Commons Sitting of 29 May 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS. Private. — Reported.—Quinborowe Borough; West London Cemetery; Belfast and Ballymena Railway (re-committed).
3°. and passed:—Wilts, Somerset, and Weymouth Railway; Eastern Counties Railway (Ely and Whittlesea Deviation); Exeter and Crediton Railway Watermen's Company (Poor's and Endowment Fund); Great Grimsby and Sheffield Junction Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. S. Crawford, from several places, for Extension of Parliamentary Suffrage.—By Mr. G. Hamilton, from several places, for Encouragement to Schools in connexion with Church Education Society (Ireland).—By Mr. Colvile, and Mr. Plumptre, from several places, for Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. Baskerville, Mr. O. Duncombe, Sir R. H. Inglis, and Mr. Plumptre, from several places, against the Grant to Maynooth College.—By Mr. J. O'Brien, and Mr. M. J. O'Connell, from several places, for Abortion of Ministers' Money (Ireland).—By Mr. Plumptre, from Archdeacon and Clergy of Wells, against Union of St. Asaph and Bangor.—By Viscount Grimston, from Bishop Stortford, for Repeal of Malt Duty.—By Mr. Ryder, from Hitchin, for Rating Owners of Small Tenements in lieu of Occupiers.—By. Dr. Bowring, from several places, in favour of the Ten Hours system in Factories.—By Mr. Roebuck,
1008
from several places, complaining of Maladministration of Justice in Guernsey.—By Mr. Berkeley, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Cobden, and Mr. Wakley, from several places, for Repeal or Alteration of Insolvent Debtors Act.—By Mr. Mitcalfe, from Tynemouth, for Alteration of Merchant Seamen's Fund Bill.—By Mr. Colvile, Viscount Grimston, and Lord A. Lennox, from several places, for Alteration of Law relating to the Sale of Beer.—By Sir T. Wilmington, from Bridgenorth, in favour of the Salmon Fisheries Bill.

PRIVILEGE—PRINTED PAPERS.
Mr. Wynnmoved that the Select Committee of Privilege appointed to consider the case of Howard v. Gossett, be empowered to report from time to time.—Agreed to.
The Solicitor Generalappeared at the Bar with their first Report, which was read as follows:—
"The Select Committee appointed to inquire into the proceedings of the Action of Howard v. Gossett, and to report their observations and opinion thereon to the House, have agreed to the following Report;
"In the course of the consideration which your Committee has given to the subject referred to them, they have been apprised of proceedings in the progress of the Action, of which it is proper that the House should be informed without delay. The Plaintiff on Tuesday last executed his Writ of Inquiry, and his damages were assessed by the Jury at 200 l.; and upon the Judgment for that amount he will be enabled to levy his execution on Monday, the 2nd of June.
"Your Committee will at an early period present a more detailed Report than they are at present prepared to make; but they feel it to be their duty to submit their opinion, that it is advisable that a Writ of Error should be brought on the Judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench; and as the levying of the Plaintiff's execution will in no respect prejudice the proceeding in the Writ of Error, your Committee do not deem it expedient to advise the House to interpose to prevent the levy."
On the Question that the Report be printed,
Mr. Humesaid: If this is the way in which the privileges of the House are to be vindicated, it does appear to me that we want some better defenders than those we have at present. The Report of the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to me to throw discredit on this House; and, indeed, the result to which the Committee have been obliged to descend, might have been anticipated from our yielding in the first instance. The time is now come when we are to decide whether we have really any privileges or not. Not an hour, in my opinion, should be lost in bringing the question to an issue. As a Member of this

1009
House, I must say I feel disgraced by the Report which you have just heard.
The Solicitor General: I regret that the hon. Gentleman should have used such strong expressions on an occasion which does not call for them. The reason why the Committee has not made a full and final Report, is, because they are anxious to put the House in possession of the grounds which have guided their decision. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to come to a Resolution before the House has full information before it, it is open to him to propose that course. But, the House not being committed in any way, I think it would be premature to come to a vote before we have all the facts before us.
Mr. Hume: I wish to ask, is there any I means of stopping the levy? That is what I think disgraceful.
Mr. Watson: Execution can be sued out, unless you mean to give bail in error.
The Solicitor General: It is the opinion of the Committee that bail in error should not be given. If the House is desirous of considering the question at once, I shall move that the Report be printed, and taken into consideration to-morrow.
Mr. T. Duncombe: On a former day, the hon. and learned Gentleman moved for certain documents in this case. We have got the judgment, but not the record or warrant.
