noble Lord, which had cost 3,000 l. in the last year, and 5,000 of the rate-payers now appealed to that House for protection against that bill.
Mr. Ainsworthsaid, that the petition alluded to by his hon. Colleague had been got up under false pretences. The town had been placarded with bills stating that a gaol was to be built at the cost of 20,000 l., and a new poor-house at the cost of another 20,000 l.; of course, the rate-payers were anxious on the subject. The fact was, there was no intention to build either a poor-house or a gaol. The bill would however, give them the power of using the gaol to which his hon. Colleague had alluded, therefore if the bill passed they would be able to enter into an arrangement with the county on the subject. With respect to the charge of the police, Bolton was in the same situation as Birmingham. The corporation had appointed a police; their right to do so had been opposed; the old police had been kept up, and constant quar-

1445
rels between the two had been the consequence. His hon. Friend had alluded to the expenses of the corporation. But it was a fact that the corporation had effected a clear sawing of 500 l. a year by the quarter session alone. They had formerly to send all their prisoners to Manchester. The argument of the Attorney-general was very just, that the county had at present to support all the borough prisoners, although the borough contributed nothing to the county rate. The hon. Member referred to the report of Captain Jebbs to show that a large majority of the householders had petitioned for the granting of a charter. There were 5,115 householders in favour of the corporation, and no more than 2,956 against it. There was, therefore, a much larger proportion of the inhabitants in favour of the corporation in Bolton than either in Manchester or Birmingham. Indeed, there seemed to be no other objection to the including Bolton in the bill than that there would be no one to compensate except the coroner. He hoped the House would not countenance the motion of the noble Lord the Member for South Lancashire; or rather he hoped the noble Lord would see the propriety of withdrawing his motion.
Mr. Grimsditchsupported the motion of the noble Lord, and hoped the noble Lord would press the question to a division.
Mr. M. Philipssaid, that he had been requested to oppose the proposition of the noble Lord. The expenditure of the borough would be diminished by the bill, in one item to the extent of reducing a charge of 18 l to 3l. 15 s. He hoped the clause would not be pressed.
The Committee divided on the question that the clause be read a second time:—Ayes 31: Noes 75; Majority 44.

List of the AYES.

Bailey, J.

Hodgson, R.

Blackburne, I.

Holmes, W.

Broadley, H.

Hughes, W. B.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Ingestre, Viscount.

Cresswell, C.

Knight, H. G.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Darby, G.

Marsland, T.

Drummond, H. H.

Parker, R. T.

Dugdale, W. S.

Rae, rt. hn. Sir W.

Egerton, W. T.

Richards, R.

Egerton, Lord F.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Gladstone, J. N.

Stewart, J.

Godson, R.

Waddington, H. S.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Greene, T.

TELLERS.

Hale, R. B.

Boiling, W.

Hawkes, T.

Grimsditch, T.

1446

List of the NOES.

Adam, Admiral

Jervis, J.

Aglionby, H. A.

Marsland, H.

Archbold, R.

Maule, hon. F.

Armstrong, A.

Morpeth, Viscount

Beamish, F. B.

Morris, D.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Muntz, G. F.

Blewitt, R. J.

O'Brien, C.

Bowes, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Bridgeman, H.

Parker, J.

Brotherton, J.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Bruges, W.H. L.

Pease, J.

Busfield, W.

Pechell, Captain

Campbell, Sir J.

Pigot, rt. hon. D.

Chalmers, P,

Rundle, J.

Clay, W.

Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.

Craig, W. G.

Salwey, Colonel

Duke, Sir J.

Scholefield, J.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Sheil, right hon. R. L.

Evans, W.

Smith, J. A.

Fielden, J.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Fenton, J.

Steuart, R.

Gisborne, T.

Stuart, Lord J.

Gordon, R.

Stuart, W. V.

Greg, R. H.

Strutt, E.

Hawes, B.

Tancred, H. W.

Hawkins, J. H.

Thornely, T.

Hayter, W. G.

Tufnell, H.

Heathcoat, J.

Wakley, T.

Heron, Sir R.

Walker, R.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wallace, R.

Hollond, R.

Warhurton, H.

Horstnan, E.

Ward, H. G.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Wilde, Sir T.

Howard, P. H.

Wood, G. W.

Howard, hn. C.W.G.

Wyse, T.

Hume, J.

Yates, J. A.

Hutt, W.

TELLERS.

Hutton, R.

Ainsworth, P.

Ingham, R.

Philips, M.

The House resumed. Bill to be reported.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
House in Committee on the Administration of Justice, (No. 1) Bill,
Mr. Hayter Mr. Hayter moved the following proviso to the clause awarding compensation:—
"Provided always, and be it hereby further enacted, that every annual or other sum of money awarded by way of compensation or otherwise, under this bill, to the Honourable Robert Campbell Scarlett, now one of the Masters of the Court of Exchequer, shall cease to be payable, when and so soon as he shall succeed to the dignity of a Peer of the United Kingdom."
Agreed to.
Bill went through Committee. House resumed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Frivolous Suits.
Petitions presented. By Lord Denman, and the Duke of Sutherland, from Kendal, Birmingham, and Dentown, for the Jews Declaration Bill.—By the Bishops of London, and Winchester, from Brentwood, and Walton-on-Thames, against the Encouragement of Idolatry in India.—By Lord Denman, from Wigmore-street, for the Abolition of the Tolls on the Bridges.

THE CORN-LAWS.
The Duke of Buckinghampresented petitions, in all 120, from Newport Pagnell, Ditchley, Great Marlow, Great and Little Hillingdon, and a large number of other places in the counties of Buckingham, Oxford, Suffolk, Northampton, Derby, Southampton, and Sussex, against any alteration of the Corn-laws. He thought it right to state, that those petitions were signed by farmers, tradesmen, clergymen, and labourers. They were sighed previously to the announcement relative to the Cornlaws that had been recently made in another place; but that announcement had induced the petitioners immediately to communicate with him, and request him to call their Lordships' attention to their feelings on this subject. They expressed their astonishment at the announcement to which he had alluded; and the deep regret which they experienced in finding that the noble Viscount opposite had united with his colleagues in taking a course, by attempting to alter the Corn-laws, that would hazard and endanger everything that was dear and valuable to this country. The petitioners expressed their anxious desire to come before their Lordships, not asking for a monopoly under any circumstances, but simply praying that they might not be deprived of that protection which all classes of her Majesty's subjects had a right to enjoy; and they declared their determination to resist, by every means in their power, the withdrawal of that protection, which they now possessed in common with other classes of the community. So far as he was concerned, he had heard with regret and astonishment what had occurred in another place; but he hoped, that that declaration would be met by the

