Commons Sitting of 13 May 1835

MINUTES.
Bills, Read a first time:—Sale of Bread Committee; Highways.
Petitions presented. By Mr. THOMAS BARING, Mr. HAWES, Mr. BROTHERTON, Mr. RIDLEY COLBORNE, Mr. HOGG, Mr. FRESHFIELD, and Major BEAUCLERK, from Salford, London, and other Places, against the Imprisonment for Debt Abolition Bill.—By Mr. THOMAS BARING, from Great Yarmouth, against the Seamen's Enlistment Bill.—By Mr. HAWES, from Market Gardeners of Lambeth, against the Sabbath Day Observance Bill.—By Mr. HAWES, from Inhabitants of Lambeth, to Repeal the Sentence on the Dorchester Unionists.—By Mr. EWART, from Liver-pool, to the same effect.—By Colonel LEITH HAY, General SHARPE, Mr. CHALMERS, and Mr. MAULE, from Inhabitants of Losswade and Cockpen, and from various Dissenting Congregations (Scotland), against a Grant to the Church of Scotland.—By Colonel LEITH HAY, General SHARPE, Mr. MAULE, and Sir ROBERT PEEL, from a variety of Places, in favour of such a Grant.—By Mr. HEATHCOTE, Lord EASTNOR, Sir CHARLES BROKE VERE, and Mr. PHILIP JOHN MILES, from several Places, against the Ecclesiastical Courts' Bill.—By Mr. HEATH-COTE, from Farmers of Crosland, against the Removal of the Duties on Small Agricultural Seeds.—By the same GENTLEMAN, from the East Suffolk Agricultural Society, for Protection to Agriculture.—By Mr. RIDLEY COLBORNE, Mr. MACKINNON, and Mr. SAUNDERSON, from Wells, Lymington, and Parishes in London,—in favour of the Church of Ireland—By Mr. RIDLEY COLBORNE and Mr. WALTER, from Spirit Dealers in Wells, Wokingham, and other Places,—for the Reduction of the Duty on Spirit Licenses.—By Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND, from several Places in the West Riding of Yorkshire, for an Equality in the Licenses for selling Beer.—By Mr. EWART, from Liverpool, for the Suppression of Drunkenness.—By Mr. Fox MAULE, and Mr. M'TAGOART, against the Imprisonment for Debt Abolition Bill (Scotland).—By Mr. Fox MAULE, from Forfar, in favour of the proposed Measure of Church Reform (Ireland).—By Mr. MACKINNON, from Richmond, Surrey, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Mr. P. J. MILES, from Bristol, for giving Poor-Laws to Ireland.—By Mr. KENNEDY, from Labourers of Uplowman, complaining of
1052
Distress; and from Dissenters of Stoke-upon-Trent, against the Dissenters Marriage Bill; and by Mr. JOHN MAXWELL, from certain Handloom Weavers, for the Establishment of a Board to Regulate Wages.

NEW POOR, LAW.
Mr. Waltersaid, he had to present a Petition from several persons of highly respectable character, and thoroughly acquainted with the subject on which they addressed the House, in Newbury and its vicinity, praying for the repeal of the New Poor Law Bill. He said, that having opposed that Bill in every stage, he should on the present occasion only state the opinions of his constituents respecting its operation. The petitioners lamented that the late Parliament, instead of endeavouring to raise the condition of the labouring population, should have devised the means of depressing them, and depriving them of their property, with the professed view of reducing the poor-rate, which rate, however had only increased with the increase of taxation generally; and they confirmed their statement by a variety of tables and estimates. They complained of the expense of building workhouses. He believed they were justified by experience in the view which they took of that subject. This grand project of the Commissioners, which they were now trying to introduce wherever they could venture, was an old project revived, but which had also been very justly exploded on account of the immorality as well as oppression and expense which generally attended it. Sir Frederick Eden had pointed out numerous instances of this in his valuable work. On the subject of separating a man from his wife, and children from their parents, the hon. Member observed, that it had been lately asserted in another place, by a high legal authority, that no such violation of the laws of nature and of God were ever even contemplated. It had been asserted by the eminent authority in question, that "no one ever entertained the intention, or indulged a dream or imagination, of such a thing—there had been no talk of separating husband from wife, or parent from child. Undoubtedly, hospitals would be established in the new union workhouses, and the sound would not be shut up with the sick, as heretofore: this was all the separation that could be contemplated. But no child of an age to require nurture or parental care would be separated from its parent—no husband and wife be parted. The idea of such a proceeding, he would

