Commons Sitting of 2 February 1838

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. WALLACE, from Greenock, for the repeal of the duty on Marine Insurances, and for the reduction of the rates of Postage.—By Mr. GRIMSDITCH, from Durham, against the introduction of the Poor-laws into that district.—By Mr. ERLE, from Oxford, for the abolition of Negro Apprenticeship.—By Mr. REDINGTOW, from Dundalk, for the abolition of the duty on Marine Insurances.—By Mr. HINDLEY, from Ashton-under-Line, against treating the Canadians with severity.—By Mr. MACKINNON, from St. Botolph's, Bishopsgate, in favour of the Patents Bill.—By Mr. DUCKWORTH, from Leicester, for the abolition of Negro Apprenticeship.—By Mr. V. SMITH, from Northampton, for the establishment of Courts for the recovery of Small Debts.—By Mr. HUME, from the Crumnock (Ayr) Radical Association, against the Canada contest.—By Mr. LEADER, from a meeting at Edinburgh, to the same effect.—By Mr. BAINES, from Leeds, for the abolition of Negro Apprenticeship.—By Captain GOHDON, from the advocates of Aberdeen, against the Sheriffs' Court (Scotland) Bill.—By Sir H. INGLIS, from the Dean and Chapter of Carlisle, against the suppression of the Bishopric of Sodor and Man.—By Viscount SANDON, from Liverpool, and by Lord C FITZROY, from Bury St. Edmonds, for the abolition of Negro Apprenticeship.

THE CAROLINE. THE UNITED STATES.
Sir R. Inglis, seeing in their places the noble Lords, the Secretaries for the Home and Foreign Departments, wished to ask them questions on two points which he knew excited very great interest at the present moment, both in the House and the country. He had, however, he begged to add, every reason to hope, that the answers he should receive would, in the fullest sense of the word, be satisfactory. The first question was relative to the American steamer Caroline. As he could not be content—indeed, as he would not condescend to qualify the transaction in the style it had been treated in the American papers, he would simply say, that his first question was relative to the steamer Caroline. The second question was, would the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, object to state to the House the relation in which Mr. Fox, her Majesty's Minister in America, was now placed in respect to the United States government?
Lord Palmerstonwas happy in being able to answer the second question proposed by the hon. Baronet, With regard to the first, he understood no official account as to the affair of the Caroline had yet reached the Colonial-office, which, therefore, knew of it only through the doubtless much exaggerated statements contained in the American papers. With regard to the relation in which Mr. Fox stood at the present moment with the government of the United States, he was
716
able to afford the House the fullest information, inasmuch as that very day he had received from that Gentleman a dispatch, dated the 5th of January. Mr. Fox, on the 2nd of last month, received from Sir Francis Head a communication stating what had taken place with regard to Navy Island, and representing in strong terms the fact of that place being held possession of by a body of rebels aimed and equipped in the United States, of its being flocked to by armed parties of citizens of the United States, and of their being actually commanded by an individual who was a citizen of the United States. Mr. Fox immediately communicated these facts to the President of the United States, and received in reply a most friendly communication. In the first instance, he had a verbal communication from Mr. Forsyth, containing an expression of sentiments such as might be expected from the friendly spirit of the United States government, and the high sense of honour by which that country-has been actuated in its feelings with foreign countries. On the 5th instant Mr. Fox received a note from Mr. Forsyth, in which was a passage to this effect:—"That all the constitutional powers vested in the executive would be exercised to maintain the supremacy of those laws which had been passed to fulfil the obligations of the United States towards all nations which should happen unfortunately to be engaged in foreign or domestic warfare." In addition to this assurance, that all the powers now vested in the central government should be used to preserve neutrality, the President, on the 5th, sent down a special message to Congress, stating, that, though the laws as they stood, were quite sufficient to punish an infraction of the neutrality, they were not sufficient to prevent it; and asking the Congress to give the executive farther powers for that purpose. Upon the receipt of this communication, a short discussion, in which many of the leading men, such as Mr. Clay, Mr. Calhoun, and others of high character participated, took place in Congress; and, without exception, all who spoke expressed sentiments of a most friendly disposition towards that country, stating a strong opinion that the laws should be enforced, and that if, as they stood, they were insufficient, stronger powers should be given to the executive. Nothing, in

