Sitting of 6 July 1835

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND, from the Inhabitants of Keighly, for the Repeal of the Factories' Regulation Act.—By Mr. COLLIER, from the Inhabitants of Plymouth, against any such Alteration of Schedule A, as may unite the Borough with the Township of Stonehouse.—By Mr. WILLIAM ORD, from Newcastle, by Mr. BIDDULPH, from Hereford, and by Mr. GROTR, from Norwich, in favour of Corporation Reform.—By Mr. WILLIAM DUNCOMBE, Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Sir M. W. RIDLEY, and Lord Viscount SANDON, from various Places,—against Corporation Reform.—By Mr. SHAHMAN CRAWFORD, from Ougharale and Burrishoole, Complaining of Distress (Ireland)—By Mr. BALFOUR, from the Farmers of Deerness, Orkney, praying to be Relieved from the Tax on Carts in lieu of Statute Labour.—By Mr. GROTE, from Aylesbury, for Vote by Ballot.—By Mr. PEASE, from Hartlepool, in favour of the Church Establishment (Ireland).—By Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, from Sunderland, and Mr. NICHOLLS, from Cardiff,—for the Repeal of the Reciprocity of Duties' Acts.—By Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, from Sunderland, and Mr. J. P. MILES, from Bristol, for the Suppression of Drunkenness.—By Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, from the Medical Profession of Sunderland, against the County Coroners' Bill.—By Lord Viscount SANDOW, Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, and an HON. MEMBER, from various Places,—against any Alteration in the Timber Duties.— By Mr. WILLIAM ORD, from the Licensed Victuallers of Newport, against Additional Duties on Spirits; and from Newcastle, against a Grant to the Church of Scotland.—By Mr. CALLAGHAN, from the Cork Mechanics' Institution, for the Endowment of Lectureships; and from the Farmers of Carrigalane, against Tithes (Ireland).—By Mr. MAURICE O'CONNELL, from Mr. Robert Robison, for an Inquiry into the Conduct of General Darling.—By Dr. BOWRING, from Renfrew, against the Seamen Enlistment Bill.—By Dr. BOWRING and Mr. LISTER, from Bradford, and certain Persons at Dorchester, for the Repeal of the Stamp Duty on Newspapers.—By an HON. MEMBER, from Stratford-on-Avon, against the Imprisonment for Debt Bill.—By Mr. W. O'BRIEN, from Persons connected with the Fisheries (Ireland), for an Inquiry concerning their Distressed State.—By Mr. F.SHAW, from various Places, in Support of the Established Church (Ireland).—By Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN, from the Physicians and Surgeons of Limerick, against the Coroners' Act (Ireland).

TITHES.
Captain Pechellrose pursuant to notice to present a Petition most numerously signed from certain owners and occupiers of land in the vicinity of Chichester, Arundel, and Worthing, expressing

257
their alarm at the recent decree of the Court of Exchequer in the tithe cause, Kemp v. Pechell, and praying for a speedy Commutation of Tithes. He wished to observe, that this petition had been put into his hands partly with a view of contradicting the observations made by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford as well by other hon. Gentlemen who impugned the truth of the petition which he presented on the 19th of last month, which observations were certainly as unfounded as they were uncalled-for. The hon. Member for the University (Mr. Est-court) declared his belief that something must have been kept behind that petition, as the vicar complained of, never would have risked so expensive a suit in the Court of Exchequer, but for some great provocation on the part of the petitioner, thereby insinuating that he (Captain Pechell) had lent himself to the concealment of certain facts which would have materially altered the case; but he was sure the House would join with him in expressing its surprise when he stated that the hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Oxford, had at his own request, received from him some few days before the petition was presented, the most complete and unreserved explanation of the whole case of the petitioner, which the hon. Member absolutely acknowledged to be one of very great hardship as well as one of a perfectly novel character. He confessed, indeed, that this was a great admission for the hon. Gentleman to make; but he was not prepared certainly to find the hon. Gentleman afterwards standing up in his place, doubting the facts stated and opposing the petition as if he had been in perfect ignorance of its existence,—and declaring his belief that something must have been kept behind. He certainly dared hardly to express himself in terms sufficiently strong to vindicate himself from such unwarrantable insinuations as to suppose that the petitioner, an officer of unblemished honour could have descended to the unworthy practice imputed to him. At the same time, he was bound to state that in strict fact there were circumstances which were kept behind the petition, which he would take upon himself to say, none of the hon. Gentlemen who took part against the petitioner would have wished to be brought forward; and he should advise them to be careful lest he should now take this opportunity of letting the cat out of the hag; for in that case it would be seen that what was kept back was as discreditable to
258
the character of the vicar as it redounded to the honour and high reputation of the petitioner. He should, therefore, at present, state one fact only, which he trusted would induce those hon. Gentlemen at once to acknowledge the injustice with which they viewed that petition, and which he should demand at their hands on the part of his relative. The House should know that when the disputes arose in the parish on account of the claim made by the vicar for the tithe of turnips, a vestry meeting was convened by the parishioners with the view to resist so novel a demand. The petitioner, as the principal landowner and occupier, when applied to, absolutely refused to join it, because he would not countenance any semblance even of a combination against the vicar. He wished at once to be understood that this petition was by no means intended as an appeal from the Court of Exchequer; but it was true, that it impugned the decree of the Chief Baron as being a case decided wholly without a concurrent decision; and being entirely of a novel character, it might have been decreed without costs, according to the principles of justice and equity. A captain of the navy might form as good and as correct an opinion of this, notwithstanding the observation of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, as the Lord Chancellor himself, or even a representative for a school of grown-up-boys. He could assure the House that the farmers never could be brought to understand why they were to pay the tithe in kind of the green food given to their flock, which already paid tithe of agistment, for any sheep sold before shearing time, as well as the tithe of lambs and wool. The farmers could not comprehend the justice of preventing them from pecking up their turnips outside the fold or hurdles, because the flock was divided, and the whole of it had not access nor the range of the field at the time of pecking. They could not understand why they were obliged to risk giving their flock turnip-greens at improper periods, when the custom of the country and common sense indicated the necessity of pecking the turnip, in order to let it wither or die, or prevent it too soon running to seed. The decree of the Chief Baron declared that unless the whole flock had access at the time of pecking, the turnip tithe was due in kind. In this case, part of the flock had such access, the remainder being parted off by hurdles; consequently the sheep by treading and nibbling soiled the turnips