1373
Commons of England, and by their Lord ships in such a way as would at once dispel the fears of the agricultural interest, and would enable them to pass the rest of their lives in the peaceful enjoyment of their own property, and to give employment to the labouring classes, who, if those laws were repealed, would be deprived of the means of subsistence. Had the noble Viscount reflected on, and considered well, what would, and what must be, the result of such a measure as that which it was the intention of his noble colleagues to bring forward? When he heard the noble Viscount last year ex press his opinion so strongly on this question, he certainly was not prepared to find the noble Viscount ready to support such a course as Government was now about to adopt. When he adverted to what the noble Viscount had stated on that occasion, he must say, that after the avowal of such sentiments, he did not expect that the noble Viscount would give his support to such a measure as was now contemplated; he did not think that the Government of this day would be ready and prepared to come forward with a proposition for the repeal of the Corn-laws. In referring to the opinion of the noble Viscount, he would not trust to his own memory, but would quote from a report of his speech, which he believed to be perfectly correct. On the occasion to which be alluded, the noble Viscount had expressed himself in these terms:—
"His noble Friend had carefully abstained from stating what it was that he meant to do; whether his object was to have a fixed duty, or a diminution of the present ascending and descending scale; but whichever of these alternatives was his noble Friend's plan, as he saw clearly and distinctly, that that object would not be carried without a most violent struggle; without causing touch ill-blood, and a deep sense of grievance; without stirring society to its foundations; and leaving behind every sort of bitterness and animosity; he did net think that the advantages to be gained by the change were worth the evils of the struggle, by which their Lordships might depend on it the change could alone be effected. They had seen great changes at no distant period—changes which had stirred society from the bottom, which had excited man against man—divided the whole country into parties and left behind the deepest feelings of discord and enmity. He, for one, was not for adding to those feelings, by rashly adventuring to stir and agitate them; and upon those general grounds he felt himself justified
1374
in saying 'No' to the motion to the noble Earl."*
It was to prevent that struggle in the country, to which the noble Viscount had adverted so feelingly, that he (the Duke of Buckingham) now called upon their Lordships to support the existing laws. He hoped that they would never see that struggle; but so surely as the noble Viscount and his colleagues should take the step that had been mentioned, no surely would this country he plunged into a state of irremediable confusion; and the consequence, however unfortunate, must rest on the noble Viscount and his colleagues.
Viscount Melbournesaid, as the noble Duke, in presenting petitions relative to the Corn-laws, had so pointedly alluded to the part which he had taken when that subject was discussed on a former occasion, he thought that it was necessary for him to say a few words in reply. Unquestionably, he had expressed strong opinions and sentiments on this subject at different times, because he felt and knew that there were many reasons and grounds which rendered any agitation of the question of the Corn-laws liable to very great objection. But, at the same time, it must be recollected by the House, that upon every occasion on which he had addressed their Lordships on this subject, he had always said, that his opposition to the re. consideration of the Corn-laws, with a view to their alteration, wag based upon particular and temporary grounds; and, with repeat to the measure itself, he had carefully reserved his opinion. Upon no occasion had he ever pledged himself to support the law as it at present stood, because he saw that the time must come, when it would be necessary for their Lordships to take this question into their serious consideration, for the purpose of placing the law on another basis. The noble Duke had quoted some expressions used by him, with reference to this subject, on a former occasion. No doubt many similar expressions might be found in addresses which it had been his duty to make to their Lordships; and to the arguments which he had on those occasions introduced, he did not, at the present moment, deny a great portion of force and strength. But, when he delivered his sentiments to that House, on the question
* Hansard, vol. liv. p. 1042.

1375
which was then before it, and to which the noble Duke had referred, he had expressly said,
"My noble Friend has put his motion in such a way, as to present very little difficulty to me—namely, that it is expedient to reconsider the laws relating to the importation of foreign corn.' Now, I am distinctly of opinion that it is inexpedient. At the same time I do not mean to pledge myself to the continuance of the existing laws, or in any respect bind myself to the maintenance of the present amount of duties. This is a question of circumstance; because circumstances connected with the state of the country, considerations of various kinds, of economy or of policy, may arise, which would not only justify, but would render it necessary to pursue, a different course. But, under the present circumstances I do not think that it would be wise or prudent for Parliament to enter upon the reconsideration of these laws."
Now, he conceived that it was impossible for him to have used any words that could have more clearly or distinctly shown that in his opinion a time might come, and circumstances might arise, when this question, with all its difficulties, inconveniences, and disadvantages, must be taken into consideration. Those circumstances had arisen, that time, in his opinion, had now come, when it was found necessary, in order to meet the exigencies of the country, to adopt wide and extensive financial measures—measures which affected every other interest in the country—when, he owned, it appeared impossible to him to leave that, the master grievance (so the noble Viscount was understood to say), untouched. Under such circumstances—under such necessities, and in such a crisis, he had agreed to take that course which the noble Duke complained of, still holding the opinion which he formerly held, which was grounded on temporary circumstances, as to the time when it might be proper to bring forward this question. That opinion was entirely based and grounded on particular and temporary circumstances, and not on the real meaning and bearing of the measure itself.
The Earl of Riponsaid, he had heard, with very great surprise, and with very deep regret, the speech of his noble Friend, not only on account of the great interests concerned, but on account of the character of his noble Friend himself; because if he could not produce, when their Lordships came to discuss this ques-
1376
tion, more plain, more intelligible, more satisfactory grounds, for the change of opinion which he had avowed, he knew not what the country might think of his noble Friend, but this he knew, that his noble Friend would not be able to carry on the government of the country. He was anxious to ask a question of his noble Friend. In his opinion their Lordships had a right to know on what principle the Government meant to act? Was the proposed alteration to be founded on the principle of protection—or was it to be a measure of taxation? If it were to be a measure founded on the principle of protection, then vanished into air all the arguments used by the Anti-corn law league—then vanished the grounds on which the passions of the multitude had been appealed to. Then would Government establish, by their own act, that very principle of protection, which those who supported the Anti-corn league objected to. The Corn-law was a measure of protection; and those who supported it did so on the grounds of humanity, and of consideration for the wants and comforts of the poor; and if Government abandoned that high and generous principle,—if, instead of it, they adopted the principle of taxing corn for the production of revenue, they would do that of which, he believed, no country in the world had ever before afforded an example. Such a proceeding would be the most unpopular, the most cruel, and the most unjustifiable, that was ever forced upon a reluctant legislature.
Viscount Melbourne: Most unquestionably the measure will proceed on the principle of protection.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, that from what he had heard, he was convinced that the measure contemplated would not be one of protection, but would be framed to increase the revenues of the country. He considered it to be a measure of taxation, and he for one, as belonging to the landed interest, would give it every opposition in his power. For his own part, he would agree to any tax rather than to a tax on the most essential article for food of the working classes. He would lose no opportunity of stating his opinion on the subject, and he hoped that the whole country would rise as one man against such a tax, against a tax on bread. Why should he attempt to do away with a system which was intended as far as possible

1377
to render this country independent of other states for its supply of corn, and which at the same time enabled them to supply the labouring classes with bread as cheap as it could be grown? It was a principle established in all ages, and would be held as a correct one so long as the world existed, that no country could be independent that was unable to supply itself with bread. On that ground he had supported the Corn-laws, and if they attempted to abandon those laws now, for the purpose of inflicting a heavy tax on the labouring classes, let them, he would say, in God's name resist the attempt as one man, and resist it to the uttermost. Let them rise in that House and do their duty to the labouring classes; let them tax the higher orders, if it must be so; but in God's name let them forbear from placing a tax upon bread, which formed the chief subsistence of the poorer classes. A popular cry of cheap bread had been raised throughout the country. Ministers, knowing that their foreign, domestic, commercial and financial policy were generally condemned, were now endeavouring to bolster up their popularity by this plan, the most wicked that ever the Government of a great country ever proposed. They hoped by taking this course that the "cheap bread" cry would be of use to them in case of a dissolution of Parliament, but the people had too much sense to be deluded by that cry; for they know that cheap bread was synonymous with low wages. When the loaf was at 4d., and meat 1½d. and 3d. per pound, what did the people say? They said, "What is this cheap bread to us when our wages are so wretchedly low that we have no money to purchase if?" By this attempt, by taking away the protection from the produce of the newly emancipated West-Indian Colonies, and giving encouragement to foreign sugar, Ministers had rendered themselves more odious than ever, and had hurried on their own downfall.
Petitions laid on the Table.

