Sitting of 30 May 1842

Preamble
MINUTES.] BILLS. Public—1o.. Electors Removal.
Reported.—Witnesses Indemnity.
Private.—2o.. Gair's Naturalization.
Reported. — Carlow Road; Liverpool Borough Court; Saltcoats Harbour; Tadcaster and Otley Road; Gravesend Terrace Pier.
Private.—3—. and passed:—Clerkenwell Improvement.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Hawes, from the Trustees of various Roads, against, and from J. Beresford Turner, in favour of the Turnpike Roads Bill; and from Dunbar, Ross, Alton, and Stroud, against the Exportation of Hill Coolies from British India.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, and Mr. S. Wortley, from the Guardians of the Hereford Union, York, Haithwaite, and Meltham, against the Poor-law Amendment Bill.—By Sir John Hanmer, from Hull, against the Introduction of a Clause compelling Public Houses to keep Closed from 12 o'clock on Saturday night till 1 o'clock on Sunday morning..—From John Wren, for Inquiry into the late Election at Southampton. —By Sir H. Douglas, from the Legislative Council and House of Assembly of New Brunswick, against Altera- tion of the Timber Duties—By Sir A. Grant, from Cam- bridge, for the Repeal of the Duty on Attornies Certificates By Mr. Jackson, Lord Bernard, and Mr. Litton,from Ferns Leighlin Ossory, Temple Michael, Carriga-line, Barmaliaby, and Gavaghy, for Alteration of the present system of Education (Ireland).—From Roman Catholics of Stockton-upon-Tees, for Equality of Civil Rights.—From Worthing, and Chichester, against the Property Tax Bill.—From Ennis, in favour of the Rivers (Ireland) Bill.—From Maesteg, for Payment of Wages in Goods, instead of Money.—From George Williams, for Adoption of Measures for Preventing Bribery at Elections. — From Charles Frederick Collis Barns, for Inquiry into the Proceedings of the late Election at Brighton, and for Extension of the Franchise, and vote by Ballot.—From the Rev. James William Graves, for Relief on account of the Amount of Tithes due to him.

LYME REGIS ELECTION.
House informed, that the committee appointed to inquire into the Lyme Regis Election had determined,—
" That William Pinney, Esq., was not duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Lyme Regis.
"That Thomas Hussey, Esq., was duly elected and ought to have been returned a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Lyme Regis."
Determinations to be entered in the journals. House further informed, that the committee had unanimously come to the following resolutions:
" That the committee think it right to inform the House, that although the general charge of bribery, alleged in the petition, has not been gone into, yet it has appeared in evidence, in the course of the scrutiny, that a corrupt practice has for some years prevailed in the Borough of Lyme, of lending money upon notes of hand, bills of sale, or other securities, to a considerable portion of a constituency which did not exceed 280 by the last registration.
" That, in the opinion of this committee, a practice so insidiously corrupting and demoralising, is peculiarly adapted to interfere with the free and honest exercise of the franchise, especially in small constituencies; that it has had this effect in the Borough of Lyme, and that it deserves serious attention and inquiry on the part of the House.
Report to lie on the Table. Return to be amended.

GRAND JURIES (IRELAND).
Mr. O'Connellwished to put a question to the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland. A report had been recently made on the grand jury system, suggesting the adoption of legislative measures with reference to that subject. What he desired to know was, whether it was the intention of the Government to act upon that report?
Lord Eliotwas understood to say, the report the right hon. Gentleman referred to had only been lately made, and as the Government required ample time to consider the important questions involved in it, there would probably be no legislative measure on the subject introduced during the present Session.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he had, some time since, given notice of his intention to proceed with the property- tax that evening. He believed, it was also the impression of the House that it would certainly be proceeded with. There were a number of preliminary arrangements which it was absolutely essential to make, if the measure was brought into operation on the 5th of July; and, taking that circumstance into consideration, he did hope that no objection would be offered to proceed with the bill at once; and that he might be permitted to appeal to hon. Members to agree, that no question likely to lead to a discussion—not even a question of privilege—should be interposed.
Several motions were accordingly postponed.

MR. WREN'S PETITION—SOUTHAMPTON ELECTION.
Sir John Easthopebegged to inquire of the hon. Member for South Hants, at what time he proposed to submit the motion of which he had given notice, respecting the petition which had been presented from Southampton, on the proceedings at the late Southampton election? This question had been rendered necessary by the course taken by the hon. Member for Lymington.
Mr. Flemingintimated that he should present the petition immediately before the motion of the hon. Member for Lymington for the issue of the writ for Southampton came before the House.
Mr. T. Duncombehad been entrusted with a petition upon this subject, which the
980
House would perhaps think it would be convenient that he should present at once. It had been his intention to present that petition at the time when the motion of the hon. Member for Lymington came under discussion, but the postponement of that motion induced him to think that it was highly desirable that the petition should be printed with the votes, in order that its contents might be made known to all hon. Members; and he was convinced that when the allegations which it contained were made known to the House, there would be no hesitation in refusing to issue the new writ for this borough. The petition proceeded from John Wren, the witness who had been in custody, in consequence of what had passed before the election committee, and it stated a variety of circumstances, and pressed upon the House the necessity of a further and searching inquiry, in which the witnesses should under the protection of an indemnity, into the scandalous corruption which had taken place in the borough of Southampton. The petitioner further prayed, that the House would delay the issuing of the writ. He moved that the petition be printed with the votes.
Mr. Mackinnonshould certainly oppose the motion.
Mr. T. Duncombe:Surely, upon a subject like the present, the House must wish to have all the information which they could possibly procure; and it was impossible that they could reject the offer of the witness, who came before the House and tendered his evidence.
Petition drawn up, and
The Speakerintimated that it was not in accordance with the practice of the House that a petition, being thus presented, should be printed with the votes, but the petition must be referred to the committee on public petitions.
Mr. W. O. Stanleysaid, that having read the petition, he thought that it was of the utmost importance that it should be printed, and that it should be in the hands of all hon. Members as speedily as possible. The petitioner declared that if he were granted an indemnity and examined, he should be able to disclose the circum- stances connected with a most extensive system of bribery, not only at the last, but at the two previous elections for the borough of Southampton.
Mr. Mackinnonwould beg to observe that this petition was from the very per-

