Sitting of 18 October 1831

MINUTES.
Bills brought in. By Mr. SADLER, to better the condition of the Labouring Poor. Read a third time and passed; Crown Lands; Inclosure. (Standing Older suspended).
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Colonel EVANS, of the Vessels employed and belonging to the Port of Rye from the years 1820, to 1830, respectively:—On the Motion of Lord KILLEEN, of the number of Newspaper Stamps issued for the year ending the 5th of October, 1831:—On the Motion of Colonel Sibthorp, the number of Persons convicted of the crimes of Horse and Sheep stealing, and the Sentences passed upon them throughout England and Wales, from the year 1826, up to the latest period, and of the number of Steam Vessels belonging to Government with their Tonnage, and the power of their Machinery.
Petitions presented. By Mr. SADLER, from Joseph Alday, now confined in Birmingham, against the Law of Libel, and from the Corporation of Galway, for equalizing Civil Rights in that place; from the Overseers of Spinning Mills at Dundee, for the extension of Cotton Apprentices Bill to Scotland; from the Landed Proprietors and Inhabitants of the Island of Freenish, complaining of the Reduction of the duty on Barilla, and from the Rector and Inhabitants of Satwell, for the abolition of Slavery:—By Mr. HODSON, from the Shipowners of Barnstaple against the Tax on Marine Insurances:—By Colonel TORRENS, from Inhabitants of London and Westminster, for a revision of the Corn Laws. For Reform. By Lord KILLEEN, from Screen and Rath:—By Mr. HUME, from the Chairman of a Meeting at Paisley; from Merchants at London, complaining of Vessels being captured by the Brazilian Squadron, in 1826 and 1827; from the Inhabitant Householders of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, for the abolition of the Church Establishment in Ireland, the discontinuance of the Grant to the Kildare Street Society, and the continuance of that to Maynooth; from the Members of the Clerkenwell Reform Union, for the Repeal of the Duties on Newspapers, Pamphlets, &c., and from the Tithe-payers of the Parish of Knockbreda, for the abolition of Tithes:—By Mr. SPRING RICE, from the Committees of the Clare and General Dispensary of the Barony of Gallen, for an Amendment of the Act 50th George 3rd; from the Foreman of the Clare Grand Jury, praying, that the Act 4th George 4th, for Repair of Roads, be renewed; from the Magistrates, Clergy, and Landholders of the Barony of Meycallen, for the reduction of the duty on Barilla; from the Chairman of a Meeting of the Inhabitants of Dublin, for the introduction of Poor Laws into Ireland; from the Inhabitants of Stockport, against the proposed plan for enabling Parishes to mortgage their rates to furnish the means of Emigration; from the Free Burgesses of Liverpool, against the Liverpool Franchise Bill; from the Chamber of Commerce, Galway, for a provision in the Irish Reform Bill to preserve the peculiar Franchise of that place; from the Members of the Doagh Reform Committee, complaining of the Expenditure and Tolls of certain Turnpike Roads:—By Mr. HUME, from Owen Davies, complaining of his arrest for vending Berthold's Political Handkerchief, and praying for an alteration of the Law:—By Mr. ROBINSON, from Inhabitants of Blockhouse, Worcester, for an alteration of the Sale of Beer Bill; and by Mr. HENRY WILLIAMS, from the Freeholders and other persons, Owners of Real Property at Darlington, Gainsford, West Auckland, Heighington, and Harworth, against the General Registry Bill.

REFORM—PETITIONS.
Mr. Huntpresented a Petition from John Duffy stating that the Reform Bill was defeated by the Bishops, and praying that they might be disfranchised.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, he deplored the presentation of such a petition. It could not fail to be productive of bad effects. Nothing could injure the cause of Reform, except the indiscreet efforts of pretended friends. He likewise begged to observe, that attempts such as those lately made to dictate to Ministers, by certain parties in the metropolis, relating to a short adjournment were most decidedly mischievous. He doubted whether the petition ought to be received.
Mr. George Robinsonsaid, this petition had a family likeness to several other most extraordinary petitions which the hon. Member was frequently in the habit of introducing

