Sitting of 6 February 1843

MINUTES.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Estcourt, from Oxford, Lord Clive, from Pennants, Sir John Yarde Buller, from Exeter, Mr. Broadley, from the East Riding of Yorkshire, and other hon. Members, from Llanfihangel, Llangynog, and Maaelor Hundred, Flintshire, for the Repeal of so much of 6 and 7 Will. 4th, c. 77, as relates to the Union of St. Asaph and Bangor Dioceses.—By Mr. Pendarves, from St. Austell, and Sir George Clerk, from Edinburgh, for the Repeal of the Income-tax.—By Sir George Clerk, from Newton, for the Repeal of the Mines and Collieries Act.—By Mr. Walter, from Nottingham, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. Broadley, from the Archdeaconry of the East Riding of Yorkshire, against the Abolition of Ecclesiastical Courts.—By Mr. Colville, from Alstonefield, and other places, against prolonging the power of the Poor-law Commissioners.—By an hon. Member, from Glasgow, for Ameliorating the Condition of Schoolmasters (Scotland).

SUGAR DUTIES.
Mr. Milner Gibsonbegged to ask the right hon. Baronet opposite whether the Government intended to
198
maintain the present prohibitory duty on foreign sugar?
Sir R. Peelsaid, that, without intending anything like personal disrespect to the hon. Member, he must decline answering his question. To do so would be inconsistent with his duty, for he might be asked a similar question with respect to every other article upon which a duty existed.

TREATY WITH BRAZIL—STADE DUTIES.
Viscount Palmerston: I rise to propose a question of which I gave notice on Friday, and to which the right hon. Baronet may return an answer or not, as circumstances may determine him. The question relates to the negotiations now going on with Brazil. In the first place I will ask whether the British Government has acquiesced in the interpretation which her Majesty's late Government put upon the article in the existing treaty with Brazil, which relates to the duration of that treaty? The next question I have to propose is, whether the right hon. Baronet thinks himself at liberty, in the present state of the negotiations now going on, to say whether those negotiations, as far as they have hitherto gone, justify him in entertaining a well-founded hope that they will lead to a satisfactory conclusion, by the ratification of a treaty of commerce with the Brazilian Government? I wish, also, to ask a question relating to another matter, and, although I have not given notice of my intention to propose it, I hope the right hon. Baronet will give an answer to it, either now or on some future day. I beg to ask what is the state of our negotiations with the government of Hanover upon the subject of the Stade duties?
Sir R. Peel: The noble Lord is perfectly aware, and probably a great majority of the House is also aware, that there existed a material difference of opinion between the British Government and the Brazilian Government, relative to the duration of the commercial treaty which was concluded between the two countries some years since. I understand the difference to have been this:—The Brazilian government contended that the treaty expired in the month of November, 1842, whilst the British Government (the late as well as the present) contended that the proper duration of the treaty extended to, at least, November, 1844. The Brazilian

199
government, for some time, strenuously contested our construction of the treaty; but at length acquiesced in it, and the existing treaty, therefore, will continue in force until November, 1844. The British Government has sent a representative on a special mission to Brazil, for the purpose of attempting to negociate a commercial treaty. If this attempt should prove successful, the treaty would not, necessarily, take effect only from the expiration of the present treaty; but it might, possibly, be so arranged as to take effect at an earlier period—of course with the consent of the two contracting parties. It would not be consistent with the present state of the negotiations to hold out any expectations of that nature. The negotiations are not so advanced as to justify me in alluding to what may be their probable result. With respect to the negotiations with Hanover relative to the Stade Duties, I must state, that the propositions made by our Government have not been acquiesced in by the government of Hanover. At present nothing definite has been determined. We maintain the ground which we assumed, and Hanover has not acquiesced in our propositions. I may add that the Elbe States are at present negotiating with Hanover on the subject.
Conversation at an end.

