Sitting of 7 August 1840

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Villiers, from Parishes in London, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Debtors in the Queen's Bench Prison, for an Alteration in the Law relating to Insolvent Debtors.—By Dr. Lushington, from the Minor Canons of St. Paul's, Westminster Abbey, and other Cathedrals, against the Amendments made by the Lords in the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
A conference was held with the Peers, when their Lordships delivered to the Commons their reasons for not agreeing to certain amendments in the Municipal Corporations Bill (Ireland).
Their Lordships' reasons having been read,
Viscount Morpeth,in moving that the House do not insist on those amendments, in disagreeing to which the Lords had declared their intention to persevere, said, that he had hoped the Lords would have accepted some at least of those which, in his opinion, would have been a considerable improvement to the bill. In that hope he had been disappointed. But, under all the circumstances, and in the desire to see the general principle of the bill brought into operation as soon as possible, he did not intend to ask the House to persevere in the amendments they had made. He had no doubt, however, that early in the next Session, he should have to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend this bill on which so much of the time of both Houses had been expended; and that in consequence of some of the amendments made by the Lords, and their rejection of those made in that (the Commons) House. Some of the amendments of the Lords would have the effect of preventing parts of the bill from coming into operation for a year, and others for fourteen or fifteen months. He regretted this, but he repeated, that even with those amendments, it would be better to let the bill come into operation.
Mr. Shawsaid, that he had no desire to revive discussion on that long-litigated question then about to be disposed of, but he trusted the House would allow him a
1390
few moments' indulgence to explain a matter connected with it that was personal to himself. His conduct in respect of that measure had, both in this country and Ireland, been made the subject of the grossest misrepresentation; and, indeed, he must say, so far as the press was concerned that the misrepresentation was grosser and greater by a portion of the press in both countries connected with his own political party than with that of his opponents; but, to pass by other charges which he would not stop to notice, the point which, he wished to explain, would serve as a sample of the rest, and had reference to an amendment made by the House of Lords in the clause which related to his office, as Recorder of Dublin. That was denounced as a job, and he was, besides, accused of having entered into a private negotiation with the Irish law officer of the time to secure the interests of his own office, while he was inattentive to those of others. In a few words, he would put the House in possession of what the facts were upon that part of the case. When a noble and learned Friend of his, in another place, referred to an agreement made, that the court in which he sat as Recorder of Dublin was to be unaffected by the Municipal Corporation Bill, the noble Lord did not mean any personal or private agreement between him and the Irish law officers, for none such had ever occurred. What his noble Friend had alluded to, had passed publicly in that House between his right hon. Friend, the Member for Tamworth, and the late Chief Baron, Mr. Woulfe, then Attorney-general for Ireland. Up to the year 1837, the various bills introduced to regulate municipal corporations in Ireland had made no provision whatever for the administration of justice in Dublin, and had they passed in that form, the effect would have been that the court in which he sat would have been abolished, without any substitute being provided, and it would have been left to the discretion of the new town-council whether there was to be any sessions court at all in the city of Dublin, and thus the gaols and the prisoners, about which hon. Gentlemen and noble Lords had recently appeared so very solicitous, and the whole question of the administration of justice in the metropolis of Ireland, had been overlooked in the Irish Municipal Bills brought in up to 1837. Then it was that his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel), in his place in