891
to the notice of the House. He also doubted whether the petition ought to be received. It bore no date, and he hoped the hon. Member would be able to show how it came into his hands.
Mr. Humesaid, that the House ought not to reject the petition merely because it was contrary to the opinion of the House. With respect to the observations made by the hon. and learned member for Stafford, he begged to say, being thus called upon, he believed the opinion expressed in that petition, to be the opinion of a large portion of the people of this country, namely, that the political power of the Bishops ought to cease. He himself was of that opinion. He was surprised that the hon. and learned Member should think that that wish, as expressed in the petition, was a solitary wish, and that no part of the people of the country sympathised with it. He was equally surprised that hon. Members should have said it was false to state that the Bill was lost by the vote of the Bishops, when it was clear that as the majority against the Bill only amounted to forty-one, and as twenty-one Bishops had voted against the Bill, the majority would have been turned the other way, had the Bishops voted in support of that measure. He believed that the time would come for all these changes, but he admitted that this was not exactly the moment for discussing it. Then as to the observation of the hon. and learned member for Stafford, that these expressions of opinion and the call for a short adjournment, were like dictating to the Ministers, he did not agree at all with those statements of the hon. and learned Member, and he believed it would be only playing the game of the Anti-reformers, if the people of this country were to lie on their oars, as if they did not care about the success or the rejection of the Bill. Instead of doing this, he recommended them to use every Constitutional means of showing the deep anxiety they felt upon the subject.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, that the strong feeling which the people had manifested on this subject was both natural and proper, and he hoped they would continue to show their anxiety upon it in every constitutional way. He sincerely deprecated violence of all kinds, for riots were only injurious to the cause of Reform; but he trusted that all other efforts would be made to sustain the Ministers.
Mr. John Campbellbegged to be permitted
892
to say, in explanation, as the hon. member for Middlesex appeared to have misunderstood him, that he too wished he people to come forward in a constitutional manner in support of the Reform Bill, but not to send delegates at midnight to the noble Earl at the head of the Government, nor to address petitions to that House couched in such improper and unconstitutional language as the petition now presented to their notice.
Mr. Freshfieldcould not let this opportunity pass without protesting against these constant allusions to the Bishops—these attacks upon a portion of the Legislature, the existence of which was so necessary to the support of the Constitution of the country. He could not avoid, too, expressing his strong objection to the sort of language held by the hon. member for Middlesex, who, not content with saying that the Bishops should not have voted against the Bill, actually seemed to suppose that they ought to have violated their consciences by voting in its favour.
Colonel Evanssaid, that as the hon. and learned member for Stafford had alluded to the conduct of the delegates who had waited upon Earl Grey, he begged to say, that they had done nothing which deserved the censure of the hon. and learned Gentleman, or the imputation of having had intimidation for their object. If it had riot been for the tone assumed by the hon. and learned member for Stafford and by the hon. member for Worcester, upon the subject, neither the hon. member for Middlesex nor he (Colonel Evans) would have said anything, and the petition might have quietly gone with others of a similar kind to that receptacle to which they were all consigned; but as the call had been made, and as he had a strong opinion on the subject, he should be wanting in his duty as a man if he did not honestly state his opinion, that both the spiritual and the public welfare of the people would be better consulted if the Bishops had not seats in the House of Lords.
Mr. Leadersaid, as the petition before the House professed to be an Irish one, and its prayer was the disfranchisement of the Bishops, he wished to take the opportunity of saying a few words on the subject of tithes and the abuses of the vestry system. First he would observe, that those parishes in which the Tithe Composition Act was established were more

