Sitting of 11 July 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Post-Horse Duty.—Read a first time:—Justices of Peace Courts (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. WAKLEY, from Wymondham, for Relief of the Handlcom Weavers; and from St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, for Repeal of Parish Vestries' Act—By Mr. BANNERMAN and the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, from several Places, against Municipal Corporations' (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. BROTHERTON, from Chorley, that Retailers of Beer maybe placed on the same footing as Licensed Victuallers.—By Mr. WILKS, from Gainsborough, for Abolition of Church Rates.—By Mr. H. I. HOPE, from the Medical Profession in Gloucester, Complaining of inadequate Remuneration under the Poor-Law Amendment Act.—By several How. MEMBERS, from various Places, against Factories' Act Amendment Bill.—By Mr. MAHER and another HON. MEMBER, from various Places, praying the House to Adhere to the Municipal Corporations' (Ireland) Bill as originally passed by the House. By Sir R. PRICE, from the Legal Profession, Hertford, against transferring to Doctors Commons the sole Power of granting Administrations.—By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, from Edinburgh, in favour of Jewish Civil Disabilities Bill.

BALLAD-SINGING—THE VAGRANT LAWS.
Mr. Pottersaid, he had a petition, to which he begged the attention of the House whilst he shortly stated its allegation. It was from a gentleman of the name of Robert Mortimer, a highly respectable solicitor, of Barnstaple, in the county of Devon. The prayer of the petition was for an alteration in the Act of the 5th of George 4th relating to vagrants, and that the House might alter that Act, and remove from it those vague and ambiguous clauses which relate to vagrancy. The petition stated that two boys (brothers), named Callaghan, one aged thirteen and the other only eight years old, were singing duets in a very superior style in the
90
village of Pilton, near Barnstaple. Their songs were perfectly harmless, inoffensive, and of a popular kind. Whilst they were so employed in amusing the villagers, some of whom were so much pleased, that they invited the boys into their houses and gave them refreshments and small sums, they were taken into custody by order of a magistrate (Mr. Bencraft), one of the new magistrates of the borough of Barnstaple. The younger boy escaped, but the other, only thirteen years old, was taken before the magistrate, who, on his own view, committed him to the borough gaol of Barnstaple for fourteen days as "idle and disorderly." The petitioner went on to represent to the House the extreme hardship and cruelty of causing a boy of tender years to be incarcerated in a dungeon for gaining a livelihood by exercising a rare and pleasing natural endowment; and humbly represented that such interference with the harmless amusements of the people had a tendency to drive them to seek recreation in the pot-house or beer-shop, which not only degraded and debased them, but proved ruinous to their families. The petitioner further stated, that in those countries where music and harmless amusements were encouraged, drunkenness prevailed to a much less extent than in England, where the people have from time to time been deprived of nearly all the open places which were formerly appropriated to popular pastimes and games. The petitioner concluded by humbly hoping that the House would speedily cause such amendments to be made in the vagrant laws as would clearly define what may properly be considered as offences under them, and place it beyond the power of magistrates to avail themselves of general and ambiguous words as an excuse for inflicting imprisonment, and treating as common felons persons who exercised their talents for the innocent and rational amusement of the people. In the prayer of the petition he most cordially agreed, and if he could only procure the assistance of an hon. and learned Friend of his, he would next session endeavour to alter and soften the vagrant laws. This case had been brought before the town-council of Barnstaple, where the magistrate who had committed the boy had defended himself by stating the boys were begging. That was denied. They certainly received sometrifling sums; but these were given as rewards for their singing. This was not the first case by a

91
very great number where the magistrates had imprisoned persons, and sent them on the tread-mill, for singing in the open air. They should not do so with impunity whilst he had a seat in Parliament. He remembered the period when ballad-singing was encouraged by the magistrates and others; that was at the commencement of the French Revolution, when the ballad-singers were employed to sing loyal songs, to put down what were then called French principles.
The petition to lie on the Table.

FACTORIES—DESERTED CHILDREN.
Mr. Fieldenpresented a petition from several places praying for a Ten-hours' Factory Bill.
Mr. Mark Philipsavailed himself of that opportunity to correct a mistake into which a right reverend Prelate had fallen, when he stated, that 8,000 deserted children had been found in the streets of Manchester, which was attributed to the factory system. The truth was, that all children found straying in the streets of Manchester were taken care of by the police, the number was a proof of its vigilance, not of the evils of the factory system. Of the 8,000 so called deserted children not ten had been, as described by a right rev. Prelate in another place, abandoned. The rest had merely strayed from their homes, and by the assistance of the police had been restored to their parents. He considered it his duty to allude to this subject in consequence of having received communications on the subject, more particularly as such a statement was calculated to do much injury. It was also asserted, that the poor-rates of that place were extremely high, which indicated distress among the inhabitants; so far from it, the poor-rates were never known to be lower, amounting to only one shilling and four pence in the pound. It would be very desirable if those who were disposed to acquire correct information on these subjects would have the kindness to proceed to the manufacturing districts and judge for themselves, instead of giving currency to misstatements.
Petition to lie on the Table.

RAILWAYS.
Sir Robert Peelpresented a petition from the proprietors of shares in the Birmingham and Derby Railway, against the Bill before the House, for the regulation of tolls on railways. He regretted, not to see the hon. Gentleman
92
who had brought forward the motion in his place, as it was his (Sir Robert Peel's) desire to know from him, what his intentions were respecting the Bill, and whether he was disposed to press it on the House during the present session. This was very necessary, as several parties who had advanced money were kept in a complete state of suspense, while others had been transferring and getting rid of their shares. He, therefore, thought it of importance, if the Bill were proceeded with, that a day should be named for taking the sense of the House on it, as he (Sir R. Peel) would consider it his duty, on principle, to oppose the measure, and he hoped the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade would state, what were the intentions of Government respecting the Bill.
Mr. Laboucherebelieved it to be the intention of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Morrison) to persevere with his Bill; but in the absence of his right hon. Friend, he was not prepared to say what course the Government would take, on a question which was one of considerable difficulty.
Mr. Haweswas gratified in hearing the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tam-worth, declare his intention to oppose the Bill on principle, as it involved many difficulties, and was calculated to be very injurious in its tendency.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, his constituents took a deep interest in the question, and without entering upon its merits, he would merely observe, that all they wanted to know was, what the intentions of the Government were. It was rather extraordinary, that upon a question of such importance the Government had not made up their minds; the consequence of which was, that a large amount of capital was paralysed, and extensive operations, in which the public were deeply interested, suspended.
Mr. Labouchereexplained. The hon. Member misunderstood him if he supposed that he (Mr. Labouchere) had stated that the Government had not made up their minds. He was satisfied that when the Bill was before the House, the Government would be prepared to state what course it meant to pursue; but he could not take upon himself to state what that would be in the absence of his right hon. Friend.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, this Bill created alarm in every part of the empire—the more especially as being brought forward

93
at this period, for many Bills bad already passed, and, of course, the interest in these had become vested, and the Bill could not be made retrospective—it would, therefore, be unjust to fix it upon those in progress. He hoped the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill, and who was acting openly, fairly, and honestly, would reconsider his plan, and withdraw the Bill for the present.
Sir R. Pricesaid, there was a general excitement on this Bill throughout the country, and it would be necessary to have the opinion of the House on it. Something ought to be done to set the subject at rest.
Mr. Mark Philipsagreed with the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), and hoped the discussion would take place as early as possible, so that the public might know how to employ their capital. A great deal of capital was laid out in canals; and upon inquiry, it would be found that no inordinate profit had arisen from them.
Petition laid on the table.

CHURCH AND TITHES (IRELAND.)
Mr. Bernalbrought up the Report on the Church of Ireland Bill.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that perhaps the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland would permit him to put a question to him relating to certain alterations which he perceived had been made in this Bill, and which were, as far as he understood them, of considerable importance, inasmuch as they affected the question of the surplus, after supplying the wants of the Irish Church. He understood, that the alterations went to raise the minimum of allowances in one case from 200 l to 300 l., and in another, from 100 l. to 150 l. If he understood those alterations rightly, the object of the noble Lord was to increase the income of the clergy. The question he wished to ask was, whether those alterations would diminish the surplus upon which the noble Lord calculated?
Viscount Morpethreplied, that in order that the nature of the alterations might be clearly known, he intended to move that the Bill be reprinted before the third reading. He had certainly introduced the alterations to which the right hon. Baronet had adverted. One of them was that of increasing the minimum; but as his calculations had been formed upon the maximum, it would make no difference in the result, As to the glebe lands, he was
94
sure that he had made allowance for the change.
Bill to be read a third time, and to be reprinted.

PERSONAL TITHES.
The order of the day for going into Committee on the Personal Tithe Bill having been moved,
Mr. Goulburnwished to take that opportunity of expressing his surprise at the introduction of this Bill, which had been read a second time already, the nature of which he did not ascertain until it was sent to him. It appeared to him to be one of the most extraordinary bills that he had ever seen laid upon the table of that House. "Without the slightest preamble, that Bill went on at once to say, that all personal tithes should be abolished. With-out any plan of compensation, without any inquiry into the effects of such a Bill, it declared that personal tithes should be abolished. Why were these tithes to be abolished without reference to any valuation, or provision of compensation for the loss of them? Was it because it was found difficult to assign any reason why they should be abolished? He had never heard of such a Bill before. There was no preamble whatever; and yet it seriously enacted that personal tithes should be abolished. To pass such a Bill as that would be a defective act of Legislation: and he felt that he should neglect his duty to his constituents, and to those whose interests he had always anxiously watched, if he did not strongly express his opinion against this extraordinary Bill.
Lord John Russellwas aware that the right hon. Gentleman took a great deal of interest in questions of this nature, but he believed that the right hon. Gentleman was not present in the House during a very long discussion which took place recently upon that question. The general sense of the House was, that personal tithes were very oppressive, that it was difficult to collect them, and that they ought not to be suffered to remain any longer. On the other hand, it had been stated that the clergy were not much interested in them. He had no objection to introduce a preamble to this effect "whereas it is expedient that personal tithes should be abolished," and so on.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that if the noble Lord would take the trouble to inquire, he would find that personal tithes formed the greater part of the property of many in-

95
cumbents. To abolish these tithes without affording the slightest compensation, appeared to him to be a most extraordinary proceeding. Had he been present on the occasion alluded to, he should certainly have opposed the principle of the Bill.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, he believed that the only personal tithe that would be abolished by the Bill, was tithe on labour. There could be no doubt that tithe on labour could be legally enforced, but to the honour of the clergy, there had been no case of their being exacted for very many years. With regard to the preamble, he believed that this was not the first Bill that had been introduced without a preamble, though such instances had but seldom occurred. He was anxious to see this Bill passed into a law, for the purpose of delivering the Church of England from a source of much inconvenience and odium.
Mr. Thomas Duncombebelieved that it was in consequence of a motion that he had brought forward that the House came to the determination that personal tithes should be abolished; and it was in consequence of that determination that the noble Lord had introduced the Bill in question. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) seemed to ask what reason there was for the abolition of this tithe? He would answer, the reason was, that the cause of humanity demanded it. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman in what parishes did personal tithes form the greater part of the property of the incumbents? On the evening he brought forward his motion, he stated to the House, that he could find only one case in which the tithe was demanded;—that was the case of a parish in Yorkshire, the clergyman of which endeavoured to obtain 4s. 4d. from a poor day-labourer, who, in default of payment, was committed to the House of Correction for three months. Was not that fact alone a sufficient reason for the abolition of personal tithes? He was sorry the Bill did not go further, and abolish the tithe on fish. A right rev. Prelate in another place had declared that these tithes ought not to be, and could not be collected—he alluded to the Bishop of Exeter. He believed that Easter offerings were originally substituted for personal tithes, on account of their offensive character.
The Bill then went through Committee, and was ordered to be reported. House resumed.
On the Order of the Day for a Committee on the County Elections Poll Bill being moved,

FEMALE EMIGRATION.
Mr. Waltersaid, it was not with any view essentially to delay the proceedings on the Order of the Day, that he rose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, but merely to insure that attention to it which it might otherwise fail of obtaining. He had been waiting for the opportunity which he thought the notice given several weeks ago by the Under Secretary for the Colonies would have afforded him to bring this subject under the notice of the House. He had attended on numerous occasions when the hon. Baronet's notice stood among the orders of the day, but had constantly been disappointed. He would now shortly recapitulate what he stated the other night, that very unjustifiable means had been taken—at least under the semblance of authority—to promote female emigration. All the postmasters in the kingdom had been directed to place placards in the most conspicuous parts of their offices, and to distribute copies among the clergy and parochial authorities, urging young women, with what he should call indecent and improper incitements, to quit their homes. The placard stated, that His Majesty's Government, in order to encourage the emigration of single women and widows of good character to Van Dieman's Land, where the number of females, as compared with the entire population, is greatly deficient, and where all who may conduct themselves with discretion and industry, may calculate in time importantly to benefit their condition, has authorised the Emigration Committee to grant a free passage to such single females, between fifteen and thirty years of age, as the Committee may ascertain to be likely to conduct themselves creditably and usefully in the colonies. The placard went on to say, "that a large proportion of those who had already gone out had married respectable settlers; and altogether the information received of the results of emigration to young women of discreet conduct, clearly demonstrated that all such had importantly benefited their condition by proceeding to this healthy and prosperous colony." Now he should be able, before he sat down, to show, that if this placard did not assert a series of untruths, as he verily believed it did, it at

97
least painted in far too flattering colours the condition of the emigrants who had left this country. He could assure the House, from inquiry of several intelligent gentlemen, who had returned to this country from New South Wales, the region to which these poor women were invited, that two-thirds of the emigrants were irrevocably and finally consigned to prostitution. [Mr. C. Lushington; "No"!—"Order" from the Chair.] He advised the hon. Member to be patient; he would hear the statement corroborated on authority which could not be controverted. In this very Van Dieman's Land whole streets had been built for the exclusive reception of such women; and with respect to those who obtained what was called the situation of servants, to what a class were they but too frequently the servants? Very different, he apprehended, from the masters and mistresses of this or any other of the civilized states of Europe. He had inquired as minutely as possible of three gentlemen who had come from those parts to which the Government recommended farther emigration, and he found them all of the opinion that the emigration of more females to the settlements in the southern hemisphere could only prove destructive to the individuals. He might be again told, as he had been the other night, that the Emigration Committee who managed these concerns at home, were men of high character for judgment and humanity. He could only wish, if such were the case, that they would add to those excellent qualities that of a perfect knowledge of the countries and their condition which they incited their fellow-creatures to fly to, by a previous inspection made by themselves. Last year, strong inducements had been held out to British labourers to go out to the West Indies. When our countrymen, and, he might add, our country women, were displaying so much zeal to get rid of West-Indian slavery, they little apprehended that the effect of that measure would be to force whole families of our fellow-subjects over to those colonies to compete with the emancipated blacks, and that labour under a tropical sun would be esteemed preferable to English workhouses under the regulations to which they were subjected by the new law. He had reason to know, that upwards of 1,000 of our countrymen were thus sent out early last year. How many of them remained alive he knew not; but he knew that Lord
98
Sligo, in an address to the Assembly at Jamaica, spoke of the frightful mortality which had taken place among the emmigrants. He had referred to the West Indies on account of the efforts which had been made for the abolition of the slave-trade. Now, let the House look at what the slave-trade was, even in the palmy season of its iniquity. They perhaps took and dragged the negroes by force from their native land; in this new slave-trade, as he should presently show, the victims were got out by fraud and misrepresentation. In the black slave-trade, you took them from a barbarous and savage country to one of comparative civilization; in this white slave-trade, you drag them from the very centre of civilization and Christian instruction, to a remote region, of which the accounts were most discouraging to this class of people. The Ladies' Committee in Van Dieman's Land state—
"That they are particularly anxious to call attention to the practice of sending out to that colony very young girls from the workhouses, schools of industry, or reform, or other charitable institutions. They have experienced the most painful solicitude respecting many of those who have arrived in every ship with female emigrants; and although they have exercised their best care, yet it is lamentable to observe the number of those young girls who have deviated from the paths of virtue. The Committee make this representation from the great difficulty they have always found in procuring situations, in respectable families, for girls from fourteen to sixteen years of age. Few persons are willing to take them as servants; and it has frequently happened, that after having been placed by the Committee in a situation where they would be taken care of, many have quitted those situations and sought a home with abandoned and depraved characters, of whom there are many in this town willing to receive them. The Committee would therefore most earnestly hope that, in future, none under seventeen or eighteen years of age might be induced, by any assistance from the Government, to emigrate to this colony, where the first lesson they learn is that they are free, and subject to no control but such as they are willing to submit to. The Committee are desirous to urge this point very strongly for the serious consideration of the Government, both as it affects the welfare of the young emigrants themselves, and also for the sake of the best interests of the community, which cannot be better served than in promoting the advancement of religion and virtue, and preventing the increase of immorality and crime."
What do this much-lauded Emigration Committee do upon this representation?

