Sitting of 27 May 1823

SMALL DEBTS RECOVERY COMMITTEE.
Lord Althorpbrought up the Report of the Select Committee on the subject of the Recovery of Small Debts. He wished, he said, to be allowed to take up a few minutes of the time of the House in stating what the substance of that report was; for, from the number of letters which he had received from all parts of the country on the subject, it was evident that a great and general anxiety prevailed respecting it. Nor was it at all a matter of surprise to him that the question should excite so much public interest; seeing that the present state of the law amounted to nothing less than an absolute denial of justice to almost all the creditors in the country with regard to debts due to them under the value of 15 l. No man to whom a sum under 15 l. was due, would now think of attempting to recover it, unless he was actuated by motives of a vindictive nature. No regard to his interest alone would induce him to commence legal proceedings. That being the case, it certainly was very natural that a great anxiety should prevail to see such a state of things set right, if possible. One great evil attending it, where no cheap court existed, was, that in such places tradesmen frequently turned away their servants without notice, and without paying them any wages, and that the latter had no means of recovering what was due to them, but by an action at common law. The consequence of all this was, that the legislature had, at various times, established what were called Courts of Requests in various parts of the country; the members of which, who were principally tradesmen, were made judges both of the law and of the fact. Although courts of this nature were very suitable to towns and to populous parts of the country, they were by no means applicable to agricultural districts. It was impossible, in such districts, to find persons of sufficient leisure and respectability to constitute those courts. And if such courts were formed in the populous districts only, the object of them would be easily defeated; as a person going from one district, to another could not be followed by the court. The committee, therefore, felt that to recommend the establishment of a greater number of these courts of request would be to no purpose. But the point to which the attention of the committee had consequently been drawn, was the expediency of establishing regular county courts in such a manner, and on
544
such a footing, as to enable a creditor to have a cheap recovery by a proceeding in them. At present, those courts were open to two objections. For a debt of the smallest, the proceedings were as voluminous as for a debt of the largest amount; and the same means also existed of interposing vexatious delays in the conduct of the suit. There was also the objection of the probable distance of witnesses from the place at which they would be called upon to give their testimony in support of the claim. To obviate these objections it became necessary, that the proceedings in the county courts, should be simplified. To effect this, the committee recommended, that the proceeding should be by a simple bill of plaint, by which alone the creditor, under the circumstances which he had described, should be enabled to recover. To obviate the objection arising from distance, the committee recommended that the court should sit at such different places in the county as might appear to the justices of the session to be the most proper and convenient. By this means, the expense of travelling, the loss of time, and other inconveniences would be, in a great measure, got rid of. This plan, it was hoped, would render the county courts cheap; but as it also became necessary to render them courts of justice, it was expedient to make some alteration in their constitution. As at present constituted, the deputies of the sheriff were made the judges of the law and the fact. It was intended that a barrister of some years standing should be made assessor to the sheriff, and should preside in those courts. The committee had then to consider, in whom the appointment of those assessors should be vested. On the best consideration which they had been able to give to the subject, it appeared to them that it ought to be vested in the lord lieutenant of the county. If it were vested in the Crown, it would so greatly increase the influence of the Crown, that he should be sorry indeed to recommend any such measure. Nor did he know any better mode of appointment than that which the committee had suggested. If the appointment were vested in the hands of the justices of the peace at the quarter sessions, the number of individuals would too much diminish the responsibility that ought; to attach to such a right.—Another part of the subject to which the committee had found it necessary to direct their atten-

545
tion; was the way in which the assessors were to be paid. If by fees, there was great danger lest the judge should huddle over cases with too much rapidity; if by the number of days of sitting, the opposite danger was incurred; namely, that he would delay the completion of every ease as long as possible. It had been thought much the best plan, therefore, to pay the assessor a fixed salary, out of the county rate, to which a fund arising from certain small fees to be paid by the suitors in these county courts, might furnish sufficient means for that purpose, with little or no additional burthen to the population at large. He believed he had stated the general points to which the attention of the committee had been Called.—There were one or two other subjects connected with the question, on which he begged to say a few words. As by the means thus recommended, a cheaper mode of recovering debts would be furnished to the tradesman than that which he at present possessed, it was not too much to expect from him in return, that he should use move diligence in Collecting and suing for them. It was proposed, therefore, that a statute of limitation should be passed, the term of which should be two years; that no action should be maintained in these county courts on any cause of more than two years standing. He knew it might be said, that this provision would occasion considerable alarm. But why should it do so? When a tradesman allowed his customer more than two years' credit, it was either because he could not get at him, to which case ft was not intended that the statute of limitation should be applicable, or because he confided in him, in which case be would never proceed by law at all.—There was another point on which he was well aware there would he some difference of opinion. It would be said, that as a great quantity of business would be taken out of the courts of Westminster-hall, compensation would be required. To any such proposition he was decidedly adverse Convinced as he was that the present state of the law was an absolute denial of justice; be could never allow, that any man had a vested right in the denial of justice. Nothing would induce him to propose any such compensation: but, as a practical man, he knew very well that he might be forced to adopt such a proposition. On this, however, he was determined, that he would
546
bring up the bill without any provision for compensation, and that he would do his best to resist the introduction of any such provision. It was not his intention to endeavour to pass the bill in the present session. All that he meant to propose was, that it should be read a first and second time, go through the committee, for the purpose of having the blanks filled up, be printed, and then stand over until the next session.
Mr. Scarlettsaid, he could give no information to the House, with respect to any call for compensation, in consequence of this bill. He thought the general principle of themeasure was good. His noble friend had had the goodness to communicate to him the general principle of the bill, and he, at present, certainly saw no material objection to it. So far as the measure had been explained to him, it appeared calculated to produce great public benefit. Ordered to be printed.

