Sitting of 28 March 1833

Preamble
MINUTES Papers ordered On the Motion of Mr. BARING, an Account of the Number of Persons to whom a half year's Dividend was due at the last half yearly payment thereof, on each description of Stock, with the Amount due to each; also an Account of the Gold and Silver Coin and Bullion, Imported into, and Exported from, India and China, to or from Europe and America respectively.—On the Motion of Mr. PEASE, the Quantity of Lead, and Lead Ore, Exported, or Imported, in the year ending 5th January last.—On the Motion of Mr. RUTHVEN, the Number of Commissions of Bankruptcy issued in Ireland, from the 1st of January, 1823, to the 1st of January, 1833; the Number of Certificates granted upon such Commissions; and the Number of Commissions superseded: also the Number of Summonses issued. Informations heard and Penalties awarded, by the Lord Mayor

1199
of Dublin, and other Magistrates acting in the County or City of Dublin, against the Owners and Drivers of Hackney Coaches and Jaunting Cars, during the last three years.
New Writs issued. On the Motion of Mr. SPKING RICE, for the Northern Division of Lancashire, in the room of Mr. STANLEY, who had accepted the Office of one of his Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State; and for the City of Westminster, in the room of Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE, who had accepted the Office of Chief Secretary for Ireland.
Petitions presented. By Mr. ESTCOURT, from Dundee, for the Speedy Passing of the Disturbances (Ireland) Bill.—By Sir WILLIAM INGILBY, from the Political Union of Spilsby; by Mr. WYNN ELLIS, from Leicester; by Mr. WILLIAM ROCHE, Mr. SHEIL, Mr. BARRON, and Mr. RUTHVRN, from a great many Places in Ireland,—against that Bill.—By Mr. ESTCOURT, by Lord NORREYS by Mr. POSTER, by Mr. CALLANDER, by Sir WILLIAM, by Captain YORKR, by Mr. HALL DARE, by Mr. BELL, by Mr. KENNEDY, by Captain JONES, by Sir GEORGE GREY, by Mr. TENNENT, by Sir OSWALD MOSELEY, by Mr. COLLIER, by Mr. WILLIAM EVANS, and by Mr. WYNN, from a vast Number of Places,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Sir WILLIAM INGILRY, by Mr. BEWES, by Mr. PEASK, and by Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON,—for the Abolition of Slavery—By Mr. BELL, from Maryport, for the Abolition of the Punishment of Death in Cases of Offences against Property.—By Sir W. INGILBY, from Alford and Gainsborough; by Mr. HODGES, from Gravesend and Milton,—for granting to the Inhabitants of Corporate Towns the Privilege of Electing their own Magistrates.—By Mr. HODOES, from Crayford and Bexley; by Sir OSWALD MOSELEY, from Uttoxeter and other Places; and by Mr. ROBINSON, from Worcester,—against the Beer Act.—By Mr. G. Young, from the Marines of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, for an Inquiry into the Causes of the Depression of the Shipping Interest; and from Shoreham, Chichester, and other Places,—for a Repeal of the Duty on Marine Insurances.—By Mr. COLLIER, from Plymouth, for an Alteration of the Law between Debtor and Creditor—By Mr. SCHOLEFIELD, from Birmingham, for a Repeal of the Taxes on Knowledge.—By Mr. GROTE, from the Ward of Cheap, London, against the House and Window Taxes; and from the Jews of Bristol, for the Removal of the Civil Disabilities affecting the Jews—By an Hon. MEMBER, from Cosford and Blackburn, for the Abolition of the Duty on Taxed Carts—By Lord DUDLEY STUART, from Ayr and Arundel; and by Mr. WILLIAM ROCHE, from Galway, for a Repeal of the Duty on Soap.—By Mr. T. F. KENNEDY, from Ayr, for a Repeal of the Duty on Stamps for Receipts; and from Irvine, for allowing the Importation of Foreign Sugars, for the purpose of being refined for Exportation.

COUNSEL TO PRISONERS.
Mr. Ewartmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to allow Criminals, in all cases, a full defence by Counsel.
Mr. Wishedto state what he conceived to be the present position of a prisoner under a charge of felony. It was not a real defence, nor a point of law alone that relieved a prisoner from a charge; but such was the mildness of the administration of the Criminal-law, that the slightest omission in the evidence—the smallest doubt—the most negative circumstance—the merest gap not filled up—was sufficient to absolve an accused party. In a Criminal Court the impression produced was, that every one concerned in it appeared to be engaged in a desire to procure an acquittal. It was
1200
not sufficient that guilt should be probable—and even morally certain—but the evidence was required to be of that overwhelming and decisive character, as to take away almost all possibility of innocence before a conviction could be obtained. What did the hon. Member propose to substitute for that? If the hon. Member should succeed in giving to a prisoner full defence by Counsel, he would drive him from the high vantage ground he now occupied; and bring him down into an arena of contention upon facts, forcing him to have a complete representative to whom, if he had any answer, that answer must be known, and from whom, therefore, it would be expected. When a prisoner had a real defence, it could require no speech by Counsel. Did the hon. Member not see that he was depriving accused persons of the most judicious defence that could generally be made, except by cross-examination—a total silence. If his system were adopted, the imprudence of those who were charged would induce them to commit themselves to a speech which as certainly would betray them. What would have been an acquittal, from some very slight doubt under the existing administration of justice, would be turned into a conviction by an ill-judged and indiscreet argument. As there was however reason to think that a prisoner was unfairly treated by the right which the prosecutor had of addressing the Jury, it would be better that such right should be taken away. In civil cases the slightest preponderance of proof decided the verdict. Suppose a civil cause between A and B, and that the evidence for A was as 1,000, the evidence for B as 999, there would be a verdict for A; but if this had been a felony, and B the prisoner, he would have been acquitted. Take a much stronger preponderance; say twenty to one, or 100 to one:—in both the same result would follow, because, if it were not so, an innocent man would be frequently found guilty. Suppose twenty-one cases, in each of which the proofs against the prisoner were as twenty to one, and suppose 101 cases in each of which they were as 100 to one, the obvious result would be, that if conviction followed in all, each of these classes of cases would include the conviction of one innocent man. It was precisely against such occurrences that the criminal law of this country was so wisely

1201
anxious to provide; and, therefore, along course of ages produced a very few unjust judgments, the cause of which judgments was solely attributable to the imperfection of human knowledge, and to those unfortunate combinations which could not fail to mislead the most honest mind, and against which human calculation could effect nothing. The hon. Member appeared to him not to have sufficiently considered the meaning of the verdict of "not guilty." Such a verdict was very far from importing that the Jury believed a prisoner to be innocent, indeed it was quite consistent with a strong belief of his guilt; it was, in truth, an incorrect expression—it meant no more than the Scotch verdict of "not proven," according to the standard of criminal evidence. If it were said, that according to his view the proposed measure should be adopted as the best means of discovering the truth, he would exhort hon. Members who adopted that opinion, to pause before they came to any such conclusion. The general laws and rules of evidence were the same in criminal as in civil cases; but the standard for a verdict was very different; and it was, in his opinion, that the proposition of the hon. Member would have a decided tendency to lower the standard of evidence in criminal cases; to assimilate it more and more to the standard which prevailed in civil proceedings; and to endanger most materially the security of innocence.
Mr. O'Connellapproved of the Bill, and said, that in the course of his long experience in criminal cases, he had seen many instances in which a conviction would not have been obtained if the accused were allowed Counsel for his defence. He had assisted at a trial in Ireland of three brothers, who were convicted and executed, though it turned out afterwards that they were completely innocent of the crime they were charged with. If he could have spoken in their behalf to the evidence adduced against them, he should have obtained unquestionably a verdict of acquittal. He could mention several other similar cases, and therefore he should not be justified if he did not support the present improvement in criminal law. He hoped that the hon. Member would withdraw his opposition to the Bill, and that it would meet with none from the majority of the House.
Sir Thomas Fremantlewas inclined to think that prisoners would not derive
1202
much benefit from the provisions of this-Bill, for if Counsel were allowed to address the Jury on their behalf, the prosecutor's Counsel would have a right to reply, and to press every point of evidence against them—a practice from which the Bar of England generally, if not universally, abstained at present.
The Solicitor Generaldid not rise to oppose the Motion for leave to bring in this Bill, but rather to support it. The theory was certainly in favour of it, and in cases where a foreigner was tried, or where a blind man, or a deaf and dumb man, was put on his defence against a criminal charge, gross injustice was done by not allowing their defence to be made by Counsel. He doubted, however, whether it was expedient in all cases to give the prisoner the right of making his defence by Counsel, and he was even inclined to think that it would be better to take away from the prosecutor the right of addressing the Juror by Counsel than to give such right indiscriminately in all cases to the prisoner. He conceived that it would be wiser that in all prosecutions where Counsel addressed the Jury for the prosecutor, Counsel should also have the right to address the Jury for the prisoner. He would therefore enact, that unless a speech was made by the prosecutor's Counsel, no speech should be made by the Counsel for the prisoner. If the alteration contemplated by this Bill were made, the present number of Judges would not be sufficient to get through the criminal business of the country. In a civil case, the Judge often told the Counsel that he was going too much at length into general circumstances; but in a criminal case, what a very delicate task it would be for a Judge, when a man was being tried for his life, to say to the prisoner's Counsel—"You have stated that point before, several times; and therefore I hope you will go to some other part of the case." These objections struck him at first view, as being applicable to the practice that would take place under this Bill; but still the arguments in favour of carrying it into execution were so strong in theory, that he certainly should be disposed to make the attempt. There was a degree of scandal attached to the administration of justice, if any party could be said not to have been fully heard. He very much questioned, however, whether, in point of practice, this defence on the part of the prisoner

