Sitting of 28 March 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Mutiny; Marine Mutiny; Dean Forest Encroachments; Night Poaching Prevention.
Private.—1a. Great Western Railway; Bolton and Preston Railway.
2a. Birmingham Canal Navigation; Beecles Navigation; Severn Navigation; Cababe's Naturalization; Edinburgh Cattle Market.
Reported.—Ribble Navigation.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Greenwich, by Earl of Roseberry, from Lowick, and by Lord Campbell, from Birmingham, against the Dissenters Chapels Bill.—By Lord Kenyon, from Oxford University, and by Lord Colborne, from Henllan and Rhos, against the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.

STATE OF IRELAND.
The Marquis of Clanricardesaid, that it might be convenient that he should state, that in presenting the Petition of which he had given notice, to-morrow evening, relative to the State of Ireland, that it was not his inten-

1591
tion to offer any observations to their Lordships, or to enter into any details that could raise a discussion on that question. He had two reasons for taking this course. One was, because he wished to have the advantage of seeing the Government plan relating to the Municipal and Electoral Franchise in Ireland. A proposition on that subject was, he understood, to be made this evening, in the other House of Parliament, but in consequence of the state of public business there, he supposed, it could not be introduced till after the holydays; for that reason he had stated he did not wish to make any observation to-morrow on the subject of the Franchise, The other reason for taking the course which he proposed was, that there was a part of the petition which alluded to the administration of justice in Ireland, and on that he should certainly feel himself called to make some observations on a fitting occasion. It would, however, be quite impossible for him to make those observations without adverting, at the same time, to the recent trials in Ireland. Now, at this moment there was every reason to suppose that the proceedings on those trials would come before their Lordships in their judicial capacity; therefore he conceived that it would be highly improper to introduce a discussion on the subject now; because noble and learned Lords, on both sides of the House, would be prevented from stating their opinions on a question which hereafter would come judicially before them. He thought it better, therefore, to present the petition in silence. Shortly after Easter, however, he should feel it to be his duty to call the attention of the House to that petition, when he should make some Motion on it, for the purpose of bringing the whole subject under consideration; he would, perhaps, move that it be referred to a Select Committee.
Lord Broughamconcurred with his noble Friend as to what he considered to be his duty upon this important subject; and, in his opinion, the same principle would apply equally to the Motion of which notice had been given by the noble Marquess near him (the Marquess of Lansdowne.) There was one of two courses open to his noble Friend. He could postpone his Motion, which would, perhaps, be the better way; or he could take the other course, of having it most distinctly understood that there
1592
was not one word to be introduced into the discussion to-morrow which could in any way affect the pending law proceedings. He believed it had been officially announced that a Writ of Error would be brought forward with reference to the recent legal proceedings. Under these circumstances, the question was, whether it would not be better that the subject should be put off altogether for the present.
The Marquess of Lansdownecoincided in opinion with his noble and learned Friend, as to the propriety of abstaining from entering into a general discussion on the state of Ireland; but he could not agree in the expediency of putting off his Motion with respect to the instructions given as to the challenging of jurors. In answer to a question which had been put to him, when he gave notice of this Motion, he stated that his intention was not at all to interfere with any proceedings that had taken place on the late State Trials, but to have a prospective inquiry as to the course to be taken by the Government, for the future in Ireland, with respect to the challenging of jurors. His Motion was grounded solely on the expediency of making known the instructions given by the Government to the Officers of the Crown in Ireland, for their future guidance. He should, therefore, allow his Motion to remain, on the understanding that there should be no reference to the conduct of the Government in the late trials.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, it would be found that the course adopted by previous Attorney-Generals had been precisely the same as was adopted in this instance by the present Attorney-General. That would be the result of the noble Marquess's Motion, and he was sure that such a statement would be satisfactory to the noble Marquess.
The Marquess of Lansdownewas very glad to hear what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, which confirmed him in his intention to bring forward his Motion to-morrow. Nothing could be more satisfactory to the people of Ireland, nothing could be more beneficial to the Government, than the announcement which had just been made.
Lord Broughamsaid, if his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) thought that he was to be precluded from giving his opinion on the whole subject, if it should be introduced to their Lordships, he would find that he was mistaken. If his noble