717
short, could be more satisfactory than the communications which had taken place between her Majesty's Government and that of the United States; and he, therefore, thought the House might confidently trust, although, on both sides, there might have been committed by individuals some acts not consistent with the laws, and somewhat in violation of the friendly spirit which actuated the two countries, none of those acts were, in the least degree, calculated to interrupt the harmony which prevailed between the two countries, or, in the slightest degree, to influence their existing relations.
Lord John Russellsaid, that, as the hon. Baronet opposite had asked him a question with respect to the steam-vessel Caroline, reported to have been burned in Canada, he felt called upon to rise. In answer to that question, he begged to say, that her Majesty's Government had received no official communication with regard to that transaction, and it was, therefore, impossible for the Government, until a dispatch was received, to state the character of it. The latest dispatch from Sir Francis Head was dated the 28th December. There were other accounts from Sir John Colborne of the date of the 2nd January, in which it was stated, that it had been arranged between him and Sir F. Head that all future operations against Navy Island were to be carried on under his direction, and that he was taking steps with that view with all possible dispatch.

SHERIFFS' COURTS (SCOTLAND).
On the motion of the Lord Advocate, the House resolved itself into Committee on the Sheriffs' Court (Scotland) Bill.
The first clause having been put,
Mr. Wallacesaid, that he approved of the Bill generally; and thought that the country was deeply indebted to the learned Lord who had brought it forward; but there were some of its provisions to which he could not consent. In the first place, by an act, which he held in his hand, it was provided that sheriffs-depute should reside in their counties for the period of at least four months in each year; but by the present Bill it was provided that that act should be repealed, and that the sheriffs, instead of residing for four months, should hold eight courts within their respective counties in every year. It was also provided in the present Bill that the sheriffs should personally attend to their duties,
718
but those duties were not defined, and it was left to the sheriffs to say what their duties were. He considered eight courts a-year too few, and he thought the duties of the sheriffs-depute ought to be defined, and the whole duty not left, as heretofore, to the sheriffs-substitute. He further objected that the sheriffs-depute never sat to hear appeals within their own counties, but in Edinburgh, and he thought such a system ought to be amended.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that by the present law of Scotland, the sheriffs-depute were compelled to reside four months in every year within their respective counties, and the Lord-Advocate proposed to repeal the clause of the act containing that important provision. He (Mr. C. Fergusson) could not agree in the propriety of repealing the existing law, and he trusted that the learned Lord would reconsider the Bill with a view of leaving out the first clause altogether. It had been said that the sheriffs-depute ought to be persons frequenting the courts of law, but he could see no necessity for such an arrangement. The first clause of the Bill was the one he objected to, as he wished to see the sheriffs-depute residing more in their respective counties, and the whole business not left to the substitutes. The Bill, as a whole, would be of the greatest advantage to Scotland.
The Lord-Advocatesaid, that there were sheriffs-substitute constantly resident in each county of Scotland, so that the business of the counties was promptly attended to. The sheriffs-depute and sheriffs-substitute had power to decide in civil and criminal cases, with certain reservations, and it was his object, by the present Bill, to extend their power. It had been said that the sheriffs-depute ought to reside for a longer period in their respective counties, but he could inform the House that, with one exception, those sheriffs who resided constantly in their counties were not those who gave the greatest satisfaction. The present Bill enforced the holding of at least eight courts in each year, and it was further proposed that each sheriff should report to the Secretary of State the number of courts held, so that there would be a sufficient check on the conduct of the sheriffs. The general opinion of the lawyers of Scotland was, that the sheriffs ought not to reside constantly in their counties, as by such a residence they lost their habits of business, and acquaintance with the laws.
The Attorney-Generalhad no hesitation in saying, that the time the sheriffs resided within their respective counties was of little importance, provided they were compelled efficiently to perform their duties. There was no necessity for constant residence, and it was highly important that the sheriffs should be familiar with the practice and decisions of the higher courts in Edinburgh. He thought the first clause as well as the others would introduce great improvement in the law of Scotland.
Sir G. Sinclairexpressed his concurrence in the clause as it stood in the Bill.
Mr. Gillonthought it quite useless to retain two officers when one was sufficient for the discharge of the duties. In his county the opinion of the sheriff-substitute was held to be as good as that of the sheriff himself, and therefore the retention of a second officer was wholly unnecessary. He had no objection to the clause under consideration. With respect to residence, he could state that the sheriff of Lanark, one of the most important counties in Scotland, was resident within the county, and he (Mr. Gillon) did not see how the arguments of the Lord-Advocate and the Attorney-General in reference to the necessity of attendance in the Parliament-house could hold good.
Mr. Humelooked upon this clause as intended to keep up a system of sinecures, and he maintained that the charge brought forward by his hon. Friend, the Member for Greenock, and which he (Mr. Hume) had himself made fourteen years ago, remained wholly unanswered.
The Lord Advocatesaid, that he had no difficulty in answering the case put with regard to the exception of the sheriff of the county of Lanark. The principal city of that county (Glasgow) was second only to the metropolis of Scotland, and from its commercial character necessarily law proceedings arose, and the consequence was, that the sheriff was in constant employment, and his judgment and his law were kept up by the number of causes brought before him. That was not the case with other counties in Scotland, and therefore the same exception could not be applied. He (the Lord Advocate) wholly denied that the office of sheriff was a sinecure. On the contrary, after thirty years' experience, he could state that the duties of the office were extremely severe, and a litigant, for a trifling fee could obtain the judgment of the sheriff at any time.
Mr. Humereiterated his former statement, that the offices of sheriff were sinecures; for a cause was tried at Perth, and the sheriff resident in Edinburgh. The office of sheriff-depute should be abolished, and that it should be compulsory upon the sheriff to reside in his county, or that the sheriff's office should be lopped off, and the sheriff-depute retained, with the salary of both, or more, if necessary.
Mr. Pringleconcurred with the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. The office of sheriff in Scotland was no sinecure, the salaries were extremely moderate, and such as would not secure the services of an efficient officer to be resident in any county. It was most desirable that those officers should have the opportunity of an attendance in the superior courts, and in that view he was supported by the judges in Scotland and other eminent law authorities.
Mr. Wallacehad been informed that the sheriffs were, of all other legal men, the least seen in the Parliament-House. He was so told; but of this he was certain, that if the salaries were 800 l. instead of as now 400 l., every sheriff would do his own duty, and reside in his county. At present the whole system was most vicious.
Clause agreed to.
Upon Clause 15 being proposed,
Mr. Pringle Mr. Pringle moved, that it be expunged.
The Committee divided on the original question:—Ayes 56; Noes 24: Majority 32.

