fore Mr. Baron Wood at Durham, for a capital offence. The Judge summed up as regarded two of them, for an acquittal; but the Jury misunderstanding the Judge, found them guilty. He was obliged to pronounce sentence of death upon them, but immediately respited them; and the witnesses who had given evidence against them, were afterwards convicted of perjury. The Jury found the other two also guilty; but one of them declared, that he alone was guilty, and that his companion was innocent. In all these cases he was satisfied, that had Counsel been allowed to address the Jury for the prisoners, they would have been acquitted. He agreed, however, that no reply should be allowed to the Counsel for the prosecution, for it would introduce feelings fatal to the calm investigation of truth. He thought it would be even better to allow the law to remain as it was, than to permit the prosecutor's Counsel to reply. He could state that, in consequence of the prosecutor's Counsel being allowed to reply in some cases of misdemeanours-as conspiracy four defendants out of five were unjustly convicted. When certain returns for which he had moved were laid upon the Table, the House would see what an enormous amount of injustice had been perpetrated in cases of conspiracy by allowing Counsel for the prosecution to reply. There was a very great difference between allowing Counsel for a plaintiff in a civil case to reply, and allowing a prosecutor's Counsel to reply. The plaintiff had an interest at stake; and if the defendant called witnesses, the plaintiff must be allowed to reply upon this evidence; but the King had no interest in making out the guilt of his subjects; and therefore he said, give the accused the last word. A great legal character had said, at the close of a long professional life, that he had got many verdicts to which he was not entitled, and had not many to which he was entitled; but that, upon the whole, the balance of justice was even. Now, that was precisely the argument now used. It was true, that there were innocent persons convicted of crimes they had never committed; but then, look at how favourable the practice was to prisoners, and how many escaped. That was not exactly the balance of justice of which he approved. He was for having the guilty convicted; and, above all, for having the innocent acquitted. Mr. Poulter withdrew his Amendment, and the Bill was read a second time. HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, June 5, 1834. MINUTES.] Bill. Read a second time:-House Tax Repeal. Petitions presented. By the Dukes of WELLINGTON and NEWCASTLE, and the Bishops of ROCHESTER and BATH and WELLS, from a Number of Places,-for Protection to the Established Church.--By the Earl of DURHAM, from the Medical Practitioners of Tipperary, for an Alteration of the Law relating to Medical Charities; from a Number of Dissenting Congregations, for Relief to the Dissenters. TREATY WITH PORTUGAL.] The Marquess of Londonderry rose to ask the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government a question, the answer to which it was necessary for the country to know, as a strong feeling of anxiety was excited by the occurrence to which the question referred; indeed, he would say, too, that the public interest was much concerned in it. During the interregnum of the last fortnight during, he might say, that suspension of the Government, and the consequent embarrassments and evils to the public business resulting from the palsied state of the Government, he did not think it right to ask the question. But, now that there was the appearance, if not the reality, of a constituted Government, he hoped he might, without discourtesy, or without creating any confusion in his Majesty's counsels, ask a plain question-one, indeed, that the country asked, in a loud and bold tone too-whether Don Pedro, who was planted, through the instrumentality and aid of England, in supreme dominion in Portugal-a ruler ejected from the Brazils, not for his adherence to the principles or practice of liberty, but fixed, by the indirect agency of England, as the ruler of Portugal-whether, then, from gratitude to England, or rather the English Government, which, while professing neutrality, so vigorously supported him, he had ratified the Treaty entered into with him by this country? He (Lord Londonderry) also wished to know whether that Treaty, either fictitious or real, was ever ratified by the English Government? How did the case stand? Was there a ratification on either side, or was the whole thing mere parchment and a blind? It was said, indeed, in the public prints, some of which professed, or were believed, to be in the secrets of Government; it was semiofficially stated, that the ratification was signed on the part of England. Now he was surely justified in asking if that were so; and, in the next place, if the ratification on the part of Portugal was received and further, if not received, what was the cause of the delay, whether the delay was shuffling and tricky, or resulted from natural unforeseen, and excusable causes? There was another point that he would incidentally advert to, as it was made the subject of commentary in other places, and indeed the topic of disputation by the periodical defenders, if not the patrons, of the Government-that was, that it was stipulated that Don Pedro was to be allowed only for a time to be at the head of affairs in Portugal; that he was only to be a temporary stop-gap kind of director of the destinies of that country. He should also like to know what was the course intended to be adopted by the present Government in case Don Pedro