1391
the House, pointed out the absurdity and monstrous consequence of the omission, and Mr. Woulfe (the Attorney-general for Ireland) at once, on the part of himself and the Irish Government, disclaimed all such intention, and undertook to introduce a clause preserving all the powers and jurisdiction and rights of the court in which he presided unaltered, and that was the whole compact on the subject, which was strictly performed by Mr. Woulfe introducing the clause accordingly. So much, then, for the private bargain of which he had been accused. And then, as to the job as it was called. He certainly objected to that clause, so introduced by Mr. Woulfe, as the Irish law officer, being altered, in breach of Mr. Woulfe's undertaking, as was for the first time attempted by the present Solicitor-general for Ireland and, as he could not but think, in an indirect and unworthy manner. The job, he thought, was on the other side, and the amendment of the Lords defeating that merely left tie clause as Mr. Woulfe had introduced it. He would not then enter upon the question, whether or not it was fitting that the Recorder of Dublin should be eligible to sit in that House; let that question be discussed on its own merits; and he would also then abstain from a topic on which he felt much more deeply, the rather because he thought the question had been unfairly treated by a noble Marquess, one of her Majesty's Ministers, who was evidently uninformed on the subject—namely, whether or not his judicial duties had been at any time in the slightest degree made subservient to his attendance as a Member of Parliament. He would only observe, that his court was regulated according to the best of his judgment and ability, without reference to any other duty. Upon that point, he would be always ready to justify himself from attack, whether made in Parliament or elsewhere. He might be permitted to add, that for the ten years that he had been a Member of that House, he had never passed a month without sitting in his court at Dublin, and had never risen leaving one single case either on the criminal or civil side of his court in arrear—that he had never voluntarily left untried either a prisoner or a civil case that was ready, or could be brought forward for trial. With regard to the bill generally, he would only repeat what he had not failed to say on every occasion of its discussion, that
1392
he regretted that the corporations in Ireland had not been altogether abolished. He was not sanguine as to the working of the measure, particularly in the first instance; still he felt, that the time was come when the settlement of the long-vexed question must be attempted; and when the bill had once passed, he felt, that it would be the duty of all parties, however much they might have differed on the subject, and whether connected with the old or the new corporations, to act in the spirit of a sincere desire to give effect to the law, and to render it as far as possible conducive to the peace and good local government of the cities and towns to which it was to be applied.
Mr. Pigotafter what had fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, felt it necessary to offer a few observations. He owned that he was much surprised to hear from him that up to 1837 there had been no provision in any of the Irish Municipal Corporation Bills which had been introduced for the administration of justice in Dublin. Now, it so happened that in every one of those bills there was a clause providing that recorders of towns should sit in their respective courts once a month, and oftner, if the Lord-lieutenant should deem it necessary. [Mr. Shaw—That was under the new act.] Was it meant that Dublin should be under a distinct legislative measure? But admitting that it was to be an exception to the general rule, had any undertaking to that effect been entered into by the law officers of the Irish Government? When he heard, in 1839, of such an undertaking, he applied immediately to the late Chief Baron Woulfe, who denied having entered into any such undertaking, and said that he considered the Government quite free to take any course with respect to the Recorders Court in Dublin which it might think most beneficial to the public. Finding this, he with the full consent of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), introduced the clause which had been sent up to the Lords and which their Lordships had rejected. Knowing this, he would beg to ask how was it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman ventured to state that he had done that in an indirect and underhand manner? He had stated publicly that he considered the clause necessary for the due administration of justice in Dublin, and from that opinion he did not now mean to recede. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had charged him with having done this in an indirect

1393
manner, with the underhand view of excluding him from a seat in that House. What reason had the right hon. and learned Gentleman for believing that he or the Government with which he was connected would shrink from the introduction of a clause to that effect if he or they considered that such a clause would conduce to the more speedy and effective administration of justice? He could assure the right lion, and learned Gentleman that he would not for an instant shrink from that duty if he felt called on to perform it. His object in the clause he had brought in was to prevent the chance of an accumulation of prisoners in Newgate, Dublin, one of the worst ordered prisons in the empire. In one month last year there were 210 prisoners in that gaol, of whom 106 were females. It was therefore of the utmost importance that such accumulations should as far as possible, be prevented in future. It was on that ground, looking to a great public object, and not to anything personally affecting the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that he had taken the course to which the right hon. Gentleman objected, and to the propriety of that course he still adhered.
Mr. Shawin explanation, repeated his statement as to what had been objected by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, in 1837, on the absurdity of omitting a provision for the administration of justice in Dublin. On that statement Mr. Woulfe, then Attorney-general undertook to introduce the clause. That clause was brought in without his being consulted on it, and all that had been done in the Lords was to reinstate it as it had been introduced by Mr. Woulfe. As to the accumulation of prisoners in Dublin gaol, he did not deny that there might be such a circumstance at times, but he would repeat that he had held a court of Sessions once in each month for many years, and that at the close of each sessions he had not left one person or one cause untried which was ready for trial, and that he considered was fully sufficient for all the purposes of justice.
Viscount Morpethconsidered it preposterous to contend that there had been anything indirect or covert in the introduction of that provision to which reference had been made. It formed part of the bill, and was openly discussed in committee by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself. It was introduced with a single view to the interests of the population of Dublin; and, although he had not thought it neces-
1394
cessary to insist on a disagreement to the Lord's amendment in that respect, the subject would very likely be brought forward again next Session.
Motion agreed to, and amendments of the Lords adopted.

