Sitting of 15 July 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—2o. Grand Jury Presentments (Dublin); Party Processions (Ireland); Trafalgar Square; Duchy of Cornwall Assessionable Manors; Duchy of Cornwall Lands; Western Australia; Farm Buildings; Parish Constables; Loan Societies.
Reported.—Soap Allowances.
Private.—1o. Devaynes's Estate.
2o. Cheape's Divorce; Tralee Navigation and Harbour.
3o. and passed:—London and Croydon Railway (No. 2).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Evelyn Denison, from Southwell, respecting Church Leases.—By Mr. Hume, from Paisley, and by Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Williams, from Glasgow, for Extending Factories Act to Bleaching Works. — By Mr. Masterman, from Company of Parish Clerks, against Parish Clerks Bill.—By Mr. Leader, from St. James's, Westminster, against Poor Law. — By Mr. J. Power, from Kilmore, against Alteration of Poor Relief (Ireland) Act.—By Mr. Hutt, from Gateshead, complaining of Opening Letters.—By Mr. Fitzmaurice, from J. H. Rolls, for Inquiry.—By Mr. Wyse, from Irish Proprietors, respecting State of Ireland. — By Mr. Wyse, from Ireland (4), for Inquiry respecting State Trial.

POOR LAW.
House in Committee on the Poor Law Amendment Bill.
On Clause 36; Commissioners from districts to provide asylums for the houseless poor,
Mr. Christophercomplained that the Clause was not sufficiently extensive. He did not mean to oppose it; but he wished to direct the attention of the House to the state of the houseless poor in the rural districts. On the introduction of the Poor Law, vagrant boards were appointed in some unions; but he contended that they ought to be established in all, and that the expense would be much less to send them to those temporary asylums than it would be to send them to the House of Correction.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that the point which his hon. Friend was discussing had no relevancy to the Clause before the Committee. The fact was, the guardians had now a discretionary power to establish such vagrant asylums. By Clause 51, to which they would soon come, the expense of relief to casual poor would be defrayed by the whole union, instead of the particular parish to which they belonged, and instead of being sent about from post to pillar as heretofore. By that Clause to which he referred, parishes would not have an interest in passing the poor along without relief, until they got to their own parish; and he had no doubt that the practical effect of that would be the establishment of such asylums as the hon. Member for Lincolnshire referred to.
Colonel Woodsaid, that by a regulation
822
made by the Commissioners, every really destitute person applying at the workhouse for relief was taken in and provided with a bed for the night and breakfast in the morning; but it was soon found that the effect of such a provision would be to cover the country with trampers, and that poverty would be aggravated instead of mitigated, and the Poor Law Commissioners found it necessary to issue another order, providing that all persons so relieved should be compelled to work for four hours before they were allowed to go on their way, as some compensation for the relief given them. This, however, operated as a great hardship upon the sailor who was on his way to join his ship, or the person who was going to obtain work in another part of the country. He thought the better course would be to provide such persons with the shelter for the night which they required, in the police station-house, not as a punishment, but as being the readiest way of extending such relief. He should propose that the Clause be rejected altogether.
Mr. Hawestotally differed with the hon. Member for Brecon as to the propriety of sending poor persons, who had committed no crime, to the police station-house, like criminals. He hoped the police would have nothing to do with the administration of poor relief. He thought, however, they had no sufficient information to justify them in passing these Clauses. He, for one, must object to giving to the Commissioners a power which would occasion a material increase in the amount of poor-rates. Indeed, he gathered from the Reports of the Commissioners themselves, that they entertained great doubts as to the propriety of such a provision as was contained in this Clause. He apprehended that the Poor Law Commissioners and the Secretary of State had now full power to make general regulations for the relief of the casual poor. He warned hon. Members against allowing their sympathies to be enlisted only in favour of the pauper, without reference to that large part of the population who had to pay rates, though scarcely removed from pauperism themselves.
Sir J. Grahamregretted to find that the hon. Member for Lambeth joined with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brecon in resisting this Clause. His hon. and gallant Friend seemed to think

823
that destitution, coupled with the absence of all shelter for the night, was a sufficient proof of criminality to entitle a man to be confined in a cell in a station-house amongst criminals [Colonel Wood: No, no.] Was it not better to provide district asylums for the reception of the casual poor, where they might be sure of receiving food and shelter for the night, or for three or four days if necessary, than that they should be committed to gaol as vagrants? As the law now stood, it was indispensably necessary to provide relief for those who were destitute and could not maintain themselves; for orphan children; destitute children and poor children were also to be educated out of the rates; casual and houseless poor were to be relieved out of the rates, and the police were also paid from the rates; but he had yet to learn, that it was good economy to confound all these normal classes together, instead of making a separation for each. His belief was, that when the power was given, a due consideration of economy would lead the district boards to make the provision contemplated by the Clause. The subject had been forced on his attention by what had occurred last winter, when so many of the houseless poor in this metropolis were found in the severest weather sleeping in the door-ways, and under arches, being unable to obtain shelter from the inclemency of the season, but he altogether rejected the assumption that such persons, because they were houseless and destitute, and having committed no offence, but being destitute in the depth of winter, and begging from necessity, were to be treated as criminals. He believed that the infirm of their asylums, in well-selected localities, would supply the means to the policemen, of taking such poor persons to a known place of refuge at all hours, when he would be certain to find shelter and food if well, and proper attention if sick, performing, in return for it, if able, a task of work, to defray in some degree the expense of the humble assistance so given; and he was quite sure that the duties of Christianity and humanity would be much better provided for by such asylums than by the present practice of sending casual poor about from parish to parish, until they should find one that was humane enough to relieve them. The hon. Member for Lambeth had said, that the Reports of the Poor Law Commissioners did not
824
recommend this Clause, but if he would refer to the 10th Report, made in 1841, the subject was fully entered upon, and some such provision as regarded the casual poor in the metropolis, was recommended; and he (Sir J. Graham) knew, of his own knowledge, that such a provision was not at that time contemplated. But he did not rest the case on the recommendation of the Commissioners, but upon his own experience of what had taken place during severe winters in the metropolis. He fully admitted the necessity of looking to the interests of the poor-rate payers, but he denied that under proper regulations, any extra burthen would be thrown upon them by this Clause.
Mr. B. Cochraneheartily concurred in the humane views of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), and deprecated the monstrous proposition of the hon. and gallant Member for Brecon with reference to the houseless poor. He thought the Government should take those asylums into their own hands, otherwise the expense of poor laws would amount to 8,000,000 l., as it did under the old system. It had already increased from 4,000,000 l. to 7,300,000 l.
Mr. Wakleycontended that the present state of the law made casual relief a very great burthen in some parishes, while to others it did not involve a penny expense. He fully approved the object of the Clause, which, in combination with the 51st Clause, would have a most beneficial effect. He objected, however, to the mode in which it was sought to be carried out. He thought that the principle ought to be carried out in all parts of the country, for if there were only a few such asylums, the case of the casual poor would be made worse by having long distances to walk before they could get relief.
Mr. Borthwickwould support this Clause because its tendency would be to diminish vagrancy. At one period last year there were as many as 2,000 casual poor in London wholly unprovided for, and that number he believed to be made up largely of labourers who came from the agricultural districts in the hope of having their wants more readily relieved. He thought that there ought to be district asylums in every Poor Law union throughout the country, as the effect of such an arrangement would be to furnish an easy mode of removal from parish to parish, and to suppress sturdy beggars.
Sir J. Grahamwith reference to the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for Bridport, could only say that he had always regarded the question of expense as a secondary consideration in the administration of the New Poor Law. At the same time, however, he did not anticipate that the expense which had been alluded to would be so great as had been conjectured. Altogether, he maintained that the poor were better cared for, relief was more fully and freely administered to them, and every possibility of curing their miserable position more attended to under the new than under the old Poor Law.
Mr. T. Duncombe: The more he heard the Clause discussed the more he regretted that the Bill was encumbered with it. It was, he conceived, quite unnecessary to introduce such a Clause into a Bill for the relief of the poor generally. The right hon. Baronet had stated it to be his belief that the effect of the Bill would be the addition of vagrant wards to the unions all over the country. What, however, would be the fact? There would be two boards of guardians administering relief in the same workhouse. If the arrangement proposed was good for the metropolitan districts, was it not also good generally? If the measure was to be applied to Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester, and Bristol, as well as to London, what were to become of such populous towns as Sheffield, Huddersfield, Newcastle, and such like? He had a petition to present from Leeds, praying to be exempt from the operation of the Bill. Last year there was a subscription got up for that portion of the poor for which the Clause now under discussion proposed to legislate. The right hon. Baronet expressed his confidence that vagrants would apply for relief to the asylums thus proposed to be prepared for them, but he believed not because it would become a part of the workhouse system. If anything was to be done with the casual poor, it ought in his opinion, to be by an Amendment of the Vagrant Act. Upon these grounds he would oppose the Clause.
After some further conversation, the Committee divided on the question, that the Clause stand part of the Bill:—Ayes 83; Noes 6: Majority 77.

List of the AYES.

Ackers, J.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Adderley, C. B.

826

Ashley, Lord

Hale, R. B.

Barnard, E. G.

Henniker, Lord

Barneby, J.

Hervey, Lord A.

Barrington, Visct.

Hinde, J. H.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Hodgson, R.

Blackstone, W. S.

Hope, hon. C.

Bodkin, W. H.

Howard, Lord

Boldero, H. G.

Howard, P. H.

Borthwick, P.

Hussey, T.

Botfield, B.

Ingestre, Visct.

Bramston, T. W.

Jermyn, Earl

Broadley, H.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Bruce, Lord E.

Knight, H. G.

Buck, L. W.

Langston, J. H.

Buckley, E.

Lennox, Lord A.

Burroughes, H. N.

McGeachy, F. A.

Campbell, J. H.

Manners, Lord J.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Meynell, Capt.

Chelsea, Visct.

Milnes, R. M.

Chetwode, Sir J.

O'Brien, A. S.

Christopher, R. A.

Peel, J.

Cochrane, A.

Powell, Col.

Cowper, hn. W. F.

Pringle, A.

Cripps, W.

Protheroe, E.

Dawnay, hn. W. H.

Rolleston, Col.

Denison, E. B.

Round, J.

Dickinson, F. H.

Somerset, Lord G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Entwisle, W.

Thornhill, G.

Escott, B.

Vane, Lord H.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Vesey, hon. T.

Ferrand, W. B.

Waddington, H. S.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Wakley, T.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Wawn, J. T.

Forbes, W.

Williams, W.

Forman, T. S.

Wodehouse, E.

Forster, M.

Wortley, hn. J. S.

Fox, S. L.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

TELLER.

Gore, M.

Young, J.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Baring, H.

List of the NOES.

Arkwright, G.

Pechell, Capt.

Duncombe, T.

Gardner, J. D.

TELLERS.

Henley, J. W.

Wood, Col.

Napier, Sir C.

Hawes, B.

The House resumed. Committee to sit again.

MR. WAKLEY, M. P.
Mr. Wodehousesaid, perhaps the House will allow me to say a few words upon a matter of personal interest to myself. It has been intimated to me that the explanation which I gave the hon. Member for Finsbury on Saturday was not so satisfactory as that hon. Gentleman had a right to demand. I have no hesitation in saying, that I then acted under an erroneous impression with respect to the trial to which I referred. The hon. Member for Fins-

827
bury appears to me, by the explanation which he has since given, to have had a verdict distinctly in his favour, and it also appears that all which followed afterwards was equally in his favour. I therefore feel, that as I may have been the instrument of injury to the hon. Gentleman, it is now my bounden duty to do my best to be the instrument of reparation. It is a duty which I owe, not only to himself in the first instance, but in the next place, to all those who are connected with him by relationship, and lastly, to all who are connected with him by public representation, to make the explanation which I now make; and I hope it will not be permitted to go further, for I tender it as due from one Gentleman to another, and I am obliged to the House for the opportunity it has afforded me of making this further explanation.
Sir R. Peelsaid, with regard to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Norfolk with reference to an insinuation which he made against the hon. Member for Finsbury, I feel that the explicit declaration which has now been made must have convinced every one that the hon. Mem-Member for Finsbury is an honourable and an innocent man, and I think that hon. Gentlemen may retire from the House to-night with a full understanding that he has had complete reparation made to his injured feelings, and with as much right to hold himself perfectly erect in public estimation as any hon. Member. I must say, too, that this explanation is in unison with the unanimous feelings of the House.
Mr. Wakleythen said, I cannot refrain from expressing my gratitude to the hon. Member for Norfolk for the kind explanation which he has given, and offering my grateful acknowledgments to the House, for the handsome manner in which they have treated me on this painful occasion. At the same time, I beg to say, that I receive the acknowledgment of the hon. Gentleman with that spirit of frankness with which it has been made; and I feel convinced that he cast an imputation on me, which he has not felt himself justified in doing under the circumstances which have since come to his knowledge. In saying this, I am bound to state, that I consider this acknowledgment will be most satisfactory to every member of my family, and I have a particular motive in making that declaration.

PRIVILEGE — THE DUKE OF RICHMOND.
Mr. Christiesaid, the House would no doubt expect, after the remarks which had been made elsewhere, and which were now become public, that he should come forward and either substantiate, explain, or withdraw the charges which he had made against a noble Duke. It would be recollected that he had on a former evening refused to give an explanation. He would now state, that although he had had doubts at the time, he felt he had acted properly in postponing that explanation, and, having maturely considered all the circumstances, he now felt himself justified in going further in the way of explanation than he should have done if he had spoken at the time the noble Lord, the Member for Colchester, complained, and not unnaturally, he confessed. The noble Lord had complained of an assertion that he had made, to the effect that a noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) had conspired to prejudice the claims of the plaintiffs in the late gaming transactions—that the noble Duke had abused his position as Chairman of a Committee in another place—and that his conduct could reflect no credit on the noble Duke, or those with whom he was associated. With regard to the first two points, it appeared from what had passed in the other House, that there was presumptive proof that the noble Duke had been guilty of an irregular proceeding; but with respect to the other imputation—namely, "that the noble Duke had abused the privilege of his position, and that the circumstance reflected no credit on himself, or on those who were associated with him," he felt bound to acknowledge that there was no presumptive evidence upon those points, and that even if there had been such presumptive evidence, he should scarcely have been justified in making such statements so broadly and unreservedly. He therefore felt it to be incumbent on him to withdraw those statements unequivocally and unreservedly. The noble Duke had accused him in another place of attributing to him motives on which he should have been ashamed to act himself, and under the suspicion of which no honourable man could hold up his head in this country. He (Mr. Christie) acknowledged, that he having used the words in question, the noble Duke was justified in so speaking, but as he had now withdrawn the charge he made against the

829
noble Duke, he trusted the House would exonerate him from the noble Duke's attack. With regard to the noble Duke's motives he had, in fact, said nothing, and all he had left to be inferred was, that as the noble Duke had a strong opinion upon this subject, he had taken a course which he (Mr. Christie) deprecated as unfair towards the parties whom the noble Duke opposed, and he had connected the noble Duke with the subject by name because he knew enough of the forms of the other House of Parliament to understand that it was impossible for any one but the Chairman of the Committee to communicate in manuscript the evidence which had been taken by that Committee. In stating his opinion on these points, however, he had not intended to impute to the noble Duke any motive that was dishonourable.
Lord A. Lennoxhoped the House would indulge him for one minute, to remark on what had just fallen from the hon. Member. He must say that what the hon. Member had stated did go to prove, very strongly, the great evil of Members making charges which they could not substanstiate; and he must add, that he thought it was incumbent on the hon. Member, on account of his position in the House, and on account of his position as a man of honour and a Gentleman to have taken an earlier opportunity of affording the explanation which he had just given.

HILL COOLIES.
In reply to a question from Mr. D. Maclean,
Lord Stanleywas understood to say, that the Government had sent out instructions to the Governor General of India to remove the regulations which prohibited the emigration of Hill Coolies. With regard to the manner in which the local Governments of the West-India Colonies should provide for their introduction, he had thought it most desirable to submit that question to those authorities themselves, it of course being for the Legislature of this country to consider hereafter the conditions upon which they proposed to arrange the matter. As to whether Parliament should give its sanction to the proceeding in the shape of a guarantee of any sort, for money or otherwise, the question was one of altogether too much importance to submit to Parliament at this period of the Session, and upon the whole also he thought it would be most desirable that they should delay
830
any legislation upon the point until the local assemblies were ready to submit to Parliament the conditions upon which they proposed to conduct the immigration.

COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH RUSSIA.
Mr. Wawnasked whether the Government intended to take any measures to place on a footing of reciprocity the traffic carried on between this country and Russia by vessels built less than three years?
Mr. Gladstonesaid, that one of the regulations of the Russian Treaty was, that Russian vessels built less than three years should be exempted from certain dues in English ports. He apprehended that we could not ask for a like concession in respect of English-built ships without conceding other advantages.
Viscount Palmerstonhoped he might be permitted to ask what were the advantages now granted to us by Russia under this Treaty which afforded us a compensation for the disadvantage?
Mr. Gladstonesaid the Treaty itself would best answer the question; but he would mention as one advantage the privilege which we had secured for the admission of English ships into all Russian ports without any reference to the quarter whence they came.

THE STATE TRIAL (IRELAND).
Mr. Wyserose to move for a Select Committee to inquire, in accordance with the prayer of the petition presented on the 17th of June, into the facts connected with the formation of the special jury in the case of "The Queen, at the prosecution of the Attorney General, v. Daniel O'Connell and others." The hon. Member, after presenting various petitions on the subject, proceeded to say, that in submitting this Motion to the House, he came forward upon no insufficient ground, at no improper period, and upon a subject in which he believed every part of the empire felt an interest. He said he came forward on no insufficient ground, for he had presented to that House on the 21st of March petitions signed by 750,000 inhabitants of Ireland, praying for an immediate inquiry into the circumstances of this case; and when to that were added the petitions he had presented that evening, signed by not less than 26,000 persons, reciting the same prayer (and he understood that

831
others were now on their passage), the petition which was presented from the solicitor for the traversers, important from the minuteness of the circumstances it detailed, and the petition he had before referred to, not from men connected with Repeal Associations, but signed by many who were in direct hostility to Repeal, who from their long acquaintance with Ireland, their high rank and ancient descent, might be said to represent the aristocratic feeling of that country, he thought it would be admitted that he had some claim to their attention. He had not come forward at an improper time. During the entire time that this subject was agitated in Ireland, in the courts of justice or the assemblies of the people, he had abstained from mentioning it; and now, whilst the question was pending in the other House of Parliament, he would not have touched upon the subject, were he not convinced that what he said that evening was not to be precluded by the discussions and deliberations of the other House. He trusted he should be able to show that it was a totally distinct portion of the subject, and in no degree anticipated or attempted to influence the opinions of the other House of Parliament; and as to the subject itself, surely there never was one which demanded more the attention of that House. He was no lawyer, and yet this subject was full of legal details. He had not had the advantage of being personally present at the transactions to which he should allude, and least of all, after the eminent men who had discussed this subject could he claim any share of their attention which in other instances he might have demanded; but he was an Irish Catholic and represented an Irish Catholic constituency, and he could not but feel in common with the great mass of his fellow-countrymen a deep interest in this trial. He could not but feel that Mr. O'Connell was an eminent man in the age in which he lived—that it was to his exertions that millions of his fellow-countrymen were indebted for throwing open the gates of the constitution, and to which he owed the power of then addressing them. But that was not all; if Mr. O'Connell was an Irishman, he (Mr. Wyse) must remember also that he was a Catholic, and that he had had no Catholic on the jury; that he was an Irishman, and was judged by a tribunal which, as they had heard in that
832
House, in England with an English jury and an English judge, he would not have been exposed to. Upon these grounds he thought he had a right to demand their attention. But he argued it on broader grounds. He knew that this was a question which, however they might think it was at the present confined to Ireland, must sooner or later advance to themselves. It was one to which sooner or later a remedy must be applied. The worst evils to a country were those which crept in under the sanction of justice, which were furtively consigned to the Statute Book. We lived in days in which to practise open tyranny was impossible—when Governments were too prudent to be violent—when they could not assault, but might undermine the Constitution. It was from those intruments to which the people looked for protection that such evils must be apprehended. Give him a people where they had a free discussion, under the ægis of protecting laws, and he cared not what administration or what legislature they had; sooner or later the people would have the means of vindicating their rights and replacing themselves in that constitutional position of which they had been deprived; but take from them that right of free discussion, and of the only guarantee of that—a fair tribunal for the trial of causes, and then all the advantages of the balance of the powers of the constitution would be at an end, and those rights would be merely temporary and provisional. He would limit himself in a great degree to facts—those facts had been admitted, and it was upon them that he must look to the House for redress. If he could show that there were grounds for inquiry, then there was a sufficient reason for him to demand a Committee. They were in the character of a grand jury—an indictment was prepared, and it was for him to show, as there was a difference of opinion between parties on one side and on the other, that there was ground for maintaining the opinion which he entertained. It had been the object of the Government for many years to neutralise the question of Repeal of the Union. It was considered a matter of importance either to exorcise it from the country or to crush it—either to persuade the gentry away from it or expel it by main force. There were many who looked upon it as a magnificent impossibility, others who regarded it as a probable event. Some