pitched pledges and covenants overboard, and refused to accede to the Treaty. It behoved this country to look well to the conduct of the pretended guardians, the pseudo liberals, of Lisbon, and take care that professions of friendship did not end in acts of hostility. It was boasted that the aim and tendency of the avowed leaning of the Government to the so-called constitutional cause in Portugal was, to tranquillize the country and restore it to happiness and prosperity. But, in place of doing that, the result was, that a flame was lit in Portugal which spread devastation through the country, and that the interests of Great Britain, which were ever before secured by our close alliance with Portugal, as in some degree the reward of our protection of that country, were sacrificed by pusillanimity to intrigue and bluster and usurpation. one of the conditions of the Treaty. It consisted of an omission in the preamble of the Treaty, as it had been sent here. It was sent back, and when transmitted to Portugal it was accompanied by a declaration that the Treaty should be of no effect until the omission was supplied. Of its being supplied he could not entertain the least doubt, because he saw no motive whatever that could induce a different line of conduct. The articles had been ratified in the form originally drawn up; and if it would give any satisfaction to the noble Earl, he had no hesitation in telling him, that that article, which he supposed to exist in the Treaty, existed nowhere except in the minds of those from whom he derived his information, or in the noble Earl's own imagination. The moment the ratification was received in the manner required, the Treaty should be laid on the Table. The delay was occasioned merely by an inadvertence, and it was not possible to lay before the House an incomplete document. With respect to the general observations of the noble Earl, it was not necessary for him to notice them. Whether the course which had been taken would restore peace and tranquillity to Portugal, or whether, as the noble Earl seemed to think, it would extend the evils which afflicted that country, was a matter which their Lordships were not called on then to discuss; and it would, perhaps, have been better if the noble Earl had not touched on the subject. He, however, believed, that every rational man would agree with him in opinion, that the policy which had been pursued would be found in every respect beneficial to Portugal. jesty's Government as a complete one. Now, surely this country ought not to be bound by an incomplete instrument. Earl Grey said, he thought it strange that the noble Earl should have asked a question on a subject of this kind in his absence. He was now ready to answer The Duke of Wellington said, if he unhim, and he should confine himself strictly derstood the noble Earl correctly, the ratito the subject-matter of that question. He fication of the Treaty had taken place; was surprised that the noble Earl should but an incomplete copy of the Treaty so make observations without first ascertain-signed had been exchanged with his Maing the correctness of the ground on which they rested. In the present instance he had made an assumption which had no foundation whatever, except in his own imagination. Now, with respect to the ratification of the Treaty, he would tell their Lordships exactly how the matter stood. He did expect, that he should have been empowered to lay the ratification of the Treaty on their Lordships' Table before this time, and he would now state the cause of the delay that had occurred. The ratification had been received, but the instrument was found to be informal. The informality had nothing to do with any Earl Grey said, the noble Duke laboured under a misapprehension. What he had stated was, that in consequence of an omission in the preamble of the Treaty, it was found necessary to extend, as it were, the time for the ratification; but that it was at the same time declared, that the Treaty should have no effect until the omission was filled up. If the deficiency were not supplied, the ratification of the Treaty, thus incomplete, would have no operation. The Duke of Wellington said, there TO APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS CHURCHES (SCOTLAND).] The Earl of Rosebery moved the second reading of the Bill for the Appointment of Ministers to Churches (Scotland). The Bill would be a measure of primary importance to the religious and moral interests of a great part of Scotland, and more particularly to those of the city of Glasgow, where the want of accommodation was greater than in any other part of Scotland. The state of the city of Glasgow with regard to accommodation for religious worship was the best test that could be given of the utility of this measure. He entertained the highest sense of the Church, the purity of her doctrines, the ability, piety, and usefulness of her Ministers, and their adaptation to the people. He thought it was their Lordships' duty not to lose this opportunity of enlarging the basis of that Church, and of diffusing its benefits as widely as possible. He confidently relied on the intrinsic value of the Bill, and did not doubt that their Lordships would admit its necessity. the present Bill. He was anxious to see the poor accommodated without prejudice to vested rights. The Bill was read a second time. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Thursday, June 5, 1834. Northampton; and Sir R. HILL, from Drayton, for Pro- Shaw Lefevre brought up the Report of KINGSCLERE ENCLOSURE BILL.] Mr. the Committee on this Bill: and, on the question that the Amendments be read a second time: The Earl of Haddington admitted, that the principle of the Bill was good, but the details were capable of great improvement. It was a most reasonable thing that those who took upon themselves the additional expense of erecting new Churches should possess the right of nominating their pastors; but he did not see the necessity of passing an Act of such an universal cha-duty to take the greatest pains possible racter as this. That, however, was a ques-addition to the evidence given before the to arrive at a just conclusion, and, in tion which could be better argued in Committee, and therefore he would not oppose the second reading. The Duke of Hamilton said, no one could more cordially agree with the principle of the Bill than himself. He should not oppose the second reading, but reserve to himself the opportunity of discussing particular points in Committee. The Bishop of London approved of the principle of the Bill, and trusted that a Clause would be introduced directing the appropriation of a certain number of seats for the accommodation of the poor. The 1st and 2nd of William 4th, enacted, that those who built the Church and endowed it with the sum of 1,000l. had the right of presentation. The same principle pervaded Mr. Walter said, he had thought it his the best professional opinion, upon actual Committee, he had endeavoured to procure inspection, and the result of his inquiry was, that there was no way of compensating the poor generally for any loss of this common by any addition to the allotments of individuals. The Hon. Member entered into a variety of details as to the expense of the inclosure, as to the advantages to the persons concerned, and then proceeded. The expense would be enormous; the commissioner stated it at 21. per acre, but he had lately paid 41. per acre for the same thing. He thought that, at a moderate estimate, it would amount to at least 5,000. And out of whose pockets was this to come? Out of the pockets of those who already enjoyed the right of commonage, without any abatement, without incurring any expense whatever. What became, he would ask, of the sum so abstracted from individuals actually enjoying a free right? Did it go to improve the land? No: it went into the pockets of commissioners, surveyors, lawyers, and persons of that class, by whom absolute havoc was to be committed upon this property. The loss to be inflicted was real, substantial, and durable; and it was attempted to repair it by means artificial-he had almost said frivolous; for the right of common was a perpetual right a right of which the poor could not disseize themselves-of which an improvident father could not rob a meritorious son. All that these people wanted was, to be left alone in the enjoyment of that which nature had brought to their doors. With regard to inclosures, there might possibly be some few points in which they had been beneficial; but experience, so far as it had hitherto gone, showed that, in one respect, they had been highly detrimental; they had tended to depress the poor, and, by depriving them of the right of commonage, had thrown them on the parish. On the decision of that morning would depend, not only the comfort of 196 families, but the conviction which the poor entertained, that their interests were as much consulted by that House as those of the most powerful Member in it. The utility of such a conviction, at a time like the present, would, he trusted, be duly appreciated. He concluded by moving, that the Amendments be read on that day six months. Mr. Leech seconded the Amendment. Mr. Shaw Lefevre hoped he should never live to see the day when the interests of the poor would not meet with an equal consideration from that House with those of any other class. So far from the present Bill being any infringement of the rights of the poor, the promoters of the measure had endeavoured by every means in their power to better the condition of the poor, and it was upon this ground that he gave the Bill his support. The hon. Member referred to the evidence at some length to establish his case, and concluded by expressing a hope that the House would allow the Bill to pass. Mr. Hughes Hughes said, never was the saying that one story was good until another was told more fully verified than in the present instance. The hon. Member referred to the evidence to prove his view. He would ask what was to be expected from a Reformed House of Commons if this Bill were suffered to pass? What was the effect of the clause? It limited the extent of the allotment of those labourers who had exercised the rights of commonage for the last twenty years, or who had possessed their cottages for thirty years. But further, it put their estate in trust, instead of giving it to them in perpetuity. Of all absurd clauses that were ever introduced into a Bill, that was the most absurd and extravagant, which, before the commissioners set out and allotted the different plots of ground to each cottager, made it necessary, that each cottager should prove that, for twenty years before the passing of this Act, he had exercised the right of common by stocking it to a certain extent, and that for thirty years he, or the party from whom he derived his right, had been in possession of a cottage, which gave him that right. The allotment was to be held by the lord of the manor, the incumbent of the parish, his curate, the churchwarden, and overseers of the poor in trust for the said several owners of such cottages as had common rights. The cottagers, however, were not to be allowed to assign their allotments without the leave of the trustees, or any five