Sitting of 20 March 1843

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN. John Salusbury Trelawny Esq., for Tavistock.
BILLS. Public.— 2°. Indemnity.
Reported.—Mutiny; Marine Mutiny.
3° and passed: Sudbury Disfranchisement.
Private.—1a. Great Bromley Enclosure; Leeds Road.
2°" Leeds Gas; Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock Railway; St. Helens' Waterworks; Glasgow and Three Mile House Road; Northampton Improvement; Edinburgh and Glasgow Union Canal; Hungerford and Lambeth Suspension Foot Bridge; Newport Gas.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Bodkin, from Tuam,

1125
Valentia, Balinasloe Union, and Galway, against the Irish Poor-law By Mr. C. Bruce, from Females in Halbeath Coal Mines, and from Clackmannan Colliery, against the Mines and Collieries Act.—By Mr. Thorneley, Mr. Brotherton, and Dr. Bowring, from Liverpool, Sabden Fould (19 Petitions), and from Thomas Hartley and Family, against the Corn and Provision Laws.—By Mr. Grogan, from St. Michan's, Dublin, against Local Vestries—By Mr. Christopher, from Carmarthen, Grantham, Holbeach, Long Sutton, and Kirton-in-Lindsey against the Ecclesiastical Conrts' Bill.—By Mr. V. Smith, from Northampton, against the New Bankruptcy Act.—By Sir J. Hanmer, from Crewkerne, Wolverhampton, Isle of Man, Horncastle, and Shenston, against the Union oi the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor—By Mr. Christopher, from Newton-upon-Trent, against any further Grant to Maynooth College.—By the Attorney-General, from a Law Society, for Removing the Courts of Law from Westminsterr — By Captain Pechell, from the Wife of Lieutenant Forbes It. N., a Lunatic in Haslar Hospital, against deduction of Pay for his Support—From Kendal, against the Government Scheme of Emigration from Africa to the West Indies.

EJECTMENTS (IRELAND.
Mr. Sharman Crawfordrose for the purpose of putting a question to the noble Secretary for Ireland, of which he had given notice. It related to the ejectment of 225 families at Knockhall and Renefarna, but he had since understood that the property was not that of the Marquess of Westmeath, as he had supposed. He wished to know whether the police had been called in on that occasion, and whether the dispossessment had actually taken place, which he had seen noticed in several of the Irish newspapers?
Lord Eliotobserved, that as the question had arisen out of what the hon. Member had seen stated in the newspapers, he might, perhaps, be excused for reading an extract from one of them as his reply. In the Dublin Evening Post, of March the 14th, he read as follows:—
"EJECTION OF TENANTRY.—Having copied the statement referred to in the subjoined extract from the Roscommon Journal, it is due to Lord Westmeath that we should now publish the contradiction:—We were misinformed with respect to Knockhall and Renefarna being the property of the Marquess of Westmeath. That extensive ejection of tenantry was carried into effect by a Roman Catholic landlord! However, we are delighted to learn, from a respectable gentleman iu that neighbourhood, that Mr. Hanly, the newly-declared tenant, has humanely restored every one of the creatures to their former occupancy.'"
The only official report he had received upon the subject was from the inspector of police, which stated—
"On March 2, sub-inspector Blakeney, with thirty-two constabulary, attended, at the requisition of the sub-sheriff, on the lands of Knockhall, parish of Kilglass. The sub-sheriff took possession of houses and lands without any
1126
resistance on the part of the peasantry. On the next day the police again attended, when the sub-sheriff permitted them to return to their quarters, owing to the assurance of the persons to be dispossessed that they would offer no resistance, he finished his duty and met with no opposition. The persons dispossessed were immediately after put into possession of their holdings on attornment to their landlords."
He had no doubt of the correctness of the statement, and it would be recollected that it was the duty of the police to act on the requisition of the sub-sheriff.

POOR-LAWS (IRELAND).
Mr. F. Frenchwished to be informed whether the report was correct, that 4000 armed men had entered Waterford, from a neighbouring barony, and had taken possession of the city, stating their determination to resist the collection of poor-rates, under the recent law? He regretted also to have to put another question to the noble Lord, founded upon a statement he had seen to-day in the newspapers, that a collector of poor-rates had been found with his brains beaten out by stones, but the amount of poor-rates he had collected untouched in his pocket?
Lord Eliotwould read to the House two reports, one from the mayor of Water-ford, and the other from the inspector of the constabulary to the Secretary for Ireland? The first stated—
"Waterford, March 13, 1843.
"Sir—I think it my duty to state, for the information of his Excellency the Lord-lieutenant, that a large number of persons (computed at about 1,000 men), armed with sticks, marched in this borough this day, at about two o'clock in the afternoon, apparently making a display of resistance to the payment of the poor-rates.
"I felt myself called upon, in consequence, to require the aid of the military force, under the command of Major Reid, of the 70th regiment, who promptly attended to my directions. No attempts at riot or disturbance, however, took place, and at this hour, half-past four P.M; I think they have all left the borough, and gone towards their respective districts.—I have, &c.
(Signed) "THOS. MEAGHER,
Mayor of Waterford.
"E. Lucas, Esq., Castle."
The second document was from the Inspector of police, and was to the following effect:—
Waterford, March 13th, 1843.
"I have to report that about the hour of two P.M., this day, a number of persons,

1127
amounting to nearly 1,000, who I am informed attended at a meeting in the barony of Gaultier, in the county of Waterford, from the barony of Middlethird in the same county, and from the county of Kilkenny, marched into this city, with a view of intimidating the authorities, no doubt, and all others favourable to the payment of the poor-rate. They were armed with large sticks and spade-handles, and kept up shouting as they moved through part of the town. This visit took all by surprise. The mayor (Thomas Meagher, Esq.) called out the military, and along with the high sheriff, Sir Benjamin Morris, J.P., and Simon Newport, Esq., J.P. together with the city constabulary, paraded the streets, but the intruders had disappeared before this manifestation could be made. There was no violence committed; a party of the city force is ordered by the magistrates to remain at the poor-house this night for its safety, and I shall keep up strong armed patroles during the night.
(Signed)
"GEORGE WRIGHT,
2d Sub-Inspector.
As soon as the Irish Government received this information, it despatched Mr. Fitzgerald, an experienced stipendiary magistrate, in order that he might put himself in communication with the magistrates. That gentleman had no doubt that he should be able to enforce obedience to the law, and he entertained a confident expectation that there would be no further resistance to the poor-law in that district. Another stipendiary magisstrate, upon whom the Irish Government also placed much reliance, had made a similar report, and his Lordship entertained little doubt that the accounts, to which the hon. Member had referred, were much exaggerated. As to the second question, he (Lord Eliot) had great satisfaction in stating, that there was no ground for believing that the report was true. He would not undertake to contradict it, but he would mention that no such distressing account had reached Government, although it had received reports from the immediate neighbourhood.

KNUTSFORD GAOL.
On the motion that the Order of the Day for a Committee of Supply be read,
Mr. T. Duncombesaid that it would be recollected that, on a recent motion respecting the conduct of a noble and learned judge, he had referred to certain transactions in Knutsford House of Correction. A few days afterwards the hon. Member for North Cheshire had given the most unqualified contradiction to his
1128
(Mr. T. Duncombe's) statement. To this statement, after making inquiries of certain parties, he had adhered, notwithstanding the contradiction of the hon. Member, and the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had consented to institute an inquiry into the conflicting accounts. In fulfilment ot this promise he had sent Capt. Williams, the inspector of prisons, to Knutsford, and he arrived there on the 2d instant; and this morning he (Mr. T. Duncombe) had received a letter from the Rev. Mr. Brown, the chaplain of Knutsford House of Correction, asking him to lay his statement before the House of Commons, justly considering that the investigation instituted by the right hon. Baronet, besides being an inquiry by Government, partook also of the nature of a Parliamentary inquiry. It appeared that the Rev. Mr. Brown had been summoned before the prison inspector, and had subsequently found considerable reason to complain of the conduct of the magistrates. The statement of the chaplain was contained in the following letter, which, with the leave of the House, he (Mr. Thomas Duncombe) would read:—
"Knutsford, March 18, 1843.
"Sir—As you were the Member who brought forward in the House of Commons the conduct of the gaoler of the House of Correction, Knutsford, and obtained from the Secretary of State an inquiry into the state of that prison, I have to beg you will bring forward in the House of Commons the conduct of the magistrates towards me, the chaplain, for having spoken the truth to the inspector of prisons when I was on oath.
"On the arrival of the Inspector at Knutsford, on Thursday, the 2d of March, he sent for me to the George Hotel, where he was staying, and asked me several questions with respect to the Chartist prisoners and the general state of the gaol, which I answered in sincerity and truth. The magistrates met on Friday last, the 17th instant, and asked me several questions on the subject of my private interview with Captain Williams. I at first refused to divulge a private conversation. They then said, 'If you do not tell us what passed during the two hours you were with him, we shall consider it as a refusal to answer the questions of the magistrates, and shall deal with you accordingly.' They then asked if I did not tell the inspector in private that the gaoler had used these words, 'D—n these Chartists, I will give them a bellyful before I have done with them.'
"My reply was, that the inspector had asked me if I had ever heard the gaoler use violent language about them. I then stated to him the above language, which the keeper

1129
or gaoler had made use of to me when he had seen some of the Chartist prisoners who had complained of their food.
"Mr. Trafford, the chairman of the quarter sessions, said, why did not you report these words to the magistrates at the time they occurred? I answered, because you, sir, in April, 1830, in consequence of some misunderstanding having taken place between me and the gaoler, told me not to interfere in the discipline of the gaol, but confine myself solely to my spiritual duties, which I considered a prohibition to report that or any such language, or anything relating to the gaoler. After that order I made a note in my private diary on the day it was given. The letter addressed to me on the 3rd of February, 1843, by the gaol committee, desiring me not to put anything on my public journal with respect to the gaol discipline until I had first laid it before the gaol committee, which letter is in Capt: Williams's possession, will show that ray construction of Mr. Trafford's order was correct. After sitting for some time in deliberation the magistrates sent for me, and Mr. Trafford told me that they had come to the determination of recommending to the quarter sessions to be held at Chester, on Monday, the 27th inst., to remove me. I asked what charges were against me? The answer was, none. No unfaithfulness in the discharge of my duties, no immoral conduct, nothing whatever; only that I had stated to the inspector of prisons what I ought to have stated to the magistrates. I again repeated I considered myself under restraint from the order given me by Mr. Trafford to confine myself to my spiritual duties. The magistrates replied it was absurd to consider such an order a prohibition. Mr. Trafford and Mr. Lloyd shortly afterwards observed to me, 'We find it impossible for you and the governor to go on together; we cannot part with him, out with you.' Mr. Lloyd added, 'If you were to remain, it would soon be no gaol at all.' This remark had reference to the inspector having had all restraint removed, and liberty was given to me to report to the nearest visiting justice any improper conduct of the gaoler or any other officer; both Mr. Trafford and Mr. Lloyd added, 'There is no imputation on your character, and no charge for your neglect of your duties.' I replied, 'I will write to the Secretary of State.' 'With that we have nothing to do.'
"When the magistrates met on the 24th of February last, and took the depositions of some of the Chartist prisoners, which they forwarded to Mr. Tatton Egerton, as the ground of his statement in the House of Commons, they never called me; if they had done so I would have stated to the magistrates the words I stated to Captain Williams. Why they did not call me is best known to themselves.
"I have been thirty years in the Church, and some time officiated as chaplain to a garrison
1130
"By the next post I will forward to you testimonials from the magistrates, from the surgeon, and the gaoler in my favour, when I was candidate for the Pentonville Prison chaplaincy.
"Your obedient servant,
"W. BROWNE,
"Chaplain Knutsford House of Correction."
He now called upon the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to say whether a chaplain of a gaol, who had been for thirty years a member of the Established Church, against whose character there was not the slightest complaint, who, according to the magistrates' own account, had faithfully discharged his duty, and who, in obedience of that duty, had given information to the inspector of prisons sent down by the Government, ought to be visited by the displeasure of the magistrates, and, at a Court of Quarter Sessions to be held on the 27th inst., should be removed? It was clear, however, that by this falling out between the gaoler, magistrates, and chaplain the public would really get at the truth; and, if he had heard correctly, the magistrates would have reason to regret that this inquiry had been instituted, and that the statements he (Mr. Duncombe) had originally made would be mainly borne out. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State, who had charge of the prisons, was bound in duty to preserve this chaplain from the anger of the magistrates, and see that he was not displaced.
Mr. Tatton Egertonsaid, that the magistrates were quite as anxious as the hon. Member that the truth should be known. They had intimated to their chaplain their disapproval of his conduct, because, being the officer of the gaol, he had not communicated to them what had passed in the gaol, which they looked upon as a violation of the confidence that ought to subsist between them and their officers. It appeared that during the last two or three years the chaplain had been in the habit of keeping private memoranda of what passed in the gaol. He should think that the House would expect such to be communicated to the magistrates, for unless it were made it would be impossible for the visiting magistrates to have accurate evidence of what passed in the gaol. [Mr. T. S. Duncombe: The magistrates prohibited him from making communications.] He could not conceive that any officer of the gaol could think that it

