Commons Sitting of 5 August 1842

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public. —10 Slave Trade Suspension (Portuguese Vessels); Limitation of Actions (Ireland); Health of Towns.
Committed,—Bankruptcy Law Amendment; Newfound-
1064
land; Coventry Boundary; Law of Evidence; County Courts.
Reported. — Consolidated Fund; Exchequer Bills.
30and passed:—Ecclesiastical Corporations; Court of Chancery Offices; Canada Loan; East India Bishops.
Private. —Reported. —Sewell's Divorce.
30and passed:—Cauvin's Estate; Street's Divorce.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Broadley, from Hull, Herbert Sturmy, and Vice-President of the Chamber of Commerce, Manchester, to postpone the Bankruptcy Law Amendment Bill. —By Mr. Stuart, Mr. Mackinnon, Mr. D. Barclay, and Sir H. Douglas, from Wine Merchants of Colchester, Bedford, Bury St. Edmund's, and other places, for an allowance on their Stock-in-Hand. —By Mr. Lefroy, from Tuam and Rathcoony, for an Alteration in the System of Education (Ireland). —From Needham Market, Stansfield, and Stowmarket, to substitute Affirmations for Oaths. —From the Grand Juries of Longford, and Donegal, against placing Medical Charities (Ireland) under the control of the Poor-law Commissioners. —By Mr. Brotherton, from Rochdale, to extend the County Courts Bill to Lancashirc. —From P. Byott, the elder and younger, for Compensation under the County Courts Bill. —By Sir Thomas Fremantle, from Manchester, to enable Lancashire to participate in any Grant for the Encouragement of Vocal Music. —By Mr. M. Philips, from Manchester, against the Bankruptcy Law Amendment Bill. —By Mr. M. Gibson, from Liverpool, for prohibitory Duty on the Importation of Manure. —From J. H. Elliott, for Amendment of the Bankruptcy and Insolvent Laws. By Mr. Villiers, from Sudbury, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws. —From Schoolmasters of Chirmside, Aberdour, Weem and Alford, for the amelioration of their Condition. —From the Grand Jury of Meath, for the Prevention of Sheep Stealing. —From London, and Creditors of E. J. Glynn, for Amendment of the law of Bankruptcy.

NEWFOUNDLAND.
On the motion of Lord Stanley, the House went into committee on the Newfoundland Bill.
On the 6th clause, her Majesty empowered " to abolish the Legislative Council of the said island as a distinct branch of the Legislature,"
Mr. O'Connellrose to move the omission of those words. He said, that as he had on former occasions brought forward many arguments, unfortunately without effect, to induce the House to reject this measure entirely, he would not again press those arguments on the attention of hon. Members. He had been overpowered by numbers; but his conviction of the injustice and impolicy of this bill remained unshaken. He strongly protested against this mode of proceeding with any of the colonists, however insignificant the colony might be as compared with the importance of others. He never would consent that the constitution of any colony should be overthrown without investigation, without witnesses being examined, without individuals being fully and fairly heard against a measure that materially abridged their political rights. The annihilation of the separate Chambers of Legislation which would be effected by this bill was a proceeding that could not be

1065
too strongly condemned. Until lately, this mode of legislating with only one chamber was unknown in our colonies. It was founded on a bad principle, and that principle might be carried much further than the noble Lord wished or expected. It was at all times dangerous and unconstitutional, but it was exceedingly dangerous in relation to the time in which they lived. They knew what had occurred when all power was centred in the English Parliament. Civil war, bloodshed, and ultimately the extinction of the Crown and the abolition of monarchy were the fruits of that event. That was a precedent not to be respected, and certainly not to he repeated. He protested against the proposed alteration in the constitution of Newfoundland, and on that question he should take the sense of the House. There was not a more loyal people on the face of the earth than the people of Newfoundland—no people could feel a more firm affection for the Throne and for the Sovereign; and the reward of their loyalty was to he the annihilation of the popular part of their constitution. There was not a tittle of evidence in support of the proposed change, and he should ever contend that, in making it, Newfoundland was treated with gross injustice.
Lord Stanleyagreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was not advisable, generally, to carry on the legislature by means of one Chamber only; but under the present circumstances of this colony, where one House constantly rejected the bills of the other, he thought it would conduce to the more harmonious management of the affairs of the colony, if they were to merge the two Chambers into one. He felt confident it would be for the benefit of the colony to abolish the Legislative Council as a distinct Assembly. The right hon. Member was not correct in supposing that those in the Council who were nominees of the Crown, would be at the control of the Crown. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there were few bodies so difficult to control by the Crown as this, though they held their appointments at the discretion of the Crown; and the reason was, that the remuneration was not great, and the appointments were far from being sought after. As far as the Crown, therefore, was concerned, the right hon. Gentleman need be under no apprehension of the ten mem-
1066
bers who were appointed by the Government being unduly influenced.
Mr. V. Smithsaid, that in giving his vote in favour of this clause, he did not wish to be understood as in any way sanctioning the permanent abolition of the Legislative Council. The noble Lord had at his (Mr. V. Smith's) desire, introduced a clause making this a temporary measure; it was, in fact, merely an experiment, such as had been tried in New South Wales and Australia. He did not participate in the Conservative fears of his right hon. and learned Friend, that if they abolished the Legislative Assembly in Newfoundland, the same step would follow here, and that we should proceed to do away with the House of Lords. He certainly thought there was no ground for any such Conservative apprehension. He would, however, beg to suggest, that in this clause, it would be as well to preserve the number as it already existed in the Legislative Council. He wished to ask the noble Lord whether it was meant that those of the Legislative Council who sat in the United Assembly should be moveable by the Governor from their seats in the United Assembly? He wished to know whether that was intended, as he thought the clause would have that effect? Guarding his vote by the assumption that this was only a temporary measure, he should record it in favour of the noble Lord.
Mr. P. Howardopposed the principle of the bill. On the principle of the recommendation of Lord Ripon, the reduction of the official men in the Assembly to three or five, would give the Government all it could desire, while so small a number could not control or overwhelm the deliberations of the Assembly. This course would be better than swamping the public voice by a side. wind, and reducing the political privileges of the people to a mere nullity.
Mr. Humesaid, the inhabitants of Newfoundland were unheard and unrepresented, and the House was now about to deprive them of the greatest of privileges —that of managing their own affairs. If this disfranchisement were to be applied to any one English borough, there was not a Member who would not he ready to cry out against its injustice. He was prepared to prove, that all that had been alleged against the constituencies, were gross exaggerations. The hon. Member

1067
read an extract from their petition, stating that they believed, if the constitution was to be abolished, it would be better that the affairs of the colony should be entirely managed by a committee appointed by the Government. Let them not think this oppression would be exercised without endeavours by the colonists to regain their rights and liberties. No abrogation of the constitution whatever ought to be made; and, therefore, he should, with great pleasure, support the amendment, and join his hon. Friend in his exertions to obstruct, by every possible means, the progress of this bill.
Mr. Wysegave his most strenuous opposition to the clause. The amalgamation of the two legislative bodies would deprive the people of Newfoundland of their just and legal rights, and would have a very injurious effect upon the other colonies of the empire.
The committee divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out, stand putt of the bill:—Ayes 80; Noes 18: Majority 62.
Mr. O'Connellwished the number of the nominees appointed by the Crown to be five instead of ten; he should, therefore move, that the words " one-fourth " should be substituted for the words " two-fifths. "
Lord Stanley,in opposing the amendment, said that under the new constitution, he had left to the popular will a majority of the members of the council—15 to 10; but be could not consent to give to the popular will such a majority—15 to 5—as would enable it at any time to tide over the Representatives of the Crown and of the aristocratic classes.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the influence of the representatives was not:to be measured by the mere rule of vulgar arithmetic.
Mr. Wyseurged that some of the representatives of the people would always support the nominees of the Crown, and with so small a difference as that between fifteen and ten would give to them a certain majority on all occasions.
Mr. V. Smithopposed the amendment, but he did not exactly approve of the numbers proposed in the clause. He thought that the numbers ought to have remained the same as they now where, but he could not support so great a elimination as that proposed by the right hon. the Lord Mayor of Dublin.
Mr. Humesaid, that the representatives of the people had formerly gained a mere majority—only just a majority—but with the ten nominees of the Crown against them, they would always be in a minority. The noble Lord had called those nominees a check, and only a check upon the people, but would the noble Lord leave to the people that which was everywhere admitted to be their right, an absolute disposal of the taxation of the colony, and prevent the nominees of the Crown froth voting on any question Of supply? The noble Lord was establishing an oligarchy, than which he would prefer that the affairs of the colony should be managed by a board sitting in Downing-street.
The Committee divided on the question that the words two fifths stand part of the clause—Ayes 82; Noes 21: Majority 61.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Hogg, J. W

A'Court, Capt.

Hope, hon. c.

Allix, J. P.

Hussey, T.

Arkwright, G.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Baird, W.

Jermyn, Earl

Bentinck, Lord G.

Joliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Blackburne, I. I

Jones, Capt.

Bodkin, W. H.

Kemble,

Boldero, H. G.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Botfield, B

Lacelles, hon. W. S.

Broadley, H

Lefroy, A.

Bruce, Lord E.

Lincoln, Earl of

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Lockhart, W.

Clayton, R. R.

Lowther, J. H.

Clerk, Sir G.

Lyall, G.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Cresswell, B.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Darner, hon. Col.

Marsham, Visct.

Darby, G.

Masterman, J.

Douglas, Sir II.

Meynell, Capt.

Douglas' Sir C. E.

Munday, E. M.

East, J. B.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Eliot, Lord

Palmer, It.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Palmer, G.

Flower, Sir J.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Peel, J.

Ffolliott, J.

Polhill, F.

Forbes, W.

Pollock, Sir F.

Forester, hn. G. C. W.

Pringle, A.

Fuller, A. E.

Repton, G. W. J.

Gaskell, J. Manes

Sandon, Visct.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Stanley, Lord

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Stewart, J.

Gore, M.

Sutton-, hon. H. M.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Trotter, J.

Grant, Sir A. C.

Vernor, Col.

Grogan, E.

Wortley, hon. S.

Hamilton, W. J.

Young, J.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Henley, J. W.

TELLERS:

Hervey, Lord A.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Hodgson, R.

Baring, II.

1069

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A

Plumridge, Capt.

Bowring, Dr,

Scholefield, J.

Brotherton, J.

Seymour, Lord

Browne, hon. W

Smith, rt. hon. It.

Cobden, It.

Turner, E.

Duke, Sir J.

Williams. W

Duncan, G.

Wood, B.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Wyse, T

Hawes, B.

Yorke, hon. H. R

Home, J.

TELLERS,

Parker, J.

O'Connell, D.

Pechell, Capt.

Howard, P.

[Second Division. We give the names on this division as the most numerous. The Members who voted on the other divisions being the same it was superfluous to repeat them.]
Lord C. Fitzroymoved the introduction into the clause of the words " that such Members of Council shall not vote on any question of supply, finance, or of taxation. "
Mr. O'Connellsupported the amendment.
Lord Stanleyopposed the motion. The tendency of the Commons of Newfoundland was to vote liberally towards public improvements. The clause was altogether intended to operate as a cheek on their too great liberality.
The committee divided on the question that the words be inserted — Ayes 22; Noes 79; Majority 57.
On the motion that the clause do stand part of the bill the committee again divided: — Ayes 79; Noes 25: Majority 54,
House resumed. Bill to he reported.

RIBBONISM —ARMAG ASSIZES.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that he believed he could now make the motion of which he had given notice respecting the late trial for Ribbonism at Armagh. His object was not to pronounce any premature censure upon the Government as connected with the transaction in question. He thought there could possibly be only one opinion as to the nature of those transactions, especially as to the employment of the witness Hagan. The only question appeared to be, upon whom did the responsibility devolve? If the misconduct was to be attributed to the magistrates and witnesses, they would be liable to censure, and without anticipating any connexion between the Government and those parties, if the Government sanctioned the conduct of those witnesses, he thought he would be
1070
safe in saying that the House would be unanimous in censuring such conduct. He did not suspect that thenoble Lord (Lord Eliot) participated in those transactions. The mode in which he personally conducted himself in Ireland precluded such a 'notion. It was not for him to speak in terms of flattery of the noble Lord, but he might speak of him as an act of justice, and he was sure if the noble Lord had more power, there would be no cause for complaint, The trial at Armagh was one of Ribbonism, and as that was an expression fortunately not known in this country, he would state what the nature of that offence was, It was a crime committed by persons who entered into secret societies, and made use of signs or pass words for the purpose of being able to recognise each other. There did not appear to be any defined object of these associations of persons. It was, however, certainly, a highly criminal association, and he knew no man who was really a friend to Ireland, who had not exerted himself to put down these societies. He begged the House to keep in mind that, the possession of pass-words made the person liable to transportation. Four persons were tried at the last Armragh assizes; two witnesses were produced to procure a conviction; one or these was a man named Hagan, who had acted as a spy upon the prisoners; he pretended to be a Ribbonman, he joined them; made himself acquainted with their secrets and their pass-words, and this he had done for the express purpose of denouncing them. The hon. and learned Gentleman read the evidence of Hagan, the approver, to the effect that the magistrates were aware of his proceedings, and that he had made Ribbonmen by the hundred. He invented sixty-three classes or pass-words, and disseminated large quantities of illegal papers, the mere possession of which was a transportable offence. Now they were to take every word this man had sworn as true; though it was difficult, yet as it had the sanction of the jury, they could not do otherwise. In the next, place the Government must also have believed it, for they had transported the persons convicted on that evidence. All he required was, that the correspondence between the magistrates and this man, or the magistrates and the Government, should be produced. Lie did not believe for one instance that, the noble Lord had the least knowledge of any trans

1071
actions of this description. No man who sat on the other side of the House could spurn with greater indignation such an insinuation than he would. He trusted, therefore, the Government would not attempt to screen the parties implicated in these transactions. He moved merely for the correspondence—he cast no censure upon the Government by his motion. He entirely absolved the noble Lord from all knowledge of such a transaction. In the case of Popay, the then Government had not attempted to cast any shield over him. Lord Althorp had at once granted a committee of inquiry into his conduct, and had stated it as his opinion, that the employment of spies to entrap persons into guilt was a most abominable system. That abominable system had been denounced in just and eloquent terms by the counsel for the defence, who, notwithstanding he was of Conservative politics, yet did his duty nobly to his clients, and in such a manner as reflected the highest honour on the Irish Bar. Lord Althorp had stigmatised the spy system as abominable and atrocious. That was stronger language than he (Mr. O'Connell) ever used. He knew the noble Lord opposite would not attempt to justify such conduct. He trusted he would not withhold the documents. He (Mr. O'Connell) censured no one at present—he knew not who was responsible for that conduct. These documents would inform him;` and from them he should learn against whom it would be his duty to move for a committee of inquiry in the course of next Session. The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving,
"That there be laid before this House copies of or extracts from the correspondence between the Government and the magistrates, relative to the witnesses produced on the trial of Hare and others, at the late Armagh assizes, for Ribbonism. "
Lord Eliotsaid, if anything could induce him to accede to the motion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it would be the calm and temperate manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had introduced it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had not endeavoured to cast any censure upon the Government, and he did not therefore resist the motion on that ground; but he thought he should betray his duty, if he were, by assenting to the production of these papers, to furnish what he could not but consider a dan
1072
gerous and inconvenient precedent. He had had no opportunity of seeing the correspondence, but he could well conceive that it was of a confidential nature, and that the production of it might tend to defeat the ends of justice, either by putting on their guard persons who might be implicated, or who might be objects of suspicion to the local authorities, or, on the other hand, that it might tend to fix imputations upon persons who might subsequently be proved to be entirely innocent of the charges brought against them. Hagan had said, that he initiated persons into Ribbonism, with the knowledge of the police and the magistrates. Upon that point he was not prepared to give an opinion. He had no hesitation in saying, that the report of the trial referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, was altogether inaccurate. He had searched the Dublin newspapers of the day, and had found no mention whatever of the occurrences described in that paper. In this opinion he was confirmed by the testimony of one who was in court during the whole of the trial, and who was now at the head of the constabulary force of the county of Suffolk. He was not at that moment able to say whether, or to what extent, the local authorities were cognizant of Hagan's proceedings, but he had no hesitation in saying, that if they were cognizant of them, their conduct was altogether unjustifiable. He was satisfied that there was nothing in the correspondence which reflected any blame on the Government. He felt it his duty, however, and it was a painful duty, because he could wish that the whole matter was investigated by the House, but he felt it his duty, for the reasons which he had stated, not to consent to the production of these papers. He was certainly thankful to the right hon. Gentleman for the opportunity which he had afforded him of disavowing on the part of the Government all participation in those proceedings. Whatever advantage might be derived from obtaining information of the proceedings of secret societies by the aid of spies and informers, he thought the advantage would not compensate for the injustice and injury which would be done by employing paid agents to procure information. It was with considerable reluctance that he felt it his duty to object to the production of the correspondence.
Mr. Humesaid, he was glad to hear the

1073
disclaimer of the noble Lord on the part of the Government, of all participation in these proceedings. He wished to know, however, whether Hagan had received any pay from the Government?
Lord Eliotsaid, that Hagan, in his evidence, distinctly denied having received any reward. In such a country as Ireland, where the great majority of crimes arose out of secret societies, it was almost impossible to obtain evidence without the aid of approvers, and though no rewards should be given beforehand, he did not think it was inconsistent with the character of the Government to give to approvers sufficient for their subsistence until their services were required.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the noble Lord greatly mistook his purpose, when he attributed to him a desire to see any part of the correspondence which related to any persons accused of crime. The correspondence which he wanted was that which would show who it was that employed those persons. With respect to what the noble Lord had said as to the employment of approvers, he admitted that there was a distinction between an approver and a spy. An approver was as different from a spy, as an honest man was from an approver. He should feel it his duty to divide the House.
The House divided:—Ayes '24; Noes 72: Majority 48.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, U. A.

Langton, W. G

Aldam, W.

Morris, II.

Bowring, Dr.

Pechell, Capt.

Browne, hon. W.

Smith, B.

Bryan, G.

Somers, J. I',

Cobden, R.

Tuffnull, II,

Duncombe, T.

Turner, E.

Forster, M.

Williams, W

Gill, T.

Wood, B.

Gore, hon. R.

Yorke, H. R.

Hawes, B.

Heathcoat, J.

TELLERS,

Howard, hon. H.

O'Connell, D

Hume, J.

Wyse,

List of the Noes.

A'Court, Capt,

Botfield, B.

Allix, J. P.

Broadley, H.

Archdall, Capt.

Clayton, R. R.

Arkwright, 0.

Clerk, Sir C.

Baird, W,

Cockburn, rt. hon. Sir G

Baring, hon. W. B.

Corry, rt. hon.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Cresswell, B.

Blackstone, W. S.

Darner, hon. Col.

Bodkin, W. H.

Darby, G.

Boldero, H. G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

1074

East, J. B.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Eliot, Lord

Jones, Capt.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Knatchbull, rt. hon. Sir E.

Flower, Sir J.

Lefroy, A.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Ffolliott,

Lockhart, W.

Forbes, W.

Lowther, J. H.

Forester, hn. G. C. W.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Fuller, A. E.

M'Geachy, F. A.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Marsham, Visct.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Masterman,

Gore, M.

Meynell, Capt.

Gore, W. R. 0.

Mundy, E. M.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Palmer, G.

Grant, Sir A. C.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Greene, T.

Peel, J.

Hale, R. B.

Pothill, F

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H

Round, J.

Hardy, J.

Sandon, Visa.

Henley, J. W.

Sheppard, T.

Herbert, hon. S.

Stanley, Lord

Hervey, Lord A.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Hodgson, R.

Young, J.

Hogg, J. W.

Hope, hon. C.

TELLERS

Hussey, T.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Jermyn, Earl

Pringle, A.

Mr. O'Connellthen gave notice, that he would move next Session for a committee to inquire into the subject of the employment of Hagan and Cox.

COUNTY COURTS BILL.
On the motion of Sir, J. Graham, this bill went through committee pro formd, for the purpose of adding new clauses, and having the bill reprinted.
Mr. Aglionbywished to know how it was possible fully to consider a bill like this, consisting of one hundred clauses, at the present period of the Session?
Sir J Grahamsaid, that the bill was so modified, as would, be hoped, remove the objection to it.
The House then resumed, the report was brought up, and the bill was ordered to be re-committed to morrow.
The House then adjourned at a quarter to four o'clock till five o'clock.

SLAVERY IN INDIA.
Mr. Villiersrose to put a question to the Government, of which he had given notice, respecting slavery in British India; he wished to know if any steps had been taken for carrying the intentions of the British Legislature into effect, or whether any measures were contemplated for terminating the system of slavery which existed in that part of the British empire? [Mr. Villiers here read the provision in the East-India Charter

1075
Act, which provided for the extinction of slavery.] He wished especially to know what steps had been taken for the abolition of slavery and the slave-trade which had been proved to exist without the sanction of law in the British settlements of Penang, Province Wellesley, and Singapore?
Mr. B. Baringsaid, that legislation on the subject must be initiated in India. Orders had been sent out in November last to Singapore and Penang, directing the governors of those provinces to transmit without delay a project of law for the immediate abolition of slavery in those provinces. With respect to India, the Governor-general at the beginning of the present year had transmitted drafts of projects of law for the mitigation and gradual abolition of slavery for the consideration of the Court of Directors, and the Court of Directors and the Government had signified their desire to accede to all the propositions of the Governor-general on that subject. The subject would be best understood from the papers that would be presented to the House. In the first place, they gave every security to individuals in enacting that no one should be dispossessed of his property on the ground that his predecessors, having been slaves, had no right to acquire it. They also prohibited the selling of children into slavery in periods of scarcity. The papers would be laid on the Table of the House before the prorogation.

INCOME TAX.
Mr. R. Yorkeinquired whether the Government were aware that there was great irregularity in the delivery of the Income-tax papers; and whether the notice of twenty-one days for the return of those papers was to be calculated horn the day on which they were dated, or from that on which they were delivered? He also wished to know whether, when papers were left both at the town residence and country residence of an individual, both were to be filled up'?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he was sorry that there had been considerable delay in the delivery of the Income-tax papers, owing to the short time which had to elapse since the passing of the Bill until the next quarter-day; but, as great exertions were now making for their due delivery, lie hoped that in a few days no persons would have to complain of not,
1076
having had the pleasure of receiving the Income-tax papers. With respect to the date, the act required that the papers should be filled up within twenty-one days from the time of the date; but if they were not delivered till after the date, an allowance could readily be made for that. When papers were left both at a town residence and a country residence, both sets would be required to be filled up if relating to different sorts of property; otherwise, one of the sets might he sent back, with a statement that the return had been made.
Mr. R. Yorkesaid, that if a person said that he had not received the papers until after the time of their date, and the delivering officer insisted that he had delivered them at the time of their date, he doubted whether in such a case any allowance of time could be made.

AFFGHANISTAN.
Mr. D'Israeliinquired whether the report was true, that the Governor-general of India had ordered the withdrawal of the troops from Affghanistan
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the despatches from the Governor-general had been received at the Board of Control not more than an hour ago, and he had not had an opportunity of reading them yet, and was consequently unacquainted with their contents.

ECCLESIASTICAL CORPORATIONS LEASING.
Sir J. Grahammoved the third reading of the Ecclesiastical Corporations Leasing Bill.
Sir R. H. Inglisobjected to some parts of the bill in its original shape, but still more to the new clauses. One of those clauses, the 12th, introduced a new principle into the legislation of England on the subject, by establishing a maximum in respect to the income derivable by a clergyman from a given living. With regard to the other new clauses, they had not been made known to the chapters and other bodies, with whose property they dealt; but as they only carried out the principle of the Ecclesiastical Commission Acts, he would not, under all the circumstances of the Session, dwell upon them; but he wished an expression of the opinion of the House on the 12th clause.
Sir J Grahamregretted that his hon. Friend had reserved his objections to the bill to so late a period. The bill had been nearly six months before the House. As

1077
to the principle in the 12th clause, it was, one which, considering the great importance of providing for the spiritual instruction of the people, he could not consent to abandon. It enacted that, out of incomes increased by the operation of this bill, means should be provided to establish cures of souls in destitute districts. His hon. Friend objected to any interference with ecclesiastical property, and would be content to leave to all life-holders of it the excessive incomes which might be the result of operations rendered legal by the present bill. He could not, therefore, hope to satisfy his hon. Friend; but he thought that he should satisfy the House.
Mr. V. Smithsupported the clauses proposed to be inserted by the right hon. Baronet. There was no doubt that the revenues of the Church would be considerably increased if these clauses were agreed to; he hoped, in that event, that the agreement which originally existed between the lessees and lessees, and which was a favourable agreement for the Church, would still be maintained.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, it appeared to him that there could be but two sound opinions upon the present question; either the opinion of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, who contended that Parliament had no right to deal with Church property under any circumstances; or the opinion of 1101 1. Gentlemen on his (Lord Palmerston's) side, who maintained that Parliament had a right to dispose, according to its discretion, of any fresh accession to the property of the Church. It seemed to him that the intermediate position taken up by the Government, that Parliament had a right to deal with Church property in one way and not in another, was altogether untenable. The present Ministers said, the property, indeed, is sacred, but we may deal with it, not as the Church might desire, but as we think best for the Church. This was the principle of appropriation without its merit. Those who agreed with him were of opinion that the improved value in Church property would be best appropriated to abolish Church-rates.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the distinction was perfectly clear. The late Ministers proposed to take away the property left for religious purposes, and to apply it to secular purposes. The present bill, and the Ecclesiastical commission, which, in his short administration in 1835, was one of his first objects, provided carefully not only that no
1078
alienation should be made of the property of the Church, but that increased accommodation should be secured out of it, for those members of the Church to whom it would otherwise be denied. In the present bill there was a distinct provision that the increased value now to be given to ecclesiastical property, should go to the benefit of the places where that property was situated. He felt that, considering the destitution of spiritual instruction which prevailed, it was not for the interests of the Church itself, or for the good of religion, that vast incomes should be in the hands of individuals, whether private clergymen or bishops. It had been stated that, under such a bill as the present, the Bishop of London, if it had not been for the Ecclesiastical commission acts, might he in possession of an income of 150,000 1. Could this be defended Could it be contended that it was for the good of the Church?
Mr. Hardysaid, that the real interests of the Church were often neglected, or at least little regarded, in proportion to their importance, HI these debates. What he wished to see was an adequate provision for the spiritual instruction of the people. He thought, therefore, that the fund accumulated from any increased value that might be given to Church property, ought to lie devoted exclusively to spiritual purposes, and for that reason he supported the Government measure. Of the plan of the noble ford, which was to devote the surplus to the extinction of Church-rates, he certainly could not approve.
Mr. Aclandsaid, that lie could not but look with great distrust at the new clauses in the bill. The object was, indeed, the same as that of the Ecclesiastical commission acts; but it continued still further the subjugation of diocesan authority to the central board in London. On the subject of Church property he could not go so far as his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, and he did not believe that the great majority of those whose interests he represented, would concur with him. He knew that when the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill was in progress, many of those whose interests were affected, though not pecuniarily, offered to reduce their money interests, he believed 20 per cent., in order to preserve the chapter system inviolate.
Mr. Henleysaid, that what had fallen from her Majesty's Ministers had increased his objection to the bill. It was avowed that the object of the bill was to carry

1079
out the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical commission. Now that commission had originated from a slight pressure from without in Ireland, not amounting to what the right hon. and learned Member for Cork would call a heavy blow against Church-rates. The Government of the day yielded to the pressure, and nine or ten bishops were swallowed up to get rid of Church-rates. At least, the revenues were swallowed up. He knew not what had become of the bishops themselves. The commission bad then been appointed, and had dealt with what it had chosen to denominate the excess of Church property. Now, if the principle of that commission were carried out, they might next year have an act interfering with livings of 1,200 1. or 2,000 1. What security had they that the holders of these livings would not meet with the same fate as the bishops? In the present state of the House, it would, he knew, be useless to divide the House upon the clause. He thought it involved most dangerous principles. The bill, as introduced by the late Government, was bad enough, and these gentlemen (pointing to Ministers) had made it worse
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, every provision was introduced into the bill that was necessary to protect the property of the Church, and to promote those interests for which it was originally given.
Bill read a third time.
Sir J. Grahamthen brought up the following clause to follow clause 5:—
" And be it enacted, that it shall be lawful for any Ecclesiastical corporation, aggregate or sole, except as aforesaid, from time to time, with the consent or consents hereby required in the case of leases of land, to grant or demise, by lease, for any term not exceeding sixty years, to take effect in possession and not in reversion, or by way of future interest, any mines, minerals, quarries, or beds, belonging to such corporation, together with the right of working, or of opening and working the same, and together also with such portion of land belonging to such corporation, as shall be deemed expedient; and every such lease shall contain such reservations by way of rent, royalty, or share of the produce in kind, all or any thereof, or otherwise, and such powers, provisoes, restrictions, and covenants, as shall be approved by the Ecclesiastical commissioners for England, due regard being had to the custom of the country or district within which such mines, minerals, quarries, or beds ate situate; and no fine, premium, or foregift, nor any thing in the nature thereof, shall be taken for or in respect of any such lease."
The clause read a first, second, and third time, and added to the bill.
Sir J. Grahammoved the following clause, to follow clause 12:—
"Provided always, and be it enacted, that in case of any lease of mines, minerals, quarries, or beds, granted under this Act, such portion of the improved value accruing there under as by the like authority shall be determined on, not being more than three fourth parts, nor less than one moiety, of such improved value, shall forthwith and from time to time, as the same shall accrue, be paid to the said Ecclesiastical commissioners for England, and shall be subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, relating to monies payable to them in respect of any lease of land; and the remainder of such improved value shall be deemed to be an improvement within the meaning of the provisions relating to the incomes of archbishops, bishops; deans and canons, and archdeacons, respectively. "
Sir R. H. Inglissaid, that he had been misapprehended both by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, and by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and his hon. Friend the Member for West Somerset-shire. He had never denied the right of Parliament—that is, the supreme power of the State—to deal with Church property. He could not, therefore, accept the compliment of the noble Lord, and he feared that when the noble Lord said that he (Sir R. Inglis) was intelligible, he had not been intelligible to him. What he had said on the present occasion he had said in substance whenever these questions were discussed, namely, that Parliament had the same right, but no more, to deal with Church property as with lay property, that is, with the property of the chapter of Durham as with that of the corporation of Durham. The illustration which he had repeatedly given in former Sessions he would give again. Anthony de Beek, the great Bishop of Durham, six centuries ago, left his estates to the see. He had a full right to do so; he left them for the spiritual good of the see. If the wild moors on the surface were now cultivated, if the rich mines below the surface were now worked, if a vast population had grown up, and if, in consequence, there was want of increased spiritual instruction and means of public worship, the estates left to the see ought to provide for it out of the wealth on the spot; but where this use of it did not occur, he thought that it ought not to be diverted to any other purpose, however good. He had been taught by Mr. Burke to think that an Archbishop of Canterbury and a Bishop of Durham

1081
might raise their mitred fronts in Courts and Parliaments with great advantage to the country, and he felt sure that the incomes of such prelates, whatever might be their amount, would be spent as well and as wisely as those of any lay peer, whatever might be his title. He deprecated as not merely invidious, but as dangerous to the security of all property, the doctrine that one man's income was excessive, and, as such, ought to be reduced. Looking to the appearance of the House, and them absence of support to his views, he would not press a division.
Mr. Hawesthought the bill had been greatly improved by the clauses which the: right hon. Baronet had introduced; but the bill was important as recognising the principle of appropriation. The principle recognised by this bill was, that Parliament had a right to appropriate the surplus revenues of the dignitaries of the Church to other purposes, and to take those revenues out of the control of those dignitaries. Parliament was now dealing with Church property as it ought to deal with it. There were two principles, either of which the right hon. Gentleman might have adopted. He might either have asserted the right of Parliament to appropriate this Church property, or have left it to the Church to appropriate its own property. The Government had adopted the wiser course, and had asserted the right of Parliament to deal with the property. That principle had been before adopted with regard to Ireland. It had been propounded by the late Government; it had been wisely adopted by the present Government. Yes, the Government had adopted the principle of appropriation by the present bill. They appropriated the surplus of ecclesiastical property to a different purpose from that to white it had been proposed to appropriate it by the late Government; but nevertheless they did appropriate it to a different purpose from that for which it had been originally intended, and this was a distinct acknowledgement of the principle of appropriation. If they were to take from the Duke of Northumberland a portion of his income, and give it to a poor Peer, would that not be appropriation? Would it do to say " Oh! we do not go out of the Peerage, we only take from one Peer to give to another?" He apprehended that, nevertheless, the Duke of Northumberland would consider that an appropriation. He was rejoiced to see the Government recognising the principle of appropriation by this
1082
bill, and he regretted that they had not the courage to carry out the principle to its full extent.
Clause agreed to, and ordered to be added to the Bill.
Other amendments were made, and the bill, with additional clauses, was passed.

BANKRUPTCY, LAW AMENDMENT.
Sir J. Grahammoved the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the report on the Bankruptcy Law Amendment Bill.
Mr. M. Philipssaid, that as this bill had undergone very little discussion, he was sure he should be excused for opposing it at the present stage, and stating his reasons for doing so. He objected in the strongest possible degree to the appointment of official assignees in all bankruptcies prosecuted in the country. They were to be appointed, it seemed, on the ground that the present system worked badly and inefficiently. He was not aware that it did. He could state at least that in Manchester it worked most satisfactorily. His constituents were perfectly content with it. His constituents, and, indeed, most mercantile men whom he had consulted on the subject, were of opinion that the greatest possible danger was liable to attend the appointment of those official assignees, into, or rather through, whose hands such a vast mass of property must necessarily pass. He believed that the appointment of official assignees in London was not without objection --- nay, that some of them had been guilty of conduct which did not redound very much to their credit. It was possible that men might be appointed with engagements hanging over them, and who would consequently be exposed to the almost irresistible temptation of going astray if the whole property of bankrupts' estates was to be allowed to pass through their hands, and they to be clothed with such powers as this bill proposed. Then, how were they to be remunerated? He understood by a commission of 21 per cent, upon all property passing through their hands. That he considered a most enormous expense to add to the working of the bankruptcy law. If it afforded a clear and decided guarantee for the more speedy and efficient arrangement of bankruptcies he might be inclined to sanction such a provision, but under existing circumstances it ap-

1083
peared to him to he a very serious impediment in the way of the measure. In order to illustrate his view of the question, he would suppose an official assignee having to deal with a property of 20,000 1., of which 15,000 1. was mortgaged. As he understood it, this official assignee would have 2½ per cent. commission upon the money actually passing through his hands, although the only difficulty or trouble as regarded the 15,000 1. would be in his handing it over to the party originally lending it. The assignees were not to perform the duties of accountants, who Would be an extra charge besides. He wanted to hear from the law officers of the Crown any recommendation in favour of the appointment of these individuals. So far as the bankruptcy practice in the country was concerned these officers were thought incumbrances; and they were at a loss to find anything in favour of their appointment, One of his objections to the bill was to the appointment of com-missioners at salaries of 1,800 1. a-year. That appeared to him to be an enormous salary for the functions to be discharged. The number of commissioners proposed to be appointed was ten; but he felt confident that this number was totally inadequate for the purpose. He must claim at least two for transacting the bankruptcy business of Manchester; as he was informed by those practically acquainted with bankruptcy business that it was impossible the bankruptcy business of Manchester could be worked by a less number than two commissioners. In confirmation of that opinion, he had only to state that, from the lst of January, 1841, to the 1st of January, 1842, no less than 725 meetings of bankruptcy had been held in Manchester alone., and if these commissioners had perambulatory duties assigned to them, it was impossible that this amount of business could be done by them. With regard to the amount of remuneration, the salary of the stipendiary magistrate of manchester for attending the police-court at Salford throughout the year, de die diem, was 1,000 1. a year; and when that office had to be filled some years ago, the applications from the London bar for the officer had been extremely numerous, and from parties of a standing at the bar which had excited the surprise of persons in the country. He could not, therefore, think the amount of salary proposed to be given for the present offices necessary. His be-
1084
lief was that thirty commissioners would not be sufficient, Leeds, Liverpool, Birmingham, Bristol, and every large town would have great demands for their time as well as Manchester. If this number should be required, look at the cost of these judges at 1,800 1. a year each. To this there was the addition of 2½ per cent. for the working of the official assignees. The old system, though not perfect, worked satisfactorily; and in order to carry out the proposed system it appeared that very great expense was to be gone to, which would have to come out of the bankrupts' estates. He should feel it his duty to give the strongest opposition to this bill if it were intended to persevere with the clause giving these large salaries. In Manchester alone, in one year, property to the amount of 75,000 1. had gone through the hands of the commissioners; and if 2½ per cent. were to be charged on that amount, as the commission of the official assignees, the cost would be enormous; and this in addition to the commissioners' salaries. [Sir J. Graham: That is not the amount of commission to be charged.] He should be glad to be set right. The House would at least agree with him that he had made out a case that an extra charge was to be thrown on bankrupts' estates by the operation of this bill. Mercantile men had several strong objections to the bill, particularly to the third clause, with regard to the issuing of the fiat. He hoped the bill would be postponed. He had, indeed, been requested by his constituents to move that it be read a third time that day three months, if it should be persevered in.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, there was no such thing as 2½ per cent. named in the bill. The percentage was governed by the discretion of the commissioners, and the scale on which the commissioners permitted that per centage to be taken was the following: for the collection of debts under 100 1. 5 percent. from 100 l. to 500 1. 2½ per cent; from 500 1. to 1,000 1. 1 percent.; and above that sum, 10 s. per cent. With regard to the realization of property under 1,000 1., 2½ percent.; above 1,000 1 per cent,; and in all mortgage cases 1 percent. With regard to the expense to be incurred by the appointment of these commissioners, the exact amount of their salaries would be the subject of discussion. All the expenses of the present system of working, in point

1085
of fact, came out of the bankrupts' estates, and the present expenses of the collections made in the country amounted to about 30,000. l year. The collection of the different sums to be paid within the London district amounted to not less than 1,000,000 1. sterling; and the interest paid on that sum actually defrayed the whole expenses, or at least the greater part of the expenses, of the entire establishment. So that, if economy were the object of the hon. Gentleman, and saving the pockets of creditors, he should advocate a system that, by collecting the funds of bankrupts, and placing them in security, thereby realised more than would pay the whole expenses.
Mr. W. Williamsdid not doubt but that the bill was a great improvement on the law as it now stood; yet many influential and experienced tradesmen in the working of the bankruptcy law were anxious to have the bill postponed to the next Session, in order that they might make such suggestions as might render the measure more complete than at present. He knew of no class of persons whose opinions on this subject ought to have greater weight. He should not, however, vote against going into committee on the bill, if her Majesty's Ministers determined to proceed with it.
Mr. Forsterhad had no opportunity of examining the bill. Hs admitted that the present law required alteration and reform, but a much more enlarged reform than was proposed by this bill. He should be sorry to postpone the happy period of the exercise of patronage afforded by the bill to her Majesty's Ministers; but as commercial men had not had an opportunity of considering the bill it ought to be postponed.
Mr. Bernalsaid, that that House had often been accused of sending bills to another quarter, at a period of the Session when they had not time to test the merits of the bills sent up to them; but really, with all humility, he thought it rather late in their sessional year, for the Peers to send such a bill down for their approbation or rejection. He would put it to the Government, if time had been afforded to the commercial community to examine the bill, and report their opinions on this measure, and would rest the propriety of postponing it on the answer given. He believed there were a great many objections to many parts of the bill, and many omis-
1086
sions to be supplied, if they might judge from certain printed papers that had emanated from meetings held in the city of London.
Sir J. Grahamhad no difficulty in answering the question put to him. He did think, for the benefit of the trading community, that it was most desirable, at this advanced period of the Session, that they should proceed with this measure. The bill rested on high authority. It came down to them from the other House of Parliament, where it had been discussed by the Lord Chancellor of England and the Master of the Rolls, and where it had undergone the revision of two Peers who had held the great seal in this country, and of one who had held the great seal of the sister kingdom. The measure, therefore, came down to them sanctioned by high authority. He must deny altogether that the bill had come down to them by surprise. In the main, it rested upon the Report of the Bankruptcy Commission and though it did not go the whole length of carrying out the recommendations of that report, yet the bill was a large step in the reform of this branch of the law. They had the experience of ten years of the working of the experiment which had been tried on so large a scale in this metropolis, the great emporium of the commerce of the world, and the center of the trade of the kingdom, to guide them. Nor was the experiment confined to the metropolis, but took in an ambit of 40 miles round London; so that their experience must be considered most extensive. Then, as to the lateness of the period at which the measure was brought forward in the House of Commons; he had the happiness of being a colleague of Lord Brougham, when that noble Lord introduced the experimental measure, with reference to London, which was now in force, and of which he had just spoken, and it was almost at as late a period of the Session that that great change of the law was brought forward, and all the arguments now urged, were urged then; the lateness of the Session, surprise, the vast amount of patronage conferred by the bill, were all urged. Then, as now also, it was said, that the official assignees were quite certain to betray their trust, and not to act in a satisfactory way; it was said also, that it was quite impossible that six commissioners could manage the vast interests to be confided to their care. He begged

1087
to call attention to a memorial addressed to the Chancellor of England, and signed by fifty-six bankers, and various merchants, and 537 most respectable traders of the city of London, and presented to the late Government. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Philips) had talked of the admirable way in which the present system of bankruptcy worked in the country. The fact was, there were 700 judges of bankruptcy in the country, the whole paid by fees, the commissioners in London being paid by salaries. But what said the memorialists? They prayed for the extension, to the rural districts, of the same system which was at present in operation in London, and of the beneficial working of which they had had experience now for nearly eleven years. In consequence of this memorial, the Government issued a commission. That commission had reported, and the bill, though it did not go the whole length of the report, adopted the most important suggestions in it. He (Sir J. Graham) said, therefore, appoint commissioners for the rural districts. If ten be necessary, appoint ten; if more be necessary, appoint more—men eminent in the law, and inaccessible to improper influences. Resting on the experience of the metropolis, appoint official assignees to be paid, not by a percentage of 2½ as the hon. Member for Manchester imagined, but erroneously, for there was no such provision in the bill; but paid moderately, as the Lord Chancellor should, from time to time, appoint. With respect to the conduct of the official assignees, it would be recollected that the late Lord Chancellor had issued a commission to inquire, and the Lord Chancellor's power was absolute, to check abuse in that department. Whether the House agreed to pass the other clauses of the bill or not, he trusted that they would sanction the enactment of the two points to which he had just referred. But, if the House should differ with him on these two points, there was still one clause which he considered was of inestimable value, and which, if it were passed alone, he would say ought to be passed without delay. The clause he meant was one giving to the creditor the power to summon his debtor before the court, and put to him the question, "Do you acknowledge the debt you owe me, or do you not?" because, if the debtor, on the one hand, acknowledged the debt, and would not provide for the payment of it, he
1088
committed an act of bankruptcy. It', on the other hand, he denied the debt, and gave securities to pay such sum as should be recovered, or made a free surrender of his goods and property, by admitting it, his personal freedom was guaranteed. Every facility was therefore contained in this measure for proving an act of bankruptcy, and discovering the property of the debtor. And if the debtor acted honestly, and surrendered his property, then most rightly he would be exempt from punishment. But if, on the other hand, he concealed his property, and would not surrender it, or acted, in the slightest degree, with fraud, then his person would become, not on account of his poverty or misfortunes, but of his immorality, vice, and fraud, promptly and rightly subject to the law. There was, in addition to that clause, a most important provision, that the certificate of the bankrupt was not made dependent on the caprice, malevolence, or of the creditors. The creditors would have the opportunity of stating their reasons why the certificate should not be granted; but the granting the certificate was made a judicial measure. He held those four to be capital points. With respect to the issuing of a fiat, Lords Cottenham, Lyndhurst, and Brougham all thought that to take the issuing of fiats from the Lord Chancellor would be dangerous. In this country, where credit was everything, it would not do to take from the highest authority in the law the power of issuing so important a document, because when a trader's credit was tainted, his trade was ruined. He had only further to observe, that if the details of the measure proved not satisfactory to the hon. Member for Manchester, after the bill should have gone through committee, it would be quite competent for him to move the postponement of the third reading for three months, but he (Sir J. Graham) hoped the hon. Member would at present consent to go on with the measure, and defer discussion of the several provisions till a more suitable opportunity.
Mr. B. Woodagreed that this bill contained many good points, and his chief objection was derived from the time at which it had been introduced to the House. They had had the bill from the Lords just one week. Only last Tuesday it was materially amended by the addition of thirty new clauses. It was quite true

1089
that there was a commission appointed three years ago, but the House had got. nothing from that commission until now. The attention of the trading interest consequently in the mean time been much drawn away from that commission. Thus the trading community had known nothing of this bill. The lobby was inundated by persons who were there day after day on the subject. They were told that the House was not likely to sit many days, Was this, then, a fit time to push on important a measure? One clause in particular he would refer to, in order to show what a deal of discussion was likely to ensue on the bill. The 31st clause allowed a bankrupt partner of a solvent firm to sue every debtor of the partnership for debts owing to the partnership, though no title of proof were given that the bankrupt had one single penny in the partnership fund. A man might be a partner in a respectable concern—say Coutts's—he might be a gambler and dishonest, and withdraw all his property from the firm, yet his creditors might go to the bank, demand information of all the debtors of the partnership, and sue every one of them. This clause would create the most important change that had ever yet been introduced into the mercantile affairs of this country. He should have very much preferred the postponement of the bill until next Session, and he thought the right hon. Baronet would have the entire of the trading interest with him if he adopted that course.
Mr. R. Scotthad not the slightest objection to considering the principle of this measure, and he was quite ready to admit there were many points in which the system of bankruptcy in the country might be amended, and that the bill made many important improvements in that system; but he did not think that the details were fully adapted for their object, or that they were not capable of improvement. The best course, he thought, would be to refer this measure, along with two other measures—the Insolvent Debtors Bill and the County Courts Bill—to a select committee, as all three measures, having a connexion with one another, ought to be considered together,. With regard to the commissioners to be appointed under the bill, the House was not in a situation, from want of information, to say how far it would be practicable to work the bill with only ten commissioners.
1090
He apprehended great difficulty on that point. was impossible, too, for the House to decide the various questions as to the appointment of official assignees, and not merely regarded the means of their appointment, on which there would e great difference of opinion, but as to they mode of their payment and the nature of the duties they were to perform. It was highly necessary to have a full discussion of the whole subject, and he would suggest to the right hon. Baronet to adopt the course of referring this and the other bills to a select committee, in order that they might have the report before them next Session, before being called upon to decide the many difficult questions which grew out. of this important subject.
Mr. Hawesconsidered this one of the most important measures that had been submitted to the House for a length of time. He was not able to understand the opposition to the bill on principle, though he could see objections to particular clauses, He hoped, therefore, that the House would object to consider the measure. When he was told of parties inundating the lobby to oppose the bill, he must say lie heard nothing of it. He heard nothing but commendations of the bill. He was urged by the traders of London, with whom he had, he believed, as extensive a connexion as the hon. Member for South work (Mr. Wood), to press the Government to pass this bill. It was manifest he could have no object with regard to patronage in urging them as he did to pass it, because in polities he was as staunch an opponent of the Government as any one in the House. He asked whether the present system had not worked in London well and cheaply, and whether it had not had the effect of adding security to bankrupts' estates? lie asked, further, whether it had not been the means of withdrawing large sums of outstanding balances and placing them in the funds, so that the interest paid the working of the measure? In the country there were, he had not much doubt, large outstanding balances, and therefore it was easy to see that many parties would object to the bill. One point of the bill was to give additional power to creditors. Now, he would say, that it' they did not give great power to creditors, they would have a discussion in the House at no distant period of a revival of the law of arrest. That used to the !Treat power in the hands of a

