Commons Sitting of 17 October 1831

MINUTES.
Bills brought in. By Lord Viscount DUNCANNON, to enable Churchwardens and Overseers to enclose Lands belonging to the Crown for the benefit of Poor Persons residing in the parishes where such Crown Lands are situated. Read a third time; Interpleader.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. HUNT, of all the Expenses incurred in holding the late Special Commissions:—On the Motion of Colonel EVANS, of the Expense of the Military Asylums of Chelsea, Isle of Wight, Southampton, &c., from the first establishment to 51st December, 1850:—On the Motion of Mr. RUTHVEN, of the Fees received by the Commissioners of Bankrupts in Dublin, for the year 1829, 1850, and 1831, ending the 3lst March in each year; of the Emoluments received by the Secretary and Clerk of Emoluments during the same time, and of all sums paid for Sealing Commissions, for the same time, distinguishing each year:—On the Motion of Mr. POU-LETT THOMSON, the quantity of unrefined Sugar entered for Home Consumption, and the duty paid thereon from 1815 to 1831.
Petitions presented. By Mr. DOMINIC BROWNE, from Landowners, Merchants, and others, of Newtownsmith, for the extension of the Elective Franchise of Galway to Catholics.

GENERAL REGISTRY BILL.
Mr. Blamire,in presenting a Petition from certain Freeholders near Cockermouth, in the County of Cumberland, against the General Registry Bill, stated, that his Constituents were very adverse to the measure, because they apprehended that they would be obliged to send their title-deeds to London; that a great expense would be incurred by landowners in the remote parts of the kingdom, in searching the register; that it would be necessary to employ London solicitors in all transactions of sale and mortgage arising in the country; from the minute divisions of properly in Cumberland, it would cause so much expense as wholly to prevent the transfer of small estates, and that, from there being so many parsons in Cumberland of the same name, the index to the register would afford no information. They were not aware of any instances of estates being lost by concealed deeds. But there was a grievance felt there, which if it could be cured by a clause in the Bill, his constituents would be willing to agree to all the inconveniences of registration, which was, that almost every estate was held by

855
mixed tenures of copyhold, freehold, and customary freehold; and as the boundaries of the land held by each tenure could not be pointed out, no good title could be made, and the seller was always at the mercy of the purchaser.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, this petition was a fresh proof that the Register Bill was opposed from being misrepresented or misunderstood. A Metropolitan-office was preferred to offices in every county, for the sake of economy, uniformity of practice, and facility of search; but every landowner would continue to keep his deeds in his own muniment-room. A copy (exempted from Stamp duty) would be sent to the Register-office, and this was found upon calculation to be cheaper than a memorial, while it would be much more useful,. Regulations were introduced into the Bill for equalizing expense in transactions over the whole kingdom, so that registration upon the sale of an estate in Cumberland would not cost more than if it were in Surrey. The solicitor in the country would correspond directly through the Post-office with the Register-office, both as to searches and the registration of deeds, and the employment of any solicitor or agent in London would be wholly unnecessary. The very difficulty pointed out, arising from the frequent occurrence of the same name, was met by the Bill; for, instead of an index of names of grantors, there was to be a symbolical index, upon the principle of a ledger; and a single page would show with absolute certainty, all the deeds affecting any particular lands. If the petitioners would read the evidence laid before the Real Property Commissioners, they would find that instances were constantly occurring, bona fide purchasers being turned out of possession by suppressed deeds being brought forward; and that in every transaction of sale or mortgage, the expense is enormously increased by the precautions resorted to for the purpose of guarding against this danger, which must always exist till a register is established. With respect to the evil arising from diversity of tenure, it was one of a totally different nature, and could not be met by this measure; but in a future Session of Parliament, it was his intention to introduce a Bill which would be an effectual remedy; for the operation of it would be, that all the land in England would in time be held by one tenure,—viz., free and, common soccage.
Mr. Blamirefelt it necessary to return his thanks to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation. There was one point, however, on which he wished to set himself right: the petitioners did not mean to state, that no instances of fraud had occurred from concealed deeds, but that they knew of no such instances.
Mr. Burgewas fully convinced that no professional man in the country would be satisfied, unless his town-agent went to the Register-office and searched for information himself.
Mr. John Campbellassured the hon. and learned Member, there would be no such necessity. The Officer at the Register-office, on application, would copy from the Record all the information that was required, indeed it would be impossible for any Attorney to obtain by personal application more information than could be communicated by the Register in writing.
Petition to be printed.

ADMINISTRATION OF OATHS.
Mr. Wilkspresented a Petition from a Congregation of Dissenters at Salisbury, praying that the administration of Oaths might be altered.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonhoped this important subject would soon be brought under the distinct attention of the House. There were many oaths which could safely be abrogated; one of the most absurd was that which was required to be taken by Protestant Members of that House, who were compelled to swear it was not in the power of the Pope to absolve subjects from their allegiance. But the most whimsical part of the ceremony was, that Catholics, who were the only persons who were supposed to put faith in the doctrine, were not required to take the oath. This subject had never received the large and liberal consideration it deserved. He hoped Parliament would soon come to the conclusion that the multiplicity of oaths only tended to weaken the moral influence of the obligation which they imposed; his opinion was, that all the oaths to be taken by official persons ought to be reduced to one, and that one should be the Oath of Allegiance.
Mr. Wilks,in moving that the petition be printed, said, he concurred fully in the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member, and as a proof of the necessity of some amendment being made on this subject, he must beg to inform the House,

857
that by certain Bills which had lately passed, 300,000 oaths which had been previously taken annually at the Excise and Custom Offices were abolished. He knew a person who declared that he had taken upwards of 1000 such oaths, and had never inquired as to the object of any of them.
Petition to be printed.

