Sitting of 31 July 1838

MINUTES
Bills. Read a second time:—Slave Trade Treaties (Sicily and Tuscany); Militia Ballot Suspension: Private Bill Deposits.—Read a third time:—Ecclesiastical Appointments Suspension.
Petitions presented, By Sir R. INGLIS, from London, and a place in heat, in favour of a more extended provision for the Church of Canada.—By Captain PECHELL, from Brighton Fishermen, complaining of the aggressions of the French Fishermen.—By Mr. BRAMSTON, from Chelmsford, for a repeal of the Beer Act.—By Mr. ADDAMS WILLIAMS, from Chepstow, against encouragement of Idolatry.—By Lord C. MANNERS, from a place in Leicestershire, against the Beer Act.—By the CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, from the Licensed Beer Sellers at Warrington, against any alteration in the present Beer Act; from Stockport, to the same effect; from the Yarn Manufacturers at Monaghan, to protect the Linen Trade of Ireland; from the Council of the Horticultural Society, to make the Botanical Garden at Kew a truly National Establishment for the advancement of Science.

BENEFICES PLURALITIES BILL.
Lord J. Russellmoved the order of the day for the consideration of the Lords' amendmts to this bill.
Mr. C. Lushingtonsaid, that the result of his hasty application and useless labor—hasty application, because he had only time to consider these amendments for one or two days, and useless labour, because to his illegal mind the greater proportion of the new clauses wh e wholly inexplicable.—the result of the hasty application and useless labour was a conviction that the bill was unintelligible. There were two civil doctors in that House, his relative and the hon. and learned Gentleman on the opposite side, and if they would undertake to understand the clauses in a week, so as to make them intelligible, he should be satisfied. The powers of the Ecclesiastical commissioners were greatly
844
intrenched upon by having questions which should come under their jurisdiction referred solely to that of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The principle of this bill was originally very objectionable, and it was rendered more so by the amendments of the Lords. He should therefore propose that these amendments should be read a second time that day six months.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that the bill in its present shape contained all the main principles which were already sanctioned by the House. There were some alterations made by the House of Lords, but nothing to trench upon the main principles of the bill. He thought, therefore, that it would be unreasonable on their parts to accede to the amendment of the hon. Gentleman, and not adopt what was in fact their own bill. The hon. Gentleman had said, that the power of the commissioners was infringed upon, in giving the Archbishop of Canterbury the privilege of uniting and disuniting benefices. Now, as the commission never possessed this authority, it could not be said to be trenched upon by the change made by the House of Lords. Though he was sorry that some clauses had been struck out which were agreed to in that House, he still thought it very desirable that a bill which had undergone two year's consideration should not be rejected after having had so much pains bestowed upon it.
Mr. Warburtonremarked that many of the changes made by the Lords were improvements; but as there were fifteen or sixteen new clauses, he thought they should be allowed a day or two to make themselves masters of the bill in its present shape.
Amendment withdrawn, and the farther consideration of the Lords' amendments deferred.

POST OFFICE.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved the third reading of the Post-office Bill.
Colonel Sibthorpemoved as an amendment that the Bill be read a third time on this day three months. He considered it as neither more nor less than a job, got up for the purpose of obliging the Parliamentary friends of Government.
Mr. Ellisrose to second the amendment of the hon. and gallant Officer, that the bill be read a third time that day three months: Since he had last spoken upon