COMBINATION OF WORKMEN BILL.
Mr. Littletonpresented a petition from the Coal and Iron masters of Dudley, against a bill brought in by the hon. member for Coventry to repeal the different acts relating to the Combination of Workmen, and for settling disputes between Masters and Journeymen. He gave credit to the hon. gentleman for his motives; but it was a measure full of minute and vexatious regulations, which no man connected with the manufacturing districts could possibly approve of. The hon. member for Coventry talked of the advantages which would accrue from referring his bill to a committee above stairs. It was unquestionably desirable that the whole subject, and not such a bill as the hon. member had concocted, should be referred to the consideration of a select committee, to decide what portion of them it might appear necessary to repeal, and what part of them the interest of the manufacturers required to be preserved. Before that committee, all parties should be heard. The hon. member might perhaps say, that, the bill would go through a committee in the regular, course: but it was a different thing to submit the bill to a committee composed of gentlemen whose experience, whose habits, and whose abilities, rendered them peculiarly fit to decide on it, and to lay it before a committee in the ordinary course off business, merely to consider its details. He now gave the hon. member notice, that

547
whenever he moved the second reading of the bill, he should move, as an amendment, "that it be read that day six months." He wished to know whether the hon. member had any objection to postponing the measure for a few days?
Mr. P. Moorewas glad the hon. gentleman had stated his objections to the bill, because, from the moment he had brought it in, he had endeavoured to provoke the most extended inquiry. Although the bill had been printed five weeks, he had not asked the opinion of any hon. member with respect to it; neither did he intend to do so for some time to come. As to a further postponement of the measure, he had no objection to that course, if it were necessary for the purpose of procuring information. He begged leave to ask, from whom the petitions against the bill came? They came from the master-manufacturers, who were opposed to those classes for whose security he wished to provide; namely, the operative workmen. When the hon. member came forward with his hundreds who petitioned against the bill, he must be allowed to point to his millions who were in favour of it. The master manufacturers had infinitely more trouble, under the existing law, than they could possibly have under that which he proposed. He believed that nineteen-twentieths of the poor-rates were occasioned by the pinchings which the rich manufacturers inflicted on the wages of their workmen. If the operative manufacturers were properly paid, the products of agriculture and of the loom would prosper, and there would be little or no poor-rates at all. If one farthing a day were added to the wages of the 5,000,000 of the manufacturers who were employed in this country, it would amount to a total of 2,040,000 l. annually. For his own part, he was certain this bill would do much good. He cared not whether gentlemen in office or out of office carried it into effect, so that it was adopted. The chief objects of his bill were, first, to repeat several obsolete laws. The judges themselves had condemned many of these laws; and, if he even stopped at that point, the bill would be beneficial. It next provided for the hiring arid paying of workmen; and it provided also for the regulation of wages. The power of the regulation was, by the bill, taken out of the magistrates' hands, and left with the parties themselves; who, under particular
548
circumstances, were to have recourse to reference. The bill had cost him much time, trouble, and expense; and he trusted his exertions would not be thrown away. If, when it went to the committee up stairs, be could not convince the hon. member for Staffordshire, that its principle was a good one, he would give it up. But he would never give up the fact that he (Mr. Peter Moore) was the person who had brought forward such a measure.
Mr. S. Wortleythought the hon. member for Coventry deserved the thanks of the country for having brought the subject under the notice of parliament. Certainly some alteration was necessary in these laws; and he believed the Combination act, whenever it had been appealed to, had constantly recoiled on the masters; therefore the sooner it was got rid of the better. He should have felt much more inclination to vote for the present bill, if it had only gone to the repeal of existing laws; but it went a great deal further, as it contained many new provisions which ought to be seriously considered before the bill was passed.
Lord Stanleyintreated the hon. member for Coventry not to press on this bill. In. his opinion, it ought to go to a committee above stairs, there to be thoroughly examined, and then stand over until next session; which would give the manufacturing districts an opportunity of understanding all the provisions which it Was intended to propose. It would be a hazardous thing to do away at one sweep with forty-four statutes, without much previous consideration and inquiry. He had read the bill, but he had not read the pamphlet which the hon. member for Coventry had disseminated with it.
Mr. Huskissonwas bound in Justice to say, that the hon. member for Coventry had acted in a manner quite consistent with the course which he had stated, at the commencement of the session, it was his intention to pursue. The hon. member had then said, that he would introduce the bill, and afterwards leave it to committee up stairs. He concurred with others in thinking, that the House was under an obligation to the hon. member for agitating this subject, and bringing it under the notice of the House. He had, it appeared, drawn up a kind of history of the minute, absurd, ridiculous and mischievous regulations, which had, from time to time, been introduced into the Statute book on the subject of interference

