The Sun.
London, England, 1834-06-28 00:00:00

ESTABLISHED CHURCH.

Petitions were presented in favour of the Esta-
blished Church, by the Duke of Richmond, Lord
Rolle, the Bishop of Gloucester, the Bishop of Lon-
don, and the Duke of Wellington.

COERCION BILL.
Earl GREY gave notice that he should move the
renewal of the Coercion Bill on Tuesday next.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

The LORD CHANCELLOR then rose and said,
My lords, I am now about to take a step which,
after more than 24
years being a member of the other
house of Parliament, and, God knows, it has not been
from any want of occasion, but a consequence of my
habitual forbearance, I have never before done ; I
mean, my lords, the bringing before your lord-
ships a breach of the privileges of this
house, which had it been committed against any other
member than myself, I should at any time have felt
the reluctance, which I have always entertained upon
principle, to visit with the severity of the displeasure
of this house ; and even now that it is aimed against
myself, I do assure your lordships that nothing
but absolute, and I will say overruling necessity could
have induced me to condescend to take notice of it ;
but, my lords, when the grossest falsehood, the most
palpable, base, and audacious falsehood, is put
forward, and that, too, accompanied by the most gross,
low, and detestable ribaldry, and that, too, relative to
one of the officers of your lordships' house, I think
I should he wanting in duty to your lord-
ships, if I did not bring the subject forward.
But, my lords, I shall not have read to the end
of what I am about to lay before your lordships,
till you will see that I am left no choice
upon the present occasion, and that those noble lords
who were kind enough to call my attention to the ar-
ticle (for I myself should never have seen it owing to
my other occupations) were perfectly correct
in their opinion, that it was no matter of choice with
me in bringing the matter under your lordships' no-
tice. I understand that in similar quarters there has
been going on for the last six or eight months a series
of systematic attacks against me, directed to one object
to misrepresent me in the foullest manner, of which
I have seen some specimens on the present occasion,
and to those who are acquainted with the facts, it will
he at once seen, that it is in my judicial character that
I have been so foully calumniated. I do not blame
the tool who has been made the cat's-paw in sending
forth this drivelling spite, when it was found that there
was no truth in the false reports put forth as to the
business of the Court of Chancery being in arrear ;
that, on the contrary, the business was reduced to so
low an ebb, that I was obliged to close that court, ex-
cept for two causes, in which the parties were not
quite ready for the regular seal days ;—when they
found that all the chance of arrears in that house
was as small as they could find in the Court of Chan-
cery—when they found that the business of that house
was reduced to such a state, that there would he no
one cause of any kind ready to go on for weeks
before the end of the present session—when they
found that all their former statements had ended in
falsehood—they looked abroad for food—for grounds
upon which to found their attacks. They had re-
course to the attacks which I will presently lay be-
fore your lordships—attacks the most calumnious—
upon the character of a judge and a member, that
have ever been penned. Those attacks are to be
judged of by you and not by me, and then it cannot be
said of me that I am a judge of my own cause. A cause
was tried before the judges, in this house, when they
gave an unanimous opinion against the appeal. I had
made myself master of the arguments ; I had attended
to the judgment, to the opinion of the judges, and to
the authorities cited ; I had made up my mind, and
came to this house and delivered my opinion. I
moved your lordships' judgment, and gave a very strong
opinion, which was very clearly formed, and very deci-
dedly entertained, and upon further reflection most
confidently and firmly held by, that a more groundless
writ of error never came before your lordships' house,
and that your lordships were in justice called upon to
decide against the appeal with costs. I moved the
affirmance of the judgment of the learned judges,
and the usual entry was made in the usual man-
ner in which such entries were always made,
and according to the regular form of proceedings
in your lordships' house—a form not introduced
in recent times, but established long before I
had the honour of a seat in your lordships' house,
from which the course of proceedings as to costs,
either in substance or in form, in reality or in
outward appearance, had been ever interfered with in
the slightest particular, except to conform to it and
obey it. No one thing was said—no one thing was
done—neither a word was spoken, nor a judgment
given—nor any entry made, altered, or suppressed in
this case, which- was not regularly, constantly, and,
according to the literal forms of the proceedings
in this house, done daily—aye daily, in every other
case which had ever come before your lordships' house.
I have read the comment that has been made on these
proceedings—l have further read a great deal of

ribaldry which I shall not at present refer to, I will only
at present read to your lordships that part of the com-
ment which contains a grave accusation against myself—
a member of your lordships' house, a judge acting as a
judge, and giving judgment in this house, and pre-
siding over its proceedings. I have been charged with
having garbled and falsified the entry that was made in
this case. It is not by insinuation, it is not by an
interrogatory mode of charge, that this scandalous
accusation is made. I will read it to your lordships.
Lord Brougham then proceeded to read the article as
follows :

" These circumstances are already, perhaps, known to
and remembered by our readers ; but what follows will
surprise them, however familiar they may be with Lord
Brougham's eccentricities."
If it be eccentric to sit, as I have sat, in the Court
of Chancery, and this house to hear appeals, I hope
I shall always be so eccentric.
" The Morning Herald, which contains the fullest re-
port of Lord Brougham's speech in moving the judgment
of the house of Lords upon the case, str,tes that Lord
Brougham concluded in these words I move, my Lords,
that the judgment of the Court below be affirmed, with
costs not exceeding 3501.' And the Morning Herald
proceeds to tell us that the judgment of the Court below
was affirmed accordingly.'"
" The Morning Herald is not alone. The solicitors,
the short-hand writers, the Peers (What Peers? Your
Lordships are slandered also by this paper), all concur in
asserting that Lord Brougham moved that the judgment
be affirmed,' and that the judgment was 'affirmed accord-
" Now, hew do we find the motion of Lord Brougham
and the acquiescence of the house recorded in the Jour-
nals of the House of Lords?

" Thus—' Solarte r. Palmer. Further considered ;
and Judgment thereon PO STPONED sine die !'"
(The word " postponed" is printed in large capitals. )
" Is it true that the Lord Chief Justice hinted to the
Lord Chancellor that the point which had appeared to the
Lord Chancellor much too plain for doubt appeared to the
Lord Chief Justice far too dark for certainty ?
" Is it true that a friendly functionary hinted to Lord
Brougham that he had formerly been Counsel in the cause
upon which he was now Judge, and that he had strongly
advised the course in the one capacity which he coarsely
condemned in the other?