PILGRIM TAX.
Mr. Wilkspresented a Petition from Protestant Dissenters at Reading, for the extension of civil rights to the inhabitants of India, and for the suppression of the Pilgrim Tax. A discussion had recently taken place upon this latter part of the subject, as to whether Hindoos on becoming Christians forfeited their property, and considerable, doubts prevailed upon the point; but from information which he had recently received from Calcutta, he could affirm, that a Hindoo on becoming a Christian, was condemned by British Judges in India to the forfeiture of his property.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, in consequence of the former discussion, he had examined all the authorities on the subject, and he could discover no one instance of a native of India losing his inheritance on becoming a Christian. He was quite sure no Court of Law, in a country where Christian government was established, would condemn a man to the forfeiture of his property on adopting the religion of the Government. According to the Hindoo laws, a man must be perfect before he could inherit property; if he was lame, blind, or imbecile in mind, he was excluded. These laws, however, were never enforced. He had known an instance of a person who was blind, who had recovered an estate worth 30,000 rupees; and no one had ventured to object, on account of his infirmity, although the letter of the law was clearly against him. And so it would be ruled, should any such application be made to a Court on a man becoming a Christian; it was perfectly impossible that a British Judge could decree that a man was to lose his inheritance from embracing the Christian religion.
Mr. Wilksbelieved, notwithstanding the great deference due to the hon. and learned Member's authority, that the hon. Member was mistaken on the subject. He had known cases in India, in which persons would not even try the question, and had given up considerable property,
858
because they were fully convinced the law was clear against them. One individual alone, in Calcutta, had abandoned property to the amount of a lack of rupees, about 12,000 l., on this point alone, without making any attempt whatever to retain it.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, if persons felt themselves aggrieved in this respect, they would of course make application to the local government of British India, which had the power to make and amend the laws and regulations for the administration of property, both of Hindoos and Mahometans, being the subjects of their government, and under their jurisdiction. That circumstance all those persons well knew, and the records of India would consequently shew whether any applications had been made on the point. In the absence of any such application (for he could take it upon himself to say none such existed) it was but fair to infer, that the grievance did not exist. If it did exist, persons should apply to the local governments in India which had the power to afford them redress.
Petition to be printed.

REFORM—PETITIONS.
Mr. Dominick Brownepresented a Petition from Galway for the speedy passing of the Reform Bill. He wished to observe, that there was a unanimous feeling in Ireland in favour of the Bill. It was universally hoped, that. Ministers would not relax in their exertions until they had carried a question which the great mass of the community expected would produce great benefit to both countries.
Mr. Huntsaid, that as he was not acquainted with Ireland, he would not deny the assertion of the hon. Member; but they had had the same assertion made with respect to England, and he knew that that was not the fact. It was only the corrupt Press that represented the feeling as universal in favour of the Bill. The other day, there was a meeting at Birmingham, said to consist of a 150,000 persons; and as that meeting was in favour of the Bill, the Press made the most of it. But there was also, the other day, as large a meeting at Manchester, which had been called by the Whigs, but at which they had been completely beaten, and therefore the account of it was almost suppressed by the public papers. What they did state of it was

859
wrong. They said that the meeting was in favour of the Reform Bill, but the truth was, that an amendment was carried, and the meeting had petitioned for Universal Suffrage, Annual Parliaments, and Vote by Ballot; and Lord Grey was requested to present a Petition, founded on these resolutions, to his Majesty. In all probability, however, they would hear no more of the petition, as it was opposed to the measure brought forward by Ministers. Instead of the flags at the meeting, as it was asserted, having the words "The Reform Bill," "William 4th and the Ministers;" they had the words "Universal Suffrage," "Annual Parliaments," and "Vote by Ballot."
Sir John Bourkesaid, as a proof that there was almost a universal feeling in Ireland in favour of the Reform Bill, he must state, that he had recently been at a meeting in Ballinasloe of all the gentry and landed proprietors of that part of the country, and he never saw a greater degree of anxiety evinced in favour of any measure than was there evinced in favour of the Reform Bill.
Mr. Dominick Browne,in reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Preston, felt himself called upon to repeat, that the great majority of the people of Ireland were in favour of Reform. He could distinctly affirm, that was the case in the county he had the honour to represent. The same feeling was prevalent among all classes and sects. The only drawback upon the feeling being universal was, a wish that more Representatives should have been allotted to that county.
Mr. Sheilsaid, the sentiments of the people of Ireland generally could be gathered from the fact, that there was not one of their real Representatives who were opposed to the Bill. There could be no doubt there were many persons in Ireland opposed to the Bill, but they were persons having an interest in the borough system, and distinct interests from the people. To show how that system worked in Ireland, he might mention, that the present and the three preceding members for Dundalk were in no way whatever connected with that town, and that one of these Gentlemen had actually never seen it, and yet it deserved a better system of Representation attached to it, for the place contained 15,000 Catholic inhabitants, and had an annual export trade to the
860
amount of half a million. He agreed perfectly with the hon. Members who had spoken before. Ireland undoubtedly ought to have at least 150 Representatives, taking into account the amount of its relative population to that of the whole empire.
Sir Richard Vyvyandid not think that the amount of population alone was a reason in favour of the extension of Members to Ireland, as to the borough of Dundalk, such places were often of great advantage, as they brought to Parliament Irish Members, and he might mention the recent case of Milbourn Port as an instance. Did hon. Gentlemen who set up that plea consider the amount of population in British India. If the measure had been framed only on the basis of population, they might claim Members, but that was not the case, property was also taken into consideration, and Ireland had her fair share of Members in proportion to her contributions to the general revenue.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, he was surprised at the inconsistency of the hon. member for Preston, who seemed to have joined the Tories in making attacks upon the late measure of Reform. That Bill had met the approval of the great body of the Irish people; but he, in common with the great body of his countrymen, laid claim to a large increase of Representatives for Ireland.
Mr. Leaderagreed with the honourable Baronet, the member for Oak-hampton, that revenue and property should be considered as tests for Representation as well as population. Besides the amount paid into the Exchequer, on account of Ireland, there must be considered the immense sum, at least 4,000,000 l., sent anually to her absentee proprietors, which was chiefly spent in England, and in any fair measure of the allotment of Representatives, this sum must be taken into account. If that country was well governed, it might materially assist in contributing to the necessities of the whole kingdom; but its best energies were cramped by misgovernment, and it was too hard to hear the effects of that misgovernment alleged as a plea to deprive her of her rights.
Sir Francis Burdettsaid, that the talent, eloquence, and zeal of Members from Ireland in that House had often contributed to the success of the most useful measures. The cause of Reform especially was greatly indebted to some of

