Sitting of 4 March 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time;—Wills Amendment and Enfranchisement of Copyholds.
Petitions presented. By Mr. HERBERT CURTEIS, from the Rape of Hastings, and from Ticehurst, Sussex, for the Repeal of the Malt Tax; and from Ticehurst, for an Alteration in the Tithe System.

NEW FACTORY ACT.
Lord Morpethpresented Petitions from the Master Manufacturers of Pudsey, and from the Operatives of Gomersal, praying for an alteration of the Factory Act. From these petitions, it was evident that all classes—the mill-owners, the master manufacturers, and the operatives themselves, concurred in thinking, that several parts of that measure would be extremely onerous, if carried into execution, and that some alteration must, therefore, of necessity take place. He hoped that the Inspectors appointed by the Act would submit to the Government their views upon the subject, and that the Government would act upon those views. He felt bound to mention, and he did so with feelings of some disappointment that he had been given to understand that the Inspectors had received orders from Government not to admit deputations either from masters or men. This really seemed

527
to be avoiding the most easy and effectual method of meeting the difficulties of the question. This was a question in which party feeling had no place, and which migh be discussed, in the present state of circumstances, without exciting warmth on either side.
Mr. Secretary Goulburnbelieved he could satisfy the noble Lord in a very few words. On his taking office he found a great diversity of opinion among the operatives and their masters with respect to the execution of the law, as well as with respect to the making an alteration of some of the provisions. Among the Inspectors, also, he found there were different opinions as to the Amendments. Such being the case, and the law itself being of so recent a date, he thought it the most expedient course to make an experiment of the law; so that, from actual experience, rather than from contradictory opinions, they might be enabled to ascertain what alterations really were necessary. With regard to the allusion which the noble Lord had made to a communication between him and a particular Inspector, the circumstances were these. The Inspector forwarded to him a letter, in which he notified the change which by the Bill would take place in the regulation of factories on the 1st of March; and to that letter he subjoined a requisition he had received, calling upon him to give an interview to a deputation from the parties interested in the changes, for the purpose of discussing what Amendments the Factory Act required. To hold an interview for such a purpose was, it appeared to him, not very consistent with the intention to make a fair experiment of the Bill. He therefore, in his answer to the Inspector, intimated that it would be imprudent to invite interviews with deputations, for the purpose of discussing any Amendment; but nevertheless all the information which could be collected was to be forwarded to the Government.
Mr. Bainessaid, there was considerable diversity of opinion as to the manner in which the provisions in question should be amended; but there was none as to the impracticability of carrying them into effect. In every part of the manufacturing districts in Yorkshire considerable excitement prevailed in consequence of mills having been thrown out of employment by the operation of the Factory-law. It was a measure which was brought before
528
the Legislature when there was great agitation upon the subject, and he certainly thought it was passed without due deliberation. The object of the petitioners was to obtain an inquiry into the principles on which the Bill was founded, to see how far they were applicable to the present state of manufacturing society, and to make amendments in the provisions, so that they would not interfere with the course of trade. It was evident that the Inspectors had considered the directions as closing the door against all inquiry; for he knew that an Inspector had refused to hear the representations of several persons who surrounded his house, on the ground that the orders of Government were to hold no communication with them. He trusted that the Government would allow an inquiry, by which the subject would be fully discussed, and measures adopted for enabling the manufacturers to carry on their business in a way that was indispensable to the welfare and tranquillity of the country.
Sir George Stricklandsaid, that as he was connected with that part of the country from which these petitions came, he was anxious to say a few words upon them. He entirely concurred in the opinion that no party feeling was involved in the consideration of the question. It was a question of humanity alone—a question whether children of a tender age should be allowed to work in these factories an immoderate length of time, so as to retain the appearance of health, when they were actually so crippled in their limbs as to be unable to maintain themselves in afterlife. He considered it to be highly desirable that this question should be brought to a satisfactory issue, and that with as little delay as possible.

INCREASE OF THE RESIUM DONUM.
Colonel Conollyrose to present three Petitions from Parishes in the County of Donegal, connected with the Synod of Ulster, praying that an equal amount of the Royal bounty, or Regium Donum, should be paid to each minister of the Synod, by endowing them with a stipend of 100 l. a-year each. He admitted that, as his proposition went to equalize the stipends of the ministers by increasing the lower class up to the rate of the higher, it would occasion an additional expense of 7,000 l. a-year; but coming as it did from a very peaceable, orderly, and loyal class

529
of his Majesty's subjects, he did hope that it would receive the attention of Government. The hon. and gallant Member was proceeding with his remarks, when he was interrupted by
The Speaker,who inquired if the hon. Gentleman had obtained his Majesty's Assent to the prayer of these petitions. If he had not, there was an informality which would prevent the reception of the petitions, as they prayed for a grant of money. He would take that opportunity of stating to the House, that a petition which contained the same prayer, and which had not received the Royal Assent, presented on a former evening, had been the object and extent of the prayer not having been fully explained to or understood by the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas not at all surprised that the petition presented on a former evening had escaped the vigilance of the Speaker; for, as the Speaker could not see the petition until after it was presented, he must of course depend for all his knowledge of its contents upon the hon. Member's word who presented it. This petition prayed for an equalization of stipends, which certainly might be effected by reducing the higher stipends to the same level with the lower; but that he believed was not the object of the petitioners. Indeed, the hon. and gallant Member had frankly admitted that he intended to effect the equalization, not by reducing the higher, but by raising the lower stipends. He was intrusted with a certain power on the part of the Crown, by which he could give or withhold its assent to the presentation of petitions of this nature, which involved an increase of the public burthens. He thought that the House would agree with him that, if he gave his assent to the presentation of such a petition, that assent ought to imply an acquiescence in the prayer of it, and ought to be followed by a recommendation to the House to grant it. He was bound to say, that though he could bear willing testimony to the respectability of the petitioners, to their high character, to the important services which their ministers rendered to their respective congregations, and to the country at large, yet, when there was made to him on a sudden, without any opportunity of deliberation, a proposition on their behalf, which involved a perpetual increase of an annual grant, he could not venture to say at once that he
530
would accede to it. Those who recommended the lasting increase of an annual estimate of this nature, were bound to lay before the House the extent of the congregations to which those ministers belonged, and other facts, which must occur to the mind of every Member who then heard him. He had not had an opportunity of inquiring into any of these circumstances; and he knew, besides, that this application, if it were acceded to, would be followed by similar applications from other bodies, who now received a portion of the Regium Donum. For instance, there were seceders from the Synod of Ulster, whose ministers were paid out of that fund. This subject had not been brought under his notice until after the meeting of Parliament. He had not, therefore, had time to give it due deliberation; and as it was full of extensive details, he hoped he should meet the support of the House when he said that he felt it his duty to withhold his assent from the petition.
Colonel Conolly,under such circumstances, had no other course but to withdraw the petition.
Petition withdrawn.

THE KING OF BELGIUM.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, that as the right hon. Baronet at the head of his Majesty's Government was in his place, he would take the liberty of putting a question to him. He would ask, whether since last year, when he had put a question to the late Government respecting the income granted by Parliament to Prince Leopold, now King of Belgium, any money had been paid into his Majesty's Exchequer, on account of that illustrious personage—what was the amount of money paid in, if money had been paid in—and whether the right hon. Baronet would have any objection to lay on the Table an official account of the payment of money so received? He asked this question now, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he asked it last year, gave him to understand, that after the 1st of April, in the then next year a large sum would be paid into the Exchequer on the part of his Belgian Majesty.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that a payment had been made into the Exchequer, in consequence of the conditional resignation by the king of Belgium of the annual pension formerly granted to him by Parliament. That

531
payment amounted to 4,000 l., but he understood that the trustees appointed by King Leopold were prepared to make an additional payment, and that it was only owing to the absence of some of the trustees, whose signature was necessary to authorize the payment, that that payment had not been already made. He believed that the payment to which he had alluded would be made very shortly, and that arrangements would be entered into for the purpose of securing the appropriation of it at regular periods in future to the objects for which King Leopold had destined it. He had no objection to lay an official account of this payment on the Table of the House, but, for the reasons which he had already stated, the House would see that that account would lead to a very erroneous conclusion.
Mr. Robinsonwas so disappointed by the answer which he had just received, that he begged leave to make a distinct Motion for a return of the monies which had been paid in.
Mr. Humesuggested that, after the statement of the right hon. Baronet that certain impediments of form only had caused a delay in the payment of an additional sum into the Exchequer by the trustees of the king of Belgium, it might be as well if the hon. Member for Worcester withdrew his Motion for the present, in order to bring it forward again in a few days.
At a later period in the evening the following explanation was given by
Lord Stanley.The trustees entered upon the discharge of their duties in June last, having declined to act till certain liabilities and incumbrances were at an end. The right hon. baronet was correct in stating, that in addition to the amount already accounted for, there was a very considerable sum now lying at the banker's, and which would be paid into the Exchequer as soon as the signatures of all the trustees could be obtained, it being necessary that the whole body should sign an order for payment. The right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. E. Ellice), who was one of his trustees, was not at present in the country, but the moment he returned the transfer would be made. During the three-quarters of a year that the trustees had been acting, the balance that accrued was something more than 27,000 l. In the course of the present year he anticipated that the amount carried to the public
532
credit would not be less than 34,000 l. Next year the payments out of the annuity would be diminished by 3,000 l., on account of the rent of Marlborough-house; and in a year or two he supposed that the public would receive 40,000 l. out of the original 50,000 l.
Mr. Robinson,after the satisfactory explanation offered by the noble Lord, felt no hesitation in withdrawing his notice of Motion on the subject.