" Is it true that upon the one hint, or the other hint, or
both hints, Lord Brougham prohibited the insertion upon
the Journals of the House of the motion which had been
made by himself, and the assent which had been given to
it by their lordships ?
" We cannot answer these questions ; and we do not
advise Lord Brougham to attempt an answer to them. We
know, however, quite enough. Lord Brougham has done
an act of such wanton oppression, of such cruel injustice,
that the Journals of the House of Lords must be garbled
for the reversal or the concealment of it. If there is one
nobleman in the Upper House solicitous in the very
least degree for the dignity of his order, this matter
must be noticed without delay. If what we tell is true,
Lord Brougham is unfit to preside in the Court of Chan-
cery as a Judge, to sit in Parliament as a Peer, to move in
society as a Gentleman. If what we tell is false,—there
never was committed a grosser breach of privilege than
that of which we are to-day guilty." (Cries of " Hear.")
Therefore, said his lordship, it was that he was com-
pelled, with all his regard for the freedom of discussion
and of the press,, as to every public man's
conduct, both public and private—he would not
stop at his public conduct, but would say, public
and private—with all his disposition that every
public man's heart should be open to be can-
vassed—it was impossible for him to continue sitting
on their lordships' woolsack with a view to maintain
the privileges of the house, without bringing this
publication before their lordships. It was painful to
go back to answer the questions that had been thus
published, but he had no alternative. Well then, " is it
true that the Lord Chief Justice," &c. certainly, it was
not true. " Is it true that a friendly functionary, &c. ?"
It was not true. He knew of no friendly functionary,
nor hostile, nor any other functionary, except the pub-
lic newspaper which he had happened to see, that had
stated to him he had been counsel in the cause. Un-
doubtedly he had been counsel in it at an early stage.
" Is it true, &c. ?" It was utterly untrue, scanda-
lously false, wickedly libellous, and slanderous as
every one must see, but not more so than it was from
beginning to end, an entire fiction. He knew the
origin of this, and the hous.? would see how dangerous
a lie was. When a motion was made, and an order di-
rected to affirm a decree,with 3501. costs, the real amount
of the costs was left to be ascertained. 3501. was
the maximum sum, but it might be much less. By an
order of his noble and learned predecessor, it had been
directed that the amount should not be entered till the
sum was ascertained. This great improvement had
been made years and years before he had entered that
house. On all occasions the order was pronounced,
as he had pronounced it, but the entry of the exact
sum postponed until the real amount of costs was
known. On the occasion alluded to, the gentleman at
the table had made the entry without any communica-
tion to him whatever; not a word, nor a hint, nor
a wink passed from him, but they made their
MS S. entry in the usual manner. ( Hear, hear. )
This had happened twenty times since he had
come to the woolsack. It happened almost every
day; it never took any other course; and by
no possibility could it have taken any other course.
Therefore their lordships would see how plainly those
disinterested inquiries into his judicial proceed-
ings ( Hear, hear, hear), those adepts, those
malapert adepts ( Loud cheers), who with all the
venom that could be instilled into their base and
crawling natures, had not the common sense—
had not the sense that even the very lowest
animals who were endowed with such poisonous ;gifts
had, but they must run themselves into every spe-
cies of exposure, and their unhappy victims into
misery, whom they primed with information, and who
said—l had it from such or such a one, he knows a
great deal, and it must be true. ( Hear, hear.)
Then they wrote their own comments, and thus was
ushered into the world a piece of slander, as gross and
as malicious, and at-the same time as detestable, bothlin
its origin and execution, in the feelings that gave rise
to it, and in the blundering, the want of common
tact as well as honesty, as any thing could be.
All this was the consequence of that conduct of which
he had been speaking. Now, he would not look at
the last part of the paragraph, for he could assure their
lordships most sincerely that it produced no other feeling
in his mind than that of the most unutterable con-
tempt. (Cheers.) He would not pretend to say he
felt injured by it, it did not do him the slightest
injury in any one of his feelings. So that, if that
was one of the objects of tha slanderers (continued his
lordship), they have totally failed. I must now say
something respecting the advice which I am stated to
have given when at the bar, relative to this case, and
which is alluded to in another part of this article. My
lords, I have made it my business, since I entered this
house, to apply myself in the closest manner that I
can to the duties which my situation entail upon me.
Wanting the vast learning and the long experience of
some of my predecessors, I have endeavoured, in
assisting your lordships in the exercise of your judicial
functions, to make up for that want by deep and un-
remitted attention to the business brought before me ;
I am sure that no one who has had an opportunity of
observing my conduct will fail to corroborate what I
say. I have not adopted the usual plan of saying
nothing when judgments were affirmed, and which had
almost grown up into a practice. Before the decision
on the Roxburgh case, it was the constant practise to
say nothinc, on those occasions when judgments were
merely affirmed. Two of my predecessors have cer-
tainly given reasons for affirming decrees, but not often.
I have, however, made it an invariable rule in all cases
where intricate points of law have been involved, or
where the question at issue has been of much importance,
to give my opinion at length to your lordships. I find
that it is more satisfactory to the suitors, and to the courts
of law regulated by the judgment of your lordships, to
adopt that course. I acted up to that rule on the
present occasion ; but although I stated my opinion
unreservedly, it did not, I am sure, betoken the slight-
est exasperation. I was in no way vexed by the time
which this appeal occupied, nor by the attention which
I gave to the arguments. It was your lordships' time
which was wasted, and I had no trouble in hearing
counsel, because I had not heard it argued before.
With regard to the statement that I on one occasion
advised that this appeal should be made, I will pre-
mise that I should be ashamed if, after having given
a certain opinion when I was counsel, when I might
have been blinded by some obliquity of view, I should
feel myself bound to adhere to that opinion, how-
ever ill founded. A counsel is apt to say, in the first
moment after defeat, that he is right, and that the
Court is wrong; but let a month or six weeks pass
away, and let him have time to reflect on that hasty
opinion, and it is then more than probable that he will
admit his error, and say there is not a shadow of a
ground for adopting his advice. If I had been in such
a situation, if I had advanced an opinion of that kind,
I am sure I should have been the first person to say
that my advice was wrong, that there was not a word
of truth in it, and that it must be wholly disregarded.
I was counsel for Mr. Solarte when the case was tried
at Guildhall ; but I never complained of a bill of ex-
ceptions not being tendered. Lord Tenterden might
have advised that a bill of exceptions should be ten-

dered, but that does not prove that Lord Tentcrden
considered that the verdict was wrong, but that he
thought it was better that the case should be decided
in another court if the plaintiff was of opinion that
the verdict could not be maintained, and that his direc-
tion to the jury was erroneous. But, my lords, this
cause did come before the Court of Exchequer—it
was there argued before all the Judges, and, conse-
quently, a decision was given in this case first by Lord
Tenterden, and then by the Court of Exchequer,
where all the twelve Judges were assembled. An ela-
borate opinion was expressed upon the question, and
the decision of Lord Tenterden was confirmed without
one dissentient voice, it being considered a clear case,
respecting which no difference of opinion could exist.
( Hear, hear.) The point on which this decision was
come to referred to the notice of a bill of exchange,
and the learned judges were of opinion that there was
no colour for saying that a due notice had been given.
Your lordships now see how utterly false—how en-
tirely fabricated is the assertion in this article, that I
advised this proceeding, which I afterwards expressed
astonishment should have been adopted. The deci-
sion given in this case in the Court of King's Bench
was brought before the judges in the Exchequer
Chamber, and till judgment was pronounced by them
upon it, there could be no appeal in the House of
Lords. Now that judgment was not pronounced till the
7th of May, 1831, seven or eight months after I be-
came a peer of this house, and took my seat as Chan-
cellor ( Hear, hear) ; and, therefore, I could not by
any possibility have advised upon the subject of an
appeal to " the highest tribunal in the country."
( Hear, hear.) In the course of that judgment I ob-
serve that the court says, There is a stronger case
against the party before us than appeared in Hartley
v. Case, which was decided in 1825." Now, my lords,
I argued that very case myself, and, therefore, am
well acquainted with the points of law to which it
referred—so that here is another reason to show
that I should not have advised this proceeding,
which I have already demonstrated is physically
impossible. With regard to the tone of other parts of
this article, which I have not thought it necessary to
read to your lordships, I will make some observa-
tions. I certainly did dwell on one circumstance when
this appeal was before me, and I did so because it
appeared to merit reproof. I allude to the manner in
which the authorities were cited to bear out the case
of one of these parties. His counsel very carefully
cited a case which was forty years old, having been
tried by Lord Mansfield in 1787, but they took not
the slightest notice of Hartley v. Case, which was
tried so recently as 1825, and which was referred to
by the Judges in the Exchequer Chamber. This is
not all, my lords. They cited the venerable autho-
rity of Mr. Justice Bayley on bills of exchange, as
having laid down the law in their favour, but how did
they cite him ? Why, they cited from the fourth edi-
tion of that learned Judge's work, published in 1822,
in which only the case of Tyndale v. Brown was
quoted as applicable to their view of the question.
Now, my lords, I produced to them a fifth edition,
but I will first show that that edition might have been
known to them. It was published in 1830, and judg-"
ment was not given in the Court of Exchequer till
1831. Now, if the fifth edition was published, why
should they cite from the fourth ? It does happen that
the fourth edition gives a case in their favour which is
completely overturned by the case of Hartley v. Case,
and which is contained in the fifth edition. I produced
that case, my lords, and I did feel called upon
under such circumstances, to make some comments up-
on the course which had been pursued. ( Hear, hear.)
I certainly thought that your lordships should not have
been so treated. When I gave my reasons for affirm-
ing the decree, and when I made those comments, I
heard nothing from my Lord Chief Justice, I heard
nothing from any friendly functionary. ( Laughter.)
I formed my opinion from my own impartial considera-
tion of the case ; and when I delivered it I heard no
reflection made which could induce me to recede from
it. It was my candid opinion, and I have met with no
grounds to induce me to change it. If I could have
been suspected of entertaining any feeling, was it not
more probable that I should have leaned towards that
party whose cause I had advocated, and with whose
interests I had partially identified myself ? But here
the charge is the reverse. I am accused of leaning
towards the opposite party. My lords, I trust that it
is needless for me to go further into this subject, and
to reply to the gross charges which I have brought
under your notice. ( Hear, hear.) Forgive me for
saying that there will be an end to the judica-
ture of the House of Lords, there will be an end
of this assembly judicating at all, if ever we shall
live to see the day—which may God forbid, for there
would be an end not only of this house, but an end
of the administration of justice in England—when
personal feelings, when party prejudices, or factious
animosities, shall cross the path, or even shadow the
path of the pure, undefiled, and bright course which
your lordships' predecessors have always held in the
administration of justice. (Cheers.) I say, my lords,
that if there shall appear, from any sinister motive,
any disposition in any quarter to afford these libellers
shelter—to give them any encouragement, or to speak
for them, we shall then have approached the verge, if
not fallen down the precipice of those dangers which
I trust we shall never have cause to fear. I should
lot have discharged my duty as the humble instrument
of the judicial functions vested in your lordships'
hands, if I had allowed this publication to pass by un-
heeded and unnoticed, after my attention had been
pointed to it. As to the deluded parties who have
been made the dupes in this most calumnious attack,
I feel pity for them ; and as to those who are the
prime movers of it, I care nothing for them. This
provocation, great as it is, may give me cause for
some regret; but I can truly say that I am affected
in no other way. His Lordship then resumed his
seat amidst much cheering and general cries of " Move,
move !" .