TREATIES WITH FRANCE AND PORTUGAL.
Mr. Labouchere: I am anxious to ask whether the right hon. Baronet can communicate any information respecting two other commercial treaties, which have long been the subject of negotiation between the British Government and the Governments of France and Portugal. The right hon. Baronet must feel how injurious this long suspense must be, and how desirable it is that an end should be put to it. I should be glad, therefore, if it were in the power of the right hon. Baronet, that he should give a satisfactory assurance to the House of the probable termination of the negotiations. From a late declaration of M. Guizot, that statesman appears to entertain some hope that the negotiations between this country and France may be brought to a satisfactory conclusion; and I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentlemen can confirm that declaration, or can hold out a hope that a more liberal system of commercial policy will be adopted between the two countries than that which now prevails.
Sir R. Peel: I concur with the right hon. Gentleman in lamenting the long delay which has taken place in these negotiations. With regard to the commercial treaty with Portugal, that delay has been most injurious to trade. At the same time, being convinced of the policy of securing to both countries the reciprocal advantages to be derived from the extension of commerce, the Government has been most unwilling to break off the negotiations. But they have remained so long in suspense, that it is now almost a doubt whether it would not have been better to close the correspondence than submit to the inconvenience of so long a delay. The negotiations are still going on. Within a few days we have received new proposals from the Portuguese government, and the time will shortly arrive when her Majesty's Government will feel it necessary to break off the negotiations, unless they can be brought to an issue. I am convinced that the delay which has occurred with respect to the negotiations with Portugal, by paralysing the wine trade, has materially affected the revenue, and is one cause of the deficiency which we have reason to lament. With respect to France, I have the satisfaction to state that negotiations for effecting a commercial treaty with that country have been renewed, and have been received with that degree of favour which leads her Majesty's Government to hope that a beneficial arrangement may be made. Her Majesty's Government feel deeply that the advantages of such an arrangement should not be confined to mere commercial transactions, but that it should be the means of cementing more closely the ties of friendly connection between the two countries, and, though I wish not to speak with undue confidence, I sincerely hope that a sense of the common interests of both countries will finally lead to more extended commercial intercourse between them.

SYRIA.—
Sir C. Napier: I wish to ask a question connected with the affairs of Syria. I have received a letter informing me that those persons who had their houses burned and property destroyed by our operations in Syria, have not received a single shilling in the way of compensation. I beg to ask whether Emir Beschir has received compensation for his losses?
Sir R. Peel: If the hon. and gallant officer had given me notice of his question.

201
I would have made inquiry on the subject. I will do so now, and give an answer on a future evening.

AFFGHAN WAR.
Lord J. Russell: I wish to know whether the papers relating to Afghanistan will be soon laid before the House.
Sir R. Peel: The papers are rather voluminous; but I will take care that a proper interval shall intervene between the delivery of the papers and the motion for the vote of thanks to the Governor-general and the army.

SLAVE TRADE.
Captain Pechellsaid, that in the statement made the other night by the right hon. Baronet, in reference to the number of cruisers on the coast of Africa, he had said, that he should be able in two or three days to afford the information required. Since then the question had been mooted in the French Chambers, and it had been stated that the cruisers furnished by each power were to be attached to the African station alone, and that they were not to go to the coast of Brazil and to the Cape of Good Hope. It had also been stated by the Foreign Minister of France, that in the execution of the article he had stipulated for a certain number of cruisers, and had demanded that they should remain attached to that coast for which alone their warrant was issued. He wished to ask whether the Government assented to what M. Guizot had stated to have been agreed on, or whether, in the treaties of 1831, and 1833, there was any mention of a stipulation to that effect?
Sir R. Peeldid not think that the statement of the hon. and gallant officer could be an accurate report of the Speech of the French Minister for Foreign Affairs. There had been no engagement entered into which compelled this country to limit the number of its cruisers—it was at liberty to exercise its own discretion as to what force was necessary for the suppression of the Slave-trade. The French had an equal right to exercise their own discretion in determining what number of cruisers they should employ; they had entered into no engagement to limit their number. The hon. and gallant officer asked him whether it was true that the right of search had been confined to the coast of Africa. What this country had undertaken to do was this, that when an officer was removed
202
from one station to another, he should receive a fresh warrant, authorising him to act upon the new station.

CUSTOM HOUSE FRAUDS.
Mr. Williamswished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer what course had been taken by the Government for the purpose of ascertaining the frauds in the Custom-house, and whether it were the intention of the Government to lay the information on that subject on the table of the House?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, a commission had been actively engaged in the prosecution of inquiries, and there was every prospect that in a short period the result of its investigations would be presented to the House. He thought it right to say, that in case any part of the report should involve materials respecting which prosecutions were pending, he should withhold that part of the report until the prosecutions had been determined.