TRIAL BY JURY IN VAN DIEMEN'S LAND.
Mr. Humesaid, that, in presenting a Petition from an individual of the name of Thomas Cooke, now residing in Van Diemen's Land, his object was not so much to create discussion, as to call the attention of his Majesty's Government to a subject which interested the inhabitants of that colony in particular, and the Members of that House in general. The petitioner stated the precarious condition in which British subjects were placed in that colony, owing to their being left without the protection of British institutions, and called the attention of Government to various acts committed by the Lieutenant-Governor, which the petitioner denounced as arbitrary and oppressive, and contrary to the real interests of the colony. The petitioner further stated, that he had every reason to believe that the Lieutenant- Governor, Colonel Arthur, had received from the late Government orders to institute Trial by Jury in Van Diemen's Land as it existed in England, but that he had refused to put that order in force. He further stated, that there were 20,000 free persons in and near Hobart town, in which place he resided, capable of acting as Jurors. He knew the interest that was felt on this subject, both in England and in the colony; and when he recollected, that in the Bill which the House had passed three years ago, for the better government of New South Wales, a clause had been inserted enabling the Judges, instead of military Juries, to empanel a Jury of civilians, he saw no reason why a similar provision should not be extended to Van Diemen's Land. That clause had given great satisfaction in New South Wales. If the Ministers did not introduce some measure of their own on the subject before the end of the Session, he should certainly bring forward a Motion for the purpose of obtaining for the inhabitants of Van Diemen's Land those institutions and those privi-

533
leges which had been productive of so much benefit to the inhabitants of the mother country.
Mr. Thomas Gladstoneobserved, that as the petitioner had produced no evidence to support his allegations, the House ought not to deal with them as if they were convinced of their correctness. At present, he believed that the law entitled Judges to grant a Trial by Jury in all civil cases. It was only in criminal cases that Trial by Jury was not granted. The noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department was inclined to think that Trial by Jury might be introduced in some criminal cases in Van Diemen's Land. In New South Wales it was granted in all cases, except where the party to be tried, on account of local or private prejudices, thought that it would be for his interest to be tried by a military tribunal. He thought that a similar provision might safely be extended to Van Diemen's Land.
Mr. O'Connellhad paid great attention to the subject, and he felt bound to say that he had never met with one single case in which the parties preferred a military trial. The introduction of Trial by Jury had given the utmost satisfaction in New South Wales; surely, there could be no valid ground of objection to its introduction into Van Diemen's Land.
Mr. Henry Lytton Bulwersaid, that two years ago the noble Lord, the late Secretary for the Colonies had stated, that such an arrangement was about to take place, and he was much surprised to find that these orders were only now put in force. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would gratify many persons who were in anxious expectation of the improvement being effected by taking into consideration the subject of some modification of a legislative assembly for this colony.
Petition laid on the Table.

COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS—RECTOR OF ST. MARGARET'S.
Mr. Wakleywished to ask two questions of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government. The first was,—"Have any new regulations been made by the College of Physicians respecting the admission into the college of Scotch graduates in medicine?" And the second was,—"Are the inhabitants of the parish of St. Margaret, Westminster, to have the right of electing their Rector, now that the emoluments of a prebendal stall in Westminster Abbey have
534
been attached to the emoluments of that living?"
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould endeavour to answer the two questions of the hon. Member, though they must appear to every one who heard them rather unconnected. He did not know whether the new regulations to which the hon. Member referred were the regulations by which it was proposed to admit Dissenters into the College of Physicians; but if they were, he was given to understand that those regulations had met with the approbation of the College. The state of the practice of the College was this:—In order to get a license to practise as a physician, an individual must have resided at an University for a certain number of years. What was now proposed was, to dispense altogether with the necessity of residence at the Universities in persons applying to become licentiates of the College of Physicians, and instead of residence and degrees, a certain form of examination and attendance in medical schools would be required. Persons passing this examination, and complying with the rules of attendance, would be qualified to become licentiates and fellows of the College, so that those individuals who might be educated at the Universities would have no preference over others who had attended the course of study referred to. With respect to the other question, whether the Minister of St. Margaret's should be appointed, he did not exactly know whether the hon. member meant "appointed by ballot." ["No."] Well, then, appointed not by ballot, but by the general election of the inhabitants; with respect to that question, he informed the hon. Gentleman that it was not intended to call on the parishioners to elect the Minister, the Crown would appoint him.

NEWSPAPER PROSECUTIONS.
Mr. Herbert Curteiswished to put a question to the Solicitor-General, which was of great importance to some of his (Mr. Curteis's) constituents, and to the public generally. He begged to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether he meant to bring in a Bill to indemnify newspaper proprietors, who were at present liable to heavy penalties for omitting to mention the residences of their printers and publishers, as well as their names, and the places of printing and of publication? He believed several informations had been laid

535
for 100 l. penalties, to a great extent, for breaches of the regulation in question. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman bring in a Bill with a retrospective clause to protect the parties from the consequences of such informations? It became a serious matter when it was considered that a proprietor of a newspaper was liable to a penalty of 100 l. for each copy of his journal published without the residence of the printer and publisher being duly specified.
The Solicitor-Generalstated, that an application had been made to him on the subject, and his answer was, that if the parties committed the offence inadvertently, and there was no wilful violation of the Stamp Act, he would not object to bring in a Bill for their relief, to which he thought Parliament would consent; but, before he could do this, he stated that he must know under what circumstances the act had been violated, and how the informations were laid; in fact, he required information on the subject, but he had not received it. If the hon. Gentleman thought he could substantiate cases of great hardship arising out of the existing state of the law in this respect, he should be happy to aid him, or any other Gentleman, in the preparation of a Bill to remedy the evil; and if they were not prepared with any measure, to suggest one himself.
Mr. Herbert Curteissaid, the subject was one of great importance, and he trusted he should be excused, if he said that he was determined to press it upon the consideration of the Government, the penalties being so enormous. At Brighton there were three or four papers, and the residence of the proprietors was well known, yet under a particular clause of the Stamp Act the parties might be subjected to an immense amount of penalties. The result of enforcing the law as it now stood would be the ruin of many newspaper proprietors.
Sir John Campbellsaid, that the penalty was incurred by omitting the residence of the printer and publisher of the newspaper, although their names were inserted. In many instances, the place where the paper was printed had been duly given, but the residence of the printer and publisher had been incautiously omitted. For this the parties were amenable under the statute, and a number of scandalous pettifogging suits had been commenced for
536
the recovery of very heavy penalties. In cases of this sort, it appeared to him that the parties were entitled to some protection.
The Solicitor-General,speaking for himself, should have no objection to give it in all instances where it could be established that the law had been infringed through inadvertence. What he wanted was, that the parties claiming protection should make out that they deserved it. The penalty was certainly heavy, especially when it was recollected that it was incurred on every publication, perhaps for a year together.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought that Parliament, or those who introduced the Bill, ought to bear a part of the blame, if blame were imputable anywhere, for the scandalous and pettifogging suits of which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had spoken.
The Conversation was dropped.

SINECURES.
Mr. Humeadverted to the recommendation of the Committee on Naval and Military Sinecures, that as vacancies occurred, they should not be filled up; the late Government had rigidly adhered to this rule, and he wished to know whether the present Ministers meant to adopt the same course. He made the inquiry because he saw that a new Captain of Sandown Castle had been recently appointed; the salary was only 40 l. a-year, but he objected to it upon principle.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerbelieved that some sinecures had fallen in since the accession of the present Ministers, and he could answer that the same course would be pursued by them as by their predecessors. In appointing a naval officer to be Captain of Sandown Castle, the Duke of Wellington had fulfilled the intentions of the late Board of Treasury, that the post should not be occupied by a military officer; and while the jurisdiction of the Cinque Ports was continued, the Captain of Sandown Castle could not be dispensed with. The salary of 40 l. was not sufficient to pay the expenses of the situation.
Mr. Humerepeated, that he objected to the principle, not to the amount.

ORANGE LODGES—IRELAND.
Mr. Finnrose to put the question to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Secretary of State for the Home Department) which

537
he had been desirous of asking on the preceding evening. In order that the nature of his question might be clearly understood, he would state to the House the grounds upon which he put it. In the "Court Circular" of the 26th February, 1835, the following statement appeared:—Viscount Cole presented 182 addresses from the Orangemen of Fermanagh, two from Mayo, and one from Manor Hamilton, declaring their loyalty and attachment towards his Majesty, and thanking him for the late exercise of his prerogative."—"Mr. Leicester, M.P., from the Orangemen of the county of Cork."—"Earl of Roden, four addresses from the Protestants of the counties of Down and Waterford, belonging to the Orange Institution, thanking him for dismissing his Ministers." The question he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman was this: had those addresses been thus presented to his Majesty from these bodies styling themselves Orangemen; and had his Majesty and his Majesty's Ministers consented to receive those Addresses? The latter question was, of course, involved in the former.
Mr. Secretary Goulburnreally could not speak to the facts, upon which the hon. Gentleman had grounded his question. He had always understood that when persons waited on his Majesty, at the usual levee days, with addresses, the course was to put the addresses into the hands of his Majesty, and then to withdraw. Certainly, he could not inform the hon. Gentleman whether the addresses, to which he alluded, were accepted in any other than the usual manner.
Mr. Ronaynebegged to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he himself had not, within the last few weeks, received officially addresses from professed Orange Lodges in Ireland, to be presented to his Majesty, and to which he (Mr. Goulburn) had returned an answer, that the same had been most graciously received by his Majesty.
Mr. Secretary Goulburnreplied, that since he had been Secretary of State for the Home Department, be had followed the rule respecting the presentation of addresses, which he found adopted by his predecessors. That rule was, that when persons forwarded to him addresses to be presented to his Majesty, he presented them accordingly, provided there was nothing unbecoming in the language in which
538
they were couched, or objectionable in their general character. Certain addresses had, he admitted, been lately presented by him to his Majesty, in which the persons signing them, described themselves as belonging to Orange Societies, and others had been presented by certain persons describing themselves, as members of Trades' Unions. In such cases, no other answer was given from the Throne, than that the Address of A.B., &c. had been received. No notice was taken in the answer, of the designation which the persons might have given themselves in the address.
Mr. Ewartbegged to ask whether those Trade Unions were leal or illegal unions? He apprehended if the Dorchester labourers, who were convicted last year of being of an illegal Union, had, as such members, sent an address to the Crown, it would have been the duty of Ministers to advise the Crown to refuse the acceptance of that address. It was therefore material, on this question, to know whether the cases were parallel?
Mr. John Stanleybegged to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it was the practice for the Crown to return an answer to an address, in terms expressive of the gracious manner in which it had been received?
Mr. Secretary Goulburnsaid that from all the inquiries he had made, he believed that the course which had been pursued with respect to the addresses in question, was the same as was pursued in all other cases; but what were the express terms of the answer on this occasion, he could not tell. The reason why an address was not objected to, on account of the designation of the parties, provided there was nothing objectionable in the matter and manner of the address itself, was, that otherwise the Secretary of State would be under the necessity of investigating every case where the persons signing the address gave themselves a particular description, before he could present that address to the King. He certainly considered, that in what he had done, he had acted according to the usual mode.
Lord Morpethreminded the right hon. Gentleman that in 1831, the Duke of Wellington refused to receive an address, because the parties to it described themselves to be members of a political union.
An Hon. Memberbegged to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he, as Minister of the Crown, considered an Orange

