Lords Sitting of 5 August 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. St. Asaph and Bangor Dioceses; Exchequer Bills; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).
Reported.—Fees (Criminal Proceedings); Naval Medical Supplemental Fund Society; Turnpike Roads (Ireland); Municipal Districts, etc. (Ireland).
3a. and passed:—Merchant Seamen; Removal of Paupers; Borough and Watch Rates.
Private.—3a. and passed:—South Eastern Railway (Deal Extension); Brighton, Lewes, and Hastings Railway (Hastings, Rye, and Ashford Extension); Eastern Counties Railway (Cambridge to Huntingdon); Bolton and Leigh, Kenyon and Leigh Junction, North Union, Liverpool and Manchester, and Grand Junction Railway Companies Amalgamation; Epping Railway; Brighton and Chichester Railway (Portsmouth Extension).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Bankers, and others, of Halifax, Leeds, and Bradford, for the Adoption of Measures to enforce the Free Navigation of the River La Plata.—By the Lord Chancellor, from a great number of places, in favour of the Small Debts Bill (No. 2); and from Merchants, Bankers, and others of the City of London, for Amendment of Law respecting Bankruptcy and Insolvency.—From Parishes of All Saints, and Killea, Donegal, aganst Tenants Compensation (Ireland) Bill.—From Findonagh, for Recognizing by Legal Enactment, the practice of Tenant Right (Ireland).

LONDON AND YORK RAILWAY.
The Marquess of Clanricardepresented two petitions, one from George Pryme, esq., of Cambridge, and at present proprietor of certain lands in the county of Huntingdon, through which this line proposed to pass; in one of which it was stated, that when this Company was first formed, the estimated cost of the line was 5,000,000 l.; but subsequently, when the lands were surveyed by Mr. Cubitt, the estimated cost of the line lodged in the Parliamentary Office amounted to 6,500,000 l. This was, of course, a much larger rate than was put forward when the original subscribers attached their names to the contract deed; and therefore he thought that in a court of equity they could not be called upon to pay more than the original estimate of the line. This was the statement contained in the first petition, which was a subject for the consideration of the Standing Orders' Committee. The second petition stated that this contract deed was entirely false and fictitious; that the names of persons amounting in their liabilities to 500,000 l. were either not in existence, or incapable of being found; that they were wholly unable to pay any part of these sums, being paupers. With respect to a petition which he had presented on the previous evening upon this subject, he begged to say that a great mistake had arisen from a similarity of names. The
1420
petition to which he referred had alleged that a Mr. Baxter was a person totally unable to pay the sum for which he had subscribed his name. The petitioner, however, had since made fuller inquiry on the subject, and wished now to state that he had been mistaken in his former information, for that Mr. Baxter, who was connected with the line, was a man of undoubted respectability. This was only one case; but there were cases of the same kind infinitely beyond anything in the Dublin and Galway Bill. He would not weary their Lordships by going through all the cases, but would merely refer to a few in order to show their nature. Their Lordships were aware that their Standing Orders required that the addresses of parties signing the contract deed should be correctly stated; and the directors of the Dublin and Galway Company were thought censurable because they had not exercised sufficient vigilance in this respect. One of the names to the deed to which he was anxious to direct their attention was that of John Theobalds, gentleman, said to reside in Finsbury-square, who had subscribed to the amount of 25,000 l.; he was informed that no such person was known at that address. There was also in the contract deed the name of an individual who had figured in the Dublin and Galway Railway case (W. Shackell), who was down for 5000 l., and who was understood to be a half-pay officer in the receipt of 54 l. a year, but who appeared as a subscriber in different railway schemes to the amount of 41,500 l. The address of another, E. J. Durham, whose name was down for 12,200 l., was stated to be in Watling-street; but it appeared that he did not reside there. In the case of another individual who was down for 12,500 l., a false address was found to have been given. This individual was discovered to be a clerk in the Australian Trust Company, and it was therefore impossible to suppose him responsible for so large an amount. Another individual, whom he would not name, was a curate in a parish in Kent. He might be worth all the money for which he appeared responsible in various railway schemes; but his name appeared for 25,000 l. in different projects, and stood for 10,000 l. in this line. Another individual, who was down for 25,000 l., was represented to be in poor circumstances, and had once resided at the address stated in the deed, but had quitted it. He knew these sums to be

