Commons Sitting of 13 October 1831

MINUTES.
New Writ ordered. On the Motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL for Cambridgeshire, in the room of Lord FRANCIS GODOLPHIN OSBORNE, who had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.
Petitions presented. For disbanding the Irish Yeomanry Corps. By Mr. LAMBERT, from the Inhabitants of Killegney and Chapel Rosdroit and Templescoby. By Mr. WALKER, from Inhabitants of Baintown, Ferns, Kilmuckridge, Mayglass, Ballymore, Killinick, Shathmen, Wexford County and Wexford Town. By Mr. GRATTAN, from Kildalkin. By Mr. WALKER, from the Inhabitants of Lady's Island, Cairn, and St. Margaret's, against any further Grant to the Kildare Street Society. By Mr. LITTLETON, for some provision in the Beer Bill for the better observance of the Sabbath, from the Inhabitants of Bury St. Edmond's, Newcastle-under-Lyne, the Stafford-shire Potteries, and from the Inhabitants of the Metropolis and its Vicinity. By Mr. WILKS, from the Friendly Societies of Birmingham, for the amendment of the Friendly Societies Act. By Mr. HOLMES, from the Corporation of Anstruther Wester, against the Clause in the Scotch Reform Bill for disfranchising the Fife Boroughs; from the Farmers and Occupiers of Land in Pulhill, South Stafford, to extend the right of Voting to all Occupiers of Land at the same rate of Qualification as Occupiers of Houses, and from the Magistrates and Landed Proprietors of Wigtown against the use of Molasses in Breweries. By Lord CAVENDISH, from the Freeholders of Stokesly against the General Registry Bill. By Mr. HENRY GRATTAN, from the Inhabitants of Kildalkey, for the amendment of the Law relating to Roman Catholic Marriages. By Mr. HUME, from the Retailers of Beer of Wolver-hampton, Bilston, and their Vicinities against the Sale of Beer Bill. By Mr. SPRING RICE, from the Corporation of Galway, that the right of Election by resident Freemen of that place, admitted since the 1st March, 1831, may be preserved; from the 50 l. Freeholders and 10 l. Householders of the County of the Town of Galway, to provide that the peculiar Franchise of Galway may remain in the resident Merchants. Tradesmen, and Artizans; and from the Town and Corporation of Galway to preserve the Elective Franchise to Catholics in that Town on an equality with Protestants.

FORGERY OF SIGNATURES TO PETITIONS.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, the hon. member for Oxford (Sir Robert Inglis) had presented a Petition which he (Mr. Henry Grattan) had at the time said was an imposition practised on the House. Since that time, by direct application to some of the parties whose names were said to be signed to that petition, he found that the statement he had then made was perfectly correct. Two English gentlemen, whose names were affixed without their consent, complained that they had sustained an injury by the forgery of their names, and the Reverend Thomas Perceval Magee also declared, that application had been made to him to sign the petition, but that he had refused. This was a subject which required investigation. He was in the judgment of the House as to

693
what course he should adopt, but he believed in former cases of the kind a Committee of Inquiry had been granted.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, at the time, he presented the petition he had declared to the House, that the petition had been forwarded to him by post, and that he was not acquainted with the names of the parties subscribed to it. But, in consequence of the statements made by the hon. and learned members for Meath and Kerry, he had felt it his duty to institute some inquiry, and he had been informed by the gentleman from whom he had received the petition, that he knew of no names being attached to it without warranty from the owners, but that it had been left at several booksellers' shops for signatures, and therefore, he could not be responsible that all the names attached to it were genuine: certainly, it seemed doubtful on an inspection of the names indistinctly written, whether the allegation of forgery was borne out, for it was extremely difficult to decipher one name in particular, and say whether it was Howell or Fowell. In the Athlone and Carrickfergus cases the petitions contained the names of freeholders, the authenticity of which it was easy to ascertain but in the petition now under review no places of residence were affixed and, therefore, it would be extremely difficult to prove that the two signatures bearing the name of Howell were really intended to represent those of the two gentlemen who complained that their signatures were affixed without their authority. With respect to the name of the Reverend Mr. Magee whose name was also attached to the petition, he understood from that gentleman that it had been affixed by a friend of his who misunderstood his intentions: his objection was not against the prayer of the petition, but against certain expressions contained in the body of it.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the hon. Member had only done his duty in presenting a petition which had been forwarded to him, and his conduct was by no means impugned by the complaint now made; but the individual who had forwarded it to him had been guilty of very improper and very great inadvertence, to say the least of it. He hoped the House would bear in mind, that the identical names of two respectable brokers were affixed to it, which no doubt were a forgery, for their handwriting was attempted to be imitated. As
694
to the friend of the Reverend Mr. Magee who had signed his name without his consent, it was necessary that he should be known, for, perhaps the House might indulge him with a residence within the walls of Newgate. He hoped the hon. member for Meath would not let the subject drop, but have it regularly brought under the notice of the House next Session.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, if the House once attempted such a course it would be dragged into interminable inquiries.
Mr. Humesaid, as there appeared no doubt that the names of three individuals had been surreptitiously attached to the petition, he hoped that a Select Committee would be appointed to inquire into the subject.
Mr. Henry Grattanwould certainly move in the next Session for the appointment of a Committee to investigate the business.

BARBADOES AND ST. VINCENT IMPORTATION BILL.
On the Motion of Mr. Spring Rice, the Standing Orders were suspended, and the House went into a Committee on this Bill.
Mr. Humesaid, so far was he from having any objection to the Bill, that he regretted its provisions were not more extended. It would be, in his opinion, the best way to allow all the West-Indian islands to obtain food at the cheapest market, but which they had hitherto been prevented doing from the opposition of the landed and shipping interests of this country, who desired to have the monopoly of supplying them.
Mr. George Robinsonsaid, he must outer his protest against the principle laid down by the hon. member for Middlesex, as to the propriety of allowing the colonies to supply themselves in all cases at the cheapest markets; such isolated observations were likely to mislead people who did not consider the whole nature of the question.
Mr. Humesaid, he was always an advocate for the rights of all classes of his Majesty's subjects. It was quite clear, that if the colonies could purchase provisions, and necessaries on cheaper terms than they now obtained them, it would lessen the expenses of production, and by that means tend to relieve their distress.
Mr. Laboucherehoped that some other means than those pointed out by the hon. member for Middlesex would be adopted

695
to relieve the existing colonial distress, but especially the two unfortunate islands the present evils of which were so much aggravated by a natural and wholly unforeseen calamity. He was satisfied that a stronger case for the liberality of the country generally had never existed, and therefore he hoped that relief which the circumstances of the case required would be instantly afforded.
Mr. Leadersaid, he could assure the House that the extent of the calamity was unparalleled, and he was satisfied that the House and the country only required to know its full extent, to adopt every measure that circumstances would permit to relieve their manifold distresses. As his hon. friend the member or Middlesex, had remarked that a monopoly existed in this country for supplying these islands with provisions, and he appeared to point at Ireland, he begged to assure him, there was no further monoply but that the supplies from that country were both cheaper and better than could be obtained at other places.
Bill went through the Committee.—House resumed, Resolutions reported, and Bill read a third time and passed.

RESIGNATION OF EARL HOWE.
Mr. Trevor, seeing the noble Paymaster of the Forces in his place, begged to call his attention to a paragraph which had lately appeared in the public papers. In that paragraph it was stated, that a noble Earl, who had recently held a high situation in the Queen's household, had been dismissed from his office for the vote which he had given on a late occasion against the Reform Bill in the other House of Parliament. It had been understood that a situation in the Queen's household was held perfectly distinct from all party or political considerations. He believed there were instances in which noble Lords had held that office for a long time, and had always voted against the Administration of the day. It was also a fact, that the noble Earl had tendered his resignation of this office before he gave his vote against the Reform Bill. Why his resignation was not then accepted it was not for him (Mr. Trevor) to explain; but it certainly did appear extraordinary, that after the noble Earl had made a declaration of the mode in which he intended to vote, he should have been allowed to retain his office; and yet, that after he had
696
given his vote in the way which he had previously stated, he should be unceremoniously dismissed. He thought that the circumstances of this case required explanation, both as regarded the House and as regarded the country.
The hon. Member was sitting down, when
The Speakerasked the hon. Member whether he intended to make any motion.
Mr. Trevordid not intend to conclude with a Motion; he had only intended to ask a question.
The Speakersaid, that the hon. Gentleman had gone into an argument, and it was not quite clear what question he intended to put.
Mr. Trevorsaid, that as such was the case, he would confine himself to this simple question—was Earl Howe dismissed from his office of Chamberlain to the Queen on account of his vote against the Reform Bill?
Lord John Russellsaid, that as far as he was informed—and the question did not fall within his department—it was not until after the noble Earl had given his vote against the Reform Bill that he had tendered his resignation, and then his resignation had been accepted.

POLAND.
Colonel Evanssaid, he had no intention to trespass on the House, but in common with every friend to humanity he had witnessed with strong feelings the course of the disastrous contest which had lately devastated the unhappy country of Poland. He admired the spirit, bravery and patriotism which had been invariably displayed by the people. He would at present, however, content himself with moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, copies or extracts of such information as may have been conveyed to his Majesty by the Cabinet of Russia, and by the accredited agents of the late de facto government of Poland, concerning the cause of the war which has been waged in the latter country; also shewing how far neutrality appears to have been preserved by the States bordering on Poland, especially Prussia; also, of such mediation between the belligerents as may have been adopted, contemplated, or proposed, by his Majesty's ally the king of the French, in conjunction or otherwise; and of the assurances (if any), which may have been conveyed to his Majesty by the emperor,

697
of Russia, whether before or since the capture of Warsaw, in respect to the just observance in future of the constitutional rights, nationality and independence of the kingdom of Poland, as guaranteed by the Treaty of Congress of Vienna, and other diplomatic acts of that period."
Lord Althorpsaid, that considering the great variety of papers for which the gallant Officer had moved—of which some related to circumstances now under dispute, and others affected negotiations still in progress—he felt it impossible to accede to this Motion. Moreover, the granting of it would produce the greatest inconvenience, as it would affect the state of the negotiations now depending between Russia and Poland on the one hand, and between Russia and all the other countries of Europe on the other. Indeed, the production of these papers would put a stop to all the present diplomatic arrangements.
Colonel Evanswould, under these circumstances, postpone this Motion till the next Session of Parliament. He hoped, however, that the House would not in the interim be indifferent to the armed occupation of Poland.
Motion withdrawn.

VESTRIES BILL—PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Trevor Mr. Trevor rose to call the attention of the House to a case of great importance. He held in his hand, an advertisement, which had appeared in The Times newspaper of the 7th instant, relative to the passing of the Vestries Bill. The advertisement to which he called the attention of the House was drawn up in the following manner:—'Select Vestries.—At a numerous meeting of the Committees and inhabitant householders of the parish of St. James, Westminster, the following resolution, proposed by Mr. Ewen, and seconded by Mr. Pitt, was unanimously agreed to:—'That this Committee acknowledge with the utmost gratitude, the exertions of his Majesty's Ministers in favour of the Bill for the better regulation of Vestries, &c. now before Parliament; and as the success of that excellent measure is no longer doubtful, it is the opinon of this Committee, that the meeting of the inhabitant householders of this parish, for the purpose of taking into consideration the propriety of withholding the payment of all parochial rates under the select vestry system,
698
as advertised in The Times, Morning Herald, Morning Chronicle, and Morning Advertiser, on the 23rd of September last, should be postponed, and in the mean time the Committee recommend to the householders not to uphold the payment of such of the rates as may have become due—William Maule, Esq, chairman.' He considered that if such threats as were conveyed in that advertisement were allowed to be made, and the people were told to withhold the payment of taxes, it would be impossible for that House or the other House of Parliament any longer to exist as a deliberative assembly. Though he was inclined to regard parish politics with the greatest contempt, yet he thought that he was justified in bringing this case before the attention of the House; because, if not noticed and reprobated, it might form an example which would be followed in matters of State. When it was said in this advertisement, that in consequence of the bill having passed, the intentions of the advertisers to withhold their rates was postponed what was that but to say, "We hold the rod over you, but we shall not whip you on this occasion." If every assembly was allowed to beard the House of Commons in such a manner it must interfere with the fair and proper investigation of any public question that might be brought under its notice. He considered the precedent thus set extremely dangerous, and he should, therefore, move the adoption of a resolution, declaring—"That the course adopted by a certain portion of the parish of St. James, Westminster, in holding out a threat of withholding the payment of rates and taxes, is a daring violation of the privileges of Parliament, and a most improper attempt to intimidate its Members in the proper discharge of their duty—mischievous as an example, and pernicious in its effects."
Mr. J. E. Gordonseconded the Motion.
Mr. Humewas surprised, that this subject had been brought before the attention of the House by an hon. Member who had told them that he despised parish politics. He differed entirely from the hon. Member as to the degree of importance he attached to parish proceedings. Did the hon. Member think that the proceedings of parishes containing 120,000 or 150,000 persons were to be regarded with contempt? This appeared to him to be riding the high horse, with a vengeance. Parish Vestries had a public duty to perform;