539
Lodge to be legal or illegal; and whether he thought it right to offer an address from an illegal society to his Majesty?
Mr. Secretary Goulburn,after a pause, said he thought what he had already stated, was sufficient to convince the house that the answer given to these addresses was a mere matter of form, and implied no recognition of the legality of the societies to which the individuals belonged. The addresses were acknowledged, not as addresses coming from societies, but as coming from individuals.
Mr. John Stanley:Perhaps the right hon. Baronet, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could tell him whether, when petitions were presented to the Throne supposed to originate from unrecognised societies, it had ever been the practice to add, to the acknowledgment of such petitions, the words "graciously received?"
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould not exactly answer the question of the hon. Gentleman. He apprehended that a great deal must depend upon the language of the petition. ["No, no!"] A great deal must depend upon the language of the petition. ["No, no!"] Language might be used in a petition to the Throne, coming from a body, calling itself a political union, or a trades' union, of such a nature as might alone justify a Minister in refusing to present it; but he apprehended that a petition coming from a trades' union would not on that account alone be refused by the Minister. He had himself heard discussions in Parliament, on the occasion of the Speech from the Throne having denounced political unions, whether the House of Commons would be justified in receiving petitions coming from such unions, and the sense of the House was, that they ought to be received. ["No, no!"] Did the House uniformly reject petitions, because they professed to come from political unions, or from persons calling themselves members of a political union? With respect to the addresses presented to his Majesty, he apprehended that it would be a most painful duty to be imposed, either on his Majesty or his Ministers, to refuse receiving those addresses, on account of the presumed illegality of certain acts performed by the persons who signed them. The rule ought to be to widen, rather than contract, the avenue, by which the people might approach the Throne. He was certain that that was the principle upon which the House would
540
act. On the part of the Crown he would say, "You must apply your principle uniformly." If the House of Commons did not inquire too narrowly into the character of the parties who petitioned it, nor undertake to presume the illegality of bodies signing petitions, it was but natural that his Majesty should receive petitions front his subjects, without a very minute inquiry into the particular societies from which they came. Then, with respect to the exact nature of the answers of the Crown to parties addressing it, they were but mere matters of form. Indeed, no actual answer was given, for the words amounted only to an acknowledgment that the addresses had been received. He did not exactly recollect what the rule was, but the usual terms, he believed, were that the petitions or the addresses (as the case happened to be) had been graciously received. At all events, he was sure that it was a good rule to pursue, unless they were always to assume that the petitioners or addressers were members of an illegal body.
Mr. John Stanley:The effect of such an answer was this—that it was considered as a recognition, by the Crown, of the legality of the society to whom it was addressed. He wished to know whether this was the fact.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhoped not. It was but the recognition of the act of an individual, or of individuals. It was, in short, holding this language to the party—"I will not debar you of your right to approach me as an individual, because it happens that you belong to a society I disapprove." That was a very different thing from saying, that the society was a legal body.
Mr. Sheilasked whether the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Home Department, would have any objection to lay before the House a copy of the answer, given by the Duke of Wellington to the Political Union when it addressed the Throne, and also copies of those answers which he has himself given to the addresses of the Orange Societies? The House would then be able to ascertain whether the answer of the Duke of Wellington, was founded upon the title of the address, or upon the matter contained in it. The right hon. Gentleman had met one objection by stating that the rejection of a petition might be founded on the matter, and not the title of it. But the

541
objection of the Duke of Wellington was not to the matter of the petition, but to the body from whom it came, it being a body not recognised by law. Certainly, it had ever been held, that secret societies were not legal, and he might appeal to many hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House, to say whether Orange Societies were secret or not.
Mr. Secretary Goulburnhad no objection to lay any one or all of the addresses on the Table, if the hon. and learned Gentleman wished.
Mr. Sheil:And the answers?
Mr. Secretary Goulburn:And the answers returned by me.
Mr. Sheil:And, also, by the Duke of Wellington?
Mr. Secretary Goulburndid not know whether he could undertake to produce the answer of the Duke of Wellington.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that there must be some mistake as to the time when the answer was said to have been given by the Duke of Wellington. The Duke left office in November, 1830, and during the Administration of his noble friend, he was Secretary of the Home Department, so that he did not conceive that the Duke of Wellington could have returned any answer at all.
Mr. Shawsaid, it appeared to him unnecessary to raise the question of the propriety of receiving petitions from certain societies in connexion with addresses to the Crown; for he recollected that that question had been repeatedly raised and discussed in the House on previous occasions. Petitions had been presented to the House from individuals describing themselves to belong to Orange lodges or political unions, and their reception having been objected to, it had been distinctly laid down by the Chair that a petition professing to come from a society in a corporate capacity—from a political union, for instance—could not be received. But when a petition was presented from individuals stating themselves to be members of any particular society, the House had not thought it necessary to inquire into the nature of the society, but had received the petition as coming from the individuals by whom it was signed. He was in no way connected with Orange or any other societies, but he must say, in justice to those Orange societies, that it had never been decided that they were illegal. Their illegality had
542
been asserted by certain individuals, but there was no pretence for saying that it had been established by law. He was surprised that hon. Gentlemen were so impatient to raise this Question. He had no doubt, that many opportunities would be afforded them during the present Session, to discuss it thoroughly.
Mr. O'Connelladmitted that no judicial decision had been pronounced as to the legality or illegality of Orange lodges. But for what reason? Because of the difficulty of obtaining evidence as to the nature of those lodges. But he believed it would not be denied that more than one judge had expressed an opinion of their illegality; and he knew that more than one witness had protected himself from disclosing the nature of Orange lodges, from revealing the oaths of secresy which the members of those lodges swore, and the signs by which they recognised each other, by the plea that he was not bound to give answers which would criminate himself, and the court in such a case had ruled that the witness was not bound to answer the questions put to him. He knew, that among the upper classes of Orangemen the oath was not taken. [Mr. Lefroy. Nor among any class.] On the contrary, he could prove that the lower orders of Orangemen still continued to take the oath. The Statute Law of Ireland declared any society illegal which had any secret oaths, tests, or declarations. Now, no one he thought would assert that a man could enter an Orange lodge without giving a test by which he might be known. It would be recollected that Alderman King refused at the bar of that House to disclose what that test was, because he was bound to secrecy by an oath. Therefore, the existence of secret tests was established beyond all doubt. He recollected that in a Committee of the House of Commons in 1825, a whole chapter of scripture was read as forming the oath of the Orangemen. But the correctness of that representation was denied by Mr. Brownlow, himself an Orangeman, who admitted that a portion of the chapter was read at the Orange clubs, but denied that the following words, which formed part of the chapter, were read—"Thy foot shall be wet with the blood of thy enemy: the tongue of thy dog shall be red with the same." These words were in the same chapter, if not in the same verse, with those which it was admitted were read in

543
the Orange Associations; and they could not fail to furnish a very happy stimulant to Christian charity to those gentlemen who administered the Government of Ireland, at a time when Orangeism was so much encouraged as it was at present—when the last appointment of chairman to quarter sessions was that of a young gentleman, a nephew of Lord Farnham, and when the Lord-Lieutenancy of the county of Meath was given to the hon. Mr. Plunkett, a candidate at the last election, and whose nominator was a declared Orangeman. It was high time, then, that the country should know precisely what Orangeism was. There was no doubt of this, that Roman Catholics could not be Orangemen, and he would put it to the Government whether it was right to give protection or countenance to societies from which all Catholics, without exception—from which such men as Lords Fingall and Killeen (who certainly could not be charged with being agitators) were excluded, merely on account of their religion. Such societies certainly ought not to be encouraged; at all events, when addresses to his Majesty came from them, the Minister of the Crown had a right to know what was the nature of their secret oaths and tests, in order that he might be enabled to form an opinion with respect to their legality.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought the main question after all was this—did the Crown mean by returning the answer to the addresses presented by the Orange Societies, to give any sanction to those societies, or to declare an opinion that exclusive confederacies, whether legal or illegal, bound together by secret oaths and declarations, were societies that ought to exist; he had no hesitation in saying, that by a compliance with a mere matter of form, or by the inadvertent use of an expression, it was not the intention of the Crown, or of Ministers to encourage any exclusive confederacy, or to imply an opinion that such a confederacy was lawful.
Sir Henry Hardingedid not intend to discuss the question of the legality or illegality of Orange lodges, but he rose to notice the charge made by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin against the Irish Government, of being influenced, in making appointments, by a desire to encourage Orangeism. Now, he would ask the hon. and learned Member whether he meant to assert that the appointment of Sir E. Sugden to the Chancellorship had
544
been induced by such a feeling? In the next place, he would inquire who was the present Attorney-General in Ireland? [Ironical cheers from the Opposition.] He did not think that the noble Lord opposite would join in cheers, and hon. Members on the other side ought to recollect that that learned gentleman had been employed by the late Whig Government.—Did the hon. and learned Member for Dublin quarrel with the appointment of Mr. Serjeant Pennefather, as Solicitor-General? Was not that learned gentleman highly eminent in his profession? With respect to the appointment of assistant-barristers, he could only say that he had, on the part of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, requested the legal advisers of the Crown, whenever any vacancy occurred, to make out a list of the applicants, placing their names according to their legal merit. Mr. Robinson, the individual to whom the hon. and learned Member had referred, had his name placed very high on that list (he would not say whether first or second), and neither he nor the Lord-Lieutenant was aware, that that individual was connected with Orange societies. He believed that he was not so connected, and he knew that be was no relation of Lord Farnham. With respect to the appointment of the hon. Mr. Plunkett to the Lord-Lieutenancy of the county of Meath, he could assure the House that the first person from whom he had heard of that appointment was the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He was prepared to defend every appointment made by the present Government, and he could declare that it was the serious intention of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to make all appointments, and legal ones especially, with the utmost impartiality, and with reference only to the merits of the individuals, the efficient performance of the duties assigned to them, and the welfare and prosperity of Ireland.
Mr. O'Connelladmitted, that for his statement respecting the hon. Mr. Plunkett he had no authority but the newspapers. As for Mr. Robinson, the other individual to whom he had alluded, he had certainly imagined that he was the nephew of Lord Farnham. He was, however, agent to Lady Farnham.
Mr. Anthony Lefroysaid, that he did not at present intend to discuss whether or not the Orange society was a legal one. He earnestly hoped that this, which was