List of the AYES.

Attwood, T.

Horsman, E.

Bernal, R.

Howard, P. H.

Bodkin, J. J.

Hume, J.

Bowes, J.

Humphery, J.

Brotherton, J.

Jervis, S.

Brownrigg, S.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Buller, C.

Lambton, H.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Lister, E. C.

Chalmers, P.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Clay, W.

Macleod, R.

Craig, W. G.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Dennistoun, J.

Morpeth, Viscount

Douglas, Sir C. E.

O'Brien, W. S.

Duke, Sir J.

O'Conor, Don.

Duncan, Viscount

Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.

Erle, W.

Parrott, J.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Poulter, J. S.

Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C.

Rice, right hon. T. S.

French, F.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Gibson, J.

Salwey, Colonel

Gordon, R.

Stanley, E. J.

Hall, B.

Style, Sir C.

Hastie, A.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Heathcoat, J.

Thornley, T.

721

Tracy, H. H.

Woulfe, Serjeant

Vigors, N. A.

Young, G. F.

Wakley, T.

Wallace, R.

TELLERS.

White, A.

The Lord Advocate

Willshere, W.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

List of the NOES.

Alsager, Captain

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Lockhart, A. M.

Attwood, M.

Mackenzie, T.

Bateman, J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Blair, J.

Pringle, A.

Blennerhassett, A.

Richards, R.

Broadley, H.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Chisholm, A. W.

Thompson, Alderman

Darby, G.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Eaton, R. J.

Young, J.

Gordon, hon. Captain

Grimsditch, T.

TELLERS.

Houstoun, G.

Forbes, W.

Hughes, W. B.

Mackenzie, W. F.

On an amendment to Clause 17 being proposed, to the effect that it shall be lawful for her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department, from time to time, to name Commissioners to whom remits may be made, to take such proofs in such counties, when required by the sheriffs.
Mr. Forbesobjected that the power was more appropriately vested in the sheriffs, who were more competent to exercise it from the possession of local knowledge.
The Committee divided on the question, that the words be inserted:—Ayes 51; Noes 20: Majority 31.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Humphery, J.

Bernal, R.

Jervis, S.

Briscoe, J. I.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Brotherton, J.

Lambton, H.

Brownrigg, S.

Lister, E. C.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Mackinnon, W. A.

Callaghan, D.

Macleod, R.

Chalmers, P.

Morpeth, Viscount

Craig, W. G.

O'Brien, W. S.

Dennistoun, J.

O'Conor, Don

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.

Duke, Sir J.

Poulter, J. H.

Duncan, Viscount

Redington, T. N.

Erle, W.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Salwey, Colonel

Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C.

Stanley, E. J.

French, F.

Style, Sir C.

Gibson, J.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Gordon, R.