549
between the master and the workman. But he must say, that to attempt to remove all the regulations which were contained in forty-four acts of parliament—to correct, at one sweep, a system full of complication and annoyance—was next to impossible. In fact, the hon. member had himself added to the complication of the system. In endeavouring to rectify it, he had fallen into the very error which he deprecated; for his bill contained regulations so minute, so inapplicable to existing circumstances, and, in many instances, so impossible to be carried into effect, that instead of having forty-four acts of parliament to deal with, some of which had fallen into disuse, it would be found that this one bill was enough to control, embarrass, and perplex the regulations of any trade or manufacture. He wished every circulation to be given to the bill, and to the still more valuable information, which, he understood, accompanied it; but he thought it would be necessary to pause before they agreed to so extensive a measure. The hon. member for Staffordshire bad, he perceived, the pamphlet in his hand; but where it was to be procured he (Mr. H.) did not know. He hoped the hon. member would not press the bill this session; but would let the mass of information he had collected go forth to the country, that the minds of those who were interested in the measure might be directed to the subject. The country was much obliged to him for the information he had collected; since he had, it seemed, in comparatively few pages given the history of so many acts of parliament. If the hon. member acceded to this proposition, he might, in the early part of next session, move for a committee, by whom the whole subject might be investigated.
Mr. Dugdalesaid, the hon. member for Coventry had asserted that his measure was generally approved of. Now, he also had received communications on the subject, and from them it appeared that those, who would be affected by the measure were much alarmed at it.
Mr. P. Mooresaid, he knew the value of the communications which the hon. member had received better than the hon. gentleman himself did. His correspondents told the hon. gentleman, the truth, but not the whole truth. He was ready to stake his life, his name and his character, that if the bill were adopted it would afford the greatest possible relief to the
550
country. As to postponing the second reading, he hoped the hon. member for Staffordshire would allow him until to-morrow to consider of the expediency of doing so.
Mr. Littletonsaid, he had no objection to the immortality which the hon. member for Coventry promised himself, in consequence of his bill and pamphlet. For the benefit of those gentlemen who did not know where to find the latter, he begged to state that it was on sale at No. 24, Bridge-street, Westminster.
Mr. Philipssaid, his objection to, fend bill was, that it contained a number of restrictions between workmen and employers which would be injurious to both parties. The regulations were not applicable to existing circumstances, and would produce an effect exactly the reverse of that which the hon. member for Coventry intended.
Ordered to lie on the table.

FELO DE SE BILL.
Mr. Lennardsaid, that he had little to say in introducing his motion for leave to bring in a bill "To alter and amend the Laws relating to the Interment of the Remains of Persons felo de se," as he understood no opposition was intended to be made to it. As the law now stood, a person felo de se was deprived of the rites of burial, and exposed to the indignity of having a stake driven through his body. The infliction of this odious and disgusting ceremony was not, he believed, enjoined by any written enactment, but by an old custom. By the canon law, three classes of person's were deprived of Christian burial; these were, persons who had been guilty of felo de se, excommunicated persons, and those who had not received baptism. It was only in the case of felo de se that he wished to interfere, to abolish the practice of running a stake through the body, &c.; for he meant to leave the burial to be performed in private wherever it might be thought proper.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

SHERIFF OF DUBLIN—INQUIRY INTO HIS CONDUCT.
The House having again resolved itself into a committee to inquire into the conduct of the Sheriff of Dublin, sir Robert Heron in the chair.
The right hon. William Conyngham Plunkett, a member of the House; was examined in his place.
By Mr. Calcraft.—Is it the practice for the

551
law officers of the Crown, in Ireland, to order magistrates to commit in any particular form?—I never Heard of such a practice, and I should suppose no such practice can exist.
In the case of Forbes, did the law officers of the Crown order major Sirr to commit capitally?—Certainly not; the law officers of the Crown gave their opinion to the magistrates that it would be right to commit capitally, but I am sure that in that case no order, or anything equivalent to an order, was given by them to the magistrates. It is a judicial act on the part of the magistrate; he must exercise his own discretion, and rest upon his own responsibility; I conceive it would be a great violation of duty in him to relinquish his own judgment to that of any other person; and I conceive it would be a very improper thing, on the part of any other person to give him a direction.
Are you to be understood, that the law officers of the Crown merely expressed their opinion upon the evidence?—Merely so.
Would you think a magistrate acted property in committing on the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, on evidence taken before them, without himself examining that evidence and having it regularly sworn and reduced into the form of informations before him?—Ishould think that he acted very irregularly and improperly in so doing.
Did major Sirr state any opinion contrary to that of the law officers of the Crown, or against the capital commitment?—I never heard that he did, unless at the bar here (if he did so then); I never had the slightest intimation that he at all differed in opinion from the law officers of the Crown.
By Col. Barry.—Wereseveral minutes of examinations, or informations, taken in the absence of the magistrates, before the law officers of the Crown?—There were several examinations taken in the absence of the magistrates; after the witnesses had been sworn, in several instances the magistrates were absent during the procedure of the examinations.
Have you any recollection of the magistrates having been desired to withdraw?—I do not recollect that being the case.
One of the magistrates has stated, that he swore the witness and then withdrew; was it the practice that the witness was introduced into the room with the law officers of the Crown and sworn by the magistrate; that the magistrate then withdrew; that then the witness was examined, and a memorandum made of his deposition, and that before those depositions were sent to the magistrate, the magistrate was called upon to commit?—That statement involves a great number of particulars; I do not know whether the right hon. member means to put that as a question.
Mr. Graves, in his evidence, states, "I was desired to swear a witness; I did swear the witness, and then withdrew, and the notes of the examinations were then taken: they did not take the shape of an information sworn before a magistrate, but Several days before the
552
commission, and the bills being sent tip to the grand jury, they were sent down to us, and we were desired to bring the persons before us, and to swear them to them, they being put into the shape of informations, and to bind them over to appear on the trial, which we did;" then in another answer, he says, "when these notes of informations came before the magistrates to swear, we had of course the witness before, us; we interrogated him again; he swore to the informations, and, in many instances, in doing so, he altered the notes of examinations, as before taken; in several instances he altered them considerably. It never was proposed to us to swear those informations at all until subsequently to the committals, when we had the witnesses before us, and when we were directed to have the witnesses before us in the first instance." When the committals were made, were all the informations that were taken in the absence of the magistrates laid before the magistrates?—From the answer which has been read to me, as given by Mr. Graves, it should seem that they were not; but the answer given by Mr. Graves is the first intimation of that fact I have received, to the best of my recollection.
You were understood, in reply to a question before put, to have said, that there were no orders given to the magistrates; were the magistrates advised by the law officers of the Crown to commit the prisoners capitally?—According to my recollection, I expressed to major Sirr, who was the only magistrate with whom I had any communication upon the subject of the committals, my opinion, and that of the law officers of the Crown, that the committal should be for a conspiracy to murder. It is necessary I should explain a former answer, to which the right hon. member has alluded, referring to the circumstance of the depositions being taken from the witnesses after the magistrates had withdrawn; I think it necessary to mention that that happened in some instances, in others the magistrate was present; in many others the informations were regularly taken before the magistrate. In the instances in which the examination was pursued in the absence of a magistrate, that was an examination conducted, as I consider, for the purpose of giving information to the law officers of the Crown, in order to enable them to form their opinion as to the circumstances of the case, and the mode of prosecution, but certainly was not intended by them as the depositions upon which the magistrate was to act when he came to commit. I conceive that it was the duty of the magistrate, before he committed, to examine those depositions, to have them reduced to the regular form of informations, and to have a security taken from the parties who made them, to prosecute. In the case of the two committals for the capital charge, which were made by Mr. Gabbett, I believe that was done; in the ease of the committal made by major Sirr, I now learn that that was not done; but I conceive that the