259
and rendered them unfit for the market. He apprehended that no difference of opinion existed as to the right of tithe of agistment for sheep sold before shearing time; but he denied that there was any right in equity for lithe in kind of such turnips as should he pecked up, and left on the same ground for the only purpose of better feeding the sheep. He asserted, that it was impossible to set out the tithes of turnips so pecked in process of depasturage. The Chief Baron said, there was no difficulty; but that opinion did no show how it was to be done. Even the vicar himself had very recently declared, that it was impossible to do it, and he demanded a money payment in consequence, which was paid to him for fear of another suit in the Court of Exchequer. Allowing every tenth turnip to be thrown aside, the vicar could have no dues unless they were heaped, because they had not reached a titheable form,—and there was no tenth heap, because the turnips when pecked remained in their places; and it had been decided that the occupier is not bound to do more for the parson than he does for himself. The analogous case of grasses of all kinds successively strengthened this case of turnips, as they might be carried away for feeding cattle and horses, because they were only in swathe and not cocked; and the green meat was necessary for the cattle, and difficulty existed in setting out grasses for tithes which had not yet reached a titheable form. Thus grasses were exempt from tithe on account of the difficulty of setting out; and why should not turnips be equally exempt? No one could dispute the difficulty or the impolicy of taking the tithe of turnips in the process of eatage and depasturage by sheep; and he defied the Barons of the Exchequer and all the hon. Members to show how it could be done. The decree in this case, was given as bearing on those cases cited where turnips were actually removed from the land, either for sale or feeding cattle, cows, or hogs. It was clear, that if the turnips had been pulled and carried off the land, the parson would have been entitled to his tenth, for such turnips could be heaped; and being carried away, the land lost the benefit of the manure made by the sheep. Such turnips, therefore, were carried out of sight of the tithe-owner, and he would be defrauded if he had not his tenth, though they might be pulled for feeding cattle belonging to the same farm, yet it might be in another parish. But
260
there was no case on record where tithes of turnips had been claimed that were severed for the use of sheep on the same ground for the purpose of manure, and ameliorating the land for the ensuing crop. Mr. Eagle, who might be said to have lived in compiling tithe causes, had said in a recent work,—"That turnips are a prædial small tithe, and where pulled and carried off the land, are titheable in kind; but when eaten on the ground by unprofitable cattle or sheep not producing tithe of lamb or wool in the same parish, they are to be paid for as agistment tithes." The cases cited by the Chief Baron, were those of Echard and Brown, 1697; Humphreys and Stopher, 1705; Ringstead and Young, 1708. Blaney and Whittaker were also referred to, 1783. Now he ventured to say, that not one of these cases made mention of sheep or of pecking up the turnips. They all alluded to turnips pulled and carried off the land for feeding cattle and hogs; and it must be observed that in those early days turnips were only raised on the richer soils and were pulled and carried away from the land. No one ever thought of feeding them off by sheep for the purpose of ameliorating the land for a succeeding crop. This system had only of late years been introduced; and consequently the old cases cited by the Chief Baron wholly failed in establishing a precedent. He, on the part of the petitioners, thought that this case should not have been decided against the farmer with costs as well as with all arrears for any turnips pecked up within the period of six years. The petitioners had therefore strong reasons for viewing such a decision with alarm, seeing that a line had been drawn beyond which they were forbidden to peck up their turnips, which to those acquainted with sheep cultivation must appear most extraordinary. Captain Pechell then adverted to the course pursued on a former occasion by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, and declared that it would depend upon them now, whether he should bring to light some stronger facts which would strengthen the case of the petitioners. The defendant, had shown the most honourable intention throughout, and his conduct afforded a perfect contrast to that of the plaintiff, who was his vicar. The only remedy now left to the petitioners was for this House to pass some law which would set at rest this most vexatious question to the agricultural interest. He therefore moved, that this petition be now brought up.
Mr. Parrott, though he did not trouble

261
the House very often, could not lose this opportunity of approving every word expressed by the hon. Member for Brighton. The case of the petitioners appeared to him quite of a novel character, and highly injurious to the agriculturists, for whom he should always he found a zealous advocate. He considered it a great hardship even to pay what was claimed for tithes generally, which was the tenth of the produce; but he considered the case of the petitioners to bemonstrous; and some remedy should be speedily applied. What justice was there in this claim for tithe of turnips in kind whilst in the process of depasturage of sheep? He trusted the hon. Member for Brighton would not quit this subject till the grievances of the petitioners and of the country were remedied.
Lord Sandon,as one of the Members alluded to by the hon. Member for Brighton, having taken part in the debate on the presentation of a former petition, wished to correct any opinion that might have gone forth as to his wish or intention of casting any reflection on the statement made by that hon. Member as to the facts contained in the petition. He did not intend to express any doubt as to the authenticity of the petition; but he certainly had seen many petitions against the clergy which stated facts not afterwards borne out. He considered this not a party question, but one that required immediate attention; he hoped Ministers would speedily apply some remedy to prevent the recurrence of such vexatious proceedings as appeared in the petition.
Captain Pechell,in reply, said, after the satisfactory explanation of the noble Lord, he should wholly refrain from bringing before the House those facts which were discreditable to the clergyman, and which he kept in reserve unless provoked by hon. Members. He had received notice that other petitions were coming to him on the same subject, and it would depend on hon. Members whether he should remain quiet or not. The Hampshire clergymen certainly appeared to mark out the unfortunate naval officers for their prey and plunder, for he held in his hand a decree of Chancery in a suit just decided, "Richards versus Hulbert," where the parson actually claimed the tithe of grass after the tithe of hay had been paid for the same land. The parson wished to squeeze twenty-four months out of the year, as he claimed tithe for the grass between the two crops, viz., from Michaelmas to Lady-day,
262
but the Lords Commissioners decided, "that the same land which had paid the tithe of hay was not to be charged with any tithe in respect of agishment in the period between the two crops." This decision showed that the exemption extended over the whole year, however reckoned; and that it was not to be regulated by the calendar year or the historical year, as the clergyman intended it should be. This case was in fact more vexatious, if possible, than the case now before the House. He trusted the Session would not pass away without a remedy being applied to these annoyances to which the farmer was subject.
Lord Stanleysaid, that though he was not perhaps perfectly justisfied in declaring what course he meant to take with regard to the Irish Tithe Bill, which the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, had obtained leave to bring in, yet as he had taken an active part in all the discussions on the question to which the Bill referred, the House would, he hoped, excuse him if he stated a word or two how he meant to act with regard to this measure. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Morpeth) had prepared the Bill, at least so far as could be collected from his speech on introducing it, in such a way as that it involved two questions—two points of principle totally distinct from each other. One of these he (Lord Stanley") considered very desirable, the other so objectionable that no persuasion—no consideration whatever, could induce him to support a Bill embracing such a principle. He was placed, therefore, in this difficulty—that he could not oppose or support the Bill on its second reading without approving or condemning both the principles included in it. He would then offer the Bill no opposition on its second reading, with this distinct understanding, that he would take the earliest opportunity of objecting, when the one of the two principles to which he had alluded could be considered separately, to that by which the property of the Church was intended to be appropriated to other than Ecclesiastical purposes. With this reservation he would give the second reading of the Bill no opposition, but he hoped some time would be allowed after the Bill was printed for the consideration of the details, and for the purpose of seeing how far individual cases alluded to in the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, would be affected by it.