699
they had to attend to the interests of the parishioners in general, and if they were not to meet and express their opinions upon all subjects connected with parochial rates, of what possible use could such institutions be? The inhabitants of parishes oppressed by the Select Vestry System had as much right to complain of that system, by which self-elected persons taxed them, as the people of England generally had to complain of the corrupt constitution of that House, by which pretended Representatives of the people increased their public burthens. He looked upon the interference of any Member of that House, on the present question, as most unwise; and it appeared to him, that the hon. Member must have been at a loss for something to bring before the House when he turned his attention to this advertisement. But why did the hon. Member propose to censure the inhabitants of St. James's? They had done nothing; they had, in fact, postponed the meeting which had been called for the purpose of considering the propriety of withholding the payment of rates. He could inform the hon. Gentleman, that he might have fixed upon a parish where the inhabitants had actually come to the determination of withholding the rates, if he wished to bring the matter to an issue. At a meeting of his fellow-parishioners of Mary-le-bone (of which he was the Chairman) a resolution was come to, not to pay the taxes imposed by the Select Vestry, but to allow their goods to be distrained. He considered that his fellow-parishioners had acted legally, and their conduct had produced a most beneficial effect, for a disposition was already shown on the part of the Select Vestry to accommodate matters. He should give the Motion his decided negative.
Mr. John Campbellthought the subject introduced by the hon. Member (Mr. Trevor) was not fit for the notice of the House. He could not, however, allow the assertion made by the hon. member for Middlesex, that parishioners were justified in law in refusing parochial rates because they were imposed by a Select Vestry. He was as much opposed as any one to the Select Vestry System; but while Select, Vestries existed, they existed by the law of the land, and the rates imposed by them ought to be paid. The hon. member for Middlesex said, that he was Chairman of a meeting at which a resolution was passed,
700
expressive of a determination to withhold the parochial rates. He supposed that the hon. Member did not concur in that resolution. [Mr. Hume: "I did."] For it did appear to him (Mr. Campbell) that an extremely bad example was held out, when a number of persons entered into a combination to place themselves above the law. Perhaps the hon. member for Middlesex, and the other persons who attended the Marylebone meeting, compared themselves to Hampden who would not pay ship-money. But Hampden opposed the payment of ship-money, because of the illegality of its imposition: whereas, until the law of the land put down the Select Vestries, the rates imposed by them were legal.
Mr. Humesaid, that the parishioners of Marylebone had no intention of violating the law. The law directed, that in case of nonpayment of rates the goods of the party refusing were to be distrained. The inhabitants of Marylebone would refuse to pay the rates imposed by the Select Vestry, but they would submit to the alternative provided by the law, and allow their goods to be taken away. He thought that their resolution could not be considered in the light of a violation of the law.
Mr. James E. Gordonsaid, the course defended by the hon. member for Middlesex was a bad example to all the people. The precedent was most dangerous, and there was a natural and easy transition from the refusal to pay parish taxes to the refusal to pay parliamentary taxes: it was an easy transition from the course pursued by the hon. member for Middlesex to that recommended by the Political Union.
Sir John Hobhousewas sorry that the time of the House had been so long occupied in the discussion of such a trifling question as the one before it. The inhabitants of St. James's would, no doubt, feel themselves excessively flattered by the notice which their proceedings had attracted from the hon. Member; but he could not help thinking, that the hon. Gentleman had unnecessarily thrown away a great deal of indignation. All the bad example of which the hon. Gentleman had complained originated in an error of the press, the words "not to uphold the payment," being printed, instead of "not to withhold the payment." Indeed, so far from the parishioners of St. James's having recommended the non-payment of taxes, they met to advise the payment of them.
Mr. Trevorhad directed his observations to the general tendency of the advertisement, and not to one word of it, which, of course, he must have seen was a misprint. The part of the advertisement he objected to, was that which said that 'as the success of the measure was no longer doubtful,' the parishioners were recommended not to withhold the payment of the rates, as if they would have been justified in doing so had the measure not been likely to be successful.
Sir John Hobhousesaid, that if the advertisement went to recommend the people not to refuse the payment of taxes, he hardly knew what the hon. Member had to complain of. The meeting was, in fact, convened for that purpose; and there presided at it a gentleman named Maule, of high professional character and ability, who had taken that means in order to divert the parishioners from adopting the other course, of which he had heard rumours. That gentleman had a great deal to lose, instead of to gain, by the adoption of any unconstitutional measures. He must beg further to state to the House, that Mr. Maule had written a letter to his fellow parishioners, containing an opinion opposed to the proposition for refusing the payment of rates, a proposition which the writer described as silly and dangerous.
Mr. James E. Gordonwas glad to hear the explanation, for he had seconded the Motion from supposing that it rested on the ground that certain persons had entered into a combination to refuse the parochial rates.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that if a resolution was passed at any meeting recommending the non-payment of taxes, there was no lawyer who would not pronounce that resolution illegal. Though there was nothing unlawful in a man refusing to pay taxes because he had not the wherewithal, yet it was a very different matter when persons, situated as the hon. member for Middlesex, who had a house in Bryanstone-square, and was well able to pay the taxes, entered into an agreement to withhold payment. He had no hesitation in saying, that the refusal to pay taxes to the state was a high misdemeanour; it was a most dangerous proceeding, totally subversive of the law, and if persevered in, might be the means of the entire dissolution of society. He under stood that a meeting in the country had come to the resolution of refusing to pay
702
the taxes, in the event of a new Administration being formed. He considered that the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had addressed that meeting in a proper manner, by pointing out to them the impropriety of the course they had adopted. It was absolutely necessary, for the preservation of the institutions of the country, that the payment of taxes should be enforced. He thought the case brought before the House called for no interference on the part of Parliament: the law was quite sufficient to put a stop to those proceedings of which the hon. Member (Mr. Trevor) complained.
Mr. George Robinsonwas surprised that the House should have their time occupied by such a subject. The meeting referred to in the advertisement did nothing, and yet the hon. Member now called on the House for a Resolution as to the object of a meeting, after that meeting had been indefinitely postponed, and he asked the House to declare that that which might have been proposed, had the meeting not been postponed, was calculated to intimidate Members of that House from doing their duty. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Member who had brought the matter forward, would see the necessity of withdrawing his Motion forthwith.
Mr. Huntsaid, that this refusal to pay taxes had been recommended by a portion of the public Press, and sanctioned by the hon. member for Middlesex. He had no doubt of its illegality. A man might refuse to pay the taxes, and allow his goods to be distrained; but that was not the question. The question was, whether it was lawful for 150,000 persons to conspire together to refuse the payment of taxes. But the matter did not stop there. Threats had been employed to prevent auctioneers from selling distrained goods; and an auctioneer in Bath had been obliged, in consequence of intimidation, to issue a handbill, in which he gave public notice, that he would not receive for sale any goods distrained for the non-payment of King's Taxes. He would now show the House what sort of creature a Whig was; for this refusal to pay taxes was a Whig measure. It was the measure of the friends of the Bill; the Radicals had nothing to do with it. He had had a letter put into his hands, to which a forged signature of his name had been affixed. The letter was addressed to his printer, and was drawn up in these terms:

703
"Please to print 1,000 double-crown broadsides as follows, and get them struck off as soon as possible."
"HENRY HUNT."
"Englishmen, rouse yourelves! Pay no rates nor taxes, until you get the Reform Bill."
This forging of his name by the Whigs, in order to recommend to the people the non-payment of taxes, was, he considered, carrying the joke too far. He thought that the hon. member for Kirkcudbright had given Ministers as severe a drubbing as ever they had in their lives. The hon. Member had declared that the Birmingham meeting had been guilty of a high misdemeanour; and yet, two noble Lords opposite, Ministers of the Crown, had corresponded with that meeting, without expressing disapprobation at their conduct.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussondisclaimed having thrown any imputation on the two noble Lords to whom the hon. member for Preston had alluded; on the contrary, he had applauded them for having expressed their disapprobation of the doctrine adopted by the Birmingham meeting.
Mr. Huntdid not recollect that the noble Lords had expressed any disapprobation of that doctrine in the letters which they sent to Birmingham.
Lord Valletortsaid, that the letters of the noble Lords opposite, being addressed to the chairman of a meeting which had adopted an illegal resolution, so far from discountenancing had rather sanctioned that doctrine. He certainly could not participate in the declarations which had been made from that (the Opposition) side, that Ministers were not sincere in their desire to put down disorder. His belief was, that the right hon. Gentlemen would, if they could, put down riotous proceedings; but their language and acts excited that feeling which created riots. There was, however, one excuse for their conduct. They had been so long in opposition, that the abuse of the institutions of the country had become almost habitual to them. The abuse of those institutions, however, proceeding from them when in opposition, was trivial, but it assumed a more serious complexion when it came, particularly at such a moment as the present, from the confidential advisers of the Crown. He implored the right hon. Gentlemen opposite to recollect, that a single incautious word falling from men in their situations might be productive of consequences the most pernicious to the State.
704
He would advise them to disconnect themselves from those who, he believed, were against all government, and to try honestly to allay excitement. He could assure them, on his honour, that if they brought forward a measure of Reform which he did not think destructive of the Constitution, he would be most anxious to vote for it. He had, on former occasions, expressed a strong opinion against the right hon. Gentlemen: he retracted not one word; but, at this moment, they must not look back; they ought to look at circumstances as they stood, and to the future. If he really believed that the line of conduct pursued by the right hon. Gentlemen was calculated to alleviate evils which at present existed, he would cross the House and support them, if he did so alone. He implored them to look seriously to the state of things, to weigh their words carefully, and to remember, that though it was their duty to improve the institutions of the country, it was also their sacred duty, as Ministers of the Crown, to defend them as long as they existed. It was a dereliction of their duty to hold up the institutions of the country to disrespect, and he exceedingly regretted that the noble Lord opposite had thought proper to call the majority of the House of Lords "the whisper of a faction." They had heard a great deal of that majority; they had been told that the decision in the House of Lords had been come to by interested persons, and by the bench of Bishops, who were not fit to form any opinion on the subject. Now he believed it would be found, that if all the Peers who were proprietors of boroughs, and all the Bishops, were excluded from the calculation, a majority of the House of Lords was against the Bill. It was a great deal too hard, therefore, to have it stated that the Bill was thrown out of the House of Lords by those who had a personal interest in getting it rejected. He believed that those noble Lords who possessed property in boroughs were not guided in their decision by improper motives. It was a libel on the English peerage to say, that they had not manliness to resist such influence. He did implore Ministers to consider whether it would not be better to bring forward a measure of Reform less efficient than the last one, than to run the risk of the consequence which would probably follow the second rejection of the Bill by the Lords. Questions of this kind

705
ought always to be regarded as a balance of evils; and if, by diminishing the violent character of the measure, they could conciliate the party opposed to them, he thought they would only be performing their duty in doing so.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, it was as unfounded a charge as ever was made, to assert that it was the intention of the Ministers to induce the people to refuse to pay taxes. It was not the act of the Reformers—it was the act of the Anti-formers. It was their vexatious opposition to the Bill—their opposition to the spirit of the people, by delay, by frivolous pretexts, by motions made every hour, every day, and every month, for the purposes of delay. Did they think that the people would bear this for ever? They had endured the delay most patiently, from the certainty, as they hoped, that the measure would be successful after some delay, and now that hope was at an end, by the foolish and absurd rejection of this popular measure. These were the causes of the popular excitement. Hon. Members talked of the institutions of the country. Were the rotten boroughs the institutions of the country? Were the nominations of Peers to places in that House the institutions of the country? The people in general looked upon these things as a corruption that must be remedied, and yet it was on behalf of such abominations that hon. Gentlemen called on the Government to suspend the measure; that what the people endured so long, they might endure yet longer? He, on the contrary, called upon the Ministers steadily to pursue their course, and to cut away the gangrene that preyed on the vitals of the State with a firm hand. He trusted, that the people would soon obtain what they deserved—a full Representation in that House. The English nation had often been compared to the lion; and if hon. Members thought that Englishmen were totally regardless of the manner in which their most earnest wishes were rejected, they would find themselves mistaken—they would find the truth of that expression which they had heard so often: "irœ Leonum vincula recusantium." He warned them not to put matters to such an extremity. He earnestly hoped, that the people would be peaceable; their opponents must be beaten by that mode of conduct; the people must and could carry the measure, without, violating the law:
706
the people of Ireland had, in that manner, beaten their oppressors, without a single assault, without breaking a pane of glass; and in spite of the interested opposition and strong party spirit, that would have forced them into such measures they kept the peace, if they did not keep their tempers. The people of England were perfectly competent to follow that example. He hoped they would not violate the law. He was not surprised that they had shown some degree of warmth at their disappointment. What had been the nature of the discussions on the Bill? Why, every part of the Bill but that which was at the moment before the House had been the subject of remark and protracted debate. Three months had been spent in that manner. The opposite party had had their triumph of delay, but it was only a triumph of delay, for the King's Government could bring in the Bill again, and the Anti-reformers would not have the power to reject it. They had indulged their self-flattery—they had said, that the people did not care for the Bill, and that the Bill was destructive to the Constitution; and they had repeated these things usque ad nauseam. They talked now of this recommendation not to pay taxes amounting to treason. He would tell them that, if this measure was carried, any man might be left to talk high treason as he pleased, for the people of England would totally disregard it: but, until it was carried, it would be in vain to attempt to strangle their cries of indignation. The people ought to keep within legal bounds. The success of the great measure depended on the people—on their keeping their acts and expressions within the channels of the law, and on their not having recourse to any violence whatever. Feeling this, and seeing how utterly improper was the introduction of this debate at this moment, he hoped the Ministers would not condescend to give any further answer respecting the letter than that which they had given last night. Who was to dispute whether it was the whisper of a faction that had rejected the Bill? If the people were for the Bill, the whisper of a faction must be on the other side—there could not be a faction on both sides—the faction must be on one or the other; and if it was disputed that the people were in favour of the Bill, his answer was, that that question would be very shortly settled.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, he happened to be absent from the House when his name was called, and he wished then to know, whether he might not bring his motion by way of amendment, or in some other manner, at the present moment. It should be observed, that his notice stood on the paper before that of the hon. Gentleman whose motion was now before the House.
The Speakersaid, the regular mode was, to bring forward the different notices in succession, until all were disposed of; and unless that practice were adhered to, the paper, it must be obvious, would be of no use at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman had asked whether he could not introduce his motion, or a discussion relative to that motion, on the consideration of the question before the House. That must depend on the fact whether the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations had reference to the motion now before the House, because, if a different course were taken, it would defeat the right of precedence, which belonged to the hon. member for Durham.
Sir Charles Wetherellrather thought that he had an opportunity of bringing before the House the subject matter to which his motion referred, without trespassing on the rule which the Speaker had laid down. As he was strictissimus juris, he felt anxious not to interfere with any rule by which the right of another might be affected. He would therefore proceed, notwithstanding the sardonic smiles and satirical gestures of Gentlemen on the other side of the House, to declare his opinion with reference to the subject to which his notice of motion referred. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) had allowed sentiments to fall from him which could not be heard but with feelings of indignation: and—
Mr. George Robinson Mr. George Robinson rose to order. He wished to know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was not bound, before he entered into a discussion, to show in what mode he meant to bring forward his motion, so as not to infringe on the rule laid down by the Speaker.
The Speakersaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman was bound, after what he had stated, to introduce his observations in a manner consistent with the orders of the House; but he was not bound to state to the hon. Gentleman how he meant to effect that object.
Mr. George Robinson: Then, I say that, in point of order, the hon. and learned Gentleman is not applying himself to the subject before the House.
Sir Charles Wetherellcontinued. He had heard of a man coming forward with a hand and a glove—but, in the attack of the hon. Member, he could see neither hand nor glove. That was very strange, as the hon. Member represented Worcester, the great manufactory of gloves. But to return to what had been said by the hon. and learned member for Kerry. He would ask the hon. and learned Member, whether the British lion he had alluded to was the infuriated rabble who had attempted to drag from his carriage, and had in fact seriously ill-treated, a noble and gallant Peer? He would appeal to English Members on this point. He would ask them whether such a proceeding as this indicated the presence of the British lion? The hon. and learned Member was the only Irish Member who seemed to contemplate a ferocious attack on an Irish nobleman as a proof of the prowess of the British lion. He supposed that the hon. and learned Member considered that the British lion was merely shaking the dews from his mane, when a highly-excited mob treated a nobleman in this ignominious manner. Every one except the hon. and learned Member, deprecated and deplored the circumstance to which he had alluded. So far as he had observed, it certainly was not characteristic of an Irishman to be a coward, it certainly was no part of the general conduct of an Irishman to attack an individual who could not defend himself; it certainly was no part of an Irishman's well known gallantry, when a noble Lord was attacked, to mix himself up with the cowards and dastards who perpetrated that attack, and then to speak of the magnanimity of the British lion. He conceived that many of those who placed themselves on that (the Opposition) side of the House—and the hon. and learned member for Kerry amongst the number—might, with great propriety, place themselves on the Ministerial benches. The corporeal frames of these hon. Members which he and his hon. friends did not want, were placed near them, while their metaphysical part, their mental part, transported itself to the other side of the Table. He wished that these Gentlemen would take refuge among the Radicals and Liberals, instead of giving interruption to those who sat on the Op-

