Sitting of 5 September 1844

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For the Northern Division of Lancashire v. Lord Stanley, acc. Chiltern Hundreds.
NEW MEMBER SWORN. For Dudley, John Benbow, Esq.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Hawes, from Llanegryn, Dolwyddelan and Welshpool, in favour of the County Courts Bill.—From Trelawny, Jamaica, for reducing the Duty on British Colonial Sugar.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Robert Thomas Webb, for Reform in Medical Profession.

THE BIRTH OF A PRINCE.
The Earl Jermynappeared at the Bar, and acquainted the House that Her Majesty had been waited on by such Members as were Privy Councillors, to offer the congratulations of that House on the birth of another Prince, and that Her Majesty was pleased to receive the same very graciously, and return the following answer:—
2000
"I return you my hearty thanks for this dutiful and loyal Address. I receive with satisfaction this new token of your affectionate attachment to me and my Family."

TAHITI AND MOROCCO—RELATIONS WITH FRANCE.
Sir C. Napierwished to ask a question of the hon. Baronet opposite, which he hoped his sense of public duty would enable him to answer so as to quiet the excited state of public feeling, which had now existed for some time. About two months ago, the right hon. Baronet declared in that House, in a bold, manly manner, becoming the character of the Prime Minister of the country, that he had demanded reparation from the French Government, for the gross outrages which had been committed on the person of our Consul at Tahiti. Since that time we had received information from Tahiti, which showed, that instead of Queen Pomare asking the French to become her protectors, the protectorate had been established contrary to her wishes. Events of great importance had also taken place in various other parts. A French squadron had been sent to Tangier, and had bombarded that almost defenceless place. The French had not taken possession of Tangier, but another squadron had proceeded to Mogador, which, to use the expression of the Prince de Joinville, had been ecrasè, and the island of Mogador taken possession of. In addition to all this, another squadron had been sent to Tunis, and the French were making other warlike preparations, by the arming of a new class of gun-boats. At the same time, since the first attack on the coast of Africa, we had paid off an efficient three-decker and a guard-ship, and commissioned only one with a crew of a third-rate; we had also paid off two frigates. The question he wished to ask was, whether France had made the reparation for the gross outrage, which the right hon. Baronet had demanded; and if not, whether the Navy was to be left in the neglected state it had been in so long? The Admiralty, when at Portsmouth the other day, had made a beginning, no doubt, in the right spirit. He was not surprised when the First Lord saw the dilapidated condition of things in Portsmouth, that the noble Lord had been taken alarmingly ill.
Sir R. Peel: I think I shall best perform my duty to the House and to the public by making as brief an answer as possible to the questions put by the gallant

2001
Officer. I must state that Her Majesty's Government have no reason to doubt, that the assurances they have received relative to the proceedings taken by the French in Morocco and on the African coast, will be strictly fulfilled. As to the other events to which the gallant Officer has referred, I have to state, that discussions have taken place between this Government and the Government of the King of the French, with regard to events, the occurrence of which was calculated to disturb the friendly relations between the two countries. I have the satisfaction of stating, that those discussions have been brought to an amicable and satisfactory termination. The communications that have passed between the two Governments will, of course, at a future period, be laid before this House and the country, and I trust I shall not be pressed at the present time for any farther statement on that subject.
Mr. Hindleywished to know the opinion entertained by the right hon. Baronet relative to the conduct of Mr. Pritchard. That gentleman, now in this country, had had his conduct maligned; he was charged with having acted most imprudently; and it would be but fair that the right hon. Baronet should state his impression as to the course he had pursued.
Sir R. Peel: I have already stated that the discussions which have been for some time past pending, have been brought to an amicable and a satisfactory termination—satisfactory to both countries and I do hope that I shall not be pressed to make any farther statement at the present moment. When I say "satisfactory termination," of course I mean one perfectly consistent both with the interest and honour of this country.
Subject at an end.

LORD STANLEY.
Mr. T. Duncombe: I wish to ask whether the new writ which has been moved for North Lancashire is connected in any way with Lord Stanley's secession from the Cabinet. I beg to inquire if he is still at the head of the Colonial Department? [Laughter.]
Sir R. Peel: I have great satisfaction in stating—and I hope the hon. Gentleman will derive equal satisfaction from learning the fact—that my noble Friend's position in the Colonial Department is not in the slightest degree affected by the writ which has been moved for.

THE STATE TRIALS—REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT.
Mr. T. Duncombe: I was not aware that the question I asked was an improper one, or would cause so much ridicule and laughter from noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. A noble Lord holding a high office in Her Majesty's Councils—the Colonial Secretary of State—suddenly quits this House. A Member gets up and asks whether he still retains his post, and the right hon. Baronet is facetious at my expense, because I inquired whether the noble Lord's retirement from this House would create a vacancy in Her Majesty's Councils. I still think that was a legitimate question; but I have another question to put. I am about to make a Motion, which I think so reasonable and so just, that I hope the right hon. Baronet will offer no opposition to it. I know that the Black Rod is about to knock at our door, and therefore I will not take up much of your time, as I should wish to have done in making those observations I think necessary on the present occasion. I wish to move for a copy of the opinions delivered by the Judges in the House of Lords, on the questions propounded to them in the case of "O'Connell v. the Queen," together with a copy of the notes taken by the short-hand writer appointed to report the judgments and proceedings thereon in the House of Lords. The opinions of the Judges have already been laid on the Table of the House of Lords, printed, and are in general circulation. There can, therefore, be no objection to their being communicated to this House. With respect to the judgments, I understand that a short-hand writer was officially appointed to take them down. I am quite sure whenever they are seen, if correctly reported, as I have no doubt they are correctly reported, by the public press, some of them will redound greatly to the credit of the noble and learned Lords who delivered them. With respect to one in particular, I mean that pronounced by Lord Denman—it ought to be laid on the Table, and printed in letters of gold. We all recollect what occurred at an early period of this Session. We recollect the vapouring that took place about "convicted conspirators," and the credit the right hon. Baronet opposite, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, took to himself for bringing these convicted conspirators to what he was pleased to call "condign punishment." But now it turns out that the "convicted conspirators" are no con-

2003
spirators at all; and the "condign punishment" turns out to be the grossest cases of false imprisonment ever perpetrated against any individuals. I was taunted by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) for having been advertised as chairman of a dinner to be given to one of the convicted conspirators; but I felt, in common with my countrymen, that the whole of these proceedings were disgraceful and contemptible. They were a disgrace to the Government, and particularly to the Home Office, where it is believed they were concocted, and to the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin, where they were enacted. There appears to be no doubt of that fact whatever. And when I think of all the unfair advantages which the Government took of Mr. O'Connell and his companions in prison—when I recollect their fraudulent Jury List, the packing of the Jury, the partizanship of the Judge, the employment of spies, and the subornation of reporters, I rejoice to know that the matter has ended as it ought to end—to the disgrace and defeat of those Gentlemen I now see opposite, the original concoctors of those proceedings, and conspirators against the rights and liberties of the Irish people. I cannot but condemn in the strongest terms the precipitate manner in which the Government have acted in actually imprisoning those gentlemen for three months. I have called the case one of the grossest instances of false imprisonment; from the beginning to the end it has disclosed a vindictive feeling on the part of the Government, and party malice against individuals. When a measure was submitted to suspend the execution of the sentence till the validity of the judgment was ascertained, it was rejected for the very reason that it might be favourable to Mr. O'Connell. This looked like a vindictive spirit on the part of the Government. And the country has a right to know what is to be looked for with respect to Ireland—what reparation is to be made to the Irish people for the gross insult which has been offered to their leaders—on what their hopes and their affections are to rest. The cause of repeal has been promoted by the course taken by the Government, and it has received a new impetus which it will be difficult to counteract. An impression prevails even among Englishmen, that they would, if Irishmen, be repealers. Ireland has been insulted in a manner she will not easily forgive, nor England easily forget. The Returns I now more for will be ready,
2004
I hope, by next Session, when I trust, whatever majority the Government may have, there may yet be sufficient independence in the House to induce an expression of feeling as to the baseness, the illegality, and the injustice of the incarceration of those who have thus been unlawfully imprisoned.
Mr. Otway Cave,in seconding Mr. Duncombe's Motion, congratulated both England and Ireland on the great event of yesterday—an event immeasureably superior to any party triumph, and but for which Trial by Jury might have become, instead of a safeguard to the innocent, an instrument of Ministerial oppression, a delusion, a mockery, and a snare. He was not without hope that this reversal, by the highest Court in these realms, of one of the most illegal and unconstitutional verdicts ever recorded, might soothe the justly irritated feelings of the Irish people, that it might show them that, even under a Tory Government, the attainment of justice even for them was not altogether impossible, and that the dignity and purity of English law, in spite of political or personal influences, could triumph over any conspiracy of men in power against their rights and liberties attacked in the person of their leader. The conduct of the Judge, the composition of the Jury, and all the unworthy and pettifogging tricks which had been resorted to, to obtain a conviction against Mr. O'Connell, were too well known throughout Europe to need any further comment from him; one remark, however, he must make on the species of sanction given by the Head of the Government to the principle acted on in open Court by his Irish Attorney General—that, namely, of taking the law into his own hands, and appealing to force instead of argument or authority. It was his duty to inform the right hon. Gentleman that the consequences of such conduct passing unreproved by him might be most calamitous in a country so peculiarly circumstanced as Ireland, and where, above all things, it was necessary to inculcate obedience to the law. He therefore greatly lamented this omission, as he feared that the example alluded to might be but too readily imitated and considered by the Irish peasantry as a sanction for what was called the wild justice of revenge. The decision of the House of Lords having for the moment saved the Government from the consequences of their ill-advised and unjust conduct, he implored the right hon. Gentle-

2005
man to avail himself of this golden opportunity for the commencement of a wise and generous policy towards Ireland. Three years ago in that House he had received, as he considered, a pledge from him that such should be adopted; he had warned him of the dangers of a contrary course, and he could only lament that the pledge had been unfulfilled, and the predictions realised. He now again implored him to retrace his steps; but whether he did so or no—whether he chose to attempt to govern Ireland by partisan Judges and packed Juries, and by the brute force of a majority in that House, or by redressing her enormous and admitted grievances, it was his duty again to tell him, and the country through him, that with all the fleets and armies at his command, although even now he might conciliate, he never could reconqu Ireland.
Sir R. Peel: Sir, it would be very inconvenient if, under the circumstances in which the House is now placed, we should be drawn into a discussion on what has recently occurred—a discussion in which I must be interrupted before I had concluded my observations. But at the proper opportunity I shall be perfectly prepared to vindicate the course the Government has pursued. The hon. Gentleman (let me remark) has certainly overlooked the fact that seven out of nine of the English Judges affirmed the judgment of the Court below. As to the accusations about packing Juries, I shall not be provoked to enter into any partial discussion of these charges. I content myself with declaring, that whenever the fitting period arrives I shall be prepared to vindicate the course taken by the Government in vindicating the authority of the law by an appeal to the ordinary tribunals, asking no extraordinary power, though at a period of admitted danger—appealing to the law alone for a remedy to the evils with which we had to contend. As to the particular Motion proposed, I certainly have no objection to it, and should be happy if the Message to the Lords for the papers required could be sent now; if not, I give an assurance, which the hon. Gentleman may depend on, that nothing shall prevent the communication being sent at the earliest time possible. I was sorry to hear the allusions of the hon. Gentleman to the conduct of my right hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, after his expressions of frank regret, which I think set him completely right in the feeling and opinion of the House, and ex-
2006
torted from political opponents the admission that into whatever error he had fallen (under provocation which, perhaps, few men could have withstood), no more need be said upon the subject, after his ample acknowledgment of that error. Sir, with respect to the accusations now uttered, nothing can be more easy than for Gentlemen to deal in such harsh expressions as to the conduct of Government. I utterly deny—I emphatically deny—the charges implied in this harsh language; but on the present, which I feel is not the proper occasion, I shall not enter into the subject, which at a fitting opportunity I shall be quite ready to discuss.
Lord John Russell: I feel equally with the right hon. Baronet the inconvenience of entering at this moment into a discussion upon the recent judgment of the House of Lords. But I must, after what the right hon. Gentleman has said, re-assert the opinion which I formerly expressed. After what the right hon. Gentleman has said of the conduct of the Government, I must, I say, re-assert my own opinion, more than once expressed in this House, that the trial of Mr. O'Connell and the other traversers in Ireland was not such a trial as could give an impression of the fairness and justice of the Government. I shall be ready, therefore, whenever the right hon. Gentleman shall introduce the subject, to enter into the discussion, strengthened and confirmed in my own views by the opinion which has just been pronounced by the House of Lords. If the right hon. Baronet had merely and fairly resorted to the law—if he had given to each person accused the full benefit of Trial by Jury as it is administered in England—I should not have blamed the Government for their course; but that which I then said, and which I think more strongly now, is, that the trial was not a trial by a fair jury, but one elaborately put together for the purpose of conviction, and charged by a Judge who did not allow any evidence or consideration in favour of the traversers to come fairly before his mind, but who charged far more violently than the Attorney General had accused, thus acting towards a prejudiced Jury in such a manner as to prevent due justice being done to the people of Ireland as it was done to the people of England. I trust that the effect of these proceedings will be, that no example of such a trial will again occur, but that hereafter the people of that country may enjoy the benefit of English institutions,

2007
and that if they have not had them hitherto, they will see that there is in the highest quarters in this country, among men of the highest legal authority, and of the greatest attainments of every kind, a determination to do what they conceive to be justice, not because they themselves belong to Ireland, but because they think that all the Queen's subjects throughout the United Kingdom ought to have the full enjoyment of those inestimable privileges of which Englishmen have so long been proud.
Sir Thomas Wildeagreed that it would be highly inexpedient to enter at this time into a discussion of the merits and effect of the judgment which had been so recently pronounced by the House of Lords—the discussion could neither be sufficiently full nor fair, and therefore ought not to be entered upon at all, and he should not have risen, except for the extraordinary attempt of the right hon. Baronet to diminish the value and to lessen the effect of the solemn judgment of the House of Lords, by referring to the opinions of the seven judges, and which opinions that House had repudiated, and it was to prevent an incorrect impression being made upon the House and the country as to the effect of these Judges' opinions, as giving any credit to the judgment of the Irish judges, that he wished to say a few words. The conduct of the Government would derive any thing but credit with the country from the attempt to use those opinions; the country would be astonished that it should have been sought to support the unlawful judgment they had obtained by the authority of those opinions; and even those opinions themselves would excite no little surprise in the profession and the country when correctly understood. A motion was made in the Court of Queen's Bench, in Ireland, to arrest the judgment upon the indictment, consisting of several counts, each count being, in contemplation of law, a separate indictment, and containing a separate and distinct charge, and no one count receiving any effect whatever from any other count which may be inserted with it in the same indictment. It was contended, both in the Court below and in the House of Lords, that each and every one of the counts were bad in point of law, because, in truth, although they alleged certain facts with criminatory epithets attached to them, yet the matter set forth did not constitute any crime or offence against the law. The Court of Queen's
2008
Bench held that it was less necessary to examine minutely the other counts in the indictment, because it was quite clear that the sixth and seventh counts of the indictment were perfectly valid and free from all possible objection, and accordingly gave judgment expressly and in terms upon those two counts with the others, and afterwards passed sentence, referring in the sentence to the matter in those two counts as ingredients in the punishment. This was a notorious fact, printed in the law books and in the newspapers, and was, or might have been, well known to all the English Judges, and, above all, to the Lord Chancellor and the law officers of the Crown. The judgment was accordingly entered by the Court upon all the counts upon the record, and that record was sent to the House of Lords upon the writ of error. It is the value of every record that it truly states what has been in the case—it is the only evidence which the law will receive as to what has so been done; it is considered and treated as absolute verity; no evidence, however cogent, can be received to contradict it, and a Court and Jury, while it exists as a record, must give effect to it as true in every particular. It is called an estoppet, because the parties are estopped or precluded from controverting it. The record or an authentic transcript of it is sent to every Court of Appeal to which a writ of error lies, as the only information which that Court can receive of what judgment has been pronounced in the Court below, and it is conclusive upon all matters appearing therein; for this reason it is that records are referred to as the authentic history of the law; and all text writers before and since Lord Coke, without exception, teach the student to refer to records and pleadings, from which to learn the correct law; and, until this case, it was never heard of that a judgment entered upon the entire declaration or indictment was not conclusively deemed to have been so pronounced, and to show that the Court had held each count to be good. That the two counts especially relied upon by the Irish judges as the best—as the most free from objection, and such as they might safely give judgment upon—the nine English Judges, and all the Law Lords, except Lord Brougham, unanimously held were utterly bad and void—that they did not state any matter which amounted to a crime in law, and that no judgment given upon them could be supported; but the English