833
argued that it would be good if it were carried, others thought not only that it could not be carried, but that if it were it would be fraught with danger and evil to Ireland. Those who were opposed to Repeal on abstract principles looked upon it generally in an English point of view; whilst Irishmen might be pardoned for indulging in occasional dreams of nationality, however little prospect there might be of realizing them. But there was another party who looked upon it as treason against the fundamental laws of the Constitution. Each of those parties was necessarily guided by their several opinions in attempting to get rid of the question. Those who looked upon it as a national vanity, as one of those questions that must occasionally arise in the history of all nations, were not disposed to task it too severely, but rather looked upon it as embracing and expressing the opinions of a great portion of the people upon grievances which they actually felt, than as a question which had in itself vitality, or likely to be carried. They considered that if proper redress were afforded, all these untoward manifestations would necessarily disappear, and that by a series of good measures and various important alterations in the policy of the country the desire for Repeal might be allayed, if not altogether subdued, and they indulged the hope that the time would come when it would entirely disappear from the country. But there was another party, who looked upon it as an integral and serious measure—who, coming into power, could not adopt the measures of their predecessors, and who felt themselves obliged to take measures which would completely crush Repeal by violent means, or recur to fraud, if it could not be otherwise effected. To use force to repress it—to use violent means, was out of the question. What were the means by which that must be done? Would it be by coming to that House for a Coercion Bill—for a Bill to make the discussion of Repeal treason against the Crown and the security of the realm? If by any circumstances such a Bill could have been converted into a law it would have merely shifted the discussion of Repeal to another question. It would not have extinguished it, but would have made it a question of repealing that Act which prevented their discussing the subject itself. They were all familiar with the meetings that took place during the
834
last Session, and the appeals that were made to the Government in that House on the subject. By late evidence it appeared that, quiet as the Government seemed to be, they were not altogether inattentive to it. There was an obvious course open to them—that of attacking the meeting which Mr. O'Connell had summoned of the General Convention to be held in Dublin to consider a plan for the renewed action of the Irish Parliament. That body was to be composed of a number of members summoned from every part of Ireland, though undoubtedly not on the ground or in the form of a Parliament or a delegation in direct opposition to the Convention Act. It was thought that the Government at that period—at the close of last Session—would have waited for the assembling of that Convention, and, had they done so, there might perhaps have been less ground of complaint, inasmuch as it would have been in direct violation of an Act of Parliament. But the Session had not long closed when the Government anticipated the meeting which was to be held in November, and immediately attacked the first meeting which was to be held, viz., the meeting at Clontarf, near Dublin; but not content with attempting to suppress that meeting they proceeded to those prosecutions which formed the subject of this inquiry. Whether the Government upon that occasion were too late or too soon—whether they had acted with hesitation or with prudence—whether it were a wise course to risk, at so late a period, the chance of a collision with an excited people—or whether it would not have been sufficient for this purpose to have instituted the prosecution without noticing the meeting, it was not his intention at present to discuss. But before that House had been placed evidence, clear at least in his mind, that it was a sudden and unforeseen act on the part of the Government, arising, by their own showing, out of certain expressions that were used at that hour of the day, which could not be entertained as anything like a serious ground of apprehension by those who knew from whom the placard in which those expressions appeared proceeded, and what was the general feeling in the country about the author. It did appear to the country at large most improper that the meeting to which he alluded, and which was the last of a series, should be chosen for interference on the part of the

835
Government. It was now apparent that there had all along been an intention on the part of the Government to indict these parties for conspiracy; and there seeming tranquility had, in a great measure, induced the crime which the Government afterwards sought to punish. His impression was that there had been an opinion on the part of the Government that a treasonable correspondence was carried on between certain members of the Repeal Association and the Government of America. It was, he believed, pretty generally known now that one individual gave information to the Government to the effect that a treasonable correspondence was carried on between Mr. Steele on one side, and the son of Mr. Tyler, the President of the United States, on the other. The impression he entertained was confirmed by the language which had been used by the Attorney-General for Ireland at the commencement of the trials. The first bill of indictment had scarcely been placed before the Court when the Attorney General announced his intention to prefer a second Bill. The language used by that right hon. and learned Gentleman on the occasion to which he referred deserved the attention of the House. The Attorney General for Ireland said—he believed on Wednesday, the 8th of November—
"I must trouble the Grand Jury to give its attendance in the morning. There is another Bill to go out against all the defendants. I do not think, Gentlemen, it will occupy much of your time; but I must request you will attend to-morrow morning."
But previously to that declaration, when the first Bill was presented, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made this observation—
"If the present Bill before the Grand Jury is found, we shall undertake to establish as wicked and as foul a conspiracy as ever disturbed the Empire."
He did not know whether that language was to be regarded as applicable to the Bill of Indictment which became the subject of the trial, or to the second Indictment sent up to the Grand Jury, but he was inclined to think that after the first indictment had been sent up to the Grand Jury, charges of a more serious nature were preferred in the second indictment, and those charges not being substantiated by sufficient evidence, the Government were obliged to drop the second bill, and to content themselves with trying the defend-
836
ants on the first. He did not profess to be competent to judge of the conduct of the trial with regard to legal matters, but, as one of the people, though an unprofessional man, he had a right to form his opinion of the impression which had been created in the minds of the people with reference to the manner in which the proceedings were conducted. He did not hesitate to say, then, that a general conviction prevailed among the people that, throughout the proceedings, the persons who conducted the prosecution had manifested a disinclination—putting out of consideration all legal technicalities—to give the accused those advantages which they had fairly a right to demand. He would instance the conduct of Mr. Kemmis, the Crown Solicitor, with reference to Mr. Bond Hughes, Mr. Hughes made a mistake as to the identity of Mr. Barrett; he afterwards discovered that mistake at Judge Burton's, and communicated with Mr. Kemmis on the subject. Mr. Hughes afterwards found that informations were about to be lodged against him for wilful and corrupt perjury; but even at that time Mr. Kemmis took no steps to correct the mistake. The same course was pursued throughout the proceedings—with reference to the demand for copies of the indictment, and for the names of the witnesses. In all those cases the Crown exercised its rights—he would not say in a spirit of hostility to the traversers, but, at least, with an utter absence of that fairness and generosity which he conceived ought, in such a case, to have characterized the conduct of the prosecutors. A demand was made on the part of the traversers for a copy of the indictment. The English law required, that an accused person should be informed of the nature of the accusation made against him, and of the names of his accusers. It was required by statute, that certain conditions should be fulfilled, in order to give validity to a bill of indictment. It was required that the names should be properly endorsed and signed. Was it unreasonable, then, on the part of the traversers to ask the Crown to give them an opportunity of judging whether or not the conditions required by the statute had been complied with? The application was, however, refused, and it now appeared that the names on the bill were not duly endorsed and signed. The refusal of this application was grounded on the apprehension that

837
advantage might be taken of its concession to interpose delay at the commencement of the trial. The same course was adopted with reference to the caption. But the great feature of the case was, as he conceived, the manner in which the Jury had been constituted. If the Jury were constituted unequally or partially it was vain to talk of the impartiality of the Judge, or the crime of the accused. He would show the House what had been the course adopted in this case as to the constitution of the Jury; and he would say to that House, as the protectors of the liberties of the people, as the conservators of that great palladium of the English people—trial by jury—"Inquire into the facts of this case; justify yourselves from the imputation of being participators in the atrocity committed in the case I am now bringing before you; if you be an Anglo-Irish Parliament, convince the Irish people that you are their friends, and do not force upon them the absolute necessity of dissolving the Union, and of recurring to their own legal tribunals." The facts with reference to this point were stated very clearly and concisely in a petition presented a few days ago to that House from the solicitors to the traversers. That petion had been met by a counter-petition; and he begged the attention of the House while he compared the statements of those petitions with regard to the principal points of the case. The first statement of the traversers' solicitors was, that Mr. Justice Burton, in his charge to the Grand Jury, truly described the case as awful in its consequences, and one which ought to be tried only by a Jury constituted in such a manner as to place it above suspicion. But the statements which had been made showed that it was altogether impossible, from the manner in which the Jury list had been constituted, that more than a very small proportion of Roman Catholics could be placed upon the Jury. An application was made to the Court for the postponement of the case until the Special Jury List for 1844 came into operation. That application was opposed by the Attorney General, but the objection was overruled by the Court, and the case was accordingly postponed. But he could call the attention of the House to the duties discharged by various officers in the preparation of the Special Jury List. An alteration was made in the old law on this subject by the 3rd and 4th William IV., c. 93. By
838
that Act there was to be an annual revision of jurors in every county and city throughout Ireland. The collectors of the Grand Jury Cess, on precept from the Clerks of the Peace, were required to return lists of persons, in alphabetical order, liable to serve on juries, with their true place of abode, their title, quality, calling, or business, and the nature of the qualification of every man; these lists were to be open for public inspection. The ninth section of the Act defined the duties of the Justices of the Peace (the Recorder being the Judge for the City of Dublin) in relation to the revision, which were—to fix a place and time for holding a Special Sessions for the purpose of examining the said lists of jurors, at which the collectors' lists which had been lodged with the clerks of the peace were to be produced, considered, reformed, and allowed; to strike out names of persons not qualified and to insert in such lists the name of any man omitted therein, and to reform any errors or omissions which should appear to them to have been committed in respect to the name, place of abode, title, quality, calling, business, or the nature of the qualification of any man included in any such list; and when every such list should be duly corrected and allowed and signed by them or three of them, justices (the Recorder being the person for the City of Dublin), they should cause one general list to be made therefrom, containing the names of all persons whose qualifications should have been so allowed, arranged according to rank and property, and should deliver the same to the Clerk of the Peace who should thereupon cause the same to be truly and fairly copied in the same order, with proper columns, and should deliver the same to the Sheriff, &c. The 24th section gave the explanation of the terms "rank" and "property," where it directed the sheriff as to the persons whom he shall place on the Special Jury panel. By it the classes were sons of Peers, Baronets, Knights, Magistrates, persons who had served, or had been returned to serve as Grand Jurors at the Assizes; all bankers, wholesale merchants who did not exercise retail trades, and all traders who were possessed of personal property of the value of 5,000 l., and of the eldest sons of such persons respectively. It was also appointed by this act, that the annual revision of the collectors' lists, from which the Jurors' Book for the year 1844 was to

839
be made up, should commence on the 14th day of November last, and such revision did commence to be holden on that day before the right hon. the Recorder. It had been represented to him, that on that occasion, the Court of Revision presented a scene closely resembling that exhibited at a contested election. The Conservative interest was represented there as well as the repeal interest. But the repeal interest stood in this position—they were the traversers, they were the accused parties, and it was natural that they should be anxious to protect themselves from the charge of tampering with the lists of jurors by whom the case now under consideration was to be tried. He learned from the petition to which he had referred, that the solicitors on behalf of the Conservatives were Messrs. Wauchob and Jackson, the former being the conducting agent for the Conservative candidates to represent the city of Dublin at the last two elections, and employed at several preceding elections for said city in opposition to Mr. O'Connell, the leading traverser, and also employed by the Conservative party at the several revisions of the burgess roll, in opposition to the franchises of the great bulk of the citizens, the latter being conducting agent at elections for the county of Dublin, and for the Conservative candidates. During the revision the solicitors for the traversers applied to Magrath for an opportunity of inspecting the list, to be permitted to compare the list with the one which had been made. This was a public document, and ought to have been open to inspection. He was aware that the Recorder (whom he was extremely sorry to say was not in the House) had on a former occasion said that the list was covered with private notes which he himself had made. The right hon. Gentleman may have considered the document private; but he could not see how such a list could be viewed otherwise than as a public document, to which the traversers might have access. They complained that they were prohibited from comparing the list. But was that the case of Messrs. Wauchob and Jackson? Were these Gentlemen prevented from making a full comparison of all the lists? They were permitted to compare the whole of the lists. How had Magrath met these facts? He stated that a comparison was allowed, as stated in the seventh paragraph; but he could not say
840
whether the comparison was correct or not. The petitioner did not at the time think it was wrong to allow such comparison to be made; but, upon informing the Recorder that he had allowed this comparison to be instituted (but this information was not made until some time afterwards), he blamed the petitioner for allowing any person connected with the party to have access to the list, particularly as it might have been in their power to have altered that list; but the petitioners said that they could not have done so, as other parties were present at the time; but, upon consideration, he admitted that he was wrong for having allowed such comparison to be made. How was it that that Wauchob and Jackson were allowed to compare the list. They were not allowed by their own clerks to do it, but by the clerks of Magrath; but Magrath had not done so for the solicitors of the traversers. The solicitors were not told that they might compare or go over the list. In reference to this transaction, the first thing that met the public eye was the partiality shown towards the party connected with the Conservative interest of Dublin. He did not pretend to say that it was in his power to put his finger upon the person who employed Mr. Wauchob and Mr. Walker. But what had hon. Gentlemen opposite been endeavouring to do? They had tried to impress upon the people of Ireland that the law had been carried fully out, and yet at the same time they allowed this matter to remain unexplained. It was not his wish to cast any imputations upon the character of the Recorder of Dublin. If such was his intention, he would have done so when the right hon. Gentleman was present in the House, and had an opportunity of defending himself. At the same time, he must say, that he had given full notice of his Motion, and the Recorder ought to have been present upon an occasion when his conduct was involved in the matter of the inquiry. Immediately after the comparison of the list the Recorder left Dublin. This was on the 29th of November. The Recorder went to England; when he travelled about from place to place for the period of three weeks. The right hon. Gentleman might say, that his judicial functions had ceased. If his judicial functions had ceased, his ministerial duties had to be performed, and it was not easy to imagine how these

841
functions could be carried on at such a distance from the seat of action. If this had not been productive of any injury it might have been passed over in silence, and have been merely considered a neglectful mode of performing official duties. He would, however, leave the House to decide whether the Recorder was altogether free from blame. In the sixteenth paragraph of the Petition from the nobility and gentry of Ireland, it was made a subject of complaint—
"That the list of jurors, or names, or jurors' books so handed in by the Recorder is on all hands admitted to be defective, and does not contain the names of all persons adjudicated on by the Recorder as being entitled to be placed on such jurors' book; for your petitioners show that the Recorder himself admits that twenty-four names were omitted, and that, of these twenty-four, nineteen were Roman Catholics. That petitioners insist that a greater number of names than the Recorder has stated to have been omitted were in point of fact omitted, and that their omission was the result of design; and petitioners Pierce Mahony, William Ford, and John Macnamara Cantwell, have, on their solemn oaths of record in the Court of Queen's Bench, in Ireland, deposed, to the truth of their convictions, that the suppression of the names was effected with a fraudulent intent; the petitioners Thomas Reilly and Peter M'Evoy Gartlan not having joined in making said affidavits from the circumstance that they are for the most part resident out of Dublin, in the counties of Louth and Monaghan, and did not particularly attend to the investigation of the jury lists in reference to the defence of the traversers, but, from a review of the circumstances, inform your honourable House that they are fully convinced that such suppression of the names was effected with a fraudulent purpose."
Again, it was charged by petitioners, among other names, that—
"The names of Robert Molloy, Bryan Molloy, Robert Gatchell, John Gaynor, Christopher Gillespie, John Hussey Walsh, James White, William Torrens M'Cullagh, and Richard William Barrington, were also omitted; and by the affidavits of the Clerks of the Peace and said Magrath, it is now admitted that your petitioners' information was correct as to those names; and petitioners inform your honourable House this indisputably correct information was had from the clerks employed in said revisions by or on the part of these petitioners, although same, with the exception of the name of Richard William Barrington, who appeared on the compared list of St. Audeon's parish was not on any of the compared parochial lists, the other persons last above named not being
842
resident in any of the parishes of which petitioners had completed the comparison. That by said affidavit it is admitted that twenty-four persons duly qualified had been omitted, whose names petitioners had stated in their challenge had been suppressed, which sustains the statement of petitioners as to the number and extent of the suppressions of the special jury panel, and which is further corroborated by the admission of the Recorder as to his striking out the name of William Saurin, who was dead several years; but such striking out was done after said revision closed in open court. That of these nine names four were Roman Catholics, one a Quaker, and four Protestants, and among the Protestants was Mr. M'Cullagh who was always esteemed as a man of the most liberal principles in politics. That petitioners deny the truth of the statement in the affidavit of the clerks of the peace or Mr. Magrath, that no other person who had been adjudicated on as a person qualified to be a special juror was omitted. On the contrary, they allege, and are able to prove, notwithstanding all the impediments thrown in the way of ascertainining the truth, that George Hurst, of Cardiff's-lane, Sir John Rogerson's-quay, duly qualified, as a wholesale merchant, to be placed on the special jury panel, and he has made an affidavit in the case which has been filed in the Court of Queen's Bench. The residence of George Hurst is in the parish of Saint Mark, and he is a Roman Catholic, James Dillon has made an affidavit that he attended in person before the said Recorder as a trader worth 5,000 l., and was adjudicated upon as a person qualified to be on the special jury panel; that he is a Roman Catholic, and his residence is in Stony Batter, in the parish of St. Paul. John Elliott, of Thomas-street, which is in the parish of St. Catherine's, has made an affidavit that he was before the Recorder, and duly qualified as a trader worth 5,000 l., and was adjudicated upon as a person so qualified to be on the special panel; and, having been informed by one of the petitioners clerks, who saw him so qualify in open court, and who was one of those that compared the list that his qualification was omitted, he immediately, on receiving such information, and, on or about the 9th of December, wrote to the Recorder calling his attention to the fact, and has set forth such letter in his affidavit; he is a Roman Catholic."
But that was not the only charge that he had to make with respect to the proceedings of those concerned on behalf of the prosecution in preparing the Special Jury List. There was another accusation that he had to make, which was that several qualifications had been added to the list subsequent to the proceedings taken with regard to it in the open court. And how had that charge been met by Mr. Magrath? Why, by his admission of the

843
truth of the imputation. He had acknowledged that qualifications had been added to the lists of jurors after adjudication, and the names of William Pride and John Pride were added as grand jurors and leaseholders, although at the same time it was asserted that those two were the only additions so made. But was it so certain that they were all the names thus placed on the list after its adjudication? Of that he would not speak with certainty, but he must observe that on the 2nd of January, on the Recorder's return to Dublin, and after the book of jurors had been entirely taken out of his custody, the right hon. Gentleman wrote a letter to the sheriff stating that it appeared several jurors, to the number of four or five persons whom he named, had been left out of the list of special jurors, placed on the list of common jurors, and that he was willing to take the responsibility, not only of adding them to the lists already made out, but also of placing others there who might be similarly circumstanced. On the 4th of January it was discovered, that sixty names had been omitted from the list, and a notice was served on the right hon. Gentleman (the Recorder), and others connected with the prosecution, of such omissions. This circumstance formed a subject of conversation at the time in Dublin, and it was notorious; yet, notwithstanding the Recorder had professed his willingness to add any jurors to the list who might have been omitted, and notwithstanding the affidavits of the traversers' solicitors that such omissions as he stated had been made in the list, he absolutely said nothing with respect to what he had done in the case, and took no steps whatever to see that justice was awarded to the parties aggrieved, And what was the result of this neglect? Why, that when the circumstance was brought to the knowledge of the court, the judges said they had no authority to amend the list; the sheriff had no authority to rectify the error; and, whilst the fact that such omissions had been made was concealed from the public, no steps were ever resorted to, that the wrong might be remedied, neither was the argument which was urged at the time, founded on the wrong done to the traversers, and of the serious evils which it occasioned to them, of any avail. The omission of these names also formed one of the arguments before the superior court, and it was urged
844
as a reason for reversing the judgment; but the traversers counsel were told that they ought to have had recourse in the first instance to the judges of the court below, where every such irregularity or omission could have been remedied. Surely that was not the way to do justice. The Recorder ought to have let the omission be known to the court in sufficient time to have enabled it to be remedied; he had totally neglected to do so, and with this primâ facie evidence he considered he had made out a case, and had stated good grounds for the House to grant a Committee of Inquiry into the circumstances, and he did not know whether, if such an inquiry were gone into, it might not be discovered, that other interferences with the impartial administration of justice than those which he had pointed out, had taken place. He was precluded by the terms of his Motion from going into the minutiæ of the trial, but he could not refrain from touching upon that proceeding, and asking the Government what had been gained by it? What effects had been produced by the late prosecutions? Was the right hon. Baronet opposite more satisfied than he had been before them, with the state and prospects of Ireland? Was the public peace there in a better state of preservation? Was there less disturbance, or was there more tranquillity? Had the people of Ireland submitted quietly, or had they rebelled openly? They had done neither the one nor the other. They stood in a position the worst of all that could be opposed to a Government. They sullenly treasured up the memory of their wrongs; they suppressed their hatreds; they smothered their animosities; and reserved the expression of their vengeance to a future day—
"Odia in longum jaciens, quæ reconderet, auctaque promeret."
There were organizations amongst the people of Ireland before the late prosecutions; but were there none at the present moment? There were no monster meetings; no crowds at Tara or Mullaghmast now, to demonstrate the sentiments of the Irish people, but had they not the declaration of the mayors of municipalities of Ireland in favour of Repeal, and were there not symptoms to be observed at present, ten times more formidable than either the demonstrations at Tara or that at Mullaghmast? Did the Government think they could suppress Mr. O'Connell by what