709
position side of the House. Not only did those Gentlemen proceed in the most inconvenient manner, but certainly they did not act according to the usages of Parliament, as practised in the better, and he would add, the gentlemanly times of the House of Commons. In his earlier days, neither the hon. member for Kerry, nor the hon. member for Worcester, would have taken their places where they now sat. In the present day he knew not whether liberality might not have made very great advances, but with respect to gentility, he was confident that they had retrograded considerably. He now came to that part of his address in which he would prove that his notice of motion was intimately connected with the proposition then before the House. There were now abroad two subjects—subjects of great public excitement, which demanded and deserved particular attention. One of these was a treasonable conspiracy to prevent the payment of taxes—a treasonable conspiracy, he repeated, with the abettors of which two Members of his Majesty's Government had thought fit to correspond. He would not here introduce the subject of yesterday's discussion, but merely allude to the foundation of it. Another subject, connected with public excitement, must also attract, their attention—namely, that of an attack on the persons and property of all those Members of the House of Peers who constituted the majority against the Reform Bill. Of that system of attack they had already heard, and his motion would go to a specific point connected with that system—he meant the attack on the property of the Duke of Newcastle. The hon. member for Middlesex had advocated, and strongly too, the principle that a resolution might legally be agreed to, having for its object the refusal to pay taxes. He would, however, take the liberty of saying, that such a resolution, proposed in any place, would be illegal; and if connected with a general purpose (and he stated the law in the presence of the mute Attorney General) would become a most serious offence. The passing such a resolution at all was a misdemeanour; and if matured, so as to have a general purpose in view, it became high treason. These were the two propositions which he called on the mute Attorney General of the Cabinet to get up and answer. It seemed that there had been at Birmingham a meeting of 150,000 persons, and one of the resolutions to which
710
they came was to support the non-payment of taxes. ["No, no," from Lord Althorp.] The noble Lord cried "No, no." Now he said that the statement was in the newspaper, and the noble Lord's letter was also in the newspapers. The resolutions were printed, and the letters of the noble Lord and his noble colleague were printed. This being the case, it was for the House to decide on what the effect of those resolutions, and of those letters, was likely to be. Ministers might say that, if it were deemed fitting, they, or their legal advisers, would take proper notice of the outrages which had been committed; but as yet he had not heard that they had taken any steps in the matter. They were all acquainted with the destruction of the house (not the family seat) of the Duke of Newcastle. Formerly it was the family seat of that noble man, but it had long ceased to be so. To what were they to attribute the burning of that property? It could be traced to no other cause but that the Duke of Newcastle was an opponent of the Reform Bill. The hon. member for Middlesex treated this conflagration as a mere trifle. That hon. Member was an economical man. He was quite happy when items of 2¼d. or 1¾d. were the subject of his consideration. On a late occasion, he advised the first Lord of the Admiralty to feed our seamen on bad biscuit and sour pork, because 1¼d. might be saved per lb. but now he carried his economy much further. He said that the Duke of Newcastle's mansion, which had been burned down, was not worth much—it was only a lodging-house; thus carrying economy even to the crime of arson—thus adapting economy even to the offence of destroying property by fire. The hon. Member would, no doubt, contend that a considerable saving had been effected because Clumber-hall, the country residence of the Duke of Newcastle had not been consumed. Now, what he wished was, that a Special Commission should be issued to try the offenders. He knew not whether the hon. and learned member for Nottingham had had all the facts detailed to him, but he understood that the demolition of the house belonging to the Duke of Newcastle took place under circumstances which left no doubt that these practices were directed against him personally, and against his property, on account of his conduct with respect to the Reform Bill. [The Attorney General: Not personally.] Those practices could not, of course, be

711
personally directed against the Duke of Newcastle, because he was at the time of the attack in London. But when the learned Gentleman drew this distinction, he must be aware that the Reformers, as they were called, were not unmindful of the noble Duke's residence in London. While the Radicals were burning down his house in Nottingham, his mansion in Portman-square was not forgotten by individuals in town. There appeared to be a sort of sympathy on this point, for while the noble Duke's house at Nottingham was in flames, his house in town was surrounded by an angry mob. If under these circumstances, the Attorney General could show any good reason for not sending a Commission to try the offenders, he would not persevere in his motion. It was, however, not unlikely that Gentlemen opposite would meet this subject as the hon. member for Middlesex had thought proper to meet it. And yet one would suppose that such a case as the burning of a house of the Duke of Newcastle would excite in a considerable degree the attention of Government, and that they would be found willing to protect the property of their political opponents. But when he recollected what a portion of the Press said, namely—that if the Bill failed, the torch must be applied to the property of its opponents—when he saw his Majesty's Government go the length of corresponding with those, who if they did not recommend burning, did declare themselves in favour of not paying taxes—when he marked this, he must beg leave to repeat what he had before stated in that House, that he did not and could not give his confidence to Ministers. He now plainly avowed, that on this account, he felt it necessary to call the attention of the House to the motion with which he should conclude. Not many hours had elapsed, since a gross, and egregious, and scandalous attack had been made on the property of the Duke of Newcastle—noble Lords had been personally assailed—inflammatory pamphlets were disseminated in every direction—and the most baneful principles were advocated by "friendly advisers." When these things passed before their eyes, was there any man of common sense who would not at once admit that this system of intimidation was not intended to control one Peer, but was directed against the whole Peerage? Whether the Under Secretary of State did or did not agree in that pro-
712
position was a matter of no importance to him; but it was quite evident that the just and proper equality of the law had ceased to exist, if the property of the Duke of Newcastle was not placed on the same footing of safety and security as that of other individuals. He heard cheers from the Attorney General. Doubtless the hon. and learned Gentleman meant to say, that he would show his activity in prosecuting for burnings, when Lansdowne-house, and other mansions belonging to the same party, were consumed. That was his hon. and learned friend's logic. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say, that he would not agree to a Commission for trying those who had burned down an Anti-reforming Duke's house, until that of a Reforming Duke was consumed? Then they should hear by and by what the hon. and learned Gentleman meant to do. He would maintain, that for the last six weeks, the language of the Press, speeches in that House, and declarations out of that House, were all calculated to call down popular vengeance on the heads of those Peers who had opposed the Reform Bill. No doubt the noble Paymaster, and the noble Lord, the member for Northampton, had had an opportunity of looking at the speech made a few days ago by a noble Lord (Lord Milton) at the Sheffield meeting. That noble Lord there asserted, that it was by the Peers created in the reigns of George 3rd and George 4th that the Reform Bill was thrown out. Whether the Peerage of the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) was to be admitted amongst those which, in the speech of the noble Lord to whom he had alluded, were called the ancient hereditary Peerages of England, he did not know. Certainly it did not belong to the feudal class. Perhaps it was to be considered in medio, between the very old and the moderately new; and perhaps on the score of antiquity the reverence for Earl Grey's title was not quite safe. But if the decision of the heads of modern houses with reference to this Bill did not please the noble Lord, he must, a multo fortiori, be dissatisfied on that ground with the votes of Lord Dinorben, Lord Panmure, and Lord Poltimore. The decisions of these novi homines—these new made Peers—was, according to the inference to be drawn from the speech of the noble Lord, not worth any thing, The conduct of the Wentworths and the Russells, according to his doctrine, they being the heads of

713
the ancient houses, ought to have been implicitly followed. The line of argument of the noble Lord went directly to that point. He said, that the modern Peers rejected this Bill; and his impression seemed to be, that they did not stand on an equal footing with the ancient nobility. All that he demanded was, rigorous and impartial justice. He wished to see Ministers active in protecting the property of political foes, as well as of political friends. If such a course had been pursued, he should not have brought such a Motion before the House. His opinion was, that if in the early part of last winter a special commission had been appointed, it would have produced beneficial effects. That was his opinion, though he had not expressed it. He knew not whether his Majesty's Government meant on this occasion to send a special commission to Nottingham. He conceived that they ought to do so. But he had seen enough, in the course of these proceedings—in the progress of these political excitements—to lead him to believe that the Government had connived at them, to serve their own purposes with respect to the Reform Bill. He had that evening noted what might be called a dialogue between the Woolsack and the people and one would suppose that in such a dialogue, the first Magistrate would peremptorily say, violence must be repressed, crimes must be brought to a trial, and the strong arm of the law must be called into active operation. But he discovered no such thing. He observed nothing more than a repetition of the mildness which he had heard from the noble Lord yesterday. He therefore felt it necessary, under such circumstances, to submit the Motion to the House of which he had given notice. Although in the heat of the debate party cheers had been given whenever the name of that honest and upright nobleman, the Duke of Newcastle, had been mentioned, yet he was perfectly convinced, that no hon. Gentlemen who sat in that House could look with indifference on an act of violence committed on the property of a Peer of the realm, because he happened to differ from them in political opinion. He was firmly persuaded, that they considered that his property was as fit an object of protection as that of any other nobleman. He did not perceive that the Ministers cheered that sentiment, but he was glad to find that the Gentlemen behind them did. Oh! he now heard a languid cheer from Minis-
714
ters. While others strongly expressed their opinion on the subject, Ministers, by their languid cheer, admitted that the property of the Duke of Newcastle ought to be protected not less carefully than that of the Duke of Bedford. The Attorney General had a serious responsibility cast upon him. He did not mean to say that Ministers had occasioned those mischiefs, but they connived at them. They approved of the proceedings of a meeting where mutiny and sedition were recommended—where burning was not denounced. But some metaphysical Paymaster would rise up and say "Oh! we did not recommend the burning of the Duke of Newcastle's house!" Then came the question, "Did you do anything to prevent it?" He must again press upon the attention of the House, that the noble member for Northamptonshire, in allusion to Lord Wharncliffe, had characterized him as a Peer of the other day—as one, he supposed, not to be spoken of at the same time with the Wentworths and the Russells. In his opinion, nothing could have a more mischievous effect than that speech. He did not mean to say that the law would not ultimately be carried into effect. But the correspondence of two Cabinet Ministers with the promoters of a meeting at which an illegal act was done, and which meeting partook even of a treasonable character, was not calculated to inspire people with a reverence for the laws. He wished to propose a Motion, the effect of which would be, to give due protection to the property of those who opposed the Reform Bill as well as to the property of those who supported it. If they were to wait for such a measure until the Reformers burned down some of the houses of their abettors, they must wait for a very long time. He would not wait, and the sober thinking part of the public would not wait. As the matter now stood, the month of March was the earliest time when the noble Duke could procure redress for this outrage on his property—that was the earliest time when he could visit the agents of this scandalous tyranny with the vengeance of the law. The King's Government, as noblemen, and leaders of apolitical body in this country, were bound to take care that the property of the Duke of Newcastle, and of all who thought with him, should be placed in a state of equal preservation with that of his opponents; and the House of Commons, as gentlemen, as men of honour,

715
as Englishmen, and as moral men, ought to declare that the property of even political foes was worthy of protection. If they did not, their honesty, their high character would be levelled with the dust [hear, hear.] By the cheers, the posthumous cheers which he now heard, he felt that he should carry his Motion. The grounds and principles on which it stood were so clear and plain that he was certain it must succeed. He would therefore conclude by proposing as an Amendment to the present Motion—"That an Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that a special commission may be issued, with all convenient despatch, to try the offenders concerned in the recent burning and destruction of Nottingham Castle, and in other outrages and acts of violence recently committed in the county of Nottingham."
Mr. Faneseconded the Amendment.
Mr. O'Connellhoped it would not be considered presumptuous if he offered a few words after what had been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman. That hon. and learned Gentleman had taken upon himself, not only to misrepresent, but to lecture him upon three points—First, for sitting on the Opposition side of the House, when it was honoured with the hon. and learned Gentleman's own presence. Not very long since, the hon. and learned Gentleman had called the Opposition side of the House a mountain, and the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to recollect that he had taken his seat upon it long before the hon. and learned Gentleman had visited it. Mahomet had therefore come to the mountain, and not the mountain to Mahomet. Mahomet, too, had exhibited himself on this occasion in one of the most grotesque of his would-be inspired paroxysms. The second charge against him (Mr. O'Connell) was, a want of gentility. Of all men, the charge of being ungenteel came most strangely from the hon. and learned Gentleman. In what school of politeness had he taken his degree? Where was the dancing-master for grown gentlemen, by whose instructions he had so much profited? Who was the hon. and learned Gentleman's arbiter elegantiarum? When the hon. and learned Member talked of gentility, he wished to remind him, that as Dr. Johnson had said that "the Devil was the first Whig," so Shakspeare had told us that the Devil was the first gentleman—
"The Prince of Darkness is a gentleman,Wetherall his name, and Botherall."
716
If he remained near the hon. and learned Gentleman, he might catch something from him. He did not mean his gentry, but his gentility; he was in hopes that he should obtain some little infusion of that accomplished and courteous manner for which the hon. and learned Gentleman was so remarkable. The hon. and learned Gentleman had also accused him of having approved of the base, dastardly, and cowardly attack made yesterday upon an Irish nobleman. Never was any accusation more unfounded since the days of gentility were first invented, and nothing so contrary to what he had really said. Had he stood the supporter of every abuse, and the determined opponent of every improvement—had he resisted every attempt to facilitate the administration of justice—had he continually laboured to shut out the enlightment of modern knowledge from the obscurities of ancient law—had he occupied the time of the House with a sort of rollicking rhodomontade night after night—had it been his constant habit to make people laugh at him, when he possessed not the wit to make them laugh with him—he might have deservedly been the object of the illiberal attack which had just been made upon him. In the speech which had just now been addressed to the House, his Majesty's Government were accused of wilfully permitting the disgraceful outrages which had recently taken place. For his part, although he thought that the gallant nobleman who had been assailed was mistaken in his political opinions, no man could desire more than he did to see the persons brought to justice who had made that atrocious attack. But the original Motion before the House referred to certain Resolutions of the inhabitants of St. James's; and from that subject they had been turned oft to the outrages at Nottingham. Did either of the Gentlemen, the hon. Mover or the hon. and learned Gentleman below him, or did any man, imagine that his Majesty's Government would hesitate to inquire respecting every such riot or illegal proceeding? What grounds were there for supposing that they would neglect their duty? Was it known that any of the rioters at Nottingham had been taken up? If not, what a situation would the Judges be placed in when they arrived at that place, to discover there were no prisoners to try. So far they might take a useful hint from Mrs. Glass, when she said, "First catch your

