Commons Sitting of 8 March 1838

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. F. J. HOWARD, from Youghal, by Sir G. STRICKLAND, from Gomersal, by Mr. C. LUSHINGTON, from the male and female inhabitants of Ashburton, by Mr. BAINES, from Maldon, Bishop's Stortford, and from the county of Cambridge, by Mr. C. SHAW LEFEFRE, from a place in the county of Southampton, by Mr. W. D. GILLON, and by Mr. WODEHOUSE, for the abolition of Negro Slavery.—By Mr. MAUNSELL, from Kettering, for the establishment of Local Courts.—By Mr. LASCELLES, from Wakefield, and by Lord W. BENTINCK, from the Manufacturers of Glasgow, for the total abolition of the Soap Duty.—By Mr. PRIME, from various places, for the repeal of the duties on Post-horses.—By Lord W. BENTINCK, from Glasgow, for a repeal of the duties on Marine Insurances; and from the Corporation of Bakers in Glasgow, for protection against Trades' Unions.—By Mr. Sergeant JACKSON, from the Clergy of the Diocese of Ardagh, to relieve the Clergy from the repayment of the Loans advanced to build Glebe-houses.—By Mr. VILLIERS, from Wolverhampton, for the abolition of the duty on Soap.—By Lord INGESTRE, from the Guardians of the poor of a Union in the county of Stafford, for the repeal of certain clauses in the New Poor-law.—By Mr. HAWKERS, from Dudley, for an alteration in the dietary system under the New Poor-law.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
Sir Robert Peelwished to remind Lord John Russell that the time had now elapsed within which
702
he had promised to make a declaration as to the course which the Government intended to pursue with reference to the question of increased accommodation in the Church of Scotland. Perhaps, therefore, the noble Lord would now state whether it was the intention of the Government to make any proposition on the subject, and if so, at what period it would be made.
Lord John Russellsaid, that it was the intention of the Government to make a proposition on that subject, but he did not think that he should be able to propose any vote on the matter before Easter. He would, however, state before that time arrived the general nature of the measure which the Government intended to bring forward: indeed he might state now, that with respect to the Act passed in 1707, relating to unexhausted teinds, it was proposed to give an authority to divide the parishes so as to apply a portion of those unexhausted teinds to the purposes of spiritual instruction in the large parishes in the highlands where the teinds were exhausted, but the Government did not mean to propose any endowment from any public fund for parishes in Edinburgh or Glasgow.
Subject dropped.

HERIOTS.
Sir Robert Peelhoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General would state whether he proposed to bring forward any measure with reference to the law of heriots.
The Attorney-Generalwas ashamed to confess that the subject was so difficult that he had found himself unable to grapple with it. In the course of the last Session he did introduce a Bill for the abolition of heriots, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge had pointed out several objections to it, which upon an after-consideration he had found insuperable. He had used his best endeavours to find out some other plan, hut without success, and he could now therefore only hope, that by the enfranchisement of copyhold, heriots would gradually cease.
Sir Robert Peelmust say, that the law relating to heriots was one of the most ridiculous blots that ever existed in any system of civil jurisprudence. If it were left in its present state, it would be the greatest reflection on the Legislature that could be cast upon it.
The Attorney-Generalentirely concurred in what the right hon. Baronet had said with respect to the law of heriots, which was the barbarous remnant of a barbarous

703
age. If the right hon. Baronet would allow him to put his name on the Committee, if he would not consider it a degradation, he should feel himself highly honoured and flattered by the permission, and he had no doubt that some suggestions would be thrown out which would enable him to prepare a measure by which this blot upon our system of jurisprudence might be wiped out of the statute-book.
Sir E. Sugdenremarked, that he had not had an opportunity of looking at the Bills introduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and, therefore, he was not in a situation to say whether he could agree to a second reading of them without a discussion. He would, however, look at them, and if he thought that it would be necessary to discuss them first, he would state his opinion to-morrow. With regard to the law of heriots, he thought that it ought to be abolished, but the question was a difficult one to deal with. The House, however, ought to be aware that it was not copyholds only which were subject to heriots, but that, as many Gentlemen knew, heriots were due in many instances in respect of freeholds. If heriots, therefore, were to be abolished, they could not be abolished by the gradual enfranchisement of copyholds, and it would be necessary to pass a general law for that purpose.
Subject dropped.

JOINT STOCK BANKS.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose, to postpone his motion relative to the re-appointment of the Committee on Joint Stock Banks till Monday.
Mr. Humewished to know how it was possible that this motion could be brought forward on Monday? He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would fix some day when the motion might be fully discussed, as he intended to move an amendment to the motion, extending the inquiry to the Bank of England.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas not aware that there would be any opposition to the re-appointment of the Committee. As, however, his hon. Friend intended to move an amendment, he would select an open day on which they could have a full discussion.
Sir R. Peelwould suggest, before the right hon. Gentleman committed himself to a renewal of the Committee, that it was a subject for his consideration whether its re-appointment was absolutely necessary. The evidence, if not complete, was pretty
704
nearly complete, and there would be an immense advantage in drawing the proceedings of the Committee to a close. At present, the banking interest was in a state of great uncertainty, and an advantage was given to the weaker establishments at the expense of the more wealthy and respectable. If, however, the Committee should be re-appointed, he should advise the immediate completion of certain branches of the evidence, in order that her Majesty's Government might be enabled to state at once how they were prepared to act.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthanked the right hon. Baronet for his suggestion, and observed, that that was the very course which he intended to pursue. The points which remained for inquiry were two—namely, what was the effect of the Bank of England's local circulation and country branches, and of the connexion between those branches and certain Joint-stock banks. There was, also, a question as to the Bank of Ireland, into which no inquiry had been made at all. He believed that these were the points which were still unnoticed. If they went over the points on which they had already taken evidence, they would not only undertake a very needless task but one full of inconvenience. Gentlemen would, therefore, understand that in proposing the revival of the Committee, it was only to consider those points on which no evidence had been taken, and not for the purpose of going over the grounds on which so much evidence had already been laid before the House.
Motion postponed.