1593
Friend, for instance, or if any noble Lord, in the course of the discussion, should allude to the conduct of the Government in the late prosecution, or to the conduct of the Court before which the cause was tried, he would not be wanting in his duty to the public, but would give his clear and explicit opinion on the subject; that was the whole matter of debate; and how could they say, when the topic was once introduced, where it would end?
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that it would perhaps put an end to the discussion, when he stated at once, that the Government had no objection to the production of the papers for which the noble Marquess intended to move.
Lord Campbellunderstood, that it was agreed that during the discussion there should be no allusion to the late trials, because those proceedings would he brought judicially before their Lordships, by Writ of Error. In his opinion, the discussion could not be entered into with advantage. There would be very great difficulty in separating the two parts of the subject—the legal question and the constitutional question. It was much more expedient, he thought, that even now they should no further refer to the very difficult and delicate question which must, from what he had heard, sooner or later come before them. Let it not, however, be imagined that because he or others abstained from giving any opinion now, or should abstain from so doing tomorrow, that they admitted the recent proceedings to be constitutional, or that they, in any way, sanctioned the conduct of Her Majesty's Government.
Subject dropped.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL.
On the Motion "that the Report on the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, be agreed to,"
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that as he intended to give his negative to this Bill, and as he could not be present at the third reading, he should take that opportunity to state the reason on which his opposition, both to the principle and the manner of the Bill, was founded. He did not know why the discussion of such a Bill should be left solely to the noble and learned Lords in that House; and having listened attentively to every word that had been uttered on the second reading, he must say, that never was a Bill brought forward with so little title to their Lordships' support. The only ground on which
1594
it was supported was the not very creditable one, that a better Bill could not be brought forward, because it would be opposed by the country practitioners. In his opinion, the House of Commons had been much wronged on this subject. The opinions had been declared very strongly, last Session, against the Diocesan Courts, which now they proposed to perpetuate. The right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, had said, on the measure which, last Session, he had introduced for abolishing those Courts, "Upon principle I cannot yield to the opposition against the Bill, the provisions of which rest upon the highest authority; and if the House reject this Bill, I cannot offer any other likely to be more acceptable." And the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had said, "We are told that if we proceed with this Bill, there are powerful parties who will remember it in the hour of trial. We know well how wide-spread are the interests connected with these Courts; and no executive Government can undertake to reform a legal abuse without for a time forfeiting, I will not say, 'public opinion,' but a very valuable support. We expose ourselves, however, to that danger in asking the House to consent to this attempt at reformation; and we will not purchase a continuance of that support by shrinking from what we conceive to be our duty." That measure had been decided on, on the division for the second reading, by a majority of 80, the numbers being 186 to 84, a much larger majority, in proportion to the numbers present, than any which even the present strong Government had had since they came into office. Now; what had become of all that courage and determination not to shrink from their duty? Why the Bill had been referred to a Select Committee, and so far from being recognised and adopted by the House of Commons, it was reported by that Select Committee on the 28th May, and from that period to the end of the Session no steps had been taken on the subject. And why were their Lordships, who had not been at all inconsistent on the matter, to consent now to the perpetuation of courts which had not much business to perform? but the few cases which came before which required the highest legal knowledge. Why should their Lordships be required to imitate the example of the other House in submitting to repeated at-

