Lords Sitting of 3 March 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—2a. Courts of Common Law Process; Courts of Common Law Process (Ireland); Court of Session (Scotland) Process; Constables (Scotland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Earl Powis, from Norwich, Great Malvern, and Tremeirchion; and from Stretton Grandison, and 5 other places, against the Union of Saint Asaph and Bangor, and in favour of the Appointment of a Bishop to the See of Manchester; from Pevevoy and 4 other places in Wales, for establishing Local Courts (Wales): from Shrewsbury, against the Insolvent Debtors' Act.

SERVICE OF PROCESS.
Lord Campbellmoved the Second Reading of the Courts of Common Law Process Bill, the Courts of Common Law Process (Ireland) Bill, and the Court of Session (Scotland) Process Bill. The object of the measures
232
was to enable actions to be brought in the three divisions of the United Kingdom, without requiring personal service of the process within the jurisdiction of the Courts respectively.
Lord Broughamsaid he was friendly to the principle of the Bills, but that there were some of the details which he hoped to see altered in the Committee.
Bills read 2a and committed.

THE CASE OF MR. ABBOTT.
Lord Broughamwished to mention that he had received a letter from a Mr. Abbott, a defaulter in the Bankruptcy Court, which, as far as it went, was an exceedingly proper letter. The writer admitted the crime he had committed, but said that it did not follow, because he had committed one crime, that everything said of him was to be believed; and in that he (Lord Brougham) agreed with Mr. Abbott. The writer stated, as a cause of his having committed the grave offence for which he had suffered, that he had been defrauded by two near relations of the whole of his property, and he did not state that by any means as a justification, but merely as a palliation of his conduct. He at the same time solemnly declared that that was his first offence; that he had never before done anything of the kind; and that the statement he (Lord Brougham) had received from a respectable person at Brussels was utterly and absolutely devoid of foundation, and for the truth of that statement Mr. Abbott referred to his employers. He further stated that he had not one farthing of the money in his possession, but that all had been lost in the speculations which he had been induced to enter into.

THE UNITED STATES TARIFF.
The Earl of Clarendonrose, pursuant to notice, to inquire what course had been taken to obtain redress for certain merchants who complained, as he conceived justly, of the loss inflicted on them by a change made some time ago in the Tariff of the United Stales. Under the 26th section of the new Tariff, agreed to on the 26th of August, 1842, goods coming from England, which were shipped before the imposition of the new duties was known, were exposed to ruinous duties, to the extent of 90 or 100 per cent. on silk goods, and 120 per cent. on cotton goods. Goods that had come from the eastward of the Cape were sub-

233
jected to much lower duties. Now this he considered to be an infraction of the Treaty between this country and the United States, which provided, among other things, that no duty should be imposed on goods from England higher than was imposed on goods coming from any other country. What made the circumstance of more importance was, that of the goods that came from the east of the Cape, by far the greater proportion belonged to American citizens, while of those which came from England nine tenths were the property of English merchants. The amount lost in the cases he referred to by British merchants was not less than 200,000 l., and one house in Glasgow had lost 3,000 l. He wished to know what steps had been taken to procure redress. The course taken by the United States was clearly against treaty, yet the Americans appeared fully alive to the importance of the Treaty wherever it was in their favour, for they had insisted on the repayment of the amount of duties levied on their rice by us in excess of that levied on the rue from the coast of Africa. He wished to know from the noble Earl whether he admitted the justice of the claims of our merchants, and, if so, what success had attended the application which he had, doubtless, made to the Government of the United States?
The Earl of Aberdeenbelieved that his noble Friend had correctly stated the circumstances of the case. It was one which had engaged the attention of the Government for a considerable time, and on which much correspondence had already passed. The case of the British merchants, he had no difficulty in saying, appeared to him a very just one, and deserving of the support of the Government; but he thought that the official experience of his noble Friend might convince him that one might have a very good case without immediately being able to bring it to a satisfactory issue. The Gentleman who preceded Her Majesty's present Minister at Washington urged this case on the Government of the United States very strongly, and Mr. Pakenham had pursued the same course; but he (Lord Aberdeen) was certainly not in a condition to say that their representations on the subject had been received in the manner they deserved. At the time of the last despatch referring to the matter, Mr. Pakenham proposed to put himself in
234
communication with the principal parties interested at New York—a branch, he believed, of the Glasgow house alluded to by his noble Friend—and from them he hoped to receive such information as would strengthen his means of applying to the Government of the United States. He could assure his noble Friend that it was impossible for any person employed in Her Majesty's service to display on this or any other subject falling within the sphere of his duties more zeal or ability than the Gentleman at present representing Her Majesty's Government to the United States.
House adjourned.