1421
correct, for he had compared them with the contract deed. Another clerk of the Australian Trust Company was down for upwards of 50,000 l. There were several more cases of the same kind, but he trusted he had stated enough to establish the necessity of referring the matter to a Committee. There were also two brothers named Guernsey, sons of a charwoman living in a garret, in Angel-court, one of whom had signed for 12,500 l., and the other for 25,000 l., the latter being a porter to a wine merchant named Hitchcock. These two brothers, excellent persons, no doubt, but who were receiving about a guinea and a half a week between them, were down for no less a sum than 37,500 l. One of them, Charles Guernsey, stated that he never applied for any shares, but that a stockbroker brought him letters of allotment to the above amount. When he signed the deed, the broker took the scrip, and he never received one farthing; that he was only nineteen years of age, and in the receipt of only 12 s. a week. He hoped he would institute a suit against the broker, for there could be no doubt that some person or other had sold that scrip at a considerable premium. He need hardly say more to convince their Lordships of the necessity of inquiry. The Houses of Parliament were the only places to which the public could look for security, and it was with this view that the Standing Orders were framed; but the Standing Orders did not afford security where there was no opposition; and even where there was opposition, it was extremely difficult to detect such cases as these. These cases had been only inquired into within the week, the attention of the opponents of the London and York Bill having been directed to the subject by what took place in the Dublin and Galway case; and there could be no doubt that, unless some change were made, it would be almost impossible for any Railway Bill to pass through Parliament. He had omitted to state to their Lordships that a clerk of the Company was down for 5,000 l., a fact which brought home blame in the most direct way to those parties who received the thanks of Lord Brougham for the zeal, perspicuity, vigilance, activity, and scrutinizing rigour which they exercised in getting up their reference, and in searching into every matter connected with the railway, and whom that noble and learned Lord held up as an example to all engaged in similar undertakings. The residence of a person
1422
down for a considerable sum in the deed was stated to be No. 22, Norfolk-street, Strand, although a reference to the Directory would have shown that to be the address of Messrs. Ommanney. A grosser case of neglect could not be conceived; nothing of this kind was shown against the unfortunate Dublin and Galway Company. He begged leave to move that the petition be referred to a Select Committee to inquire into its allegations. Their Lordships would remember that in the Dublin and Galway case the Bill was delayed until these matters had been investigated.
Lord Monteaglepresented a petition which had been entrusted to him by most respectable parties subscribers to the said railway, declaring that the statements in the petition presented by Henry Bruce, of Mincing-lane, surgeon, with respect to the fictitious and false insertion of names, were unfounded, and that the petitioners were perfectly prepared to prove this, if their Lordships would direct an investigation, which they prayed might be granted without delay.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, if the case were precisely in the same position as the Dublin and Galway Railway was, he should not object to the same course being adopted, although the noble Marquess had by no means made out so strong a case as had been established in reference to that line. The difference between the cases was this. The Dublin and Galway Bill was not, in the first instance, opposed, and passed the Standing Orders' Committee without opposition. Now this he conceived to be an opposed Bill; it had not yet been brought before the Standing Orders' Committee, and these petitions had been presented in due time for the Standing Orders' Committee to investigate their allegations, and it was not, therefore, necessary to appoint a Select Committee specially for that purpose. Such being the case, he certainly should oppose the Motion of the noble Marquess.
The Earl of Shaftesburysaid, it would not fall within the province of the Standing Orders' Committee to investigate the matters referred to in the petition; they could only inquire whether the parties whose names appeared in the contract deed had actually subscribed it.
