Lords Sitting of 22 July 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Bills of Exchange; Stock in Trade.
2a Borough Courts of Record (Ireland); Court of Exchequer (Ireland).
Reported.—Incorporation of Boroughs Confirmation (No. 2); Population; Population (Ireland); Loan Societies; Militia Ballots Suspension; Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; Linen, &c, Manufactures (Ireland).
3a County Court Extension.

MARRIAGES BILL.
The BISHOP of SALISBURYpresented petitions against this Bill, and after expressing a strong opinion against the policy of the measure, asked the Government if it was their intention to proceed further with it in the course of the present Session? Many noble Lords who intended to oppose the Bill were now absent, and among others the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSsaid, that he saw no reason for not proceeding with it in the present Session.
LORD BROUGHAMthought that this was rather too short a notice for the second reading of such a Bill; at the same time, he intimated it to be his opinion that it would not he expedient to postpone the decision on the Bill till next Session. He trusted that the noble Earl would consider

73
the propriety of fixing a later day than I Thursday next for the second reading.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH, though he thought that this Bill was a bad one, was nevertheless favourable to the object of it. He therefore hoped that his noble Friend would not bring it forward during the present Session, but would let it be remodelled during the recess. Thursday was too early a day for the second reading. As a sincere friend to the object of the Bill, he recommended the noble Earl to take no further step with regard to it during the present year.
LORD STANLEYdeclared himself to he an opponent, not only of the Bill itself, hut also of its object. Still he thought that every great measure should have the advantage of a full, free, and impartial discussion. He had previously entered his protest, on many occasions, against the mode in which their Lordships (perhaps inevitably) were compelled to deal with important Bills towards the close of a Session, and he repeated his protest upon this occasion. He reminded his noble Friend (the Earl of St. Germans) that there was at the present moment a decreasing feeling in favour of this Bill, and an increasing; feeling in opposition to it. It had now lain upon the table for a week or ten days, without a single step being made in its progress. It was a Bill which might originate in that House at the commencement of the next Session. If it were then negatived it would be disposed of for the next Session; and if it were carried, it would go down to the House of Commons with the recommendation of their Lordships in its favour, and might then undergo a fair discussion in the other House of Parliament. If he recollected rightly, it had only been carried this year in the House of Commons by a hare majority of ten voices.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSsaid, he would take till to-morrow to consider of the course he ought to pursue with regard to the measure.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—LIVERPOOL CORPORATION WATERWORKS BILL.
The Order of the Day being read, for the attendance of Joseph Byrne, law writer, Joseph Hinde, warehouseman, and Duncan M'Arthur, book-keeper, all of Liverpool, at the bar of this House at five o'clock, in reference to their conduct with regard to the signatures to the petition of
74
ratepayers of Liverpool (presented to the House on the 17th of June last) praying to be heard by counsel against the Liverpool Corporation Water Works Bill: The Yeoman Usher informed the House that they were in attendance; they were called in: Then William Kent Fletcher, the short-hand writer who took the evidence given by the said Joseph Byrne, Joseph Hinde, and Duncan M'Arthur before the Select Committee of this House on the said petition, was sworn to the correctness of the transcript of the said evidence given before the said Select Committee; and, having identified the said Joseph Byrne, Joseph Hinde, and Duncan M'Arthur, the evidence was read to them.
After the evidence given by Joseph Byrne had been read over to him,
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid—Joseph Byrne, you have heard the evidence which you gave before the Select Committee read over to you. Have you any explanation to give of your conduct, or of your reasons for attaching fictitious names to that petition, and for signing the names of other persons who gave you no authority to do so?
Joseph Byrne.—My Lord, when I was first engaged upon this business I went out with the intention of soliciting names as signatures to the petition. It was then my intention to obtain none but legitimate signatures. I got a few persons to sign the petition on the first day. On the next day I went out at eight o'clock in the morning upon the same business; and after 11 hours' great exertion in the one street, I was only able to procure about 80 signatures. When I went to the confederation shop in the evening I saw one gentleman with nine sheets, and another with six sheets of signatures, which purported to have been honestly obtained. I then thought upon the way petitions were got up, and I said to myself "I don't see why I should not adopt the same plan of obtaining signatures." I have no other explanation to give.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: You may withdraw.
The LORD CHANCELLORput the same question to Joseph Hinde.
Joseph Hinde.—The explanation I have to offer is, that Mr. Graves told me that if I could get persons to sign the petition, it would be all right.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Have you any further explanation to make?
Hinde.—No, my Lord.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: You may withdraw.
His Lordship then repeated the question to Duncan M'Arthur.