CORPORATION REFORM—COMMITTEE.
On the Motion of Lord John Russell, the

263
House went into Committee on the Municipal Corporation Reform Bill.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that he thought it right to bring the 79th Clause, which had on a former night been postponed, as soon as possible under the notice of the Committee. It was altered in a great many points, and a considerable number of the changes which had been made in it were made in accordance with the amendments proposed by several hon. Members. He thought it necessary to mention two of these alterations. By the first, the Town Council were made liable to the payment of the capital as well as the interest of the debts of the Corporation; and by the second they were not at liberty to lower the rate until this debt of the Corporation was satisfied.
The Clause as amended having then been read,
Sir R. Peelsaid, that in case a surplus should remain after providing for municipal purposes, he hoped that the Town Council would not have the power of alienating what was considered corporate property. The Corporations had, in many instances, large estates, which in all probability would increase in value under a system of good government. Now, he apprehended that under the Bill, as it then stood, or at least as it was originally introduced, the Town Council would be invested with all the legal powers which the existing Corporations possessed; and according to the construction put on the law by the Court of King's Bench and other judicial tribunals, the Town Council might be enabled to alienate the property of the Corporation. The Corporation of the town of Derby imposed a rate at one time for the purpose of lighting and watching, under an Act called the County-rate Act. By this Act the Corporation of this town were empowered to levy a rate for certain municipal purposes. The Corporation of the town imposed that rate. It was objected to by some of the inhabitants on the ground that there were in the hands of the Corporation, sufficient funds to answer the object for which the rate was imposed. They alleged that they ought not to be called on to pay a rate in the shape of a county-rate until the funds of the Corporation were proved to be exhausted. In the Court of King's Bench, however, it was ruled (Lord Ellenborough being the Chief Justice) that they had no power to compel the Corporation to apply corporate property to municipal purposes and the validity of
264
the rate was accordingly established. Lord Ellenborough ruled too, in that case, that except in certain instances, in which Ecclesiastical property was left within the control of the Corporation, the Corporation did possess the power of alienating its property and applying it to corporate, as distinguished from municipal purposes. Here might then be a case in which a clear surplus, arising from property belonging to the existing Corporations, would be placed at the disposal of the new body called the Town Council, and which might by them be applied to "corporate purposes," in the altered acceptation of the terms. What he desired, then, was, that if any such case as that to which he alluded should occur (and he admitted that it was likely to be of rare occurrence) the Town Council should not have the power of distributing or alienating corporate property without the authority of the Privy Council or some higher power.
Lord John Russellsaid, that he had provided for the case which the right hon. Baronet anticipated.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, it was difficult to amend the Bill even when the amendments were assented to. There was what appeared to be a discrepancy between the Bill and one of the schedules in an important particular, to which he begged leave to call the attention of the noble Lord. In page ten, line ten, the Clause assumed that the particular species of property for which an individual was entitled to vote should be described on the burgess roll: the words were these—"And no person shall be admitted to vote at any such election except at the booth allotted for the part wherein the house, warehouse, counting-house, or shop occupied by him, as described in the burgess roll, may be." It contemplated a distinct description of the nature of the property out of which the qualification arose, following the principle of the Reform Bill, as was indeed absolutely necessary in order to guard against those cases of fraudulent description which otherwise were likely to occur. If the noble Lord, however, looked at schedule D, he would find that there was no column for a description of the property, but only for the street in which it was situate. Arguing from the analogy of the Reform Bill, and on every principle of common sense, there should be a third column containing a specific description of the property out of which the franchise arose: at present the schedule was at variance with the enacting parts of the Bill.
Lord John Russellsaid, his attention had already been directed to the point, and he should take care to remedy the discrepancy. He might take that opportunity of mentioning his intention (although not intimately connected with this Clause) in relation to the question of wards. He proposed to carry the principle of dividing the town into wards further than it was carried at present by the Bill. He proposed that the Privy Council should direct a town with 12,000 inhabitants, and not more than 18,000 to be divided into two wards; when there were 18,000, and not more than 24,000 inhabitants, the town should be divided into three, and not more than four wards; and where the population exceeded 24,000, the town should be divided into wards, providing that not less than six Councillors should be elected by each, so that two should go out annually at every election.
Mr. Wilksthought it would be highly inconvenient, after the amendments proposed by the noble Lord (Russell) in the Clause now under consideration, to discuss it to-night, at least before those amendments were placed in a printed shape in the hands of hon. Members. Other propositions were to be made, and how could they proceed, when, for anything they knew, their amendments had been anticipated by the noble Lord? He hoped the noble Lord would consent to postpone it till a later hour in the evening—say ten o'clock, when they would be better prepared to deal with it.
Sir Robert Peelbegged to call the attention of the noble Lord to another point. The rate to be levied was to be in the nature of a county-rate, and that was the form used in previous Acts of Parliament. The clause provided, that the council should not be empowered to receive an appeal against that rate, but it assumed that there might be an appeal against the rate made by an individual, the words being—"and if any person shall think himself aggrieved by any such rate, it shall be lawful, &c." Now, there was no appeal on the part of an individual against the county-rate; that appeal must be made by parishes. The law required that the rate should be of the nature of a county-rate, and yet it anticipated an appeal against it, while there could be no such appeal, for though there might be an appeal by a parish, there could be none by an individual.
Mr. S. Lefevresaid, that an individual might appeal on the part of his parish.
Sir Robert Peelmaintained that the rate being in the nature of a county-rate, an individual could not say that he was himself improperly rated. The law required that the appeal should be by a parish.
Lord John Russell and the Solicitor-General said a few words which were inaudible.
Mr. Wilksthought the Clause required correction in more than one particular. In its present state it would be impossible to carry it into practice; he, therefore, pressed on the noble Lord the importance of postponing it till they could better judge of the alterations which had been made in it.
Sir Robert Peelhad no doubt, if it remained in its present vague and indefinite shape, much inconvenience would arise, and great expense would be incurred in useless litigation. In his opinion it would, be highly expedient to separate the payment on account of poor-rate from that payable for borough-rate. Thus, should the whole payment be 2s. 6d., 1s. 6d. might be paid on account of the poor, and 1s. for the borough; the whole 2s. 6d ought to be applied for at one and the same time, for he was fully aware of the aggravation of the burthen of payment which separate applications occasioned, but his wish was that the 1s. 6d. and the 1s. might be set down in the account as separate items.
On a subsequent part of the Clause,
Sir Robert Peelcalled the attention of the House to the necessity which there existed to make provision for the payment of the debts of a Corporation. He knew the case of a Corporation which for upwards of 200 years had remained in possession of a certain quantity of freehold property, that freehold was now claimed on behalf of the poor of the parish, and proceedings in Chancery had been instituted for the recovery of it. The only result of those proceedings up to the present time was, that costs had been incurred to the amount of 1,000 l.; of that 500 l. had been paid. Now, suppose the suit were to be decided against the Corporation, who was to pay the remaining 500 l.? It was true that the tolls were not alienable till the debts of the Corporation were paid, but he entreated the House not to agree to an enactment which would have the effect of continuing tolls that might ruin the town. He felt quite assured that the present Bill ought not to be disposed of until some provision were made for paying the debts of a Corporation. The matter ought, not now to be passed over, but some specific and