1131
was his duty to withhold such communications. The moment after Captain Williams had left they made the inquiry; they were only anxious that the truth should be known; he understood that the inspector's report had been received at the Home Office that morning.
Sir James Grahamthought the complaint of the hon. Member somewhat premature. Immediately after the hon. Member's statement on a former evening, an inspector of prisons had proceeded to Knutsford. The inspector did institute a searching inquiry, but his report had not yet been seen by him (Sir James Graham). It had been left at the Home Office, but on the request of Captain Williams, it had been forwarded to him for revision. He was not, therefore, in possession of the report, and he thought that the complaint of the chaplain was premature, inasmuch as it was his intention to lay the report upon the Table of the House. It was also, he conceived premature because the power to deprive him of office was not vested in the justices or in the visiting justices, but in the Court of Quarter Sessions, which had not yet met. They were, therefore, only discussing the apprehensions of an officer, which might be more or less well-founded, but still they were only apprehensions; it rested with the majority of magistrates at quarter sessions to say whether the removal should take place or not. The hon. Member had supposed, erroneously, that he (Sir James Graham) had a control over the election or removal of an officer. The power was absolutely vested by law in the Court of Quarter Sessions. Till he had come into the House he did not know of the complaint of the chaplain.
Order of the Day read. On the question that the Speaker leave the Chair,

THE GOVERNOR OF ST. KITT'S.
Sir Charles Napierrose to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies a question. The noble Lord had received several reports of the transaction in which the Governor of St. Kitts was involved to which he had referred the other evening; and he wished to ask whether those reports bore out the statement he had made in the House? He was induced to ask this, because, by the statement made by the noble Lord the other evening, it seemed as if the noble Lord wished it to be understood that a lady was in the boat when the circumstance took place. Now,
1132
the lady was not in the boat; she had been carried on board, and returned to England in bad health.
Lord Stanleysaid, that this was very much like asking him what his opinion was upon the case. The governor had been on board the steamer in consequence of a lady who was in ill health being there; but he believed it was quite true that she was not in the boat when it was returning from the steamer. He should be quite prepared to lay the information before the House as soon as Mr. Conyngham had had an opportunity of making any explanation he might wish; and in order that there might be no inconvenient delay, as Mr. Conyngham had made a statement to the directors containing a complaint against the officer, he (Lord Stanley) had desired a communication to be made to Mr. Conyngham's father, to know whether he was satisfied with that complaint, without making any further inquiry from his son, and if he was, the papers would be laid on the Table forthwith.

PROGRESS OF THE ESTIMATES—EXCHEQUER BILLS.
Mr. William Williams: Before the House went into committee, he must complain of the haste with which the estimates were to be passed, those now to be discussed having been delivered only on Friday and that morning.
Mr. Humebegged to inform the Government that he had no objection to passing the vote for Exchequer Bills and the Commissariat, but he could not agree to the immediate progress with the vote for Civil Contingencies.
Mr. William Williamsthought the right hon. Gentleman had better propose one vote for the whole sum required, than carry on such a farce as this. He desired to know at what rate of interest the new Exchequer Bills were to be issued. He hoped also that the House would not vote away the public money, unless they were assured that the taxes now in existence were sufficient to pay this vast amount of expenditure. He supposed that as the right hon. Gentleman had now received six months of the Income-tax, he would tell whether he had or had not the means, with the existing taxes, to pay the expenditure; and, if he could not, the House ought to wait till the Budget was before the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that the Exchequer Bills would be

1133
issued at an interest of 1¾ d. a-day. The hon. Gentleman had asked whether the money already supplied would pay the charges already voted. Now, as far as the 11,000,000 l.. or 12,000,000 l. already voted, the revenue was ample to meet it. The appeals under the Income-tax had caused considerable delay, and he, therefore, was not able to give the hon. Member any information as to the exact amount of the tax.
Dr. Bowringsaid, that the civil contingency estimates extended over fifteen pages, which were all details, and it was rather too great a tax, even on the forbearance of the Opposition, now to press them.
Mr. W. Williamsobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman had stated to the House that he meant to issue the Exchequer Bills at the interest of 1¾d. per day, which was 2¾ per cent., whilst money in the market was not worth more than I or 1½ per cent. He would ask, what were the circumstances of the country which required 1¼ per cent. more to be paid for money borrowed by the public than money raised by private individuals? Exchequer Bills now bore a premium in the market of 70 s., or 3½ per cent. That was the premium of the day, and it was equal to one-and-a-quarter year's interest. The circumstances of the money market did not warrant the right hon. Gentleman in entertaining the slightest alarm, besides he had always the power of raising the interest on Exchequer Bills, a most improper power, as he (Mr. Williams) thought, to trust with any Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he had no power of decreasing the interest; at any rate, he did not recollect that it had ever been exercised. He had no doubt if the Chancellor of the Exchequer issued the bills at the rate of 1¼d. a-day, he would have no difficulty in obtaining the amount required. It was most unjust towards the people to waste the public money, by giving so much more interest for money borrowed on public securities than was given by private individuals. If the right hon. Gentleman, or any one on the Treasury benches, wanted to raise money, or to make a purchase on their own account, they would not give more than the fair market price for what they required; and why should they not act in the same way for the public? He would like the right hon. Gentleman to show him the necessity for paying 2¾per cent. When
1134
the market price was not more than 1 or 1½ per cent. He had been told by one of the largest merchants connected with the trade of London, that he had 100,000 l., for which he could not get more than 1 per cent. As the amount to be saved was very large, the right hon. Gentleman was bound to clear up the matter to the satisfaction of the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it was imagined, because upon a particular occasion money could be obtained temporarily at 1 per cent, that the Exchequer Bills could circulate at that interest. With all deference to the hon. Gentleman's knowledge in matters of this description, he must say, that in regulating the interest on Exchequer Bills, they were not able to take the rate from a reference to a particular time or to the temporary circumstances of the market. In one week, in the City, the rate of interest might vary from I per cent. to 2½ or 3 per cent., and they would be involved in perpetual difficulty by adopting the lowest amount of interest for the moment in the market. The hon. Member must consider that the price of the funds gave 3⅛ per cent. interest; and although he admitted that it was the duty of the Government to avail themselves of every favourable opportunity to reduce the interest on Exchequer Bills, according to circumstances, yet he could not agree that they should make any reduction hastily and rashly, without considering all the facts which were calculated to affect the general rate of interest. He had been told the other day, by a gentleman connected with banking in the City, that money might be had for nothing. Of course, the meaning of that was, that money accommodation could be had at a very low rate of interest. But he did not think Government could avail itself of such a state of the money market without introducing the greatest confusion.
Lord John Russellobjected to going into the miscellaneous estimates that night, some of them having been delivered only on Friday, and the others only that day. Many were arranged in a different way, and connected with different portions of expenditure from what they were formerly; and it did appear to him, that taking these two things together, they were proceeding too rapidly. He must observe, also, that the course which he used to adopt when he held office was now departed from. The course which he (Lord John Russell)

1135
had been accustomed to take, was always to give notice in the votes of the particular orders which he proposed to proceed with. He was desirous that it should be stated upon the paper that certain orders of the day would be taken before the other orders.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, it appeared on the notices that his hon. Friend, the Secretary of the Treasury, Sir, George Clerk, would move the Exchequer Bills, the commissariat estimates, the civil contingencies, and the miscellaneous estimates, in committee of supply; and, as there was none but Government business on the paper, he thought it might be inferred that they would be taken first. However, he agreed with the noble Lord that it would be better to follow the course which he had suggested; and he would take care that that course should be pursued for the future. He believed that the order in which the estimates would be taken had been stated on Friday. The civil contingencies, he believed, had been delivered on Thursday morning. He proposed first to take the Exchequer bills, then the commissariat estimates. To that he imagined there would be no objection. He then proposed to go on with the civil contingencies, and if any objections should be made to going on with the other estimates he would not press them.
Mr. Humehad no objection to going on with the Exchequer bills and the commissariat estimates; but, with regard to the civil contingencies, they contained so many items many of them new, that he should certainly object to going on with them until further time had been given for their consideration.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the estimates for the civil contingencies had been in the hands of the hon. Member ever since Thursday morning.
House in Committee of

SUPPLY.—EXCHEQUER BILLS.
Sir G. Clerk Sir G. Clerk moved, that a sum not exceeding 18,182,100 l.. be granted for the payment of the Exchequer bills issued in 1842, and which yet remained unprovided for.
Mr. Humewished to know if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to state whether, in renewing these bills, he intended to make any alteration in the rate of interest of the bills for which this money was to be voted; and whether he intended to make any alteration in the
1136
rate of interest of the bills which were to be issued for the future.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the present vote was to make good the exchange of Exchequer bills which had been voted during the course of the last Session of Parliament. Other bills would be provided for in a committee of ways and means, at a subsequent period of the Session, in the month of June. To undertake to say three months beforehand what the rate of interest would be in June, was a proceeding which no man, having charge of the financial concerns of the country, could possibly undertake. The interest of money three months hence might materially alter, and it must be left to the rate of interest at the time of the exchange to determine what the rate should be.
Mr. Humewished to know whether the right hon, Gentleman paid the same interest to the Bank of England for deficiency bills as he did to the public viz., 2d. on all bills.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the interest on the Exchequer bills issued in June, was 2d and on those issued the day before yesterday l¾d.. The interest given to the Bank on deficiency bills was the same as that given to the public, it was 2d but when the new bills were issued no doubt the Bank would conform to the general rate.
Mr. William Williamssaid, that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that he had given interest at the rate of 2d. and expected to give it at the rate of 1¾d. to the Bank of England on the deficiency bills, astonished him. He had never known the same rate given except under great pressure. If the right hon. Gentleman sold the Exchequer bills to the public, he got money in exchange; whereas if he went to the Bank of England with deficiency bills, instead of obtaining money, as he did from the public, he got only notes, printed at a cost, as he (Mr. Williams) had once stated, of only l½d. for a 1,000 l., and an hon. director had laughed at him for estimating the cost so high. He was sure that if the right hon. Gentleman had made a proper bargain with the Bank, he could have obtained any amount, in exchange for deficiency bills, at l¼d. a day, and he might have disposed of Exchequer bills to the public at the same rate. He would like that the right hon. Gentleman should show him how the