981
son who bad behaved so ill before the committee. He put it to the good sense of the House whether they would violate the common understanding of the rules of the House for the purpose of printing a petition which showed that the evidence which this very person had previously given was not to be believed.
Mr. Redingtonsaid, that there had been a time when the conduct of this man, so far from its calling for animadversion from hon. Members opposite, had demanded their sympathy. But circumstances now seemed to be changed. The object of his hon. Friend in making this motion at the present time was to save the time of the House. He put it to the hon. Member for Lymington, whether he could bring forward his motion until the petition had been printed.
Sir Robert Peel:As a motion was to be brought forward, and as it was distinctly stated that this petition had reference to the subject matter of that motion, the question was whether this was not a case which was exempted from the operation of the general rule of the House. If the hon. Member for Finsbury had given notice of his motion, it would have been competent to him to have moved that the petition be printed; but as the petition related to a motion about to be brought forward, he thought that the case was one in which the rule might be broken through. It was, no doubt, of great importance that the rules of the House should be adhered to, but this might be looked upon as a case which justified an exemption. Whether the character of the witness entitled him to credit was a question upon which they would be able to form a judgment on seeing the petition; but with reference to issuing the writ, as the allegations on the petition had a strong bearing on it, he should think that it was important that the motion should be acceded to.
Mr. O'Connell:The misconduct of the witness when before the committee had consisted in his refusing to answer a question, lest he should criminate himself. He now came forward and said that if he was indemnified he would give evidence. It was obvious that he would be able to make some disclosures, because he had been one of the most active men at the election; and there was no doubt he knew all that had occurred.
Mr. T. Duncombehad presented the petition merely for the purpose of saving
982
the time of the House; for if he had not presented it now, he should have done so on Wednesday next, when a considerable discussion would no doubt have ensued. They would find in that petition, that so far from Wren not having spoken the truth, the charge was that he had spoken too much of the truth, and that he was now, in consequence, placarded all over Southampton as having betrayed his party; and the public were now cautioned against dealing with that individual, in consequence of what he had stated. The petitioner further said, that he had not mentioned one-tenth of the transactions which he knew to have occurred at the elections, and that he had a book in which the several sums of money expended in bribery were set down. If they resisted the printing of this petition, and would not receive the information which was now offered them through that petition, he wanted to know what the public would think of that transaction. The book to which the petitioner referred contained the entries relating to various sums amounting to 6,000 l., and one of the pages of this book was stated by him to be signed by the returning officer. That was a very important point to be inquired into; and if the petition were printed, he really thought that no hon. Member would vote for the issuing of the new writ.
Mr. Flemingsaid, that Mr. Wren had not only told all that he knew, but a great deal more. If the House wished to know the character of Mr. Wren, he would read to them a letter. The hon. Member was then proceeding to read a letter, when
Mr. T. Duncomberose to order. If that letter was to be read, the petition ought to be read first.
Mr. Fleminghad had a communication from the returning officer, whose letter, after what had been said, ought to be read. He had also a letter which showed the general character of this person Wren. The letter was addressed to himself, and the writer said, that having read the proceedings before the late election committee, and having observed that Wren had been represented as a respectable tradesman in the town, he considered it to be his duty to inform him, as the Member for the county, of a circumstance which had occurred to himself. He then stated that at an interview which he had had with Wren some time since, a conversation had sprung up respecting a person who

983
was an insolvent debtor, and who was about to be heard in London before the commissioners. The writer of the letter remarked, that he did not consider the person referred to would get through the court if he spoke the truth; whereupon Wren said, that "he should not himself speak the truth in such a case; and that as for an oath, he did not value it, and that he would swear through thick and thin to get through the court," or words to that effect. [" Name, name."] The writer's name was Robert Tomkins, and he was a respectable tailor at Southampton.
Mr. G. H. Wardrose to order. It was not in order when a person came before the House, tendering information, for any hon. Member to rise in his place to blacken the character of that individual by statements such as those that had been read. His belief was, that the hon. Member would have quite enough to do to defend his own conduct. [" Order."]
The Speaker said, that an hon. Member rising to order could hardly make such observations as those made by the hon. Member for Sheffield.
Mr. Henry Baring:The hon. Member for Finsbury had gone into the case of Mr. Wren. There could be no objection, he should think, to have this petition printed; but with regard to Wren's character, as the hon. Member had chosen to state some of the allegations contained in the petition, his hon. Friend felt that he had a perfect right to say, that he believed that a greater vagabond did not exist.
Mr. Fleminghad also received a communication from Mr. Abraham, the returning officer. This letter was dated the 20th May, and the writer said, that the proceedings of the select committee having been laid before the House, he took the liberty of stating that the evidence given by Wren, with regard to the vote of a person named Whitmarsh, was wholly untrue; that Wren had spoken to him with regard to Whitmarsh, was true; but so far as Wren had sworn, he had had a private communication with him he denied, for he had positively refused to hold any communication with Wren on the subject, and had expressed his surprise at his mentioning such things to him, he being then the returning-officer. The writer added, that he had been in London several days during the sitting of the committee, in obedience to a Speaker's war-
984
rant which had been served on him by the petitioners, and, had he been called, he should have stated these facts. They, how- ever, had not called him, and he had been compelled to take this course to make known the truth; he thought it due to himself to make this statement, and thus publicly to vindicate himself. This letter was signed "A. H. Abraham." By way of postscript, the writer added, that Wren had come to his House, and had stated to him that an agent of Messrs. Hutchins and Mangles had come to him, and in the presence of two persons, named Wood and Wilkinson, had offered him 300 l. if he would give the agent some information with regard to the election.
Sir John Easthopemust make one re- mark upon this subject. It was very clear that this John Wren, whose character was so very strongly impugned by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and who was represented as one of the greatest vagabonds in the country, was a very great Conservative; but however great a vagabond he was, he had been admitted into their ranks for years, and great confidence had been reposed in him. It appeared now, how- ever, that they would be glad to get rid of him, whatever his former position might have been, and that they desired to shift from themselves the odium which might result from the disclosures which he might make.
Mr. Wardthought, that the petition ought to be laid fully before the House, in answer to what had been said in the letters read by the hon. Member opposite and he begged to call the attention of the House and of the right hon. Baronet to the allegations in the petition. The petitioner said that he was in possession of a memorandum-book, not produced before the committee, which contained an ac- count of sums of money with which certain electors had been bribed, and containing also the signature of the returning officer, authorising the bribing of a certain elector, which elector was bribed accordingly. It was quite obvious that this petition must be printed and come before the House before they could pursue the proceedings with respect to bribery. Those proceedings would become an absolute farce, if, when a man was knocking at their door, and offering to produce such evidence, they should refuse to hear him.
Sir R. Peeldid not know why the hon. Gentleman should refer to him, because

985
he had already said that there were fair grounds to warrant the printing of this petition. He thought that the issuing of the writ involved a question of a judicial character, and it was the duty of the House to see what evidence could be procured bearing upon it. His opinion was, that this evidence ought to be examined before the issuing of the writ was determined upon.
Petition ordered to be printed with the votes.

COMMON LAW COURTS (IRELAND).
Mr. Lefroyhad heard a report, which he believed to be well founded, that the Government entertained an intention to alter the condition of the common law courts in Ireland; and, from what he had heard, it appeared as if the measure to be introduced was in some degree oppressive. He wished to know whether the measure in question had received the sanction of the judges in Ireland.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that a bill had been drawn up in accordance with the report of a commission appointed to investigate the subject, and that a copy of it had been transmitted to the judges of Ireland; and that the bill would not be proceeded with until the decision of the judges should be known.

