Page images

that he would consider it—that was his answer—and, of course, he (the Duke of Wellington) thought, that it would be taken into consideration in the other House of Parliament. That had not been done—the subject had not even been mentioned, and these individuals had never had a chance of having justice done to them.

Viscount Melbourne—I am very sorry, I am sure. I thought, that compensation was given to the gaolers of the Cinque Ports by the bill. Is the noble Duke sure, that that is not the case? The Duke of Wellington—It is not Consideration of the Commons' amendments was postponed.

Tuesday, July 31, 1838.

Minutes.] Bills. Read ft second timo:—Slave Trade
Treaties (Sicily and Tuscany) s Militia Ballot Suspension;
Private Bill Deposits.—.Read a third time:— Ecclesiastical
Appointments Suspension.

Petitions presented. By Sir R. Incus, from London, and a place in Kent, in favour of a more extended provision for the Church of Canada.—By Captain Pecheu., from Brighton Fishermen, complaining of the aggressions of the French Fishermen. — By Mr. Bhanston, from ChclnuJbrd, for a repeal of the Beer Act.—By Mr. AdDams Wilmams, from Chepstow, against encouragement of idolatry.—By Lord C. Manners, from a place in Leicestershire, against the Boer Act.—By the ChancelLor Of The Exchequer, from the Licensed Beer Sellers at Warrington, against any alteration In the present Beer Act j from Stockport, to the same effect s from the Yam Manufacturers at Monaghan, to protect the Linen Trade of Ireland; from the Council of the Horticultural Society, to make the Botanical Garden at Kew a truly National Establishment for the advancement of Science.

Benefices Pluralities Bill.] Lord J. Russell moved the order of the day for the consideration of the Lords' amendmts to this bill.

Mr. C. Lushington said, that the result of his hasty application and useless labor— hasty application,because he had only time to consider these amendments for one or two days, and useless labour, because to his illegal mind the greater proportion of the new clauses wh e wholly inexplicable.— the result of the hasty application and useless labour was a conviction that the bill was unintelligible. There were two civil doctors in that House, his relative and the hon. and learned Gentleman on the opposite side, and if they would undertake to understand the clauses in a week, so as to make them intelligible, he should be satisfied. The powers of the Ecclesiastical commissioner0 nere greatly

intrenched upon by having questions which should come under their jurisdiction referred solely to that of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The principle of this bill was originally very objectionable, and it was rendered more so by the amendments of the Lords. He should therefore propose that these amendmeots should be read a second timo that day six months.

Lord /. Russell said, that the bill in its present shape contained all the main principles which were already sanctioned by the House. There were some alterations made by the House of Lords, but nothing to trench upon the main principles of the bill. He thought, therefore, that it would be unreasonable on their parts to accede to the amendment of the hon. Gentleman, and not adopt what was in fact their own bill. The hon. Gentleman had said, that the power of the commissioners was infringed upon, in giving the Archbishop of Canterbury the privilege of uniting and disuniting benefices. Now, as the commission never possessed this authority, it could not be said to be trenched upon by the change made by the House of Lords. Though he was sorry that some clauses had been struck out which were agreed to in that House, he still thought it very desirable that a bill which had undergone two year's consideration should not be rejected after having had so much pains bestowed upon it.

Mr. War bur ton remarked that many of the changes made by the Lords were improvements; but as there were fifteen or sixteen new clauses, he thought they should be allowed a day or two to make themselves masters of the bill in its present shape.

Amendment withdrawn, and the farther consideration of the Lords' amendments deferred.

Post Office.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the third reading of the Post-office Bill.

Colonel Sibthorpe moved as an amendment that the Bill be read a third time on this day three months. He considered it as neither more nor less than a job, got up for the purpose of obliging the Parliamentary friends of Government.

Mr. Ellis rose to second the amendment of the hon. and gallant Officer, that the bill be read a third time that day three months. Since he had last spoken upon the subject, reflection had confirmed him in the objections he first entertained against the measure. The object of the bill was, to take the affairs out of the hands of the Postmaster-General and vest them in those of three commissioners; the first commissioner to receive a salary of 2000/. per annum; the other two, 1,200/. oach, making altogether an expenditure of 4,400/. per annum. The expense of the present management amounted to 2,500/. yearly; it was, therefore, proposed to incur an excess of expense to the country of 1,900/. per annum. Why were three persons required to superintend this department? He had heard no sufficient reason alleged. On the contrary, power was taken by the bill to give the whole of its duties not absolutely to three—they might be conferred merely upon two, perhaps only upon one; and it might so happen, if the Lords Commissioners of tl)e Treasury, should so think fit, that the administration of the Post Office would be given to no new commissioner at all, but kept entirely in their own hands. Moreover, by the bill, the new commissioners, if appointed, were exclusively to follow the instructions of the treasury, so that, possibly, they were causing an enlarged payment of 1,900/. a-year for the sole purpose of placing the affairs of the Post-office in the hands of a nominee of the Treasury. Did such nn enactment betoken the wisdom of the Government plan? The hon. Member for Bridport stated the other night that with respect to postage the country was on the eve of a revolution; looking however, to what was likely to be the nature of the revolution— that it would almost entirely be based upon increased facilities of communication, demanding, certainly, not more, if not less, intelligence on the part of the head of the Post-office—he thought that was an argument for diminishing rather than increasing the expenditure of the establishment. But then the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that the main object of the bill was to have the chief commissioner eligible to a seat in that House: Why then had he not caused that to be specially enacted? At present the Postmaster-General satin Parliament, though in the Upper House; yet, by the measure under consideration, it might be that, notwithstanding it would still be left open for a Peer to fill the office of chief commissioner, neither in one House nor

