Marton, G. Maxwell, hon. J. P. Miles, W. Stuart, H. Sutton, hon. H. M. Hervey, Lord A. Hodgson, R. Hope, hon. C. Hope, G. W. Hussey, T. Jones, Capt. Kemble, II. Trotter, J. Knight, H. G. Vivian, J. E. Law, hon. C. E. Wood, Col. Lefroy, A. Young, J. Lockhart, W. because the names were much the same as on the preceding division.] On clause 30; "persons may import arms for personal defence, or sporting, on registering the same," Lord Clements opposed the clause, on the ground of the inconvenience it would cause to parties bringing arms into Ireland. Lord Eliot replied that the peasantry, when returning from this country, were in the habit of surreptitiously taking arms with them to Ireland, and gentlemen must be content in order to put an end to this practice, to submit to some little inconvenience. Sir R Ferguson moved an amendment to leave out some words, and insert others, to the effect that notice of importing arms should be lodged with the clerk of the petty sessions, the chief of the constabulary, or the chief officer at the port where the party landed. It was a mistake to suppose that the peasants coming from England could bring arms. They generally brought nothing but a bundle. The committee divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question-Ayes 106; Noes 41: Majority 65. Lord Clements moved to omit the words from "no person," in the second line, to "the district," in the ninth line, being the enacting part of the clause. The noble Lord said he should not trouble the House to divide, for it was no use in persisting, as the Government was bent on maintaining all the worst features of the bill. It was clear the Irish magistrates were to be considered as nothing else but scape-goats to bear the odium of the coercive measures introduced by her Majesty's Government, and to be made the tools under which the inquisitorial police was to coerce the Irish people. There was no use in making amendments in this abominable bill, but he should propose them to give the public an opportunity of seeing the true character of the measures proposed by the ministers. Amendment negatived. Mr. W. S. O'Brien moved to omit the words "require such person to produce a licence." The committee divided on the question Ayes 111; rat. that the words proposed to be left out Antigua, St. Kitts, Nevis, and Montserstand part of the clause Noes 47: Majority 64. On the suggestion of Mr. S. O'Brien, the penalties for the violation of the provisions of the clause were reduced from 10l. and 201. to 5l. and 107. Sir R. Ferguson moved the omission of the words by which the forfeiture of the dealer's licence was incurred for a second offence. Resolution agreed to. PRISON DISCIPLINE.] Sir James Graham observed that it must be in the recollection of several hon. Members, that in consequence of a discussion which took place relative to prison discipline in the early part of the Session, he had been induced to state that it was impossible that the law on the subject should be allowed to remain as it was; and he added, that filling the office which he did, he should The committee divided on the question that these words stand part of the clause. Ayes 101; Noes 41: Majority 60. Clause as amended agreed to. House resumed. Committee to sit feel it to be his duty, before the end of the again. RELIEF TO THE WEST INDIA ISLANDS.] House in Committee. Session, to bring in a bill for the purpose of amending the law. He would at that late hour merely allude to one or two of the most important changes which he The Chancellor of the Exchequer said should propose. Representations had been that he rose to propose that the House made to him of the conduct of visiting should resolve itself into a committee, for magistrates and governors of gaols, and on the purpose of enabling him to propose a these representations being made to him grant of Exchequer Bills towards the re- as Home Secretary, and being satisfied of lief of the very great distress that had their correctness, he had felt it necessary been produced in certain of our West to express grounds of complaint, and to India colonies by the late disastrous earth-state that he entertained strong opinions quake. The papers were on the Table, and hon. Members would be well able to see the frightful consequences produced in the course of a very few minutes by the earthquake, and they must also be aware of the admirable manner in which the labouring population bad conducted itself in these colonies. He thought that it was impossible for the House to entertain a doubt that this calamity should be allowed to pass without making such a grant as he intended to propose. He intended to move that this grant should be made by an advance of Exchequer bills, the repayment of which was to be secured by the local legislatures passing a law for that purpose. He believed that under the circumstances the House would, without the slightest hesitation, come to the aid of these colonies. The amount which would be required altogether was between 200,000l. and 300,000l.; but he should propose that in the first instance the advance should not exceed 150,000l., and the repayment of this was to be secured by the local legislatures. The right hon. Gentleman proposed a resolution to the effect, that her Majesty be enabled to issue Exchequer bills to an amount not exceeding 150,000l. for the relief of the distress caused by the late earthquake in on the subject of these complaints. He had therefore felt it to be his duty to represent to the various benches of magistrates that the Government thought that it was for the interest of the public that alteration should be made in the law in this respect. He should neglect his duty if he did not propose to give power to the Secretary of State to make or to rescind rules for the government of prisons. He believed, also, that it was desirable that power should be given to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to exer cise control with the magistrates over the governor and the chief medical officer of each gaol. He regretted that he could not go at length into the grounds on which this rested, but Gentlemen he thought would find sufficient reason for this in reports of the inspectors of prisons. In addition to this, the House was aware that the Secretary of State, after every Hilary Sessions, had sent to him a copy of the rules drawn up by each bench of magistrates during the previous year, but if new rules were adopted they were not sent to him until the customary annual return; he should, therefore, propose, that if any rules relative to the prisons were adopted by the magistrates relative to the control or discipline of the prison, that they should be sent to the Secretary of State without delay. He also proposed that an officer who now was appointed to inspect the buildings of prisons, should be placed under the Secretary of State, as the inspectors of prisons were. The right hon. Baronet concluded with moving for leave to bring in a bill for the amendment of the law relative to prison discipline. Leave given, bill brought in and read a first time. House adjourned at half-past one o'clock. 122222 HOUSE OF LORDS, Friday, July 21, 1843. MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.-1. Woollen, etc., Manufacfactures; Landlord and Tenant; Schoolmasters Widows' Fund (Scotland) Validity. 2. Marriages (Ireland). 5. Episcopal Functions; Slave Trade Suppression (No. 2). Private. Reported.-Dundee Harbour; Great North of England, Clarence, and Hartlepool Junction Railway; Gobal's Police. 3 and passed:-Hambro's Naturalization; Paisley Municipal Affairs. PETITIONS PRESENTED. From the Presbyterians of Ire land, for a return of the number of Cases of Bigamy tried in the last ten years in Ireland.--From Sheffield, for Free Trade.-From Hunmanby, in favour the Local Courts Bill-From Berwick-in-Elmel Union, for Exemption from the Operation of the Poor-law. From the Birmingham Philosophical Institution, in favour of the Scientific Societies. PRESBYTERIAN MARRIAGES.] On the motion of the Lord Chancellor, the standing orders were suspended, and the Presbyterian Marriages Bill was read a second time and committed. On the question that the bill be read a third time, Lord Campbell expressed a doubt whether the measure ought not to be rendered more extensive, so as to include Quakers and Jews. Many marriages in the colonies were made under the same circumstances as those which had taken place in Ireland, and those might be included. He was far from saying that those marriages were invalid, and he thought that it would be long before their Lordships so decided; but if they were invalid in Ireland they were invalid also in the East and West Indies. Bill read a third time and passed. SLAVE TRADE SUPPRESSION.] Lord Brougham moved the third reading of the Slave Trade Suppression Bill and observed that when it had become law, the Legislature would probably have done all in its power for the extinction of slavery and the suppression of the slave-trade. He felt called upon to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to his noble Friend, the present Governor-general of India, for the manner in which he had put an end to slavery on taking possession of Scinde. He looked forward with sanguine hope to the abolition of slavery in the East Indies, a consummation not to be accomplished so much by legislation, or by doing violence to property, as by giving encouragement to the same method which Sir A. Johnstone had so beneficially pursued in Ceylon, and which had induced the native slave-owners themselves to declare all children free after a certain date. The Earl of Auckland said, the expression of such a hope was wholly unnecessary. No measure for the abolition of slavery in the East Indies was, he was happy to say, now required. While he was Governor-general an inquiry was instituted into the state and condition of slaves throughout our widely-extended dominions in India. The result of the inquiry was, that an act was prepared, the effect of which would have been to abolish the condition of slavery throughout those dominions, and to remove all the inconveniences and hardships to which slaves were subjected there. There was not time the head of the Government; but the for that act to pass while he remained at noble Lord who now held that post and the Government of Bengal had since passed an act by which slavery was abolished in the British dominions in India. [Lord Brougham: When was that act passed.] About eight or ten months ago. He did not, however, mean to say that some condition of servitude more or less painful, might not still exist, but at the same time, he had no doubt that measures would be carried into full operation that would put an end to all the practical as well as nominal evils of slavery. Lord Brougham observed, that no one had the least idea, until the noble Earl made this statement, that any act of a final nature had passed for the abolition of slavery in India. He could not help thinking that the act the noble Lord had spoken of must have passed more recently than eight or ten months ago. Bill read a third time and passed. Report received. HOUSE OF COMMONS, DEFAMATION AND LIBEL.] Lord" Reports," which were just what reports Campbell moved that the report on the ought to be; the words where the words Defamation and Libel Bill be received. were wanted, and the substance where With respect to the 7th clause, which only the substance was necessary. They he had proposed, he did not mean to filled up a most remarkable chasm in pardivide the House; but in order that it liamentary history, and Mr. Wright had might appear on the journal of their Lord- performed his duty as editor with singular ships' House, he should move on the re- ability and knowledge. Nothing could be port being brought up that that clause be better done, and he earnestly wished that added to the bill. The great objection to all parliamentary history had been prethat clause was, in fact, the standing order pared and compiled with equal skill and of their Lordships' House, which professed talent. not to allow the publication of any of their proceedings. The clause would, in fact, legalize such publication. He might add, shat one of the most distinguished statesmen during the last century had spoken of the absurdity of a similar standing order in the House of Commons. For the period of that which was termed the unreported Parliament, from 1768 to 1774, until lately, there was no account whatever, although the proceedings of that Parliament were most interesting; but recently they had been furnished with a transcript of the admirable reports of Sir H. Cavendish, edited by a gentleman of the greatest ability and research-Mr. Wright; and thereby was supplied a most important hiatus in Parliamentary history. The standing-order of their Lordships' House was dated the 27th of February, 1698, and was to this effect: "Resolved, that it be a breach of the privileges of this House for any person to print or publish in print any of the proceedings of this House without leave of this House, and that this be a standing-order of this House." The order of the House of Commons was in corresponding terms. He (Lord Campbell) trusted that, before loug, that standing-order would be repealed, and then one objection to the clause he proposed would be removed. [The Lord Chancellor When that is repealed, then you can introduce your clause.] Mr. Burke said, he was prepared to show the absurdity of such a resolution; and if they were to make it their business to suppress printing in that way, it would put a stop to all order in their House. He hoped, therefore, when their Lordships knew that their standing-order was condemned by so distinguished a man as Mr. Burke, that their Lordships would not much longer retain upon their books the order to which he had alluded. Lord Brougham rose to bear willing testimony to the importance of Cavendish's MINUTES.] Friday, July 21, 1843. BILLS. Public.