ADVANCES TO THE EAST INDIA COMPANY.
Mr. B. D'Israeliwished to know from the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, whether her Majesty's Government had advanced any sums of money to the East India Company, or whether they had sanctioned the East India Company in raising any?
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the question of the hon. Member was rather a complicated one. It would be better that it should be repeated to-morrow, when he would be prepared with an answer.
Lord John Russellagreed that it was very desirable that, when a question of such a nature was to be asked, some notice of it should be given.
Mr. D'Israelihad thought that the subject was so entirely within the department of the right hon. Baronet, that there could be no necessity for any notice of it. The question was one which was of considerable importance in reference to the Property-tax Bill, which was now about to be brought under discussion.
Sir R. Peelthought it was very im-
986
portant, that when an answer to a question was given, it should be afforded with the greatest accuracy possible. If he had received any intimation of the intention of the hon. Member to put this question to him, he would have been prepared to give him an answer; but when answers were given without due consideration, so much misconception was likely to arise, that, especially in cases like the present, involving considerations affecting the Government and this great company, it was better that an answer more particular than could be afforded on the moment should be given.

INCOME-TAX—THE REPRESENTATION.
Sir R. Peelmoved the third reading of the Property-tax Bill.
Mr. Sharman Crawfordmoved as an amendment,
" That as by the existing laws, a large proportion of the people of this realm are excluded from voting for Members of Parliament; and as it also appears, by the reports of different election committees, that corrupt practices have been used to an extraordinary extent in procuring the return of Members to this present House of Commons; and as, from both these causes, this House cannot be considered a fair representation of the people; it is therefore unfit that any system of increased taxation should be imposed by Parliament until all just causes of complaint, with regard to the mode of electing the Members of this House, shall be first redressed."
The hon. Member throughout the whole of his speech was most imperfectly heard. We understood him to say, that it was a fundamental principle of the constitution that a Money Bill should not originate in the House of Lords, on the ground that the people should only be taxed by their representatives in that House. He denied that under the present system there was even a virtual representation of the people. If they compared the return of the population, with the representation of the people in Parliament, it would appear, that in England and Wales the electors were not in greater proportion to the population than one to eighteen and a half; and in Ireland, the proportion was one in seventy-seven; and in Scotland, it was one in thirty. The proportion was now probably somewhat different, so as to render the number of the electors in a still smaller proportion to the population. At the above rate, the average of the United Kingdom would be as one to

987
forty-two of the population, or as one voter in every nine families. Of nine male heads of families in the United Kingdom, on the average only one has the right of voting. This, to his mind, was undeniable evidence of the corrupt state of the representative system. No greater proof of this could have taken place than the conduct of the House on the motion of the hon. Member for Fins- bury, when he proposed that every Member appointed on the committee on the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, to inquire into the recent election compromises, should take a pledge at the Table that he had never done an illegal act to promote his election. And when it appeared there were not sufficient Members in that House who would take that pledge, it appeared that there were not less than forty places returning Members to that House against which petitions had been presented on the allegation of bribery. If a review were taken of the proceedings and reports of the different election committees and other disclosures since the Reform Act, we should find up- wards of forty towns tainted with the imputation of bribery. He believed, this would be a list of places in which bribery has been proved since the Reform Bill, and reported by the committees:Hertford, Carrickfergus, Newry, Derry, Warwick, Ipswich (twice), Evesham, Newcastle-under-Lyne (twice), Ludlow, Cambridge, St. Alban's, Walsall (treating), Sudbury, Southampton. Cases in which compromises have been made to avoid exposure: —In 1837, Bridgnorth, Norwich, Yarmouth; in 1842, Bridport, Nottingham, Lewes, Reading, Harwich, Penryn; in 1841, Canterbury. Cases in which bribery was proved before the general committee of bribery at elections:—Maldon, Cambridge, Norwich, Leominster, Hereford. Special committees have sat and reported on the bribery at Yarmouth and York. Gross bribery has been proved to exist in Lon- don, Hull, Liverpool; and places where the bribery is notorious, Pontefract, Beverley, Berwick, Stafford, Maidstone, Bridgwater, Boroughs in which petitions remain still to be tried, in which bribery is charged:—Belfast, Barnstaple, Sunderland. Again, he felt, that in consequence of the state of the representation, this nation had been engaged in wars which had been most disastrous in every sense of the
988
word. To show the feeling which existed on this subject, every member of the Birmingham conference on the subject of reform, with the exception of two, signed the following declration:—
" We, the undersigned (many of whom are convinced of the utter inconsistency of all war with Christianity), and all of us deeply impressed with a sense of the terrible evils inflicted by it upon our race, the heaviest temporal calamity under which society groans, hereby record our solemn protest against it. We deem it our duty, more especially at the present moment, when the horrors of the system are brought out in vivid relief before our eyes by the recent loss of human life in Affghanistan, to declare our full conviction that the hostilities now carried on by this country in the eastern world, whether in China or beyond the borders of British India, having originated in glaring injustice, cannot be expected to terminate otherwise than in national disaster and disgrace. We believe the commencement of these hostilities to have been as unjust, impolitic, and unnecessary, as their progress hither- to has been calamitous. We have just reasons to fear that their continuance will be protracted, and we are sure that they will be productive of an incalculable amount of evil, both social and moral. We enter our solemn remonstrance against them as not only anti-Christian, but barbarous; and we deeply deplore that the public press of this country should, with few exceptions, lend its aid to kindle in our population the most vindictive passions, and to dif- fuse sentiments worthy only of the darkest ages of feudal ignorance and tyranny. We hold it to be the duty of every friend to his species in every possible way to discountenance those organs of opinion which labour with no small assiduity to foster a warlike spirit, and to in- cite the country to the perpetration of injustice which will make the name of Englishmen in- famous in the estimation of the whole world. Great Britain is already suffering in an enormous load of debt, and in commercial and manufacturing distress, consequent upon the pressure of that debt, the penalties of former wars. As a people we are ill able to bear up under the heavy burdens which have thereby been imposed upon us. We are now called upon to submit to an inquisitorial Income-tax, the necessity for which is clearly admitted as traceable to the hostile operations we hate undertaken, in the face of all laws, human and divine, in China and Affghanistan. We have thus to pay, in an increase of taxation, for the demoralization at home, and the bloodshed and ruin abroad, which these hostilities have already produced, to feed from our rapidly diminishing resources the monster which is making havoc of our fellow-men. Therefore, we, the undersigned, feeling the necessity of using every peaceable method of checking the evil, lay this our solemn remonstrance before the public, and record our devout hope, that