893
tranquil and better disposed than those which had not compounded, and therefore he was of opinion that system might be extended and improved, and if even a quantity of land could be set apart for the use of the clergy, instead of their being allowed a tithe of the whole, it would be a still greater improvement. Again he proposed to transfer the building and repair of churches to the first fruits repealing the Vestry Acts, and doing away with all compulsory cess for supporting the Protestant Establishments; to further these objects, he had prepared three Bills. The first for the extension of the Tithe Composition in Ireland, the second for the Commutation of Tithes, and the third to repeal the Vestry Laws, and making the first fruits available for the repair and building of Churches and other compulsory charges levied on the land. These Bills, under the altered circumstances of the country, he did not propose to introduce to the consideration of the House; the people of Ireland were extremely discontented, and when he saw English petitions recommending the abolishment of the Irish Church establishment, he put it to hon. Gentlemen what must be the feelings of the Catholics who suffered under its exactions. The conduct of the Right Reverend Bench in voting against the Reform Bill had materially tended to aggravate this discontent and dislike in both countries. They had to suffer from the evils of a bad system which was aggravated by their own conduct. Finally, he must say, that resorting to a Protestant Yeomanry to endeavour to preserve the peace and collect tithes in Ireland, would widen the breach between the clergy and the people, and be attended in other respects with the very worst consequences.
Petition read.
Mr. George Robinsonsaid, in his opinion the petition was a most improper one, as it called upon one branch of the Legislature to interfere with the privileges and rights of another. Besides, it was manifestly absurd. The petitioner prayed for a clause to be introduced into the Reform Bill, to disfranchise the Bishops. The hon. Member who presented it was the only person capable of performing the task; he must however most strongly protest against connecting public opinion with so ridiculous a petition as the one before the House.
Lord Althorpthought, that this was a
894
petition which, considering all the circumstances connected with it, ought not to be allowed to be received by the House. No one regretted more than he did the decision of the House of Lords; but a petition from a single individual, declaring that one branch of the legislature had not the right of voting, was a petition which he thought that the House could not properly receive.
Mr. Phillip Howardentirely concurred with the sentiments of the hon. member for Worcester. Although he deeply regretted the course which the Bishops had pursued with respect to the Reform Bill, yet he could not imagine they had acted from interested motives. Indeed, as they had only a life-interest in their sees, if such unworthy motives had any weight with them, they could have operated only to make them support the Government. As to their seats in the Legislature, they had at all times with the exception of the time of the Commonwealth, enjoyed them, and there was never fewer of them than at present. As the House of Commons was so particular in enforcing regulations to prevent the House of Lords interfering with their privileges, they ought to be equally tender not to interfere with those of the other House.
The Speakersaid, that the question of receiving this petition involved not only a question of the privileges of the other House of Parliament, but of their own. The petitioner might, on any general grounds, have prayed the Legislature for the abolition of the right of voting of the Bishops; but as the petition stated that the petitioner founded his prayer upon what he conceived to be the vote of a portion of the House of Lords; and as he could only know how that portion of the House voted by means of a breach of privilege, it seemed to be doubtful whether the notice of a matter, which was itself a breach of the privileges of the other House, was not a breach of the privileges of their own. In his opinion it was, and that, on that ground, the petition ought not to be received.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, it was impossible that the question could be put in a better and clearer light than had been done by Mr. Speaker. He fully and entirely coincided with the view that had been taken of the right of the Bishops to sit in Parliament by the hon. member for Carlisle. He would be always ready to maintain they had the same right to sit in

895
the House of Lords as the temporal Peers. The Press had assumed a tone towards the Bishops which was perfectly unjustifiable; indeed it seemed to be lording it over all the institutions of the country.
Mr. Humesaid, that if a petition to that House were to say that any measure were thrown out by the votes of the Scotch, or the Irish, or the county Members, he should consider it irregular; and, on the same ground, he must concur in thinking that the fixing the rejection of a Bill on any particular members of the other House, was equally objectionable.
The Speakersaid, that the hon. member for Middlesex took exactly the same view of the case which he did.
Mr. Huntsaid, after the opinion delivered by the Speaker, he would withdraw the petition.
Petition withdrawn accordingly.

RELIGIOUS PROSECUTIONS.
Mr. Humesaid, he had three Petitions to present to the House, praying that no man might be prosecuted on account of Religious Opinions. The first was from the inhabitants of Stockport; the second from Richard Carlile, who also complained of the hardship of his case, in being imprisoned for the expression of his opinions; and the third was from the Westminster branch of the National Union. He most fully concurred in the prayer of the Petitions. No man ought to be punished for the expression of his opinions on religious subjects. It was contrary to those principles of religious toleration which were fully recognized by the country.
Mr. Trevorwas as ready to admit the principle of religious toleration as any hon. Member; but he thought it a mistake to include within that principle the allowing men to publish the most gross and revolting blasphemies with impunity.
Mr. Humeasked, why did not the hon. Member carry his principle further, and again kindle the fires of Smithfield? for certainly, the principle which he avowed, of punishing any man who differed from him, and who expressed that difference in words or in writing, might extend so far. The hon. Member could not call that toleration which would induce him to fasten to the stake those who differed from him on religious opinions. The principle which he avowed would go that length.
Mr. Trevorrepeated, that he was not opposed to religious toleration, but he
896
could not extend it to a public denial of all religion accompanied with gross blasphemy. As to the hon. Member's inferences from his (Mr. Trevor's) opinions, he treated them with the contempt they merited.
Colonel Torrensasked the hon. Member whether Christianity did not rest on evidence, and could that evidence be made stronger by the infliction of punishment on those who denied it, or be weakened by the admission of free discussion?
Mr. Trevorthought that religion wanted no support but that of its own truth. He had, however, said, and he would repeat it, that the doctrines put forth by Mr. Taylor would be productive of the most injurious consequence to the lower classes.
Mr. Protheroesaid, he had some petitions to present on this subject. He was one of those who would not punish a man for his religious opinions; but, as the matter had been represented to him, Mr. Taylor had been guilty of the most indecent conduct, which the State had a right to take notice of. If these representations were true, he could only hope, for Mr. Taylor's own sake, that he had been out of his mind at the time he was guilty of such conduct. He would take that opportunity of observing, that the Society for the Suppression of Vice had not acted with judgment in their prosecutions, but had awakened in every instance the public sympathy in favour of the individuals against whom they directed their attacks.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that if Mr. Taylor had been left to himself, he would long ago have ceased to excite any interest in the public mind. He wished that had been the case, and in order to attain that desirable end, he recommended the Government to adopt the course pursued by a late right hon. Secretary of State, who, when he found that the continued imprisonment of Mr. Carlile produced a degree of sympathy on his behalf and procured that individual large subscriptions, released him at once from the imprisonment that had operated so strongly in his favour with the public.
Mr. Huntsaid, the hon. member for Bristol was not very charitable, if he thought because a man might be mad he ought to be locked up in a dungeon. He (Mr. Hunt) had no doubt that the person in question would soon either become really insane, or die under such treatment.
Mr. Phillip Howardsaid, he thought Ministers had acted with a sound discretion with regard to this person; certainly it was not prudent to draw such people from obscurity unnecessarily, but there were particular cases, and this was one of them, where, blasphemy could not be overlooked.
Mr. Maberlysaid, it would be much more convenient if any hon. Member thought Ministers deserved censure for their conduct towards this man, to bring a specific motion before the House, when it could be properly dealt with, rather than raise continually these incidental discussions.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, a man ought not to be subjected to punishment for his opinions; but at the same time he thought the effect of these opinions required to be remedied by the law. Undoubtedly it was the duty of Government to protect both the religion and the morality of the country.
Petitions to lie on the Table.