1137
public interest could suffer by lowering the rate of interest on those bills. It was not now, as it used to be, that Exchequer bills could be paid into the Exchequer for taxes; they could not be now so paid till they were due. Therefore, the public service would not suffer in the slightest degree by issuing Exchequer bills at a lower rate of interest. It was due to the public that this saving should be made, and he could not conceive why the right hon. Gentleman should give advantages to the money market which were quite uncalled for. Exchequer bills possessed a great advantage over funded property. The capital of Exchequer bills was at all times the same, whereas the amount of the funds was constantly varying. To-day they were at 97, and they had come down in 1825 and 1826 to 87. Exchequer bills on the contrary, were always paid in full. The reason why the interest on funded property was larger than on bills of exchange was, that the bills of exchange were of a certain amount: they paid the amount which they bore on the face, and were a full security. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had not answered the question he had put to him, namely, why he now proposed to issue Exchequer bills at this high rate of interest, when they bore in the market a premium equal to the interest for one and a quarter year. 1: was apparent that he was not making the bargain for the public which he ought.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould answer the hon. Gentleman by reference to his own argument. He had said, that in the Three per Cents. the interest which was now given would be a proper rate; because a person who embarked 100 l. in those funds might lose a part of his capital by the depreciation of his capital; and then the hon. Member had gone on to say that Exchequer bills were now at a premium, being sold for 103 l. 10 s.. But did not the hon. Gentleman see that the value of Exchequer bills might also be depreciated by the diminution of the premium upon them, and that a party who held such securities might sustain loss, just in the same manner as a holder of stock in the Three per Cents. If a high rate of interest was necessary in one case, therefore, it must be admitted, though perhaps the argument was not equally strong in both cases, that it was requisite in the other. All that he could say was, that having considered this question most
1138
anxiously, he had made that reduction which in the present state of the credit of the country he had thought it fit to make, but that he did not think that he should have been justified in sanctioning an arrangement which would have caused any considerable alteration in the prices.
Mr. W. Williamshad no doubt that in the existing state of things the right hon. Gentleman could issue as many bills as were necessary at 1¼d. or l½s. at most, and that a saving of 150,000 l might be effected, without any prospect of injury to the public credit.
Mr. Divettthought that the object of the right hon. Gentleman must be taken to be to preserve a uniform rate of interest. It was said that money could be had at a less rate than that which was now paid; but if the right hon. Gentleman were to attempt to deal with the market in the manner proposed, a variable rate of interest would be established, and inextricable confusion produced.
Dr. Bowring: The question was whether, in the present state of the market, and with the increasing unwillingness of mercantile men and manufacturers to employ money in speculation or production, the time was not come when the interest ought to be reduced. It appeared to him, he confessed, that the Government might have reduced the rate of interest considerably below that at which it now stood.
Mr. Humethought that this was not a question upon which any doubt could exist, and he had been surprised that the hon. Member for Exeter should have exhibited so much ignorance on the subject. He believed that at the present time the amount of deposits in the Bank of England, exclusive of bullion, was from 8,000,000 l. to 10,000,000 l and this vast sum of money was waiting for employment. In the existing state of things, it was impossible to expect that commercial matters would revive; and with an amount of capital so large disengaged, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman paid too much interest. It was the duty of the Government to obtain their money in the cheapest market, especially considering the distress and the extraordinary taxation under which the country was labouring.
vote agreed to.
Sir George Clerk Sir George Clerk moved that the sum of 191,045 l. be granted for the expenses of the commissariat department. He was

1139
happy to inform the committee that in this department a saving of 9,864 l. had been effected, the vote of last year having been 200,919 l.
Mr. Humewas glad to perceive that the expenses of this department were reduced, but he thought the diminution too small. He could not account for the large expenditure of money in the colonies; and unless our expenditure were largely diminished, the country would be placed in a serious position. The present expenditure was altogether unjustified; we were running riot in our poverty; and the only remedy to which he could look with any hopeful anticipations, was a finance committee to inquire into and check our expenditure.
Sir R. Peeldid not justify the estimates upon any ground of the flourishing condition of the country; nor did he think that the fact of such a state of things existing could justify an extravagant expenditure. He went further than the hon. Member, and affirmed that whatever were the condition of the finances, that could not justify keeping up a single man more than was wanted. It must, at the same time, be admitted that an establishment, such as this country was compelled to maintain, could not be always reduced concurrently with the existence of distress. The total amount of the military force of this country, exclusive of the army of the East Indies, was 95,000 men; but with this force rested the protection, not only of the British, but of our colonial empire. Our regular army in all our colonies, exclusive of India, was less by 10,000 men than that retained by France in Algeria alone. A military force must be maintained for the defence of colonies. Let them take the case of Australia, and of the other colonies added to our empire within the last thirty years, and let them compare the present amount of our force, and that which we maintained thirty years ago. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the subject of a finance committee, but he did not see the advantage to be derived from an inquiry before such a body; and was of opinion that the governors of the various colonies must be better able to form a judgment of the necessity of maintaining military force than such a committee. The colonial committee of 1834 had been unable to suggest any reduction in our colonial establishments, and he thought that the same result would
1140
attend a like inquiry at the present time. Independently of other considerations, a certain amount of force was necessary to maintain the system of reliefs. The establishment of this year in other respects was not greater than was required. The hon. Gentleman the other day had suggested the immediate reduction of the naval and military forces of this country in China. He (Sir R. Peel) had said at that time that he did not feel justified in placing implicit reliance on the good faith of our new allies, and recent events had shown that it was wiser to incur a slight additional expenditure rather than run the risk of losing that advantage which had been gained by force of our arms.
Mr. Humesaid, that the right hon. Baronet was mistaken in the observation which he had last made, for in what he had said he had distinctly excepted China from the rule which he had endeavoured to lay down in other cases. The number of men employed in that part of the globe however, was only 3,102 out of the 45,000 men, devoted to our colonial possessions. He complained of the large forces uselessly maintained in the Mediterranean and in Canada; and he thought that the right hon. Baronet had admitted the weakness of his own argument when he had resorted to Algeria as a case in point.
Mr. F. T. Baringwas glad to see a reduction made in this vote, and made no objection to the amount. He thought that the maintenance of an efficient commissariat was highly necessary, for without such a body, there could be no check on the expenditure of our colonies. He approved of the method in which the present estimate was prepared, and expressed a hope that the estimates of the War-office would be similarly arranged.
Lord John Russellsaw no reason to offer any objection to the amount of force proposed to be taken for the ensuing year, nor to the expenditure of the year in this respect. Considering what had taken place, and the late termination of the war with China, he thought that the Government could not properly have asked for a smaller amount than that which was proposed.
Mr. W. Williamscomplained of the large amount of the army, which was 13,000 men more than it was in 1832.
Mr. Bernaldid not think the army too

1141
large, considering the important station this country held in the world, and our extended colonial possessions. Nor was it fair to charge those who supported the present establishments with being indifferent to the sufferings of the people.
Vote agreed to.
On the question that 47,945 l. be granted for the half-pay and pensions of the commissariat department.
Sir G. Clerksaid, that the next vote which he had to propose was for the civil contingencies. As the papers relative to these estimates had only been distributed on Saturday, if it appeared to be the feeling of the House that sufficient time had not been given for the consideration of them, he would not press them. He would only state, that in preparing this vote he had endeavoured to carry into effect the wishes of hon. Members expressed last year. He had prepared, which was printed, an abstract, comparing the proposed expenditure of the present year with that under this head in former years. The vote which he had to propose was nearly the same in amount as that of last year. He should have previously observed, that he had removed from the vote for civil contingencies all those charges which were of regular occurrence. The vote last year was 130,000 l.; the vote he had now to propose was 110,000 l. This difference, however, did not arise from any material reduction in the vote for, in the first place, there was the sum of 10,000 l. left unexpended last year, and there was the further amount of 10,000 l. transferred to other heads of permanent expenditure.
Mr. Humesaid, though the explanation of the hon. Member was satisfactory, yet there were a number of items in the vote which before he had not an opportunity of seeing. The vote comprised between forty and fifty items, some of which he thought would require further explanation, and, therefore, all he desired was sufficient time to be prepared to ask for those explanations. He observed there was one item of 2,500 l. for the preparations for the christening of the Prince of Wales, 600 l. being for changing his Royal High-ness's Coat of Arms. There was, further, a charge for the consecration of the five colonial bishops, besides some expences incurred on account of the Bishop of Jerusalem. These required some explanation, and be would, therefore, move that
1142
the chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that when, on the occasion of a large sum of money being voted, any hon. Member stated bonâ fide he had not had an opportunity of looking into the items, he thought it was the duty of the Government to give way to the wishes of those hon. Members who, like the hon. Member for Montrose and the hon. Member for Coventry, devoted so much time to the examination of the public expenditure. He was unwilling unduly to press forward the estimates, though he regretted the hon. Member was not prepared to go on; but as the hon. Member stated he had not had a full opportunity of considering these items of expenditure— for they were not estimates—seeing that the House had already agreed on the propriety of the army, the navy, and the ordnance estimates—seeing that there was no disposition to a factious opposition—he would advise his hon. Friend to defer to the wishes of the hon. Member. But the hon. Member for Montrose had referred, among other items, to that for the christening of the Prince of Wales. With regard to that item, he hoped the committee would bear in mind that the expense had been incurred for a special and particular occasion, that a strong wish had been expressed by all classes that the christening should take place in one of the sacred edifices of the country, that the ceremonial was graced by the presence of his Majesty the King of Prussia; and he (Sir R. Peel) could only say that the civil list had borne a very large portion of this unforeseen expenditure, and therefore he trusted the committee would think that, in conformity with precedent, the other portion ought to be borne out of the civil contingencies. He would not enter into further details, but recommend his hon. Friend to take some other evening for these votes, which he was sure the more they were examined the more they would be found to be consistent with economy.
Mr. W. Williamswhile he admitted the perfect fairness with which the right hon. Baronet consented to postpone these votes, must say that the estimates already passed had been unduly hurried forward. Since he had had a seat in that House, he had never known the estimates brought forward and gone through at so early a period as in the present Session. With

1143
respect to these civil contingencies, he had so little expected them to come on this evening that he had not come prepared even with the papers.
Sir R. Peelhad already said, that if the hon. Member thought he could approach the consideration of these matters with more satisfaction to himself by a postponement, he would not press them. But the hon. Member complained of the haste in which the other estimates had been hurried forward. Now, he (Sir R. Peel) thought, that when the Government proposed perfectly reasonable estimates and took the House by surprise by the extent of their reductions—when, in fact, there was a general acquiescence in them, the hurry or haste in which they were got through did not arise from any precipitancy on the part of the Government, but from the universal consent to the Government propositions from both sides of the House.
Mr. Humesaid, so far from being contented with the reductions in the expenditure which had been made, he should have moved in many instances still further reductions; but seeing the support the right hon. Baronet had, he, for one, had given up the notion of fighting them.
House resumed. The committee to sit again.