THE SCOTCH CHURCH.
Lord Dunfermlinehad been requested to present a petition from the seven suspended Ministers of the Presbytery of Strathbogie, praying their Lordships "to apply such a remedy as in their wisdom the present emergency seemed to require;" and in rising pursuant to notice to do so he felt
1378
bound to lay before the House a brief statement of the facts of this case, the conduct which they had pursued, the manner in which they had been treated, and subsequently the persecutions to which they had been exposed. It would be familiar to most of their Lordships that in 1834 the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland passed a measure which has since been known by the name of the Veto Act, and by which the right—the absolute, unrestricted, unrestrained right—of dissent was given to the male heads of families in communion with the Church in the appointment of a minister to a vacant parish. They would also be well aware that Mr. Edwards had been presented to the parish of Marnoch, in, the presbytery of Strathbogie, to whose appointment these parishioners had objected; and that the Presbytery, acting in the first instance in obedience to the Veto law, and the wishes of the General Assembly had refused to take Mr. Edwards upon his trials. Mr. Edwards obtained a judgment against the petitioners who had rejected him, directing the presbytery, after trial and examination, to admit Mr. Edwards, if found qualified, as presentee to the church and parish of Marnoch. In consequence of this decree, Mr. Edwards called upon the Presbytery to perform the statutory duty, which it had been found was incumbent upon the members of Presbyteries of the Established Church, in terms of statutes of the realm. The petitioners held themseles bound, as ministers and members of Presbytery, to obey that decree of the Supreme Court; and they conscientiously believed, that all members and all ministers of the Established Church must perform the obligation imposed upon church courts by statute. Having intimated their intention to obey this decree, the Commission of the General Assembly, upon the 11th of December last, proceeded to suspend them from the office of the holy ministry, and from the exercise of any of their functions as members of Presbytery, expressly on the ground that such intention to give effect to the decree of the Supreme Civil Court was contumacy against the authority of the Established Church, and must be treated and punished as such by the ecclesiastical courts. The petitioners hoped that they would not be exposed to consequences and to punishments so severe and deplorable, because they were willing to obey the law.

1379
If they thought that their vows of obedience to the Established Church, and their duty as ministers and members of the same, were inconsistent with their duty as subjects, they would at once withdraw from the church of their fathers; for, as ministers of the gospel, they could not place themselves in rebellion against the law, and they could not understand how obedience to a judgment of the House of Lords and of the supreme tribunals of the country could be inconsistent with their duty as members of the church established by law, or contumacy against a church whose authority in regard to the settlement of ministers in the parishes of the establishment was that which statutes have recognized and ratified. They submitted that this state of things, which might also soon occur in many other cases, required the interposition of the legislature, by whose statutes the duties on presbyteries of the Established Church of Scotland were imposed. They therefore prayed their Lordships
"To take the premises into consideration, to apply such legislative remedy as the nature of the case requires, and to pass some statute by which the petitioners, who are acting in obedience to a decree of the Supreme Court, may be protected in the discharge of their statutory duty, and the church courts be restrained from punishing or depriving parties of offices held under the laws of the country for obeying the decree of the supreme courts which gives effect to the statutes of the realm."
He felt it to be his duty to bring this subject under the consideration of their Lordships, that assembly being a proper tribunal to apply to when any injustice was committed, either with reference to a clergyman or to a layman. It was necessary for the peace of Scotland, that the course which had been pursued by the commission of the General Assembly should be arrested; because if it were persevered in, it could produce no other result than that of placing Scotland in a state of the utmost embarrassment. It might be said, that some objection lay against this course of proceeding, on a point of form, connected with proceedings now pending in the Scottish court. No person could respect more than he did proceedings in those courts; and if it could be clearly proved that such was the fact, he would give way to that representation. But he did not believe that in this case any such objection could be fairly taken. He wished to
1380
place the case on a broad and extended ground. This was not a mere question between individuals. It was a great public question, and must be decided by competent authority. Those who were now struggling for supremacy in the Church had taken an extreme course in suspending these petitioners. And what did the petitioners pray for? They called' on their Lordships to relieve them from that severe and continued persecution with which they were assailed, merely because they paid prompt obedience to the laws of their country. The act of 1834 invaded the rights of property as to Church patronage, and when it came under the consideration of the Scottish courts was held by them to be invalid. Their Lordships' House arrived at the same conclusion, having affirmed the decree of the Court of Session. The resolution of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was, as their Lordships well knew, opposed in all respects to the derision of the courts of law in Scotland. It was to this effect:—
"The Assembly while acknowledging the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil courts in all that related to the civil rights of the Church, yet asserted that the Lord Jesus Christ was the only spiritual head of the Church; that the General Assembly derived no authority from the civil magistrate; that their jurisdiction was founded upon the word of God, who was their only spiritual King and Governor, Their spiritual jurisdiction and authority so received they were prepared to defend, and assert, by the blessing of God, at all hazards; that they had determined finally to enforce the submission of the office-bearers and members of the Church of Scotland, over whom they would exercise the ecclesiastical authority with which they were invested."
Here was a distinct claim for independence. Here was a straightforward declaration that they did not recognise the authority of the civil court. The question between the Church and the nation had then been appealed to their Lordships. They had affirmed the decision of the Court of Session, and the point at issue was thus settled by the supreme tribunal both of England and Scotland. The whole facts of the case proved, that the General Assembly were the aggressors. They had, in the first place, done wrong by passing an illegal act, and they had aggravated and increased that wrong by meeting the judgment of the civil court by the resolution which he had read. So, throughout the