LIGHTHOUSES AND PILOTAGE.
Mr. W. Attwoodcalled the attention of the House to several petitions which had been presented on Wednesday respecting lighthouses and pilots. They complained of the charges for lights, amounting to 1l. per ton on steam vessels conducting the coasting trade of the country, and dues for pilotage, which in some instances amounted to 10 l. per cent, on the receipts. He believed the President of the Board of Trade had paid considerable attention to the subject, and he hoped during the recess some measure of relief would be adopted. He would not then enter further into particulars, but move for the returns connected with the subject of which he had given notice.
Mr. A. Chapmansaid, that a commission of inquiry had been instituted some years ago, and all the recommendations of the committee had been attended to, and the duties reduced as far as possible. He denied that the charge for lighting fell onerously on the vessels alluded to, and he was sure that no establishment could be better conducted than the Trinity House, to which he had the honour to belong. By their exertions in placing proper lights the voyage from Scotland was rendered secure, and the charge on steamers, whose safety Was thereby insured, was only 14 s. Since the introduction of the Bude light, the insurance on steamers, which used formerly to be at the rate of 7s. per cent., was now reduced to 5s. per cent., and in some instances to 3s. 9d. The steam-boat proprietors therefore were also gainers in this way.
Mr. Labouchereagreed in all that had fallen from the hon. Member with respect to the efficient management of the Trinity-house. He promised during the recess to direct his attention to the charges for lights but his impression was, as far as the Trinity-house lights were concerned, that the present system was equally economical and efficient. He was aware that the consideration of the present state of the pilotage laws was important to the commerce of the country, and the reason why he had not attempted to place them on a better footing was, not that he was insensible to the evils of the system, but because after the attempt made by his rt. hon. predecessor,

1395
Mr. P. Thomson, he was aware of the extreme difficulty of carrying any measure founded on general principles through Parliament, on account of the opposition stirred up by ports and other places enjoying local privileges. He would, however, during the recess, direct his attention to the subject, and endeavour to introduce next Session a bill founded on principles similar to those of the measure brought forward by Mr. P. Thompson.
Motion agreed to.

MINUTES.
Bills. Received the Royal assent:—Sugar (Excise Duties); Church Discipline; Church Building; Clergy Reserves (Canada); Marriages Act Amendment; Militia Pay; Militia Ballots Suspension; Metropolitan Police Courts; Chimney Sweepers; Bills of Exchange; Imprisonment for Debt; Metropolis Improvement (No. 1); Sale of Beer (No. 2); Notice of Elections; County Constabulary; Grammar Schools; Admiralty Court; Admiralty Court (Judge's, &c. Salary); Pilots; Isle of Man; Fisheries; Friendly Societies; East India Shipping; Insolvent Debtors (India); Slave Trade Treaties; Slave Trade (Venezuela); New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land; Law of Evidence (Scotland); Oyster Fisheries (Scotland); Bank of Ireland; Attorneys and Solicitors (Ireland); Poddle River (Dublin).—Read a third time:—Railways; Insolvent Debtors (Ireland); Imprisonment for Debt (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of Westminster, and Lord Portman, from St. Pancras, St. James's, and St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, for the adoption of measures for the better Supply of Water to the Metropolis.—By the Bishop of Exeter, from Coleraine, and other places in Ireland, against any further Grant to Maynooth College.—By Viscount Duncannon, from the British Medical Society, to specify in the ensuing Population Returns the number of Sick and Infirm in each District.—By Lord Brougham, from Prisoners confined Debt for in the Queen's Bench Prison, to Amend the Law for the Relief of Debtors; and from the Anti-Slavery Society of Birmingham, to put down the Foreign Slave Trade.

