Commons Sitting of 2 February 1837

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By several Hon. MEMBERS' from various places, for the total Abolition of Church Rates.—By Mr. WILKS, from Wickham and other places, for Abolition of Church Rates.— By Sir JAMES GRAHAM, from Longtown, for Relief of Hand-Loom Weavers.—By Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK, from Godmanchester, for Amendment of Municipal Corporations Act.—By Mr. WALLACE and Mr. Fox MAULE, from Greenock, Perth, and Chard, for Repeal of Duty on Soap.

REGISTRATION.
Lord John Russellrose for the purpose of moving for leave to bring in a Bill, to suspend for four months the operation of two Acts passed last Session, for the registration of births, marriages, and deaths. The Poor-law Commissioners had represented to him, that great inconvenience would ensue from putting these Acts in force at present, and they expected that by the 1st of July, about 1,300 parishes, not now in union, would be so, when the provisions of these Acts might be immediately carried into effect. This was a sufficient reason to induce him to postpone the operation of

85
the Acts; and another was, that it would give those officers who were to carry the provisions of the Acts into effect, sufficient time to enable them to perfect themselves in the duties which, under the system of registration proposed in those Acts, they would be called on to perform. On these grounds, he would move for leave to bring in a Bill, to suspend the Acts of last Session, relating to the registration of births, marriages, and deaths, for four months.
Sir Robert Ingliswished the noble Lord had prolonged the term of their suspension. The object originally intended by those Acts was, the conciliation of the Dissenters: this object had not been obtained; and he could assure the noble Lord, neither had they conciliated the members of the Church of England.
Mr. Wilksmust take leave to state, that the Dissenters expressed great gratitude to his Majesty's Government for those enactments, and though some few persons might differ from the general body, and think there were a few imperfections in them, yet these were like the spots on the sun, and he had no doubt the House would obliterate them.
Mr. Baineshad heard a great deal on the subject of these Bills, and had always understood that the Dissenters, as a body, had accepted them, and felt grateful to Government for acceding to their wishes. Respecting the observation of the hon. Gentleman, he supposed that few Bills passed that House which gave entire satisfaction to all persons who were concerned.
Mr. Pottersaid, that the Dissenters of Lancashire and Cheshire had met at the Unitarian Chapel, Manchester, and had expressed their satisfaction with the Bill. He thought that the postponement might be productive of inconvenience to persons who were waiting to be married.
Mr. O'Connellhad that morning had an interview with four prelates, of a religion that was deeply affected by the Bills. He thought that a little amelioration and amendment might be advantageously introduced, but that they were deeply grateful for what they had obtained. He spoke of the professors of a religion that was now much increasing.
Mr. Ewartsaid, that the Bills had given great satisfaction among his constituents.
Lord John Russellsaid, that however
86
the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) might put himself forward as the organ of the University of Oxford, he hoped he would not again appear as the organ of the Dissenters of England.
Motion agreed to. Bill brought in, and read a first time.

SINECURE LAW OFFICES.
Mr. Sergeant Goulburnapplied for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish certain sinecure offices in the Courts of King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer, and to make a more effective and uniform establishment of officers in those courts. As the Bill had passed that House last Session, and did not pass the other House, it was not necessary, on the present occasion, to go at length into the reasons that induced him to bring in the measure. He would simply state, that he brought forward this Bill, to carry into effect the recommendation of Commissioners, for the purpose of inquiring into the fees of the officers of the courts of common law. This subject had long excited the attention of the two Houses of Parliament, and many attempts had been unsuccessfully made to correct the evils that prevailed. The House was aware, that in the year 1830, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tarn worth, introduced into that House a Bill for the purpose of ascertaining the value of all offices held by officers in the superior courts of common law. He did it as an experiment, for the purpose, as he stated in his very able speech, of preventing impediments at any future period of the progress of law reform, by their being constantly told, that the rights of officers interfered with legal reform. The right hon. Baronet's Bill, therefore, was to ascertain, once for all, what, at that period, was the value of those offices, in order that, in all times to come, there should be a certified value, which should be then paid to the holders of those offices, intimating to any future holders of those offices, who should be appointed subsequently, that their rights must not stand in the way of legal reform. These offices had undergone much inquiry; their value had been ascertained, and the purpose of the Bill which he was then seeking to introduce, was to get rid of, and to abolish them. He was quite sure that he needed to adduce no argument to induce that House to adopt a measure of such great importance—a measure which, he believed, had the sanc-

87
tion of all persons conversant with the subject. It was time they should get rid of all those offices which incumbered the administration of Government, and that the courts should be put on a better regulated system. There was the greater reason to adopt this course, as the experiment had been tried in the Court of Exchequer, by Lord Lyndhurst, who introduced a Bill for the better regulation of that Court, and the effect of that experiment had been of the most advantageous description. The object of the present Bill was, to carry into effect the Report of the Commissioners. It would not be necessary for him, on the present occasion, to dwell at any length upon it, as there would be many other opportunities of discussing it. He would, therefore, content himself with adverting to the grounds on which it had been rejected last Session, by the other House of Parliament. The House would recollect, that, up to a late period, it was the custom to pay certain fees to the Judges of the King's Bench, and they were allowed to dispose of, and make the subject of family arrangements, certain offices in the Court in which they presided; but by a Bill passed in the reign of Geo. 4th, fixed salaries were named somewhat commensurate to the dignity of the station in which they were placed. In that Act, the rights of certain officers then living were reserved, and the power of appointing to subordinate situations were still continued to them. In the Bill which he introduced there was a clause still reserving those rights; but an hon. Gentleman objected to it, and proposed, whenever a vacancy occurred in the offices, compensation should be made to the persons having the right of appointment, in such amount as the Lords of the Treasury might think fit; and it was settled that the Treasury should be compelled to give the right of appointment to those who then held it, or three-fourths of the value of the offices themselves. On the Bill going to the House of Lords, Lord Ellenborough objected to the clause, as it would place him, who held the office of chief clerk in the King's Bench, in an invidious position. Owing, therefore, to his opposition, and to the absence of common law Lords, the Bill was thrown out; but he hoped, that during the present Session, it would meet with a more favourable reception, as he introduced the clauses as it had originally stood.
Mr. Humesaid, he did not rise to oppose
88
the motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but he took that opportunity of asking, what steps had been taken to abolish the office held by the late Lord Rosslyn in the Court of Chancery in Scotland?
Lord John Russellsaid, that the Lords of the Treasury had taken the advice of the Lord-Advocate on the point of law, and that the regulation of that office was under their consideration.
Leave given.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT.
The Attorney-Generalrose, pursuant to notice, for the purpose of moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Municipal Corporation Bill. There were certain irregularities in the elections under that Act which, unless the House passed some legislative enactment to remedy them, would be productive of great inconvenience. There were two boroughs—Rochester, and Newport in the Isle of Wight— in which corporations there was an equal number of votes for each set of aldermen; the consequence had been, that each party had been put to much expense, inconvenience, and loss of time. Processes had also been issued against unfortunate councilmen more than two terms after the period they had been bound to serve, which had put the individuals to both expense and inconvenience; he should, therefore, propose, that the Court of King's Bench shall not have the power to issue a quo warranto after the lapse of two terms from the period of election. He would not now discuss the matter further, but would merely move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Municipal Corporation Act.
Sir William Follettdid not rise for the purpose of opposing the motion of his hon. and learned Friend, in the object of which he agreed, though he would not pledge himself upon the subject; but he rose for the purpose of expressing his hope that his hon. and learned Friend meant to introduce some clause which should make the mayors more responsible than at present; indeed, as the law now stood, there was no check whatsoever on that officer—his dictum being final. There had been many instances in which the assessors had decided differently, and he should like to see some alteration in the constitution of their courts—in each case he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would bring forward some proposition for

89
remedying the inconvenience. As the Bill now stood he would not pledge himself to support it.
Leave given. Bill brought in and read a first time.

CRIMINAL LAW.
Mr. Macleanwished to know from the noble Lord opposite, (Lord John Russell) whether it was the intention of the Government to propose any alteration in the criminal law during the present Session? The commission had already cost the country 10,393 l., and only two reports had as yet proceeded from it.
Lord John Russell, in reply to the question put by the hon. Gentleman, begged to state, that in the Report made by the Commissioners, at the close of the last Session of Parliament, many alterations of the criminal law were suggested, and more especially with respect to the punishment of death. As the Commissioners recommended that that awful punishment should be taken away from many offences that were now capital, he thought it was not a subject that ought to be left long in debate or dispute, and therefore that no step should be taken with respect to it until the whole of the criminal law could be altered in the manner proposed by the Commissioners. At the same time, he thought that the subject was one that ought to occupy the attention of the Government, and that the Government, if it should be in their power to frame any measure upon it, should lose no time in calling the attention of the Legislature to it. With that feeling, soon after the close of the last Session, he felt it his duty to refer to the reports that had been made upon the subject; and he wrote to the Commissioners, requesting them to furnish him with the heads of a measure on the criminal law, by which the punishment of death might be taken away from those offences which, in their opinion, should no longer remain capital. The Commissioners met at the end of October, to consider of his letter, and he believed it was discussed and considered by them at great length, and with great attention. Since that time he had been in frequent communication upon the subject with the Lord Chancellor and Lord Denman, the chief justice of the Court of King's Bench, and, as the result of his labours and inquiries, he hoped, in a few days, to be able to give notice of a number of Bills which he intended to bring forward, and which
90
would make, as he conceived, very great ameliorations in the criminal law. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's observations, namely, the cost of the Commission, he had only a few words to say. He found when he came into office that a report had been presented by the Commissioners, and that it had fallen to the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge, who preceded him in his office of Home Secretary, to recommend to the Treasury a sum to be given to the Commissioners for their report. A certain sum was accordingly appointed by the right hon. Gentleman and when the next report came before him he saw no reason to alter the precedent established by his predecessor, and he accordingly recommended the Treasury to pay the Commissioners exactly the same sum as had been assigned to them by that right hon. Gentleman. He had no doubt but that this Commission, like many others, might be found, in some respects, to be expensive; but, without entering into the merit of other Commissions, he would say of this, that no subject could be more important for the Legislature of a country to consider, than the procuring good and efficient criminal laws; and he would say likewise, with great respect to those hon. Gentlemen who had undertaken to reform particular parts of the criminal law, that it would be better that the Legislature should come to the consideration of the subject, having before them the mature and deliberate opinions of professional men, who, acting as Commissioners, had conducted a careful inquiry into the whole of the matter, rather than that measures should be brought forward of individual Members dealing only with one particular class of offences, mitigating the punishment of death as regarded that class of offences, and leaving others, perhaps of a slighter character, still liable to that awful punishment. These were all the observations that he felt it in his power at that moment to make upon the subject, and he trusted that the hon. Gentleman would feel satisfied with them.
Mr. Macleanexplained, that it was his intention not to object to the expense of the Commission, but to call the noble Lord's attention to the fact, that nothing had yet resulted from the labours of the Commission.
Subject dropped.