Earl GREY then rose, but we regret that the low
tone in which he spoke was such, that his observations
reached us very indistinctly. We understood him to
say, that after the circumstances which had just been
stated by the noble and learned lord—after their
lordships had been made acquainted with the nature of
the attack which had been so unjustifiably made upon
the public and private character of that noble and
learned lord, and also upon the privileges of the
house, he thought there could be but one opinion as to
the course which ought to be taken, namely, that the
publisher of tne libel should be called to the bar of
the house. He had read with indignation the para-
graph, which was written in such gross and insolent
language, and which accused the noble and learned
lord, who was invested with the highest judicial func-
tions, of having falsified an entry in the journals of
their lordships, for the alleged purpose of concealing
an erroneous judgment. This, it clearly appeared,
was totally unfounded in fact, no entry having been
made, but that which was usually made. The noble
earl concluded by making a motion to the effect
that the last paragraph, commencing with " Lord
Brougham has done an act," was a gross libel, and an
interference with the privileges of the house. (Hear.)
Lord W YNFORD made a few observations, but
they were wholly inaudible. We understood him to
say, that it was impossible to deny that there had been
a gross breach of the privileges of the house, and that
the noble and learned lord could not have done other-
wise than have taken the course which he had. We
understood the noble lord to confirm the explanation
which the Lord Chancellor had given of the mode of
entering up their lordships' judgment ; but at the same
time to state his opinion, that that form was calculated
to deceive many as to its true import.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had no
wish to deal in any way with the parties. He had no
feeling upon the subject ; he was not injured in the
slightest degree, and besides, he did not think that the
course which it was proposed to adopt was the best in
the world. He had strongly recommended their lord-
ships, on all occasions, not to get into conflicts respect-
ing breaches of privilege with the newspapers; for he
had observed that both houses of Parliament generally
came off the worst. (Laughter, and cries of " Hear,
hear.") He must, however, be allowed to say, that if
ever there was a case which called upon them to
interfere in defence of their privileges, this was
one. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") There
was an insolence of the most offensive character in
the manner in which the breach of privilege was al-
luded to. " If what we tell is false, there never was
committed a grosser breach of privilege than that of
which we are to-day guilty." If no step were taken,
these parties would, no doubt, be carried away by their
good fortune, and declare that the House of Lords
was afraid to meddle with them, or to call them to the
bar. With respect to the statement that Lord Ten-
terden had entertained doubts of the justice of his de-
cision, he begged to say that there was a great mis-
take on that point, and that there was not the slightest
doubt of the opinion of that eminent judge. What
grounds had the plaintiff in this case of Solante r.
Palmer to appeal to their lordships? The questions
at issue belonged to common law, and the whole of
the judges had decided one way. Now an appeal was
only the mockery of bringing these judges out of

Westminster into that house, and making there decide
the same case again, and reiterate their judgment.
No one could believe that a question of pure common
law—namely, what was evidence of the dishonouring
of a bill of exchange—would ever be decided in that
house against the opinion of all those learned judges.
It was impossible. With regard to the motion which
had been made, he certainly was not disposed to inter-
fere, because he looked upon the libel with the greatest
contempt.
Earl GREY said he was sure the house would give
him credit for not being influenced by personal feel-
ings on the present occasion. He did not know that
he had ever had occasion to bring a breach of privilege,
as affecting himself, before Parliament, though cer-
tainly he had not been without provocation He, how-
ever, felt that he should not be discharging his duty,
if he did not press, on the present occasion, that some
steps should be adopted, and he was sure their lord-
ships would not be satisfied to leave the libel to the
contempt of the noble and learned lord. ( Hear.) The
publication in question was not capable of any other
interpretation than that it was a most malignant attack
upon the private character of the noble and learned
lord, and also a gross violation of the privileges of the
house. He could not but be astonished at the manner
in which the noble and learned lord wished to act on
this occasion. What was it that this writer did?
Upon the ground of a false statement he had the auda-
city to defy the power of the house to act. "We do
not advise Lord Brougham to answer this case." The
noble earl then read some of the passages from the
article, and asked if their lordships were prepared to
hear a member of their house vilified in that manner
on a charge, the foundation of which was notoriously
false ? It was impossible that the house could abstain
from voting that this libel was a gross breach of the
privileges of the house ; and having voted that, was it
possible that they could adopt the advice of the noble
lord not to interfere ? If they did, they would indeed
sit down in acknowledged impotence. It is impossible
not to proceed to the next step—that of calling the
printer to the bar. If he had any thing to allege to
alter the impression that the libel was calculated to
make—if he had any thing to urge in extenuation of
the attack upon the noble lord, the house would of
course hear him. They could not consent to let the
matter remain where it was.