1203
might not sometimes produce an improper acquittal. Every one knew the effect of eloquence on a Jury: Judges were frequently old and infirm—trials sometimes concluded late at night, when the attention of the Court was exhausted—and it might happen in criminal cases, as it did sometimes on civil trials, that the Judge might say, "Gentlemen, you have heard the Counsel on both sides, and I have no doubt you will come to a right conclusion." Instead of which, it might frequently happen that they would come to a wrong one. At the same time to increase the number of Judges would be a matter of little importance, if the alteration proposed in the law were an improvement, for the number of the judges might be easily doubled, and it was better that they should be doubled than permit innocence to suffer, or injustice to be practised.
An Hon. Membersaid, that if Counsel were allowed to both prisoner and prosecutor, it would have no better result than giving rise to trials of professional skill. The prosecutor in most cases being the richer, would have the advantage, since it might naturally be supposed that he could obtain the best professional aid. The disadvantage would be consequently on the side of the prisoner, who generally was the poorer party. He entirely concurred with the suggestions of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, that it would be better in some cases to take away Counsel from the prosecutor, than allow him to retain Counsel in all, and also give Counsel to the prisoner.
Leave given.

LANCASTER ASSIZES.
Mr. Ewartmoved for leave to bring in a Bill for the removal of the Assizes from Lancaster to Liverpool and Manchester.
The Solicitor Generalwould not exactly oppose the bringing in of the Bill, though he not only thought it inexpedient, but bad in principle. He thought it bad in principle, because he considered that such matters ought not to rest with the House, but rather with the Crown whose prerogative it belonged to settle this matter. It would be better to revive the Statute of Charles 2nd, which gave the power to the King in Council to remove the Assizes from one place to another.
Lord Sandonfelt bound to support the Motion of his hon. and learned colleague; but in giving it his support, he would
1204
state, that he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the principle of bringing in a Bill of that kind in such a way was bad.
Mr. Rigby Wasoncalled upon the hon. and learned Gentleman to bring in a Bill to the same effect as the one he said was repealed. It would be wise to postpone the consideration of the present Bill till the Solicitor General could bring in a general measure.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, there was much good sense in the few words that fell from the hon. Members who had last spoken, and that it would be far better to postpone the consideration of the present Bill to a future period, than to hurry it on now when a general measure might make it wholly unnecessary. He considered, that if such Bills were allowed to be brought in through the medium of that House, much inconvenience would arise from it. The fixing of the Assizes would become a party matter, and the Representatives of large towns would be continually endeavouring to have the Assizes removed to those towns. That House was not the best tribunal to apply to for the removal of the Assizes from one town to another; the matter ought to rest entirely with the Privy Council. That being his opinion, he hoped the House would not allow any part of the present Bill to pass, and that it would be postponed until his Majesty's legal advisers had time to consider the subject.
Lord Althorpalso considered that it would be better to withdraw the Bill for the present, that the subject might be more fully considered. He begged, therefore, the hon. and learned member for Liverpool to postpone his Motion to a future time.
Mr. Ewartagreed to postpone the discussion, on the understanding that the Solicitor General would bring forward the measure of which he had given notice.
Mr. Richard Potterregretted that the debate should be deferred, for the greatest inconvenience was felt in consequence of the inhabitants of the hundreds of Salford and West Derby having to repair to so great a distance for justice. Many injuries were submitted to, in preference to incurring the expense of trying actions at Lancaster; he would only just refer to one instance—the commercial house with which he was connected had brought an action against a party—it was tried at Lancaster, a distance of upwards of fifty

1205
miles from Manchester—a verdict was obtained, a new trial was granted, and it was tried a second time, and the costs to both parties actually amounted to upwards of 700 l., a very considerable part of which was incurred in consequence of the case being tried at so great a distance from the place where the parties resided.
Motion postponed.

GAME ACT
Mr. Lennardmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the 7th clause of the last Game Act; and to enable all tenants to shoot over the lands in their possession, unless restrained by a special agreement to the contrary with the landlord. The clause, as it at present stood, was the occasion of much injustice and hardship to tenants. He knew of several instances in which it had acted, not only contrary to the intentions of those who introduced the present law, but frequently contrary to the conditions on which the leases were taken. One instance within his knowledge occurred in Hertfordshire, which was attended with peculiar hardship. A gentleman had taken a farm under the express condition that he should have the exclusive right of shooting over it; and, at the time of making the bargain, he mentioned that he would not give the rent for which he bound himself upon any other condition. By the practice of that county, however, there was no clause to that effect in the lease, and the only manner in which it was made to appear that tenants had the right to sport over their lands, was, when there was no clause inserted reserving the right to the landlord—the omission of such a clause being considered as conferring the right upon the tenant. Soon afterwards the Game Act passed, and took from tenants all right to sport, unless they had an express condition to that effect in their leases. The consequence was, that this gentleman was deprived of his right for which he had given a sum of money. That was but one of many similar instances of injustice which he could quote. He would allow that that House was not to be blamed for the insertion of the clause of which he complained. It was introduced in the other House, he believed, with the hope and expectation that the House of Commons would never agree to it. The whole Bill was disagreeable to the great proprietors in the other House, and they had hoped that, by the insertion of such a
1206
clause, they might get rid of it altogether. They were, however, disappointed, for the Bill, as it contained much undeniable good, was not rejected on account of one objectional clause. But it was not injustice to the tenant alone that he wished for the repeal of that clause. He was sure it would be found necessary to do justice to the landlord also, as it would do away with all ambiguity, and allow him to retain the right of sporting where he wished; while it would put all cases beyond doubt in which he had the right. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to the effect above stated.
Sir Edward Knatchbullconcurred entirely with the hon. Member, and begged leave therefore to second the Motion.
Mr. Gilbert Heathcotethought, that if they did not go into the consideration of the whole subject of the Game Laws, it would be better to let the Bill stand as it was. He said, that the Game Act had not been found to have the effect anticipated by the proposer of it. Poaching and the crimes connected with poaching, had increased to a most alarming extent since the passing of that Act. He believed, that the Sale of Beer Act and the new Game Act had together worked prodigious mischief, and had been the causes of that demoralization which was now so much complained of. He thought, that the question should, at all events, be postponed till it could be fully considered.
Mr. Baringsaid, that the tenant ought in justice to be put on the same footing as before the passing of the last Game Act. With respect to the question about the increase of crime, and the cause of demoralization, it was rather difficult to assign the true cause, for both the Game Act and the Sale of Beer Act had been passed in the same Session; and it was impossible as yet to distinguish between their effects. He was himself inclined to think that the blame which was laid on the Sale of Beer Act would not have been so much deserved if the Game Laws had not at the same time been altered.
Mr. William Broughamsaid, that the House would certainly do well to revise the Bill, but ought to retain the principles of it. By the present Bill, to constitute poaching, the offence must be committed in the intermediate period between an hour after sunset, and an hour before sunrise, Now, it was notorious that more game was illegally destroyed in those two

1207
identical hours than at any other time. The punishment for poisoning grounds was, in his opinion, too small. That offence was only visited by a fine of 10 l., while other offences, not so atrocious, were punishable under the act by transportation. Why should not poisoning lands be punished as a misdemeanor? He knew an instance of dreadful destruction of Game effected in that way:—A boy who had been discharged, revenged himself by poisoning a vast quantity of pheasants. For his own part, he would decidedly say, that he would certainly rather transport any man for seven years who had been guilty of such an atrocious offence as this, than for petty larceny. He considered the former an offence of the greatest enormity.
Mr. Faithfullwas perfectly astonished at the declaration of the hon. Member. It did not appear to him that there was any more moral guilt in poisoning a pheasant than in shooting a sparrow. The Game Laws appeared to him the most unjust, arbitrary, and tyrannical laws that ever were made; they were a protection to the rich, and an injury to the poor; and they ought to be altogether repealed
Mr. Aglionbysaid, when he heard the hon. Member declare that those laws were enacted to give protection to the rich, and to inflict injury on the poor, he must enter his protest against such an assertion. He would expunge from the Statute-book any law that operated to the injury of the poor, while it conferred advantages on the rich. He begged leave, however, to deny, in the most decided manner, that the Game Laws had any such effect. Those laws were enacted for the purpose of protecting the property of individuals. Game, he supposed, belonged to those by whom it was bred, and the rich man had surely as much right to it as the poor man had to his pigs or fowls. Let each party possess that which was his right. A privilege of this nature was a stimulus to men to endeavour to attain the same advantage by pursuing industrious habits and amassing property. Every man in this country might arrive at that privilege if he duly exercised the ability with which Providence had blessed him. It was not out of the reach of any person.
Leave given, and Bill brought in.