267
distinct mode should be provided by borough rate or otherwise for paying those debts.
Mr. Harveysaid, that if the suit to which the right hon. Baronet alluded were decided against the Corporation, they would cease to he possessors of property which they ought long since to have given up: the Bill would put them in no worse situation than they would have been in if such Bill had never existed. As to the costs, he apprehended that in 99 cases out of 100 the Corporation would not have to pay costs if the suits were decided against them.
Sir William Follettbegged to call the attention of the noble Lord (Russell) to what he deemed to be a very important defect in this Clause. Much had been said about the power claimed by the existing Corporations to alienate their property; but the effect of this Clause would be to empower the new Corporations to alienate the whole of the corporate property. The Clause stated that the Corporations should pay off all existing debts, before they applied any of the corporate property to Municipal purposes. This would compel the new Corporations, immediately on assuming their functions, to impose a rate on the burgesses, which would not fail to excite considerable discontent. He hoped the noble Lord would take this point into consideration. Again he would ask the noble Lord what he intended to do with respect not to the mere bond debtor, but to the mortgagees and other real securities held by persons from the Corporation? If any power were given to the new Corporations to dispose of the corporate property, it should only be with a view to enable them to pay off mortgages and other real incumbrances, and not an absolute power to sell the property without reference to those special obligations. He would suggest, however, that it should not be compulsory either on the Corporation to redeem, or on the creditors to call in their money on mortgage of corporate property; but that the Bill should leave it as a matter of private arrangement between the parties.
Lord John Russellsaid, that as he had read the Clause, the new corporate bodies would certainly be at liberty to apply the money derived from the corporate property from time to time as they thought fit. He perfectly agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the rents and profits of the corporate property should be liable to the debts of the Corporation; but that the
268
corporate body should not be obliged to proceed immediately to pay off their debts altogether. He did not think the Corporation should have the power of alienating the corporate property contrary to the purposes to which it had been previously made legally liable, but all necessary powers for the general purposes of the town ought to be granted to them. The Clause undoubtedly deserved to be well considered; and if on the Report being brought up he should find it necessary to adopt any of the Amendments suggested, he would readily do so.
Mr. Hughes Hughessaid, that this Clause embraced so many distinct and important topics, that it was utterly hopeless to attempt to accomplish all the objects which it sought to obtain by one Clause. Indeed, there was in the Clause sufficient matter to constitute a Bill by itself, and he hoped the noble Lord would withdraw the Clause, and introduce a distinct measure in relation to the several subjects contained in it.
Lord John Russellcould not quite accede to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman. He thought it was a Clause that properly belonged to the present Bill; but after the discussion that had taken place, and considering that there were several points deserving consideration, he did not know whether it would not be better to divide the Clause into two Clauses on bringing up the Report, or on the recommittal of the Bill.
The Clause, as amended, to stand part of the Bill.
On Clause 96 being put,
Sir John Wrottesleystated, that as the Clause stood, the counties would be reimbursed for the expenses of prosecuting at the assizes offences committed in corporate towns. He thought that the borough funds should also be liable for a payment of a portion of the salaries of the officers of the assize courts. He therefore proposed, as an Amendment, that after the word "witnesses," the words "together with a proportion of the salaries of the officers of the gaol, and the costs for repairing and enlarging it," should be inserted.
Mr. Bonham Carterobserved, that there would be quarter sessions in most of the corporate towns, at which the greater portion of the offences committed in them would be tried, and of course the expense of them would fall wholly on these towns. The number of cases sent to the assizes would be very small, and the expense so trifling that it would not be worth while