Lord WYNFORD explained in a few words.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY expressed
his satisfaction that attention had been called to a
libel of so gross a character, and that their lordships
at length perceived that it was necessary to take some
decided steps to uphold the privileges of the house.
Some passages of the libel were so scandalously false,
especially those relating to the noble and learned
lord's conduct as a judge, that he himself would have
brought them under notice if the learned lord had not.
He gave his full support to the motion.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said he also con-
curred in the motion which had been made. He,
however, must state, that he had been misled by
what appeared on the votes of the house. After he
had perused the article he referred to the votes, and
found that the judgment was printed as postponed,
although in the records of the house the judgment
was entered as affirmed. He by no means wished to
state this as an extenuation of the conduct of the
printer of this article, who had been guilty of so gross
an attack upon the noble and learned lord, but he
thought it right to mention it to the house.
The LORD CHANCELLOR again explained
the form of proceeding.
The Earl of MANSFIELD said he certainly laboured
under the same misapprehension as his noble friend
the Duke of Wellington. He had seen an account of
the speech of the noble and learned lord, which con-
cluded with words that did not permit him to entertain
a doubt that the judgment given had been such as his
noble friend (the Duke of Wellington) had considered
it to be. However, his attention had been called to
the subject, and he had, therefore, that afternoon,
looked into the orders. To his astonishment he found
that the written minutes were very different from the
printed minutes ; but it was not for him to say how
closely they ought to correspond, though, perhaps,
many of their lordships would think such assimilation
rather desirable than otherwise. In point of fact, he
found them, upon examination, to be materially dif-
ferent ; and in the written minute, above the word
" affirmed," he found inserted, in another hand-writ-
ing, the words " to be," so that the passage read " to
be affirmed." No doubt, however, the statement of the
noble and learned lord was correct, that if judgment
had been given affirming the decision of the court below,
with one hundred pounds or any fixed sum as costs, it
would have been entered at once as affirmed ; but that
when the amount of costs was to be afterwards set-
tled, the proper entry was, judgment postponed till
costs ascertained. In this instance, however, the case
was entered in the written minutes " to be affirm-
ed," and in the printed minutes "to be postponed."
He mentioned this discrepancy because he thought it
his duty to do so ; it was not for him to excuse or pal-
liate such attacks, and he was not disposed to do so.
It would be for the delinquent when at the bar of
their lordships' house to clear himself in the best
way he could. In the propriety of calling him to the
bar, he most fully concurred, and he knew of no ob-
jection that could be raised to such a course in the
event of a breach of their privileges. He begged,
however, that they might not lay themselves open to
the charge of prejudging a case when the real merits
of it would have to come, and that so soon, before
their lordships' house.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had never
heard of a person being called to the bar of that, or of
the other house, without a previous resolution that
such person had been guilty of a breach of privilege ;
and for his own part, he did not know that they had
the power to enforce such attendance, till a resolution
of that kind had been agreed to. He very much
doubted whether a person so situated would not resist.
Certain he was that no officer of that or the other
house would consider himself safe in enforcing the at-
tendance of a delinquent, unless backed by the autho-
rity of such a resolution, which was, in fact, his justi-
fication. They all knew well the case of Sir Francis
Burdett, when an action was brought against the offi-
cer, who was not armed with his authority; which
was, in fact, requisite to the ordinary course of plead-
ing. As to the mode of entering the minutes
of their lordships' proceedings, he had seldom
—he really believed he had never—never even on
one occasion from the moment he entered that
house to that at which he spoke, interfered with
those who had the conduct of it. There were pro-
per officers duly appointed by that house to attend to
the duty, and with their performance of it he never
had interfered, and never wished to do so. He never
knew till then, that the words " to be" were written
in a different hand to the word " affirmed," nor did
he know that the entry in the written, varied from that
in the printed minutes. For his own part, he could
assure their lordships he felt no soreness on the sub-
ject—no bitterness or anger—and as to the poor pub-
lisher, he had his good wishes, which always went in
favour of those unlucky wights who now and then got
into scrapes. If he wanted to lay hold of any one, it
would rather be of the author of this calumny, of the
originator, the instigator, when, perhaps, their lord-
ships would find that he was some one that did know
better, or at all events that ought to know better. He
repeated that he never interfered either directly or in-
directly with the clerks, and that it lay with them to
account for the interlineation of the words " to be."

Earl GREY said the only question before their
lordships was the plain and simple one—has there not
been a breach of privilege committed ? He for one
had certainly not attempted to prejudge the question ;
he had merely proposed for their lordships' considera-
tion a question, a resolution founded on that which,
in his view, constituted a clear breach of their privi-
leges, and this course was absolutely necessary to pre-
face any ulterior proceedings, either of acquittal or of
reprehension, which they might deem it due to their
own dignity to substitute. The only question was
whether the publication was a breach of privilege or
not. Their lordships were called on to decide nothing
further than the character of the subject matter before
them ; they were not asked to give an opinion of the
guilt or innocence of the party publishing it ; of his
malicious intent, or of his being misled ; or of his
acting without due caution. All that would be duly
taken into consideration when the offending party ap-
peared at the bar of their lordships' house. They had
now only to say on what ground they required a cer-
tain party to appear there, and the way was by affirm-
ing a certain publication, for which he had voluntarily
made himself responsible—at all events, in the first
instance—to be a breach of privilege.
The resolution was then agreed to unanimously.
Earl GREY then moved :—" That Thomas Paine,
the publisher of the Morning Post newspaper, do
attend at the bar of this house on Monday next."
Lord 31 A L iME SB UR Y said the house would sit
to-morrow, and it was not usual in the case of a
breach of privilege to allow a sitting to intervene
between the motion for an offender's appearance at the
bar and his attendance, unless he resided at a distance.
It was then put and ordered that Thomas Paine do

attend at the bar of the house at four o'clock to-
morrow (this day).
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE gave notice that
on Monday next he should move for the second read-
ing of this bill.

LEGAL SECURITIES (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of theNlarquis of CLANRICARDE,
this bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
committed on Monday se'nnight.
DRAMATIC PERFORMANCES BILL.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE,~in rising to
move that the house should resolve itself into a com-
mittee on this bill, stated that his sole object was to
give a just security to licensed houses against the
competition of unlicensed ones, and to promote the
morality of the stage and the who le community.
The Bishop of LONDON said he had opposed the
bill of last year, though he had not voted against it.
The present bill he was ready to admit was not so
objectionable as its predecessor, but he was neverthe-
less opposed to it on the ground that it authorised the
erection of a great number of small theatres which he
much feared would be productive of bad results to
the youth of the metropolis. Still he- should pursue
his former course, and not vote against the bill.
Though it would exercise in many instances a salutary
control over places licensed for dramatic perform..
antes, he still thought it would keep alive many scan-
dalous abuses. He knew that in what he was saying
he was subjecting himself to be sneered at as a puri.
tanical personage—that his name, as heretofore, would
appear in large letters on the walls of the metropolis ;
but such doings would not deter him from the con-
scientious performance of a duty in denouncing a mea-
sure which would be equally subversive of the mora-
lity of the people and the safety of the state.
Lord SE AGRA VE said in the present depressed
state of dramatic literature---when they had only one
living writer whose productions were worth witnessing
—he meant the highly-gifted Sheridan Knowles
( Hear, hear), it was the duty of their lordships to pro-
tect the national theatres, in which so much property
had from time to time been vested. If the bill then
before their lordships were agreed to, they would have
small theatres starting up in every quarter. The pre-
sent number of these places of amusement—for there
were not less than twenty-three—was amply sufficient
for the wants and desires of the people ; and there-
fore, instead of consenting to go into committee upon
the bill, he should move that it "be committed that
day six months."
Lord WH A RNC LIF FE said the intention of the
bill was to multiply small theatres in every quarter,
and he therefore called upon the right rev. prelate
(the Bishop of London), who denounced such places
of amusement, to explain his reasons for not voting
against it. He begged to ask, too, of the noble
Marquis (Clanricarde) what case the public had as
against the two patent theatres? of what were they
monopolists, for it was notorious that the regular dra-
ma was acted at almost every theatre in London? So
there was no monopoly of the regular drama. Indeed,
in the present theatrical taste of the public, a monopoly
of the regular drama would be a monopoly of failure.
Nor could any charge liaagainst the two large theatres
of monopolizing the general drama; for from October, at
which time they opened, until June, when they closed,
the King's Theatre, the Olympic, the Victoria, the
Queen's, and other theatres were all open. In his
opinion the effect of the hill would be to multiply
theatres, there being already enough for the public
taste ; so that the other existing theatres would suffer
by the operation of the bill, as well as Covent-garden
and Drury-lane. There were parts of the bill to
which he had no possible objection. For instance, it
was no doubt very desirable to establish a more effi-
cient police with respect to the theatres ; and, among
other things, to prevent rehearsals from going on in
them on Sundays, just as all decent people were going
to church. But that was evidently not the principal
object of the measure. He apprehended that the real
object of the bill was, as two or three of the existing
theatres (not the two large theatres) were good spe-
culations, the proprietors of them wanted to have the
power of performing all the year round: Upon the
whole, he did not think there was anything in the pre-
amble of the bill which would make their lordships
anxious to pass the bill, and he did not think that any
case of public grievance had been established which
called on them to pass it.
Earl MULGR AVE thought their lordships ought
to allow the bill to go into committee, to inquire
whether its provisions were necessary or desirable.
With respect to the two winter theatres, whatever
rights they might possess, it should be recollected that
from time to time, since the acquisition of those rights,
they had greatly increased their dimensions, thereby
very much diminishing the effect of their performances,
as well as the gratification of the audiences by whom
those performances were attended. The object of this
bill was to prevent these two monsters from swallowing
up all other theatrical exhibitions. The object of this
bill was by no means to allow the erection of an un-
limited number of theatres, but rather to place those
already existing under advantageous regulations, and
to render them as respectable as possible. The sub-
ject was one which he trusted their lordships would
consider, with a view to the morals of the people. It
was true that their lordships, and the class of society
to which their lordships belonged, were not such fre-
quent visiters of theatres as in former times. Whether
that was owing to the change which had taken place
in hours, or to the mismanagement of the theatres
themselves, he would not pretend to determine ; but
such was certainly the fact. Their lordships ought,
however, to recollect, that a very large body of the
people were still attached to theatrical amusements ;
and he hoped that, with reference to their enjoyments,
their lordships would consent to consider the bill in
committee.