545
the true Question at issue, would soon be brought fairly before the House, as he had no doubt it would appear that it was as legal as it was a loyal society. The very fact that Orange processions were put an end to by an Act of Parliament, whilst the Act recognised the society itself, was a strong indication that it was not considered an illegal one. But his purpose in rising was, to give the most direct and unqualified contradiction to the assertions of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, in all of which, as respected the Orangemen, he had endeavoured to mislead the House, as much with regard to the legal appointments in Ireland and the connexion which had existed between Lord Farnham and Mr. Robinson. The hon. and learned Member argued that the addresses ought not to have been received as coming from "an illegal society associated by oaths." That they were so associated he denied. He admitted, that originally Members did take an oath, but the moment this practice was declared to be contrary to law, the Orangemen, true to their principles, and steady in their respect for the laws, abandoned their bond of union, and nothing was now requisite for being eligible than the reputation of being a good Christian and a loyal subject. This test, indeed, might exclude some persons who complained that, they could not become Members, and they might so continue to complain till the improvement of their principles entitled them to such an honour; he would only further add, that he trusted English Members would not be misled by the false accusations, and calumnious attacks that were frequently made upon the Orange body, by certain Members of that House, though they were not always contradicted at the moment by himself or his hon. Friends; as this arose, not from acquiescing in them, but from preferring to treat them with contempt, rather than to occupy the time of the British Parliament, which might be much more profitably employed than in refuting unfounded charges.
Mr. Serjeant O'Loughlenwas surprised to hear Orange societies lauded in that House, even by Gentlemen on the other side. In addition to what had been stated by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, he would mention an occurrence which had taken place in the metropolis of Ireland since the formation of the present Administration, which he thought would
546
satisfy the House of the accuracy of the statement made by the hon. and learned Member, of the countenance given by the Government to Orange clubs. In December last a meeting took place in Dublin of the Orangemen of the county and city. At that meeting the Lord Mayor presided, and one of the most violent speeches was delivered by Mr. M'Cleary, who, in the course of his harangue, read some verses, probably of his own composition, every stanza of which concluded in the following manner—
—"Our hope is the Lord on high; Then put your trust in God, my boys, and keep your powder dry."
And every time these words were repeated, the meeting were described as raising a shout by way of chorus. Within one short month after this disgusting exhibition, the lord Mayor, who so presided, was honoured by the company of the Representative of Majesty in Ireland, at the Mansion House, attended by all the officials of his Government. Now, if the Government did not mean to patronize the Orange faction in Ireland, the Lord-Lieutenant and his Secretary would not have attended that dinner. He put it to the sense of the House whether any institution at which such sentiments as those he had alluded to were uttered, could be tolerated as not being essentially injurious to the peace and prosperity of the country; and whether, instead of being countenanced by the Government, it ought not to be immediately put down.
Sir Henry Hardinge,after having been so personally alluded to, felt it necessary to make one observation in reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He assured the hon. and learned Member, that the Lord-Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary for Ireland had something else to do than merely read the songs any person might sing at public meetings. Until this moment he never heard of any such song having been sung; and he appealed to the House, whether, because on the 9th of December, before either the Lord-Lieutenant or himself was appointed, a person chose to sing a song before the Lord Mayor, which they might disapprove of, both he and the Lord-Lieutenant were to be precluded from paying that respect which was due to the first magistrate of the city of Dublin. The hon. and learned Gentleman must have an extraordinary idea of the law, in accusing them of

547
countenancing a party faction, because, in the observance of that courtesy which had always been shown to the chief magistrate, they had attended a dinner at the Mansion-house. He repeated, that he had never heard of the song; but if he had, he should not consider that the Lord Mayor was never to be visited by the Lord-Lieutenant, because a person had been imprudent enough to sing such a song before him.
Mr. Serjeant O'Loughlenbegged to set the right hon. Gentleman right. The lines he had quoted, were not only part of a song—they expressed a sentiment, and were attached to every verse. It was the sentiment which he considered most objectionable and indecent. The right hon. Gentleman might not have been aware of the fact before; but he certainly ought not to have remained in ignorance of it.
Mr. Ronayne:The right hon. Secretary had challenged inquiry into the conduct of the Irish Government. He would ask that right hon. Gentleman to look about him, and glance at two of the Privy Councillors he had made. He did not mean to say that these two individuals were themselves members of Orange Societies; but they were the recognised friends and supporters of that system in Ireland. The right hon. Gentlemen could not help knowing, that the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo, was an attached friend of the Orangemen, and he had been promoted by the present Government. He must also be aware that an office of high importance had been offered to Lord Roden, (the Grand Master of the Orangemen,) which he did not think fit—perhaps from delicacy, to accept. The very appointment of such persons in Ireland, was quite calculated to inspire the people of that country, with the notion that they were again to be handed over to Orangemen, and to be again oppressed by them, as they had been for the last quarter of a century. The hon. Member for the county of Longford, (Mr. A. Lefroy) seemed to think that the Orangemen had been hardly dealt with, and declared that they could not be deemed a faction. He would ask him this question, as he seemed to be perfectly initiated in their secrets:— Was it allowable to make any man an Orangeman who happened to be a Roman Catholic; or to make the son of a Roman Catholic an Orangeman; or could a man who married a Roman Catholic become an Orangeman? ["Yes!"] Well, be that as it might, notwithstanding the in-
548
dignation of the hon. Gentleman, he would tell him that the people of Ireland regarded the Orange faction as a class that professed a monopoly of loyalty, and that so long as they were permitted to trample on the Catholics with impunity, they would be the obsequious servants of the Crown; but that when the King sent an individual to Ireland, to administer justice in that country with impartiality, they were quite ready to assail him with bludgeons, brickbats, and bottles. The Orange faction in Ireland had been—not inaptly—described as
"A race of reptiles, raised in troubled times; Nursed in blood, and cherished in their crimes."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought himself justified in suggesting, that considering the nature of the subject under discussion, and the mode in which it had been brought before the House, the conversation had been sufficiently prolonged. Could he have given a better pledge of his entertaining an earnest wish and desire that the Government of Ireland should be conducted with the strictest impartiality, than selecting for the offices of Lord-Lieutenant and Chief Secretary, two such individuals as his noble friend (the Earl of Haddington) and his right hon. Friend near him (Sir Henry Hardinge)?—two individuals, not more distinguished for their ability and judgment, than for the consistency which they had eminently displayed throughout the whole of their political lives, in their constant and persevering advocacy of every claim of the Roman Catholics.
Mr. Humeconsidered it to be a notorious fact, that the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had laid before his Majesty, addresses from bodies, which, even if they were not, strictly speaking, illegal, were so considered by the public at large, and whose objects could not be misunderstood. It used to be a general custom to publish in The Gazette, a list of all the addresses presented to his Majesty. That practice had been discontinued-he supposed, because the addresses for the removal of the present Ministers were in the proportion of about four to one, compared with those in their support. He had had the honour to be in company with the Duke of Wellington, on business, during the period of his holding the Seals of several offices, and he then inquired why the practice had been discontinued.

549
The Duke said that it had been considered proper to desist from publishing the addresses generally, and that the fairest course appeared to be to print none, either on the one side or the other. Now, this might be all very well; but the question was, whether, if they had all been published, Ministers would not have suffered from a comparison between those in their favour and those against them? besides, he wished to know, why the established rule had been departed from at all. If the statements which had been made were correct, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, might be as much the abettor of treason as the most popular Radical out of the House. He was decidedly of opinion that the view taken by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was correct; that these were illegal societies, and that the Home Secretary, in presenting addresses from them, and returning answers thereto, was the abettor of what was illegal and improper. The right hon. Baronet had told them that no harm was intended. Was this any defence for the reception of such addresses, and returning gracious answers, calculated to encourage the idea that they had been favourably received? The point at issue, was, whether a public officer had been the abettor of an illegal society. This was quite enough, without going to Dublin in search of fresh topics of discussion. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had given a sufficient explanation of the charge, which was one of a very serious nature.
Lord Howickentirely agreed with the right hon. Baronet, (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that it would be much better to defer the discussion of the question until the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, should, in performance of his promise, have laid the King's answer on the Table of the House. His purpose in rising simply was to express the satisfaction with which he had heard the right hon. Baronet disavow, in the manner he had done, all desire to countenance or encourage the maintenance of those unhappy party divisions which had so long prevailed in Ireland. He confessed that many of the appointments which had been made by the present Government, taken in conjunction with some of the circumstances which had been adverted to on that side of the house—particularly that mentioned
550
by the learned Serjeant (Loughlen)—did create in his mind an exceedingly unpleasant impression. Anxious as he had been—anxious as he always should be—that agitation, from whatever quarter it might proceed, should be resisted, and as far as possible, put down; he confessed he was extremely sorry to witness proceedings on the part of Government, which, by throwing some degree of suspicion on their impartiality and fairness, might tend to impede their efforts to restrain the agitation pursued by some gentlemen in that House, whose course they are much in the habit of reprobating. He repeated, that he was very happy to hear the right hon. Baronet so strongly disclaim intentions which some acts of his Government certainly had seemed to imply. He hoped that the discussion which had taken place that evening, irregular as perhaps it might be in some degree, would not be without very great and important advantages, in marking, as distinctly as he thought it had done, the sense of that House, that these Orange associations, which were the means of perpetuating party divisions in Ireland, ought not to be encouraged.
Sir Robert Batesonconcurred with the noble Lord who had just sat down, in wishing that all party differences in Ireland were at an end. He wished to appeal particularly to English Members, when he requested the House not to be led away by the exaggerated statements they had heard. He was not, nor ever had been, an Orangeman. He was not a party man. ["Oh!"] He repeated it, he had never been connected with any party in his life; but he would say that the Orangemen of Ireland had been most falsely maligned in that House. An hon. Member opposite had spoken of them as reptiles: he should have thought the hon. Gentleman had too great a respect for his patron saint to suppose that there existed such a thing as a reptile in all Ireland. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell) had said that the Orangemen of Ireland were not Christians; and yet, on some occasions, that hon. and learned Gentleman had praised and commended them most highly, when he thought he could gain them over to his own purposes, and induce them to join in the outcry for the Repeal of the Union. When he and his party found, however, that they could not attain their end, then he turned round, and flung upon them every species

