Commons Sitting of 16 June 1819

CAMELFORD ELECTION.
Mr. Gore Langtonappeared at the bar with the report of the committee on the Camelford election. The report sat forth, that John Stewart, esq. and Lewis Allsop, esq. the sitting members, were not duly elected; that the election was void; and that the petition was not frivolous or vexatious. He also informed the House, that the committee had resolved,
1. "That at the last election for Camelford, the said John Stewart, esq. acted in violation of the provisions of the statute of the 49th of his majesty,(c.118) and is there-by incapacitated to serve in this present parliament for the said borough. 2. That John Rounsevel, Edmund Harvey, Richard Gayer, jun., William Rowe, and John Brown, Electors for Camelford, and William Hallet, of Saint Mary Axe, London, druggist, and James Harvey of Camelford, did corruptly endeavour to procure the return of two persons to 6erve in parliament for the said borough of Camelford. 3. That the said William Hallett, has wilfully absconded, in order to avoid being summoned to give evidence before this committee."—The report was ordered to be taken into consideration on the 25th; also, that the Speaker do not issue a new writ before the 25th.

BANK ADVANCES BILL.
Mr. Peelsaid, that among the recommendations contained in the report of the Select Committee on the affairs of the Bank, there remained one to which the House had not yet adverted. It was a recommendation, however, which was by no means of minor importance. The committee recommended that parliament should adopt some permanent provision for defining and limiting the future advances made by the Bank to the public, and for bringing; those advances constantly under the superintendence of parliament. It was a bill to effect that object that he should, in conclusion, move for leave to bring in. There were three modes in which the purpose might be accomplished—either by a law, interdicting the Bank from making any advances at all—a prohibition that would be attended with great public

1193
inconvenience; or by establishing a nominal amount to which the advances might be extended, which would be attended with the disadvantage, that that amount might sometimes be too small, sometimes too large for the necessity; or thirdly, by the plan which, under all the circumstances of the case, he conceived to be the most expedient. He proposed to enact, that the Bank should, in the first place, be prohibited altogether from making any advances to government; and that, when-over such advances were deemed desirable by government, an account of them should be submitted to parliament for the purpose of obtaining its authority. This course would bring the whole subject of the advances from the Bank, under the constant inspection of parliament. The first clause of his bill would prohibit the Bank of England from making any advances to government unless distinctly authorized by parliament. It would then provide, that if parliament considered such advances desirable, and authorized them by a specific act, either the first lord of the treasury, or the chancellor of the exchequer, should make a written application to the directors of the Bank for the required advances, which application, and their answer to it, the directors should enter on their minutes. The next clause would provide, that the written application so made, and the minutes of the Bank, stating their acquiescence or refusal, should be laid before parliament, thus bringing the whole transaction under its cognizance. There was another point to which the bill would be directed. He should propose the same regulations respecting the purchase of Exchequer bills by the Bank as he proposed with reference to the advances. This appeared to him to be the most natural and effectual mode of establishing a parliamentary control on this important subject. He concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill to establish regulations for the purchase of government securities by the Bank.
Mr. M. A. Taylorcongratulated the House on its being now proposed to do what, if it had been done long ago, would have averted the calamity of the late war.
Mr. Ricardothought the Bank ought not to be in any way shackled in the management of their own affairs. Great inconveniencies, in the diminution of the circulating medium, might result from
1194
establishing too strict a limit on this subject.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it was not his opinion that any diminution of the circulating medium was necessary, nor did he believe that any such would take place.
Leave was then given.