AFFGHAN WAR.
Mr. Roebuckrose for the purpose of putting a question to the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had asked when the papers relating to the Affghan war would be laid on the table of the House. He (Mr. Roebuck) wished to ask if those papers would include all the information that existed relative to the commencement of the war? His reason for asking that question was this: the vote of thanks which the right hon. Baronet had given notice of his intention to move, included not only the army, but the Governor-general, and inasmuch as the vote of thanks to the Governor-general would necessarily depend upon the policy which he had pursued in withdrawing the troops within the Indus, the House ought to have all possible information respecting the policy of the war from the commencement. Therefore, he would ask the righ hon. Baronet, first, if he could, consistently with his duty, submit the two questions separately to the consideration of the House; and, if not, whether he would be prepared to give to the House, before he proposed the vote of thanks, all the evidence which would be necessary to enable the House to judge of the propriety of the war?
Sir R. Peelsaid, the hon. Gentleman

203
would, no doubt, recollect that an intention had been expressed of laying before the House papers to a certain extent respecting the war. The papers which Government intended to produce would, he thought, afford to the House a full opportunity of judging of the policy of the withdrawal of the troops from Affghanistan. But the Government did not propose to give any other papers than should be sufficient to enable the House to form a judgment of the skill and valour of the troops and their leaders in their departure, and of the policy of the withdrawal. It was not intended to carry the information to be communicated to a period beyond that. If the hon. Gentleman would wait till he saw the papers, he would then know whether they sufficiently tended to throw light on the policy of the Government.

POOR LAWS.
Mr. Waltersaid, that as the subject of the Poor-law had not yet been adverted to, he wished to know whether it were the intention of the Government to bring that question under the consideration of the House within the next fortnight?
Sir J. Grahamsaid, he would take an early opportunity of introducing a bill for the amendment of the Poor-law Act; but he would not pledge himself to do so within the next fortnight.
Mr. Waltergave notice, that on that day fortnight he would call the attention of the House to the question of the Poor-law.

AMERICAN BOUNDARY TREATY.
Mr. Hume: I wish to know whether the right hon. Baronet intends to lay upon the Table copies of the correspondence which took place between Lord Ashburton and Mr. Webster relative to the boundary treaty. After what has appeared in the newspapers during the last two days, it is very necessary that the House should be in possession of it.
Sir R. Peel: I did not intend to produce the correspondence.
Mr. Hume: The right hon. Baronet says, he did not intend to do so; I wish to know whether he now intends to produce it.
Sir R. Peel: I have not heard sufficient from the hon. Member to induce me to alter my intention.

ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
Colonel Dawson Damerappeared at the Bar of the House, and read the following Answer from her Majesty to the Address:—
"I thank you for this loyal and dutiful Address.
"I rely with confidence on your attachment and support; and you may depend upon My constant and anxious disposition to watch with equal care over the interests of all classes of My Subjects."

AFFGHAN WAR—VOTE OF THANKS.
Lord John Russellsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) had asked whether the papers to be placed on the Table of the House would afford an opportunity of taking a view of the policy of entering on the war in Affghanistan. He (Lord John Russell) was not certain whether he had distinctly understood the right hon. Baronet's reply. It had hitherto been usual, when votes of thanks had been proposed, to confine that vote merely to thanks for the manner in which the military operations had been carried into effect, assuming the policy out of which these operations had resulted to be correct, leaving it perfectly free to the Members who might concur in the vote of thanks for the military operations, to question the policy, the adoption of which had led to those operations. Now, the notice of the right hon. Baronet had been given in the usual terms, and he wished to know whether it were the intention of the right hon. Baronet to propose the vote of thanks in the usual way; that was to say, to confine himself to asking for a vote of thanks for the manner in which the military operations had been carried into effect, or whether he meant to ask the House for its approval of the policy of withdrawing the army within the Indus, and of the whole of the policy of the Governor-general and the Government?
Sir Robert Peelsaid that, in moving the vote of thanks, he intended to adhere strictly to the object mentioned in the notice which he had given. He intended to confine the vote expressly to the military operations, and did not intend on that occasion to ask the House to express any opinion of approval or disapproval of the policy which had led to the withdrawal of the troops within the Indus. Those, therefore, who might be opposed to the policy of the war, might still join in the vote of