553
doing that was the business of major Sirr, and a matter in which I had no kind of concern.
What was the use of filling up the notes of informations afterwards, if that examination was only intended for the purpose of giving information to the law officers of the Crown?—I cannot say what was major Sirr's object in doing it, after he had made out the committal; it could be neither a justification for the committal, nor could it answer any good purpose, but that was done without any communication with me; I had no communication with major Sirr, but one in which I gave him my opinion as to the nature of the offence.
Were the magistrates desired to remain in the room during the examination of the witnesses, or did they withdraw?—I have no recollection of their being desired to withdraw, nor have I a recollection of their being desired to remain; I cannot tax my memory upon the subject.
Did major Sirr represent to you at that time, that he did not think the charge made out as for a capital offence?—Never; at that or at any time.
By Mr. Bright.—Are you aware that George Graham was at any time committed only for a misdemeanor?—I rather believe so; I think that appears by the committals which are on the table.
Are you aware, that George Graham, as appears by the committals, was afterwards committed for conspiring with divers other persons to kill and murder his excellency Richard marquis Wellesley?—I believe he was, by Mr. Gabbett.
Are you aware, that both those committals were by Mr. Gabbett?—I think so.
The first committal was on the 15th of Dec. 1822, and the second on the 23d Dec. 1822; had you had any communication with respect to the committal of George Graham, with Mr. Gabbett in that interval?—It may be so; but I have no distinct recollection on the subject.
Can you inform the committee, how it happened that that second committal was made?—My recollection is not so distinct as to enable me to state, but I think it appears from Mr. Gabbett's evidence, that the opinion of the law officers of the Crown was given, that those persons should be capitally committed.
Did you as one of the law officers of the Crown give that opinion?—I did as a law officer of the Crown, give that opinion as to those three persons; I do not recollect communicating it to Mr. Gabbett personally.
Do you recollect what passed with major Sirr upon the subject of those committals?—No, I. cannot distinctly trace it; I think major Sirr came into the secretary's room at the castle, the solicitor-general, Mr. Townsend, Mr. Goulburn, and myself, being present, on the Saturday evening, the committals were not made out until the Monday, I think; on the Saturday evening about five or six o'clock, he came, and that at that time the opinion was communicated to him; I cannot tax my me-
554
mory, whether on the Monday following I saw major Sirr, or not, but I have a strong recollection that on the Saturday evening that opinion was communicated to him.
Did you see major Sirr more than onee in those proceedings?—If I were to speak in my own recollection I should say only once, but I have been talking to Mr. Goulburn, who says, I saw him twice in his presence; my recollection is only negative, and Mr. Goulburn's is positive, therefore I think his is right.
You were understood to say, that the opinion of the law officers of the Crown was communicated to major Sirr upon a particular day, from which an inference is drawn that a previous conversation had taken place, is that inference correct, or was the whole one transaction?—What I mean to say is, that on the Saturday evening the opinion was communicated to major Sirr, and I believe by me; I believe also by the solicitor-general, but what conversation passed I cannot say.
Had any consultation taken place between the law officers of the Crown, in respect of any opinion to be given to major Sirr?—Conversation took place between the law officers of the Crown upon the opinion to be given; but whether it was with reference to its being given to major Sirr, or to any other magistrate, I cannot particularly say. I believe major Sirr happened to be the person to whom it was communicated, because he resided in the castle, and was therefore on the spot.
Had major Sirr applied for the opinion of the law officers of the Crown upon the subject?—I understood that the magistrates had applied to government on the subject of the mode in which they were to act; I do not recollect major Sirr personally having applied.
Did the magistrates at the same time that they applied to government, lay before the government the informations they had received?—I am not competent to say; according to the best of my recollection, the informations that had been taken before the police magistrates, were communicated to the law officers of the Crown.
Were there any other informations in the possession of the law officers of the Crown, that were not in the possession of the magistrates?—None but those that have been already alluded to, if they can be said not to have been communicated.
Was the opinion given by the law officers of the Crown, given upon those informations which were in the possession of the magistrates as well as upon those informations of which you have spoken, and which probably were not in their possession?—The opinions of the law officers of the Crown were founded upon the whole of the evidence, as well as the informations taken before the magistrates, as the evidence laid before them in the way already stated, in the absence of the magistrates.
Did you inform the magistrates with whom you communicated, that you advised them upon more information than they themselves