DISMISSAL OF EARL HOWE.
Mr. Trevor Mr. Trevor rose to put a question to his Majesty's Government, on the subject of the dismissal of a noble Lord from his appointment of Chamberlain to the Queen. He had put, a question on this subject a few days ago to the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, and that noble Lord had stated that Earl Howe had tendered his resignation, which was accepted. He had since received a letter from Earl Howe, with whom he had not the honour of being personally acquainted, in which that noble Earl stated, that the noble Lord's account of the transaction was inconsistent with the real facts of the case. That letter he now held in his hand, and as he was authorized by the noble Lord to make any use of it he thought proper, he would read it to the House:—
"Gopsal, Atherstone, Oct. 16.
"Sir—Although I have not the honour of your acquaintance, I am certain you will pardon the liberty I take in making a few observations on a question which the papers of yesterday mentioned to have been put by you in the House of Commons respecting my dismissal from the Queen's household. If the answer Lord John Russell is reported to have given in The Times is the one he really made, I must say his Lordship made a statement at direct variance with the real facts of the case, which are these:—
"In the month of May last, and for the
898
second time, I submitted to his Majesty my intention of opposing the Reform Bill, and my perfect readiness to resign my situation as Chamberlain to the Queen, at any moment that he might be pleased to fix on. I received, in reply, a most gracious command to retain my office, and a distinct recognition of my privilege of being perfectly independent of any Government, from the circumstance of my being in her Majesty's household. My having offered to resign again was out of the question, as I was allowed, by the King's own communication, to act and vote exactly as I pleased. Nothing, therefore, but the positive request of Lord Grey and his colleagues to the King for my removal, in consequence of my vote the other night, has been the cause of my being no longer in her Majesty's household. I feel that it is but common justice to my own character to make this statement, and to give you full authority to make whatever use of it you like, except the insertion of it in the public papers. I have the honour to be your faithful and obedient servant, "HOWE.
"The Hon. A. Trevor."
He felt it necessary, acting on this occasion as he had on the former, without any communication with the noble Lord as to the course which he might think proper to take, to put a question to his Majesty's Government. He did so as an act of justice to the noble Lord who had been removed from his appointment. The question which he wished to put was, whether Lord Howe had not been dismissed from the situation of Chamberlain to her Majesty in consequence of the vote that he had given on the Reform Bill, notwithstanding the assurance that had been made to him by his Majesty that he might vote on that question as he pleased?
Lord Althorpsaid, that the hon. Member and the House must be aware, that the removal of any individual from any appointment in the household of their Majesties was made in the undisputed exercise of the royal prerogative, to remove or retain any individual at pleasure. It would not become him, therefore, standing there as a Minister of the Crown, to enter into any statement, or to give any opinion, as to the grounds of such removal.