1381
whole affair the Church had been the aggressor. The anxiety of these unfortunate petitioners to obey the wishes of the Church Courts had been sufficiently shown by their having originally acted in accordance with the provisions of the Veto Act, and in their having refused to take Mr. Edwards on his trials. But the law of the land, expressed by the voice of the civil court, had told them that they must examine that gentleman, and the interdict commanding them so to do was but a repetition of the words of the Act of Parliament which had passed in the reign of Queen Anne. This injunction they had obeyed, and in consequence of this act of obedience by the civil court, they had been taken before the commissioners of the assembly, who had said to them, "You have obeyed the orders of the civil courts, and therefore you shall be suspended." Could there, he asked, be a more decided act of resistance? The commissioner had proceeded, and had preferred against them an indictment, which had led to their deposition. Now, in that indictment—he stated this boldly without fear of contradiction—there was not a single act of these gentlemen mentioned for which they had not had the authority of the civil courts. These facts were all admitted, and nothing now remained but that the General Assembly should pronounce the formal sentence of deposition against them. He was afraid that he should do injustice to these petitioners if he did not call their Lordships' attention to some other points in this case. He wished to draw their attention to what would be the effect of pronouncing this sentence of deposition. As he read the Act of 1592, these benefices would be declared vacant, and the patrons deprived of their patronage. Was it not, he would ask, under the Act of 1592, open to the heritors in every one of these parishes to say to the minister—" If the Courts of Session suspend you from your legal right, I will not pay you one farthing of your stipend?" Those seven gentlemen, therefore, might be called upon to bring actions against he could not say how many heritors to recover their stipends. The Crown was patron of one of these benefices, and these churches being declared vacant in consequence of the deposition of these individuals, what would his noble Friend do? Would he sustain or abandon the
1382
presentee of the Crown? His noble Friend might say, that he would not interfere; but he most be permitted to say, that such a resolution could only endure for a very short time. How would his noble Friend act? If he abandoned the presentee of the Crown he would side with the Church, but, at any rate, under these circumstances, he could not maintain a position of neutrality. Let this collision between the Church and State go on, and the litigation which would arise would be most harassing and ruinous to those clergy of the Scotch Church that were disposed to obey the law. Here there was another view in which the question might be viewed well worthy of attention. He would ask the House what hopes they could entertain that justice would be properly administered in the Church Courts of Scotland whilst matters remained in this condition of conflict between the civil and ecclesiastical law? The General Assembly was now about to meet under difficult and trying circumstances. A periodical, which was the organ of the dominant Church party, speaking on this subject, said—
"The Assembly will meet under trying circumstances. One of two things must happen—the ministers who have been suspended must be deposed, or the Church of Scotland must be deposed."
What would be the conduct of the members of that Assembly when they were convened, of course he could not say. He could only hope that they would evince a spirit more in accordance with the law. He now came to the most painful part of the question, because he must call his noble Friend's attention to the grounds on which he thought the members of the Church of Scotland were entitled to entertain serious doubts whether they could receive that support from the Government to which they were justly entitled. He should have thought that the suspension of the ministers was a fact so astounding, that any Government would have thought it important to have examined the whole subject, and would have felt that it was a duty to have come to some conclusion. At least he ought to have gone to this extent—to the extent of declaring as his decided opinion, that he would enter upon no negotiations, that he would admit no preliminary, nor proposition, until the law was obeyed. This, he could inform his noble Friend,

1383
was the general opinion of supporters of the Government in Scotland; and he must be permitted to add, that the general impression in that country was, that all the Government patronage and favour had been conferred on those who had actively opposed the law. He thought that the Assembly, composed as it partly was, of men of retired habits, and who lived almost out of the world, should receive some unequivocal declarations of the intentions of the Government to encourage it to do its duty, and obey the law. He thought, that under the circumstances, the time had come when something should be done. It might be said, that "we will wait until the Assembly meets." Could any man wish that by such an assurance, either from his noble Friend or the House, the Assembly should be induced to take the one last and desperate step? He, therefore, asked his noble Friend, why he did not at once give some firm and specific assurance which should operate so as to encourage them to support the law? He did not think that the authority of the Government was so weakened amongst those who opposed the law—if its voice were strongly and clearly expressed—as not to have a great effect in their deliberations. If his noble Friend said, that he would wait, he could only infer, that if certain steps were taken, he would then interfere. Would it not be better to prevent now than to punish hereafter? Why not interfere now? It was not a case of private right, but a great public question; and he would ask his noble Friend why the defence of that public question and the vindication of the law should be cast on these unfortunate individuals? The Lord Advocate was the person on whom ought to devolve the duty of maintaining the public interest, and enforcing obedience to the law. He felt every confidence that his learned Friend, if intrusted with that duty—though the report should be true, that he favoured the views of the dominant party in the Church—would execute the law efficiently and vigorously. Under all the circumstances, he did earnestly hope that his noble Friend would be in a condition to say, that he had now made up his mind to give a firm and decided answer—that he was prepared, in the event of the Assembly taking strong measures against these individuals, to say that he would sustain them and assert the
1384
law—that he would do what he could to restore order in this state of disorder—that that which had been guaranteed should be applied, and that there should be no means used to defeat the intentions of the State in making these endowments. The noble Lord concluded by moving for a copy of the libel (or charge) preferred by the General Assembly against the seven ministers.
The Duke of Argylewas glad that this discussion had taken place, because it would probably lead to a settlement of the question; and, when it was settled, he was sure that it could only be settled in conformity with the rights and privileges of the Church of Scotland.
Viscount Melbourne:—My Lords, my noble Friend in presenting this petition has entered into a most able and elaborate history of the differences between the General Assembly and the Courts of Law in Scotland. He has expressed a very strong opinion on the subject—an opinion upon which I do not mean to say whether I agree to it or not. Certainly upon that part of his statement it is not necessary for me to make any observations. My noble Friend has well stated, that it is not a question of a private nature—that it is not a question between patron and presentee—between those gentlemen and the rights which they claim; but it is unquestionably a great collision between two bodies in the State—a great collision between the ecclesiastical and high legal authorities in Scotland. In contests of this nature the part which I should always take is perfectly clear; but, at the same time, it is unnecessary for me to declare it on the present occasion. But when my noble Friend requires me to state distinctly that it is the full and entire intention of the Government to maintain and support the law—to maintain civil rights—I cannot have any hesitation whatever—I cannot have any doubt in giving him that assurance and making that declaration in as decided terms and in as firm a manner as it can possibly be made; but when my noble Friend goes further and asks me, provided the General Assembly takes those measures against these gentlemen which are apprehended in the petition, whether I would then introduce a legislative measure to settle the question, upon that point I must be understood to give no answer. In a constitution such as ours—a constitution composed of many bodies

1385
—of many powers—of many different and separate jurisdictions, it is unquestionably in the highest degree necessary that those powers and jurisdictions should each be confined within its own proper sphere of action, and restrained to its own proper limits. But it will happen sometime that one breaks out of bounds, and contentions will arise between bodies in the State with respect to the limits of their jurisdiction as to matters over which they have authority. From these the greatest inconvenience necessarily must arise, and I have no doubt that my noble Friend stated to your Lordships correctly the inconvenience which may arise from the difference between the authorities in Scotland; but, when an inconvenience of this kind arises, it does not necessarily follow that the Government must immediately interfere, and that the legislative power must immediately be called into action to put an end to such a state of things, if is the duty of the Government to consider whether the inconvenience is greater or lesser than the inconvenience which would arise from making an alteration in the frame of the constitution, and in the jurisdictions of the respective authorities. Therefore, in the course of last Session, I was not willing to concur in the bill of my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen), which went, to a considerable degree, to affect the rights of patrons; nor do I think, on the reading of this present petition, or in anticipation of any conduct of the Assembly, which perhaps may not follow, that I am called upon to say, that I will introduce a measure which must necessarily affect that which has hitherto been considered to be the rights, privileges, and authorities, of the General Assembly. I say, therefore, that neither on the one side nor on the other am I prepared to alter the constitution of the Church of Scotland. That is a very serious matter, indeed, my Lords. My noble Friend opposite by his bill unquestionably intended to make an alteration in the right of patrons, and any measure which must be necessary to redress the wrongs inflicted on these gentlemen must necessarily effect an alteration in the constitution of the General Assembly. I am not prepared to pledge myself to a measure of that kind at the present moment. I do not see my way in the question, and I am not prepared to say, until I see ray way, whether I would rather
1386
bear the inconvenience which arises from the present state of things than bind myself to a step which I do not see whither it may lead me, nor to what advantge it may conduct me. My noble Friend has observed on the conduct of the Government in the whole affair; and he has brought some charges against us, which he will forgive me for saying I do not think are of a very serious character. He says, that when the General Assembly proceeded to violent measures against these Ministers we should have broken off all communication with it. The Church knew as clearly as it possibly could, that we disapproved of that conduct; that we thought the claims were erroneous; but that, if they were right in the claims which they put forward, they were unquestionably wrong in the manner in which they sought to enforce them. I do not see, that any benefit could have arisen from the course suggested by my noble Friend; that of breaking off all communication with the Assembly. I do not see what would have been the advantage of that course. Perhaps it would have only increased their violence, and perhaps they would have said, "We are utterly neglected by the Government, and we have therefore nothing to do but to follow our own course." My noble Friend has also said, that the stream of patronage of the Government has been directed to those who held the opinions of the dominant party in the Church. I do not know much myself about the patronage of Scotland. It is not very large; it is not, perhaps, of any very great importance; and possibly the persons who may have been preferred may have held these opinions; but I apprehend that it was not on account of those opinions, that they were so preferred, and therefore I should think that those who appointed them were not aware of the opinions which they held on the subject. Unquestionably we will maintain and support the law, but really I do not see my way sufficiently in the question to enable me to hold out any prospect of the introduction of a legislative measure for altering the law.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that having last year presented some petitions, and having also sought to legislate upon this subject, he felt it necessary to make a few observations. The noble Lord who had presented a petition that evening had stated the case so clearly, and pressed it