Thornley, T.

Hall, B.

Vigors, N. A.

Heathcote, J.

Wakley, T.

Horsman, E.

Wallace, R.

Howard, P. H.

White, A.

Hume, J.

Wilshere, W.

722

Wood, Sir M.

TELLERS.

Woulfe, Serjeant

The Lord Advocate

Yates, J. A.

O'Ferrall, M.

List of the NOES.

Alsager, Captain

Houstoun, G.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Hughes, W. B.

Attwood, M.

Mackenzie, T.

Bateman, J.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Blair, J.

Pringle, A.

Blennerhassett, A.

Richards, R.

Broadley, H.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Chisholm, A. W.

Young, J.

Darby, G.

Eaton, R. J.

TELLERS.

Gordon, hon. Captain

Forbes, W.

Grimsditch, T.

Lockhart, A. M.

The remaining clauses of the Bill agreed to, and the House resumed.
Bill reported.

PLURALITIES.
Lord J. Russell Lord J. Russell moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Benefices Plurality Bill.
Sir R. Ingliswould not then enter into the details of the measure, but lest an unfavorable impression might exist out of that House that the evil of non-residence was still to be charged against the church, he believed that no Member of the Legislature, whether hostile or friendly to the establishment, could for a single moment dispute the fact, that at present there were more resident clergy than had been for the last twenty years; a benefit exclusively effected by the energies of the church herself.
Lord John Russellstated, that on another occasion he should have to introduce a Bill for the regulation of deans and chapters of cathedrals, by which he hoped to effect a saving of 120,000 l. a-year, to be applied to make better provision for spiritual instruction in populous places. That Bill would be introduced for the purpose of carrying into effect, with modifications, the fourth report of the church commissioners. The suggestions of the commissioners contained in the report would be adopted generally as the foundation of the Bill; but there would be certain modifications of some of them proposed by him on the responsibility of her Majesty's Government, in which he hoped to have the hon. Baronet's support. One of these modifications he might mention to the House. He meant to propose, that in no case the income of a dean should exceed 2,000 l. a-year or the income of a canon 1,000 l. By the resi-

723
due he hoped to be able to provide for the remuneration of clergymen in various small livings.
Sir R. Inglissaid, that the anticipations of the noble Lord were rather too sanguinary; because he thought that the last Bill alluded to was most vicious in principle and injurious in tendency. He had no doubt that such a measure, from the strong opposition it was likely to receive throughout the country, could only pass that House, if so much could be effected. It should be borne in mind, that although the church had received many pecuniary and other favours from the ancestors of hon. Members, that House had not contributed anything to her support.
Mr. Humesaid, that the church had gained one million by Queen Anne's Bounty, and a million and a half by grants from that House, for building churches.
Mr. Haweshad strong objections to the principle of the measure, as pluralities were still to continue, and as he thought that no individual should hold two livings. Neither did the Bill make any provision for those ecclesiastic districts that by its own clauses were to be made parishes.
Bill read a second time.

MUNICIPAL COIIPORATIONS (IRELAND).
Lord J. Russell Lord J. Russell moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the above Bill.
Sir Robert Inglis: On former occasions when this question was in its corresponding stage before the House, I resisted it by a negative; but having never detained the House either by a statement of my objections, or by a division, I am anxious, with their permission, to take this opportunity of expressing briefly the general grounds of my opposition to the principle of the measure.
In the analogous case of the municipal corporations of England, we resisted the principle of the measure in that stage of the Bill, which, conventionally, in the practice of this House, is deemed the fittest stage, namely, the second reading. I see no sufficient reason for not resisting the present Bill at its present stage, namely, its second reading. The two grounds upon which I think any man can come to a contrary conclusion in this instance are—I, That the Act of Parliament which annihilated and re-created the corporations of England has established a precedent for treating
724
every thing in the name of corporation with equal disregard, and has virtually destroyed the corporations of Ireland when it destroyed those of England; and 2, That if it were not so, the case of the Irish corporations is so bad that no one can uphold them; and that it is better to say at once, they are all bad together: let us get rid of them, and consider afterwards what to build on their ruins.
On the first point I say at once, that I will not be withheld from voting against the destruction of the Irish corporations, because others have previously destroyed the corporations of England. I will not be bound by that precedent; I was not a party to that proceeding; I think it bad in principle; and I will, therefore, consider the case of the Irish corporations exactly as if the fall of those in England had not taken place.
In the second place, I say, that there is no legal or Parliamentary evidence for the destruction of these boroughs in particular. If no man would condemn these boroughs except those who had read the evidence, not the tenth of the tenth of the House would probably be left to pass the sentence. Some, indeed, of the most important measures of later times, have in fact been decided before all the evidence upon the subjects in question had even been issued to us. It is true that now, at least, we have the materials before us; but who has read them; who has looked at them? If this bill were a bill in the nature of a private hill to alter the constitution of any one of these boroughs, say Cashel, for instance, there is hardly any one Member on either side of the House who would vote for or against it without knowing something of the case. He would say, it affects private interests; and I will not run the risk of injuring any man, without knowing more than I do know of the case. But what we will not do in the case of one borough, we do, without fear or shame, in the case of fifty. So much for our ignorance on the subject; hut, for the sake of argument, I will admit, first, that we all knew the evidence; and, secondly, that the evidence all proved the guilt of the boroughs which we propose to disfranchise; that is to say, the existing municipal corporation of which we propose entirely to destroy and remodel. I ask any lawyer in or out of the House to say, whether the gravest allegation made against any of these boroughs of wilful alienation of the corporate estates