MAURITIUS.—M. BERTIN.
Lord Broughampresented a petition from M. Bertin, formerly a printer and publisher in the Mauritius, praying for compensation for certain losses which he had sustained in consequence of the conduct of the government. At the time when M. Bertin was in the Mauritius, party spirit ran extremely high there, and had, in fact, broken out into acts of violence; and it was admitted, as set forth in the petition, that during that period, M. Bertin had acted as a loyal subject, that his conduct was exceedingly good, and that he gave the most zealous support to the government. At one of those periods of disturbance, when party spirit ran unusually high, the printing-office where the petitioner's business was conducted was assailed by the populace, owing to the part which he had taken in favour of the government. His life was exposed to great jeopardy, and he was obliged to put himself under the protection of the military. His partner, however, compromised with the anti-government party, and thus escaped unmolested; but he preferred running any personal risk rather than compromise his opinions. He was afterwards tried before the Supreme Court of the island for a libel published in his paper, and sentenced to pay a fine of 50 l., and the governor withdrew his licence of residence, in consequence of which he lost the sum of 7,300 l., which it had cost him to establish his printing-office and newspaper. He stated that the article which he had published in his paper was for the purpose of vindicating his character against charges of a false and calumnious nature. He was, however, afterwards suffered to return to the island. In consequence of his great losses he applied to the Colonial Secretary for compensation; but the sum awarded was so small, that he felt it necessary to pray their Lordships to grant him relief.
The Earl of Clarendonsaid, the facts, as set forth by the petitioner, were somewhat exaggerated. In 1831 the petitioner came to the island. In 1832 he set up a printing establishment, and commenced a newspaper, although he was told that he could not be recognized by the government as the registered proprietor. In the month of August, 1833, in consequence of the violent course which had been taken by certain individuals, the governor thought it necessary by proclamation to apprise aliens that they were prohibited
1380
from interfering, by writing or otherwise, with the political discussions that were then going on in the island. In 1834, M. Bertin and his partner, M. Petitguen, were tried before the Supreme Court of the island, and sentenced to pay a fine of 50 l. for a libel on the Procureur-general. The governor, Sir W. Nicolay, admitted that the protection of the government had been extended to the petitioner so long as he conducted himself with propriety. The character of the paper, with which it afterwards appeared that the petitioner was intimately connected, had, however, entirely changed, and it had become extremely violent in its attacks on respectable officers. The petitioner was long suspected of a close connexion with the paper in which the libel appeared, but the fact was not clearly proved until the trial took place. Under these circumstances the governor had, in consequence of the state of the island, withdrawn M. Berlin's licence of residence. The petitioner then represented his case to Lord Glenelg, who gave him permission to return, stating at the same time, that he considered the sentence of the Supreme Court a perfectly proper one; and, further, that the Supreme Council formed the best tribunal for awarding compensation for the amount of losses sustained by him in consequence of his removal from the island, without reference to his situation as editor of a newspaper, he being a foreigner, and only a resident by sufferance. M. Bertin made a claim for 7,000 l. as compensation, besides which he sent in a claim for damages and interest, amounting to 4,000 l. more. The Legislative Council, to which body his claim had been referred by Lord Glenelg, awarded him, as expenses which he had unavoidably incurred, 160 l. for his passage to London, and 1l. a day during his stay there, and this award was assented to by Lord Glenelg. M. Bertin then returned to London, and, as his noble and learned Friend had truly stated, had repeatedly complained of the injustice of this award to the Colonial-office; but his noble Friend at the head of that department, considering that under all the circumstances of the case, M. Bertin had not been treated in the harsh and cruel manner which had been represented, declined to interfere.
Lord Broughamcontended, that it could have been no secret to Sir W. Nicolay that M. Bertin was engaged in the con-

1381
duct of the Balance newspaper, because in August, 1833, the government had lent him some soldiers to assist in working the presses, and therefore he certainly did not wait till the trial to find out for the first time that an alien was conducting the paper.
Petition laid on the table.

BRITISH LEGION.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, that having- read the correspondence which had recently been laid on the fable respecting the claims of the British Legion, he was bound incandour to tell the noble Viscount opposite, that nothing could be more completely satisfactory than this correspondence. Their Lordships would find by a letter from our Ambassador, that a sum of 50,000 l. had actually been transmitted to this country, and that the payment of the men was now going forward. It appeared, also, that there were in the hands of our Ambassador; securities for the payment of five more separate instalments of 50,000 l. each; and, what was still more satisfactory, on the day of the last payment her Catholic Majesty would also allow compensation to the men, the amount of which was to be settled between the two governments. He thought that nothing could be more satisfactory to the officers and men of the Legion than this arrangement.
Subject at an end.

PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND).
The Earl of Haddingtonwished to ask one or two questions of the noble Marquess at the head of the Home-office, relative to the instructions which had been issued to the Poor-law Commissioners to inquire into the slate of disease in Scotland. When he last made any observations on the subject to their Lordships, he stated his regret that these inquiries were not to be made by some other body, because he certainly felt that the employment of these gentlemen would create a feeling in Scotland that there was some idea of tampering with the Poor-laws in that country, and assimilating them to the Poor-laws of England. He had not been altogether mistaken on that point, because, as the noble Lord well knew, considerable opposition had been given by an institution in Edinburgh to the prosecution of these inquiries by the Poor-law Commissioners, and last Tuesday, in the Edinburgh town council, a petition to her Majesty, praying
1382
that she would cause inquiry to be made whether want and destitution had led to disease, and whether there were adequate means for the relief of such want and destitution, had been rejected on a division. He should therefore be very glad to hear from the noble Marquess that these gentlemen were directed only to inquire into the state and progress of disease, and that those inquiries would be confined to the large towns. As the investigation had been undertaken, he hoped it might prove successful, although he could have wished that it had been carried on by other persons than those employed; but the noble Marquess might depend on it that he would find it very desirable to remove from the public mind in Scotland anything like an impression that an intention existed of interfering at all with the system of Poor-laws in that country.
The Marquess of Normanbyhad stated, when his noble Friend had last called the attention of the House to the subject, that the inquiries of the commissioners would be confined to the specific object of ascertaining the state and progress of disease. He was well aware that any inquiry of this kind, to be successful, must be so conducted as to conciliate the good will of those amongst whom it was carried on. The inquiries of the commissioners would be confined to the large towns, although, in his opinion, the inquiry would not be ultimately complete until it was extended in some shape or other to the rural districts.
Subject at an end.

RIBANDISM.—REPEAL (IRELAND).
The Earl of Charlevilletook occasion, on presenting a petition, to read a letter in reference to the late debate on the letter addressed by Mr. Macdonald to Mr. Langford, in which the writer stated that a memorial had been presented to the Lord-lieutenant, signed by those magistrates who had been named by Mr. Jackson in his letter to Colonel Macgregor, in which they denied, in the strongest and most, indignant manner, the statement of the police officers.
Lord Wharncliffebegged to be allowed to remark, that it appeared to him, upon reading the late Riband trials that the evidence of Mr. Rowan, given before a committee of their Lordships last year, as to the character of these associations, was perfectly well founded. The facts of their

1383
having secret signs and passwords, of there being a confederacy for the purposes of murder, and of obedience paid to the orders of superiors, completely came out in the evidence given on the trials. If it were not a political society, it was at least so formed as to be turned with ease into a political engine. He had thought it his duty to make these few observations, and it was only justice to say, that having sat on the committee, and having read the evidence that was now lying on the table, he was satisfied that Mr. Rowan had given most excellent evidence.
Lord Portmansaid, that having been a member of the committee, he could say that the facts stated by Mr. Rowan could scarcely be disputed; but the doubt thrown on his evidence had arisen from the inferences which he drew from those facts.
The Earl of Haddingtonwas anxious to say a few words on another matter which materially related to the peace of Ireland. He adverted to that agitation which, if the newspapers were to be believed, was now going on for the repeal of the union. It appeared that not long ago in the west of Ireland a very great meeting had been held, where the real character of repeal had shown itself. There the word "separation" was used, though he never had had a doubt on his own mind that if "repeal" meant anything it meant "separation," and nothing but that. This matter appeared still more serious when they considered who the leaders of that repeal agitation were; that they were persons—whether in the confidence of the Government or not he did not know—but they were persons many of whom were the most active friends and supporters of the Government, and yet they never heard any disapprobation expressed by the functionaries or the high authorities in Ireland of that agitation. It was the political character and connection with the Government of the patrons of agitation in Ireland that was one of the most dangerous incidents connected with the question of repeal. He must say, he thought the Government were highly culpable for not having expressed that disapprobation, which every man gave them credit for feeling deeply, at such mischievous and alarming agitation. That agitation too was taking place in a country where Ribandism was universally spread, and where that society might be turned by its leaders into
1384
an engine for effecting the purposes of the repeal agitation.
The Marquess of Normanbyhad stated a fortnight ago, that it would be extremely inconvenient during the progress of these trials that any discussion on this subject should take place. He now only wished to say, that on the part of the Government there was every desire to give all information on the subject. Discoveries had been made of a very important nature, and the extent of the conspiracy was perfectly well known; and the Government had a right to take credit to themselves for the manner in which they had conducted the prosecutions that had arisen out of those discoveries. With regard to Mr. Rowan, he perfectly concurred in what had been stated by his noble Friend (Lord Portman). He did not think it necessary to say more on this subject at present, but if his noble Friend wished for more information in the next session of Parliament, there was every disposition on the part of the Government to furnish it.
Petition laid on the table.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (BIRMINGHAM).
The Marquess of Norman,by moved the second reading of the Administration of Justice (Birmingham) Bill. It would have been introduced at an earlier period of the Session, but the Government had been waiting for the decision of the judges on the legality of the charter. Not having been able to obtain that decision, they had brought in this bill to make temporary provision for the administration of justice in Birmingham, and leaving the question of the legality of the charter wholly untouched.
The Earl of Warwickthought they had got into difficulties which this bill would only tend to perpetuate. From the length of time the judges had taken for their decision, there must be great doubt upon the question of the legality of the charter, but his belief was, their decision would be against it. When the Government discovered the doubt, they ought to have stopped their proceedings, and left the administration of justice in the same hands it was in before. The quarter sessions of Birmingham were now held and paid for by funds paid out of the Treasury. The prisoners were sent over first from Birmingham to Warwick gaol, then back to Birmingham to be tried, and afterwards

