Sitting of 3 August 1843

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1°. Sudbury Commission. Committed.—Limitation of Actions (Ireland); Mandamus Appeals; Warrants of Attorney.
Reported.—Applotment of Rates (Dublin); Highway Rates; Law of Evidence; Bishops Relief (Ireland).
3°. and passed:—Slave Trade (Portugal); Slave Trade (Chile); Slave Trade (Mexican Republic); Slave Trade (Austria).
Private.—Reported.—Fox's Estate.
3°. and passed:—Anderston Improvement and Police; Bermondsey, Rotherhithe, and Deptford, Roads; Saggart Commons Award.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Liverpool, against the Fire Prevention Bill.—By Mr. T. Egerton, from the Magistrates of Cheshire, against the Prisons Discipline Bill.—By Mr. Colville, from Derbyshire, in favour of the County Courts Bill.—From Alnwiek, for Abolishing the Church of Ireland.—From Penpont, for Relief to the the Parochial Schoolmasters of Scotland.—From Major-General Sir J. G. Woodford, for Enquiry into Sale of Commissions.—From Edenderry Union, and South Dublin Union, against Poor Relief (Ireland) Act.

AMERICAN CORN.
Mr. Christopherwished to ask his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade whether, under the 3rd article of the treaty of Washington, as introduced in the 25th clause of the Customs' Bill, the agricultural produce of the state of Maine might not be sent down the river St. John, to New Brunswick and thus find its way to this country as colonial produce; and if so, what security had the agricultural interests of this country that the agricultural produce of other American states might not be sent through the state of Maine to this country, and imported as colonial produce?
Mr. Gladstoneunderstood the first question to be, whether under the clauses of the Customs Bill, which purported to give effect to the third article of the treaty of Washington, the produce of the state of Maine might be sent through the river St. John to New Brunswick, and thence imported into England as colonial produce? There was no reference whatever to the produce of the state of Maine in

223
either case; but as he had stated on a former occasion, the produce referred to was that of the district of country which was now part of the state of Maine under the treaty, and which was what was called the disputed territory. This was now, beyond all dispute, part and parcel of the state of Maine. The third article of the treaty referred exclusively to this part of the territory, and to the admission of the produce of it. The second question was, how they could ascertain the produce from Maine imported into New Brunswick from that of other states, and how the origin of this was to be verified, and also what security was the agricultural interest to have, that produce from other parts would not be imported into this country at the colonial rates of duty? With respect to the first part of the question, there was a clause in the Customs Act of last year by which Government were empowered to call for a certificate of origin of produce coming from our colonial possessions, except the East Indies. As far as regarded the United States, he apprehended the Government were placed on a better footing by the treaty of Washington, than they were before that treaty was completed. The produce of the territory in question was almost exclusively timber, and formerly this disputed territory was always regarded as a British possession for the purposes of trade and commerce. Previous to the treaty of Washington there was a doubt as to the extent of the right we possessed to demand the certificate of origin of goods coming through that territory, and as to how far we could exercise it against American produce; but by the third article of the treaty of Washington all doubt on the subject was removed, for there was secured to us the means of ascertaining the origin of produce coming down the river St. John.