551
of calumny and foul abuse his fertile imagination could dole out. These attacks were reiterated in that House, before English gentlemen perfectly unacquainted with the real state of the case; and enormities were heaped on the heads of the Orangemen of Ireland, utterly unfounded and untrue. These bodies were, in his opinion, kept up mainly by the agitation carried on in different parts of Ireland, by the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, to obtain the Repeal of the Union, and the separation of the two countries. He believed in his heart, that a greater number of Orangemen were associated together now, for the purpose of preserving the constitution of the country, and preventing its severance from this portion of the empire. He believed that if the hon. and learned Gentleman and his party, were to cease that baneful agitation which the noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland, had condemned, Orangemen would drop away of themselves. He believed their only object was self-defence, and self-preservation. ["a laugh!"] Hon. Members might laugh, but it did not disprove what he had said. An hon. Member had stated, that the addresses in question were treasonable, or that they emanated from a treasonable body. Why, what was their purport? They thanked his Majesty for having dismissed from the councils of his Cabinet the members of one Administration, and adopting another. If these addresses had prayed his Majesty to reinstate his former Cabinet, or to form one of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin and his party, they would have heard, he suspected, very little of their containing anything of a treasonable nature. It was not true that these Orange bodies were treasonable societies; it was not true that any oaths were taken by their members; he placed explicit reliance on the declaration made by his hon. Friend in this respect. He regretted to have trespassed at all upon the time of the House, but as a man wholly unconnected with party, and anxious only for his country's good, he could not sit still, and hear a body of loyal men, who had been the salvation of Ireland on more than one occasion, stigmatized without rising to enter his protest against such a tissue of unfounded and false accusations as he had heard that night.
Colonel Conollywas much obliged to the noble Lord, the Member for Northum-
552
berland, for the very dispassionate manner in which he had treated the subject. He had thrown oil upon the troubled waters, and calmed the irritation which it was sought to produce in that House. He could not patiently hear these calumnies uttered against a set of men combined only in their own defence. Unless they had combined, the events of the last four years would have left them neither property nor life. He said so distinctly; he said so of his own knowledge; he said so as a magistrate and a landlord. He maintained that the Protestant Orangemen of the north of Ireland had been the great bulwark which had resisted the treasonable language and dangerous practices of the agitators throughout the country. He could not restrain his indignation when he heard the appointment of his hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Sligo, cavilled at, and objected to. There was not in that House—there was not in the empire—a more honourable or more upright man, or one better calculated to fulfil the duties of his station, or one whose appointment did greater credit to the Ministry who had selected him; no one was more highly estimated within the circle in which he moved than the gallant Colonel; his manly bearing, his upright conduct, and his daring denial of the misrepresentations made in that House, had very naturally brought upon him the indignation of those who pursued a very different course from that by which he was guided. He would speak to the question; the question was,—whether this loyal body was illegal; he hoped he should not weary the House, but he would not sit down until he had explained, or attempted to explain, the constitution of that body, and the claim they had to the support of every loyal man and well-wisher to the integrity of the empire. These charges ought not to be allowed to remain here; it was a much more manly and open way of proceeding to carry the war into the enemy's camp, instead of recognising, and allowing, he would say, in a great measure, the gross, indecent, almost treasonable, course pursued by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin and his party. Had the hon. and learned Gentleman ever proposed the King's health at a public dinner as the first servant of the Crown—he meant of the people? "Call ye that loyalty: endeavouring to disparage both the Crown and the Monarch in the

553
eyes of his people?" Had anything that could be done to lower and disparage the Government, or assail all the authorities of the land in every possible way, been left undone by the hon. and learned Gentleman in the two last Parliaments? There was not one of the constituted authorities who had escaped his strong and marked vituperation. We are accused," continued Colonel Conolly, "I say we, for I will proudly identify myself with the honourable and loyal body of Orangemen, with a monopoly of loyalty. Why, what gives us that monopoly? To whom are we indebted for it? To those who take up the trade of agitation—to those who disparage all the constituted authorities—to those who speak disrespectfully of the Monarch, and outrage the laws by every possible method in their power—who delude the ignorant, and drive them to actual violence—who misconstrue the law, and hold out prospects of impunity to those who are ignorant enough to be misled by them—who wean the people of Ireland from their legitimate allegiance, and induce them to form notions that the Government of England is hostile to them, that they can get no justice from this Parliament, and that they must effect the separation of the two countries, before they can obtain it." He would not say before the British House of Commons, that such language was wilfully and designedly false; but he would say, that if Gentlemen on the other side of the House, had a mind to terminate the existence of Orangeism, let them forsake their own illegal combinations, and leave the country in a state of tranquillity. Allusion had been made by the learned Sergeant to the dinner at the Mansion-house, in Dublin. He (Colonel Conolly) had had the honour of being present on the occasion, and he declared that an entertainment less savouring of party, he never attended, anything more dignified or proper than the declarations of the Lord Lieut-tenant, and though the right hon. Gentleman was present, he would say of the Secretary for Ireland also, he never heard, he never listened to, language of a more moderate kind, and no allusion was made which could bear the construction sought to be put upon it. He was delighted to hear the manly declaration of the Lord Lieutenant that certain persons should meet with no tenderness at his hands; but that those who consulted their own personal interest and advantage, in promoting agi-
554
tation, and driving the pauper and deluded population to acts of violence and outrage, should be treated as they deserved. No wonder that language like this, tending to promote the peace and welfare of society, should meet with the vituperation of some persons in that House.
Colonel Verner,as a member of a society, which he regarded as the saviours of their country, wished to say a few words. He could positively assure the House that the principle of that society was, to maintain the laws, to preserve the connexion with Great Britain, to protect property and life, and to defend the King. Such, he could positively declare, were the objects for which the Orangemen were embodied. He was not surprised that some hon. Gentlemen were opposed to Orange societies in Ireland; but he was surprised to find that others joined in the outcry; it was, however, only a proof to him how much that body was misrepresented in that House. If the society were such as it had been represented by hon. Members opposite, why was it that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, had at one time preached conciliation to that body. He wished that hon. Members would bear those facts in mind. He could give his testimony, along with that of the gallant Colonel who spoke last, as to the entertainment given by the Lord Mayor of Dublin—that entertainment was intended as a mark of proper respect from the Lord Mayor to the Lord Lieutenant, upon his arrival in that country. It was stated that objectionable toasts were given at that dinner—he was aware that some of those were objectionable, in the opinion of hon. Members opposite; for amongst them were such toasts as "The King," "The Established Church," and "Sir Robert Peel and his Colleagues."
Subject dropped.
The House resolved itself into a

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.
The first vote was for the sum of 28,384,700 l. to pay off and discharge Exchequer Bills.
Mr. Humeobjected to its being passed without any explanation. The amount was a large one, and he considered himself justified in requiring some information on the subject.
Sir Thomas Fremantleexplained that the vote was, for the purpose of discharging Exchequer Bills issued for the supplies of 1834 and 1835. The different periods

555
for which they were issued, would shortly expire, and the usual course was, before they expired, to enable the Government to issue fresh ones. It was in strict accordance with the regular practice pursued every year.
The vote was agreed to, as was another vote of 621,500 l. for the discharge of Exchequer Bills issued for carrying on public works.
The House resumed, and the resolutions were reported.

CHESTER CRIMINALS' EXECUTION.
On the Motion of Mr. Jervis, the House resolved itself into a Committee, upon the Bill for providing for the Execution of Criminals in Chester.
On the first clause being read—
The Attorney-Generalrose to propose an Amendment. Whatever might be the legal interpretation put upon the Act, it was certainly not the intention of those who framed it, that the duty of executing criminals for offences committed within the city should devolve upon the Sheriff of the county. Matters had, however, come to such a pass, that the Grand Jury of the county of the town threw out all bills for capital offences which might give their Sheriff the trouble of superintending an execution, and the Grand Jury of the county did the same for their Sheriff. It was, however, a great question whether this duty ought, in consequence, to be thrown on an officer like the Constable of the Castle of Chester, of little or no station, and of little or no responsibility. Nobody before this Bill was brought in ever dreamt of those functions being committed to that officer; yet the preamble of the Bill stated, that doubts having arisen whether the Sheriff of the county of the city of Chester or the Sheriff of the county should perform the duty of executing criminals for offences committed within the city of Chester, the Constable of the castle of Chester should execute that office. Hon. Members would, he thought, agree with him that a goaler, a mere subordinate officer, receiving a small salary, and removable at the pleasure of the Crown, ought not to have the responsibility of carrying the last penalty of the law into execution, which required to be attended with every circumstance that could impart to it the character of solemnity. Unless a great impression were produced upon the mind of the public by the
556
execution of a criminal, the loss of life was hardly to be justified. He was not for extending the punishment of death—be was for abolishing it wherever it could be done with safety; and he thought it would tend greatly to lessen its effect if the infliction of it were to be left to a subordinate officer. There was something unseemly, also, in the gaoler of the criminal being his executioner. He was aware that in law, the Sheriff had the custody of the criminal's person; but it was not in fact under his charge, and the union of the two offices, which would be created by the Bill, would be most distressing to the feelings of the unhappy person to be executed. He proposed, therefore, that instead of saying that an act should be passed to remove doubts which had arisen as to the jurisdiction of the Sheriffs, the act should recite, that whereas the Sheriffs of the county of the city of' Chester were by law liable and were used and accustomed to execute all criminals executed for of, fences committed in the county of the city of Chester, and whereas since the passing of the said act the said Sheriffs have executed such criminals, the said Sheriffs shall in future obey the order of the judge of assize, in the same manner as they before obeyed the order of the Court of Grand Session, with reference to such execution as aforesaid; and the sheriffs of the county shall in like manner be bound to obey the order of the judge of assize in respect to the execution of criminals convicted of capital offences committed within the county of Chester." He should be sorry to see the judges of assize deprived of the power of ordering, in a very large county, a person to be executed near the place where the crime for which he was to suffer was committed. His noble Friend the Chief Baron of the Exchequer to this day contended that the Sheriff of the city was liable to the duty which his (the Attorney Generals)Amendment would declare belonged to him, and that duty had always been performed by him till somebody scanned the Act of Parliament with a curious legal eye, and discovered what was supposed to be a flaw in it. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by proposing his Amendment.
Sir John Campbelldiffered from his hon. and learned Friend opposite, as well as from the hon. and learned Gentleman by whom the Bill was introduced. His opinion was, that it would be better to