99
Notwithstanding the earnest entreaties of these persons on the spot to send out no females under seventeen or eighteen years of age, they directly invite the parish officers throughout the kingdom to send out more children of fifteen, at a moment when the rigour—a rigour hitherto unknown in this country—of the new Poor Bill disgusts them with the institutions of their own country. Fifteen years of age did he say? Why, he had just been shown a Hobart-town paper of the 12th of February, in which it was proved that children under twelve years of age had been sent out. [Mr. C. Lushington: By what ship?] I cannot tell what ship. Here is the paper. He would read, the hon. Member continued, an extract from the paper:—
"The females which have come to us by the present opportunity, are of unusually tender years to be thus launched upon the world. Contrary to the stipulation, many of them are under fifteen; and about thirty, we learn, under twelve or fourteen, will require to be kept like our own orphans, and reared and educated for some years at the public expense, until fit for service. A person of common sense, whether male or female, will naturally ask these urgers of forced emigration—' If it be so fine a thing, how comes it, gentlemen, that you are not gone?' Example is better than precept—is much better than persuasion based on so rotten grounds. But no; in default of this natural and obvious inducement, flattering pictures, delusive statements, and advertisements of all kinds (paid for, of course, out of our poor acres) are disseminated in all quarters. Most sincerely do we wish that their condition may be ameliorated, though with all the welcome, the disinterested and benevolent intentions, for which the inhabitants of this place are proverbial, much disappointment must ensue. When we find that the heads of these young females are filled with such notions as that 'Van Dieman's Land is a splendid little spot, filled with pretty white cottages, each with single men, of all ranks and callings, waiting for wives,' we cannot hold scathless the authors of such delusion, seeing it is used to induce them to accept it in place of home, and all those ties which, in a female breast in particular, are at once so delicate and binding."
He had heard some Gentlemen, the other night, loudly declaim in favour of emigration generally. Upon this subject, however, he could not help having a strong conviction that there was a great deal of error prevalent—error studiously implanted and widely diffused for that purpose. Let any man look at what the first
100
act in the process of emigration was. It was tearing our fellow-creatures from their homes, from those scenes, connexions, and associations, which in every civilized state are most dear to the heart of man, How could one contemplate the disseverment of so many ties—that was, the infliction of so much misery on our fellow-creatures without pain? "Oh, but," it was said, "we send them to a better place, where they will be better fed, and practise better moral conduct, and be ultimately more happy than they were in their native country." His answer to this assertion, if it were true, would be, "the greater the shame and reproach to that state and government under which any of its subjects can be induced to seek a foreign and unknown clime, in preference to their native land, and in violation of their natural affections." As he should not be entitled to a reply, he felt it right to anticipate some objections that might be urged against him. He was prepared to hear Gentlemen interested in these emigration plans, and who might, perhaps, have important stakes in these new colonies in consequence, give the House a flourishing account of their condition. He should reject all such testimony coming from so suspicious a source. Great stress, also, might be laid on the Reports of some Commissioners or benevolent Committees. With respect to such Reports, and the authors of them, he must observe, that they were too often made for the express purpose of carrying into effect the favourite objects of those with whom such Commissions originated, rather than after a fair and impartial investigation of both sides of a question. He would briefly give the House an example of what he meant. The Irish Poor-law Report had quoted very largely from other Reports, and among them from the English Poor-law Report, in which mention had been made of a parish called Cholesbury. The example of that parish had been made the great stalking-horse of those who frightened people into an approbation of the new Poor-law. Having heard a great deal about that parish, and of the beneficial effects of a benevolent society instituted there for bettering the condition of labourers, by letting out to them small patches of land to be cultivated by spade husbandry, he last autumn visited the place, and what he saw there would always induce him to use great caution in credit-

101
ing the Reports of Commissioners or Committees. It was certainly true, as the Report stated, that the rents of the farms had been absorbed by the rates, and that relief in aid had been obtained from other parishes; but the House would be surprised to hear that all the farms in the parish consisted of only two, of fifty acres each. The whole of the parish contained only 162 acres, of which forty-four were waste. The sudden deaths of the two chief proprietors, and the declining powers of an aged incumbent, contributed, with other causes, to the disorganization of this little parish; and without detaining the House longer by an induction from particulars, it was certain that the circumtances of that case rendered it worth nothing as an example. As to the spade husbandry, which was the chief feature in the construction of the benevolent society, and formed a prominent part of its last year's Report, the least trace of it was not to be found in the parish. Now, if reports of a parish in England not forty miles off, were so erroneous, he might be allowed to have some doubts respecting the Reports, however official, of a country in the southern hemisphere. If he was charged with misstating facts, let a Committee be appointed to ascertain the truth. He had thought it his duty to make these circumstances known to the House, in the hope that at least some principles of moderation might be instilled into the present rage for sending our poor fellow-countrymen, and still more our countrywomen, they knew not whither. He should move that "an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to issue his Royal orders that a placard entitled, 'Emigration to Van Dieman's Land,' which the several postmasters throughout the kingdom have been directed to put in a conspicuous place in their several post-offices, and to circulate among the clergy and the parochial authorities, be withdrawn."
The Speakerasked who seconded the motion?
Mr. Wakley: I second the motion.
Mr. O'Connell: Oh, Mr. Wakley.
Mr. Goringthought it right to state with respect to Cholesbury, that a large sum of money had been expended in the purchase of land, and furnishing the means of cultivation. He should be able to prove that the society had not been altogether unsuccessful.
Sir George Greysaid, it was not his intention to travel through the whole of the observations of the hon. Member for Berkshire, who, he thought, had pursued a very extraordinary course. The hon. Member had found a certain placard exhibited in the window of some post-office at a distance from London, offering to the notice of young persons the advantages of emigration. Now, it would not be necessary for him (Sir G. Grey) to say more than what he had said on a former occasion—that these circulars had been issued without the authority of the Government. Whatever might be the sources from which the hon. Member had drawn his information, he trusted that the people of England would not take their idea of the advantages or disadvantages of emigration, from the picture which he had drawn with the assistance of anonymous paragraphs from Hobàrt-town newspapers The hon. Member was mistaken in saying that people were torn from their families and sent to remote colonies; the fact was, that the emigration of these females was voluntary. He believed that the Committee which had conducted the business of emigration, had done so ably and prudently. He was speaking in the presence of two or three Gentlemen of that Committee, and he believed the measures which had been adopted had been productive of much good in the colonies. He would recommend the hon. Member for Berkshire to examine the Reports and authorised documents which were laid upon the table of that House, instead of collecting his information from newspapers. Considering the great number of females which went out, it was not to be wondered at if some turned out badly. The subject, however, had been taken up in the proper quarter, namely, by the colonists themselves. He could only hope that the statements of the hon. Member would be received with caution.
Mr. Charles Lushingtonwas deeply sensible of the indecorousness of intruding upon the public business, matters which related to himself, but he hoped the House would allow him to make some explanations in reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Berkshire, in vindication of the Emigration Committee. The hon. Member had said, that the placard which he had alluded to was unjustifiable and indecent. Before going further, he (Mr. Lushington) would premise that he had

103
been a member of the Committee from the first moment of its organization, and that he had given his anxious and sedulous attention to its proceedings. The House would be pleased to recollect that a great disparity of the sexes existed in New South Wales and Van Dieman's Land, the males being in proportion to the females as three to one. In order to obviate this, Government had been in the habit of granting bounties to single females to induce them to emigrate to those colonies; but in consequence of their being sent out without any protection, and having to find their own passage, they were exposed to great temptation, in fact to seduction, and the most frightful excesses had taken place. A Committee of gentlemen offered their services to Government for the purpose of promoting emigration in a better form. That Committee consisted, he might say without exception, of gentlemen of the most humane and benevolent character, and men who could not be suspected of making false statements for the sake of looking well upon paper. He would beg leave to read an extract from a letter he had received from a clergyman of the Church of England, the reverend Mr. Lyte, of Torbay:—
"I was anxious to say to you, as I saw your name on the Female Emigration Committee, that we had had the ship Canton, with female emigrants on board, anchored under our windows in Torbay during the whole of the preceding week; that I had been several times on board with Mrs.—and all my family, and that we were all much pleased with the vessel and her inmates. The arrangements between decks were so good as to leave ample room for the free circulation of air; and the ship, though she had been a fortnight or three weeks at sea before we saw her, was as sweet and wholesome as if there had not been ten persons below instead of 200. I really could not have imagined it possible, unless I had actually witnessed the fact, that so many respectable females could have been collected together for the purpose of emigration, or that such excellent order could have been preserved among them. That some exceptionable persons should find their way into so large a company must be expected; and yet really, while we were on board, and we went often and stayed long, we saw not one improper act, nor heard one improper expression. On the Sunday I had the pleasure of giving them Divine service on board; I say the pleasure, because I never saw a more attentive and decorous audience. While I preached to them a kind of farewell sermon, there was scarcely one who did not appear more or less affected, Classed as the females
104
were, as far as possible, according to their congeniality and suitability to each other, the more religious parties of them occupied the after-part of the ship, and were in the habit of having prayer together every evening, and on the Sunday evening, after I had preached to them, this little band received a request from those at the other end of the vessel, that some of them would come forward among them, and commence the same excellent practice in their quarters also, with the hope of carrying it on throughout the voyage. On another occasion we were on board of the ship while the emigrants were at dinner, and could not but remark on the excellence of the fare, and the orderly way in which it was served out. We questioned many of them as to their satisfaction with the victuals, accommodation, &c, and were pleased to find in almost every instance the utmost content prevailing, We also made a little subscription in the towns round Torbay to provide some printed calico for gowns for some of the poor Irish girls who had come on board, many of them without a change. These, though among the poorest, were also among the most well-behaved of the party, and calculated as much as any on board, to shed over our colonies those humanizing traits which the presence of virtuous women usually brings with it."
The hon. Member read extracts from other letters to the same effect. The hon. Member then proceeded to observe, that however distressing it might be to his feelings to advert to such topics, he could not but feel it was due to truth and justice to state, that nothing could be more vicious than was the state of society in that colony, and that its vices were not confined to the lower classes—that he knew one case in which an individual holding a judicial situation came on board a vessel from. England, containing female emigrants, represented himself as a married man, hired one of the young women as a servant, carried her off with him, and before many hours passed away, attempted to seduce her. He certainly lost his situation; but who could for a moment doubt that the state of society at the colony was such as in a pre-eminent degree required the interference of a body like the Committee with which he was connected?
Mr. Walter, in explanation, said, that the extracts which he had read were from the official paper, he believed, of the Government at Hobart-town, and from the documents laid on the Table by the Colonial-office. As to the denial of the affair at Cholesbury, given by the hon. Member for Shoreham, he could only repeat, that there bad not been a rood

105
of spade husbandry dug when he visited the place, and that he had seen all the persons mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. He inferred that nothing more had been done, because the Society had observed utter silence on the subject of Cholesbury in its latest Report. He had used the precaution to take a friend with him, who could confirm his statement. Having stated his views, he hoped it would be felt that he had done his duty in bringing the subject forward, and he now left the House to deal with the motion as they might think proper.
Motion negatived.

COUNTY ELECTIONS.
On the Motion of Lord John Russell, the House went into Committee on the County Elections Poll Bill.
On the 2nd Clause limiting the election to a single day,
Mr. Goulburncontended, that no necessity had been made out for such a measure as that before the House, and he saw no remedy in it for that which he considered an evil which was susceptible of remedy, namely, where persons had property in two different counties, they could not vote for both in consequence of the elections being fixed for the same day. Here they were prevented from exercising the franchise in both counties; and this he considered was a subject that ought to be provided for, although it was subordinate in its character. Another question was with regard to expense; and so far from diminishing expense, he thought the present Bill would add considerably to it, for the more the places of polling were multiplied, the more would the expenses of the candidate also be multiplied. He doubted very much whether the diminution of the expenses for conveyances for the voters to go to the poll, would not be equalled by the additional expenses arising from the polling places, which by this present Bill it was intended to create. Neither was he disposed to concur in the principle of confining the polling at elections for counties to one day. Another objection he had to the Bill was, that the elections were not to close until six o'clock in the evening. The consequence, therefore, must be, that they would have in some seasons to be carried on in the dark; and those persons who might desire to return a particular candidate might have the opportunity of so obstructing the poll on the part of the other candidates as to secure
106
the return without the proper authorities being able to determine whether the obstruction was of such a nature or to such an extent as would justify the adjournment of the poll. At any rate, even if this state of things did not arise, he thought that confining elections for counties to one day would materially interfere with the exercise of the right of polling. The points to which he had referred, he considered to be well worthy the attention of the noble Lord before the Bill proceeded further.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the system of reducing the days of polling in counties to two, had worked exceedingly well, and it was considered that by affording additional polling places, and greater facilities for taking the votes than at present existed, that the elections could be as easily accomplished in one day as they had been in two. He could not help thinking it an object of great importance that the Poll should be taken in one day, for he was persuaded that if two days were allowed much greater expense would be incurred, and greater opportunities given for corrupt practices to be carried on and undue influence exercised. It was an object which in his opinion might easily be accomplished: a clause of the same nature as this had been proposed in Committee on the Registration Bill by his noble Friend the Member for Devon, which had been much approved of by the House, and no difficulty was apprehended in carrying that into effect. The objections urged against this clause by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, were objections which must, and indeed were urged, with equal force against the alteration of the time from fifteen days to two. As to the objection urged by the right hon. Gentleman, that it would have the effect of disfranchising a class of voters who had property for which they would be entitled to possess the franchise in different counties,—that a person for instance possessing the franchise in Devon could not, if the time for taking the poll were limited to one day, give his vote for property situated in Yorkshire, which he might do if the time were extended to two or three days, he, (Lord J. Russell) thought it hardly possible that Parliament should legislate for such extreme cases.
Mr. Forstercould assure the noble Lord that he knew of more cases than one in which by limiting the poll to one day large bodies of electors would be disfranchised,—especially in the case of a