1385
were returned to Warwick to be imprisoned. Now, let the charter turn out how it might, that could not be altered, as there was no gaol at Birmingham. Birmingham had hitherto been without a corporation, and might it not have gone on in the same way for another year? The Government might now restore matters to the former system, but, having got into this danger, they now called on Parliament to sanction their proceedings. Suppose the charter was declared illegal, he would ask, in such case, whether the prisoners who had been convicted during the charter were legally convicted? It was embarking in a difficulty which lie could not sanction, and he should therefore move, that this bill be read a second time this day three months.
Lorn Wharncliffesaid, the question was, had there been any legal quarter sessions whatever? He believed, that every man tried had been illegally tried.
Lord Calthorpesaid, it would be difficult to imagine any circumstances less favourable than those under which it was proposed to admit Birmingham to the functions of a corporation, and this was especially the case as regarded that part of those functions which related to the administration of justice. He always thought that so important a town as Birmingham ought to possess a corporation, but he was unfavourable to the present bill, because it would not effect that object; it would give to Birmingham not the reality but the fiction of a corporation, and he apprehended that the course which Ministers were taking would lead to the necessity of passing bills of indemnity. Now, although he should not much object to a bill of indemnity where the parties acted in ignorance, he should by no means concur in any step which would invite the commission of acts requiring such remedies.
Second reading put off for six months.

COURTS OF EQUITY.
Lord Brougham Lord Brougham moved, that the amendments made by the Commons in the Administration of Justice (Court of Chancery) Bill be then agreed to. The noble and learned Lord observed, that there were two of those amendments in which which he fully concurred; one related to the increased control proposed to be given to the Lord Chancellor over the officers of the court; the other to the necessary means for in-
1386
creasing the efficiency of those officers as to numbers. There were several amendments made by the Commons which he should have gladly introduced into the original bill, and he, therefore, very much rejoiced to find that those alterations had been made by the other House. He was, also, glad to find that they had introduced the necessary money clauses and the clause for compensation. He confessed he felt some surprise that so much had been said elsewhere upon the subject of the Six Clerks, seeing that that department had long since been the subject of a bill which even reached a second reading. He hoped, that the next measure would be a bill for improving the administration of justice by the committee of the Privy Council. One of the evils of that tribunal was, that the judges who composed it were under no obligation to give their attendance, and in that respect they resembled the House of Lords. In former bills for improving the administration of justice the difficulty which presented itself related to the means of providing for the expenses of the proposed alterations; but he believed it would now be admitted, that that which was so precious as the administration of justice could not be purchased at too high a price.
Commons' Amendments agreed to.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved, that the House do resolve itself into a committee on the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill (No. 1).
The Bill went through committee.
On the bringing up the Report,
The Earl of Devonproposed the addition of a clause to the bill, to the effect that John Thorogood should not be released until the rate and costs were paid either by himself, or some other person or persons.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the insertion of such a clause would frustrate the purpose of the bill. Besides no act of Parliament was necessary to make it imperative on persons in the situation of John Thorogood to pay the debt and costs of the suit, before they were released from prison.
The Duke of Wellingtonthought the case was a very simple one, and that there could be no doubt as to the course which should be taken. Here was a man who had been sued for a sum of money, which it was understood, was lawfully due by