557
abstain from legislating on the subject altogether, and to leave the question under debate to be settled by a judicial tribunal. The last trial had gone off on a technical point; but, no doubt, an opportunity would be afforded of having the point decided by a court of law. He should, therefore, move as an Amendment, that the Chairman do leave the Chair.
Lord Robert Grosvenorsupported the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, (Sir John Campbell).
Mr. Hardyagreed with the hon. and learned Attorney General, that it would be most unadviseable to devolve the duty of executing criminals condemned at Chester, upon the Constable of the Castle. The Crown might at any time dispense with an officer of that description, and then the city would be left in the dilemma of having nobody to execute the sentence pronounced upon the prisoners confined in its gaol. He saw no reason why the practice which prevailed throughout the rest of the kingdom should be departed from in the case of Chester. Elsewhere the duty of executing criminals invariably fell upon the Sheriffs for the county. York castle was generally considered to be within the county of the city of York, but for legal purposes it was taken from the county of the city, and placed within the county of York. Why should not the same course be adopted with respect to Chester.
The Solicitor Generalthought it absolutely necessary that something should be done to prevent a recurrence of the distressing delay which had recently taken place in the execution of two criminals who had been condemned at Chester. It was also necessary that the Judges who presided at the assizes, held at that city, should not again be placed in the situation of having their orders disregarded. Yet such at present was the feeling between the Sheriffs for the county, and the Sheriffs for the county of the city, that in all probability, should the Judges again have the melancholy duty of pronouncing the last sentence of the law upon any unfortunate criminal tried at Chester, the order for the execution whether made upon the county Sheriffs or the city Sheriffs, would be refused by both. Under these circumstances, he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chester, that some declaratory act upon the subject was necessary; but, at the
558
same time, he was far from thinking that the Constable of the Castle was the proper person upon whom to devolve the duty; in his opinion, it should be fixed either upon the Sheriffs for the county, or the Sheriffs for the city.
Mr. Jervissaid, that as his hon. and learned Friends, the Attorney and Solicitor General had admitted the necessity of passing some declaratory act upon the subject, he should have no objection to withdraw that part of the clause which went to fix the duty upon the Constable of the Castle, and to adopt the words proposed by the Attorney General, provided that by so doing no further objection. would be raised to the Bill.
Mr. O'Connellthought that that would be the most satisfactory course, after what had fallen from the two hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite (the Attorney and Solicitor Generals) nobody could doubt but that it would be improper to transfer the duty of executing criminals to the constable, who was a mere gaoler, he thought that the duty ought to devolve upon the Sheriffs of the county.
Mr. Aglionbythought it was the bounden duty of the Legislature, by a short declaratory act to take care that such a lamentable occurrence as had led to the present measure should not happen again.
Sir John Campbellwould not oppose what appeared to be the general feeling of the House, namely, that to remove all doubt for the future, a declaratory act should be passed. He would, therefore, withdraw his Amendment, and support that proposed by the hon. and learned Attorney- General.
Mr. Ewartexpressed his determination to support the proposition of the hon. and learned Attorney-General with the view of assimilating the practice as to the execution of criminals and the general liabilities of the sheriffs of Chester to that of other counties.
Mr. Secretary Goulburnsupported the views of the Attorney-General.
The Committee divided on the Attorney-General's Amendment—Ayes 115—Noes 55—Majority 60.
The other Clauses of the Bill were agreed to—the House resumed, and the Report was brought up.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
Sir John Campbellrose pursuant to notice, to move

559
for leave to bring in a Bill "to Abolish Imprisonment for Debt, except in cases of fraud, and to amend the law of Debtor and Creditor." As the law at present stood in this country, power was given to any individual member of the community, over the liberty of another, who might, without the order of a judge, or the decree of any court, be deprived of his liberty, thrown into gaol, and subjected to the greatest, the most cruel extortion. This was a power not belonging to the ancient common law of the country, but which was introduced by statute long after the common law had existed, and which was not found in equal severity in France, or any other country on the continent. It was moreover a power, which, being lodged in the hands of all men indiscriminately, was in an especial degree liable to be abused. He would take the liberty of illustrating the nature and severity of the present law, by stating to the House a remarkable case which had recently come under his notice, and which was only a few days ago tried before the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench (Denman). In the course of the summer of last year, a foreigner of distinction, the Duke de Cadaval, arrived in this country, accompanied by his wife and family; after landing at Dover and proceeding to town, he took lodgings there. Shortly afterwards he received a letter from a person named Collins, which recounted great services done to the Duke, and intimating that his claims were considerable for these services. The Duke shortly afterwards received another letter demanding payment of the money alleged to be due, and threatening proceedings in case of non-compliance. The Duke was much alarmed, but not complying with the request, Collins swore an affidavit of the debt, stating it at 10,000 l., went down to Falmouth, and, accompanied by a sheriff's officer, arrested the Duke, giving, or promising to give, the officer 50 l. for making the caption. The Duke being much distressed at the prospect of a gaol and separation from his family, and being a stranger in the country, agreed, under the pressure of these fears, to give the plaintiff 500 l. as present payment, which sum he obtained from the Portuguese Consul, and actually handed over in sovereigns in a bag to Collins, to be permitted to go out of custody; and the terms were drawn up in the shape of an agreement, by which it was stated that the
560
500 l. was part of a sum of 16,200 l. which the plaintiff claimed, and the action was to proceed in its usual course as to the remainder. Subsequently the Duke, finding the fraud that had been practised upon him, brought an action against Collins, and had the satisfaction of recovering the 500 l. so fraudulently extorted from him. Was not that a state of the law which demanded the serious consideration of the House, with the view of adopting some change which should give greater protection to the public. He could state to the House from the returns which had been made of the money spent in connexion with the present law of arrest, and proceedings consequent thereon, that there was the enormous sum of 300,000 l. annually expended by the respective parties debtor and creditor. These funds, which ought to be distributed among creditors, were idly spent among sheriffs' officers and their followers. He would state another consequence resulting from the present law; the cruel creditor who disregarded the feelings of his debtor had the priority, and had thus an advantage over an indulgent creditor who had a reluctance to resort to harsh proceedings. The harsh creditor swept away the whole of the debtor's property, and those who exercised feelings of kindness and indulgence had no remedy left them. The law, therefore, operated as a bounty on harshness and cruelty. The remedy he proposed for this was to abolish imprisonment, but to compel the debtor to abide by the judgment of the court, unless, indeed, it should appear that he was attempting an escape, when he should be compelled to give security. This would deprive the creditor of an opportunity of committing an injustice on his debtor without diminishing his remedy. When he thus proposed to deprive the creditors of their present remedy by imprisonment, he would on the other hand propose to give them greater facilities against the property of their debtor. By the present law there was this difficulty in the way of creditors. Suppose a creditor at Liverpool wished to proceed against a debtor who was about to go abroad, he must send up an affidavit of the debt to London, which must again be sent down to the country, by which lost time the debtor may have escaped by the sailing of the vessel. He would propose as a remedy for this, that on an affidavit being made of the debt and circumstances, a magistrate

561
on the spot should have power to grant a warrant against the debtor, whom the creditor should keep in custody until he could give security. According to the present law, be the debt ever so small, the debtor could be immured in gaol, and his liberty and exertions abridged, instead of being allowed to exert himself for its payment. His person might be enclosed within the walls of a gaol, but such imprisonment did not enable the creditor to get at the property of his debtor. The miserable consequence of this was, that our gaols were filled, the debtor became acquainted with vice and misery, and his mind was contaminated by the prison associates, with whom he was compelled to mingle. He would give the creditor, therefore, power to reach the property of the debtor, but not to inflict the evil he had described. There was another evil in the present law of arrest—it made no distinction between the honest and the fraudulent debtor. The unfortunate honest man who could not fulfil his engagements, was no better off than the man who could but would not pay. He should therefore propose that unless there was fraud, or the debtor refused to obey the judgment, or absconded, his person should not be molested; but if there were fraud, then the creditor should have the power to take the body of his debtor in custody. He was aware that creditors would not be willing to give up the advantage of arrest without an equivalent; by the present law a creditor only got indirectly at the property, but he would propose as an equivalent, speedy judgment—speedy execution; and that all the property should be taken for the satisfaction of the creditor. His first objection to the present law was, that in the case of bonds, bills, promissory notes, and instruments to which any one might have solemnly set his hand, there was great delay in proceedings when the creditor might need immediate execution. Why after a bond was executed should the creditor be put to the expense of a trial? He would propose that after a certain number of days the creditor should have the power of having an execution against his debtor. An objection might be made as to those accounts which were running as unliquidated demands and not secured by any instrument; he should propose that the creditor bring his action, and then, after verdict, have instant execution, in like manner as in a
562
bond. He next proposed that the creditor should be enabled to compel the debtor to surrender his property. By the present law a debtor might be taken and imprisoned, but he had the privilege of taking lodgings in the Rules without the prison, where he might live despite of his creditors, and waste his substance which ought to be applicable to the payment of his debts.—And with respect to this there was this strange law, that if the debtor were possessed of property under 300 l. he might be compelled to surrender it, but if above that sum, then he could not be made to surrender it; when, indeed, the very circumstance of the large sum rendered it more proper that the larger property should be made applicable to the payment of his debts. He would propose to give a power to the creditor to summon the debtor before a judge, and on cause shown, the debtor to be compelled to assign over a sufficient proportion of his property for the payment of his debts. By the law, as it at present stood, if a man were indebted to the amount of one hundred thousand pounds and became bankrupt, he could not be imprisoned unless fraud were proved against him; but when a man owed only 40 s. he could be immured in a gaol and there kept, when the larger debtor escaped with impunity! he did not see why this should continue. His next measure was, that all the property of a debtor, property of every description, should be made subject to the payment of his debts. At present, if a debtor were possessed of ever so much money, it could not be taken by any proceeding. If a debtor possessed 10,000 l. in Consols, or in bonds or bills, they being choses in action, could not be taken under an execution. If he possessed land, the creditor could only take one half, and, afterwards, another half of the remaining half, and so on; but he never could at once take the whole. Copyhold land was entirely protected from judgments, and he could see no earthly reason for the distinction. Thus, therefore, though a debtor might be possessed of large copy-hold property, he could, if he thought proper, keep the whole from his creditors. He proposed that all funded property should be made subject to debts. Under the existing law, if a man possessed 10,000 l. in the Three per Cents., he might go abroad, there receive his dividends, and leave his creditors unpaid. There was no law to prevent his doing so.