107
town situate on the borders of three counties, the inhabitants of which held property in all three. This evil might easily be remedied by providing that in contiguous counties, the elections should not take place on one and the same day, in order to afford persons who had property in them an opportunity of exercising their franchises in each.
Mr. Prymeconsidered this as an evil incidental to the Reform Bill, and an evil which persons choosing to hold property in several counties must run the risk of incurring. He himself was in the predicament described by the hon. Member for Walsall, and lost several votes in consequence at the last election. A freeholder had always the choice for what property he would give his vote, and he (Mr. Pryme) could not conceive it proper to alter the whole course of elections in the country to meet individual cases of this kind.
Mr. Baineswould merely give the House the result of his own experience in the working of the present system in the largest electorial division of the kingdom. He could state, from his own knowledge, that the East Riding of Yorkshire, in which there were at the last election 18,000 voters, and he believed there would be 28,000 at the next, the polling was carried on with the greatest ease in two days, and he believed that, by the additional facilities afforded by this Bill, the polling could as easily have been taken in one day as two.
Mr. Evelyn Denison: As the law stood at present, the objections urged by the hon. Member for Walsall might hold, but by a Bill which had gone through this House, it was provided that any voter might choose at what polling place in a county he gave his vote: whereas at present he was compelled to give it at the particular polling place of the district in which his property was situate. And surely the voter could have no difficulty even in the case suggested by the hon. Member for Walsall, in selecting the three polling places in the different counties which were nearest to each other, and so be enabled to give his vote in every one of them.
Sir Robert Peel: It might be true that when only two days were allowed in practice, the greatest number of votes were polled on the first day, but it did not necessarily follow that the elections should be limited to one day; for it was not quite
108
plain that, if they were so limited, the evils apprehended by his right hon. Friend would not arise. In the first place he considered that if the proposed change took place, those residing in towns would have a great advantage over those who lived at any distance from polling-places. It was to be considered that when the poll closed at so late an hour as six o'clock, there must be greater apprehension of intimidation by the voters, than when those voters had the option of coming in to poll any time in two days. There was, too, a monopoly of carriages to be apprehended—that was more likely to come into operation where the polling was confined to one day. It might be attempted for one day but if there were to be a second day's poll, such an attempt would be defeated by the spirit it was likely to excite in the country. He considered that no evils had followed from the two days polling; no valid reason had been given for the change. As to the argument that expense would thereby be saved it was not quite certain, in his opinion that when (as they must necessarily be) the polling places were greatly increased in number, that would be the case: at all events he was convinced that a gentleman with a long purse would have much greater opportunities of using it under the proposed system, than at present and considering as he had said that no great evil had arisen from the period of two days being allowed, and that greater facilities for undue influence and intimidation would be given under the system proposed to be established by this Bill, he was in favour of the continuance of the present period.
Viscount Howickcould not help thinking that the right hon. Baronet never had the misfortune to stand for a county, or he would not have said that there was no valid reason for this change. He Lord Howick was convinced that limiting the poll to one day would make a great difference in the amount of expenses, at present very large indeed. But the right hon. Baronet objected, that it would lead to partial inconveniences and he (Lord Howick) was ready to confess that it might be possible to imagine cases in which such inconveniences might arise. But he did not believe they would be found arising to any extent. As to intimidation, he (Lord Howick) believed that in county elections intimidation was of infinitely more rare occurrence than in towns. [No! no!]

109
He granted, that intimidation of a particular description might be more common incounties but he did not think that by limiting the elections to one day the power of the landlords would be increased. He was of opinion that the argument was much more applicable to towns than counties, with the additional polling places contemplated by the present Bill. As to a monopoly of the means of conveyance, if any such system were to be adopted, it must be known before the election took place, and must therefore be inoperative, and under the proposed system the distance which any voter would have to go would be very short indeed.
Mr. Evelyn Denison: His noble Friend had said, he could conceive of some cases in which the objections stated by the right hon. Baronet opposite, might arise. His (Mr. Denison's) imagination was not, however, so fertile as his noble Friend's, and he must say, he conceived of no circumstances under which these objections could possibly hold. The great objections of the right hon. Baronet seemed to be, first, that by the late hour at which the polls would close, some voters would be compelled to travel home, perhaps eight or ten miles, in the dark; and then, that the limitation of the poll to one day would facilitate a monopoly of carriages. Now, his (Mr. Denison's) answer to both objections was the same; viz, that under the proposed system, if the additional polling places were properly distributed, no voter would have to travel such distances as to render travelling dangerous in the dark; or as to render conveyances necessary.
Mr. Goulburnbegged to ask the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire (Mr. Denison) what clause in the Bill prevented a person holding property in the northern, and residing in the southern division of a county, from having to go and give his vote in the northern division? ["the Registration Bill."] But that Bill was not yet law; and he (Mr. Goulburn) was not arguing upon that which might be, but that which really was the law.
Mr. Evelyn Denisonexplained; he understood, that all along the discussion was conducted on the understanding that the Registration Bill would be passed. Undoubtedly, if it were not, he should agree with the right hon. Baronet in the necessity of some alteration in this Bill.
Mr. Goringcould confirm what was stated by the hon. Member for Leeds, as
110
to the greater number of voters in a county being polled on the first day; and he could add from his own experience that those who polled the second day mostly resided in the vicinity of the polling places; and that if there were any bribery carried on, it was almost always on the second day.
Mr. G. Heathcotethought it extremely hard where persons had property in two counties that arrangements were not made so as to enable them to exercise the franchise in both. In towns this was provided for, and he thought a clause ought to be framed by which this difficulty might be obviated.
Lord John Russellhad no objection to fill up the blanks, by enacting that the poll should open at eight o'clock and close at five.
Sir Charles Knightleyasked, if 6,000 voters could poll between eight and five on one day?
An Hon. Member: In the West Riding of Yorkshire, 13,000 polled in one day.
Sir Charles Knightleyobserved, that in winter it was often dark at half past three. He should object to the clause even as amended.
The question was then put and agreed to, that the words eight in the morning, and five in the evening, be inserted in the blanks, instead of nine and six.
On the question that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, the Committee divided: Ayes 64; Noes 31—Majority 33.
The Bill went through the Committee. The House resumed, the Report to be received.

STAMP DUTIES.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day for the further consideration of the report on the Stamp Duties Bill.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that the impression on the minds of several hon. Members was, that the clause relating to newspapers would not come on that night, and they had left the House in consequence. For himself he must say, that there was not a clause in reference to that subject, which was not a direct attack on the press, and which would not operate as a restriction on the liberty of the Press. There were now five other public Bills on the orders, which had not received discussion, and under these circumstances, and knowing full well that several of his hon. Friends

111
had staid away under the impression that the subject would not be discussed that night, he trusted that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give way for one day, and bring on the subject the first thing to-morrow. Upon the general principle, he felt that he should be obliged to take the sense of the House upon almost every clause in the Bill.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerfelt called upon to state, after what had fallen from the hon. Member for Finsbury, that it was not intended in any one clause of the Bill, or could it be, in the slightest degree, to impose the smallest restrictions on the liberty of the Press. There was no one clause in the Bill when presented to the House that could by possibility produce such an effect. With respect to the delay asked for by the hon. Member in reference to the subject of the stamp duty on newspapers, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not consent; he was ready to go into the Committee fully to discuss the clauses; and if the hon. Gentleman was disposed to object to them on the principle which he had raised, he would not hold himself responsible for delay. Every hour he was receiving complaints from the Press from every part of the country in consequence of this object having been postponed, and in consequence of hopes having been held out that the reduction would have taken place on the 5th of July, and calling upon him to proceed with the Bill. He said let the House proceed now with the measure, in order to have an opportunity of deciding upon it; and he must say that it was somewhat extraordinary that those very Gentlemen who last year professed themselves to be the friends of the diffusion of political knowledge, now raised objections on matters, to which if he were disposed to accede, nothing would be more discreditable to him. He had been asked repeatedly at what time he would bring on this question, and he had as repeatedly said that he would bring it on that night, and that he meant to limit the discussion in the first place to that part of the Bill which referred to stamps on newspapers—and that course he had determined to persevere in—a course which had been stated by his noble Friend, the Secretary for the Home Department, on Friday last. Therefore there was no reason for hon. Gentlemen saying that they had been taken by surprise in this proceeding, and he must
112
do justice to the public. The hon. Member for Finsbury must excuse him if he refused to postpone the order of the day till to-morrow, unless such postponement were warranted by more cogent reasons than those which had been given by the hon. Gentleman. Let the division be taken on this point, and let it be seen that, whilst he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) held out to the public relief to the extent provided for by the Bill, the hon. Gentleman was the person to interpose between him and the public.
Mr. O'Connellcould not imagine that his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, seriously meant to divide on the question of the House going into Committee; it was very desirable that they should proceed with this very important measure. It was essentially necessary that they should agree to a reduction of duty; the only question at issue was whether the scale of that reduction of duty should be lower. The question which remained behind was one of detail in Committee; and so also were the clauses which went to prevent any persons from printing a newspaper who did not contribute to the revenue. But then arose the doubt whether these clauses were not framed with unnecessary severity? He himself had a very strong opinion that, when they reduced the duty, they ought in the same proportion to reduce the severity of the enactments by which stamp duties were regulated. He thought with the hon. Member for Finsbury that these clauses were unnecessarily severe; and he hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend would allow the House to go into Committee without dividing.
Mr. Haweshad certainly heard the statement that it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the newspaper part of the Bill to-night, and he hoped, therefore, the hon. Member for Finsbury would not oppose the Bill's going into Committee.
Dr. Bowringthought his hon. Friend could not complain that he had been taken by surprise, and he also begged he would allow the Bill to go into Committee.
Mr. Freshfieldhad also understood that it was intended to proceed with this part of the Bill to-night.
Mr. Wakleyinsisted that such an understanding had not been entered into by many hon. Members. Neither the hon. Member for Middlesex nor the hon. Mem-

113
ber for Bath, who were not now in their places, were aware of it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdenied that he had shown any want of courtesy to Members of that house. The hon. Member for Finsbury was the only person who had made an application to him for postponement, and if it could be shown that any other hon. Member had been taken by surprise, he would not press his motion; but as he felt that due notice had been given, it would be impossible to interrupt the public business. Before they went into Committee, however, he should move that it be an instruction to the Committee that it have power to divide the Bill into two or more Bills, an arrangement which would enable the House, if, circumstances should render it necessary, to proceed with that part of the Bill which related to newspapers as a separate measure. He allowed that this proposition was different from the one which he had formerly submitted to the House, but although he might be charged with inconsistency in pursuing a course which he had before declined to follow, he should never be ashamed of retracting an opinion if he found that it would benefit the public to do so.
Mr. Goulburnhad never imputed anything like inconsistency to his right hon. Friend for taking the course which he now seemed disposed to adopt, and which he thought it the most advisable to follow.
Mr. Robinsoninquired whether what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to be considered as an intimation that this was the only part of the Bill with which it was intended to proceed this Session?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould promise not to bring in any other part of the Bill without giving ample notice to those gentlemen who were interested, and if they should offer any opposition to its progress on account of the unreasonably late period of the Session, he would not, on the part of the Government, press the other parts of the Bill. Still he was very anxious that a measure of such extreme importance as the consolidation of this great branch of our law should, if possible, be passed this Session; and he did not yet abandon the hope that it might be carried into effect.
The instruction was agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved that the consideration of the clauses up to 162 inclusive be postponed.
Agreed to,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid that they would then proceed to the clause embracing the actual proposition he intended to make, Clause 163; and in proposing this clause, he wished gentlemen to bear in mind, that the principles which he had avowed in proposing the reduction of the stamp-duty on newspapers were principles leading him to extend protection to those who contributed to the revenue as well as to collect it; and if gentlemen could show him any one clause in the Bill which was not necessary, and justified, as far as regarded these revenue purposes, he would strike it out. He only asked the House to give him the power of collecting the reduced revenue, and of being just to the parties who paid it. In consequence of the omission of the former clauses, it would be necessary to make a new preamble for the Bill, and to leave out schedule A.
Clause 163 having been proposed,
Mr. Wakleycomplained that the new and cumbrous machinery created by this Bill would act as a heavy clog upon the liberty of the press. By this Bill, the 60th George 3rd, the Trash Act, as it was called, was rendered even yet more burdensome and oppressive than it was at present. By the law as it stood, a pamphlet, consisting of not less than two sheets and a quarter, and sold for no less than 6d., might be published as often as the parties pleased. But by the insertion of the words, "or pamphlet" in this clause, pamphlets, whatever number of sheets they might contain, and whatever might be their price, would be placed without exception upon the same footing as what were strictly called newspapers. He should, therefore, propose as an amendment, to strike out the words "or pamphlet" from this clause.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the hon. Member for Finsbury seemed to anticipate that the present Bill would have the effect of imposing a duty upon a class of publications which were not entitled to pay a duty at present. When they came to the consideration of the schedules, in which the word "pamphlet" would be more particularly defined, he undertook to show most distinctly that such was not the intention. He hoped

115
the hon Member for Finsbury would consent to defer his objection to the word "pamphlet" until they came to the schedules. If the word were to be omitted in the present clause, parties might be induced to attempt to publish a newspaper under the title of a "pamphlet," in order to avoid the duty. He repeated the declaration which he had already made—namely, that it was only his intention to charge the duty of 1d. upon such papers as, by the present law, were entitled to pay the stamp duty of 4d.
Mr. O'Connellsupported the clause as it stood. He should have voted with the hon. Member for Finsbury if he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fallen into the mistake attributed to him by the hon. Member for Finsbury. His impression was, that if they were to omit the word "pamphlet" in this clause before they had defined what a pamphlet was, parties might bring out a paper called The Morning Pamphlet instead of The Morning Chronicle, and The Evening Pamphlet instead of The Courier, with a view to evade the duty.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that an Act had till lately existed imposing a duty upon pamphlets, and in which, of course, was contained a clear definition of what a "pamphlet" was intended to be considered. That Act having expired, it became necessary, in his opinion, to come to a clear definition in respect to the present Bill as to what was a "newspaper."
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that if eventually it should be considered that the word "pamphlet" would not comprehend a newspaper under another name, he should consent to its omission when the schedules were being considered. In the meantime he should press its being retained in the clause.
Mr. Wakley, referring to the words of the clause, said that it clearly comprehended "pamphlets," as in addition to "newspapers." The words were "newspaper or pamphlet," &c. If the word "pamphlet," therefore, was permitted to remain in this clause, it appeared to him that all the subsequent provisions of the Bill, must necessarily apply to pamphlets as well as newspapers—not only as respected the payment of the penny duty, but also in all the onerous restrictions contemplated by the machinery of the Bill. He thought, before they went further, that
116
they should define more precisely what a newspaper was, apart from any consideration of size or form.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrepeated that he should be quite ready to omit the word in the schedule if it were found to be unnecessary to the purposes contemplated by the Bill, and which he had already explained.
Colonel Thompsonsaid, if he had rightly understood the Attorney-General to say, that a pamphlet was only a "sewed paper" (pan filé), it did appear to be particularly superfluous that the Bill should go on reiterating the words "any paper, or sewed paper;" and if the government really meant to take nothing more by the introduction of the word "pamphlet," it would be better to omit it.
Mr. Wakleymust insist upon dividing upon his amendment.
The Committee divided on the question that the original words stand part of the clause: Ayes 69; Noes l—Majority 68.
On the question that the clause stand part of the Bill,
Mr. Wakleydeclared that the Committee had declared that a pamphlet was a newspaper ["No,no!"] [Mr. O'Connell: "Quite the reverse"]. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said so at least, though he did not mean it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that it should be recollected that provision was to be made for the free transmission by post of newspapers and pamphlets, and for facilitating in many ways the means of communication. It would be very incorrect to say that a pamphlet per se, was to be charged with a duty; but at the same time it should be recollected, that if all pamphlets were to be excluded from the duty they would also be excluded from the benefits of the Act.
Mr. Wakleyhoped every hon. Member would recollect the interpretation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put upon this clause, as it might become highly important on some future occasion.
Mr. Jervis observed Mr. Jervis observed, that there was a manifest injustice, in his opinion, in the provisions of this clause; for they visited upon the printer of the supplement of a newspaper a penalty for a supposed fraud of which he was not, in all probability, cognisant.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas glad to have the question which arose out of this clause brought under the attention