CHOLERA MORBUS.
Sir Richard Vyvyanwished to put a question to the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, on the subject of the Cholera Morbus. It was known that this fatal disorder had appeared at Hamburgh, within thirty-six hours' voyage by steam to this country, and he was desirous of learning whether Government

899
had received any official information of that circumstance? and whether, as the disease had now only to cross the German Ocean, any additional measures of quarantine had been taken against it? It seemed an unfortunate mistake, that the violence of the Cholera Morbus was attenuated by crossing the sea; and it was known, that when it was conveyed from Calcutta to Mauritius and the Isle of France, it was felt in those islands with the greatest severity. There was every reason to fear that it would make its appearance in this country; and if so, he hoped steps would be taken to isolate places infected, so as to prevent the spreading of the disorder. He had adverted to the subject prior to the prorogation, in hopes that the attention of the people would be directed to it. They would themselves be the best guardians and conservators of the public health; and ought, immediately a place was attacked, to insist that a circle should be drawn round it.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, in reply to the question asked by the hon. Baronet, that in the course of last week, the Government had received information, though not of an official character, that the Cholera Morbus had reached Hamburgh. Immediately on the receipt of this intelligence, the Government issued orders inforcing a more strict quarantine with respect to all vessels coming from Hamburgh, and had directed further precautionary measures to be taken with regard to vessels coming from any part of the coast lying between the north of Denmark and Rotterdam. All vessels arriving either from Hamburgh, or from any port within the district he had just described, would be subjected to new regulations. In addition to this, the Government had thought it adviseable to call public attention to the subject, and had recommended the different authorities in the country, both lay and ecclesiastical, to use all the means in their power to keep the disease out of their respective districts, or, should it appear, to prevent its spreading. He perfectly agreed in the observations which had fallen from the hon. Baronet with respect to the nature of the disease. From all the accounts which he had received, it appeared to him quite ridiculous to suppose that the nature of the Cholera Morbus was much affected by a sea passage. We had hitherto been able to keep this dreadful disease entirely out of the
900
country by the employment of precautionary measures, and he trusted that we should be able to do so for the future; though the disease undoubtedly became more formidable as it approached those shores with which this country was in the habit, of frequent communication. Should, in any instance the disease be introduced, it would depend, in a great measure, on the exertions of the people themselves on its first appearance to check its progress. The recommendations, which he had already stated the Government had issued to the different authorities in the country, contained a statement of those precautionary measures which Government thought it desirable should be taken, and he had no doubt that if they were carried strictly into effect, they would, if the disease should unfortunately appear in this country, check its progress, if not entirely confine it to the place of its first appearance.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that there were no precautionary measures, not even the establishment of a coast guard, to which he should object, for the purpose of keeping this dreadful disease out of the country. Its effect was more calamitous than that of war itself, and they were bound to do all which human wisdom prescribed to preserve the country from its ravages. He suggested that a cordon should be drawn round those districts where the disease should break out.
Mr. Humeasked whether there was any medical person at Hamburgh, appointed by Government to watch the disease, and make a report on its peculiar nature?
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, that when the Cholera Morbus broke out in Russia, Government despatched two medical men to Petersburgh, for the purpose of inquiring into the nature of that disease. Those gentlemen had left Petersburgh, and had arrived at Hamburgh, and would forward any information they were able to obtain connected with the disease, to the Government at home. He thought it a most fortunate circumstance that those gentlemen were able, by their accidental presence at Hamburgh, to report to Government the progress of the disease in that place. He had as yet received no information of their having reached Hamburgh, but in all probability they had arrived there by this time.
Mr. Trevorsaid, he had received communications from Northumberland, expressing

901
considerable alarm on the subject of the Cholera Morbus.
Sir Richard Vyvyansuggested to the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether, as all persons coming from Hamburgh must perform quarantine, it would not be adviseable to put an entire stop to the steam navigation.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonthought that that object could be effected of itself, without any official regulations on the subject.
Sir Richard Vyvyanobserved, that a vessel after remaining twenty-one days in quarantine, had worked its way up to London and discharged a cargo of rags. He thought that if there had been any infection in the rags, it could not have been got rid of in the course of twenty-one days.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, that the importation of rags coining from infected places, was now prohibited.
Mr. Huntadvised the Government to take the duty off soap. The poor classes would then be able to keep themselves clean; and cleanliness would be found the best preventive of Cholera Morbus.

