Commons Sitting of 30 September 1831

MINUTES.
New Writs ordered. On the Motion of Mr. W. HOLMES, for Dorchester, in the room of Lord ASHLEY, who had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of the ATTORNEY GENERAL, for the amount of all Fees in matters of Bankruptcy received by the Clerk of the Hanaper for the last three years, and of all Monies paid by him to the LORD CHANCELLOR and his Officers:—On the Motion of Mr. BURGE, Correspondence with the Governor of St. Lucie, and exports to South America for the last ten years.
Petitions presented. By Lord INGESTRIE, from the Corporation of Weavers in Dublin, for the establishment of a Board for the regulation of the affairs of Ireland. By Sir CHARLES FORBES, from the Vestry of St. Pancras, against the Select Vestries Bill. By Mr. HUME, from St. Pancras, in favour of Open Vestries.

ST. GEORGE'S, DUBLIN.
Sir John Newportpresented a Petition complaining of the parochial rates in St. George's parish, Dublin, exacted from the parishioners. In some cases, the arrears of rates had been demanded for twenty-two years, though the landlord had not occupied his house, and had not received any notice that these rates were due. In other cases, the parish authorities had actually pulled down a house, and sold the materials to pay the rates. The system pursued was monstrous, and the charges levied on those parishioners were of such a nature that he thought the petition had a right to the best attention of the House.
Mr. O'Connellsupported the prayer of the petition. He would submit that this case should be laid before the law officers of the Crown, in order that they should take it into their consideration, whether the trustees for the building of a church in St. George's ought not to be proceeded against.
Mr. Cramptonadmitted that he thought there had been a gross misapplication of money in that parish, and there should be an inquiry made into it immediately.
Petition to be printed.

SELECT VESTRIES' BILL.
Sir John Hobhousemoved the Order of the Day for the House to go into a Committee on the Select Vestries Bill.
On the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
Colonel Lindsayrose to correct a misstatement that had gone abroad. It had been stated that the hon. member for Middlesex had said in that House, that he had refused to pay the rates in the parish of Marylebone; this, however, was not the case, for he had applied to the collector on the subject, who had told him, that the hon. Gentleman had not on any occasion refused to pay, but that, on the contrary, he behaved like a very civil gentleman whenever he was applied to for the rates. With respect to the seizing of goods that had taken place in the parish, the process had been held back for a considerable time; and though it had at last been issued, the sale after all did not take place, as a large body of people had assembled to prevent it. He was a select vestryman of Marylebone; and he begged, in his own name, and in that of his brother vestrymen, to state, that they had no intention of supporting a self-elected system: on the contrary, they were anxious that the Vestry should hereafter be elected by the rate-payers; and, therefore, they had no intention of opposing the Bill of the hon. Baronet. But though they admitted its principle in this respect, there were parts of it which he thought were inapplicable to metropolitan parishes.
Mr. Humesaid, that certainly a little error had crept into the report of what he had said on a former occasion. He had not said that he had refused to pay his rates, for on the very morning that he presented the petition, the collector had been with him to state that he was apprehensive for the peace of the parish, in consequence of which he had addressed a letter to the Secretary of State. What he had stated on that occasion was, that he had entirely concurred in the prayers of the petitioners, who were not willing to pay taxes that were raised by an irresponsible body. He had no hesitation, however, in saying, that rancour was at its greatest height in Marylebone parish, and would not be appeased without some alteration. He was glad, therefore, to suppose that his Majesty's Ministers were to support the Vestries' Bill. If there were any misrepresentation in the petition, he could only express his regret at it; but he had asked the petitioners as to the truth of the statement, and they said, that they were ready to substantiate their state-

881
ments at the bar of the House. He called on the House to look at the confusion which now prevailed in different parishes,—to look also at Islington, where a greater meeting had assembled to resist the Select Vestry District Rates than ever was known before. He hoped that this state of civil war would be put an end to by the passing of the Bill.
Mr. William Peelcould take it upon him to state, that no Magistrate could hesitate to grant a warrant for distraining, if applied to by the parish officers.
Mr. Huntsaid, before the Speaker left the Chair, he was desirous of putting a question to the Under Secretary for the Home Department, respecting a pauper named Summers, who had been committed to prison.
Sir John Hobhouseinterposed and said, if the matter were likely to occupy the time of the House, he hoped the hon. Member would postpone his question until the Vestry Bill was disposed of, as it had been specially appointed for that hour.
Mr. Huntsaid, he apprehended it would not detain the House many minutes from going into Committee. He wished to know from the hon. Gentleman a fact respecting the pauper Summers, who had been taken before Mr. Walker, the Lambeth-street Magistrate, and committed by him to the House of Correction, to hard labour, he believed, and who had died for want of food. Now he was desirous of being informed, whether the pauper had really perished for want of food, and whether any inquiry had been made upon the subject?
Mr. Lambsaid, an inquiry into the circumstances had been made at the Home-office, and it was believed that the pauper had died of starvation, but no fault was to be attributed to the parish authorities, for no application for relief had been made by him. With respect to the man being committed for hard labour, he believed that was not the fact, and that he was properly taken care of at the House of Correction.
The House resolved itself into a Committee.
Lord Althorp,on the clause empowering a majority of the rate-payers to insist upon the Bill's being adopted in their parish, being read, moved, as an amendment, that instead of "a majority," it should be necessary that at least two-thirds of the parishioners should sign the requisition for the
882
Bill being adopted, before it became imperative on the parochial authorities to introduce it. His object in moving this Amendment, was to guard against a too rapid change in existing parochial institutions.
Sir John Hobhousefelt himself placed in a situation of great difficulty by the noble Lord's Amendment. He was thankful to Ministers for their support of the Bill, and was anxious to retain it, but could not accede to the Amendment, without materially marring his measure, and creating great dissatisfaction, not only in the minds of the inhabitants of Westminster, but of the adjacent parishes. The result of an extensive inquiry was, that it would be practicably impossible to obtain the signatures of two-thirds of the inhabitants to any single requisition, or in favour of almost any single measure, so that, to all intents and purposes, the Bill would be defeated by the Amendment, should the noble Lord press it earnestly to a division. Indeed, if he could act up to the extent of his own wishes, he would make the adoption of the Bill imperative on every parish, as the best, indeed only, means of putting an end to that dissatisfaction and annoyance which the close vestry system had generated in every parish in which it unfortunately existed; and had only adopted the present middle course with a view to reconcile all parties to its provisions.
MY. John Campbellconsidered the close vestry system detestable. That system was like the Town Councils of Scotland; the members elected themselves. This species of management gave rise to all sorts of jobbing. He therefore hoped the Committee would give every facility to correct these abuses. It had been asserted that the Select Vestry system existed many centuries ago, and could be traced to the reign of Richard 1st. This, however, was not the fact, for it had not existed beyond 200 or 300 years. Not only jobs and extravagant expenditure were to be traced to close vestries; but numerous complaints of the parishioners, who, not knowing what was done, and seeing none of the operations of the vestry but the demands for money were generally discontented. He hoped that the Bill would be passed.
Lord Althorpsaid, that no man could object more than he did to close vestries; but he must say (and he was of the Committee with his hon. friend, the member for Westminster, when that fact was stated

883
which he was about to mention), that evidence was offered, showing, in one instance, that the close vestry acted well. He certainly did think it advantageous to have a considerable majority of the parishioners in favour of the adoption of the Bill before the Bill could be received by that parish, and he thought the number which he had stated a fair one. He had supported the Reform Bill, because he believed that at least there was a majority of two-thirds of the population in its favour.
Mr. Humesaid, that the people were anxiously watching the Vestry Bill. He could assure the House, that it caused a great sensation among the people, more than any other subject except the Reform Bill itself. He knew that the people were satisfied with the Bill as it now stood, and he begged to suggest to the noble Lord the propriety of allowing the clause to remain as at present it appeared upon the Bill.
Mr. Protheroesaid, he was in favour of the clause as it now stood, and hoped that the noble Lord would not press his amendment. He condemned the system of close or select vestries, and likened them, especially in the small parishes of large and ancient cities and towns, to the rotten boroughs. He doubted much whether two-thirds of the inhabitants in those parishes to which he had made allusion dare oppose the select vestries, considering that the members of those select vestries were men, generally speaking, of considerable wealth, and very influential in their parishes.
Mr. Huntdoubted whether, upon any subject, two-thirds of the householders could be brought to agree together. If it were necessary that two-thirds of that House must agree upon any subject, he begged to inquire how often the noble Lord would obtain the necessary majority. With respect therefore, to the proposition made by the noble Lord, if it were adopted, it would assuredly destroy the effect of the Bill. He begged to express a hope that the noble Lord would not press the Amendment.
Lord Althorpcertainly thought his amendment an improvement to the Bill, as it would tend to prevent the hasty introduction of a change of system, but as he was a decided friend to the principle of the Bill, he would not press his amendment against the sense of the Committee.
Mr. Estcourtregretted that the noble Lord was so ready to withdraw his amendment. He had attended the Committee on this subject, and thought that it was agreed to there, that something more than a majority should be required, to change the system of management in any parish. He thought, as the proposition was a new one, that the Committee ought not at once to proceed to the whole length proposed by the hon. Baronet.
Mr. George Robinsonwished the clause to stand as it was. The noble Lord's amendment was, in fact, that a minority of one-third should bind a majority.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, the Bill would not apply to parishes under the common law; it was only intended to apply to parishes in which a usurpation had taken place; and he was decidedly of opinion that a minority should not bind a majority in such parishes.
Mr. Byngsaid, it was an unfortunate truth, that Governments never would reform themselves, and this rule held good with Select Vestries. Had the Bill passed last year, the parishes would have been in general satisfied, that persons rated at 25 l. and upwards should have a vote; but now it was necessary to extend that right to all rate-payers.
Mr. Lambwished that the Bill should be carried with the consent of the whole House; but at the same time he thought the Amendment ought to be agreed to. He did not, however, wish to press it, as his noble friend was willing to withdraw it. He thought it indeed too much, that the management of a parish should be altered by a mere majority of one. If, therefore, the Amendment were persisted in, he should give his support to it.
Mr. John Woodsaid, that if the hon. Member wished to see the Bill passed with the support of the House, and if he wished to pacify the people, he would not support the Amendment. The clause under consideration was only a preliminary measure to having the Act introduced into any parish, and did not imply an alteration in the parish management.
Lord Althorpsaid, he only proposed to withdraw his amendment from supposing the Committee were against it, but if it were the pleasure of the Committee to support his amendment, he would not withdraw it. He was in favour of all ratepayers having a vote, but considering the property at stake in large parishes, he