555
possessed?—I certainty did not communicate it to them in terms; but major Sirr was perfectly aware of those examinations; he himself was present at some of them; he had sworn the witnesses in others; and there was no holding back any part of the information we possessed; and I considered that major Sirr was entitled to have access to the whole of it, and would have access to the whole of it before he signed his committal; in compliance with my advice, as the whole of the evidence before; us was in the hands of the Crown solicitor, I considered that he would, acting with proper discretion, inform himself of the whole of the case, and have it regularly reduced to the shape of informations, as was done by Mr. Gabbett; for in the case in which Mr. Gabbett committed, the evidence on which he acted was reduced to the form of informations, and the parties were bound over to prosecute in the usual way.
Was the opinion of the law officers of the Crown as communicated to the magistrates, entirely an opinion upon law, or an opinion upon their discretion?—The opinion that was communicated to the magistrates, was on the point of law, that we thought the evidence in point of law would warrant a committal for a capital offence.
Are you aware that Forbes had been held to bail on the night of the riot?—I am not quite sure at this moment whether he was held to bail; he was apprehended on the night of the riot by Mr. Graves; I believe he was discharged on that night; I am not quite sure whether bail had been given.
Are you aware that he was committed for feloniously conspiring to kill and murder the marquis Wellesley, on the 23d Dec. 1822?—Yes; that was the final committal.
Were any instructions given to the magistrates; with respect to that committal?—No direction; no instruction further than the giving the opinion I have already stated.
Was that opinion founded upon the evidence that was given at the trial by Mr. Troy and Mr. Farley?—I do not think I ought to answer any question as to what were the particular informations on which I gave my opinion, I am in the judgment of the committee whether I ought to answer that or not, I have personally no objection.
Were there any evidences examined upon that subject, at the trial of Handwich Forbes and others: for the conspiracy?—Upon what subject.
With respect to Forbes?—Oh! yes; a great many witnesses were examined; a report of the trial was published.
Is that copy of the trial tolerably authentic?—Indeed I should think so.
Was Mr. Farley, the attorney, examined upon that occasion?—Yes.
Was Mr. Troy examined upon that occasion?—Yes.
Were there any other witnesses examined upon the occasion to the point of what frap-
556
pened after the play?—I believe there were; but really I submit to the honourable member, whether it is of any use examining me to those points, which will appear upon the printed, report of the trial.
Will you permit the committee to assume, that this report is sufficiently accurate to reason upon at a future time?—I have no power to give such a permission; I have already said, I believe it to be a very fair report of the trial.
Were the prisoners tried on both indictments at the same time?—They were not indictments, they were informations; they were given in charge on both the informations at the same time; I should mention with respect to that, that the practice in this country and in Ireland is different; the custom in the courts in this, country, is to include in the same information offences, which we in Ireland include in distinct informations, the consequence is, that the practice in the two countries is different; here parties, I believe, are not permitted to be charged at the same time on separate, infgrmations, but that is because they are really distinct offences; but in Ireland, where they split into two informations, offences of one and the same nature which are in fact one, they do allow the parties to be charged with the two informations at one and the same time.
By Mr. Bennet.—Do not the magistrates, under the police, hold their offices at the pleasure of the Crown?—I believe some of them do, and some of them do not; some are appointed by the Crown, some by the city; I. believe major Sirr does not hold at the pleasure, of the Crown, but under the city.
Does Mr. Graves?—Mr. Graves I believe does, but major Sirr, the magistrate who committed Forbes, I believe does not.
Is Mr. Gabbett removable by the Crown?—Mr. Gabbett, I believe, is removable at the pleasure of the Crown.
Major Sirr's is a patent place is it?—No, I believe not. I believe under the police act, there are city magistrates and persons named by the Crown, and that those police magistrates, who are appointed by the city, cannot be removed by the Crown.
By Colonel Burry.—You have said that you believe all the informations were before Mr. Gabbett previous to his making out his committal?—I rather believe so.
Mr. Gabbettwas asked, "Had you been left to your own discretion would you have committed for the capital offence?" to which he replied, "It is impossible for me to answer directly that question otherwise than thus, that I certainly, if it had been left entirely to myself should have required the whole of the informations to be laid before me to exercise my judgment upon them?—It certainly would appear from that, that the whole had not been;—my impression was, that the whole had been—that impression was created partly by my haying looked at a brief, which by accident is here, and now in my possession, in which the dates of informations taken before

