Lords Sitting of 15 February 1831

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Viscount GODERICH, from the Commercial Society of Galway for an extension of the Franchise of that place. By the Bishop of LINCOLN-, from several places in Lincolnshire, for the Abolition of Slavery.
The Reverend Prelate, in presenting these Petitions, begged leave to give it as his opinion, that moral and religious habits should be inculcated among the slave population of the Colonies before a measure for their unqualified emancipation was attempted.
For Parliamentary Reform, by the Earl of ROSEBERY, from Musselburgh:—By Lord DACRE, from Bishop Stortford:—By Lord KING, from Nottingham, from the Union of the Working Classes at Manchester, and from Kidderminster. By Lord DACRE, from Spilsby, Lincolnshire, against the Duty on Fire Insurances. By Lord KING, from Parishes in Glamorgan, Somerset, and Gloucester shires, against Tithes; and from St. James's, Clerkenwell, for an alteration in the Corn-laws. For the Repeal of the Duty on Sea-borne Coals, by Earl MORLEY, from East Stonehouse:—By the Earl of ESSEX, from Bishop's-Stortford and Spilsby. By Lord WYNFORD, from a number of persons living on the Western Coast of Galway, for Protection to the Kelp Manufacture.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
The Earl of Radnorpresented a Petition, signed by 21,000 persons of the town of Birming-
548
ham, praying for Reform. He said this petition was got up at a most numerous, intelligent, and respectable meeting, where the subject was ably and sufficiently discussed. He could not avoid noticing the great change which had taken place in Birmingham since the Church and King mobs, about the year 1793, which he was old enough to remember. The people were how comparatively enlightened and instructed; they had amongst them reading societies and institutions; and though they had frequently been visited by severe distress, they had been guilty of no outrages. On this account he said, that the sentiments expressed in that petition were well worthy of their Lordships' attention. He agreed with it in every respect, the more particularly in that which recommended the Vote by Ballot, as he was convinced a slight Reform, accompanied by a ballot, would be more acceptable to the people than a more general Reform without it. The people, thought Reform was their right, and, therefore, they called their prayer to the House a petition of rights.
Lord Calthorpebore testimony to the respectability and intelligence of the petitioners, and supported the prayer of their petition. Any reform would be very imperfect, which did not embrace the town of Birmingham, but he believed that his Majesty's Ministers contemplated at least including that in their scheme. The progress of public opinion on the subject of Reform had been such, that it would he longer be safe to withhold it.

THE BANKRUPT LAWS.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he had the honour to present a Petition, to which he requested their Lordships' particular attention, as far as regarded the prayer of it, and the body of men from whom it emanated, in which were combined all the powerful bankers, merchants, solicitors, and tradesmen of the City of London. When the petition had been put into his hands, he had naturally looked over the signatures, and he could assure their Lordships, that there was scarcely a name of first-rate importance, connected with the trade and commerce of this great metropolis, which was not to be found amongst them. It was signed by 4,500 persons—though the petition lay but two days and a half for signatures. Had it remained longer open, he believed that every man of the least

549
notice in the City of London would have signed it. The petitioners stated, that the Bankrupt-laws had a most injurious effect on trade, and they called on the Legislature to remedy the whole system, by the removal of the fourteen lists of Commissioners. They set forth many of the evils and grievances to which these laws gave rise, and they contended, that a change was recommended by long experience, and after the subject had been sufficiently discussed. The petitioners proposed that the fourteen lists of Commissioners should be done away with altogether, and that such a Court should be substituted as would answer the ends of justice, and restore the confidence of the people to so important a branch of the public business. It might be supposed, that he had some particular interest in the petition, from the fact of his having presented it, and having moved that their Lordships should be summoned to receive it, but he could assure the House, that he had not had the slightest communication with any person engaged in getting it up, until he was waited upon by a deputation of the leading men of the City, who requested him to present it. He discharged that duty with the greatest satisfaction, and the more particularly, because this was not a theoretical or speculative plan of reform, but because it was suggested by men who had daily and practical experience on the subject.