845
they had done? Were the addresses which flowed into him from all parts of the empire to be regarded in that light? Did they not perceive how they had built up Mr. O'Connell? His talents alone would never have achieved that for him which the oppression of the Government had done. It was not he that had created revolutions, but revolutions that had created him. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman opposite that until the system of government of Ireland was founded on the mutual sympathies of the people, and the mutual wants and wishes of the two nations, until the union of Ireland with England was completed, he did not mean such an union as that of England and America or of Belgium and Spain, but an union like that of Scotland and England, until he repeated, this intimate amalgamation of the two people was accomplished it would be in vain to look for submission or tranquillity on the part of the Irish nation. It was not enough to tell the House that the present Government did not ask for a Coercion Bill, and to point out that Ireland had not been placed under martial law. Very different language ought now to be used if conciliation and not fresh irritation was desired. The Government ought to tell the House and the people of Ireland, that their predecessors and themselves had made great and grievous mistakes; that they were willing to repair the error into which they had fallen; and that finding they had wronged the Irish nation, they were ready to undo the injury that had been inflicted; and when such a course as that was taken by this country towards the oppressed people of Ireland, then, and not till then, would peace, tranquillity, and contentment become the characteristics of his countrymen. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by submitting his Motion.
Lord Eliotsaid, that during a large portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down he had fancied that he was labouring under a delusion, and that he was listening to the tenth night's discussion of the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for London, so numerous were the topics of his speech. Had he believed it to bare been the right hon. Gentleman's intention to have entered upon so wide a field, he should rather have expected him to have given notice of his intention previously; but after the full
846
explanation of every stage of the proceedings during the late state trials that had been given on a former occasion by his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. B. C. Smith), he (Lord Eliot) did not think he was called upon to follow the right hon. Gentleman into any other topics than those strictly comprised within his Motion, with respect to which he trusted he might be permitted to make a few observations. The House could not, with any propriety, accede to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman unless he had satisfied them upon three distinct points. First, that there had been a fraudulent tampering with the jury lists: secondly, that this had been prejudicial to the traversers; and, thirdly, that his Motion, if agreed to, would produce some useful practical results. Now, he did not think that either of these positions had been established by the right hon. Gentleman—and he certainly did not consider his Motion to be likely to produce any good effects if granted; he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had read all the affidavits which he had referred to; but when he asserted that instead of there having been twenty-four omissions from the Jury List, there were nearly, if not quite, sixty, he must observe, that he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had established the facts which he had stated: neither did he expect that he would have attempted to cast such a slur upon the character of a gentleman of his own religious persuasion. Mr. Magrath was a Roman Catholic, he had forwarded a petition to the House, and he had therein shown in every case of omission, a reason why such names had been left out of the Jury List. He did not think it was quite fair in the right hon. Gentleman to impugn the statement of Mr. Magrath. With respect to Mr. Eliot, it was to be observed that no statement had ever been made by him of his being a trader worth 5,000 l.; and, consequently, he could discover no grounds for that person's complaint. He however, should not enter upon a discussion of the merits of each case; he knew nothing except what he had learned from Mr. Magrath's statement, and every one was as competent as himself to ascertain the facts and to judge of them; but what he would meet was the charge that had now been brought of a deliberate fraud having been practised with respect to the jury lists. There was no such charge ever

847
preferred by any of the traversers. They had said, generally that some fraud might have been committed; but that could not have justified, or in any way afforded, grounds for an attack on the officers of the Crown. Nothing in this respect could have been attributed to Mr. Kemmis—nothing to the clerks of the Crown. They had denied all participation in whatever omissions had been made. The chief clerk in their office prepared the lists in the usual form for the Recorder of Dublin. The right hon. Gentleman had gone much further than before; for he had made several most serious charges against his right hon. and learned Friend. And what had been the gravamen of his charge? Why, that the lists prepared by Mr. Magrath did not contain the names of many Roman Catholics who ought, as he said, to be there. But what he would say was, that a Roman Catholic could not reasonably be supposed to entertain a bias against another Roman Catholic, so as to exclude him from a jury list on that account. Was there any evidence of Mr. Magrath's having shown a bias in favour of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that Mr. Magrath had placed the jury lists—before the authenticated copy had been made out, and whilst yet they might have been tampered with—before the solicitors of the traversers, when they might have altered them. But the right hon. Gentleman also asserted that the lists had been sent to his right hon. Friend the Recorder after his return from England, and, notwithstanding his right hon. Friend's denial that such had been the case, the right hon. Gentleman had repeated the charge. Why, he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman, should Mr. Magrath, after having suffered four of Mr. Mahony's clerks to inspect the lists before they were authenticated, refuse to suffer them afterwards to be examined? It was Mr. Mahony himself who had served notices upon many of the jurors, warning them that, if they did not attend to prove their qualifications, they would be struck off the list; and, could it be expected that, if these persons did not desire to be included in the Jury List, they would employ and pay an agent to attend the court in order to see that their names were not so struck off the list? There could be no just grounds of accusation against the Recorder, for he had acted all throughout the proceedings in strict compliance with
848
the directions of the statute. He had presided at the registration court to adjudicate upon the claims of all persons wishing to serve as jurors, and had either marked with his own hand, or directed others to mark under his superintendence, every name which appeared upon the lists, arranging them according to the rank and qualification of the jurors in nine distinct classes. There were thus no less than 180 sheets of large paper covered with names, and the result was, that a great multitude of slips were made in order to arrange them so as to form the Jury List, at the head of which the names of the special jurors were to be placed. The slips were in this way made in the Jury List, or rather the jurors' book, for the year 1844. The hon. Gentleman opposite had cast much blame upon the Recorder, because that officer had not performed certain duties, which, however, the judges of the Court of Queen's Bench did not think he was at all called upon to execute, and had found fault with him on very trivial grounds indeed. Now, he could inform the hon. Member that the Recorder was bound to adjudicate in the registration court upon the qualification of the jurors, but beyond that his power ceased when he had caused the jurors' lists to be prepared, and that he was not bound to go beyond that point. The Recorder in the present case had performed his duty to its full extent, and he was not in any way responsible for the errors which might have easily occurred in making out such a multitude of names, unless it could be shown that they were fraudulently committed. If that were not the case, and if errors, arising from inaccuracy in making out the lists, were to be considered as inaccuracies for which that officer was answerable, there was not a single jury ever struck in Ireland from the verdict of which an appeal might not be made in that House. It was quite evident that in such proceedings, where the documents were so numerous, errors would necessarily occur, and Gentlemen opposite could not demand inquiry, or expect to have that demand complied with, unless they could show some unequivocal fraud. When they could show that such had been the case, and that there had been any wrong done, their course was open to those who complained of it. Nothing was more easy than to file a criminal information against the offending party; but that

849
House was not the proper tribunal to decide upon such complaints, nor had it the power to investigate them properly. A Committee of the House had no power to examine witnesses upon oath, and he said again, that the constitutional course to pursue in every case where there was suspicion resting on more solid grounds than vague surmises that fraud had been committed, was to proceed against the offender in a Court of Common Law, and file a criminal information against him. He did not wish to go into all the particular details of the case, but he would call the attention of the House to the course taken by his right hon. Friend the Attorney General, as there had been some statements made to the House on that point by the hon. Member opposite, in making which, he would not accuse the hon. Member of wilful misrepresentation, but he would certainly say that he had founded it upon very erroneous information. It had been said by the hon. Member, in the course of his speech, that his Friend, the Attorney General for Ireland had objected to the postponement of the trial when those defects in the jurors' book were urged as a reason for it. Now, that was not the case, but it was to the jury-book formed in October, 1842, that the objection was taken, which had been in operation for more than twelve months, and according to which every case had been tried during that time. When, however, it was stated that there were but 388 names upon that book, out of which only some twenty-five or twenty-six were Roman Catholics, his Friend the Attorney General consented to a postponement of the proceedings, in order to bring in the new list for 1844, and in doing so, he (Lord Eliot) thought that even hon. Gentlemen opposite had not found fault with him. The new lists were accordingly formed, and the names upon the jurors' book increased from 388 to 714, out of which number 181 were Roman Catholics. When the lists were complete, and the jurors' book, it was impossible to make any alteration, for the effect of that, or of postponement, would have been, that every trial would have to take place with juries struck from the book for 1843. Surely the hon. Member would not have been satisfied with that. There was one course, however, which it would have been quite competent to the traversers to have taken, which had not, indeed, been alluded to by
850
any of the counsel employed on the occasion, but had been thrown out suggestively by Mr. Justice Crampton, and that was, to have had their case tried by the jury of the county of Dublin. The learned gentleman engaged for the defendants had not thought fit to adopt that proposition, which he conceived they should have taken advantage of, if they were under the impression that they had not been fairly dealt with. There was another point in which he thought the hon. Member opposite had not been quite so candid as he usually was. He had not been quite fair towards the Jury in the remarks he had made, and had spoken in terms of much unmerited harshness of their conduct. For his own part, without going into any legal technicalities, he must be permitted to say, that the jury had, in their verdict, evinced a spirit of discrimination which showed their attention throughout the whole of the proceedings. The hon. Member spoke of the partiality of the Jury, and made some remarks upon them which were unjust and unwarranted. What was the language used by one of the counsel for the traversers, who certainly could not be said to have exhibited much temperance of speech in those trials? Mr. Fitzgibbon said, that with reference to some previous objection to the Jury Panel,
"He was not to be supposed for a moment to mean that any of those twenty-four gentlemen were not properly qualified, and that no man should imagine but that they would administer justice in as pure and straightforward a manner as any that could be selected. He was not arguing against the men on the panel, but against the constitution of it, and if the opinion of the Court were against them, he would not say but that the traversers had no reason to complain, and that as far as the constitution of the tribunal was concerned with regard to the persons upon it, there was no ground for any imputation whatever."
Such had been the language of Mr. Fitzgibbon. Let the House now see whether the verdict was contrary to the evidence, without, however, entering into questions of legal nicety. He did not think it necessary for him to argue with the hon. Member as to the law of conspiracy, and he would, therefore, go on to declare his opinion that the Jury were right in giving the verdict they had returned, for they had to take the law on those points from the Judges, nor could it be any reproach to them that they

851
had done so. It was the province of the Judges to lay down the law; and it was very well for counsel to take technical objections, but in that House such a course could not be adopted. Would the traversers venture to say in that House that they had not been present at any monster meetings? They could not do so, whilst in the Court of Queen's Bench the point had been raised that there was no proof of some such fact. Could such an objection be relied upon in that House? Could they say in that House that their conduct had been different from that which was imputed to them? Could they deny that they had attended multitudinous meetings? Were not seditious writings published which had received their sanction? No; these were all matters of notoriety in that House which would not admit of dispute, and if the law laid down to the Jury were correct—upon which question there was now an appeal to the Supreme Tribunal—he said that there could be no alternative but to find such a verdict. It would be, he conceived, a libel upon any body to say that he would not have found the same verdict, upon the same evidence, and under the same direction as to the law. The hon. Member had attacked the composition of the Jury, but he might have recollected that similar attacks had been already three times made in the Court of Queen's Bench, and had been uniformly defeated. First, there had been an objection fully argued before the proceedings commenced; next, the challenge to the array; and, thirdly, the Motion for a new trial; on all of which occasions the question had been brought most fully before the Court. The challenge to the array appeared upon the record, which had been referred to the House of Lords, and it appeared that the sixth question submitted to the Judges by that high Court of Appeal was, "whether there were sufficient grounds for reversing the judgment, because of the Court having overruled and disallowed the challenge to the array?" This, therefore, was in his opinion no fit subject to be discussed in that House, because it was already under the consideration of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Justice, and there were, he thought, no just grounds—nay, more, it would be highly improper to interfere in a matter which at that very moment was sub judice. He did not think that the present Motion could lead to any benefi-
852
cial result, and in the present state of public feeling in Ireland, he feared it would only tend to excite expectations which would produce the most dangerous consequences. If the hon. Member believed that any fraud had been committed, he had his remedy, but he would oppose the Motion before the House, for he did not think it could be productive of any benefit if granted. With these few words he would content himself, leaving it to his Friend the Attorney General to reply to any legal objections which had been advanced by the hon. Member opposite.
Mr. M. J. O'Connellsaid, that in rising to speak on this question, he laboured under some difficulty, because he felt that he could hardly prevent himself giving way to the feeling that if there had been any fraud or any collusion in this matter, he was intimately allied to the party who had been made the victim of that fraud and of that collusion. The present subject was one that occupied a great space in the public mind; and the noble Lord must not lay the flattering unction to his soul, that because they were in the middle of the month of July the question could silently pass over. It not only engaged the attention of men's minds in this country, but it interested the public mind of Europe, and would, he ventured to prophesy, be a matter of paramount interest to posterity. The question came to this. Had these trials been fairly conducted? The noble Lord had said:—"Don't come to the House of Commons; we cannot do anything for you: a Committee of the House of Commons cannot administer an oath." What, then, did the noble Lord tell them to do? Why, file a criminal information! Yes; file a criminal information, to be tried before Chief Justice Pennefather and a Dublin Jury. The noble Lord had asked whether they (himself—Mr. O'Connell and his friends) thought that a Committee of Inquiry would produce a satisfactory result? He would tell the noble Lord that if anything would continue a feeling of dissatisfaction it would be a refusal to appoint a Committee of Inquiry upon such grounds as the noble Lord had refused it. It had been admitted, both by the Recorder and by Mr. Magrath, that twenty-four names were omitted from the list. Now, connected with these omissions, there were some curious facts. The whole list of the parish of St. Audeon was said to be lost. This was extraordinary,

853
because the persons whose names were on that list were nearly all Liberal in their opinion; and if they could be supposed to be liable to any bias, that bias would have been in favour of the traversers. How the list became lost was the question. It was a matter of suspicion, and ought to be inquired into. It was a remarkable fact that Messrs. Wauchob and Jackson were allowed the inspection of the lists, which was refused to Mr. Mahony; and that, while the former Gentlemen had twenty-four lists corrected for them, Mr. Mahony had only four and a half lists corrected for him. About one-fourth of the lists was looked over by Mr. Mahony's clerks, while persons on the other side had had the opportunity of going through the whole of it. These were suspicious facts, and no doubt they would be so considered by the country. Regarding them, the friends of the Motion challenged inquiry, when it would be proved that names standing on the Special Jury List of 1843, were placed upon the common Jury List of 1844, while persons whose qualifications were patent, found themselves entirely excluded. He now came to advert particularly to the important parish of St. Audeon's, the list belonging to which had, by some strange circumstance, been dropped. This was an enigma of more difficult solution than any since the time of Œdipus. It contained fifteen names, but what was even stranger than the loss of it, a sixteenth name of that parish was found in the Special Jury List. Nothing less than a miracle could account for this fact, if, as was contended, all was fair. John Carroll, who was worth 5,000 l., and whose name had a cross against it, ought to have been the sixteenth in the list of fifteen lost names, but his name was actually found in the jury-book. He ought to have been "the lost Pleiad," but he was the found juror. This was a matter for the whole party to explain, from the Recorder of Dublin down to Mr. Magrath. If there were a particle of fairness in the Government, they could not refuse inquiry into so flagrant a circumstance; if they meant to hold out a pretext of discharging their duty to the country, they could not refuse the Committee. Could they get over the allegations respecting the Jury List?—could they get over the fact, that Mr. Magrath had not allowed his facts to ooze out until the last moment? In the whole affair, there was sufficient to excite more than suspicion. In the present state of
854
public feeling in Ireland, it could not have a good effect if ministers appeared inclined to treat this great subject with levity. There were other circumstances in the list of the parish of St. Audeon which he had omitted to notice and which required remark. Two gentlemen, of the name of White, carried on business as partners in the leather trade, and yet one of them was excluded from, and the other included in the list of special jurors, while a portrait painter, said to be worth 5,000 l., was dignified with the title of esquire. Two gentlemen, of the name of Papworth, were inserted on the ground that they were the eldest sons of their father; the only way to account for this was, to suppose, in the words of the Irish song, that "They were twins and not know it." Even this excuse could not be found for three Rileys, who were in the same predicament. [Laughter.] The good natured levity of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen was hardly appropriate to the subject. [Sir R. Peel: You should not quote Irish songs.] It might be very well for the sufferers to attempt to joke away their grief, but it ill became the Government to endeavour to laugh away the effect of the present Motion. In the same jury list he saw the name of two Twigs, both of whom could not be eldest sons; if they were Twigs of the same tree, they were not Twigs of the same growth. [Sir R. Peel: Your jokes are irresistible.] These ridiculous blunders happened to be all on the same side of the question, for the three Rileys (he believed) were of the same religion and of the same politics. He contended that, as a mere act of justice to the Recorder of Dublin, the Government ought to institute an inquiry. Would they allow such charges to be made, and not give him, and all persons connected with his office, the benefit of an investigation? He did not wish to enter into topics discussed on former occasions, fearing that he could not treat them as calmly and temperately as they deserved; and he would say, in conclusion, that if Ministers resisted inquiry, and thereby left the public mind unsatisfied, the present would not be by any means the last, or the least troublesome, discussion on the affairs of Ireland to which they would be exposed. The question of the legality of the verdict was now before another tribunal, and while the discussion was pending his right hon.

855
Friend (Mr. Wyse) had judiciously postponed the present Motion. The question was in the hands of the highest tribunal of the land, and supposing the verdict were confirmed, Ministers would have to show not only that the verdict was legal, but that it was just. Nothing could more exasperate the public mind in the present unhappy state of parties in the two countries than that mere law should have been on the side of the Government, and absolute justice on the side of the accused; it became Ministers to prove to all mankind that tyranny had not worked its wantonness under the form of law.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, the peculiar position of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had led him to do some injustice to the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland. He saw nothing like indifference or levity in the conduct of the noble Lord; nothing fell from him which justified the hon. Member in saying that the noble Lord was sneering. The noble Lord certainly had alluded to the fact that there had been a nine nights' debate on the affairs of Ireland in the early part of the Session, in which every fact and argument which had been addressed to the House that night had been reiterated over and over again; and the noble Lord was perfectly justified in doing so, because, when an hon. Member came forward at a period of the Session so late, the House had a right to expect to hear from him some new arguments or a different statement of facts in order to ground a Motion for inquiry. It was a most important question, and therefore it was that he regretted the course which the hon. Member had taken, because, although he would not attribute any improper motives to the right hon. Member, or any mischievous intention, still he must say that the effect of the discussion was calculated to cast suspicion upon the administration of justice. Look at what were the circumstances under which the Motion was made. A most dangerous and pernicious conspiracy was in existence in Ireland—a conspiracy which even threatened the dismemberment of the empire. Her Majesty's Government did not resort to extraordinary powers—they did not come down to the House and ask for a Coercion Bill. With no other weapon than the ordinary arm of the law they beat that conspiracy to the ground. The offenders were now prostrate at the foot of justice, and the hon. Member thought it a
856
proper time to insinuate a something against the fairness of the proceedings which led to the conviction. It was to be remembered that the subject was not before the House then for the first time, and he said most emphatically, that from the beginning to the end of that most important trial, there had not been the slightest ground for imputing any unfairness or the least tinge of impropriety to those conducting it: nor had anything taken place but what, under similar circumstances, would have taken place in this country. Every one who had witnessed or read of the conduct of his right hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, must have been convinced not only of the great ability which he displayed, and the dexterity which he had shown in extricating himself from the difficulties which were thrown in his way by the very able counsel for the traversers, but of the fairness and moderation of his conduct throughout the whole of the lengthened trial. That panegyric was not his, it was an acknowledgment which had been extracted from one of the most talented and eloquent of those who were opposed to him. The hon. Gentleman complained that no copy of the indictment had been furnished to the defendants. Now, there was no refusal of a copy of the indictment; nay, so far from it, that upon the very day on which the bill was found, eight copies of the indictment were made and served upon the respective defendants. They then applied for what they chose to call a complete copy—a copy with the names of the witnesses, which was most properly refused on the part of his right hon. and learned Friend. He would have been guilty of a dereliction of his duty had he acceded to the application after the manner in which the witness Bond Hughes was treated, as soon as it became known that the indictment had been found upon his informations. Besides, in that refusal, his right hon. and learned Friend had the whole Court with him, with the exception of Mr. Justice Perrin. Then as to the lists, undoubtedly by some unfortunate accident, but certainly with no fraudulent design, some of the lists were mislaid; but, he would ask, was that the tribunal, or was that the proper time to inquire whether those lists were properly prepared or not? He most distinctly said no. If there was a fraud in the preparation of the panel it would be a ground for a special application to set it aside. Such an application was made, and heard on affidavits, and the

857
Court decided that the defendants had no right under the circumstances to call on them to grant the panel. There was another mode in which the defendants could obviate all the inconvenience which might arise from a defective panel. They might have applied for a trial in the county of Dublin at large; and, as such a course was never suggested by any of the sixteen most able and ingenious counsel engaged for them, he was entitled to observe, that it was because they did not feel that there was any injury likely to result from a jury constituted as that was, but were not willing to abandon the possession of a grievance which might be useful at a future time. When the trial approached, another attempt was made to impeach the panel by a challenge to the array on the ground that a portion of the list from which the Jury was to be formed had been fraudulently abstracted. It would be presumptuous in him at the present time to say whether that was a valid challenge or not; but he must say that he considered, as his right hon. and learned Friend considered, that it was not a challenge on which he ought to take a traverse in point of fact, and therefore he demurred to the whole of the challenge. What was the proper conclusion to be drawn from that demurrer? He had seen leading articles in newspapers within these few days, stating that that was an admission that there was a fraudulent list, and that the Lord Chancellor distinctly treated it as an admitted fact. Let him for a moment endeavour to disabuse the public mind from such an impression. Admission it was in a certain sense; for no person could demur in law without admitting the facts on which the law arose; but it was an admission only for the sake of argument, and it meant nothing more than this—"granting as correctly stated all the facts on which you found this challenge to the array, yet I contend that it is not a good challenge in point of law, and by my demurrer I raise that question with you." It was, therefore, a most unworthy proceeding—looking to the position in which those parties were placed—to endeavour to deceive those who were not aware of the technical character of this mode of proceeding, and to persuade them that the Lord Chancellor stated that it was admitted that there was a fraudulent list, and that the parties were at liberty to deal with it as an undoubted fact. All that the Lord Chancellor said was, "In the present proceedings it is admitted that there was a fraudulent list;
858
you must take it for granted that there was a fraudulent list; it is not a question that can be argued before this House. You must take it for granted and apply yourselves to the point of law which is raised upon it." A majority of the Judges decided on the demurrer against the challenge to the array; and this brought him to another point in the case. Those who read the very temperate and judicious as well as able opening of his right hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland would be disposed to do him justice for his conduct of the proceedings in court, and not to adopt—he would not say the charge of the hon. Gentleman but—the insinuation that no advantage whatever was given to the defendants by the mode in which the prosecution was conducted. The hon. Gentleman said that the verdict pronounced was not satisfactory, in consequence of the summing up of the Lord Chief Justice. He must say that this was a very unfair and unjust attempt to cast reflection on the eminent Judge who presided at that trial—considering the situation in which he was placed—the opportunity there was, if there had been any failure on his part, or impropriety with regard to his mode of charging the Jury, either by introducing topics calculated to inflame their minds, or by omitting any of the evidence or arguments urged on the part of the defendants, and considering also that he was not only addressing the Jury in the presence of the entire bar, and of all the most distinguished men who were engaged on the part of the traversers, but that he was himself only one out of four judges who were his co-equals, and had all the same right to address the Jury, and who were bound, if they considered that anything had been omitted which ought to be pressed on their attention, to have taken their part in the business, and to put those matters before the Jury. He had read the summing up of the Lord Chief Justice more than once, and he confessed that he had no hesitation in saying that he believed that there was nothing whatever objectionable in the statement of the Chief Justice, or in the expressions which he used, except, perhaps, that solitary one to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, and which he hardly thought worthy of an observation. He was sure that if hon. Members would take the trouble of reading that charge they would find the Chief Justice over and over again pressing on the attention of the Jury that the onus of proving the conspiracy lay

