Lords Sitting of 1 August 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—2a. Removal of Paupers; Borough and Watch Rates.
Reported.—County Rates; Customs Laws Repeal; Customs Management; Customs Regulation; Smuggling Prevention; Shipping and Navigation; British Vessels; Customs Duties; Warehousing of Goods; Customs Bounties and Allowances; Trade of British Possessions Abroad; Isle of Man Trade; Coal Trade (Port of London); Taxing Masters, Court of Chancery (Ireland); Commons' Inclosure.
3a. and passed:—Bills of Exchange; Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics; Joint Stock Companies (Ireland); Grand Jury Presentments (Dublin); Stock in Trade; Land Revenue Act Amendment.
Private.—2a. Shuldham's Divorce; Grimsby Docks; Duddeston and Nechells Improvement; London and Croydon Railway Enlargement.
Reported.—Dublin Pipe Water; Eastern Counties Railway (Cambridge to Huntingdon).
3a. and passed:—Darby Court (Westminster).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Presbytery of Kelso, against any Change in the Existing Tests (Scotch Universities).—From Robert Kellie Douglas, Registrar of the Borough Court, Birmingham, against Small Debts Bill.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (DUBLIN TO GALWAY) BILL.
The Earl of Besboroughpresented the Report of the Select Committee appointed to examine the evidence taken before the Select Committee on the petitions of James Pym (presented to the House on the 7th and 8th of July), and to report what steps (if any) it might be necessary to take in the case of John Stinton, reported to have been guilty of perjury. The Report stated that the Committee had met and considered the subject, and the result they had arrived at was, that, although it was manifest to the Committee that John Stinton had wilfully contradicted himself, and been guilty of equivocation in his evidence given before the Select Committee on the petitions of Mr. Pym, respecting the Dublin and Galway Railway Bill, still

1305
they were, on the whole, of opinion that it was not expedient to direct a prosecution against the said John Stinton, by means of an indictment.
The Duke of Wellingtonasked whether the Committee recommended the adoption of any other course?
Lord Campbellobserved that the Committee was unanimous in the adoption of the Report. It should be recollected that, although it was not deemed expedient to direct a prosecution for perjury to be instituted, still the House might, if it thought proper, punish this person, by fine and imprisonment, for misconduct in equivocating in the evidence he gave before a Select Committee of this House. The Report was then laid on the Table.

INCORPORATION OF COMPANIES BILLS.
On the Motion of the Marquess of Lansdowne, the following Standing Order was adopted:—
"That when in any Bill to be hereafter introduced into this House for the Purpose of establishing a Company for carrying on any Work or Undertaking, the Name of any Person or Persons shall be introduced as Manager, Director, Proprietor, or otherwise concerned in carrying such Bill into effect, Proof shall be required before the Standing Order Committee (when the Bill shall be referred to that Committee, or before the Committee on the Bill in any other case) that the said Person or Persons have subscribed their Names to the Petition for the said Bill, or to a printed Copy of the said Bill as brought up or introduced into the House."

BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL.
On the Motion of the Earl of Dalhousie, Bill read 3a.
Lord Monteagleexpressed his opinion that the Bill ought to be made permanent. He referred to the evidence which had been given before their Lordships' Committee on the Usury Laws, in order to show, from the evidence given by merchants and traders, by solicitors and professional men, and by persons connected with the Court of Bankruptcy, that the opinion of all these parties, after eleven years' experience of the usury laws, was favourable to a relaxation of those laws, on the ground that they were found to press very heavily upon the poorer class of traders. In passing the Annuities Acts, they had already relaxed the usury laws; and the State also always took care that they should not be applicable to itself in time of war, though
1306
they were maintained against private individuals endeavouring to borrow money. If there were any one fact connected with the subject proved more clearly than another, it was that these laws pressed most injuriously on the poorer classes. It could not possibly be supposed that the country had not made up its mind on this matter before the present time. There was, in fact, no difference of opinion upon it among the best informed persons, and he could not, therefore, see why the Bill should not be continued for more than five years. He would, under these circumstances, beg to move that the words "to be continued until the 1st of January, 1851," be expunged from the recitement, for the purpose of inserting the words, "that the said recited Act shall be made perpetual."
The Earl of Dalhousiesaid, he would for the present avoid entering on any general discussion of the question. Although a partial suspension of the usury laws was certainly recommended in the Report to which the noble Lord had alluded; still he did not think their Lordships were in a position now to take so great a step as to vote for the entire repeal of those laws. He thought such a change ought not to be made without the most thorough and searching investigation, both before that and the other House of Parliament, and he felt obliged, therefore, to vote against the Motion of the noble Lord. But though the Bill was to extend for only five years, there could be no reason for supposing that the state of the usury laws might not be modified to any extent within that period, if the wisdom of Parliament should think fit to take any step on the subject pending the operation of this law. If his noble Friend, or any other noble Lord, should think fit to move for an investigation into the state of the usury laws, no opposition would certainly be offered by the Government. He trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would not agree to the Amendment.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that having been the Member of their Lordships' House who had the honour of presiding over the Committee appointed to investigate the subject of the usury laws, he had felt it to be his duty, when the Report had been presented, to move that those laws be relaxed; and he now thought that the period had arrived when suspending laws ought to be got rid of alto-

1307
gether. On the occasion to which he alluded he was told—"Let us see the effect of this relaxation; the proposition is something new, and we have a right to know the working of it. If we find that there is nothing wrong in this measure that you propose, we shall be prepared to vote with you for doing away with those laws altogether." They had now abundant experience of the evil of those laws, and of the positive good which a repeal of them would produce; and, under these circumstances, reiterating the opinion which he had formerly expressed, and which he now saw entertained by others, he entirely concurred in the Motion of his noble Friend.
The Earl of Ellenboroughsaid, that having been also a Member of the Committee alluded to, he felt bound to express his concurrence in the opinion that the suspension of the usury laws would prove very salutary in time of peace; but they had never yet been subjected to the trial of a period of war. If his noble Friend opposite (Lord Monteagle) had substituted the words "1846" or "1847," for "1851," he would have voted with him, as he could not conceive any grounds whatever for fixing the period of suspension of these laws at five years. It should be borne in mind by all who were in the habit of dealing in money, that it was impossible to allow individuals to compete with the Government in time of war, or otherwise the public debt would increase to such an amount in a few years as to endanger the safety of the Constitution.
Lord Monteaglesaid, the noble Earl had misunderstood his meaning. He did not think that in order to guard against inconveniences to the State, they should place a bar in the way of individuals borrowing money. It was clear that if they waited for years before legislating on the subject, they could not expect to add to the weight of evidence which was already before Parliament respecting it. But whatever variety of opinion might exist on the matter, it was clear that a continuance of the law for five years was the most indefensible of all. He should therefore feel obliged to press his Motion to a division.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, he did not feel himself at present prepared to make this Bill perpetual. He thought that the wiser course to adopt would be to suspend the
1308
check for a short time, until they could institute farther inquiry on the subject.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, he agreed fully with his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) in principle, and he would vote with him if the proposition of his noble Friend near him (Lord Wharncliffe) were that the suspension was to extend for five years and then to cease; but as the Bill would clearly lead to further inquiry, he thought they ought to allow it to pass.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he thought the period of five years ought to be adopted, in order to prevent the inconvenience which might result from fixing on a short period. Of course care should be taken to bring the subject under consideration within a given time, so as to have the matter prepared for some final decision upon it.
House divided on Question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—Contents 37; Non-Contents 9: Majority 28.
Bill passed.

COMMONS' ENCLOSURE BILL.
Lord Stanley,in moving that the Report on the Commons' Enclosure Bill be received, said, that the Amendments which he proposed to introduce into this Bill, all originated from the discussion that had taken place upon the Bill in Committee. The most material alteration which he had to propose, was to take away the discretionary power vested in the Commissioners under the 17th Clause. The other Amendments were the proviso with regard to equalizing assessments, and the insertion of a proviso prohibiting the erection of any building to be used for the purpose of a dwelling-house in any of these field-gardens. It was proposed to have a limitation with respect to buildings for holding or feeding cattle.
Report received.
House adjourned.