The Solicitor General: The record is not made up until final judgment. We have, however, what will constitute the record—the pleadings; and these and the warrant will be ready to-morrow.
Sir T. Wilde: All that is material in the record we can have—the declaration, pleas, demurrer, and the opinions of the Judges. The remainder is merely formal matter.
Question agreed to.
Report to be taken into consideration the next day.

COURT MARTIAL (INDIA)—CASE OF MR. HOLLIS.
Mr. B. Escottrose to put to the hon. Member for Beverley the question of which he had given notice. He wished to ask him whether the Court of Directors of the East India Company had considered the case of Lieutenant Hollis, late of the East India Company's service, who had been tried by a court martial and dismissed?—whether he was enabled to give any opinion as to the legality or illegality of the court martial by which he had been dismissed? Secondly, supposing
1010
that, in their opinion, the court martial which had dismissed Lieutenant Hollis was illegal, whether he did not think that some substantial compensation should be made by the Company to that Lieutenant for his dismissal by a sentence which the Court of Directors of the East India Company themselves considered as illegal? And he would ask, in addition, if the hon. Member was not aware that in the opinion of many learned persons that court was an illegal court?
Mr. Hoggthought he was scarcely called upon to answer these questions. If it were the pleasure of the House that he should go into the case of Lieutenant Hollis, he would do so; and he would state the charge against that gentleman, not in his own words, but in the words of the finding of the court, with the observations of the Commander-in-Chief thereon. He would state this in the words of the finding, without adding a word of observation from himself, if the House thought it expedient that he should do so; but he gathered that the House was of opinion that it would be better that he should abstain. With regard to the legality of these proceedings, he was surprised that the hon. Gentleman should ask whether or not the Court of Directors had considered the legality of the court martial. They had no right to take upon themselves to judge of its legality. The whole authority of courts martial was, by the warrant of the Crown, in the Commander-in-Chief. He was the sole authority on the subject, and from his decision there was no appeal. The Court of Directors had no power to alter, correct, or affirm the decision of any court martial. The Mutiny Act described the course of proceeding if there was reason to complain. The Courts of Westminster were open to those who in this country felt themselves aggrieved; so were the courts in India, and the courts in the various Presidencies. The Court of Directors had no power to pass any opinion on the finding of a court martial. They had the power, by the 51st of George III., to restore the officer who had been suspended or dismissed by the sentence of a court martial; but the power of the Statute did not come into operation till the sentence of the court martial had been promulgated. The Court of Directors had considered the case of Lieutenant Hollis, and believed it one of some hardship. If he had voluntarily retired from the service, he would have been entitled to a pension of 73 l. a year; and

1011
although he had forfeited his right to that allowance, the Court voluntarily agreed to give him the sum of 70 l. a year—3l. less than the pension he would otherwise have received—considering him to be afflicted with some infirmities of temper which prevented his remaining in the service. To show the House how careful the Directors had been in exercising the power vested in them of restoring officers to the service who had been dismissed by a court martial, during twenty-seven years they had only exercised it on eight occasions; and every one of these cases were referred to them by local authorities, or by the Commander-in-Chief himself. The Court of Directors had inquired into this case with a desire to do every thing for this unfortunate man consistent with their duty to that service in which he had been an officer. He repeated, that he was not the organ of the Court of Directors; he merely gave his individual opinion, and did not think much discretion was shown in forcing the subject before the House.
Subject at an end.

ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS.
Lord Ashleytook that opportunity of stating that he wished to trespass on the House for a few moments only, on a matter personal to himself. He had understood that his absence from last night's debate had been very severely commented upon. He had last night taken the chair at a meeting of Sunday School Teachers in a remote district of Lambeth, for which he had been engaged for several months, and where he had been detained for several hours; and he did not think that, at that late period of the evening, it was necessary to attend that House to take part in a division upon a Motion which, whether it were successful or not, could lead to no practical result.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS.