Lord W YNFORD observed that care ought to
be taken not to invade the just rights of the two great
theatres, the proprietors of which had vested large
sums in them. A noble lord had, however, intimated
that the proprietors of the great theatres had no ob-
jection to the existing minor theatres, but were desi-
rous that their number should not be increased. At
least, therefore, a clause ought to be introduced in the
bill to limit the other theatres to the existing number,
and to prevent any theatre from being erected within
two miles of London.

Lord SE AGR A VE, in explanation, stated that the
proprietors of the present theatres had no objection to
the licensing of the present number of other theatres,
under proper regulations with respect to the time at
which they should keep open : but that proposition
was refused.

The Earl of MA LME SBUR Y objected to that
provision of the bill which rendered it imperative on
the Lord Chamberlain to license certain theatres. He
objected also to the provision that no theatre should
be erected to contain less than 1,500 persons. He re-
collected the time when the winter theatres were much
smaller than at present ; and, for his own part, he
preferred a small theatre to a large one, as in a small
theatre alone could good acting be felt and enjoyed.
The Marquis of WE STMEATH opposed the bill.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE replied.
Their lordships then divided—
AF ograitnhset .it ...... ......................................................... 2.414
The bill was consequently lost.
The Cost in Actions Bill went through a Committee.

COUNTY CORONERS' BILL.
IFFE
1 jhChde y a
Dn\iViki
ofe moved the committal of
h
Coroners'
RICHMONDn thoughtrietoeN introducedneersL' with some explanation
that the bill
g
of its objects ; observing, as he had frequently done,
toueTotrou to
have
the warm contests which had taken place for the office
of coroner, whenever that office became vacant, it did
not appear to him that it was at all requisite to increase
the emoluments of the situation. On that point, and
on the clause which respected the issuing of the writs
of summons, he entertained such strong doubts of the
value of the measure that he was greatly inclined to
move that it be committed on that day six months.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE so far agreed with his
noble friend that, on undertaking the management of
this bill, he had felt it expedient to strike out those
parts of the preamble which stated that the present
emoluments of the coroner were insufficient.
Lord WYN FORD said a few words, but we were
unable to collect their tendency.
After some conversation Lord WHARNCLIFFE
consented to the order of the day being discharged,
and the house adjourned till ten o'clock to-morrow.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 27.
The SPEARRR took the chair at a quarter past five
o'clock.
The house was summoned to attend a conference
with the Lords.
Lord SANDON presented a petition from the
clergy of Liverpool against the admission of Dissen-
ters to the Universities.
Mr. ROBARTS presented a petition from Maid-
stone against the Church Rate Bill.
Mr. WARBURTON presented a petition from

Bridport to the same effect, and one from Dumfries
'and Westminster for reform in the medical laws. •
Mr. R. TREVOR presented, a petition from a
parish in Carmarthen in support of the church.
Mr. SHELL gave notice that on Wednesday next
he would present a petition from the parish of St.
Thomas, Dublin, relative to church-rates.
Lord ALTHORP presented four petitions against
clauses in the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill, and
for the better observance of the Sabbath Day. The
noble lord then moved the further consideration of the
Poor Laws' Amendment Bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL begged to know from the right
lion. the Secretary for Ireland, if it was intended to
bring in the bill for the abolition of imprisonment for
debt in Ireland.
Mr. LITTLETON said as soon as the mode of its
working had been experienced in England, the princi.
ple would be extended to Ireland.
Mr. 0' R EIL L Y asked if the laws of th, treaty be-
tween Don Miguel and Don Pedro, as stated in the pa-
pers, were authentic. He understood that the religious
members of convents were excluded from the general
amnesty.
Lord PALMERSTON was not able to say when
he could lay the treaty on the table of the house, but
the moment he had received the authentic copy, he
should feel it his duty to do so. ( Hear.) He thought
that the latter part of the question had reference to
domestic policy, which the Government was not called
upon to answer, although the Government would 'do
their best to have the terms of the treaty fairly acted
upon.

Mr. O'REILLY expressed his satisfaction at the
explanation of the noble lord.
The further consideration of the report of the com-
mittee on the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill was then
proceeded with.
On the question that the amendments be read a
second time,