845
the subject, reflection had confirmed him in the objections he first entertained against the measure. The object of the bill was, to take the affairs out of the hands of the Postmaster-General and vest them in those of three commissioners; the first commissioner to receive a salary of 2000 l. per annum; the other two, 1,200 l. each, making altogether an expenditure of 4,400 l. per annum. The expense of the present management amounted to 2,500 l. yearly; it was, therefore, proposed to incur an excess of expense to the country of 1,900 l. per annum. Why were three persons required to superintend this department? He had heard no sufficient reason alleged. On the contrary, power was taken by the bill to give the whole of its duties not absolutely to three—they might be conferred merely upon two, perhaps only upon one; and it might so happen, if the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, should so think fit, that the administration of the Post Office would be given to no new commissioner at all, but kept entirely in their own hands. Moreover, by the bill, the new commissioners, if appointed, were exclusively to follow the instructions of the treasury, so that, possibly, they were causing an enlarged payment of 1,900 l. a-year for the sole purpose of placing the affairs of the Post-office in the hands of a nominee of the Treasury. Did such an enactment betoken the wisdom of the Government plan? The hon. Member for Bridport stated the other night that with respect to postage the country was on the eve of a revolution; looking however, to what was likely to be the nature of the revolution—that it would almost entirely be based upon increased facilities of communication, de-mantling, certainly, not more, if not less, intelligence on the part of the head of the Post-office—he thought that was an argument for diminishing rather than increasing the expenditure of the establishment,. But then the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that the main object of the bill was to have the chief commissioner eligible to a seat in that House. Why then had he not caused that to be specially enacted? At present the Postmaster-General sat in Parliament, though in the Upper House; yet, by the measure under consideration, it might be that, notwithstanding it would still be left open for a Peer to fill the office of chief commissioner, neither in one House nor
846
the other would the chief commissioner have a seat—and thus the grievance mainly complained of, that of not having a person in the House of Commons to answer questions relative to the Post-office department, was liable to be left without a remedy. Again, he (Mr. Ellis) certainly conceived that whilst there was no objection for the Government to have a political associate in the House of Lords, he entertained a strong desire that the number of placemen should not be increased in that House; and, considering that such proposition came with a bad grace from the present Ministers, he should on that account, as well as for the other reasons he had stated, express his hearty disapprobation of the measure.
Bill read a third time and passed.

GROCERS' SPIRIT LICENCES (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. E. Tennentmoved the second reading of the Spirit Licences Bill. As he understood that the measure was to be opposed, he would very briefly state the reasons which had rendered its introduction expedient. In 1836, Mr. Perrin, who was then Attorney-General for Ireland, brought in a bill to regulate the granting of spirit licences in that country, and in that bill was inserted a clause prohibiting the granting of a retail licence to grocers. The object of this clause was to obviate the temptation to tipling and intemperance which was held out to servants and others by the facilities and secrecy afforded for obtaining spirits at shops where the parties were ostensibly led by other business. It was only in portions of the metropolis and not in the smaller towns of Ireland this complaint applied, in those places generally the sale of spirits formed but a portion of the business of those who were general dealers, men of character and of capital, forming usually the better class of shopkeepers and persons who had too much respect for themselves to permit their houses to be abused by intemperance of any kind. If these men were now to be forcibly excluded from this trade, it would inevitably fall into hands less safe, and be confined to parties with smaller capital and greater temptations to permit excess. The houses of the grocers were closed at early hours, and always so on the sabbath-day, which would not be the case if the sale of spirits were to be compulsorily thrown into the hands of publicans of limited means. Its object was

847
only to continue the suspension of the act which had already been suspended for two years by an act brought in almost simultaneously with the suspended act, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; for if the act now came into operation, it would do a great deal of mischief. He moved the second reading of the bill.
Mr. Shawhad the greatest objection to this bill, which if passed would convert all the grocers into spirit dealers, and thus increase an evil already enormous. He had exerted himself for several years to check intemperance in the city of Dublin, but if he were not assisted by the Government he could not hope for any success. He hoped therefore, that the noble Lord opposite would refuse his assent to this bill. He begged leave to move that it be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the grocers, as a class, were more respectable than the publicans. and were more deserving of the spirit licences. If the object of the House was to repress drunkenness, it should altogether prohibit the sale of spirits. While the act appeared to be rather levelled at putting down grocers than drunkards. He had never in his life heard of any riot occurring in grocers' shops in consequence of their being permitted to hold spirit licences.
Colonel Vernersaid, with respect to the grocers of that part of the country with which he (Colonel Verner) was acquainted he could bear testimony to the excellence of their character.
Lord Morpethfelt himself in a peculiar position with respect to the bill. In the former measures which Government brought forward it was proposed to insert a clause prohibiting the sale of spirits on the premises by grocers, but a deputation of that body having been sent over from Ireland to remonstrate on the point, the clause was abandoned. A similar clause however, had been introduced by way of rider to the bill, and as he had not divided the House upon it after the deputation of grocers had left London impressed with the opinion that no such clause would be introduced, he felt almost as if he had broken faith with them, and would not therefore attempt to influence any votes upon the question.
The House divided on the second reading, Ayes 43, Noes 15—Majority 28