859
on the Crown; that it ought not to be made out by mere presumptions, but that facts, and the undoubted inferences from those facts, were necessary to establish the criminality of the parties; and that one ground why he did not press on them the evidence for the traversers was because the obligation was on the Crown to prove the charge against them. They would find that he entreated the counsel for the traversers, if he omitted any of the evidence or documents which they considered important, to interrupt him, and that they occasionally interrupted him to ask him to state parts of the evidence which had been given. They would see how those interruptions were received and attended to, and how free from temper the conduct of the Chief Justice was throughout the charge; and they would then be forced to conclude that it was a most unjust and unfounded aspersion on the character of that eminent individual to attribute to him that he, in consequence of some political bias, was disposed to press unfairly against the traversers. It was said that garbled extracts were handed up to the Jury. But that was not the fact. In the course of the trial extracts from the documents read in evidence were handed up to the Chief Justice for the sake of convenience; at the close of the trial it was proposed to hand them up to the Jury; but on an objection being made, on the part of the traversers, that the parts relied on by the Crown were scored under, while those relied on by the traversers were not, none of them were left to the Jury. Was it not, therefore, unjust to attribute to the Lord Chief Justice any improper interference with regard to the mode in which he summed up the case or left it to the Jury, and to attempt to induce the people to believe that there had been some partiality in the mode in which the case had been conducted, and that this great trial had not been brought to a satisfactory conclusion? The question with regard to the challenge to the array was now brought before the highest tribunal of the Empire. [Mr. Wyse: Not as to the facts.] The right hon. Gentleman was mistaken, for some of the facts were brought in a certain degree before that tribunal; but he admitted that one fact on which the hon. Gentleman chiefly relied was not brought before it, nor could it have been brought forward at any other time than on the original application to quash the panel at the early part of the proceedings. But the question which the
860
House had now to decide was, whether there were any circumstances in the case which ought to induce them to believe that any good would be gained by an inquiry conducted by a Select Committee in the mode proposed by the hon. Gentleman. He was utterly at a loss to conceive what was the benefit which the right hon. Gentleman expected to result from such an inquiry. He thought that nothing had been brought forward to lead them to the conclusion that there had been any fraud whatever with regard to the missing list, about which so much had been said. If there had been any fraud, he agreed with his noble Friend that there was a particular course of law which might be brought into operation against the offending parties by action, indictment, or criminal information, at the suit of the parties aggrieved—but if there had been only an inadvertence there was no use in giving this House the trouble to inquire into the subject. He regretted the error which had taken place—but no hardship or inconvenience resulted from it to the parties. He was thoroughly convinced that the trial had been fairly and justly conducted and—they should forgive him for saying so—that the conclusion, whatever attempts might be made to abuse the public mind, would be considered by all well-judging men, and all lovers of their country, to be perfectly satisfactory. It was because he thought that all notion of fraud was excluded from the circumstances of this case, and because he was borne out in that view by the impartial and enlightened men who had to try this question, that he felt bound to resist the Motion made by the hon. Gentleman feeling as he did that if he were to yield to this application it would be an admission that there had been some practice or some fraud in the formation of the list, or some hardship, or some inconvenience to the traversers resulting from it. He was conscientiously of opinion, that nothing of that kind existed, and he therefore felt bound to resist the Motion of the hon. Gentleman to the utmost of his power.
Mr. Villiers Stuartsaid, one or two of the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations had caused him no little surprise. With regard to his observations on the Chief Justice's charge, it was a pity that the hon. Gentleman had not been in the House during the discussion of this matter at the beginning of the Session, because it so happened that very strong observations were made on that charge,

861
and that not one word was said in its defence. He well recollected, that the only observation with respect to it was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, which he put in the form of a question—"What prisoner who has been convicted is ever satisfied with the verdict?" It was no light thing to bring such charges; but the Government, when they were made, ought to have defended the charge, if they did not agree in the general condemnation. The hon. and learned Gentleman accused his right hon. Friend of not taking the right time for making this Motion, because, he said, a conspiracy was overshadowing the land. What had decided that a conspiracy was spreading over the land, but the verdict of the Jury? And if the hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was not the time to discuss the question whether the Jury was formed fairly, it would seem as if the hon. Gentleman thought that any means ought to be taken to put down opponents, when he said that there was a conspiracy. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not look to the future. There was no one who was in his heart more against at the present state of things in Ireland than himself; but he would rather that they were going on as at that moment, than that there should be these unfortunate circumstances connected with the formation of the Jury List. The subject had been dealt with in far too technical a manner. He wanted to counteract the feeling that justice had not been administered, when the man in whom the greatest confidence was placed had been found guilty by a jury not formed according to law. Could any period be too late to try and restore confidence in the administration of the law? Nothing had so much tended to the ruin of Ireland as the want of that confidence? It was quite true that till a recent period, neither the Law nor the Judges were looked upon with respect, and juries received no confidence. It was the duty of the Government to watch over and try and restore that confidence. It could not be gained at once. It must take a considerable time. In 1829 they placed the Catholics and Protestants, so far as the law went, on a footing of equality; but there was yet something wanting to give confidence in the tribunals. With regard to the smaller tribunals, the Marquess of Wellesley got rid of a great evil, by establishing petty sessions, instead of a sitting in a private
862
room. Much good too had been done by mingling Catholic with Protestant magistrates; but there was still much to effect. In 1825 Mr. O'Connell was examined before the Committee of the House of Lords, to inquire into the state of Ireland, and gave this evidence with respect to the higher tribunals:—
"Have you observed in the administration of justice in the Superior Courts any disposition towards undue partiality?—In particular instances I have, but the apprehension of partiality is more occasioned by the kind of instruments that are used to bring jury questions to trial, than in the superior judges themselves; the city of Dublin is particularly constituted in that respect, especially in later times. There has been a great deal of party spirit, and no persons can now be Sheriffs of Dublin, that do not give a very unequivocal pledge before their election, of taking a particular part in politics, hostile to the Roman Catholics, Those gentlemen have the summoning of all juries, and the formation of all grand juries, and whatever may be the result in individual cases, it leaves a general impression upon the minds of the Roman Catholics that their property, or in cases of criminal offences, their lives and liberties, are not secure. I know that that prevails to a very great extent, so that a Roman Catholic, the most cool and rational amongst them, and dispassionate as to parties, would rather submit to great wrongs than attend a trial in Dublin; and that, as I said before, originating with the species of persons who are sheriffs, and of the persons who are at the head of the Special Jury Lists, for they place at the head of the Special Jury Lists the high corporators. An Act of Parliament that was proposed in the lower House last Session, would tend certainly, if carried into effect, to do away a great deal of that evil, in my judgment."
He believed that it was under the very Act, that was passed to remedy the old evil that the Jury in question was formed, which was now complained of, and he mentioned the point to show that under this very Act whether by fraud or accident, they had virtually returned to the old system, and that Mr. O'Connell was now suffering under that very old system of which he had pointed out the evils. If he had been tried by a jury from which every Catholic was struck off, he said that they were returning to the old state of things. He was not charging the Government with wishing for such a state, but he was not going beyond his duty by pointing out the effects which had occurred before, and which must occur again if the system were retained. No one could say that the best consequences had not followed from the

863
non-challenging of Catholics on juries. There was nothing more untrue than that the Irish disliked justice, they were eminently fond of justice; if the law were just, and if it were justly administered, they would lay claim to the same title as the English of being honest and firm supporters of the law. He knew, indeed, that there were cases of crimes not brought to justice; but it too often happened that this arose from a conviction in the minds of the people that there were wrongs under which those persons suffered which entitled them to greater sympathy; but if the law were not asserted in Ireland as it ought to be, it arose from the fact that law and justice were too often opposed to each other. What evil could arise from granting the Committee asked for by his right hon. Friend? A petition had been presented, stating certain facts, alleging fraud against a party or parties whose names were not mentioned; surely nothing could be more fair than that they should prove them if they were true, if not the petition would fall to the ground. Hon. Gentlemen said that in that case nothing would be gained; but there would be this gain, that the inquiry and the failure would deprive those who complained of the grounds of their complaint. Would they leave things as they were? Would they allow it to go abroad that the House of Commons would take no notice of the fact that every Catholic had been struck off the Jury, and would take no step to remedy this? He could not express how strongly he felt on this subject—it would fling his country back for centuries. What would a person in this country expect if he were tried by a jury from which every Protestant were struck off? But no, the could not in England be put in the samy circumstances as they were in Ireland. There was not a Church question to agitate men's minds here. There was not the same interests of religious added to political differences. It was impossible that Mr. O'Connell could have a fair trial in Dublin, by an exclusively Protestant Jury: he had been at the head of a great party in Ireland, constantly attempting to pull down the present system, which others were as strongly supporting; the two parties then opposed looked on each other as the enemies of Ireland. Could any one make the Irish believe that in such a state of things Mr. O'Connell could have a fair trial from Protestants? The hon. Mem-
864
ber for Dublin himself could not deny the strength and universality of the party feeling. He was far from saying that this particular jury did not attempt to do justice, but they must have been biassed on a particular trial. He said it was the duty of the House, seeing what would be the consequence of allowing any individual, still more any one endeared to the people, to suffer by the verdict of a jury, from which by accident or fraud every Catholic had been struck off, to enter upon the inquiry, and he gave the Motion of his right hon. Friend his cordial support.
Mr. Grogancontended that no law had been infringed in the formation of the Jury List. He could see no use in granting the inquiry sought for by the Motion before the House. The Committee was moved for to obtain further evidence, but all the evidence which they could have upon the subject they already possessed in sworn affidavits. What more could be expected by going into Committee? The revision of the lists by the Recorder was a most arduous undertaking. He had some 5,000 names to go through, and was it extraordinary that some mistakes and omissions should occur? There was one circumstance, however, connected with this discussion which gave him great pain. Although they had not in direct terms charged a Protestant Jury with having committed injustice towards Catholics, yet hon. Gentlemen opposite all seemed to go upon the grounds that injustice had been done. He thought it would have been much better to have discussed the question upon its real merits, and not have thus indirectly charged a Protestant Jury with having committed injustice towards Catholic prisoners.
Mr. J. O'Brien: It cannot be denied that the object of the present Motion is to inculpate Her Majesty's Government in connection with these late trials, which have so intensely occupied the public mind in Ireland. I hold those trials to have been an unconstitutional attempt to suppress public opinion in that country, and to substitute the infliction of penal law, for the redress of grievances long and deeply felt. It is idle to suppose that this was a prosecution directed only against individuals, public interests were committed in the conflict, and the distinguished leader of the national party, was sustained and impelled by the concurring sympathies of the country. The people

865
of Ireland, urged by a sense of wrong, met in deliberative councils, and in what has been not inaptly termed multitudinous assemblies, but in the one they disclaimed the protection of a dangerous and suspicious secresy, and in the other they were distinguished by the vigilant observance of the law; 'tis true a bold experiment was made to awaken the mind of England by the emphatic development of the feelings of Ireland, but when the fears or the wisdom of the Government forbade the continued demonstration of national sentiment, when the meeting at Clontarf was prohibited, they paid to your ungracious proclamation a prompt and unhesitating obedience, and thereby demonstrated the peaceful character of their constitutional agitation. This result should have satisfied the Government. They had achieved by their proclamation all they could have accomplished by their prosecution. The multitudinous meetings were abandoned, and the supremacy of the law was acknowledged; but in an evil hour they listened to the suggestions of a vindictive policy, they advanced unwisely on the submission of the people, and adopted the novel expedient of arraigning men for a conspiracy who had little in common but a legitimate community of end—the repeal or the modification of an obnoxious Act of Parliament. I am at a loss to understand, if the means adopted were legal, that there was ought in the object contemplated which warranted the denunciation of the Government. I am prohibited from so thinking, even by the example of some of the most distinguished Members of Her Majesty's present Government, who in their successive advocacy of the Emancipation Act, the Church Temporalities Act, the Reform Act, substantially modified and repealed the more important provisions of the Legislative Union. It is true, repeal in its popular interpretation seeks the right of domestic legislation, as the most direct and immediate road to the achievement of those many practical ends and legislative ameliorations which the condition of the country requires. Repeal is the comprehensive designation of the many wants of Ireland; and had they been, as they might have been, provided for by a wise Imperial Legislation, the popular passions might yet have slumbered, and the disturbed spirit of nationality would not have pervaded the land in its present formidable matu-
866
rity. But do not ascribe to Mr. O'Connell the difficulties of your own creation; do not impute to him the alternative, which he had often deprecated, and which your impolicy has forced upon his adoption. Yet let me not unduly magnify Mr. O'Connell's influence, for I believe in regard to this question, which now so intensely occupies the public mind of Ireland, he has more given expression to, than created, the national sentiment, and could not, if he would, have resisted the national impulse; and you will fatally err in supposing that you will arrest the development of national feeling by the vindictive persecution of a man so remarkably possessed of the confidence and affections of the country. And what has there been in the character of his public life which justifies the Government in holding him forth as a fitting subject for penal denunciation? Has he not advocated all the great measures which you have ultimately, though in some cases tardily, adopted. Did he not organise the energies of Ireland, facilitating to the right hon. Baronet his yet remembered triumphs over the antipathies of creed and the prejudices of country? Had Mr. O'Connell not summoned to existence, and invested with political organization, powers antagonist to those by which intolerance and monopoly were upheld, could the right hon. Baronet, would he have achieved the Emancipation Act, and thus associated his name with that great measure of legislative wisdom? Nor was he a subordinate auxiliary in those constitutional conflicts in which a noble Lord and another right hon. Baronet distinguished themselves by the advocacy of popular rights, and giving legislative security to their existence by the provisions of the Reform Act; and with equal energy and consistent principle, he co-operated with you in securing to the people of the Empire the invaluable privilege of reformed municipal institutions. His advocacy of popular rights was unstained by sectarian selfishness; and in conjunction with you, by the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, he secured to the Dissenter the equal privileges of the Constitution. It is true he urged to a legitimate maturity the principles you imperfectly developed, and gave expression to the discontent, of Ireland at your measures of incomplete redress—at the imperfect realization in her regard of those

867
principles which you had announced. You proclaimed religious freedom, yet we continue the tributaries of a dominant Church; you declared the necessity of a thorough international incorporation, yet you placed us in a humiliating contrast by an inadequate representation and an abridged constituency; you acknowledged the necessity of municipal institutions, and you communicated the invaluable privilege to the more favoured portions of the Empire; to us, reluctantly and suspiciously, you conceded a stinted measure of corporate rights. Your entire legislation, as respects us, was marked by the offensive supremacy of country and of sect. Did you suppose that long oppression had extinguished the national pride? If we did not feel the legislative indignity, we should have deserved it. We remonstrated, but unavailingly, and we accepted without gratitude, what you gave us without grace. Ireland still complained of your abortive policy; we laboured under a chronic malady of discontent; the national energies were wasting under the slow fever of arguments unanswered, of hopes indefinitely postponed. The distinguished victim of your prosecution, by the resources of his powerful character, rallied the collapsed energies of the country. He gave intelligible expression to the feelings of associated millions. He has precipitated the crisis, and has matured that overbearing necessity so wisely anticipated and referred to by the right hon. Baronet. I will not suppose that you can view the present position of such a man with feelings of exultation. But I am not warranted in appealing to your sympathies; the national sentiment forbids it. We say that justice has not been done. We say that before you put Mr. O'Connell on his trial you should have ascertained if you could have given him an unprejudiced tribunal, and if the condition of the country, if these antagonist factions which a disastrous policy has created, prohibited your so doing, you should have paused and inquired if there was not something anomalous in that condition of things which thus poisoned justice in its source—practically annihilated the tribunals of your free constitution, and incapacitated people from the discharge of their first and most important functions. But as you did decide on appealing to the paralyzed tribunals of the country, we say that according to the spirit and analogous example of the
868
constitution, as conceded to foreigners, you should have balanced the antipathies of party; you should not have tried the Catholic leader by an exclusively sectarian jury, by men committed in prejudgment against him. You should not have availed yourselves of perhaps an accident, perhaps a fraud (I allude to the dropped lists), to take from him his legal chance of escape from the combined power of arbitrary law and of a prejudging tribunal; above all, we say that you should not have been guilty of the almost increditable though legal absurdity of executing sentence while discussing its legality. Your verdict has corresponded with your wishes. Yet, what has been your achievement? The people of Ireland required no example to deter them from physical or lawless violence? Their obedience to your Clontarf proclamation protects them from the aspersion, but will your verdict abate the national and constitutional agitation now in action? Let the existing condition of the country—let the popular exchequer, overflowing with the contributions of an enthusiastic people, reply to your inquiry—above all, let the adhesion to the popular ranks of that class of men quiescent, but not indifferent, indisposed by temperament, and unprepared by habit for the collisions of public life, reply to your inquiry. And should you suppose that the verdict you have achieved, repugnant as it is to the national sense of justice, divested as it is of all moral influence, will extinguish the spirit of the country, you fatally miscalculate. I shall not here discuss the character or probable consequences of that great object which now so intensely occupies the popular mind of Ireland; adopt your alternative, be it impracticable in achievement, perilous in the attempt, or be it, if achieved, fraught with dissolution to your empire, you are morally responsible for the results, you who have driven to the last limits of the Constitution a long suffering and now exasperated people. It is in reason, and history ratifies the conclusion, that when the just demands of a people are withheld, other views and less legitimate aspirations spring from the denial, nor will those classes, less perhaps impassioned in feeling, though not less determined in sentiment, long give you the benefit of their political scruples in maintenance of a Constitution from whose benefits you exclude them. Each day of evil unredressed adds to the

869
force of the national movement, and calls in aid those to whom the sympathies of religion, and of country, and the impulses of a contagious enthusiasm cannot long unavailingly appeal. And though strong in authority, and in all the accompaniments of established power, it may be well to calculate the antagonist forces—those mighty elements of nationality and religion, which are now fast developing themselves against you. Shall I call your attention to the remarkable demonstration about to take place; it is well deserving your serious reflection; it is not the act of the intemperate or interested politicians, it is not the hasty resolve of a precipitate enthusiasm. The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, men mature in years, instructed by experience, venerable by their virtues, have appointed a day of solemn devotion, and at one and the same hour you will have 7,000,000 of an impassioned people proclaiming the afflictions of their country, and the injustice of their rulers. This is an unparalleled occurrence, and the Government which can neglect such an indication of national sentiment, is responsible for the results. Nor are the effects of your policy limited to the immediate sphere of your misgovernment, look to the unconcealed antipathies of America, avowedly created and impelled by that section of the population, rapidly increasing in numbers and in wealth, and who have brought with them to another hemisphere the bitter remembrance of their wrongs and of your injustice. Look to the President of that great republic, the constitutional organ of its opinions, un-disguisedly sanctioning that agitation which you have characterised as menacing the integrity of your empire; nor should you disregard what I may call the mere domestic influences of the alienation of Ireland. Shall I direct your attention to the commercial and manufacturing cities, to your very metropolis, crowded with a rapidly expanding population from that country, corroded by a sense of national injustice, hostile to your laws, and disaffected to your institutions, predisposed to receive, perhaps to communicate, that political poison—those dangerous doctrines, alike subversive of your social security and imperial greatness? Nor are the results of your policy even thus circumscribed. Look to your dominant church, that parent spring of all our distractions, tainting your fair fame, and arming against you the re-
870
ligious sensibilities of three-fourths of the Christian world. No measures of superficial redress will meet the occasion; no palliatives will satisfy the public mind; if this be your course, it will but prolong the national distractions, and by inevitable progression end in the same consummation. Do not delude yourselves by looking forward to a Registration Bill. If you curtail the franchise, this is clearly no specific for national discontent. If you extend the franchise, what is our gain while your policy is anti-national, and while the liberal representatives of Ireland are overborne by British majorities? This will only the more conspicuously display our inefficacy in a British Senate. 'Tis true you have issued a land commission; and so far you are entitled to the acknowledgments of the country—for I will not suppose you will falsify the hopes you have thus so powerfully excited. The people of Ireland are confederated by a sense of wrong. You can dissolve the confederacy, not by State prosecutions, but by the abandonment of a policy not more opposed to the tranquillity of one country than to the ultimate safety of both. Shall I weary the attention of the House by the thrice-told tale of Irish grievances, in whose regard reason and argument have discharged their functions, leaving no alternative but to extract from expediency what has been refused to justice? Will you persevere in a policy thus demonstrated by its fruits, distracting a country, disorganizing an empire? Sir, I believe a crisis is at hand. The agitations of the national frame must terminate, and speedily, in dissolution or renovation, the latter I believe to be approaching, I infer it from many indications. I see the people of England rapidly abdicating their religious prejudices, I see a fusion of parties combining on other principles than the decaying antipathies of sect. I infer it from the more liberal announcements of the Conservative press. I especially infer it from the altered tone of the late debate on the Church Question. We are no longer told of inflexible compacts, of immutable arrangements, nor of the rights of Government to establish true religion, that palpable vindication of the bigot and the persecutor of every creed. That question is now based, and with high personal and official authority, on the intelligible principle of what is due to the collective welfare of a people. I trust that this ques-

871
tion shall be, and soon, finally adjusted, even for the sake of the Protestant authority in Ireland, for what is the condition of the Protestant in that country? It is true you have given him a dominant Church; is the good worth the penalty which attends the possession? Is it worth the hostile mind of an offended and alienated people? Did the accidents of birth of education place me in the ranks of the Protestant gentry, I would call upon the Government to relieve me from an injurious preference, from a barren ascendancy, to restore to property its influence, to station its authority, to social and to personal virtues their legitimate claims on the respect and affections of an enthusiastic and devoted people. I trust that the principles announced in that debate, so undeniable in their wisdom, shall produce corresponding fruits, and that Her Majesty's Government shall, at no long interval, announce the adoption of an altered policy. I would call upon them to look to the condition of Ireland, to the resolved and excited spirit of the people, and to provide in time for the safety of the empire. They will, I trust, discard the unworthy suggestion that their concessions may be imputed to their fears. Wise and provident apprehension is the first duty of a Government; its salutary influence combining with yet loftier considerations achieved the Emancipation Act under the auspices of the right hon. Baroronet. Let equal wisdom and a kindred spirit now animate your policy. A great opportunity is profferred to your acceptance to extinguish agitation by redress, to anticipate revolution by reform, to tranquilize a people, to consolidate an empire. But if you will not summon a resolution befitting your position—if you will not wisely conciliate or finally redress—you owe it to your own character, and to the awakened jealousies of the people of England, whose constitutional privileges are equally involved, to assent to the present Motion, and ascertain how it was, whether by accident or by design, you tried and convicted the distinguished leader of the Catholic body, by the instrumentality of a Sectarian and suspected tribunal.
The House divided: Ayes 73; Noes 91.—Majority 18.