BANKRUPTCY COURT BILL.
Lord Althorp moved the third reading of this Bill.
Mr. Warburtonbegged to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the three Commissioners of the Sub-division Court must be unanimous? hitherto, the practice had been, that a majority of opinions was regarded as decisive.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, the practice would be continued, and the opinions of a majority of the Commissioners be considered decisive.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, he wished to make one or two further remarks. He understood a certain amount was to be paid when a dividend was declared; he, therefore, begged to suggest, whether a certain rate per cent would not be more adviseable? again, he wished to know, whether the official Assignees would be allowed to act as auctioneers?
The Attorney- Generalsaid, with regard to the first point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, a clause was prepared which he hoped would meet his views; and with respect to the second, there was nothing in the Bill to prevent the official Assignees from acting as auctioneers.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that arrangement would be an excellent one. It would make the new Court an auction mart, and
902
the Judges and Registrars might be very beneficially employed as puffers.
Mr. Humewished to know whether the noble Lord opposite intended to introduce a clause into the bill to render the case of each of the existing Commissioners, with respect to compensation, subject to inquiry. He also stated his objections to giving the Judges appointed under the bill any superannuation allowance.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the case of each individual Commissioner, with respect, to compensation, would be taken under the consideration of the Treasury, and decided on according to its own merits. That was the principle upon which compensation was now given. With respect to the retiring allowances to the Judges, he had already stated his own opinion—and he was inclined to maintain that opinion—that persons appointed to judicial situations ought to be allowed retiring pensions; or else they might keep their offices when they were too old properly to discharge the duties. But he had since communicated with the Lord Chancellor on the subject; and that noble and learned Lord considered, that the principle upon which the hon member for Middlesex had urged his objection to their retiring pensions, was unanswerable. The noble and learned Lord said, that it was the duty of every person to lay by part of his income for support in his old age, the more particularly when his income was not variable, but fixed. No clause with respect to compensation had been introduced into the Bill, because the general act, relating to compensation, did not apply to judicial offices.
Mr. Wranghamsaid, he regretted that so many personal remarks were mixed up with this question. Those who felt it their duty to oppose the Bill, were described as factious. Such language was as painful to those to whom it was addressed, as it was unbecoming to those who used it—he admitted the evils of the existing system, and was willing to remedy them; but he did not think that the Bill would effect any improvement. The principle defects of the present system were, the great number of tribunals, the number of Judges in them, and that they were not constantly open. These evils could be reached only by diminishing the number of Judges, and making them sit continually without any adjournment. The Bill, in fact proceeded partly upon that principle, but it did not diminish

903
the number of tribunals, for it established a Court of Review, which he held to be unnecessary. He thought that the Judges of the Division Courts might have occasional meetings in larger numbers, and perform the duties assigned to the Court of Review. Again, he looked with some fear at the new Bankruptcy Court being independent of the Court of Chancery, on account of the intricacy and importance of some of the questions which were occasionally to be decided; and he thought there was some danger in leaving the power of deciding these to a tribunal of inferior importance. Of course that could not be attended by the first advocates, and the suitors must experience disadvantages on that account. Even allowing a Court of Review to be necessary, he had heard no reason for appointing four Judges to preside in it. One he thought would be sufficient, and this had been so evident to the framers of the Bill, that they had provided other duties for these Judges, besides performing the duties of the Court of Review. It was arranged, therefore, that they should act separately as Commissioners, and preside over the trial of issues. With regard to these parts of their duties if they were to preside only as Commissioners, they ought to be paid as such, and not as Judges; and as to their presiding over trials, the three main sources of issues would by the very provisions of the Bill itself, be cut off.
Mr. Freshfieldsaid, upon this last occasion he must protest against that part of the measure which appointed official assignees. The consequence of it would be that no respectable creditor would act as assignee with them, and that frauds which were now discovered would remain undetected, as the official assignee could have no interest in bringing them to light. Another consequence of their appointment would be, that Commissions of Bankruptcy from Bristol, Manchester, and other places, would cease to be worked in London to avoid the additional expense that would accrue to the estate from their percentage being paid out of it in addition to other charges. The little the Judges of the Court of Review would have to do would be still further reduced by the diminution of bankrupt cases worked in London, and the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor be but little relieved; for they would still have to attend to all questions connected with country bankruptcies. He
904
believed, as the Bill now stood, it would be found impracticable in several points. At present he would only allude to one, and that was, that the Bank of England neither could nor would undertake some of the duties and charges which the Bill contemplated. He recommended this point at least to the serious attention of the noble Lord.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that since he had practised in Westminster-hall, he never remembered any Bill for the amendment of the law so pregnant with mischief and danger as the present measure. The Tory party had been accused of being hostile to all Reform, and had been described as "factious." "To that he would simply say, they had made many reforms in the jurisprudence of the country, and that they had proceeded upon sound principles, and after due inquiry. He could by no means give the same credit to the author of this measure. He hoped it would be the last attempt at the emendation of the law which would ever proceed from the same quarter from which this had originated. He took leave of the Bill with the prediction that the Bankruptcy Courts would not endure long.
Bill read a third time and passed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Returned from the Commons; Bankruptcy Court and Interpleader; Crown Lands Inclosure.
Petitions presented. In favour of Reform. By Lord DOVER and the LORD CHANCELLOR, from the Inhabitants of Shefford, Dronfield, Knaresborough, Chapel-le-Firth, Peterhead, Royal Burgh of Tain, Fleshers Incorporation of Perth, Inhabitants of Stickney, Steeple Aston, and Dalmellington. Against the Reform Bill. By Lord FARNHAM, from the Corporations of Sadlers, Upholsterers, Coachmakers, Barbers and Surgeons, Cutlers; from