117
of the Committee by his hon. Friend the Member for Chester. The fact was, that this clause was framed at the earnest suggestion of the newspaper proprietors. When this measure was first proposed, it was suggested to him by the parties to whom he had alluded, that there were often foreign expresses came in at a late hour, which contained matter of great interest, and there were often debates in Parliament which would require much more space than was afforded by the ordinary size of the paper. On these grounds, amongst others, it was urged that if a supplement of a sheet were allowed on the payment of a halfpenny duty, it would be a very great convenience and advantage to the conductors of newspapers, and would not occasion any loss to the revenue. So far he was perfectly willing to go; but if a general power was granted under the provisions of this Act to a paper, for instance, which was published once a week, of bringing out supplements on consecutive days from that on which it appeared, the effect would be to have a publication brought out and continued subject only to half the duty intended by the law. Now to guard against this obvious means of evading the imposition of the penny duty under the colour of halfpenny supplements, the present clause was drawn up, which directed that the supplement should be published of the same date and by the same parties as the newspaper itself. He begged to be allowed to say that he, in the first instance, proposed, and ultimately succeeded in effecting, the imposition of a penny duty, and he certainly was most desirous to protect it from all collusive practices. It was, at all events, a proposal which was introduced for the benefit of the publishers, and which was, in his opinion, well calculated to promote the good of the public.
Dr. Bowringthought that the penalties imposed by this clause were very disproportioned; for the printer or publisher was only compelled to pay a fine of 20 l. for a violation of its provisions, whilst any person who sold such a supplement as the Act forbade, and who might, in all probability, be a very innocent person, was liable to so severe a penalty as 50 l.
Colonel Thompsonsaid, the direction that whenever a supplement to a newspaper was published, words indicating the publishing of the supplement should be
118
printed upon the newspaper, was a superfluous infliction on the newspaper press. The fact was, that in the majority of cases, the newspaper editor did not think of publishing a supplement, till after his newspaper was in whole or in part worked off, which made it impossible to add the words required. The objects of the clause would be obtained just as well without it.
The Attorney-Generalpointed out the fact that these penalties could only be put in force by the Attorney-General, and not on the information afforded by a common informer.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he did not hesitate to comply with the suggestion which had been thrown out by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock to reduce the second penalty provided by the clause from 50 l. to 20 l. He was satisfied that the enforcement of these penalties being left in the hands of the responsible law advisers of the Crown ensured their never being imposed without an admixture of clemency and a perfect absence of all unnecessary severity.
Mr. Wakley proposed, that before the words "printer or publisher," in this clause, the word "proprietor" should be inserted. He did not see why the proprietor of a paper should be free from those liabilities to which the printer and publisher were subjected by this clause. He believed that it would be difficult, under this Bill, to get a printer or publisher to incur those responsibilities from which those who employed him were exempted. But the fact which accounted for the terms of the clause as it at present stood was this—that it was drawn up by the proprietors of the stamped press of the metropolis, and that the right hon. Gentleman knew nothing of it until it was put into his hands.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he was most anxious to apprise the hon. Member for Finsbury, as well as the House and the public, of the mistake into which the hon. Gentleman had fallen, when he expressed his belief that this measure was proposed by the proprietors of the stamped press, and that the Government knew nothing of it until it was placed in their hands by the parties to whom he had alluded. He was prepared to state, as a matter of fact, coming within his own knowledge, and as such entitled, he hoped, to credence, that there was no foundation whatever for such an assertion.

119
Indeed, so far were the proprietors of the stamped press from being parties to such a measure, that they were the parties most strongly opposed to any alteration in the present system.
The clause, as amended, was agreed to.
The 164th Clause, who shall be deemed proprietors of a newspaper, was struck out.
On Clause 165, a return of all the proprietors of newspapers to be made to the stamp-office half-yearly,
Sir George Greywas understood to say, that he had heard that his right hon. Friend intended, where the proprietors of a paper were numerous, they should be represented at the stamp-office by two of the body.
Mr. C. Bullerwished to know why the names of the proprietors should not be known? If they were, they would take care not to leave the business of their paper to the control and superintendence of worthless agents. Why should not, he repeated, the proprietors be known, in order that they should, if the manner in which the paper was conducted deserved it, be held up to public esteem; and if it did not deserve it, and that it was made subservient to malicious motives, or to the purposes of slander, that they should be held up to public infamy. He would go farther, and say that if the proprietors were not known they should not be entitled to recover for their property.
Dr. Bowringsuggested the impracticability of adopting such a suggestion as that which had been given. How could it be possibly acted upon in case the proprietors amounted to a thousand persons?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas quite willing to acknowledge the justness of the arguments of the hon. Member for Liskeard in favour of every fair degree of notoriety being given to the proprietors of newspapers. But the difficulty which he felt upon this question was that which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, namely, that which arose from a number of proprietors to one concern. He should, however, have no objection to have the names of the persons originally engaged in the proprietorship before the paper started inserted at the Stamp-office. But he feared, that if it were required upon all transfers of shares to have due notice given, such a provision would render the application of capital to the extension of newspapers almost wholly
120
impracticable. He had it at one time in contemplation to propose that the persons who represented a certain amount of the property of the establishment should have their names inserted; but he was really deterred from doing so for fear he should be charged with imposing shackles on the press. He would now be willing to give such a proposition, if proposed by any hon. Member, a fair consideration.
Mr. Prymethought the proposition of the hon. Member for Liskeard would in practice amount to an additional restriction upon the press. By the clause as it stood the public had sufficient protection in the registration of the printer, publisher, and two proprietors. He had stated that the proposition amounted to restriction, because many persons would withhold taking shares in newspaper speculations, inasmuch as they would not wish to make themselves liable to actions for libel. It was sufficient for the public to have two sufficient persons registered.
Mr. Jervisremarked, that in the case of joint-stock banks no difficulty arose as to registration, and contended that no person ought to be the proprietor of a newspaper, unless he was prepared to take his share of the responsibility for all that was published within its columns. Such a provision must, he submitted, tend to raise the character of a public journal.
Mr. Prymesubmitted, that the course suggested would tend materially to deteriorate from the character of the newspaper press. Such a provision would prevent many persons from becoming proprietors, because they would be unwilling to be held responsible for all or any part of the publication to which they might be attached, and thus the control and conduct of newspapers would be thrown into the hands of less respectable individuals.
Viscount Sandonwas of opinion, that it was contrary to the open character of all our customs and institutions that the proprietors of newspapers should not be known, and be made responsible for every act which they committed, to the same degree that they were in their individual capacity. It struck him that newspaper proprietors, in the same way as the Steam Companies and other companies, should be bound to register on every transfer of shares. He thought it not at all impracticable that the value of the property might be represented by a certain proportion of the proprietors.
Dr. Bowringwould be glad to know by

121
what machinery a register to the extent desired by the right hon. Member for Liskeard could be procured. The case of joint-stock banks did not in his opinion apply to that of newspaper property.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he was quite ready to assent to the principle of the proposition of the hon. Member for Liskeard, but as the question was one of some importance, he would suggest that the amendment should be deferred until a further stage, in order to allow time for the consideration of the best plan for obtaining the desired register. The only thing he should then stipulate for was, that in any arrangement to be hereafter agreed upon, no unnecessary checks should be imposed upon the transfer of the shares. It should not, for instance, be required that each transfer should be registered at the very time the change took place. His view was, and he only gave it as an impromptu, that there should be a quarterly or half-yearly register, and that it should not be requisite for a party transferring his shares to change such register until the arrival of the ensuing period. If they were to require each transfer to be placed upon the Stamp-office books on the day of its date, great inconvenience and expense would be imposed upon that department. The subject, however, was one for consideration at a future period, and he should reserve all further observations respecting it until it came more regularly under notice.
Mr. Charles Bullerwas of opinion, that in the event of a general registry of proprietors, which it was now probable would take place, it would be very desirable to constitute the Stamp-office registry conclusive evidence of title in newspaper property. If this were done, the trouble and expense of transfer deeds would be saved. Although the right hon. Gentleman had been tolerably explicit as to his views, he hoped he should be pardoned in asking him if it might go forth to the public that his suggestion had been adopted by the Government?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he entirely assented to the principle of the suggestion, but reserved for further consideration the machinery by which it should be carried into effect. Had he not been afraid that by proposing such a measure, he should have laid himself open to the charge of imposing greater restrictions on the press than his duty as Finance
122
Minister required, he should himself have made such a proposition to the House.
Mr. Warburtonfully concurred in the proposition of the hon. Member for Liskeard, which he was glad to see so readily taken up by the Government. With respect to the machinery by which it should be carried into effect, he would reserve his opinion until the proper occasion for its expression. He hoped, however, that in its framing, care would be taken to prevent a proprietor from registering his name on the first of January, and then on the 2nd putting down the name of an irresponsible person. He thought the principle should be, that the party receiving the profits of the newspapers, should be made liable for its laches.
Mr. Wakleyexpressed his satisfaction at finding the Government favourable to the proposition of the hon. Member for Liskeard. He merely rose to suggest, that the Bill for the extension of the rights of copyright to newspaper publications would present a more fitting occasion for the introduction of the proposition than did the measure under consideration.
Mr. Buckinghamsuggested, that it should be made compulsory on each newspaper establishment to publish the names of its proprietary at stated periods in each year. It was his great wish to see the newspaper press of England edited for the most part by the parties in whom the property was vested.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, that as newspaper copyright had been alluded to, he could not refrain from expressing his regret that the Bill under consideration did not contain provisions for securing it. It might have been, in his opinion, with great propriety introduced. If, however, that was deemed inexpedient, he trusted that no time would be lost in bringing forward a supplemental Bill. The subject of copyright was one of great importance to the newspaper interests, and should, if possible, be brought to an understanding during the present Session.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that the subject of newspaper copyright was under consideration, and that, though it was one of some difficulty, he had every reason to hope it might form the subject of legislation during the present Session, He thought, however, it was requisite to have it in a Bill distinct from the present. They were then considering a measure of revenue, into which

123
it would be neither convenient or in accordance with precedent to introduce the matter alluded to. He would take that opportunity of alluding to another topic, on which several representations had been made to him. He alluded to the manner in which the stamps should in future be distributed to the several papers. He did not feel that he should be justified in requiring each paper to take out distinctive stamps, but as it appeared to be the wish of a great many newspaper proprietors that such a measure should be adopted, it was determined that by an arrangement in the Stamp-office, any person who should wish a distinct stamp for his paper should be enabled to procure it. He hoped, by this means, that all parties would be satisfied.
Mr. Leaderwas understood to complain of the publication of the stamp return, so long as it was impossible, through the defective arrangements of the Stamp-office, to give a correct idea of the circulation of each paper. He hoped that until better means for arriving at a correct conclusion were devised, no member would think of calling for a newspaper stamp return.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeradmitted, that under the present system of issuing stamps, the public had no means of forming a correct judgment as to the condition of each paper; but at the same time he doubted whether, as it was not necessary for the purposes of the revenue that it should be ascertained to what papers stamps were issued, it was in his power to propose a remedy for the evil. In a measure particularly relating to revenue he did not see the justice of imposing on parties against their will, any restriction to which they might object. He thought it was quite right to allow all parties who wished for distinctive stamps to have them; but he certainly should be going beyond his jurisdiction were he to make an attempt to compel those who were content with the present system to depart from it.
Viscount Sandondisagreed with the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He contended, that a distinctive stamp, if made voluntary, would not be productive of any good. The paper that did not adopt it would have an unfair advantage, as far as public impression went, over that which did. It was his opinion it should be made compulsory, or not at all attempted. In the
124
one case a great injury might be inflicted on private property; while in the other no danger of such a result was to be apprehended. He quite agreed that in the present state of the newspaper stamp arrangements, no returns should be called for, inasmuch as they were calculated totally to mislead the public.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad always opposed the production of the Newspaper-Stamp Returns; in the first place, because he saw no Parliamentary grounds for calling for them; and secondly, from the knowledge that, under the present arrangement, they could not impart to the public any thing like a correct idea of the circulation of each newspaper. It was notorious that the present arrangement enabled one paper to take out stamps for several, and consequently to take credit to itself for a circulation considerably beyond its actual one. He hoped, however, that under the new arrangement this defect would be obviated. As regarded those papers which should adopt the distinctive stamp, it was evident the new system must prove effective; and as the Bill contained a clause prohibiting any editor or proprietor of a paper, under a heavy penalty, from procuring stamps except from the distributor of stamps at Somerset-house, he entertained great hopes that all future Returns would give very nearly, if not altogether, and for the first time, the correct circulation of each paper.
Mr. Prymethought there was a very strong objection to the clause prohibiting editors of newspapers from procuring stamps except from the proper distributor. It often occurred that in consequence of an accidental mistake or omission, a paper had not in its office a sufficient number of stamps for a pressing publication, and was obliged to borrow of another establishment. It was well known that papers of different politics often so accommodated each other. Now if this custom were restrained, great injury might be done to property. He should, therefore, when the clause in question came under consideration, move that its operation should not extend to parties borrowing stamps for temporary convenience.
Mr. Robinsonthought that the proposition of having all the names of proprietors and the transfer of shares registered was a very good one, but he considered that the cumbrous machinery for effecting this purpose was unnecessary, considering the