989
the day may not be far distant when our countrymen will be sufficiently enlightened to refuse to enter upon a profession, the spirit and tendency of which is to inflict the most grievous and irreparable evils upon our race,"
What he recommended as a remedy to these evils was the extension of the suffrage, the division of the country into electoral districts, the ballot, and the shortening the duration of Paliaments. He had already, during the present Session, brought a motion to that effect before the House, and all inquiry into that matter had been refused. Was not the general prevalence of distress throughout the country a proof of the badness of their legislation? He might be asked what would take place if this resolution was carried? The result would be, that the House would immediately take into consideration the state of the representation, and have a new Parliament altogether. He did not call upon the House to adopt the principles of the Charter, but only at once to declare that it would proceed to redress all just causes of complaint. In bringing forward this motion, he was not influenced by any party considerations. He had always advocated the amendment of the representation of that House, and he always supported the principle that representation should be equivalent with taxation. At present, when new taxes were proposed, he thought that it was a most appropriate time to bring forward the motion. The hon. Member concluded with proposing his motion.
Sir R. Peeltrusted, that the hon. Member would not charge him with any want of respect if he declined to enter into the discussion of this motion, which the hon. Member's speech, however, held out every inducement to do. He thought that much more favourable occasions could have been adopted for proceeding with a proposition for a change in our representative system. The hon. Gentleman, on his former motion on this subject, stated very strong opinions that that House did not represent the feelings of the people, and that the whole system of representation was defective. The hon. Gentleman's motion, which involved the main principle of his resolution of that night, had already been fully discussed. The proposition which was now made was even of a more extensive character than that made on a former occasion, for the hon. Member now declared that the House
990
of Commons, as at presented constituted, was incapable of performing its functions, and that the only step they ought to take was immediately to resolve upon an extensive reform in the representation. If the House was not at liberty to impose an Income-tax, they were hardly competent to reform the tariff, and were not capable of performing any of the constitutional functions which had been assigned to it. If the House was unfit to impose this measure, there was no other act which they could justly perform. He was very much afraid that the hon. Gentleman's motion would go to the extent of declaring, that the House could not even reform itself. In short, all the functions of legislation must be stopped until this reform took place. He thought that this would be most unwise in the present state of the country. He had already stated the substantive objections he entertained to the proposition on a previous occasion, and he would not then repeat them. He thought also, that it would be most inexpedient to discuss the question of Parliamentary re- form on a motion for the third reading of the Income-tax bill. He trusted that the hon. Member would not think that his abstaining to say any more on the present occasion arose from any want of respect.
Mr. O'Connellconfessed, that the motion might have been made in a more convenient form, but still he could not concur on all that had been advanced by the right hon. Baronet. There was an impression in the minds of many hon. Members who had obtained their seats by no unfair means, that if the time should come when the alterations which they thought necessary were definitively refused to be made by giving a bonâ fide suffrage, the period might also come when they would be induced to give more obstructions to the measures of Government than hitherto. That it was necessary to purify the House from bribery was no longer a matter of declamation, but of positive proof. The right hon. Baronet must not be surprised, therefore, if he met with further opposition to a Government which would not consent to further Parliamentary reform.
Mr. Humehad no hesitation in saying, that the House did not at present represent the feelings of the country; but with respect to the form of the motion, he must say, hon. Members were placed in a difficulty, because they were not able to obtain a direct negative on this question. For

991
his part he decidedly objected to the Income-tax, thinking that other means might have been adopted for raising the required amount of taxes; and he did not agree with the right hon. Baronet that the measures he proposed would give the relief to the country which he anticipated. Every hour, in his opinion, brought more proof that those measures were a mere palliative of the evils of the present crisis. There was a great mass of proof that what the people wanted was employment and food, which they would have if they could get employment. By the operation of the Corn-laws on wages the House had placed the whole community under that ban that they must starve; and there could be no hope without a revival of trade. That revival this country would never see until they had a free communication with America and other countries who had that which we wanted to give in exchange for our manufactures. A vast deal too many of our acts of Parliament were acts to support monopoly in one shape or the other. As to the corruption and bribery at the late election, every hour proved it. Another borough (Lyme) had just been brought within the line, and a new form of bribery had been disclosed — bribery, namely, in the form of money lent to the voters for a number of years, in order to secure their votes. That was distinctly bribery. All these things supported the position that the House of Commons did not at present represent the feelings of the people. He should vote for the amendment, and should oppose every stage of the bill now before the House. As to the operation of the Income-tax, it would only increase the evil. There was no transfer of the burden from one class to another, as the right hon. Baronet assumed; it was an additional tax.
Lord J. Mannershad no doubt that this motion originated from a new society for Parliamentary reform which had sent a circular to the Members of the House. These stated, that the chief part of the newspaper press of the country, including all the metropolitan press, being under the influence of one or other of the two great parties, it was impossible that Members could be fully made acquainted with the feelings of their constituents, and that, therefore, the House did not represent the wishes of the country, and the system of representation ought to be reformed. With that conclusion, drawn from such pre-
992
mises, he did not concur, and he should like to know what portion of the population it was, that could not obtain a full and free expression of their grievances by means of the press. In his opinion there was no class so well represented in the House as the middle class—the shop-keepers and farmers. With respect to the Income-tax Bill, he supported it because he looked upon it as a bold—and believed it would be a successful—attempt to diminish the influence of wealth; to which, and not to the influence of aristocracy, a great part of the present evils were to be attributed.
Lord J. Russellobserved, that the adoption of the amendment of the hon. Member would go to the extent of making the House declare, that it was incapable to perform the functions of legislation. He should oppose the amendment and should also take the sense of the House on the third reading of the Income-tax Bill
The House divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 156; Noes 21:—Majority 135.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Conolly, Col.

A'Court, Capt.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Acton, Col.

Craig, W. G.

Ainsworth, P.

Dalmeny, Lord

Allix, J. P.

Damer, hon. Col.

Bagge, W.

Darby, G.

Baillie, Col.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Baird, W.

Denison, E. B.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Dickinson, F. H.

Barnard, E. G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Barneby, J.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Barrington, Visct.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Beckett, W.

Eliot, Lord

Bodkin, W. H.

Escott, B.

Boldero, H. G.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Broadwood, H.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Brodie, W. B.

Flower, Sir J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Ffolliott, J.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Fuller, A. E.

Burroughes, H. N.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Busfeild, W.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Cavendish, hn. G. H.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Cayley, E. S.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Chelsea, Visct.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Greenall, P.

Childers, J. W.

Greene, T.

Cholmondeley, hon. H.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Chute, W. L. W.

Grimsditch, T.

Clerk, Sir G.

Grogan, E.

Clive, E. B.

Halford, H.

Cockburn, rt. hn.SirG.

Hamilton, J.H.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Hamilton, W. J.

Compton H. C.

Hamilton, Lord C.

993

Hampden, R.

Packe, C. W.

Harcourt, G. G.

Palmerston, Visct.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Patten, J. W.

Hawes, B.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Heathcote, G. J.

Peel, J.

Henley, J. W.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Plumptre, J. P.

Herbert, hon. S.

Pollington, Visct.

Heron, Sir R.

Pollock, Sir F.

Hervey, Lord A.

Ponsonby. hn. C. F.C.

Hodgson, R.

Price, R.

Hogg, J. W.

Pringle, A.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Howard, P. H.

Reade,W. M.

Hughes, W. B.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Humphery, Mr. Ald.

Rice, E. R.

Hutt, W.

Richards, R.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Rose, rt. hn. Sir G.

Kelburne, Visct.

Round, C. G.

Knatchbull, right hon.

Round,J.

Sir E.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Lefroy, A.

Russell, Lord J.

Legh, G. C.

Sheppard, T.

Lemon, Sir C.

Smith, rt. hon. R. v.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Smyth, Sir H.

Lincoln, Earl of

Smythe, hon. G.

Lindsay, H. H.

Somerset, Lord. G.

Litton, E.

Stanton, W. H.

Long, W.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Lowther, J. H.

Stewart, J.

Mackenzie, T.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Thornhill, G.

Maclean, D.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

M'Geachy, F. A.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Mainwaring, T.

Vesey, hon. T.

Manners, Lord J.

Wall, C. B.

Martin, C. W.

Wilde, Sir T.