205
thanks for the skill and energy with which the military operations were conducted. He intended, in short, to adhere to what had been the uniform practice on similar occasions; but though the papers were intended to bear on the military operations, and not on the policy of the war, yet it would be difficult to lay before the House all the requisite papers without producing enough to enable hon. Members to form their own opinions with respect to that policy. He proposed that the papers should commence at the period when the first violent outbreak took place, shortly before the murder of Sir W. M'Naughten; and the main object in producing the papers was to enable the House to judge whether or not that public acknowledgment he should propose should be considered satisfactory. He should not invite discussion upon the policy itself; but he believed the information afforded by the papers, although they might not throw any new light upon the original policy of the war, would necessarily throw new light upon the policy of the withdrawal of the troops; although that was not his immediate object in producing the papers.
Mr. Roebuckfelt some difficulty relative to the position in which the question then stood, and for this reason: the right hon. Baronet had introduced into one motion two very separate and distinct propositions; the one a vote of thanks to the Governor-general, and the other a vote of thanks to the troops. Now, no matter what might have been the policy or justice of the war, it would be proper for the House to vote thanks to the army. That was quite clear. But the whole policy of the Governor-general was connected with a proclamation issued by him, in which he set forth his opinion respecting the policy of the whole war, as well as his motives for the withdrawal of the troops within the Indus. He wanted to know whether the vote of thanks would include that proclamation? He quite agreed, for his part, with the Governor-general, as far as his present lights conducted him; he should be prepared to support the vote of thanks, on the ground of that proclamation. But he could clearly understand that there might be strong feelings on that side and on the other side of the House respecting that proclamation. He thought that it would not be sufficient to lay before the House those papers only which related to the transactions immediately previous to
206
the outbreak. They should have the papers necessary to judge of the origin of the war, namely, of the policy and justice of maintaining our troops to the west of the Indus; and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would separate these two distinct propositions—namely, the vote of thanks to the present Governor-general, and the vote of thanks to the army; and that he would give the House every information relative to the whole series of events in India.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he thought it would then be premature to enter upon a discussion of the question. He would undertake to lay before the House such papers as her Majesty's Government might think desirable; and he would communicate them to the House some days before he would call upon the House to adopt any proceedings with respect to them. He would also undertake to give several days' notice of the precise terms of the motion he should propose. He believed that such a course was warranted by former precedents. That was the course pursued in the case of the vote of thanks to Lord Auckland, a vote of thanks which he (Sir Robert Peel) supported, although he protested at the time against being supposed to approve of the policy of Lord Auckland. Still he thought it right to give his thanks for the skill and energy displayed by the noble Lord in his preparations for carrying on the war. When the papers were before the House the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) would see whether they were sufficient to enable him to form his views. For his (Sir R. Peel's) part, he intended strictly to follow the precedent of the vote of thanks to Lord Auckland.

THE AMERICAN BOUNDARY.
Sir C. Napiersaid, that public attention had been drawn to a map, marked with a strong red line, bearing on the question of the American boundary. Had the right hon. Baronet received any information respecting that red line?
Sir Robert Peel: No, but he had received another map, with a completely different boundary line marked on it.
Sir C. Napier: Would it not be right to produce a copy of the map?
Sir Robert Peel: The map is represented to be in the king's library at Paris.
Sir C. Napierthought our ambassador at Paris might be written to for a copy.

CHAPTER PROPERTY.
Mr. W. O. Stanleywished to ask the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, whether he intended to introduce any bill this Session with regard to chapter property in North Wales?
Sir James Grahamsaid, that he intended to introduce a bill upon the subject, and it would be the same in substance as that brought in last Session.