885
thought the mere majority ought not to decide.
Sir Charles Wetherellwould certainly support the Amendment. Property as well as numbers ought to be represented in parishes as well as in the Parliament.
Mr. Protheroesaid, it was possible that in small parishes the parish funds might be appropriated to electioneering purposes, by the select vestries. He suspected this might be the case in the city he had the honour to represent. Whether a simple majority or two-thirds of the rate-payers were to have the control was indifferent to him, as long as the whole measure was carried, and an end put to the abominable system of select vestries.
Sir John Hobhousesaid, that the Bill did not alter the constitution of any parish. The original Bill did, but the present Bill was not like the original measure. The change would be a gradual one. The old vestry would only go out by thirds, some of them remaining in office, therefore, four years after the Bill was passed. If he thought the Bill would affect property, he would not on any account have brought it forward. They were all interested in protecting property. All that he wished was, that those who had to pay the rates should have the control of the expenditure of them.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonhoped the Committee would agree that two-thirds should not be required, and would reject the Amendment. He believed it was notorious, that the greater number of persons possessing property were against the Select Vestry system in their respective parishes. If the Committee divided he would support his hon. friend.
Sir George Warrendersaid, he had known property out-voted by rate-payers, and he concurred in the Amendment most cordially.
Sir Charles Forbesopposed the principle of the measure; it was the first step towards universal suffrage; and he had no doubt it would create great confusion in such parishes as adopted it. Its effects would be, to take the management of parishes out of the hands of the chief owners of property, and give the control to those who were probably not rated at one-tenth of the amount. He had a petition which he was looking for an opportunity to present, from several of the Vestrymen of St. Pancras, who, he was fully
886
satisfied, had done their duty in an exemplary manner. He feared the proposed system would be found impracticable. They were attempting to introduce a measure which would not work well, but from which, when once adopted, they would find it impossible to recede; he should support the Amendment, although he did not think that it was what it ought to be; still it was better than a simple majority.
Sir Richard Vyvyanwas quite prepared to admit that the system of select vestries required amendment. In his opinion, and he had long entertained it, the whole of those who paid rates were entitled to vote in the selection of those who were to have the power of expending them. Entertaining such a view of the case, it was a matter of indifference to him whether the Bill was to be adopted in a parish by a bare majority, or as the noble Lord (Althorp) proposed, by two-thirds of the rate-payers, and on that point, therefore, he had no objection to go along with the noble Lord. The question, however, of the proportion of votes to be given for the protection of property, was a distinct one, and entitled to much more serious consideration. For his part, he approved much of that part of the bill of Mr. Sturges Bourne, which gave to the extent of six votes in proportion to property, as a protection to the great rate-payers, and for the purpose of preventing their being overpowered by the smaller rate-payers, who contributed but a small proportion of the money to be expended. For the present, he would support the Bill, but he hoped to see some of its provisions modified before it passed the Committee.
Colonel Lindsaysaid, the principle of the Bill was, that all rate-payers should be on an equality; it was therefore obvious property could have no great influence. With the exception of the Reform Bill, he considered this the most important measure that had been before the House for some time; as it would give to a majority of the rate-payers, without reference to property, the controlling power over the funds of the parish.
The Committee divided on the amendment: Ayes 67; Noes 37—Majority 30.
Sir Francis Burdett, Lord Althorp, Sir John Hobhouse, Colonel Lindsay, Mr. Hume, and others afterwards engaged in a conversation on the subject of the division, and it was at length agreed, that the clause should be again amended, sub-

887
stituting the consent of three-fifths of the rate-payers before the provisions of the Bill could be introduced into a parish, instead of two-thirds, as proposed by Lord Althorp.
Sir Richard Vyvyansubsequently moved, as an amendment, that the parishioners were to have votes according to their property, to the extent of six votes, in the same manner as it was prescribed by the bill of Mr. Sturges Bourne.
Sir John Hobhousereminded the hon. Baronet, that his constituents had rejected the Bill before, in consequence of its containing a clause of that kind, and he should most assuredly oppose such an amendment, by every means in his power.
Mr. Humehoped the hon. Baronet would withdraw his proposition, particularly as he expected to satisfy the hon. Baronet that it was unnecessary, by shewing him, that 5s. paid in rates by a poor man, was of more importance to him than twenty times that sum paid by the rich. On this point the Magistrates were all agreed. The smaller householders ought to have some control over the funds of a parish, as they were so much interested in taking care of them. Another thing was, the poor generally attended in person, while the rich rarely did so, and left their votes at the disposal of some proxy or agent. On this ground alone he was prepared to oppose cumulative votes.
Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, that he should postpone his proposition till the bringing up of the Report, and in the meantime give it further consideration.
Amendment withdrawn.
On the clause that the Vestry be composed of resident householders, not less than twelve, or more than 120,
Mr. Humesaid, he had great doubts of the propriety of allowing a Vestry to consist of so many persons; the consequence would probably be, that each would trust to the other, and the business be generally transacted by certain parties who would benefit by it.
Sir John Hobhousesaid, that the numbers proposed were not fixed by him; he wished them to be less, but there had been such a difference of opinion in the Committee, and so many objections made, that they were compelled to come to a sort of compromise.
Clause agreed to.
On the clause as to the qualification of Vestrymen,
Mr. William Milessaid, in his opinion the qualification was too low; he wished it to be at least 20 l., and he knew the members for Bristol had been applied to, to support such an amount.
Sir John Hobhousesaid, he was an enemy to any amount of qualification, on the principle that the parishioners themselves were the best judges of whom they would select; but as it was rather a delicate thing, he had yielded his own opinion to the sense of the Committee. He saw no reason why a 20 l. qualification should be especially wanted in Bristol. Could the hon. member for New Romney imagine that the rate-payers would choose persons unfit for office?
Mr. Protheroesaid, as one of the members for Bristol, he had not been aware that his constituents desired the species of qualification advocated by the hon. Member; on the contrary, from the returns of several parishes, he believed it could not be applicable, for there were in them not enough persons rated above that amount to form a vestry. It was absurd to suppose that parishes were not sufficiently alive to their own interests, to select proper candidates, and many persons from the spread of education, were equal to the situation, although they might dwell in houses of small value.
Clause agreed to.
On the next clause being read,
Mr. Protheroesaid, he wished to have an amendment applied to the clause, to the effect that particular Local Acts relating to Bristol should be untouched by its operation.
Mr. Humehad also two amendments to suggest to this clause; the first was, that the numbers of a vestry to be a quorum, should bear some proportion to the number of vestrymen; for instance, where the number was thirty-six, they provided that nine, or one-fourth, should be the quorum, but that number was not increased when the number of the vestry was 120; he would therefore suggest, that where the number was above thirty-six, one-fifth ought to be present to enable them to act. The other amendment he wished to propose was, to insert a provision in the clause, to make it imperative that the proceedings of one meeting should be sanctioned by the next, before they became final.
Colonel Lindsayconsidered the suggestions of the hon. member for Middlesex