1387
so strongly on the attention of her Majesty's Government, that little remained for him to say. The hardship of which the petitioners complained had been greatly aggravated since last year, and every year must add to the cruelty and injustice which they suffered. The whole offence charged against them was their obedience to the law as laid down, not only by the Court of Session, but by their Lordships' House. The noble Viscount had said, that he would not undertake to give any opinion on the conflicting judgments of the courts of law and the General Assembly. But would the noble Viscount give him leave to ask whether the House of Lords was to be the supreme interpreter of the law of the land in matters of appeal or not? It was not the judgment of the Court of Session alone, but a judgment pronounced upon appeal by their Lordships, for their compliance with which these unfortunate men were persecuted. They had waited until compelled by legal proceedings; they had done nothing except under constraint, and at a period when, if they had disobeyed, they would render themselves liable to pecuniary damages or personal confinement. And to this their Lordships had reduced them, for no other crime except their obedience to that which they had proclaimed to be law. The noble Viscount Said, that he would maintain the law, but would not interfere between these different constituted authorities. What did the noble Viscount mean by maintaining the law? How could he maintain it but by giving it effect? Had the noble Viscount any doubt of what the law was? The dominant party in the General Assembly maintained that the decision of their Lordships' House was illegal, unconstitutional, and in violation of their privileges, derived from the supreme head of their Church. Were their Lordships prepared to admit this? Were they prepared to stultify themselves by consenting to have the judgment, which they had so pronounced, quashed by any authority within these realms? It was a question whether, if the General Assembly acted in contravention of the authority of Parliament, they did not cease altogether to have any legal existence. The state had imposed certain conditions on the Scottish Church, and one of these was to admit all qualified persons presented to benefices. Were they to be permitted to deny
1388
the obligation under which they existed as an establishment? The General Assembly had endeavoured to justify themselves by a reference to the Confession of Faith, the only recognized standard of the Church of Scotland. They talked of their second book of Discipline, and pretended to support the claims therein contained by a reference to the Confession of Faith. Now, the latter was embodied in an act of Parliament, and they had a right to refer to it as their guide. But, although their second book of Discipline unquestionably formed the foundation of the Act of Parliament, by which they were constituted in 1592, yet the act specifically excluded these claims on which they now relied as forming part of the Confession of Faith; for in that very act patronage was excepted. The state expressly excluded those parts which gave this patronage to the presbytery. In reply to an observation which had fallen from the noble Viscount (Viscount Melbourne), he would read an extract from the Confession of Faith, showing that the civil magistrate was not excluded, but desired to interfere, in a state of affairs precisely analogous to that which now exists. The noble Earl read as follows:—
" But he (the civil magistrate) hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace prevail in the Church, that the worship of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemy and heresy be suppressed, that abuses of worship and discipline be prevented, and all the ordinances of God duly administered and maintained; and for the better effecting thereof that a certain number of singers be present thereat, and see that all things are done according to the word of God."
The authority of the Church was therefore not exclusive, even in spiritual matters. The Church could no more alter a single particle in the Confession of Faith than could any individual, without the consent of the Legislature. A violent collision had taken place, and the utmost confusion and disorder existed. He would not call it rebellion, because men were accustomed to connect with rebellion acts of violence; but it was not the faults of many of these reverend gentlemen that others were not in open rebellion, and with arms in their hands too, against the execution of the law, through the inflammatory and seditious harangues with which they had excited the whole country against the decisions of the courts. And this was the state of

1389
things which the noble Viscount said, he could afford to allow to go on a little longer. In the observations which fell from the noble Viscount about the distribution of the Government patronage in Scotland, he supposed that the noble Viscount alluded, not to the clerkships and other civil offices, but to appointments in the church. When last this subject was mentioned in the House, he saw a direct proof of complicity on the part of the Government with some of the most violent of the majority of the Assembly. It was thought that it would be highly beneficial to the University of Edinburgh to establish a certain professorship, and a Gentleman was named. It was subsequently discovered, however, that this gentleman was one of the prime agitators of the present question, and one who, he should have thought would have been the last to be chosen. It was also discovered that this individual had been guilty of a decided breach of the law, for he called an inter diet pronounced by the proper tribunal a part of the law of the land. And what had the noble Marquess done? He suspended the appointment, but instead of appointing some other individual, he said that he would exercise his own discretion. Did he mean to say, that there were not fifty other persons qualified to fill the office, and in all respects unobjectionable? It was, therefore, either a job created for this person's especial advantage, or the noble Marquess was bound to fill up the vacancy according to the exigencies of the public service. Would the noble Lord consent to allow the judgments of that House to be set at nought by the majority of the General Assembly? He held the conduct of her Majesty's Government to be most disingenuous in not stating their opinion of the conduct pursued by the majority of the General Assembly, while he I would affirm without hesitation his belief that the views of not a single Minister differed in this respect from his own. He held then, that they were bound to give their moral support to the cause of peace and order by a declaration more specific than that which the noble Viscount had made. The noble Viscount would forgive him for saying, that the course which he was r pursuing was not worthy of him. The noble Viscount would acquit him of approaching this subject with any party motive; and he implored the noble Viscount to interpose
1390
with some well-armed measure in so disastrous a state of things, to prevent the arrival of a still more disastrous crisis. He hoped that it was not too late for the Government to turn their minds to this subject. They must sooner or later grapple with the question of what was to be done to support the judgments of the courts und of that House. An alteration of the law would not dispose of that difficulty.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he thought his noble Friend near him had given the only answer that could be expected, or that any one hail a right to expect. His noble Friend had stated his determination to uphold the law. The noble Earl wanted to know what he meant. Its meaning he thought was simple enough. The noble Earl carefully avoided stating what was specifically to be done, and he could not expect his noble Friend to pledge himself specifically as to what he would do in the event of the General Assembly taking any particular course. The General Assembly would either keep within their powers or exceed them. In the former case they could only be checked by legislation—in the latter there were civil courts to appeal to. The noble Earl had said, that the stream of Government patronage in Scotland had flowed towards those who had thus violated the law. Now with respect to church patronage in Scotland, it had been the habit of the Crown before he took the seals of his present office, to issue a leet to select a candidate, and with respect to the persons put on the leet no one was put on because he was of non-intrusion principles. His noble Friend near him might, perhaps, say he had been misinformed or deceived, but he had reason to believe from those on whom he relied that, this was not the case, and that whilst perhaps no person had been excluded from the leet on account of his principles, still that the patronage should not be bestowed in favour of those who violated the law. The noble Earl had alluded to Mr. Candlish's case. After all that had been said before, he was somewhat surprised that his case was now revived. He had never said, that it was "necessary" to establish the professorship, but when a vacancy arose he thought it a good opportunity of carrying out the recommendation of a commission that had sat seven years back, but on consideration he did not think, looking at the state the Scotch Church was now in, that it was a favour-