Master, T. W. C.

Wood, C.

Masterman, J.

Wood, Col. T.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Worsley, Lord Wortley, hon. J. S.

Morgan, C.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Mundy, E. M.

Wrightson, W. B.

Newport, Visct.

Wyndham, Col. C.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Wynn, Sir W. W.

Northland, Visct.

TELLERS.

O'Brien, A. S.

Baring, H.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Fremantle, Sir T.

List of the NOES.

Bodkin, J. J.

Leader, J. T.

Bowring, Dr.

Marsland, H.

Brotherton, J.

Murray, A.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

O'Connell, M.

Cobden, R.

Plumridge, Capt.

Drax, J. S. W. E.

Scholefield, J.

Duncombe, T.

Strickland, Sir G,

Ellice, E.

Wakley, T.

Ferguson, Col.

Williams, W,

Fielden, J.

TELLERS.

Hollond, R.

Crawford, W. S.

Hume, J.

O'Connell, D.

Question again put that the bill be read a third time.

ATTEMPT TO ASSASSINATE THE QUEEN.
Mr. F. T. Baringrose, and was
994
proceeding to bring forward an amendment, when
Sir R. Peel,who had just previously been called out of the House by Sir J. Graham, rose, amidst loud cries of "hear," and addressed the house in the following words, at least as nearly as we could collect them, for the right hon. Baronet's excitement well nigh overpowered his utterance:—Whatever may be the inconvenience to the public service resulting from delay, yet still I think it would be inconsistent with my duty, with my position, and I feel certain it would be unsatisfactory to the House, were I not, after what I have just heard, to propose that the consideration of the question now before us be postponed. I ought to premise, that the information I have received is so imperfect that I must repeat it with great distrust as to the entire accuracy of it; but, since I came into the Mouse, information has reached me that an attempt has been made on her Majesty's life—an attempt which a merciful Providence has rendered abortive; and I have reason to believe, that the assassin is now in custody; and he will, consequently, at as early a period as possible, be subjected to an examination. Under these circumstances—[Mr. C. Wood: Is the Queen quite safe] Perfectly so. I would, under these circumstances, suggest that we do now adjourn, and if this proposal be agreed to, the debate can be renewed to-morrow. My noble Friend the Member for Dorsetshire, has received a pledge of precedence for his motion to-morrow at five o'clock, but immediately after that is disposed of, the right hon. Gentleman's amendments can be taken. At present I do not think that, our feelings being naturally all so excited, we could pay proper attention to the subject; and therefore would suggest that, not only out of respect to our Sovereign, but from our inability, under the circumstances, to pay the requisite attention to the question before us, it will be better to postpone the debate, and I therefore move, that the House do now adjourn.
Lord J. Russell:I beg to second the motion. The excitement that we must all necessarily feel at the news which we have just heard, our horror at the attempt which has been made, and our delight that her Majesty's life has been saved, concur to throw us into that frame of mind which would prevent our paying-

995
anything like due attention to the matter before us.
Debate adjourned.
House adjourned.

Preamble
MINUTES. BILLS. Public.—2a Jurisdiction of Justices.
Reported.— Pentonville Prison; Fines and Recoveries (Wales and Cheshire); Roasted Malt.
3a and passed:—Punishment of Death (Ireland).
Private.—1a. Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Company; The Duke of Bridgewater's Trustees Estate (Archbishop of York's);Rosuma's Pierre Lambert Flavian, and others Naturalization; Lesbazeilles, Jean Baptiste, and others Naturalization; Verconsin, Pierre Frederic Eugene Naturalization.
2a Rudyerd's Estate.
Reported.—Northern Union (Newcastle and Darlington Junction) Railway; Charterhouse Estate; Bristol and Gloucester Railway; Slug Roads; Forth and Clyde Navigation (specially).
3o. and passed:—Greenock Harbours.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Viscount Lorton, and Lord Lord Blayney, from Lismore, and Killevan, for the Encouragement of Schools in connection with the Church Education Society (Ireland)—By the Earl of Rosebery, from Midmar, and Magilligan, for the Alteration of the Law respecting the Scottish Church. —From the Roman Catholics of Bristol, for a Retter Religious Instruction for the Catholics in the Army and Navy.

IRISH POOR-LAW COMMISSIONERS.
The Earl of Glengallhad to submit a motion to which he did not anticipate that there would be any objection. It related to the salaries of the Poor-law Commissioners in Ireland. He understood that those commissioners had each a salary of 800 l. per annum, besides which, there was an allowance of one guinea per day for table money, and an allowance of another guinea per day for travelling expenses making the receipts of each commissioner amount to from 1,500 l. to 1,600 l. a-year. This might be right or it might be wrong, but it would be well to know what the fact was. He would, therefore, now move—
" That there be laid before the House, an
964
account of the salaries, allowances, and travelling expences of the Poor-law Commissioners in Ireland."
Motion agreed to.

STATE OF TIPPERARY.
The Earl of Glengallsaid, that he had now another motion to submit, to which also he did not think there would be any objection on the part of their Lordships. It was for a return of the number of rewards offered by order of the Government of Ireland, for the apprehension of offenders, and also the number of such rewards claimed and paid in the year 1841, and also a return of the number of outrages reported to the Government in the same year. He would now, in a very few words, call the attention of their Lordships to the disturbances which had taken place lately, in the North Riding of the county of Tipperary; but he would not have adverted to this subject, or submitted the present motion, did he not feel that some observation was called for, lest there should be some misconception or misconstruction of some words which had fallen from his noble Friend (Lord Wharncliffe) in a short conversation on the state of the county of Tipperary on Friday evening last. Any one who was thoroughly acquainted with the state of that county—he alluded more particularly to the North Riding—mast agree with him that there was great danger from any misconception as to the acts of the magistrates, or resident gentry there. The magistrates themselves, were fully aware of the perilous situation in which they were placed, and how easy it would be to make that situation still more perilous, by any misconception gaining publicity as to their conduct. Some allusion had been made to the conduct of some of the petty landlords of the country as not being kind to their tenants. He did not mean to say, that some such might not be found, but it so happened, that none of the outrages to which he had referred had occurred in consequence of any act of such landlords. Indeed, even the most Radical newspapers had not ventured to charge any act of outrage to the con- duct of any such parties. It was now notorious that murders had been committed in the open day, and outrages of all kinds had been perpetrated with impunity. Such, indeed, was the state of the county, and such was the extent to which intimidation was carried, that a respectable