889
an improvement, and he begged leave to second them.
Sir John Hobhousesaid, the check of the popular voice prevented the necessity of fixing the number of the quorum at more than nine, and that number had been adopted from the difficulty of procuring the attendance of a larger number; but as under this Act it was probable the parishioners would select only such persons as would attend, he could have no objection to an increase of their number. With respect to the other suggestion of the hon. Member it was quite usual at present that the proceedings of one parish meeting should be sanctioned by the next, and no doubt the same forms would be continued; but it probably might be as well to insert a proviso in the clause to effect that object. As to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bristol, the Act only affected all other Acts so far as they related to the constitution of vestries.
A Proviso added, and clause agreed to.
The other clauses of the Bill were also agreed to.
Mr. William Milessaid, he had been requested by a Select Vestry in Bristol to move the insertion of a clause, providing that nothing in this Bill should interfere with the rights of Select Vestries over charitable bequests. The hon. Gentleman therefore proposed the following words should be introduced.—"To exempt such Select Vestries as have alone control over Church Charities from the operation of this Act, due provision being made for the annual publication of Accounts."
Mr. Protheroeopposed the introduction of such a clause, and stated that the opinions of the people of Bristol in general were favourable to the Bill as originally brought forward by the hon. Baronet, the member for Westminster. Indeed, the fact that this proviso came recommended by a Gentleman who was not regularly connected with that city, sufficiently proved that the majority of the inhabitants would be adverse to its adoption.
Sir Charles Wetherellobserved, that the hon. Baronet might accede to the proposition of his hon. friend, the member for New Romney, if he deemed it otherwise unobjectionable, as it would not in any degree impair the principle of the Bill.
Sir John Hobhousethought the Select Vestry unfit to be trusted with the distribution of the funds of charitable institutions, and had reason to believe that
890
the people of Bristol particularly desired to be included under the operation of the measure. He therefore could not consent to comply with the request of the hon. Member opposite.
Mr. Mileswithdrew the Motion.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that a statement had been made on a former occasion, that the Mayoresses of Bristol had misapplied some charitable funds intrusted to their care, and he certainly must attribute to a want of gallantry the fact that no defence had been made for them at the time this statement was made.
Mr. Protheroebegged it to be understood, that he had never sanctioned any such statement as that now alluded to by the hon. and learned Member, for he well knew the difficulty of ascertaining anything of the facts or records in the archives of the Corporation of Bristol, which he did not believe anybody ever saw except the members of that Corporation. The hon. and learned Member himself was one of them, but he believed that even he was sworn to secresy on the subject.
Mr. Huntsaid, that in 1812 he presented a petition to that House, on the subject of the Bristol election, and then, by virtue of the Speaker's Warrant, he had enjoyed the privilege of consulting the archives of that city. The use he made of this opportunity was, to satisfy himself of the fact, that the charitable funds intrusted to the Corporation were grossly misapplied, and even the names of the persons who had so misapplied them were registered in the Records. The mode in which they were expended was, by applying them to election instead of charitable purposes; and that to which he more particularly alluded was the Lying-in Charity, which was under the direction of the Mayoresses of Bristol, who, out of a population of 90,000 persons, could not find sixty poor lying-in women who were fit objects for the charitable donation of 2l. a-piece, but these Mayoresses, forsooth, must go and apply that fund, which ought to have been sacred, to election purposes. For years past one of the Members of the city of Bristol had been mainly returned by the misapplication of those funds over and over again, and yet one of the hon. Members, when examined before the Committee on Charities up-stairs, declared that those of the city of Bristol were well applied.
Sir Charles Wetherellindignantly re-

891
pelled the accusation, and said, he had no doubt if the hon. member for Preston had fully inspected the accounts, he would have found that the balance of the sum not distributed within the year was carried forward to be distributed by the next Lady Mayoress.
Mr. Huntwas ready to repeat his former statement, and insisted that the funds had not been properly appropriated, and that they had been perverted to electioneering purposes by the Mayoresses to whom their distribution had been intrusted.
The House resumed.

GAME BILL.
The Order of the Day for considering the Lords'Amendments to the Game Bill was read.
The Speakeracquainted the House that he had examined the Amendments, and that he considered they fell completely under the Resolution of the House, made at the beginning of the Session, respecting interference in money clauses, as affecting the privileges of the House.
Lord Althorpsaid, that although he was sensible the Amendments which had been made in the other House had not improved the Bill, yet as the main principles remained in the Bill as it had been sent from this House, it was most desirable that the Amendments should be agreed to. He hoped, therefore, although some Gentlemen might, like himself, dislike these Amendments, yet, as it was a great point gained to get rid of the anomalies in the existing law, that they would agree to the Amendment, and without delay, as the Bill was intended to take effect on the 1st of November. Considering the state of the law at present, and the advantage gained by the Bill even as it now stood, and that when the principle was once adopted by the Legislature, it could not be receded from, although it might be improved, he trusted the Amendments would not be rejected.
Mr. Serjeant Wildeadmitted the justice of the noble Lord's remarks. At the same time, he thought the House ought to be aware of the nature of some of the alterations which had been made in the Bill, and which, to his astonishment, considering the place where they originated, invaded the rights of property. By one of the Amendments, proprietors of land were not only authorized to enter upon the premises of a lessee for life, but to appoint other persons who could do the same; and
892
this was not all, for the occupant was deprived of the right he now possessed, and was not permitted to kill game on his own land, unless a stipulation to that effect was inserted in his lease, which, as it was not necessary under the existing law, would not, of course, be found there.
Mr. Hunthad disliked the Bill at first, and he did not think the Amendments of the Lords had produced the slightest degree of improvement in it. He particularly objected to the clause respecting night-poaching, in which the penalties, which were severe enough at first, had been still further increased, and he should take the sense of the House on the clause.
Mr. John Campbellconsidered, that though the Bill was a much better Bill as it formerly stood, still it was better than the old law, and was a great boon. He thought his hon. and learned friend was in some degree mistaken respecting the clause giving proprietors and their appointees the right of entering and sporting upon the land of a lessee for life, and excluding the occupant, because, if he paid a fine on renewal, which is usual, the occupant retained his right. He hoped that the consent of the Lords to this Bill was a presage of their intentions in respect to another Bill, and if no more serious Amendments were made in it, he should be content.
Mr. Humewould submit to the House, whether, after what had been stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Serjeant Wilde), the Commons of England were authorized to pass a Bill which interfered with private rights of property. He doubted whether it would not be better to reject the Bill altogether, and trust to another year. It was nothing less than robbing people of their rights. The Peers of England ought to be the last persons to set an example of taking away private property. If they began with spoliation, and he did think this was a spoliation, let them not complain if it reached themselves.
Mr. Pagetsaid, he was decidedly opposed to the Amendments that had been introduced, but as the other provisions of the Bill would materially improve the existing laws, he should be ready to support the views of the noble Lord if the question came to a division.
Mr. Huntsaid, his principal objection was, to the severe penalties for night-poaching, and however beneficial the other parts of the measure might be, he thought

893
it his duty to take the sense of the House upon them.
Question put on the first Amendment, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments." The House divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 3—Majority 64.

List of the NOES.

Bulwer, Henry L.

TELLERS.

Paget, T.

Hume, J.

Wood, J.

Hunt, H.

Mr. Humesaid, that after the division which had just taken place, he should not think of pressing his opposition to the Lords'Amendments to a division.
Sir Edward Sugdendid not intend to follow the example of the hon. Member, for he thought the clause relating to tenants for life so objectionable, that he should divide the House upon it. The change effected by that clause was too great to be permitted.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the change was not so great as the hon. and learned Member seemed to imagine. He trusted that the Bill would not be objected to on account of the Amendments of the Lords, for, upon the fate of those Amendments the fate of the Bill might depend; for if these Amendments were not adopted, the Bill would not pass.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, if that was the case, as he considered the principle of the Bill to be good, although he strongly objected to a clause which drew so odious a distinction between landlord and tenant, he would not press his Amendment.
The Amendments of the Lords agreed to.

RELIEF TO THE WEST INDIES.
Upon the Motion of Lord Althorp, that the Chairman leave the Chair for the purpose of going into a Committee of Supply.
Mr. Keith Douglastook that opportunity of putting a question to the noble Lord, as to what were the intentions of Government, with respect to the measure of relief contemplated to be submitted to the Committee on the state and condition of the West-Indian interests. It was very desirable to obtain some more specific explanation, how far it was the intention of Government to attempt an improvement of the condition of that important interest in the State. If Government had, as he hoped, made up its mind as to the kind of relief it should afford, and only wished, through the Committee, to have its hand
894
strengthened, and its judgment directed and informed by practical men, he believed considerable benefit would result from the meditated inquiry.
Lord Althorpremarked, that the course pursued by the hon. Member, in putting a question to a Minister, as to what was the intention of Government in instituting an inquiry of which it had only given notice in the House, was, to say the least of it, very unusual, if not inconvenient. More particularly was it unusual to do so on a Motion for the House going into a Committee of Supply All this, however, he should waive, and so far give the explanation sought, as to say, that it was the intention of Government to institute an inquiry into the causes of the present difficulties and distress experienced by the West-Indian interest, and the next object was, to devise the measures of relief which might safely be applied to relieve those distresses and embarrassments. But it was not intended by Government to enter at all into the question of slavery as between master and slave. As to the remedy, it was, as far as respected Ministers, a subject of inquiry; and they naturally wished, through the Committee, to obtain from the representations of well qualified, and even personally interested persons in that class of society, every possible information on a subject, which must be to them of the last importance.
Mr. Burgeobjected to an inquiry of so wide and general a nature. In his opinion, such an inquiry was instituted for the purpose of protracting the period of relief. Such an inquiry was not necessary; the distress was known, the causes of the distress were known; and the remedy had already been pointed out to the Government. Now that he had the opportunity, he wished to ask the noble Lord, whether the Government had received any information of the misfortune that had befallen Barbadoes; and whether the noble Lord had any reason to doubt the extent of the visitation to which that island had been subjected? When a similar misfortune happened to one of the West-India Islands in 1780, the Government of that day thought it expedient and just to take some measures for the relief of the sufferers: he wished to know whether the Government of this day intended to follow the same course, and what measures they proposed to adopt.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the Govern-

895
ment had received no information relative to the misfortune alluded to, direct from the colony itself. There had been a correspondence, which tended to confirm the statements already published, and to show that the accounts in the papers were correct; but there had been no information received by the Government, which they could properly call official. Until that arrived, it was, of course, impossible for him to answer the second part of the hon. Member's question.