1053
venture to say, had never entered any man's imagination during his waking moments and he very much doubted if any one had ever dreamt of such a thing." Now, notwithstanding the minuteness of this disavowal, which should seem to proceed from the most exact information, the hon. Member said it was so directly the reverse of the fact, that had it not been for the circumstantiality of the expressions, he could hardly believe they had ever been used. In addition to the totally opposite account from the inhabitants of Stoke Poges, of which they had already heard, he would take the liberty of reading to the House the statement of one of the Gentlemen whose signature was attached to the present petition, Mr. Edward Gray. Mr. Gray informed him, that on Friday, the 19th of March, E. Gullson and R. Hall, esqrs., two of the New Poor Law Assistant Commissioners, attended at Newbury, for the purpose of explaining the manner in which it was their intention to put into execution the rules and regulations made under the provisions of the new Act. After having explained their intentions, they wished their hearers to ask them any questions and they would be ready to give answers to the best of their knowledge. Whereupon Mr. Gray put to them the following questions, and the answers affixed to Mr. Gullson's name were the words elicited from him in reply thereto:—
"Mr. Gray.—Pray, Sir, allow me to ask whether an able-bodied labourer, wanting only temporary relief, is obliged to go into the workhouse?
"Mr. Gullson.—Yes, certainly.
"Mr. Gray.—And his wife and children?
"Mr. Gullson—Yes.
"Mr. Gray.—When there, are the husband and wife to be separated, and the children from both?
"Mr. Gullson.—Yes, most assuredly." Mr. Gray had added, which should have some weight with the House, that such rule was in contravention of the laws both of God and man,—of the law of God, as exemplified in various texts of scripture; and of the law of man, as it was completely in opposition to the form used in the solemnization of matrimony. The hon. Member concluded by expressing his hope that the facts he had stated would first induce the distinguished person to whom he had referred to reconsider his previous assertions; and next, that they would have
1054
a powerful effect in inducing the House to reconsider the new Poor Law Bill.
Major Beauclerksaid, he was sorry he did not see the learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) in his place, as it was his intention to again put that question to him to-night which the learned Gentleman had last evening declined to answer, without consideration, as to whether this power was conferred by and exercised under the Poor Law. The statement which he had now heard, and indeed the intelligence which he had received upon the subject from various quarters, had made him come to a determination, if the Hon. Gentleman who had presented this Petition should not do so, and the Attorney General declared that such was the provisions of the Bill, either to introduce a declaratory measure, or to move that the clause in question be altogether expunged from the act, considering it derogatory to the character of the House, and productive of harsh oppression to the poor. He was one of a small minority in that House who, when the Bill was passing through it, endeavoured, but unsuccessfully, to have the doubtful clause omitted from it. He afterwards heard that the House of Lords had expunged the clause, and he was happy to learn that that was the case. He was now, however, told that it was not so, and indeed he had learned with astonishment, that on all sides throughout the country this power was attempted to be exercised over the people of England. He, as an Englishman, must protest against it. He would never agree that so arbitrary and so unjust a power should be exercised towards the lower classes in this country. This was no party, no Whig or Tory, Question. It was Sir Robert Inglis that moved the Amendment last Session, for which he (Major Beauclerk) voted, for omitting this power in the Bill. The power of dividing an honest man from his wife and children was one that should not be intrusted to any man or set of men. He trusted that the House would reconsider this Act, and would expunge this clause from it.
Petition laid on the Table.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, he had to present a numerously and respectably signed Petition from the merchants, traders, and others, residing in the city and liberty of Westminster, against the Imprisonment for Debt Bill. As the measure was then