965
individual, who had made an agreement to let his house for a police-station, was compelled to break his engagement, and the police were obliged to encamp under canvass for a time. There was also the case of Mr. Hall, who had been assaulted, and who was a gentleman against whom no charge had ever been made, of any unjust or harsh conduct to his tenants. In the case of Gainor's farm, which be- longed to a respectable individual, there was, as in that of Mr. Hall, not a shadow of a pretext for charging the owner with any harshness to those who might be said to be dependent on him. But it was use- less for him to cite cases of this sort of outrage. He looked upon the whole of these outrages as the result of a general conspiracy against the authorities and laws of the land, and against all social order. No class, however estimable, was safe from becoming the victims of such outrages. Their Lordships, no doubt, recollected the melancholy case of the late lamented nobleman (the Earl of Norbury), who was shot almost at his own door. What had been his offence? He had extensive estates, and to that part of one on which he resided, he was anxious to add about 120 acres to his park. To complete this, it was necessary that the holders of some small tenements on the land should be removed. But that was done without anything like harshness, and all the parties who were removed, were paid; but that, it appeared, did not satisfy the disaffected, and the noble Earl soon after perished by a brutal assassination. There was the case of another large landed proprietor— a noble Lord, who, at the close of his office, as the representative of his Sovereign in Ireland, had purchased large property in the country, and who was one of the best landlords in Ireland, yet no man in the country was more annoyed and persecuted than he was. What let him ask, was the cause of those outrages? What was the cause of those systematic attacks on all law and social order? How was it, that such acts were allowed to escape with impunity? The cause would be found in the fact, that such was the state of society that witnesses could not be found to give evidence, or jurors to convict. If witnesses were found willing to give evidence as to the commission of any serious outrage, they, and their families, were obliged to be sent to the Canadas or to the Cape of Good Hope, to prevent
966
their being murdered. Formerly, it was the practice to intimidate jurors, so as to induce them to stay from the assize courts, but now they were compelled to attend; and, as was stated by Mr. Carmichael in his report, instances were not unfrequent of one man holding out against his eleven brother jurors, until it was found impossible they could agree. They were discharged, and the trial was put off to the next assizes, but long before they came about, the wit- nesses were all removed, so as to be out of the reach of any process of the court. These things took place, let it be borne in mind, on trials for outrages of the mostatrocious character, and in this way some well- known—some most notorious offenders, got off with impunity. It was perfectly well known in Ireland that the murderers of Mr. Bryan were now walking about without molestation, having obtained an acquittal by means such as those to which he had alluded. It was known that between December, 1836, and December, 1840, there had been 3,905 rewards offered by Government for the apprehension and conviction of offenders. Those rewards generally amounted to from 50 l. to 100 l. each; but out of these how many did their Lordships think were claimed and paid? Just 107 out of the 3,905. How different was the result of the administration of the law in England ! He had taken the number of commitments and convictions in four large counties in England, and contrasted them with four counties in Ireland. He had taken Staffordshire, Surrey, Warwick, and York, and contrasted them with Cork, Limerick, Sligo, and Tipperary, and he found, that in the English counties two-thirds of those committed were convicted, while in Ireland it was the reverse; for there two-thirds of those committed were acquitted—and, considering the way in which the people were excited by the priests, he should not be surprised if the acquittals were much greater. Considering the numbers whose whole occupation was that of exciting the people against the Government and the local authorities, it would not surprise him if the state of Ireland were to become much worse than at present. The whole country was inundated with those chapmen of sedition and dealers in revolution, for the purpose of unsettling the property of the country; and to what end? To sow dissensions between the landlords and tenants in Ireland. It was to this end that so many declarations and

967
statements were sent forth from the Corn Exchange in Dublin; and, considering the zeal and perseverance with which these statements were circulated through the country, it could not excite surprise to find the whole country in a state of revolt; and so it would be but that, fortunately for the country, there was—in despite of all efforts to prevent it—a better feeling growing up between landlords and tenants. With respect to the priests, he was far from denying, that there were amongst them many very excellent and well disposed individuals, who did all in their power to dissuade the people from violent and outrageous courses. He was aware that there were in this county two highly respectable Roman Catholic clergymen, who openly denounced this system of outrage and endeavoured to dissuade the people from joining in it. It was high time that such a step was taken, for if it had not been so, the North Riding of Tipperary would before this have been in as great a state of insurrection as the country was in the year 1798. He sincerely thanked those rev. Gentlemen for their exertions. He hoped the example which they had set would be followed by others of their rev. brethren in Ireland; sincerely should he feel grateful to them for it. He was well aware that there were in Ireland as good Roman Catholic clergymen as there were Protestant clergymen in England or Ireland, and he gave to all such full credit for their intentions; but he must draw a broad line of distinction between such clergymen and those who might be called the youthful agitating Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. To them and to the excitement they caused, was Ireland indebted for many of the evils which she now suffered. They were the most active agents at the hustings—they took the lead in the registrations—they were the active agitators for the election of men of their own party as Poor-law guardians. The youthful Catholic clergy were the most active agitators in the cause of repeal—the earnest collectors of the subscriptions for that object. It was notorious that, but for their exertions, the repeal fund would not have reached to one- tenth of its present amount. These were facts which could not be denied by any who were acquainted with the state of Ireland at the present moment. While he was on this subject let him advert to one circumstance. It was well known
968
that sums of money had been forwarded from the sympathizers in the United States of America, but they were not sent for such purposes as those to which they had been applied, such as they were, by the keepers of the Repeal treasury. The money was sent in the hope that recourse would be had to arms by the Repealers, and that it would be used for the purchase of powder and ball and other munitions of war; and no doubt the "sympathizers" would feel much disappointed at finding that their money had been applied so very different from what they intended. No doubt, after learning its application, the remission of further sums for repeal "agitation" would be stopped. Let the young priests of Ireland, then, take warning and stop in time. Let them take the excellent example of many respectable members of the Catholic priesthood. Let them look to what had been gained by the Catholic church from revolution in every part of the world. Let them look at what took place in the united provinces of Holland. Let them look at what had been the consequences to their church by the revolution of England in 1688. Let them look at Spain, for the church of which so much sympathy had been expressed in Ireland. What had the Catholic church in Spain gained by revolution? If they considered these circumstances they would perceive how little they could gain by agitation for purposes which if they were gained could produce only revolution. The noble Lord concluded by moving for the returns already mentioned.
Lord Wharncliffewould be sorry were there to be any misconception or misconstruction of observations that fell from him, and still more should it risk any injury or danger to others. What he said on Friday last when this subject was a matter of conversation for a short time was, that when he was one of the select committee on Irish affairs a few years ago, he was much gratified at finding an improved feeling on the part of Irish landlords towards their tenants, and a desire to better their condition, but he added that he had known instances in which landlords had used the rights of property in a manner which was indefensible. These, he had added, were instances not confined exclusively to the Tory or Conservative party, but might have been observed in those who called themselves Liberals, and

969
who were so—at least in their speeches. He, however, did not impute the state of Tipperary as matters of blame to any party. If outrages existed, much of them might, no doubt, be regarded as the effects of former disorders and misleadings, and much, perhaps the greater part of the re- cent outrages, might be traced to feelings of private revenge, arising out of family disputes: and such disorders could not be cured until the return of the people to a better state of feeling.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, as the noble Earl had brought on this motion without notice it could not be expected that other noble Lords would be prepared to follow him in his statements. No doubt the noble Earl had a perfect right to take that course, and he would not have arisen to offer a word, but he did not wish to have it inferred that his silence might be taken as acquiescing in the observations of the noble Earl. Leaving the question of the proportion of committals and convictions, on which he did not wish to enter at present, he would say a word as to the Catholic priests, and in justice to that body he must express a hope that the noble Earl did not impute to them a desire to encourage crime. No doubt there were Catholic as well as Protestant clergymen who in Ireland, as well as in this country, interfered more actively in politics than was desirable, but their political agitation was not connected with agrarian outrages. That was always to be regretted, but then let him state what he knew as coming within his own observation—that while acting as Lord-lieutenant of Ireland he had received the most effective assistance from Catholic priests, and from that body generally. He understood that the noble Lord who now filled the office of Irish Secretary had recently availed himself of an opportunity of bearing similar testimony to the services of the Roman Catholic clergy.
Earl Fortescuesaid, that having heard only a part of what had fallen from the noble Earl, he could not follow him into all his remarks, but in what he had heard he could not concur. All who had at- tended to the subject would admit that of late years, say within the last three or four, there had been a diminution of crime in Ireland. During the time in which he held the office of Lord-lieutenant of Ireland homicides had diminished fifty per annum; and from what he had heard, he
970
believed the diminution continued to the present time. With respect to the Catholic priests in Ireland, he would admit that there, as well as in this country, were men in holy orders who mixed themselves up very indiscreetly in political affairs, but when he said this, let him in justice add, that from no men or party in Ireland had he received such able assistance in the prevention and suppression of crime as he had from Roman Catholic priests.
The Marquess of Clanricardecould bear his testimony to the able assistance derived from the Catholic clergy of Ire- land in the prevention and suppression of crime. As one means of the latter he would suggest a discreet enforcement of the Arms Act. This subject received, he thought, too little attention from the police. When they found a district quiet they kept no sharp look out for concealed arms. He thought that if a sharp look out were kept at the beginning of winter the police might be soon in the possession of every gun in the district.
The Earl of Glengall:The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Normanby) had said, that agitation was not necessarily connected with crime; but did the noble Marquess recollect the remark of one of his most distinguished predecessors in the Government of Ireland—he meant the Marquess Wellesley—than whom no higher authority could be quoted? That eminent statesman had said, with respect to Ireland, that he could not separate crime from agitation. In that remark he most fully concurred. He thought it impossible to separate crime from agitation. If they wanted an illustration of this stronger than another, let them look at the murders and outrages which had been committed with the view to prevent men from voting at the election for Tipperary. Men were taught first to combine to defeat the law—they were taught to combine in attacks on person and property — they were next taught to combine to prevent voting at elections, and, if nothing less could avail, to do so by murder. With these facts before him, to what other conclusion could he come than this, that agitation, intimidation, and crime, went hand in hand, and law and justice were defeated, because men were deterred from coming forward in serious cases ! As to the diminution of crime, he did not deny that the returns showed some, but it did not appear that there was any increase of convictions as

971
compared with commitments. He did not find in the returns which had been made any mention of the 3,905 rewards offered, and the comparatively small number of claimants of those rewards for apprehending and convicting felons. As to what the noble Marquess had said of his remarks on the conduct of the priests in Ireland, the noble Marquess should recollect what he had said—that a broad margin and wide distinction should be made between the respectable Catholic clergy of Ireland and those young agitating priests who made themselves so prominently busy on all public occasions in which they ought not to interfere. With respect to these he again would say, that he could not retract what he had said—that he could not separate crime from agitation, and that he charged with such agitation those young priests who were constantly inciting their flocks in chapels and chapel-yards on Sundays and festival days. This agitation he looked upon as the fruitful source of much mischief to Ireland.
Lord Cloncurrylamented as much as any one the amount of crime now prevalent in Ireland. It gave him much pain, and it reflected great disgrace upon the people where it occurred; but it was to be borne in mind that these crimes were the fruit of past errors in the government of the people. Noble Lords ought to bear in mind that there were 3,000 Catholic priests in Ireland, and he would undertake to say that there was not 10 per cent.—he would say not 5 per cent.— of the whole engaged in the work of agitation. There were many whose daily efforts were exerted to put down crime and agitation. It was true, there were many of the young aspirants in the Catholic priesthood who did take a part in agitation, which it would be better for them to abstain from doing; but it should be remembered that they depended upon the eleemosynary subscriptions from their flocks for their subsistence, and who were, in a manner, obliged to act in accordance with the feelings of their flocks. The only support they derived from Government was the small pittance granted to Maynooth College, and which many noble Lords were constantly presenting petitions to withhold from them. The Catholic priesthood of Ireland were, as a body, as well-conducted and as religiously and peaceably inclined as any body of men could be, But there were many of the
972
magistracy of that country whose conduct could not bear comparison with the priests —men who, if not convicted of crime, were often guilty of the greatest improprieties. This fact was borne out by the necessity of the Government being dependent upon stipendiary magistrates. What was the cause of the fact which the noble Lord opposite had mentioned of the convictions in England being much greater in proportion to the committals, than in Ireland? It arose from the circumstance that the Irish magistrates often committed men without sufficient evidence to warrant their committal—[" No, no."] He was quite convinced of this, and he was certain that if a different principle of acting towards the people of Ireland were adopted, they would be found as obedient to the laws as any people upon earth. In his own county (Limerick), which was adjoining the county of Tipperary, throughout the extent of his own property, no offender had been apprehended for several weeks.
The Marquess of Downshireheard the speech of the noble Lord with great pain. The noble Lord appeared anxious to stand up for the character of the Roman Catholic priesthood of Ireland, and for that he did not quarrel with him. He felt great respect for that body of men, but he must draw the same distinction that had been so forcibly drawn by his noble Friend on this side of the House between those rev. Gentlemen who attended to the spiritual duties imposed upon them, and those who mixed themselves up with political agitation. The noble Lord had, in order to strengthen his argument in favour of the Roman Catholic priesthood, cast some reflections upon the magistrates of Ireland, which he (the Marquess of Downshire) could not concur in. He believed there was no body of men in any country who more zealously devoted their time gratuitously to the best of their ability to advance the interests of the people, and administer the laws amongst them than the magistracy of Ireland. With respect to that county where unfortunately these murders and outrages had lately taken place, he believed it would be found upon inquiry that the magistracy there had devoted their time and exposed their lives in endeavouring to do justice towards all, and administering the laws to the best of their power.
Lord Lortonwould make only one ob-

973
servation. The conduct of the Roman Catholic clergy had been much eulogized, but he believed they were to a man Repealers; if that did not constitute them agitators, he did not know what would.
The Marquess of Clanricardewas not aware of the fact, but if he were in favour of a repeal of the union he would not be ashamed to avow it. The Act of Union was only an act of Parliament, and he saw no more harm in asking for its repeal than in asking for the repeal of any other act of the Legislature.
The Marquess of Normanbywas able to deny the statement of the noble Lord opposite, that all the Catholic clergy were Repealers, from his own experience.
Motion agreed to.

PENTONVILLE PRISON.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that on moving that this bill be committed, he would take the opportunity of requesting his noble Friend (Lord Colborne) not to press his motion for a copy of the report of Dr. Bailey relative to the General Penitentiary. He had read that report, and admitted that it was very ably drawn up. It contained many excellent suggestions, but there were reasons which made it desirable that the report should not be printed at present. Many of the evils of the existing system would be avoided by the plan to be adopted in the new model prison, and it was of importance that every facility should be given to have a fair and complete trial of the system of secondary punishment which this bill would establish in this country.
Lord Colbornesaid, that after the statement made by his noble Friend, he certainly could not press for the production of the report.
The Marquess of Normanbyconcurred with the noble Lord opposite that it was very desirable, at least for the present, that Dr. Bailey's report should not be made public. Dr. Bailey had devoted his attention to the subject with very great ability and success, and had furnished a very able report. He hoped that the measure would be considered merely as an experiment, and that it would have a fair trial.
Bill went through committee.