Mr. H. Berkeleyrose, pursuant to notice, to bring before the House the Insolvency Act, or Small Debts Bill of last Session, in order to point out the evils of its operation, whether prospective or retrospective, and to ask the House to grant a Committee to inquire into those evils with a view to their remedy. He believed that an inquiry would convince the most sceptical that the Act in question had a tendency to demoralize the people, while it was fraught with the most ruinous consequences to
1012
trade. On this subject the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had been frequently pressed; but as yet he had turned a deaf ear to all solicitations, and still persisted in fondling Lord Brougham's bantling, although its parent had turned his back upon it. No one had more respect than himself for the talents of the noble Lord, or viewed with greater admiration than he did his wonderful Bill-begetting powers: at that moment he had nine young Bills on the Table of the other House—just born, and was probably looking to the right hon. Baronet to suckle them and bring them to perfection. Among those Bills was one intended to replace the right hon. Baronet's present pet; but he trusted that such would not be offered as a reason for refusing a Committee. The country had suffered too much in the same quarter from crude legislation, from want of deliberation, from indecent haste — and the tradesmen of England were now suffering from the loss of nearly three millions of money (this he stated on authority) from the Insovency Act of last Session; and under such circumstances he hoped that the House would consent to inquiry, instituted for the purpose of perfect information, made by a Committee of their own body, to furnish such a report as would lead them to a correct judgment in adopting or rejecting any measure which might be offered for their consideration. When the Bill was brought into the House last Session, at the close of the summer, before half the House knew the measure as a Bill it had passed into a law. The constituency he had the honour to represent pressed for opposition, and he presented their petition; but having reserved the expression of his own opinion until he had heard the Solicitor General, he felt bound to admit that the Solicitor General's statement was of such a nature that he found it impossible to refuse his concurrence in putting a stop to a system disgraceful to a Christian country. Dungeons, it appeared, were set a part for the confinement of poor debtors, rivalling the Black Hole of Calcutta; the innocent and the guilty were thrust in promiscuously; the fraudulent and the unfortunate immured in kennels, to which those occupied by gentlemen's foxhounds and pointers were a palace. Such was the picture the first four prisoners presented when examined by Her Majesty's Government; had the one at Bristol been the fifth inspected, he believed a different

1013
result would have been obtained. Not for one moment, however, did he stand there to suggest or urge the re-adoption of the old law; so far from it, that if any hon. Member were to attempt such a proposition he would resolutely oppose it, and be the first to vote against it; but he did ask the House to take into its serious consideration the unfortunate difficulties into which they had plunged the trading classes of this country by hastily passing an Act which, although it might have smothered one crying evil, yet had effected that purpose by inflicting upon those classes another grievous wrong. The change to be wholesome, was too violent; formerly the debtor was too much at the mercy of the creditor. Now the creditor was too much at the mercy of the debtor; the debtor, wholly without any personal responsibility as to all debts under 20 l. The alarm and excitement produced among the tradesmen of the country might be gathered from their numerous petitions; and those from London, Bristol, Liverpool, Bath, Birmingham, Southampton, Leeds, Bolton, Manchester, Norwich (some towns presenting two and three petitions, and all most numerously signed), were unanimous in declaring the losses sustained by the retrospective operation of the Act, and giving forcible reasons why the prospective operation would be equally disastrous. Were their opinions unsupported? Far from it; he was prepared to prove the bad retrospective operation of the Act, and high legal authorities who had to carry the Act into operation condemned it. Mr. Commissioner Fane had written ably on the subject; and Mr. Commissioner Evans, in the early career of this young Act, declared that it appeared to him calculated to become a refuge for all the rogues and vagabonds in the kingdom? It had been calculated that insolvents deprived their creditors annually of about 50,000,000 l. If the present Act were not altered, what the additional loss would amount to was a matter of frightful conjecture, seeing that three-fourths of the tradesmen's debts in this country were under 20 l. and that these debts, from the absence of any visible property in the majority of debtors, could only now be considered as debts of honour. It seemed a strange contradiction in legislating, that whilst every opportunity was sought to render the Unions as repulsive as possible to the pauper, with a view to check imposition, the Go-
1014