-10. Customs; Episcopal Functions; Marriages (Ireland); Slave Trade Treaties; 2o. Controverted Elections. Reported.-Designs Copyright; Fines and Penalties (Ire- Reported.-Glasgow Police; Anderston Improvement and 3o and passed:-Jackson's Divorce. UNIVERSITY STATUTES.] Mr. V. Smith begged to ask the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, a question respecting the statutes of that University and its colleges. In July, 1838, the Duke of Wellington, the Chancellor of that University, deprecated discussion in the House of Lords on the subject of these statutes, saying, that they were then in the course of revision, and that it would be well that all opinion on them should for the present be suspended. It was now five years since this declaration had been made, and he wished to ask whether the revision alluded to had been completed, or was still in progress, and, if so, when it would be completed, and whether there would be any objection to the publication of the revised statutes. Sir R. H. Inglis would answer the ques take this opportunity of adding what he had before omitted; the right hon. Gentleman's question had referred, not to the university merely, but to colleges also. He was able to state, that considerable progress had been made in the different colleges with respect to the revision of their statutes; but he must add, that each of the colleges had a visitor, subject to whose cognizance their internal affairs were conducted. The university, also, had a visitor in the person of the Archbishop of Canterbury, besides a special visitor, to whom it was answerable. tion of the right hon. Gentleman as well I could desire that they should be published as he was able. It was within the know-in their original language. He might ledge of the House, without reference to what had taken place elsewhere, that the University had been engaged for a considerable time past in revising the statutes, and considerable progress had been made. Two or three years previously to the time to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded, a great alteration had been made in reference to the relative intercourse of colleges and halls. In 1837 some change had been effected, which related to oaths, and in 1838 a considerable alteration had been adopted with regard to matriculations. Formerly it was required that young men should take an oath to fulfil all the requirements of the statutes, but that practice had now ceased to exist, and in lieu of taking the oath, every young man now received an admonition, which was addressed to him by the chief functionary of the University, the Vice-Chancellor. In the following year an alteration was made with respect to residence, which he thought would be found to be exceedingly salutary in its effects. In 1840 an alteration had been made in the statutes de moribus conformandis, and he believed that this was such a measure as would satisfy every hon. Gentleman. In another year, 1839, a further alteration had been made respecting lectures, requiring all persons to attend a certain number of courses, and of lectures in each course. He thought, that the right hon. Gentleman and the House would agree with him in thinking that much had been done, and that under the circumstances it was fit that a considerable portion of indulgence should be shown to the university. He could assure the House that the subject had not escaped the observation of those most interested in maintaining the discipline of the university, in promoting its welfare, and in rendering it one of the greatest ornaments of civilization in England. Mr. V. Smith begged to suggest to the hon. Baronet that he had not yet answered the questions which he had put namely, how soon the work which had been commenced would be completed, and whether the statutes might not be printed? Sir R. H. Inglis took it for granted that the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the statutes were promulgated in Latin, and he did not know whether he EMIGRATION BOUNTY ORDERS.] Mr. Ewart begged to put a question to the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, upon the subject of what was called bounty orders, which had been formerly granted by the Government for the encouragement of emigration. The bounty orders, during the period of office of the late Government, had been suddenly suspended; and those interested in promoting emigration had been subjected to considerable suffering by that suspension. Many of them held bounty orders, and they expected that their cases would be taken into consideration when the system was resumed. The noble Lord had given notice of his intention to resume these orders, and he desired to know whether, in accordance with the views of these persons, their case would be considered? Lord Stanley said, that the hon. Member was aware, that shortly before the change of Government, two years ago, the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) then Secretary for Colonial Affairs, found that so many of these orders had been issued, that it was impossible that the finances of the colonies on which they were charged, could meet the demands upon them. The outstanding bounty orders on the Australian colonies at that time amounted to a million of money, which was to be paid in the course of two years. The noble Lord, therefore, had felt compelled, and he was convinced that the noble Lord had acted correctly, after giving sufficient notice to the present holders of these orders, to declare that, after a limited time, these orders should not be considered as being any longer binding. It was stated, however, that if emigration or |