861
these Gentlemen. He regretted that the hon. member for Preston, and other Gentlemen who sat near that hon. Member, availed themselves of every opportunity to embarrass the business of the House, and to impede the progress of Reform. He thought the alliance which that hon. Member had formed was most, unnatural; nor could he understand how that Gentleman reconciled his votes with his speeches. The hon. Member's conduct was very different from that of all the, true friends of Reform throughout the country. All those who were sincerely desirous of Reform had determined to accept that measure which gave the best chance of being carried into effect; and when such a measure was offered to them, they, with the greatest wisdom and prudence, concurred in supporting it, and each of them gave up his own favourite plan. It seemed to him to be most extraordinary, that any friend to Reform could decline to support the only measure which had a good prospect of success, and should persist in culling for another measure which could have no chance of being carried into effect. He thought the conduct of all the other Reformers was much more sincere and judicious. They were unanimous in favour of the Reform Bill, to a degree such as never had been witnessed before in this country upon any public question.
Mr. Huntsaid, the hon. Baronet, had accused him of forming an unnatural alliance with Gentlemen on that(the Opposition) side. Now, was it not the fact that he had always voted against them? As to his inconsistency on the subject of the Reform Bill, the hon. Baronet must know very well that he expressed the same opinion on that Bill on the first day that, he spoke about it as on the last day. He did not, think it a sufficient measure, and he said the first day that the people would be dissatisfied with it. But still he voted for it, as he would have done if it did not go half so far; and he would have voted for any measure that went to remove even a part of the abuses in the Representation. The hon. Baronet could not fairly blame him for not supporting the Whigs, for it was the hon. Baronet who taught him to distrust them, when the hon. Baronet, used to talk of the Constitution being crucified between the two thieves. It was from the hon. Baronet that he had learned his political creed;
862
and it was not he, but the hon. Baronet, himself, that had changed sides. What sort of alliance did the hon. Baronet form when he the advocate of short Parliaments and Universal Suffrage, became the supporter of Mr. Canning, and was seen sticking his knees into that right hon. person's back, after his declaration that be would to the last, hour of his life resist Reform in every shape? He had been sent to the House to do his duty to his constituents and to the country, and he would never allow it to be said that it was a sufficient Reform which gave the suffrage to no more than one-seventh of the whole male population. Since the years 1806 and1807, when the Whigs were in power, he had adhered to the creed which the hon. Baronet had taught him. He had never been a Whig, nor professed to be a Whig; but, on the contrary, he had always said, that, bad as were the Tories, they were still better than the Whigs.
Sir John Newportsaid, that if the hon. member for Preston's declaration were to receive credence, it would appear that he alone spoke the sentiments of the people; and that he alone, of all the Members of that House, was their real Representative; so that he stood in the situation of being an universal Member—a position in which he did not feel disposed to allow the hon. Member of stand. He must remark, however, that he rose for the purpose, of replying to an assertion of an hon. Baronet (Sir R. Vyvyan), who contended that Ireland had not contributed her fair proportion to the burthens of the State. Now he must say, that he could prove, by reference to an authority of undeniable weight, that Ireland had not only paid her proportion, but had paid a sum towards the public burthens much exceeding her proportion of the weight, and this fact, would be found in the Report of the Committee, at the head of which was Lord Bexley, which had been appointed in the year 1816, for the purpose of inquiring into the subject of Finance.
Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, that he had been misunderstood, for he had confined his remarks to the statement of a simple fact—namely, that in his opinion, Ireland did not contribute so large a proportion to the public burthens as to entitle her to a larger share of Representation than she now possessed.
Sir John Newportsaid, that he had

863
certainly not understood the hon. Baronet's observation to be so confined as he had then explained it.
Sir Richard Vyvyanassured the hon. Baronet, that he had been misunderstood, what he had repeated was the full substance of his former remark.
Colonel Trenchsaid, he must corroborate the hon. Baronet in the denial he had given of the observations imputed to him. He was prepared to admit, that the people had been carried away by the delusions which had been practised on them with regard to the Reform Bill; but they were fast coming to their senses. He must also remark, that the Press was daily becoming more licentious and abusive with respect to the Bill. He himself had been a paper that day, at the head of which was a gallows, and three Bishops suspended from it, the contents of which pointed out to the people that they ought thus to take vengeance on that body for having contributed to throw out the Bill. He did not mean to say that Government ought to take any measures with respect to these publications: but he did really think that they had of late given an indirect and tacit encouragement and sanction to such attacks from the Press.
Mr. Dominick Browne,in moving that the petition be printed, said, he must object very strongly to the sentiments expressed by the hon. Baronet (Sir Richard Vyvyan) on the subject of the contribution of Ireland towards the demands of the State. He wholly denied the correctness of the assumption of the hon. Baronet.
Sir Francis Burdettlooked upon the two factions of Whig and Tory to be now nearly extinct in everything but the name, and he believed that the Reform Bill would put an end to them altogether. It was true that he supported Mr. Canning, when that right hon. Gentleman, in consequence of his intentions in favour of religious liberty, was deserted by his party, who pulled the best feather from their own wing when they drove Mr. Canning from their side, and they ever afterwards made but a bad flight—something between a hawk and a buzzard. But the hon. member for Preston who now attacked him (Sir Francis Burdett) must be well aware, that he supported Mr. Canning for the purpose of enabling that Minister to carry the great, measure of Catholic Emancipation. On the same grounds, and with
864
just the same inconsistency, he had supported the Administration of the Duke of Wellington and Mr. Peel, by whom that great measure of civil and religious liberty was successfully carried through. He had always looked upon the system of religious disabilities, which was then abolished, as the great stumbling block which it was necessary to remove before they could ever be able to proceed to Parliamentary Reform. He would go further, and assure the hon. Member, that if the Duke of Wellington and Mr. Peel had gone on in the way in which they had set out, he would have continued to give them his support. If there were now any set of men in the country who thought that the Reform Bill did not go far enough, he thought it would be a sufficient answer to them to say, that no more extensive measure could be carried into effect, although no measure less efficient would be offered. It seemed rather inconsistent of hon. Gentlemen opposite, in the same breath to blame his Majesty's Ministers for exciting the people, and to assert that the people were not excited. But the fact was, they represented the excitement of the people to be great or small, not as it really was, but just as it answered their own purposes. When the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Trench) said, that the people were now coming to their senses, of course he attributed their restoration to reason to the wise and temperate appeals that had been made to them, and to the conciliating language that had been employed by the hon. Gentleman's friends around him. But the excitement which prevailed, was only the excitement of anxious hope, that his Majesty's Ministers would adopt every measure which could assist them to carry the Bill. But if it were supposed by the country that Ministers would shrink from employing all the means in their power, they would lose all the regard and confidence, which, fortunately for the peace of the country, they now possessed. He thought that hon. Gentlemen were mistaken, if they supposed that there was any; diminution of the feeling of the people upon the subject of the Reform Bill. On the contrary, their anxiety was wrought to the highest pitch, and the worst consequences would follow if anything were done to destroy their hopes, or to delay the realisation of them too long. It certainly could not be denied, that the Members of that House required some relaxa-