269
to encumber the Bill with this Amendment.
Amendment withdrawn, and Clause agreed to.
On the 98th Clause being read, enacting, that borough courts of record should be holden as heretofore, but in certain cases with extended jurisdiction, the Recorder, or in his absence, or where there was no Recorder, the Mayor to he sole judge; the court to have jurisdiction in actions of as-sumpsit, covenant, and debt, whether the debt be by specialty or on simple contract, and all actions of trover for taking goods and chattels, provided the sum or damage sought to be recovered, did not exceed 20 l.; and also all actions of ejectment between landlord and tenant, wherein the annual rent of the premises of which possession was sought to be recovered did not exceed 20 l.; the judge of such court empowered to make rules for the practice of the court, but no such rules to have force until they had been allowed and confirmed by three or more judges of the superior courts of common law at Westminster Hall, was then read.
Mr. Charles Dullerexpressed his surprise to find that the Clause established a bad system of Local Courts. Not only was a non-resident Recorder maintained in spite of the objections which now existed to that practice, prisoners being often confined in gaol for three months waiting for trial, but an incompetent Judge was provided. The Clause made no provision for the residence of the Recorder, and enacted that in his absence the Mayor should preside in the court. The Mayor by previous Clauses was to have the burgess roll under his care, to act as a justice of the peace, to be the Returning Officer at elections, to be at the head of the Watch Committee, to be Chairman of the Council, and now, by this Clause, he was to act as Judge of a Court of Record. The Clause revived the Courts of Record, together with their defective progress, and their election of jurors from a small circuit; besides which, the proceedings were to be absolutely final, and not to be carried by appeal to the courts above. Out of 150 boroughs there were only twenty-two in which these courts had not fallen into disuse, and in those boroughs the jurisdiction was, as appeared by the Report of the Commissioners, matter of just and bitter complaint. He was a friend to the establishment of a well-digested and effective system of local jurisdiction; but in this revival of ancient Courts of Record, with their faulty
270
practice, he could recognise no one principle of public utility. The present Clause would leave to the boroughs all the evils that attended small courts. If good local courts could not be established—and the present Clause would not do so—it would be far better not to have recourse to a vicious experiment. The Report of the Commissioners stated, that the Local Court of Coventry was nothing more than a horrible instance of oppression exercised over others. He hoped that it was not now too late to ask Government to reconsider this portion of the Bill. He wished that all the Clauses relating to this point could be omitted altogether, as they would, if carried into effect, produce considerable mischief.
Mr. Blackburnesaid, that his hon. and learned Friend was quite mistaken as to the objects of this Clause. There was nothing in it that would establish any court that did not exist before. All that it would do was, that where there were Local Courts already established, it would place them under better control, and make them more efficient than they were at present.
The Attorney-Generalconsidered that it was better that those Local Courts should be preserved than be entirely extinguished; and, if so, power ought to be given to the Mayor or Recorder to try particular actions, as that would render those courts more extensive and efficient.
The Clause was agreed to.
Lord John Russellproposed the insertion of a Clause in the place of the 30th Clause, which had been postponed, to the effect that in all cases where the population of a borough exceeded 12,000, his Majesty should be empowered to divide it into two wards, for the purpose of electing Town Councillors, and where the population exceeded 24,000, then into as many wards as his Majesty should think fit.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that as there might be as many burgesses in a borough with a population of 10,000 as in one where the number of inhabitants amounted to 12,000, this restriction of the exercise of the power intended to be invested in the Crown was unwise as it was, in his apprehension, unnecessary. It might also so happen that in boroughs where the population exceeded 18,000, more than two wards would be necessary, and therefore it was that if they were to place such a power in the hands of the Crown, it should be so placed as to enable the Crown to exercise a proper discretion. Many boroughs, with a less population than 10,000, now actually conducted