trdo he fi
which
distress,
itLordterphie.
power
in,sgh,
eacoCr‘euii
gave
0: t
eftaSheit
noetohonecp: \sat lac:
IrEgeeous Re.
commissioners
parochial
STI i
consequence
aEhel
There
to call the attention
circumstancetiecoslfaautpsheoewinedriffitthoceurletbyfuilsil]
which the poor would be placed in cases of extreme
astoanaolttehreroprosiunstpteonwdhtihche
he would direct the attention of the noble lord, relative to
regulations under which the parochial authorities
acted. This power in his opinion should be modified.
Mr. W A I,TE R thought that the objections which
originally existed against the bill still remained in full
force. It could not be denied that the measure was, to
all purposes, a revolutionary one. The three principal
objections which he made were to the central board,
the workhouse system, and the emigration clauses.
The first would be productive of the most un-
bounded patronage, and no alteration could meet
his objections upon that point. ( Hear, hear.)
btinnheo
there
rtneh
beanyehb had
salutarybill
dl
ebroughte still,t ,
remainedscnhi
dna
With respect to the work-house system, had there
aht
ore
ut ? c
cruelty
e. i Hdt
h. He
the( andti(Hear,
a pr:rho
ee thatahri.ti)l
tnotgl eiactmounanttd
oppres-
sion of the work-house system as set forth
l
The report recommended that the poor should
authorities, and yet the bill brought them into direct
contact with them by compelling a residence in the
workhouse. It appeared that the principle of the emigra-
tion
clause was, that one part of a parish might trans-
port the other out of the country, for no other crime
than that of poverty. Nothing could be more cruel
and unjust than such a power. He thought the pro-
vision relative to voluntary emigration was quite absurd,
for no man, whatever his destination might be, would
consent to become a voluntary emigrant for life.
A portion of the rules was to be set aside for this
purpose, and the remainder would be barely able to
support the resident paupers. But what would become
or. the pauper population that was growing up ?
Where would the funds come from for the growing po-
pulation ?
Mr. G. F. YOUNG admitted that the amend-
ments made by the noble lord had considerably im-
proved the bill ; still he felt the same objections to
the principles of the measure which he felt when it
was first introduced, and which he then stated. As to
the change made in the bastardy clause, he (Mr.
Young) had heard many gentlemen say that the
clause, as it originally stood, ought not to have been
ruo e authorities
ri
1,
lit.oshreei
withdrawn, and that the withdrawal of it was a piece
of weakness in the noble lord. (Hear, hear.) •He
considered the measure as one from which all .the,in-
jury anticipated from it in some quarters would not re-
sult,
because he was sure it would be found not to
work. He approved of the change which limited the
duration of the powers of the commissioners, and he
should have been glad if a limit had been put to the
space to which these powers should extend. --
Mr. BENETT said that so strong were his objec-
tions to the principles of this bill, that he hoped it
would either be modified in another place or thrown
out. altogether. He had a horror of workhouses
( Hear, hear), and he therefore objected to their cram-
ming them with adult paupers. In the county which
he had the honour to represent, not one parish out of
six had workhouses. Yet he admitted that the amend-
ments made by the noble lord in regard to work-
houses had improved the bill. .
Mr. ROBINSON did not think the amendments
made in the bill so extensive as should induce the
house to support the measure, especially at so late a
period of the session. The magistrates and overseers
of the poor throughout the country were strongly oppo-
sed to the measure. He knew many who were opposed
to it ; and that more especially this session. It was a
general opinion in which he (Mr. R.) ' joined that
the bill ought to be circulated in all the parishes
throughout England, in order that the remarks of those
who understood the subject might be given upon it.
He was glad that the noble lord had given up that
severe part of the bastardy clause, which subjected the
grandfather to support his bastard grand-children iyt
the event of the death of the mother. He thought it
impossible, however, to legislate with advantage, when
the real question on every division was whether the
s
Ministers should or should not go out of office. ( Hear.
Mr. SI, A NE Y thought that for the sake of the
poor themselves they ought not to delay the passing
of this measure. It brought back the poor laws to
the spirit and meaning of the original law which en-
acted them ( Hear); and, in his opinion, it did no more
than was absolutely necessary for that purpose. I:le
was convinced that the tendency of the bill would b
to raise the condition of the people. He was not sur-
prised at the opposition of the hon. member for Wilt-
shire to the measure, for in the county of Wilts it was
notorious that the poor laws were at present worse ad-
ministered than in any other ; and the hon. member
had been so long accustomed to look on them with
d "nistered, that he now looked on
favour, as there a mi
the deformities practised there as beauties.
Mr. BENETT explained.
Mr. R 1 cli Am.) S, from a sense of duty, felt bOund
to support the bill. Notwithstanding the articles which
appeared in some journals, and especially in one jour-
nal, against the Government, and against this bill in
particular, he was convinced that the people had too
much sense not to trust to the wisdom of Parliament
for doing that which was best for them. He should
be very glad to see the editor of the Times called to
the bar of the house, and he was only debarred from
making a motion to that effect by the feeling that it
should be done by an older member of the house. He
would again implore the noble lord to make the mea-
sure universal throughout the three kingdoms.
Mr. THOMAS ATTWOOD objected to the rnea
duc-
sure before the house as one which would be pirio
tive of the worst effects ; and he also was equi,faity op-
posed to the course which the house puilueol
o.:ffeect
spect to the general policy of the country. Th
s of this
of its measure would be to turn the i:a_nperoh
1,
' and
country into murderers. (Cries of ' °ll
to
laughter.) The present bill could be compared
0,
nothing but a firebrand thrown into a magazinel
gunpowder. (Cries of .‘ Oh, oh !") He particularlyasthe
protested against three of its clauses_:authsee first
al::
bastardy clause ; the second, the 1
c board; and
such unlimited powers to the central6
1_ e
third was that which forced the poor to go- t I,l_
workhouse. He especially protested against t‘ifl7:
clauses of the bill ; but, particularly opposed to iz
parts of it he had mentioned, he protested against i`
as a whole. c bill
Mr. A. BARING was sure the object of thdeed,
was to improve the condition of the poor ; and, inod for
if that were not its object, the bill would be gQyed of
ape nothing. ( Hear, hear.) But while he
,rrtwhich
the bill as a whole, there were some partscqed in par-
he thought might be improved. He (Me ilowance
he a
ticular to the clause which related to t.
a the • state of
system. If government only recollect carrying- this I
, the country, they would hesitate as to 'hiro-
\confessed
clause into effect. He ( Mr. Baring/
self to be alarmed at the abruptness Of the, 11e, diffi.
change. The house might have got out 01
ter safety
culties connected with the change with grera
must be
than the present bill provided. The
'...., poor
which it
brought back to that state of improven.ent
degrees ;
was the object of the bill to bring them by
t the
a
and, therefore, he ( Mr. A. Baring) trembled. ,

abruptness of the change. If 15 years had been the
time appointed for carrying the intended change into
effect, that would have been inu.h batter than to have
fixed-it for 1835. That would have afforded sufficient
time for returning from a bad to a good system. A
friend of his, a gentleman extensively connected with an
important county in England,and who was veryintimately
acquaintedwith all matters relating to the poor, expressed
a precisely similar opinion to that which he had ex-
pressed, when last year examined before a committee
of that house ; and such, he was satisfied, was the opi-
nion generally entertained by those who bad paid at-
tention to the subject. He most sincerely thanked the
noble lord for the measure, but felt it his duty to ex-
press his apprehensions that evil would result from a
too rapid transition from the present to the proposed
allowance system.
Lord ALTHORP said that the speech of the ho-
nourable gentleman, the member for Essex, had given
him the greatest satisfaction, because the hon. mem-
ber had taken_ the same view of the measure, as a
whole, as that which was taken by his Majesty's Go-
vernment—namely, that it would, if properly adminis-
tered, effect a great improvement in the condition of
the poor. He ( Lord Althorp) was perfectly aware
that there would be difficulties attendant on the ab-
ruptness of the transition from the present state of
things to the intended allowance system ; but the
hon. gentleman must be aware that government bad
made every possible provision to prevent, as far as
practicable, the anticipated evils ; and, therefore, he
(Lord Althorp) hoped that the only objection which
the hon. member had advanced against the measure
would be removed. It had been stated, on a former
occasion, by a noble lord whom he (Lord Althorp)
did not see in his place, that the bill conferred too
much power on the overseers of the poor as regarded
the administering of relief. He did not see that this
objection was well-founded ; for not only had the
overseers always had extensive powers, but they were
liable to an action at law if they refused to give re-
lief when applied for. The noble lord was therefore
wrong in the view which he had taken of this case.
The hon. member for Berkshire thought that the bill
had not been improved in going through the commit-
tee, but that it had been completely cut to pieces in
its progress. He (Lord Althorp) was of a different
opinion. He thought that the bill, as a whole, had
been improved in committee. Another hon. member
bad contended that the measure was not popular, and
grounded his argument on the fact that petitions had
been presented against it. It was certainly true that
a number of petitions had been presented against the
bill, not however against the measure as a whole, but
mostly against particular parts of it. It was also a
fact, which hon. members ought to recollect, that the
petitions which had been got up against the bill were
for the most part from the metropolis. He was sa-
tisfied that, in the country, the measure was popular.
At all events, in almost all the country newspapers
which he had seen, it was spoken of in the most fa-
vourable manner As bad been stated by the hon.
member for Essex, the great object of the bill was the
benefit of the poor. But it would be productive of
great benefit to the farmers also. If they should have
to pay a little more in the shape of wages to'their la-
bourers, they would have the satisfaction of finding
that their work would not only be more cheerfully
performed, but that it would be done well. On these
grounds he trusted that the house would support the
measure.
Mr. BLAMIRE hoped that the noble lord would
consent to take out the bastardy clause before the
third reading of the bill. It would operate most in-
juriously as_ it now stood.
After a short desultory conversation, in which Mr.
LEWIS, Mr. MILES, and Mr. CLAY took a part, but
which was carried on in so low a tone of voice as to be
inaudible in the gallery,
Mr. HAL COMB objected to the 44th clause, on
the ground that it made it imperative on the commis-
sioners to administer relief. He thought it would be
better to vest in their hands a discretionary power. The
clause as it now stood would have an injurious effect
on many poor fishermen on the coast of Hampshire.
If the overseers should have no discretionary power to
afrokd relief, they would be excluded from the partici-
pation in any of the'benefits the measure was intended to
confer on the poor. He wished to impress on the
house• that clause 12 was at variance with clause 44 ;
for the former gave the power in question to overseers,
while the latter refused it. The 10th clause was also
of riui•objectionable nature.
= Lord ALTHORP—That clause is withdrawn.
• Mr. HAL COMB—Do I understand the noble
lord to Say that the clause is withdrawn ?
- Lord ALTHORP—It is.
-Mr. HALCOMII---Then I beg the noble lord's par-
don, and will 113 t trespass further upon the attention of
the house.
• In answer to a question from Mr. JERVIS,
LOrd:.ALTHORP said that it would be inconve.