865
tion from their Parliamentary labours, which had been for so many months unusually severe, and had nearly worn them out. But the period of relaxation should be made as short as possible, to put an end to the doubt and uncertainty which paralysed all business from one end of the country to another, and which, if protracted, would produce the most disastrous consequences.
Colonel Sibthorpcontended, that the eagerness of the people for Reform had considerably abated; and he was surprised to hear the hon. Baronet make the contrary assertion. He had received several letters from various parts of the country, which fully bore him out in declaring, that many persons began to alter their opinions as they came to understand the measure.
Mr. Huntsaid, he had not opposed the Bill, but he objected to it because it did not go far enough. As to the hon. Baronet, the member for Westminster, the question he put to him was, did the hon. Baronet not continue to support Mr. Canning after that Minister had declared his hostility to all Reform. He believed the hon. Baronet could not deny that he had so done. As to the present Ministry, he had no scruple in saying, that, in his opinion, they had brought in the late Bill because they could not keep their places without introducing some such measure. The Duke of Wellington only gave way to circumstances, and had he continued in office, he must have seen the necessity of conceding on the question of Reform. The more he thought of the late measure, the more fully was he convinced it would not have satisfied the country. He trusted that the hon. Baronet, after the inconsistencies in his own conduct, would no more be guilty of the folly of charging him with having joined the Tories.
Mr. Dominick Brownebegged to ask the hon. Baronet, the member for Oakhampton, if he had meant to say, that if Ireland was to return Members in proportion to her population, that the colonies had an equal claim to the same right.
Sir Richard Vyvyan,in answer to the hon. member for Mayo, wished to remark, that all he had said was, that if population only was the test of representation, any part of the empire might be taken.
Petition to be printed.

BANKRUPTCY COURT BILL—COMMITTEE—FOURTH DAY.
The House went into a Committee upon the Bankruptcy Court Bill.
On the Clause being read which empowered a single Commissioner to refer a cause or appeal to a Court of Review or to a Court of Division,
Mr. Warburtonobjected to the Clause; he considered it placed too much authority in the hands of a single Commissioner.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that upon consideration, some means might be resorted to for the purpose of meeting the difficulty. He was perfectly ready to adopt any that might be suggested. He would, however, make this observation, that the Commissioner might entertain reasonable and well-founded doubts, and ought, therefore, to be at liberty to adjourn the case, for the consideration of his brother Commissioners.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that this power of referring or refusing to decide, and so postponing indefinitely, was the great evil to be complained of in the old system, and the new Bill only perpetuated that abuse.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, the power did not amount to compelling an appeal; it merely left him the power of postponing a case till he could have the benefit of the assistance of his brother Commissioners.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that was the very matter he complained of. The Commissioners had the power of sending cases into a Court in which attornies could not plead, and counsel must be employed; thereby the expenses would be materially increased. Points of law might arise relating to small estates as well as large ones; and if one of these was brought before the Court of Review, one day's proceedings might swallow the whole assets. When a case was brought before a Commissioner, he should be qualified to decide it. A quick decision and individual responsibility, were the chief things required.
The Attorney-Generalwas surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman make a remark which was, in effect, contending, that questions of law and equity ought to be decided in proportion to the value of the property in litigation. According to the present system, it was usual for a Commissioner to postpone a case until he could obtain the assistance of his fellows; but really this Bill did make a provision to meet the circumstance complained of, as there were

867
two jurisdictions to be established, either more or less expensive; and the Commissioner would, of course, refer the question at issue to that Court which was best adapted to settle the question according to the funds of the estate.
Clause agreed to.
On the Clause giving to the majority of Assignees the power to authorise an appeal,
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, this was a new and novel mode of limiting the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. He objected to it, on the ground that it would alter some of the most important principles of equity-practice. As the law at present stood, the Chancellor had the power to refuse an appeal in a matter of fact, on his own discretion, but he was not compelled to do so; but by this clause, the judges appointed by it, were finally to decide upon all matters of fact without appeal. This was giving them too great a power.
Mr. Warburtondiffered wholly from the hon. and learned Gentleman. He approved of the plan, that the judges of the Court of Appeal should decide finally. There was one point, however, he wished to have altered, and that was, that when a case was remitted for a further trial, on the plea that evidence had been wrongfully rejected or received, it ought to be sent to another set of Commissioners, and not to those who had previously decided the case.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, his hon. and learned friend the member for Borough-bridge was in error, when he said the decision of the Court of Review was to be final, for from their decision an appeal might be had to a Jury.
Mr. Freshfieldhad been told by the hon. Gentleman who supported the Bill, that there was to be a two-fold appeal, but here there was only one, for there was to be no appeal from the inferences drawn upon matters of fact by the Commissioners, which was giving them a power superior to the Judges of any other Court, against; whose judgment a bill of exceptions could be tendered.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, an appeal could be made from the Commissioners' judgment on a point of law, but a Jury would find as to the facts. If a case was not referred to a Jury, that in itself would be a sufficient proof that the parties themselves agreed as to the facts, and were satisfied with the decision of the Commissioners.
Mr. Pagetsaid, that under the Bill, the official assignees might control the others in the matter of appeals. This, he thought, was giving them too much power.
The Attorney-Generalwould agree to diminish that power, if, upon consideration, it appeared expedient.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, there could be no doubt but that the Commissioners would have more power than any other Judges of the land, except the Lord Chancellor. He would say no more of that part of the clause which had been postponed, but he must again declare, that, in his opinion, these Commissioners ought not to have the power to direct issues to be decided by a Jury when they thought proper, as he believed it would operate as a premium for them to send all cases to a Jury, instead of taking the responsibility of deciding them themselves.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, there were only two cases where the Commissioners had the power to send cases to an issue; these were by the assent of both parties, or by deciding when called upon by one of the parties for an opinion, to say whether the case was fit to go to an issue. If the Commissioner decided at once and was wrong, he would certainly hear of it from his brethren the next day, or if he was in the habit of remitting cases for the opinion of Juries which were of trifling consequence or easy of decision, the same measure would also be dealt out to him; so that they had pretty good security against the Commissioners falling into either extreme.
Mr. Huntheard quite enough to convince him that the Bill would not work well, and when the public found that out, they might also learn that it was discussed in a House of about thirty Members.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, the effect of these appeals, would be endless expense and delay. It was provided, that if one of the parties and the Commissioner agreed, there was ground for an issue. There must be one, unless the other parties appealed against it to the Court of Review, which must lead to expense and litigation.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, a Court without an appeal from its decisions, was an anomaly in our system of law. Too many appeals on the other hand were bad. Looking at the clause as a whole, with these views, he thought it would answer the purpose for which it was intended, and would work well.
Clause agreed to.
On a Clause relating to the new trial of issues being moved,
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, he wished to have an appeal to the Lord Chancellor by this clause.
Mr. Warburtondisliked the whole system of these appeals; the suitor would have more than enough of these shuttlecock proceedings, in being sent from Jury to Judge, and back again, without the help of the Lord Chancellor to play out the game.
Mr. Pagethad no doubt appeals might be sport to the lawyers, but they were death to the suitors. He had been once concerned in a case of bankruptcy which got into Chancery, where it stuck fast twenty years; he therefore wished to keep his shuttlecock out of Chancery at any rate.
Clause agreed to.
On the question that the assignees may appoint the bankrupt to superintend the management of the estate,
Mr. Pagetsaid, he understood that in every case the assignees were to have the power of managing the assets.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, the clause was introduced, because it was thought that in certain cases, the bankrupt might exercise this power under the authority of the assignees and with their consent, much to the advantage of the estate.
Agreed to.
On the question that the Bankruptcy Court appoint official assignees to bankruptcies now existing, and removed into the Court, stand part of the Bill,
Mr. Warburtonwished to know whether in those cases in which official assignees were to be appointed, together with assignees acting under existing Commissions, they would be, entitled to a percentage? It had also been stated, that the parties interested, under existing Commissions, would not be entitled to partake of the benefit of the fees to be reduced. If they were not to have the benefit of the smaller charges, they certainly ought to be allowed to retain their own assignees.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, the official assignees would have nothing to do with the management of such bankrupts' estate, they were merely to get in the assets.
Mr. Warburtonbegged to ask, how it was, that the assignees now conducting Commissions, were not to have the benefit of the reduced rate of charges? This was
870
an unfair proceeding, if assignees were to be called upon, to give up all the effects now in their possession to the official assignee, they certainly ought to have the benefit of the reduced charges.
Mr. Wilkessaid, it certainly appeared an absurd proceeding, to give these official assignees an ex post facto control over the existing Commissions.
Mr. Freshfieldsaid, the object of the clause could be obtained, by directing the existing assignees to pay the assets of the estate into the Bank.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, the object of the appointment of official assignees was, to insure that responsible persons should have the control of the assets; if there were to be any exceptions to this authority, the powers of the Bill would be much cramped in its operations.
Mr. Pagetsaid, it should be left to the creditors under every estate to determine whether they would have an official assignee or not.
Mr. Daniel W. Harveysaid, that this appointment was proposed with a view to give the creditors security for the due payment of the funds received under the commission. As things now stood, Commissions were often made the means of jobbing among some of the leading parties concerned. To obviate these jobs was the object of this clause.
The Attorney-Generalsaid he proposed to introduce some words to prevent this clause from affecting such suits as were now in existence; and with that view, he would beg to move, that these words be inserted at the end of the clause. "Without prejudice to any action or suit commenced, or contract entered into, prior to the passing of this Act.
Amendment adopted, and clause agreed to.
On the Arbitration Clause being put,
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that one of the duties which this proposed tribunal should consider, as that for which it was principally appointed, was to mediate as far as possible, between the parties. It often happened, that the matter in dispute, was not with the expense to which persons in their exasperation against each other, were disposed to go. Hitherto no attempts had been made to prevent this; on the contrary, the principle had always been "We have nothing to do with mediation, litigation is our work." He wished it now therefore to be a part of the law, that an