BANKRUPTCY COURT BILL.
Sir Charles Wetherellwished to ask the noble Lord, whether it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the reading of this Bill a second time this evening? He put the question, because, as he had only received the Bill, as printed by this House, in the course of the day, he was not prepared for the discussion.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, that the Bill as now printed, was not put into his hands until twelve o'clock this day. After so short a notice, nobody could be prepared for the discussion; and if the discussion came on this evening, the Government would have it all to themselves, and perhaps that was the object in view.
The Attorney Generalthought he should be able to explain the matter.
Sir Edward Sugden: Then it is the intention of the Government to persevere.
The Attorney Generalreplied in the affirmative.
Sir Charles Wetherellthen gave notice, that if such was their intention, he would use every mode, consistent with the rules of the House, to oppose the Bill, and he would use them in all the different stages of the Bill.

SUPPLY—PENSIONS ON THE CIVIL LIST.
The House went into a Committee of Supply.
Mr. Spring Ricemoved, that a sum of 120,000 l. be granted to his Majesty, to defray the expenses of the current quarter, for Pensions, Salaries, Allowances, &c., for Ireland and Scotland, formerly paid out of the Civil List. He begged to observe, that this Motion was founded upon former Estimates; but that inquiries into these pensions were going on in the Committee; and he believed that all the members of the Committee would do the Ministers the justice to say, that they did not shrink from giving all the information
896
in their power, but afforded it most readily, and manifested the sincerest wish that every possible economy should be adopted. The vote he now proposed to take, would discharge the salaries and pensions up to the 10th of October, and in the course of the ensuing week, he trusted the Committee would obtain the information required, which merely related to minute points; but which on that account was more difficult to be obtained, and had hitherto prevented them from terminating their labours.
Mr. Humeconfirmed the statement just made, as to the conduct of the Ministers in the Committee, and said it would not be proper longer to postpone the present vote.
Mr. Courtenaysaid, as the Civil Service must be provided for, the present vote could not be objected to, but he hoped some permanent mode of providing for these expenses would be speedily adopted: the system of voting quarterly sums was most objectionable.
Mr. Maberlysaid, they could make no permanent settlement while inquiries were going forward on a given subject: when the Committee had completed its labours, he had no doubt a satisfactory arrangement would be made.
The vote was agreed to.

SUPPLY—CLARENCE YARD.
Sir James Grahamsaid, he had now to propose a vote for a small sum of money, to supply a deficiency in one of the Estimates connected with the Naval Service. The sum he should ask for was inconsiderable, but the principle involved in the grant was important. It had been the practice in the Victualling and Navy Boards to consider the sums voted for each branch of the Naval Services as applicable to all the votes contained in the Naval Estimates. That practice had been condemned in that House, and when he first undertook the duties of the office which he now held, he determined to prevent its continuance. Orders were, therefore, issued by the Admiralty to each of the subordinate Boards, to furnish them with an estimate of the money required for each head of service, and on no account to allow the sum expended to exceed the amount of the estimate. The specific deficiency for which he now asked a particular vote had arisen since that time, and could easily have been supplied in the manner in which

897
such deficiencies were formerly supplied; but to have adopted that course would have been to depart from his own principle, and he chose rather to come down to the House, state the deficiency, and ask for a vote to supply it. The system of accounts at the Victualling Board was not a correct one. That Board was at once a Board of Account and a Board of Audit. That was an evil to which Government had directed its attention, and he was a member of the Commission created for that purpose, and consisting besides of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary at War, and the head of the Board of Ordnance, and with that subject was connected that of the Audit of the Exchequer. It was proposed, that in each instance a draft should be sent forth for the particular service for which the sum of money was required; the Exchequer was to examine these drafts, and then it would appear, of the sum voted by Parliament, how much had been appropriated; and if there was any excess, the Exchequer should stop it in the amount of the draft. Still more to further this object, the Admiralty had called on the Navy and Victualling Boards to furnish monthly accounts of the sums supplied and paid, so that the Admiralty might be able to take care, that there was no excess of expenditure beyond what Parliament had sanctioned, and that no new work was engaged in without the consent of Parliament. The deficiency he now asked Parliament to supply, arose partly from the imperfect estimates of the architect, and partly from the mode of forming the estimates, by which the annual sum appropriated to this particular branch of the service was not sufficient, and the Government had not thought fit to supply the deficiency out of the sum voted for the general Naval Service. The particulars which composed this deficiency, amounting to27,000 l., were these; 6,000 l. of monies, reserved on outstanding contracts, which ought to have been in the estimates intended to be paid last year; 7,400 l. for expensive machinery for a bakehouse, at Weovil, ordered, in the first instance, without the authority of Parliament; 4,200 l., arising from the failure of a Sea Wall, which, under the superintendence of Sir John Rennie, was now to be erected in a stronger manner, and for the failure of which the contractor was not liable; and 7,000 l. from the deficiency in the calculation of expenses, from the
898
want of accuracy in the measurement of the wall, and from the badness of its foundation. The right hon. Baronet then moved, that a sum of 27,000 l. be voted for the Works in the Royal Clarence-yard at Gosport, &c. in addition to the sum voted last year.
Mr. Humesaid, that under any other circumstances than those mentioned by the right hon. Baronet, he should have objected to the vote without an opportunity of fully examining the whole details. It was much to be regretted that the public service should be conducted in so loose a way as to allow of these deficiencies. He trusted the Committee sitting at present would fully go into all the expenditure connected with the naval service. The subordinate Boards were nearly as expensive as in time of war, and he was convinced that great savings could be made under an improved method of management. Many articles furnished for the naval service could be supplied by contract at a much cheaper rate than they were now obtained. He would instance meat. The cattle were bought in the London market, which was the dearest in the world, and salted at Deptford, instead of the meat being procured in Ireland, where it could be had as good, and at half the cost. He knew a person who would undertake to provide, preserve, deliver, and warrant it good at that rate. Private establishments were competent to provide the necessary articles, and the immense expenditure of the Victualling Office, amounting, he believed to upwards of 1,000,000 l. sterling, might be greatly reduced. All the supplies for the army were contracted for, but instead of pursuing this plan in the navy, they had recently increased the naval establishments by a baking machinery, which he understood was likely to cost 70,000 l. for steam-engines to grind flour, and 7,400 l. for baking biscuits. He should have thought this had been more than sufficient to bake all the bread used in the kingdom. His great desire was, to have all these items of expense clearly explained. He hoped to see accurate accounts of the cost of all kinds of provisions supplied to the navy. He knew the objections to contracts were, that the articles supplied could not be depended on as good; but he thought that difficulty might be overcome by proper care and management.
Sir James Grahamsaid, he would reply

899
to his hon. friend, by showing that his principle could not be carried into effect in all cases, as for example, with an article of the first importance, gunpowder. That had been supplied by contract, but it was found and proved to demonstration, that individuals had the power of keeping up the price of saltpetre and the other materials, so that government had no control over the prices, and the system was found to be so disadvantageous, that it was necessary to make other arrangements. Again with regard to salt provisions, which his hon. friend had asserted could be procured at half their present cost. All he could say was, that the quantity required was thrown open to public competition, and the contract given to the lowest tender. The general rule of supplying articles by contract was adopted with every other article but bread, and that must be made an exception, because it was necessary that it should be made from flour of the best description, or it would not keep in foreign voyages. With regard to the machinery by which it was to be made, it had not been adopted since his accession to office, but he was bound to say, it was of a most ingenious description, was attended by a great saving in manual labour, and produced a very superior article. The Victualling Board would be enabled to supply biscuit in any quantity, and however great the first cost had been, he had no doubt it would cause an ultimate saving.
Mr. Maberlysaid, he fully concurred with regard to the general principles of contracts, as laid down by the hon. member for Middlesex, but there must be exceptions. It was impossible to examine gunpowder with that degree of nicety which it required unless it was manufactured in Government establishments. He knew, with respect to this article, that when the public required large supplies suddenly, the manufacturers had charged their own prices for it. Again, after being some time exposed to the damp of a ship's magazine, it became deficient in strength, and had to undergo a process which was performed in Government establishments, by which it was regenerated. As to the establishments themselves, the great cost had been incurred in creating them, and he apprehended the expense of keeping them up was not of equal importance to their usefulness in insuring the goodness of two such essential articles as bread and gunpowder. Notwithstanding this, how-
900
ever, he was extremely happy to hear the general position laid down, that Government manufactories were inexpedient. He believed and hoped, that considerable savings could be made by consolidating the subordinate naval Boards, particularly the Victualling establishment, which might be reduced to a sort of store department.
Sir George Cockburnsaid, he was glad to hear, that the propriety of supplying certain essential articles from Government establishments was admitted. All who were acquainted with the case knew, that when bread was made of bad flour it soon spoiled, produced disease among the seamen, and consequently, rendered the ships less effective, besides exposing the country to the additional cost of then procuring better. He was sure that in time of war these mills, of the cost of which they had heard so much, would be found of the highest importance. As regarded the cost of meat, it was necessary to have some Government establishment to prevent monopoly, of which an instance occurred about three years ago, when the cost was suddenly raised in Ireland to a great extent on finding, that the public had a necessity for a supply. They were then enabled to procure it at another place, and the consequence was, the price of meat in Ireland had not since been enhanced.
Sir John Newportknew, that a monopoly of salt provisions had formerly existed in Ireland; but recently, competition had opened the trade, and he could venture to assert, that any quantity might be procured there at a fair rate.
Mr. Humesaid, he hoped the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Admiralty would examine into all the expenditure of the subordinate Boards thoroughly. He was convinced the system was erroneous. It would be better to supply all articles by contract, even bread. He was convinced it might be obtained in any quantity, and of good quality, and the same rule would apply also to gunpowder. He should take an opportunity himself of looking into all the circumstances very narrowly, with the hope of being able to reduce some of the Government establishments.
Mr. Maberlysaid, the public establishments were defective in the mode of keeping their accounts. It would be easy to shew the cost of the articles manufactured in such establishments, and by comparing it with contract prices, ascertain the profit or loss.
Vote agreed to.