LAW OF LIBEL.
Sir Francis Vincentrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill
1208
"to alter and amend the law respecting libel." He said, it was his intention, by the proposed measure, to repeal that part of the Six Acts, and of a Bill afterwards brought in by the learned member for Norwich, which compelled individuals printing and publishing newspapers, pamphlets, &c, to enter into certain, securities to meet any action that might be brought against them. That this enactment was useless, that it had not the effect of checking the evil, was manifested by the atrocious libels which were published every day. It did not deter men of desperate character and fortune, but it prevented respectable people from running the hazard of becoming publishers. To his next proposition, he feared the learned Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench would not accede—that was, to do away with the practice of ex officio informations. That was comparatively a modern practice. It was unknown before the time of Henry 8th, and emanated from the proceedings of the Star-chamber. What was the present state of the law on that point? The Attorney General moved, on affidavit, for a criminal information, and, if it were granted, the defendant was directly held to bail, and if he could not put in bail, he was sent to prison; and the Attorney General might bring on or delay, as he pleased, the proceedings which he had originated. He did not mean to say, that this power was abused. It was not so much against what was generally done, as against what might be done, that he wished to provide. It was true that persons swearing an affidavit or affidavits on such occasions were liable, if they swore falsely, to be prosecuted for perjury; but as they only swore according to the best of their belief that such or such a person was alluded to in the libel, it would be found extremely difficult to convict. He would also, by his Bill, protect proprietors and publishers in every case where they could clearly prove that the libels complained of were published without their knowledge or privity. As the law now stood, persons knowing nothing whatever of the publication of a libel might nevertheless be prosecuted for it. He recollected a case where a servant, who put a letter containing a libel into the post-office, was prosecuted. He would, however, impose on publishers, &c, an obligation to give up the name of the author of any libel. He wished also to extend protection

1209
to booksellers who published works containing libellous matter, of which they happened not to be aware; provided such works had not previously been the object of prosecution. He now came to what would constitute the most material alteration in the law. He would, in all cases, allow proof of the allegation to be received as a justification of the defendant. He should also propose, that the defendant's counsel should be heard last. The speech of the prosecutor's counsel, being last addressed to the Jury, was likely to make a very great, and perhaps an undue impression on them. In the event of a verdict being given against the defendant, the Bill would provide, that the verdict, and part of the record should be published in any six weekly or daily papers that the prosecutor might select. By adopting that course those who had read the libel in any paper would have an opportunity of seing its refutation. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill, &c.
The Attorney Generalsaid, he should be very sorry to throw any impediment in the way of any hon. Member who brought forward a measure for altering the law of libels. He had heard the details of the hon. Member, but he would not offer any comments on them. On the second reading of the Bill, however, he should feel it to be his duty to offer some few observations to the House on the subject of ex officio informations. He certainly had heard nothing to convince him that the practice was improper. He should not, however, endeavour to support the practice if it appeared contrary to the opinion and feelings of Parliament. With respect to the proceeding by indictment and action, he should not at present make any observation.
Leave given to bring in the Bill.

PAROCHIAL REGISTRATION.
Mr. Wilksrose to move for the appointment of a "Select Committee to consider the general state of parochial registries, and the registration of births, baptisms, marriages, deaths, and burials, in England and Wales." The subject deserved the serious consideration of the House, and was very important to all persons possessing property, however humble or exalted, and to whatsoever religious denomination they belonged. From that estimate of its importance in which he trusted the House
1210
and the country would agree; he had been induced to undertake a task, that admitted of no adornment, and in which he must trust for success to the intrinsic merit of the subject. It was strange, however, and matter of equal surprise and regret, that the registration of births, marriages, and burials, should never have attracted in this country, famed for intelligence and wealth, the attention which its importance demanded. To this subject, other countries had been early attentive. The biographers of Petrarch stated that the baptism of the far-famed Laura was registered in 1314, in the parochial register of Cabrieres, where she was born and which register had commenced in the year 1308. In 1497, a system of parochial registration was introduced in to Spain, by Cardinal Ximenes; and many useful regulations were comprised in that system, which, after the lapse of many centuries, had not yet been introduced into this country. His regulations required that, on the registry of every parish, should be inscribed, with the names of the children baptized, the names also of their fathers and mothers, godfathers and godmothers, and the witnesses present, as well as the day, the month, and the year, on which the rite was performed. It was supposed that Secretary Cromwell, whilst travelling through Spain, became acquainted with these registers; and that, at his suggestion, in 1538, two years after the dissolution of the monasteries in 1536, Henry 8th, issued an Injunction, which was the foundation of all parochial registers. It was somewhat curious, that the parish of St. Margaret, in which the House was situated, contained one of the earliest records respecting this system of registration; for, in the churchwarden's accounts for the year 1538, was a charge of 2d. for a book for the entry of burials, weddings, and christenings. By the Injunction of Henry 8th, the parsons were to enter, weekly, before the churchwardens, all weddings, christenings, and burials, and then deposit the book in a coffer with two keys; and a penalty of 3s. 4d., to be applied towards the reparation of the church, was imposed for neglect. During the short reign of Edward 6th., a similar Injunction was framed; but it directed the penalty to be applied to "the poor men's box." and not to the Church. From the national Synod held by Cardinal Pole, about 1555, in the reign of Philip

1211
and Mary, episcopal interference commenced, and Bishops were directed to inquire, on their visitations, whether the registers were regularly kept. In the reign of Elizabeth, a Bill was introduced into that House, on the suggestion of the illustrious Lord Burleigh, after communicating with the Archbishop of Canterbury, for the establishment of diocesan registries. That Bill, however, did not pass, nor did a plan for a general national registry, recorded by Strype, in his annals, succeed. The matter remained, in spite of the urgent wishes of that great statesman, under royal authority, and the ecclesiastical functionaries; and the information concerning the population of the country, which he felt to be desirable, had never been acquired. By a new regulation, in 1597, an improvement was made, now unhappily fallen into desuetude, by which persons were appointed to examine the parochial books, and to fine the clergy and officers for neglect. Little further occurred until the time of the protectorate—that age of great deeds and great men. Then the evils were not only perceived, but corrected—not merely deplored, but removed. It was then resolved to disembarrass the Church of civil duties, and to separate our civil institutions from the Church. By an Act, passed in 1653, every parish was directed to choose a registrar, to be called "the parish registrar," for the registering, not of baptisms, but of births, and not of burials only, but also of deaths. Two or three small parishes might unite in the choice. The person elected was to be approved by a Magistrate, before whom he was to be sworn, and was to continue for three years in office, subject to dismissal for misconduct, and re-eligible if approved. To this officer all former registries were to be delivered, to be kept with the parochial records. Marriages were to be celebrated before Justices of the peace, and after the celebration, he was to enter each marriage in the register, where it was to be countersigned by the Magistrate, and enrolled at the County Court, by the clerk of the peace. From the poor, no fees were to be taken; and moderate charges to other persons appear to have defrayed the total expense. This system seemed to have been extremely judicious and complete; and happy should he be, if in its admirable simplicity and wisdom it could now be restored. It treated marriage as
1212
a civil institution—it provided for individual security, and supplied national information—it included all religionists, because all were citizens—it did not make registration depend on a religious ceremony or peculiar ecclesiastical creeds, but treated it as a matter of civil regulations, in which all were interested and all might partake. Neither as to marriages, nor baptisms, nor burials, did it presumptuously interfere to prescribe or to obtrude the sanctities of religion. The pious might well and wisely invite the clergyman or the minister to administer the rite of baptism—to invoke an heavenly benediction on the bridegroom and his bride—and to soothe at the grave the sorrows of burial by holy consolations and fervent prayer. Much as he condemned and deplored the mockery of mere forms, and much as he desired a new modelled system of civil registration, he should yet more deplore that social state in which a spontaneous desire of religious sanctions did not exist. During the short period of its existence, this system proved practically good, and the registries preserved were remarkably accurate and neat. But like many other real improvements, it was swept away on the Restoration, and with the return of Charles 2nd, the registration relapsed to the parochial clergy, with whom it had subsequently remained. From that period no material alteration was made till the reign of William 3rd; when parochial registration was regarded as a source of revenue. By an Act in the 6th and 7th of that reign, duties were granted on marriages, births, and burials, to carry on the war against France. Collectors were appointed to inspect and enforce registries of all persons born as well as baptized, and of all persons buried in common burying-places, as well as in parish church-yards. These registers, under a penalty of 100 l., clergymen were even then compelled to keep; and by the 7th and 8th William 3rd, parents were obliged, also, under a penalty, to notify to them, within five days, the birth of a child. These were registries not of baptisms but of births—and the registry was compulsory on parents. Again, in the 23rd George 3rd., a Stamp-duty of 3d. was imposed on all registers of burials, marriages, christenings, or births; and by another Act, in 25th George 3rd; the duty was extended to the Dissenters' registries