MINUTES.
Bills. Received the Royal assent:—Poor Rebel (Ireland); Land Tax Redemption; Land Tax Commissioners; and India Steam Company.—Read a first time:—Mediterranean Postage; and Customs.—Read a second time:—Tithes (Ireland); and Fisheries (Ireland).—Read a third time:—Royal Exchange.
Petitions presented. By Lord RAYLEIGH, two, from places in Essex, for the repeal of the Beer Act; and that the revenues of the Established Church should be appropriated to Ecclesiastical purposes.—By the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, from the Archdeacon and Clergy of Bath, against the Beer Act; and from Warminster, and other places, against encouragement of Hindoo Idolatry.

HINDOO IDOLATRY.
Lord Ellenboroughhad to present four petitions against encouraging Hindoo Idolatry, and he did not think it right to present them without making a few observations on the subject to which they related. The points which the petitions embraced were threefold. The petitioners prayed, 1st, that the East India Company should cease to derive any pecuniary advantage from idolatrous worship; 2d, that the company should cease to have any connexion or interference with the appointment of officers to the different temples; and, 3d, they further prayed, that there should no longer be bestowed on the religion of the Hindoos and Mahometans, those outward marks of respect which it had hitherto been the practice of the Indian government to manifest towards those religions. To a very large portion of the prayer of the petitioners he could agree. He was ready to diminish the tax on pilgrims, so as to do away with all pecuniary profits which the company might now derive from that source, and on which was founded the assertion, that they gave encouragement to idolatry. It was a mere question of finance, whether that tax ought not to be diminished, and if became a strong and general matter of feeling, that it was wrong for a Christian government to derive any profit from a tax of this kind, no financial consideration ought, in his opinion, to be allowed to stand in the way of a compliance with that feeling and desire. As to putting an end to all interference with the appointment of officers in the temples, he conceived, that the practice ought to cease wherever it could be effected without great inconvenience. But the last point (that which related to manifesting marks of respect to the religion of the natives) was one that deserved the most grave and serious consideration. It had hitherto been
830
the invariable practice of the government in India to bestow ou ward marks of respect on all religions professed by the natives of that country; and he must say, that if it were the intention of her Majesty's Government to discontinue those outward marks of respect, they must proceed with the greatest caution and circumspection. Because, if they did not, they would afford an opportunity to ill-disposed and designing persons—they would afford the means to such persons of encouraging a feeling and apprehension in the minds of the natives, that Government, in consequence of the withdrawal of those outward marks of respect, entertained an intention to interfere with that perfect toleration and protection which had hitherto been extended to all religions; and he did assure her Majesty's Government, that his firm conviction—a conviction not lightly taken up—was, that the moment such an apprehension was entertained by the people of India, there would be no safety for the life of any Christian in India. Such an impression would infallibly lead to the massacre of all European Christians in that country. It would, in fact, form the commencement of a series of evils and misfortunes which it was dreadful to contemplate. The welfare, peace, and prosperity of India, depended on the continuance of our imperial Government there. Let that, once be shaken, and India would for years exhibit scenes of massacre and bloodshed; therefore, he would say, that no consideration on earth, if he were connected with that government, should induce him to proceed hastily in departing from that custom which had hitherto prevailed, of showing outward marks of respect to those religions, and of affording to them full protection and toleration, In other points he thought, that the prayer of the petitioners might be complied with. Before he sat down, he wished their Lordships to hear a character of the people of India Very different from the idea which the petitioners perhaps entertained of them. That character was given by a very great man, one of the greatest men whom this country ever sent to India, by the man who knew India best, and whom the people of India loved the most—Sir Thomas Munro. In answer to a question put to him in 1813, when the renewal of the company's charter was under consideration (and he entreated the petitioners to consider well what sort of a people it