871
amicable settlement was to be attempted in the first instance.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, he had never before heard that the existing Commissioners were not at all times ready and desirous to mediate.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, the hearsay of the hon. and learned Gentleman was not to be put in comparison with his experience as a creditor. He had often been told by the Commissioners, "Dont talk to us of mediation, we can hear nothing of the kind here, we are to settle the business according to law.
Clause agreed to.
The clause relating to the Abolition of Fees was then read,
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that it was proposed to make some compensation to the holders of patent offices which were to be abolished by this Bill. That compensation was intended to be formed on the average of the profits of these patent offices for three years. With respect to the retiring pensions, there was no intention at present to press a compensation clause for them, for the Government had not received sufficient information on the subject to enable them to lay any well-founded calculation before the House. That brought him to the case of the Commissioners whose office would be abolished by this Bill. It was proposed that compensation should be given to those Commissioners who had been appointed before the time of Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst, but not to those who had received their appointments since that period. The reason for making this distinction was, that from the time of Lord Lyndhurst entering upon the office, there had been an intention to change the system, and every Commissioner appointed by that noble Lord, and all those appointed by the present Lord Chancellor, had taken their appointments subject to their knowledge of that intention, and, of course, subject to the knowledge that if that change was made they would immediately cease to be Commissioners. The effect of this would be, to strike off twenty-two persons from the list of those to whom compensation was to be given, sixteen Commissioners having received their appointments from Lord Lyndhurst, and six from Lord Brougham. With respect to superannuation allowances, he begged to say, that they would not be granted as a matter of course, but that every particular case
872
would be referred to the Treasury, and a particular order made upon it.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, he must disclaim having any intention of saying any thing which could be construed to be personal to the noble and learned Lord who now held the highest legal office in the State, but he must wholly deny that that noble Lord had made any sacrifice by this Bill. He therefore was surprised that the retiring pensions and the allowances for compensation did not form part of the Bill. He saw no reason for the omission. He and other Members who had opposed this Bill had been taunted with entertaining a desire to impede it, and it was said, that they had not given due consideration to the large emoluments given up by the Lord Chancellor. But he denied, that the noble and learned Lord had sacrificed one farthing; nor did he think the noble Lord ought to make any sacrifices. But let it not be given out, as it had been, that the noble and learned Lord, in order to carry the Reform Bill, had given up 5,000 l. a year, when he had not given up a farthing, for the truth of which he appealed to the noble Lord at the head of the Exchequer. He hoped this delusion would cease, and this taunt not be repeated.
Lord Althorpsaid, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that this Bill should rest on its own merits, not on the question whether the Lord Chancellor had given up emolument or not. The income of the Lord Chancellor ought not to be so reduced as to make the office not likely to be filled by the most eminent men at the Bar. It was intended that, in future, the Lord Chancellor should be paid by a fixed salary as Chancellor, and by a fixed salary as Speaker of the House of Lords; but the mode of paying those offices did not appear to belong so peculiarly to this Bill as to require to be introduced into it. When it was said, that his noble and learned friend was not to take credit for giving up emolument, he (Lord Althorp) begged to state, that what the noble and learned Lord did was this,—that whenever a sum of money was offered to any public officer as a commutation for fees, that public officer would not generally forego them until he had secured a proper compensation, but his noble and learned friend had given up the fees to which he was entitled, in order that the Bill might pass, leaving the public to decide hereafter what compensation he ought to have.