COAST OF AFRICA — EXPENSE OF COLONIES.
House in committee on the Coast of Africa Bill.
Mr. Humeprotested against the Government proceeding hastily to form an establishment on the western coast of Africa. Before this was done some plan ought to be laid before the House.
Lord Stanleysaid, the object of the bill was to carry out the recommendations of the committee of last year, by the establishment of competent tribunals for adjudication in the cases of seizures under the slave-trade treaties. It was, however, not the intention of the Government to take more for the establishment than had been voted in the estimate.
Mr. Humesuggested, that it would be a great improvement in the management of colonial affairs if the colonial expenditure was brought annually before the House. In short, he thought there ought annually to be a colonial budget, an Indian budget, and a Treasury budget. At present it was impossible to ascertain what
1144
the vast colonial possessions of Great Britain cost this country.
Lord Stanleyremarked, that it would be practically impossible to submit to Parliament any budget with reference to the colonies. For some colonies, for instance, he, as colonial Minister, might be called upon, if the proposition of the hon. Member for Montrose held good, to state its financial position this year as applicable to the years 1844 or 1845. That was a difficulty he would not undertake to meet.
Mr. W. S. O'Brienthought the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department would do well to exact from the governors of the colonies an annual report of the state and management of the finances of each, in order to lay the same in a blue book every year before the House. With regard to the bill now under consideration, it gave unlimited power to the Government, while at the same time it was impossible to see what was the nature of the settlement to be raised. He hoped the noble Lord would not object to the insertion of a clause limiting the operation of the bill.
Lord Stanleyhad no objection to adopt a limitation, but thought the bill had better stand in its present form. With regard to the production of blue books of governors' reports, as suggested, he could only say the plan, if carried out, would load the Table with a mass of matter which, while useless, would involve a vast expence in printing. Again, a colonial financial statement in that House would be calculated to excite a jealousy in those colonies which already had Legislatures of their own, inasmuch as they might object to the revision by the House of Commons of the financial proceedings of their own representatives.
Mr. Tufnellconcurred with the noble Lord in the opinion, that the production of the whole of the blue books would be useless, but there were many financial returns—from Ceylon, for instance—from the colonies, which he thought ought to be laid before Parliament.
Mr. Ewartagreed in thinking the self-governing colonies ought to be left to themselves with reference to the management of their financial matters; but with respect to those of the colonies which had not Legislatures of their own, he contended their financial arrangements ought to come under the review of Parliament. With regard to the suggestion of the hon.

1145
Member for Limerick, he thought no term of years ought to be adopted; but that Parliament should retain the option to recall the powers conferred under this bill at any time they pleased.
Lord Stanley: The Government would be quite content to leave the authorities under the bill as tenants at will.
Bill went through committee.

SLAVE TRADE—BOUNTIES.
Sir G. Clerk Sir G. Clerk moved, that the report on the Slave-trade (Payment of Bounties) Resolution be received.
Captain Pechellinquired, first, whether the tribunals by which vessels taken were to be tried, were to be under a mixed commission, or under the Admiralty Court; and, next, whether it was under this bill intended to give the bounty of 4l. on the tonnage of every vessel seized, but not containing slaves, though equipped for the Slave-trade; and, further, whether the bounty of 2l. 10 s. per ton would be paid upon all vessels seized and broken up
Sir G. Clerkreplied, that the tribunals by which vessels so seized would be condemned depended upon the treaties entered into on the subject of the Slave-trade. According to two of those treaties, the tribunals would consist of mixed commissions, and by the third the Admiralty Court. With regard to the bounty on tonnage, it was unnecessary to make any provision on this bill, because the statute 1 and 2 Victoria, chap. 47, gave power to the courts to grant such bounties.
Report agreed to.

THE MINT—COINAGE.
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume moved for,
"An account, in detail, under separate and distinct heads, of the manner in which the sum of 32,2002. sterling, voted in the miscellaneous estimate (No. 6) for the year ending the 31st of March, 1843, was expended; stating the amount paid to each salaried officer for the year, and showing the total charge for the Mint establishment for the year; also, the amount received by each of the officers from the Government, and from individuals, for duty performed by those officers in their various departments during the same period; and stating also the charge for each assay, and the aggregate amount received at the Mint for assays within the year; also the charge for melting; and the aggregate amount received in the year for melting; and stating the portion of these charges which have been brought to the account of Government, and the portion
1146
paid to the officers of the Mint, and the amount to each."
He wished to know if there was any objection to the return.
Mr. Gladstoneobjected to the return, as it would be of no advantage to the public. The officers of the Mint had the privilege, when not engaged in the public service, of earning private emolument.
Mr. Humesaid, they did this from the materials afforded them by the public. He complained of the amount Mr. Matthieson, of the Mint, had received for the assay of the Chinese silver as exorbitant.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, considering that Mr. Matthieson had to furnish the materials for the assay, as well as the labour, and care, and skill, his payment was only reasonable.
Mr. Gladstoneproposed to omit all the words, after the word Government so as to exclude "individuals."
Mr. Humepersisted in his motion, the House divided; on the question that the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the question:—Ayes 15; Noes 39: Majority 24.

List of the AYES.

Barneby, J.

Morison, Gen.

Blewitt, R. J.

Pechell, Capt.

Duncan, G.

Ross, D. R.

Ewart, W.

Stanton, W. H.

Fielden, J.

Thornely, T.

Forster, M.

Yorke, H. R.

Gill, T.

TELLERS.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Hume, J.

Heathcoat, J.

Bowring, Dr.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Lincoln, Earl of

Arkwright, G.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Manners, Lord J.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Buckley, E.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Northland, Visct.

Escott, B.

Patten, J. W.

Flower, Sir J.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Fuller, A. E.

Polhill, F.

Gaskell, J. M.

Pringle, A.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Tennent, J. E.

Greene, T.

Tollemache, J.

Grimsditch, T.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Grogan, E.

Vivian, J. E.

Henley, J. W.

Young, J.

Herbert, hon. S.

TELLERS.

Hodgson, R.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Hope, G. W.

Baring, H.

Main question as amended agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter 8 o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1*. Enfranchisement of Copyholds.
Reported.—Punishment of Death.
Private—2* Littleton Enclosure.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Duke of Argyle, from Glasgow, and Dundonald, for a Speedy Settlement of the Scotch Church Question.—From Alexandria, for Admitting Churches erected by Voluntary Contributions into the Establishment.—From Oxford, Gwaunyscor, and Newmarket, against the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor; and for a See of Manchester.—From Charlbury, Chadlington, Shorthampton, Pudlicot, Finstock, and Fawler, Newton Purcell-cum-Shelswell, Goddington, Somerton, Bicester, Ensham, Tetsworth, Chesterton, Watlington, Bucknell, Lewknor, Banbury, Hampton Poyle, and Ducktington-cum-Hardwick, for Church Extension.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
Lord Campbellbegged permission to ask a question of the noble Duke. He observed, that a petition had been entrusted to the noble Duke on behalf of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, respecting their rights and privileges, and he wished to ask, whether it were the intention of the noble Duke to present that petition, and when, because, that in a certain degree would determine the course which he would follow with respect to his motion on the same subject. If the noble Duke intended to present the petition in a manner which would afford their Lordships an opportunity to express their opinions with regard to the complaints which the petitioners urged, he should not bring forward the resolutions of which he had given notice; but if it should not be the intention of the noble Duke, or of those by whom he was instructed upon the subject, to bring the matter before the House, he should feel it his duty to persevere in his motion.
The Duke of Argyllsaid, that the petition to which the noble and learned Lord referred was in his possession, and he

1097
believed he should not present it just now; but he was not bound to say whether he would not present it in the course of the Session.

PRIVILEGE — PRINTED PAPERS — EXPLANATION.
Lord Denmanwas sorry to trespass upon their Lordships' attention, but it was absolutely necessary, for the vindication of his own character, and the vindication of the administration of justice in this country, that he should bring before them what he found stated of himself in the public press. He had taken the liberty of trespassing upon their Lordships on former occasions, much, no doubt, to their Lordships' annoyance, but certainly with some benefit to the cause of truth, and with the effect of dissipating most erroneous imputations circulated by portions of the public press. He had before him a newspaper — the Morning Chronicle— of Thursday last, which (having, in truth, in the course of his occupations but little time for studying such publications) he had had no opportunity of reading till that very morning. He there found remarks made upon a judgment delivered by himself, in which, among some general terms, were such reflections as these. An hon. and learned Member of the House of Commons was reported to have thus characterised what fell from him.
"It was a judgment which, if it came to be correctly examined, would be found to contain less of accurate law, as well as less of good sense, than any judgment ever pronounced."
Now he (Lord Denman) begged to state that he had become so used to these flowers of rhetoric in the course of the discussions which took place in the House of Commons some few years ago, when that judgment was nightly made the subject of elaborate ex parte criticism, that if the present censure had consisted only of sarcasm in general terms, however strong, or however unseemly, he certainly should never have thought of bringing it as a matter of complaint before their Lordships. He had learned to bear such attacks with equanimity, but this morning, when he thought he should have been enjoying a short holiday from laborious duties, looking over the newspapers, and reading the reported debate, he there found statements which it was impossible for him to know of, without taking the earliest opportunity, in any assembly where he could make his voice heard, of stating his unqualified con-
1098
tradiction to them. General aspersions, he had heard and read as occurring in the same debate, and had passed them over, but the particular charge he had not read till this morning. He thought it better than the adoption of any other course—better than writing to the editor of the newspaper, which, however, in this case he should have proposed to silence, or to the learned individual to whom the statement was attributed—he thought it a less evil than either of those courses to come down to their Lordships' House, and at once to state what the charge made against him was, and what was his contradiction. The charge was stated in these terms:—
"Look at some of Lord Denman's opinions —remember that which he expressed, that it mattered little whether or not licentious books might be read by the inmates of a prison, old and young persons, placed there with a view to their reformation and amendment. What in the world, he asked, had that to do with the case? If they had got into his own family, he would have seen in a moment what they had to do with domestic government. That any man should be found to say licentious and profligate writings, and their use by prisoners, had nothing to do with prison discipline, I own has astonished me."
That was the statement contained in the newspaper, and not lurking in a corner, not put forward even in a leading article, by way of denouncing some obnoxious person, and informing him how highly the newspaper condemned his proceedings, but purporting to be the report of a Member of the House of Commons—the speech of a most distinguished lawyer, the Attorney-general under the late Government, a person (he would add), whom he had always supposed to be a personal friend of his own, to whom he (Lord Den-man) certainly never had been backward in showing any little attention in his power, and who, he thought, would have been the first to repel such an accusation made against him, if it had proceeded from any other quarter. Nor was it an error capable of explanation from the facts being misconceived, for it rested on the plain words of a well-known and authentic document, which even the commonest understanding could hardly misinterpret in this particular. The Chief Justice of England was thus charged here, and in every newspapers in London, and in all their thousand echoes throughout the country, with declaring among other dangerous opinions, that it was a matter of perfect indifference whether licentious and profligate books were placed