717
carp." Surely it became the duty of the hon. Gentleman to ascertain whether there was any work for the King's Judges before he despatched them, on what might turn out to be a bootless errand. As for the attack which had been made upon him by the hon. and learned Member, he would say no more than that it was wholly unfounded. He might add, that every part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was utterly destitute of merit, although he must not say that it was equally destitute of truth.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the attack of the hon. and learned Gentleman, last night and on the present occasion, was most unfair, and the insinuations in which he had indulged were wholly uncalled for. He had accused his Majesty's Government of acting partially towards the supporters and opposers of the Reform Bill.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, his words were "he hoped they had not so acted."
Lord Althorp: Then the hon. and learned Gentleman had only insinuated the charge, that because the Duke of Newcastle had opposed the Reform Bill, therefore the Duke of Newcastle's property was not so well protected as that of any other individual. That was the insinuation of the hon. and learned Member; and he should not have thought it would have been concurred in by any other Member in the House, had it not been cheered by a solitary Member on the other side. He begged to state, though it was scarcely necessary for him to state, that his Majesty's present Government were as fully determined as any Government to maintain the laws and the peace of the country. it was hardly necessary for him to defend the Government from such a charge as that of the hon. and learned Gentleman; it was hardly necessary for him to say, that they would make no distinctions, or interfere in any manner with the regular course of justice. The hon. and learned Gentleman had accused the Ministers of conniving at the disturbances in the country. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman feel anything in his own breast which could induce him to conceive it possible that any man of honour and character, not only worthy of a seat in that House, but fit for the society of gentlemen any where, could, for the sake of some private purpose of his own, connive at bloodshed, riot, and arson? It was really quite impossible to answer accusations of that kind. On one point he
718
could not be deceived. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that his noble friend and himself were legally participators in treasonable misdemeanors.
Sir Charles Wetherell:—I say so again.
Lord Althorp:—Then if the hon. and learned Gentleman thought they were legally participants in treason, it was his duty to bring articles of impeachment against them. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that they had never meant to give equal protection to the Duke of Newcastle, till the property of some reforming Peer was burnt. [Sir Charles Wetherell:—No, no.] The conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman was so strange, that he really did not know how to apply himself to it: it took away any feeling of anger he might otherwise entertain. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that he would not persevere in his Motion, provided an assurance was given that a special commission should issue. He could give the hon. and learned Gentleman no such assurance: it rested with his Majesty's Ministers to decide that point; but he could give him this assurance, that the property of every individual in the country should be protected as far as Government could protect it. The hon. and learned Gentleman and the House might take the former conduct of the Ministers as a pledge of their present intentions. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in referring last year to the special commissions, had said that they should have been issued sooner; but they had been issued and put into motion as soon as possible, and as quickly as the machinery could be prepared. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to a speech of his noble friend the member for Northampton. He had not seen that speech; but he could say, that his noble friend had uttered in that House sentiments quite contrary to those imputed to him. A noble Lord, who was not now in his place, had expressed a hope that a Reform measure would be introduced, so modified that it might receive general concurrence, and restore the peace of the country. If there were any ground for expecting such a bill, so modified as to diminish its efficiency, so far from its promoting the peace of the country, he was persuaded it would, on the contrary, be more likely it endanger it. He (Lord Althorp) had only to repeat what he had stated the other night, that he never could be a party to a measure which he did not in his conscience

719
believe to be as efficient as the last. He would not detain the House any longer. However warmly he might have expressed himself, he felt no resentment towards any one.
Mr. Gillonsaid, that he was were there was great excitement abroad, both on the subjects of Reform and Select Vestries, and he therefore felt no surprise that strong, and perhaps, violent language had been uttered. When, however, complaints had been made of the language of the Whig newspapers and publications, he would take the liberty of referring to Tory magazine which had recently come under his notice, and which said, "that for principles less revolutionary than those of his Majesty's Ministers, and for conduct not so much calculated to disturb the peace, large number of men, women, and children, had been trampled down by the horses of the Yeomanry, and many men sent into exile." This language was much less justifiable than any that had been remarked upon during the debate. To those Gentlemen who charged the Government with having excited the people on the subject of Reform he would say, that it was the system of misrule which those Gentlemen themselves supported that had led to the inevitable necessity of Reform.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that what had fallen from his noble friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), must be quite satisfactory, and the House would feel, that in consequence of his (the Attorney-General's) necessary connection with any law proceedings, if such should arise in consequence of what had occurred, it would be better for him not to enter into speculative points of law, or into the discussion of questions in which he might possibly hereafter be mixed up. As to the law, he did not apprehend that any lawyer or commonly-educated man could doubt as to what the law was on the subject alluded to. When his noble friend expressed his determination to exercise all the powers of the law for the maintenance of peace and the protection of property, he did not see what more could be required. At the same time it must not be assumed that special commission was to issue to try every outrage that might occur. It was the duty of Government not to issue such a commission unless very strong grounds were made out. But he could testify to the readiness with which the special commission was granted in November last, and
720
the determination shewn to repress outrage and violence. Immediately upon the new Administration being formed, his noble friend, the present Lord Chancellor, came to him in the Court of King's Bench, and said, "the first act of our Ministry will be to send you down to Winchester, to institute legal proceedings against the persons engaged in the riots, and to clear the gaol." But on the present occasion—in his character as member for Nottingham, and not as a Law Officer connected with the Government—he had the happiness of being able to say, that so far as he could learn, he believed the riots were for the present utterly extinguished. The force which had been sent down had proved sufficient for this purpose, and for the purpose of overawing the disorderly, and preventing, he hoped, a repetition of the outrages. The first ebullition certainly was very violent. Many of the cavalry were at the time at Derby, where also, unfortunately, some rioting took place, and lives were lost. Before a force could be collected, the Castle of Nottingham, he was sorry to say, was consumed by the miscreants. The Magistrates, however, were very active, the Yeomanry were called out, and the military were held in readiness, and, what was better than all this, all the respect able men of the town were sworn in as Special Constables, and were on the watch day and night. These measures had proved effectual, and the repetition of such outrages was a fact exceedingly improbable. He must say, on the other hand, that he feared not one of those concerned in burning the Castle had been yet taken into custody, and there would therefore be no gaol to deliver if special commission were sent down. Some few persons, indeed, who were afterwards found wandering bout, had been taken into custody, but there was nothing to prevent their being tried at the next Sessions. Let no one think that he was making light of a business of this nature. He deeply deplored the disappointment which had led in some instances to such criminal excesses; and he therefore entreated the House, in the words of a noble Lord, not to look back for the purpose of exasperating, or of unravelling unfortunate differences, but to look forward and consult upon the means by which the peace of the country might be preserved, and placed upon a solid basis.
Mr. Goulburnexpressed his perfect con-

721
currence in the concluding sentiments of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The House, and the public in general, he was sure, would hear with great satisfaction, the renewed assurance of the Minister's, that they would use all the power with which they were intrusted by the Constitution to repress outrage and violence, and preserve the peace and tranquillity of the country. He begged further to be permitted to remark, that although he could not support his Majesty's present Government, still they should not find him contributing to create exasperation, or taking any other course than that which would support them under the difficulties and perils which at present beset the country, in every way that he could, consistently with his own principles. He was not sorry that this debate had arisen, because it had called forth a public announcement of a determination which some had doubted, but of which he entertained no doubt—a determination on the part of his Majesty's Government to do impartial justice, and preserve the peace of the country.
Mr. James E. Gordonsaid, that he felt convinced that every person possessed of property or having the interest of his country at heart, must lament the alarming occurrences which had recently prevailed in various places. Under the circumstances of excitement, that existed, however, he thought the disturbances might be considered extremely partial and of small amount, when the means were considered by which the minds of the community had been so greatly exasperated. He rejoiced to hear the assurance that his Majesty's Government would enforce the powers of the law to protect the public. At the same time he must express his disapproval of many of the remarks which had been mad by various Members, and he must also take the opportunity of saying, that he had never heard a more revolting attack than that which had been made by the hon. and learned Member behind him (Mr. O'Connell), upon the hon. and learned Gentleman near him (Sir Charles Wetherell).
Mr. Humeprotested against the language used by the hon. Member. His hon. friend had only answered an attack which had been made upon him by the hon. and learned member for Borough-bridge, and therefore it was very unfair to charge him with having made a revolting attack. He considered the spirited and
722
proper manner with which his hon. and learned friend repelled the attack, and retorted upon the aggressor, did him great credit, and he must further be permitted to say, that if any hon. Member in that House used strong and unmeasured language, he must expect to be replied to in the same manner.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, that although he was not connected with the Government, and, so far as Ireland was concerned, did not approve of its meaures, yet he could not sit and listen to such unfounded, illiberal, unwarranted, ungenerous, and unjust attacks, as were made upon Ministers by the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had gone so far as to assert that there was a treasonable conspiracy not to pay taxes, which his Majesty's Government encouraged. He was convinced that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not believe what he said himself [order, order]. He was not disorderly, and would not sit down. He repeated that he did not believe what the hon. and learned Member had said was his sincere opinion, because, if he bad been serious in it, he ought to have impeached Ministers who had the folly and the audacity to abandon their duty to their King and to their country, and that duty which was imposed on every well-regulated man, whether he was a Minister or not. But the hon. and learned Gentleman had not confined his attacks to his Majesty's Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman had taken occasion to say that Irishmen were not cowards. He would tell the hon. and learned Gentleman what was his idea of spirit. He thought, that to apply offensive terms in quarters where they could not receive the answer they ought, was not the part of a man of spirit. If the hon. and learned Gentleman chose to use such language, let him apply it in some other quarter, and see—
The Speaker The Speaker rose, and said, that the language which had been used was as improper as any one Member could apply to another. He put it—not to the House—but to the hon. Member himself, on reflection, whether he had ever heard the hon. and learned Member to whom he alluded use such language without being called to order for it?
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, he was wholly misunderstood; he had put the case hypothetically.
The Speakersaid, the hon. Member

723
must be aware that putting a hypothetical case was not the way to evade what would be in itself disorderly.
Mr. H. Grattansaid, he meant nothing disorderly or disrespectful to the House; but when the hon. and learned Gentleman talked a great deal of Irishmen, and then turned his back to the Chair, and looked at the Irish Members, he felt justified in assuring the hon. and learned Gentleman, that there was nothing that he could insinuate against the Irish Members, either for their support of the Government, or on any other ground, which they would not repel in a proper manner. The charges which he had brought against his Majesty's Ministers were wholly, absolutely, and completely unfounded.
Lord Brudenellsaid, that in his opinion, his hon. and learned friend (Sir C. Wetherell) had been most unfairly dealt with, and had been attacked in the most unmerited manner. Nothing that his hon. and learned friend had said would bear the construction endeavoured to be fastened upon it. His hon. and learned friend said, that his Majesty's Government were not using the means which would tend to preserve the peace of the country. The course which they were taking was playing too much into the hands of the populace, and would lead to violence and breach of the law, instead of suppressing disturbances. As a proof of this he would put it to any hon. Member who heard him, if he thought efficient measures had been yesterday resorted to to preserve the tranquillity of the metropolis. As to the charge which had been made against his hon. and learned friend, of using offensive language, because he knew it could receive no reply, he did not believe there was an hon. Member in the House capable of such conduct. If another hon. and learned Member was—he would not say exempt—but if he exempted himself from all responsibility, he certainly ought to be cautious and more guarded in his own expressions.
Sir John Hobhousebegged to suggest to the noble Lord, that the continuance of these discussions would do no good, and that it would be better to avoid saying the harshest thing that could be said of a man in his absence.
Lord Brudenellsaid, he would appeal to the House whether it was not incumbent upon any man who exempted himself from responsibility, to be cautious himself
724
in the terms which he employed. The hon. and learned Gentleman who was alluded to, had first attacked a noble friend of his, and then he attacked the hon. and learned Gentleman near him, and he conceived the latter hon. and learned Gentleman was justified in replying to him.
Mr. Huntsaid, he could not concur in the present Motion until the real state of the case was completely known. It appeared, however, that there had been riots at Nottingham, and that the populace, after having destroyed a nobleman's mansion, had returned to the attack the next day, as it seemed, to consummate their own infamy. The hon. and learned Gentleman had further assumed that some of the persons who had been guilty of these gross outrages were in custody, but it appeared from the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney-General) that he had been misinformed, for none of the ringleaders were as yet taken. When he understood, and heard it asserted, that the respectable inhabitant householders had been sworn in, and were very active in the performance of the duties of Special Constables, he must express his astonishment that the incendiaries were not taken up; but the Yeomanry Cavalry had taken up some persons who had nothing to do with the offence. He did not mean to say that his Majesty's Government encouraged these acts of outrage when they were committed; but he thought there had been a sort of encouragement going on for a long time, and the Government had suffered the newspapers, which were their organs, to excite the multitude to violence. It was not, therefore, enough for him now to hear his Majesty's Ministers say they were sorry for the outrages which had been committed, and that they would do all they could to put an end to them. They ought to have taken means to put an end to the excitement which had been created.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, in explanation, that the force employed at Nottingham did not reach the spot in time to prevent the conflagration, or arrest the authors of it, but their exertions were the means of preventing further outrages.
Sir Charles Wetherellfelt called upon to reply to some remarks that had been made in the course of the debate.
Sir John Newport Sir John Newport rose to order. He begged to submit to the Chair, whether an hon. Gentleman was entitled to reply on merely proposing an amendment.
The Speakersaid, that, the hon. and learned Gentleman had certainly no right to speak if the House objected to it. But it was for the House to say how far it would hear the hon. and learned Gentleman, after the discussion which had taken place. The hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that he depended upon the sufferance of the House.
Sir Charles Wetherell: "I won't say a word upon sufferance."
The Amendment was then put and negatived. On the Original Question being put,
Lord Althorpsaid, as he understood it was allowed that the part of the advertisement complained of, arose, in part, out of clerical error, he should beg leave to move the Previous Question.
Mr. Herriesobserved, that after the discussion that had taken place, he should recommend his hon. friend to withdraw his Motion.
Motion withdrawn.