CURRENCIES OF ENGLAND AND IRELAND.
Sir H. Parnellrose to pro pose a measure for assimilating the currency of Ireland to the currency of England, and for better regulating the exchanges between the two countries. There were two things principally to be attended to. 1st. The coin which was legally current in Ireland: 2nd. The money of account. The gold and silver coin of England were also the legal coin of Ireland, and current there for the same real value, but for a different nominal va arising from the copper coin of Ireland being 1/11th part less in value than the copper coin of England, and to the Irish money of account being taken from this copper coin 12 d of which was equal to an Irish shilling of account, and 20 s. of Irish money of account to 1l. Irish. This made the English shilling equal to 13 d. The English pound equal to 1l. 1s. 8d. Irish, and 100 l. English equal to 108 l. 6s. 8d. Irish; and hence arose the par of exchange between the currencies of 8⅓rd. per cent. All who carried on transactions between the two countries experienced considerable doubt and difficulty, in consequence of this difference in the respective currencies. Persons buying or selling did not know what sum to give or receive. Great interruption to commerce was occasioned by this difficulty. It was therefore obviously clear that it ought, if possible, to be remedied. The hon. baronet proceeded to show the disadvantage under which Ireland laboured in consequence of the exchange as between her and this country being so much against her. On a bill drawn at 21days; there would be a loss of 5 per cent, as much as a whole year's interest on the sum. The time when we were about to restore the currency of both countries to its original value was, he thought, the most proper for an endeavour to assimilate them. He did not expect that the committee would be able to carry the measure into effect in this session, but at least their labours at present would go a great way towards

1195
effecting it in the course of the next. He concluded by moving, "That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency of assimilating the currency of England and Ireland."
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he concurred in all the general principles and observations of the hon. bart. and was very anxious to see so desirable an object accomplished; but he submitted to the hon. bart. whether, in the present period of the session, it would be expedient to go into a committee, from which, according to his own admission, no practical result could be immediately obtained. If the matter were investigated early in the next session, as much good might be the result as if it were now gone into. He should, therefore, move the previous question.
Mr. Grenfellwould have no objection to the postponement of the committee, if ministers would give a distinct pledge to agree to a committee; and if such a pledge was given, he should recommend his hon. friend to withdraw his motion, and give notice for a motion to appoint such a committee very early in the next session.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad no objection to declare that, unless some very unforeseen occurrence took place, he would support such a motion, as he was as desirous as any one to get rid of the present inconveniences arising from the two currencies.
Sir H. Parnellthen consented to withdraw his motion, as it was nearly the same thing, and equally secured the object of his present motion.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—MR. COLLIER REPRIMANDED.
Mr. W. Smithrose to present a petition from the gentleman who was yesterday committed to the custody of the serjeant at arms for a breach of privilege. He did not mean to deny that a great breach of privilege had been committed; but he was one of those who did not think it intentional. He had said last night, that from his knowledge he could state, that the individual in custody was highly respectable from connexions, character, and education. From what he had since seen of him, he was the more strongly impressed with this belief. The petitioner did not deny his being guilty of a breach of privilege, but he respectfully asserted, that he had no intention of offending the House or any hon. member of
1196
it. He prayed, therefore, that he might be brought up and discharged.
Sir F. Burdett, without going into an inquiry respecting the question then, could not omit entering his protest against the principle which the House had assumed, of acting on questions of privilege in the double capacity of judge and accuser. He could not see upon what principle of law or justice the House could compel a man to appear at their bar, and be obliged to become his own accuser. The practice was, in his opinion, pregnant with dangerous consequences, and therefore one to which he would never give his support. It went upon the principle of Rhadamanthus, castigatque auditque. It chastised first, and heard the party after; which he conceived was a most unjust method of proceeding. As to the particular charge against the petitioner, he did not believe him guilty, for he understood that the words used were nearly similar to those reported, and that there were cheers about the same time [Cries of "No, no"]. At all events it seemed to be admitted on all hands, that the report had been given without ill-intention on the part of the petitioner, and he maintained that where there was no ill intention there could be no crime. If, then, there was no ill intention on the part of the petitioner, how, he would ask, could the House punish? It ought, he conceived, to be held in the House as it was in another place, that "actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea."
Lord Castlereaghdid not sec in what character the hon. baronet appeared before the House on the present occasion. If it were as an advocate, he had acted, as was sometimes done elsewhere, in a manner calculated to do his client an injury, for the tendency of his observations was, to oppose the clemency with which the House might be disposed to treat the petitioner. The hon. baronet had protested against the power which the House had exercised in maintaining its privileges: upon this subject however the hon. baronet was not the most impartial person to decide. He had, on one occasion, tried in a court of law the question of the power of the House on this point; and after the result, he (lord C.) did not expect to hear this opinion again put forward. But the hon. baronet denied that the petitioner made any misrepresentation, or committed any breach of privilege. It should, however, be recollected, that he (sir F. Burdett)