873
That course, he thought, did his noble and learned friend credit, because it showed that his motive was not pecuniary emolument; but every one who knew the character of his noble and learned friend, knew that pecuniary emolument never entered into his views. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman might be right in saying that the noble and learned Lord had no merit to claim in giving up so much emolument as had been stated (though he was not aware it had been so stated), still the hon. and learned Gentleman was not fair towards his noble and learned friend, in denying him any merit at all, when he gave up his fees at once, and left it to the decision of Parliament hereafter to say what the salary shall be.
Sir Charles Wetherellwas glad to hear the calumnious misrepresentation to which he had referred contradicted. It appeared that the fees which were given up were to be repaid to the noble and learned Lord out of some other source.
Clause agreed to.
On clause B being proposed,
The Attorney-Generalstated, that, it was intended to reduce the income of the Secretary of Bankrupts to 1,200 l. a year for himself, and 800 l. a year for his two clerks. He was to have no retiring pension if he were an irremovable officer, but if the Committee were of opinion that he should be removable, then the amount of his retiring pension must be taken into consideration.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that he could neither agree to making the Secretary of Bankrupts a permanent officer, nor to giving him a retiring pension if he were made a removable officer. All the other Secretaries, for instance the Secretary of Lunatics, &c., were changed with every Lord Chancellor. He believed that this clause would not create any saving of expense.
The Attorney Generalcontended, that a great saving of expense would be effected by this clause. All the salaries under this Act would not amount to more than 26,400 l., and the present expense was considerably above that sum. Taking the average number of Commissions in town and country, the saving would be little short of 30,000 l., independently of the saving to the parties from the promptitude of the decisions.
Mr. Warburtonadmitted, that there would be some saving effected by this
874
Bill; but in Commissions, where the assets were small, and the litigation none, instead of their being any saving, there would be a small increase of expense. Cases of this kind were, he believed, more numerous than those in which there were large assets and much litigation.
Clause B agreed to, as were also Clauses C, D, E and F.
On the question that clause G, which fixes the salary of the Chief Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy at 3,000 l. a-year; of the three Puisne Judges at 2,000 l. a year each; of the Commissioners of the Court at 1,500 l. a-year; of the Lord Chancellor's Secretary of Bankrupts at 1,200 l. a-year; of the two Chief Registrars at 800 l. a-year; and of eight Deputy Registrars at 600 l. a-year, besides some minor salaries, do pass,
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that the House was called upon to vote these salaries without having received the slightest information as to the duties which the officers who were to receive them had to perform. It was useless to divide the House on this clause, because he knew that if he did he should put an end to all public business
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that this was the first time in which an unreformed House of Commons was called upon to vote 26,000 l. a-year without inquiry That was a statement which he was quite certain would not go before the public. He was surprised at not seeing the hon. member for Middlesex present on this occasion. When there was a contest going on with the First Lord of the Admiralty about saving three half-pence in the pound for a contract of biscuits, they were certain to have the presence of the reforming and economical member for Middlesex; but when so large a sum as 26,000 l. was to be voted away in salaries every year, the factious few, as they had been called, were left to battle the question with Ministers without his assistance. What, he would ask, had the three Puisne Judges, and the ten Registrars to do under this Bill? Nothing more than what the Lord Chancellor's Secretary did at present. This large and cumbrous machinery, this lumber-troop of Judges, this band of gentlemen-pensioners, expensive as they would be in themselves, would create still greater expense to the creditors than the present machinery of seventy Commissioners. He looked upon this clause as an unnecessary and offensive creation of patronage. The

875
average number of vacancies in the Commissionerships of Bankruptcy were four annually, and the value of patronage was about 800 l. annually, Now by resigning this patronage, the Lord Chancellor gained at once patronage of the annual value of 26,000 l. The statement of the Lord Chancellor having relinquished patronage by this Bill, was therefore so preposterous, that he trusted that it would never be repeated in that House again. He must distinctly say, that he considered that of late there had been too great a sympathy between the Woolsack and the Press; indeed, it might almost be assumed there was now an official writer to the Great Seal. Not a day passed over their heads in which they canvassed the demerits of this Bill, without a writer in the daily Press insulting and abusing every Member of Parliament who dared to give an independent opinion, and shew, that the Bill was by no means a perfect, much more a super-human measure. Notwithstanding this abuse the exertions of the opponents of the Bill had compelled Ministers to lessen this job by cutting away all the retiring pensions.
Mr. George Dawsonwas incompetent to give any opinion on the legal merits of the alterations, but at the same time the present was an opportunity when any Member of Parliament might give his opinion on the conduct of Government. He had often before had occasion to admire the conduct of his hon. and learned friend the member for Borough bridge, but never had he deserved better of his country than in exposing this gross and profligate job. He (Mr. Dawson) did not presume to say, that he understood all the affairs of the Court of Chancery, but he would take it on himself to say, that this Bill was one of the grossest instances of profligacy ever attempted, more especially coming from a Government which lived upon popular clamour, and was to be the only Government ever carried on without patronage. The noble Lord (Lord Althorp) had declared this often—" that this Government was to be supported by public opinion, and not by patronage"—words forgotten as soon as uttered, and utterly falsified by everything the Ministers had done. The patronage in this case, his hon. and learned friend had proved, was, that the Bill would entail an additional expense on the people; and every one must see that the Court might be carried
876
on more economically. They had, as yet, received no account of the duties to be attached to the offices this clause was to create, and he was somewhat surprised, notwithstanding that to find all those hon. Gentlemen who usually devoted their time to clamour about economy, and the waste of public money, were now absent when a large sum was to be voted without any account being given of the manner in which it was to be expended, and which he had no scruple to characterize as a gross job. As to the Lord Chancellor, his great object had been to create patronage from the moment he took the seals. He (Mr. Dawson) had moved for a return of the Masters in Chancery, and it was odd that this Chancellor of a Government that was to eschew patronage had been most ingenious in discovering new modes of exercising that power. He had not been in office one year, and yet within that time had appointed four Masters in Chancery, although Lord Lyndhurst in the preceding four, and Lord Eldon in the five years preceding them, had not appointed one. Some of these new Masters had been appointed on the ground of the others being old; yet one of the young Masters was sixty-five and upwards, and the other sixty-seven years old; and if any one was asked the question, he must answer that the old Masters were stronger and more vigorous than their successors.
Lord Althorpsaid, that some time had elapsed since they had had the pleasure of hearing the right hon. Gentleman address them in his usual delicate and agreeable style. The right hon. Gentleman was certainly as powerful as usual; but he did not say whether this measure was good or bad, or whether it might or might not be an improvement in the administration of justice. Now some part of this question happened to depend upon this point; for, if the measure effected any good, it would at least, pro tanto, diminish the extent of the job which seemed to give the right hon. Gentleman so much uneasiness. The right hon. Gentleman had talked of jobs and profligate expenditure; but was he aware that this expense of 26,400 l. a-year was merely intended as a substitute, and a more efficient substitute, for that which now cost 70,000 l. per annum. It was, perhaps, possible that there might be a lesser scale of fees, and that the Court might be constituted at an expense somewhat smaller than was proposed; but, when so vast a reduction was