BOROUGH OF SUDBURY.
Colonel Rushbrookerose to move, that the Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, directing the issue of a writ for the election of Members for the borough of Sudbury. The hon. Member observed, that he had undertaken his present task in compliance with the wish of his constituents, who, as they had no one else to ask, had applied to him,—"Quoniam nemini obtrudi potest itur ad me." The question relating to Sudbury had been so often before the House, that he would not take up its time by again entering upon it, but would only observe, that no case had been made out to keep the borough without its representatives in Parliament.
On the question being put,
The Speakersaid, that the hon. Member might obtain his object by allowing the amendment of another hon. Member to stand as an original motion, to which he could move, if he pleased, an amendment.
Mr. Tufnell: After the bill that had been unanimously passed last Session by that House for the disfranchisement of Sudbury, he had not expected on the first night of the Session notice would have been given of a motion for the issue of a new writ. The most extensive bribery was proved to have prevailed at Sudbury, but as the motion for the new writ was not to be pressed, he should make no farther remarks on the subject, but would, in the course of the evening, move for leave to bring in the bill, of which he had given notice, for the disfranchisement of the borough. In the mean time he would move that the Speaker should not issue his writ for the election of a new Member until the 20th March next.
Colonel Rushbrookesaid he would not object to such a motion.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Tufnellthen moved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to exclude the borough of Sudbury from sending burgesses to serve in Parliament." He founded his
208
motion upon the report of the committee, who had found that gross bribery had prevailed at the late election.
Mr. Blackstonethought that no case had been made out which could justify the House in taking the extreme course of disfranchising all the electors of the borough. He had taken an opportunity last Session of moving that the adjacent hundred be added to the borough. This, if acceded to, would have had the effect of introducing a sufficient number of good electors into the borough. The committee had not carried their inquiry far enough to prove the general corruption of the borough. At Stafford it had been proved that of 945 electors, 804 had received money for their votes; but if they looked into the case of Sudbury, they would not find more than eight or nine cases of persons who had received bribes; and it was not, therefore, just to take away the franchise from those who had done nothing to forfeit it. He thought that before the House proceeded to this step it ought to be in possession of the fullest information. With this view, he would move, as an amendment,
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the corrupt practices alleged to have prevailed at the last election for the borough of Sudbury, and to report the result of their inquiries to the House."
If general corruption should then be proved, he would not object to the hon. Member's bill; but, until such proof were given, he would oppose it.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, that when this question was before the House in the last Session he took the liberty of interposing between the hon. and gallant Member and the issue of the writ, and the House agreed with him on the occasion, and he hoped it would not now stultify itself by giving a negative to the report of the committee of last Session, and by allowing the hon. and gallant Member to steal a march upon it in the beginning of the present. The committee to which the election petition relating to the return for Sudbury had been referred had unanimously reported that gross and systematic bribery had prevailed at the last election, and that the borough ought to be disfranchised. To carry out the report of that committee such a measure as the proposed bill was necessary. When the bill was before the House in the last Session, it was first moved that counsel be heard

209
against it. That was negatived. It was then moved that the virtue of the adjoining hundred be infused into the representation with the view of purifying it; but even that the House would not accept, and the bill for disfranchising the borough was passed, and sent to the Lords, but at too late a period to allow a chance of its passing, and it was not passed. After this, would the House consider that another committee of inquiry was necessary? Would such a committee be considered necessary, when it was already proved that more than 200 of the voters of the borough were bribed in one day? He thought an example should be made of that most delinquent borough, and he hoped his hon. Friend would press his motion.
Sir E. Peelthought last Session, when the facts of the case were fresh in his recollection, that there was ample reason for sending the bill for disfranchising Sudbury up to the House of Lords. Considering the unanimous report made by the committee and the evidence which they reported to the House, and as he was not aware of any new facts [loud cheers] which would induce him to alter his opinion, he should give his vote in favour of the introduction of the bill.
Colonel Wyndhamapproved of the course taken by the right hon. Baronet; therefore he also would give his vote against the amendment.
Amendment negatived: Main question agreed to: Leave given.