557
Mr. Gabbett are stated, and by which, it appears that Mr. Gabbett had all the informations reduced to regular form before the day of committal, that answer would make it appear as if he had not. I have not seen Mr. Gabbett's evidence since he gave it.
Were the examinations which were taken by the law officers of the Crown in the absence of the magistrates, sworn before the same magistrates?—I cannot be certain of that; I should think they were sworn before more than one magistrate; I think different magistrates came in, from time to time, as they happened to be on the spot; the taking of the examinations continued for six or seven days; whatever magistrate happened to be on the spot when a witness was examined swore the witness.
Is it the practice of the Crown officers in Ireland, to have witnesses sworn before any magistrates who may accidentally be present, those magistrates not afterwards taking cognizance of the case?—I cannot say that it is; but in this case the whole of the matter was before the police magistrates, and no magistrate who was not a police magistrate swore any witness.
In the case of Mr. Gabbett, were those examinations which you state were reduced into regular informations, re-sworn?—I should rather think so; I can only speak as to conjecture and belief; for I had no share whatever in the reducing them into informations, and know nothing upon the subject.
In point of fact, did the magistrates reduce the examinations taken before the law officers of the Crown into the regular form of informations?—On my knowledge I can say nothing upon the subject; it was the business of the magistrates; it was their duty, with which I had no concern; they exposed themselves to the action of the party if they committed him without a regular information, and the party was entitled to be discharged by a judge, if he was committed without a regular information; I should take for granted that the magistrates, who are experienced persons, would do that which was right; what they did I have learned principally in the course of the present investigation.
By Sir J. Newport.—Have you ever had any application from any country magistrates for your opinion, as to the committals of parties or the amount of bail which they should take?—I have had applications at times from magistrates in the country, in cases where I had no acquaintance, with the transaction, but where they applied to me merely as attorney-general, and my uniform answer has been, that I did not feel it my duty to interfere, and I declined giving any advice.
Did you learn from those who made those applications, or the manner in which they were made, whether it had been the former practice to make applications of that nature?—I should rather decline answering that question; I think I ought not to answer it.
Did you give any opinion as to the amount
558
in which those persons whose case is now under inquiry, should be bailed?—Certainly not.
Or the refusal of bail?—I gave an opinion which implied a refusal of any bail; if it was a capital charge, of course, there could be no bail taken, unless before a judge.
The question refers to the time subsequent to the abandonment of the capital charge; the capital charge was abandoned at the commission; after that was abandoned, did you give any opinion as to the amount of bail to be demanded from Forbes?—No, I did not; I have a distinct recollection that the bail given for Forbes was on his own offer; he stated that he would give bail to the amount of 1,000 l. which I certainly should never have thought of requiring, nor I never mentioned the sum; it was taken by the judge.
Did you consider, from the manner in which those applications which, have been referred to were made to you from the country, with respect to advising on the amount of bail to be taken, or on the nature of the committal to be made by the magistrates, that they had been, in the habit of making similar applications, before?—There is one instance only to which I could give any answer, and it really is not material to the present inquiry. A magistrate in the country had apprehended a person for an offence which in its nature was not bail-able, and he wrote to me to know whether I would give him authority to let out the party without bail. I certainly declined giving any opinion upon the subject, stating that it was not a duty that belonged to me.
It appears that some of these parties were first committed for a minor offence, and were afterwards committed for the capital offence?—Two of them.
Was there any information received in the interim between the two committals, on which the capital committal was founded?—I consider that there must have been; the capital committal did not take place until the 23rd, I think, of December; the examinations had been closed on the 21st of December; and I think material information had been received in the course of that last day's examination, which went to affect not only Forbes, but the two other persons who were capitally committed.
By Colonel Barry—Are you certain that you are correct as to the magistrates not being removable at the pleasure of the Crown?—I perceive the answer I gave to a former question has been in error; the magistrates named by the city are, I am informed; removable at the pleasure of the Crown.
Were any of the prisoners against whom bills of indictment were preferred, and ignored by the grand jury afterwards, held to bail to answer an information to be filed by the attorney general?—They were held to bail by the court for that purpose.
By Mr. T. Ellis—Do you feel that the attorney-general of Ireland has a right to call on

559
any person to enter into bail, to answer an information to be preferred at a future period?—The short answer to that is, that it was not my act, but the act of the court and on the offer of the party.
Did any other of the parties, except Forbes, make that offer?—I believe they all did.
In point of fact, were any of the defendants kept in prison for two days after the ignoring of the bills, in consequence of not being able to get bail?—I do not know that fact.
Do you feel, as attorney-general, that you had a right to call on the defendants to find bail to answer to an information which was not then filed?—That is a question of law which it is not necessary to answer, as it was the act of the court, and on their own offer.
Do you know whether any of those parties who were committed on the capital charge, made any application to a judge in order to obtain their release?—I never heard that they did; I believe it would have been competent to any of them to make such an application; and if there was no information, or an insufficient information, they must have been discharged.
Was it at your suggestion, or that of any of the law officers of the Crown, that those persons were held to bail by the court?—The parties came in, not waiting for the end of the commission, and they applied to be forthwith discharged. I got up for the purpose of saying, that they were not then entitled to be discharged without giving bail; after I made that observation, they made an application to be discharged on giving bail; and it was quite unnecessary to enter into any argument upon the amount; the bail was fixed between them raid the court: that (it should be observed) was an application before the termination of the commission; had it been at the termination of the commission, that would have altered the case.
The examination of Mr. Plunkett being concluded,
Colonel Barrysaid, that being aware of the inconvenience that would result from the prolongation of the inquiry, perceiving too the dislike of the House to go on with it, and feeling that the case of the high sheriff was so strong that it needed no further evidence to support it, was willing to decline calling any more witnesses. He was convinced that the result of the inquiry was to clear the high sheriff from any charge of improper conduct.
Mr. Denmansaid, that as he knew it was the opinion of some honourable members that it would be necessary to submit certain resolutions founded on the evidence which had been given at the bar, it was of importance it should be understood, that the further prosecution of the
560
inquiry had been abandoned, not because the House was unwilling to proceed with it, but because the right hon. member for Cavanshire, in the exercise of his discretion, with regard to the interests committed to his care, thought it unnecessary that it should be continued. He hoped it would be recollected, that the House had made no compromise with the right hon. member.
Mr. Calcraftthen moved, that the chairman do lay before the House the minutes of evidence. The minutes were accordingly presented, ordered to lie on the table and to be printed, and the witnesses discharged from attendance.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he did not know whether he was regular or no, hut he could not refrain from taking that opportunity of expressing, what he believed to be also the universal feeling of the House, his sense of the impartiality and ability with which the hon. baronet (sir R. Heron) had filled the chair, during the inquiry which had just concluded [Hear, hear!].

IRISH JOINT TENANCY BILL.
Mr. Dominick Browne,in rising to move the committal of this bill, admitted that the task lay upon him to prove Joint Tenancy injurious, though it was notoriously so, as the object of the bill was to discourage that tenure.—The system of joint tenancy was, he said, very ancient in Ireland, and very fit perhaps to protect clans of husbandmen against wild beasts, or more barbarous clans of hunting savages, but totally unlit for people emerged from a primitive state of society, living Under fixed laws and institutions in an integral part of the British empire. Under this system, from ten to five hundred acres were let to from two tenants to one hundred jointly; every one of whom was responsible for the rent of all the rest, as well as his own. They held the land in common, making a new division of the arable every year or two. The pasture was always undivided. They generally paid a rack-rent, and after they had built their huts without mortar, chimney, or window, all swore to 40 s profit on registering their freeholds arising from a joint lease for one or more lives. The uniform results of this system were, the naked squalid beggary of the whole—extreme indolence, the necessary consequence of the industrious paying for the idle and profligate—each tenant tried merely to preserve his existence and that of his