725
could not be remedied by the existing law of the land, without destroying the character of that perpetual existence, the body corporate. The Court of Chancery is the remedy for one set of abuses; the Court of Queen's Bench is the remedy for the other. Has either been tried? Till both have been tried, and found wanting, I, for one, shall continue to hold, that the remedies provided by the constitution have been wilfully and systematically neglected.
Mr. Shawsaid, if the noble Lord intended to name another day for the discussion of this measure, he should not impede the second reading of the Bill, but defer expressing his opinion till a future stage. If it was put off, he hoped it would be deferred till after the Committee on the Poor-law Bill, with which it was connected. The Poor-law Bill ought to have the precedence.
Lord John Russellintended to take the Poor-law Bill first, and to defer the discussion of this measure till afterwards, though he could not name a day for that Committee.
Bill read a second time.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume moved the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report of the Controverted Election Fees' Committee. He observed that the report contained the unanimous resolution of the Committee, though at first there had been great difference of opinion in the Committee. The object had been to ascertain what fees appertained to public duties and what to private services, and the Committee had come to the conclusion that all fees charged by individuals in that House were of a public nature, and to recommend the House to abolish such fees, and to place the persons receiving them in the same situation as other public officers. These fees were in some cases of large amount; the average of the whole was about one-seventh or one-eighth of the entire expense of a controverted election. Instead of a resolution at the end of the report, he had had the assistance of the officers of the House in drawing up another, and he moved that "all fees in proceedings before the House with reference to controverted elections, according to the scale of fees in 1831 and 1803, be abolished." There was another charge which was embraced by his next resolution; if either of the Members re-
726
quired copies of the evidence for his own use he was obliged to pay for it to the House at the same rate which the shorthand writer charged, namely, Is. per folio. He moved "that the charge for copies of evidence and documents furnished, when requested, to either of the parties, be reduced from 1s. to 4d. per folio of seventy-two words.
Resolutions agreed to.

SHIPS MORTGAGES BILL.
Mr. Young Mr. Young moved the second reading of the Ships' Mortgages Bill. He was surprised at the opposition which he understood the Bill was to meet with at the eleventh hour from the hon. Member for Sunderland and others. If he had not supposed that the Bill would have met with general satisfaction, he would not have pressed it. The intention was to remedy in a degree great and acknowledged evils. The enactments of the Bill met with two classes of objectors of a different character: one thought it went too far, and fettered the owners of ships in the hypothecation of their property; the other class thought it did not go far enough, and that it ought to prevent the owner of a ship from mortgaging the ship at all. This was a proof that he had steered between two extremes. When Mr. Huskisson introduced his measure it was considered a been to the shipowner that he was permitted to mortgage his ship. It was said that the Bill was intended to operate for the benefit of the shipping traders; but he had brought it forward as a shipowner, and the shipowners admitted that it was for their benefit. Several instances had occurred of ships which had been fitted out under advances on mortgage, and the mortgages had disposed of the property, sometimes in collusion with the mortgagor, to the prejudice of the creditor. In 1836 a committee of shipowners disapproved of the Registry Act as leading to fraud, and in 1837 the same Committee stated in their report that he (Mr. G. F. Young) had obtained leave to introduce a bill for the purpose of modifying the Registry Act, and thus checking the system of fraud which existed. It was not, therefore, a shipowner's question; for those parties felt that the mortgagees in too many cases acted improperly, and were anxious to check the evil which prevailed. The present system was in fact injurious to the