CONSTITUTION OF COMMITTEES.
Mr. Ewartwas very desirous to improve the constitution of committees on private bills, by prohibiting the attendance on them, as Members, of any Member of the House who was interested for or against any bill. He wished to assimilate the practice of that House to the practice which prevailed in the House of Lords, where it had been eminently successful. To attain these ends he begged leave to move the following resolutions:—
"1. That it is expedient that committees on private bills should be approximated more nearly than they now are to judicial tribunals, and exempted as much as possible from all motives of local and personal interest; and that the responsibility and efficiency of committees of this House in general would be promoted by diminishing the number of Members composing them.
"2. That, with a view of attaining these objects, the number of Members composing
210
committees on opposad private bills be reduced to seven.
"3. That such seven Members be appointed by the Committee of Selection, after the second reading of such bills; but that, previous to such appointment, the Committee of Selection do ascertain from each of such seven Members, that he is willing to serve, and that he is, neither through his constituents nor himself personally, interested for or against the bill in question; and that, in case he is unable to serve, or is interested as aforesaid, the Committee of Selection do appoint some other Member to serve in place of him.
"4. That the Committee of Selection appoint no Member to serve on more than one such private bill committe at a time.
"5. That the number of Members composing Select Committees be likewise reduced to seven; except on special cause shown to the satisfaction of the House for extending the number to more than seven.
"6. That, previous to the naming of any such Select Committee, the Member who moves for its appointment shall communicate with the Committee of Selections; in order to avoid, as much as possible, the appointment of Members to serve on such select committee who may already be fully occupied by a private bill committee, or by other select committees.
Sir G. Clerkcould not give his assent to the resolutions proposed, because the amended system which was in practice in private committees during the last Session had worked very well, and had given pretty general satisfaction. No Member could now vote upon any bill in committee who had not attended and heard the whole of the evidence which was offered either in support of it or against it. The Committee of Selection now appointed three Members who were wholly unconnected with the locality to which the bill they were appointed to consider applied; they were, therefore, impartial judges, whose opinion had great weight. It was found very difficult, upon many occasions, to secure the attendance of three gentlemen who had no interest in or were wholly indifferent to the matter brought before them, and it would be still more difficult to secure the regular attendance of seven. Gentlemen would find it a heavy tax upon their time, and if these resolutions were adopted the consequence would be that many days would be lost and great expense incurred by necessary adjournments, consequent upon the absence of some of the gentlemen appointed, But he thought it was absolutely necessary that gentlemen locally connected with

211
bills should be on the committees. Suppose that seven disinterested Members were appointed, and really did attend, and that the bill before them was that for making a railway; if it ran near a nobleman's or gentleman's mansion, or through his park, he had ample means at hand to employ counsel to protect his interests; but who was to protect the interests of the small proprietors? Who so well as the gentlemen who represented them in the House? Besides, the local knowledge which the Member had was often the means of explaining a point in five minutes, which counsel, who spoke only from their briefs, might have spent hours over, and left in the dark after all. Notwithstanding the many objections which had been started to the composition of private committees very few objectionable bills were passed, and they were generally bills which were unopposed. But, even with respect to them, a new system had been introduced by the hon. Member the late chairman of ways and means (Mr. Bernal), by which it was almost impossible that an objectionable bill, even unopposed, could be passed.
Dr. Bowringsaid, that these resolutions seemed to him to be recommended by sound sense and an accurate estimate of what such a tribunal ought to be. The tribunal in question ought to approximate more nearly than it did at present to a court of law. This country prided herself on her judicial tribunals, where such evidence as ought to be received was admitted, whilst such as ought to be rejected was refused, and he saw no reason why Committees of this House on private bills should not be of the same nature. He also approved of the resolution which went to reduce the number of the Members of the Committee to seven. In his opinion the responsibility of the private bills Committee ought to be greatly increased, and he thought his hon. Friend took a very accurate view of this subject by endeavouring to throw on the shoulders of every individual in the Committee every possible responsibility; all that his hon. Friend proposed was, that with respect to Committees on private bills, they should introduce the same principle and recognize the same rules as had been for some time adopted, and, he might add, with so much convenience elsewhere.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerentertained an opinion decidedly adverse to
212
the motion. The hon. and learned Member placed the question on a false ground, when he represented a private Committee as a body of a strictly judicial nature. He thought it entirely different. A private Committee was appointed to discharge legislative functions, and do, with respect to a private bill, what the House itself did in the case of a public bill, taking that course which the force of opinion and circumstances pointed out as expedient. A select Committee on a private bill stood in the same situation as a Committee of the whole House on a public bill, and discharged similar functions. A judicial tribunal was not the best fitted to decide on questions of expediency. If the representatives of places or districts affected by the bills were excluded Irom the Committees, all these questions and discussions now disposed of in the Committees would be introduced into the House itself, to the exclusion of more important business, and the undue consumption of the public time.
Mr. Bernalmust admit that he was not particularly enamoured of the motion now introduced, nor in love with the present mode of proceeding upon private bills. There were very great difficulties in the way, and, do what they might, the conflict of opinions to which the right hon. Gentleman had just adverted, and which he wished to avert from the time applied to public business, could not be prevented. If there were any thing like a public principle in any bill that was introduced, he defied them to get rid of that conflict of opinions; but he had long thought they should do something to radically change the present system, and he did not think it impossible to obtain one less objectionable. He considered that they should have some person in the capacity of a judge who should sit and preside over the tribunal before which opposed bills should be instituted, conducted, and finally settled, and, that there should be certain rules and regulations of conduct maturely considered and agreed to by the House by which that judge, be he whom he might, should guide the decisions of the Committee in conformity with them. When all the information was collected and decided on by that judge, who should consider whether the rules and regulations of the House had been properly followed or not, that should be transmitted with a report from the judge to the House, and then the House would have something