of them, given under their hand and seal, and they were not to be permitted to assign them except to other owners of cottages. Thus, it was necessary that they should obtain, as in the feudal times, leave from their liege lords to alienate. The clause further provided, that if the cottagers were absent from their cottages for more than three months, without just cause assigned, the trustees should be at liberty to enter upon their allotments for their own use and benefit. Could it be doubted for a moment that this clause would give the trustees a direct interest in obtaining as many forfeitures as they possibly could? This clause did not give the cottager a fee simple in his allotment as an equivalent for his right of common. It first limited. the estate to the heirs of his body, making it an estate tail, and then provided, that if he quitted the occupation for three months, or built upon it, or let or assigned it, in either of those cases it should be forfeited to the use of the poor of the parish, and the trustees were required to take possession for that purpose. That such a Bill should be attempted to be palmed upon a Reformed House of Commons was to him surprising, for it was the most extravagant of all extravagances. He trusted the House would never consent to pass this Bill. Colonel Conolly thought, that the rights of the poor had been most sedulously and vigilantly attended to by the Chairman of the Committee, who had made a clear and able statement to the House. He should, therefore, give the Bill his most cordial support. Mr. Gisborne said, although the present Bill was strictly a private Bill, it was one of great public importance. If the opposition to this Bill should succeed, then there would be an end of all enclosures. He knew that persons who were friends to emigration had always had it thrown in their teeth that there were 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 acres of waste land in this country which ought to be put into a state of cultivation before the inhabitants of this country were sent out of the country to cultivate other lands. Having lived the greater part of his life near two commons consisting of land of the description mentioned in the Bill, and being well acquainted with commons and those who usually lived upon them, he could state from actual observation, that they lived a very vagrant sort of life, more like gipsies than regular labourers, and, in every instance which he had known, these poor creatures had been benefited by being compelled to adopt more regular habits. He was of opinion a great deal more had been done for these poor labourers than they could have expected if the present Bill had been suffered to take its ordinary course. The ground on which he should vote was, that he could not conceive a single case of inclosure that could take place throughout the kingdom if the objections urged by the opponents of this Bill should meet with the approbation of the House. Major Beauclerk knew, from his own experience, that many enclosures which had taken place in the counties of Surrey and Sussex had turned out anything but beneficial to the poor. Indeed, many of them to his knowledge had been destructive to the comforts, the pleasures, and the amusements of the poor. The clause read by the hon. member for Ox ford, in his opinion, determined the question. It was calculated to bring the poor man on the parish. By this Bill, the rich man was at liberty to build upon his allotment cottages of any description he pleased; but the poor man was compelled to sacrifice his property if he made any erection upon it at all. It was clear this Bill would promote the ruin instead of the advantage of the poor man, whose rights it affected; and he felt it his duty to oppose it. Sir Henry Hardinge having been a member of the Committee, was desirous to offer a few observations. As a proof of the disinterestedness of the promoters of the Bill, he would inform the House, that one of the counsel against the Bill, who appeared for two commoners only, admitted, that he had no reason to complain of any want of liberality towards the poor on the part of its promoters; on the contrary, their generosity to the poor had been so much more than ordinary, that his clients were compelled to complain that they were damnified by it. Great doubts existing in the minds of the Committee with regard to what course ought to be pursued, and very conflicting testimony having been given before the Committee on both sides-indeed there was a strong party feeling on the subject-it was thought expedient, with the consent of both parties, to send down a person of known character and respectability, on whose testimony the Committee could rely. On his report, the Committee came to the decision, that the preamble was proved, that "it was advantageous to the poor of Kingsclere, that this enclosure should be made." Under these circumstances, what was the Committee to do? Every proposition made by the opponents of the Bill was assented to; ten-elevenths of the property were in favour of the Bill. Forty-three rate-payers and 286 cottagers had petitioned for this enclosure. They lived in the village, which was three miles distant from the common. They had an equal right to the common with those parties who lived upon its confines, although they were unable to make the same use of it, from the distance at which they were located from it. By a clause in the Bill, seventy-five acres in the immediate neighbourhood of the village were to be given to these commoners in exchange for the rights which they now possessed, but of which they were unable to avail them |