vernment, by their present system, had rendered the Insolvent Courts as attractive as possible to the debtor who should feel disposed to defraud his creditor, by affording him every facility of doing so. What follows under such a system? Laxity of morals, and, dishonest principles enjoy a licentious reign. An argument in favour of the Act was stated to be, that it would prevent credit from being given. How chimerical and absurd! A strange doctrine to broach in a country which avowedly depends on her mercantile credit for her commercial prosperity; the wealth produced is averaged at 164,000,000 l., and the actual cash in circulation at 46,000,000 l. What credit was to commerce, so it must be to trade in all its branches; it is essential to the merchant and tradesman, whether wholesale or retail, and ramified from them down to the customer—yet what had the Government done? It had protected the credit of the rich, and denied it to the poor. It had protected the trader above 20 l. but turned its back upon the trader below. For instance, "Pay me," says the wholesale man to his retail debtor, "21 l. which you owe me, or I'll lock you up." "Don't do so," replies the retail man, "because two customers of mine owe me 19 l. each, and not having visible and tangible property, laugh in my face, and I cannot lock them up!" What kind of legislation could that be which defined the difference between rigid responsibility and complete impunity, and assessed its value at 21. It had been urged that an utter absence of credit would be conducive to the welfare of the working classes. He took leave, most emphatically, to deny that. It was another strange doctrine to say, that men were made more moral by being made more miserable! He admitted that great facilities for credit to the poor man would be ruinous; but if when compelled by misfortune to seek, he could not obtain credit, his cup of misery would indeed be full! Let this be exemplified by the case of a working man from either town or country—a mechanic or an agricultural labourer—with a wife and two or three children, and 14 s. or 16 s. a week wages. If he pay rent and taxes—if he pay for food and clothes—in short pay his way and live respectably, such a man is deserving of all praise, he can lay nothing by: common occurrences pass over him; the sickness of one of his children

1015
ending in death. To supply more nourishing food and medical attendance during sickness, and after death to obtain the means of Christian burial, credit must be that man's only resource. Deny him credit, and you assert the monstrous principle, that when the poor man is under the visitation of God, you refuse him relief from man. Now, the relief of credit was entirely shut out by that wretched enactment. He would ask the House which kind of relief was most moral or praiseworthy, the relief of wholesome credit, or that obtained from the Board of Guardians? Shall he follow his child to a pauper's grave? The poor but honest man without a blush might ask for credit and meet its results, but would be broken-hearted to beg for alms. In this country it was a pretty well ascertained fact, that seven-tenths of the people anticipated their incomes. Could it be supposed that such a state of things was to be remedied by Act of Parliament? Amongst those who anticipated their incomes, the clergymen of the Church of England formed a prominent class. The very nature of their property rendered credit to them necessary. Obstacles might be thrown in the way of credit, but its necessity could not be done away with; nor could any Act prevent its being given as it ought to be. But there was another class much less worthy of credit, who anticipated their incomes—the thoughtless and the extravagant—these would laugh at Acts of Parliament, and obtain credit in spite of them. They will mock the Legislature with the words of the old poet—
"Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale? Ay, marry shall there; and ginger shall be hot i'the mouth too."
Cakes, and ale, and ginger will still be found by tradesmen at their risk, imminent as it has been made; because a refusal to do so would eventuate in their ruin. One thing, however, has been effected. A class of dishonest tradesmen has been encouraged, to the discouragement of honest tradesmen; for a class of spurious tradesmen exist, and begin to flourish, under the operation of this law, who, trading on a fictitious capital, will always give credit, because they do not pay. But it has been stated, that as all remedy for debts under 20 l. is denied to the tradesman, he must protect himself
1016
by the exercise of discretion and acuteness—in other words, the rogue must be protected from the tradesman, but not the tradesman from the rogue. It was impossible, in the present vitiated state of society, to refuse credit. A writer, speaking of the present prevailing system in England, thus expressed himself—
"It had made debt a national habit; it had made credit the ruling power, not the exceptional auxiliary, of all transactions; it had introduced a low, indirect, haphazard, and dishonest spirit in the conduct of both public and private life—a spirit dazzling, and yet dastardly—reckless of consequences, and yet shrinking from responsibility; and, in the end, it had so overstimulated the energies of the population to maintain the material engagements of the State, and of society at large, that the moral condition of the people had been entirely lost sight of."