1391
able moment to create a new professorship so intimately connected with the doctrines and practice of that Church.
Viscount Melvillesaid, that it was in the power of the Government to direct the Lord-Advocate to take steps to protect those seven ministers in their benefices. The General Assembly had no power or process by which to carry out their decrees. If the seven ministers refused to quit their glebes, all that the church authorities could do would be to go to the sheriff—not authoritatively, not calling upon him as a ministerial officer to assist them with the civil process—but by humble petition, craving his aid in his judicial capacity. This, however, it would be rather dangerous for the sheriff to exert, and he would probably hesitate to stir in the matter. He hoped that Government would reconsider their course. At any rate, if the General Assembly proceeded to deposition, it would be the duty of the Government to interfere forthwith, and not to allow these seven ministers to incur the ruinous expense of defending their causes in the courts, but direct the Lord Advocate to interfere to protect them.
The Earl of Rodensaid, that when the noble and learned Lord described the whole stream of Government patronage as having flowed to those persons to whom he referred, he (the Earl of Roden) thought he pronounced the highest compliment to the Ministry that they had ever received. The observations of the noble and learned Lord on the eminent persons whom he had attacked were in his (the Earl of Roden's) opinion far too strong. He was convinced the General Assembly were only doing what they conceived to be their duty.
The Earl of Haddingtonknowing the influence which the noble Earl bad in Ireland, hoped he would suspend his opinion till he had made himself fully acquainted with the history of what had taken place in Scotland. He knew the high respectability of the Ulster Presbyterians, but there was a great difference between their case and that of the Scotch Presbyterians. In Ireland they were Dissenters, and might feel they had some right to expect that no one should nominate their ministers; but in Scotland they were part of the Established Church. He wished now to make an observation on the subject of leets. He thought there never was a device more calculated to sow dissention in the country and in the Church than the practice
1392
which had been commenced by Lord Grey's Government of issuing leets on the occasion of vacancies in the Church of Scotland. It had given rise to canvassing by sermons and other discreditable practices. With respect to Mr. Candlish he was extremely happy to hear from his noble Friend opposite that it was not the intention of Government to fill up the appointment which they had intended for that Gentleman. If their Lordships desired to show their regard for the Church of Scotland, and their desire to add to its efficiency as a useful religious establishment, they would do all in their power to prevent the misfortune which would ensue should the General Assembly make another declaration in opposition to the decision of the Court of Session.
Petition laid on the Table. Motion for a copy of the charge against the seven Ministers agreed to.

POOR-LAW COMMISSION (IRELAND)— CLONMEL UNION.
The Earl of Glengallrose to bring before their Lordships the subject of the falsification of certain returns which were moved for in that House. It was not necessary for him to enter into any long statement on the subject of the extraordinary and improper conduct which had been pursued, nor on the unconstitutional nature of this conduct. Nothing could be conceived more unconstitutional, nothing more detrimental to the public service, than the falsification of returns ordered by Parliament. There was no knowing where the mischief might end, if these returns were permitted with impunity to be falsified. Documents ordered by that House should at all times be correct, yet there could be no doubt, for it had been clearly proved, that the returns from the Poor-law commissioners' office in Ireland were incorrect. There could be no doubt that such falsification was a breach of privilege of their Lordships' House. But he was not inclined to consider it in that light. It was more, much more, than a mere breach of privilege, it was a contempt of the authority of their Lordships' House, and it was with a view to affirm that fact he framed his resolution. There was one point which was clearly ascertained by a reference to the journals of the House, that this was the first occasion when such a contempt had been committed. In all the records of their Lordships' House there was no precedent for such

1393
conduct on the part of public functionaries. It was reserved for the Irish Poor-law commissioners to make a precedent. The offence merely was this:—Certain returns were moved for from the office of the Poor-law commissioners, regarding the Clonmel Union, and certain correspondence respecting the appointment of returning officer to that union. One return was moved for on 1st of February, 1840, and in May, 1840, another return was moved for and made. In that last return there was a copy of a letter purporting to be written to an individual of the name of Fennell, it appeared in evidence taken at the bar, that the letter inserted in that return was not the true copy of the letter sent to Mr. Fennell; that the letter purporting to be an extract of the register, was written in a different shape from that in which it was made in the month of February. It also appeared in the return made in May, that an extract from the report of Mr. Phelan was returned in u different shape from that made in May, and it was also placed in a different position in the return, so as to deceive their Lordships. A third return was also ordered in the early part of the.Session of 1841, which proved that the two former were false returns. It was not necessary for him to prove these facts, they were fresh in their Lordships' recollections. There was one circumstance, however, connected with the privileges of their Lordships' House, to which he felt is his duty to advert. The Poor-law commissioners in Ireland appeared to have takes? a most singular view of the power they possessed to comply or not with an order of their Lordships' House. It appeared, that when their Lordships' House ordered copies of all correspondence between the Poor-law commissioners, in reference to the appointment in a particular union, they did not feel themselves bound to return the correspondence which took place between the assistant commissioners and other parties in reference to the appointment in a particular union, they did not feel themselves bound to return the correspondence which took place between the assistant commissioners and other parties in reference to the appointment. Such conduct, on their part, had been proved in the evidence at their Lordships' bar. This matter could not remain in this position, Let them suppose a correspondence to take place between the magistrates of
1394
Birmingham and the Home Secretary, and that their Lordships were to, order a return of that correspondence from the Home-office, and that it should so happen that the letters were addressed to the Under Secretary, and that the return from the Home-office was nil, would is not, he would ask, be a most improper return, and such as would be vi- sited with the just censure of the House? He (Lord Glengall) conceived that the words "all correspondence," included any letters that may have passed between the assistant commissioners and any other party; and that in suppressing any portion of the information required, the Poor-law Commissioners had acted in a manner which no other public functionaries would have presumed to do. There was another point to which he begged to direct their Lordships' attention, as it was one of great importance, and well worthy of remark. It struck many of their Lordships at the time the evidence was given at the bar, that in the manner in which the Poor-law business was conducted in Dublin, truth was little regarded. It did appear that the exact truth, the precise state of the case, was never considered when the commissioners were called on to return answers to applicants, it mattered not, it appeared, whether the answers sent were consistent with the truth, provided it saved them trouble, and satisfied the parties that there was no use in making further application. He could not conceive anything more scandalous than that truth should not be the basis on which a public body acted. Though there were other subjects of great importance in Ireland mooted in this Session of Parliament, he knew no subject that excited greater interest than did this Poor-law investigation. This was not to be wondered at, when thus considered—not only that the taxation of all property in the country was in the hands of those individuals who administered the law; but also, when they considered that on this act, in all probability, one of these days, the parliamentary franchise of the people of Ireland would be based. It was, therefore, of the highest importance that the administration of this law should be conducted on proper principles. It was also imperative that those appointed under it should be men of the highest character—men, in fact, whom the public would have reason to suppose would act with strict impartiality. Whether or no the