561
family. Any effort at improvement was out of the question. Their life was reduced to that of brutes: amongst themselves there was constant disunion and petty litigation; against all others, there was continual union for every bad purpose. They resisted the ordinary process of law together, they distilled illegally; they fought together against other clans at fairs and markets. Sedition and disease spread like wildfire among them. They were at once in a state of savage licentiousness and abject slavery to their landlords. Being all bound for each other, he could at any moment ruin any one though worth far more than his own proportion of rent, by distraining him for the rent of all the joint-tenants. In short the landlord had every power over them, save that of life and death. He could strip any one of his whole property, including his miserable food. Even where joint-tenants were in the best circumstances, much of their time was lost in watching the proper application of their common funds. They all attended whenever money was to be received or paid for the general account. This system contributed more than any thing else, to the multiplying of a beggarly population. From persons never valuing a common right like an individual one, joint-tenants readily admitted into their partnership all their sons and frequently their sons-in-law. Under such circumstances, was it extraordinary that the greater part of them could hardly get a sufficiency of potatoes to keep them from starving? He knew many instances of this kind. In one case, he knew of a large farm let to sixteen joint-tenants in 1784: in 1817 they had increased to 59.—It would be asked, if this system was so injurious, why did not the interests of tenants and landlords abolish it without legislative interference? The reason was simply this—it afforded a great facility of giving qualifications to dependent freeholders. Under this system, the whole male population of a property was registered as freeholders. This in itself was one of its greatest vices. By it, the whole people were demoralized by constant perjury. The bill removed this bounty on joint-tenancy, and placed it the other way on separate tenures.—It had been objected to this bill, that it would disfranchise many freeholders. He would reply to this, that it had no retrospective effect. It would certainly prevent freeholders being created by new joint leases. That it would check fictitious freeholds
562
he would admit; but the number of bonâ fide voters would be increased: and they would be infinitely less dependent, as the landlord could have no further power over them, than the demand for the rent of each tenant, for which alone he could be responsible.
Mr. R. Martinopposed the bill, the object of which is to prevent joint-tenants, in Ireland, from voting for freeholds in which they had severally less than a 40 s. interest, on the ground, that it would deprive the Catholics, who were the mass of the small freeholders and joint-tenants, of the influence which they at present enjoyed.
Colonel Trenchthought the principle of the bill most excellent. One of the great evils of Ireland was the splitting the land into so many small divisions for the purpose of creating votes. The great number of electors, which was a blessing in this country, was a curse in Ireland; for it only exposed the peasantry, in many large districts, to bribery and corruption, to drunkenness and to every kind of disorder. His only objection to the bill would be, that it did not go far enough. He wished for the introduction of a clause by which leases in common might be entirely put an end to.
Sir J. Newportfully concurred in the opinion of the hon. member who spoke last. Nothing had brought greater misery upon Ireland than the subdivision of land among such a multitude of tenants.
After a few words from Mr. L. White, which were inaudible in the gallery,
Mr. T. Ellisexpressed his concurrence in the principle of the bill. He mentioned an instance in which a farm of the value of 15 l. was subdivided among 40 tenants, all of whom voted as freeholders.
Mr. J. Dalydenied that the measure would have the effect of diminishing the number of Catholic voters, and pointed out the evils arising from the system of joint-tenancy in Ireland.
Mr. Hutchinsonsaid, that nothing could be further from his intention than countenancing the system of fictitious voters in Ireland. He would go as far as any member to prevent such an abuse; but he must object to the bringing on of such a question in the then thin state of the House, where there were not more than a dozen Irish members present. The measure embraced a principle calculated to excite great discontent in Ireland. He should have no objection to the bill going

563
into the committee. There let his hon. friend make it as perfect as he could; but after that, he would wish it to remain over till the next session, to give the several counties of Ireland an opportunity of considering it in all its bearings.
Sir G. Hillapproved of the bill, but the suggestion of the hon. member for Cork was so fair, that he could not but concur with it.
Mr. Grattandid not think that the bill went to disqualify any part of the Roman Catholics, but to establish the system of election by bonâ fide freeholders.
Mr. R. Martinsaid, that if the hon. member did not intend to press the bill this session, he would not object to going into the committee; but if he did intend to press it, he would divide the House.
The question being put, "That the Speaker do now leave the chair," the House divided: Ayes 54; Noes None. Teller, Mr. It. Martin.
The House then went into the committee.

COMMUTATION OF TITHES IN IRELAND.
The Marquis of Lansdownrose to present a petition, signed by about three-fourths of the beneficed; clergy and lay-impropriators of the united diocese of Limerick, Ardfert, and Abadoe, including the whole of the county Kerry, and a considerable part of the county Cork, praying for a Commutation of Tithes. The noble marquis observed, that the district from which the petition came was part of the most populous region of the south of Ireland, and the petitioners prayed the House, on the principles of Justice, to pass into an act some measure for enforcing such commutation. If the Opinion of any persons