List of the AYES.

Archbold, R.

Barnard, E. G.

Bannerman, A.

Bellew, R. M.

872

Blake, M.

Mitcalfe, H.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Morris, D.

Bowring, Dr.

Napier, Sir C.

Brotherton, J.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Browne, R. D.

O'Brien, J.

Browne, hon. W.

O'Gonnell, M. J.

Buller, E.

O'Conor Don

Busfeild, W.

O'Ferral, R. M.

Carew, hon. R. S.

Paget, Col.

Chapman, B.

Palmerston, Visct.

Clive, E. B.

Pechell, Capt.

Cobden, R.

Philips, G. R.

Colborne, hn. W. N. R.

Plumridge, Capt.

Collett, J.

Power, J.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Rawdon, Col.

Denison, W. J.

Russell, Lord E.

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

Seale, Sir J. H.

Duncan, G.

Seymour, Lord

Duncannon, Visct.

Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.

Ebrington, Visct.

Smith, B.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Evans, W.

Somers, J. P.

Ferguson, Col.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Forster, M.

Stock, Mr. Serj.

Gore, hon. R.

Strutt, E.

Hastie, A.

Tancred, H. W.

Hawes, B.

Thornely, T.

Heathcote, J.

Towneley, J.

Hill, Lord M.

Warburton, H.

Horsman, E.

Wawn, J. T.

Howard, P. H.

White, H.

Hutt, W.

Williams, W.

Langston, J. H.

Yorke, H. R.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

TELLERS.

Macnamara, Major

Wyse, T.

Marshall, W.

Stuart, V.

List of the NOES.

Ackers, J.

Eliot, Lord

Acland, Sir T. D.

Entwisle, W.

Adderly, C. B.

Escott, B.

Arkwright, G.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Bailey, J.

Fellowes, E.

Bailey, J., jun.

Flower, Sir J.

Bailey, Col.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Forbes, W.

Bateson, T.

Fuller, A. E.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Gladstone, Capt.

Blackstone, W. S.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Bodkin, W. H.

Gore, M.

Borthwick, P.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Bowles, Adm.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Brisco, M.

Grogan, E.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Hale, R. B.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Buck, L. W.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Buckley, E.

Hayes, Sir E.

Bunbury, T.

Henley, J. W.

Cardwell, E.

Herbert, hn. S.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Hinde, J. H.

Christopher, R. A.

Hogg, J. W.

Clerk, Sir G.

Hope, hon. C.

Cochrane, A.

Hotham, Lord

Cole, hn. H. A.

Hussey, A.

Darby, G.

Hussey, T.

Dickinson, F. H.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Jones, Capt.

873

Knatchbull,rt.hn.Sir E.

Shirley, E. J.

Knight, H. G.

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

Knight, F. W.

Smyth, Sir H.

Lincoln, Earl of

Somerset, Lord G.

Lockhart, W.

Stanley, Lord

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

McGeachy, F. A.

Taylor, E.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Tennent, J. E.

Morgan, O.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Neeld, J.

Thompson, Ald.

Norreys, Lord

Trollope, Sir J.

Palmer, R.

Vernon, G. H.

Patten, J. W.

Vesey, hon. T.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Waddington, H. S.

Peel, J.

Plumptre, J. P.

TELLERS.

Praed, W. T.

Young, J.

Rashleigh, W.

Pringle, T.

Round, J.

CHURCH ENDOWMENT AMENDMENT ACT.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he had to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend that part of the Church Endowment Act of last Session, which related to fees on the appointment of clergymen. It would be remembered that 600,000 l. was the sum to be applied to providing clergymen for new districts, the maximum of their allowance being 150 l. The sole object of the present Bill was to relieve such clergymen from the usual fees. The House would be perhaps desirous to know what was the effect of the Act of last year. There were 246 applications to the Commissioners; there were thirty-four new appointments, and engagements were entered into with 100 more—in all 134. In the first class the population amounted to 130,000, in the last to 344,000. So that provision had been made for the spiritual attendance of nearly 500,000 under this provision. The passing of that Act had given a great impetus to improvement of the Church through voluntary exertion; and if the effect had been such as he had stated during the short period the Act was in operation, he thought he was not too sanguine in hoping that still greater benefit would be derived from it when further progress was made in its operation.
Leave given.

DUCHY OF CORNWALL MANORS.
On the Motion that the Duchy of Cornwall Assessionable Manors' Bill be read a second time.
Captain Plumridgeobjected on account of the absence of many hon. Gentlemen, who were to take part in the discussion of
874
it, and on account of its seriously affecting the rights of individuals who had had no time to examine its provisions and oppose it. He moved "that the further consideration of the Bill be deferred."
Sir R. Peel: One of the reasons on account of which Government make no progress in Bills is, that continually their farther progress in them is delayed, because some hon. Gentleman interested in them is absent. The reason of Government bringing forward this Bill is, to prevent litigation, and to apply the principle of prescription to Duchy lands as well as Church lands. The Bill meets with the entire approval of the Duchy of Cornwall and its inhabitants, indeed, I have reason to believe that the Bill meets with universal approbation. The right hon. Baronet then read several of the Clauses of the Bill, and said there would be an opportunity of discussing them when in Committee. The Bill has met with the cordial concurrence of all concerned in it, and my only reason for pressing it is, I repeat, that we are anxious that the principles of prescription shall apply to Duchy lands as well as Church lands. I do hope, under these circumstances, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not prevent the House from dividing upon the measure at once.
Mr. V. Smithhoped that his hon. and gallant Friend would not press his objection, which could be as well discussed in Committee.
The Earl of Lincolncould assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that all concerned in the Duchy of Cornwall had been fully informed of the particulars and details of the Bill. He trusted that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not press his objections, as he hoped to be able to make such arrangements as would be satisfactory to him.
Captain Plumridgewas unwilling to go in opposition to the sense of the House, which as he perceived was against him and he would not press his Motion.
Mr. Howeshad had strong protests forwarded to him against the further progress of this Bill. He had replied to those protests, that he knew nothing of the Bill, and when he assured the House that since the 31st of June, no less than forty Bills had been introduced, he was sure that he must stand acquitted of any neglect. He hoped as the Bill had been so lately introduced, that further time would be given for the consideration of it.
Sir R. Peel: I beg to say, that this Bill was introduced before the 31st of June. The Government has been in communication with all parties affected by it, and as far as they are concerned, it is unopposed.
Bill read a second time.
Adjourned at Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public — 1a. Butter and Cheese; Actions for Gaming Discontinuance; Assessed Taxes Compositions, etc.; Detached Parts of Counties; Law Courts (Ireland).
2a. Customs Duties (Isle of Man).
Reported.—Three-and-a-Half per Cents. Exemption; Vagrants Removal; Prisons (Scotland); Turnpike Acts Continuance.
3a. and passed: — Bank of England Charter; County Rates; Militia Ballots Suspension; Stock in Trade; Charitable Loan Societies (Ireland); Turnpike Acts Continuance.
Private.—1a. London and Croydon Railway; Bishop of Down, Connor, and Dromore's Estate.
Reported. — Werrington, etc. Curacy, or Hele's Estate (Marchioness of Lothian's); Leeds Vicarage (Dr. Hook's); Market Harborough and Coventry Road.
3a. and passed:—Coventry Improvement and Cemetery; Southampton Improvement; Birkenhead Docks.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Earl of Roden, from Edinburgh, and 2 other places, for Legalizing Marriages solemnized by Presbyterian and Dissenting Ministers in Ireland.—From Cashel, and 3 other places, for the Extension of Scriptural Education in Ireland.—By the Duke of Richmond, Bishop of London, Earls of Roden, Galloway, and Mounteashel, and Lords Kenyon, and Lyttleton, from Searva, and an immense number of other places, against, and by the Bishop of Norwich, the Lord Chancellor, Marquess of Normanby, Earls Radnor, and Clarendon, and Lords Redesdale, Cottenham, Brougham, Teynham, and Melbourne, from Framlingham, and a great number of other places, in favour of the Dissenters Chapels Bill.—From Dundee, respecting the Sanatory Condition of the People—From Lincoln, and other places, respecting the Bank of England Charter Bill.—From Jedburgh, and Edinburgh, for Alteration of certain Clauses, and from Inverness, for the Insertion of a Clause in the Prisons (Scotland) Bill.

MR. MAZZINI.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, their Lordships would recollect that on Tuesday last he had presented a petition from Mr. Joseph Mazzini, in which the petitioner averred that he understood that statements highly injurious to his character had been disseminated, and as he was apprehensive that similar statements might be made before the Secret Committee appointed to examine into the Opening and Detaining of Letters at the Post Office, he prayed their Lordships that he might have a full opportunity of being heard, to refute any charges that might be alleged against him, either before the Committee, or in such other manner as their Lordships might deem proper. It was his opinion that that petition should be referred to the Secret Committee. But, as some objection was made at the time, he had deferred his Motion, and he should now move that the petition be so referred. He should make no further observation now; but if the noble Duke opposed the Motion, he should reserve to himself the right of stating his opinions at length.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, the Motion of the noble Earl was—
"That this Petition be referred to the Secret Committee appointed to inquire into matters concerning certain proceedings in the Post Office."
He could not see what the matters alleged in the petition had to do with the subject into which the Committee was to inquire. The Committee was specifically appointed—
"To inquire into the state of the Law in respect to the Detaining and Opening of Letters at the General Post Office, and into the Mode under which the authority given for such Detaining and Opening has been exercised, and to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House."

777
Now, it did not appear how it was possible, under this order or form of inquiry relative to the state of the law, that this gentleman's character could be affected. He complained in his former petition to this House that his letters had been opened; and a Secret Committee was appointed to inquire into the law under which that power was exercised. But he never heard that any reference was made to this Gentleman's individual character, or to the character of any other individual; and, whether his character had been affected or not, it was not for a Committee of that House, sitting for another purpose, to clear it. Under these circumstances, it appeared to him that this Motion was premature. It would be proper to wait till the Committee had made their Report. That would be the time, if this Gentleman's character were affected in any way by the Report, to call for an opportunity of explaining and justifying his conduct.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, it was very true, that under the Order for the Committee, no reference was made to matters of this nature, but it was equally true that there was nothing in the Order to exclude them. It should be observed, that the whole of this investigation originated in a petition which he presented a fortnight ago from Mr. Mazzini, and which was referred to the Committee. He fully admitted, that it was not the mere grievance of Mr. Mazzini, or of anybody else, that ought to be brought before the Committee. It was a general question—a question of the utmost public importance. But still it was very natural for Mr. Mazzini to feel the reports which had been, to his (the Earl of Radnor's) certain knowledge, circulated against him, and to be most anxious to meet and to repel them. In his opinion, under all the circumstances, nothing could be more fair than to refer the petition to the Committee.
The Duke of Wellingtonrepeated his observation, that the petition was premature. The subject to which it related had nothing to do with the matter into which the Committee was appointed to inquire.
The Earl of Radnorthen withdrew his Motion.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL—EXPLANATION.
Lord Brougham,on presenting some petitions, took the opportunity of calling the attention
778
of the House to a published statement of which he had reason to complain. The statement was to the effect that "Lord Brougham had been compelled to give up, though he did so with a bad grace, his pet scheme of a new judgeship, as also the objectionable Clauses in the Bill relating to the new jurisdiction in reference to divorce, which latter he had given up in obedience to the Lord Chancellor; and that, after having given up his chances of the judgeship, he (Lord Brougham) seemed to take no longer any interest in the measure, which he had fairly deserted, the objectionable Clauses being expunged, while he was away from the House, by the Lord Chancellor." He had never read a more scandalous and unjustifiable statement, especially after the explanations he had given a week before. It was known that before quitting his place he had requested his noble and learned Friend to expunge the Clauses referred to, as he had been requested by a right rev. Prelate to postpone them for fuller consideration; but, so far from giving them up, he had expressly stated to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that he thought a more satisfactory measure would probably be the result of delay, inasmuch as the delay would end in taking away the power of divorce a mensa et thoro also from Doctors' Commons. As to the reason imputed to him for giving up the Clauses, namely, because he was not to have the Judgeship, nothing could be more scandalous, false, and audacious; for he had explained in his place before giving up the Bill, that he never had a thought of being a candidate for the Judgeship. This he had stated in the House a week before this most scandalous and audacious libel appeared.
The Lord Chancellorconfirmed the noble and learned Lord's statement respecting the withdrawal of the Clauses, and said, that the noble and learned Lord had declared in the House that he would not accept the judgeship.

BIRKENHEAD DOCKS BILL.
On the Motion of the Earl of Stradbroke, this Bill was read a third time.
The Marquess of Salisburyfelt it necessary to state, that in this case gross fraud, almost amounting to perjury, had been committed by the supporters of the Bill. There had been already a Liverpool Dock Bill passed, so that no inconvenience

779
would result from the rejection of this measure. The complaint he had to make was, in substance, that whereas it had been agreed on between the agents for the Bill, and for an opposing body (the shipowners of Liverpool) to insert certain Clauses, these Clauses had been materially altered without the knowledge of that body, who only became acquainted with the fact through accident, when it was alleged by the agents for the Bill upon oath, that they had known of it, and that the Admiralty had compelled the alteration of the Clauses, the former of which statements was declared false by the agents for the shipowners and the other allegations was equally denied by the Admiralty.
The Earl of Haddington: We heard nothing of the Bill.
The Marquess of Salisburythen proceeded to propose that a Clause be inserted, securing to the shipowners what had been originally agreed upon. The coasting trade, the only other interest affected, would not (he could state) oppose the Clause; but, even should it lead to the entire defeat of the Bill, it would be only a just punishment on its supporters for the deceptive course they had adopted.
Lord Brougham, in the name of justice itself, protested against the accusation of perjury, so cruelly urged against a professional man in a place where he could not be heard.
The Marquess of Salisbury: I said, "almost perjury."
Lord Broughamwould rather meet the heavier charge then. The facts alleged only amounted to this — that what the agent for the Bill had stated, had been contradicted by another witness on one point; and who could venture to say which of them spoke the truth? As to the answer of the Admiralty, why, it confirmed the statement of the agent for the Bill, which was only that "the Admiralty had not objected to the Bill," as how could they, if they had not heard of it? Now, he knew nothing of the merits of the subject. All he knew was, that the gentleman accused had been introduced to him that morning by Mr. Wilberforce, who knew him well, as a man of high character: and he certainly should not thus be attacked without any greater ground than had been stated by a noble Marquess evidently inflamed with zeal on the opposite side.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, the agent for the Bill had written that the Admiralty had "insisted" on the insertion of the Clauses as they stood. Was not that statement utterly falsified by the answer of the Admiralty, that they had not heard at all of the Bill?
Lord Monteaglesaid, the Bill was in itself an important one, and deserved the best attention of the House. The Committee had heard counsel upon all the Clauses of the Bill, and had given their opinion upon it. The object of the measure was to extend the dock monopoly of Liverpool, for the benefit of the county generally, and especially of the trade with Ireland. If the large revenues of the Liverpool monopoly were applied to defeat this Bill, they would be abused. It was a question of a public grievance. The Clause complained of, was not a Clause drawn up by the promoters of the Bill for their own advantage, but had been recommended by the Admiralty.
The Earl of Haddingtonagreed with the noble Lord in respect to the importance of the Bill, which, in the opinion of the Admiralty, was a good and useful Bill. It was the duty of the Admiralty, when such a Bill was brought before Parliament, to see that the shores and coasts were not interfered with, and that the navigation should not be injured; and he believed that the navigation of the Mersey would not be injured by it. He had looked at all the Clauses of the Bill in respect to the coasting trade. If the seven days had been part of the Clause the Admiralty, as far as he knew, would not have objected to it. He thought that the gentleman alluded to had been borne rather hard upon; but, except so far as concerned the public interests, the Admiralty had had nothing to do with the matter.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, although he could not withhold that confidence which the House always placed in their Committees from the Committee in this case, yet it was a Bill of such importance, affecting the public interests, that their Lordships ought to endeavour to form a judgment for themselves; and, having inquired into the case, he gave his hearty concurrence in the decision of the Committee. It appeared to him, that no interest, and certainly not the coasting trade, was affected by any alteration made in the Bill; the trade was not only not in-

781
jured, but was advanced and improved by it. He should vote for the Bill as it stood.
The Earl of Stradbrokecomplained of the remarks which had been made by the noble Marquess upon a Gentleman who was not present to defend himself, and which were not borne out by the documents, if fairly read.
The Marquess of Salisburyvindicated his construction of the document. He was ready to go into evidence at the Bar, but he would not persevere against the opinion of their Lordships.
The question was then put and carried in the affirmative, and the Bill passed.