1213
of births, baptisms, or burials, and those registries appear, at least for these fiscal purposes, to have been as completely recognised as the registries of the Established Church. Why, then, should the Dissenters subsequently have been deprived of that just equality which lawyers and the Legislature, when taxes were to be imposed and revenues extorted, were prompt to allow, but which ceased when, in 1794 the tax was repealed? The Act of 52nd George 3rd, commonly called Sir George Rose's Act, passed in 1812, and probably originated with the commissioners appointed to examine the state of the public records, was intended to effect great and important improvements in the parochial registration, and to enforce a general system of registration of births and of deaths. This was the Act under which all parish registers were still kept, and certainly added to the innumerable proofs of the wretched state of our legislation; statutes being indefinitely multiplied without unity of purpose or accuracy of effect. The momentous nature of the object might, one should have thought, ensured some care in devising a mode for its attainment. The proof of primogeniture, and evidences of pedigree with the enjoyment or the acquisition of vast portions of the property of the country must depend on a complete and correct register of births, marriages, and deaths. Yet the imperfections of the present system were obvious, and its practical inadequacy almost incredibly great. The Act was called "An Act for better regulating and preserving parish and other registers of births, baptisms, marriages, and burials in England." Mark, "other registers," and registers of births! But this Bill had no provision as to other than parochial registers, nor as to a registry of births. In fact, when it passed that House it corresponded with the title. It contained wise regulations as to dissenting registries, and in the schedule there was a column for an inscription of births. But in the other House these regulations and the column were erased, and the title remained to excite expectations, which the Act did not realise. Among the objects of that Act was the establishment of duplicate copies and diocesan registers of all the parish books; and as fires in churches and parsonage houses, had consumed, in a short hour, the records of ages, and so destroyed the evidences on which titles,
1214
and rank, and fortune might be claimed, duplicates placed in secure depositories, were obviously to be desired. It was provided that copies of all the registers should be annually made, and verified by the minister, whose declaration should be attested by the churchwardens; that these should be sent, indorsed in a form prescribed, to the registrar of each diocese; that he should yearly make a report to the Bishop, especially noticing all parishes in default; that the copies sent should be carefully arranged, and be deposited in a place secure from damage and destruction by fire; that alphabetical lists should be made, in suitable books, of all names so transmitted, and that before March, 1813, each Bishop, with the custodes rotulorum, and the chancellor of each diocese, should report to the Privy Council as to the places where the documents were deposited, as to their security from fire; and as to a suitable mode of remunerating the officers for additional trouble and expense. Such were the enactments of the Bill. What would the House suppose were its results? To acquire information, he had obtained, by the order of the House, a return from the several dioceses of that result. From the statements then of the public officers, and not from vague conjecture or prejudiced representation that result might be known. And would the House believe that no report to the Privy Council had ever been made by the high ecclesiastical and civil functionaries, who were somewhat anxious for patronage and power, but negligent of the positive duties to perform which they continually demand patronage and power. In several dioceses eminent for population, and property, such as, London, Bristol, and Chester, at least one-fourth part of the parishes, had made no annual returns. Parishes containing 50,000 inhabitants, had made no returns since the passing of the Act; and other parishes yet more populous had made no returns for the last ten years. Returns, when made, as in the other dioceses where the defaults were less flagrant, were incorrect, and not in compliance with the Act on which their validity depended. Notwithstanding all these defects the reports as to default were very few. No one alphabetical list of the names in the registers had ever been made, and even, where parishes had incurred the trouble and expense of transcribing the registers,

1215
and forwarding them, the postage induced a refusal to receive them, or some error in their direction led to their return to the Post-office. In fact, many hundreds had accumulated at the Post-office, to the inconvenience of that establishment, and they were all positively burnt; a bonfire was actually made of documents that had cost a great deal of labour, and on which the happiness of many families might depend. In very few dioceses were the copies deposited in places which even the registrars considered as secure from fire; in several they were in private houses, and in hazardous situations: and the intelligent and very effective and indefatigable registrar for the diocese of London was compelled to state, with regret, that he had no other depository for his numerous, though imperfect and irregular documents, except a room on the first-floor of his own offices, of which the upper story was let out, and which was liable to all the casualties of ordinary dwellings. In making these remarks, he disavowed any intention of imputing misconduct to the diocesan registrars, and any wish to place on them the blame of the complete failure. The Act provided no remuneration for the burthensome but proper duty it enjoined, and the heads of the Church had hitherto omitted the report to the Privy Council, by which the omission would have been known and repaired. It was not of individuals, but of the system, he complained, and the House and the country must agree with him. There was not a guardian or a parent who would not say, that such irregularities and imperfections ought not to be tolerated. But if these evils were surmounted, the general body of parish registers throughout England and Wales were in a bad condition. He should too long occupy the House, did he notice the complaints which topographers, antiquarians, heralds, and all persons led by interest or by taste to examine the registers had united to make. Entries of baptisms celebrated years before the clergyman, making the entry, was incumbent of the Church, had been made. He would not dwell on their removal—their insecurity—their use as testers for beds, or thread papers—of the interpolations, intentional erasures, and fraudulent destruction; he would not recount the ludicrous entries and misnomers of which he had heard—he would only state that, even if the Act of 1812 had been perfectly
1216
obeyed, and if the parish registers were uniform and inviolate, secure and uncorrupt, yet revision was indispensable, and improvement required. After all, it would only be a registry of baptisms, and not a registry of births, and the latter was demanded. The House probably knew that the clergyman was not authorized to make any notation in the registry, of the age of the person baptized; and such an entry was perfectly gratuitous and of no avail in law. In several cases, the Courts of Law had decided, that a baptismal registry could not be given in evidence of the age or legitimacy of a child; as the statement was only an unauthorized declaration, which might, indeed, be true, but might, also, be intentionally false. In an important case of Wiper v. Law, Mr. Justice Bayley ruled that the entry of a date of birth, opposite to the date of baptism, in the parish register, could not be received as evidence; and the Court of King's Bench confirmed that opinion by a unanimous judgment. Such was the law, even, where entries of age and of birth had been made by the clergyman who celebrated the baptism; but ordinarily, no such entry was made; and how, then, could the date of the baptism prove the age of the recipient of that rite? He would mention one case to illustrate the inefficiency of such proof. A man, attending to be married, was asked by the clergyman, who was somewhat tenacious for the rights of the Church, whether he had been baptized? He answered, that he was then unbaptized, though about twenty-three years of age. The clergyman refused to perform the marriage ceremony until the baptismal rite was previously performed. Vain were all solicitations; the conscientious and inexorable priest refused to listen, and the bridegroom was compelled to submit; and in the same book, therefore, the baptism and marriage appeared as celebrated on the same day; and how could the baptismal register supply an evidence of age? Often, too, it happened that two or three children of the same family were contemporaneously baptized; and he had before him a document in which three children were so baptized, and the name of the youngest was first entered in the baptismal registry, while the eldest daughter was entered last, though the youngest was an infant, and she was ten years old. In consequence of such errors,