563
It was true, that a Court of Equity would prevent the transfer of property in the funds by a fraudulent creditor, but the might enjoy the full proceeds of his dividends with the most perfect impunity. He, therefore, proposed to make copyhold and funded property, and money, bonds, and bills, all liable to execution. He would make no distinction—he would make them all liable to the payment of debts. While thus looking to the interests of the creditor, he would not overlook those of the debtor. He would propose to allow him to make a cessio bonorum, without being driven within the walls of a prison. Suppose an unfortunate debtor was obliged to take the benefit of the Insolvent Act, though he be freed from arrest and imprisonment, yet all the property that he subsequently acquired was, by the present law, liable to the payment of his debts. He would propose that, if the property of the debtor were not sufficient to pay the whole of his creditors, he might, by a declaration of his insolvency, a surrender of his property, and an equal distribution, be enabled to procure a certificate of entire discharge, and be enabled to commence the world again unshackled by continued claims. Need he say the consequences of imprisonment were of the worst possible description? it was always pernicious to morals—a man never went into prison without being contaminated by the society he found there. The practice was productive also of this bad consequence, that the debtor, in the face of great expenses, was induced to collect monies and property of which he defrauded his creditors, for the purpose of maintaining himself in prison, and paying the expenses of his discharge. The returns made of the average amount of dividend paid upon the estates of all persons passing through the Insolvent Court, showed that those estates did not pay more than one farthing in the pound. And he felt quite sure, that if the debtor were, instead, declared insolvent, and his property promptly and equally distributed, the same debtor who paid under the present insolvent system one farthing in the pound, would pay a respectable dividend; and it might be allowed that, if the creditors were satisfied with the conduct of the debtor, they might give him a memorial or certificate of that satisfaction to enable him again to conduct himself in the world with credibility and success. So much for the
564
debtor when honest in his transactions; but if a debtor should conduct himself fraudulently, then he would act contrariwise; and he thought it ought to be provided, that several things should, as against debtors, be declared misdemeanours, and be punished accordingly. He would have it declared a misdemeanour when a man absconded from his creditors; he would have it made a misdemeanour when a man refused to disclose his property after judgment; he would have it a misdemeanour for a man fraudulently to convey his property, or to dispose of it amongst his friends; he would also have it declared a misdemeanour for a man to contract debts without a reasonable prospect of paying them. When two or three persons acted together in accomplishing some fraud, they could be punished for a conspiracy; but when there was only one person, who, though he might pretend to be in affluent circumstances, and obtain on that ground a large quantity of goods, and dispose of them, yet—however absurd it might appear, and however criminal his conduct—there was no punishment for such injustice. He would propose to make such persons liable to punishment. Although a great change would thus be made in the law, he was of opinion that a considerable majority of the public was against the continuance of the present system. When the subject was discussed in that House, so far back as the year 1780, when Mr. Burke took a part in the discussion, that distinguished individual afterwards expressed his regret that he did not advocate a more extensive change. The learned Commissioners who had sat upon the inquiry on this subject, agreed that a change must be made. What he meant to propose was, that the subject should after the Bill was brought in, be referred to a Committee up stairs, who would be more competent to go into the important details than he could at that moment; and he trusted that his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General would allow his name to be added to those of the other gentlemen, who might sit upon the Committee; and, for his part, he would willingly give the Committee his best attention on the various details which would be there better discussed. He knew the public took a deep interest in the matter—he had received hundreds of letters from all parts—he had received memorials without num-

565
ber, and deputations from different parties, which clearly showed that the public fully felt the importance of the subject. He hoped the House would allow him to introduce the Bill, and, on some early occasion, to read it a second time.
The Attorney-Generaltook the earliest opportunity of declaring his approbation of the principle of the Measure of his hon. and learned Friend, to whose labours and talents he would bear a willing testimony. During the last Session of Parliament he had the honour of introducing a Bill which involved the first proposition of his hon. and learned Friend. He regretted that his hon. and learned Friend did not render his assistance in forwarding that Bill, as it would have allowed the public to judge of the operation of the principle then proposed to be carried into effect. He was satisfied that the best mode in these matters was to proceed gradually and carefully, because the commercial world would then rest satisfied that they were proceeding safely. It was not that he ever considered his measure of last session either as final or effectual as a whole, that he proposed it, but that the public might be the better able to judge of the principle by observing the operation and effect of a small part. He would state that, however strong a right society had to be protected in its dealings, yet he was of opinion that no man ought to hold his liberty at the mercy of another; and there might be introduced a clause in the affidavits holding to bail, that might effect this object. It was not fitting, neither was it the general spirit of our laws, that misfortune should be dealt with as a crime. We should not confound one with the other, nor should we allow crime to escape under the guise of misfortune. There was one thing, however, advanced by his hon. and learned Friend from which he dissented. He objected to the increase of our criminal code, which was sufficiently extensive. He was averse to multiplying crimes and offences, but with that exception he was generally in favour of the principle of the Measure then before the House.
Mr. O'Connellregretted that the Bill was not to be extended to Ireland; for it was founded on the clearest principles of justice. Alluding to the monstrous absurdities which existed in the present state of the law, he observed that the time was come to destroy them—not bit by bit, but
566
in a wholesale way. There could not be a clearer principle than that misfortune ought not to be punished as a crime; and it was evident, therefore, that they ought to go the full length of abolishing imprisonment for debt,—always giving a remedy against fraud in the contracting of it. That remedy might be obtained by making the fraudulent debtor liable as for a misdemeanour, in which case he would be tried by a jury. He did not wholly concur with the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh (Sir J. Campbell) in the propriety of releasing the debtor, who had given up the whole of his property, from any subsequent claims on the part of his creditors; indeed, he might say, that he doubted much whether any good effects had resulted from the system of granting certificates to bankrupts. The man to whom a debt was due ought to be under the protection of the Legislature equally with him from whom it was owing; he should not lose his right of requiring payment from his debtor because that debtor happened to fall into misfortune, but ought to have a claim upon the fruits of his debtor's industry until the debt was paid in full. He, therefore, begged to differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the mode of what was technically called "whitewashing." He knew that cases frequently happened in Ireland where men who were discharged as insolvent debtors, took care to he in the enjoyment of their property after their discharge, in the name of some convenient relation. He repeated his regret that the Measure was not to extend to Ireland, and hoped that in the Committee means might be devised for securing that desirable object.
Mr. Richardssaid, that the Measure was one of the most important in its nature and its probable consequences, not alone to the mercantile but the landed interest of the country, which had ever been submitted to the consideration of the House. As a Member of the commercial class he conceived it to be his duty to state to the House and the country the disadvantages likely to result from its adoption, notwithstanding the odium he was certain such a course would entail on him. There were several things in the Bill which had his assent; the twenty-eighth clause for instance, which made landed property amenable for the amount of bond debts. By that clause in the course of a few years

567
all the landed property in the kingdom would be under the jurisdiction of the Court; but of that he, as a mercantile man, could not reasonably complain if it was otherwise legal and constitutional.—The Bill was intitled "A Bill to facilitate the Recovery of Debts." It was true that facilities would be afforded for the recovery of one class of debts; but another of much greater importance would not be touched by it at all. The first clause proposed to give a summary power of entering on execution after the lapse of ten days, on an overdue bond or bill. As a commercial man he did not object to this either. The second clause—
Mr. Ewartrose to order. The hon. Member was discussing a measure in detail which was not as yet before the House.
The Speakerdecided that the hon. Member was out of order.
Mr. Richardswould assume, then, for the purposes of discussion that the Bill was substantially the same as that which had been before the House last Session. That measure gave a summary power of execution on the goods and chattels of the drawer or acceptor of a dishonoured bill of exchange after a period of ten days. Now, what would be the consequence of this clause? There was, it was well known to all commercial men, from two to four hundred millions sterling's worth of bills in circulation in these kingdoms, the majority of which were at two and even one month; but, he would, for the sake of argument, average them at three. This would give a sum of 1,200,000,000 l. a year. Each of these bills went through three hands at least, the drawer, the acceptor, and the holder, which number, multiplied into the latter, gave 3,600,000,000 l. per annum on the gross circulation.—["Oh, oh!"] He did not understand the nature of the cheer which hon. Members bestowed on it. It seemed rather equivocal, as if they doubted his statement, but he would refer to the lion. Member for Essex in confirmation of the fact, as well as to any other hon. Member acquainted with the commercial community of the empire. The power thus given to the holders of bills of exchange would have the disadvantageous effect of making no man draw a bill who had not ample means to meet it when it became due. If this were the case, how many bills would be drawn? How many of the Gentlemen who came
568
from the sister isle would be able to sell their land, aye, their land even? [Laughter.] He did not mean to inquire invidiously, but he would wish to know of those hon. Members who indulged themselves in a laugh at his expense, how many of their bills would be drawn? But what he desired was to point out the effects this clause would have upon trade and commerce, and even on agriculture, If the number of bills in circulation at present were diminished by one half, as no doubt they would be if the measure had the force of law, the prices of produce of every description would be also reduced in the same ratio. Would hon. Members from the agricultural districts like to see their wheat 3s. a bushel in place of 5s. or 6s., its present amount? or would the manufacturer desire half his profits to be cut off, which would be the natural consequence? The law of arrest was proposed to be done away with unless the debtor had an intention to abscond, in which case the creditor would have the power of arresting him, but with the onus probandi of the debtor's intention lying on him. Such a clause would prevent all arrests, as every creditor would rather allow the fraud than risk an action. Therefore, the power contained in it was wholly nugatory. He was aware that it was not usual to enter on the details of a measure until it was regularly before the House; but his anxiety to disabuse the public induced him to depart from the established custom. It was a measure of false philanthropy, and one which injured the debtor as much as the creditor; because the debtor would not be able to get credit—and the creditor would not have the option of granting it. Though many parts of the Measure were entitled to the serious consideration of the House he thought, as an attempt to alter the present law of debtor and creditor, that, if carried into operation, it would have a most injurious general effect.
Mr. Shawthought many of the observations of the hon. Member for Knaresborough entitled to much weight, but he did not think that, as a whole, they militated much against the form, or at all against the principle, of the measure. His object, however, in rising was not to enter on the Question, but to earnestly request of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh that he would include Ireland in its provisions. It was most