nient to.incdrporate the elansds which the noble lord
(Lord Darlington) proposed with the then clauses of
this bill, but that he ( Lord A.) approved of the principle
of the noble lord's proposition, and intended to bring in a
sepatate bill to carry it into effect. As it was one of the
questions on which, on a division on it, the numbers
were nearly equal, he had no doubt that such a bill
would meet with the support of the house.
• The amendment was then agreed to.
After a desultory conversation as to the period at
which the several amendments should be brought for-
ward, the clauses up to E were agreed to.
Clause F was, as we understood, taken out.
On clause G being proposed,
Mr. L ANGDALE said that it would be highly
expedient that( some words should be introduced by
which, in cases where Roman Catholics or other dis-
senting parents died in the workhouse, leaving orphans,
and should express a wish to that effect, it should be
competent on the godfather and godmother to have
such children brought up in the religious faith of their
parents. •

Lord AL THORP was quite aware that this feeling
did so exist, and h'2. should not wish to counteract it,
and. he should, therefore, not oppose the insertion of
the, words suggested by his hon. friend. His feeling,
hoWever, was, that children left under such circum-
stances might be considered in general rather as the
children- of the public ; and as to the religious creed
of the parents so dying, it was, in many cases, difficult
to ascertain it. In the .cases suggested, however, by
the hon. member, such difficulty, of course, would not

Words to the effect desired were accordingly in-
serted, and the clause, as amended, was agreed to.
On clause H being proposed,
Mr. MILES moved, as an amendment, that words
should be inserted as a provision, that " where the
putative father of a bastard could not be found person..
ally, it should be deemed sufficient that the notice upon
him should be served at his last place of residence."
The amendment, however, was, as far as we could
ascertain from the conversational line of the discus-
sion, withdrawn, and the clause was agreed to.
Clauses up to N were agreed to.
On clause 0 being proposed,
Mr. JE R S moved that it should be altogether
omitted. His objections against it were two-fold ;
first, because it protected the commissioners in any
action which might be brought against them ; and
secondly, because it condemned the suing party, if he
failed in his action, in treble costs.
Lord A LT HORP said the whole question was,
whether they would allow actions to be brought
against the commissioners acting as a board ; as indi-
-duals they were not protected. As to the treble costs
the intimation of an intention to inflict them was tan-
• tamount to saying that there should be no action
•brought. He thought that if the proposed protection
were not afforded the Board, its efficiency would be
much injured, if not wholly destroyed. If they were
not protected by these treble costs, they would be open
to any frivolous and vexatious actions which any cowl-
-try attorney might choose to bring against them. He
81;ould, therefore, decidedly oppose the insertion of any
such provision as that proposed.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG thought that it would be un-
reasonable to exempt the commissioners from liability to
action, and, at the same time, to allow them treble costs.
PEASEMr.
had thought the clause went too far. He
no objection to granting
full costs.
. Mr. TOOKE was also fopinion that full costs
would be amply sufficient.
o
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that treble
, costs were in this case merely nominal, the liability
being full costs, as between attorney and client.
• The amendment was then agreed to.
Clauses P, Q, and R, were also agreed to.
• Mr. JERVIS moved a clause to allow non-paro-
chial places, not villages or townships, to nominate
• overseers.
did not object to the prinpciple of
L
the clause ord ALTHORP
use ; but thought its introduction in this par-
ticular part of the bill unwise, and not fair to
viduals' whose property would he peculiarly affected
by it. However desirable the clause may be as a
.4eparate one, he was of opinion that its introduction
here would operate injuriously.
• Mr. L I TTL ETON hoped the clause would not be

pressed upon the house. If it came before them in a
separate and substantive shape, he would be happy to
support it.
Mr. POLLOCK thought the introduction of the
clause just now very objectionable, as much because of
the property likely to be affected by it, as that it was
brought up at the tail of a report—brought up, too,
almost without notice, and certainly without a notice
which could extend to the country.
Mr. JERVIS withdrew the clause, saying that he
would avail himself of an early opportunity to bring it
forward next session.
Mr. P. SCROPE moved an amendment, to the
effect that costs of indictments brought against over-
seers should be chargeable on the poor-rates.
Lord ALTHORP said that in cases of great ne-
cessity provision was already made against the neglect
of overseers, and that if death ensued through such ne-
glect
the overseer was liable to be indicted for murder.
Sir T. FR E MANTL E was of opinion that by the
present bill the country paupers were entirely at the
mercy of the vestry, and that they should not be left
without some appeal, which an application to the ma-
gistrates, under the former system, stood in the place of.
Lord ALTHORP answered that it was the intent
of the bill to compel relief in extreme cases.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the only
effect of allowing costs in such cases would be to swell
the lists of crimes in the calendar, and but tend to en-
courage frivolous prosecutions.
Mr. P. SCROPE replied that the law of Eliza-
beth empowered magistrates to enforce overseers to
grant relief where necessary, whilst the present bill
did not.
Clause negatived.
Mr. B A INE S moved a clause, that no house liable
to less than 2s. 6d. in the pound should be subject to
the bill. In many manufacturing districts, such as
Manchester, there would be no occasion for the inter-
ference of the commissioners, as the poor laws are well
administered. Instead of the rates being from ss. to
Iss. in the pound, as was the case in many agricultural
parishes, they were scarcely one-eighth part of
the rental. He was aware that the adoption of
his clause would withdraw one- fourth of the popu-
lation of England from the control of the commis-
sioners, but he thought that they would have enough
to do in managing the other three-fourths. There
was this great distinction between manufacturing
towns and agricultural parishes—that while the poor
rates had increased enormously in the latter, the in-
crease was not great in the former. He did not
think, therefore, that there could be any objection to
putting them on a different footing. So far from
thinking that this clause would destroy the bill, he
was sure it would give it a more favourable trial ; and
that the great end of the measure would rather be ad-
vanced than retarded by it.
The clause was then brought up and read a first time.
Lord ALTHORP said that the hon. gentleman
had brought forward his clause as an amendment, but
he ( Lord Althorp) did not think that it was any amend-
ment at all. The clause destroyed one of the great
advantages of the bill—namely, that of uniformity in
the administration of the poor laws. He (Lord Al-
thorp) could see no ground for its adoption. ( Hear.)
It might be true that in some manufacturing towns
the poor rates amounted only to 2s. 6d. in the pound,
but how did they' know that the poor in those parishes
were managed so as to raise their condition? ( Hear.)
He believed that the poor in many of those towns
were in an extremely wretched condition. If they
agreed to the clause, they would indeed be legislating 1
as people who were indifferent to improve the condi-
tion of the people, and only wished to save the pockets
of the rate-payers. ( Hear, hear.) He should, on
these grounds, think it his duty to oppose the clause. I
After a few words from Mr. LANGDALE, the 1
clause was negatived without a division.
Mr. TOOKE then rose to move the addition of a
clause to subject extra-parochial places to the poor
rates. This was an evil of which the commissioners
had taken no notice, but he thought it was well de- I
serving of attention.