1099
or not in the hands of young persons shut up in prisons for reformation. It was very true that the hon. and learned person, to whom these words were attributed the newspaper, went on to say that he had the greatest respect for the noble Lord, and that he had "no wish to detract from the general authority, wisdom, and learning of that noble person," and so on, and that it was extremely desirable to show the deference due at least to his high station, if not to his person. But for the Chief Justice to hold such an opinion, and promulgate it when delivering a solemn judgment in the first criminal court of the realm, was in itself a matter which could not, wherever it was believed, fail to deprive him of all claim to respect or authority. His answer was short: the charge was utterly untrue. He had never uttered one single sentiment, he had never entertained one single sentiment bearing the least affinity to that which had been attributed to him. He thought he could in some slight degree account for the error. His hon. and learned Friend had no doubt been misled upon the subject, if the charge proceeded from him, though he certainly thought it would have been better if his hon. and learned Friend had paused—if he had referred even to himself, even though his words had appeared to bear that meaning—before he took it for granted that such a sentiment could have proceeded from him. The judgment was reported in the ninth volume of Adolphus and Ellis's Reports, and the question before the court was, whether a certain publication, made by order of the House of Commons, was or not a privileged publication, and a legitimate exercise of the privileges of Parliament. He on that occasion took the liberty of denying, as he now respectfully denied, that a publication of a paper containing libellous matter, under a general resolution of the House, to sell all papers of a certain class was a legal exercise of the privilege of Parliament. He would now take the liberty of repeating his opinion, that such a publication was no due exercise of the privilege of the House of Commons, and that the expedient afterwards resorted to, the previous declaration that the order was made in the exercise of a privilege did not prove it to be a matter of privilege. It was likewise stated by him (Lord Denman)—
"It is likewise fit to remark, that the defamatory matter had no bearing on any question in Parliament or that could arise there."
"Whether the book found in the possession
1100
of a prisoner in Newgate were obscene or decent could have no influence in determining how prisons could best be regulated."
And how could it at all bear upon the question as to the way in which the privilege of the House of Commons exercised, on the inquiry how gaols can be best managed, ought to be whether a particular man had in his possession an obscene book or not? Nobody had ever put forth such a monstrous doctrine, as that books of such a description could lawfully be placed in any hands. Nobody had claimed such a right, or defended such an act; but an individual had complained in a court of justice of the slander which ascribed to him the publication of an obscene book said to be possessed by a prisoner, and he would again ask how that question could affect the consideration how prisons ought to be regulated.
"Still less (the judgment went on to say) could the irrelevant issue, whether it was published by the plaintiff. The most advisable course of legislation on the subject was wholly unconnected with those facts; the inquisitorial functions would be exercised with equal freedom and intelligence, however they were found to be. And if the ascertainment of them by the House was a thing indifferent, still less could the publication of them to. the world answer any one parliamentary purpose."
He (Lord Denman) was now prepared to abide by every word of that sentence i—and indeed of the entire judgment— a deliberately considered and conscientious judgment, which, with the utmost pain and reluctance, he found himself bound to deliver, when a late House of Commons committed themselves, as they did, to the assertion of a privilege which, in his opinion could not be granted without subjecting all the privileges and liberties of the people to the will and power of the House of Commons. He could not but complain of the attempt to fasten on his words a sense wholly foreign to them; and it was therefore that be asked their Lordships to afford him this opportunity of stating his own construction of his own judgment, and at the same time giving a direct contradiction to the statement of which he now complained. He believed there was no other passage of the reported speech which could make the slightest impression on the public mind to his (Lord Denman's) prejudice in this respect, and for this reason he bad been led to recite that passage, of which the perversion and misrepresenta-

1101
tion might probably have produced this unwarrantable statement. Their Lordships had in late instances shown themselves fully aware how important it was that all judicial proceedings should deserve public confidence. The judges were not weak enough to wish to escape from public pinion, but on the contrary, hoped to deserve and to obtain public confidence, as their services could only be useful so long as they possessed it. If this were a light matter—if it were, whether the court should or should not on a particular occasion have protracted its sitting to arrive at a result which is described as inevitable, he would not have thought it worth while to complain of such a censure, if, on the other hand, it had been a question whether any learned person in addressing a grand jury had used too strong an expression, when he was not charged with procuring one unjust committal, or passing one sentence too severe, he might have treated such a charge with that contempt which he might think it merited; but when an individual placed in the high position which he (Lord Denman) had the honour to hold, was in direct terms charged with giving countenance to profligacy and licentiousness—when he was accused of expressing opinions so surprising and shocking, he thought their Lordships would feel that he had not done wrong in bringing this matter under their consideration. It was not easy, when having been brought to speak upon this subject, to avoid making a few observations upon what had lately occupied so much of the public newspapers. He did not wish to revive those tedious and almost interminable discussions, which he thought had been at length settled by the act of 1841. He regarded that as an act of peace, and thought the attacks formerly made upon the judges would not have been revived. But an occasion had been eagerly seized (he thought without any pretence of necessity, for treating, not only himself, but all his brother judges in a manner that must have somewhat astonished them— they were found to be mere lawyers, they had shown themselves entirely incompetent to comprehend and deal with a question so large; their minds were too much contracted by their peculiar habits to embrace it; while superior statesmanlike views and powers can alone arrive at a proper practical judgment upon points like these. Now, for his part, he hardly knew who talked with this self complacency of their own superiority over mere
1102
lawyers; but who, he would ask, were the mere lawyers thus impugned? Mr. Justice Little dale, his late lamented colleague, whom he was now at liberty to praise, because he had paid the common debt of nature, who received on his retirement from the bench that brilliant and just euology from his noble Friend behind him (Lord Campbell), which was equally honourable to both, that learned judge was a great lawyer, was a deep lawyer, was a candid lawyer, and he was a just lawyer. He came to the study of the law with his mind prepared for it by much other study, by gaining academic honours and high distinction, no man was more competent by historical research to form an opinion upon this or upon any other subject either for the purposes of judgment or of legislation. He was one of the mere lawyers. Then there was Mr. Justice Patteson, he, thank God, was not yet ripe for a similar panegyric. He trusted that when he himself should have retired from the bench, Mr. Justice Patteson, much his junior, still might be found there the same ornament and protection of the law and the people which he had always shown himself to be. Another of the judges, another of the mere lawyers, who concurred in that judgment, was Mr. Justice Coleridge—a man who had brought the most cultivated mind, to the study of constitutional law, and in the course of publishing an edition of the works of Blackstone, had been compelled to weigh the legal opinions of that great luminary, after cited as the advocate of unlimited privilege. These were the mere lawyers acting with him on the occasion. They thought themselves competent to appreciate the long, able, elaborate, and learned arguments of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) when the question was before the court, and he, for one, thought there was so little doubt upon the subject that he was prepared to give an immediate judgment upon it. He believed that Mr. Justice Littledale was also ready to declare the same opinion. But the other two learned judges thought it right to give all the care and reflection that was due to the immense importance of the question, and to that vast mass of authorities which his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) had adduced before them. They therefore, took some weeks for consideration; and after repeated discussions among themselves, their judgment was as decided as unanimous; it had since

1103
been acquiesced in. No appeal had been entered against it in any court of error. It must, therefore, be taken for granted, that there was no judicial power in England prepared to say that that judgment was inaccurate in point of law, or to disregard it as an authority. And when it came to be more calmly considered, and more fully and completely examined, he believed that it would be found to be as much supported by reason as by authority. He would not trouble their Lordships with the history of that conflict which followed, and which none deplored more deeply than himself. The act to which he had before adverted appeared to remove all likelihood of future collisions: but some points arising from the original dispute was still pending in a court of law. He would remind the House that early in the year 1841 the two sheriff's of London having been sent to Newgate for obeying a writ which had issued from the Court of Queen's Bench upon a judgment which the judges of that court all still believed deliberately to be correct in point of law, applied for a writ of habeas corpus. The writ was granted, and a return was made. It was, in general terms, setting forth that the sheriffs had been committed to Newgate by the House of Commons for a contempt of its privileges. The judges thought themselves bound by precedent and by law (but he confessed it was on his part with an aching heart that he acted on that compulsion) to remand those sheriffs into custody. They all thought that the conduct of the House of Commons was unjust and tyrannical, but still they remanded the sheriffs, because they did not feel that they had any right to depart from the precedents which their predecessors had handed down to them. The action of Howard v Gosset had been since tried, in which the privilege of the House of Commons to commit for contempt was held to be a justification for its officers, to the fullest extent then claimed. Now, when such was the fact, he would ask whether it were quite fair to say that the judges had been encroaching step by step, upon the privileges of the House of Commons, since the power which was conceded to them in 1837, when it was determined to plead and bring the matter before them for solemn argument? He would not deny that there might have been some strong expressions — somewhat] too strong expressions perhaps used by himself in the course of that inquiry; but who was there
1104
in the shape of man, who could help feeling for those most respectable persons who had been committed to prison for faithfully acting under an order of a court of law, the law, in a manner perfectly correct and legal, when that very court was compelled by precedent to continue them in custody? Beyond this, what could be expected by any popular assembly, or how was it possible for the judges to show, by a greater sacrifice than this, their sense of duty and respect for the law and privileges of the House of Commons? Was it then he would ask, quite worthy of persons in high station to say, "Oh, the judges are persons whom we the House of Commons control and keep in awe—we might call them to the Bar of the House, and if they persevere in resisting our privileges we might send them to Newgate. And hence we will be ready to impute opposition on the part of the judges to feelings of jealousy of power that may be formally employed against themselves?" The judges looked to the Government, in the discharge of their high functions, for a frank and hearty support; and he was perfectly sure, that when they appealed to the noble Duke opposite, as well as to the Government generally, they would never appeal in vain. But at all events, he did not feel that the Prime Minister of England, all powerful and all popular as he might be, and owing his power and popularity to the House of Commons, could be justified, from anything that had taken place, in suspecting that the judges, from such mean motives would play so paltry a game. The just privileges of the House of Commons secure to them, with their fellow-subjects, the benefits of this free Constitution. Their real privileges are as necessary for their preservation of the rights of all, as the right of appealing to the courts of justice for any lawful object. Sensible of this truth, the judges will act, as they have acted, on the law, admitting every claim which it acknowledges, and withholding however violently demanded, whatever it refuses to sanction. He could say much more, but he would abstain; he, however, confessed he entertained the hope that he had at least been successful in rescuing before their Lordships his name from a foul calumny.
Lord Brougham: I am sure there can prevail among your Lordships but one opinion and one feeling, unbroken by any diversity or shade of doubt, and that is,