1197
was not in the House while the accused person was at the bar. If he had he would have found that the petitioner had acknowledged the breach of privilege, and did not attempt to justify it. The object of what the petitioner had said, was certainly to induce the House to believe that he had no intention of offending; but in this defence of himself, he had not drawn any of those distinctions which the hon. baronet had made. If the person whose report had been the subject of complaint was to have his offence visited with lenity, it would be owing to his conduct at the bar, and not to the arguments which the hon. baronet had produced in his defence.
Mr. Courtenaycould not let the subject pass over without informing the House of the light in which he viewed the offence which had been committed. That offence had been extenuated considerably, in the estimation of the House, by the manner in which the individual had behaved himself. Indeed it would have been extraordinary if any person, gifted as those were and must be who gave the debates of that House to the public, had not been aware of the situation in which he was standing before the House, and of the absolute necessity which existed of his conducting himself, as the individual in question had conducted himself, with candour and humility. The House might give too much weight to such artful conduct, and therefore he thought it requisite to notice the subject. Much had also been said of the good character, the excellent education, and the respectable connexions of the individual to whom he had before alluded. This, in his opinion, did not form any extenuation of his offence. If an illiterate man, without any of those nicer feelings which mark the gentleman, should assail the character of an hon. member in scurrilous and indecent language, the person so assailed might treat the charges produced against him with contempt, and consider the reptile who fabricated them unworthy of his anger; but when similar charges were produced by persons on whose minds education had engrafted the feelings of the gentleman, together with all those nice susceptibilities of personal honour which belong to that character, circumstances were entirely changed, the offence assumed a deeper dye, and, when punished ought to be punished with greater severity. He would not moot the question which was then before the House. He confessed that he fell in
1198
with the general opinion of the House, that the prisoner had no intention of misrepresenting what had fallen from the hon. gentleman opposite, or of libelling the character of his right hon. friend. But still he thought that it ought to be most distinctly understood, that it was highly-reprehensible in any individual who pretended to give an accurate representation of the debates of that House, to send forth to the country, as a correct statement of what was said in it, that which he knew that he had not himself heard, that for which he could not himself vouch, that which he had learned from an entire stranger, and that of which it was in his power to have ascertained the correctness by application to his fellow reporters.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, that the purport of the hon. baronet's remarks was, that the report in question was not a misrepresentation of what the hon. member for Aberdeen had said; if that hon. gentleman had been in the House at the time when those remarks were made, he was quite certain that he (Mr. Hume) would not have hesitated to rise and contradict the insinuations which had been thrown out against him in his absence. If his right hon. friend had not been fully convinced that the whole of the paragraph complained of was a most gross misrepresentation, he would not have taken any notice of it in the House, but would have terminated the business by another and a different issue. [Loud cries of Order].
Mr. Humeexpressed his astonishment at the conduct of the hon. baronet. Had he been present, either when the speech was made, which had been unfortunately misrepresented, or when he (Mr. Hume) gave an explanation of what that speech actually contained, he would not have uttered the observations which he had done. Indeed, as it was, he was quite astonished how the hon. baronet could express any doubts of the truth of his representations. He was extremely sorry to hear the hon. baronet throw out such doubts, because he would venture to say that there was not a single individual in the House who heard him that was not satisfied that he had never uttered any thing like the calumny which had been imputed to him. He had stated on a former occasion his conviction, that the editor of The Times had no knowledge of the incorrect nature of the paragraph which had been inserted in the paper, and he had only to appeal to the candid and manly manner in which