271
their business by means of wards, and he might mention Ludlow as one; and, for his part, he should wish to see the privileges of those boroughs preserved to them wherever the system had been found to work well. He thought, however, that the power of division was one which ought to rest with the Parliament rather than with the Crown; but still, as the intention of the noble Lord's Bill was to confer it upon the Crown, he certainly should be sorry to sec it limited, as this Clause proposed. There might be double the number of voters in one borough that there was in another; and surely if this point was to be determined by the Crown, it was no more than fair that the Crown should be left something like the exercise of a discretion with respect to the division into wards. But the noble Lord's Clause laid down nothing like a principle. It did not appear whether the divisions were to be effected by a reference to the number of burgesses, by the number of inhabitants considered in connexion with the payment of rates and taxes, or by the gross number of the population of men, women, and children, of the borough; and if no rule were necessary to be prescribed to the Crown in this respect, surely no rule should be laid down as to the number of wards into which a borough should be divided.
Lord John Russelldefended the Clause, and contended that it was an object of desire that in all boroughs where the population was under 12,000, there should be only one election for the whole of the Officers of the Corporation. Experience, he submitted, had proved that in small boroughs the ward system was anything but desirable.
Mr. Grotewas glad to find that the noble Lord did not mean to make any concession to the right hon. Baronet opposite, as he (Mr. Grote) considered the Clause which was now proposed would be a very great improvement of the Bill. It might, however, be well to establish some minimum in reference to the payment of rates and taxes to regulate the division of a borough into wards.
Sir Robert Peelthought that establishing a minimum of rate payers would be a very good principle to go upon, and such a test, he must say, would be obviously much better than if they were to be guided solely by the total number of men, women, and children. He was surprised, he must confess, to hear the hon. Gentleman, the Member for the City of London, condemning a
272
system which prevailed in that City, which was held up in the Report of the Commissioners as a perfect model of a Corporation.
Mr. Grotehad never lauded the Corporation of London further than to say, that he approved of the annual election of the Members of the Common Council.
Mr. Blackburnecontended, that the Report of the Corporation Commissioners spoke in praise only of the Common Council of the City of London.
Mr. Brothertonargued that some principle ought to be adopted to guide the division, and he thought no principle could be better than that of taxation connected with assessment to the Poor-rates. He should wish a power to be given to remodel the new Corporations at the end of fourteen or twenty-one years, if alteration should then be found requisite.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that he wished to justify the reference which he had made to the Report of the Corporation Commissioners, and to show that he was quite warranted when he said that they approved of the practice of the City of London. The right hon. Baronet read a passage from the Report, which bore out the assertion, that the Corporation of the City of London was spoken of generally by the Commissioners with the utmost praise.
Lord Sandonasked whether the principle on which this Clause was founded would not affect the number of Councillors given to the different boroughs in the schedule to this Bill. In some of these boroughs there would be too many, and in others too few Councillors, if the boroughs were to be divided into wards.
Lord John Russelladmitted that the principle of this Clause would, to a certain extent, affect the schedules; and, therefore, he should not propose the schedules to the consideration of the Committee that evening.
Mr. O'Connellthought that they ought, to take the number of burgesses, not the amount of the population, as the test whereby to judge of the propriety of dividing boroughs into wards. He thought that there should be no division into wards, unless in boroughs where there were more than 800 voters on the burgess roll. Less than that number would create a number of small unsavoury rotten boroughs, and more than that number would be sufficient to insure a proper degree of popular vigilance and control over the conduct of the Council. He hoped that a Clause to this effect would be introduced into the Bill.
The Clause was agreed to.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the adoption of this last Clause with respect to wards rendered it necessary that some new arrangement should be made in the schedules; therefore, he proposed, that they should reserve the consideration of the whole of the schedules till to-morrow. He should now move that the Chairman report progress; and he hoped that to-morrow, at five o'clock, they would be able to go on with the schedules. When the debate on the schedules had closed, which he supposed would be after a day or two, he should move that the Bill be recommitted pro formâ, to enable hon. Gentlemen to bring up their Clauses. He hoped that this arrangement would afford them sufficient time. He should then move that the Bill be printed, and he proposed that if they were able to do so, the Report should be taken into further consideration on Monday next. He should certainly move the further consideration of the Report before the Motion relating to the Irish Church, which stood for the same day, was brought on.
Mr. Lennardbegged to call the attention of Lord John Russell to a defect in Clause 10. By that clause it was professed to preserve the rights of all persons entitled to their freedom now in existence. But this was not done perfectly. One of the most valued rights of the daughters of the freemen of Maldon was that of conferring the freedom of the borough on their husbands. But this Clause confined this privilege to those only who were married previously to the 5th of June last. He contended that the rights of all the daughters now in existence of freemen should be preserved; and he gave notice that he should move an amendment to this effect, unless the noble Lord adopted his suggestion.
House resumed.—Committee to sit again.

LINEN TRADE (IRELAND) BILL.
On the Motion that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill,
Mr. Humemoved, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. This Bill was founded upon principles opposed to all those on which the manufactures of this country were founded. The more free the manufactures were left from such restrictions and regulations as those contained in this Bill, the better for the manufacturers and those whom they employed.
Colonel Connollywas surprised that the hon. Member for Middlesex should oppose the Bill in the face of those who had had
274
much experience of the beneficial working of a similar measure. He would support the Bill, on the ground that the regulations embraced in it were required.
Lord Morpethsaid that though the provisions of the Bill might not in strict theory be all perfectly justifiable, yet as it had received the general assent of both manufacturers and operatives in Ireland, he would give it his support.
Mr. Warburtonwas sorry that the noble Lord supported a Bill of this kind. Let him look at the marginal notes and see the yard-and-sevenths sort of legislation of which the Bill consisted, and he must surely be ashamed of supporting such minute and ridiculous legislation.
Colonel Percevalsaid, Mr. Hume and his Friends took an entirely false view of the case. They did not understand the linen trade, and were incompetent to pronounce upon it. If the Bill passed, any one might go to the market and buy his commodity without the risk of being cheated.
Mr. Emerson Tennentsaid the proposition was merely to revive for three years longer a Bill passed three years ago, and which was about to expire. The Bill did not interfere between the manufacturer and the weaver. It was a protection to them and the buyer. If there were not some certificate of the width of the linen there might be fraud. The Bill merely referred to the article exposed to sale in open market. The experience of those engaged in the trade was of higher authority for the Bill than the fanciful theories of Gentlemen opposite against it.
Sir Robert Bateson,as a representative of a large section of the linen manufacturers and weavers of the north, would say that they were all unanimous in favour of the Bill. Public meetings had been held in all parts of Ulster on the subject, and not one voice was raised against it, but, on the contrary, numerous petitions were presented in its favour. That surely was strong evidence of its utility. The trade was prospering under the Bill—it was almost the staple trade of the country—and he hoped that the good sense and justice of Parliament would not now destroy it, in deference to the quack doctrines of modern philosophers.
Mr. Grotecertainly could not believe that the sort of legislation which had been found so injurious to England and Scotland, could be beneficial to Ireland.
Mr. Humethought it but justice to Ireland to place her upon the same footing as

275
England and Scotland, and allow her none of those protections and restrictions. They were only injurious to the trade they were meant to benefit. But if Irish Members chose to wear halters round their own necks—if they chose to go to the—Well, he would just only say, let them go on their own way, and they would be sorry for it.
The House divided on the Amendment: Ayes 26; Noes 124; Majority 98.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Marsland, Henry

Attwood, Thomas

Ponsonby, Hon. J.

Barry, G. S.

Power, James

Baldwin, Dr.

Scholefield, J.

Blamire, W.

Speirs, A. G.

Bowring, Dr.

Thornely, Thomas

Brownrigg, T. S.

Tooke, W.

Buller Charles

Thompson, Colonel

Callaghan, D.

Turner, William

Chapman, M. L.

Villiers, C.

Chalmers, P.

Wallace, Robert

Elphinstone, H.