BANKRUPTCY COURT BILL—COMMITTEE—THIRD DAY.
On the Motion of the Attorney-General, the Order of the Day for resuming the Debate on the Amendment for referring the Bankruptcy Court Bill to a Select Committee was read.
Mr. George Bankeswished to ask the Attorney-General, whether this Bill was to be followed by another, and whether that Supplementary Bill was to contain a provision, giving the Lord Chancellor an additional retiring pension of 2,000 l.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, he was not aware whether there was to be a Supplementary Bill or not; but it would not include the provision referred to.
Mr. Pembertonwished that a greater latitude of time should be allowed for the discussion of this most important question, than it appeared the noble and learned Lord, who was the author of the measure, appeared inclined to allow them. He wished to speak of that noble and learned Lord with the respect he felt for him and for his extraordinary talents; but he would not permit himself to be restrained by any influence to be exercised elsewhere, in his Court, or out of it, from expressing himself with freedom, yet with a proper tone and temper. With respect to this Bill, those who pointed at the defects of the bankruptcy system had done only half their duty; they were also bound to show that the Bill provided a remedy,
726
and the most suitable remedy. Certain inconveniences, which were inseparable from all Courts, had been treated as if, they were peculiarly incidental to the present system of bankruptcy. Appeals were great inconveniences, but they did not exclusively belong to bankruptcy. Unless he fiat of an arbitrary Court was submitted to, the expense of the delay of appeals must be incurred; and in proportion as appeals were multiplied, the sources of expense and delay were also multiplied. But this must be the case, until mutability was removed from human affairs. He objected to the Court of Review as unnecessary, for he considered the duties which were attached to it ought to devolve on the Vice-Chancellor, with an appeal to the Lord Chancellor. The Judges of the Court of Review appeared to him to be a useless incumbrance—an impediment over which it was necessary to pass in order to get at the Lord Chancellor. With respect to the charge of the present Commissioners being, for the most part, young men just called to the Bar, he had only to say, that an understanding had existed that gentlemen should have been seven years in the profession before they were appointed Commissioners; and, if a Lord Chancellor were to appoint such persons as had not been seven years, he would neglect his duty. To fill up the appointments in the new Court, a selection might be made from the present Commissioners, and this might be done both advantageously as regarded the character of the Court, and also would be attended with a great saving to the public. The noble and learned Lord at the head of the Court, had now got rid of the arrears of the Court, and he had stated his intention, so far as he had understood the noble Lord's oration, to take original motions, along with the Master of the Rolls, without the assistance of the Vice-Chancellor, so that the Vice-Chancellor, who had kept down the bankrupt cases hitherto, could take these cases in future, and it was, therefore, not possible to conceive what public benefit could arise from these four Judges; they were not an additional facility, but an additional impediment. He considered the whole scheme as only intended to get rid of the Vice-Chancellor, which he thought most impolitic. The official assignees were to be traders, or persons who had been traders. Now those who were traders would not be able to undertake the office, so that it

727
would devolve upon those who had been traders; in other words, it would fall into the hands of jobbers. The office would be sought as a refuge for the destitute; it would be an hospital for incurables—a provision for decayed merchants; it would be the Lord Chancellor's lumber-room, into which he would cast whatever he despised as worthless. He could not help characterizing this Bill as a most busy, meddling, mistaken piece of legislation. A jurisdiction more liable to abuse, more liable to scandalous jobbing, he never knew. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General had said, that the measure was a gain of the difference between 26,000 l., and 28.000 l. But it really took away the patronage of four places, and in lieu of it placed in the hands of the Lord Chancellor the immediate, uncontrolled, and irresponsible patronage of 26,400 l. If this expense was necessary, he (Mr. Pemberton) made no objection; but let them not be told of the Chancellor's making such a great sacrifice, when it put into the hands of the Great Seal a more enormous amount of patronage than was ever given to a subject of the realm. Though it might seem a strange argument for an Anti-reformer, he contended that the Reform of this Bill was too partial. The public had been promised by the noble and learned Lord, a revision of the law and of the Courts, and if that promise was fulfilled, there was no branch of the law in which the pruning-knife could be applied with so much benefit as the law of debtor and creditor. There was no lawyer who was not fully aware of the anomalies, irregularities, inconvenience, and injustice, produced by that branch of our jurisprudence. It frequently pressed upon the honest and innocent, and as frequently extended impunity to fraud, and indulgence to crime. It filled our gaols with beggars, and was in general as barbarous and absurd as any law that ever disgraced a civilized community. The most wealthy person in the land might be made a bankrupt by the inadvertence or carelessness of his servant, in giving a denial of his master to a tradesman who might happen to call at an inconvenient time. The law again made not the slightest distinction between the fraudulent bankrupt and the victim of misfortune—of those who had pursued a career of gross profligacy and extravagance, or those whom calamity had reduced to insolvency, By the law, as it was at present
728
administered, the only material thing for a bankrupt to consider was, his conduct before the Commissioners; if he dealt tolerably fair with them, all would go well with him. These were palpable defects which required remedy, and it was also necessary that the rights of creditors should be better secured and promoted, and that a more complete protection should be afforded to honest debtors reduced by misfortune. A Court was wanted, not alone for the benefit of traders, but for the management of the affairs of all persons who might happen to fall into a state of insolvency. By rectifying these anomalies, the noble and learned Lord would really do what the Solicitor-General thought he would accomplish by this Bill—erect a lasting monument to his fame. But this Bill was not the stuff of which monuments could be made; a Bill which left all the anomalies and irregularities of the law precisely where it found them, and enacted places and pensions, fees and salaries. Such a Bill as this ought not to have been the first legislative measure of the master-mind of the age, who had been lauded in terms scarcely applicable to a human being. His chief objection to the Bill was, that it was a bar, an impediment to the liberal improvement of the law. He could not believe that the noble and learned Lord would expose himself to the suspicion of being actuated by motives which he knew the noble Lord would disdain, or afford a pretence for saying that this Bill was not intended for the amendment of the law, but for the creation of office—a measure of doubtful utility, but of certain expense—and that he would permit it to be said that an attempt was made to force this mass of undigested legislation through the House, without an opportunity being afforded it of examining and remedying its defects; that the prorogation of Parliament was delayed, and the Lords and Commons of the land were to be kept together at great inconvenience, in order that the Lord Chancellor might have the disposal of two score places six months sooner than he otherwise would. He did not insinuate this as a charge against the noble and learned Lord; if he believed it to be true, he would have asserted it, but he did not believe it; yet it was extremely difficult to understand on what ground this measure was attempted to be forced through the House at this season, when all minds were engrossed and absorbed by

729
other topics. The hon. and learned Member concluded by expressing his regret if any expression had fallen from him which was intemperate towards the noble, and learned Lord.
Mr. Pepyssaid, that, the motives from which the Bill had been supposed to originate were those of saving labour to the Lord Chancellor, and increasing his patronage. But if the Court were useful, it was clear that it could not be established without patronage. No new Courts could; and yet they must be established, or there could be no improvement in the administration of justice. But if there was any one quality of the noble and learned Lord more remarkable than another, it was the readiness with which he undertook labour, and which was as eminent as the facility with which he got through it. Although the Bill might have the effect of relieving the Lord Chancellor from the pressure of bankruptcy business, it should be recollected that there was still an overwhelming mass of matter in the Court of Chancery, and that though one part might be relieved, much still remained. Another reason alleged for the Bill, but which his hon. and learned friend professed not to believe, was, that its object was patronage. Yet one would suppose that his hon. and learned friend meant this to be believed, for over and over again he had insinuated it, and the insinuation had been received with cheers. Those who cheered must have believed the charge, though his hon. and learned friend had given a conclusive reason that the object could not possibly be answered. The Bill, in fact, would greatly diminish patronage in value. Its effect was, to limit appointments to persons qualified in a particular manner; they must be of a certain class. The noble and learned Lord could not favour his friends with the same latitude as former Chancellors, because the persons appointed must be of a certain class and qualification. Ever since he had been in the profession, he had heard the evils of the Bankruptcy Court complained of, and those evils this Bill would remedy. It was said, that the Judges would be paid before they had any work to do; that was a mistake. They would receive no salary till April, and in the mean time they would have many arrangements to make for the business of the Court. The separation of bankruptcy from the Court of Chancery had been recommended by Sir Samuel Romilly in
730
1809. The Judges now to be appointed would be armed with all the powers necessary to come to a conclusion in every case; and examining the parties themselves, could Form, from vivâ voce evidence, much more satisfactory decisions than the best Judges from affidavits. In all instances of bankruptcy there was an immense mass of matter which was merely matter of course, and this would in future be got rid of at once, instead of being deferred by the repeated sittings of the present Commissioners. Creditors would now have the means of proving their debts without any vexatious delays. The system of fabricating debts could no longer exist, nor could those evils be continued and renewed which now arose from the appointment of fraudulent assignees, against which the, laws had been so ineffectually directed. The Bill would effect a great point, for it would assimilate the country Commissions to the London Commissions, whereas at present the business was transacted in the country very imperfectly. He begged the learned Members of the House to reflect upon the benefit, the Bill would produce by relieving the Vice-Chancery Court, from a pressure of business, which the Vice-Chancellor could not get through, though the Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls had been able to relieve their respective Courts from the arrears. This was no fault of the Vice-Chancellor, but arose in a great degree from the nature of the present Bankruptcy Laws.
Mr. Alderman Wood, being well acquainted with the feelings of the commercial interest of the city of London, would take it upon him to declare, that that interest was deeply anxious that some measure like the present, calculated to correct the abuses of our bankruptcy jurisdiction, should pass into a law. It was highly expedient that at least one commercial man should be always on the list of official assignees, as none other than mercantile men could determine several practical questions between debtor and creditor. The only plausible objection which he had heard against the Bill was, that it would add to the patronage of the Lord Chancellor; but if it effected the good proposed, it was a matter of only secondary importance whether that noble Lord's patronage would be curtailed or extended.
Mr. Sheil, said, the objections urged to this Bill on the other side were all founded on its details, and did not touch the prin-

731
ciple, which he thought it was agreed should be the subject of discussion that night. Hon. Gentlemen who spoke early in the debate, dealt mostly in general condemnation of the Bill without pointing out specific objections. They indulged, too, if not in invective, at least in ill-founded imputations on the score of the patronage created by this Bill. The question was, however, not whether there was patronage created by the Bill, but whether the Bill was wanted? If it were once established that the Bill was useful, the objection founded on the exercise of patronage immediately vanished; if the Bill was bad, if it was not wanted, then the creation of the patronage deserved censure. Supposing the disposition of the patronage or its amount to be objectionable, it was matter of consideration in the Committee, and did not affect the principle of the Bill. A good deal of misconception—if not of intentional misrepresentation—had been fallen into on the other side. It was stated last night by the hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge, and indeed by other hon. members, that the Judges to be appointed to this new Court would be paid before their judicial duties commenced; but such was not the fact; for if the hon. Member would refer to the Bill, he would find that, although appointed before January, they did not receive their first quarter's salary till April. The hon. member for Penryn stated last night, that the money collected by the official assignee could not be drawn out of the Bank, except upon an order from the Lord Chancellor; but if he would look to the Bill, he would find that the matter was left to the discretion of the Lord Chancellor or the Judges of the Court of Review. The objection, therefore, to the official assignees, grounded on the supposition that the Lord Chancellor's order alone would be able to get the money out of the Bank, was destitute of foundation. This difficulty of getting out the money was only a contingent matter; whilst the security gained by the arrangement was certain. It was made a great objection, by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, to the official assignees, that they were to be paid a per centage upon the whole sum collected; and that, consequently, their emoluments might be enormous, whilst the dividend to the creditor was small. But if the hon. and learned Gentleman would look at the Bill he
732
would find that the Court of Review had power to limit the amount the assignees should receive. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last stated, as several other Gentlemen had done, that the assignees ought not to be chosen by the Commissioners, but by the creditors; but that objection, too, was one of detail, not of principle, and might very fitly be considered in Committee. It might be thought presumptuous in him to give an opinion upon this Bill; but there was so much affinity between the bankrupt systems of England and Ireland—there was such a twin deformity between them—that he trusted he should be excused for making the observations he was about to make. What were the mischiefs to be cured? Where did the mischiefs of the present system lie? In the appointment of the Commissioners, and in the choice of the Assignees. The Commissioners were selected from a class of persons who had not the benefit of much experience, who were novices in their profession, whose want of practice must incapacitate them for the prompt discharge of their business, and who had strong incentives given them to increase expense and delay. The Assignees were chosen from a class of persons whose interest induced them to enter into combination with the bankrupt against the creditors, and who often picked up their own fortunes out of the ruins of the estate committed to their care. If this was a true sketch of the present system and its workings, correction ought to be applied with a strong and fearless hand. What was the history of a Commission?—a docket was struck, and a Commission was issued to five persons, barristers, but generally not of high rank or station in the profession. This branch of the Lord Chancellor's patronage was exercised, he would not say with a view to parliamentary or political purposes, but certainly not with an exclusive view to public justice. What was the first duty of these Commissioners? It was, to determine whether the party was a bankrupt or not. It was a monstrous thing that a party should be able to bribe a Judge; and was it not equally monstrous, that the law itself should bribe a Judge?—and yet it did, for the Commissioners had a direct interest in finding a party a bankrupt. If they found that he was not a bankrupt, there was an end of their emoluments; but if they found that he was a bankrupt,

733
there was an immediate succession of meetings and adjournments, for which each Commissioner was paid 1l. a-day, as also for proving the debts, settling points of law—in short, every expedient was suggested that could create delay. Another serious evil attendant on the present system was also got rid of by the Bill—he meant that of Commissioners at one moment acting as Judges, at another as Advocates;—with one hand they received their fee as Commissioner—with the other, their fee as barrister, and both from the same attorney. The result was, that the intercourse that rose between the barrister and attorney, extended to an intercourse between the attorney and the Judge. The consequence of this double character possessed by the Commissioners was sometimes ludicrous. In two different compartments two different bankrupt cases were being tried. In one of them an individual was playing the part of Commissioner, when, suddenly he would divest himself of his judicial attributes, and run into the other compartment to enact the advocate. In Ireland this practice had produced the greatest evils. With respect to the assignees, they were generally appointed by the intervention of the creditor who struck the docket; and the assignee generally entered into combination with the bankrupt or with the solicitor. The solicitor dealt in costs, and the assignee in fractions, which he called dividends. The present Bill strove to correct both these defects. It had been suggested that the Vice-Chancellor's Court was competent to become Court of Review; but there was the advantage of four Judges, and of examination upon vivâ voce evidence in the Court proposed to be erected, which there was not in the Vice-chancellor's Court. Gentlemen of great eminence at the Bar opposed this Bill; but it must, be recollected that, there was always tendency in the human mind to defend the abuses by which each had profited. It was said by Lord Chatham, that, touch a single thread in the cobweb of Westminster Hall, and every bloated spider hidden in their recesses, would rush out to its defence. Demonstration was thrown away upon the admirers of the ancient system; and to them might be applied the lines of the poet—
"In rules of practice obstinately warm, Suspects conviction, and relies on form"
Mr. Alderman Thompsonhad presented
734
a petition from the merchants and traders of London in the early part of the present year, justly complaining of the existing system of Bankrupt-law, which he was glad to find no one had attempted to defend. He was not bout to detail proofs of the defects of the present system, for they must be familiar to every commercial Member of the House; but he was anxious to express his own opinion upon one or two of the proposed changes. It would not become him to impede the progress of a measure, the object of which was, to effect great and important amendment in the law; but, at the same time, he must fairly state, that there were certain parts of this Bill to which he entertained considerable objections, which objections, as well as several others, ought to be, for the advantage of the trading interests, investigated before a Select Committee up-stairs, as suggested by the hon. member for Bridport. He had, for instance, a great objection to the appointment of official assignees; for the individuals best calculated to protect the interests of the creditors were those who were interested in the bankrupt's estate. He never found that there was any difficulty in getting competent individuals to fill the office of assignees. They were generally selected from the most considerable of the creditors; and although the election was made by the majority of the creditors, taking the amount of money and number of persons into consideration, he never found that the interest of the minority was neglected in the way suggested by the hon. and learned Member opposite. He had stated that it had occurred that assets had been lost to the creditors by the failure of the assignees. It had been his misfortune to be interested in many bankrupt's estates, and such a circumstance never came to his knowledge. At the first or second meeting a banker was appointed, to whom all assets were to be paid, and afterwards the creditors ascertained that they had been so paid, and, if they had not, the assignee was liable to a penalty of twenty per cent. He was not aware that circumstances had ever called for the enforcement of that penalty, so that, he apprehended no evil had arisen from the present practice. It might, be beneficial to have individuals appointed as auditors to see that the creditors' assignees did their duty, and used diligence in the collection of the assets, and lodged them in a place of security. Great

