Lords Sitting of 4 May 1854

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament.—The Earl Brooke and Earl of Warwick, after the Death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a. Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention Act Further Amendment.
3a Ministers' Money (Ireland).

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petitions having been presented, from

1221
the Convention of the Royal Burghs of Scotland, and from the President and Society of Advocates in Aberdeen,
LORD BROUGHAMtook occasion to repeat that no misapprehension could be greater than to suppose that his Bill, which had been referred to the Select Committee, was intended to repeal or abolish the Scotch law of bankruptcy and insolvency, and to substitute the English bankruptcy and insolvency law in its place. Its real object was to give to the Scotch procedure in bankruptcy the benefit of the great improvements in the bankruptcy law which had been effected in this country.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he knew that his noble and learned Friend's Bill had caused great apprehension not only in Edinburgh, but all over Scotland, and it might calm that apprehension if his noble and learned Friend would state to their Lordships whether it was his intention to push his Bill forward during the present Session, or to allow it to stand over till the Commissioners who had been appointed to inquire into the expediency of amalgamating the mercantile laws of the two countries, had made their Report.
LORD BROUGHAMcould only reiterate what he had stated when this question was last asked him, namely, that he had taken into his full and anxious deliberation the considerations to which his noble and learned Friend had referred, and that he hoped very early next week to be able to give a definitive answer to this question.
LORD ST. LEONARDSwas understood to urge, as a further ground for postponing the Bill, that a Commission had been appointed to inquire into the bankruptcy law of England.
LORD BROUGHAMdid not deny that the fact that parts of the bankruptcy law of this country were sub judice was an additional reason for not pressing forward this Bill at the present period, and possibly not during the present Session.

THE TICKET-OF-LEAVE SYSTEM.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that since he called the attention of their Lordships to the case of the returned convict, Brown, a letter had been published in the Times newspaper, which, considering by whom it was signed, deserved, he thought, immediate attention. It was signed by the Rev. T. Sutton, for ten
1222
years chaplain of York Castle, who said—
"If any reliance can be placed upon the statements made to me at various times during my chaplaincy by prisoners, it is true that discharged prisoners are constantly watched by the police, and every impediment thrown in the way of their obtaining employment."
Next came an allegation to which he (Lord St. Leonards) wished to call the particular attention of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack. Mr. Sutton declared that—
"In some instances their companions in crime are bribed by the police to decoy them again into the commission of crime, in order that they (the police) may get a job to the York Assizes."
Now, he (Lord St. Leonards) did trust this was not the case; he could hardly believe that it was; but the statement was certainly one which, coming from such a source, deserved inquiry. With regard to what had been said by Brown, it did not appear that much reliance could be placed on his statement; but it was not a question of whether the man in the present instance had acted rightly or wrongly, but as to the system upon which tickets of leave were granted. It was impossible to deny that if a man went home to the scene of his former life upon receiving a ticket of leave, he would be at once known, and the difficulty would be to make people believe he had led an amended life and was effectually reformed, even though he might have behaved well during his imprisonment. The whole subject was as important a one as could well occupy the attention of Parliament; and, with respect to the statement made by Mr. Sutton, he hoped that would receive full investigation.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had spoken to his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on this subject, and found that there would be no difficulty in producing these papers. The statement alleged to have been made by the chaplain of York Castle emanated from a reverend gentleman who must be presumed to have written of facts which had come within his own cognisance, and which were extremely to be deprecated; and proceeding as they did from such au authority, it would be incumbent on the Government to inquire into the truth of the statements. He concurred with the noble and learned Lord that an investigation must be made into the circumstances,

1223
and he should take care that an investigation should be instituted.
House adjourned to Thursday next.