885
the Guild of Merchants, Dublin, and from the Coalmeters of Dublin, praying for Compensation; from the Corporation of Weavers, Dublin, praying for the establishment of a Board of Trade in that City; from Clowes, in Monaghan, for the extension of the Tithe Composition Act, and from the Inhabitants of Drumcliffe, for the continuance of the Grant to the Kildare Street Society. By the Earl of CAWDOR, from Nairnshire, not to be joined with another County under the Reform Bill:—By a NOBLE LORD, from Inhabitants of Fethard, Templetown, and St. James's, Wexford, for the Yeomanry to be disbanded:—By a NOBLE LORD, from the Landowners, Merchants, Freemen, and Freeholders of St. Nicholas, Galway, to extend the Franchise of that place to Catholics equally with Protestants.

EXCHEQUER COURT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The Lord Chancellorpresented nine Petitions in favour of the Reform Bill from Tain, Peterhead, and different places in the counties of Derby, Lincoln, and Ayr. On presenting some petitions for Reform, his Lordship took the opportunity of saying a few words respecting a Bill which had been by him lately brought into their Lordships' House, and which had passed there without a dissentient voice. The Bill to which he alluded was the Bill for the abolition of the Court of Exchequer in Scotland. The consideration of that Bill had been postponed from time to time in another place, in order to make way for what was there considered as business of a more urgent nature, and was ultimately thrown over for the present Session. He took the opportunity of stating his deep regret at this delay, and his deep sense of the inexpediency of that delay, and his thorough conviction of the total uselessness of the inquiry, upon the ground of the propriety of which the delay was attempted to be justified. It had been said, that an inquiry by a Committee was called for, since, without such inquiry, the House could not know that the Court was a sinecure. But, what was passing in Courts of Justice was matter of common notoriety. What passed in the Court of King's Bench, Common Pleas, Exchequer, or Chancery, or any other Court of Justice here, was matter of common notoriety, inasmuch as they were open to all his Majesty's subjects, and to which the public had a right of access, and upon the ground of that notoriety, he had always understood that Parliament had a right to legislate. To say that this, or that the other House had no right to legislate upon the open, broad, and notorious fact, without a previous Inquiry by a Committee, was the most extraordinary proposition that he had ever heard of. If, however, they thought fit to go into the inquiry, there need have been
886
no delay, for the inquiry might have been fully made in five minutes. The Lord Chief Baron of the Scotch Court of Exchequer was in town, and if they had called on him to attend there, he would at once have told them, that the Court in question only tried, on an average, two defended causes in the course of a year. He would not have troubled their Lordships on this subject, however, had it not been for the imputations that had been thrown out against the Lord Chief Baron, as if he had been the cause of this Bill being introduced, in order to procure a sinecure for himself; whereas, in point of fact, the only effect of the Bill, as far as it regarded him, was to reduce his salary one-half! His hon. and valued friend, the Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, had nothing to do with the Bill. He (the Lord Chancellor) had not had the slightest communication with the Lord Chief Baron about it. He had had no reason to believe that his hon. friend was any otherwise than averse to the Bill, since it reduced the income of his sinecure from 4,000 l. a-year to 2,000 l. The whole was a sinecure, except as to the trial of the two causes, and he had had no reason to believe that his hon. friend would not have been very willing to try two causes in a-year for 2,000 l., being at the rate of 1,000 l. per cause. He declared most solemnly, that he himself had matured the Bill, without any communication with the Lord Chief Baron. To be sure, his hon. and worthy friend cheerfully consented to the arrangement made by the Bill; but that was an abandonment by him of 2,000 l. of his income; and yet, ignorant and factious men imputed to him that this Bill was a job of his, prepared by him for his own benefit. It was of great importance to the public to get rid of the expense of this Court, and it was of much more importance in another view than that of the mere money saved; for it was of the highest importance that the public should not be put to expense for the support of Courts where the situations of the Judges were sinecures, since an expense of that kind was derogatory to the judicial character, and Judges ought always to be not only without blame, but above suspicion. This last consideration was of more consequence than the mere saving, and he hoped that the Bill would be passed at the earliest period in the next Session. Having thus cleared his hon. friend,