1217
if the baptismal registry were an evidence of age, the youngest child might claim a fortune of which the eldest might be hopelessly deprived. The House must be sensible that the system of registering baptisms must be imperfect; and that there ought to be a national registry of births. As to the marriage registry, it was perfect and comprehensive compared to the registry of baptisms, though its forms might be greatly improved to assist researches for pedigree; and though that very comprehension was deemed, as the House well knew, by vast masses of the community, to be founded on religious intolerance, under which they had long groaned, and from which they desired a relief which the establishment of a national and civil registry would greatly assist. By Catholics and Dissenters a compulsory conformity to the sacrament of a church with which they disagreed, could not but be regarded as offensive and unjust; and every conscientious clergyman would, he thought, be gladly relieved from what he must piously consider mockeries of a sacred rite. As to the burial registry, the observations he had made upon the baptismal registries would nearly apply to it. For the security of property, and for statistical information, a general registry of deaths was required, and not that imperfect registry of burials at present obtained. Even as a registry of burials, it was imperfect; since churchmen were interred in Dissenting burial grounds, or at the cemeteries which, in imitation of the mournfully beauteous resting-place of Père Le Chaise, at Paris, were about to be formed in the vicinity of the metropolis, and already existed near all our large and populous towns. As to burial registries, then, might be not repeat his former inquiry, and ask the House, whether a new and improved system were not required? He had not pressed on the attention of the House one consideration of great weight. He had assumed that all the people of England and Wales were members of the Established Church, and had only stated the objections which the members of that Church who regarded their fortune, and loved their children and their country, were entitled to urge. But how much force was added to the argument, when the House recollected the vast portion of the people who were Dissenters from that Church, and to whom baptismal and burial registries could not apply. Could the House be unaware, that it had been lately
1218
and authoritatively said, that two-thirds of the whole population of the principality of Wales were Dissenters? There were, he believed, no less than 8,260 Dissenting and Methodist chapels and meeting-houses in England and Wales; the number of them was increasing monthly, and he had no doubt that the whole body of Dissenters were not less than 4,000,000 of the people, and amounted to nearly one-third of the whole population of Britain. That body included men not inferior in wealth or influence, in ingenuity, or learning, or industry, or worth, to the best and most favoured of the population. Of them, also, a considerable portion including many hundred congregations, disapproved of infant baptism, and must be specially precluded from all registries except registries of births. For that great portion of the people, no provision, by the existing laws, supplied the means of effective and legal registration, which their security—and the general welfare, inseparably involved in their security—imperiously demanded. They kept, as was well known, congregational registries of baptisms and burials, and also a registry of births; but these registries were not public records, and extracts from them could not be received in evidence. A former Master of the Rolls, as well as Sir John Nicholl, had refused to receive the copy of a dissenting registry as evidence; and had decided that an examined copy from a registry of births, at a great public dissenting institution, called Dr. Williams's Library, could not be evidence. Dissenting registers, therefore, were comparatively proscribed; and practical evils, greater than those which the Test and Corporation Acts really inflicted, were yet quietly endured. Was this of importance only to themselves? Who, though now a rigid member of the Established Church, could foretel or foresee how his own family or fortune—how the sale or purchase of estates by himself or his posterity—might be involved in these defects of Dissenters' registrations, and in the failure of those proofs of pedigree which such defects might create? The community was one vast family, and no real evils could affect a large part of the population, without spreading some portion of such evils over those who seemed to be most distant or secure. It was from this general view that he had devoted some attention to the subject; and it was not only as a lawyer or a Dissenter, but as a

1219
legislator and a patriot, that he had felt shame, vexation, and regret. Inquiry had convinced him that on this, as on some other subjects, England was behind the age—that her legislation was defective—that they contented themselves with botching up some grievous rent, but did not wisely, extensively, and deliberately survey, and comprehensively, but discreetly, modify and improve our institutions. When they compared the wretched system of registration established in England with those of foreign countries, how inferior did it appear? In France, registration was a civil affair. All births, marriages, and deaths were registered before the Maire of every different commune. By the Code Civil, all the forms were prescribed, and accuracy was secured by regulations, particular and minute. Duplicates were prepared and closed at the end of each year, with formalities that prevented interpolations. Alphabetical indexes were made in a tabular form. One copy was yearly sent to the legal court of the district, and placed under the care of the Procureur du Roi: and, decennially, another complete alphabetical index for the whole district was made. The results supplied accurate information to the government, and gave to families and property an adequate security. Nor should it be forgotten, while we treated these matters as unimportant, because they answered no party purpose, and could not be made the subjects of political debate, that Napoleon deemed this subject worthy of regard, amid all the magnitude of his engagements and all the splendour of his victories—and presided and advised at the Council of State, at which all these minute arrangements were considered and dictated;—and rightly did he judge. As a lawgiver he acquired laurels that no defeats could blight—no reverses injure—and that no lapse of ages would destroy. In Holland and Flanders there was a similar system of registration to that existing in France, and within three days after the birth of a child, it was produced by the parent at the local office, and the acte de naissance was inscribed. A general system of civil registration existed, even in Italy, where, since the Restoration, the registries—to the regret of the people—were again kept by the priests; who were bound to send attested copies of the registries to the civil authorities at least every three months. In Austria, too, a system prevailed which did credit to the
1220
liberality of the Catholic priesthood of that great country, and which no Protestant priesthood should be loth to imitate. Although the Catholic clergy kept the general registry, yet they received from the Protestant ministers certificates of marriages, births, and deaths, and entered them in the national register for universal security and use. He repeated, then, though with more of grief than exultation, that we were behind the age; and that foreigners might regard our municipal arrangements with wonder and contempt. Unhappily it was proved that in no other country did there exist so confused a system of registration—in no other country was property so endangered—in no other country were the rights of children so compromised—and in no other country were municipal rules, so practically intolerant, allowed to remain. But these defects were no new discovery. They had been indicated and deplored by eminent lawyers. Lord Wynford recently stated that on a correct registration depended all the rights of property. Lord Eldon repeatedly declared that our registers and documents were shamefully and injuriously impaired and incorrect—and the Commissioners for inquiring into the Law of Real Property had stated in their first Report that nothing could be more inconvenient than the present system, and they had suggested the substitution of a civil registration of births, marriages, and deaths, which should embrace all classes of the community. Sanctioned by such authorities, on a subject universally interesting, though generally overlooked, he trusted that it would not be thought that he had misapplied the time of the House. From the importance of the subject, and the intricacy of the details, he did not feel justified in submitting any measure to the House; but he thought it more decorous and discreet to refer the whole topic to the consideration of a Select Committee, which he hoped the House would appoint. He would not enter into the details of any plan, and would only state his idea, that a system of civil registration, somewhat similar to that organized during the Protectorate, might advantageously be adopted. The plan, whoever be the registrar, must embrace a registry of all births, marriages, and deaths; and if the established clergy should prefer (as in the reign of William 3rd.) to conduct that registry, he should rejoice at it. But

1221
whoever might be its conductors, it must be not sectarian, but national, civil, and not ecclesiastical; and must be independent of baptismal ordinances, or matrimonial church services, and burial rites;—though he trusted that at all those memorable epochs of our short life, the blessing of the Deity would always be invoked, and the benefits of pure piety be universally appreciated and enjoyed. If, by the labours of a Committee and the sanction of this House, the evils he had adverted to could be swept away, and a new, and national, and civil registry be constructed, a most salutary reform would be accomplished, which every enlightened man would approve of, and future generations applaud. The hon. Member concluded by moving "for the appointment of a Select Committee, to consider and report on the general state of parochial registries, and the laws relating to them; and on a general registration of births, baptisms, marriages, deaths, and burials, in England and Wales."
The Attorney Generalsaid, he heartily concurred in the object proposed by his learned friend. He had been made aware, by his professional pursuits, of its very great importance. As a question of evidence concerning property, it was one of as great difficulty, as it was of importance. He spoke from long practical experience, and he was sure that no subject better deserved the consideration of the House and the public, than the one introduced to their notice by his hon. friend. He would not enter into any details, but would reserve to himself the right of discussing them hereafter, assuring his hon. friend that any difference of opinion should be discussed, on his part, in a spirit desirous only of coming at the truth on a subject of such importance.
The Solicitor General,as a member of that Commission to Inquire into the Laws of Real Property, the Report of which the hon. Gentleman had referred to, was well aware of the defective state of our registration. It was more easy to trace a pedigree 500 years ago than five years. When there was a necessity for a man to go back to his great grandfather, it was found to be extremely difficult. Moreover, the present system gave rise to many forgeries. Owing to the state of the law, any scrap of paper preserved in a family became evidence, and gave rise, when there was a necessity for them, to
1222
many frauds. He knew of several instances of entries into baptismal registers which had been forged for the purpose of proving pedigrees. The entries were made in Bibles, to which the artificial appearance of venerable age was successfully imparted. Indeed there was a regular manufactory of Bibles for that purpose. He rejoiced that this subject had been taken up by his hon. friend, and he begged to express his cordial wishes for the success of the Motion.
Mr. Charles J. Kemyss Tyntesaid, that having the honour to represent a county in which were a very large body of Dissenters, he felt rejoiced in an opportunity of congratulating the Dissenters and the people of England upon the liberal manner in which his hon. friend's Motion had been met by his Majesty's Ministers. The Dissenters had long patiently endured their grievances, and now he was glad to find that the justice they had anticipated from a Reformed Parliament was about to be realized. He felt himself bound to say, that he believed that no class of persons in the country more deserved, or would prove themselves more worthy of the boon that he felt assured would now be granted them, than the Dissenters.
Motion agreed to, and a Committee appointed.