REPEAL OF THE UNION (IRELAND).
Lord King, in presenting a Petition from Donegore and neighbouring parishes, for a Reform in Parliament, and for the Abolition of Tithes and Grand Jury Presentments, said, he had great pleasure in presenting it, because it did not, like some other petitions intrusted to his care, pray for a Repeal of the Union. With regard to that measure, the noble Baron said, he could not conceive how any person in his senses could imagine that Ireland would derive benefit from a dissolution of the Union. In his opinion, its certain effect would be, to make those in Ireland, who were now rich, poor; while it could not possibly make those who were poor rich.
The Earl of Shrewsbury, in presenting several petitions from various parts of Ireland, for a Repeal of the Union, observed, that the petitioners were very earnest in their prayers. For his part, he had great confidence in his Majesty's Government,
550
and hoped that it would take the prayers and the wishes of the people of Ireland into consideration.
The Marquis of Londonderrybegged to ask the noble Earl, whether he was prepared to support the prayer of the petitioners, for a Repeal of the Union?
The Earl of Shrewsburysaid, that though he had been intrusted with the petitions, and requested to support them, he had informed the persons who sent them, that under present circumstances, he was not prepared to make up his mind on the subject, and he had recommended those persons to abstain from agitation, as an Administration avowedly hostile to the interests of Ireland had ceased to exist. He had advised the petitioners to remain tranquil, and to place their trust in the good intentions of the present advisers of the Crown, who had always shown themselves to be the true friends to that country, and who had already forfeited every thing but honour and popularity in its behalf.
The Duke of Wellington.—I have no objection to the noble Earl paying any compliment he thinks proper to his Majesty's present. Government, but I must protest against his saying, that the late Administration were avowedly hostile to that part of the United Kingdom. I think that the measure which I had the honour to propose, in conjunction with other measures which the late Government of Ireland brought forward, and with others which it had prepared, and which are now to be introduced by the present Government, might have shown the noble Earl, that the late Ministers were not avowedly hostile to Ireland. I think that even the measures lately adopted to preserve the peace and tranquillity of the country, might have convinced the noble Earl, that we were not mistaken in our views, and that we were not avowedly hostile to the interests of that part of the United Kingdom. The Earl of Shrewsbury said, that when the question was put by the noble Marquis, he had answered it with too much precipitation. He did not mean to use the word "avowedly," and he used the word "hostile" in this sense, that the late Administration, when granting the great measure of relief, had declared that they did not bring it forward from any desire to conciliate the people of Ireland, but solely on the ground that the time was come when they could resist it no longer.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that when he asked the question, he intended to give the noble Earl, who presented so many petitions from Ireland for a Repeal of the Union, an opportunity of declaring whether he could boldly stand forward in his place and support that measure or not. He wished that the course pursued by a noble Earl, on a late occasion, in presenting petitions on the same subject, had been adopted on this. He would only say, for his own part, as an Irishman, that a Repeal of the Union could do no possible good, but only cause a dismemberment of the empire.

ADDITIONAL CHURCHES ACT.
On the Motion of the Bishop of London, a Bill for the purpose of amending the above Act was brought up and read a first time. The right rev. Prelate took that opportunity of correcting a misstatement which had taken place with regard to some of the observations he had made on the previous evening. He was represented to have said, the average income of the Clergymen of England was 155 l., and that of Archdeacons 600 l., when, in fact, he stated, that the one was 185 l. and the other not more than 100 l.
Lord Kingsaid, he was surprised at so low an average as 185 l. a year; for, calculating that there were 10,000 parishes, the tithes could not amount to more than between two and three millions, while, in fact, they were between four and five millions.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that according to the returns made in 1825, the tithes amounted to 2,300,000 l., a great part of which was paid to lay impropriators. He was sure, that the average income of the Clergy, if above 185 l., was under 200 l.
The Earl of Radnorsupposed, that the rev. Prelate last night included all the income of the Clergy; but he found now that he confined himself to tithes.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that he had taken into calculation the one-third of the value of ecclesiastical leases; but, as the maintenance of Curates was to be deducted, it would be found that his calculation was correct.

FRAUDULENT DEBTORS.
Lord Wynfordpresented a Petition from persons of the name of Sheratt, complaining that a Magistrate, to whom their father had lent
552
a considerable sum of money, was now in the King's-Bench, spending a large income, while they were reduced to great distress. The petitioners stated, that at the death of their father, who had long applied for his money in vain, his executors obtained judgment against the debtor, who had been taken in execution, and lodged in the King's-Bench, where, since 1824, he had been living in a most sumptuous manner, on property which belonged to them. It was not to be borne, that debtors should in this manner spend the money of the widow and the orphan in riot and licentiousness, without the law affording any redress to the oppressed. His Lordship then moved the Order of the Day for the Frauds on Creditors Bill being committed.
The Lord Chancellorhoped, that his noble and learned friend would consent to postpone this stage of the Bill, as some of the Judges wished to have more time to consider its provisions. It was a Bill calculated to produce a great change in the law, and to bring the business of the Insolvent Court into the Courts of Common Law, and therefore it required to be well digested, though no one could deny the propriety of getting at the effects of fraudulent debtors.
Lord Wynfordsaid, he could not resist the application of the noble and learned Lord, though he was surprised that the Judges had not yet made up their minds, as the Bill had been eight weeks before them. He begged the noble Lord to understand, that he was the last man to propose bringing the business of the Insolvent Court to Westminster Hall; his great object was, to compel those to go to the Insolvent Debtors' Court who now kept out of it, though they were insolvent. The Bill, or some corresponding measure, was absolutely necessary, and the petition which he had lately presented, was the best evidence of the frauds which were now practised by debtors, who lived luxuriantly while their creditors were starving.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, some of the clauses of the Bill went to produce material changes in the mode of conducting processes in the Courts of Law. One of the clauses, it was thought, would oblige the debtor to appear before the Court which issued the writ, in place of being tried, as at present, before the Insolvent Debtors' Court.
Lord Wynfordsaid, he had no such

553
object in view in the Bill which was before the House. His object rather was, to oblige debtors to go to the Insolvent Debtors' Court—a Court to which few, at present, went, who had any effects. The compulsory clause would not, however, be operative till after a judgment had been obtained. Nobody now went to the Insolvent Court who had any property, as was evident by the dividends not amounting to one farthing in the pound.
Committee postponed.