Duncan M'Arthur.—My Lord, a friend induced me to come here and to tell your Lordship the system under which petitions of this kind were got up. It is much against my inclination that I should have connnected myself with such a system. When I came to your Lordships' bar to he solemnly sworn as I thought, I did not expect that you would have turned round and have read the evidence given before the Committee against me. As regards my Conduct in this matter, I am just the same as every other person similarly engaged to impose upon your Lordships.
He was then ordered to withdraw.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that their Lordships now had before them the evidence given by these three individuals before the Select Committee, and the statements which they had made at the bar in explanation of it. The effect of that evidence and of those statements was, that each of them had been employed, and paid for their labour, in procuring the signatures of ratepayers adverse to a Bill before Parliament; but that, instead of acting honestly in their employment, they had adjourned to a public-house, and there put down names at random, in some eases attaching to the petition the names of actual persons, who had not given them any authority so to act. They had resorted to various other courses to deceive the persons by whom they were employed. In one case, one of the individuals who had just been removed from the bar had absolutely wetted himself with water forced from a pump, in order to induce his employers to believe that he had been out all day in the rain canvassing for signatures. It was a serious offence to endeavour to impose on their Lordships in such a way, and to procure attention to their petition by the number of names falsely attached to it. It was of importance that their Lordships should he satisfied of the genuineness of the petitions presented to them, and that the parties who practised any deception upon them in that respect should be severely punished. He therefore moved, "That Joseph Byrne, law writer, of Liverpool, in having subscribed the names of certain persons without their authority to the petition, purporting to be a petition of ratepayers of Liverpool against the Liverpool Corporation Water Works Bill (pre-
76
sented to this House on the 17th of June last), and in having signed many fictitious names to the said petition, is guilty of a gross breach of the privileges of this House."
After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM, Resolved in the Affirmative, Nemine Dissemtente.
The LORD CHANCELLORthen moved that Joseph Byrne be committed forthwith to the custody of the Usher of the Black Rod for the offence which he had committed.
Agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
The LORD CHANCELLORnext moved that Joseph Byrne he committed to Newgate.
The EARL of EGLINTOUNsaid, that he had brought this matter before their Lordships, because he felt, as the Lord Chancellor had stated, that a very serious offence had been committed against their Lordships. Many of the signatures which were now admitted to be forged had been verified by other witnesses, and those who had been guilty of such misconduct ought also to be punished. If these three men had not voluntarily come forward to give evidence, this deception would never have come to light. It ought to be taken as some extenuation of their guilt that they had come forward voluntarily to discover this most unworthy trick. They ought not to be punished more severely than those who had suggested to them this crime, for crime undoubtedly it was.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEfelt that, to a certain extent, there was some extenuation in the circumstance which the noble Earl had just stated. Still, he thought that these men ought to be committed to Newgate. They then might state their contrition in a petition, and afterwards be discharged.
LORD BROUGHAMthought that that was the right course to adopt. These men, after they were sent to Newgate, could pursue the usual course of expressing their contrition in a petition, and might then be discharged.
EARL GREYobserved, that if this system of forging names to petitions were general, the parties who employed these men could not be innocent. He therefore thought that their Lordships were hound to appoint another Committee for the purpose of seeing whether evidence could not be obtained to prove either that certain parties had been guilty of wilfully deceiving the House, or that they had been guilty of the most

77
culpable negligence in not discovering that many of the names were known forgeries.
The EAHL of MINTOwas led by the evidence to believe that some of the employers of these men were cognisant of the practices resorted to; for it appeared that some of them had ordered the men to put crosses opposite to the names they had attached to the petition.
The EARL of EGLINTOUNsaid, that the two gentlemen who had got up the petition were then in the House, and most anxious to be heard at the bar.
Similar Motions were then put and agreed to, in respect of the custody of Joseph Hinde and Duncan M'Arthur.
EARL GREYthen moved the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances attending the employment of these parties in procuring signatures to the said petition, and into the cireumstances attending the presentation of the said petition to the House.
On Question, agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

PROVISION FOR HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE AND THE PRINCESS MARY OF CAMBRIDGE.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEthen announced to the House, that he had a Message from the Queen to communicate to their Lordships. His Lordship then placed the Message in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, who read it to their Lord ships:—
VICTORIA REGINA.—Her Majesty being desirous, upon the decease of her late Uncle, of making competent provision for the support and maintenance of his Royal Highness the Duke of Can bridge and of the Princess Mary, relies on the attachment of the House of Lords to adopt such measures as may be necessary."
Ordered to he considered To-morrow.