The Earl of Devonwas understood to say, that if cases such as these were established, the contract deed, instead of being a safeguard to the public, would

1423
only serve to delude them. He had foretold, on a former occasion, that instances of this kind would be brought forward in every case; and the result would be, that it would be impossible to pass any Bill through Parliament. Now, here was a Railway Bill which had undergone the most searching inquiry ever known in such a case before a Committee of the House of Commons, which sat upwards of eighty days; and now, after undergoing such an ordeal — after the enormous expense entailed on the parties—it was proposed that they should not be allowed to proceed, because it was alleged that a certain portion—not a very large one—of those who had subscribed the contract deed were not persons of substance. With regard to the facts stated in the first petition, in reference to the difference between the original amount of the capital stated—namely, 5,000,000 l., and the last estimate of 6,500,000 l., he presumed that in this, as in all other Bills, a power was given to borrow a sum which would be sufficient to make up the difference. He could not accede to the proposition of the noble Marquess.
Lord Beaumonthad totally disapproved of the proceedings in the Dublin and Galway case; but having adopted that course, he did not see how they could depart from it now. He perfectly agreed with his noble Friend opposite in thinking that contract deeds were useless as a protection to the public; but, at the same time, he was of opinion that to abolish altogether the present system, would be equivalent to defeating railway projects altogether. He would not go so far as some, and maintain that the original subscribers were only to serve as conduits by which the shares might reach the hands of responsible parties; but he believed that unless they allowed parties to be put down for larger sums than perhaps on full consideration they might be thought able to pay, they would totally defeat the construction of railways.
The Marquess of Clanricarde: What security would the public have that the work would be carried out?
Lord Beaumont: The parties who had obtained shares would always be able to dispose of them, although, perhaps, at a reduced rate. Some loss might be sustained; but he maintained that the real liability of the parties to the contract was limited to the deposit paid; for the shares became property, and might be disposed of like any other description of property.
Lord Redesdalesupported the Motion. A certain number of errors might unavoidably creep into a subscription list; but it would be for the Committee to decide whether proper care had been exercised by the company. In the Dublin and Galway case, it was decided that due care had not been taken; in the London and York case, the Committee might possibly decide that due care had been used, and the Bill might be allowed to pass. Subscription contracts had undoubtedly been much neglected; but he hoped that, in consequence of what had taken place, the case would be different in future.
Lord Campbellsaid, that in his opinion, that application could not be refused. It should be remembered that the Standing Orders' Committee could not institute any inquiry into the most important allegations in the petition. It followed, therefore, inevitably, that the appointment of the Committee moved for by his noble Friend should be granted.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that as the Standing Orders' Committee could not inquire into the whole of those allegations, he thought that the House could not refuse the appointment of the Committee.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, that the correctness of the subscription list was the only guarantee which the Legislature or the country had that the works could ever be completed. He hoped that his Motion would at once be agreed to.
Motion put and agreed to.

SMALL DEBTS BILL (No. 2).