1105
the opinion and the feeling which will lead you to echo heartily and instantly the last sentence pronounced by my noble and learned Friend, that he has most satisfactorily and most triumphantly vindicated himself from the foul, the false, and slanderous charge which has been levelled at him—not by insinuation—and that is its only merit—but by plain and distinct accusation, in the libel of which he complains. I think your Lordships must also be prepared to go along with me in the expression of another sentiment on the present painful occasion—that the Lord Chief Justice had no choice—that he could not, whatever might be his inclination, that he might not—that, with due regard to his own character, and to the character of the high office which he fills, he dared not allow to pass unnoticed such a libel as this. He instantly hied to his place—he instantly met the charge—he instantly gave that contradiction which, if it had only proceeded from his own assertion, would have been sufficient to satisfy your Lordships, and me who know him, and the rest of his countrymen, that the charge was as foul as false, and as false as it was foul. I have, however, another contradiction to give proceeding from another, but an appropriate quarter. The accusation was couched in the form of a pretended report of a speech, purporting to be delivered by an hon. and learned Friend of mine, for whom I, with my noble and learned Friend, entertain the greatest esteem, as if my learned Friend had given vent to these slanders in his place in Parliament—a great aggravation to the charge, permit me to say—an aggravation which barbs the arrow which malice had pointed—which tends to make it stick in the wound that malignity had made. Because, not coming from a mere editor, or printer, but coming from a great' member of our profession, in the discharge of his parliamentary duty, a charge of this nature is not so easily got over—not so swiftly forgotten—and not so safely borne. Accordingly, the slanderer chooses to put it in the form of a report of a speech delivered by that learned person in the discharge of his parliamentary duty, upon a grave question of parliamentary privilege. But I hold in my hand, from that learned sergeant, a distinct disclaimer—an articulate disavowal—a positive and deliberate denial of having made any such charge against my noble and learned Friend,
1106
He said he was not aware, until his attention was called to them this morning, of the words which some one had chosen, when professing to report a speech of his, to put in his mouth. He then looked at it, and, no doubt, though he says it not, he saw with astonishment this speech which had been fabricated for him. He adds,
"I was for the first time, this morning, referred to the report in the Morning Chronicle, in which I am supposed to have imputed to Lord Denman that he said, 'It mattered little whether or not licentious books might be read by the inmates of a prison.' I am certain (says the learned sergeant)—I am certain that I never imputed to Lord Denman to have said anything but that the censure on the Stockdale book was irrelevant to the subject of the report."
Which is, in precise, distinct, and almost literal terms, the very expression that my Lord Chief Justice cited from the 9th volume of Adolphus and Ellis's Reports," as having been the substance of the argument used by him in that memorable judgment. My Lords, I hope and trust, I think I may almost say from a knowledge of the parties that I expect to see that this disclaimer and denial of the learned sergeant will be followed up by the course which is fit and proper to be taken, either by the worthy Baronet, or some other person on his part, who has the superintendence of that daily paper of which he is said to be the proprietor. As that worthy Baronet is a member of Parliament, he must be aware of the falsehood of the charge made, not so much against my noble and learned Friend as against the learned sergeant; for I hold it the gravest offence against that learned sergeant to put such words in his mouth without a shadow or colour of truth. It is well known to your Lordships—I hope it is known to the public—I trust and hope it is also known to those who are proprietors of newspapers and who prepare reports of debates—(generally with great accuracy, with extraordinary accuracy, and with great ability, considering the difficulties attending upon that task with great usefulness both to the public and to Parliament, as I am always the first to admit, and 1 will add, generally speaking, with great fairness and impartiality towards the parties reported) —I hope that those persons to whom I am referring — that the proprietors

1107
and responsible editors of those papers in which Parliamentary reports constantly appear, are aware of the law of this subject. If a man in either House of Parliament chooses to utter words importing a libellous charge against any person whatever, in or out of Parliament, he, the Member of either House of Parliament, is, by the common law of the realm, and by the unquestioned and unquestionable privilege of Parliament, and by the letter of one of our most sacred statutes—the Bill of Rights, wholly irresponsible for what he has said in his place, in any court of law, or any other place whatever. But no person who may take upon himself to print or publish what he said, is in any manner or way whatever screened, or protected, or aided, by Parliamentary privilege; and whoever publishes to the world any libellous charge made by any person, in the discharge of his Parliamentary duty, is, by the law of this land, as declared in repeated judicial decisions, responsible to the law for the publication of the slander. This is a law as well known to be the present law of the land as any one chapter amongst our statutes; and 1 hope and trust that those who have erred, who have sinned so grievously upon this occasion, will now be aware of what the law of the land is upon the point, and that they will act for the future accordingly. It is wide of the present question that I should say one word upon the latter part of my noble and learned Friend's impressive speech. We are not here called upon to discuss a matter upon which there can by possibility continue to exist a difference of opinion; but I should not think that I discharged my duty towards your Lordships, towards my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice, and towards those venerable Colleagues of his who sit with him in the Court of Queen's Bench, and who united with him in pronouncing that most memorable decision to which he has referred, if I did not add that I entirely, and from the bottom of my heart and soul, agree in every one particular with the judgment so pronounced; that I heartily concur in the renewed statement of his own deliberate opinion of that judgment which my noble and learned Friend has this day given to us; and that I rejoice in this opportunity of feeling myself relieved from all scruples of declaring such to be my opinion. This I could not have done whilst proceedings were pending that
1108
might have brought the case before me judicially in this House; but I am now at. liberty to state that my own individual opinion is in strict accordance with that of the Court of Queen's Bench; because it turns out that there is an end to the case, and that the other House of Parliament, after the decision thus pronounced against them, have not thought fit (therein exercising a most sound discretion) to appeal to your Lordships from that judgment, which must, therefore, be deemed and taken to have settled for ever the law upon the point.
Lord Campbell: If my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice eels for an instant that any stigma could attach to him from the imputation contained in the erroneous report to which he has referred, I think he did well at once to come down to this House, and with indignation to repel the charge alleged against him. For all who knew my noble and learned Friend must be aware that there could not be the slightest foundation for such a charge. Never sat judge in Westminster-hall more earnest to inculcate pure morality than my noble and learned Friend. I will add that he is a bright example in all the great qualities of a judge to all who administer justice. But my noble and learned Friend having gone further than merely setting himself right—having entered into the general law of the subject of parliamentary privilege, I think it becomes me, now that I have the honour of being a Member of your Lordships' House, to say, that I by no means acquiesce in the law as my noble and learned Friend has laid it down. I entertain, now that I am a Peer of Parliament, the very same sentiments that I expressed when I had the honour of being a Member of the House of Commons. My opinion is this, that your Lordships' House and the House of Commons are the sole and exclusive judges of their own privileges. My opinion is this, that the Court of Queen's Bench, when they were called upon to give a decision with respect to the power of the House of Commons to publish papers for the information of the public, ought to have been satisfied that they had no jurisdiction to determine upon the existence of that privilege.[Interrupted by talking and a cry of " Order, order."]
Lord Brougham: I wish to know what disorder is there?
The Marquess of Lansdowne: I took

1109
the liberty of calling to order, because, sitting in my place in Parliament, I was prevented from hearing the observations of the noble and learned Lord who was speaking, by the loud talking of four noble and learned Lords who had assembled near the Woolsack.
Lord Brougham: But my noble Friend did not call to order till all the talking was entirely at an end.
Lord Campbellresumed: If my noble and learned Friends will do me the honour to listen to me for a few moments, I may be able to convey to them some information that may be useful for them, and which they have not always borne in mind. Since the time of Chief Justice Fortescue down to the reign of her Majesty Queen Victoria, the greatest judges who have sat in Westminster-hall have declared that it did not belong to them to decide upon the privileges of Parliament. I concur in the panegyric passed by my noble and learned Friend, the present Chief Justice, upon his late venerable and excellent colleague, Mr. Justice Littledale —a more profound lawyer never sat in Westminster-hall; but in entire accordance with the eulogium which I, speaking in the name of the unanimous bar of England, had the honour to pronounce upon him, I now say he was not the very fittest, nor most competent person to decide upon a question of Parliamentary privilege. This House and the House of Commons, have from time immemorial determined their own privileges. This is a right which has been uniformly exercised by your Lordships' House in ancient and in modern times. Your Lordships have repeatedly stopped actions that were brought to question your privileges. This happened again and again during the reign of George 3rd. It happened whilst that great and distinguished judge, Lord Eldon, presided upon the Woolsack. In a case where an action had been brought to question the rights and privileges of this House, after judgment had been obtained, the parties to the action were summoned by your Lordships to the Bar, and were threatened to be sent to New-gate, if they did not at once renounce the benefit of the judgment they had obtained. Such was the law in the time of Lord Chancellor Eldon; such I believe to be the law in the time of Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst. I rejoice to hear the contradiction which my noble and
1110
learned Friend (Lord Brougham) has given from Sir Thomas Wilde, of the language attributed to him in the report. 1 knew, that my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Thomas Wilde) could never have used such language. But my noble and learned Friend, the Chief Justice, upon the occasion of delivering the memorable judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, in Stockdale v. Hansard, stated that which I think might well be complained of. There certainly was not the slightest pretence for saying that my noble and learned Friend had asserted in his judgment, that obscene books might be read without offence by persons in gaol; but what I understood my noble and learned Friend to state was this—that the House of Commons had no right to inquire into that; that it was perfectly immaterial to the inquiries of the House of Commons, whether obscene books were read by prisoners in gaol or not. Now, there, I think, he was mistaken. It was competent for the House of Commons to consider whether a bill should not be brought in to regulate the gaols through-out England. Prior to the introduction of such a measure, was it not most material that they should see what the regulations and discipline of the gaols had been, and whether the use of obscene books was permitted to the prisoners or not, in order, if such should turn out to be the fact, that so enormous an abuse might be remedied? It was essential, therefore, that the report made upon such a subject, should state the abuse, if the abu e were found to exist. Moreover, it was most material, that the fact of the existence of the abuse should be communicated to the public, because the public would thereby be prepared for such legislation upon the report, as should have the effect of correcting and eradicating the abuse. My noble and learned Friend has thought fit to pronounce a panegyric upon the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench. I should be unworthy to stand upon the floor of your Lordships' House, if I did not, with equal boldness, pronounce my opinion of that judgment. I think it was entirely erroneous, and contrary to law. I think, in the first place, that the judges had no jurisdiction to determine the question of Parliamentary privilege; and, in the second place, I think, that if they had jurisdiction to determine the question, they determined it impro-