125
extent of the public press, and the extent it was likely to be carried to. It would particularly operate—and he threw out this suggestion although he was favourable to the principle—disadvantageously to the country newspapers. It might be no great difficulty to the proprietors of the London newspapers to register their names at Somerset-house, but at Manchester, Liverpool, and other large provincial towns where there was a great number of newspapers, and where they would in all probability become more numerous, there would be found great difficulty in the proprietors constantly and periodically registering their names at Somerset-house. There would also be a very considerable expense, which must be paid by some person or other, and this was a point which he wished to draw under the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There would be a large expense, there must be additional clerks for this new registration, and a new office. ["No, no."] Well, he might have taken an exaggerated view of this part, but still it could not be denied that there would be great difficulty attending these alterations. He did not, as he said before, object to the principle. He believed that the adoption of the plan proposed by this Bill would very much operate against the establishment of joint-stock newspapers. He did not approve of the establishment of joint-stock banks, particularly for such small sums as 5l. per share, edited by persons very little more respectable than the proprietors themselves. He did not think that it would have the effect of improving the character of the public press or the morals of the country. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would understand that the impression of the House seemed to be, that all the proprietors should be registered, both original and new, and that the right hon. Gentleman would take the subject into consideration.
Clause 165 was agreed to, as were the Clauses to 171.
On Clause 172 being proposed, which enacts that a penalty of a hundred pounds shall be inflicted on any printer or publisher who does not print at the end of the newspaper his Christian and surname, and place of abode, with a true description of the house or building in which the paper is printed, or who prints any false name, description, &c.
Mr. Wakleyput it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was fair in this Bill, which purported to be a consolidation of old Acts, they should introduce provisions which were not to be found in any old Act—provisions more severe than had ever been proposed before. It was a most monstrous proposition that any person giving a description of his house, &c. which in any degree varied from the proper description, should be subjected to a penalty of 100l. He would move that the penalty be reduced to 10 l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that if they had not an exact description of the party's residence they would have nothing. There would be nothing to prevent a person printing a newspaper, and giving the residence of the hon. Member for Finsbury. He certainly must adhere to the amount of the penalty imposed by the clause as it stood.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 174 being proposed,
Mr. Wakleyobjected to the penalties it imposed, as too severe.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that it would be a delusion and a fraud on his part to ask the House to impose duties, if he did not also ask the House to give him power to collect those duties. It would be a fraud on his part if he did not by all means in his power endeavour to protect the fair trader, whilst at the same time he used every exertion to put down the unstamped press. The putting down of the unstamped press was the only condition on which he could call upon the proprietors of stamped newspapers to agree to this Bill; and for his own part he could not see any difference between the case of a man who sold smuggled whiskey, and the man who sold unstamped newspapers. They were both alike a fraud on the revenue and upon the fair trader. He did not think that the penalties were by any means too severe, as nothing but severity could put down this illegal traffic.
Mr. Wakleywas glad to hear that it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to put down the unstamped press, but he thought that the existing law was quite strong enough for this purpose, if the right hon. Gentleman chose to carry it into effect. The Government was to blame for not enforcing the law when it was first violated, but the cause of their not doing so then was easily explained. Six years ago, agitation was very conve-

127
nient and useful, but it was not equally convenient now to have a free press, and that the mass of the people should know what was going on in that House. If any right hon. Gentleman from the other side of the House had brought forward this Bill, the whole country would be in agitation. This Bill was the most severe against the press of this country that had ever been introduced into Parliament. He should be glad if the law were rendered satisfactory; but he contended and insisted, that the people of England had a right to enjoy a free press, and no Government would do its duty in allowing the enactment of such laws as these.
Dr. Bowringwished to ask his Majesty's Government whether the struggle in which they were engaging with the unstamped press was worth their while? The clause was calculated to bring ruin upon hundreds of persons. He was happy to see that the revenue was at this moment in a very flourishing condition, and as they had been told that this was a fiscal question, and that in the then state of the revenue it was not possible for the Government to spare the whole of the duty upon newspapers, he thought that all they required was satisfactory evidence to show that the Government, from the improving state of the revenue, could grant this boon. He had never known a subject on which the feelings of the people were more excited. The people entreated that they might have free access to publications diffusing political knowledge; and he trusted the House would respond to the wish. As to the law, salus populi was the supreme law; and no sacrifice ought to be considered too great to secure it. If they threw any impediment in the way of the people's acquiring a thorough, knowledge of what was going on in the legislature, they would be like the tyrants of old, who wrote their laws in letters so small that nobody could read them. To throw any impediment in the way of the acquisition of knowledge by the people was to do the people great injustice. Whenever laws were passed which were in hostility to public opinion, public opinion would always be found too strong for them; and by such means the law itself was brought into contempt. The new powers given to collect a smaller revenue were a greater evil than was remedied by the reduction of the stamp duty to a penny.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid,
128
that the hon. Member who had just sat down had made use of an argument under circumstances in which he had never heard it used. He could understand the argument if it had been addressed to the question which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Finsbury, for the abolition of the duty. He differed from him on this point. He retained a duty of one penny, and he gave the press an equivalent in the free circulation of papers throughout the land. But the hon. Member, not à propos to the total repeal of the duty, but à propos to a reduction of the duty, objected to the clause containing a penalty for violating the law and selling papers without stamps. Let the hon. Member bring forward a motion for the repeal of the duty. He had said, that the prisons of the country were crowded with persons for offences against the existing law; he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) admitted it, and it was his anxious hope that this evil would be prevented. But in ninety-nine cases out of 100, these prosecutions were not instituted by the public, but vexatiously by common informers; and by this Bill prosecutions could be instituted only by officers of Government. It was odd that a contingency should happen, which, for the sake of the logic of the objectors, he hoped would not often be repeated, that whilst the object of the Bill was to relieve the press, he should be told that this was a measure to fetter and restrict the press. He had intended this as a measure of relief, and as an honest measure and an operative measure, and he knew that if the law remained in its present state, and the stamped press had a reduction of duty, the unstamped press would still go on. Gentlemen might think it very easy to abolish the whole duty, but did they think he could carry such a measure? Would they prefer an entirely free press, unaccompanied with a free circulation? Not a single individual conversant with the subject whom he had consulted had not said, that the press had a deep interest in a free circulation of newspapers throughout the empire—that this was a greater benefit than removing the penny stamp.
Mr. Wallacewas of opinion that it was much better to have a free circulation under a stamp. He was not prepared to say that we were in a condition to have a free postage and no stamp; when he saw we were in such a state, he should be pre-

129
pared to support the repeal of the stamp; till then he should support the penny stamp. He did not think that those who disobeyed the present law would disobey the new one; but that many who evaded the fourpenny stamp would pay the penny.
Mr. Charles Bullersaid, that though he was on principle an advocate for removing all taxes from newspapers, and did not concur in thinking with the right hon. Gentleman that the free postage was an equivalent for the penny stamp, (for he thought that a farthing stamp would cover postage,) yet he accepted the boon of the right hon. Gentleman. This clause only gave the power to retain the revenue, and if a tax was to be raised, it was essential to provide a sufficient power to secure the tax, but not beyond that. The part of the clause which he objected to was that which enacted, that "if any person shall have in his possession, and without a satisfactory excuse (the proof whereof shall lie on the party accused), any newspaper not duly stamped," he shall forfeit 20 1. for every newspaper; and that "any constable or other peace-officer" might seize and apprehend any such offender. This was monstrous; it gave a right of search, and the number of offenders against the clause would be so great, that it would bring the law into disrepute. It would be, moreover, impracticable. A keg of whiskey was not half so portable as a newspaper, and vet smuggling of spirits was carried on; and when the importation of bandana handkerchiefs was prohibited, Mr. Huskisson saw that every gentleman could produce one from his pocket. It was utterly unavailing to attempt to enforce a law against so many persons. He proposed as an amendment of the clause, to omit the words" or if any person shall have in his possession any newspaper not duly stamped."
Mr. Prymesaid, he had had sent him copies of unstamped newspapers, and under this clause he might be sent to hard labour for a month. Would it not be sufficient to impose a penalty on the sale or disposal or distribution of the papers?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it would be impossible to collect any fiscal revenue if the Government had not the power of seizing the smuggled articles, whether in the possession of the smuggler or in the possession of any person to whom he might have transferred them. He begged to ask whether any hon. Gentleman believed the law could be enforced
130
without the power to seize the article in possession?
Mr. Jervisobserved, that under the new law an alarming power was given to constables and peace-officers, too great a power than ought to be given for the mere collection of the revenue. It was taken from a law which was not a law of England, but an Irish Act.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, this clause would give a greater power than was possessed for the collection of the revenue when the duty was four times as high as it was now. Every person ought to be supposed innocent till guilt was proved; but the effect of this clause would be to put the person accused to the proof of his innocence. It might be said that there were some instances of fiscal laws having a similar effect, but there was this distinction between the present case and those referred to—the illegal possession of spirits or tobacco was established by showing that the one was held without a licence, but what guilt could there be in merely having possession of a printed paper? Persons might have unstamped papers in their possession without a guilty knowledge. It was believed out of doors that this Bill was meant to be a gagging Bill; he did not believe that, but he trusted it would not be persevered in, so objectionable as it was felt to be. It was impossible for any one to vote for the clause without feeling that he was voting for that which would violate every principle of justice.
Mr. Villiersurged on the right hon. Gentleman the consideration, that when laws ran counter to the public feeling they became a dead letter. The proposed law was opposed to the feeling of the country; it was considered that its object was rather to suppress intelligence than to facilitate the collection of the revenue. It would expose the poor man to great hazard, inasmuch as he might be violating the law without knowing that he was doing so. Any one might go and place in the poor man's cottage an unstamped paper, and thus render him liable to a heavy penalty. When a law was capable of so much mischief, the people would be very scrupulous in applying it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he had looked at the clause in the original Act now before him, which provided that a person having in his possession a newspaper not duly stamped was subject, as in this Bill, to a 20 l. penalty. The difference between the two clauses was this. The

131
words in the 38th of George 3rd, were having "knowingly and wilfully" an unstamped paper in his possession. At present the great distribution of unstamped papers did not take place under any act of sale; they were distributed at public houses If they allowed the possession of these papers to be free from penalty, there would be an end to the penalty in other cases because they would not be able to prove the fact of sale; that would be evaded, and thus the practice would continue unabated He had no objection to insert in this clause the very words he found in the other Act namely "knowingly and wilfully," because he believed that with this alteration the Act would afford the means of meeting the cases to which he had alluded.
Mr. Jervisasked, whether the power was to be retained which the Bill gave to peace-officers?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the proposed Bill was a limitation of the present Act in that respect. The five hundred cases of prosecution of which there was a return before the House, were not at the instance of the law-officers, but at the instance of common informers.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, that there were preparations already made for evading this law. He had seen the prospectus of an unstamped daily paper, to be conducted by a Member of that House. The same course, therefore, was to be pursued under the new system, and the Government were to be forced to abandon this duty as they had the former. He thought that Government should be exonerated from the charge of improper motive in this clause, which was necessary, in order to protect the revenue. It would have been better if they had gone to the fountain head, and not punished persons in humble life, who had no other way of gaining a living, and suffered persons in higher rank to pass with impunity.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the effect of the clause, as he proposed to alter it, would be, as far as regarded persons having unstamped papers in their possession, to leave the law as he found it. He proposed to take the words in the statute of 38th George 3rd; those words were "knowingly and wilfully;" and he proposed further to omit the words to which objection had been made. This would throw the onus of proving the offence on the party making the charge.
Colonel Thompsonsaid, there were provisions in a future clause (233) directly
132
opposed to the amendments or explanations now offered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He noticed this now, that it might not be forgotten when the clause was come to.
Mr. Aglionhysuggested the addition to the words "knowingly and wilfully, of the words," without sufficient excuse."
The Attorney-Generalobserved that "knowingly" was to be interpreted persons taking the paper knowing that it was not stamped, and "wilfully" with an intention to violate the law. The clause, as amended, was agreed to.
Clauses to 179 agreed to. The House resumed; Committee to sit again.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Horse Patrol; Black heath Small Debts.—Read a second time:—Murderers' Execution; Court of Chancery (Ireland); Holyhead Roads.
Petitions presented. By the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, from several Places, against parts of the Marriages' Bill.—By Lord LYNDHURST, from Six Clerks Office (Ireland), for Compensation under Court of Chancery (Ireland) Offices' Abolition Bill.—By Lord KENYON, from the Parish Clerks of Marylebone, Newcastle-upon Tyne, and the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Essex, against the Registration Bill, and praying for Compensation should it pass into a Law.—By Lord GLENELG, from Spirit Dealers in Dublin, against the Spirit Licences' (Ireland) Bill.

SOUTH DURHAM RAILWAY BILL.
The Marquess of Clanricarde moved, that the South Durham Railway Bill be read a second time,
The Marquess of Londonderry The Marquess of Londonderry moved that the Bill be read that day six months. He opposed the Bill upon two grounds—first, because he believed most conscientiously that no public benefit would accrue from it; and secondly, because it would prove greatly prejudicial to private property. The railroad, for instance, would pass through one of his own estates, on which he had expended 40,000 l. But it was not upon that ground alone he opposed the measure, for he had not opposed the Great Northern Railway, which also ran through an estate of his, but he looked upon that as of great commercial benefit, while the present Bill was of no use whatever.
Lord Wharncliffealso opposed the Bill, on the ground that it did not, like other Bills, give compensation to landowners through whose property the railroad might run.
The House divided on the original motion:—Content 19; Not content 51;—Majority 32. Bill put off for six months.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
The Lord Chancellorrose to move the second reading of the Imprisonment for Debt Bill. He would state in the outset that he did not participate in that excessive sympathy so enthusiastically professed by some persons for those who were suffering imprison-

61
ment for debt. Whenever he had considered the question how far it might be possible consistently with the interests of the country at large to abolish imprisonment for debt, one of the most important elements of consideration always appeared to him to be, how the creditor could best be secured from loss and facilitated in obtaining the payment of what was justly due to him. Any measure, therefore, which proposed to do away with imprisonment for debt without enabling the creditor by a wiser, better, and more expeditious process to obtain payment of what was due to him would never receive his sanction; and the ground on which he called for the approbation of their Lordships to this Bill was that it aimed, and he hoped successfully, a the attainment of both objects, presenting a better and more available security to the creditor, while it afforded relief to those who by misfortune became involved in debt from the severe pressure which in man) cases the law, as at present existing, un-justly imposed upon them. This subject had to some considerable extent engaged the attention of both Houses of Parliament; and the Report of the Commissioners on which this Bill was founded had been on their Lordships table since 1832. He called their Lordships' attention to the date of that Report, because from what passed on a former evening he was led to suppose that objection would now be made more to the time at which the question was brought forward than to any principle on which the Bill itself was founded. Since 1832 the whole of the facts had been before the public; the Report had been in the hands of Members of both Houses; public attention had for a considerable time been occupied with the subject, and it was therefore to be presumed that noble Lords had made themselves fully acquainted with all the circumstances' of the case. In the last Session of Parliament a measure containing provisions very much of the same nature as those of the present Bill passed the House of Commons, but did not reach their Lordships' House until the l6th of August, when, in his opinion naturally enough, although it had been made a matter of complaint out of doors, their Lordships had decided it was too late to entertain a Bill on so important a subject. He should have been glad had he been able to bring the present Bill under discussion at an earlier period of the Session; but upon that point he had nothing to reproach himself with. It was kid on their Lordships table on June 30th. A noble and. learned. Lord (Brougham) whose
62
absence had this Session been frequently lamented, undertook to bring forward a Bill on the subject, and he (the Lord Chancellor) was unwilling to take the matter out of that noble Lord's hands until no hope was entertained of that noble and learned Lord's return to the business of that House before the close of this Session. With his other engagements it was impossible for him to introduce it before the 30th of June. He hoped, if no objections were entertained to the principle of the Bill, it would not be opposed on the ground that it was too late in the Session now to proceed with it. The Report to which he had alluded rendered it unnecessary for him to detail at any length the objections which existed to the present system, or the remedies which it was proposed to apply. The question divided itself naturally into two parts, according to the two periods at which the arrest might take place. It applied as well to arrest on mesne process at the commencement of the suit, for the purpose of securing the person of the defendant, as the arrest in execution which followed the judgment; and the object of the Bill was to get rid of both. He should first address himself to the latter; because if it could be shown that arrest in execution after judgment was not beneficial to the creditor, it would follow that a great alteration would be required in the state of the law at the commencement of the suit. Nothing could be more objectionable than the present state of the law of arrest after judgment. Judgment having been obtained, the law as it now stood gave the plaintiff the option of proceeding against the goods of the debtor, or of taking his person. If he took his person, he must be satisfied with that; but of what avail was it? It could clearly avail nothing whatever if the debtor had no property; but then it was said, if he possessed property, the pressure of imprisonment would compel him to surrender it. But, strange as it might seem, the law did not enable the plaintiff, except in a very limited number of cases, to take the debtor's property at all. He could take only half the income of the debtors' land—he could take his goods and chattels, but he could not touch his property in the funds. The debtor might be an extensive proprietor in the various public companies—he might possess shares and securities of every kind but the creditor could only take what came under the description of goods and chattels; and cases were frequent of debtors living under the restrictions, or within the rules, of a prison, in positive affluence, and set-