735
apprehension had been created by the fear of all assets having to be paid into the Bank of England in the name of the Accountant-general. The very name of that officer was an object of horror to commercial men, from the difficulty and expense of getting money out of his hands. The hon. and learned Gentleman might, cry "hear!" but he would state to him a fact in which he was personally interested. Some hundreds of pounds were due to him (Mr. Alderman Thompson), but he was told that the expense of getting it out of the Accountant-general's hands would absorb it all. Most likely the Accountant-general would, even under this Bill, continue to be the Accountant-general. With respect to the patronage that would be created by the Bill, he had no objection to it, provided the public derived adequate advantage from it. He was sorry to see a disposition in any quarter of the House, to treat this otherwise than as a commercial matter; and for himself, without having any reference to politics, he really thought it would be more satisfactory to the commercial interests of this country for them to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for Bridport, and refer it to a Select Committee. Unless that was done, they should, Session after Session, have Bills brought in to amend this Act, till the laws with respect to bankruptcy would become so voluminous as to occasion the greatest confusion and inconvenience to the commercial world.
Mr. Burgewas anxious to state the grounds upon which he concurred in the propriety of referring this Bill to Select Committee, because it had been insinuated on the other side, and broadly stated elsewhere, that opposition to this measure originated in party feeling. One would suppose, from the speeches of those who made that accusation that the opponents of the Bill considered the system of the Bankrupt-law as requiring no amendment. Not one Gentleman had risen on his side of the House without admitting that there were defects in that law requiring a remedy; the only thing they contested being, not that this measure did not contain provisions adequate to remove those defects, but that it introduced alterations which their nature did not require. As to the number of the Commissioners, and the manner in which their time was to be dedicated to the business of the Court, it was said that the number was to be reduced, and that
736
there would be that constitution of this reduced Court, which would secure the public against loss of time, secure a proper performance of their functions, and be the means of preventing considerable delay and expense. It was said also, that those who opposed this measure, could not be actuated by sincere motives in doing so. He must turn round upon his hon. and learned friend, and say, that there was just as much chance of the other side of the House being wrong in pursuing the course they did; more especially when it was found, that one of the hon. and learned Gentlemen who supported this measure certainly took a very different view of it from that which he took on a former occasion. Certainly his hon. and learned friend, on a former occasion, did not deem it advisable that the jurisdiction of bankruptcy should be separated from the Court of Chancery; but now, at the termination of the Session, when the Bill was introduced at such a period, he thought fit to alter his opinion. There were circumstances connected with the passing of this measure, which he should have imagined would have prevented his hon. and learned friend from arguing that party feeling, with respect to this Bill, existed only on his side of the House without extending to the other. It would be very difficult for him to maintain his opinion, that such a party feeling originated on the Opposition side of the House, when it did so happen that almost every one of his hon. and learned friends had failed, not in shewing that delay and expense had existed, but in proving that they would be remedied by this Bill. When it was said by the supporters of this measure, that the character of the Court of Commissioners, and the number of those Commissioners, were evils which ought to be redressed, and which were proposed to be redressed by this Bill, they certainly need not give themselves the trouble of endeavouring to prove the existence of evils arising from the manner in which the duties of the Commissioners had been performed, and the evils which resulted from the present system, because the existence of those evils was admitted; and it was said they might be redressed by a reduction of the number of Commissioners, and by placing the system in such a point of view as to obtain the assistance of most able Commissioners of Bankrupts, in such manner as to insure the public's receiving

737
the whole of their time, and their giving that uninterrupted and constant attendance to the business brought before them, which was considered essential. If the constitution of the Court of Commissioners was reformed with respect to their qualification, and with respect to the degree of attention and time which they were to devote to the performance of their duty, this certainly would redress an evil which, according to all the evidence that had been produced, was the one most complained of. The complaint had not been as to the manner in which questions had been disposed of in the superior Courts; but the difficulty and delay incurred in consequence of the Commissioners devoting so little of their time to the investigation of one particular question, and by reason of their pressing so much business into the small space of time occupied by their different meetings. That appeared to be the ground of complaint stated by the principal witnesses who gave their evidence before the Commissioners. This evil must be corrected, and there was no one on that side of the House who was not quite ready to concur in any measure which would have that effect. But was it necessary for that purpose to create a new a Court or jurisdiction? No, it was not necessary that this new Court should be established, because the Courts in Westminster Hall contained abundant means by which all these great, questions could be decided, infinitely more to the satisfaction of the public than if they were decided by a Court which must always be, to a certain extent, considered as an inferior Court. One fact was quite clear, there would not be sufficient business in this new Court to engage the attention of those four Judges for anything like the whole year; and it would follow, as a necessary consequence, that whatever talents or attainments they might possess, they would suffer greatly from not having constant practice to keep alive the information they might possess, and which would be necessary to render them efficient Judges of an appeal Court. Notwithstanding the information, knowledge, and intelligence these Judges might possess, the establishment of a Court to exercise the functions, both of a law and equity Court, was not likely to be advantageous. Was it not the general opinion that this experiment had failed in the Court of Exchequer? This alone would be an object-
738
tion to the constitution of a Court of this description, even if there existed no other. If this Court of Review was meant to answer any purpose whatever, it was intended to supersede the Vice-chancellor's or the Chancellor's Court to a certain extent. But was it to be supposed, that this Court, consisting of four Judges, would possess that degree of knowledge and experience which was now derived from the Lord Chancellor and the Vice-chancellor? Why, then, was the suitor who might be desirous of appealing, to be deprived of the benefit of resorting to the old-established tribunals of the land, and to the superior Courts of judicature? It had been said with respect to the Commissioners, that the number proposed by this Bill might or might not be sufficiently large, considering the duty they had to perform, subject, of course, to an appeal from the decision of the Vice-chancellor's Court. If these Commissioners received the means of devoting their time to the performance of their duties, if care was taken that those duties were properly performed, all that was required would have been done. No case had been made out to call for, or justify, the establishment of this new Court, which would not only be attended with expense, but with positive disadvantage to the suitors, by depriving them of more competent tribunals to which they ought to have the opportunity of resorting. It had been urged that the accumulation of business in the Court of Chancery was an objection to the questions still remaining to be disposed of by that Court; but even with respect to this objection, it had been clearly shown that the delay which took place was not so great as to be incompatible with the very considerable interests of the suitors. Complaints, too, were made of the great evils arising from the use of affidavits in the Vice-chancellor's Court; but affidavits would also be made use of in the Court which it was proposed to establish, because it would not proceed on vivâ voce evidence alone, and affidavits would not be excluded. It had been said, also, that those who contended that this Bill would confer patronage, were mistaken in the view they took of the case. But it was not to the patronage itself that they objected: if it were shewn that it was necessary to establish this new Court—that all this expensive machinery was essential—that the conferring of that patronage would

739
remove the existing defects in the system—neither he nor his friends on that side of the House would oppose it. But his hon. and learned friend opposite had failed to prove the very ground on which he rested this Bill. He said this Bill proposed to get rid of seventy Judges or seventy Commissioners, with the salaries they receive, amounting altogether to 28,000 l. This was very true; but was there no difference between possessing patronage to the amount of 26,000 l. a-year, and possessing patronage in reversion, with the possibility that it might never come to anything like that extent? There was a very great difference, and the advantage was decidedly in favour of possessing a certain patronage to that extent, which must be superior to the chance of offices becoming vacant. This patronage, therefore, was objected to, because it had not been shewn in any way whatever that the plan proposed was necessary. With respect to the appointment of official assignees, one possible case had been put by an hon. and learned Gentleman opposite; namely, that there might be instances in which an assignee might be appointed who had other objects in view than the interests of the creditors. But would the chance of getting a dishonest assignee be considered a sufficient reason for transferring the appointment of assignees to the Lord Chancellor, who could not have, by any possibility, the same means of ascertaining the character and qualifications of the individual to be selected to fill the office, and who, therefore, could not be so advantageous a person to make the choice as those who had a direct interest in making a fit and proper selection? But was it necessary, for the sake of the estate, that official assignees should be appointed? What had the official assignee to do? He was to pay the monies which he might collect into the Bank, to the credit of the Accountant-general. But could not, any other assignee do thus much? Was it necessary to appoint an official assignee for this purpose? For what reason, then, could he be required? Was it for the purpose of exercising a control over the estate? The Court of Chancery itself possessed that control. It was the object, or rather one of the objects of this Bill, that the money collected should be paid in. But, then there was to be a very considerable commission to be paid to the official assignee, in return for the pains he might take in
740
administering the estate. There was one disadvantage connected with official assignees, which must be apparent to all who heard him: an official assignee could not have that interest in refraining from plunging the estate into expensive litigation, which would be possessed by an assignee chosen by the creditors, and himself a creditor, whose interest it would be, to accumulate as large a fund as possible. That there were defects in the existing system no one would deny; but there was a great diversity of opinion with respect to the remedies which should be applied: the defects ought fairly to be redressed, but this could not be done, if a measure of this importance was precipitated through this House, without great attention and patient investigation by those who were well qualified to form an opinion upon the subject. He would appeal to the worthy Alderman who spoke last, nay, even to the worthy Alderman who spoke before him, whether he could conceive, acquainted as he was with the subject, that this measure would remedy the defects which existed in the present system? This Bill did not provide an adequate remedy, and it was not calculated to answer the objects which the noble and learned Lord who introduced the measure had in view.
The House divided on the Original Motion. Ayes 107; Noes 31—Majority 76.
The House in Committee.
On the question, that the first clause stand part of the Bill,
Mr. Warburtonwould say but a very few words. He was not one of those who considered that the present system of banruptcy did not require very great alteration, or that a radical reform was not required to eradicate the evils which existed. His objection to the present Bill was this; it left unremedied a great part of the evils which existed in the present system. First, as to the delay which was said to arise from the present system of bankruptcy: none of the arguments which he had heard had satisfied him that this delay would be diminished, or that the number of appeals would not be multiplied under the new system. On the contrary, the number of appeals would be multiplied, and the delay would be as great, if not greater, than that to which suitors were at present exposed. He could not understand the use of multiplying appeals. A proper and competent Court to which the parties could carry their appeals

741
was all that was necessary; but it was now proposed, first to establish a Court of Commissioners, then a Court of Review—and, not contented with this, the parties were to have the power of appealing to the Lord Chancellor, and to the House of Lords. Professional men accustomed to the present system, might, at first, feel a great deal of alarm at the proposed alteration, but, he, who was not able to conceive or to understand the advantages arising from such a system, could not help thinking, that the proposition which was now made in this respect was not such an improvement as they might have been induced to expect from that master-mind which originated this measure. It partook of all the evils of the old system, and for that reason, because it was not a radical improvement, he would contend against it; and if he found any of the clauses which called for observation, he would certainly express his opinion upon them, with no intention to delay the House. He must, however, take the opportunity of saying, that, to force forward a Bill of this importance at this period of the Session, when many Members were gone, and many more were going out of town, was not by any means proper.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that as he and many other hon. Members who had thought proper to express an opinion against this Bill, had been pointed out as determined and obstinate opponents of his Majesty's Government, it was to him matter of peculiar consolation to hear an hon. Member of that House, who had been an habitual supporter of his Majesty's Government, condemning the precipitate manner in which this measure had been introduced. He could not regularly allude to what look place elsewhere; but it was pretty generally known, that it had been said in another place, in a somewhat, magisterial tone, that, Parliament should not be prorogued until the Bill was passed. Some one had said it should be passed—some one had laid down the law—some one had put his veto upon the prorogation until this Bill had passed into a law. It certainly was not, possible for an individual who was not a member of the Cabinet to know what passed in it; but rumour said, that one man told them this shall be done, and that shall not be done, just in the same manner and tone as he would say to the House of Commons, you shall do this and you shall not do that. Whether the hon. Member alluded to these arrogant dicta-
742
tions he knew not; he certainly did virtually, if not literally. To bring forward a Bill of this description at the close of a protracted and laborious Session, and to call upon that House to pass it at midnight, without any previous parliamentary inquiry, was not quite consistent with that degree of respect which the head of the law had usually shewn to members of the profession, and to the House of Commons. In the progress of this discussion, he had taken the liberty to state his objections to this Bill almost to empty walls. He certainly had never had the good luck to see so many Gentlemen present during any part of the argument as he had had the good or bad fortune to see during the division which had just taken place. There was certainly a considerable number of Members present, who had made a pretty large majority in favour of the Bankruptcy Court Bill. He did not blame hon. Gentlemen who were not professional men, for disliking these discussions; to such persons they must, no doubt, be very dry and uninteresting; and, therefore, without troubling themselves to listen to the arguments on either side, they merely appeared in their places when they thought they would be called upon to give their votes. It was true they were not to look solely to the expense of establishing this new Court, without reference to its utility. Assuming this Court to be necessary, which he denied, he should be the last man in the world to look to the expense of establishing this tribunal, though he might, perhaps, be disposed to say a word or two about the patronage. When he heard a complaint made, however, on the ground of additional patronage and expense, he should certainly be disposed to found a complaint on both these grounds, on the statement of the hon. member for Louth. What was this Court to be, and how was it to be constituted? It, was to be composed of a Chief Justice, at a salary of 3,000 l. a-year; and three Puisne Judges, who were to receive an income of 2,000 l. a-year each; and, certainly, if he thought it necessary to establish this new superior Court, he should not object to its establishment on account of these salaries being too high. His plan for the improvement of the Bankrupt-laws would be something of this kind; he would reduce the number of Commissioners to a certain limit: he would compel that reduced number of Commissioners to exercise the strict duties of the Court be-