1395
officers appointed by the Poor-law Commissioners had acted with impartiality, their Lordships would decide from the evidence adduced at the bar. There were many, however, who thought that this was not the case, and he was compelled to state, that he did not think such strict impartiality had been observed in the appointments as the House was led to believe would be the case when the bill was in progress through Parliament. This belief was the cause of all the excitement that had taken place in Ireland. He could not dismiss the subject without noticing, in some respect, a point which, one of those days, when this matter progressed, he might be obliged to bring under their Lordships' consideration. It was a serious point, and very forcibly struck him at the time, but much more so since he had an opportunity of acquiring more knowledge on the subject. It was this—that he found great difficulty to reconcile with the truth the evidence given at that bar. But as there would probably be an opportunity afforded of that matter at length, he would reserve himself for that opportunity. With regard to the individual himself, who would probably come under their Lordships' censure, he was not disposed to ask that any severe punishment should be inflicted upon him; because he felt that though this person must be the chief sufferer, he could not but think, both from the evidence, as well as front understanding the case, knowing the circumstances and how it occurred, and what it was that probably led to the falsifications of those returns, he could not but think that Mr. Stanley had been the dupe of more subtle, more astute, and more deeply skilled parties than himself. Although it was manifest that the House must adopt his resolution, he hoped he should not hear it said, that there could be no motives for what had been done. He could not reconcile it to his mind, that all this tissue of falsehood was concocted without a motive. He had endeavoured not to be acrimonious in this matter, and he trusted that he should not be compelled by any such observations as he had alluded to, to throw away the pruning knife, and take up the axe in his reply. The noble Earl concluded by moving the following resolution:—
"That it appears to this House, that Mr. William Stanley, secretary to the Poor-law Commissioners, did, in contempt of the au-
1396
thority of this House, make an alteration in a paper ordered to be laid before this House, after the order for laying such paper before this House had been received by him."
The Marquess of Normanbystated, that it was not his intention to take the discussion on this Resolution, but would reserve it for the next.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, the resolution was stronger than the case would justify, as their Lordships ought not only to take into consideration the act, but also the motive. His noble Friend (the Earl of Glengal) seemed to rest his case more on his knowledge of Clonmel than upon the evidence taken at the bar, upon which alone their Lordships would be justified in coming to a conclusion. Now, in that evidence he could not trace any corrupt or improper motive to Mr. Stanley. In his own opinion, Mr. Stanley was the least culpable of all the parties implicated in this transaction. At the proper time he would undertake to prove, that much greater culpability rested upon others than upon Mr. Stanley. He must also observe, that the proceedings of his noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Normanby) against Mr. Stanley, were not founded in justice either. His noble Friend ought to have considered the evidence before he took any steps on it; and yet in the recess he had dismissed Mr. Stanley from his office. True it was, that Mr. Stanley had offered to resign it; but, under all the circumstances of the case, he thought that the noble Marquess ought not to have accepted that resignation.
Lord Ellenboroughobserved, that Mr. Stanley had been selected for punishment because he was the only person against whom the House could at present proceed. The only question before the House was a question of privilege, and the only person with whom it could deal was Mr. Stanley. Other persons might be more culpable, and his noble Friend near him, on another occasion, might be able to prove that such was the case, but at present Mr. Stanley was the only person the House could touch. He did not wish to press hard upon Mr. Stanley, but a great contempt of the authority of their Lordships' House had been committed by that individual; and if their Lordships did not mark that offence with their displeasure, there would be no security for the fidelity of any return which might hereafter be made to Parliament.
The Marquess of Normanbydenied, that he had acted with injustice to Mr. Stanley. He wished to call to the recollection of his noble Friend the situation in which the Government would be placed if it connived at all at such conduct as this. However unimportant this matter might be in itself, there was, nevertheless, a great question involved in it, and that was the securing the unimpeached fidelity of every return made to their Lordships. No man who had read the evidence could deny that a contempt of the authority of that House had been committed. He was glad to hear his noble Friend contend that Mr. Stanley had not been influenced by any corrupt motive. That was undoubtedly the case; his motive was to conceal a deficiency in the performance of his duty. He ought to have notified at the bottom of the page that he ought to have taken such and such a course, and that from the accumulation of business he had not. He thought that the offence had arisen from having wished to conceal a discrepancy which existed in his documents. If he had had the moral courage to have made the returns as they stood, and accounted for the discrepancy at the bottom of the page, he would not have been visited with their Lordships' censure. His own impression was, that it was the intention of the Poor-law commissioners to act fairly and impartially. Certainly it was the intention of the Government that the act should be fairly and impartially carried out. In proof of this they had selected as the principal person to carry the Poor-law act in Ireland into execution, one who had been engaged in superintending the operation of the Poor-law in England, and whose political opinions, so far as they were known, rather tended towards those entertained by the party opposite. Moreover, the evidence of Mr. Stanley went to show that the Irish government entertained the same desire that was entertained by the Government here, that this act should be impartially carried into effect. His noble Friend opposite had stated that his knowledge of Clonmel and its neighbourhood enabled him to penetrate the mystery that involved those. Now he could not conceive any thing more trifling than the corpus delicti in this case, of which so much had been said. An office of such trifling emolument could not be of much importance to the individual, and he could
1398
not conceive how any political object could be answered by the appointment of this individual to that office. With respect to the conduct of Mr. Stanley, he considered that the act committed by that individual was such as to render it impossible that he would be continued in the office. At the same time he was bound to say that all those to whom Mr. Stanley was known spoke of him as a person of unimpeachable integrity, and those under whom he had served felt sorry at the loss of his service. He hoped that the Poor-law commissioners would take care that in future this act should be carried out with the strictest impartiality, and without any political bias whatever.
The Duke of Wellington: My Lords, allusion has been made by my noble Friend to the conduct, of Mr. Stanley. He has proposed a resolution on that subject, which I conceive to be very properly worded, and there is no doubt that this House must pass that resolution. There is another consideration involved in this question, arising not only out of the evidence before your Lordships, but also out of what we know from papers not yet printed, and also arising out of this discussion. My Lords, I have contended all along, that it is not the conduct of Mr. Stanley, or of any inferior and subordinate person that ought alone to come under your Lordships' consideration, but the conduct of the Poor-law commissioners themselves. I say that they should have prevented these things. I voted for the Irish Poor-law bill, and proposed amendments, which I believe induced your Lordships to pass this bill. I am sure that those amendments had the effect of inducing others to approve of that bill who would not have done so if those amendments had not been introduced. I did all this on the faith and assurance not only of the House and the Government, but of those Gentlemen themselves, that it would be carried into execution on the principle stated when it was carried through the House, namely, that the measure would be carried into execution in Ireland with the same strictness and fairness as it was in this country. In this expectation I have been altogether disappointed, and for this reason I am determined, when I get the other papers, to read every line of them, and probe the matter to the bottom, in order to see where the mischief lies. But recollect there is not only this case,