1055
under the consideration of a Select Committee, he should not enter into the Question but he would merely call the attention of the House to the allegations of the Petitioners, who, be it remembered, were practically acquainted with the subject. In their opinion, the Bill was calculated to delay rather than to facilitate the recovery of debts, and they did not hesitate to express their conviction that, under the present system, the honest debtor, after making a cession of his goods for the payment of his debts, had little difficulty in obtaining the relief for which the Bill proposed to provide more effectually. They were afraid the provisions of the Bill would increase the number of fraudulent customers; and they were convinced that the proposed mode of recovery would prove to be troublesome and inefficacious. In conclusion, they prayed to be heard before the House by their agents. As the Committee would, doubtless, be anxious to obtain every information he had suggested that the Petitioners should tender to them the evidence they had to offer.
Mr. Carruthersbegged to inform the right hon. Baronet and the House, that that Committee received no evidence whatever. In his opinion it would have been more wise if the Committee had called before them practical and experienced men acquainted with the commerce of the country to give evidence upon this very important subject.
Mr. Cresset Pelham,entered his protest against the Bill, as an impartial man, although it might to some appear intrusive to say so. He represented a great number of persons deeply interested in this momentous question, and they and he believed the measure to have originated in a contrivance between the Crown and a party. He thought that the interference of the Crown, on all such occasions, ought to be viewed with jealousy. The Committee of the House ought to employ itself in obtaining information, and not to rest satisfied with the dictation of any Commission. No evidence, had been taken by the Committee from any part of the kingdom; yet there were many persons who contended that they would be most seriously aggrieved by the passing of the Bill. They ought to have justice—at least the justice of being heard upon matters which they so well understood.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid that a great mistake seemed to be enter-
1056
tained by some hon. Gentlemen as to the nature of the Select Committee which had been appointed on this subject. That Select Committee had not been appointed for the purpose of taking evidence, and, in fact, it had not the power to do so. It had been appointed solely for the purpose of inquiring into, examining, and discussing the various provisions of the Bill; but at the time of its appointment, the House did not think it right to give it the power of taking evidence. He believed it was intended to re-commit the Bill to a Select Committee up-stairs, and when that proposition was made, it would then be open to the House to empower that Committee to receive evidence upon the subject.
Mr. Humewas sorry the Attorney General was not in his place, as he could confirm the statement which he would make. The fact was, that a Commission had been taking evidence on the subject for the last two years; and he for one, when the Select Committee was appointed, considered there was no necessity for taking further evidence upon the matter. He was inclined to say, however, from what had since occurred, that as there were many individuals, both in the metropolis and other parts of the country, who thought they had not been heard, and who imagined they could give new and important evidence, they should get an opportunity of communicating it. He was sure that the object of the Bill would be forwarded by thus yielding to their demands.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, that all the trading community of this country asked of the Legislature, when it abolished those powers to which personally he was friendly, was, that care would be taken to preserve to them some means of recovering their debts in the best manner it could contrive. He rejoiced that the Bill was to be sent to a Committee up-stairs, and he was also happy to hear that the Attorney General had manifested a disposition to attend to every suggestion that might be made upon the subject. Under such circumstances, and especially as every petition which had been presented upon the subject would be referred to the Committee, before whom the fullest investigation would take place, he thought all discussion at present would be perfectly useless. He only regretted that the Committee could not, according to the usages of the House, receive parol evidence upon the matter; he, however,

1057
only now rose for the purpose of stating that the traders had no disposition to continue the practice of imprisonment on mesne process, and that if that system was to be abolished, the Legislature ought to afford the trading community every facility for the recovery of their debts, and that their just rights ought not to be prejudiced by improvident legislation.
Sir Frederick Pollock,as one of the Commissioners by whom the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt in certain cases had been recommended, might be excused for saying a word on the present occasion. Although he had been one of the majority of the Commissioners who had been adverse to the continuance of the present system, yet he must admit, a very large body of evidence had been submitted to them, the tendency of which was unfavourable to the views he then, and still entertained upon the subject, and therefore he must say, that he was indisposed to legislate hastily or rashly, or without the fullest inquiry and investigation. To some of the details of the present Bill there existed, in his judgment, insuperable objections, and he should be sorry that it should be urged forward without affording every member of the community, whose interests were likely to be even remotely affected by it, the fullest opportunity of either pointing out the advantages of the present system, or the evils which would be likely to result from the change. He had heard with much pleasure from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that after the Bill had been recommitted, the House itself would be enabled to examine it in detail. He should regret if, after all he had seen of the measure, it did not undergo the most complete investigation. To the same scrutiny he was willing to submit the Report of the Commissioners, (and the recommendations therein contained) to which he as one of the Commissioners had been a party, though he would not give up any single opinion expressed in that report. All he hoped was, that protection would be afforded to the honest debtor, and at the same time the creditor would be secured every means of obtaining that justice which he had a right to expect.
The Petition laid upon the table.