877
made, to talk of profligate expenditure was ridiculous, so that he could not but believe that the right hon. Gentleman must have been totally unacquainted with the subject. The right hon. Gentleman also urged that, he (Lord Althorp) had said that this Government would be carried on without patronage. What he had said was, that the period for governing the country by patronage was now at an end; but when it was necessary to carry any good measure into effect, it did not follow that they should abandon that measure for fear of such attacks as that of the right hon. Gentleman who had been pleased to say that the object of the Bill was patronage; but if the right hon. Gentleman had looked at all into the provisions of the Bill, he must have seen, they were so extensive and sweeping in their dealing with existing jobs, that no man could make such changes as a means of obtaining or creating patronage and appointments. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that the Lord Chancellor had great good luck with respect to the appointment of Masters in Chancery, and that for nine preceding years there had been no vacancy. Now, it was to be recollected, that an addition had been made to the number of Masters; and if none had been appointed for nine years, there must be, of course, the greater chance of some falling in. Moreover, those Masters appointed by the present Chancellor were to have no retiring allowances. Then the right hon. Gentleman's criterion for judging of Masters in Chancery was, the activity with which two gentlemen walked up to the table, because he said that if hon. Members looked, they would find that the old Masters were more vigorous than the new. Now he (Lord Althorp) differed from the right hon. Gentleman on this point, because the merits of a Master in Chancery lay more in his head than in his legs. In conclusion, he thought that neither these appointments nor the right hon. Gentleman's arguments were likely to have that effect on the public which he anticipated.
Sir Charles Forbessaid, that, from all the information he could gather, any system was better than the present, and therefore he would support the Bill. With respect to the Masters in Chancery, one of those appointed by the present Chancellor, and a near relation of his own, he had occasion to know; and his diligence, attention, and talent, were remarkable. No political
878
hostility should ever prevent him from doing that justice they deserved to the appointments made by his opponents for the benefit of the public service.
Mr. Burgesaid, that it was a mistake to suppose, that the 26,400 l. was for the discharge of all the bankruptcy business of the kingdom; as the London Commissions only performed one-third of that of the whole country; to carry the principle of the Bill completely into effect, would render an expense of 46,000 l. more necessary?
The Solicitor Generalsaid, that the debate had already been protracted beyond all the expectations of the House, and he, for one, should be glad to see it ended. The only question at present was, the mode in which the Judges of the new Court were to be paid, and the consistent opposers of the Bill had, at first, complained, that the Judges' salaries were not large enough to obtain efficient officers, whilst the outcry now was, that they were too great—that they were, in fact, so enormous, as to come within the hon. Member's notion of a job. Now let him state one fact to satisfy those, hon. opponents, that the money with which the Judges were to be remunerated, was not one shilling of it to be paid out of the public purse; to quiet the apprehensions entertained by those hon. Members, that a great waste of the public money was to be incurred, he would inform them, that the salaries of these Judges were to be provided for out of the Bankrupt Fund. The Bill did not, as some supposed it did, affect to despatch all the bankruptcy business of the country; on the contrary, its operation was confined to London and its vicinity; but though it was so restricted within the limits of the metropolis, yet no one who was fit all acquainted with business, would think, for one instant, that its operation would be isolated to that one spot, for there was scarcely a bankruptcy of any extent in the country, but what had ramifications and agents in London.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that it seemed to be admitted on all hands, that the most defective part of the present system was that connected with the administration of the Bankrupt Laws in the country as compared with London; and yet this Bill left the country question altogether untouched, and only amended that portion of the law which was already admitted to be the best administered.
Clause carried.
On Clause Q,
Mr. Warburtonthought, that the arrangements of this clause was so monstrous, that even if it was enacted, it could not stand unaltered for six months. According to this clause, the Commissioners had a right to award as much as five per cent to the official assignee on the collection of the bankrupt's debts; this he thought was much too large a profit; and it was also highly objectionable, that the Commissioner was to be supreme, and that the creditors were to have no voice in the matter.
Mr. Serjeant Wildethought, that the best security for the creditor was, to leave this percentage at the discretion of the Commissioner, who must necessarily be a man of character; and the hon. Gentleman ought to remember, that the percentage was allowed, not only for the debts collected by the official assignee, but for the general trouble that the bankrupt's affairs inflicted on him.
Mr. Freshfieldsaid, that the greatest trouble required at the hands of the official assignee was, to collect the debts of the bankrupt, and to pay them into the Bank of England; he did not see why the present assignees were not quite competent to discharge that duty. He objected to the great remuneration which the official assignees would, in some cases, receive for very trifling services. He had known one case relating to the bankruptcy of a sugar-refiner, in which the official assignee, at one percent, would have received 2,000 l. for merely receiving the property and paying it into the Bank of England. He hoped, at least, that the Commission would be charged on the assets to be divided amongst the creditors, and not on the whole credit of the bankrupt. He objected to five per cent being inserted in the Bill, and thought two per cent on the dividends would be sufficient, and, that the remuneration on no Commission, should exceed 200 l. The hon. Member concluded by proposing, as an amendment, that the official assignee should not receive above two per cent; that that sum should only be paid on the dividends, and that the remuneration of the official assignee should on no Commission exceed 200 l.
Attorney-Generalthought, that neither of these amendments was founded on good sense, It was not to be expected,
880
that the Commissioners were to give to every official assignee the whole amount they were entitled to give; but the limits placed to their authority was what had been found necessary in extreme cases. The principle of the clause was to give the assignee a remuneration on all the monies he collected, and he thought, that the Commissioners were not likely to give the assignee more than he ought to have.
Mr. Pagetadmitted, that five per cent might not be enough in some cases, and two per cent might be too much in others. In his opinion, therefore, it was not proper for the Committee to decide this question. Probably the creditors might be more fit to apportion the reward of the assignees than the Commissioners; and he objected to the power of bestowing these rewards being left in the hands of the Court.
The Solicitor-Generalhoped the Commissioners under the Bill would not be confounded with the present Commissioners. They were more like Judges.
Mr. Pagethad no intention of casting the slightest reflection upon the persons to be appointed, but they were not, in constructing an Act of Parliament, to presume on the virtue of those who were to carry it into effect.
Mr. Burgesaid, that whoever might be appointed, they would not be persons of higher character than the present Commissioners, and he thought, it would be found to be an invidious office for the gentlemen who were to be appointed, to have to regulate the percentage to be given. As little discretion as possible should be allowed, but in general the remuneration was fixed too high. An official assignee having five per cent on the assets in the case of so large a bankruptcy as that of Messrs. Manning, would receive 1000 l. a year as percentage only on the annual returns, exclusive of a percentage on 600,000 l. out on mortgage. As it would be some time before these assets could be realized, he would receive besides, a Commission on the income of the estates mortgaged. During the time he was reaping these great advantages, he would not have any of the duties of insuring ships, sending out supplies to the estates, and performing the office of a consignee, to look to. Yet a case of this sort might be one in which the Commissioners thought the official assignee could make out a fair claim for five per cent on the assets; such