MINUTES
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Lord ELLENBOROUGH, Copies of Correspondence between the President of the Board of Control, and the Court of Directors of the East India Company, with respect to the Measures to be adopted on the Expiration of the present Charter of the East India Company.
Bill. Read a third time:—Sugar Duties.
Petitions presented. By the Bishops of HEREFORD, CHESTER LICHFIELD, and COVENTRY; by Lord AUCKLAND, and the Earl of RODEN, from a Number of Places,—for a Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Lord CLONCURRY, from three Places in Ireland; and by Lord POLTIMORE, from Wellow,—against Tithes and Church Cess. By the Earl of WICKLOW, from Elphin; and by the Earl of RODEN, from Maghera, Kilmegan and Kilmainham,—against the proposed Measure of Church Reform (Ireland).

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
Lord Suffieldhad to present Petitions from three different places upon this subject. He

1185
had, indeed, many more; but he presented these at the present moment just to clear the way for others, which he believed would soon be sent up to their Lordships. There were certain rumours abroad as to the intentions of the Ministers with regard to negro slavery. If there was any foundation for those rumours, he was sure that they would produce in the public mind the same consternation that I they had given rise to in his. As, however, they were but rumours, they did not lessen his confidence in his Majesty's Ministers at this moment, but he trusted they would prove untrue. This measure could not much longer he delayed; for, if it were, it would be demanded as forcibly and irresistibly as the measure of Reform had been. He knew that the principles of his. Majesty's Ministers were sound and right; but he could not be blamed for entertaining some fears when he knew that they were met on almost every side with an array of prejudice and of false notions of self-interest that it would be hard for them to overcome. Whatever measure they might propose would be strenuously resisted, and he wished to get for them that support which would alone enable them to carry any measure upon this subject by the strength of popular opinion. That support they would not have if the rumours he had alluded to were true. He would tell them most distinctly, that nothing short of the immediate and total abolition of negro slavery would satisfy the people of this country. He wished here to say what meaning he attached to the words "immediate abolition." He did not understand by them the sailing of the first ship that could carry out their determination, but the earliest possible and practicable substitution of legal restraint for the absolute and irresponsible power of the master. He should move to bring up the petition, which was from the inhabitants of Edinburgh, who, to the number of 21,291, had attached their names to it.
Lord ELLENBOROUGHwas not aware of the rumours to which the noble Baron alluded; and it would have been more convenient to their Lordships if the noble Baron had stated the nature of them. Without entertaining any particular confidence in his Majesty's Ministers, he must say, that he should be unwilling to relieve them from any responsibility upon the subject of colonial slavery, to put it upon the noble Lord opposite. He had hoped that, before
1186
now, that House might have been called on to enter into some discussions upon the question. The state in which it stood was that in which it was most productive, he would not say of inconvenience merely, but of danger. The question might be said to be at this moment suspended over them. If the Ministers really had prepared any plan, it was desirable that they should produce it, and subject it to the investigation of Parliament. The delay in doing so would only tend to create difficulties, which might frustrate the carrying into effect the intentions of Parliament, as declared in 1823, and might defeat the reasonable wishes of the people. The uncertainty in which the matter stood now, both here and in the West Indies, must create in the minds both of the planters and the slaves, feelings that would render it difficult, if not almost impossible, for Parliament to adopt afterwards any measure beneficial to the great interests of the country, and capable of being carried into effect with safety to the colonies. He deprecated delay as much as he wished to avoid precipitancy, and he hoped that his Majesty's Ministers would appear, when their plan was produced, to have taken a more sober and rational view of the subject than seemed to have been taken by the noble Lord opposite.
Lord Suffieldsaid, that the rumours to which he alluded he had seen embodied in a paragraph in a daily journal. If those rumours were correct, the plan for emancipation would not, he was sure, satisfy the people. He feared, that whatever plan the Ministers might propose, would be opposed as far as possible by the West-India proprietors. His Lordship then presented a petition from Sheffield, signed by 11,000.
Viscount Goderichsaid, that after what had passed, their Lordships would perhaps excuse him if he said a few words upon this subject. With respect to the rumours of the intentions of Government as to the subject of colonial slavery, it was, of course, quite impossible that he should he answer able for them. Even the noble Lord himself did not seem to place much reliance upon them, by the manner in which he had stated them. The noble Lord did at first not state what they were, and afterwards he referred to some extract from a newspaper. Every one must agree with him, that it was not necessary for the Government to undertake to explain rumours founded on such loose authority. The noble Lord had

1187
said, with respect to the delay of which he complained, that it arose from that particular body of persons who were interested in the consideration of this great question. He was not conscious that there had been anything which could fairly and strictly be called delay. In a matter of this kind, it was the duty of the Government to give their utmost consideration to views and circumstances which necessarily belonged to so intricate a matter; and he thought, therefore, that no charge of delay could be substantiated against the Government; and it was, consequently, not his business to state any communication which had taken place, or any result which might follow. He was perfectly aware of the importance of the subject. It would be strange if he were not. He was equally aware, that the sense of Parliament should be taken on this subject at the earliest period; but he nevertheless must take the liberty of saying, that if the wish for bringing forward this subject at an earlier period of this Session had been complied with, it would have been anything but advantageous or safe, or satisfactory, with a view to the final and just settlement of the question.
Earl Fitzwilliamwished to make a few remarks with regard to the delay which had been made the subject of observation. When his noble friend said, that the question must be early settled, he did not mean that the people wished it to be precipitated, and for himself he should at once say, that he thought the question ought not to be brought forward till the undivided attention of both branches of the Legislature could be given to it. He was the person who had most recently taken his scat in their Lordships' House, and he more recently than any of them had been in contact with large bodies of the people; and he could tell their Lordships, most of whom from their habits were less in the habit of meeting them than he was, that they were not well aware of the strong feeling that existed among the people on the subject. There was a time when this question was confined to the large towns, and when secluded districts, and the distant agricultural quarters of the country knew nothing of it; but at this moment these places were as anxious on the subject as any others. If their Lordships did not decide this question satisfactorily to the people, they would not be, what they were to a certain extent
1188
although not elected, the representatives of the people.
The Duke of Buckinghamregretted, that the measure which the Ministers had determined on, had not been introduced earlier. It was the duty of his Majesty's Ministers to have brought it forward at as early a period as possible. That the question was not brought forward earlier was not the fault of the West-India proprietors, who were most anxious to have it considered, and who complained that it had been so long delayed. If the Ministers consulted any one connected with the West Indies, they did so partially, and it was of that partiality and of the delay, that the West-India proprietors justly complained.
Earl Greysaid, that whatever anxiety the Ministers might feel to bring forward this question, they were perfectly convinced that it required great deliberation and a most accurate examination of all the circumstances connected with it; and still more, that to render the measure at once effectual and beneficial, they must have the active co-operation of those whose interests were connected with the measure before they introduced it. However easy and popular might be these attacks on the Ministry for the delay of which they were accused, he would rather hear them than subject himself to the charge of precipitancy in introducing a measure which, unless brought forward with the greatest possible care, could be neither safe nor satisfactory. He did not think it could be imputed to the Ministers as matter of blame, that they should wish to get the co-operation of those most interested in a work which all must acknowledge to be most difficult and dangerous. Their endeavours had been to assure themselves of that co-operation. The noble Duke had complained that their communications to the West-India body had been partial. Surely he would not have had the Ministers go to general assemblies of the West-India proprietors at Exeter Hall, or other places, and there make and receive communications on this delicate subject. Their only way, then, was to consult privately those who were interested in it, so that they might obtain their co-operation if they were favourable, and if not, that they might procure information. As to the plan, he could not at that time state what it was. He could only say, generally, that the attention of