The Lord Chancellorpresented a petition from the Liverpool Guardian Society for the Protection of Trade, which stated that their society consisted of 1,800 members, comprising merchants, bankers, and traders, but chiefly the latter class, associated together for the protection of commerce, and that they were most anxious that the Bill which had been introduced into their Lordships' House for extending the law for the recovery of Small Debts should be passed into law. He had also a petition to present from a number of persons who were deputies, at present assembled in this metropolis, from all the great trading towns and cities of the country, praying their Lordships to pass this Bill in its present shape, and particularly directing their Lordships' attention to the 9th Clause, and the clauses consequential upon it. It was necessary that, in introducing this Bill in its present shape to the notice of their Lordships'

1425
House, he should offer a few remarks respecting it. Their Lordships were aware, that in the last Session of Parliament a Bill had passed into law for abolishing arrest, even in execution, for debts under 20 l. He had always considered that measure as a most salutary law, and it never had been, he believed, the desire of either House of Parliament that it should be revoked. In consequence of inconveniences which were found to arise since the passing of that law in respect of the recovery of debts under 20 l., a Bill had been introduced in the present Session by a noble and learned Friend of his (Lord Brougham), now absent, for the purpose of extending the facilities of the former Bill to debts of a lower amount. That Bill had been referred to a Select Committee up-stairs, before whom it had undergone a careful examination, and after being again brought before the House their Lordships adopted it. It then went down to the other House of Parliament, where many Amendments were introduced, and the Bill so amended now came before their Lordships for their final decision on these Amendments. He would next proceed to explain to their Lordships the nature and character of these amendments. They were of a twofold character—one class referred distinctly, and in the ordinary course, to the Bill as it had left their Lordships' House; and the Amendments under this head ought, he thought, with one exception, to be agreed to by the House. The other class of Amendments were to be regarded, in point of fact, as additions to the Bill. On leaving their Lordships' House the Bill had eight clauses, but it had since received an addition of about twenty clauses, referring to objects to which he would presently direct their Lordships' attention. The first class of Amendments in the original Bill seemed to be principally verbal amendments with one exception. He proposed to make some alterations in these Amendments, to only one of which he would beg to call their Lordships' attention. A power had been given to the Commissioners of Bankruptcy to call before them persons who were indebted in sums less than 20 l., in order to examine them, to sift their conduct, and ultimately, if dissatisfied with the explanation given, to commit them to prison. The same power had been given to the Small Debts Courts, which were presided over by a barrister or attorney of ten years' standing, or by a special pleader. Now, the
1426
Amendment of the Commons to which he objected was, that the Commissioners of Bankruptcy, whom he considered to be altogether the most competent persons to decide on subjects of this nature, were to be deprived of the power conferred under the Bill, except where an action of debt had been brought for the amount in one of the superior courts, and judgment pronounced. As he did not anticipate that any person having ordinary judgment and understanding would in future bring actions for debts of less than 20 l. in the superior courts, he considered that the effect of this Amendment would be, that the Bankruptcy Commissioners, whom he should regard as the most competent parties to decide in such matters, would lose all jurisdiction under the Bill. He would therefore propose to their Lordships to disagree to this Amendment. The history of the Amendment was not a little curious. When the Bill was sent down to the other House of Parliament, it had been entrusted to the charge of the present Solicitor General; but when that hon. and learned Member had been called out of town in the pursuit of his professional duties, the Amendment was introduced, he did not know by whom, or from what quarter, and adopted. With respect to the other class of Amendments, they all turned on the effect of the 9th Section, which had been introduced by the House of Commons, and were, so to say, consequential upon it. That section gave a power to Her Majesty in Council to extend the jurisdiction in point of locality of the Small Debts Courts, and also to extend their jurisdiction in point of amount to all sums up to 20 l. It proceeded farther, and went on to provide that Her Majesty in Council should have the power of contracting the jurisdiction of Small Debts Courts, where such jurisdiction interfered with that of another court. As no person in trade of ordinary prudence and judgment would now bring an action in one of the superior courts for a debt under 20 l., this provision might be regarded as a necessary consequence of the Act of last Session. He thought, therefore, that that 9th Clause was a wise provision, and that it had been properly framed; and if it had been introduced while the Bill had been in their Lordships' House, he would have given it his warm support; or if it had come up from the other House as a separate Bill, he had no doubt whatever but that their Lordships would have agreed to it. The other eighteen or nineteen new clauses he

1427