727
interests of the shipowners; for in foreign countries an opinion prevailed, that the shipowners of this country were not to be trusted, and when captains of vessels offered bills for provisions and ships stores they were refused; and the foreign merchants providing the stores, instead of accepting those bills, would take nothing but a bottomry bond. That was the effect of the present system of mortgages, and it must be obvious that such results must create the greatest inconvenience. He thought, therefore, that the opposition he was now to encounter was unfair. He had no personal motives in bringing forward the Bill, and he would not have introduced it if he had not been led to believe by the shipowners that such a measure would prove beneficial to them. He still thought that the Bill would prove advantageous to shipowners, and that those who now opposed him took an erroneous view of the measure. One objection which had been raised to the Bill was the unpleasant publicity to which the shipowner would be subjected in effecting a mortgage. Under the present system, however, it was well known that the mortgage was not valid unless it was recorded at the custom-house, and that too with the greatest publicity, and all tradesmen, and every person interested, might go to the custom-house and examine the record. There was, therefore, complete publicity under the present system. What, then, was the provision of the present Bill? It was proposed that previous to effecting a mortgage, thirty days' notice should be given, and all persons having claims upon the vessel were to lodge those claims with the registrar, and when so lodged, the parties were to have a preferable lien. The effect of this would be to prevent all those fraudulent proceedings which had been so much complained of, and which had proved so injurious to tradesmen. He could not imagine how any objection should be offered to such a plan. Acts of mortgage did not require to be executed rapidly, and it was quite clear that under the old system justice was defeated. Nor was there any thing novel in the course of proceeding he proposed; for under the old maritime law those who supplied the ship had a preferable lien. He might mention that he had received from all parts of the country attestations favourable to the Bill, and he had not received one opinion condemnatory of the
728
measure. Some persons had expressed a wish that its provisions should be extended to Ireland; but he had thought in making use of the expression "united kingdom," he had thereby included Ireland. The same wish had been expressed in regard to Scotland, which he also thought he had included by the expression he had used. If, however, he found himself in error in this particular, he should take an opportunity afterwards to extend the provisions of the Bill both to Ireland and Scotland. He thought he had now said enough to convince the House he had not introduced the Bill from an obstinate adherence to his own opinion; and he could assure them that he had brought forward the measure under the belief that it would be for the advantage of those on whose support he calculated, but who were now, some of them, hostile to the plan he had proposed for terminating the system of fraud which, it had been allowed, existed. He hoped he had been able sufficiently to explain his views and to make the measure understood. He had avoided all technical details, and he would now leave the Bill to be disposed of as the House might see fit, and bow to the better judgment of those whom he knew were prepared to state their opinion on the subject.
The question that the Bill be now read a second time having been put from the chair,
Alderman Thompsonsaid, he did not think there was any good ground for the hon. Member complaining of the Bill being opposed at the eleventh hour. When the hon. Member brought forward the Bill last year, he had expressed to the hon. Member that he entertained strong doubts as to its operation, and when it was introduced this year he had stated distinctly that he would not pledge himself to support it. It was hardly necessary for him to point out the importance of the Registry Act which this Bill proposed to modify. It would be recollected that the Shipping Registration Bill had been under the consideration of a Committee of that House for many years, and it came before them so strongly recommended by that Committee that it passed through the House without any opposition. The particular clause enabling shipowners to raise money by mortgage had been strongly recommended by the Committee, and Lord Tenterden had also expressed a strong opinion in its favour. That clause