1189
the Government had been directed constantly and carefully to this great object, and that they would bring it forward as soon as they could, with a probability of its satisfactory result. He did not understand what the rumours alluded to were. The Ministers were not, however, responsible for these reports, nor should he pretend to explain them. If there was nothing more in the matter than to say that there should be an immediate abolition of slavery, the work would be short and easy, but complicated as the question was, many interests being concerned, and the difficulties increasing the more it was looked at, the task was something very different from merely saying, the slave should be free. He was glad to learn from his noble friend, that among the friends of abolition "immediate" did not mean "instant." He was as anxious for emancipation as any other noble Lord, and he would take the terms of his noble friend, that as soon as it could be safely accomplished, it ought to be. But in effecting it, especial attention should be shown to the interests of those unfortunate creatures for whom they would have to legislate.
The Duke of Buckinghamthought it right to state, that great misapprehension existed in the public as to the opinions and wishes of the West-India body, the majority of the members of which were as anxious for emancipation as any other persons could be.
The Duke of Richmondmerely rose to deny the statement, that disputes had taken place between Ministers as to the abolition. There had been no disputes whatever in the Cabinet upon the subject.
Lord Suffieldwas rather surprised at the statement of the noble Duke on the opposition benches (the Duke of Buckingham); for he considered that the whole conduct of the West-India body in question had been characterised by contumacious opposition to his Majesty's Government. Throughout they had desired delay, and endeavoured to procrastinate a settlement. When he asked for immediate emancipation, he meant that measures should be immediately taken to effect that desirable object. His Lordship then presented a petition in favour of "immediate emancipation, with safety to all parties," from Glasgow, signed by upwards of 31,000 persons.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, no persons were
1190
more interested than the slaves themselves in the avoidance of intemperate and irrational legislation.

LOCAL JUDICATURES—LAW RE-FORM.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that with their Lordships' leave, he should present to them a Bill of very great importance, and on which much consideration had been bestowed. The Bill was for establishing, throughout the kingdom, Courts of Local Jurisdiction. It was well known that he had, some time since, introduced this measure, and its principle and many of its provisions were then very fully discussed. Indeed, the principle had been so fully discussed, that he should not trouble their Lordships now with one word in favour of the measure, reserving himself, on that point, until he proposed the second reading of the Bill, to which he meant now to ask their Lordships to give a first reading. He admitted, that the Bill was one of very great importance, and, therefore, he felt it his duty not to introduce it, without endeavouring to give their Lordships a brief outline of its object and main provisions. It was a Bill to establish, experimentally in the first instance, in certain counties and districts, with a view to extend the principle ultimately—and, he trusted, within a very short period, universally—throughout this kingdom, Courts of Local Jurisdiction. It was proposed that there should be a Sergeant-at-Law, or a barrister of ten years' standing, to preside over those Courts, for it was most important that the Judge should be a person of such weight and professional character that the suitors of the Courts should feel a well-grounded confidence that justice was administered by a person of learning and experience. The next question which suggested itself was, as to the kind and extent of jurisdiction which the Courts established under this Bill should exercise. First, as to the amount of the debt in actions of debt, or actions of that description, and of damages in what the lawyers called actions of tort. In the Bill which he had formerly introduced on this subject he had proposed that the Courts of Local Jurisdiction should take cognizance of all actions of debt, when the sum sought to be recovered did not exceed 100 l. Since he had introduced his former measure he had had a great deal of communication with those learned persons who composed the law commission; and from various

1191
considerations, into which he should not now enter, he had come to the resolution of proposing, at least in the first instance, that the Courts of Local Jurisdiction should only take cognizance of debts to the amount of 20 l. and under, instead of 100 l. as he had formerly proposed. Doubtless this was a great restriction of the powers which he had originally intended to give to the Courts of Local Jurisdiction; but, as he had before intimated, there were a variety of reasons which had induced him to accede to so important a deviation from the plan originally proposed. What was now intended was, to give the Local Courts a jurisdiction in all actions of debt, or actions of that nature, to the amount of 20 l. In other words, 20 l. was the greatest amount which a plaintiff could recover in those Courts in an action of debt. In actions of damages, which included actions for assault, trespass, false imprisonment, seduction, slander, maliciously suing out a commission of bankrupt and all wrongs of that description, it was proposed that the Local Courts should have a jurisdiction in all cases in which the damages laid in the declaration did not exceed 50 l. It was well known, however, that Juries were in the habit, in actions of tort, of not giving the amount of damages laid—in fact, they usually gave very much less—and it would not be possible, perhaps, at once to induce Juries to depart from that practice. It was, therefore, intended to allow the Courts of Local Jurisdiction to take cognizance of all actions of tort, in which the damages were not laid at a sum exceeding 50 l; but as the Bill also contained a provision that no costs should be obtained by any plaintiff who brought his action in any of the superior courts, and recovered less damages than 20 l. the damages really sought to be recovered in the Local Courts would generally amount only to 20 l.: thus limiting the jurisdiction of those Courts in actions of tort, as well as actions of debt, to the sum of 20 l. The trial of all questions connected with real property, all actions involving questions as to title, or as to the right to tithes or tolls, would be excepted from the jurisdiction of the Local Courts, and properly confined, as they now were, to the superior Courts. He held in his hand a few returns which he should read, to show that such actions as those which it was intended to place under the jurisdiction of the Local Courts formed no small
1192
proportion of the whole number of actions brought in this kingdom. It appeared from those returns that, in the year 1826, the number of actions of debt brought in the three superior Courts of Common Law at Westminster amounted to 93,000. Of that number 30,000 were for debts under 20 l., and 48,000 for debts under 50 l. whilst only the remaining 15,000, or about one-sixth of the whole, were brought for debts above 50 l. In the year 1822 he found that 890 cases were tried in London and Middlesex, cases which originated in the superior Courts, and were brought to trial in London and Middlesex. In 313, or above one third of those 890 cases, he found that the damages recovered were under 20 l.; and this return included actions for debt, as well as actions for damages. Generally speaking, one-third of the actions in the superior Courts were brought for sums not exceeding 20 l. He had returns showing the number of cases tried on the Oxford Circuit, in the years 1829 and 1830, which confirmed, or more than confirmed, the accuracy of this calculation. Out of 340 cases tried on that Circuit in those years, 160, or nearly one-half, were for sums under 20 l. So much for the jurisdiction of the Local Courts in compulsory cases—in cases in which the plaintiff must bring the defendant into the Local Courts and into no other Courts. But there was a provision in the Bill which extended the jurisdiction of the Local Courts upon the consent of the parties to an action. It was proposed, in fact, to give the Local Courts a jurisdiction in all descriptions of actions, and to any amount, provided the parties to the action consented. There was another very important provision in this Bill, by which the plaintiff or defendant in all actions of debt was at liberty to examine his antagonist upon oath before the trial of the cause. There was also a provision made to give the Judge of the Local Court the power of acting as an arbitrator. It too frequently happened at present, that after a cause was brought down to be tried before a Judge, and great expense was gone to in procuring the attendance of witnesses, it was found that the question was more fitted to the decision of an arbitrator than of a Jury; and it was referred after all the expenses had been incurred. Much of the expense and delay consequent on such a proceeding would be spared by a reference to the local Judge. There was