regarded as necessarily consequent upon this clause; and therefore, if their Lordships had no objection to the adoption of the new principle contained in the 9th Clause, he should recommend them to adopt all these Amendments. They established a new system and new tribunals; and the question for their Lordships' consideration was, whether a provision for establishing this new system and these new tribunals could be agreed to by the House in one stage, and after one discussion. It was certainly inconsistent with the ordinary Parliamentary usage to adopt the principle of a measure, and to consider all its details at the same time. If the other House of Parliament had sent up a separate Bill on this subject, their Lordships would have an opportunity of deciding on the principle of the measure at the second reading, and of afterwards considering the details in Committee, and on the bringing up of the Report; and they could then finally adopt or reject the Bill, after the most mature deliberation. They had no such opportunity at present, and they should, therefore, consider whether, on one discussion on these Amendments, they could venture to adopt them. He thought the Amendments were, as he before stated, useful, and called for by the circumstances; and a point which was, perhaps, not altogether an unimportant one for their consideration was, that in the Session before the last their Lordships had themselves passed a Bill for the establishment of local Courts, which had been sent down to the other House of Parliament, and which contained a clause exactly corresponding with this Amendment. His noble Friend near him (Lord Wharncliffe) had just called his attention to another Amendment which was made in the provision for levying executions under decrees made in cases of Small Debts. It was known to their Lordships that there were always exceptions of wearing apparel and some other like necessary matters; but the Commons' Amendment in the present instance excepted bedding, wearing apparel, and such necessaries, and all tools used in the trade of the debtor, and also other articles to the extent of 10 l. He apprehended that that exception would include all the property of a large portion of the class of persons who would be most interested in this Bill; and he was induced to come to that conclusion the more readily, as he had seen advertisements in the newspapers, in which persons about to marry were offered all the furniture necessary for
1428
a room for 10 l. He would leave it to their Lordships to decide whether they would not agree to these Amendments with the alterations which he had suggested in them.
Lord Campbellsaid, he felt himself placed in a state of very great embarrassment on this occasion, in consequence of the want of unanimity which appeared to exist among the Members of Her Majesty's Government in the two Houses of Parliament. He entirely concurred in the view taken by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, respecting the Amendments of the Commons, and the alterations which it was necessary to have made in them. He thought these Amendments to their Lordships' Bill could be safely adopted, with the exception to which his noble and learned Friend had referred; but then came the new Bill which the Commons had added to the measure, and with respect to that he felt, though he would not take upon himself the responsibility of rejecting it, that it was impossible to consider it fully and satisfactorily on the present occasion. He should, however, enter his solemn protest against the course that had been adopted. Various petitions had been presented on this subject in the early part of the Session, and two grievances in particular pointed out. One of these was the absence of any means of examining into the nature of debts under 20 l., and the other referred to debtors enjoying salaries and annuities, and to the fact of there being no means of compelling such persons to pay their debts out of these funds. Her Majesty's Government in this House appointed a Select Committee to take the matter into consideration. That Committee had been attended generally by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and by his other noble and learned Friend not now present (Lord Brougham), who seemed to act as the organ of the Government on the occasion. The result was, that remedies for these evils were pointed out, and the Bill which had passed their Lordships' House was founded upon the decision to which the Committee had come. Her Majesty's Government had entirely approved of the Bill, and had intimated that nothing more ought to be done during the present Session. When the Bill, however, went down to the House of Commons, Her Majesty's Government there, as he had been informed, took an entirely different view of the matter; and the Solicitor General, under the auspices,

1429
as he had heard, of the Home Secretary, introduced no less than twenty new clauses, involving one of the most important questions that had passed through Parliament within the present Session. His noble and learned Friend admitted that the usages, and the rights and privileges of their Lordships' House, required that these new clauses should have been introduced as a distinct measure; and that they would be, therefore, justified in rejecting them. This was not, however, the only instance during the present Session in which the House had reason to regret that a better understanding did not exist between the Members of Her Majesty's Government in that and in the other House of Parliament. For instance, a Bill had passed their Lordships' House to prevent tollhouses in Scotland being licensed for the sale of intoxicating drinks. That measure had been supported by all the Members of Her Majesty's Government in this House; but when it had got to the other House of Parliament, the whole of the Members of Her Majesty's Government there, with the Prime Minister at their head, voted against it; and the Bill was thus lost. Another instance of a similar kind was to be found in the fate of the Bill which had been introduced for abolishing deodands. That Bill had been highly praised by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, who had given Her Majesty's consent for its introduction. It had been passed through their Lordships' House, without even a whisper of disapprobation against it, and with the unanimous support of the Members of Her Majesty's Government in this House. The Bill had been subsequently lost on a point of form in the other House; but a similar measure had been immediately afterwards introduced in the Commons' House of Parliament for abolishing deodands. Precisely the same principle was involved in the second Bill as in the first; and yet, while the Bill met with the unanimous support of the Members of Her Majesty's Government in their Lordships' House, it was unanimously opposed by Her Majesty's Government in the Commons' House of Parliament. He alluded to these matters as instances in which the Parliament and the public suffered in consequence of no understanding existing between the Members of Her Majesty's Government in the two Houses. He regretted that the opinion of his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) was not more attended to by his Colleagues in matters of legal
1430
reference, and more especially by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. With respect to the measure now before the House, it was a mockery to oblige a person to sue in the Court of Queen's Bench or Exchequer for a debt under 20 l.; but he doubted whether it would not be better to remodel local courts, or extend the county courts, rather than give more power to the courts of conscience, which were often the cause of great vexation and abuse.