He denied that acuteness and discretion could protect the tradesman in giving credit. He (the tradesman) might have all the acuteness of Westminster Hall, and the discretion of the twelve Judges, and have to the bargain the power of referring to a bureau of spies—for the law, as at present constituted, turns every tradesman into a Fouché or a Vidocque, a mean spy, and incites him to look into the affairs of his customers—to pry into their earlier lives, as well as their present circumstances—yet still, with all this, he could not protect himself from fraud. If any hon. Member could define the outward and visible signs of honesty and dishonesty, it would be of infinite service to the tradesman. He (Mr. Berkeley) professed to be utterly unable to ascertain what were the distinguishing marks of either, for honesty was not always to be found in purple and fine linen; honesty sometimes were fustian, whilst dishonesty was covered up in velvet; honesty was not always to be found domiciled in a square, nor dishonesty always in a narrow street; honesty sometimes walked, or drove in an omnibus; whilst dishonesty mounted a horse, or rejoiced in its own peculiar Brougham. Was previous character (the hon. Member proceeded) a security to the tradesman? So far from it, that under the temptation of the Act of last Session, customers who had been regular in their payments for years had now become defaulters; a fact strongly urged, and set forth in a petition he had presented from the tradesmen of the city of

1017
London and Westminster. A tradesman now had no redress from persons In furnished lodgings, holding situations with large salaries, perhaps; indeed, under the present state of things—the caption of person being disallowed, and no remedy in lieu existing—the different forms and modes of fraud vied with each other to rob the creditor. Fictitious transfer of property would be much encouraged; and friends, relations, and landlords would emulate each other in securing for debtors their property to the injury of creditors. He had a great number of cases to refer to, bearing upon the operation of this law retrospectively; and others showing that prospectively it exhibited no better promise. Here the hon. Member quoted a number of cases furnished by the tradesmen of London and Bristol; in most of them it appeared that they had tried the recovery of debts under 20 1., from November 1844 to April 1845, but had failed; and, in consequence of which, they were resolved to give up enforcing their claims—some had discharged workmen, and were contracting their businesses. Two remarkable cases he must be permitted to call particular attention to, as illustrating the argument: one was that of an old woman, near ninety years of age, in Bristol gaol, confined for a debt of 24 l.; she had debts due to her amounting to within a fraction of the sum, but being under 20 l. severally, not one could she recover; her name was Bull. Such was the dreadful state of things under this Act. The other case was derived from an inspection of the books of Mr. Llewellyn, a most respectable tradesman of the city of Bristol, and which would not only prove the iniquitous operation of the Act, but show its reaction upon the Government itself. It was found that since the passing of the Act of last Session that he had bad debts to the amount of 102 l., due from persons who had never failed to pay him previously. He had also 150 l. due from persons in good circumstances, which he could recover, and which never would have been disputed under the old system. He had been compelled to circumscribe his business to the annual amount of 200 l., making a gross loss of 452 l. He had paid Income Tax upon this dead loss, but in future, would make a blank return. He would trouble the House with but one more document. In consequence of the utter incompetency afforded to tradesmen to re-
1018
cover debts not amounting to 20 l. in local courts, the business of those courts had decreased to such an extent, that the deficiency of fees to the officers of such courts would have to be paid from the Consolidated Fund. But it was not to be supposed for one instant that this denoted the presence of virtue and the absence of debt. The contrary was the fact: the utter failure to obtain justice was the cause that deterred tradesmen from going into court. As a specimen of the Act's influence upon these courts, he would take the Court of Requests for Southwark. The salaries of the chief baliff and the three first clerks under him, amount in the aggregate to 2,241 l. 8s., paid by fees; all deficiency was made up from the Consolidated Fund. Now, after the passing of the Debtor and Creditor Act of 1844, the fees were so diminished in the first half year, as to leave a deficiency of 716 l. 8s. 4d. and, consequently, at the close of the year the Consolidated Fund would be saddled from this Court alone with 1,432 l. 16 s. 8d. In conclusion, he would ask the right hon. Baronet to grant his assent to a Committee. Surely, when on all sides it was admitted—partially there, fully in another place—that evils did exist from inconsiderate legislation, the demand for full and unbiassed inquiry would be deemed reasonable. It might be urged, that as he made the complaint, so he should bring in a Bill; this he disputed. He had urged, feebly perhaps, but honestly, the complaint of the tradesmen of England; and he was ready to prove their case, if he might, to the right hon. Baronet. To the right hon. Baronet all looked for some remedial measure; he had inflicted the wrong, let him repair the error, nor turn away from the truth. No Member in that House had the advantages which belonged to the right hon. Baronet; in addition to his great experience and admitted talent, he could command the sound legal knowledge and brilliant abilities of a Follett and a Thesiger; it was from the right hon. Baronet they had a right to expect a remedial measure—from him the tradesmen of England had a right to expect redress. If the right hon. Baronet would not concede a Committee, or grant satisfaction on this subject, he would appeal to the House. Tradesmen looked to that House in this their time of need; and hon. Members who stood by them at such a time, might

1019
then look to tradesmen in times when the support now afforded to them would be gratefully returned. The hon. Member concluded by moving—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the effects produced on Debtors and Creditors, by the operation of the Insolvency Act of last Session."
Mr. Kembleseconded the Motion. His object was to have an inquiry granted, in order to consider of devising securities against fraud more effectual than were provided by the Act of last Session.
Sir. J. Grahamhad listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Motion, and he was obliged to say that, after all the attention he could bestow on it, he felt at a loss, even at the close of the speech, to ascertain any definite object which the hon. Gentleman had in view. He imagined that that object was to remedy certain defects in the Act of last Session, which gave rise to frauds on the part of debtors, and placed obstacles in the way of honest tradesmen recovering their debts. He was not of opinion that the course which the hon. Gentleman had taken was the one best calculated for the attainment of his object; direct legislation he thought was the preferable course. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the law officers of the Crown; but he forgot to mention the first law officer, namely, the Lord Chancellor of England, and he might state that there was at this moment a Bill pending in the other House of Parliament, to which that noble and learned Lord had given the most anxious and earnest attention, for the purpose of rectifying the defects of the Act of last Session. The hon. Gentleman who had made the present Motion, said, in the most emphatic manner, that it was not his intention to repeal the Act of last Session, and revive imprisonment for debt. He rejoiced to hear that declaration: for, with all their professions of sympathy for the working classes, feeling for their miseries, and desire to promote their welfare, he could not conceive any course more inconsistent with these professions, than the revival of imprisonment for small debts. He was convinced that the apprehensions of evil from the change in the law were almost devoid of foundation; in fact, no complaints had been made on the part of the great body of the community; they arose entirely from the retail dealers—a class well worthy of respectful attention, but comparatively wealthy, and possessed of considerable power.
1020
Nothing was withdrawn from the creditor by the law, as recently amended, but command over the person of the debtor. The hon. Member had said there was an invidious distinction drawn between two classes of debtors, those owing large and those owing small sums. It was not correct to say that the creditors had power over the debtor above 20 l. so summary as the hon. Member had represented; he must proceed by action, and it was only on proof being given before the Judge that fraud was intended that a summary power was given. The hon. Member had styled the Act of last Session an instance of crude legislation. If any subject had been well considered by a Government, it was the law of debtor and creditor; no act had received a larger share of attention during the last twenty years. Though there were imperfections in the Act of last Session, it had been very fully and completely discussed. Not a single argument had been brought forward by the hon. Member on this occasion which had not been fully considered by the House in the course of last Session. The hon. Member's speech was not one for inquiry; it was one in condemnation of the Act. He was willing to admit that its provisions might not be sufficiently summary, or of sufficiently easy operation against the goods of the debtor, if he were disposed to act fraudulently. That object was carefully considered in the Bill to which he had alluded, brought in under the sanction of the highest legal authority in the other House. That measure, he had reason to believe, would come down to them in a very short time, and, so introduced, it would be his duty to proceed with it on the part of the Government. Instead of instituting a fruitless inquiry, which could lead to no result, he hoped the House would be disposed rather to wait and see the practical measure which would be introduced for the relief of a practical grievance. He hoped the hon. Member would not press the Motion; he admitted most distinctly that some alteration in the Act of last Session was necessary.
Mr. Parker, as steward of a manor in which one of those courts was located, had seen so much of imprisonment for small debts, that he trusted nothing would induce Ministers to consent to the revival of a system under which the poor had been huddled together in prisons of the vilest kind, without control or superintendence. The measure of last Session might tend in some degree to dislocate the present system

1021
of credit; but he believed that that system would be gradually adjusted to the new order of things. It might be proper to resort to imprisonment in cases of fraud, but, even as the Act now stood, he considered that sufficient power was retained to check fraud. One clause with that tendency was of a very stringent nature, and if persons holding the situations of Commissioners in those courts were urged to put that clause into operation, it would be found very effective.
Mr. M. Philipswas anxious that this Committee should be granted, because he thought that last year their legislation had been hurried, and that portion of the Committee which was chiefly interested in the question had not had sufficient time to consider it. He would not trust exclusively to the inquiries of the Upper House, and thought a Committee best calculated to meet the case.
Mr. Hawesunderstood that there had been a Committee on this subject in the House of Lords, and that a Bill was now pending in that House to provide a remedy for the evil complained of. He, therefore, was of opinion that the appointment of a Committee by this House on the same subject would retard rather than accelerate the object which the hon. Member for Bristol had in view. Under these circumstances, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion. The mercantile interests were anxious that the question should be as soon as possible brought under the consideration of the House. The public, perhaps, were not aware that the local courts already possessed very stringent powers, which, in his opinion, it would be neither desirable nor safe to increase. The subject was one which had been often discussed, but he hoped the time was coming when the general opinion would be in favour of establishing a general and an efficient system of local courts for the recovery of small debts.