TELLERS.

Ferguson, Sir R. C.

Grote, George

Hume, Joseph

Hutt, W.

Warburton, Henry

House in Committee on the Bill.
Mr. Humeexpressed his deep regret that his Majesty's Government should leave all the principles of free trade unsupported on the present occasion.
Mr. Callaghanwas astonished that Ministers should renew so objectionable a system for three years. It was a Bill of pains and penalties for the linen manufacturers of Ireland. No case whatever had been made out for the measure.
Sir Robert Peelwas disposed to defer to the opinion of the majority of the House on the subject. It was inexpedient to force even right principles on those who were engaged in the manufacture in question. If it could be proved to him that the measure would permanently promote that manufacture, the benefit to morality which must then ensue would leave him without hesitation on the subject. But he confessed he had some doubts respecting it, and could not clearly see that that must be good for Ireland which was not considered good for other countries. In his opinion a committee ought to be appointed in the course of the next session to investigate the subject. In the mean while, as the time for which the Bill was to be renewed was only three years, he thought it would be better not to force upon the manufacturers principles Which they were not disposed to approve of.
Lord Morpethsaid that Ministers rested their justification on their having been assured that if they refused to renew the Act for a limited period, they would inflict a serious injury on the present flourishing state of the manufacture in question.
The Bill went through the Committee, and the House resumed.

ABERDEEN UNIVERSITIES.
Mr. Bannermanin rising to move the second reading of the Aberdeen Universities' Bill, said, that it would be necessary for him to state a few of the circumstances which had led to the framing of this measure. It was a Bill of the utmost importance, which aimed at affording facilities for the advancement of learning in Scotland, by the consolidation of the two Universities of Aberdeen. At present both these Universities were individually inefficient to the purpose for which they were designed; each conferred degrees, without having the means of testing the fitness of the candidates, while there were two sets of professors, who, under the present system, were unable to perform, properly, the duties of one college. It might be supposed that he was introducing some new scheme; but the union of the Universities had been attempted in—1755, 1766, and 1786. In the former of the three years he had referred to, an attempt was made to unite the two Universities, which failed because individual interests were defended to the exclusion of views of general utility. In 1766 a similar attempt was made, which was ineffectual. In 1786, the under professors of both Colleges attempted to bring about a union. They met, and it was proposed, by a majority of the professors, that a petition should be presented, praying for a royal visit for that purpose; but the minority had interest sufficient to defeat the scheme. His way, however, had been made clear by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, who, in 1826, when Secretary of State, advised his Majesty to appoint a Commission to inquire into the subject,—an act on his part for which those interested in the prosperity of the Universities were most grateful. At the same time he must say, that when the Hon. Member for Middlesex endeavoured to urge the Government to do something towards the furtherance of the object he had in view, with reference to these same institutions, that effort, on his part, unfortunately proved unsuccessful. The act of the Right Honourable Baronet, however,

277
to which he had referred, had been his chief inducement to bring forward this measure. He moved that the Bill be read a second time.
Dr. Bowringdid not rise to oppose the Motion, but to request that the hon. Gentleman would give time for its full consideration.
Captain Gordonalso said, that he did not object to the second reading of the Bill, but that he hoped that ample time would be allowed for its consideration.
Sir Robert Peeldeclared himself friendly to the principle of the Bill, but joined the two Hon. Members who had preceded him in hoping that time would be afforded for its consideration. He trusted that the hon. Member would endeavour to obtain his object with the good will of all the parties concerned. It is a saying in Scotland, that "Aberdeen, like England, had her two Universities." He should be glad to remove this distinction; but he was decidedly of opinion that instead of risking an angry discussion in the present Session, the hon. Member for Aberdeen had better postpone the measure.
Mr. Humeconcurred in the wish for further time; for he was persuaded the more the proposition was examined the more distinctly would its importance and value be made apparent. It would be much better that Aberdeen should have one complete University, than that it should remain divided as at present.
Mr. Warburtonhoped that the evidence taken before the Commission would be reprinted.
Bill read a second time.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—The Merchant Seamen Bill.
Petitions presented. By Viscount DUNCANNON, from the Inhabitants of Leuchars, against Church Patronage (Scotland); from the Inhabitants of Lennoxtown, against granting Money for Additional Churches (Scotland); from the Inhabitants of Lochee, for granting Money for Religious Education (Scotland); from the Inhabitants of St. Nicholas, St. Margaret's, and Screen, for the Abolition of Tithes (Ireland).

ISLINGTON MARKET BILL.
The Marquess of Salisburybrought up the Report of the Islington Market Bill. It stated in substance the doubts that had arisen on the minds of the Committee as to the rights of the City; and they wished to hear counsel at the Bar, and that the Judges do attend to hear the arguments and assist their Lordships.
Lord Broughamsaid, that there were cases in which the Judges were summoned, but there must be something peculiar to justify such a proceeding. He did not mean to say that such was not the case in the present instance. He should not oppose the Motion.
The Bishop of Hereford thought that it would he better to have the opinion of two of the learned Judges upon the question of the rights of the city of London.
The Marquess of Salisbury could not consent to the proposition of the right reverend Prelate, which, indeed, he did not think to be quite regular. He should, therefore, now give notice, that it was his intention to move that the Judges be summoned, and that this question be put to them—whether matters relating to the vested rights of the Corporation of London would be affected by this Bill. He should move that this question be argued by one counsel on each side. He was not aware that a Bill of this nature was ever referred to two Judges alone.
The Bishop of Hereford said, that if the Bill was to be referred to the Judges, he suggested whether this question ought not to be argued—whether, under the charter to the city of London, Parliament was not precluded from establishing other markets.
The Marquess of Salisbury could not possibly agree to frame the question in such a manner.
The Duke of Richmond presented a petition from—Rhodes, Esq., a gentleman residing in the county of Essex, praying to be heard by counsel against a certain part of the Islington Market Bill.
The Marquess of Salisbury was very sorry to be compelled to oppose this Petition. The subject had already been discussed before the Committee. If, with reference to any agreement which the petitioner had entered into, he felt himself aggrieved, the matter ought to be investigated in a Court of Law.
The Duke of Richmond said, he wished justice to be done to all parties who were affected by this Bill; but it would not be doing justice to the petitioner to take his land without giving him a proper equivalent. The petitioner stated, that in signing the agreement to which allusion had been made, he had been mistaken, and that the other party had taken an unfair advantage of him. The petition ought to be referred to the Committee; and though it might occasion a delay of a few days, still he