831
was with respect to whom, on a most delicate point, the Legislature was required to interfere)—in answer to a question put to him on that occasion Sir Thomas Munro said,
"I do not exactly know what is meant by civilizing the people of India. In the theory and practice of good government they may be deficient; but if a good system of agriculture, if unrivalled manufactures—if a capacity to produce what luxury or convenience demands—if the establishnent of schools for reading and writing—if the general practice of kindness and hospitality—and, above all, if a scrupulous respect and delicacy towards the female sex, are amongst the points that denote civilized people, then the Hindoos are not inferior in civilization to the people of Europe."
Lord Broughamsaid, this was a most important question, inasmuch as it affected 70,000,000 or 80,000,000 at least of our fellow-subjects. He entirely agreed in the view which his noble Friend had taken of the matter. Many petitions had been presented on this subject in the last Session; but in the present they had been far more numerous. It was, indeed a most important and a very delicate question. It was a mere delusion to suppose, because we differed from these people in religious opinion, that we should manifest our opinion by showing any thing that, looked like slight or disrespect to their religious ceremonies. Such a course in matters of this nature was a mere begging of the question. It was merely saying, "You are wrong, and we are right, and therefore we will treat you with contumely." All that ought to be done was to meet them on their own ground, and by argument to show them that they were wrong, and that we were right. Anything beyond that was monstrous, it was intolerance, it was injustice, it was cruelty, nay, it was destruction. And Christian as well as Pagan, would perish in the ruins which an improper interference with the religious ideas of the people of India would occasion. That the East-India Company should not receive anything in the shape of revenue from the Juggernaut, or other superstitions of India he thought was most proper. That proposition he considered to be perfectly correct. If we declared that we were right, and that they were wrong, we ought surely to derive no benefit from that which we held to be grossly erroneous. As to the outward marks of respect which were shown to those religions, no man's opinion was
832
thereby compromised. They manifested no deference to the opinions of those people, as if they who attended believed, that their religious ceremonies were praiseworthy. What was done elsewhere? Why, we were not Roman Catholics, and yet our troops turned out in Catholic countries when certain ceremonies were performed. Prussia, too, which was not Catholic, yet paid Roman Catholic priests, and he wished that the same thing could be done here. Certainly the utmost caution ought to be used in approaching this subject. What was the course taken with respect to that most inhuman and criminal custom, the burning of widows? In the first instance Lord Minto consulted the most learned pundits he could find on the subject, and even he paused before he would put an end to the system, a consummation which he left to his successor, Lord William Bentinck.
Conversation ended.

APPOINTMENT OF MAGISTRATES—(SCOTLAND.)
The Earl of Haddingtonbegged leave, pursuant to the notice which he had given a few days since, to state the circumstances connected with the recommendation and appointment of two magistrates in the county of Cromarty, in Scotland, which their Lordships would admit to be as extraordinary as any which had ever been submitted to that House. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that there was a vacancy in the representation of the county of Ross in the spring of last year, and that there was a sharp contest. At that election an individual named Gibson had been forcibly abducted, in order to prevent him from giving his vote for the Gentleman who now represented that county. There were two persons named, Watson and Smith, who were concerned in that abduction; they inveigled the voter Gibson to the house of one of them, they made him drunk, and carried him away in a state of insensibility, and forced him, despite his struggles, into a post-chaise, in which he was rapidly conveyed to an inn in the country and put to bed; from that place he made his escape and was pursued, but ultimately he got back to Ross in time to give his vote. Now, those two persons, on the recommendaion of the lord-lieutenant or the county, had been appointed justices of the peace for that county. A prosecution had been commenced against those

833
persons—not by the Crown, for the Crown had declined to prosecute, but on what ground he could not conceive—but the person who had been abducted prosecuted them himself, and, that being the case, he of course could not appear as a witness, which he might have done if the Crown had prosecuted. The prosecution was commenced; the case could not be tried till the subsequent August; but, strange to say, pendente lite, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had appointed on the recommendation of the lord-lieutenant, those two individuals to be magistrates. One of them was what was there called a hardware merchant, or, in plain English, an ironmonger. The other practised as a surgeon, and had no property. He had heard, that since he gave notice of his motion, the noble and learned Lord had issued a supersedeas. [The Lord Chancellor "No."] Then they were still magistrates; and he was only surprised that the noble and learned Lord had not done so. But, with regard to the result of the prosecution after their appointment as magistrates, the fact was, that whilst the jury was being struck, a proposition was made by the counsel for the defendants to the counsel for the plaintiff, to the effect that the defendants would consent to pay 25 l. damages and costs, as if a verdict had been found for the plaintiff for that amount. The issues which were to be tried embodied the facts which he had stated, and by their consenting to a verdict against them for 25 l. the defendants admitted the guilt; and yet these men, who had been guilty of that ill-conduct, and of a gross violation of the rights of the subject had been recommended by the lord-lieutenant to be placed on the commission, had been appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and not superseded. That was a most extraordinary case. They had heard of strange cases of appointments of magistrates in Ireland and in England, but he thought that he had now found one that would match them in Scotland. He imputed this to politics and nothing else. He should be guilty of a great want of charity if he were to impute it to anything else; for, after all, bad as that reason might be for such conduct, it was the least bad reason which could be suggested. The lord-lieutenant of the county of Cromarty was a gentleman of family and property, and a strong partisan of the present Government, and therefore he supposed en-
834
joying a greater degree of the confidence of the noble and learned Lord. That noble and learned Lord had hitherto been charged with not paying due deference to the lords-lieutenant of counties: he had certainly no such charge to make. The noble and learned Lord had stated that he was alone responsible; that it was his duty to see proper persons appointed; but he was afraid that the noble and learned Lord had more confidence in some lords-lieutenant than in others; and he only wished that he (the noble and learned Lord) would entertain the same wholesome distrust of Whig lords-lieutenant which he appeared to have of Tory lords-lieutenant. The station of life alone in which these two persons were was objectionable; for though it was true that in Scotland there was no qualification, still persons had usually been appointed pretty much of the same class as the magistrates of England. If the noble and learned Lord had only taken the trouble to inquire into the character of these men, the result must have been that he would have communicated to the lord-lieutenant his astonishment that they were recommended. There was another case which he would mention, on the authority of a letter which he held in his hand, and which had been received by the hon. Member for the county of Ross, Mr. M'Kenzie. It appeared that the lord-lieutenant of the county of Ross was a Conservative; however, in the list of names which he had submitted to the noble and learned Lord he had recommended four persons to be justices of the peace who were law agents. Two of them were Conservatives, and had been magistrates before for some years, but the other two whom he recommended were agents of the opposite party, and these he had described in the list of bankers; notoriously, however, they were law-agents, solicitors or procurators practising in the sheriffs' courts. Now what had been done with that list? The two who had been magistrates before were struck off, and the other two were put on. The noble and learned Lord had struck off the two Conservative law-agents, and put on the two Whig law-agents. He would not state the names of the parties, because his object was to call the attention of the noble and learned Lord to the case, and the noble and learned Lord would have ample means of investigating it. The appointment of those law-agents had produced an impres-

835
sion that all the law required was, that the solicitors or procurators in the sheriffs' courts should not sit on the bench for the county in which they practised; but it was right that that erroneous impression should be corrected. He certainly began under the firm impression that the noble and learned Lord had issued a supersedeas, and he had intended to offer that as a reason for not making any motion, as his object would then have been answered; but as he now found that that was not the case he must make a motion. Tie therefore moved that a copy of the last commission of the peace be laid on the table.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he had never heard a more complete proof of the impartiality of a lord-lieutenant than that afforded by the noble Earl. Under the provisions of the Act of Parliament, which he held in his hands, no solicitor or procurator practising in the inferior Courts could be a justice of the peace in the counties of Scotland. That was the law which he was bound to obey; but when, in the exercise of his office, he came to look over the lists of names he found that in many lists there had been magistrates who by that Act were disqualified; it was his duty to correct that error, and the names were therefore omitted. But it appeared, that the lord-lieutenant of Ross-shire was a Conservative, and, of course, impartial; but he was more; he was not only impartial, but he was very partial to the other side. The statement of the noble Earl was, that there were four persons in the list—two Whigs and two Torie. The two Whigs were described as bankers; but, unfortunately, they were procurators. The two Tories were described in such a way as to lead any one to suppose that they were not qualified. Looking, therefore, at the list, his attention was immediately drawn to their description, and, of course, he struck out the two who appeared to be disqualified. Such was the impartiality of the lord-lieutenant, that he had marked his own friends as disqualified: but the Whigs he had protected from detection, because he described them as bankers, and bankers were not disqualified. But if, at the present time, there were two procurators or solicitors in the commission, they, of course, were disqualified. As to the other case, assuming the statement of the noble earl to be correct; nobody could entertain
836
a doubt that those two individuals ought not to remain in the commission. But then it was equally clear that no man in the commission of the peace should be struck out without having an opportunity of giving an explanation of his own conduct; and yet the noble Earl was surprised that he had not issued a supersedeas without communicating with these individuals at all. He should have been guilty of great injustice if he had done so. In the list handed to him those two person had been described as George Gordon Smith, surgeon, and William Watson, merchant. As to their situation in life, he understood that, in the northern parts of Scotland, they were under the necessity of appointing that description of persons because others were not to be found. All he knew was, that the latter of these two persons had been recommended to him as a merchant; but what that word might signify in the language of that country he had not the advantage of knowing. After he had received that list, with a letter in the usual form, he had communicated with a gentleman connected with that part of Scotland on the subject, and he had returned the list to him without any observation as to those particular names. From that time till the 26th of July the matter had not been brought to his attention. There had been a discussion in the House of Commons last year on the occurrence in question; but he had never connected that discussion with the magistrates whom he had appointed. But the subject having been brought to his attention, he had written to the lord-lieutenant of the county, stating the representations which had been made to him respecting the conduct of the two magistrates, expressing his regret at their recommendation, if it were true, and requesting information as to the truth of those representations. In answer to that letter he had received one from the lord-lieutenant, in which he stated, that he had written to the two magistrates, requesting them to furnish him with any grounds for sustaining their appointment; and also to the agent by whom the compromise had been effected. That letter enclosed a statement, in which the lord-lieutenant said, that Smith was a medical man, and Watson a retail hardware dealer—termed, in the provincial phrase, "a merchant;" that persons in Scotland were recommended to that situation, whose rank was very different from

837
what would be considered suitable in England; and that the former lists for the counties of Ross and Cromarty, proved that statement; that the lord-lieutenant had certainly heard that these persons had been engaged in some irregular practices at the election; that he had heard statements and counter-statements, into the truth of which he had not inquired; that he had also heard of a civil action having been commenced against them; but that as the Lord Advocate had not thought proper to prosecute them, and the House of Commons had refused to address the Crown on the subject, he did not feel it his duty to expunge their names. He was himself, therefore, free from blame for the part which he had taken in the matter hitherto; but now he would say a word as to his duty for the future. It was to be remembered, that to strike a man's name out of the commission was an act inflicting deep censure on a man's conduct: it required that a case should be made out, for it was passing sentence against him, and that he could not do without communicating directly with the individuals. He had heard of the matter only on the 26th; the lord-lieutenant had told him that he had put the case in the course of investigation; and he should wait for the result of that investigation, in order that he might be better able to frame the questions which he should afterwards put to the individuals themselves. He should then hear what they had to say in their defence, and upon the result of that inquiry his decision must depend. He wished now to appeal to the noble Earl whether it was expedient or beneficial to bring these matters into public discussion whilst the inquiry was going on. If an action were pending, it would be thought highly improper to bring the merits of an action into discussion; and, in fact, these persons were on their trial whether they should or should not suffer the disgrace of having their names struck out from the commission of the peace. If that were the object of the noble Earl, and if it had pleased the noble Earl to communicate his information to him, he would have paid the greatest respect to that communication, and would have immediately acted upon it. It was always most desirable to pursue that course, when the object could be attained by a communication with a public officer. He had now stated all he knew, and the course which he intended
838
to pursue; and he need only further assure the noble Lord, that he had equal faith in the impartiality of lords lieutenant of both political parties.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that he had called the attention of the noble and learned Lord to the case of the law agents in the county of Ross for the purpose of inquiry; but he had made no charge whatever against the noble and learned Lord. The noble and learned Lord had complained of his bringing the matter forward whilst the individuals were on their trial; but he must remind the noble and learned Lord that their trial had passed. He held in his hands the issues which were about to be tried, where the defendants consented to have a verdict pass against them with 25 l. damages. Could there be the smallest doubt that the parties had thereby admitted themselves guilty of the offence? But, further, a prosecution for libel had been instituted on the part of the two defendants in that former action, and that also was to have been tried; but they acted on their own discretion entirely and on no proposition from the other party in abandoning it. With all these things on his mind, he should have been unwilling to have allowed such a case to pass unnoticed; but he would not then longer detain their Lordships.
Motion withdrawn.

THE CONVICT THOMPSON.
Viscount Melbournewas desirous of taking an early opportunity of making a statement to the House, with respect to a petition which had been presented by the noble and learned Lord (Brougham) on a former evening, and in which the petitioners stated their great surprise that a convict named Dale William Thompson, who had been committed to prison some time previously for a very serious burglary, should have been released from prison without any apparent reason, while three other persons convicted for the same offence were suffering under the severe sentence of transportation. The circumstances of the case, which were somewhat singular, were as follow:—The burglary was committed in the month of April, 1837. The first two persons apprehended for the burglary were tried at the summer assizes, and convicted upon the clearest evidence. The third person, who was supposed to be the most active accomplice,

839
was not arrested for some months after, and was tried at the spring assizes, and convicted. Dale William Thompson was also convicted, but upon his trial very strong evidence of an alibi was adduced in testimony of his having been at Wands-worth, twenty-nine miles from the place where the burglary was committed, upon the night in question. But the evidence for the prosecution appeared so clear that he was convicted; and the Lord Chief Justice was completely satisfied with the verdict. After the trial, however, still stronger evidence of the alibi was produced, and this had the effect of shaking the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice. That functionary took the precaution of inspecting the depositions at the trials of the men who had been convicted at the previous summer assizes. From these depositions he found to his surprise, that although in them the whole of the witnesses fixed the night of the burglary between Saturday, the 8th, and Sunday, the 9th of April, the witnesses who deposed in Thompson's case in the August following fixed it upon Saturday, the 1st of April. This was no uncommon species of forgetfulness among witnesses of that class of life. Such being the case, Thompson was to be considered, for the purposes of the present discussion, as not having been guilty at all of the alleged burglary. He certainly was not guilty of the burglary on the night of the 1st of April; and the alibi might have been, therefore, fairly made out. Had the fact been made known to the jury, they would have probably found a different verdict. Their Lordships would feel the force of the opinion thus advanced by that learned judge. The circumstance was altogether an unfortunate one, and there was every reason to believe that a great criminal had escaped from justice by means of this error; but the circumstances were, he trusted, fully sufficient to authorize the Lord Chief Justice to order the prisoner's release.
Lord Broughamsaid, that nothing could be more satisfactory than the statement of the noble Viscount; but it was not correct in the Chief Justice to say, that Thompson was not really tried for the offence committed on the night of the 8th of April. If he were put upon his trial again, he could undoubtedly plead autrefois convicte. In an English indictment the day was perfectly immaterial. He quite agreed with the Lord Chief Justice that in the circum-
840
stances of this case no man could tell what effect a disclosure of the mistake committed by the witnesses might have had upon the minds of the jury.
Subject dropped.

TRADING COMPANIES.
The Lord Chancellormoved the second reading of the Trading Companies Bill.
Lord Broughamtotally objected to the bill which passed that House last year upon this very subject. It passed that House per incuriam without ever having obtained any consideration from the law lords, when the House was under the terrors of a dissolution, on their death bed, and, consequently with but little time to attend to their temporal concerns. A worse bill, and one which introduced more mischievous changes in commercial law, it would be impossible to frame. The bill gave power to the Crown, without an act of Parliament, to make one, two, or three persons in the country a trading company. The Secretary of State and the President of the Board of Trade, without any judicial advice or assistance, had it in their power, under the bill, to erect those persons into a trading company, and exempt them from the operation of the bankrupt laws, limiting their responsibility to a certain amount, contrary to the whole genius and spirit of the English law, and contrary to the genius and spirit of the constitution. Whether the principle of the French law of partnership, commandite, should be adopted in this country or not, was a question which had been much discussed, but all the great luminaries of political science were against it; and after what professor M'Culloch had said against it, he had come to the conclusion that if this principle was introduced into the English commercial law, it would be impossible to enumerate the evils which would follow its introduction. For these reasons he would do nothing whatever to extend the operation of the bill passed last year.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that no opposition whatever had been offered to this bill in the House of Commons. It had certainly not passed without observation, but it had not been opposed. Whatever, however, might be the merits and demerits of the system of commandite, the present question was whether the present bill should or should not be permitted to pass in order to correct omissions and defects in the law as it stood.
The Duke of Wellingtonobserved, that he was not all satisfied with the bill which passed last year, and he wished that some discussion should take place on this bill.
Debate adjourned.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT—COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
The Lord Chancellormoved the consideration of the Commons' Amendments to the Imprisonment for Debt Bill, and observed, that the amendments introduced by the Commons consisted principally in the substitution of certain clauses, which had been submitted to him by the judges of the Bankruptcy Court at too late a period for their insertion while the bill was proceeding through their Lordships' House. They made no alteration in the main features of the bill. The only important amendment was in that which was now the eighth clause. Their Lordships were aware, that a variety of acts committed by bankrupts were what were called acts of bankruptcy. Thus, the denial of the bankrupt to a creditor in order to avoid payment of a debt, or lying in prison for a certain number of days without paying the debt for which he was arrested, were acts of bankruptcy. But these and other acts would not be acts of bankruptcy any longer, because, as arrest on mesne process would be abolished, the debtor would not deny himself to his creditor, as he would be no longer apprehensive of arrest. It was justly considered by the House of Commons, that such provisions would very much interfere with the operation of the bankrupt laws, and an amendment had been introduced to meet the proposed alteration in the law. The amendment provided, that if any single creditor, or two or more creditors being in partnership, to the amount of 100 l., or two creditors to the amount of 150 l. or upwards, or three or more creditors to the amount of 200 l., or upwards, if any trader should file their affidavit, or affidavits, stating that such debts were justly due to them, and that a notice had been served on the debtor, requiring him within twenty-one days to pay such debts or to give security for their payment to the satisfaction of the creditors—then, if such debtor did not pay such debts within the twenty-one days, or give a bond as security for their payment, this should be deemed and taken to be an act of bankruptcy. The effect of this amendment would be to
842
assimilate as nearly as possible the proposed law to that at present in force. The nonpayment of the debt would stand in the place of the arrest of the party and his lying in prison. It appeared, to him, that this amendment would wholly prevent the inconvenience anticipated to the operation of the bankrupt laws, and he, therefore, moved, their Lordships to agree to the amendments of the Commons upon this bill.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that as his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) was not present, and another noble and learned Lord (Wynford), who sat on that side of the House, was not in his place, it would be proper to postpone the consideration of these amendments till the law Lords were in the House. He had another reason for postponing the consideration of the amendments upon this bill. When this bill was read a third time in that House, he took the liberty of suggesting to their Lordships the introduction of a clause of compensation to persons for the losses which they would sustain by the operation of the bill. He had called the attention of the noble Viscount opposite to the subject, and the noble Viscount's answer was, that it should be taken into consideration. He had since then given the noble Viscount a paper upon the question, and he certainly did expect, that the subject would be taken into consideration in another place, but he had observed what had passed there and he had not seen any symptom of its having been considered at all, and the bill had come back to their Lordships without any such clause of compensation. Now, these officers would, in his opinion, be very harshly treated in consequence of this omission; and he also did think, that when a bill of this nature passed that House in the shape it did, in consequence of the peculiar privileges of the other House of Parliament, it was rather a hard proceeding not to give those persons a fair chance of having their claims considered, especially when one of her Majesty's Ministers had promised, that the subject should be taken into consideration. He would, therefore, take the sense of the House upon the postponement, in consequence of the manner in which he had been treated upon this question. He entreated of the noble Viscount opposite to be so good as to take the subject into consideration; the noble Viscount said,

843
that he would consider it—that was his answer—and, of course, he (the Duke of Wellington) thought, that it would be taken into consideration in the other House of Parliament. That had not been done—the subject had not even been mentioned, and these individuals had never had a chance of having justice done to them.
Viscount Melbourne—I am very sorry, I am sure. I thought, that compensation was given to the gaolers of the Cinque Ports by the bill. Is the noble Duke sure, that that is not the case?
The Duke of Wellington—It is not Consideration of the Commons' amendments was postponed.