63
ting their creditors completely at defiance. Should such a state of things be allowed to remain? If the debtor had no property, the creditor had the right to imprison him for life, except as the debtor might be released by the operation of the Insolvent Debtors' Act, which had been a considerable time in operation, but which would expire with this Session. Formerly the state of the law in this particular was considered so enormous that periodical Insolvent Acts were passed, up to the year 1813, to clear the gaols of these unfortunate persons; but now, by the present Insolvent Act, a man who could not pay, as well as the man willing to pay, was compelled to remain in prison two months before he could take the benefit of the Act. A comparison of the mode in which the Act for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors operated to the disadvantage as well of the creditor as of the debtor, would convince their Lordships of the anomaly which existed in this law, as compared with the bankrupt laws, whereby a man in trade, who owed a hundred pounds or more, was enabled at once to call his creditors together, and divide his property amongst them; whereas, by the Insolvent Act, all persons who were not traders, were compelled to undergo imprisonment for two months before they could derive any benefit from that process. Such was the state of the law of debtor and creditor with respect to the power of imprisonment after judgement, and what was the feeling exhibited upon this power by the creditor portion of the community? He might state from his own knowledge and experience what were the feelings and opinions of a very great number of persons so situated, who were resident in the city of London. A deputation had lately waited upon him composed of persons engaged in trade and commerce in the metropolis, and it was distinctly stated by them that they would very willingly forego the right of imprisoning a judgment debtor, if on the other hand they were furnished with power to seize his property, for the expense of arresting a person in that situation was oftentimes greater than the trouble was worth. If such was a faithful representation of the effects of arrest and imprisonment after judgment, and if in the opinion of those persons that power was worthless, and moreover not right to be exercised, what circumstance could render an arrest right or proper which should be enforced before judgment was pronounced? Their Lordships were aware that an arrest before judgment was only for the purpose of securing the person of
64
the debtor to answer to the action, and that the bail was discharged the moment the person of the debtor was produced in Court to answer to the action. Why was this done unless to secure the defendant to answer the plaintiff's demand? But surely it must be allowed, if it were improper and inexpedient to exert this power after judgment, it was still less expedient and proper to suffer it to be exercised before judgment was pronounced, or before even the debt alleged was proved to be due. Let him call their Lordships' attention to the mode of arrest in mesne process, and to its operation. Let him ask wherein consisted the justice of that power as exercised against the defendant, and also how it operated to secure the rights of the plaintiff? In the first place it gave the power to one man as against another, and a strange power it was; for all that could be done against a person accused of a misdemeanour, or perhaps a graver offence, was to examine the charges before a magistrate, and either have him held to bail, or sent to prison, or else discharged if innocent; but in the case of a civil suit, any one who might be able to swear that another person owed him a sum amounting to 20 l. or more, could compel that person to put in bail for his appearance, or else send him to prison, and it had been found by experience that the expenses of putting in bail were so great that it was not worth while to dispute the amount of a small debt, but that it had better be paid than bailed, and even many cases had shown that if a man owed 20 l. and was arrested for 25 l., such a person had often rather pay the larger sum than be put to the expense of proving that he owed 20 l. and not 25 l. In addition to its inherent injustice, the law of arrest on mesne process was often made the means of the greatest possible oppression by the extortions practised on debtors by the officers who executed the writs under pretence of fees and purchased indulgences. The Report stated on this head that great advantage had been taken by Sheriff's officers employed in executing writs by the extortions practised on debtors who were taken into custody by them under the plea of fees for extra indulgences, and who under that denomination were most shamefully plundered. One witness on the creditor side of the question, who was a large trader, stated before the Committee that the inconvenience, the disgrace, and the expenses of the existing system were so great that he would very willingly consent to forego the power of arrest provided he were furnished with any other adequate

65
means for enforcing his debtor to pay to the extent in his power. Now the object of the law of arrest was not to suffer these extortions, inconveniences, or acts of injustice to be practised. Its object was to secure the amount of a debt, and not to compel the payment of a demand under the threat of enforcing an arrest. In fact, experience as well as theory showed, that the power of arrest was very often used to compel the payment of a debt which was not due, as well as one which was justly due? He must, however, be permitted to state that he had not forgotten the interests of the creditor in the proposed alterations; because he was of opinion that the person who stood in that relation was at present put to unnecessary trouble for the recovery of his just claims, as well as the debtor to great hardship. The creditor had a distinct right to have the power of enforcing payment of his debt, and in no less a degree than he now possessed it. He must now turn his attention to an examination of the evils which the Bill was intended to correct. In the first place there was an evident infirmity in the law; in the second place there was an evident evil in exposing the debtor to the hardship of arrest; and, lastly, the law absolutely forbid that the man who might be willing to give up the whole of his property to his creditor, should do so without first undergoing two months' previous imprisonment; and, moreover, if even a debtor was ever so well disposed towards his creditors, and was most anxious to divide his property amongst them, he could not effect such an arrangement unless he had the consent of the whole, without rendering himself liable to the claims of the outstanding creditors. The object of the Bill was, to overcome all these difficulties, hardships, and inconveniences. The first fifteen clauses proposed means by which a more effectual execution might be obtained against the property of a debtor. Instead of being limited to one-half, the creditor should be put in possession of the whole income of the debtor's estate; landed property was also to a much greater extent than under the former Bill rendered liable to the payment of debts under the summary and compulsory process now proposed to be adopted. The greatest difference between the Bill as it now stood and that of last year was in the alterations which it proposed to make in the law of the compulsory enforcement of debts upon landed property. The peculiarity of the law of real property, and
66
the difficulties which existed in the way of making out a title, often rendered it impossible to bring such property within the limits of the law as regarded debtor and creditor; for the sheriff, in cases of seizing real property, could not offer to purchasers anything like so good a title as he was enabled to do in cases of personal or moveable property. The Bill, therefore, gave the creditor the whole produce of the rents of landed property in satisfaction for the space of one year, and before that year had expired, or within that period, the debtor was to be at liberty to seek out other adequate means of satisfying the debt and of releasing his landed property; but if he failed to produce such means within the space of a year, then the creditor was to be considered as having an equitable lien upon the land in satisfaction of his debt. This case could not happen very often, as persons possessed of landed property were seldom if ever unprovided with other means which might be taken in satisfaction of debts, but if not, the creditor was thus provided with means for satisfying them, nor would the debtor complain, inasmuch as he had a whole year to turn himself round in. The Bill dealt with other property in the same way as the former Bill, providing also that in cases where there was a surplus of property, only so much should be taken as would satisfy the debt. It also provided that a refractory or dishonest debtor should be subjected to an examination before Commissioners, in the same way that a bankrupt was now examined, in order to compel a disclosure as to where his property was concealed. It was also deemed right to make it a provision of the Bill, that all judgment debts should bear interest from the date of judgment being pronounced, and in order to compensate for the deprivation of the power of arrest, the creditor should have the power, if his debt were not satisfied within twenty-one days from the day on which judgment was dated, to consider the non-payment as an act of bankruptcy, and to proceed accordingly. The mode in which the Bill would apply to persons not in trade was exactly similar in effect, because the very act of cessio bonorum would entitle him to its benefits. But while the Bill contained these clauses for the advantage of the debtor, it did not altogether lose sight of the power of punishment in cases of fraud or dishonest concealment of property, or where debt had been wantonly incurred. In all cases where substantive offences of this nature

67
were proved against insolvent debtors, the creditor was armed with the power of arrest and detention, and, in this instance, the Bill proceeded in principle upon the same law of arrest as was now in force, punishing, by that process, the fraudulent debtor, but relieving all others from the fear of being taken to prison. If a creditor had reason to believe that his debtor was likely to abscond to another country to defraud him of his debt, it was only proper that he should have some means of getting at his debtor's person in order to prevent him. The Bill, therefore, provided, that in such cases the power of arrest should remain, and even extended it further than the law allowed at present. Under the existing law the creditor could only arrest his debtor at the commencement of the suit; and yet in the progress of it he might learn that his debtor was about to abscond—and then where was the power to prevent him? There was also opportunity given to debtors to abscond from their creditors, especially if they happened to be in the country, owing to the delays with which the suing out of bailable writs was attended. This evil would also be remedied by this Bill, for it provided, that at any stage of an action, upon making affidavit of the intention of the debtor to abscond, the creditor should have power to obtain from any justice of the peace in the neighbourhood a warrant to arrest the person of the debtor. To prevent, however, this provision from being converted into an engine of oppression against the debtor, it was also provided that this warrant should be liable to the supervision of the Judges at Westminster, and that if the party were arrested without due cause, should be dismissed with costs against the creditor who had applied for it. He thought that these provisions would be found a great improvement on the present state of the law, and would prove to be remedies highly beneficial to the creditor. If their Lordships should be of opinion that the Bill did not give the creditor sufficient means to secure his debt, another plan might be devised by which, without inflicting greater hardship on the debtor, greater security might be perhaps given to the creditor. That plan would not form part of his Bill, but he would state it to their Lordships, as it might meet their approbation in case they did not like that which he had already proposed. When there was a declaration verified upon oath of the defendant's intention to escape, an arrest of his person might
68
take place. He would therefore suggest, that the creditor should have the right to arrest his debtor under certain limitations. But as soon as the debtor should have put in bail, the creditor should be bound to bring him before the Commissioner in the country, who should forthwith examine him as to the state of his property. If the Commissioner should, upon that examination, find that he had no property, he would of course order him to be discharged; if, on the other hand, he should find that he had property, he would, without adjudicating on the circumstances, order him to be discharged on giving security to the creditor for the amount of his debt, provided that debt were subsequently proved by the verdict of a jury. This would mitigate, to a certain extent, the hardships of the law. It would anticipate nothing, for the suit would go on as before; and it would have this additional advantage, that it would bring both debtor and creditor together before an impartial person, and would thus stop nine out of every ten actions that were brought. It would bring to the knowledge of the creditor what he had to expect, and to the knowledge of the debtor what he had to perform. This would generally terminate the suit altogether, and obtain for the creditor all that he had a right to demand from his debtor. The Bill, it was clear, could not be carried into effect without the appointment of Commissioners in the different counties of England and Wales. In London, the machinery for carrying the Bill into effect would be found in the existing Court of Review and its Commissioners. Their Lordships had frequently heard of late, that the Court of Review had not sufficient employment. If this bill should pass, they would soon have business enough upon their hands. It was clear, however, that there must also be a number of Commissioners dispersed throughout the country for the purpose of carrying it into effect there. It was admitted on all hands, that great benefit had arisen to bankrupt estates under the recent alterations of the bankrupt laws, and it was likewise admitted that that benefit had arisen owing to the working the bankrupt's estate in the metropolis under official commissioners and assignees. There was a wish to extend the same plan to the country; but there was some difficulty as to the mode in which it was to be done. In the country there were no official assignees, no standing commissioners; and if the system which now prevailed in London

69
were extended to the country, it would require the establishment in each district both of standing commissioners and of official assignees. Now this Bill provided for the establishment of such officers in the various districts of the country, who would perform the business in bankruptcy and also in insolvency, which this Bill would transfer to them. Important as this subject was, not only to those who were now imprisoned for debt, but also to those who sought to recover their debts by means of that imprisonment, it would still be carried into execution without any extensive or complicated machinery. He could not but think that the adoption of the principles of this Bill would be a great blessing to the country—that it would be a great improvement to those who were in the situation of creditors, and to those who were in debt, and who from their inability to pay their debts were now in prison. He trusted that their Lordships, notwithstanding the late period of the session, would turn their consideration to this important question, and that both the debtors and creditors of the country would reap the advantages of their Lordships turning their deliberations to this measure. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving, that the Bill be now read a second time.
The Duke of Wellingtonfelt, that he owed an apology to their Lordships for rising to address them immediately after the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack; but as this was a subject to which great public attention had been drawn, as there were a vast number of persons deeply interested in the adoption of some measure of this description, and as this measure, by proposing a new system of law, involved in itself very large and extensive interests, he deemed it to be his duty to come forward and to propose to them not to consider it at the present advanced period of the session. The noble and learned Lord had stated accurately to their Lordships the dates of the different periods at which this measure had been previously produced to their Lordships. The noble and learned Lord had stated, that it was brought up to their Lordships' House last year on the l6th of August, and that it was laid on their table this year on the 30th of June; and had compared the period of the 16th of August, 1835, with the period of the 30th of June, 1836, as if there were no other circumstances existing in Parliament to be taken into consideration on this subject, except the dates at which the
70
measure had been introduced. If he was not much mistaken, there was then upon the table of their Lordships a greater quantity of business to be transacted than was ever before known at so late a period of the session. Their Lordships had heard reports, and he hoped that they were well founded, that Parliament would be prorogued at the end of this month or at the beginning of the next. Their Lordships knew of measures of far greater importance which were about to be sent up to them, and on which it would be necessary for their Lordships to decide; and under these circumstances, considering that some of the noble and learned Lords had already set out upon their circuits, and that others of them must soon leave for their circuits, he humbly submitted that, if it was expedient, on the 16th of August, 1835, to postpone the consideration of this measure to a distant period; it was also expedient to adopt a similar course on this 11th of July, 1836, on which day the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack had submitted the second reading of it again to their Lordships' notice. He entirely acquitted the noble and learned Lord who brought forward this Bill last year, and whose absence from his Parliamentary duties he lamented as much as any of their Lordships could do,—he entirely acquitted, he said, that noble and learned Lord, and also the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, of any neglect of duty in not bringing this Bill forward at an earlier period. What he contended for was, that as they now found themselves at that late period of the session with so much business before them, it was impossible to enter into the discussion of the second reading of this Bill. He did not admit, because he desired to postpone this measure for future consideration, that he therefore approved of its principle; nor did he mean to state at present any opinion upon its principle. But this he would say of this Bill—that there were some parts of it which made an important alteration in the law of England and in the tenure of landed property, and he therefore called on their Lordships not to go on with such a measure at a time when they could not give it ample consideration, or come to a decision which would be satisfactory either to themselves or to the public. He must also observe, that the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack had stated some circumstances which induced him to be of opinion that it would be desirable to postpone the further con-