1199
the reporter had given his evidence at their bar, to prove that there was no malignity against the right hon. gentleman on his part.
Mr. Hutchinisonsaid, that a strong feeling existed in his mind, that nothing like malignity had actuated the gentleman who had made the report of which complaint had been made.
Mr. Collierwas then brought to the bar, where he received a Reprimand from Mr. Speaker, and was ordered to be discharged out of custody, paying his fees. The reprimand was as followeth, viz.
"John Payne Collier;—You having confessed yourself to be the author of a paragraph, which this House resolved to be a scandalous misrepresentation of the debates and proceedings of this House, a calumnious libel on the character of one of its members, and an aggravated breach of its privileges, you were, for the said offence, committed to the custody of the Serjeant at arms attending this House. Grave and serious as this offence is, the manner in which you conducted yourself whilst under examination at the bar, and the explanation you then offered, led this House to the conviction that your misconduct was not intentional, and induced them consequently to treat you with a lenity, which, under no other circumstances, could such an offence have either suggested or justified. Your petition of this day has been received, and fully considered, and the terms in which it is conceived, and the sorrow and regret expressed in it, coupled with your conduct at the bar, to which I have before adverted, induce this House, in the further extension of mercy, now to order that you be reprimanded and discharged. Let not, however, that lenity be misunderstood; let it not be forgotten, that it is alone from the indulgence of this House that there is room for the commission of any such offence; and that the abuse of such indulgence aggravates the offence. Let this be a public warning, that the repetition of this offence, after the notice that has been now taken of it, cannot but be considered as wilful; and by whomever it may be committed, it will assuredly be visted with the utmost rigour and the severest punishment. Having now, in obedience to the commands of this House, thus reprimanded you, I have further to acquaint you, that, you are discharged, upon the payment of your fees."

MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Mr. W. Smithobserved, that in bringing forward the motion of which he had given notice, he found himself fortified by the contents of several petitions which had been presented. The prayer of those petitions was for some alteration in the marriage service, as it respected a particular class of individuals. The grievance complained of was described in as brief terms as possible in the petitions themselves, which stated that the marriage service, as prescribed by law, was, in some of its parts, inconsistent with the principles of their religious belief. Prior to the act of the 26th Geo. 2nd marriage was considered in this country merely as a civil contract. To the ceremonial appointed by that act the dissenters generally entertained some objection; but what was complained of by his clients on this occasion was, the various expressions relative to the doctrine of the Trinity which occurred in it. By a recent statute they had been relieved from the penalties and disabilities imposed by laws which had become almost obsolete, but it was still unpleasant to their consciences that this doctrine should be introduced in a manner that implied a recognition of it on their part. As this introduction of it was perfectly useless, the petitioners hoped that in their case it might be dispensed with. Before the act of Geo. 2nd, marriage was held to be essentially a civil contract. For this proposition he had the authority of Mr. Justice Blackstone. It was not then requisite to its validity, that it should be connected with a religious ceremony. From the operation of that act, however, Jews and Quakers were exempted; and he believed that the petitions which they addressed at the time of its passing, had led to their exemption. The petitioners did not complain of the general tenour of the marriage service, but of a distinct part of it, the omission of which, in certain cases, was the object of the measure it was his intention to propose. If it were important that the marriage contract should be sanctioned by a religious ceremony, it ought to be congenial to the religious principles conscientiously entertained by the parties. He knew that many persons regarded marriage as the most solemn engagement which could be contracted, and that it was highly advantageous that it should be clothed with the sanctions of religion. In taking oaths, the religious creed of the

1201
person sworn was always made the test and security of his evidence the Jew was sworn upon the Old Testament, and the Mahometan upon the Koran. The analogy appeared to him to be extremely strong. He feared, however, that the association of a religious ceremony with the marriage contract had not always the good effect that was ascribed to it. If they looked to those countries where marriage was a sacrament, it would appear that its vows were much more frequently broken than in the northern part of this kingdom, where no religious ceremony was essential to its validity. Under all these considerations, he should now move for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the Marriage act, so far as relates to the ceremony in the case of Protestant Dissenters from the church of England.
Lord Castlereaghdid not object to the introduction of the bill, but as he was not aware of the provisions it might contain, he must reserve his opinion till the measure should be before the House.
Mr. Wilberforceacquiesced in the propriety of allowing the bill to be brought in. He could not help feeling some apprehension lest the general terms in which his hon. friend had spoken of marriage as a civil contract might be misunderstood. There could be he doubt that, so far as evidence was concerned, it might be so denominated, but the institution was itself of divine ordinance.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