539
was entitled to peculiar weight on this question, it was that of the petitioners, who resided on the spot, who knew the subject practically, and who were acquainted with all the operations of the system under which they lived. It was reasonable to believe that such men felt an interest and regard for the happiness and prosperity of the population with whom they were concerned, as well as for their own. In both points of view, the petitioners considered the question, and they stated it to be essential to the happiness of the country, to the preservation of order, and to their own interests, that some equitable principle of commutation should be acted upon, and made part of the permanent law of the land. He trusted the House would feel it to be an additional argument in favour of such a measure, that it would take out of the Statute-book laws of the most oppressive and' tyrannical kind, laws which he was convinced nothing could ever induce the legislature to pass with reference to this country, but which were enforced in Ireland, on the alleged ground that they were absolutely necessary to carry into effect the system of tithes, as they now existed in that kingdom. Laws so tyrannical and so unjust ought not to be afforded the opportunity of execution. He should be doing great injustice to the Protestant clergy of Ireland, however, if he did not state, that they seldom had recourse to those laws, to the extent to which they might enforce them; but he should call to the attention of their lordships, that, under all systems liable to abuse, it was in the power of a minority, by acting up to the extent of the authority and discretion vested in them, to spread wider the sphere of disturbance, and lay the foundation, as it had been laid in places heretofore peaceable, of irritation, discontent, and even of actual insurrection. While there was a minority who were thus inclined to administer the laws, although the majority consisted of more humane, considerate, and patriotic persons, who took a right view of the system as it operated on themselves, their flocks, and the best interests of their country, yet their lordships would see substantial grounds for taking the prayer of the petition into their serious consideration. The argument chiefly replied on in opposition to a practical measure, was, that the property to be commuted was sacred and inviolable. That it was sacred, as the pos-
540
session of particular persons, independently of the object and duties to which it had been originally appropriated, he could never allow; but he was free to admit, that such property was sacred to the purposes of religion, to the moral instruction of the people, and to their happiness. He hoped, that such steps would be taken as would diminish, instead of in creasing, the line of separation that an unwise system had drawn between the church and the people of Ireland.
Ordered to lie on the table.

MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
The Archbishop of Canterburyrose to move the second reading of this bill. The right reverend prelate observed, that the portion of the bill, which; in that stage demanded their lordships' particular attention, was the clause relative to the voidability of marriages. By the old law, the marriages of minors, without Consent, were declared void ab initio; but the committee, after due deliberation, thought it would be less objectionable to render such marriages voidable within a year. The provisions for the prevention of clandestine marriages, under the old law, were too severe to be brought into execution with effect, and improper advantage had been but too frequently taken of them. The committee, in endeavouring to repair the mischief, found themselves involved in great difficulties, among which they had to make their option. They had no course but either to make the consent of parents or their representatives unnecessary, and thus, on a most important occasion take away the protection of the law from the exercise of the parental office; or to restore the nullity clause of the 26th Geo. 2nd, by which the marriage of a minor without consent might be at any subsequent and indefinite period set aside; or to adopt the mitigated course as shaped out in this bill; by which parents, or those who represented them, could within a year annul the unlawful marriage. This last mode he considered the least objectionable; though it was not altogether without objection. Those who opposed the voidability of marriages, went upon the principle, that those whom God had joined should net be separated by man; but it should be recollected, that marriages might be obtained in a manner that the laws of man would not allow, and therefore could not be approved of by the laws of God. The sacredness of

541
marriages ought to be maintained; but its inviolability might be carried to an injurious extreme. Marriage was the foundation of civil society, and it was of the first importance that its engagements should have the combined protection of the law of the land, and the sanctions of religion.
Lord Ellenboroughobserved, that we were now under the old law, with the exception of that clause by which marriages, under certain, circumstances, were declared void. We had been two or three months under that law without suffering any inconvenience; and he hoped the House would bear that in mind when considering the change introduced by this bill. This bill was not that full and comprehensive measure which the House had reason to expect, from the promises held out by its most reverend and learned promoters. It contained little more than the last bill, and left several points untouched, on which it was of the greatest moment that no doubt should exist. The validity of all marriages in foreign countries ought to be cleared up, and subjects residing abroad should be able to ascertain the precise situation in which they stood in this respect, without the necessity of an application to a court of justice. It would be recollected, that a petition had been presented relative to this subject from the Russia company, when a learned lord had declared that he had no doubt of the validity of such marriages. Doubts, however, were entertained by the parties themselves, and they ought to be removed by positive enactment. Facilities on this important point ought to be afforded to Dissenters, and to Roman Catholics. In Ireland, when both the parties were Catholics, the marriage was valid if performed according to the rites of that church; but Catholics coming to this country might not think of having recourse to the formalities made necessary here, and the marriage might in consequence be invalid, and was not this an: encouragement to immorality? With regard to the marriages of minors, as the law stood now, it operated differently on the rich and the poor; for where there was no property to render the invalidation an object, the most incestuous marriages might now be tolerated. He thought that, in order to equalize the law and maintain the principle consistently, such marriages should be declared null and void ab initio. With respect to the clause to which the right
542
reverend prelate had called the attention of the. House, it seemed to be the general feeling of the country, that marriages by banns should remain in the same state ad they now stood and had stood for many years back. The clause of voidability was in fact nugatory. But, if they were as anxious to respect parental rights as the right rev. prelate would have them, they should respect them in the father of the woman as well as of the man. But this clause did no such thing: it operated in favour of the man and against the woman. It did all that could be done to encourage seduction under the semblance of marriage. Instead of being introduced by the right rev. prelate and a learned lord, it would seem as if it were the production of a set of dissolute minors, who were desirous of legislating according to the morals professed by the theatrical libertine Don Juan.
The Earl of Westmorland,opposed the clause, as an infringement on the religion, the morals, and the laws of the country, as well as on the rights of property.
The Bishop of Chesteropposed the clause, as being directly contrary to the word of God. It was not a clause fits to be enacted by a Christian legislature. At all events he would not be one to give his vote for putting asunder those whom God had joined.
The Bishop of Derrywas anxious that it should not go forth to the public, that incestuous marriages could be legitimate under any circumstances. If a man should marry his daughter, or any descendant of her's, the progeny of that, marriage must be illegitimate, the marriage itself being void ab initio.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, he would not be positive as to the correctness of his observation, but he would rather have the exposition of the law from a learned lord, than from the reverend prelate.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, they had been told the present was, not a proper time to discuss, the measure;, therefore, though he had been appealed to, he would only say that he was clearly of opinion, that the law of scripture, as well, as the law of the land, should be a good deal more considered than it appeared to him they had yet been.
The bill was then read a second time.