71
sideration of this measure to a future time. The noble and learned Lord had stated, that in the early parts of the Bill—that is, in the first sixteen clauses—some very important alterations had been made since it was before the House last session. He had likewise to state, that in the concluding parts of the Bill, which related to the power of arresting the person, he should have some alterations to propose at a future time. It appeared to him likewise, that in respect to that part of the Bill which referred more particularly to the creation of patronage, and which formed no inconsiderable portion of it in the consideration of their Lordships, the plan was exceedingly incomplete, and there must be, in his opinion, many more enactments to render the employment of the vast body of Commissioners appointed under this Bill, desirable or even beneficial to the public. He confessed that in the view which he took of this Bill, and he would not enter into many of its details, nor indeed would he follow the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack through those details into which he had entered, he should say of it, that instead of being one Bill, it should be divided into four Bills. There was one part of it quite distinct from all others—namely, that which related to judgment debtors. There was another subject also quite distinct—namely, that which related to what was called the cessio bonorum. There was a third subject, which was also distinct from the others, and that related to the punishment of fraudulent debtors. The fourth and last part was also distinct, and related to the power of arresting the person. In respect to the first of these subjects he must observe, that it made a most remarkable change in the whole system of the tenure of property in this country—a change which might be necessary to adopt to give creditors a fair hold on the property of their debtors, which was a claim that must be attended to, and of which, if it were necessary, he would say at once, "let it be made." He had, however, examined some of the Returns on their Table, and it appeared to him from that examination that the number of judgment debtors in proportion to the number of persons against whom affidavits of debts were filed was really quite trifling. He saw in one of the Returns, that the number of judgment debtors against whom affidavits had been sworn in all the Courts of Law in this metropolis in the last two years and a half, amounted only to 800, though there
72
had been 123,000 affidavits of debt sworn within that time. Now when it was proposed to overturn all the old system of landed property, he implored their Lordships to look at this question from another point of view. From the same Return to which he had just adverted, it appeared that out of the number of persons against whom affidavits had been lodged, there were only 300 and odd whose debts exceeded 1,000 l., and not above 100 persons whose debts exceeded 2,000 l. And to lay hold of these persons their Lordships were called upon to overthrow all the existing system of real and personal property in England. If it were true that the great landowners of England, and the great merchants of England, were persons who sought to evade the just payment of their debts to their creditors, their Lordships ought to pass this Bill. But if it were not true, then he said, that the first fifteen clauses of this Bill were unnecessary; and he therefore again recommended their Lordships to postpone this Bill for a longer period before they adopted a clause so disgraceful to the gentry and merchants of England as that clause of it which compelled them to give up their property to the payment of those debts which of themselves they were not reluctant to pay. There was another part of this Bill which he did not exactly understand, and which he should wish to have time given to their Lordships in order that they might fully consider it. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had stated what was perfectly true, that the first sixteen clauses of the Bill referred entirely to judgment creditors. The other clauses, down to the 111th or 112th Clause, referred to the cases of debtors against whom no judgments had been obtained. What was the object of these clauses? The object was, to bring those debtors against whom no judgment had been obtained, under the operation of the Bankrupt-laws. But how were they to be brought under the operation of the Bankrupt-laws? They were to volunteer to petition the Commissioners; they could not be arrested; their persons could not be touched; but they were of their own accord to petition the Commissioners to be brought under the operation of the Bankrupt-laws. This was a mockery—nothing more. Could this give any security to the creditor? If the man were arrested, he could then understand how he would be induced to petition to be brought under the operation of the Bankrupt-laws. But under this Bill there was to be no such

73
thing as arrest, and the debtor was, of his own accord, to petition to be made an object for the Bankrupt-laws! In one word he would say, that it appeared to him that it was quite impossible that such a system could ever answer. The noble Duke, whose exhaustion rendered him very inaudible during the remainder of his speech, then proceeded to observe, that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack bad spoken of the Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors in a way in which it appeared to him that that Court did not deserve. He thought, that that had been a most efficient Court. He saw from the Returns on their Lordships' Table, that in one year 4,509 persons had been in the prisons of the metropolis, some in execution, and others upon mesne process. Of this number, 2,500 had been discharged by order of the Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors. At the end of the year 1,500 still remained in prison—and therefore the remainder must have satisfied the claims of their creditors, and liberated themselves. He could not call that Court inefficient which had produced such an effect. That was in London; but that Court had also discharged within the same time not less than 800 persons in different parts of the country. If the period before which the Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors will not discharge prisoners in confinement for debt be too long, why does not the noble and learned Lord introduce a Bill to shorten the period? He believed that the period of imprisonment had been fixed at two months, to avoid the commission of those frauds which would be the consequence of that Court's having power to liberate prisoners at the expiration of a shorter period. If the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was of a different opinion, why should he not bring in a Bill to continue for a longer period the existence of the Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors, and to shorten the period at which they were to be liberated from confinement? With regard to the third part of the Bill, which related to the confinement and punishment of the fraudulent Debtor, he had not seen any sufficiently stringent remedy in it. As the law stood now, the Judge of the Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors, had power to refuse to liberate any debtor whom he found in a state of fraud against his creditors or other persons. That was a species of confinement of which he understood the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to complain. Under this Bill, however, the fraudulent debtor
74
must be regularly indicted before the ordinary Courts of Law. Their Lordships all knew the difficulties which stood in the way of getting such proofs as would support such an indictment; and the getting of such proofs was not at all facilitated by the clauses contained in this Bill. He now came to what he said ought to be the fourth part of this Bill—he meant the clauses which prevented the arrest of the debtor's person, except in cases where the creditor had good reason to believe that it was the intention of the debtor to abscond to evade the payment of his debt. He believed that the mercantile classes of the country, and more particularly the shopkeepers and traders, were deeply interested in having some power over the persons of their debtors; but their interest in having such power was not greater than that of the lower classes of the people. If the lower classes of the people should have to power to recover their debts, they must often be left in circumstances of great difficulty, especially in times and seasons like the present. Under all these circumstances, he asked their Lordships not to pass a vote which should condemn this Bill, but to pass such a vote as was necessary to postpone the consideration of it; and with that object in view he moved their Lordships to put off the second reading of this Bill from tonight to this night three weeks.
Lord Abingerwas understood to observe, that the proposition to abolish imprisonment for debt, after judgment obtained, was a proposition which required the deepest consideration. Imprisonment for debt after judgment had been the law of England from the earliest periods of our history, and was now the law of every other country in Europe. If the Bill contained no other proposition but that, he would require their Lordships to give it the longest consideration that was consistent with the forms of their Lordships' House. But unfortunately this Bill went further; and when he stated the lengths to which it went, and the principles on which it was founded, he thought that their Lordships would see that it was impossible that they could adopt it without further consideration. The most moderate part of this Bill was that which proposed to bring persons who were not traders under the operation of the bankrupt laws. But the powers and machinery provided by this Bill were not required for that purpose. Any person who was a trader

75
might now make a voluntary declaration of insolvency, and so bring all his property under the control of the bankrupt law. The great object of the present Bill was to extend this permission to persons who were not traders. Why could not this be done by a short clause, stating that the same declaration which was now made by persons who were traders should be made by those who were not, and that afterwards the bankrupt laws should be carried into effect? Again, there was the Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors. A Bill had been introduced into the other House of Parliament for the continuance of that court for another year. If their Lordships did not wish to extend the operation of the bankrupt laws to persons who were not traders, but were desirous to give parties who meant honestly by their creditors, the power of dividing their property pro rata among them, they would give those parties without imprisonment the same advantages which they now gave to the applicants to the Insolvent Debtor's Court, after an imprisonment of two months. There was another objectional provision contained in the Bill. There were fifty-two counties in England and Wales. In Yorkshire there were three ridings, and in Lincolnshire three divisions, making a total of fifty-six districts. This Bill contained a provision to appoint fifty-six Commissioners, who were to be sergeants-at-law, or barristers of seven years' standing, at a salary of 800 l. a-year each; fifty-six registrars, at a salary of 300 l.; and fifty-six ushers, at a salary of 60 l. a-year each; making, if his calculation was right, a total expense of 76,000 l. a-year. In fact, the true principle of the Bill was, to increase the patronage of the Government, and to place all England under the operation of the bankrupt laws. There were a great many alterations in the law which would affect all the property in the country, and which would also affect that system of credit which was the foundation of trade, made in this Bill. He would not say that some of the clauses were not well adapted to the objects which the Bill contemplated, but it was a question of great importance, on which their Lordships ought to proceed with great caution. With respect to that part of the Bill which proposed to give greater security to the judgment creditor, he saw no objection to it. Some years ago, when he had the honour to be At-
76
torney-General, he had introduced into the other House of Parliament a Bill to accomplish that object, but his successor had not taken it up. He had wished to limit the power of arrest to debts above 100 l., and to give the judgment creditor greater power over the debtor's property. He had the satisfaction of knowing that his propositions met the approbation of the Chambers of Commerce in London and Westminster; but he found so violent an appetite for extensive reform in the House of Commons, that he could not carry his propositions at all without assenting to the entire abolition of imprisonment for debt. On a subject like the present their Lordships ought to proceed by degrees. He did not object to any gradual constitutional and reasonable reform of the law of debtor and creditor, but he did object to this violent, hasty, and unreasonable alteration of it, and he should, therefore, support the amendment of the noble Duke.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that a noble and learned Lord, not now in his place, and whom he did not expect to see in his place before the end of the present Session, had informed him that he did not expect to be present at the commencement of this Session, and it had been agreed between them, that he (Lord Melbourne) should take the noble and learned Lord's place, and bring forward his measures. If any delay, therefore, had occurred with the present measure, it was entirely attributable to those who had undertaken the charge of it, and was in no respect to be ascribed to him. The noble Duke opposite had indulged in very sanguine hopes with respect to the prorogation of Parliament. That event was generally reported as likely to take place at the end of this month or the beginning of the next. That, however, their Lordships well knew, must necessarily depend on the state of public business, and the motion which the noble Duke had made to defer the second reading of this Bill for three weeks, would bring them to the 1st of August. He was afraid, that whatever industry they might exert, and whatever efforts they might make, that day would find them still sitting, and that they would then have to proceed to consider the subject. If it was to come under discussion at all, surely they had better apply to it now, instead of putting it off for three weeks, when it would undoubtedly come again to be con-
77
sidered. The question, as the noble Duke had said, was one of great importance, and of great public interest. Neither the noble Duke, nor his noble Friend who last addressed the House, had declared themselves hostile to the principle or objects of the measure, or unfriendly to the means by which they were to be carried into effect. He could not, then, see why they should not at least go into Committee on this Bill, consider whether the objections made to it by the noble Duke and his noble Friend might not be overcome, and endeavour to attain an object earnestly desired by the country and the House of Commons, and which there was no reason to think was unattainable. He would not enter into the reasoning of the noble Duke, or into the view which he had taken of the measure, but he did not see in the arguments urged by him any solid grounds for postponing this Bill, or for refusing now to enter into the consideration of it. He perfectly agreed with the noble Duke, that the weight of business pressing on this House was matter for serious consideration, but he saw nothing in it which should deter them from proceeding with the present measure. This period of the Session was extremely early, compared with the time to which they had been of late accustomed to sit. It was very rarely that the House had risen of late years before the middle of August, and sometimes its sittings had been protracted till several days of September had passed; and he thought they had little reason to consider themselves now as approaching the termination of the Session. Having so much spare time before them, he thought that the business, though important, would not be so extremely pressing and overwhelming as was represented. He could not at least see why they should not enter on the consideration of this subject.
Lord Abingerremarked, that the last clause of the Bill deferred the operation of it till the 1st of January, 1838, so that no very great loss of time would result from its postponement at present.
Lord Wynfordobjected to originating a measure of this importance at such an advanced period of the Session, when it was vain to expect that its provisions could be considered as fully as was requisite. He contended that the Insolvent Debtor's Act contained all the power necessary to get at every penny of a debtor's property, and must object to the powers given to judgment creditors by this Bill. He entertained the greatest objections
78
to the appointment of the host of new Commissioners proposed to be created under the Bill, and thought it would lead to a very dangerous and unnecessary increase of patronage. He should vote for the amendment of the noble Duke, because he considered it a gentle way, not of getting rid of the Bill entirely, but at least of getting rid of it till they could find time to consider it.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he would take occasion to repeat what he had before stated, that the great object of the Bill was to prevent debtors from defrauding their creditors, and from lying in prison and wasting their creditor's property. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Abinger) had suggested that the object of the Bill might be attained by a short Bill, enacting that persons not traders shall be subject to the same laws as traders, or another short Bill to perpetuate the Insolvent Court. Such a Bill might save a little expense in paper and printing, but would certainly be inefficient and defective, since it would reconstruct the whole of the old bankruptcy system. His noble and learned Friend seemed to suppose that if the Bill were short, the number of persons necessary to carry it into effect must be small, as if where the quantity of business to be transacted was the same in either case, the number of persons to carry the Bill into effect must not be the same, whether it consisted of one clause or of twenty. Did his noble and learned Friend mean that the seven Commissioners of Bankruptcy in London were to perform the functions to be discharged by the Commissioners under this Bill? If they were not to do so, then surely there must be Country Commissioners. Formerly there were seventy Commissioners of Bankruptcy in London, but the Bill introduced by Lord Brougham, confined the number to six, and the business was much better done than before. Whether this Bill passed or not, it was essential that the law should be carried into effect in the great commercial towns, as far as possible, on the same principle as in London. If its machinery was too complicated, if the Commissioners whom it proposed to appoint were too numerous, it would be in their power, after the measure became law, to reduce them to the smallest possible number, and to make their remuneration the smallest possible. There was not, he believed, more machinery provided for carrying this Bill into effect than was absolutely neces-

79
sary, and certainly it was not proposed to appoint it with a view to the creation of patronage.
The House divided on the original motion—Contents 22; Not-Contents 46—Majority 24.

List of the CONTENTS.

The Lord Chancellor

Bristol

DUKE.

Litchfield and Coventry

Richmond

MARQUESSES.

BARONS.

Lansdowne

Melbourne

Westminster

Holland

Headford

Glenelg

EARLS.

Glenlyon

Leitrim

Plunket

Radnor

Poltimore

Charlemont

Templemore

Minto

Hatherton

Burlington

BISHOPS.

TELLER.