the other would the chief commissioner have a seat — and thus the grievance mainly complained of, that of not having a person in the House of Commons to answer questions relative to the Postoffice department, was liable to be left without a remedy. Again, he (Mr. Ellis) certainly conceived that whilst there was no objection for the Government to have a political associate in the House of Lords, he entertained a strong desire that the number of placemen should not be in* creased in that House; and, considering that such proposition came with a bad grace from the present Ministers, he should on that account, as well as for the other, reasons he had stated, express his hearty disapprobation of the measure. Bill read a third time and passed.

Grocers' Spirit Licences (irelan D) Bill.] Mr. E. Tcnnent moved the second reading of the Spirit Licenccs.Bill. As he understood that the measure was to be opposed, he would very briefly state the reasons which had rendered its introduction expedient. In 1836, Mr. Perrin, who was then Attorney-General for Ireland, brought in a bill to regulate the granting of spirit licences in that country, and in that bill was inserted a clause prohibiting the granting of a retail licence to grocers. The object of this clause was to obviate the temptation to tipling and intemperance which was held out to servants and others by the facilities and secrecy afforded for obtaining spirits at shops where the parties were ostensibly led by other business. It was only in portions of the metropolis and not in the smaller towns of Ireland this complaint applied, in those places generally the sale of spirits formed but a portion of the business of those who were general dealers, men of character and of capital, forming usually the better class of shopkeepers and persons who had loo much respect for themselves to permit their houses to be abused by intemperance of any kind. If these men were now to be forcibly excluded from this trade, it would inevitably fall into hands less safe, and be confined to parties with smaller capital and greater temptations to permit excess. The houses of the grocers were closed at early hours, and always so on the sabbath-day, which would not be the case if the sale of spirits were to be compulsorily thrown into the hands of publicans of limited means. Its object was only to continue the suspension of the act ■which had already been suspended for two years by an act brought in almost simultaneously with the suspended act, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; for if the act now came into operation, it would do a great deal of mischief, lie moved the second reading of the bill.

Mr. Shaw had the greatest objection to this bill, which if passed would convert all the grocers into spirit dealers, and thus increase an evil already enormous. He had exerted himself for several years to check intemperance in the city of Dublin, but if he were not assisted by the Government he could not hope for any success. He hoped therefore, that the noble Lord opposite would refuse his assent to this bill. He begged leave to move that it be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. O'Conncll said, that the grocers, as a class, were more respectable than the publicans. an,d were more deserving of the spirit licences. If the object of the House was to repress drunkenness, it should altogether prohibit the sale of spirits. While the act appeared to be rather levelled at putting down grocers than drunkards. He had never in his life heard of any riot occurring in grocers'shops in consequence of their being permitted to hold spirit licences.

Colonel Verner said, with respect to the grocers of that part of the country with which he (Colonel Verner) was acquainted lie could bear testimony to the excellence of their character.

Lord Morpeth felt himself in a peculiar position with respect to the bill. In the former measures which Government brought forward it was proposed to insert a clause prohibiting the sale of spirits on the premises by grocers, but a deputation of that body having been sent over from Ireland to remonstrate on the point, the clause was abandoned. A similar clause however, had been introduced by way of rider to the bill, and as he had not divided the House upon it after the deputation of grocers had left London impressed with the opinion that no such clause would' be introduced, he felt almost as if he had broken faith with them, and would not therefore attempt to influence any votes upon the question.

The House divided on the second reading, Ayes 43, Noes 15—Majority 28

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wednesday, August 1, 1838.

[ocr errors]

Road a first time id a third til

[ocr errors]

Act An

Petitions presented, By Mr. Huue, from Licensed Vic-
tuallers, and Retail Beer Sellers or Salford, against any
alteration in the Beer Act; and from the United Associate
Presbytery of Dunfermline, against the monopoly of the
King's Printer in Scotland.—By Captain Alsaoer, from
Kennington and Cambcrwell, for a better provision for
the Established Church in Canada.—By Mr. P.Tsosisost.
from Congregations of Weslcyan Methodists of Man-
chester, against Idolatrous practices in India.—By Mr.
Sanderson, from the Weslcyan Mcthodistsof Colchester,
to the same effect—By Lord W. Bkntinck, from Cal-
cutta, Madras, and Ceylon, in favour of a direct i
nieation by steam from the Red Sea to the a
dencics of India and Ceylon.

Thursday, August 2, 1838.

Minutes.] Bills. Read a first time:—Sardinia Slave
Trade Treaties; Post-office; Militia Ballot Suspension;
Dublin Police.—Read a third time:—Hackney Carriage;

Petitions presented. By the Earl of Carlisle, several, from Wesloyan Methodist Congregations in Halifax and other places in Yorkshire, praying for the suppression of Hindoo Idolatry—By Lord Brougham, from the Prisoners confined in the Queen's Bench Prison, against the postponement of the operation of the Imprisonment for Debt Bill; from Paisley, against the Prison (Scotland) Bill; from the Maidstone Mechanics' Institution, and from Dingwall, in favour of Mr. Hill's Postage plan; a great number from various places, against Idolatry in India; from Bangor, against the Tithe system in Ireland; from Montrose, against the Parliamentary Franchise; from the same place, for a repeal of the Corn-laws; from London and its vicinity, for the Abolition of Negro Slavery; from Arbroath, against the Renewal of the monopoly of the Queen's Printer in Scotland; from Huddersfield, against the Beer Act,

Magistracy (ireland.)] The Marquess of Londonderry regretted, that he was obliged again to bring under their Lordships' consideration the great change which had recently been made in the Irish magistracy. He was unwillingly obliged to pursue this course, because a noble Marquess (Normanby) had, on a former occasion, when the subject was introduced, asserted that he had brought forward statements in the absence of the lordlieutenant of the county of Down, in the correctness of which the noble Marquess (Downshire) who held that important office did not concur. He was willing, in considering this question, to act upon the principle distinctly laid down the other night by the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, who said, that "no person could be removed from the commission of the peace without a certain degree of imI putation being cast on him; that, therefore, reasons should be given for such removal; because every man was entitled to have justice done him." On this principle he was willing to rest. Now, he found, that on the revision of the magistracy no less than twenty magistrates were removed in the county of Down—in a Protestant county, a peaceable county, where,he would contcnd.'no possible reason could be adduced for making such an alteration. But while the Irish Government got rid of so many magistrates, they introduced others, who, he supposed, were put in the commission because they had adopted the political opinions of the noble and learned Lord the Chancellor of Ireland. The Individuals thus dismissed were amongst the most worthy, the most enlightened, and the most intelligent gentlemen of the county. Since he formerly adverted to this subject he found, that out of the twenty magistrates who had been rejected, no less than eight had been restored. Now, as eight were restored, he should very much like to know why those eight had been dismissed? The noble and learned Lord might say, that none were dismissed without reasons being assigned, that a careful examination took place in the first instance, and that before any step was taken the lord-lieutenant of each county was called on to make such observations as he deemed necessary. Now, if they looked to dates, they would find that no such fair consideration, so far as the lords-lieutenant were concerned, could have taken place. The subject was eight months, indeed, before the Irish Government, but it was not until the month of May last that the lords-lieutenant were called on to give their opinion. The Irish Government took eight months to make up their minds as to what they meant to do, and they gave to the lordslieutenant one month to state their opinion on those proposed dismissals and selections; for in the month of June last they made out their new commission. The lords-lieutenant, therefore, had not a proper opportunity of considering the subject. Indeed, at the time many of them were in this country attending their Parliamentary duties. There were seven other gentlemen excluded from the commission, most respectable men and most excellent magistrates, and against whom no charge or ground of complaint had ever been made. Why, he asked, were not these seven gentlemen also replaced? The case


of Mr. Corry appeared to him one of the greatest.hardship and injustice, and by no means, creditable to the Irish Government. For thirty-five years had that respected gentleman been in the commission of the peace, yet he was kept six months in anxious suspense not knowing whether lie should be continued in the commission or even be allowed to die without the consolation of knowing that no charge rested upon his character, The treatment which Mr. Corry received was so monstrous, that he should certainly move that copies of the investigation, and the correspondence which passed between him and the Irish Government, together with the opinions of the law officers of the Crown, should be laid upon the table of the House. The second case was that of the rev. Holt Waring, the clergyman of a respectable congregation, and a man of large landed property in the county. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Plunkett) had stated upon the occasion of the former discussion upon the subject, that Mr. Waring's name was not inserted in the new commission because he had left his parish a day or two before the 12th of July, instead of remaining at home to soothe the angry feelings which were likely to arise, and to control the improper proceedings of the Orangemen. It turned out, however, upon inquiry, that the grounds upon which the noble and learned Lord stated, that Mr. Waring was not replaced had no existence inasmuch as, that rev, Gentleman had gone away a long time before, and for a far different purpose. He had received a letter from that rev. Gentleman, in which he stated that he was not at home at the time, having been detained in Dublin upon business. He further stated, that he did not reach his residence at Waringstown until the 14th, a few days after when he found his peaceful village taken possession of by an armed force of military and police although no breach of the peace had been committed and there was nothing to justify the occupation of the place by the military, except that there was an Orange flag upon the Church, which could not possibly be construed into a breach of the peace. The third case to which he wished to draw the attention of their Lordships was that of the rev. Mr. Sampson, a clergyman, and a man of fortune. In his (Lord Londonderry's) opinion, the dismissal of such men from the magistracy was taking away the best support of tho law and of the Government in the county, and doing a gross injustice to the individuals themselves. While others upon whom the strongest censure had been passed by Government itself were replaced in the commission, Mr. Sampson was excluded. It appeared that in 1834 a memorial was sent to the lordlieutenant, stating complaints against Mr. Sampson for the manner in which he collected his tithes. The lord-lieutenant sent down an authenticated copy of the memorial, to which was attached the signature of Mr. Lindsay, a gentleman whose name was continued in the commission, though that of Mr. Sampson was excluded. An inquiry was directed, and a meeting, consisting of the greater pavt of the magistrates of the county, was held at Banbridge, for the purpose of investigating the charges contained in the memorial. The result was, that all the charges received the fullest contradiction by the sworn testimony of the churchwardens and the parishioners. Several witnesses, whose names were attached to the memorial, stated, that they had never signed, or permitted or authorised their names to be signed to it. It also turned out that many of the signatures were fictitious, and many fraudulently obtained. Many persons had signed it who were not cess-payers at all, and it contained the names of six persons who were dead. The magistrates, at the conclusion of the proceedings, came to a resolution that they no longer act in concert as magistrates with Mr. Lindsay, in consequence of his conduct respecting this transaction. Resolutions were drawn up and signed, and sent by the magistrates to the lord-lieutenant of the county to be by him transmitted to the lord-lieutenant. A copy was also sent to Mr. Lindsay. The papers were accordingly sent to the lord-lieutenant, and by him referred to the Lord Chancellor for his decision. Perhaps it might be necessary to explain to their Lordships how this letter had come into his possession. He understood that permission to communicate it to tho magistrates had been asked, and not withheld. It had accordingly got into circulation throughout the country, and its contents became generally known. The noble and learned Lord in this letter said, that he had no hesitation in saying, that Mr. Lindsay's conduct had been most indiscreet and blameable, and that Mr. Liadsay owed it to himself to make

Mr. Sampson some apology for his conduct. The noble and learned Lord considered, however, that he should not be justified in removing Mr. Lindsay from the magistracy, as the matter had not occurred in his magisterial capacity. If the noble and learned Lord was not justified in removing Mr. Lindsay's name from the old commission, surely he had good grounds for not including him in the new. The noble and learned Lord went on to say, that he was not surprised at the determination which the magistrates had come to in refusing to act in concert with Mr. Lindsay; but he hoped they would not persist in it, as it would interfere with the public business. He also expressed his entire conviction of the propriety of Mr. Sampson's conduct. He should make no observations on the effect which the political principles of Mr. Lindsay might have had in reference to those proceedings, but he should say, with respect to Mr. Sampson, that he possessed more property than any clergyman in the neighbourhood. Their Lordships might pretty well judge of the spirit which regulated the dismissal and appointment of magistrates in Ireland, when he called their attention to the declaration made by Mr. O'Connell at a dinner of the friends of the St. Bridget's Orphan Asylum, where that gentleman presided. Mr. O'Connell assured the company then assembled, that the Irish magistracy must undergo a complete revision, that the matter was in the hands of the Lord-lieutenant, that it could not possibly be in better hands, and that for the future all partisan magistrates would be relieved from the labours of the office of justice of the peace, and be at liberty to retire into private life. The conduct of the noble and learned Lord opposite, as far as it related to the magistracy in Ireland, went most fully to carry into effect the threat implied in the language of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. Mr. Chemies, a magistrate, who had been fifty years in the commission of the peace, was dismissed. [Lord Plunkett: He has since been restored.] If so, it must have been within the last fortyeight hours. The noble Marquess concluded by moving for copies of all minutes of proceedings connected with the investigation held at Newry on the 10th of last October concerning the conduct of Mr. Trevor Corry: copies also of the charges preferred against that gentleman by Mr.

« PreviousContinue »