COUNTY COURT EXTENSION BILL.
Bill read 3a, according to order, with, the Amendments.
LORD BEAUMONTthen moved the in troduction of a clause, the object of which, was to provide that nine of the existing clerks of County Courts who had given up freehold offices to accept their present situations should not be removable.
LORD BROUGHAMfelt it necessary to object to this proposition. The result of adopting the clause would be that none of these nine gentlemen could be removed from office on the ground of incompetence,
78
misconduct, or insolvency. Such a regulation might lead to great public inconvenience. He hail much rather that a Bill should be brought in to secure them compensation.
LORD STANLEYreminded the noble and learned Lord that the gentlemen referred to, could not at present be removed for those causes; and it appeared unfair to place them in a worse position than that in which they now stood, merely because the Legisture determined on extending the jurisdiction of the County Courts.
LORD BEAUMONTadmitted that public inconvenience might result from the adoption of the clause; but, after fully considering the matter, he thought it better to run the risk of that inconvenience than to commit an act of injustice.
The LORD CHANCELLORwas understood to express an opinion, that the clerks ought to hold their offices for the future subject to removal for cause assigned, provided that were not inconsistent with the conditions on which they had accepted their situations.
On Question, that the clause stand part of the Bill,
Their Lordships divided:—Content 19; Not-Content 13: Majority 6.
Clause agreed to.
LORD BROUGHAMthen proposed an Amendment, the object of which was to give a concurrent jurisdiction to the Superior Courts in actions for sums above 20 l. As the Bill now stood, plaintiffs recovering in the Superior Courts sums not exceeding 50 l. in actions of contract, over which the County Courts had jurisdiction, unless the Judge presiding at the trial in the Superior Court should certify that the cause of action was one for which a plaint could not have been entered in any County Court, or that it appeared to him that there was a sufficient reason for bringing the action in the Superior Court, could not recover costs. It was not fair to the Judges in; the Superior Courts to throw on them the responsibility of giving or withholding costs in such cases. It was better to establish a fixed ride at once. The alteration now proposed was called for by the great traders of London, Liverpool, and Manchester. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving the Amendment.
LORD BEAUMONTobjected to the Amendment. He thought the question of costs ought to be left to the discretion of the Judges, and did not doubt that they would righteously exercise the discretion

79
intrusted to them. There could not be used stronger arguments against the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, than those which he himself had brought forward in the Committee.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that this was the consequence of his having had the candour to state, as every Member of a Select Committee ought to do, the whole of the arguments on either side; and he was surprised at the boldness of the noble Lord in setting himself against the legal authorities on one of the most important changes that had ever taken place in his experience in the jurisprudence of the country.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that looking to the advantages of going to the County Court, if that tribunal was attended with all the advantages that some anticipated from it, it must be a strong and powerful motive to induce a party to go to the Superior Court; and if he had such a motive he should be allowed to go there. He did not believe that any attorney would, for the sake of increased costs, advise going to the Superior Court, as he would run the risk of afterwards losing his client. Influenced by the result of long experience, and of many circumstances which it would be difficult for him to explain to their Lordships, he undoubtedly thought the discretion now proposed by his hon. and learned Friend should be left to the party suing.
LORD WHARNCLIFFEconsidered the opinions of two noble and learned Lords of such experience as his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), and the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack should have great weight with their Lordships; and he therefore supported the Amendment.
The EARL of CARLISLEsaid, that after the statements of the two noble and learned Lords, he felt that he could with propriety vote for the Amendment; and he hoped his noble Friend (Lord Beaumont) would now take the same course.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, that his objections to the Amendment had not been removed; but, after the opinions which had been expressed, he felt it would be useless to divide the House on the question, although, on the question being put, he should record his opposition by saving "Not-Content."
Motion agreed to.
LORD LANGDALEthen proposed a clause, giving a Judge sitting at chambers
80
in the vacations the same power of issuing writs of prohibition as was now possessed by the full courts sitting in banco. The County Courts would sit during the entire year, and great inconvenience would be felt during vacation if the power of issuing writs of prohibition was not given, as proposed, by a single Judge sitting at chambers.
Clause agreed to; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned till To-morrow.