The Solicitor Generalexpressed a hope that the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion, in order that the House might have the opportunity of first seeing the Bill which was to come before it shortly. It was, perhaps, important that the House should know the course of legislation on this subject. In consequence of the Report of the Inspectors of Prisons, the attention of the Government was drawn to the number of persons imprisoned under warrants from the courts for the recovery of small debt throughout the country.
1022
The attention of the Legislature having been called early to the subject, there Was a general impression that it was necessary, in order to remedy the evil, utterly to abolish imprisonment for debt on final process under 20 l. Unquestionably, at the time the subject was under the consideration of Parliament, suggestions were made that regard should be had, not only to debtors, but also to persons compelled from the nature of their business to give credit, and not to take from them the security they had for the satisfaction of their debts. Parliament was anxious to provide them with an adequate security, and consequently a remedy was given which was supposed to be effectual. A general remedy was granted against the goods of the debtor, and also a power was given to the judge or court who tried the case, to imprison for a specified time a party who obtained goods fraudulently, or without a reasonable expectation of being able to pay for them. But now, when the power of imprisonment was taken away, it was undoubtedly right that there should be something substituted for that power, in order to afford adequate security to the creditor. It would, no doubt, be the desire of every one to have the creditor sufficiently protected, if that could be done without placing too much power in his hands. But the danger was this, that if you conferred a power on the creditor which he was to use against persons who had fraudulently incurred debts, you could not limit his exercise of that power so as to prevent him from using it against persons who, having incurred debts with a reasonable expectation of paying them, might, from unforeseen circumstances, be utterly unable to do that. If there were means by which additional security could be given to the creditor, without reviving imprisonment for debt, he should be glad to adopt them.
Mr. Spoonerthought that after what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State and the Solicitor General, the hon. Member for Bristol should withdraw his Motion. His own wish was to see the fullest security given to the creditor with the least inconvenience to the debtor.
Mr. H. Berkeleysaid, that after what had been stated by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), he could not do otherwise than withdraw his Motion.
Motion withdrawn.

MINISTERS' MONEY.
Mr. Sergeant Murphy,in bringing forward the Motion of Which he had given notice, in reference to the repeal of so much of the 17th and 18th of Car. II., c. 7, as related to the payment of Ministers in corporate towns in Ireland, wished to state the origin of an impost which pressed with so much severity on both the higher and lower orders in Ireland. An Act was passed in the reign of Charles II., having for its object the providing of sustenance for certain Protestant clergymen introduced into eight towns in Ireland, in which at that time a number of Protestant colonists resided. Indeed, the inhabitants of those towns were then almost, if not altogether, Protestants; and for the maintenance of the Protestant religion among them, it was considered necessary that this levy should be made. The result of the late census had shown that the majority of the population of those towns were now Roman Catholics; and it was for the purpose of asking the Government to remove from them an impost which was a source of heartburning and disquiet, that he (Mr. Murphy) brought forward this question. From 1830 to 1835, important modifications had taken place with regard to the application of the Church revenue, which changes involved the principle of the present question. At that time the Ecclesiastical Commissioners admitted in their Report that so peculiarly obnoxious was the tax to the feelings of the Roman Catholics, and a great proportion of the Protestants of Ireland, that its advantages to the Established Church were more than counterbalanced by the odium attached to its collection. If the vestry cess was considered odious as a tax on conscience, it must be admitted that the immediate payment of Protestant Ministers by those of a different religion would be considered much more so. The house valuation, which regulated the amount of this impost, was limited to 60 l.; and, therefore, the burden pressed most disproportionately on the lower orders. Several Protestant clergymen themselves regarded it as an extreme hardship on the poor to be compelled to pay this tax, and only continued its collection out of a respect for vested interests, and the rights of their successors. Another evil was that the non-payment of this impost operated to the deprivation of electoral rights. He hoped the Government would remove the impost, and provide a substitute from the funds of the Established Church. In this suggestion he was not amenable to the observation that this would be a di-
1024
version of the ecclesiastical revenues to secular, general, or Roman Catholic purposes; it was only re-distributing those funds in another channel. In former debates connected with the Church, he found it was admitted, and the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners showed it, that in 1835 there were 151 benefices in Ireland without a Protestant 194 with 10; 198 with 20; 133 having 30; 40 with 107; and 50 having each 77 Protestants, and that the joint income of these was 58,076 l. He was aware that Acts were afterwards passed by which provision was made that in case no service was performed for three years in any church, it was to be declared vacant, and afterwards annexed to some other church, and a proportionate stipend given to the clergymen officiating in the church in which that annexation took place. He thought that principle might be extended, and that where congregations were below a certain number, the livings should be sequestrated, and the funds so applied by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as to relieve Roman Catholics from such burdens as those of which he complained. He also thought the stipends of the Irish bishops might be diminished for a similar purpose. He had presented petitions, numerously signed, on the subject; and he trusted the Government—who, he was bound to say, were honestly fulfilling their promises of endeavouring to remove abuses from, and ameliorate the condition of Ireland—would do away with an impost which, in the terms of the Report referred to, did nothing whatever to counterbalance the odium connected with its collection. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving—
"That this House will resolve itself into a Committee to take into consideration the Act 17th and 18th Car. II., c. 7, intituled, 'An Act for provision of Ministers in Cities and Corporate Towns, and making the Church of St. Andrew's in the suburbs of the city of Dublin, presentative for ever,' with a view to the Repeal of so much thereof as relates to the payment of Ministers in Corporate Towns in Ireland."