DISSENTERS CHAPELS BILL.
The Order of the Day being read,
The Lord Chancellorrose to move the consideration of the Amendments made by the Commons to the Bill, and said that, in performing the duty which he had to discharge on that occasion it would be necessary for him to occupy but a very few minutes of their Lordships' time; indeed, under ordinary circumstances, he should merely have mentioned what the Amendments were which had been made by the other House, and prayed their Lordships' concurrence in them; but in consequence of certain intimations which had been thrown out in different quarters, and of what had passed in that House on a former night, and the intimation given by a noble Lord, for whom he entertained the greatest respect, he felt it his duty to call their Lordships' attention to the progress of the Bill, and the position in which it actually stood at present. When the Bill was submitted to their Lordships for a second reading, it met with a warm and active opposition from his right rev. Friend the Metropolitan, and also from another right rev. Prelate, whose opposition however, was founded upon what he conceived to be a misapprehension of the law relating to Charitable Trusts, which misapprehension was exposed, replied to, and satisfactorily answered by his noble and learned Friend near him. The consequence of this was, that their Lordships agreed to the second reading without a division, those noble Lords and right rev. Prelates who had opposed the Bill by their speeches, not venturing to divide the House, because he presumed they were of opinion that if they had taken that course it would have shown, in a marked manner, that their Lordships approved of the principle of the
782
Bill. Afterwards, in its progress through its subsequent stages, the Bill met with no further opposition, and it was passed with unanimity, and went down to the other House, carrying with it the entire concurrence of their Lordships. Some noble Lords observed that there had been a division on the third reading—then the case was still stronger than he had supposed it to be, because on the third reading there had been a division which showed the strong opinion of a great majority of their Lordships in favour of the justice and policy of the measure. The Bill then went down to the other House of Parliament, where, according to report, it was actively opposed; but upon the second reading, when a division took place, the opinion of that House, which was the opinion of the people, was marked in the strongest manner by a division, showing a majority in the proportion of three to one in its favour. The opponents of the measure, however, were not discomfited. They again rallied on two successive occasions, when the House again divided, and on both occasions, in the same marked manner, a majority declared in favour of the principle of the measure. Such was the history of the progress of the Bill through both Houses of Parliament. The House of Commons, however, when the Bill went into Committee, had thought it right to make certain Amendments, which had since come up to their Lordships' House for consideration, and to which it was his duty presently to call their attention. Now, in what position did the matter stand? Their Lordships had declared, in a marked and emphatic manner, their approbation of the principle of the Bill; that principle and that opinion had been re-echoed in a decisive manner by the other House; and now the only question, he apprehended, was, both Houses having approved of the principle of the Bill, whether their Lordships were of opinion that the measure was a better one in its original shape, as approved of by them, or whether they would adopt the Amendments, or some of them, which had been made by the Commons. There could be no other question for their consideration, to that point alone they must direct their attention. Was the Bill better calculated to accomplish the object to which it was directed in its original shape, or had it been improved by the Amendments made in it by the other House of Parliament? If their Lordships thought the Bill was better in the shape in which they originally

783
passed it, than in the shape in which it was returned to them, they would disagree to the Amendments, and call for a conference with the other House. If, on the other hand, they approved of the Amendments, they would adopt them, and in that shape the Bill would become law. The question, therefore, he apprehended, for their Lordships' consideration was, what was the nature and character of those Amendments, and did they, or did they not, improve the Bill? But he had un-understood that a very extraordinary course, was now intended to be pursued ["Order, order."]—He was not speaking from mere surmise or conjecture; for the noble Lord to whom he referred just now, and for whose opinion and character he entertained a most profound respect, had told their Lordships that he intended to move that the Amendments of the Commons be taken into consideration that day three months. The effect of such a Motion as that which he had alluded to would be, that their Lordships should not at all consider the Amendments of the Commons, that, whereas the principle of the Bill had been agreed upon by both Houses of Parliament, their Lordships would pass the slight upon the Commons House of saying that the alterations they made in the Bill should not be taken into consideration. There might be cases in which it would be proper for their Lordships to take such a course, as, for instance, in case a Bill went down from their Lordships to the Commons, and the Commons, although they acceded to the principle of the Bill, yet made an alteration in it which would interfere with their Lordships' privileges—then perhaps it would be a proper course to take not to consider their Amendments. There was still another case in which such a course might be adopted, namely, if a Bill were of a very complicated nature, and it was sent back from the Commons containing a great number of very complicated amendments, of a description which required great caution and great deliberation, and the period at which it was sent up to their Lordships was a period of the Session at which they could not possibly afford time to give the Amendments that deliberate consideration which they required, then, in such a case, it might be proper to adopt such a course; but he knew no other case in which such a mode of dealing with a Bill of this description could be justified, and he hoped that, after due deliberation and reflection, no noble Lord would adopt such a
784
course, particularly as the Bill had been already discussed in both Houses. He thought that, under these circumstances, they ought not to declare that they would not take the Amendments of the Commons into their consideration. It was true that something like a reason was assigned by the noble Lord for the course which he proposed to take; but it was founded on the assumption of a fact which had no existence; the reason was, that something had passed on the third reading of the Bill, of which the noble Lord did not approve; but he had not shown to the House what it was which took place on the third reading, which ought to induce the House not to consider the Amendments made in the House of Commons. He believed, however, that the noble Lord alluded to the adoption of an Amendment by his noble and learned Friend near him (Lord Cottenham.) It was true his noble and learned Friend had, on the third reading, proposed an Amendment, but it was an Amendment in direct accordance with the principle of the Bill. He gave notice of that Amendment—he (the Lord Chancellor) had time to consider it, and he approved of it, after giving it a full consideration. On the third reading of the Bill, his noble and learned Friend stated the motive and the object of that Amendment, it was regularly put from the Woolsack, and it was agreed to by their Lordships without opposition. That was the whole history of the matter, and nothing could be more regular or fair than that transaction; it was upon this he understood the noble Lord to be about to found his extraordinary Motion. Having said thus much with respect to the mode of proceeding with the Bill before them, he would now call the attention of their Lordships to the Amendments which had been made in it by the other House of Parliament, and in doing so he feared he might have some difficulty in distinctly conveying to their Lordships the nature and character of the Amendments, as they had not the Bill before them. As the Bill was not in their hands, there would be some difficulty from the refined character of some of the Amendments, to describe them distinctly to their Lordships. The first Amendment to which he should direct their attention was suggested by the General Baptists. The principle of that class of Dissenters was adult baptism. In their trust deeds they inserted no other point of their creed but that; and if the wording of the second Clause had remained as sent down from

785
their Lordships, it was feared that they would not fall within the protection of the Bill, in respect of their other religious opinions, in consequence of that peculiarity. In consequence of that they applied to Parliament in order to obtain the benefit of the protection which the Bill afforded to other Dissenters, and the alteration which was agreed to in order to place them in that position, was the first alteration made. The next alteration to which he should call their attention was introduced for the advantage of the Wesleyan Methodists. As the Bill stood originally, the words were "the mode of worship mentioned on the face of the deed;" but the Wesleyan Methodists said that those words would not apply to them, as they did not set forth any "mode" of worship on the face of the deeds, but "a mode of regulating" their worship, and that four volumes of Wesley's Sermons were referred to by them for that purpose, so that in order to extend the advantages of the Bill to them, the words in the Bill providing that the mode of worship should be set forth on the face of the deed were changed, and a provision was made to the effect, that the mode of worship should be either set forth on the face of the deed, or referred to in some other document or instrument. That was the alteration, and he was sure that both of them would receive the approbation of the House. The next alteration which had been made was in reference to the words in the Act describing meetinghouses to be affected by this Bill. In the Bill, as it stood before the alteration, the words were "such meeting-houses," but it was said that such words might leave the Bill open to a construction different from that which was contemplated, and the words were changed from "any such meeting-house" to "meeting-house for the worship of God," to give generality to the provisions of the Bill. Another alteration was with respect to the period of twenty-five years. It was said that no declaration had been made as to when the period of twenty-five years was to be dated from, and that therefore it would be impossible to say when the commencement of the period or its termination was to be ascertained; but that was altered, for it was now provided that the period should be twenty-five years previously to the commencement of the suit calling a title in question. Previously the Socinians, and Arians, and Unitarians, if the period of twenty-five years passed were afforded no opportunity or power of altering their opinions and becoming ortho-
786
dox—they were afforded no locus penitentiæ in that respect; but that had also been altered. Another Amendment was as affecting right and title, by putting in the words "judgment and decree," in order to meet the case more fully, and the next was substituting "proceedings by information," as regarded suits affecting private concerns. Those were the principal Amendments. He considered some of them unnecessary, and some of them material and important; but they were all in the spirit of the Bill, and he advised their Lordships to adopt it, and not to reject these Amendments. It would be very inconvenient for a trivial change to send the measure back to the other House of Parliament, and raise a new discussion; and he would, therefore, advise their Lordships to adopt the Amendments and pass the Bill. After what he had said in the outset they would not expect him to make any remarks on the principle of the Bill. That principle had already been decided upon, and was not again raised by the Amendments before their Lordships: and he should think he was acting an improper part if he went out of the course which the very nature of the proceeding before them suggested. It had, however, been alleged, that those who had introduced this Bill had introduced it for the purpose of giving encouragement to Unitarians. Nothing could be more foreign to their intention. The Bill was meant to afford relief to the whole body of Dissenters—it might in that operation at one period affect the interests of one class, and at another period of a different class, but its intention was to relieve all classes, to prevent the occurrence of expensive litigation, and to apply to the Dissenting Church, if he might so express himself, the principle that was applied to property in other matters, and allow that property which was given to them to be disposed of, according to the wish of those who left it, for charitable purposes, instead of putting it into the pockets of lawyers. He regretted very much that the right rev. Prelates opposite were so warmly opposed to the Bill; he had, however, been consoled by the reflection that there were right rev. prelates who had supported this Bill with their votes and their opinions; and with respect to those who had been absent, he could not forbear stating that a right rev. Prelate of great learning and varied attainments, who came from the same university as himself, but from whom he differed in political opinions—a right rev. Prelate who not very long since had given so splendid

787
an example of eloquence in that House—that right rev, prelate had manifested his attachment to this Bill by leaving his proxy in his (the Lord Chancellor's) hands. The chief opposition to the Bill, however, had proceeded, he was sorry to say, from the Dissenting body—from those who not so very long since complained of being made the victims of persecution—who had obtained from the Legislature all they could get, and now desired to withhold from their brethren that toleration which they had demanded and obtained for themselves. Some of their Lordships might remember a remarkable speech of a wise, eloquent, and philosophical statesman, Mr. Burke, that speech was delivered on an occasion like the present one—he did not dare to quote the whole of the eloquent passage to which he alluded, it was too warm for the temperament of that House; but he would repeat the last sentence—
"If," said he, "instead of busying themselves in the depths of the Divine Counsels, they would turn to the mild moderation of the Gospel, they would there read their own condemnation—'O thou unworthy servant, did I not forgive thee, because thou desiredst me? Shouldst not thou have extended to thy fellow servant that which I have extended to thee?' "
He had said as much as he had felt that he ought to do. He had had great temptation to enter into the principle of the measure in consequence of the petitions on the Table, which explained the hardship that would be done to individuals if this measure was not passed; but he abstained, because he considered that he would be infringing upon the principle he had laid down if he took that excursive course, and he should therefore conclude with earnestly exhorting their Lordships to adopt these Amendments. The noble Lord then moved, to agree to the first Amendment made by the Commons to the Bill.
The Bishop of Londoncould assure their Lordships that he felt all the difficulty and embarrassment of a person who rose to address their Lordships upon a question of so much importance, after the opinion which had been expressed by so grave an authority as his noble and learned Friend. He felt that difficulty considerably increased by the difficult situation in which he stood, because he readily admitted that the course which he intended to pursue, in compliance with the prayer of many petitions which he had lately had the honour of laying upon their Lordships'
788
Table, was one which had not been usually pursued, except in cases of extreme urgency; nor should he have felt warranted in assuming an attitude of hostility to the measure had he not felt that the emergency which called him forth was of a most unusual character. He was no indiscriminate panegyrist of all the measures which their Lordships in their legislative wisdom might think fit to carry into a law, as being stamped with all the attributes of consummate wisdom; but an experience of twenty years had confirmed him in the opinion that it was not usual for their Lordships to pass a measure which contravened the plainest dictates and was opposed to the maxims of common sense. He wished to speak in the softest language of the measure before their Lordships, brought forward as it was by such high authority; but he ventured to say that the measure before their Lordships, which he trusted they would save themselves from the reproach of passing, was not founded on the maxims of reason and common sense. It set aside for the future those rules upon which all the Courts of Equity had hitherto interpreted the law of Charitable Trusts—all the rules which his noble and learned Friend had declared in one of the most luminous judgments ever delivered from the Chancery Bench to be drawn from the plainest maxims of justice and of common sense. He, therefore, felt justified in saying that a Bill which was in direct opposition to these rules was contrary to the principles of common sense; and he, therefore, felt justified in taking the course which he was about to pursue. He felt that any noble Lord was justified in such an emergency in having recourse to any proceeding which would defeat the final success of a measure which he believed to be injurious to the character of their Lordships' House, to the interests of the country, and still more to the interests of Eternal Truth. He admitted if that were not the case he should not be justified in taking that unusual course which his noble and learned Friend had denounced in such eloquent terms as would have made him, if he had not felt supported by the consciousness that he stood forth as a minister of the truth, desist from taking this course. He admitted that he was precluded by the usage of their Lordships' House, and indeed by the obvious nature of the case, from entering at large into the

789
principle of the measure itself, which might be fairly considered as having been settled, so far as their Lordships were concerned, when the Bill was passed and sent down to the House of Commons, But if the Amendments made by the Commons were such as to considerably affect the principle of the Bill, it would be wholly impossible for him to do justice to the case he had taken in hand without making some passing allusion to the main principle of the Bill, and in this he should be justified by the example of his noble and learned Friend himself, who, towards the conclusion of his eloquent and forcible address, entered upon the principle of the Bill, and stated with great emphasis and perspicuity what the principle of the Bill was. He must say—and he hoped he might be permitted to say so without incurring the presumption of vanity—that the arguments which had been urged by himself and others on the second reading of the Bill had not, to this hour, or in any other place, received a satisfactory answer. He almost felt the impropriety of alluding to any former arguments which had been used by himself, but he must be allowed to notice one somewhat curious allusion which had been made to the speech which he had then addressed to their Lordships. It was reported, and he believed, correctly reported, that another Lord, whose character stood deservedly high in the estimation of their Lordships, was pleased to allude in complimentary terms to his (the Bishop of London's) arguments, and finished by saying the arguments were so strong that it was highly creditable to the House to pass the Bill in spite of them. He feared that many of their Lordships, judging from the reception which had been given to the announcement of the course which he intended to pursue, would consider his offer somewhat pertinacious. He admitted it was pertinacious; and he held that in such a case pertinacity became a virtue, and he felt himself justified in availing himself of all the forms which their Lordships' House would permit him to avail himself of, he would not say absolutely to defeat the measure, but to postpone the consideration of the question which it involved, the great interests which it touched—interests not merely pecuniary, but the interests of truth and justice—in order that their Lordships might have further time for inquiry and deliberation.
790
It was not the least remarkable feature of this important measure, that touching as it did the established rules of law and equity, it was brought into their Lordships' House without any previous inquiry, that it was not known at the time that there was any suit pending. No Select Committee had been appointed to inquire into the real nature of the evil which it was intended to remedy, and of the remedy which ought to be applied. The Bill was carried to the House of Commons, where the most indubitable evidence was given of the haste in which it was concocted by the important alterations which were then introduced, by which the character of the measure was materially changed. He therefore desired to afford a longer time for consideration to those who had framed the measure, who might, after due inquiry and deliberation, propose some measure to their Lordships which might obviate what he admitted to be, in some cases, a substantial injustice, without doing that which was of far greater importance than any act of individual injustice—injustice to the eternal principles of truth, and the principles of equity and justice. Now, the first Clause was returned from the House of Commons unamended, and there was good reason why it needed no Amendment, because the Clause was in itself superfluous. It did nothing more than in fact enact what was the law at the present moment without any such enactment. It was held unanimously in Lady Hewley's case, that since the repeal of the acts which made it penal to teach Unitarian doctrines, Unitarians were now the objects of charity just as much as though no such penal act had ever existed as a part of the law of the land. Therefore the first Clause was in itself superfluous and supererogatory. Now with respect to the second Clause, on which the whole pith of the matter depended; but perhaps he might be first allowed to say a few words on the third Clause. It was exceedingly important and contained in itself the essence of injustice, and he thought the persons most interested in the measure, and whom he should shortly mention more particularly, had great reason to complain of the third Clause. That Clause did not exist in the Bill as it originally stood. It went through Committee. There was a reservation of all suits pending on the 1st of March last—a very proper reservation, and one

791
usually introduced where gross acts of injustice were intended to be prevented. On the third reading he was called by official duties from London, and a Clause was then introduced by the noble and learned Lord opposite, entirely altering that Clause, and putting a bar to all suits then pending. The real object of that Clause was to bar the relators in a most important suit—that great suit in Ireland, which might be not inaptly termed the Lady Hewley's case of Ireland, the Eustace-street chapel, where an income of 2,600 l. had been left for the diffusion of Trinitarian doctrines, but which was then used for the promotion of Unitarian or Arian doctrines. The relators ought to have been heard before their claim was barred by such a Clause, because they were in such a condition that the Clause ought not to have passed without their being heard. The relators in that case had all but obtained the judgment in their favour. That eminent and learned person who was so conversant with the rules of equity, the Lord High Chancellor of Ireland, had eventually given judgment in favour of the relators—he had taken great pains to make himself master of the case, and intimated in the plainest terms that he would give judgment for the relators. The 18th of March or April was appointed for that purpose, and when the relators went into court they found judgment put off. In the meantime this Bill was brought forward at the last moment, in their Lordships' House. It was sent down to the House of Commons. It was ordered to be printed on the 10th of May, and was printed and delivered on the 14th May, and the relators never heard there was such a Clause until the 14th of May, when the second reading was fixed in the House of Commons. Looking to the fact that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had declared that the law and equity of the case were with the relators, and that nothing remained but for him to give his final judgment in detail, these parties had a right to complain, because if they had had the good fortune to bring their suits a year or two before, the decision would have been given in their favour. Their Lordships had now barred the parties, when they had all but received a judgment. And it would have been but a very little stretch of injustice to have made the Bill retrospective, and annulled the decision in Lady Hewley's case, and
792
given back to the parties the property they they had so long been in the enjoyment of, but which they had been deprived of on principles based on common sense and common justice, as his noble and learned Friend had justly said. Now, with regard to the second Clause, which was really the most objectionable part of the Bill, and was contrary to all the maxims of law and equity on which charitable trusts had been hitherto administered by those eminent judges who had for centuries adorned the Bench. As the Clause was sent down from their Lordships, it was enacted that the usage of the last twenty-five years should be conclusive evidence of the intention of the founder. This was found to be so unreasonable that the House of Commons had altered it. He was very far from considering that an improvement, and would rather the Bill had remained as it originally stood, making the twenty-five years conclusive evidence, than that the Legislature should say that such and such doctrines may be properly taught in certain places—doctrines of the most vital and essential importance. He should prefer some such provision as this, that no action or suit shall be brought against any person or persons whatsoever for any doctrine or doctrines whatever. He was aware that such a Clause would open the door to enormities of doctrine the most fearful, because meeting-houses might be in possession of Socialists, Chartists, Atheists, and blasphemers; but it might not have been difficult in such a case for them to retrace their steps; at all events parties would not then step in and declare that Unitarian doctrines, doctrines which were contrary to the fundamental truths of religion, on which all their hopes of salvation rested, might be properly performed in any place of worship within Her Majesty's dominions. He knew it might be said the word "properly" meant no more than that they might be taught without subjecting persons to penal consequences, but common sense understood the word properly in a different light, and he would have preferred the original Clause. But now with respect to the possession of these trusts by persons who might properly teach any doctrine which had for twenty-five years been taught in any chapel. Let their Lordships suppose the case of a Unitarian Minister who might for more than five and twenty years have taught

793
doctrines which were applicable and proper to that denomination of persons, and that at the expiration of that time he should see reason to alter his opinions, and that many of his congregation were ready to go round with him, and take their stand by him; he would not be prepared to prove that the orthodox doctrines of the Church had been preached for the preceding twenty-five years, and, therefore, if the case were ultimately brought before a Court of Equity, and he preached anti-Trinitarian doctrines, he could not be ousted from the chapel, and they would leave things precisely as they were, with this difficulty superadded—that, having rejected the best interests, they were now prepared to receive the worst. They must reject the arguments, the evidence, and the testimony of cotemporaneous authorities, and the usages of hundreds of years, and have recourse to the oral testimony of the congregation, many of whom were, perhaps, persons incompetent to decide the matter. Nay, it was not impossible that some of the congregation might say, "We recollect such and such doctrines being preached during the last twenty-five years," and others of them might say, "It is no such thing; we never heard such and such doctrines preached." How was a Court of Equity to decide in such a case to what party the chapel should belong? He contended that the Clause did not answer the purpose for which it was intended which the former Clause had in view when it was sent down to the other House. Therefore, he said the Clause was so far worse than the former, inasmuch as it refused the best evidence, and took the worst. He would call their Lordships' attention to the feeling expressed by a living luminous authority, the authority of a right hon. Gentleman who now occupied the highest seat of judgment in Ireland, Lord Chancellor Sugden, in one of his memorable judgments in 1842:—
"I shall admit evidence, or if not furnished, I will, if necessary, look for evidence in history, in records, and Acts of Parliament, in the knowledge of the times, in the writings of men of different persuasions on ecclesiastical subjects. I will seek from all these sources for evidence, to ascertain what, at the time of the execution of the deed, was the meaning of the word "Christian," and the meaning of the words "Protestant Dissenters," and that not for the purpose of putting a construction on those words which would do any violence
794
to the deed, but, if I can, to enable me to put a construction on them that shall be at once consistent with the deed, and in accordance with the intentions of the founders."
This was the view of the case which had been taken by this learned authority, and this was the view which seemed to him emphatically to include the very essence of the principles of evidence and equity. It was now his duty to point out to their Lordships one or two instances of hardship which must arise from the adoption of the amended Clause. He had hitherto touched on one or two imaginative cases; he would now put one or two real cases, because he had always observed that examples which were submitted to the eyes found readier acceptance than those which were transmitted to the mind through the ears. He had stated that the words taken from the judgment of Sir Edward Sugden seemed to him to contain the essential principle which ought to regulate the judges in the administration of the law respecting Chapel Trusts. He need hardly remind their Lordships of the opinion which had been laid down by a still greater authority than that which he had quoted—namely, the late Lord Eldon, whose rule of Equity was this:—
"If it appears to have been the founder's intention, although not expressed, that a particular doctrine should be preached, it is not in the power of the congregation or the trustees to alter the designed objects of the institution."
He now would mention to their Lordships a case bearing on the question. A new meeting-house was opened at Chester in October, 1700, when a sermon was preached on the occasion by a very eminent dissenting minister, Mr. Matthew Henry—was printed in 1728, with a preface by Dr. Watts. The preacher said,
"Those that build altars for maintaining and propagating any heresy spoil the acceptableness of the altars they build, and it will be construed to be done in transgression against the Lord."
He then stated the agreement in doctrine between the Presbyterians and the Established Church. They knew that he regarded Unitarianism as a heresy. That same chapel was now occupied by Unitarians, and the pulpit was held by an ultra-Socinian—he used the term ultra-Socinian because Socinians properly so called held that our blessed Lord and Saviour was an object of worship, whereas the anti-

795
Socinians denied this. By the second Clause of the Bill, ash had been amended and come down to their Lordships, it would be enacted that those very doctrines which the reverend person who had preached on the occasion referred to had denounced from the pulpit as a heresy, and as therefore unacceptable to God,—those very doctrines might be and were preached in this chapel. He implored their Lordships to bear in mind, that by the evidence which the Bill admitted it would be utterly impossible to oust the Unitarians from any property, however unjustly they might have usurped it. Another case was one which had occurred at Stannington, in Yorkshire, where a chapel had been endowed—endowed, their Lordships would observe, by the will of an individual, named Richard Spooner, "for the maintenance of a minister approved by certain persons for honesty of life, soundness in doctrine, and his diligence in preaching." What, now, was to be the test of the soundness of doctrine? Why, the usage of the last five and twenty years. What the testator meant by the words "soundness of doctrine" was clear from the preamble of the will, a document in which a man must be supposed to speak the words of truth. The preamble ran thus:—
"I desire, in the name of Jesus Christ, to bequeath my soul unto the hands of God who gave it, hoping assuredly to be saved by the death and precious blood-shedding of Jesus Christ my Redeemer, and by no other merits."
This chapel was soon in the hands of the Unitarians. Was it conceivable that the founder had any such intention by his will? And yet, by this Clause, this will could not be admitted as evidence of his intents, but the usage of the last twenty-five years was to be an absolute bar to the fulfilment of them, and would determine that a denial of the fundamental truths, in the belief of which he placed his hope of salvation may "properly be preached" in the chapel which he founded, and a soul-destroying heresy propagated by means of the pious offerings made by a sincere believer to the service of the God of Truth. Now, this was a question in stating which he hoped he should not be considered as trenching on the principle of the Bill; but it went to show still more strongly the points of view in which these two clauses were to be regarded as to what doctrines might be permitted to be preached. He should not shrink from
796
the position which he had thought it his duty to take on a former occasion—that the only doctrines which could properly be preached in this or that chapel were the doctrines for the promulgation of which such chapel was originally founded. He knew it had been argued with great apparent accuracy and reason, that they had no right to arrive at a conclusion as to what would have been the intention on the part of the founder if he were in the land of the living, because had he lived in the present time he might have seen that the opinions which he formerly entertained were not properly applicable. Looking to what had been said by the Mover and Seconder of the Bill in the other House, he believed that many persons had been carried away who had thought the measure was fraught with injustice. Nothing which had been urged by his right hon. Friend in another place, of whom it was impossible to speak but in terms of respect and affection, had tended to shake the strength of the position which he (the Bishop of London) had taken. It would be recollected, that what he had said was, that at the time when these chapels of the English Presbyterians were founded — namely, from 1689 (the Toleration Act) to 1700—during the whole of that time the Presbyterians were zealous and ever-eager maintainers of Trinitarian doctrines—they believed them to be indispensable to salvation. Those who denied the doctrine of the Trinity they branded as heretics, not to be regarded as Christians, denouncing them as infidels and blasphemers. He would adduce an authority which had been adduced on the other side of the question; but he should easily show that his (the Bishop of London's) was the scale in which authority must prevail. Dr. Calamy writing in the year 1717, said of the Protestant Dissenters—he begged attention to this, because it was an important feature in the discussions in another House. Dr. Calamy said:—
"Candidates for the ministry are solemnly ordained, after making a public confession of that faith in which they engage to make it their business to instruct others."
Dr. Priestly stated, that
"Among the Dissenters called Presbyterians a particular confession of faith was formerly required of all candidates for the ministry, their soundness in which was then deemed essential."