887
the Lord Chief Baron, from the unfounded accusations against him, he might be permitted to say a few words about some additional unfounded imputations against himself. It had been said, that he had called upon Masters in Chancery to retire, in order to have an opportunity of appointing others in their stead, who were considerably advanced in age. But he had never called upon Masters in Chancery to retire; he had no power to call upon them to retire, or at least he had no power to call on them to obey. But one did retire, and presented to him a certificate that he had served the office for twenty-six years, considerably more than the time required to entitle him to his retiring pension; and that he (the Lord Chancellor) was bound to admit, unless he could show, which he could not, that the retiring master was perfectly able to discharge his duties. But then it had been said, that he had appointed masters of sixty-five and seventy years of age. Well; what then? If they had been persons in high practice, and of acknowledged experience and talents, and were still in the full possession of their powers, why not appoint them? But at the same time he had taken care that they should not have their retiring pensions unless they served the office for the full period required by the existing regulations, and a minute of this had been entered in the Court of Chancery, so that his successor might be officially apprised that, unless the masters when they retired had served the office for twenty years, they were entitled to no pension. And this was what was called jobbing! Oh; but then it was said that one of the appointed masters, his old and valued friend, Mr. Henry Martin, had been retired from practice for fifteen years. The fact was, that it was fifteen months. He had been in practice in the Court of Exchequer, and at the head of that Bar, till within this year and a quarter: he had seen him there; and he defied any one to find a better Master; he was the very best that could have been found in the Court of Chancery for these last twenty years. With another Master in Chancery—the first whom he had appointed—he had never been in the same room till he had appointed him; and a gentleman more adverse to his party and to his political views, both as to Church and State, he could not have appointed. That gentleman was a friend of Lord Eldon's, and he thought that Lord Eldon ought to have
888
appointed him to be a Master in Chancery; and Lord Eldon not having done it, he had determined to do it. But the imputation upon him as to the appointment of this gentleman was not a bit more perverse and unfounded than the imputation with respect to Mr. Henry Martin, who was the fittest person that could be found. He hoped he did not improperly trespass on the time of their Lordships when he took the opportunity to repel these most unfounded imputations, which he did with perfect good humour, although it might at first be difficult to conceive the ignorance and perversion of understanding from which they had originated. But certain persons had successors, and these persons did not much like their successors, and were not very scrupulous about matters of fact when they endeavoured to vituperate and disparage these successors and to destroy the Government with which they were connected; and the hostility was the more embittered when they saw no reasonable prospect of succeeding their successors. Their position was, indeed, cheerless, and dark, and dismal, with scarcely the feeblest ray of light to comfort them, or alleviate the despair to which they were doomed. "But we," continued his Lordship, "cared less for this dark position; for we were intent upon plans of Reform in the Law, upon plans of Reform in Parliament, and upon projects for the advantage of our own country and the general benefit of mankind; and the contemplation of these subjects enlightened and cheered us in the long gloom in which we were immured. But now that our opponents are immersed in that dismal gloom, they have nothing like this to cheer them—nothing to dispel the dark horrors of their position, except a dim, twinkling, glimmering light, to shew them the way back to their old places. Under these sad and dismal circumstances, it is natural that they should resort to a little railing to comfort and cheer them; and hence we may account for these gross misrepresentations of fact, to some of which I have had occasion to call your Lordships' attention. I have returns to prove what I have stated in regard to the Court of Exchequer."
The Duke of Buccleughinquired whether the noble and learned Lord had any objection to lay those returns on the table?
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he had no objection.

SELECT VESTRIES' BILL.
On the Order of the Day being moved for receiving the Report of the Select Vestries' Bill,
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, that he had already given notice of an Amendment he intended to propose, and to induce their Lordships to adopt his views; he begged to repeat the observations he had previously made. There was a palpable difference between large and populous places, and small rural parishes, and they required a different method of management. He therefore thought it was inexpedient to extend the provisions of the Act before them indiscriminately, and he meant to propose an amendment from which he considered some advantage would be derived. He proposed to insert the following words as part of the clause, "And be it further enacted, that nothing in tins Act contained, shall extend to parishes where there is not a greater number of persons than 600 paying rates to the poor."
Viscount Melbournerequested that the consideration of this Amendment might be postponed, because he apprehended it must be a rider to the Bill.
The Earl of Falmouthhad no objection to the noble Lord's proposal.
The Bishop of Londonproposed an Amendment, to the effect that, when the places where Vestries had been usually held were found inconvenient, they might be held in other places.
Agreed to.
The Lord Chancellorstill thought that the adoption of this kind of Select Vestries should be in the voters who chose to attend. It would be utterly impossible to get 7,001 of the rate payers of St. Pancras to attend, so as to form a majority of the 14,000 in the parish. He would, however, postpone his amendment on that head till next year.