THE CHURCH (IRELAND).
On the motion that the dropped orders of yesterday be disposed of.
Mr. Wardsaid, that he wished to take the earliest opprtunity of relieving the House from any uncertainty as to the course which he intended to take with respect to his motion regarding the Irish Church. He did not bring forward this motion without promise of support from many leading Members in that House, and he was led to understand that many hon. Gentlemen intended to have addressed the House on the subject, and he regretted,
224
that in consequence of the foolish fancy of some hon. Member, the debate was not allowed to proceed. He had no fault to find with the Government on the subject; it was not their fault that the House was counted out yesterday, but rather from a want of a combination of this side, for many of his hon. Friends who intended to speak on the subject were not in their places. At the same time, he could not let the subject drop without observing that he thought that this mode of getting rid of a discussion which was resorted to yesterday was a silly, childish, practice, unworthy of grown-up men—and, above all, when, as was the case yesterday, there was only one or two less than the number present which constituted a House. He admitted that he was not in the House himself, as he saw that there was a want of speakers on his side, and he went upstairs to induce some of his Friends to come down to speak. By seven or eight Gentlemen walking out of the House at about seven or eight o'clock, upon almost every evening important business might be got rid of for the night, and if the practice was not checked by common courtesy, it would degenerate into a system of mutual annoyance, to the serious impediment of public business. The mode in which the question was treated last night would be regarded as an intended insult to Ireland, and perhaps his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Roche) might quote it as a proof how little the people of Ireland had to expect from an Imperial Parliament. He thought that the least the Repeal Association of Dublin could do for the hon. Member for Winchester, was to make him an honorary member of that body.
Mr. B. Escotthad listened with satisfaction to certain parts of the able speech of the Member for Sheffield, and if he chose to use the hon. Member's own hard word, nothing could be more childish, after so many sensible remarks, than the impotent conclusion at which the hon. Member arrived. He did not intend to say one word of harshness at the nonattendance of hon. Gentlemen in their places on such an important discussion. He did not think the rules of the House should be despised nor disregarded, and he did not think that those who took advantage of the rules of the House to ensure the discussion of important subjects in a becoming manner, should be taunted by the hon. Member and others who were not present. The hon. Member should have

225
thanked him for having done his duty, and that he had remained in his place from the beginning to the end of the debate; and if the hon. Member and his Friends had done the same, the debate would have been brought to a satisfactory conclusion.
Mr. Rochethanked the hon. Member for the course that he had taken on the part of his own constituents, and of the people of Ireland, for by doing so he had torn away the disguise in which that House masqueraded with regard to Ireland. He had remained in the House during the whole of the discussion, with the exception of a few minutes, and although the Members of the Government attended in their places, the leaders of the Whig party were all absent. This question of the Irish Church was the pet question of the Whigs, and was said by them to be the moving cause of the agitation in that country, but it appeared they were indifferent to it. He himself had seen, evidently, that there would be a count out, and considering how matters were going on, he had himself felt a strong inclination to count out the House; but he thought it might be said "Oh, that repealer is factious," so he refrained from carrying out his wish. He thought the hon. Member for Sheffield, whose speech displayed such transcendant talent—such immense research—was quite right in not renewing the question; it was for the country to pass its opinion upon the conduct of the English representatives, who upon a subject of such vital importance, did not think it worth their while to attend in their places. The event of last night was another proof that Irish interests could not safely be entrusted to other than an Irish Parliament.
Captain Bernalsaid, that when the hon. Gentleman attacked English Representatives for not having been in their places last night, he should not omit to mention the circumstance that when the House was counted out, there were but five Irish Members present, on both sides of the House.
The dropped orders were disposed of.

SCOTCH CHURCH BENEFICES BILL.
In reference to this bill,
Lord Russellstated, that he had received a communication from the Constitutional and moderate Committee of the Church of Scotland, informing him that a special meeting of that body was summoned for Wednesday next, to take into
226
consideration the provisions of the bill before the House. Considering that this bill was one of very great importance, nearly affecting the interests and most cherished feelings of the Church of Scotland, and that it would be desirable to hear what was the opinion of that Church upon the measure in its amended form, he begged to ask the right hon. Baronet whether, in the first place, Government intended to press the measure, before they had given the special commission an opportunity of considering it as it now stood, and, secondly, whether they proposed to persevere with it in spite of any opposition which the Church of Scotland might make to it? Among other prominent persons who had expressed their strong objection to it was Dr. Cook.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, it was his intention to proceed steadily with the committee on that bill, either on Monday or Wednesday, but it was not his wish unduly to press forward the measure, and before it reached its final stages, the special commission, of which the noble Lord spoke, would have ample time for considering and giving an opinion upon it.

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS.
House in committee on the Limitation of Actions Bill.
Counsel were heard against the 4th clause of the bill.
On clause 4, being proposed,
Mr. T. Duncombehoped that her Majesty's Government would grant the prayer of the petitioners, the Marquess of Clanricarde, the Earl of Glengall, Lord Dunsany and others, and that the power of bringing actions would be extended from six months to six years. These petitioners he considered had acted rightly in not submitting their case to the House of Lords, as they were Members of that House. It was to be observed that Ireland had been exempted from the act of 1833, and he saw no reason now why it should not be included in 1843. In this respect English Catholic patrons were much more favourably situated than the Irish Catholics, for, in point of fact, English Catholics did present to Protestant livings; for instance, the Duke of Norfolk had twenty-nine livings. He proposed to strike out, as we understood, the words "six months," for the purpose of introducing the words "within six years."
Sir J. Grahamsuggested that the objection should be postponed until the bringing up of the report.
The clause agreed to; bill went through the committee, the House resumed, bill to be reported.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND).
On the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into committee on the Poor-relief (Ireland) bill, and on the question that the Speaker do now leave the Chair.
Mr. M. O'Ferrallsaid, he would take that opportunity of calling upon the right hon. Baronet opposite to state the reasons for the dismissal of Dr. Phelan from the office of assistant poor-law commissioner in Ireland. Dr. Phelan was a gentleman of irreproachable character. Some time since he had been deprived of his situation, without any allegation that he had misconducted himself in any way. The result of this proceeding was, that Dr. Phelan and his family were reduced to a state of great suffering. The course of conduct pursued with respect to Dr. Phelan appeared to be most extraordinary, and if no case could be made out to justify that gentleman's dismissal, the act was disgraceful to the Government, and discreditable to the poor-law commissioners.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that the executive was not in the slightest degree responsible for the appointment or dismissal of the assistant Poor-law Commissioners. The Government appointed the Poor-law Commissioners, and held them responsible for the conduct of the assistant commissioners, and, therefore, it was wisely determined that the power of appointing and dismissing assistant commissioners should vest absolutely in the Commissioners. Of Dr. Phelan personally he knew nothing. He understood that his appointment had direct reference to a clause of the act which required the Commissioners to inquire into the state of fever hospitals and other charitable medical institutions. Dr. Phelan being a medical gentleman, and the publisher of a medical work, the Commissioners thought him well fitted to carry into execution the specific provision referred to. He was made an assistant commissioner, but the special object of his appointment was the execution of that particular duty. He was considered perfectly fitted for that duty, but not particularly well fitted for the discharge of the general duties of a Poor-law Commissioner. He was most reluctant to speak of Dr. Phelan's merits, but he was forced to do so by the course which had been taken. As to the tenure
228
of Dr. Phelan's office, it was simply this—he was to hold it as long as he continued to give satisfaction. Attempts bad been made to give a political or religious character to Dr. Phelan's case, for the purpose of raising a prejudice against the Government. In cases where the Government could interfere, religious considerations were not suffered to influence their conduct. In proof of this he might refer to the case of Mr. Stanley, who had been removed from the office of secretary to the Irish Poor-law Board in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Lords. The Government being of opinion that the punishment with which Mr. Stanley had been visited was very severe and more than commensurate with his offence, had taken the opportunity of appointing him to an office of profit. Mr. Stanley was a Roman Catholic, but so far from that being considered as an objection by the Government, they felt additional pleasure in bestowing a favour upon a respectable gentleman of that persuasion. It must be evident that the Government could entertain no feeling of hostility to Dr. Phelan on account of his religious opinions. Those who wished to promote the future interests of Dr. Phelan, would act the part of indiscreet friends if they endeavoured to give to his case anything of a political character. He could state, on the part of the Government, that no feeling of was entertained towards Dr. Phelan: but, on the contrary, if any situation should become vacant for which he might be fitted, they would be disposed to take his claims into consideration.
On clause 11 (residence defined, for the purpose of charging relief to electoral divisions.)
Mr. W. S. O'Brienmoved an amendment to omit the first words of the clause, and substitute a provision, that after the passing of the act the expenses of all persons relieved shall be borne by and charged against the whole union with which such persons are connected, and shall be paid for by a fund levied on all the rateable property of such union. The effect of this would be to establish a uniform union rate, in place of the rating by electoral divisions, which was very irregular, and pressed with great inequality on the different districts. At present, the rates in some divisions were six times greater than in others.
Mr. Veseyseconded the amendment. The rates at present caused great confusion and difficulty in making up the accounts,

229
and created great dissension among the boards of guardians.
Lord Eliotdefended the clause, on the ground that he considered it necessary, to preserve a uniformity of system.
The committee divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause. Ayes 112; Noes 17: Majority 95.
The committee again divided on the question that the clause stand part of the Bill. Ayes 108; Noes 10: Majority 98.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

A'Court, Capt.

Hamilton, G. A.

Acton, Col.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hastie, A.

Aldam, W.

Henley, J. W.

Allix, J. P.

Hindley, C.

Antrobus, E.

Hodgson, R.

Archbold, R.

Hussey, T.

Archdal, Capt. M.

Hutt, W.

Bailey, J. Jun.

Ingestre, Visct.

Baldwin, B.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E

Bankes, G.

Lefroy, A.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Lincoln, Earl of

Berkeley, hon. C.

Lopes, Sir R.

Boldero, H. G.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Bowring, Dr.

McGeachy, F. A.

Broadley, H.

Marsham, Visct.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Martin, C. W.

Brotherton, J.

Masterman, J.

Bruce, Lord E.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Bunbury, T.

Meynell, Capt.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Mildmay, H. St. J.

Clerk, Sir G.

Mitcalfe, H.

Clive, Visct.

Morgan, O.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Morris, D.

Corbally, M. E.

Neville, R.

Corry, rt. hon H.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Crawford, W. S.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Cripps, W.

Northland, Visct.

Denison, E. B.

O'Brien, A. S.

Dickinson, F. H.

O'Brien, W. S.

Dodd, G.

Patten, J. W.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Duncombe, T.

Peel, J.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Pollock, Sir F.

Eliot, Lord

Repton, G. W. J.

Elphinstone, H

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Escott, B.

Ross, D. R.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Farnham, E. B.

Shaw, rt. hn. F.

Flower, Sir J.

Sheppard, T.

Forman, T. S.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Fox, S. L.

Somerset, Lord G.

Fuller, A. E.

Stanley, Lord

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Stuart, W. V.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Stuart, H.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Gore, W. R. O.

Tennent, J. E.

Gore, hon. R.

Thornhill, G.

Goring, C.

Trench, Sir F. W

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Trotter, J.

230

Verner, Col.

Yorke, H. R.

Vesey, hon. T.

Wawn, J. T.

TELLERS.

Wood, B.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Wyse, T.

Pringle, A.

List of the NOES.

Bateson, R.

O'Conor, Don

Darby, G.

Pechell, Capt.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Gisborne, T.

Grogan, E.

TELLERS.

Hayes, Sir E.

Jones, Capt.

O'Connell, M. J.

O'Ferrall, M.

Clause agreed to.—Clause 15 agreed to.
The House resumed.
Committee to sit again.
House adjourned at one o'clock.