BANKRUPTCY COURT BILL.
The Attorney General,on moving the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Bankruptcy Court Bill, said, that his hon. and learned friends would do themselves the very greatest injustice, if they supposed that there could be the slightest chance of their not fully understanding the principles of the measure; because, undoubtedly, there was no subject that had been more generally considered, or that had been, for a longer period, a topic of universal discussion among those who took an interest in the commercial prosperity of the country, or who had attended to the administration of the law, than the present constitution of our bankruptcy jurisdiction. Certainly, this was any thing rather than a new subject, for it had been frequently brought before that House, and before the public, who had both seen and felt the very great inconveniences which existed in this department of the law. It was now thought absolutely necessary to introduce a remedy capable of being applied to these existing inconveniences. In the year 1817, a very distinguished Member of that House, and of the commercial body of London, Mr. John Smith, procured the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the matters connected with this question. That Committee suggested various alterations in the Bankruptcy laws; but, up to this time, no further step of any importance had been taken. He did not intend to rest anything on his own individual assertion or authority; indeed, the inquiry had been conducted by skill, experience, and judgment, brought to bear directly upon the subject, which rendered it exceedingly easy for him to make out every part of his case, to shew the extent of existing evils, the necessity of an efficient remedy, and the fitness of that which was proposed in the measure now submitted to Parliament. In the year 1817, the Committee had been appointed, and had held its sittings, not only during that, but through the course of the following year, and before whom several gentlemen of great distinction in the Court of Chancery, as well as many most influential bankers, merchants, and traders in the city of London, had been examined, and had given most important testimony, He would first mention Mr. Cullen, a Chancery barrister of high eminence, who had
902
been for more than twenty years a Commissioner of Bankrupts, the author of a valuable legal work on Bankruptcy, and as a barrister constantly attending on the numerous Courts that carried the system into effect. No man ever was more competent to form a judgment upon its merits. He now begged permission to read to the House the judgment that had been formed by that gentleman, in the very language that he himself had addressed to the Committee.—'The Bankruptcy-law was introduced (says Mr. Cullen) with a view to prevent and punish the frauds of debtors, and to distribute their property equally amongst all their creditors, but it has not succeeded; and however wise the original plan may have been thought, yet it does not now, even with all its subsequent alterations and accessions, appear to effect either of the objects which it professed; the property is not forthcoming, or it is wasted: the same 'frauds still exist, neither diminished nor punished, and a new class has sprung up, engendered by the very proceedings which have been instituted to prevent them; so that the prominent and growing evil of the present day with respect to debtor and creditor, appears to be the Bankrupt-law itself.' He (Mr. Cullen) was far from being singular in the view he took of this question, the opinion of the commercial world, and of almost all who stood in the situation either of debtor or creditor, confirming that of the professional inquirers who had made this law their study. It appeared, upon the evidence of almost all the commercial men who were examined before that Committee, that scarcely any alternative could be conceived, which would not by them be preferred to the benefits tendered by a Commission. One witness stated, that a compromise for 2s. 6d. in the pound was thought better, in the great majority of cases, than taking the chance of a larger dividend under a Commission; and that traders would most reluctantly trust to a Commission whenever the smallest dividend could be secured without it. To this effect he cited the evidence of several commercial witnesses examined before the Commission. This Committee, having sat for some time, made a report in the year 1818; and he would call the attention of the House to the defects which they proposed to remedy. The first defect proved by all the witnesses

903
was the nature of the Commission itself, and the Commissioners to whom it was directed, who were called upon to act judicially, and to perform the most important and most onerous duties with which Judges can be intrusted. Now Mr. Cullen was again examined in the course of that year, and he then particularly stated the defective position in which he found the law; he said, that 'the points which appear particularly to me to require alteration, are—first, the constitution of the Court of Commissioners, and secondly, the expense which must be incurred.' He then proceeded to remark upon the duties of the Commissioners, and the nature of their offices. He said, 'We are' (for he was one) 'seventy Judges, distributed into fourteen Courts, or Lists, as we are called, of five in each.' He preferred going back to the statements of a gentleman who expressed his opinions upon this subject so long ago, because it would satisfy the House that these evils had existed for a great number of years, and that there was, therefore, a still greater necessity for the amendment of the system which was now proposed. Mr. Cullen observed, 'Each list is perfectly unconnected with, and independent of, the rest. There is no uniformity, no consistency of determination. The suitor has no certainty; he finds one law and practice in one list, and another in another; he finds everything is to be argued upon first principles. Precedent has no binding force upon us, and is, therefore, of no authority; we are not very much disposed to listen to it; we are apt rather to assert our independence, and to vindicate our right to be governed by our own knowledge. This seems to be the natural consequence of independent jurisdictions. We are all supreme.' He further observed upon the difficulty of procuring a proper attendance:—'Any three out of the five in each list being required to attend, the suitor is exposed, even in the same Court, to a perpetual change of the Judge; and this, not only from one meeting to another, but even in the course of the same meeting. We assemble under a number—sometimes a great number—of different Commissions at once; our attention is solicited at one and the same moment by many suitors, all equally pressing, and entitled to decision and despatch upon their respective cases; and these often involving many nice
904
questions of fact and considerations of law. One party gains the attention of a Commissioner; he is instantly broken in upon by another party, perhaps by another Commissioner; the half-heard case must be repeated, and the second Judge soon, in like manner, gives way to a third; and so the case, taken up by one after another, returns, perhaps, upon its steps, till after having, as it were, circulated through the list, amid the eternal interruption of one Commission by other business; of each other by each other; and all by the public; it remains finally undetermined, unless the suitor, or his counsel or solicitor, undertakes the invidious task of asserting his right to the combined attention of three Commissioners, if three fortunately happen to be present.' Again he said, 'instead of so many lists, there ought to be but one, who, sitting in public or private, as occasion might require, would discharge the business which is done, or rather not done, under the present system.' Here this gentleman pointed out the nature of the jurisdiction, and the impossibility of the Commissioners proceeding to give their undivided attention to the business before them, and of their getting properly through the multiplicity of matters which were unfortunately brought under their consideration, the effect of which was, the entailing of delay and expense upon the parties, to an extent that would hardly be believed. Other witnesses before the same Committee stated the same facts. They said that counsel were heard at great length on any point they might think proper to urge, and if (as it was frequently found) the creditor did not quit the Court in disgust, and abandon the inquiry, the waste of time was enormous; the cost of pursuing his claim fell heavily on the creditor, and the bankrupt's estate was plundered in the process. There was another gentleman, of the greatest experience and ability, who gave evidence in language which very much corresponded with Mr. Cullen's. Mr. Basil Montagu was a barrister of the highest celebrity for many talents and attainments, but he had devoted by far the largest share of attention to the Bankrupt-laws, and no man had had so much practical experience in this branch of the profession. His suggestion was:—'That all the duties now discharged by the seventy Commissioners should hereafter be transacted by a much smaller number