729
proposed that mortgages should be registered at the port from which the vessel sailed, and at the Custom-house in London, and the books in which those registries were entered were to be open to the inspection of all parties concerned. What was the alteration now proposed? Instead of a shipowner remaining in a position to raise a little money when wanted he was to be obliged to give thirty days' notice of any intended mortgage, and if that mortgage were effected at a distance from the metropolis the officer receiving the notice was to transmit a copy to London, and if any tradesman gave notice of any claim for supplies to the vessel, that tradesman was to have a preferable lien. Now, he would ask, was there any thing in shipping property that rendered such a process necessary? There was no other property subject to the same process, and if the hon. Member would go through the mortgages effected on other kinds of property he would no doubt find cases of fraud equally gross as those he had cited. There was, perhaps, as little of shipping as of any other kind of property mortgaged, and why should shipowners be placed in a worse position than persons raising money on any other description of property? If he understood the Bill, its effect was to make an exception of this kind of property, which he conceived was neither fair nor just to the shipowners. He contended that this Bill was wholly absurd, for while it prevented a shipowner from mortgaging his vessel, it contained no provision to hinder him from selling it, and thus defrauding those whom it was sought by the measure to protect. For these reasons he felt it to be his duty to move as an amendment that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Mr. A. Chapmansupported the Bill, which went to establish a system of registration of liabilities similar to that which existed with reference to other descriptions of property in the county of York. From that system of registration no inconvenience had either arisen or been complained of. The Bill would work no hardship, and was only a just protection to the fair, honest tradesman furnishing the tackle and furniture of a ship against the preference which a mortgagee now had. On the whole he supported the Bill, which he thought would work beneficially even for the shipping interests themselves.
The Solicitor-Generalgave the fullest credit for sincerity to the hon. Member who had introduced the Bill, and the hon. Member who had supported it; but he was opposed to the measure upon general principles. The hon. Member for Whitby had assimilated the provisions of this Bill to the registration in the county of York, but that very system already prevailed in respect to shipping, which, as regarded other property, only had existence in the county of which the hon. Member had spoken. In fact, there existed now a registry of shipping, and if a mortgage was about to be effected, information of previous liabilities could be ascertained. But what did this Bill propose? Why, that any individual who chose to call himself the creditor of a shipowner, might impose on that shipowner the difficulty of being unable to raise money upon that description of property. In fact, the bill gave to a man on his own ipse dixit, all the benefit and advantage of a mortgage, without affording any of those precautionary protections which a mortgage gave to the mortgager. No questions presented more difficulty to the courts of equity and law than did those arising from and affecting the shipping interests; and though it had been said, that this Bill would remove those difficulties, and was therefore satisfactory to the shipping interests, he could say it would be equally satisfactory to his profession, inasmuch as, instead of preventing it would lead to endless litigation. He agreed with the hon. Member for Sunder-land in thinking that this Bill, if good at all, did not go half far enough, for though it prevented a shipowner from mortgaging, it did not preclude him from selling his ship. Looking at the measure in a general point of view, he could not see that any case had been made out for passing it into a law.
Sir J. R. Reidsaid, that as a shipowner, he never was more pleased in his life than he was with the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, and who, in his opinion, had upon this question hit the right nail on the head. He had looked at the petition presented by his hon. Friend, the Member for Tynemouth, in favour of the measure, but he could not find that one single shipowner had signed it; and after consulting a large number of the body, he could state with truth, that with one or

731
two exceptions, there was hardly a shipowner that was not positively opposed to the bill. He should give every opposition in his power to the measure, satisfied as he was, that it would work material injury to the commercial interests of the country.
Mr. Jervisdissented from the grounds of opposition to this Bill taken both by the hon. Member for Dover, and by his hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor-General. He was one who thought that all descriptions of property should be debarred from mortgage unless notice was given to enable all persons to come in and say—"I object to this security, having myself an equitable claim upon the property." This bill had first introduced that principle, and he hailed it as a good measure. He hoped, however, the hon. Member for Tynemouth would allow it to go to a Committee up stairs; or, even approving of the principle of the Bill, he should be compelled to give a reluctant vote against the second reading. His hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor General had said, that this was a bad bill, because his hon. Friend, the Member for Teignmouth, had taken a wrong tribunal to adjudicate on the rights which it affected. Let that be settled in a Committee up stairs. Matters of detail might be considered there. He was in favour of the principle of the measure, as he considered that it would give the honest creditor a protection against the fraudulent shipowner, which at present he did not possess.
Mr. Claycould not agree with the statement which had been made, that the grievances which his hon. Friend, the Member for Teignmouth, sought to remedy were of a trifling kind, but he might be permitted to doubt whether the remedy for those grievances was within the reach of legislation, or at least within the reach of that particular remedy which his hon. Friend proposed to apply to them. His hon. Friend called on the House to affirm a great principle, affecting great interests, and a large-amount of property, for the protection of a class, which, although respectable, his hon. Friend must allow, was not very considerable in point of numbers. His hon. Friend proposed to put simple contract creditors on a footing with mortgage creditors. He thought this unfair, as a mortgage proceeded on an agreement between the parties, and it did not seem equitable to him to place a simple contract debt on the same ground.
732
It was quite clear that the measure which had been introduced by his hon. Friend was not viewed with approbation by those who represented the interests of the shipowners in that House, and under these circumstances he recommended him to withdraw his Bill, His hon. Friend would then have an opportunity of re-con-considering its provisions, and he might possibly be able to frame a measure which might be less objectionable to the respectable class whose interests were affected by it.
Mr. Inghamsaid, that the shipowners of the north entirely coincided with him in the objections which he entertained to this bill, and he felt a strong objection, both to the principle which it established, and also to the selection of the shipowners for the first exemplification of that principle. The hon. and learned Member for Chester seemed to think that when a man had incurred a simple contract debt, he ought never to make a title to any property which he wished to alienate without first satisfying that debt. Let the hon. and learned Member bring forward that general proposition and discuss it, and he (Mr. Ingham) should be ready to meet it. But in what a position did his hon. Friend wish to place the ship chandler? He wished to give them the benefit of a mortgage without the expense. What, however, was the dock owner's situation now? He might if he pleased, if not paid for the repairs, detain the ship itself. The effect of his hon. Friend's bill would be, to give the ship repairer greater facilities for recovering his debt than any other person possessed. It might be made the means of an unjust creditor levying an exorbitant demand on the shipowner. Suppose a merchant had put an East India-man into dock, and had contracted with the dock owner for her repair for a sum of 500 l., and having repaired her, wished to effect a mortgage on the ship for 5,000 l. to pay for the cargo with which he intended to load her. Well, suppose the dock owner sent in a bill for repairs amounting to 700 l. on the ground of some inconsiderable alterations having been made. The dock owner, under the provisions of his hon. Friend's bill, might interpose his claim, and prevent the raising of the 5,000 l. to pay for the cargo, until his demand was satisfied, and the shipowner, rather than submit to the delay, would consent to pay an unjust claim of 200 l.