797
In Lady Hewley's case, his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack said:—
"It is stated by the witness, and there is no contradictory evidence, that the Trinitarians of that day were believers in the trinity and in the doctrine of original sin, as contained in the Articles of the Church of England."
"I am justified, I think, in coming to the conclusion that the great body of the Presbyterians were in their opinions Trinitarians."
Then as to the Catholic spirit which distinguished the case, he would refer to the opinions of Mr. Baron Alderson and Mr. Justice Patteson, in the Hewley case, who said:—
"We were much pressed with quotations on this point by the learned and ingenious gentlemen who argued for the defendants, but they have failed to satisfy us even as to the probability of any such catholic intention as that for which they contend having been entertained by Lady Hewley. Such a view may have been entertained by a few speculative divines of great benevolence of feeling, but was never very generally received."
He felt reluctant to trouble their Lordships further, and nothing but the extreme urgency of the case, which involved a sacred and important principle, would induce him to do so; but there was another point on which he was bound to touch as it was one of considerable delicacy and difficulty. In the second Clause, as the Bill went down to the other House, were these words—"such meeting-houses," as described in the first Clause. In the other House, at which period of the proceedings he was not able to ascertain—it was not done in the early periods of the discussion—these words were changed to "meeting houses for the worship of God." Hitherto, if the words "worship of God" occurred in the statute book, they had been always and must always be interpreted to mean, the worship of God as defined by the Articles of the Church. He defied any noble Lord to show an example in which it was not the case. But a legal question might arise on the words "chapel for the worship of God." Persons who had left these chapels for Trinitarians, would have them occupied by Unitarians, and if the parties brought actions to oust them, they might say, "That is not what you call the worship of God," and the question would come before a legal tribunal for the judges to decide upon. It would very probably come before their Lordships by appeal, and they
798
would be called upon to decide what was the "worship of God." He contended that the object of this Bill was to perpetuate and promote the views of the Unitarians; because all other Dissenters repudiated the Bill. His noble and learned Friend had said, that it was likely that two or three suits would be brought. He said, that under this Bill thair Lordships would be called upon to decide what constituted the worship of God, without reference to the intentions of the testators; and, they must then throw open the door so widely as not only to admit Unitarians, but Jews and Mahomedans. He did no more than state the law as it had been interpreted by others. If his view of the law were wrong he should be glad to be corrected, but he believed his view of the law was the same as was entertained by some of the most eminent men in this country. He had alluded more than once to other persons who were deeply interested in the fate of this measure. Although he was no doubt dismayed by the array which he saw against him, comprehending, not only the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, but also many of those who had achieved a seat in this House by the use of those great and eminent talents which had conferred so much benefit on the country, and had shed so brilliant a lustre on themselves—although he saw such an array marshalled against him, he felt that out of doors there was a vast majority of the legal profession most hostile against this measure, and not a few of the most distinguished judges of the land, both in equity and law, amongst them. He spoke this of his own knowledge. As to the rest of the community, when the noble and learned Lord described the other House as the representatives of the community, it was intended to be inferred that they had spoken the opinions of the whole people. But was he to be told that the House of Commons (which he wished to speak of with all due respect) was the representative of the religious feelings of the public? Was it possible by the constitution of that House that it could be so? He would not even say, that their Lordships were the representatives of the religious feelings of this country, although they no doubt had some of the elements in this House to give them a title to the character. No such value could be placed upon the opinion of the

799
House of Commons upon this subject, for this was a measure which was conceived in haste—imperfectly put together, and inconsistently amended in the House of Commons. On the merits of such a measure he denied that the House of Commons had decided in a manner as could show that they had been the faithful representatives of the religious feeling of the community. He should rather say that the thousands and thousands of pious men who had signed the almost countless petitions which had been laid on the Table of this House were better interpreters of the feelings of the community. These were chiefly from the middle and lower classes, amongst which Christianity was to be more generally found. If every religious denomination were considered except that one for whose benefit that Bill was proposed, it would be found that the latter would not number 2 per cent. in the whole community. When he had first come into this House the public mind was greatly agitated by the probable fate of the Roman Catholic question, but he had never remembered that the public mind had been more agitated than by this question, considering the short time which had elapsed since it was first made known. He did not scruple to say that their Lordships would do just the contrary than rise in the public esteem if they passed this measure, which, in his opinion, contravened every principle of truth, justice, equity, and religion. With regard to himself he trusted that he did but justice to the cause he advocated, and that he had not treated this question more in a polemical point of view than was absolutely necessary, considering the peculiar nature of the case. He felt that he had rather discussed this question upon the principle of equity and justice, upon which he thought it completely infringed. At the same time he felt a sincere conviction that, by passing this measure, they would be inflicting a great injury upon religious truth. He hoped they would not think that he had offered anything like a factious spirit of opposition to this Bill. He would not have followed this course except from the deepest conviction of a duty which he felt incumbent upon him. He had been the organ through which expression of opinion had been made known to their Lordships for many thousands of their fellow Christians. He had in no one instance sought to procure peti-
800
tions against this Bill, and in his own diocese he had never even intimated a wish that such petitions should be multiplied. If he had broached a wish to that effect, he believed that every petition which had been presented would have been multiplied tenfold. He wished the subject to be discussed upon its own merits. He did feel it to be a duty incumbent on him to pay some respect to that deep religious feeling which pervaded the great body of the community. He believed that that feeling would be greatly outraged, and the fundamental principles of equity and justice would be violated, if this measure were passed into a law. It might be asked, if this was a proper time to moot this question? He did not think it was. He approved of neither the Bill nor the Amendments. In some respects it had been entirely improved by some of those Amendments, but in other respects they worsened the Bill. He was therefore decidedly opposed to the passing of the measure, and would move that the Commons' Amendments be considered that day three months.
The question having been put,
The Bishop of Durhamspoke briefly in support of the measure, but was very indistinctly heard. He could not at all see, in the measure before them, the dangers apprehended by his right rev. Brother. He was sure the introducers of the Bill had had no intention of favouring one body of Dissenters more than another; he believed them to have intended equal protection for all alike—that all alike should have that justice awarded them which all alike, Churchmen and Dissenters were entitled to. Most undoubtedly he himself had no sympathy with the doctrines of the Dissenters; least of all with those to whom his right rev. Brother had more especially referred; but though he had no sympathy with the doctrines of Dissenters, he had very great sympathy with the rights of conscience and the rights of property. As to the legal doubts which had been suggested, he must confess that upon such matters he must rely with more confidence upon the opinions of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and the other noble and learned Lords who had filled that and other high judicial offices, than upon that of his right rev. Brother, however much he might prefer his interpretation of a text of Scripture. The right rev. Prelate concluded with express-

801
ing his intention to give the measure his support.
Lord Broughamwas anxious to say a few words with respect to what had fallen from the right rev. Prelate, who moved the Amendment, as to the nature of the Amendments introduced into the Bill by the other House. He agreed with his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, that the present discussion should be confined to the consideration of the Commons' Amendments, and that they could enter into the other topics of the Bill without great irregularity. The principle of the Bill had been adopted and sanctioned by the unanimous feeling of the House, on the first occasion—so far, at least, that no division took place upon it, and it was carried by very large majorities through its subsequent stages; and in the other House it met with proportionate success from the representatives of the people. They had now only to agree or disagree with the Commons' Amendments; and it was entirely inconsistent with the rules and practices of that House—it was entirely inconsistent with the original proposition—to adopt the right rev. Prelate's Amendment, and hang up for three months the consideration of the whole matter. He regretted that one part of the speech of the right rev. Prelate did not agree with that spirit of candour and fairness which pervaded other parts of it. He regretted that the right rev. Prelate had not pursued the same spirit throughout with which he commenced. The right rev. Prelate said that he objected to some of the Commons' Amendments, but that there were some of which he approved, and which greatly improved the Bill. The right rev. Prelate said, that some of these Amendments tended to improve the Bill, while others tended towards making it worse; instead, however, of agreeing to the consideration of both these classes of Amendments, when he could vote in favour of those he approved, and against those to which he was hostile, the right rev. Prelate proposed that they should not be considered at all for three months. But what would follow this? Why the House of Commons would demand a conference. If the Commons should then inform that House that it did not persist in its Amendments, the result would be, the Bill would pass in the shape in which it was sent down. If, however, the Commons did persist in its Amendments, then, no doubt, the adoption
802
of the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate would have the effect of destroying the Bill. The right rev. Prelate said, that he wished that the Bill had come back from the other House with all its imperfections on its head. The right rev. Prelate intimated that he should have liked the Bill the better if it had not been improved—that was because it would furnish him with better arguments against the measure. Now he thought that such a wish savoured much more of those Courts with which he (Lord Brougham) was formerly connected, than with those over which the right rev. Prelate presided—it savoured much more of the proceedings of the secular Courts of Common Law, where an acute and intelligent advocate was all the better pleased to see his adversaries' case treated badly, because it gave him the better chance of gaining the verdict. He would now pass to another objection of the right rev. Prelate, namely, that it was altogether in favour of Unitarians, and of the Unitarians alone. But how did that appear? Because the right rev. Prelate said, that the Unitarians stood in the proportion of two to ninety-eight to the other Dissenters, and the whole of the latter were against the Bill. Now, he distinctly denied this, as he had presented several petitions in favour of the Bill—not certainly so numerous as those presented by the right rev. Prelate against it, but still he had presented a great number of such petitions, as well as his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, his noble and learned Friend near him (Lord Cottenham), and his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne); and those petitions were not merely from Unitarians, but from great numbers of orthodox Dissenters, from Churchmen and Catholics. He held in his hand a letter which he had just received from a friend of his, who was a sound orthodox Dissenter—he meant Mr. Baines, of Leeds, a most respectable man, and possessing great influence among the Dissenters, and who was formerly the proprietor of a local newspaper of great influence in the West Riding of Yorkshire, but who had now retired into private life, carrying with him the strongest feelings of respect and regard, not only of Dissenters, but of Churchmen. That Gentleman said, that the Dissenters' Chapels Bill was a wise and healing measure, and as valuable to orthodox Dissenters as to Unitarians, and that we should all feel grateful to the Govern-

803
ment who introduced it, and to the enlightened statesmen on both sides who supported it. It was a common thing in arguing this case to say that, supposing that there was a deed, the merely holding for twenty-five years ought not to be considered. There might be in the enacting part, if he might so term it, of the deed, expressions and provisions, as clear as language could make it, as to the designs of the party; and he might be asked, after this, was it to be borne that the endowment should go to the Unitarians. But it should be recollected that, on the other side, there might be a deed as clear as could be drawn, and which created an endowment, on certain conditions, in favour of the Unitarians, and from which the Trinitarians were excluded; yet, by this Bill, twenty-five years possession by the Trinitarians would exclude the Unitarians from interfering under the deed. Therefore he said that the Trinitarians would profit under it fully as much as would be the case on the other side. The right rev. Prelate said, that nothing could be clearer than that, in many cases, the deed was in favour of Trinitarians; and that, notwithstanding this, the Unitarians would be allowed to hold under this Bill, in spite of the deed. They were told that this was a senseless and mischievous Bill, because it created a difference between the event and the intention of the founder. But this was an argument against every statute of limitation, against every act to secure quiet possession, and against all suits to secure quiet possession, and was applicable not only to cases of trust but to property. He would put a case which occurred every day—a case by which the Law of Limitation was just as liable to the charge of being turned against the intentions of the devisor of property, and therefore, according to the right rev. Prelate was as contrary to common sense and reason as this measure was. He would suppose the case of a person, whose intentions were to be gathered, not by uncertain and doubtful evidence, but obtainable within the four corners of the instrument itself. Supposing the will said that the maker of it, John Thompson, having a great and just hatred against all persons of the name of Jackson—left a certain estate to — Thompson, on the express condition that he should not marry any one of the name of Jackson—on the express condition that he should not take the
804
name of Jackson—on the express condition that he should not form any connection whatever with the hated family of the Jacksons, and that he should take especial care that none of that name or family should derive any profit, with the knowledge and consent of the devisee, out of that estate. Now what could be clearer than the intention of the party in such a case. It might happen, that by some means, or by some collusion between the devisee and the family of the Jacksons, this estate might get into the possession of the hated family; and if it did now get into such possession—not for sixty years as formerly, but for twenty years in some cases, and for thirty in others—the possession could not be questioned, notwithstanding the express terms of the will. His noble and learned Friend in this Bill took the medium period of twenty-five years' possession to secure the title. The law of the land allowed an estate to be retained in the possession of a family which was expressly excluded from possessing it by the terms of the will of the person who might be called the founder of the estate, and to remain in the hands of those whom he had expressly declared should never enjoy a farthing derivable from it, provided they could only obtain undisputed possession of it for a certain limited period. The argument of the right rev. Prelate on this point was against all the present rights of holding property, and if admitted would affect the titles of many estates, He was also surprised at the expressions used by the right rev. Prelate as to the words in the second Clause, namely, the expression "the worship of God." If the right rev. Prelate would look to the preamble of the Bill as it passed through the Committee of that House, he would find the same expression standing; consequently the same reason for objecting to it was as applicable when in their Lordships' Committee as it then was. He denied that it was of express advantage to one sect more than another; but it would be for the benefit of all. It would have the effect of preventing litigation and jarring, and the ruinous expenses which must attend suits on such subjects, and which, in many instances, would be so great as completely to abstract the funds set aside for the purposes of education or religious worship. The Bill merely said that if a party or sect had had possession for twenty-five years, no one should dis-

805
pute the title of the party holding; and this was the same as the law with regard to private property, which allowed possession of an estate for thirty years, in some cases, and twenty years in others to be considered as a good title, and to prevent any adverse interference. He should only once more express his intention of giving his hearty and cordial support to this Bill.
The Bishop of Norwichsaid, that his intention in the first instance was to oppose the Bill, relying on the testimony of persons in whom he placed implicit credit, knowing them to be religious men. He had determined to oppose the Bill because he had been informed that it was not a Bill for the Dissenters generally, but a Bill designed for the exclusive benefit of Socinians and Unitarians. On looking into the measure he found that he had been misled. This was no question of theology and doctrine, but one of equity and justice. He found that others had been misled like himself, and had in consequence signed petitions against the Bill, acting on the same erroneous opinions upon which he, in the first instance, had been disposed to give it his opposition, and who, on discovering their error, deeply regretted the course they had been induced to take. Did he, then, persevere? No; for his pertinacity would be, not like that of the right rev. Prelate, a virtue, but a culpable perseverance in opposition to his conviction. Many petitions had, undoubtedly, been presented to their Lordships' House against the measure, but he had never known a case in which so many petitions of a contrary character had been presented within the same time. He had glanced over many of these petitions against the measure, and had found that although numerous, they had comparatively few signatures. For instance, last week he had presented a petition from certain Baptists of one of the most populous towns in England, with only eleven signatures. That very evening he had presented a petition in favour of the Bill (as we understood), signed by Baptists and orthodox Dissenters throughout the country, and by churchmen also, to the number of 150, which showed that the feeling of Dissenters and Churchmen were not only not against the Bill, but that there were many, very many of them anxious for it. He quite agreed with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack,
806
that it never could be his intention to support Socinian and Unitarian doctrines. It would be a libel on Her Majesty's Government—on the noble Duke in that House and on the right hon. Baronet in another place, as well as on every member of the Cabinet — to suppose that they could ever have advised the introduction of a Bill so utterly regardless of the true interests of religion and of that Established Church which it was their duty to protect. He therefore determined no longer to oppose the Bill; but, on looking more closely into it, he found himself rather in a dilemma, for he was unwilling to allow his name to be in any degree associated with Unitarians and Dissenters. But then came this difficulty; with what consistency could he oppose if? How did he hold his own preferment? Did he not derive it entirely from those who advocated doctrines to which he was opposed? In another place it was said that the tears of Protestant saints would flow in rivers if this Bill should pass; but would not the tears of Roman Catholic saints flow in equal abundance on viewing the question on another side? He was well aware that he held his preferment by Act of Parliament. The Act of Parliament regulated this, and ensured him perpetual possession of the preferment he held. With that he was satisfied. But there came another question. The Methodists did not depend on an Act of Parliament. Their founder, John Wesley, was an ordained churchman, and was at all times, from the beginning of his ministerial career to the end, friendly to the Church. It was a fatal policy when, in those days, we rejected him and made him our enemy. Almost his last prayer was, that his followers should not depart from the Church. They had, however, departed; and what would they say, if we now were to insist on their emoluments, their foundations, and all the money they had expended on their schools and chapels? He should rejoice if we could do so; but the Methodists, and their Lordships too, he apprehended, would stigmatise such a step as an act of injustice. This, he repeated, was no question of theology and doctrine; but he would maintain it to be a religious question. It was religion in its most essential quality, because it was a question of equity and justice, and it was not for man to put asunder what God had joined together. It was for this reason

807
that he was most anxious to support this Bill, and he should deem himself swerving from his duty as a Member of the Legislature, and inflicting an injury on the cause of justice, if he did otherwise than give it his unqualified support. There was a principle, but too often forgotten in theological and doctrinal strife, which taught us to do unto others as we would be done by. It was on this principle that he would ever yield to Unitarians those rights which they held: for he had yet to learn that the Legislature of this country was accustomed to draw a difference between religious tenets, and on that account to deprive men of their rights and liberties. On this account he would support the Bill. They were enjoined to lay aside all self-interest, all prejudices, and all partial affections. His interest would lead him to oppose the Bill; because he knew that he should thereby be more akin to the feelings of a great body of his fellow-countrymen. His prejudices would induce him to oppose it; for he would frankly acknowledge that there was no sect of Dissenters, no religious tenets, to which he was more hostile than those of the Unitarians and Socinians. His prejudices were therefore against it. His partial affections were alike opposed to it, because he should, by opposing the Bill, have the gratification of being associated with those with whom he wished to agree. He felt himself compelled, however, to lay all these feelings aside, and administer impartial justice to all. He expressed his gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for introducing the Bill, and promised him his cordial assistance and support.
The Earl of Roden,not having had an opportunity on the former discussion of offering his opinion with regard to this measure, begged to address a few observations to their Lordships. He was sorry to find the Government originating a measure which in his opinion, tended more to wound the religious feelings of the people of England than any measure that had been introduced for a number of years. The great majority of the people of this country were opposed to this measure, and he entirely coincided with the objections to the Bill stated by the Petitioners, whose petitions covered their Lordships' Table. They stated that they conceived the Bill to be unjust, because it gave property to individuals to which by law they were now not entitled, and which
808
had been left by pious individuals for certain objects directly contrary to those to which the Bill would consign it. Their Lordships had now an opportunity of reconsidering the measure, and he trusted that no taunts which might have been offered with respect to the unfairness of throwing out the Bill in its present stage would have any effect on the minds of those noble Lords who had opposed the Bill in its previous stages first brought before them. He trusted that the observations which had been made on the other side of the House on the course which his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of London) had adopted with respect to the postponement of these Amendments, would not be of force enough to induce their Lordships to dissent from that course, and place on the Statute Book that which would be a blot upon it. Though the course adopted by his right rev. Friend might be an unusual course, yet it was by no means an isolated mode by which Bills were defeated in Parliament, and he thought that noble Lords opposite would be disposed to bow to the authority in its favour which he could bring forward, and which would show that when noble Lords opposite were in office a little time ago, they pursued exactly the same course when they felt it their duty to do so. In 1834, their Lordships would remember the Justices' of Peace Bill was introduced into their Lordships' House when a noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Brougham) filled the Woolsack. The noble and learned Lord moved that the Commons' Amendments on that Bill be considered that day six months, and their Lordships adopted that course, and the Bill was consequently lost. Another instance, to the authority of which he thought noble Lords opposite would bow, occurred in 1836 with respect to the Irish Church Bill, which made so much noise in Parliament and out of doors. Their Lordships would remember that it came up to them containing a certain Clause called the "Appropriation Clause." Their Lordships made Amendments on that measure, with which it returned to the Commons, when Lord John Russell moved that the Lords' Amendments be taken into consideration that day three months. That Motion was agreed to and the Bill was lost in consequence. Both in their Lordships' House, therefore, and in the other House that course had been adopted by the noble Lords opposite