Hereford

Strafford

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS.
Viscount Melbournehaving moved that the passage in the Speech from the Throne relative to the disabilities of Dissenters be read, the same was read by the clerk as follows: The noble Viscount then said, he rose to move the second reading of the Births Bill and the Marriages Bill. There were two Bills under these heads, but it appeared convenient to him, and he trusted it would seem convenient to their Lordships also, that their provisions should be explained and considered together. These questions had been brought under discussion with a desire to relieve those who dissented from the rites and ceremonies and doctrines of the Established Church from the necessity, in performing the most solemn ordinances of religion, of being compelled to express their acquiescence in, and conformity with, opinions and doctrines with which they could not conscientiously concur. Their Lordships were, doubtless, aware that no difference of opinion had existed on this subject on any side; that the adoption of some such measure with reference to marriages contracted in England had been recommended from the Throne in the Speech which the former Government had advised his Majesty to deliver in the year 1835, as well as in the passage from another Speech, which he had already desired the clerk at the table to read to their Lordships. Therefore there had prevailed among all parties an opinion that the grievances complained of were not without reason and foundation, and that it was an act for the wisdom of Parliament to afford those who suffered
80
under them the relief they desired, if that relief could be afforded consistently with the maintenance of the purity and doctrines of the Established Church in this country. Various measures with this object had been introduced into the other House of Parliament by various persons. Into the details of those measures he would not then enter; but he believed it had been always felt to be matter of great difficulty, if not of utter impossibility, to afford the Dissenters relief in the performance of those solemn contracts which had always been accompanied and sanctioned by the rites of religion without entirely disconnecting the civil register from the ecclesiastical ceremony, and until a general register of births, marriages, and deaths was established throughout the country. This was a measure which their Lordships would at once perceive, as a matter of general policy, as a matter of general convenience, as a matter of general interest, was in the highest degree desirable, independent of any question relating either to Dissenters or to the Established Church. No one of their Lordships conversant with the business of life, or engaged in its transactions, could have failed to experience at some time or other the difficulty of ascertaining some facts of importance to his property and his family. Those who were conversant with the administration of justice and the nature of the cases which were brought forward for legal adjudication were well acquainted with the imperfections of the system of registration adopted in this country, and the great inconveniences which had arisen from the impossibility of ascertaining facts of great and vital importance. At present nobody could tell what period might have elapsed between the birth of a child and the date of its baptism; nobody could tell how many children were not baptised at all. The register of marriages was only a register of marriages according to the Church of England; whereas they all knew that by the Marriage Act, marriage contracted according to other religious rites was made lawful. The register of burials, too, was only a register of burials performed by ministers of the Church of England, though it was well known that many religious sects had burial places of their own, where they deposited their dead with all the rights of sepulture. It was to provide relief for these grievances, it was to protect rights which in all the transactions of human life and in all the affairs of man were of paramount importance, that these Bills

81
were now presented to their Lordships. He must express his sincere and earnest hope that the measures now proposed would be found sufficient for the great object they were intended to effect. The second Bill treated of a subject that had always been found of much greater difficulty and importance than either the registration of births, or the registration of deaths, affecting as it did not only the present but posterior generations, wounding, as any doubt or obscurity connected with it necessarily must, the feelings, and blighting the prospects of those who should be far beyond the reach of any ill consequences of the act, as they had been unconscious at the time of its commission. No man was more sensible than he of the long train of evils attendant upon clandestine marriages; the affording any facility to them was a mere incentive to the formation of unhappy and ill-assorted alliances; for none but such marriages were celebrated covertly and secretly, in opposition to the wishes and remonstrance of those who, from longer experience of the world, were better able to judge of their probable consequences. Sensible as he was of the evils that arose from marriages so contracted, he could not but be sensible that there was a deeper and a heavier evil—the evil of incumbering the ceremony with so many formalities as to endanger its being at a distant time declared null and void, thus entailing nothing but shame and disgrace on the unconscious offspring, clouding their prospects, blighting their hopes, and irreparably affecting their condition and station in society. It had been very generally felt that much of the law regulating marriages in England was imperfect, insufficient, and inapplicable to the times in which we lived. With this view the first clause of the Bill abolished entirely the ancient mode of giving public notice of a marriage by the publication of bans, which had prevailed, perhaps, for a very long period of time, and which, perhaps, when the population was less extensive, congregations smaller, and people better known to each other, might have been sufficient for the purpose, but which of late years had become nothing more than a cover to fraud and deception. He had received letters from clergymen who stated that nothing was more common than for persons who resided in country villages, or in villages not immediately in the neighbourhood of large towns, to have the bans published in the latter, thus obtaining the means of contracting marriage,
82
which they could never have secured had the bans been published in the place where they lived, and were well known. For the publication of bans, they substituted a notice to be given to the registrar, accompanied with a declaration that no lawful impediment to the marriage existed. The noble Viscount concluded by expressing his hope that the provisions of the Bill would be considered sufficient for the purpose for which they were intended, and considered sufficient, without in any degree trenching on the rights and privileges of the Established Church in this country. He begged to move that the two Bills be read a second time.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, that the object of the Bill appeared to be to afford relief to the Dissenters in respect to the registration of births, burials, and marriages, and also to provide for them a form of marriage which would relieve them from the hardship of coming to a church from which they dissented. To this he had no objection; and he had that day had the satisfaction of presenting petitions from bodies of Protestant clergymen in the metropolis and its vicinity, who had expressed the same opinion. At the same time they entertained strong objections to many parts of this Bill, and he felt these objections so strongly that nothing but a desire to afford relief to the Dissenters could induce him to consent to the second reading of a measure that embodied such principles. Were he to follow the noble Viscount through his statement of the advantages of these Bills, which he would not do, it would be a perpetual contradiction of the noble Lord's statements, for according to his views some objection existed to almost every clause. He was anxious to give to the Dissenters all the relief they could possibly desire, provided it was done without depriving the members of the Church of England of any of the advantages which they now possessed. He might say, that both the clergy and laity of the Church of England were satisfied in general, as far as they themselves were concerned, with the present state of the law, both as regarded registration and marriage. They were perfectly sensible that there were parts requiring amendment; but still those corrections might be applied without going the length which the Bill before their Lordships went. The first thing to be remarked with regard to the Bill was, that it was a compulsory measure. It was to be carried into effect by means which would interfere with the

83
privacy of families; in fact, in an inquisitorial manner; subjecting persons and families to great annoyance, and enforcing compliance with its terms by penalties which would be grievous and ruinous to the poor persons on whom they might fall. The system of registration as now proposed could never be carried into effect in this country. It would press so very hard upon the poorer classes of the people that the system would not work. The Bill for the Registration of Births involved a principle which separated things which always had been united since the establishment of a Christian Church—the naming of the child when it was received into the Church by baptism. There was not one petition which he had received from the clergy which did not insist most anxiously upon that point. The practical effect would be, that when persons had once named their children without going to the church, it would make them careless and indifferent about bringing them to the font. Why should the existing arrangements with the clergy of the Church be disturbed? They had originally had the custody of the registers, and he never understood that they had been accused of faithlessness or negligence in making and keeping the registrations. Certainly, as far as the Dissenters were concerned, the registers were imperfect, because Dissenters did not come to the Church. That was a reason, therefore, why they should have a register of their own; but it was not a reason why the keeping of the registers of the births of members of the Church should be taken from the clergy. He could not see any reason why there should not be a general registry-office, to which should be transmitted duplicates of the registers to be still kept by the clergy of the Church, and and also of the registers which were kept by the Dissenters. If this were done, all the complicated machinery of the measure then before them might be avoided. With respect to marriages, the Legislature had hitherto avoided any interference with the arrangements made by the Jews and the Quakers, and wisely so, because those arrangements were so perfect that it was impossible there could be any clandestine marriages among them. But by the present Bill they were interfering with the Jews, as the Jews were required to give notice to the registrar of any marriage celebrated by them. He had no objection whatever to give to the Dissenters any liberty they might desire, if they gave the same security to the country against the violation
84
of the marriage laws as the Jews and Quakers did. But he had read over these Bills with attention, and he could not say that they gave any such security. Another great objection to the Marriage Bill was, that instead of the parochial divisions which had hitherto prevailed, there was now to be district divisions which would include several churches, so that so far from giving additional security, this alteration would take away that security which the country at present had by the publication of bans in the parish church. It had been said, that under cover of publishing bans all sorts of improper marriages took place. That was a mistake. It was one of the provisions of the Marriage Act, that by publishing bans the parties were not obliged to marry in their own parish. Now there was a sort of fashion in this matter. Some parishes were preferred to others. For instance, the parish of St. Martin and the parish of St. George were favourite parishes, and many marriages took place in them, while, on the contrary, the parish of St. Giles was a most unpopular parish, and nobody married there. This was not done because the parties wished to conceal their marriages, but because they did not like to marry there. In his own parish in the country, in the course of eight years there had been but one marriage. Parties who had been living together without being married, but who were finally driven by their consciences or by other causes to marry, were afraid to expose to their neighbours that they had been living together in their former state of connection, and they would therefore go to some distant parish to be married. Servants also were sometimes afraid of having it known to their masters that they were married, and would, therefore, go to another parish to contract marriage. He was not now speaking against the present Bill. He had been endeavouring, in answer to the noble Viscount, who had attacked the present marriage law, to show that most of those clandestine marriages which took place under bans, were, in fact, very innocent in themselves, and such as he should not wish to prevent. He would now address himself to another point, that of effecting marriages without any religious ceremony. That was a point which was mentioned in every one of the petitions that he had presented on this subject. There was a strong feeling throughout the country against such a plan being authorised. For who were the persons to accomplish those marriages?

85
They were the registrars. This Bill gave them very large powers, such as that of determining who were persons prohibited by law from intermarrying, and many other points which very often puzzle clergymen, and would, of course, much oftener puzzle the registrar. If it were necessary to authorise marriages of this description, let them be done before a magistrate, before a man of education, who could form a judgment of the matters before him, and whose respectability would give a security to the country that no indecency or improper conduct would take place. It was his intention, therefore, when the Bill went into committee, to propose such amendments as would bring the Bill into what he considered to be its legitimate form and object—that of giving relief to the Dissenter. For although he agreed in what the noble Viscount had said as to the necessity of getting a more perfect register of births, he did not think that was an object worth obtaining at the expense of all the complicated machinery proposed by the Bill. He therefore considered it in the simple light of giving relief to the Dissenters, and that relief he would give as far as it did not interfere with the religious scruples of the members of the Church, as far as it did not disturb the marriage laws, and as far as it did not interfere with those formulae which had long been held sacred by the people.
Lord Ellenboroughagreed very much with the Most Reverend Prelate in all that he had offered upon this subject. He considered the Marriage Bill to be intended for the relief of the Dissenters, and the other Bill he supposed to be for the general benefit; but he thought that that benefit had been most grossly exaggerated. He was disposed to give every relief to Dissenters in matters of marriage, to their conscientious scruples, but he did not think, that any of the cases produced justified them in making any alteration in the form of solemnizing marriages. He understood that the rite itself was not altered; but still there was an alteration in the proceeding, in one respect, for instead of proceeding by bans there was to be a proceeding by notice. The noble Viscount had spoken of the uselessness of the bans as now published. This arose out of a proviso in the Marriage Act which enacted that, after the bans, no inquiry should be made as to the actual residence of the parties. Now, it could not be said to be necessary to alter the law on account of the uselessness of the publication of bans, because especial care
86
had been taken to transfer the very clause which rendered the publication useless into this Bill. What he complained of was, that it was proposed not only to take away the publication of bans, but to substitute a notice, in which case there was no chance of publicity. Again, this Bill would make marriage to the poor man more expensive and inconvenient than under the present law. It should be understood that this was a law peculiarly for the benefit of the poor, because the rich could derive no benefit from it. They had no grievance to complain of under the present law. With respect to the poor, this Bill was very onerous, particularly with regard to marriage. Marriage was now attended with very little expense; but it would not be so under this Bill. In addition to all the in. formation the poor man was now called upon to give, he must state his profession or condition in life, the church or other place where he intended to be married, declare whether he or the woman was of age or under age, and state whether he knew of any impediment to the marriage, of which of course he could know nothing at all. But this was not enough. He was required to find two persons who knew him, and also knew the registrar, who were to go with him to the registrar, to declare that they believed what he had stated in his notice was true. The difficulty of this was obvious. Then let their Lordships look at the expense imposed by this Bill. He now paid nothing for the bans; but by this Bill he would first have to pay a shilling for entering the notice; next he would have to travel it might be five or six miles to the registrar: thus would he lose a day's work. The two persons that went with him must be paid for their loss of time, so that the expense by notice would be 3s. 6d. or 4s., whereas by bans there was no expense. [Lord Holland: They pay for publishing bans.] There was another thing which might under some circumstances be of rather serious importance. At present every stranger might forbid a marriage who knew that it was incestuous; but there was no provision in this Bill to prevent any incestuous marriage. He did not impute that to intention; but it was a gross error; and when men took upon themselves to legislate upon matters of so much importance, they ought not to commit such errors. Then, with respect to the Registration Bill—how would that operate upon the poor man? He was required within eight days of the birth of

87
his child to give notice of the birth to the registrar. Now, in no eight days in the year was it more inconvenient for a poor man to be absent for a day from his home. The notice would not be given; but what would be the consequence? If he did not give notice you inflicted upon him a penalty of 20s. No less than three weeks' wages; and for what purpose was the notice to be given? It was for no benefit to him. What did it signify to him whether the birth was registered or not? It was required to be done just to gratify the statistical fancies of some few philosophers, in order that they might know how many persons died, and how many were born in a year. If they wished to obtain that information they ought to pay for it, and not make the poor man pay for it, with a penalty. But supposing the poor man omitted to give notice, he was told, that for some reason or other the child should be afterwards registered. Now, observe the peculiar correctness and care of the framers of the Bill not to give trouble. If, after fifteen days, the child was to be registered, some person who was present at the birth must attend the registrar to testify to the birth. It often happened that only three, and sometimes only two persons were present at the birth—the mother being one. How was it possible to get the nurse several weeks afterwards to meet the registrar, who had duties to perform that required him always to be going about the country. Besides this, the poor man, by attending the registrar, would be convicting himself of not having given notice of the birth within eight days; and he would be liable to a charge of 7s. 6d. for the delay. That was not all; for at the time the notice was given, it was required that the name of the child should be given. Now, it was perfectly well known, that, in point of practice, it was not usual to determine within eight days what the name of the child should be. It very often happened, too, that the name was changed. This change the Bill treated almost as an offence; for if notice were not given of any change made in the name of the child, the poor man was liable to an additional penalty of 5l. Was not that a monstrous provision? But it was worse than that; for although he must pay the 5l. penalty, he could not get the child registered at all. The Bill positively said that he should not. Surely this was not the way to prepare Acts of Parliament. Their Lordships desired to receive Bills in a shape in which they
88
might pass them. There was one provision of a very offensive nature, and which ought not to be suffered to become the law. It was required that within three days of the death of a person, notice should be given thereof to the registrar, and within eight days the registrar was authorised to obtrude himself on the widow—on the very day, it might be, of the funeral, to answer all sorts of questions, merely to gratify the curiosity of a few individuals who were wedded to statistics. All this was vexatious, and more than vexatious. In his belief more injury was done to the credit of Parliament, and to the respectability and influence of the Legislature by these violent and ruthless interferences with the poor, than any other legislative interference whatever. Having lived a little in the country, and talked somewhat with the people on these matters, he knew what their feelings on these subjects were. But supposing these provisions to be right, how could they be carried into effect by the machinery of this Bill? He had looked into the population returns, and it appeared that the total remuneration, exclusive of what might be received for bans and licences, amounted to about 6,750 l. per year, and that sum was to maintain about 1000 registrars. The registrar-general would have to receive in every year 88,000 separate papers, all of which he must classify. Taking the average amount of population of an union to be 15,000, and supposing there to be four registrars in the union, these receipts would be 11 l. l6 s. It was perfectly impossible to get a man having nothing else to do to perform these duties for the money. But, observe, it was further directed, that the registrar should be continually going about to obtain information with respect to births and deaths; and yet by another clause it was practically required that this identical man should be always at home for the purpose of receiving notices. It was quite impossible, therefore, that the duties of a registrar of marriages, births, and deaths could be done by the same person. Moreover, the Bill enacted, that register-books should be kept in iron boxes, of which two keys should be kept, and no more; but when once the books got into those boxes, he did not see how they could be got out again without the commission of a misdemeanour by some party: for it was a misdemeanour to disobey the directions of an Act of Parliament, and by this Bill it was proposed, that when the books were put in "the register-

89
box shall always be kept locked." How they were to be got out of this locked box would puzzle those who dealt much more in Acts of Parliament than he did to explain. There were many other points on which he had objections to make, but he would reserve them till in the Committee. His wish was, if possible, to make them good Bills, and on that ground he would not oppose their going into Committee.
Viscount Melbournehad admitted that there were difficulties in the Bills, but he did not think they were such as could not be got over. He did not agree with the most rev. Primate, that these Bills would take any power from the clergy which they now possessed, but the best place to discuss the details was in Committee.
The bills were severally read a second time.