2009
Judges, except Lord Denman, boldly recommended the House of Lords not to act upon the record, but, although the record stated that the judgment had been pronounced upon all the counts, yet to presume that the Irish Court of Queen's Bench had held the two counts six and seven to be bad, and had not given any judgment at all upon them, whether they were good or bad, but had only given judgment and passed sentence upon the other counts in the indictment, exclusive of the 6th and 7th. Upon what ground this new course and practice was to be justified was not stated, nor was a word said as to the effect of such a course in point of justice in the particular case, or the effect of it upon records in general, thus entirely destroying their value as evidence of what had been done in the Court below in any case in which a writ of error was brought, nor as to its clear effect in destroying the value and effect of a writ of error, and of the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords. If the record ceased to be evidence of the judgment which had been given, there being no other means of judicially ascertaining the fact, nor of the effect of embarrassing the defence of a man who should be indicted a second time for the same offence, of which he had before either been acquitted, or been convicted and suffered punishment, of which the record ought to be the simple, clear, and decisive evidence; but the Judges thus asked the House to presume, contrary to the fact, that no judgment had been pronounced upon these two counts, I ask, has this opinion of the English Judges the effect of giving any credit to the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland? On the contrary, the counts held good by the four Irish Judges were held, beyond all doubt, bad by nine English Judges unanimously, and by the Lord Chancellor, and Lords Denman, Cottenham, and Campbell; and the English Judges did not mend the matter, by asking the House to presume a second blunder upon the part of the Irish Judges—that they had misentered their judgment, by
2010
entering it upon all the counts, when in truth they only gave the judgment upon part. The English Judges, therefore, are a decisive authority that the judgment actually given by the Irish Judges was an utterly bad and void judgment; and this is what the right hon. Baronet says shows that seven English Judges said the proceedings were according to law; and he makes it out from the fact that the English Judges, to deprive the traversers of their legal remedy against the consequence of this misjudgment of the Irish Judges, by asking the House to treat the judgment as having been given directly contrary to what in fact it was given; and thus, by substituting a judgment never given for one that was in truth given, prove the proceeding to be according to law. But what is to be said to the Government, who knew the Irish Attorney General having prayed judgment upon these two counts, and having heard the Court expressly give judgment upon these two counts especially, and who knew the traversers were suffering imprisonment imposed in respect of these two counts, seeking to retain their judgment, and to keep the traversers in prison upon the known false ground that no judgment had been given upon them; and the Lord Chancellor of England actually prays an affirmance of the judgment, which is to keep the traversers in gaol, upon this ground, knowing to an absolute certainty that the judgment had, in truth, been contrary to the presumption upon which he prayed the House to affirm the judgment.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.
Sir Thomas Wildewas proceeding, when the Usher of the Black Rod summoned the House to the Peers. The Speaker immediately left the Chair, and was followed to the House of Lords by all the Members present, when a Speech of the Lords Commissioners was delivered to both Houses by the LORD CHANCELLOR: after which a Commission was read for proroguing the Parliament until Thursday the 10th day of October next; and the Parliament was prorogued accordingly.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public—Received the Royal Assent.—Joint Stock Companies Registration and Regulation; Joint Stock Companies Remedies at Law and in Equity; Joint Stock Banks Regulation; Art Unions; Merchant Seamen Law Courts (Ireland); Fisheries (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Merchants, Shipowners, etc., respecting the appplication of Money granted for the purposes of Steam Navigation.

HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
Earl Delawarrappeared at the Table, with his wand of office and key, as Lord High Chamberlain, and read the Answer of Her Majesty to the Address of the House, agreed to on the 6th of August, congratulating Her Majesty on the Birth of a Prince. Her Majesty's Answer was to the following effect:—
"I have received with great Satisfaction your loyal Address; I thank you for your Congratulations, and I accept this Address as an additional Proof of your Attachment."
The Duke of Wellingtonmoved that Her Majesty's gracious Answer be printed.
Ordered.

SPEECH OF THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS.
The Lord Chancellor,having taken his seat at the foot of the Throne, together with the other Lords Commissioners, viz. — the Lord President of the Council (Lord Wharncliffe), the Lord Privy Seal (the Duke of Buccleugh), the Duke of Wellington, Earl Delawarr, and the Earl of Dalhousie — directed the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod to require the attendance of the Commons who haying appeared preceded by their Speaker, and the Royal Assent having been given by Commission to some Bills,
The LORD CHANCELLOR,on behalf of the LORDS COMMISSIONERS, delivered the following Speech,
My Lords, and Gentlemen,
WE are commanded by Her Majesty, in relieving you from further Attendance in Parliament, to express to you the warm Acknowledgments of Her Majesty, for the Zeal and Assiduity with which you have applied yourselves to the Discharge of your Public Duties during a laborious and protracted Session.
The Result has been the Completion of many Legislative Measures, calculated to improve the Administration of the Law, and to promote the Public Welfare.
Her Majesty has given Her cordial Assent to the Bill which you presented to Her Majesty, for regulating the Issue of Bank Notes, and for conferring certain Privileges upon the Bank of England for a limited Period.
Her Majesty trusts that these Measures will tend to place the pecuniary Transactions of the Country upon a
1998
sounder Basis, without imposing any inconvenient Restrictions on Commercial Credit or Enterprize.
We are directed to inform you that Her Majesty continues to receive from Her Allies, and from all Foreign Powers, Assurances of their friendly Disposition.
Her Majesty has recently been engaged in Discussions with the Government of the King of the French, on Events calculated to interrupt the good Understanding and friendly Relations between this Country and France; you will rejoice to learn that, by the Spirit of Justice and Moderation which has animated the Two Governments, this Danger has been happily averted.
Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
WE are commanded by Her Majesty to thank you for the Readiness with which you voted the Supplies for the Service of the Year.
Her Majesty has observed with the utmost Satisfaction that by the Course to which you have steadily adhered in maintaining inviolate the Public Faith, and inspiring a just Confidence in the Stability of the National Resources, you have been enabled to make a considerable Reduction in the Annual Charge on account of the Interest of the Public Debt.
My Lords, and Gentlemen,
HER Majesty desires us to congratulate you on the Improvement which has taken place in the Condition of our Manufactures and Commerce, and on the Prospect that, through the Bounty of Divine Providence, we shall enjoy the Blessing of an abundant Harvest.
Her Majesty rejoices in the Belief,

1999
that on your Return to your several Districts you will find generally prevailing throughout the Country a Spirit of Loyalty and cheerful Obedience to the Law.
Her Majesty is confident that these Dispositions so important to the peaceful Development of our Resources, and to our National Strength, will be confirmed and encouraged by your Presence and Example.
We are commanded by Her Majesty to assure you, that, when you shall be called upon to resume the Discharge of your Parliamentary Functions, you may place entire Reliance on the cordial Co-operation of Her Majesty in your Endeavours to improve the social Condition, and to promote the Happiness and contentment of Her People.
Commission for proroguing the Parliament read.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords and Gentleman, By Virtue of Her Majesty's Commission, under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, and now read, we do, in Her Majesty's Name, and in obedience to Her Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Thursday, the 10th day of October next, to be then here holden; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Thursday, the 10th day of October, next.