809
when in office which they now condemned when out of office. The noble Lords on those occasions, no doubt, acted according to their judgment for the benefit of the country. He only claimed for his right rev. Friend the same forbearance on this occasion which they met with from Parliament on the occasions he had mentioned. He thought his right rev. Friend did very right in moving the postponement of these Amendments, in order that the whole measure might come under the consideration of Parliament again. All the Dissenters except the Unitarians were in accordance with the Members of the Church of England in approving of the object of his right rev. Friend on this Motion. His right rev. Friend stood forth on the present occasion not merely as a partisan but as the champion of that truth which was the best feature of religion. Therefore, he could not agree that his right rev. Friend had taken a course which he was not called upon to take. He (the Earl of Roden) had read many pamphlets and speeches upon this measure, and he had heard many arguments in favour of it; he had listened also both to noble and learned Lords and learned persons elsewhere in favour of it; but while he acknowledged the talent with which arguments of the greatest force were urged upon him, yet he must say he often found the talent so great that it made the worse appear the better reason, so that he was obliged to put it all aside and use his common sense to direct him to what should be the proper course. The result of the measure would be to take property left by pious persons to Dissenters of orthodox faith, or to Members of the Presbyterian Church, for the purpose of upholding Christian truth, whenever such property might have fallen into the hands of individuals opposed to those tenets, and if twenty-five years had elapsed from the time they came into possession of the Chapels, to hand it over to them, and entitle them to it, wrongfully obtained and wrongfully kept as it had been. He conceived this to be unjust, and he need only refer, in proof of it, to a case which particularly regarded the Presbyterian Church, the Members of which, he thought, would be the greatest sufferers, and which had been already referred to by the right rev. Prelate—he meant the two suits which were going on in Chancery, in order to recover meeting-houses in Dublin, and
810
the judgment upon which had been arrested until the Bill then before their Lordships had become law. Then, he would ask, why the Amendments which relieved the Wesleyans and Baptists should not also apply to the Presbyterians? It was gross injustice that they should be relieved, and that the Presbyterian Church should be left under the evil power of this measure. A Petition he had presented that evening from the Presbyterian Church of Ireland stated their objections to the measure, among others, to be, that it went to change the law of religious property in frustration of the original intention of the founder, and that it would be a fruitful source of litigation; and the Petitioners prayed that hefore their Lordships passed the Bill it might be referred to a Select Committee of their Lordships, before whom the Petitioners might be allowed to state their case. Surely it was strangely opposed to the principles on which a Government calling itself a Conservative Government ought to act to bring forward a Bill of this character, for the principle of the Bill was anything but a conservative principle. Little did he think, when he sat on the opposite side of the House with the noble and learned Lord now on the Woolsack, and many noble Lords on the Ministerial side, who with him opposed the measure of spoliation to which he had already referred—he meant the measure which contained the Appropriation Clause—he should live to see the day when the noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords would introduce and advocate a measure far more spoliating and far more objectionable than that which contained the Appropriation Clause—he said, far more spoliating and far more objectionable, because, though that measure went to take property from the Church and devote it to objects which certainly were not church objects, yet those objects were not opposed to the Church; but now the House saw the noble and learned Lord and his Friends bringing forward a measure to apply property for the propagation of a dangerous fallacy in religion, and to doctrines directly opposed to the church and to the will of the testator who left the property. He lamented to have lived to see that day; but he had seen it, and if the Government carried the measure, the country would have nothing to do but to bow their heads and lament the uncertainty of man. Having said so much, he would not trespass

811
on their Lordships' time further than to return thanks for the kind manner in which their Lordships had heard him.
Lord Cottenhamsaid, he rose for the purpose of protecting Her Majesty's Government from the severe attack which the noble Earl had made upon them for their departure from Conservative principles. If he were right in the meaning which he had always attached to the word "Conservative" the present Bill was entitled to be considered as purely a Conservative measure, for its object was to do justice, by protecting property that had been in the hands of particular parties for a great length of time, and preventing its spoliation from those who were in the enjoyment of it, in order to have it transferred to others who had no earthly right to it. Such was the meaning that he attached to the word "Conservatism." The noble Earl had read to their Lordships, and he thanked him for it, the petition of the orthodox Presbyterians of the north of Ireland. The statements contained in that petition afforded an instance of the very exaggerated feeling that existed out of doors against the measure, and a greater misrepresentation of the objects of it could not well be adduced to their Lordships' House. The petition stated, what indeed had been already alleged in arguments in that House as well as out of doors, that the Bill had for its object, and would have the effect, of transferring property from those who by trust and by the gift of the donors ought to enjoy it, to others who had no right or title whatever to it. But if any noble Lord would take the trouble of reading the Bill, he would find that any such consequences had been carefully guarded against, and could not occur under it. It was expressly provided, that where, either by the trust deeds or otherwise, proof could be given of the intention of the donor, those intentions were to be carried out, and the persons entitled were to be secured in the possession of the property, the Courts of Law and Equity being open to them for redress. But if noble Lords, as well as persons out of doors, were to continue over and over again to state that such was not the intention of the Bill, that it was calculated to effect a totally different result, then it was no wonder that great misapprehensions should exist in the public mind, giving rise to the number of petitions that they had seen laid on the Table against the measure. His principal object, however, in appearing before their Lordships on that
812
occasion was to defend himself personally against an attack which had been made upon him. He had been censured—he would not say discourteously—by the right rev. Prelate. [The Bishop of London: Not censured.] The third Clause was very much censured, and I regard that as a censure on myself as its author. [The Bishop of London: I censured the Clause, but not the author of it.] If the Clause was wrong and deserving of censure in the form in which it was introduced, he considered that the censure should attach to him for having introduced it; but he had perhaps better wait until he should hear what the accusation was that was to be brought forward against him. When either the Clause itself, or the author of the Clause, or both, were attacked, it would be time enough for him to defend it; but as yet he had not been distinctly told in what the fault which was complained of consisted. ["Hear, hear," from the Lord Chancellor.] If he were wrong in waiting until the third reading of the Bill to modify the measure by a Clause which he had at first submitted for the consideration of the author of the Bill, then the fault was with the forms of the House, which he had followed, and not with him. What was the Clause against which the complaint was made? It was very short, and he thought noble Lords had not taken the trouble of reading it attentively when they expressed their opposition to it. If the purport of the Bill were taken into consideration it would be perceived that such a Clause was absolutely necessary to render the measure perfect. The right rev. Prelate would allow him to say that his objection in part arose from a misapprehension—which was not unlikely to be formed—of the proceedings in such cases in the Courts of Equity. The right rev. Prelate might not know what the mode of proceeding was with regard to relators on those occasions. He might not be aware that the information, which was the first step in the cause, was always filed by Her Majesty's Attorney General, who was empowered to file a bill for the purpose of inciting a proceeding in order to have such charitable trust funds applied for the purposes for which they were originally intended. The Attorney General named the relators, not on account of any personal interest which they had in the Bill, but for the protection of the defendants—in order that if the suit should fail and the defendants be shown to have been right, they

813
might have some party to resort to for their costs. In fact, any person able to pay might be introduced as a relator. He might be a total stranger, having nothing whatever to say to the charity, and be completely distinct from the parties who first induced the Attorney General to file the information. It was in that manner that the cases alluded to had been commenced in Ireland. The Attorney General did not claim the property for any persons or description of persons, but in the information which had been filed by him he merely complained that the parties who were then in possession of the property were not intended by the testator to have the benefit of it. The suits were continued to the last stage, but judgment had not been pronounced, and it would be very extraordinary if the decision of the Court be given—after Parliament had declared that twenty-five years' possession was to give a good title to any particular sect or profession—it would be unfair if after such a declaration by the Legislature the persons who had been in possession, and whom the Act would make the legal holders, should lose their title on account of the over zeal and too great rapacity of those who had incited the Attorney General in the first instance to commence the proceedings. Why should such parties be placed in a better position than all other congregations, merely because they had been more zealous at the commencement? or why were those in possession to be deprived of their title solely on account of the activity that had been displayed in proceeding against them; an activity, he presumed, principally to be attributed to the circumstance of the funds being larger than in other cases that might have been brought forward. By the third Clause of the Bill the defendant would be obliged in these cases to pay all the costs, at the discretion of the Court; and it was on those terms only that the suit was to be stayed. Was that, he would ask, an unfair provision to introduce? Was it a course altogether without precedent? There were what were called qui tam actions, in which the person inciting the proceedings had a direct interest, as he was entitled to a share in the plunder when a verdict was obtained; but had their Lordships never interfered in qui tam actions? He did not think he was taxing their Lordships' memory too much when he asked that question. He did not say they were wrong in interfering to put a stop to these actions, but they allowed the
814
informer his costs when the proceedings were stayed; whereas the relators in the actions then under the consideration of the House would not be able to get their costs, unless, indeed, they succeeded in the proceedings, when their own costs might be paid; though even then they would have no participation in the profits of the suit. But had not their Lordships heard also of qui tam actions against clergymen for not residing on their livings, and if it was considered proper to stop such actions, was it not equally just to put a termination to other actions? The law protected all judgments that had been actually pronounced. If a judgment had been pronounced twenty years ago, and a property enjoyed since then under it, nobody should say that that judgment ought now to be set aside. But the case was different when a suit was still pending, and he could not conceive how any party could, after the Parliament had pronounced its decision, declaring the impropriety of such suits, call upon the Court to pronounce judgment on them. But were their Lordships aware that the suit was in the power of the Attorney General up to the time that judgment was pronounced, and that he might say to the Court that he would not call for its decision, and was it probable, after the Legislature had declared its opinion that this sort of property should be protected, that the Attorney General, having discretion in the matter, would still call upon the Court, for judgment? It was not likely that he would do so, and then, if no judgment were passed, the defendants would escape the payment of costs to the relators who would be indemnified by the Clause which he had introduced. The Clause was, then, proper and necessary. It was founded on a variety of precedents. It did that which was just between all parties, and it did it according to the regular forms of the House. He did not, therefore, think that he was wrong in introducing it. It was not his intention to enter fully into the principles of the measure, as he had had an opportunity of stating his views fully respecting it on the second reading, and, besides, he was restrained by the same reason which his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had alluded to, namely, that it was not the practice of Parliament to re-discuss the principles of a Bill that had already received the sanction of both Houses. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) felt the same difficulty, but yet he

815
moved an amendment that could only be justified by an opposition to the principles of the Bill. He would follow the right rev. Prelate only to one point of his opposition to the principle of the Bill, namely, the great error which was fallen into so often both in and out of Parliament, that the Bill had reference to the doctrines of different sects of Dissenters. It had nothing whatever to do with questions of doctrine or professions of faith. It dealt only with property—its sole object being to place congregations—that was, multitudes of persons assembled together for religious purposes, whether their views might be mistaken or not, under that protection, which, if their case was that of an individual instead of a multitude of individuals, the law would readily have afforded them. There never was, therefore, a greater fallacy than the allegation that the Bill involved any question of doctrine. It was merely a question whether or not twenty-five years' possession—a longer period of limitation than was generally required—should not be a good title to prevent a congregation being turned out of their chapel and their endowments. There might be grounds existing for raising a doubt whether the existing congregation held the same doctrines as the founders; but, even if such ground did exist, were they not to take into consideration the expenditure of the congregation themselves in the interim, and which in some cases very much enlarged the original endowment? He was told that in one of the suits pending in Ireland in which the property sought to be recovered did not produce more than 1,000 l. a year, no less than 15,000 l. had been subscribed from time to time by the congregation. If the suit were decided against them, how would that difficulty be got over? The right rev. Prelate objected to twenty-five years precedent, but under the existing law they might have to make out a precedent of 125 years. The right rev. Prelate had no doubt looked into Lady Hewley's case, and he would find there that not only the intention of the testator, but the practice for a great number of years, that formed the entire intervening period, had to be established. The costs of that inquiry had been before stated to their Lordships, and yet all those immense costs had been thrown away, for a new and a still more difficult suit than the former was now necessary. It was easy enough to find out who was not entitled, in comparison to the discovery
816
of who was entitled to the fund. A multitude of claimants, as numerous in fact as all the congregations of Dissenters in the country, might perhaps now rush in, and though that large fund should be able to pay the expense, it was clear that in case of a smaller fund the entire would in a very short time be swallowed up in litigation. With respect to the Amendments of the Commons, he regarded them as calculated to carry out more effectually the principle of the Bill. A right rev. Prelate, who addressed the House the other night, stated that he thought the Bill was improved by the Commons' Amendments. This showed that these Amendments were almost universally approved of, and the only question which their Lordships had now to consider was, whether they would assent to those Amendments, or insist upon their own Bill as it originally stood? The present Bill was a great and important measure—it was a measure of justice—which would prevent the spoliation of the property and possessions of those who, whether or not their Lordships might approve of their doctrines, were by law put on a footing with all other Dissenters.
Lord Broughamsaid, his noble Friend (the Earl of Roden) having observed that he (Lord Brougham) had taken a similar course against a Bill before their Lordships' House in the year 1834, which was now proposed to be taken against this Bill, he begged to say a few words in explanation of the circumstances of that case, which, it would be seen, were quite different from that now before the House. It was quite true, as his noble Friend had stated, that on one occasion in that year, namely, on the 13th of August, he had moved that certain Amendments of the Commons to a Bill before their Lordships should be taken into consideration that day six months. But what were the circumstances under which he did so? Because the Bill (the Justices of the Peace Bill) came back to this from the Lower House with two clauses inserted, one of which would actually have had the effect of doing away with every magistrate in England—obliging them as it did, without the assistance of a clerk or other assistant, to take down in full all the evidence in every case brought before them—the other, giving them power to abrogate and annul a variety of penal Acts of Parliament. Their Lordships agreed with him (Lord Brougham) that they could not

817
agree to these Clauses, and accordingly they omitted them, and sent the Bill back to the Commons. The Commons, however, were obstinate, and sent the Bill back again with the same two Clauses re-inserted. A conference then took place between the two Houses, but without leading to any accommodation of the matter, and the necessary result was, that the House of Lords came to the determination to postpone indefinitely the further consideration of the Bill. This, however, as he said before, was a widely different case from that now before their Lordships.
The Earl of Rodenexplained.
Lord Teynhamadmitted, that the Amendments made by the Commons had effected a considerable improvement in the Bill, but still he considered the whole principle and object of the measure to be so utterly faulty, unjust, and irreligious, that he, for one, could never consent to it. Some discussion had been had as to the import of the words "worship of God." He was sure that if some of the original endowers of these chapels were to see the proceedings and the nature of the "worship" which took place there, they would rather have been burned to death at Smithfield than have left their money to be applied to such purposes. The noble Lord, after some further observations, which were interrupted by general cries of "Question, question," concluded by declaring that he should cordially vote for the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate.
The Earl of Gallowayrose, amid cries of "Question," and "Divide," and assured their Lordships, that however he might otherwise be disposed, he certainly should not think of occupying their Lordships at that hour of the evening, and in the then state of the House, beyond a very few minutes, and that only by way of explanation, as he had been referred to by two noble and learned Lords. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had, in the course of his speech, more than once alluded to the humble individual who had the honour of addressing their Lordships. But he could assure that noble and learned Lord, he had fallen into a great mistake in supposing that he (Lord Galloway) had been so presumptuous as to threaten to put himself in the fore-front of the battle going on that night in their Lordship's House. He did trust he had formed too just an estimate of his own parliamentary stature to venture on so unequal
818
a contest. It was true he had, on a former night, entered his remonstrance against a proposition volunteered by a noble and learned Lord on the opposite side of the House, that any Motion for the postponement of the Commons' Amendments would be an unworthy mode of endeavouring to defeat the Bill; and he had observed on that occasion, that such mode of procedure would, at least, be more worthy than that which he understood to have been adopted in respect of the third Clause of the Bill, by which another noble and learned Lord, who had just spoken, had introduced a material alteration affecting the rights of parties without public notice. The right rev. Prelate, who had that night opposed the further progress of this measure in so able and argumentative a speech. He so forcibly illustrated the effect of the proceeding complained of in respect of the 3rd Clause, that he (Lord Galloway) should not have thought it necessary to allude to it again, had it not been for what had just fallen from the noble and learned Lord in question, who had just challenged him to an explanation, wherefore he begged leave to read to the House a short passage which had met his eye, and which had been the origin of the remark he had made on the occasion already referred to, and which had given offence to the noble and learned Lord. It was from a Petition to the House of Commons from the Moderator of the General Synod of Ulster, and had been published. The passage ran:—
"To the 3rd Clause of this Bill Petitioner begs leave still further to object. First, because it contains a retrospective enactment, forming no part of the Bill, as originally printed before it came to your Honourable House, and one which bears the marks of its hasty origin, by actually contradicting the marginal reference to its contents, which still remains unchanged.
"Secondly, because the parties interested in pending suits were lulled into security by the original form of the Clause, and were ignorant of the alteration affecting their rights until it was printed by your Honourable House, and consequently, were thereby prevented from petitioning to be heard by counsel in the House of Lords.
"Thirdly, because it appears to Petitioner, that to give any Act of Parliament such retrospective effect, as to reverse at the request of interested parties the judgment—not indeed technically pronounced—but yet arrived at, and publicly declared, and that under the most solemn obligations, and in the highest Court of Equity in Ireland, cannot be intended

819
to prevent litigation, where litigation had already terminated."
Their Lordships and the noble and learned Lord opposite were now in possession of all to which he had alluded. He (Lord Galloway) having been absent in Scotland during the discussions on the Bill before it had gone to the Commons, and observing how great the excitement was in the country on account of it, had been really anxious to learn what urgent necessity there could be for passing such a measure in the face of so strong a demonstration of public feeling against it. He had certainly learnt nothing that night to satisfy him of either its necessity or propriety; therefore, though grieved to vote against the Government—but satisfied the Government itself could only respect or desire an honest and independent—and not a servile support,—and having conscientious objections to the Bill, he should certainly vote for the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate.
Lord Lyttelton, amid cries of "Question," said he must support the Amendment, and wished briefly to state on what grounds. He declared himself decidedly satisfied with the case of the Unitarians, thinking it had been conclusively established on historical grounds, upon which it should be left to rest. But, with all deference to legal authorities, he must say he believed the 2nd Clause would have the effect of introducing a new general principle into the construction of trusts. This was stated by Chief Justice Tindal in delivering the opinions of the judges in Lady Hewley's case; "where a doubt arises," (said the Chief Justice), "on the true sense of the words themselves, or any difficulty as to their application in surrounding circumstances, the meaning of the language may be ascertained by evidence dehors the instrument itself." Now, the language of the 2nd Clause was, that nothing should be admitted against 25 years' usage, except the express words of the deed, or of others referred to in it. Surely nothing could be more opposed than evidence on the face of a deed, and evidence dehors the deed. And the effect of the Clause was, to narrow and limit the field of evidence as to the construction of the trusts. Though, therefore, he had no objection to the introduction of a measure especially to relieve the Unitarians, he considered the present neither safe nor necessary.
Their Lordships then divided on the question, that the said Amendment be taken into consideration on this day three months:—Contents 41; Not-Contents 202: Majority 161.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor

Verulam

DUKES.

Warwick

Buccleuch

Wicklow

Cleveland

VISCOUNTS.

Leinster

Canning

Norfolk

Canterbury

Richmond

Gage

Wellington.

Hawarden

MARQUESSES.

Hereford

Bute

Melbourne

Camden

Melville

Clanricarde

St. Vincent

Exeter

Torrington

Lansdowne

BISHOPS.

Normanby

Durham

Winchester.

Norwich

EARLS.

LORDS.

Auckland

Abinger

Aberdeen

Bateman

Belfast

Beaumont

Besborough

Brougham

Beverley

Camoys

Cawdor

Campbell

Charlemont

Carew

Clarendon

Carrington

Courtown

Colchester

Cowper

Cottenham

Dalhousie

Colborne

Dartmouth

Crofton

Delawarr

De Freyne

Effingham

Foley

Fortescue

Forrester

Haddington

Gardner

Hardwicke

Hatherton

Harewood

Kinnaird

Harrington

Langdale

Home

Lilford

Jersey

Lurgan

Leitrim

Monteagle of Brandon

Liverpool

Montfort

Lonsdale

Polwarth

Lucan

Ravensworth

Manvers

Redesdale

Minto

Rivers

Morley

Saltoun

Morton

Sandes

Radnor

Strafford

Ripon

St. John

Rosslyn

Sudeley

Scarborough

Suffield

Shaftesbury

Templemore

Somers

Tenterden

Talbot

Wharncliffe

Then the original Motion was agreed to; and the other Amendments were also considered and agreed to.
House adjourned.