Mr.-POLLOCK wished to state what the opera.
tion of this clause would be. The first effect of. i

would be to diminish the value of extra-parochial pro-
perty by ten, twenty, or even thirty per cent. The
greater part of Gray's Inn, for instance, which was
extra-parochial, was not the property of the Society,
but the property of individuals who had purchased it,
in expectation that the increased value which they had,
in consequence of their being parochial, should con-
tinue. The larger part of the Inner Temple and of
the Middle Temple were in the hands of persons who
had purchased leases for one or more lives. These per-
sons received fair interest for the money which they
had expended, and they had a right to continue
to receive it. The extra-parochial places were no
burden to the neighbouring 'parishes ; but if they
were, they should not be made to pay rates in
parishes to which they did not belong, but they
should be compelled to provide for all cases of
poverty within their bounds. He would put the
case of Gray's Inn, to show the hardship of the
clause. In that Inn there was property to the value
of 20,000/. a year. Now, he would ask if it would be
fair to subject that property to a rate of 3s. or 4s. in
the pound, merely because the neighbouring parishes
were assessed to that amount ? ( Hear, hear.) What
would be said of it, if a general rate of 3s. or 4s. in
the pound were laid on property all over the kingdom
for the support of the poor ? Would it not be said to
be monstrous, and a confiscation of the rights of pro-
perty ? He thought it would, and that the same
principle applied to extra-parochial places. The
adoption of such a clause would not be an act of jus-
tice on the part of the house ; for it would subject
this property to the operation which had grown up
before the Poor Laws were contemplated. The case
had already been decided by the verdict of a jury, in
the case of St. Andrew's parish, and he hoped they
would not do such an act of unfairness, as to upset that
verdict by the adoption of this clause.
Mr. L ITTL E TON thought that the hon. member
for Truro had not taken the large view of the subject
which he ought. He considered that the bill of which
the hon. member for Chester had given notice for
next session, would put the subject on a proper footing.
He should be extremely happy to vote for the remedy
proposed by the hon. member for Chester. The other
went far beyond it. ( A laugh.)
Mr. TOOK explained.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, but
none took place. The clause was withdrawn.
Colonel WOOD proposed a clause to the effect,
that separate visiters ought to be appointed to sepa-
rate counties, for the purpose of examining into the
state of matters.

Lord AL T HORP could not see that the clause
was at all necessary. It was not necessary to have se-
parate visiters to separate counties. As be had first
said, he (Lord Althorp) did not think this was neces-
sary ; but if it were, he did not think the mode pro-
posed by the hon. gentleman would accomplish the
object he had in view.
The clause was then withdrawn.
Mr. HODGE S moved a clause giving to the mayor
and corporations jurisdiction over cities, towns, and
burghs.
Lord ALTHORP had not yet had time to look at
the clause with the requisite attention.
The clause was then negatived without a division.
Mr. C A YLE Y moved the following clause :—Thas
from and after the passing of this act no settlement be
acquired or completed by occupying a tenement, unless
such tenement shall have been assessed, or have been
liable to be assessed, to the poor rate for one year,
during the occupancy of the party claiming the
settlement.

Lord ALTHORP did not think that the occupier
would gain a settlement in towns, unless the tenement
he occupied was worth ten pounds, and therefore he
did not see any advantage that could be gained by the
clause. In the country settlement was gained by oc-
cupancy alone.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, but
none took place, the clause having been withdrawn,
Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY proposed to in-
troduce a clause enacting that the powers of the com-
missioners should not be exercised in any parish main-
taining its own poor in which relief is confined to the
aged, the orphan, the maimed, the lame, the blind,
the idiot, the lunatic, and those who suffer from sick-
ness, accident, or infirmity, and in which no relief is
given to the able-bodied man or woman, except in cases
of sickness, or as an equivalent for real labour per-
formed, and that the overseers of every such parish
should annually' forward their accounts to the central
commissioners. .

' Lord ALTHO RP considered the clause would
too greatly interfere w!th the principle of the bill and
the salutary control to be exercised by the commis-
sioners.

•The clause was then negatived without a division.
Lord AL THORP proposed the omission of the
566 clause, which having been originally intended to
work with those which had been withdrawn, was now
use.les,,or might perhaps prove worse by injuring the
free working of the bill.—Agreed to.
• ;The bill, with its amendments, was then ordered

to be engrossed, and to be read a third time on Tues-
day next.
Lord ALTHORP intimated that on Monday he
should move that the third reading of the bill should
have precedence of all other business on the following
day.
MERCHANT SEAMEN'S REGISTRATION
BILL.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM moved the order of the
day for the further consideration of this bill. The
house then went into committee.
The Ist and 2d clauses were agreed to.
On clause 3 being proposed, which requires the
captains of vessels, on leaving port, to furnish the
agreements made between them and the sailors,
Mr. G. F. YOUNG opposed it%
Sir J. GRAHAM supported the clause.
Mr. O'CONNELL said the clause had been
greatly objected to by the Chambers of Commerce of
Belfast and Dublin, the ground of objection being,
that ships were cleared out from those ports without
the full complement of crews, which were generally
taken in at other harbours, sometimes at Holyhead,
sometimes elsewhere, and it was, therefore, manifestly
impossible that the captain should furnish such a list as
that here required at the time of leaving port. It was
true that the captains were empowered to make the '
return to the consul or vice-consul of the first foreign
port they came to ; but still if this person failed to re-
gister, or send the return home, it was not he, but the
captain, who was liable for the neglect.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the object of the clause
was to put an end to an abuse which sailors had very
frequently suffered by ; namely, that captains arriving
at their foreign destination trumped up a quarrel with,
and dismissed their sailors there, in order to get the
ship worked home by foreign sailors at a cheaper rate
than they could purchase the services of the crew they
had brought out. In this way the country had lost
many a valuable sailor who had been disgusted by such
treatment.

Mr. G. F. YOUNG indignantly denied the truth
of so scandalous an imputation upon our shipowners ;
on the contrary, it was the sailors, who, when in a
foreign port, escaped from the ships, and secreted
themselves, in order to force better terms—sometimes
double wages—from their employers for the home-
ward voyage.
Admiral FL E MING supported the clause.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG then moved as air amend-
ment, that the word " either" should be inserted in
the 53d line between " shall" and " cause." The
house then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it

. 35

Majority
The clause was then agreed to.
The committee then proceeded at considerable
length to discuss the other clauses of the bill.
On arriving at the 11th clause, the house resumed,
the CHAIRMAN reported progress, and asked leave to
sit again on Wednesday.

-12