MINUTES.
SAT FIRST. The Earl Ferrers.
BILLS. Pubic—1a. Excise; Slave Trade (Austria, &c.); Slave Trade (Mexican Republic); Slave Trade (Chile); Slave Trade (Portugal); Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; Stamps; Intercourse with China.
Private.—1a. Glasgow Police; North Esk Reservoir.
Reported.—Leicester and Peterborough Roads; Argylshire Roads; Spalding and Deeping Roads.
3a. and passed:—St. Michael's Church (Limerick); Gorbal's Police; Ross and Cromarty Jurisdiction.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Lord Broughamsaid, that for the second time within a fortnight he was under the necessity of calling their Lordships' attention to a gross breach of the privileges of that House. He would observe that at the end of the Session of Parliament these offences were more frequent and more rank than at any other time—and for this obvious reason, the course taken by the House in such cases was to imprison the offending party when called before the House, but imprisonment for ten or twelve days was a very small punishment, and therefore such offences were committed with impunity. He therefore gave notice that he
220
should, at the beginning of next Session, call the party of whom he now complained to the bar of that House, and should leave their Lordships to deal with him as his demerits deserved. The subject to which he alluded was a libel of a most slanderous nature, one too, which was utterly false. It had appeared in the Examiner newspaper, and he would read the passage of which he complained. He begged to call their Lordships' attention to it, and particularly that of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, because he would recollect the debate to which the paragraph referred. His noble Friend behind him (Lord Campbell) had taken charge of a clause to be added to a bill before their Lordships' House, at the suggestion of the Lord Chief Justice, and a debate had arisen on that clause, as well as on another clause, on which the Lord Chief Justice and he differed from his noble and learned Friend, respecting the impunity of publishing the debates in Parliament. He had said that treason might be spoken in Parliament with impunity, because no man was answerable for what he said in Parliament; but he had said that if such treason, for instance, as an inducement to assassinate the Sovereign were spoken, and propagated through the press, past all doubt the propagator of such sentiments through the press would not be free from punishment. His noble and learned Friend had reminded him that that case was expressly provided for, but in his answer he had said, "Yes, but I will take the case of the suggested assassination of a common person," which was, he thought, a perfectly possible case. Upon the observation thus arising, and thus reported be believed in every paper, was founded this gross, and scandalous, and utterly false charge—as false as it was foul. The paragraph was this—
"In opposing that part of Lord Campbell's bill, which would have legalised faithful reports of proceedings in Parliament, Lord Brougham objected that 'private assassination might be recommended in Parliament.' The meaning of this is obvious enough; it was a revival of the foul calumny against Mr. Cobden."
He would venture to say that no human being who heard, or who read what had taken place, except this malicious and false writer, had ever dreamt that he had made the least reference to Mr. Cobden, or that he could by possibility have made such reference; all the more for this reason, that he had always talked of Mr. Cobden

221
with the greatest respect and kindness. He had never made allusion to him, but to a dissenting parson in Sheffield, who had openly, and in the strongest language, spoken of assassination, and it was to this, and to the fate of the unfortunate Mr. Drummond, that he had called attention. The paragraph went on—
"The charge is false—every one knows it to be false; but Lord Brougham, in cold blood, reverts to it, because it pleases the Tories, from whom he hopes for a judicial appointment."
There might be some things very ridiculous, but at the same time extremely malicious and spiteful, and false. He begged to appeal to his noble Friend on the Woolsack whether he had ever shown any very great fondness for judicial appointments. The paper went on—
"His fitness for which he illustrates in this peculiar way; and is there a hireling assassin of character in the press, who can do worse than obtain his wages by dealing in false accusations for the wicked pleasure of his patrons."
He should not have seen this production but that it had been sent to him with the paragraph marked so as to draw his attention to it. It had been sent to him to give him pain; it had not done so—but it had produced the utmost scorn in his mind. He would say no more now than that there had never been a libel more gross, for that, in imputing motives of a scandalous nature to a Member of Parliament, it contained a scandalous and most despicable falsehood.
The Lord Chancellorhaving been called upon by his noble and learned Friend, begged to say that on a former occasion he had stated in that House that he thought it would be desirable that there should be appointed a permanent chairman of the judicial committee of the Privy Council, and that he could not imagine any person better fitted for the office than his noble and learned Friend. He was bound to say that in a private conversation between them, his noble Friend had declined to accept the appointment, even if the office should be created.
Lord Campbellsaid, that his noble and learned Friend had chosen to complain of this paragraph, and no doubt it was a breach of privilege. The only question was, however, whether lie was not departing from precedent in giving notice now of his intention to take up the matter next Session. The remedy upon a breach
222
of privilege was usually adopt ed in preference to the festin um remedium of the law; it was usually resorted to only where it was inconvenient to wait for proceedings at law—
Lord Brougham: I shall put a stop to all difficulty on that subject—I shall proceed at law and prosecute; and shall see whether the law as it now stands, or as it may stand under my noble Friend's bill, affords any protection to Members of Parliament when they are so scandalously libelled.—Adjourned.