905
—say six; and that one should be a quorum, so that the business should never stand still, the evils attendant upon delay being very great.' This gentleman stated several cases, in which delay had produced the utmost inconvenience and loss, one in particular, in which it was necessary to go down into the country for the Lord Chancellor, in order that he might sign the Commission within a certain time, and the interval had been most injurious to the creditors. To shew how the system worked, he would mention some facts stated to him, on authority fully to be relied on. The House was probably aware, that one of the first duties of the Commissioners was, to open the Commission on the application of the petitioning creditor, and they were then to receive the statements of parties who were desirous of proving debts under the Commission. It was impossible, in both points of view, to conceive any tribunal less able to do justice than that which now existed; the consequence frequently was, that the petitioning creditor's debt was proved, but disputed, and the mere dispute, however groundless, produced long years of ruinous delay. He would state to the House the case of Mr. Bartholomew Thomas, which turned upon the validity of an instrument:—the question was, whether he was a bankrupt or not; a question that might be tried before a great many tribunals, and if it should so happen that any of the necessary ingredients for constituting a good commission were wanting, all that was done was perfectly illegal, and might be made the subject of actions of trespass or trover. In order to try this question, which again depended on another—whether the petitioning creditor's debt was good or not. various actions were brought. The issue turned upon apparently a very simple point of law, as to the construction which ought to be given to a written agreement. Various Courts of Law successively decided that this was a good debt, but the case went into the Court of Chancery, and was tried before the Lord Chancellor of that time, who said that, however good the debt might be at law, it was null and void in equity; that the commission could not be supported, and must be superseded. This was one of those cases in which, after great delay had taken place, and enormous expense had been incurred, one Court reversed the decision of others before which the case had been tried. It never
906
could be right, that one jurisdiction should lave the power of sanctioning the debt as perfectly good, and all that had been done as legal; yet that another Court should be able to deal differently with the very same subject matter, and undo all that had been effected by an equally competent authority. He would beg the House to reflect for one moment upon the unfortunate situation in which a trader was placed, when he was in such circumstances as these. Mr. Bartholomew Thomas resided at Devonport, and had been in possession of a tolerably extensive business. What was the situation in which he was placed pending these proceedings? Besides enduring for years the utmost anxiety, suspense, and delay; he knew not the nature of his own situation in the world; he could neither go on with his business, nor leave it off, with any prospect but ruin; for though he had no other dependence, that necessarily failed him, when he could neither have credit to buy, nor legal power to sell. He would refer the House to another case of a disputed commission—the case of Mr. Martin Thomas, who was an attorney. This commission was ultimately held to be a good one; the proceedings, however, were, of course, suspended until its validity was ascertained. It was not established until after long delay, many years, and, when it was at length decided, the barren sentence was all that could be obtained; the assignees, debtors, creditors, and all the parties had disappeared:—some were dead, the rest could not be found; not a single party interested could be discovered, and there was not one single farthing to be divided, the whole proceeds of the estate having evaporated in litigation. He would call to the recollection of Gentlemen, a case of very recent occurrence, and one of great magnitude, which would shew, in a remarkable manner, the ruinous consequences that resulted from the present state of the law, to all parties, except, indeed, some members of the profession to which he belonged. He spoke of the commission taken out against Mr. Chambers, the banker. That commission was considered to be a perfectly good one; it was acted upon by the parties for no less a period than five years; it was tried in the Courts of Law, and its validity was always established; goods were seized under its authority by the Sheriffs of almost all the counties in England, who, as the House might

907
know, were bound to keep them, at their own risk, until the final decision of the commission's validity; and yet, after all these proceeding's—after having been tried by the Courts of Law, and having been established—when the case was tried on a late occasion in the Court of Exchequer, the Jury differed from the decisions of all the tribunals by whom the case had been previously tried; and, as far as their verdict could go, upset the commission. The Court had, indeed, decided that a rule for a new trial should be granted; but the ultimate issue is held in uncertainty, and a new and long delay must arise. The interests of all parties concerned were most materially injured during the lapse of time; various alterations occurred in the circumstances of most of them—bankers and assignees failed with assets in their hands—parties died—their representatives succeed to law-suits, in utter ignorance of their actual situation. He might mention several other cases of this description; but he was not disposed to trouble the House unnecessarily. He would proceed now to advert to cases of a different description, in which the creditor desired to prove under the commission, debts of which the bankrupt either denied the existence, or alleged that they had been discharged. In the year 1816, in a case "ex parte M'Donald in the matter of Carter," a petition was presented, praying that a debt of 4,000 l. might be expunged; that petition was referred by the Vice-Chancellor to the Commissioners, who held, upon that inquiry, no less than five and twenty sittings. In January, 1821, the Commissioners, after these five and twenty meetings, determined that it was no debt. Afterwards, however, cross petitions were presented to the Vice-Chancellor, complaining of the Commissioners' report; and in March, 1822, he, the Vice-Chancellor, did that which, if it had been done at the outset, would have saved an immensity of expense and delay—he directed an issue to be tried by a Jury under the direction of a learned Judge presiding in a Court of Law. An appeal was lodged against this order, but it was not until April, 1827—five years after this issue was directed—that the appeal was heard by the Lord Chancellor. The hearing took place, the case was considered, judgment had been promised, and postponed several times, when, in consequence of a change of Ministers, my Lord Eldon resigned the
908
Seals. The case, therefore, remained undecided when my Lord Eldon left office. The parties thereupon pursued a course which was not at all of unusual occurrence: they preferred having their case decided by the former Lord Chancellor, who had heard it argued, to the delay and inconvenience of beginning again, and bringing it under the consideration of a new Court. They, therefore, applied to Lord Eldon to decide the case, all parties agreeing to be bound by his decision. Lord Eldon was good enough to undertake this office; but it was not until the month of January in the present year that he made an order, reversing all that had been done in all the other Courts in every form or stage of the proceedings. He had doubtless reversed it very properly, but the costs incurred amounted to upwards of 2,000 l.; and the whole amount of assets at the conclusion of the cause did not exceed 300 l. Those funds which ought to have paid the just debts of the creditors, and might have left a decent surplus for the bankrupt—if a proper Court had existed for the trial of the case in the first instance—were frittered away, and absorbed in fifteen years of destructive litigation. Mr. Montagu informed another Committee, that sat on a different occasion, of a transaction of the same kind. A debt was admitted as good, but the commission was superseded, and the proof was to be renewed before a second commission. There it was disallowed: a third commission was dated the 4th of March, 1821; and no less than seventeen examinations took place. On the 9lh of November, 1821, a petition was presented to have the debt allowed; and on the 22nd of December it was heard, when the Vice-Chancellor, before whom it was argued, was strongly disposed to send it at once to a Jury. The parties, however, insisted on having his judgment, which he accordingly gave, against the debt, with leave to the parties to have an issue if they thought proper. That issue was tried in December, 1822; a rule for a new trial was granted in February, 1823; and then, nearly two years afterwards, in December, 1825, the cause stood for a new trial. This new trial never came on; but on the 12th of January, 1826, after all this frivolous delay, vexation, and expense—after the decision by the Vice-Chancellor—after the first trial—and after the second trial was moved for and suspended, the Lord Chancellor, at the request of

909
both parties, undertook to decide the case—they preferring his decision to running the risk of additional expense and delay—and he confirmed the decision of the Vice-Chancellor after all. This was the nature of the grievances that existed, and he had stated enough to shew that the Court of Commissioners, as at present constituted, was not a fit Court for the discharge of the duties which they were meant to perform—that justice could not be done under such circumstances, and that it was not only highly desirable, but indeed absolutely necessary, that some remedy should be applied. What was that remedy? He had stated already, on the evidence of Mr. Montagu, that one Court, consisting of about six Commissioners, with one Commissioner to go through the less important and merely technical part of the duty, would transact all this business better than the present number of Commissioners, acting as imperfectly as they did. It was stated to the Committee, by most respectable solicitors (whose evidence he adverted to), and gentlemen well acquainted with this part of the business, that the greater part of it might be all transacted by one Commissioner, so that the difficulty of procuring the necessary attendance might be at once obviated. It was suggested by the witnesses, that there should be one permanent Board, composed of individuals who would not be looking forward to higher promotion, and who would not have other business to attend to. Other witnesses said, that a very small number of Commissioners of experience and ability would, under a proper system, be enabled to discharge the business satisfactorily to all parties concerned, and to the public, and they all strongly recommended the appointment of a permanent Court of Appeal. The Report of the Committee of 1818, adopting these views, recommended a radical change in the constitution of the Board of Commissions. He thought he had high authority in favour of this change. His hon. and learned friends opposite were, no doubt, aware, that a few years ago, when the new Bankruptcy Bill was introduced, a highly distinguished individual, since appointed one of the Masters in Chancery (now Lord Henley), was employed by the Lord Chancellor to draw up that Bill. This gentleman published a sort of commentary on that Act of Parliament, after it became a law, setting
910
forth its object, explaining its provisions, and contrasting them with the former statutes. Some very remarkable words appeared in his preface to that work; and, considering by whose co-operation and encouragement he wrote it, and considering also by whose desire, and under whose sanction that Bill was introduced, they would appear fairly to justify the presumption, that Lord Eldon was favourable to this very extensive change. The author thus spoke of the amendments effected by the new Act. 'Amendments (after enumerating them) which are not only most beneficial in themselves, but which may be hailed as a prelude to a change that will, alone, remove all the evils which at present exist, and without which the law cannot be adequately administered; for, unless a complete alteration be made in the tribunal by which the Bankrupt Laws are administered, it will be in vain to expect that the reproaches which are cast upon the present system can be removed.' The great change thus declared to be essential to any real improvement in the Bankrupt Laws, the present Bill proposed to effect. Instead of scattered and fugitive Courts, picked up from time to time among the seventy practising barristers who are named Commissioners, and discharging their duties in the manner already cited, from some of their own body, a permanent Court is to be established, to consist of ten members in all, selected from some of the most respectable and able individuals in Westminster Hall. Of this number, six are to be called and act as Commissioners: the other four, possessing all the powers of Commissioners, would also constitute a Court of Review, and exercise large powers of superintendence and revision. It would also be enabled to preside at the trial of disputed facts by a Jury, which might be called upon to decide them, while they are recent, and the witnesses at hand, thus avoiding that endless succession of expensive suits which is so often engendered under the present system. He might be here allowed to appeal to the same high authority: he again spoke of Lord Eldon. That noble and learned person, when consulted by Mr. Charles Bell, the eminent Scotch advocate, a man equally remarkable for professional knowledge, and for enlarged and benevolent views, as to the best mode of conducting process of bankruptcy in Scotland, had strongly recom-