743
low, and he would give an appeal from that Court to the Court of Chancery, by allowing petitions to be heard, either before the Lord Chancellor or the Vice-chancellor. The opposite side of the House had found fault with them for opposing this Bill without having some plan of their own ready cut and dried—there was his plan. He had not expected this Bill to have been brought forward this Session, or, if at all, he expected to see it brought forward here in the first instance, and that it would not have been left to the House of Peers to originate a Bill of this description, although, of course, he did not dispute the right of my Lord Chancellor to bring forward a Bill like this in his own House. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said, "where is your Bill? where is your plan?" If it had been intimated at the early part of the Session that my Lord Chancellor meant to bring forward this Bill, that might have been urged as an argument against them; but to do so now, and under existing circum-stances, was not only not consonant with parliamentary usage, but it was really a breach of faith. In the first place, they were to have a list of six Commissioners, who were to perform all the duties now discharged by the existing body. He was firmly convinced, that when this Bill came into operation it would accelerate the progress of the very evils which were now complained of: it was with this persuasion, and not with any views to his own personal comfort or convenience, that he thought it his duty to address the House upon this subject. His objection to the establishment of this Court was, that it was not wanted, and that there could be no possible necessity for appointing four Judges. However, this being a Court of Review, they were to have an inferior Court, composed of six, or seven, or eight barristers, who were to constitute a tribunal analogous to that which now existed, and which was conducted by the Commissioners of Bankrupts. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman who had just now addressed the House, objected to the very great decrease which was to be made in the number of these Commissioners—this Bill certainly did set to work, and cut up right and left, root and branch, these septuagint Commissioners. He was of opinion that the number of Commissioners in the present lists was too numerous. He would reduce them to a given number, perhaps thirty. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who,
744
in the course of these discussions, had talked of their authority and their experience, never dreamt of proposing such a plan as the Court of Review until this Bill was introduced. His memory might deceive him, but he could not recollect that any man ever thought of proposing the establishment of a Court of Review until this Bill was introduced; on the contrary, every man examined before the Commissioners gave it as his opinion, that the best remedy would be to prevent litigation, and to provide cheap and expeditious justice. He might be wrong certainly, in the view he took of this part of the question, but his being in the wrong had not been proved. He would move as an amendment, that everything relating to these Judges shall be left out of the clause. Of course he knew that it would be of no use, because the man with the master-mind—he was going to say, the master of the Cabinet—said the Bill shall be passed, and, of course, passed it must be. So it was with the Reform Bill—the people were told, "My friends, be so good as to keep yourselves quiet—be cool, do not rebel, and you shall have your Bill." Many hon. Gentlemen might, perhaps, like to have an inquiry upon this subject; "but no," said the man with the master-mind, "let your own judgment be what it may, you must vote as I tell you." Under these circumstances, he very much regretted having to address himself to this subject in the presence of so few hon. Members, knowing that he was undertaking a hopeless case, and knowing, as every labourer in this field did know, that he was sure to meet with ironical cheers, and sardonic grins from hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House. However, a man must not permit himself to be turned away from the subject by such matters; they had an imperative duty to perform, and they must do justice to themselves as well as they could by expressing their opinions. The preternatural masterminded lawyer might calculate à priori on their decisions, but he would nevertheless discharge his duty, by moving to omit the words to which he had referred. What was this Court, consisting of a Chief Justice and three Puisne Judges, to do? A very eminent man said, that the Court of Exchequer had a vast deal to do; measure after measure had been brought forward for reducing that Court; and if, in conformity with the fiat of the man with the master-mind, this Bill was passed,

745
they would yet have to revise their own act, and to pension these Judges off—they must have a little of the otium cum dignitate. They were very robust Judges now, flourishing Judges, but the House must look forward to their future comforts and enjoyments, and provide a retiring pension for them, in addition to a liberal salary while they were acting. He requested hon. Gentlemen who had voted, and to whom, therefore, his request could do no possible harm, to consider with him for a moment what these Judges would have to do; they were very able persons, and no doubt would be very willing to work—but what work was cut out for them to do? It was calculated that all this business might be done in the course of fifty or sixty days in the year; that was to say, judicial days, from ten in the morning until four in the afternoon. This was about the period in which the Lord Chancellor could get through the business; so there was at least one consolation in the constitution of this Court—the Judges would not exhaust themselves, they would not spoil their constitutions with hard work, but they would remain in the full possession of their bodily and mental faculties. The labour of these Judges would not be adequate to the salaries they were to receive, and the House was appointing Judges, whose judicial labours might be embraced within a period of two months. The learned Solicitor General smiled at that—he was very glad to see it. Perhaps he would oblige them with a contradiction, or perhaps he would depute some hon. Gentleman on that side of the House to do so. There could be no doubt that there should be an immediate appeal from the Court below without travelling through these other Courts. Supposing the Court to be necessary, where was the necessity for four Judges? If an intermediate Court was really necessary, one Judge, eminent as the Chief Judge of this Court was to be, would be amply sufficient. He should, therefore, move for the omission of that part of the clause which provided for the three Puisne Judges. The hon. and learned Gentleman who addressed the House last night said, he should not reply to the vulgar attacks which had been made upon the Lord Chancellor on the subject of patronage. His hon. and learned friend, for the last ten or twelve years of his life had been much better and much more profitably employed than in that House. It
746
certainly would have been infinitely better or him (Sir Charles Wetherell) had he like his hon. and learned friend employed his time elsewhere, than within hose walls. When his hon. and learned friend stated that the imputation upon the Lord Chancellor, of a desire to create patronage, was so extremely vulgar that he could not make up his mind to reply to it, he would assure him, that had he been a Member of that. House during the last ten years, he would over and over again, have heard imputations, at least of equal vulgarity, from his Whig associates, while they were sitting on that side of the House. He had been constantly listening to these vulgarities from the Whigs—to vulgar assertions upon the smallest matters—objections in duodecimo. A right hon. friend of his, now the first Lord of the Admiralty, had often been extremely vulgar upon matters of this kind—sometimes accompanying the vulgarity of his objections with a little wit—sometimes with a little acrimony. But all had been exhausted on but trifling subjects, which, as compared with the monstrous folio of patronage, which would result to the Lord Chancellor from the passing of this Bill, was like the most diminutive of all diamond editions. Objections to little pocket volumes, mere 24mos., he had never heard complained of. Indeed, the hon. member for Middlesex and the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Admiralty, had gained no inconsiderable merit among their party for their industry, ingenuity, and cunning in raking up petty grounds of objection. But when they came to this elephant folio of patronage, amounting to some 26,000 l. a-year, any objection to it was mixed up with the idea of vulgarity. If to object to such an amount of patronage which was needlessly, wantonly proposed to be introduced, was vulgar, doubtless he was the vulgarest of men. Although they had not yet seen an official list of the names of the persons whom it was intended to appoint to the offices which would be created by this Bill—he was aware that the son of an illustrious friend of his, the late Lord Erskine, would be one of the Judges of the new Bankrupt Court. My Lord Erskine and he were friends, although he was a very eminent Whig, and he was then, as now, and as he should always continue to be, a Tory. If he compared my Lord Brougham—preternatural man, though he be—with my Lord

747
Erskine, who in many respects was the equal of any man who ever filled the office of Chancellor, he thought that, upon the point of patronage, at least, my Lord Erskine had the advantage. The morning after that noble and learned Lord was appointed to the custody of the Great Seal, he had a long discussion with him upon the subject of the list of Bankrupt Commissioners, and indeed upon the business of bankruptcy generally. What was the noble and learned Lords conduct? As Chancellor coming newly into office, he had the undoubted right of removing every one of the Commissioners appointed by his predecessor; of placing them upon the retiring Pension-list, and of appointing other persons of his own selection, and, if he chose, in his own interest or belonging to his own political party, to the vacancies thus created. But what did he do? To his immortal honour, although several of them were violently opposed to him in politics, and had written and published strong and virulent pamphlets against him and his political friends, he did not displace one of them. One of these pamphleteers, Mr. Bowles, had distinguised himself beyond any other for the violence of his attacks upon the Whigs, so much so as to incur the displeasure of the whole of that party. When my Lord Erskine, therefore, was appointed to the Woolsack, many of his party pointed out to him the propriety of removing Mr. Bowles from his office. He had seen several letters written to the noble Lord upon the subject, from men of considerable eminence. He was not sure, indeed, whether Mr. Fox was not one of those who desired that Mr. Bowles might be removed. But Lord Erskine, although he had the right to displace every man upon the list of Commissioners of Bankrupts, declared that not one should be removed upon any party consideration whatever. He remained true to his word. Not a single Commissioner was displaced; and, what was more, the individuals who filled the various other offices connected with the Court of Chancery, whom the Chancellor had power to remove at pleasure, were left by Lord Erskine in the undisturbed enjoyment of their places. Such was the conduct of the last Whig Chancellor—unmindful of party-feelings where party-feelings should not operate, he would not avail himself of the right of demolishing the list of Bankrupt Commissioners appointed by his prede-
748
cessor, for the sake of courting patronage by appointing another of his own. There was now another Whig Chancellor; and what did he do? His friends had pronounced him to be more than mortal. The angel Gabriel's sword certainly could not be more sweeping or more trenchant than this preternatural Chancellor's Acts. By the Bill which he had introduced, the Septuagint, as the seventy Commissioners had been whimsically called, was to be sliced off from the body corporate of judicial administrators; and a new Court, consisting of an eminent—he believed not a superhuman—Chief Judge, three Puisne Judges, a list of Commissioners, and a train of Official assignees all dependant upon the appointment of the Lord Chancellor, was to be soldered on in its stead. Certainly, there was a strange difference in the conduct of the two Whig Chancellors. He did not pretend to say which was the more correct; but that of my Lord Brougham, every one must admit, carried with it the appearance of a desire for patronage. It seemed to him, that the Press was a ready instrument in the hands of the present Government; and when he saw the leading journals of the day taking a particular line of conduct, he felt quite sure that it was the precursor of some political measure; therefore, as a precursor to this Bill, they saw, in one of the leading papers, a virulent scrutinizing, but false description of the birth, parentage, and education of every man who was now a Commissioner of Bankrupts. He did not say, that in that libellous, unjust, and calumnious description, my Lord Brougham was a participator; he did not suppose that he was. But certainly nothing could be more suited to his purpose, because nothing could tend more to lower and degrade the individuals attacked, in the estimation of this House and of the country; and consequently nothing could be better adapted to reconcile Parliament to their removal from office, and to the substitution of a different tribunal for the administration of that branch of the law which was previously intrusted to them. He had read the attack of the newspapers upon the Commissioners with pain. He did not know them all, but he was acquainted with many of them. He esteemed them; he knew them to be men of talent, of honour, of untarnished character. He knew the attack which had been made upon them to be false and

749
calumnious. Did it follow, because a man held the office of Commissioner of Bankrupts that he must therefore be dishonest his private character bad—his public conduct disreputable? He could not suppose that any hon. Member would allow his mind to be prejudiced by such illiberal notions as these—notions, which the organs of the Government had been at such pains to inculcate. Without, troubling the House at any greater length upon this part of the subject, believing that one Judge would be sufficient to constitute the proposed Court of Review, he begged leave to move that the word "Chief" before the word "Justice," and subsequently the words "three Puisne Judges" should be left out of the clause.
On the question being put—
Sir Henry Hardingedid not rise to make any observations upon the question before the House, of which, as a matter of course, be could know very little, but upon which he should not hesitate to have his vote guided by his hon. and learned friend who had just sat down, in whose judgment, honesty, integrity and straightforwardness of purpose he had the most implicit confidence. His object in rising was, to state that in the course of the labours which his hon. and learned friend had undergone upon this Bill, and upon the Reform Bill, not withstanding the attacks which had been made upon him this evening, that no man ever more distinguished himself in that House for an uncompromising independence, for strict consistency, unflinching integrity, or for a brave and gallant vindication of every political sentiment that he ever uttered, than his hon. and learned friend. And although his hon. and learned friend might have attacked others, and been himself attacked, he would undertake to say, that during the present Session of Parliament no man had laid in a greater stock of admiration from his friends, and, if not of admiration, at least of respect from his opponents, than the hon. and learned member for Borough bridge. As he was compelled from illness, and other circumstances, to leave town to-morrow, he could not help availing himself of this opportunity to express his heartfelt thanks to his hon. and learned friend, for the course which he had pursued upon the two great measures which had been submitted to the consideration of the House during the present Session of Parliament. As
750
one of the many who had admired, and who felt indebted to him for the unwearied exertions which he had made, he had uttered these sentiments with a sincerity which nothing could exceed.
The Attorney Generaldid not rise to engage in any contest with the hon. and gallant Officer upon the subject of his hon. and learned friend's conduct, cither upon that Bill or upon the Reform Bill. Upon both his hon. arid learned friend's opinions had differed from his; but believing them to be the honest conviction of his mind, he did not blame him for the manner in which he had advanced them. He was far from claiming for himself any particular confidence from his friends. But it was quite certain, that upon a question of such a description as that now under the consideration of the House, confidence in particular individuals must go far to influence the votes of the majority of Members, because, from the nature of the question it was impossible that many should be able to understand it. Therefore he trusted that, the observations which had been made upon the absence of several hon. Gentlemen from the argument, who were present at the division, would not be allowed to operate to the prejudice of any who, upon a question of this kind, were perfectly justified in placing reliance upon those public men in the propriety of whose opinions and conduct they felt confident. To these observations he must take the liberty of adding, that there never was a measure in the House of Commons more amply considered, more fully discussed in detail, than this had been. It was said that the Bill had been hurried through its different stages with an impetuosity which nothing could warrant, and that the House had been driven into the consideration of it, at late and unreasonable hours of the night, He should like to know whose fault that had been? They had been anxious, on many occasions, to go into the discussion of the Bill early in the evening; but how had they been prevented? By incidental discussions upon inconsiderable subjects, raised and swollen, out to inordinate length by the hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. Thus they had been prevented from bringing this subject forward until a late hour; but, nevertheless he contended that the measure had been well considered and fully argued. His hon. and learned friend, the member for Boroughbridge, among other