1387
him. The law rendered him liable to pay that sum of money, and the law supported the proceedings against him for the recovery of it. This person could have easily avoided these proceedings by simply paying the sum of 5s. 6d. which was demanded of him, or he could have gone into court and have had the question fairly tried whether he were bound to pay it or not, according to the laws of the country in which he resided, for, of course, he must be bound by the laws of his country as well as all other British subjects. But he did not choose to do either. He said," I will not pay that money," and in consequence of his own conduct a large sum of money was incurred in the way of costs. Those costs were not matters of amusement, they were realities; they were sums of money paid for the labour of certain individuals for certain services performed in the execution of their duties under the legal authority of the ecclesiastical courts, and in this suit. Now, those costs must be paid. Were they to let the man off from paying the 5s. 6d. for the rate, that remission would not got rid of his liability for the costs; they must be paid either by himself or his friends, or else they must be paid by the other party, by the lawful suitors, by the lawful plaintiffs, who had a right to recover the money. They were the persons who would have to pay the costs unless their Lordships consented to insert the clause proposed by his noble Friend. Somebody must pay the costs after all. But it was said, that the defendant was not to pay the costs, and that he was to be let out of prison. Well, they might let him out if they pleased; but surely, they would not call upon the plaintiffs to pay the costs incurred by his conduct. That was not justice. That was not fair between man and man. Not a soul in the House could be of that opinion; it was not consistent either with law or justice to throw these expenses upon those upon whom the law of the country had laid the necessity of incurring them. Not they, but he who by his own conduct had rendered the proceedings imperative, ought to be made to pay the costs. He, therefore, entreated their Lordships to adopt the proposition of his noble Friend.
Lord Eldonentirely concurred in the observations of the noble Duke. If the question was, as to the release of an insolvent after long imprisonment, he might
1388
perhaps take another view of the matter. But this person was not insolvent; it was very well known, that those who entered into his feelings, and supported him in the church-rate contest, bad got up large subscriptions on his behalf. Therefore, he could not expect to be released from prison on the ground of his inability to pay. It was clear, then, that his conduct was contumacious, and if he chose to carry on his contumacy to annoy the other parties concerned, surely he ought to be prepared to suffer all the effects of his own conduct.
Lord Wharncliffeinquired who would pay the costs if the defendant did not? If he were released from prison without paying them, no one who refused to pay church rates hereafter would be proceeded against, because the churchwardens would naturally say, "It would be foolish for us to go to so much expense for 5s. 6d., for the person may go to gaol, and come out in six months saddling us with the costs. If the amendment were not adopted, their Lordships would virtually repeal all church rates by passing this bill.
The Lord Chancellorhad given no opinion upon the question as to whether it would be unjust to make the plaintiffs or the defendant pay the costs. He might however, freely declare, that it would be quite unjust to make the plaintiffs pay them. But the fact was, that an experiment had been tried with this man for upwards of twelvemonths, without producing the effect desired—namely, the payment of either rate or costs. The defendant had preferred paying in person, and still seemed disposed to do so. The noble Lord proceeded upon the supposition that somebody else would pay these expenses. But suppose nobody did so, would the plaintiffs be in a better condition? By still keeping the defendant in gaol they would be giving him the character of a martyr, and enlisting popular sympathy in his favour and against themselves. All that might be avoided by agreeing to the bill as it stood. If the question were which ought to pay, the defendant or the plaintiff, he should not consent to let the defendant out unless he paid. The noble Lord on his left (Lord Wharncliffe) had suggested what might be the effect of the bill in other cases. In answer to that he would observe, that the cases were very rare in which men would rather go to prison for

1389
twelve months than pay 5s. 6d. or other smaller sums demanded as church rates.
Their Lordships divided on the Earl of Devon's amendment:—Contents 28; Not-contents 15: Majority 13.