The Lord Chancellorbegged to explain one circumstance. This was not a Government measure. When it went down to the other House of Parliament, it was taken up by a learned Gentleman who was not at that time Solicitor General. [Lord Campbell: He was about to be.] It was before he knew he would be; and it would not have been consistent if, on account of his change of position, he had abandoned the measure. He admitted, however, that on its going down from that to the other House, although it was not a Government measure, it was deemed wise and proper, and as such was supported. With reference to the Deodand Bill, it was not considered a Government measure; he, for one, supported it; but it was open to any other Member of the Government to oppose it. It went down to the other House connected with another measure; that other measure was rejected, and the Deodand Bill, as he apprehended, was on that account rejected also. He wished also to say, that he had added an Amendment to the 9th Clause; he thought it right that parties who would be affected should have notice of any change, and it was, therefore, to be advertised for a month in the London Gazette before it was made.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that he and his noble Friends near him took part in the Turnpike Trusts Bill as private country gentlemen connected with Scotland, and not as Members of the Government.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that as precedents were important, he would remind noble Lords of one little point. He thought he recollected sending down a Bill from that House to the other House with forty or fifty new clauses and amendments—he alluded to the Municipal Act Amendment Bill—which the other House very kindly adopted.
Lord Monteaglesaid, he regarded this matter as affording a very bad precedent. He, however, thought it better, under all the circumstances, to adopt the course recommended

1431
by his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Wharncliffeconceived that this was no Government Bill, and it was well to express their disapprobation of the circumstance that, when a Bill of eight clauses was sent down, one of twenty-five clauses should be sent up; in fact, a new Bill, which that House could not discuss on one occasion only. Still, under all the circumstances of this case, and after the explanation that had been given, he was not disposed to vote against this Bill, though he held himself as much at liberty to vote against it as against any Railway Bill that had come before them.
Earl Fitzhardingeexpressed his gratification that Amendments which were calculated to afford so much benefit to the community had met with the approbation of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. No less than 3,000,000 l. of debts under 20 l. had been contracted to tradesmen in this country; and in Birmingham alone the debts under 20 l. in one year amounted to 100,000 l. The passing of this measure would give relief to those classes which it was impossible for them to obtain in any other manner.
Lord Campbellexplained. He was perfectly well aware of the distinction respecting Government Bills; but what he complained of was, that measures which were formally not Government Bills should be strenuously advocated and supported by all the Members of Her Majesty's Government in one House, and as strenuously opposed by the Members of the Government in the other House of Parliament. He was sorry that his noble and learned Friend should have referred to the precedent he had cited. He had hoped that his noble and learned Friend had repented of the acts to which he had alluded, and he regretted to find that such was not the case. He very well remembered that, on the occasion alluded to, the noble and learned Lord was regarded as a giant of obstruction to all measures coming before their Lordships' House.
Commons' Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned.