Sitting of 1 March 1836

COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonslated to the House the course he proposed it should pursue. By the Report of the Committee which had been circulated with the votes, hon. Members would be aware of the recommendations of the Committee: and he should call upon them to concur in. a series of resolutions embodying those recommendations. The first would be, that it be an instruction to the List-Committee upon every Bill, to obtain specific information on all the points adverted to in the Report. The object of it was, that all the intelligence that could be furnished regarding particular railroads should be laid upon the Table. The next resolution respected divisions in List-Committees, and the attendance of Members upon those Committees. The third had for object the giving time for the nomination of Members upon List-Committees in cases where there were competing lines of railroad, in order that contending parties might come to an amicable arrangement, if they thought fit, and have the comparative merits decided by the same body of Members. The fourth resolution was directed against giving additional time to Committees to make their Reports on competing lines of railroad, excepting under special circumstances. The fifth resolution would be that whenever the report of a Committee related to three railroads with common termini, the House would take it into consideration, and discuss the subject on Tuesdays prior to the debate upon any pending motions. The reasons for these resolutions would be found in the Report on the Table. The Committee by which these resolutions were framed had had two points to consider; first, how special information could be obtained for the House on the different plans; and secondly, to take care that no injustice was done to those plans which had been submitted, in the course of the present Sesaion, upon the faith of the existing standing orders. Whatever might be the opinion of the Committee as to the fitness of the plan as to the nomination of the List Com-

1113
mittee, and as to the standing orders, it had been found impossible to suggest any alteration as regarded Railroad Bills introduced in the present Session. The Committee had directed its best attention to a system that had prevailed to a certain extent—that of votes in Committees being made rather a matter of favour than of judgment. Next, it had had to consider the best means of making the House acquainted with such information as might guide its ultimate decision; that it might not be a tribunal called upon to determine upon the merits without the means of knowing what those merits were. One point had been mentioned and favourably received during the former discussion, viz. the propriety of referring railroads with different lines and the same termini to the same Committee. The Committee had been most anxious to recommend that plan, thinking that great advantage would result from it; but in justice to the different Bills, it had been found impossible to adopt it. It was rendered impossible partly because the Bills would be in various stages: one might have passed the second reading, and another might have passed only the first reading—these could not be referred at the same time to the same Committee, because the Bill that had only been read a first time might be thrown out on the second reading. It had therefore been thought best that such Bills should be referred to the ordinary List-Committee, but with an anxious desire that the conflicting parties should by consent go before the same Committees. The Report on the Table therefore recommended that the House should give every facility to such an arrangement. For this purpose it was suggested that some time should elapse before the lists were fixed, in order that parties might have time to come to an understanding if they thought fit. Such were the principal points in there solutions of the Committee, but it had not thought fit to enter into any question of conditions: it bad considered the House the proper tribunal for the conditions on which railroads should be granted, if any were thought necessary. It had been the most anxious desire of the Committee to do all that was best under the circumstances, and to remove all difficulties that were capable of being overcome. At present all it was necessary for him to do was, to move the first resolution he had stated.
Sir Harry Verncysaid, that he felt it his
1114
duty to propose that another select Committee should be appointed to take all the circumstances more fully into consideration, He believed that railroads were absolutely necessary to maintain the commercial and manufacturing superiority of this country, and his object was, that the fullest consideration should be given to the different lines proposed, in order that that which offered the greatest advantages might be adopted. At present it seemed to him that most of these schemes had been undertaken for the promotion of local and not of national, interests: and, in some cases, he had no doubt that public benefit had been sacrificed to private profit. He thought that some body, in the shape of a Royal Commission, should be constituted, with supreme power to examine and decide on the merits of conflicting plans, and to recommend that to the Legislature which seemed most worthy of adoption. The members of this Commission he would select principally from officers of the Engineers in his Majesty's service, associated with other known and competent individuals; and they would have to give their opinion and advice to the King in council. He had given notice of a motion for the appointment of another Committee, and it was his intention to persevere in it.
Colonel Sibthorpadmitted, with the hon. Baronet opposite, that many of these undertakings had emanated from local interests, without any regard to national ones. He had no hesitation in saying, that upon grounds of public duty, in preference to private interests, he had taken every means of opposing these undertakings from beginning to end. He wished to put the public upon their guard with respect to them, for he was afraid Ministers were not inclined to give the subject due consideration. He thought time ought to be given for investigating the subject, for in some points the resolutions proposed by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite were not sufficiently specific. Every opportunity ought to be given of entering into the merits or demerits of the subject, and though he might agree with many of the resolutions proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, yet he was so satisfied of the good effects of further delay that he should vote with the hon. Baronet opposite for the appointment of a Select Committee. He thought that if the whole of the proposed Bills could be postponed until next Session it would be very desirable. He had some

1115
additional resolutions to propose, but he would postpone doing so at the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite till the great question was decided. He was much afraid, if these undertakings went on, that many who had embarked in them would find, that they had lost their all. Many persons had realised large fortunes— ten, twenty, and even eighty thousand pounds—by these railroad speculations. After some further remarks the hon. and gallant Member concluded by stating his intention of supporting the amendment for the appointment of a Select Committee.
Sir George Stricklandfelt, that it was desirable to introduce some plan by which Railroad Bills should be more attentively and patiently considered than they had hitherto been. He had been a member of the Committee on Railroads, and had hoped on entering the Committee that they should have been able to have devised some general rules for the better management of the business relating to these Bills; but he found that upon mature consideration in the Committee it was impossible, under the circumstances, to do so. It depended, he thought, on the House itself to give a more patient consideration to this subject, and to pay a greater attention than they were in the habit of doing to private Bills of this nature.
Mr. Potterthought, that a great improvement might be made in the mode in which the juries for assessing compensation were appointed; and he wished that greater attention should be paid to the protection of the rights of way, as far as public paths and thoroughfares were concerned. Sufficient attention was not paid to these points.
Lord George Lennoxcomplained that so many Railway Bills should be referred to the same Committee; and he regretted that the Report of the Committee on Railways had not recommended that no Member of the House should be a Member of a Committee on any Bill for the formation of a railway of which he was a director or a shareholder.
Mr. Humethought that too much attention was paid to private interests in the consideration of Bills relating to Railways. The points of greatest importance to be considered by Committees were, first, whether there was a probability of the Railroads being carried into effect; and next, whether, if carried into effect, the
1116
public interest would be benefited. He was of opinion, however, that until a proper tribunal was established for deciding on the merits of these Bills, no authority could be relied on except that of the whole House. He was willing to admit, that the object of the hon. Baronet's Amendment was a good one, and that the instruction which that hon. Member had moved, was one calculated to produce a public benefit. But the first step which the House should take was to provide a proper tribunal for these Bills, Fifteen Members would be sufficient to constitute a Committee, and he would suggest that not less than twelve should form a quorum. When less than, twelve attended, the proceedings of the Committee ought to be suspended, a Report made to the House, and the Members who were absent called to account. Let the Committee be drawn by ballot, and the first fifteen be held to constitute the Committee, unless objections were made, such as had been suggested by the noble Lord (Lord-G. Lennox)—namely, the being directors or shareholders of the company, which he thought was a disqualification. He should object to the resolutions proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, unless the House thought it fit to adopt the plan he had suggested—namely, that of a limited Committee to be made responsible to the House for their conduct.
Lord Stanleysaid, that in the Committee of fifteen, which had framed the resolutions, the only absent Member was the hon. Member for Middlesex. That hon. Member had given his attendance only for two or three hours the first day of sitting. It was true he had propounded the proposition just put by him to the House; it was not acceded to, and he never gave the Committee his company afterwards. The Committee had decided that no alteration should be made in the nature of the tribunal in the present Session, because they were willing to see how the existing form would work before they adopted a new one. Besides, they had taken every precaution to secure the attention and strict attendance of hon. Members—by proposing that those who were absent should be reported to the House—that the names of every hon. Member who divided should be recorded in every division and submitted to the House also; and moreover, that every hon. Member should state his reasons for his vote, and give the cause which led to his conviction. The proposition

1117
of his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, was impracticable. It would be impossible for one Committee to decide on all the applications before Parliament. At that moment there were no less than fifty-seven schemes for railways before the House, or in various stages of progress—a fact which needed only to be known to prove that it would be impossible for any set of men to report singly on them. With regard to the proposition of the hon. Member for Middlesex, he thought it might be considered next Session; but he was sure it would be anything but an advantage to the public to consider it at present. As far as selecting the Committees by ballot went, be would only say, that when the time consumed in an election ballot was considered, it would be anything but a saving of it to adopt the hon. Member's proposition. With respect to appointing a separate Committee for each Bill he should simply observe, that if the hon. Member's suggestion were acceded to, of having fifteen or twenty Members to each Committee, with the present number of Bills—fifty-seven— before the House, 855 Members would be required out of a House composed of 658. When all these things were considered he was sure the House would agree with him that the Committee had acted wisely in recommending no alteration at present in the form of the tribunal. If in the course of trial the system suggested by them should be found insufficient for the ends it was designed to secure, then it would be for the House to adopt any other which would be likely to give more satisfaction. It was proposed as a temporary, not as a permanent arrangement, and on these grounds he supported the Resolutions.
Mr. George P. Youngsaid, that though the House and the country were deeply indebted to the Committee, yet, on the grounds adduced by the hon. Member for Middlesex, he was bound to say, he thought their Resolutions did not give entire satisfaction. Neither did he think the noble Lord's defence then partook of his usual success in matters of that nature. He was of opinion, that some improvement in the constitution of the tribunal was necessary; and as it was important to the public, it should be effected at once. With so many Bills for Railways before Parliament, any evil which might result from immediately doing it, would be overbalanced by the good it would produce.
Mr. Harveysuggested, that a mode of meeting the difficulties in connexion with the question of railways, would be to make it incumbent on projectors to submit their several plans to the Home Office six months at least before the meeting of Parliament, say, on the 1st of August in each year; and also to deposit a sum of money sufficient to defray the expense of engineers in surveying and reporting the respective lines of railway. Government would thus be enabled, at the meeting of Parliament, to point out to the House those plans which were most feasible, and by that means a great saving of time and trouble to the House, and of expense to the parties, would take place. In his opinion the Resolutions of the Committee would be productive of great advantage, though he would freely admit they were open to much comment and objection. But, on the whole, it were better that any further proceeding should be deferred as to the constitution of the tribunal, than that a crude and hasty measure should be adopted by the House. The hon. Member objected to the suggestion of the noble Lord, the Member for Sussex, on the ground that there were indirect influences, equally, if not more powerful, than the direct one of being a registered proprietor or shareholder; and he admitted that he was a shareholder himself, as well as many other hon. Members whom he could name, but denied that it could have any influence on his opinions. Another suggestion which he should venture to make was, that the Committee should not hear too many Counsel; one on each side would be enough, and it would save time and expense to hear no more. If, however, the suggestion of the noble Lord was to be adopted, he (Mr. Harvey) should further propose, that no hon. Member having interest, direct or contingent, in railroads should be allowed to take part in the proceedings of the Committee.
Lord George Lennoxhad not meant to allude personally to the hon. Member; and he must, state that neither himself nor any Member of his family had any interest, contingent or direct, in any line of railway before Parliament.
Mr. Gisbornesaid, that he was a proprietor of shares in a railway speculation, and that nothing which had been said on the subject should induce him to throw them away.
Sir Robert Peel—Sir, the discussion

1119
before the House involves matters of considerable importance to the public, and in which it is evident the public take a deep and proportionate interest. I admit, Sir that the noble Lord has made out a strong prima facie case in favour of the propriety of excluding from these Committees the shareholders and Members who had a direct interest in the matters brought before them; and if the principle of security involved in his suggestion be adopted, I think it ought to be applied much more extensively. But, Sir, the security he purposes to attain, is, in my opinion, a false security, and more calculated to deceive the public than to effect any practical benefit, I apprehend that the man least liable to suspicion of acting unjustly is he whose interest is most notorious in the question, and who has a considerable stake depending on its decision. But this interest is not always so apparent, though perhaps really as great, in the case of the man whose estate is cut through by the railroad, and who has an opportunity afforded him of making his own terms with the Company—or in the case of the man who would be greatly though privately benefitted by its execution. How can such cases be met? If the noble Lord does not exclude all who may possibly be interested in the question, he acts in opposition to his own principle. But it really appears to me, Sir, that it will be impossible to exclude altogether the influence of private and remote interests in the consideration of these affairs, and that it will be better to leave it to the private honour and judgment of an individual so interested, whether he should attend on the Committee or not. The hon. Member for Middlesex said, that he still thought it very possible to adopt precautions against interested decisions; and the hon. Member for Tynemonth thought that a tribunal to adjust all the claims of property interfered with would be very desirable, and ought to be established. It would certainly be very desirable to form such an arrangement, and if it could be effected it ought to be. But, Sir, it cannot be accomplished, at least during the present Session. The noble Lord has said, that there were fifty-seven Bills for Railroads at present before the House, and it is a settled point that a Select Committee cannot enter on business with less than fifteen Members. This would, therefore,
1120
require above 800 Members for railroads alone. But there are numbers of private Bills for other objects than railroads. I believe the number of private Bills amounts altogether to 200, which would, if this arrangement were adopted, demand a House of 3,000 Members to supply them with Select Committees. The Ministers themselves would be liable to be called on to contribute to the progress of the rail-reads, and their evidence received, like others, before Select Committees repeat, Sir, that there is no time this Session to take sufficient precautions, as a means of security, for the proper and efficient working of this Select-Committee system. It will not effect the object, to take fifteen by ballot indiscriminately from, the whole House, for the majority may be completely ignorant of the locality in question, as well as of the principles involved in the establishment of railroads. Again, seven of the elected may be impartial men, and eight may be notoriously interested. What is then to be done? If you act on the noble Lord's principle you must make them stand aside. You must provide for their exclusion by introducing the right of challenge into your arrangement. You must, in short, to insure the proper working of such a system, provide a vast number of regulations. The most serious practical objection, however, is the want of attendance of a sufficient number of Members to enable the House to enter on a proper comprehensive selection for such Committees. You may say, I will compel every Member to attend by a special and comprehensive order; but will you make no allowance for illness or accident? [An Hon. Member: Nothing easier.] Nothing easier! Nothing is easier said; and that's the answer everyone is inclined to make to objections that cannot otherwise be got rid of. Will you have a Call of the House upon every Select Committee to insure their full attendance? It is provided, that if three out of fifteen Members be absent, the Committee will be closed for the day—a Resolution which would put it into the power of any three Members opposed to the Bill to stay away and put the parties to great inconvenience, by protracting the proceedings, or perhaps defeat it entirely. A hundred other cases equally likely to occur might be stated as tending to make us slow in adopting the views of the hon. Member. Further, I must remind the House, that all the private Bills before

1121
it have been introduced, and all the consequent expense incurred, on the faith of the existing regulations; and though the Motion now submitted may be calculated to effect good at a future day, it would be most unfair to introduce it, and apply it to those before us. Therefore, being quite inapplicable to the existing state of private business, and the private Bills now before the House, I feel myself bound to oppose the views of the hon. Member for Middlesex.
Viscount Sandonwished that Committees should exercise a subsequent, as well as a previous, right of investigation and control over railroad affairs by the examination of engineers and others concerned therein. He wished also to remind the House of the injury likely to result to the public service by allowing those Companies to exercise au unlimited right of toll.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeragreed in the necessity of framing some protection against the power of the Directors to institute a monopoly of price; for, suppose a line running from London to Bristol, it would be very desirable to engage it in the service of the Post-Office. This arrangement would, however, throw into the hands of the Company a power of charging their own price, in reference to which it would be not unwise in the Post-Office to take care that the country should not in future be burthened thereby. It would, therefore, be advisable to introduce a clause in favour of the Post-Office in the general regulations applicable to each, compelling these Companies to carry the mails at a certain fixed rate—at least not permitting them to charge the Post-Office more than they charged others for similar parcels.
Mr. Warburtonremarked, that it had appeared very extraordinary and unaccountable to behold individuals sitting in Committee to consider the propriety of a railroad in which they were themselves Proprietors and Directors. He would suggest the propriety of the Chairman of each Committee examining every individual who took a part in the investigation or appeared before it, touching his private interest in the matter. He thought there would be little difficulty in striking a Committee of fifteen proper individuals. He would take the list of the House as it now stood, and make Members declare whether they would act or not. He thought that on any occasion thirty or forty Members
1122
might be found ready and quite independent, impartial, and unobjectionable in every point of view.
Lord Granville Somersetwas understood to recommend that the powers of investigation and regulation which it was proposed to bestow on the Committees, should be applicable to those railroads already established, as well as to those in progress of formation, and for which persons were now seeking railroad Bills to establish them.
The Speakerread the following resolutions, and put the question on each seriatim:—
1. Resolved, that Committees on Railway Bills do inquire into the following matters, and report specially there upon when they report the respective Bills to the House.
As to the proposed capital of the Company formed for the execution of the project, and the amount of any loans which they may be empowered to raise under the provisions of the Bill; the amount of shares subscribed for, and the deposits paid thereon, the names and residences of the directors or provisional Committee, with the amount of shares taken by each; the number of shareholders who may be considered as having a local interest in the line, and the amount of capital subscribed for by them, and the number of other parties, and the capital taken by them; a statement of the number of shareholders subscribing for 2,000 l. and upwards, with, their names and residences, and the amount for which they have subscribed.
The sufficiency or insufficiency for agricultural, commercial, manufacturing', or other purposes, of the present means of conveyance, and of communication between the proposed termini, stating the present amount of traffic by land or water, the average charges made for passengers, and goods, and time occupied.
The number of passengers, and the weight and description of the goods expected upon the proposed railway.
The amount of income expected to arise from the conveyance of passengers and goods, and in what proportion; stating also generally the description of goods from which the largest revenue is anticipated.
Whether the proposed, railroad be a complete and integral line between the termini specified, or a part of a more extended plan now in contemplation, and likely to be here after submitted to Parliament, and to what extent the calculations of remuneration depend on such contemplated extension of the line.
Whether any, and what, competing lines of railroad there are existing, and whether, any, and what, are in progress or contemplation; and to slate, so far as circumstances will permit, in what respects the proposed line is

1123
superior or inferior to the other Hues, if there be any.
To state what planes on the railway are proposed to be worked, either by assistant engines, stationary or locomotive, with the respective lengths and inclinations of such planes.
To advert to any peculiar engineering difficulties in the proposed line, and to report the manner in which it is intended they should be overcome.
To state the length, breadth, and height, and means of ventilation of any proposed tunnels, and whether the strata through which they are to pass are favourable, or otherwise.
To state whether, in the lines proposed, the gradients and curves are generally favourable or otherwise, and the steepest gradient, exclusive of the inclined planes above referred to, and the smallest radius of a curve.
To state the length of the main line of the proposed line of the railroad, and of its branches respectively.
To state generally the fitness, in an engineering point of view, of the projected line of railroad.
If it be intended that the railroad should pass on a level any turnpike road or highway, to call the particular attention of the House to that circumstance.
To state the amount of the estimate s of the cost or other expenses to be incurred up to the time of the completion of the railway, and whether they appear to be supported by evidence, and to be fully adequate for the purpose.
To state what is the estimated charge of the annual expenses of the railroad when completed, and how far the calculations on which the charge is estimated have been sufficiently proved.
Whether the calculations proved in evidence before the Committee have satisfactorily established that the revenue is likely to be sufficient to support the annual charges of the maintenance of the railroad, and still allow profit to the projectors.
The number of assents, dissents, and neuters upon the line, and the length and amount of property belonging to each class traversed by the said railroad, distinguishing owners from occupiers; and, in the case of any Bill to vary the original line, stating the above particulars with reference to such parties only as may be affected by the proposed deviation.
To state the name or names of the engineers examined in support of the Bill, and of those, if any, examined in opposition to it.
To state the main allegation of any petition or petitions which may have been referred to the Committee, in opposition to the preamble of the Bill, or to any, of its clauses; and whether the allegations have been considered by the Committee, and, if not considered, the cause of their not having been so.
To state, in addition, any circumstances which, in the opinion of the Committee, it is desirable the House Should be informed of.
1124
2. Resolved, that this House will not proceed with the further consideration of Report of any Bill, until it has received from the Committee specific replies in answer to each of the questions contained in the foregoing resolutions,
3 Resolved, that the Clerk of every Committee on a Railway Bill do take down the name of every Member attending the Committee on each day; and if any division shall take place in the Committee upon any of the matters which the Committee are directed to inquire into by the preceding resolution, or upon the Special Report in respect of such matters, the Clerk do take down the names of Members voting in any such division, distinguishing on which side of the question they respectively vote; and that such Bills be given in with the Report to this House.
4. Resolved, that in order to afford time for the proper discussion of the Reports on Railway Bills, this House will upon every Tuesday proceed in the first place to the consideration of reports on such Bills; provided, however, that three or more such Bills have been reported, and stand for further consideration of Report,
Sessional Order, that this House will not receive any Report of any Private Bill after Monday, the 6th day of June next read.
5. Resolved, that with regard to such Railroads as are classed as competing lines of Railroad, this House will not enlarge the time for making any such Report, as has been the practice in former Sessions of Parliament; and that the said Order be peremptorily enforced in this Session, in respect of Railway Bills.
6. Resolved, that when any Railway Bill has been read the second time and committed, this House will not immediately nominate the Committee, but appoint some future day for such nomination, with an interval of at least three clear days between the day of the second reading and the day for the nomination of the Committee.
Resolutions agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
Mr. Eaton, in rising to present a petition, said, Sir, I trust the House will grant me their indulgence for a few moments while I once again refer to the extreme difficulties which now prevail in presenting public petitions. I have received a most important petition from Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely, and although I am at this moment so unwell that my medical adviser desired me not to quit my bed, still I conceived it my duty to the petitioners to use every means in any power to present their petition. I hold in my hand an important petition signed by a very numerous, loyal, and most respectable body of the landowners and yeomanry of the county of Cambridge and Isle of Ely. It comprises signatures of men of every political

1125
shade of opinion, for all alike unite in seeking for redress and justice in their present embarrassed and almost hopeless state. The grievances which have long weighed so heavily upon the agricultural classes of this land, now press with such extreme severity upon all connected with the cultivation of the soil, that I have great reason to believe and fear that a large portion of the rent of England is paid, not from, the profits of the farmers, but from the little capital amassed by honest industry in better times; and that this resource is now exhausted. I beg to submit to the House that the distress of this part of the community is felt with additional pressure by the honest and industrious labourer; and I must say, that the patient and hard-working husbandmen are most deserving of the public sympathy and assistance. It is my duty to inform the House that the petitioners have frequently preferred their most humble petitions to this honourable House, in the hope that they would be deemed worthy the consideration of the Legislature; and they again entreat the attention of the House to their just demands; that they are in full hopes that their distress (which must be admitted by all) may be alleviated by the intervention of Parliament; but hitherto, unhappily, little or no relief has been afforded to them. I now congratulate the petitioners and the country on the appointment of an Agricultural Committee within these walls, which, although not composed as fully as I could have hoped, of a larger proportion of the representatives of strictly agricultural counties, will still, I most sincerely trust, do justice to the humble and distressed farmer, and not only investigate the causes of this general calamity, but devise some salutary measures to prevent the recurrence of it for the future. I now beg to submit that the petition be read, and submitted for the further consideration of the Agricultural Committee.
Agreed to. Petition referred.

REMUNERATION TO MEDICAL MEN AT INQUESTS.
Mr. Wilkspresented a petition from a medical gentleman named Barker, in favour of the measure for granting compensation to medical men attending as witnesses on Coroners' Inquests. The petitioner stated, that on the 22d of July, 1834, he made a post mortem examination of the body of a person who was supposed
1126
to have been murdered by the administration of poison. The Coroner postponed the inquest until the next day, in order to give time for the petitioner to analyse the contents of the stomach—an operation which occupied him for several hours each day for several days. The Jury had expressed their gratitude to him for the trouble he had taken and the skill he had exercised on the occasion, and recommended the parish officers to compensate him for his loss of time. That ten guineas would have been scarcely sufficient to remunerate him, but that he was willing to accept of three guineas, and that even this moderate sum the parish officers said they had no power to give. The petitioner therefore thought that the Legislature ought to interfere in a case of such public importance.
Several other petitions had been presented on this subject.
Mr. Wakley, in rising to ask leave of the House to bring in a Bill for granting compensation to medical men attending as witnesses at Coroners' inquests, said that after the favourable manner in which the petitions just presented to the House upon this subject had been received, he should detain the House only a very few minutes, to the Bill that was brought in during the last Session for regulating the fees of Coroners a clause was proposed to compensate medical men, but the clause was objected to, and in consequence the whole Bill was very properly rejected. It had been asked, why should medical witnesses be remunerated any more than any other class of witnesses? But there was no analogy in the cases. Medical men attended professionally at inquests, and not as mere casual persons who might have chanced to witness an accident by which the loss of life was caused. The duty, too, of medical witnesses on those occasions was of a most important nature, and often attended with great danger to themselves, as they were frequently obliged to occupy twelve, and not unfrequently fourteen hours in a post mortem examination; and yet after all this trouble, hazard, and loss of time, the Coroner had no power to award any compensation. He looked upon it that having no provision of this nature for such services was a much greater injury to the public than it was to the profession. It must be recollected that the Coroner's Court was a most important Court. It was not only one of

1127
the most ancient, but it was the only Court in which the people had the election of their own Judge, In all cases where the cause of the loss of life was involved in any doubt or mystery reports were often circulated injurious to individuals, and it was the evidence of medical men alone that could by a post mortem examination of the body, give satisfaction to the public mind. Within a very short period several lives had been lost under circumstances which could only be explained by men acquainted with medical science. He alluded to those unfortunate persons who had been destroyed by the use of quack medicines, and he lamented to say, that never in the history of this country was quacking so general or successful as it was at present, chiefly owing to the encouragement it received by advertisements in newspapers. He thought it was the duty of the Government to interfere, and he hoped they would interfere to prevent, at least, the circulation of those quack medicines under the sanction of a Government stamp. At an inquest which had lately been held, arising out of the use of those medicines, the ends of justice would have been defeated if the attendance of medical men could not have been procured. When the House saw the great importance of the question to the public interests, he was sure they would not refuse to grant the slight remuneration that would be sufficient to satisfy medical men. Having thus shortly stated the principle of the Bill, he would not detain the House longer, but reserve the details for the Committee. He should conclude by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the claims of medical witnesses at Coroners' Inquests.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, he was favourable to the principle of the Bill, and had no doubt that it would prove a useful measure. He hoped, however, that the hon. Member would guard against the provisions of the Bill being converted into jobs, by enabling Coroners to call in some medical friend with a view to entitling him to compensation.
Mr. Warburtonsupported the motion, and hoped that, the Bill would provide for the payment of medical men, not only as witnesses but also for any operation they might be called on to perform, with a view to ascertaining the cause of death. It must take a considerable time to analyse a poison, and to enable a man to do so he must
1128
have a knowledge of all poisons, and surely a man ought to be paid for his skill and trouble. The ends of justice would be defeated if medical men refused to attend and give their evidence.
Sir George Stricklandsupported the motion; but, as the charge of remuneration must fall on the county rate, he hoped the remuneration would be as low as possible. He well knew the liberality of the medical profession, and he was sure that they would be satisfied with a very low rate of compensation,
Mr. Wakley, in answer to an observation made by an hon. Member, begged' to observe that a Coroner might desire the overseers to have a medical man in attendance, but at the same time the medical man might refuse. He could not in case of refusal, be proceeded against for contempt of court. He hoped the Attorney-General would pay some attention to the progress of the Bill, and suggest such amendments as his professional experience would enable him to recommend in it. He understood there was in Ireland, under the Grand Jury law, a great deal of jobbing in the selection of medical men to attend at inquests.
Leave was given.

TURNPIKE TOLLS.
Mr. Mackinnonrose for the purpose of moving for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the subject of Tolls. It would be similar in its object to a motion of his last Session. His motion was granted at that time; but it fell to the ground on the change of Government. The object he then proposed was the consolidation of turnpike trusts. Subsequently, however, the hon. Member for Perth brought in a similar, Bill, and it proved of great advantage. What he meant now to propose for investigation by a Committee was whether it would not is desirable to provide for the keeping up of highways by some other kind of revenue than by tolls. He believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not disposed to agree with him in the application of any other species of revenue to this object than that already provided. The present mode of raising the money by tolls was a most injurious one, and in that opinion the Lords' Committee agreed with him. A post carriage duty, or a horse and carriage duty, would be far preferable. The expense and inconvenience of the present mode of collection was very great. The

1129
hon. Member concluded by moving for the appointment of the Committee.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, this subject came rather within the department of his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) than his. He wished the motion to be so drawn up as not to commit the House, directly or indirectly, to any opinion upon the subject. He was not disposed to concur in the principle which the motion seemed to involve, that the State was to furnish the money. If they did so, of course it must be under the administration of the state. He saw some difficulties, but he had no objection that the subject should be inquired into.
Committee appointed.

THE REPUBLIC OF CRACOW.
Sir Stratford Canningsaid: I am anxious to take the liberty of calling the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to a letter which appeared in one of the public prints to day respecting an interference that has taken place on the part of the Austrian, Russian, and Prussian Governments in the State of Cracow. I will take the liberty of reading the statement to which I refer:—"Cracow, Feb. 18.—A corps of the troops of the three protecting Powers entered the city and territory of the republic yesterday, under the command of the Austrian General Kaufmann von Frauensteinberg, to enforce the demand of the Powers made to our republic, because, as the General says in a proclamation, this demand has not been complied with by the Government of Cracow, notwithstanding the means gratuitously offered to it. At the conclusion of the proclamation be says, 'Meantime the operations of the administrative and judicial authorities of the republic experience no interruption: of course, however, they are subordinate to the military authority in the measures that relate to the public safety and the clearing of the territory of the republic." A second proclamation enjoins those individuals not natives of the republic, who, in the capacity of officers, subalterns, or privates in the former Polish army, or who in any manner took an active part in the late Polish revolution, to quit the territory within the time of six days, in the manner already stated, with the threat of severe punishment for them, and those who may harbour and conceal them, even such as have been admitted into the civil or military service of the republic, or
1130
have acquired the rights of citizens." Upon reading this, I cannot help calling to mind one of the stipulations of [he Treaty of Vienna; in the 9th Article of that Treaty the States of Austria, Russia, and Prussia undertake to respect the State of Cracow and its territory, and that it shall not be interfered with. This probably is not the proper occasion for me to go into the matter. I will, therefore, simply ask the noble Lord whether his Majesty's Government has received any informal ion similar to that which I have read; and if so, whether it is their intention to take any notice of the transaction?
Viscount Palmerston: His Majesty's Government have not received any official account of the entrance of the troops of the three Powers into Cracow, but we have received official reports of discussions having taken place between the residents of the three Powers at Cracow, and the Senate of that State, respecting the residents of certain Polish subjects there. At the same time I do not think it altogether improbable that the Austrian troops have entered the place. At first sight this might appear to be an infraction of the whole of the treaty of Vienna alluded to by my right hon. Friend, but, of course, I am not now prepared to give an opinion on the subject. In answer to the question of my right hon. Friend I will only say, that of course this is a matter to which the Government will direct its attention; but the House cannot expect me to state what steps the Government might deem it expedient to take.

THE MAURITIUS.
Mr. Borthwick: Sir, the matter to which I am now shortly about to direct the attention of the House, is one, which in itself is so very important both to the national character, and to the colonial interests generally, that I must entreat that indulgence of the House which it is went to extend to humble and little experienced Members, when venturing to obtrude themselves upon their attention on matters of such vital consideration.
Sir, in the course of the last Session, several motions were placed upon the books of the House, relative to the state of the Mauritius; and several hon. and learned Gentlemen of great experience, stated, from time to time, their intention of bringing the subject before the House, and almost as frequently they were postponed, till on the 13th. August the question was by the hon. and learned Member for Lis-

1131
keard (C. Buller) postponed sine die. At an early period of the present Session, the hon. and learned Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck) brought under the consideration of the House the state of that Island, as it regarded the administration of justice, and although under that head he certainly directed the attention of the House to the State of the slave-population yet it would appear that the grounds upon which his motion was based, were too narrow to justify an inquiry, turning as it did too much upon personal, individual considerations, relating, indeed, to persons, perhaps there of great consequence and importance, but still relating to persons, who, however important they might be in their situations, were to this House of no moment at all, as a foundation for inquiry. I did not vote therefore for the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, any more than I should have voted for the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, if it had been based upon grounds so narrow and unimportant.
Sir, it is my object, in pursuance of the notice which I have given, to bring the Subject before the House,—not upon considerations arising from the treatment which individuals may have experienced officially in the Isle of France;—not upon considerations arising from any party feeling,—I stand here the representative of no interest—white, or black, or brown;— but as the humble advocate of justice even-handed, equal justice, to all; I stand here as the advocate of the honour of the country, as it regards colonial interests, and of justice to the Mauritius, as it regards its relation to the mother country.
Sir, in the year 1826, a Select Committee, which had been appointed by the House, to "inquire whether the slave trade was prevailing at the Mauritius, to what extent, and the causes of it, and to report thereon to the House;"—which Committee was empowered to report the minutes of evidence taken before them, agreed to the following Report: "From the late period at which your Committee was appointed, it has been impracticable to conduct more than a partial investigation of this very important inquiry. Your Committee is therefore unable in the present state of the proceedings, to do more than report the minutes of evidence taken before your Committee; feeling it their duty to add, that they consider it as yet premature to suggest any opinion. These minutes of evidence will hereafter be made available to such purposes as Parliament
1132
may deem necessary. Your Committee have learnt with satisfaction, that the Colonial Government has manifested a desire to furnish the means of prosecuting and bringing to a close the inquiry in which your Committee have been engaged."
Sir, those minutes of evidence, though laid upon the Table of this House, were never printed; and to this moment we are without the means of reference to them, they having been destroyed by the late unfortunate fire, by which the Houses of Parliament were consumed. I must n treat the attention of the House to the wide difference which exists between the relations of this country to the Mauritius, and its obligations to that Island, and those which exist between it and any other of its colonial possessions.
Mr. JervisSir, I move that the House be counted.
The House was accordingly counted, and there being forty Members present;
Mr. Borthwickcontinued his speech—After a lapse of some minutes
Mr. RigbyWason again moved that the House be counted: when there appearing only thirty Members present, the House adjourned.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Read a first time:—Ecclesiastical Leases. —Read a third time:—Dean Forest; Exchequer Bills; Transfer of Aids.
Petitions presented. By Lord ELLENBOROUGH, from Graves end and Dartford, for an Adjustment of Tithes.—By the same, the Earl of WESTMORELAND, and the Bishop-of LLANDAFF, from several Places,—against the Ecclesiastical Courts' Consolidation Bill,—By the Bishop of
1104
GLOUCESTER, from Cheltenham, for a Clause in all Railway Bills to prevent all Traffic on Sundays.—By the Marquess of LANSDOWNE, from Amesbury, for Additional Time in the Repayment of the Sums borrowed by Parishes for the building of Workhouses; from Wareham, for the Better Adjusting of County Rates.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Westbourn and Steyning, for Amending the New Poor-Law Act.—By Lord HOLLAND, from the Protestant Dissenters in the British Colonies in America, for Relief

BRIGHTOH MAGISTRATES.
Lord Teynhamrose to present a Petition from Brighton, which he thought was well worthy of their Lordships' attention. The petition, which was signed by 300 respectable trades people of Brighton, complained generally of the administration of justice in that town, and particularly of an order some time since issued by the Bench of Magistrates, by which offenders who were brought before them were denied the advantage of the attendance of an attorney, or any professional man, to assist them in repelling the charge that might be brought against them. The Petitioners stated, that in cases of imputed felony, it had been customary with the Bench at Brighton to permit the attendance of a solicitor, or some experienced person, on the part of the accused; but that of late the chairman of Petty Sessions, Sir David Scott, had issued an order to the effect, that hereafter no person should be allowed to attend for any party accused in any case whatsoever, except under special circumstances, and by special permission of the Magistrates. This being the case, the petitioners prayed their Lordships, when the Prisoners' Counsel Bill should come before them, to insert a clause which should render it compulsory on Magistrates to allow parties accused before them the benefit of professional skill and experience, if they are disposed to employ them. There was one case of recent occurrence in the town, which had created a great sensation there, and which the petitioners had requested him to state to their Lordships. It was the case of a woman, named Mary Ann Booth, who was accused before the Magistrates by her employer, a chemist at Brighton, of a felony. When the case came on for hearing, the woman's attorney, whom she had employed to conduct her case, was silenced by the Magistrates; and, upon the prosecutor's evidence, added to some information which the Magistrates seemed to have obtained out of court, the woman was fully committed to Lewes gaol, upon the charge of felony. Subsequently, the

1105
Grand Jury ignored the hill; but the woman had been imprisoned for some time, and her character, of course, had suffered not only From that circumstance, but from the nature of the charge which had been brought against her. For this she had no redress whatever. She had written to the noble Duke (Richmond), the Lord-Lieutenant of the county, upon the subject, and she had also petitioned his Majesty and the noble Lord, the Secretary of State; but as far as he could learn, no satisfactory answer had as yet been given to those who interested themselves about the very important subject. It was not his intention to cast any imputation upon the Brighton Magistrates, but it was plain, from the facts he had stated, that the system upon which they acted required alteration. He had only further to observe, that the Magistrates were in the habit, as he was informed, of directing indictments to be prepared before the Grand Jury had found true bills. This he believed to be contrary to the law of England. He had also to observe, that although the Bill in the instance to which he had particularly alluded, had been ignored, the Magistrates allowed the fees of counsel for the prosecution, and made an order for the payment of 7l. 13 s. out of the county rates.
The Duke of Richmondwished to say a few words upon the subject of the petition which the noble Lord had just presented, and also upon the remarks which the noble Lord had made upon the case of Mary Ann Booth, which was not contained in the petition. In the first place, the noble Lord stated, that the feeling of the town was embodied in this petition, which he stated, further, was signed by 300 persons. The population of Brighton amounted to 40,000 souls. This petition, then, signed by 300, was, of course, to be taken as expressive of the unanimous feeling of the town. He must be allowed, however, to state, that, as far as he had listened to the petition, it appeared to him to contain no charges whatever against the Magistrates, The petitioners did not deny that the Magistrates of Brighton, like every other judicial body in the kingdom, had the power to frame laws for the maintenance of order and decorum in the courts over which they presided. If that point were disputed he (the Duke of Richmond) could quote many cases in which such a power had been confirmed
1106
by decisions of the Court of King's Bench As far as the petition was concerned, therefore, there appeared to be no specific charge against the Magistrates. He came next to the case referred to by the noble Lord. Mary Ann Booth was charged with a felony, and was attended before the magistrates by an attorney. In the course of the investigation, this gentleman behaved with considerable impertinence and insolence to the magistrates, who, at length, were compelled to say to him, "if you do not behave in a more becoming manner, we will not allow you to plead." In consequence of the treatment which the Magistrates received on this occasion, they made an order, which he would read to their Lordships, and which he was sure their Lordships would at once perceive was different from that set forth in the petition:—"Resolved, that, in future, no attorney, unless especially permitted, shall appear as an advocate for any party accused before us; but it is not intended by this resolution to prevent any attorney from being present and taking notes, nor from generally making suggestions or giving advice to his client." These were the terms of the order; yet the noble Lord asserted that the Magistrates positively prohibited the attendance of attorneys except in special cases, under special circumstances, and by special permission. The only object of the Magistrates in drawing up the order was, to enforce the respect necessary to be observed to the Bench; and he had the authority of the clerk to the Magistrates for stating, that in no one instance, during the twenty years' experience of that officer, either before or after passing the resolution in question, had he ever known a single case in which the Magistrates had refused an attorney to appear before them, except in the case of this one man, who was employed by Mary Ann Booth, and whose conduct to the Bench was indecorous and intolerable. If there were any real ground of complaint against the Magistrates, was it probable that out of so populous a town a petition should be sent up to be presented to that House, containing no more than 300 signatures? He knew no gentlemen who devoted more time or more attention to the public service than the Magistrates of Brighton. Every one who knew that town would be aware that its population was of a very fluctuating Character, and,

1107
consequently, requiring at all times great vigilance on the part of the Magistracy and police. The facility of communication between London and Brighton had rendered the character of the population very similar in both; and this similarity of late years had been greatly increased; for whenever the police of London made the neighbourhood here a little too hot for certain celebrated metropolitan characters, these distinguished gentry immediately determined on taking the advantage of a change of air, and usually sought the seashore at Brighton as the place best calculated to suit their particular cases. The Magistrates at Brighton held Petty Sessions twice a week. Did they keep a close court? On the contrary, it was notorious to every person who bad ever been at Brighton, or whoever read a Brighton newspaper, that two or three reporters for different publications were invariably present. The wholesome control of public opinion was always upon the Magistrates of Brighton, It was plain that the order complained of was intended to apply only to the individual who had misbehaved himself, and was not intended to prevent the attendance of attorneys in ordinary cases. He now came to the case of Mary Ann Booth. It was true, as the noble Lord had stated, that Mary Ann Booth had addressed a letter to him (the Duke of Richmond), to which he replied that he knew not what power the Lord-Lieutenant of the county had to control the decisions of the Magistracy; adding, however, that if the Magistrate misconducted himself, if he illegally committed any person to gaol, or exhibited on the Bench anything of partiality or favour, the ordinary courts of law afforded immediate means of redress. If this woman had any real ground of complaint against the Magistrates of Brighton, the proper mode of proceeding, instead of addressing him, would have been to direct her attorney to commence proceedings in the Court of King's Bench. It might be said that she had not the means to adopt such a course; but he (the Duke of Richmond) knew enough of the people of Sussex to feel convinced, that where a woman was injured, and sought redress, she would not long be allowed to want the means of obtaining it. It was true also, that petitions upon the subject had been sent to his Majesty and to the Secretary of State. The complaint was, that the woman was
1108
sent to gaol illegally. In reply to that charge, he would simply read the deposition of the prosecutor in the case, who was a chemist named Colvil, residing in Castlesquare, Brighton, and being the owner of a lodging-house in a different part of the town, in which he employed Mary Ann Booth, as a servant, at the rate of 7s. a week wages, and an allowance of five per cent, on the rent of the lodgings whenever they were let. Mr. Colvil complained to the Magistrates that his servant, Mary Aim Booth, had robbed him; and in his deposition he stated, that alter giving the woman repeated notices to leave the house, which she as repeatedly neglected to do, he at length went to the house in person, and on looking over the inventory with the accused, he found that a number of sheets, silver spoons, and other articles, were missing. Booth denied any knowledge of them, but subsequently, in searching the house in Preston-street, to which she had retired on quitting the prosecutor's premises, a number of spoons, sheets, and other articles, having the prosecutor's name upon them, were discovered, and a number of duplicates were also found in Booth's possession for articles which the pawnbroker produced, and which the prosecutor proved to be his. Booth, when these discoveries were made, at once admitted that the articles found upon her, and those which she had placed in the hands of the pawnbroker, were the property of the prosecutor. This was the deposition of the prosecutor, and he (the Duke of Richmond) would venture to say that no stronger or plainer case of felony was ever made out. With such a deposition before him, added to the prisoner's own admission, the Magistrate had no other alternative than to commit her to gaol. But then the noble Lord said, that the bill was thrown out by the Grand Jury. He (the Duke of Richmond) did not pretend to know how that had happened; bills were often thrown out by Grand Juries. It was possible that the prosecutor did not make the same statement before the Grand Jury that he had done before the Magistrates; but he (the Duke of Richmond) would ask whether any Magistrates, having such facts as he had described sworn before them, could have done otherwise than commit. If the parties who complained in this case could not afford to bring it before a court of law, they ought at least to have rested content