PUBLIC CARRIAGES (METROPOLIS).
Mr. Alderman Wood,in moving the second reading of the Public Carriages'
1058
Metropolis Bill, said, that as he understood objections were entertained on the part of some Gentlemen to the measure, he should propose, in order to save the time of the House, that the Bill should be read a second time pro formâ, and that it should be afterwards committed to a Select Committee up-stairs. He wished it to be understood, that m supporting the present Bill his object was not to diminish, but to increase, the advantages afforded by the employment of public vehicles. He concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time pro formâ, intending, after that motion should be agreed to, to propose that a committee up-stairs should. be appointed to consider the provisions of the Bill, with power to summon and examine witnesses.
The Speakercalled the attention of the House to the course intended to be taken by the hon. Alderman with regard to the present Bill. The House had for certain stated reasons permitted the Bill to be introduced, and to be read a first time; and it was now proposed, after reading the Bill a second time, to refer it to a Committee up stairs, and to give that Committee the power of hearing evidence, with the view, it would seem, of establishing a new ground for the Bill, different from that on account of which the House had consented to its introduction. Such a course was at variance with the usual practice, and if permitted, might obviously lead to great inconvenience.
Mr. Warburtonthought, that if the hon. Alderman had given notice of his intention to move the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the Bill, with power to call for persons, papers, and records, no objection would then have been made to the proposal. With regard to the measure itself, he objected to that which was its main object—to delegate the power of legislating with respect to public vehicles exclusively to the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Police Magistrates.
Mr. Jervisconceived the point noticed by the Speaker to be one of great importance, as regarded the practice of the House. If the principles or facts on which the Bill was founded were in any degree doubtful, then the course which the hon. Alderman ought to adopt was, in the first place, to withdraw the present Bill entirely; then to propose the appointment of a Committee to consider the sub-

1059
ject and examine witnesses; and lastly, to found a new Bill on the report of that Committee, whenever it should be made.
Mr. George F. Youngsaid, that the public loudly and almost universally called for some measure of this description. The principle was admitted, and the details might be agreed upon hereafter. He hoped the House would concur in the second reading; of the Bill.
The Speakerremarked that he had been led to make the observations which he had offered to the House in order that the hon. Alderman might at the earliest moment be made aware of the course which it was in his power to pursue. The question now before the House was, whether this Bill should be read a second time.
The Bill read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee.

CLAIMS OF THE EAST-INDIA COMPANY'S MARITIME OFFICERS.
Mr. Robinson Mr. Robinson moved for leave to refer two Petitions presented from certain Maritime Officers of the East-India Company excluded from the compensation granted by Act 3 and 4, William 4th, cap. 85, to a Select Committee. The hon. Member said, that his object in moving for the Committee was to inquire how far the spirit and letter of the Act of Parliament had been complied with, and whether strict justice had been done by the East-India Company in awarding compensation under the Act. He should reserve for his reply what he had to say in favour of his proposition, if it should meet with any opposition, but he hoped that the House would yield to the evident justice of the Motion, particularly as it would not be bound by the decison of the Committee, as the terms of the report would have to be considered hereafter.
Mr. Buckingham seconded the Motion.
Mr. Praedobserved that he had no intention of opposing the Motion, but, while saying so, he thought it incumbent on him to state that the late Government would not, had they been in power, have taken the course which he understood the present were about to sanction, namely, that of acceding to the Motion of the hon. Member. As far as he had been able to investigate the subject, his opinion was that the Motion could not, consistently with the interpretation of the Act, be acceded to; and he confessed he should be very glad to hear from the hon.
1060
Baronet, who represented in the present Government the Board of Control, what were the grounds on which that Board proposed doing so. Under the provisions of the Act, the Company were allowed to make compensation to their discharged servants, and the only control the Government or the House had over their arrangements was contained in a stipulation that every resolution embodying a grant of money should lie on the Table of the House of Commons for two months before it became law. This prudent arrangement was framed to prevent the Company from squandering the money of the people of India; and the House, he was sure, would see the great advantage of abiding by it. The Company, then, having this power to make compensation, proposed a certain scale, which, having been considered by the proprietors as too small, they at a general meeting proposed and carried a resolution suggesting a much larger one. Upon this latter coming before the late Board of Control, it appeared to its members far more lavish than was justifiable, and they accordingly rejected it, and adopted that of the Court of Directors. That regulation had, according to the provisions of the Act, been laid before the House, and, having remained the stipulated period on the Table, it was to be considered as part of the Act, and not cognizable by a Committee of the House. He had not the remotest intention to disparage the claims of the East-India Company's officers; far from it. He regarded them as a very meritorious set of servants, but he was bound to express his conviction that had these Gentlemen, some short time before it was determined to discontinue the Company's trading powers, been asked individually what amount of retiring compensation, would satisfy them, they would have expressed themselves satisfied with one-tenth part of that determined upon by the Directors. But he contended that if the case was at all open for further consideration, either as regarded the officers included in the Company's arrangement, or the present petitioners, it was for the Court of Directors and not the House of Commons to consider it. Of what use could a Committee of the House of Commons be? There was no doubt as to the facts connected with these officers claims. They had been already considered and decided upon by the Court of Directors, and