1111
perly. Your Lordships need not be afraid of my entering at any length into this subject. I occupied, unfortunately, no less than sixteen hours in trying to persuade my noble and learned Friend, the Chief Justice, to decide in favour of the House of Commons. I will not give your Lordships upon the present occasion even an abstract of what my arguments were before the Court of Queen's Bench, but I will refer your Lordships to that which is infinitely better than any argument of mine could possibly be, namely to an act of Parliament passed by your Lordships' House. My noble and learned Friend, says that he believes the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, has been generally approved of. In my opinion, and according to my observation, that judgment was at once condemned by Westminster-hall. All the most eminent lawyers on both sides in politics, honouring the conscientious intentions of my noble and learned Friend—speaking most respectfully of him and of his learned Colleagues—still believed that the judgment was quite erroneous. And I think, that your Lordships have since reversed that judgment. What was the foundation upon which the judgment rested? My noble and learned Friend, the Chief Justice stated, that the House of Commons has all the privileges which are necessary for the due performance of its functions as a branch of the Legislature; and he added, that if he thought that the right of publishing for the information of the public, what the House of Commons considered necessary, was essential to the due discharge of the functions of the House of Commons, it must, of course, in that case, be considered and treated as a privilege of Parliament; but my noble and learned Friend, the Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Littledale, Mr. Justice Patteson, and Mr. Justice Coleridge, were all of opinion, that the power of publishing papers for the information of the public, was not necessary for the due discharge of the functions of the House of Commons. What followed? Your Lordships agreed to a bill sent up to you from the other House of Parliament, the recital of which is to this effect:—
"Whereas it is essentially necessary to the due performance of the functions of the two Houses of Parliament that they should have the power of publishing whatever of their proceedings they think may be requisite for the
1112
information of the public; therefore, be it enacted, that hereafter no action, or indictment, or proceeding, shall be instituted in respect to anything that is ordered to be published by either House of Parliament."
So that this power of libelling, as it has been called, is established by act of Parliament. Either House of Parliament may order to be published whatever it thinks necessary for the information of the public. Why, then, your Lordsships (agreeing to the act of Parliament which makes that declaration) have differed in opinion from my noble and learned Friend, the Chief Justice, and his learned Colleagues, Justices Littledale, Patteson, and Coleridge. Your Lordships are of opinion, that this power of publication is essentially necessary to be possessed, by both Houses of Parliament, and, therefore, you have enacted that the power shall be enjoyed by both. The foundation of the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench was, that the power of publication was not essential to the due discharge of the functions of Parliament. Your Lordships declare that it is essential, and pass an act of Parliament to carry out your views upon the point. I maintain, that that act of Parliament amounts to a Parliamentary reversal of the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench. There was no occasion for any writ of error; your Lordships, by act of Parliament, reversed the judgment. Under these circumstances, I trust, that your Lordships will not come to the conclusion, that the House of Commons made an unjust or an ineffectual struggle. I glory in having been a Member of that House of Commons. I think, that in committing the sheriffs of London and Middlesex, the House of Commons did what it was imperatively bound to do. I say, that that House of Commons achieved a triumph for the constitution by maintaining its privilege, because either House of Parliament may now, without danger or apprehension of actions or indictments communicate whatever may be thought useful to enlighten the people, and lay the foundation for future legislation.
Lord Abinger: When my noble and learned Friend says, that all the lawyers in Westminster-hall dissent from the judgment pronounced by the Court of Queen's Bench, I am anxious to say that as far as my knowledge and experience go, I must entirely differ from my noble and learned Friend. I do not wish to offer any opin-

1113
ion of my own upon the question, because I believe it to be quite unnecessary for me to do so; but as far as I have had opportunities of learning the general opinion of Westminster-hall upon the subject, that general opinion perfectly coincides with what has been stated by my noble and learned Friend, the Chief Justice. My noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) at the time that the judgment was pronounced, was not in a situation to ascertain truly, what the real opinions of the bar were. He then held a high and influential situation under the Government, and was surrounded by persons who were not likely to differ from him in opinion. But, as far as I could learn the opinion of Westminster-hall upon the subject, I must say that the general feeling there coincided with what I believe to have been the univeral opinion elsewhere.
Lord Denman: In the observations which I considered it due to myself to offer to your Lordships, I had no intention of making it necessary for my noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) to enter into any argument upon the question decided by the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench. If my noble and learned Friend wished to protest against any opinion of mine, I should have thought that protest sufficient; or to draw inferences from any measure that your Lordships have acquiesced in, I apprehend that he might have chosen a more convenient and a more fitting opportunity of doing so than the present. What necessity was there for my noble and learned Friend to go into a long argument to show that the judges were wrong? And when my noble and learned Friend refers to the act of Parliament, and says that your Lordships have reversed the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, I beg to remind your Lordships with what different feelings that act of Parliament was received at the time it was passed. We did not then see anything of the great sticklers for parliamentary privilege—of the great champions of the rights of the people as asserted by the House of Commons—of those who said that inquiry was necessary, and that inquiry would be useless unless it were carried out by the right and power to publish, we then saw nothing of these persons; coming forward to congratulate themselves that the proposed act achieved their triumph over the courts of law; but on the contrary, sad lamentations and fore-
1114
bodings—lamentations that any act should be thought necessary, since it was a confession that privilege could not maintain itself, and forebodings that all the powers of Parliament must thereafter be referred to the courts, the expounding of acts of Parliament. It is very true that the preamble of the act says, that it is necessary for the due discharge of the functions of the Houses of Parliament that they should possess the power of publication. But what publication? The publication of all that Parliament thinks it fit and proper that Parliament should publish. Does not that impose a duty upon the House of Commons—a duty not imposed before—and a duty which I must say the House of Commons had most grossly and scandalously neglected. Am I not justified in so speaking when I see that upon the journals, a petition is allowed to remain containing imputations and charges upon that most learned, most excellent, most irreproachable judge—Chief Justice Tindal?—a petition disgraceful to those who wrote it, disgraceful to those who presented it, and doubly disgraceful to those who published and circulated it to the world at the price of three halfpence a sheet. Tell me that it was not necessary for the judges to assert the right of the subject, and to stand up against the assumed privilege of the House of Commons? What was the occasion out of which this question of privilege arose? My noble and learned Friend thought I had said, that I considered it unnecessary for the House of Commons to inquire whether obscene and scandalous books ought to be in the hands of the prisoners in our gaols. I totally deny it. I never said any such thing. I spoke in reference to the particular case before me, fully admitting the duty of Parliament to obtain such information as might lead to effective legislation on every subject, but as distinctly denying that the fact of some prisoner being allowed an improper book in Newgate, or the fact of Mr. Stockdale having printed that book, and much less the publication of those facts to the world for money, could have any connection with the legislative proceeding. I well remember explaining how the controversy had arisen, when that act was before your Lordships, and the astonishment of my noble Friend, whose absence we all lament, the noble Viscount then at the head of the Government, when he learned from how small an egg this giant discord had sprung. The commis-

1115
sioners for inspecting prisons had reported to the King—and their report was laid before the House of Commons, unfavourably to the discipline of Newgate. They stated, that an obscene book was found in the possession of a prisoner there. The court of aldermen who superintend the discipline of the prison defended the book, maintaining that it was not an improper book, but a scientific book. Now, it might be a scientific book, and still a very improper book to be placed in the hands of prisoners. Instead of taking that issue the commissioners persisted in this immaterial charge, resting it on the fact (among others) that Stockdale was the publisher of it. The aldermen rejoined. This idle controversy was sent to his Majesty and to Parliament, and printed under the resolution of the House of Commons, for general sale at so much a sheet. Was this necessary for the privilege of Parliament? Was this necessary to enable Parliament to legislate? What a false issue, what a fictitious case! There is not a word of truth in it as referable to these proceedings. I was astonished at the disingenuous manner in which the case was brought forward, and the same charge of exposing prisoners to contamination from improper books then advanced against the judges which has recently been revived against me. But to come back to this act to which my noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) alludes. I admit, that the preamble says, that it is essential for the due discharge of the functions of the two Houses of Parliament, that they should possess the power of publishing whatever they may deem necessary to assist them in their legislation, and I rejoice that it is made so. There is no part of my life that will gainsay the opinion that imperfect publication is one of the greatest evils; and that when information upon a particular subject is made the basis of legislation, the fuller and more ample the information obtained and published upon that subject the better. As a judge, 1 denied that that privilege existed before to the injury of individuals; as a legislator, I concurred in its being permitted for the future. As a judge I could but lay down the law as I found it; as a Member of Parliament, I agreed to it as a change for the public advantage. But is the power to publish thus vested in Parliament to be free from all manner of restraint? Can every man who thinks he has a grievance go before Parliament, with an ex parte position, as he thinks proper, and
1116
then circulate his libel through the country at the public expense, at the cost of so much a sheet? On the contrary, the right to publish that which is thought fit and proper to be published, imposes on Parliament the duty and responsibility of considering the fitness and propriety of each publication. But the act is called, inconsistent with the judgment because the one denies the necessity of publishing, the other asserts it. This remark shows an entire forgetfulness of the difference between a judicial and a legislative proceeding. My noble and learned Friend still denies that a court of law can form any opinion on privilege of Parliament; he says, that mere lawyers as we are, we cannot understand the subject. Perhaps not; perhaps we cannot define all that is privilege, but are there not some things which we know not to be privileges? Suppose the House of Commons impose a fine in the name of privilege; if its lawfulness should be questioned before me, do I not know that that House enjoys no such privilege? Can I refrain from acting on that knowledge? Stronger cases may be supposed; nor can the power of enforcing whatever it may call privilege be conceded, without absorbing all other rights inherent in all classes of our fellow subjects, against this despotism, the judges vindicated the law, and every other question in the cause was comparatively insignificant. Opinions may be divided on minor propositions brought before us, respecting the actual exercise of the privilege of publication. Some may think it was established by the evidence. We thought otherwise, and I think so still; and as a historical question, which happily it has now become, the balance of reasoning appears to my mind entirely against the possession (by either House of Parliament) of the privilege of indiscriminate publication. 1 will not enter further into the subject. I am sorry to have brought upon your Lordships even the trouble of hearing much of this ancient and entirely by-gone question. My apology is, that 1 really could not have gone on thus performing my duty with complete satisfaction, I could not have faced the grand jury of Sussex whom I must charge to-morrow, if I had allowed the calumny to pass unnoticed. Allow me now, in conclusion, to express the very sincere gratification with which I have listened to the handsome terms in which my hon. and learned Friend (Sir T. Wilde) had spoken of myself, disclaiming as he has

1117
done through the medium of my noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), the statement attributed to him.
Lord Brougham: I do not wish to add to the length of the present discussion; but it is yet impossible for me to refrain from some expression of surprise at what I have heard from my noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) behind me. My noble and learned Friend astonishes me, as it must have astonished your Lordships, and I believe, when the thing gets abroad, will astonish the whole of the bar of this country, with a statement that all Westminster-hall disapproved—[Lord Lyndhurst; Of all parties.] Ay, all Westminster-hall, of all parties, of all shades of political opinion, disapproved of the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench. My noble and learned Friend has not been mis-reported or mis-stated; we heard this with our own ears. But my noble and learned Friend the Chief Baron (Lord Abinger) has borne a totally contrary testimony as to the opinion and feeling of Westminster-hall upon the subject. Beyond the testimony so borne by the noble and learned Chief Baron, it is perhaps unnecessary to go; only I add, for the honour of the bench upon all similar occasions, and especially upon this, that if there be any one species of testimony against the validity of the judgment of a court of law which has less weight than any other testimony, than all other testimonies—if here be any one authority less strong, potent, and weighty, against the judgment be any of the judges of the land—if there of any one authority which is lighter than a feather in the balance, in order to countervail the opinion of the court and the grave and venerable authority of the Queen's sworn judges, administering justice and the law according to their oaths —it is precisely the testimony, precisely the authority, precisely the opinion of such persons as are represented on the present occasion by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell)—namely, the advocate in the cause—not the sworn judge, but the retained counsel in the cause, who has been defeated by the reasons put forward on the opposite side, and who has been condemned by the unanimous judgment of the court whom he has addressed. And if anything can, by possibility, still more detract from the weight of censure so expressed, and the authority of opinions so pronounced, it may be found in the supposition that the
1118
learned counsel would not sit down with a perfectly free and unbiassed mind, under an entire discomfiture, after having argued on one side of the case, as my noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) admits he did, for no less a space than sixteen hours, and at the end of all that time finds that all the judges have agreed and decided against him. I have only to add, that my noble and learned Friend the Master of the Rolls (Lord Langdale) expressly (though in my absence, but I know the fact from the very best authority) gave his support to the bill after which my noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) rather surprised me by relying as an authority against the judges upon the ground that it was not at all inconsistent with the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench. I think it my duty to state this, as otherwise the bill in question might seem to convey an imputation upon the very important judgment delivered in this celebrated case.
The Duke of Wellington: I merely wish to offer one observation upon what has fallen from my noble and learned Friend in respect to the Act of Parliament passed a year or two since, to declare the privilege of Parliament as regards the publication of papers. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell) says, that that act was a contradiction of the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, and was wholly inconsistent with it. I wish just to state what passed in this House when the act was under your Lordships' consideration — namely, that it was the noble and learned Lord the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench who supported the measure, and prevailed upon your Lordships to adopt it. Answering only for myself, I can say that I was persuaded to vote for the measure entirely in consequence of the speech of the noble and learned Chief Justice, who, I take it, would not have urged the bill upon the adoption of the House, if it were so entirely inconsistent as the noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell) has represented it to be with the judgment of the Queen's Bench.
Lord Campbell: As I before stated, the foundation of the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench was this—that the power claimed by the House of Commons to publish their proceedings was unnecessary to the due performance of their functions— that if it had been necessary, the judges would willingly have accorded it, and have decided in favour of the privilege. That