1595
tempts at reversing solemnly affirmed decisions? The Government, indeed, did not pretend to have adopted the opinions of the other House upon the subject; and the course taken by Ministers on the measure would be deemed by the country one of the most humiliating necessities to which a "strong Government" had ever been reduced.
Lord Wharncliffeobserved, the noble Marquess had adduced no argument against the measure, but had merely made an attack upon the Government for having introduced it without the stringent provisions which accompanied the measure of last Session. He partook without hesitation of the responsibility of that course, which he considered to have been a wise one under the circumstances. The former measure had experienced the opposition not only of the provincial practitioners but of the public, who conceived it would expose them to inconvenience, and therefore it was not persevered in. And certainly Government must consider what it could carry, and must submit to do all the good it could, if it was not able to do all it would. He was not at all moved by the lecture of the noble Marquess.
Lord Cottenhamsaid, the noble Baron had claimed credit for the course the Government had pursued, as having been wise. It might be so; but the question was, had it been proper? The noble Baron had talked of the objections entertained on the score of anticipated inconvenience. Why, it was matter of history now that for the long period (since 1832) during which the subject had been under investigation, the result of all inquiries conducted by Committees of either House, or by Commissions under the Crown, had been, that the advantage of the measure would amply compensate for the inconvenience apprehended. It could have been no new discovery, then, that had altered the decision of the Government, which had formerly condemned these Courts, and only consented to their continuance when it appeared "wise" so to do.
Lord Broughamsuggested that five years' standing (instead of seven) should be the qualification of the Judges in the Diocesan Courts.
The Lord Chancellorassented to the proposition, observing that five years was the qualification for Recorders. He took occasion to remark, that he had attentively considered the case of Taunton, as to
1596
which a Petition had been presented for exemption from the Diocesan Jurisdiction; and he could not accede to a proposal which might expose him to similar application from every "peculiar."
Lord Campbell(who had presented the Petition) had neither personal nor party motives in the matter, but regretted that the request could not be conceded, and wished that either all the courts should be abolished or all retained, for in many cases (as in that before hire) it would be easier to go to the Metropolitan than to the Diocesan Court.
Report agreed to.

FACTORIES' BILL.
Lord Broughamwas particularly anxious to correct a misrepresentation of his sentiments; or rather, he ought to say, a misunderstanding had arisen from particular sentiments of his not having been expressed with sufficient clearness, in presenting a Petition the other evening, when he had referred to employment in factories. He had received letters from different parts of the country on the subject. He had received very abusive letters; but these he did not mind. He was asked why he tried to keep the poor people labouring, when he himself did nothing at all for the money he received out of the taxes paid by the poor? His answer to this was, that he did labour—that he did work pretty hard too; and there was nothing he should like so much as that he might be allowed to give up what he received out of the taxes, on condition that he might go back to the Bar. What he received as a pension—and such was the case of his noble and learned Friend near him (Lord Cottenham)—was in the way of compensation for not returning to their practice at the Bar, where they would receive a great deal more money than they now did. But his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) was in a still worse situation, for he gave up a very large income made by him, at the Bar, and he received no compensation, and yet worked there for ten hours a day, and was often there at night most ungratefully employed, so that he must often envy even the factory children. What he was now about to state was, however, of a much more important nature. It was said to him by friendly persons—by those who thought well of his exertions, that he ought to finish his good work—that he ought to follow out his useful sugges-

1597
tions as to wages—that he ought to limit wages—that he ought to bring in a Bill to prevent manufacturers from giving a less amount of wages. What he had said was, of the two greatest absurdities, that of limiting the amount of wages would he less bad, though both would be abominable, than the limiting the number of hours in which a man might choose to labour. He said if he were to do the one foolish thing, or the other, then he said he had rather limit the quantity of wages than of work. If he were to restrain ally person in the use of his property, then, he said, he had rather restrain the rich capitalist in the use of his capital than he would interfere with labour, and let a man or woman, if they choose to work a certain time, that they should not be allowed to do so. But then it was said, that it was not inconsistent in him to say that it was the lot of man to toil, and vet be a friend to the abolition of slavery? How, it was said to him, could he seek for the abolition of slavery when he declared it was the lot of man to toil. Yes; but the toil was to be voluntary toil—not toil imposed by another. He hoped, then, that no idea could go abroad, of his sanctioning a Bill to limit the amount of wages; or that he thought they did wrong in the emancipation of their slaves in the colonies, because he would not limit the hours at which a man might choose to work.
House adjourned.