1091
creditor. He had no equivalent at pre, sent. The bill provided a full equivalent for the law of arrest. But it was said, the expenditure under the bill would be extravagant. How was this proved? At present the average expense of working a commission in London was 25 1. or thereabouts; the present average expense in the country was somewhere about 70 1. He was convinced that, whatever might he the opposition which this bill received, it would be ultimately received as a boon.
Sir R. Peelcould not urge too strongly upon the House the importance of their going into committee upon the bill. If they once felt satisfied that the bill was an improvement upon the existing law, he could not too much impress upon the House the policy of at once passing it. If after having with so much labour rolled the stone up hill they permitted it to fall again, they would never be able to replace it, or if at all, not without an increased amount of difficulty. He entreated the House to remember that there were 740 persons throughout the country who were interested in stopping the progress of a reform of this description. They were lawyers, too. Therefore, as they had proceeded thus far, his experience of the profession in all matters connected with reform induced him to urge upon the House at once to agree to the measure, and not to miss an opportunity that might not again occur. The main clauses of the bill could not fail, in his opinion, to operate most usefully.
Mr. Aglionbythought that there was very good ground for the complaints made, that this bill had been passed with too much haste. He had himself been assured by a deputation that had waited upon him, that they had been unable to procure copies of the bill while in the other House, and that they had only been able to consider its provisions since it came down and had been printed.
Mr. M. Philipssaid, his object having been partly answered by the discussion that had already taken place, he should not, as he had intended, move the rejection of the bill.
House in committee.
Clauses to the 30th agreed to.
On the question that the 30th clause, enacting that distress should not be available for more than six months' rent due, to prove for the landlord the residue, stand part of the bill.
The committee divided:—Ayes 7;Nose 85:Majority 78. Noes 85: Majority 78.

List of the AYES.

Bowring, Dr.

Scott, R.

Brotherton, J.

Wyse, T.

Forster, M.

TELLERS.

Gibson, T. M.

Clay, Sir W.

Hawes, B.

Wood, B.

List of the NOES.

A'Court, Capt.

Hodgson, R.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hogg, J. W.

Allix, J. P.

Howard, P. H.

Arkwright, G.

Humphrey, Ald.

Baird, W.

Hussey, T.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Jermyn, Earl

Beckett, W.

Jones, Capt.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Kemble, H.

Bodkin, W. H.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E

Botfield, B.

Lefroy, A.

Broadley, H.

Lincoln, Earl of

Bruce, Lord E.

Lowther, J. H.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Clayton, II. R.

Lyall, G.

Clerk, Sir G.

Martin, J.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Meynell, Capt.

Codrington, C. W.

Morris, D.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Mundy, E. M.

Darby, G.

Newry, Visct.

Divett, E.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Norreys, Lord

Duncan, G.

Packe, C. W.

Duncombe, T.

Palmer, R.

Eliot, Lord

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Philips, M.

Flower, Sir J.

Pollock, Sir F.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Praed, W. T.

Ffolliot, J.

Pringle, A.

Forbes, W.

Repton, G. W. J.

Fuller, A. E.

Sanderson, R.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Scholefield, J.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Sheppard, T.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Stanley, Lord

Gore, M.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Trotter, J.

Grogan, E.

Turner, E.

Hale. R. B.

Verner, Col.

Hamilton, W. J.

Williams, W.

Harcourt, G. G.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Young, J.

Hardy, J.

TELLERS.

Henley, J. W.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Hervey, Lord A.

Baring, H.

House resumed,
Chairman reported progress. Committee to sit again.

PORT WINE DUTY.
Mr. Mastermanmoved the following resolution:
"That it having been the uniform practice, for many years past, to allow or to charge the wine-merchants upon their stocks in hand for any variation of duties that have taken place,

1093
this House is of opinion that it is but just and reasonable that the same course should be pursued in the event of a reduction being made of the duty upon port wine consequent upon the tariff to be annexed to the treaty with Portugal, notwithstanding the transfer of the collection of the whole of the wine duties to the Customs."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, opposed the motion, because it called upon the House to pledge itself to a course in anticipation of an event, the time or circumstances of which were yet unknown and also because the wine-merchants to whom it applied had had two years' notice of the intended change, and therefore quite sufficient opportunity of disposing of their stocks in hand.
Sir Robert Peeltrusted that no consideration would induce the House to accede to the motion of the hon. Member for London. They had recently revised almost the whole of the Custom duties in almost every article they had exposed the holders to an unexpected competition, and in no case had they allowed a drawback. But the hon. Gentleman, in his resolution, proposed that Government should allow a drawback, not in reference to an act done, but merely in the event of a reduction being made. If the House should agree to a pledge of this prospective nature, there would be no check to the frauds that would be committed, and he, therefore, trusted that the House would not sanction the resolution.
Mr. T. Duncombesupported the resolution. All the petitioners asked was, that Government should not depart from the uniform practice of former Governments, and he, hoped the House would view the resolution with more favour than the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done.
Mr. Hawes: Though he admitted the justice of the resolution, he yet hoped that under all the circumstances the hon. Member for London would not press his motion to a division.
Mr. Alderman Humphreycould not support the motion, because he thought the Government had made out a strong case against it.
Mr. Mastermanwould not press his motion to a division if the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government would give him an assurance that he would take the subject into consideration, in the event of a treaty being entered
1094
into with Portugal for the reduction of the duty on wine.
Sir Robert Peeldeclined giving any assurance on the subject. He objected to the resolution on principle, and could not purchase the hon. Member's forbearance by any assurance whatever.
Motion negatived.
House adjourned at a quarter past two o'clock.