ACTS IN DESUETUDE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. Boswell, in moving that the report of this bill be brought up, said, he was constrained to admit, that although the statute law of Scotland might be abrogated by contrary custom, this principle could not apply to acts of parliament passed since the union and extending to Scotland. If the present measure were an improper one, he should be the last person to regret that it was checked in its progress; but he was convinced that it would be attended with great benefit.
Mr. J. P. Grantadmitted, that the laws of Scotland might fall into desuetude; but he could not go along with the bill. If the hon. gentleman was able to show that doubts could arise on the subject, the legislature would interfere by a declaratory law; but as no man could predicate that doubt was likely to arise, there was no ground for interference. It was certain, that no writer had given it as his opinion,
1202
that an act passed since the Union could fall into desuetude. The doctrine of the statute law of Scotland was, that it might fall into desuetude, because such had been the intention of the legislature; but the doctrine of the law of England was, that there had been no such intention on the part of the legislature, and that therefore it could not be abrogated by contrary usage. He should move, that the report be taken into farther consideration on that day six months.
Mr. Tennysonsaid, the objection of the hon. and learned gentleman appeared to be two-fold: first, that no doubts had arisen with respect to the application of desuetude to statutes of the united kingdom, and secondly, that the principle of liability to desuetude in Scotland had attached to the old laws at the period of their enactment, and could not therefore apply to acts passed by the united legislature. With respect to the first head of objection he might observe, that sufficient time had not perhaps elapsed since the union, for laws subsequently made to fall into desuetude, and, therefore no occasion had offered itself to the Scottish courts for the expression of doubts on the subject. But the question was, whether, when in course of time, statutes of the united parliament fell into disuse in Scotland, they would not also lose their validity according to the interpretation of the term desuetude in the Scottish law? The hon. and learned gentleman, it seemed, thought they would not, because the principle of liability to desuetude attached, in his opinion, to the law in its origin. He (Mr. T.) concurred with him in thinking, that if the principle did attach itself to the law at the period of legislation, it could not apply to one made by the united parliament, which certainly did not recognize such a principle. But he doubted whether desuetude did not rather attach to the law in its administration in Scotland, as part of the common law inherent as it were in the soil of that country, until eradicated by the legislature. It would be recollected, that by the articles of union all the laws and customs of Scotland were preserved to her in full integrity; and the courts of session, justiciary, and other courts, were to retain all the powers, jurisdictions and authorities, which they had previously possessed and exercised. As therefore, prior to the Union, they had a power of declaring laws to have fallen into desuetude, so they might still

1203
be considered to retain that power with respect to laws passed since the Union as well as before; especially if, as he always understood, laws relating to Scotland passed after the Union were to affect Scotland, and be administered there precisely as the laws formerly passed by the Scottish parliament. As to the manner in which the courts of Scotland might think proper to act in this matter—if, in fact, desuetude were part of the lex terrœ of Scotland, it could not be competent to them to abrogate it with respect to any particular class of laws, either by abstaining from the practice of determining laws to be in desuetude, and therefore of no validity, or even by the most positive declaration; and to insist that they were competent to this, would be to make a much broader admission respecting the objectionable powers of Scottish courts, than was necessary to support the bill of his honourable friend. But if the hon. gentleman was correct in his opinion, that liability to desuetude in Scotland resulted from a known principle of legislation, formerly recognized in the Scottish parliament, and thus attached itself to the law at the period of its enactment, and not at a period subsequent to legislation, namely, in its administration, then, however extraordinary a legislative principle, which contemplated non-observance, might appear to him, he was constrained to admit that the present bill was unnecessary.
Mr. Scarlettthought the measure unnecessary. It was not usual in legislation to provide for the removal of doubts that might possibly arise. He apprehended it-would be an anomaly to say, when the united parliament had passed an act intended to apply to all the kingdom, that it should be binding on this side of the Tweed, and not on the other. The preferable mode of proceeding, would be, to postpone the measure till a doubt should arise on the subject, when a declaratory act might be necessary.
The amendment was agreed to. The bill was consequently lost.