751
grounds of admiration, might certainly claim for himself the merit of having kept his word well, as regarded the conduct which he promised to pursue upon this Bill. As long ago as that day fortnight, he stated his determination to interpose every objection that his ingenuity could suggest to the progress of the Bill. Doubtless he had fulfilled that pledge, for he had this night for the third time advanced the very same argument—for the third time indulged in the same series of extraneous and irrelevant raillery. Such conduct was hardly consistent with parliamentary fairness. His hon. and learned friend had said, that he was not aware that the Bill was to be pressed forward at this period. Perhaps he would allow him to state the history of its progress, and to explain why it had been delayed so long. On the 23rd of February last it was introduced into the House of Lords by his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. It was not founded upon any theory or fancy of the noble and learned Lord, but upon the combined opinions of many eminent persons. At the time of its introduction, its nature and its intended operation were fully explained. It was laid upon the Table of the House of Lords—it was printed and circulated—it became matter of universal discussion, both at the Bar, and among mercantile and commercial men in the City—its progress was delayed by the dissolution of Parliament. When the new Parliament assembled, it was again brought forward. It had been, maturely considered by the parties most interested in it. But again its progress was delayed—not as the hon. Gentleman opposite had presumed, for the sake of pushing it off to the end of the Session, then to be carried in haste, and without due consideration, but in consequence of the unavoidable absence of two noble and learned Lords who were anxious to take part in the discussion upon the third reading in the other House. Thus it was prevented from being carried through its final stage in the other House as early as it otherwise would have been. But had it now been but a very short time in the House? At least a fortnight had elasped since he first brought it forward, so that there really had been plenty of time to give it all the consideration that it could possibly require. He regretted the course which the hon. member for Bridport had taken in the discuss-
752
ing of this measure, because he did not think it a very fair one. The only real objection that he now heard from his hon. and learned friend was, that he thought the Commissioners would constitute a very efficient tribunal. As to variety of appeals he said, "You may avoid uncertainty, but you will not save expense, nor prevent delay." Expense and delay were the offspring of uncertainty, and by providing against the one evil, the two others were effectually prevented. Expense and delay, then, vanished with the removal of uncertainty. No doubt a variety of appeals was troublesome, but by this Bill they were so arranged as to be made almost immediate, so that little delay could result from them. He had thought it necessary to make this short statement to the House, in explanation of the progress of the measure, and of the reason of its being introduced there at that period of the Session. He had now only to hope that they should be allowed to go bonâ fide into the merits of each clause, and to continue the discussion in reference to the provisions of the Bill alone.
Mr. Wranghamentirely concurred in the views which had been taken by the hon. and learned member for Borough-bridge, and should vote for the amendment which he had moved.
Mr. John Campbellbegged leave to say a very few words upon the question of whether there should be four Judges, or only one Judge in this new Court. He was convinced, that the great advantage of the Court would be, that it consisted of four Judges, and not of one Judge. To come from Lord Bacon to Mr. Angelo Taylor he would observe that that hon. and learned Gentleman, who, during his Parliamentary career, devoted much of his time and attention to consider of measures for a reform of the Court of Chancery, always contended that three Judges should sit in equity. Even now, upon great occasions, the Lord Chancellor borrowed assistance from the Chief Justice of the Common Law Courts. The Insolvent Debtors' Court, too, which had only been recently established, had three or four Judges. Another advantage arising from this Court being constituted of four Judges would be, that while three were sitting and deciding questions of law, the other might be sitting with a Jury, to try questions of fact. This Appeal Court should not, therefore, be confined to a single Judge, as the decision

753
of four Judges was likely to carry more authority with it than the decision of one Judge. In the case of a high and responsible officer, such as the Lord Chancellor, it might be expedient to have only one Judge; but the attempt was likely to fail in a case like the present. If there was to be a Court of Appeal immediately connected with the Bankruptcy Court, it was indispensably necessary that there should be more than one Judge. Dr. Paley made use of the expression, that in all Courts of Appeal there should be more than one Judge; and he added, that it appeared to him, that four was the most convenient number. For his part, he would much rather abolish the office of Vice-chancellor, than consent to the change now proposed in the constitution of this new Court of Bankruptcy.
Mr. George Bankescould not help feeling that this was a topic well worthy of consideration. He regretted that the House rejected the proposition for referring the whole matter to a Committee up-stairs, for then there would have been an opportunity afforded them of examining this and other important questions, which it was impossible to treat in a proper manner in the short time allowed by his Majesty's Government. He was surprised at the argument they had just heard from the hon. and learned member for Stafford; for, in point of fact, it would come to this—that they ought to have three Lord Chancellors, except at the present time, when a "master-spirit" held that office. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, admitted, in a subsequent part of his speech, that it was always possible to find a person adapted for the proper discharge of the duties of Lord Chancellor, but that at, the same time, it would be impossible to find another person who ought to be intrusted to sit by himself in this Court. The honourable and learned Gentleman had quoted authorities in favour of the views he had adopted, and, among others, he had referred to the opinions of Lord Bacon, and of Mr. Michael Angelo Taylor on the subject. He had met in the course of his perambulations that day, the latter of these eminent authorities, and they had entered into conversation on the merits of this Bill. And he had the authority of Mr. Michael Angelo Taylor to declare, that he had never been consulted on this measure, although he fully expected that
754
he should have been, and that he approved of but a very small portion of it. So much for the approbation bestowed on the Bill by one of the hon. and learned Member's authorities. The hon. and learned Attorney General had not acted very fairly towards his hon. and learned friend, the member for Boroughbridge, in the course of these discussions, in refusing to enter into the discussion of topics of the highest importance in connexion with this subject. It was forgotten that the alterations involved in this measure were of the utmost consequence, and ought not heedlessly to be made. The hon. and learned Attorney General, in answer to what fell from the hon. member for Bridport, said, that this Bill would certainly attain one of the three objects which it was desirable to attain with reference to the Bankrupt-laws—namely, the removal of the uncertainty attending the present proceedings. He said, that if the uncertainty attending the administration of the law was done away with, this would do away with most of the appeals. It was to be lamented that the learned Gentleman thought it necessary to go out of his way to make an attack of this sort upon the Commissioners, for his language implied that the gentlemen who held these offices were negligent in the discharge of their duty. The noble and learned Lord, the author of this Bill, would assuredly never lend himself to attacks of this nature. He was aware that the noble and learned Lord did in another place make some allusions to the Commissioners, but he would not countenance charges that had been insinuated against them. All those charges arose from the learned Gentleman labouring under a total misapprehension of the real state of the case, and from his being quite unacquainted with its real circumstances The allusions were rather founded on ignorance than upon any correct information upon the subject. It had been said, that all the opposition to this measure had originated in one quarter, and that it had been made chiefly for the purpose of delay or for some other party purpose. He reprobated the idea as absolutely false and groundless; and he asserted, that only a sense of duty had influenced those who sat around him in opposing a Bill which proposed to reconstruct a Court of justice, when they had had no opportunity of inquiring either into the expediency of the change, or into the probably

755
workings of the new Court. As For the assertion that all the opposition originated with those opposed to the Reform Bill, he would merely mention, that the hon. member for Bridport had taken the lead in the opposition. There was no ground for the charge of unfair dealing, and he would not be deterred from doing his duty by the throwing out of such imputations. He was one of the Commissioners of this Court for several years, and did not hesitate to say, from what he had seen in that Court, that he believed all of them were extremely anxious to discharge their duties. As for the charge of delay in their decisions, he would refer to the authority of the hon. and learned Member behind him, who stated that, of the 600 bankrupt petitions brought under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor, within a certain period, only fourteen were appeals from their decisions. In the list to which he belonged for upwards of seven years, there was only one appeal to the Lord Chancellor, who confirmed their decision. The most unfair charges had been brought against the Commissioners, and imputations the most groundless had been made against them. Taking the system as it stood, it was impossible to perform the duties in a more exemplary manner than they were executed by the Commissioners. The hon. member for Malton said, that all those offices seemed filled up without reference to the peculiar qualifications of the person appointed. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman alluded to the present Lord Chancellor or to his predecessors, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Eldon, or Lord Erskine, in whose times all the present appointments had been made; but such a charge appeared to be utterly groundless; for in a Parliament where each of these noble and learned Lords would be liable to impeachment for such conduct, he did not think that any Lord Chancellor would act so disreputably, or perform his duties in so negligent a manner. With respect to the question more especially under the consideration of the House, it was, on all accounts, better, in a Court of Appeal, to have one Judge in preference to four; for, by this means the responsibility was increased, and persons were protected against being compelled to go into an important question of this nature, without having sufficiemt time allowed for the examination of it. He should only add, if any one supposed that he supported
756
this Amendment merely from a motive of promoting delay, that such person was completely mistaken.
Mr. Robert Grantobserved, that the subject had occupied his attention for several years, and many eminent men had spent much time in investigating the best form of the tribunal for the decision of cases of this nature. From all the consideration he had been able to give this Bill, he was of opinion that many of the objections which now applied to the administration of the Bankrupt-laws, could not be urged if a Court like that now contemplated were established. No one intended to cast any imputations on the character of the Commissioners and the objections that were urged did not apply to them, but to the system under which they were called upon to act. Under that system the judicial duty was absurdly and mischievously distributed amongst a great number of persons, so that, in fact, it was a surbordinate duty; whereas, being a most important duty, it should devolve upon only a few persons, and be their sole and exclusive business. It was one of the great evils of the present system, that the Judges were not persons of great responsibility, and one of the principal objects of this Bill was to remedy that evil. He would venture to say, from his own experience, that if this new system should be found to work well, every one of the Judges in this new Court would be fully and completely employed. He would not enter into the question of the propriety of having one or more Judges in the Court of Appeal, as it was a matter of great difficulty, and required much attention before a satisfactory conclusion could be arrived at; but it appeared that, at least, the present Court would be more in unison with the spirit of our institutions than such an alteration as was proposed by his hon. and learned friend. Objections had been made to an intermediate Court, but by this course all the process of working the Commissions would be settled before the case could come under the consideration of the Chancellor, who would have only to rescind or confirm the judgment of the inferior tribunal upon some question of laws and not of fact.
Sir Charles Wetherellwould, in the first place, allude to what had fallen from the hon. and learned member for Stafford. The hon. Member hoped that this Bill would pass in its present form. His wishes would probably be gratified; but it

757
was also probable that, in the course of next Session some measure would be submitted to Parliament for the purpose of altering and amending this sage scheme. There could be little doubt that this measure would become the law of the land, as an intimation had been given in a high place, that Parliament was to be kept sitting until it was passed. Such an order—which he understood was issued from the Woolsack no later than yesterday—had not been promulgated from the days of Wolsey to the present period of political freedom. He hoped that similar orders would not be issued on other subjects, and that the master-mind would at least confine its attention to measures of this nature. In a newspaper, one of the organs of the Government—the Lord Chancellor was made to say, that the Bankrupt Bill shall pass. The Commons of England were to be mere automata, not to escape censure even for discussing this measure in transitu. The House of Commons had received orders from the Woolsack to pass the Bill without delay; he was certainly not inclined to obey such an order, and should, therefore, discuss it as long as he had anything to say against it. He was opposed, as an individual, to such a scheme; and a grosser judicial job or a grosser piece of judicial patronage, had not been effected than this Bill since the time of Cardinal and Chancellor Wolsey. Since the time of that clerical Lord Chancellor, they had not had the same person holding the Great Seal, and also the Archbishopric of York, the bishopric of Durham, and the deanery of St. Paul's in commendam, but there was an instance of a lay successor of that eminent personage manufacturing a Court of Justice with salaries of 26,000 l. a-year, without any ostensible reason. The resemblance between the eminent ecclesiastic and the eminent lay Lord, must instantly strike the mind of any man. The prudence and economy of the Government when some 40 l. or 50 l. was saved by clipping and pruning was loudly boasted of, but when new establishments were to be formed, and when thousands were to be expended, so that Ministers might have new patronage, not a word was said of economy. In all our Equity Courts except the Court of Exchequer, there was only one Judge; arid he should, therefore, like to see the Puisne Judges of this Court of Review Struck out. Nine months of the year
758
they must be unoccupied, unless, indeed, their time should be filled up by being made Commissioners under a bill with which the Parliament was threatened from the Woolsack—for the Cardinal threatened the Peers as well as the Commons. Notwithstanding the dreadful condition in which he should put himself by presuming to oppose this sort of usurpation, and these kinds of threats, he should certainly divide the Committee on his Amendment, being resolved to have only one Judge, in the new Court, if he could effect the object.
The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Ayesl9; Noes 71; Majority 52.
Clause agreed too, and House resumed Committee to sit again the next day.

SUGAR REFINING BILL.
Lord Althorp Lord Althorp moved the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee on the Sugar Refining Bill.
Mr. Robert Gordonsaid, as they had just adjourned the Bankruptcy Law Bill on account of the lateness of the hour, surely this Bill ought not to be pressed forward; and he had hopes, if the business was delayed, that some arrangement might be made between the parties interested.
Lord Althorpwas not aware that any opposition was intended to the Bill. It had already been postponed to give time for some arrangement to be come to, but as none had taken place, it was necessary the House should settle the question; the Bill besides was extremely short, and they might easily get through it.
Mr. Burgeobserved, several amendments were to be proposed which were likely to take up some time in discussing. There were hon. Gentlemen in the House who were prepared to object both to the principle and details of the measure.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, he feared that if the Bill was not forwarded one stage during the present, evening, there was a great probability of its being entirely lost, as the advanced period prevented any further delay. As the House had already agreed to the principle of the Bill, he trusted they would not put an end to the hopes that had been accordingly raised.
The Order of the Day was then read.
Mr. Hughes Hughessaid, solely on account of the lateness of the hour, and without any factious motives whatever, he begged to move "That this House do now Adjourn."
On this Question the House divided;

759
when there appeared—Ayes 12; Noes 49—Majority 37. [After the division, it was intimated by the opponents of the Bill, that they would persist in again moving the adjournment if the Original Motion were persisted in, and Lord Althorp consented to postpone the Committee.]
Committee postponed.

CHAIN CABLES.
Mr. Jamessaid, before the House adjourned, he wished to present a petition from certain manufacturers of iron, who had recently discovered an improved method of making Chain Cables. He wished to state to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Admiralty, that the petitioners complained that they had made application to the Navy Board, and no attention had been paid to their suggestions. He (Mr. James) was given to understand, for some reason or other which he could not divine, that the Navy Board refused to use the best sort of material for the cables of the Royal Navy. The petitioners further declared, that the test used to try the cables was of too little weight; they were only tested to bear a strain of eighteen tons, whereas, if they were made of the best iron, they were equal to bear twenty-four tons. The subject appeared to him to deserve the utmost attention.
Sir James Grahamsaid, he hoped his hon. friend remembered the petitioners were also constituents of his, and therefore he was anxious, of course, that every attention should be paid to their supposed improvements. So far from the subject being neglected, however, he could assure his hon. friend, that the Navy Board had directed one of their surveyors to visit all the iron foundries in the kingdom, and more especially at Fishguard, with reference expressly to the construction of cables, and after all the evidence they were able to obtain, the Navy Board came to the conclusion, that it was not expedient to recommend the introduction of strap iron cables into the Navy. He had been given to understand, that there was not a single instance of a chain cable, such as were at present used, having failed, although some of them had been in use for upwards of three years; he had therefore come to the conclusion, from all the information he had been able to obtain on the subject, that the recommendation of the Navy Board was wise and proper, and that it ought to be followed.
The Petition was read.
Mr. Jamessaid, that notwithstanding what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman, he was still of opinion these cables ought to be introduced into the public service. A very strong argument in their favour was, that they were daily demanded for the use of private vessels. They were equally strong with others and had the advantage of being much lighter.
Petition to lie on the Table.