1109
with the opinion of the Secretary of State, to whom they applied upon the subject. Lord John Russell, in reply to the application made to him, gave it as his opinion that there was no case made out at all; and that it was one of the most frivolous and vexatious charges ever brought against a body of gentlemen. Such was the opinion of Lord John Russell, after he had made the fullest investigation into all the circumstances of the case; and with the repetition of that opinion he would leave the case, as now explained, in their Lordships' hands.
Viscount Strangfordwould not follow the noble Baron through his anticipatory eulogium of a Bill yet to be brought before the House, because he thought such a course extremely irregular and inconvenient. He would confine himself to the petition just presented, with all the facts connected with which he had been made acquainted. What was more, he knew (what, perhaps, the noble Lord did not suspect that he knew) the secret history of the mode in which, and the objects for which, the petition had been got up. But a sense of what was due to the dignity of their Lordships restrained him from saying all he knew. When the noble Lord gave notice of his intention to complain of the mal-administration of justice at Brighton, he concluded that, during the noble Lord's stay there, some act of felony or fraud had been committed: that the Magistrates had suffered it to go unpunished, and had thus supplied the noble Lord with a natural and becoming occasion of standing up in that House to vindicate the insulted law, and to arraign those through whose corruption or collusion its behests had been interfered with. He was, however, happy to find that the noble Lord's complaint against the Magistrates was, not that they had suffered an offender to escape, but that they had fearlessly and manfully done their duty in endeavouring to bring the offender to justice. The noble Lord thought it hard that the prisoner should have been committed for trial in the face of the prosecutor's subsequent declaration that he believed the goods were not taken with a felonious intention. Did the noble Lord forget that the law had most wisely determined that the Magistrates, and not the prosecutors should decide upon the character of an offence, and whether an offender should be committed for trial or not? If it were otherwise, what would
1110
happen? Why, the feelings and the interests of prosecutors would be constantly practised upon, and, either through false lenity or less worthy motives, they might be induced to withdraw their charges, and thus men of whose guilt no doubt could be entertained by any rational person would be suffered to escape. He believed that such things had actually happened. He believed that cases had occurred where prosecutors had been bribed or bought off— and thus that notorious offenders had escaped all punishment, except that which to some minds was no punishment at all— the scorn and the loathing of every society in which they had yet the audacity to rear their unabashed front. He regretted extremely that the noble Lord had not known, or had forgotten to inquire into all those circumstances of the case which had come to his knowledge, for sure he was, that the noble Lord would not then have lent the sanction of his high moral character, and the powers of his parliamentary weight and talent, to the support of a case which he believed to be the most paltry and the most pitiable that had ever been suffered to weary the patience or waste the time of their Lordships' House.
The Earl of Chichcster, as a Magistrate resident in the neighbourhood of Brighton, begged to state that there was not the slightest foundation for any of the charges brought against the Magistrates of Brighton, either in the petition or in the case of the woman alluded to by the noble Lord. He begged further to state, that instead of the feeling of dissatisfaction which was alleged in the petition to exist against the Magistrates in consequence of the manner in which justice was administered by them, he believed that the universal feeling of the town and neighbourhood was exactly the reverse.
The Lord Chancellorwished to offer a few words upon this subject. Feeling as he did the great responsibility under which Magistrates at all times acted, he considered it to be the bounden duty of every man to protect them whenever they were unjustly or vexatiously charged with misconduct. The circumstances of this case were made known to him some time since. A petition was sent up to his noble Friend, the Secretary of State, containing certain allegations. This petition was communicated to him, and on looking it over there seemed to be one allegation which required I explanation, It was alleged that the Ma-

1111
gistrate had acted not only upon the evidence which had been produced before him in court, but upon some other information which he had obtained by means which were not known. Upon that point therefore, a communication was made to the Magistrate; in reply to which he (the Lord Chancellor) received a most satisfactory answer. The ground of the allegation originated in a mistake, which arose in this way: After having heard the whole of the facts of the case, the Magistrates, as usual, retired into their private room to consider what course they should take. Coming back into the presence of the prisoner, and communicating the result of their deliberation, it was possible that they might have made some allusion to what had passed between themselves during their consultation, as well as to the facts which had been adduced before the public, and thus an impression arose in the minds of the prisoner's friends that they had been hearing evidence out of court. The Magistrates, on being written to by the Secretary of State, positively denied that they had acted upon any other evidence than that which had been adduced before them in open court. Their Lordships had heard from the noble Duke (Richmond) the nature of the evidence given before the Magistrates. He would abstain from making any observation upon that evidence; but he would ask if, upon such a deposition as that of the prosecutor, the Magistrates had not committed the party, they would not have been guilty of a gross and unpardonable breach of duty? What took place before the Grand Jury it was, of course, impossible for their Lordships to know; but they did know what had taken place before the Magistrates; and looking at the facts there sworn, he would say that a more clear case of felony could not be. As to the order complained of in the petition, with respect to the attendance of attorneys, upon that point the Magistrates did nothing more than they were allowed to do by law; and in this instance they no doubt acted from good cause. From all that had been stated, as well as from all he knew of the circumstances of the case, he had not the slightest doubt but that the Magistrates did in this case merely what they were in duty bound to do.
Lord Teynhamsaid, it was true that this petition was not signed by the majority of the town; but it was signed by three hundred persons, all of whom, as he was in-
1112
formed, were very respectable. He begged that the petition might be read, in order that the House might judge whether it was worthy of the treatment it had received.
Petition laid on the Table.