911
mended that it should be placed in the hands of a Court consisting of four Judges. If such a Court had existed when the cases occurred to which he had endeavoured to call the attention of the House, what would have been the consequence? Why, instead of cases travelling from the year 1816 to 1831, through all these various Courts and jurisdictions; instead of there being appeals from one to another, one reversing the decisions of another, the case would have been settled without delay; great expense would have been saved; much fraud and perjury prevented; creditors would have received their debts, bankrupts their surplus; the ruin of many would have been averted. In a word, it was reasonably expected, that by securing promptitude of decisions, both as to doubtful law and controverted facts, the estates of bankrupts would be really made available for the benefit of creditors, to the great relief of the commercial world. The next consideration of importance was, the appointment of assignees. To say, that the assignees were generally selected from the body of the creditors themselves, and that the creditors were likely to be the best judges of their own interests, appeared to be a plausible and fair vindication for the present state of things, yet, in point of fact, the results were not satisfactory. The assignee selected by the creditors, generally a creditor himself, commenced his operations with a keen appetite for a dividend, laudably attentive to his own interest, which was involved in that of his constituents, and desirous of doing justice to all. But encountered with difficulties, harassed by delays, involved in unexpected legal contests, he finds his ardour cool, and loses the hope of settling the bankrupt's affairs without a sacrifice of his own. Experience proved, that most assignees became supine and careless, and pointed out the remedy. A greater evil existed. Some enemy of the bankrupt, from feelings of personal animosity, or some friend, with a secret desire to serve him, procured the appointment of assignees, to forward private objects. To prevent the estate from suffering through any of these causes, it was proposed that official persons should act as assignees, under the authority of the Lord Chancellor, with a compensation proportioned to the labour and success, and always amenable to the Commissioners and the Court. He apprehended that no better
912
security for an active pursuit of funds, and a speedy division of the forthcoming property, could be devised. On this subject, the late Lord Redesdale, in the year 1809, on proposing certain amendments in the Bankrupt Laws, particularly suggested the employment of official accountants, who should not be creditors of the estate, but who would act for the creditors. He thought that the creditors ought not to have a vote in the choice of them. Many of the witnesses pointed out the same description of persons, under various names—trustees—official assignees, &c.—and the Committee, in their Report, strongly approved of the proposal. It was also suggested, that the dividends remaining in the hands of the assignees should be transferred to some officer of the Court, for the purpose of forming a Suitors' Fund of the new Court. He did not like to mention the present amount of unclaimed dividends now in the hands of assignees, without some direct authority; but he could state, on the best authority, that it amounted to many hundred thousand pounds. If these dividends were not paid to the creditors under the commission, they might at least be paid into the hands of the Court, where they would form a fund of some benefit to the public, instead of remaining idle and useless. He had now laid before the House the leading and most important objects of the present Bill. He could see no objections to the remedy which it was proposed to apply to the most serious grievances existing at the present time. It was proposed, after long investigation, with the sanction, and by the advice, of the most intelligent and able individuals, the most experienced, and the most interested in the success of the measure. There were a great number of other provisions in this Bill, which it was not now necessary for him to develope, but they were well adapted to the end in view, namely, facilitating the business of the Court, and promoting the interests of the suitors. But it was necessary for him to go into some details respecting the mode in which the expense of the Court was to be defrayed. The amount of fees to be received on each bankruptcy would be materially reduced, and the whole expense of bankruptcy much lessened: but the fees and the receipts were expected to amount to a sum large enough to pay the Judges,

913
Commissioners, and officers, now to be appointed, as well as emoluments equal to those which the Lord Chancellor now received from bankruptcy, and also a compensation to him for some loss, which his office was to undergo. If the fund to be raised by the intended fees should fall short, the House would probably see no objection to having recourse to the Suitors' Fund, consisting of the unclaimed money now in the hands of the Accountant-general, the property of suitors, who were not to be found, or did not apply, the accumulation of which, called the Dead Fund, had already been partially appropriated to objects connected with the Court of Chancery. Out of these savings a Register Office had been erected, the Masters in Chancery also received considerable payments from them, and the larger part of the Vice-Chancellor's salary was drawn out of this fund. The surplus now greatly exceeded 20,000 l. a-year, and was, therefore, perfectly competent to answer all those new charges. It was universally known, that certain sinecure offices, connected with the Court of Chancery, had long formed an important part of the Chancellor's means of providing for those connected with him. One of these, a patent office, arising from Commissions of Bankruptcy, was now held by Mr. Thurlow, and the reversion of it was vested in the son of Lord Eldon. This office it was proposed to abolish: but as the present and all future Chancellors would thereby lose the chance of providing 7,000 l. or 8,000 l. a-year for some member of his family, an addition to his retiring pension would be thought not unreasonable. It was now 4,000 l., the same sum as the Chief Justice received on his retirement, and by only 500 l. exceeding that of a Puisne Judge. The same retiring pension was secured for Lord Loughborough, when many sinecures were in his gift, and for Lord Thurlow, when he had also a Teller-ship of the Exchequer, of the yearly value of 4,000 l. He thought no Gentleman would consider 6,000 l. per annum as an extravagant remuneration for a Lord Chancellor, after he should have resigned the Great Seal. No one would be likely to urge an objection to placing the Lord Chancellor in a state of complete independence, and few persons would accept the office without resigning a professional income, exceeding the amount even of the larger retiring pension now to be proposed: while the public would gain by the aboli-
914
tion, both of sinecures and reversions—both indefinite, as attached to Courts of Justice. A material saving would accrue to suitors in Bankruptcy from the new arrangement and distribution of the fees to be paid hereafter. For example, the seventy Commissioners, now receiving among them 28,000 l. yearly, would be exchanged for Judges and Commissioners, whose combined salaries would amount to 18,000 l. The Chief Judge (and he had reason to hope that the office would be accepted by one of the most learned, experienced, and popular Judges that this country had ever known) was to receive 3,000 l. salary; each of the Puisne Judges 2,000 l.; each of the six Commissioners, 1,500 l. He ought to remark, that all the new judicial officers, unlike the former Commissioners, were to resign all other practice, and devote themselves entirely to the business of the new Court. If any imputation were cast on the acquisition of this patronage by the Lord Chancellor, he would contend, that the Bill, in fact, proposed on his part to surrender some of the best patronage that belonged to the Great Seal. The seventy commissionerships afforded the means of conferring perpetual obligations, not seldom on the first families in the kingdom. A canvass was always going on, not only for the office, but for the remotest chance of obtaining even the most distant prospect of succession. The opportunities of connexion were still more valuable than the income arising from the office—sometimes not unimportant at the commencement of a professional career. Yet it seemed a small boon to ask for: the duty would not be too heavy for any man, and if it should be ill performed, the public did not detect the fault. But when a very limited number of Judges was to be selected, for the discharge of important duties, under the public eye, the range of patronage was circumscribed; it was only among very few that the choice must be made. He then entered into some farther particulars relating to the future expenses, for the purpose of shewing, that upon 1,800 commissions (the average yearly number) the whole expense would be reduced from 56.000 l. to 40,000 l. a year; and after shortly recapitulating the improvements introduced by the Bill, he moved the Order of the Day.
Sir Charles Wetherellmoved, as an amendment, that the Order of the Day be postponed till Tuesday next.
The Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will find some difficulty in doing that. An Order of the Day belongs to a particular day—to a day fixed, and it would be rather an inconsistency, therefore, to postpone an Order of the Day. The hon. Gentleman can meet the motion by a direct negative, or, when the Order of the Day is read, he can move, that the Debate be adjourned; but he can hardly move the postponement of the Order of the Day.
The Order of the Day read, and on the motion that the Bill be read a second time.
Sir Charles Wetherellmoved, that the Debate should be adjourned till Tuesday.
The Attorney Generalhoped his hon. and learned friend would allow the discussion to proceed for some time longer, if they were not able to get through it that night, he could then move the adjournment.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that there was not a single statement in the speech of his hon. and learned friend which would not admit of a complete answer. There was one observation, however, with which his hon. and learned friend preceded that statement, that was to him (Sir Charles Wetherell) very satisfactory. It was, that the Bill ought to be treated with respect, as proceeding from a high, deliberative, and legislative body. It was consolatory to know, that there was still such a body in existence. Away, then, with the attempts of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and those who surrounded him, and of their friends the Press, to strip that high, deliberative, and legislative body of the right to deliberate and legislate at all. [Oh, oh!] An hon. Member exclaimed oh, oh! Perhaps that hon. Member participated in the notion of the non existence of the House of Lords. Be that as it might, he thanked his hon and learned friend for having recognised the existence of the House of Lords, as well as for his recognition of their being capable of forming a deliberate and wise judgment. The immediate subject before the House was, unquestionably, one of the highest importance. The property of which the new Court, if it were established, would have to dispose, would be much greater than that disposed of by the Court of Common Pleas or the Court of Exchequer. How necessary was it, therefore, that a Bill of such magnitude should undergo a
916
thorough investigation. His hon. and learned friend had said, that they must not touch it. According to his hon. and learned friend, the body from which it proceeded had such a plenitude of the deliberative faculty, that it was entitled to deliberate, not only for itself, but for the House of Commons. His hon. and learned friend's conduct accorded with his doctrine. The Bill had not been brought down to the House until Wednesday, and the printed copies had not been delivered until that day at twelve o'clock, and yet he, and those who thought with him on the subject, were called upon, at so short a notice, to argue it against his hon. and learned friend, who, in addition to his knowledge of the Bill, held in his hand a schedule full of information and arguments collected from all quarters. The present system of administering the Bankruptcy Laws had been approved of by successive Chancellors during the last century—by King, Camden, Erskine, &c. none of whom had detected the delays, the expenses, and the corruptions now attributed to it. It was true, that from time to time, various improvements had been suggested in the system. Even in his own humble opinion, the system might be materially improved, retaining, however, its principle. But he could by no means consent to the three-fold denunciation in the preamble of the Bill, which charged the existing system with the greatest delay, expense, and uncertainty. His hon. and learned friend had quoted authorities in favour of the Bill which, however, were not so at all. Did his hon. and learned friend mean to say, that Lord Eldon was favourable to the Bill? If so, as it was irregular to allude to the debates in the House of Lords, he would refer his hon. and learned friend to the Journals of the House of Lords, in which it appeared, that the eminent and illustrious individual in question had recorded his protest against the Bill, on the ground, that its principle was false, and that the threefold denunciation of the present system in the preamble of the Bill was unfounded. His hon. and learned friend had also quoted the opinions of Mr. Cullen and Mr. Montagu, in favour of the Bill; but they were not in favour of the Bill. They said, that the Bankruptcy Laws must be regulated and amended, and so said he; but none of the authorities quoted by his hon. and learned friend went the length of expressing an