1193
another provision in the Bill which he considered one of great importance—he meant the establishment of a Court of Reconcilement. The principle on which those Courts were established in other countries, and the success which had attended their institution, was matter of notoriety. He believed that in France the institution of Courts of Reconcilement had been attended with less success than in other countries. In Belgium and Holland he understood those Courts had been established with considerable success; and in some countries the success of these Courts was signally satisfactory and beneficial to the inhabitants. He alluded particularly to Denmark and Norway. After the Courts of Reconcilement were established in those countries, the number of suits fell off to one-third; that was to say, the total amount of actions was diminished by two-thirds. In a period of nine years 724,000 actions had been commenced, and of that number 448,000, or more than one-half, had been successfully and satisfactorily settled by the interposition of a Court of Reconcilement. In the year 1822 (he spoke now only of Denmark) the number of actions commenced was 31,000, of which the Courts of Reconcilement settled two-thirds, or 21,000; and of the remaining 10,000 very many never found their way into court. So much for the system under which the parties came before a temperate and disinterested Judge, who decided fairly between them. The next matter to be referred to the courts of local Jurisdiction was that class of cases in which the Court of Chancery now exercised a peculiar jurisdiction. He might here state, that he had kept out of the Bill all cases relating to legacies so that tinder this Bill the Courts of Local Jurisdiction would have no cognizance of that class of cases. This exception was made not because he was of opinion that no change was desirable in cases of that description, but that he conceived that the alteration would be better introduced by another Bill. The Bill gave the Judges of the Local Courts the power to act in all cases within their own districts as Masters in Chancery resident in the country. In all those cases in Chancery in which it was necessary to refer to the Master, and it was thought better to have vivâ voce evidence, the examination would proceed in the country, and by that means save great expense, as well as
1194
delay, to the suitors of the Court of Chancery. Another jurisdiction which the Bill proposed to bestow was that of bankruptcy. The late Bankruptcy Court Act, which had been completely successful, led to the extension of jurisdiction, which was now proposed, and which had not been inserted in the former Bill introduced by him. The establishment of the new Bankruptcy Court had given the most unqualified satisfaction to all persons interested—indeed he might say to the whole commercial world. He believed that there was no one so singular as to deny that the establishment of that Court was a most desirable and beneficial improvement in the administration of an important branch of the law; and it was now proposed, under this Bill, to make the local Judges commissioners, so that one of those Judges would stand precisely in the same situation within his own district, in all cases of bankruptcy, as if the Judges of the new Bankruptcy Court had sent down a commission to him in a particular case. The last of the provisions of this Bill to which he was about to call their Lordships' attention, was one of very great importance, not only intrinsically, but because of what it might and would tend to. He proposed to give local Judges the power of staying execution in all cases, unless where the defendant refused to answer the questions put to him relating to his property, or refused to give up that property for the benefit of his creditors. This provision, he trusted and believed, would lay the sure foundation for one of the greatest and most beneficial alterations ever made in the law of debtor and creditor; he meant the abolition of imprisonment for debt. A measure on this subject was proposed and would be shortly introduced by an hon. and learned friend of his in the other House. The great difficulty in bringing such a measure into practical operation consisted in the want of what he might call a proper machinery for securing the debtor's property for the benefit of his creditors. The machinery provided by this Bill would be equally applicable in principle to all cases of debtor and creditor. In his (the Lord Chancellor's) opinion no person ought to be imprisoned for debt unless he refused to answer the questions put to him, or to surrender his property—or, in short, unless he refused to do something which he ought to do for the satisfaction of his

1195
creditors, or that he had contracted a debt fraudulently or extravagantly, by living beyond his means. In the first of those cases, a debtor was contumacious when he refused to do that which the law directed him to do—in the last he was criminal. But in no other way, or in no other cases, but those of contumacy, or criminality, ought any man to be imprisoned for debt. Such was the principle of the measure which he thought he might state would be brought forward speedily after the recess in the other House of Parliament, by a learned friend of his—a principle which in his opinion, was consistent with reason, justice and, humanity. He could also say, that it was based on the recommendations contained in the report of the common law commissioners, and that in drawing it up every regard had been paid to imparting to creditors every security which it was possible to extend to them. In fact, its provisions would be of greater benefit to creditors than of advantage to debtors, and he had no doubt that when the measure came to be fully discussed by the Legislature, it would surely be adopted. It would be impossible, he thought, to achieve the objects to which he had stated the Bill had reference, except by the establishment of Local Courts; But that being done, then every facility for the accomplishment of those objects would be afforded. Having given an outline of the Bill for establishing Courts of Local Jurisdiction, he would also state, that another measure for regulating the appellate jurisdiction of the Privy Council would be introduced into Parliament. The transfer of the jurisdiction formerly exercised by the High Court of Delegates rendered this measure necessary; and he hoped it might lead, at no very distant period, to a matter which he considered of still more importance—some regulation of the appellate jurisdiction of their Lordships' House, which would remedy the evils, and meet the objections now made to the mode in which that jurisdiction was exercised. There was another Bill which he had prepared, and which he should ask their Lordships to give a first reading to some evening before the recess, the object of which was, a reform in the practice and constitution of the offices connected with the Court of Chancery. The contemplated regulations would extend to the Six Clerks-office to the Registrar's-office, and, in a great degree
1196
to the Masters'-office. A number of useless and cumbrous places would be got rid of; and the new arrangements, he had reason to think, would greatly diminish the delays so much complained of in proceedings in equity, and at the same time diminish the expenses of suitors. One great object of the Bill was, to free from all suspicion the proceedings in the offices connected with the Court of Chancery. This object would be effected, he thought, by substituting salaries for fees, by which some of the officers were now paid the chief part of their incomes, and by abolishing what was called copy-money and gratuities altogether. In short, the Bill he proposed to introduce would impart greater justice and accuracy to the proceedings of every branch of the Court of Chancery. The following would be the list of the reductions in the offices to which he had alluded:—In the Six-Clerks-office a saving of 29,000 l. would be effected; in the Report-office, a saving of 4,300 l.; in the Registrar's-office of 10,500 l.; in the Masters'-office of 11,157 l.; which, with the further fees now received in those offices, to be abolished and compensated from the Suitors' fund, amounting to 14,000 l., would make a total saving of 68,957 l. a-year. He would say no more of the contemplated measure than this, that much confusion would be prevented by it in the administration of the proceedings of those different offices. The noble Lord concluded by moving the first reading of the Local Courts' Jurisdiction Bill, and repeated that he should present the Chancery Offices' Reduction Bill to their Lordships some day before the recess.
The Duke of Buckinghamdid not propose to follow the noble and learned Lord through any part of his explanation of the provisions of the measures he had introduced in the present state of the House. The Local Courts' Bill, however, appeared to him to be a measure calculated to produce the most important changes, and he really was anxious to have some further information on the subject. He wished to know, in the first place, whether the Local Courts were to be fixed, or whether it was intended that the Judges should go a Circuit? The next point on which he wished for information was as to the extent of the jurisdiction. Was there to be a local Court established in every county, or was the kingdom to be divided into districts?

1197
He also wished to know how the Sheriffs' Courts were to be dealt with, in what cases the trial was to be by Jury, and, in such cases, in what manner the Jury was to be selected and impanneled. As to the Courts of Reconcilement, he also wished to ask whether it was intended, in case the Judge could not reconcile the parties, after bringing them before him, that he was afterwards to try the action according to the common course of law?
The Lord Chancellorwould answer the last question put by the noble Duke in the first instance. For obvious reasons, the person who had endeavoured to reconcile the parties was not the person afterwards to try the cause. Such a person would have a bias on his mind, for he would probably have come to the conclusion that one of the parties was wrong, and, therefore, it was expressly provided by the Bill that when the Court of Reconcilement was unsuccessful, the cause should go for trial to the next Court of Local Jurisdiction. With respect to the Sheriff's Court, that would not be affected by the Local Courts' Bill. The writ of inquiry to assess damages was directed to the Sheriff", when there was judgment by default, and as those cases arose out of proceedings in the superior Courts, the Local Courts' Bill would have nothing whatever to do with them. He was obliged to the noble Duke for giving him an opportunity of explaining one or two other provisions of the Bill, which he had omitted to do in the first instance. The number of those Courts of Local Jurisdiction, and the extent of the jurisdiction as to place, would depend on the quantity of business that came before the Judges. It was intended to have certain districts. In some cases two or three counties might be included in a district. In all cases circuits would be appointed within the districts. The noble Duke would find, upon looking into the Bill, that it was provided that, at the commencement of every month (except the month of August, which was reserved for relaxation), the local Judge would commence trying the causes entered for trial, cause after cause, until the whole were disposed of. He was then to proceed to another part of the district, and so on to place after place, returning to that from which he set out, within a reasonable time, and avoiding the expense and loss consequent upon bringing witnesses and parties away from home. One part of this
1198
measure involved the abolition of the Courts for the recovery of small debts, many of which were to be found in different parts of the country. No action could be brought in any of those Courts for the recovery of small debts, where there was a better jurisdiction established under this Bill. Wherever a local Court was established, therefore, the Small-debt Courts would cease to act. Now there were rather more than 280 of those Courts established in different parts of the kingdom. Of those Courts many were totally inoperative. Some produced doubtful benefit, and another portion produced the very reverse of benefit—vexation, expense, and mischief. At the same time there were rights in individuals connected with those Courts, and some of them produced beneficial effects. In any case, where there was a Small-debt Court in beneficial existence, it was an argument pro tanto against the introduction of this measure in that district, and by the Bill a discretion was vested in the Crown to apply the provisions of the Bill or withhold them from certain districts, as might be deemed expedient. He did not suppose, however, that there were very many cases in which the constitution and practice of the Courts for the recovery of small debts, were wholly unexceptionable. As some persons had undoubted rights, however, by prescription and otherwise, as connected with those Courts, it was only just and fair that they should get compensation. In those cases this Bill proceeded upon what he contended was the only sound principle on which measures of legislative reform could proceed—the compensation of those whose just interests were effected by a measure of public improvement.
Bill read a first time.