569
important to the integrity of the empire that the law should be uniform in both kingdoms, and he hoped it would never be said, that a measure of such moment was applied to the exigences of the one country and refused to those of the other.
Mr. Warburtonas a mercantile man engaged in business for a period of twenty-five years denied that there was any cause for the alarm which the hon. Member for Knaresborough had endeavoured to excite on the subject of the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, not alone among the commercial, but among the agricultural classes. During his connexion with trade he never found the least facility for the recovery of debts in the power afforded him by the law of arrest. The surest plan he found to be inquiry into the character and condition of his customers. He could anticipate nothing but good as the result of this measure if carried into execution. Though the hon. Member for Knaresborough appeared to deprecate any reduction in the amount of paper afloat—and he must certainly have known that a great quantity of it was valueless—did he mean to state that a reduction in the amount of bad paper which was just what his argument proved, would be an evil to the community? Did the hon. Member think it no advantage for a creditor to possess a power over the copy-hold property of his debtor, which the Bill proposed to place in his hands? The effect of the measure would be to banish bad bills out of the market; and if it did only that, it was entitled to the support of every hon. Member who held the welfare of the community as a thing worth consideration.
Mr. Hawessaid, that no dealer at the time he gave credit contemplated any advantage derivable to him in the way of recovery of his debt from the law of arrest; therefore in as far as it affected that part of the question it was nugatory. The mode of doing business at present adopted in large commercial houses very much increased the circulation of paper, because small sums, which heretofore were considered as book debts were now paid by bills at a short date. Should no facility for separating the good from the bad in the enormous quantity of these necessarily afloat be offered the trader? As a man of business and a trader himself he felt bound to bear the fullest testimony to the advantages offered the trading community by
570
the principle of the Bill of the hon. and learned member for Edinburgh.
Mr. Peasedid not think the amount of human misery, either among the artisans, the tradesmen, or the farmers, would be much reduced by this measure, and he deduced his reasons from an inspection of the operation of the Courts of Requests upon these classes of the community. Notwithstanding, the Insolvent Debtors' Court was so odious that he should willingly support any measure which would have the effect of getting rid of it for ever. He could not, however, shut his eyes to the probable consequences of some parts of the measure.
Mr. Rolfesupported the Bill. Though the hon. Member for Knaresborough had paraded his information and put himself forward as a mercantile authority against the Bill, he (Mr. Rolfe) could tell him it was founded upon information as full and as practical in its character as any which he possessed. It was founded on the Report of the Commissioners, before whom were examined hundreds of tradesmen and persons deeply interested in the question. The result of their testimony was the measure in the shape in which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh proposed to introduce it to the notice of the House.
Leave given and the Bill was brought in and read a first time.

DIVISIONS.
Mr. Wardrose to call the attention of the House to some mode of giving publicity to correct and authentic Lists of Divisions. He thought that all hon. Members must be interested in devising some better mode than that which existed at present, of making the public acquainted with the votes on divisions. The practice now pursued of publishing the names of the Members of that House, furnished, as they were, by some individual Members of it, was, in his opinion, attended by all the evils which could possibly result from the authentic publicity of them, and by none of the advantages which, he was satisfied, would follow the adoption of the mode of taking the votes which he meant to suggest. The names of Members were, at present, sent to the newspapers, after a division had taken place, without the sanction of the Speaker's authority, and without being placed on the votes of the House; and the only manner in which hon. Gentlemen could

571
correct the mistakes, which, of necessity constantly took place under this system was to throw themselves upon the courtesy of editors, and to beg of them to rectify the errors which were committed. He recollected to have seen in The Times, no fewer than five letters in one day's paper, and nine upon that of the following day, all complaining of the mistakes which had been made in reference to one division. He (Mr. Ward) also remembered the words which were used by the editor of that paper, upon the occasion alluded to, and they, as he thought, conveyed a just rebuke, and were to this effect—"We repeat, usque ad nauseam, that we are not responsible for the correctness of the Lists, which are furnished us. Why does not the House adopt some plan of giving them to the public in a correct and authentic form?" He did not think that there were any insuperable difficulties in the way of devising some plan, by which all the evils arising from the present mode might be completely obviated. He would not presume to lay any specific plan before the House, for its immediate consideration or adoption; but he thought that the divisions could, at present, be taken by means of cards or tickets, and afterwards published, with an authenticity and correctness, which would be equally satisfactory to the Members and to the public. Though he must admit, that the Committee which had been appointed upon this subject last Session, had recommended a plan which could not be adopted without great loss of time and inconvenience, still he did not hesitate to express his confident expectation, that the result of the proceedings of the Committee for which he intended to move, would prove more satisfactory. It was almost unnecessary for him to advert to the many inconveniences and mischiefs which occurred under the existing system; but he would just mention, that incorrect Lists of those who voted upon divisions were, during the late elections, frequently produced upon the hustings, and it was often found almost impossible to remove the impression, which had been thereby produced upon the minds of those constituencies to which he referred. He was aware that it had been objected to any alteration in the present mode of taking the votes upon divisions, that it any plan, such as that to which he had alluded, were to be adopted, the House would generally be too numerously attended, for the speedy
572
and efficient disposal of public business; but he considered that a very untenable ground of objection, inasmuch as even though there were, in consequence of the adoption of some plan different from that which now existed, a fuller attendance of Members than at present generally took place, the change would, at all events, have this advantage, that thin Houses, which he could not help thinking were great promoters of loquacity, would, for the future, be prevented; and that no Member would venture to address a full House, without being master of the subject which he wished to bring under its consideration. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the appointment of a Committee to take into consideration the best mode of giving correct and authentic Lists of the Divisions of the House.
Mr. Ruthvenmerely wished to say, that, in his opinion, nothing could conduce more to the gratification and advantage of the constituencies throughout the kingdom, than that authenticated lists of the votes of the Members of that House should be given to the public. He feared, however, that it would be difficult to discover any means of obtaining the desired object, but he was glad that the hon. Member had brought the subject under the consideration of the House.
The Motion was agreed to, and a Committee appointed.

COURT OF SESSION—SCOTLAND.
The Lord Advocatesaid, the Motion which it was now his duty to submit to the House was intended to carry into effect the recommendation contained in the Report of the Commissioners appointed under a Royal Commission to inquire into the Courts of Law in Scotland. The first point to which the Bill he sought to introduce would apply, was the saving in the expense to suitors in the Court of Session, which would be effected by the reduction of the number of clerks and other officers, and by an arrangement of fees. The present expense of that court was, now 32,000 l. per annum, and by the reduction of the clerks and other officers from eighty-one (the number at present) to forty-six, the expense would be reduced to about 17,000 l., thereby lessening the number of officers thirty-five and effecting a saving to the country of about 15,000 l. annually. This saving coupled with those which had been made by him

573
on former occasions, would make the annual reduction of expenditure in respect to the Courts of Law in Scotland altogether amount to about 51,000 l. He could not entertain a doubt but that with this statement he should have the sanction of the House for the introduction of the Bill of which he had given notice. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill, "for making certain alterations and reductions in the establishment of clerks and officers attached to the Court of Session in Scotland, and to diminish the expense of judicial procedure in that Court."
Mr. Robert Wallacethen observed that the measure which the right hon. Gentleman sought to introduce could not fail of being gratifying to every person connected with Scotland. He would, however, submit to the learned Lord that the saving of 15,000 l. a-year of which he had spoken, ought not to go to the Consolidated Fund, but to the benefit of suitors in the Courts of Law in Scotland. A further saving might be effected by the reduction of the fees chargeable in all the Scotch Supreme Courts.
Mr. Murraysaid, that while he condemned some measures which had heretofore been introduced for regulating the Supreme Courts in Scotland, he considered that on the present occasion, the learned Lord opposite was performing a very great, useful, and important duty. The country was deeply indebted to those who had issued the Royal Commission from which the proposed measure of relief originated, and to the learned individuals who as Commissioners had executed it. He thought the hint thrown out by the hon. Member for Greenock highly deserving attention, for it was not to be disputed that the fees in the Court of Session especially were not only much too heavy, but that they were a great impediment to the course of public justice, and he trusted that the learned Lord would, in any measure he might bring forward, keep in view the necessity of a diminution in the expenses in all civil causes.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonhoped the proposed Bill did not in any degree refer to points upon which the Commissioners had yet to report. He concurred in the opinion that no country had so much reason to complain of the expenses of law proceedings as Scotland, and he had ever regretted that the provisions of the Bill
574
carried through Parliament by Mr. Home Drummond, for the reduction of the expenses of Sheriff's Courts in Scotland, had not been extended to the Court of Session. The present Bill, as he understood, only effected a reduction in the number and expenses of the clerks, and was silent upon the subject of fees.
Leave given.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT—SCOTLAND.
The Lord Advocate,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for Abolishing in Scotland Imprisonment for Civil Debts of small amount, for rendering more available the process of cessio bonorum, and for restraining the arrestment of wages, observed, that the measure would not require so much explanation as that which had undergone so much discussion that evening—he alluded to the Bill which the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh had obtained leave to introduce referring to the same subject in England. As in Scotland there was no such thing as arrest in civil cases before judgment, except in certain circumstances, it would not be necessary to embody in his Bill so many provisions as would be required in that to which he had adverted. He hoped the House would concur with him in making the experiment in the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debts of small amount, and in limiting it to debts of 8l. 6s. 8d. The returns which had been made to the House showed that in the course of the five years previous to 1833,no less than 12,652 persons had suffered imprisonment, and of this number 7,166 were confined for debts under the sum he had mentioned, and of that portion no less than 3,117 were confined for debts under the sum of 2l. sterling. It would, therefore, be seen, that though limited, the relief afforded by this measure would be considerable, inasmuch as it would abolish greatly more than one-half the number of persons confined for debt. With respect to the Amendment contemplated as to the process of cessio bonorum, he need only say, that the necessity of an action by the creditor in the Court of Session to obtain that process would be obviated, and the debtor would be enabled to appeal for relief to the local Courts of the Sheriffs, instead of, as now, to the Court of Session. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonwould rejoice if

575
some provision were included in the proposed measure, that matters of small debt should be tried before the Sheriff, instead of, as now, before Justices of the peace, who he ventured to say, never gave satisfaction to litigant parties, while on the other hand, the Sheriff seldom failed to do so. He also thought the Sheriff ought to be empowered to hold his Courts at more places in his county, and that these officers, generally Barristers of standing, should try more cases themselves, instead of transferring them to their Sheriff's substitute. It would also be necessary to simplify the forms of procedure in the Sheriffs' Courts, for under Mr. Home Drummond's Bill it was still necessary to adopt all the cumbersome form of summons, condescendence, &c., which was requisite in the procedures of the Supreme Courts. The examination of witnesses under, and by virtue of, Commissions issued for that purpose ought, in his judgment, to be abolished, and all witnesses should be examined vivâ voce before the Sheriff himself in Court.
The Lord Advocatesaid, that the other Bills, of which he had given notice, touched upon some of the points to which the right hon. Gentleman had adverted, but unless it was intended that the decision of the Sheriffs' Courts should be final, the vivâ voce examination of witnesses could not be adopted. To retain the Court of Session as a Court of Review, the evidence must be taken in writing for the information of that Court, and this could only properly be effected by the present mode of examination.
Leave given.