917
opinion of the constitution of such a tribunal as the present Bill would establish. He had made some inquiry in the City, and he found that the strongest objection existed to the Lord Chancellor's having the monopoly of appointing all the authorities under the proposed system; not only the four new Judges, but the official assignees, who were not merely to act with the assignees appointed by the creditors, but to over-rule them; and who would, ere long, get all the assets of all the bankrupts in the kingdom into their possession. He admitted, that there were many injurious delays in the present system, he allowed all that the Attorney General had said about the unfortunate cases of Chambers and others—and he should be happy to agree to a statute of limitation upon bankruptcy proceedings; but what had that to do with the establishment of an entirely new Court, at the expense of 28,200 l. a-year to the public? He would readily adopt any improvement in the bankruptcy jurisdiction which should preserve the principle of the present jurisdiction; but this Bill destroyed that principle entirely, and swept away every vestige of the existing system. The inconvenience of appeals had been argued by his hon. and learned friend; but the new Bill was full of causes of appeal. As to the machinery of the Bill, the more he examined it, and the more he reflected on its details, the more he became convinced that it could not work well. But reference had been made to authority, both in its favour and in favour of the general principle of the measure. Well, he must be allowed to say, that if the question were to be decided by authority, and not by reason, he at least should have no cause for discontent, seeing that the authority against the Bill quite preponderated. There was not a man in the country, competent to form an opinion upon such a question, who would not at once say, that the whole business of Bankruptcy ought to be exclusively in the hands of the Lord Chancellor; for it was essentially matter of equity, and decisions could scarcely be made on it, that were not in substance equitable decisions. The preamble of the Bill, from its large proportions and mendacious character, reminded him of,
—"London's column, pointing to the skies, Like some tall bully lifts his head and lies."
This description of Mr. Pope would an-
918
swer for the preamble of the Bill, and was fully borne out by its character, for it performed nothing that the preamble naturally led one to hope for. He regretted that the hour of the night did not allow of his doing justice to the sentiments which he entertained respecting this measure, and he should, therefore, be under the necessity of adjourning to a future day many of the observations which he felt it necessary to make, for the purpose of fully exposing the weaknesses and imperfections of the present measure; but there were one or two points which he could not help noticing. Here was an Administration which founded its claims to public confidence and favour upon unflinching economy, which looked after cheese-parings and candles' ends—the save-all Ministry proposed, that public officers should be salaried before they commenced their duties. But he did not oppose the Bill upon that ground, nor upon any single or isolated, or narrow ground; he opposed it because it took out of the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery the business of Bankruptcy. He should like to know whether the merchants of London did not, and would not prefer the immediate opinion of such a Judge as Lord Eldon to that of any intermediate Court. He never heard that merchants expressed a wish to give up the power of naming their own assignees, and to resign the whole power to the Lord Chancellor. He had no objection, that the assignee appointed to collect the assets should give security. He could not admit, that Lord Brougham, however versatile his talents, was the fittest person to select the best accountants and the best assignees. His objection to the Bill was, not that eminent Judges would not be appointed, but that the tribunal was uncalled for, and that it would aggravate all the mischiefs now complained of. He opposed it, likewise, as a needless and mischievous expense; especially did he object to the expense being defrayed from the Suitors Fund. Hitherto the practice had ever been, that the whole expense of a bankruptcy be defrayed from the estate; and the average expenses to the estates of bankrupts did not amount to more than three-pence in the pound—of course, that was taking the whole mass. In a court of law or of equity, if A and B had matters in dispute, costs were paid by the parties, and never by the State; and

919
why should the nation at large be called upon to defray the expenses of bankruptcy? He complained of the measure, not only on account of the funds whence its expenses were to be drawn, but by reason of the amount of those expenses: the lowest estimate which had been made of those expenses was 40,000 l. In that there was no provision for the brick and mortar to be used, for it was to be presumed, that those gentlemen were to have some place in which to sit, and then the salaries of the retiring gentlemen were totally omitted. Now that he was on the subject of retiring salaries, he would observe, that something had been said about the retiring salary of the Lord Chancellor, and about the necessity for raising it to 6,000 l. a year. It was proposed to increase the retiring pension of the Lord Chancellor from 4,000 l. to 6,000 l. This did not appear very consistent with the principle of economy, one of the three pillars on which the present Administration was founded; nor did he understand what connection the subject had with the administration of the bankrupt laws. Lord Rosslyn and Lord Eldon, and other Chancellors, had no more than 4,000 l. a year. He regretted the hon. member for Middlesex was not present, as he took these financial matters into his own hands. It somehow or other happened, that of late he was sometimes absent upon occasions of this kind. He would expose this matter very ably, as he always did. He would clothe it in proper terms from that peculiar financial vocabulary of which he was so great a master. He would shew the extravagance of this plan. And this was the Administration that was no longer to govern the country by patronage! To use an expression of Dr. Johnson, patronage of late was rising every where round them like exhalations from the earth; it was springing up like mushrooms. He did not know how many places they had already created. Besides those to which the Reform Bill gave birth, here were Judges, Commissioners, and Assignees, all to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor of England. When Reform was so expensive as this, was it to be supposed, that the people of England could not distinguish between Reform and Reformers—between what was for public and what for private advantage? Take the whole of the History of England, from the time of Walpole down to the present day, and he
920
would venture to assert, that there never was an Administration which had dared to arrogate one-fourth of the patronage which the present Ministry had attempted to grasp. And this was the Ministry which so loudly complained of places, and pensions, and sinecures, and overpaid offices! This was the Ministry which was to manage the affairs of the country upon principles of the most parsimonious economy. The change proposed was worse than useless. There could not be a better system than the present if it was carried properly into operation. This House, he contended, had no business to interfere with an experimental Court of Bankruptcy against the opinions of Lords Eldon, Lyndhurst, Sir John Leach, and other equally respectable functionaries in the Court of Chancery. The Attorney General, he repeated, had not quoted the opinion of a noble Lord, a former Chancellor, correctly, for the words of the protest of that noble Lord, as entered on the Journals of the House, were, that he dissented from this measure because, instead of diminishing, it was calculated to increase the expense, the litigation, and the delay of the present system of Bankrupt administration; and looking at it himself in that light, he must in order to have more time to prepare himself, and in order that the House also might be prepared to consider the measure, move as an Amendment to the present Motion, that the Bill be read a second time on Tuesday next.
Sir E. Sugdenhoped the second reading might be appointed for some day when it could be brought forward at an early hour.
The Debate adjourned to Tuesday next.