733
On these grounds and on others connected with matters of detail, into which he would not then enter, he should support the opposition which had been offered to the bill.
Sir J. Duke, as an extensive shipowner, must say that he was opposed to this measure, and he could show that the shipowners of Scotland and of Newcastle and Sunderland participated in his feelings with respect to it; but he was quite sure from the temper of the House, that it would not be necessary to enter into the evidence. He had been engaged in the shipping trade for twenty years, and he never knew but one instance of a fraudulent mortgage by a shipowner.
Mr. P. Thomsonwould recommend his hon. Friend, after what had passed, to withdraw his bill. In his opinion his hon. Friend did perfectly right in bringing in the measure; but it was incumbent on him to show, either that it would benefit the shipowners themselves, or that society generally was so much injured by the existing law that an alteration was absolutely necessary. From what had passed it was quite clear that no such case had been made out. He therefore recommended his hon. Friend to withdraw his measure till some degree of unanimity prevailed on the subject.
Mr. G. F. Young, in reply, said that he had been urged by the shipowners themselves to introduce his bill, but when he found their representatives, instructed by their constituents, opposing it, he felt that it would be useless to press the measure. He repudiated the idea of his being actuated by any other desire than that of benefitting that commercial interest with which he was intimately connected, and which he had exerted himself in promoting for many years.
Bill withdrawn.

CONACRE TENANTS' (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. Lucas, in moving the second reading of this bill, observed, that his object in introducing it had been to improve the condition of the peasant tenantry of Ireland, with reference to a subject in which their individual interests were, almost without an exception, involved. By a report of the Poor Law Commissioners for Ireland it appeared that Conacre was found to be general in every barony which had been visited by the Assistant-Commissioners, with the single exception of a barony in the county Mayo; and the
734
number of Conacre tenants in the province of Leinster had increased considerably within the last two years. Conacre was a species of sub-letting which regarded the poorer classes merely, and consisted in the fact of the farmer letting a small portion of land to the labourer, and furnishing the manure for the soil, while the labourer supplied the seed and tillage. In periods of famine it was frequently found that the Conacre tenant was unable to pay the rent, and subject to great distress by the uncertain state of the law. The crop, he should observe, consisted almost uniformly of potatoes. He (Mr. Lucas) sought to introduce the principle that the labourer should not be compelled to keep the land, but that the farmer should take it off his hands in the case of his inability to pay the rent, provided that there was no express agreement to the contrary, and upon reasonable notice having been given beforehand. The second clause of the Bill sought to provide a remedy for the following grievance:—In addition to the security afforded to the farmer by the promissory note which was given him in the first instance for the rent by the Conacre tenant, it was usual to claim the additional security of a legal lien on the property. He proposed to modify the law by introducing the provision, that if the landlord should have consented to accept the security of a promissory note, such acceptance should deprive him of the right to claim any other security. This arrangement would of course be without prejudice to any specific agreement. Without the introduction of such a provision the tenant would be compelled either to starve or purchase other potatoes, the only food within his reach, at a high rate of credit. He proposed that the bill should be read a second time this night, and that its committal should be postponed to a distant day, in order that the assizes, having in the mean time taken place, every Irish Member might have an opportunity of expressing his opinion upon the question.
Bill read a second time.