1061
consequently the only thing a Committee could do, would be to recommend that which, if competent for any tribunal to do, rested entirely with the Board of Directors. The proper course of proceeding, in his opinion, would be to bring before the House a resolution, declaring that the regulation of the Directors was an improper one. As he before stated, he would not oppose the Motion; but he must guard himself against being supposed as giving his assent to having the whole case reconsidered before a Committee. If the money were to come from the pockets of the English people, he was confident there were scarcely ten Members in the House who would accede to the Motion; and he entreated hon. Members to recollect that the people of India, whose money transactions they were then interfering with, had no representatives in that assembly, and on that account it behoved them to be the more watchful how they interfered.
Sir John Hobhousedid not hesitate to say that he as yet had not made up his mind as to whether any compensation whatever ought to have been granted to the Company's maritime officers. But that question having been determined upon by the tribunal to whose decision it was left by the Act of Parliament, the question was, whether or not the limitation laid down by the Court of Directors did not require some revision? The hon. and learned Member who spoke last seemed to say, that the two months allowed by the Act having expired, the case was taken out of the jurisdiction of the House. But, surely, it would be acting unfairly towards the petitioners to say that an adjournment, rendered unavoidable by political events, should place the petitioners in a worse situation than they otherwise would have been in. He would give his vote for the Motion, not as the head of the Board of Control, but as an individual Member of the House. He should be glad to see the whole question as to whether any compensation whatever should be given, opened by the Committee. But, considering that question already decided, he feared they could do no more than consider whether the scale of the Directors might be enlarged. He thought it would have been a great deal better had the Court of Proprietors included all who had served the Company in one graduated scale, so that each, according
1062
to the period of his service, might have had his share in the compensation.
Mr. G. F. Youngin allusion to an observation made by the hon. and learned Member for Yarmouth, begged to observe that the House was not now legislating for the Indian people alone, inasmuch as if the territorial revenues of India failed in producing adequate funds to meet these compensation claims, the proprietors of East-India Stock would be liable to them.
Mr. Carruthersprotested against the case of those officers whose claims had been decided upon by the Court of Directors being interfered with by the Committee.
Mr. Stewart Mackenziedeclared his intention of opposing the appointment of any Committee which should have power to enter into the question as to whether compensation should or should not be granted to the Company's maritime officers. That was settled by the resolution of the Directors, and could not with any justice be re-opened by the Committee. If a Committee were at all appointed, it ought to be on the understanding that their deliberations should be directed to the cases of those officers whose names were contained in the petition.
Mr. Claywould support the Motion, on the ground that great injustice had been done by the rule laid down by the Court of Directors.
Mr. Robinson,in reply, observed that all he sought from the appointment of a Committee was, to prove that the rule laid down by the Court of Directors had an arbitrary and partial effect, and that many officers who under it would be excluded from any compensation had equal, and in many instances more, claim than those for whose advantage it was framed. Neither the people in England nor in India had any interest in an unfair distribution of the money. It was desirable that the money should be distributed only according to the extent and nature of the different claims. He did not wish, in the event of the Committee being appointed, and from the feeling displayed in the House he was pleased to see that it looked favourably upon such appointment, that any case should be decided upon unless the claims were made evident. Many of those officers who were afloat on the 28th of August, 1828, were by the lapse of a few weeks accidentally thrown out. If the Committee should determine that

1063
justice had not been done to those individuals, there would be no difficulty, he apprehended, in dealing with the subject. One slight amendment in the resolution he should propose for adoption, suggested by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Clay), namely, that instead of the words "certain maritime officers," the words "some officers" should be inserted.
The resolution, as amended, was put and carried, and the Committee appointed.