1119
was the main foundation of the judgment. The preamble of the act says, "Whereas it is essentially necessary for the due performance of the functions of the two Houses of Parliament, that they should possess the power; therefore it is enacted that the power shall be enjoyed by them." This is the reason upon which I submit to your Lordships that substantially the act of Parliament is a reversal of the judgment of the court, and that it is wholly inconsistent with the grounds upon which that judgment was founded. With respect to what has fallen from my noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) I may perhaps be allowed to remark, that it would have been appropriate enough if I had had the presumption to give my own individual opinion of the judgment of the court. If I, who was the advocate in the cause, had stated upon my own authority merely, that the judgment was wrong, it would undoubtedly have been very inappropriate, and entitled to no weight. But I said that others of much higher authority than myself had intimated opinions adverse to the judgment—that all the lawyers in the House of Commons, on both sides, or rather on all sides of politics, Whig and Tory, Liberal and Conservative—those who were members of the late Government —those who are connected with the present Government — all with one voice agreed that the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench was erroneous. It was not I, individually, who ventured upon the expression of such an opinion; but I ventured to remind your Lordships that such was the opinion entertained by others. Of course, when I say that all lawyers of all parties agreed in one common opinion upon the subject, I do not speak of the judges, who have none of them had the indiscretion to pronounce an opinion upon the point- But at the bar, I believe, the opinion was almost unanimous. My noble and learned Friend the Chief Justice has referred to what I certainly agree with him in considering as an enormous abuse —the presentation and publication of a petition in the House of Commons against that most learned and most distinguished judge, the present Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas. I s regret that such a petition should ever have been received, much more that it should have been printed. But the abuse of a privilege does not at all show that the privilege does not exist. I could remind your Lordships of many judgments delivered in
1120
Westminster-hall in former times—most disgraceful to the character and memory of the judges who pronounced them to show that the mere abuse of power is no proof of the non-existence of it. I am not at all sorry that my noble and learned Friend the Chief Justice has brought this matter under your Lordships' notice. Indeed, I rejoice that he has given an opportunity to my noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) behind me, to repel, upon the authority of Sir Thomas Wilde—a friend common to my Lord Chief Justice and to myself, and who, I am sure, would be the last man in the world (for though he be strong in his opinions, he is firm in his friendships) to calumniate any man, and least of all my noble and learned Friend the Chief Justice, whose character, learning, and manners, all of our profession join in loving and venerating.
Lord Brougham: I must say that I do not think that my noble Friend, having now twice addressed your Lordships, has at all improved his case by the effort he has just made. [Lord Campbell: How often have you spoken?] How often!— that is no answer to the charge which I am now making against my noble and learned Friend: which is, that he renders his case worse and worse the more frequently he rises to defend it. I ventured just now to express an opinion to your Lordships, that the counsel who had been defeated in an action was a very bad authority upon which to rest an opinion adverse to the judgment of the court. My noble and learned Friend said, that all Westminster-hall disapproved of the judgment. I took it for granted that that was only another way of telling your Lordships that he disapproved of it himself. But what does my noble and learned Friend say?—
"Oh (says he), it was not I who impugned the judgment, but the party whom I represented and defended—all the lawyers in the House of Commons"
That is to say, that it was not the counsel but the client who disapproved of the judgment; because, upon the occasion in question, the House of Commons was the client of my noble and learned Friend.
"My opinion (says my noble and learned Friend) goes for nothing. I will not trouble your Lordships with that, but I will give you the opinion of my defeated client—all the opinions of all the lawyers in the House of Commons are against the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench."

1121
I must say that there was one illustrious J exception in the House of Commons—Mr. Pemberton, who wrote a most excellent pamphlet upon the question, taking precisely the same view as the Court of Queen's Bench. [Lord Campbell: That was upon the question of jurisdiction.] No matter, it comes to the same thing.
Here the matter dropped.

POOR-LAW (SCOTLAND).
The Earl of Roseberyin rising, pursuant to notice, to call their Lordships' attention for a very few moments to the commission which had been lately issued by her Majesty for investigating the existing system of Poor-laws in Scotland, was anxious in the outset to return his sincere and grateful thanks to her Majesty's Ministers for having instituted this inquiry; because, after much investigation, and many years of observation and reflection, he was strongly of opinion, that however much of merit there might be in some part of the existing system of Poor-laws in Scotland, still the whole required complete revision, and many parts of it very great change. It was a common opinion (in many instances very erroneously imbibed), that the present system of Poor-laws in Scotland, notwithstanding the great change that had taken place in the society and the population of that country, was in itself the best adapted, not only for Scotland, but for almost every other country in which a Poor-law existed at all. He was anxious to take an early opportunity of declaring that he was not one of those who participated in that opinion. On the contrary, he had long thought that there were great defects in the system, which required immediate remedies, and that it produced evils which called loudly for redress. With respect to the composition of the commission, he was aware that the Government must have felt considerable embarrassment and difficulty in the selection of proper persons, and he was ready to acknowledge that those who had been chosen to act in this delicate and difficult inquiry were not only unexceptionable but were well chosen. Also, with regard to the terms in which the commission had been drawn up, they could not have been better expressed. They had the merit of being both sufficiently comprehensive, and sufficiently limited. Upon a subject like this, there ought not to be the least appearance of bias on the part of the commissioners, and
1122
he wished, in common with what he was sure was the wish of her Majesty's Government, that a report should be made by the gentlemen constituting the commission, which should command the universal confidence and assent of the country. He could not help expressing therefore, his belief that the names of two or three gentlemen who might be considered as particularly acquainted with the wants and the situation of the great towns, might advantageously have been added to those already appointed. He had no right to anticipate what the report might be—he had not the means of so doing; but even if he had, he should not think it his duty to enter upon any such speculations on the present occasion, or pending the inquiry It was necessary, however, as he had before said, that that report should obtain almost universal assent, and he feared, on account of the omission he had pointed out, that such might not be conceded, particularly if the report took a particular direction. Having stated his only objection to the composition of "the commission, "he must add that he could not agree with those who complained that Dr. Alison had not been included in it. With the highest respect for his general character and qualifications, and for his labours on this particular subject, the very circumstance of Dr. Alison being thus committed to certain persons, and opinions rendered him in his judgment ineligible for this duty. Objections had been made to two rev. gentlemen who had been appointed commissioners; but he thought the Government had exercised a wise discretion in appointing them who were more conversant than most persons with the effects of the present law. He trusted the few remarks he had made would be received in the spirit in which they had been offered,—namely, an anxiety to obtain the greatest amount of good from the inquiry, for it involved questions of the most important kind, and not less difficult than important, as he thought in several points a selection of them would be found more difficult than the amendment of the English Poor-law, or the introduction of one into Ireland.
The Duke of Wellington hadthe greatest satisfaction in assuring the House, that the commission had been issued with the view and object stated by the noble Lord, that a report should be made which would give full and entire satisfaction to the country on the subject of the inquiry.

1123
He believed that the Government had made such a selection of persons upon the commission as would carry the entire confidence of the public. One of them, a noble Friend of his (the Duke of Wellington's), had long been a Member of the Councils of the Sovereign, and during the whole period he had held a distinguished office in the public service he had performed his duties alike with honour to himself and advantage to the country; he had also been particularly conversant with all matters relating to the internal Government of Scotland. That noble Lord, therefore, was of all others, on the score of his information, as well of his impartiality and of his judgement, a fit member of such a commission, and one the most calculated to bring the inquiry to a result which would be satisfactory to the public. Another noble Lord on the commission had been holding for the last ten years a high situation under the Crown in Scotland, and in the course of that time must have been in communication with the clergy, -and have obtained an intimate knowledge of the wants of the country on this subject. There were two other gentlemen, one of whom had been in the public service, and had also been Member for the great county of Perth, and the other had been connected with Ayrshire. Besides those, there were two clergymen of the Church of Scotland, one a minister of Greenock, and another the pastor of a country parish in the Highlands. Besides those, there was a seventh gentleman, Mr. Twistleton to whom he wished to draw the attention of the House, as having been particularly employed in various enquiries into the distress existing in some of the great towns; he had been employed under the Poor-law Commission in this country and had an accurate knowledge of the working of that law. He had also been sent into Paisley at that period of the distress in that part of the country when her Majesty had thought it proper to send down assistance to relieve that distress; on that occasion that gentleman had been appointed to administer the relief, and had been in communication with the relief committee of the town. That gentleman had made some most valuable reports to his (the Duke of Wellington's) right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which showed an intimate knowledge of the subject, and a capability of rendering most
1124
essential service to the commission engaged in making the present inquiry. He (the Duke of Wellington) was therefore convinced that that Gentleman would supply all deficiencies that might be supposed to exist on account of no person being appointed on the commission who belonged to the great towns. Upon the whole, he (the Duke of Wellington) believed that the commission had been so formed that a report would be made which would enable the public to come to a right judgement on the subject, and that the measure produced in consequence of that report would produce those benefits to Scotland which it was the wish of the noble Earl and all who had turned their attention to the subject to attain.
Lord Campbellbelieved that the commission could not have been better selected particularly as regarded the noble Lord at the head of it, who had been a great benefactor to his country. At the same time he (Lord Campbell) agreed with his noble Friend, that it would have been desirable if one or two gentlemen representing great towns, had been added to the commission. He, however, had the greatest confidence in the commissioners, and the report that would be produced by them. Some change appeared to be necessary in the law, but he hoped none would be made in the principle of it.
The Earl of Haddingtonremarked that it was impossible but that the condition of the poor in great towns must be known to his noble Friend at the head of the commission. Then there was Dr. M'Far-lane, who was a minister in a large town. The case of the great towns had certainly been attended to by the Government in appointing the commission. One great merit of the commission was, that the number of it did not exceed seven.
Subject dropped.
s Their Lordships adjourned.