JURISDICTION OF JUTICES.
The Lord Chancellormoved the second reading of the Jurisdiction of Justices Bill. It was
974
founded upon a report made by a commission appointed to inquire into the criminal jurisprudence of the country, and that bill had been prepared by the late Government. The object of it was to transfer the trial of many offences that were not of a capital description from the assizes to the court of quarter sessions. Those offences that were punishable with death or transportation for life, were still to be tried at the assizes; but other offences, except certain specified ones which were of a peculiar character, were to be tried by the magistrates at quarter sessions. There were, however, some offences, such as those that were likely to lead to local excitement—cases arising out of combinations amongst trades—out of the Municipal Reform Bill, and the Parliamentary Reform Bill—which it was thought advisable should be tried at the assizes, not so much with reference to the judges who presided, as to the juries. What he now proposed was, that the bill should be read a second time, and that if any noble Lord had any objection to make to any of the clauses it would be competent for him to do so in committee. He believed the bill had been framed with great care and attention, under the immediate inspection of the commissioners appointed by Lord John Russell.
Lord Godolphinwas understood to say, that he did not consider the magistrates at quarter sessions ought to be placed on a par with the learned judges of the land, and that there were many cases proposed by this bill to be tried at quarter sessions which ought still to be tried at the assizes. He would: confine all offences to the as- sizes for which parties on conviction were liable to be transported for fifteen years.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he would take the subject into consideration between then and the period when the bill should go into committee.
Lord Wharncliffethought, that if the quarter sessions were not competent to try offences liable to fifteen years' transportation, they were not competent to try persons for offences that were punishable with ten years' transportation. The objection of the noble Lord would apply quite as strongly to the one set of offences as the other. But there appeared to him to be a fallacy on this subject. If the noble Lord had had as much experience of the business done at quarter sessions as he had, the noble Lord would have known

975
that greater skill, greater care and patience, was required on the part of juries to decide justly in minor offences, than larger offences. The most difficult cases were not felonies, but misdemeanors.
The Lord Chancellorwas understood to say, that those misdemeanors to which his noble Friend referred as being difficult to investigate, would be found to be included in the number of offences proposed to be tried by the judges at the assizes. Were this not the case, his classification of offences would be wrong.
Lord Campbellhoped, that the jurisdiction of the quarter sessions would be improved by this measure. If, indeed, those courts were always presided over by such men as the noble Lord opposite (Lord Wharncliffe), then he would not hesitate to entrust cases of the greatest difficulty to them; but it did happen that many of the chairmen of quarter sessions were certainly by no means competent to administer the law. A bill was introduced three years ago, empowering any county which thought fit to appoint a professional chairman, with a salary to be paid out of the county rates. That bill did not pass into a law, but he thought some such measure absolutely necessary to the due administration of the law in this country.
The Lord Chancellorwished to observe, that the bill now before the House be- came necessary in consequence of certain alterations which had been made within a few years in the criminal law of the country. With respect to the jurisdiction of the quarter sessions, he knew not what his noble and learned Friend's experience was, but certainly for many years of his life he attended the quarter sessions in five or six counties, and he must say that according to his recollection and experience justice was admirably administered in those counties, and that the chairmen possessed a very accurate knowledge of the criminal law, and administered it most impartially.
Lord Campbelldid not mean to throw the slightest disparagement upon the county magistrates or chairmen, but certainly, he might make the observation, that a country squire, who occupied his time, and that very laudably, in agricultural pursuits, and the sports of the field, was not, however zealous he might be to do his duty, the most fit person
976
to administer the criminal law of the country.
The Duke of Richmondthought a country squire was much more competent than those who devoted themselves to politics. The noble and learned Lord was, no doubt, a very good advocate for his own profession, but he hoped, that if professional chairmen were to be appointed, they would not be paid out of county rates, but out of the consolidated fund. He thought this bill a great improvement; and though he did not agree with his noble Friend (Lord Godolphin) as to the incompetency of the quarter sessions, still he concurred with him in opinion, that such offences as sheep-stealing and horse-stealing, should be tried before the judges of the land. A sentence pronounced by them would produce a greater moral effect than one passed by the magistrates at quarter sessions. He thought the assizes ought to be held oftener than twice a-year. Why should a man be only kept a fortnight in prison before his trial at the sessions, if accused of sheep-stealing, but if committed for forgery, be kept five months in gaol?
Lord Broughamobserved, that the Home Circuit, till lately, had three assizes in the year. This had been altered by the establishment of the Central Criminal Court, There never was any reason why the Home Circuit should have three assizes, more than any of the other circuits; except this, that the counties in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, had a greater number of offences to try, and a third assizes was adopted, because it was thought expedient, that the offenders should not remain untried longer than was absolutely necessary. When that act passed in 1834, several of the counties in the Home Circuit were included in the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court. He agreed with the noble Lord, that a more speedy trial of offences would be one of the greatest improvements in the criminal law. At the same time, the difficulty would be extreme of giving to all the counties additional circuits, because there would then arise a necessity for a greater number of judges. He differed from the noble Lord on the cross Benches, as to the expediency of having a chairman belonging to the profession of the law. He thought, that it would be of the greatest advantage, were the assizes presided over by a learned chairman, and he stated this without in-

977
tending any invidious application to those who had hitherto so meritoriously, diligently, and, generally speaking, so ably discharged that office. He did not think, however, that the bill adverted to by his noble Friend near him (Lord Campbell) would have produced the effect intended. He was afraid, that few counties would make application for a legal chairman, if the expense was to be borne by the county. But as it was highly expedient that an alteration should be made as to the appointment of chairmen, he begged to suggest to the noble Lord on the Woolsack, that this point would form a fit adjunct to the bill relating to county courts.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, he had given no opinion as to stipendiary chairmen.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, his noble Friend stated, that he gave no opinion as to stipendiary chairmen. He might be allowed to say, that his noble Friend would be the last person to feel that which every other person felt—the accidental removal of a person, who, for a number of years, had meritoriously executed those functions. His own experience led him to believe, that it would be highly desirable to make a trial of the experiment of a barrister as chairman.
The Marquess of Northamptoncould not help expressing his surprise at the difficulty mentioned by the noble and learned Lord. Why should not additional judges be appointed? and as to the ex- pence, this, in his opinion, ought never to be placed in competition with the benefits likely to arise from the alteration.
Bill read a second time.

ATTEMPT TO SHOOT HER MAJESTY.
The Earl of Gallowaypresented a petition against railway travelling on Sunday. The noble Lord was proceeding to ask a question in relation to this subject, when the Duke of Buccleuch entered the House and whispered to the Lord Chancellor, and the Duke of Wellington. These noble Lords, with the other Members of the Government immediately left the House. The Lord Chancellor almost instantly returned, and the fact that her Majesty had been shot at becoming known, their Lordships at once adjourned.