1399
but several other cases before your Lordships, in every one of which there is corruption. We cannot stop here with the resolution of my noble Friend. The Clonmel case is a very gross case. The noble Lord opposite has told us that the office can be but of little importance, as the salary is only from 10 l. to 30 l. a-year; but see what power the cilice gives. In this very case let your Lordships see what happened the next day, when the brother-in-law of this individual was appointed valuator, a situation which puts the property of every man in some degree in his power. We must go deeper into this question if we wish to do justice to Ireland, and to the gentlemen who hold property in that country. We must take care that their property shall not be left at the disposal of such miscreants, and we must make the Poor-law commissioners do their duty. I cannot conclude without adverting to another case, namely, the Naas case. What happened in the Naas case? A person was appointed a returning officer who had been convicted of forgery in the case of an officer of Dublin Castle. He was tried and convicted, was sentenced to transportation, was, I believe, on board the hulks, but certainly was in Newgate, one of the gaols of Dublin, awaiting the execution of his sentence. This man, convicted of forgery, was the man they selected to fill the office of returning officer, an office which gave him great influence in the return of the valuator. Having assisted in the carrying of that law, I am bound to see that justice is done; and I will, if I have power to do so, see that justice is done. The noble Lord opposite, when this case was first mentioned, stated that this was not the same person, and that there was a mistake as to the identity of the man; but I stated that I had reason to know that it was the same man, and yet the Poor-law commissioners appointed this man. When the assistant Poor-law commissioner is sent to make inquiries respecting the fitness of an individual, he makes his inquiry of the individual himself. He is told, as was the case in Clonmel, that there is a gentleman of large fortune of whom inquiry ought to be made, but he never thinks of asking him any question on the subject, for it was sufficient for him to know that he was the nephew of a person called the Archbishop to be satisfied of his fitness. It would be mere stuff to stop here; the persons on
1400
whom the House must call are the Poor-law commissioners themselves. Let them be taught to feel it their duty to keep a correct record of their proceedings, which they will be ready to produce at any time that the House or the Government may call for them. Let them be taught to feel that the House will not permit such conduct as this, and we will soon see an end to such abuses as those out of which the resolution of my noble Friend arises. In the course of the Session, when all the papers are before us, it will be absolutely necessary to take the entire subject into consideration, and we must see what shall be done to render it certain that this measure shall be as fairly carried into effect in Ireland as in this country.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that not having expected that the Naas case would be brought before the House, he had not brought papers with him. He did not mean to deny that the appointment was an improper one. This person was employed to write for a soldier's pension, the soldier being dead. The case was of such a nature that no imputation rested upon his moral character, and to such an extent was this impression entertained that after his release from prison the clerk of the peace continued him in his employment.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that they should have before the House an exact history of that man's proceedings. He had been greatly disappointed at the manner in which that act had been carried out, and he hoped that the House would not lose sight of the subject.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that in the last Session of Parliament he had brought the subject of the mal-administration of the Poor-laws in Ireland before their Lordships' notice, and had intended, but for the late period of the Session, to have moved for a select committee to inquire into the matter. He was prepared to prove that the whole thing had been most injuriously, most shamefully, and most grossly jobbed. He was sorry to say, moreover, that it had been made a religious question, and that the priests had most shamefully interfered in the appointment of the guardians and other officers. In short, the valuation of the country was placed in the vilest hands. If a committee were appointed, he (Lord Westmeath) was in a situation to prove that his statements were not in the least overcharged. In fact it would appear that nothing had been said, at his side of the House, at all equal to the

1401
statements which would he substantiated upon oath. He was astonished to hear his noble Friend (Earl Wicklow) offer excuses for the conduct of the commissioners. The commissioners had notice from Mr. Bagwell that this Butler was an improper person, and yet without making any inquiry, they appointed him. he did not wish to speak uncharitably, or to press severely upon any man, particularly when he was pressed down by misfortune, but he felt constrained to say it was absolutely necessary that this matter should be carried much further. If the law were not properly administered the landed property would be ruined, while, on the other hand, if the views of parliament were fairly carried out, he hoped much benefit would eventually arise to the country from the enactment. He could not conclude without expressing his best thanks to the noble Duke for the statement made that night, and his intention to see the law fairly administered.
The Earl of Wicklowhad not defended Mr. Stanley's conduct, but merely stated that he had been singled out for punishment, though he seemed the person least concerned in these transactions.
The Earl of Glengallsaid, as was his custom, he had placed on the Table the documents on which he founded his statement. When the Clonmel case should have been thoroughly sifted it would be found that he had been more than justified in the course he had taken. It should be recollected that in a Parliamentary borough like Clonmel an office of this kind was of great importance. Now in Clogheen and other unions they had appointed the high constable returning officer, but this rule, which the commissioners acted on elsewhere, had been particularly departed from in the parliamentary boroughs of Clonmel and Cash el. The returning officer was an important officer in a borough town. He was able to return a partisan board of guardians. Now, in this case what was to be done? The board of guardians appointed the brother-in-law of the returning-officer to be valuator, and when his appointment was not allowed, they then appointed his nephew. Besides this, relatives of his were appointed master and mistress of the poor-house. He moved the resolution.
Resolution agreed to.
The Earl of Glengallthen moved, that Mr. Stanley be ordered to appear at the bar of their Lordships' House on Friday, the 14th of May inst.
The Marquess of Normanbytrusted that
1402
the House would think that their dignity had been sufficiently satisfied. He hoped their Lordships would feel that this individual had been sufficiently punished by the loss of his office. He would remind their Lordships that Mr. Nichols had stated on oath, that Mr. Stanley was in such a state of nervousness that his life might be endangered if he were again to be subjected to any further proceedings. He hoped, therefore, that his noble Friend would feel that, the dignity of the House had been sufficiently vindicated.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that the motion of his noble Friend was the most lenient he could have made. However, as it had been stated that Mr. Stanley's state of health was such that his appearance at the bar might have a most injurious effect upon him, he considered that the object might be answered by embodying that fact in a resolution, and having it entered on the journals.
The Earl of Wicklowconcurred in that view.
Lord Ellenborough, drew up a resolution se ing forth that, upon a motion made that Mr. Stanley, the assistant secretary to the Poor-law commissioners, be ordered to attend at their Lordships' bar, a noble Lord stated that Mr. Stanley's health was such as to make it dangerous for him to attend, and the motion for his attendance was, therefore, withdrawn.
The Earl of Glengallwithdrew his resolution, and moved it in the amended form in which it had been read by Lord Ellenborough.
Resolution agreed to, and ordered to be entered on the journals.
The Earl of Glengallalso moved, that there be laid before their Lordships a copy of the resignation of Mr..Stanley of the office of Assistant-secretary to the Poor-law commissioners, and the minutes of the board accepting such resignation.—Agreed to.—Adjourned.