253
would say, let the petition be inquired into, and let the petitioner have justice. As the Committee had reported, it was no longer in existence; but when it was moved that the Bill should be re-committed, he should certainly propose that the petition should be referred to the Committee.
Lord Broughamcomplained of the manner in which Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament conducted the business intrusted to them. He recollected, some years ago, when a Bill was referred to a Committee of the other House, and a proposition was made respecting it, which was supported by fourteen Members who had attended to the evidence, down came sixteen Gentlemen who had never heard the evidence, and they decided the other way. The proceeding was, however, complained of in the House, and by acclamation the decision was set aside. In consequence, the Bill was ultimately thrown out. Such was the conduct of those Judges—not Judges of Oyer and Terminer, but Judges of Terminer sans Oycr. This being the mode of carrying on the Private Bill business, he should always, as he had heretofore done, protest against such a course of proceeding. Noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen ought to recollect that on these occasions they were deciding rights as judges. They were making laws which suspended in many cases the course of the Common Law, and of the Statute Law of the land. They, however, concocted laws, and decided on important points, in away in which no judge or juror would dare to decide a case involving property to the amount of 10 l.; that was, without hearing the evidence or examining the parties who were interested on both sides.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, their Lordships were acting as judges; and if they read the evidence, they could always make themselves masters of the subject. The evidence in these cases was always printed for the House of Lords, which was not the practice with the House of Commons.—[Lord Brougham: Yes, it is.]—He had applied for evidence given before a Committee of the other House, and could only get it in manuscript. They were not, it should be observed, bound by the Report of the Committee. They might throw out the Bill on the third reading. It was still a matter for their consideration, notwithstanding the Report of the Committee.
Lord Broughamsaid, the process of the House was this; they referred a Bill to a Select Committee, and they placed faith in
254
the decision of that Committee. It was just the same as the Court of Chancery sending an issue to be tried for the purpose of getting at the opinions of a jury. Their Lordships would unquestionably proceed on the Report of the Committee to whom a particular inquiry on the merits of a Bill was intrusted. That Committee was the body by whom the question was to be tried, and it was supposed that they would give their opinion upon hearing and seeing evidence. The House adopted their Report, because it was supposed that the Committee had fully and fairly performed its functions.
The Duke of Richmond agreed with the sentiments of his noble and learned Friend much more than with the observations that had been made on the other side. Nothing would make him, for one, vote on a private Bill, unless he had listened to all the evidence, and seen the witnesses.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, he merely objected to the extreme principle as laid down by his noble and learned Friend.
The Marquess of Salisbury said, that in his opinion no noble Lord ought to vote on a Bill of this sort, without, at all events, having previously made himself fully master of all the evidence.
Petition to lie on the Table.

LOWER CANADA.
The Earl of Riponpresented a Petition from the inhabitants of Lower Canada residing at Quebec, on the subject of the present state of that province. He was not aware of any reason why the petitioners had placed in his hands this petition, except that they knew that he had always entertained the sincerest and most ardent wishes for the prosperity and happiness of the province, and had been desirous to contribute everything in his power to promote such an end. The petition was signed by persons chiefly residing at Quebec, and the numbers who had signed it were considerable. There were between five and six thousand of English descent, and between six and seven hundred of French descent. The petitioners stated the gratitude they felt to the British Government for the constitution given them in 1791, which they conceived was capable of being suited to all purposes of good government. They stated that the practical working of that constitution was not attended with the advantages they had anticipated. They complained of the law by which the rights of election were exercised, and stated that the effect of it in practice

255
was to exclude from the representation of the people those who would represent that part of the people of the province who were of British descent; that the House of Assembly arrogated to itself a degree of power and authority that did not properly belong to it; and that the intervention of Parliament was necessary to correct the evil. There were two circumstances connected with the province which were attended with injurious consequences; these were the composition of the Legislative and of the Executive Councils. The first was composed of gentlemen who were appointed for life; whereas the petitioners stated that they should be elective, and they wished to see some efficient regulations made and enforced, by which persons who, by fortune and situation, were independent alike of the Government and of popular control, should be appointed. It had been his (the Earl of Ripon's) duty, when connected with the Colonial Office, to attempt something of the kind, and he had issued instructions to the Governor strictly to abide by that principle in all the recommendations he made to the Home Government with a view to fill up any vacancies that might occur in the body. As to the Executive Council, which somewhat resembled what the Privy Council was in this country, it would be difficult to say in what manner any change should be made; but some change ought to be adopted which would give that body a just claim to the confidence of the public at large. It should not be composed in such a manner as to render its members objects of distrust and dislike to the community in general. He need not state how much he agreed with the recommendations in this petition. The circumstances in which Canada now stood rendered this an unfavourable moment for Parliamentary discussion respecting it; but he might be permitted to express his hope that the Commissioners who had been appointed, and who had now sailed—[The Earl of Gosford (the Commissioner) was here pointed out to the noble Earl]—he begged pardon, but he really believed that his noble Friend had gone—would have every success in the object of their mission, and that that important province would owe its tranquillity to their efforts, that the heats which were now prevalent there might be allayed, that the cause of animosity might subside, and the country be able to enjoy those blessings to which its position and its resources entitled it.
256
The Duke of Richmond presented a similar petition, very numerously and respectably signed, from the inhabitants of Montreal. The petitioners stated, that the Judges were held in a state of dependence upon the House of Assembly, and they complained of the old French Feudal Law, which still prevailed in the province, and which interfered with the freedom of the sale and transfer of land, so as materially to injure its value. He hoped that these subjects would attract the attention of the Commissioners, and that they would satisfactorily settle them.
Petitions to lie on the Table.