881
a remuneration would be wholly extravagant. He should, therefore, support the amendment.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, the official assignee would perform neither the duties of solicitor, manager, nor steward; his whole duties would be to receive the assets and pay them into the Bank. In general, where his duties would be least, there he would receive the largest remuneration. There might be difficulties in fixing the exact amount of the percentage, but certainly they were not insurmountable, and most assuredly, unlimited payment would cause so much disgust, that it must soon be put an end to.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, all the hon. Gentleman's arguments proceeded upon the fallacy, that the official assignee was to have a poundage, but that was not the case. The remuneration he was to have, according to the Bill, was the exact amount the Commissioners thought adequate to his services, but in no case to exceed five per cent on the assets. It had been demonstrated by the hon. Member for Leicester, that the remuneration must in a great degree be left to the discretion of some person, and the hon. Member suggested the creditors as the proper parties, but that would be to make them Judges in their own cause—a case at all times to be avoided.
Mr. Burgebegged to observe to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that there were always two parties to a contract: he who performed a given service, and he who was to pay for it; and what they complained of was, that those who would have to pay had no voice in fixing the amount of remuneration.
Sir Charles Forbessaid, they certainly might limit the sum on which the maximum Commission of five per cent should be granted.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, he felt it quite impossible to establish a graduated scale of remuneration. The best course would be to strike out all mention of more or less percentage, and the clause would then leave the payment to the discretion of the Commissioners.
Mr. Freshfieldwithdrew his amendment.
Clause agreed to.
On the Compensation Clause being read,
Mr. Warburtonwas of opinion, that those Commissioners who had held the most private meetings, did not deserve, on
882
the whole, so large a retiring allowance as those who had performed the same quantity of business with greater despatch.
Mr. Sergeant Wildewas much surprised at the remark made by the hon. Gentleman. The lists of Commissioners before which private meetings were held, were, in fact, the only lists competent to discharge the duties required of them. In short, solicitors who had business that required such meetings, knew it was useless to go before any of the other lists.
Mr. Robert Grantsaid, as he was one of that list of Commissioners which had had the most private meetings, he felt bound to notice the remark of the hon. member for Bridport. The fourteenth list of which he was a member, had done by far the most work, and they were the least paid. His emoluments, on an average, for fifteen years, had been under 400 l. per annum. He trusted the hon. Member meant no imputation upon him; or if he did, it would have been well to have given him notice, that he might have been prepared to defend himself if necessary.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that his remark was not intended to apply to the right hon. Gentleman; he had not said, or implied, that the meetings were held from a corrupt motive, but merely, that they caused delay and expense, and he considered he was entitled to deliver an opinion, let who might be affected by it.
Sir Charles Wetherellbegged to assure the hon. member for Bridport, it was perfectly notorious, that the Lists of Commissioners which had the most private business, were the most efficient.
Mr. Freshfieldbegged to ask the noble Lord, whether he would permit some alteration to be made in the clause, so as to regulate the remuneration of the Commissioners generally. As the clause now stood, it appeared as if there was to be some distinction made.
Lord Althorpsaid, certainly, it was intended that some distinction should be made. It was never meant, that each Commissioner who would be reduced, was to have a compensation for the loss of his office; because many had been appointed under the express understanding, that if any alteration were made which would abolish their offices, they were not to expect remuneration. This regulation would be adhered to, and it was the object of the present wording of the clause, to carry it into effect.
The Clause added to the Bill.
The Attorney-Generalbrought, up a clause, providing, that the Judges and other officers appointed under this Bill, should be incapable of sitting in Parliament.
Agreed to.
The House resumed, and the Report was brought up.

PORTUGAL.
Mr. Courtenay,seeing the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his place, begged to ask him the following questions with respect to the affairs of Portugal:—first, whether the Viscount D'Asseca did not address to the noble Lord, on the fourth of May last, an application on the part of the Portuguese Government, in respect of the demands of France, as the Viscount states in his letter of the 23rd of June?—Secondly, at what period, and through what channel, did his Majesty's Government receive the first intimation of the intention of the French Government to send a naval force to the Tagus?—Thirdly, was the letter of the 17th of June to Mr. Hamilton, the first communication made thereupon to the French Government?— Fourthly, whether Admiral Roussin's letters of July 11th, to which the Viscount D'Asseca refers in his letter of the 1st of August, will be among those papers?—Fifthly, whether his Majesty's Government had a copy of M. Cassas' protest, to which the Viscount D'Asseca refers in his letter of the 23rd of June, and will lay it before the House?—Sixthly, whether his Majesty's Government had received any intelligence of the formal termination of the war which existed between France and Portugal?
Viscount Palmerstonhad to apologize to his right hon. friend for not having afforded him the opportunity of asking these questions before. He would then answer them as shortly, and as explicitly as his right hon. friend had asked them. To the first, he begged to reply, that a letter was delivered to him personally by M. D'Asseca on the 4th of May. No answer was given to that letter in writing, but Viscount D'Asseca was verbally informed that his Majesty's Government would not interfere in the case, but strongly advised the Portuguese Government to give just satisfaction to the French demands. At this time, it was uncertain whether England herself would not be at war with Portugal,
884
as Mr. Hoppner's letter, announcing the compliance with our demands, was not received till the 14th of May. M. D'Asseca's letter of the 14th of May was not included in the papers presented to Parliament, because it described itself as being a confidential communication, and because it had an inclosure containing remarks on the French demands, which it was not thought right to publish.—To the right hon. Gentleman's second question he had to state that the channel through which his Majesty's Government received the first intimation of the intention of the French Government to send a naval force to the Tagus, was a despatch from Lord Granville, dated April 4th, in which that nobleman stated that Count Sebastiani had informed him, in conversation, that the French Government might find it necessary to send a fleet to the Tagus, if no satisfaction were given to France by Don Miguel's Government.—To the question of whether the letter to Mr. Hamilton was the first communication made upon the subject to the French Government, he had to answer, yes, the first written communication.—To the fourth question he begged to reply, that his Majesty's Government had not received a copy of Baron Roussin's letter of July 11th to which M. D'Asseca alluded in his note of the 1st of August.—To the fifth question he replied, that no copy of any protest of M. Cassas against the establishment of a Commission at Lisbon had been received by his Majesty's Government.—To the last question his reply was, that no formal communication had been received by his Majesty's Government with respect to the termination of the war between France and Portugal, except the Convention of Lisbon, and the announcement made by the French Government, that they had attained that satisfaction which was the object of their expedition, and that their fleet had, consequently, left the Tagus.