Sir H. W. Barron, in seconding the Motion, said, it was a most remarkable fact, that nearly all the large towns in Ireland, inhabited by Protestants, were exempted from this tax. That circumstance made the tax more odious in Roman Catholic cities and towns. He hoped the Government would give their early attention to it with a view to its removal.
Sir T. Fremantlecomplimented the

1025
tone in which the hon. and learned Gentleman had brought the subject before the House, but could not say the hon. and learned Gentleman was equally successful in finding a remedy. He admitted there were great objections to the tax; and he had considered the question with a view, if possible, of providing some remedy. Even last year his noble Friend who preceded him in office had conversed frequently on the subject with the Attorney General; but they had not been able to find a substitute for the present mode of paying Ministers in corporate towns in Ireland. The abolition of the vestry cess and the alteration in the tithe system had been referred to by the hon. and learned Gentlemen; but there were difficulties connected with Ministers' money which were even greater than any connected with those questions. No doubt there were strong objections to the payment of all taxes; but the power of collecting a tax from any individual lodger in the poorer parts of a great city pressed with undue severity. Nobody would object to have that remedied, if it could be done. The hon. and learned Gentleman was not borne out in his attempt to show the inequality of the tax, by referring to that portion of the Act which provided that no house should be assessed beyond the value of 60 l. For, two hundred years ago, when this tax was imposed, it might fairly be presumed that 60 l. was the extreme value that could be fixed on any house in Ireland. If that conjecture were correct, then all the other houses being assessed in the same ratio, the tax would not press disproportionately on the lower classes. He admitted, however, that great inequality had been created by the lapse of time which had occurred since the passing of the Act. He thought, however, that it was highly desirable to provide, if possible, some substitute for the tax. The hon. and learned Member said that the Church property ought to be brought to meet this burden; and the hon. Member further stated, that there were livings in Ireland in which no duties were performed, and that we ought to make the revenues of those livings subject to those burdens. But the hon. Member seemed to forget that the disposal of those revenues was already provided for, and that the properly of the Church in Ireland was in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Now, with respect to the towns alluded to by the
1026
hon. and learned Member, he did not think it would be quite just altogether to relieve those towns from the payment of this impost. Service was performed in those towns by the Protestant clergymen, and the Protestant congregations filled the churches, and he did not see why those congregations should be relieved from the payment of those clergymen. He did not see why the Protestants should be altogether relieved from the payment of their own clergymen, when, to a certain extent, they were not unwilling to contribute to that object. The hon. Baronet who seconded the Motion said, that certain large towns in the north of Ireland did not contribute to the payment of Ministers' money; but the reason why those towns was exempted was because they were subject to the payment of tithes. This tax was not unknown in this country. It prevailed to a considerable extent in Edinburgh, and in London the clergy were to some extent paid by a house tax. He did not think the case so bad as the hon. and learned Gentleman had represented it. At the same time, looking at the number of Roman Catholics in the towns in Ireland, and at the period when the tax was imposed, he was of opinion that the case deserved consideration. He promised to bestow his attention on it; but he could not agree to the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman, which would put an end to the payment without providing a substitute. He hoped that the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion; and if the hon. Member declined, then he trusted the House would negative the Motion.
Mr. E. B. Rochesaid, that if the Government admitted the existence of the evil, they ought to provide a remedy. Why not take a substitute for this impost some of the overgrown revenues of the Irish Church? The object was not to get the matter taken into consideration, but to get rid of the abuse, and a pledge should be given by the Government that they would effectually deal with the subject.
The hon. Member was proceeding, when the House was counted out, and adjourned.