213
solid and on which it could depend to place its own decision. It had often been said that a job might easily be effected by the present system of passing unopposed bills, and if any such job were in view it was only to present a petition. The bill was referred to the Committee as an opposed bill, and the job might then be effected. He much feared that his hon. Friend could not cure that defect; and, as he did not consider that the resolutions would effect any good object, he was not prepared to support them.
Mr. Humeapproved of the resolutions which would approximate the practice of the House of Commons to that of the House of Lords, and had been recommended by former Committees. Members connected with districts from which bills were pending were now placed in a most embarrassing situation, being equally pressed by both parties to support them. He could not conceive any two cases more exactly similar than the trial of a question of property before a jury, and the trial of such a question before a Committee of that House. All the improvements which had been made in election Committees had for their object to find individuals to serve on the Committees free from local influences and party feelings. The same arguments applied to the present case; and as to the difficulty of obtaining the services of Members, was it to be supposed that in the whole House five impartial and uninfluenced men could not be found to try a question affecting a particular section of the country.
Mr. Ewartsaid, select Committees were to be considered as not legislative but judicial bodies, and the more impartial they were rendered the more of public confidence they would enjoy. Since this had been in some degree regarded in the election Committees they had been much more respected.
The House divided on the first resolution:—Ayes 27; Noes 84: Majority 57,

List of the AYES.

Aldam, W.

Hawes, B.

Bowring, Dr.

Lawson, A.

Brotherton, J.

Mitcalf, H.

Crawford, W. S.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Denniston, J.

Ponsonby, hn. C.F. A

Duke, Sir J.

Protheroe, E.

Duncan, G.

Ross, D. R.

Elphinstone, H.

Scott, R.

Forster, M.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Greene, T.

Stanton, W. H.

214

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Williams, W.

Strickland, Sir G.

Wood, B.

Strutt, E.

TELLERS.

Thornely, T.

Ewart, W.

Wawn,J. T.

Hume, J.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Herbert, hon. S.

Acland, T. D.

Hindley, C.

Acton, Col.

Hodgson, R.

Allix, J. P.

Hope, G. W.

Antrobus, E.

Hussey, T.

Arkwright, G.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Jermyn, Earl

Barnard, E. G.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. SirE

Bentinck, Lord G.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Blackstone, W. S.

Lefroy, A.

Borthwick, P.

Lennox, Lord A.

Botfield, B.

Lincoln, Earl of

Broadwood, H.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Bruce, Lord E.

Mackenzie, T.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Mahon, Visct.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

March, Earl of

Busfield,W.

Masterman, J.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Meynell, Capt.

Clerk, Sir G.

Murphy, F. S.

Clive, Visct.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Northland, Visct.

Colville, C. R.

Packe, C. W.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Craig, W. G.

Plumptre, J. P.

Cripps, W.

Pollock, Sir F.

Divett, E.

Praed, W. T.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Pringle, A.

Drummond, H. H.

Rashleigh, W.

Duncombe, T.

Richards, R.

Egerton, W. T.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Eliot, Lord

Smythe, hon. G.

Escott, B.

Smollett, A.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Stanley, Lord

Fitzroy, Capt.

Tennent, J. E.

Ffolliot, J.

Trotter, J.

Forbes, W.

Verner, Col.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Vivian, J. H.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Vivian, J. E.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Wodehouse E.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Young, J.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Hamilton, W. J.

TELLERS.

Hardinge, rt. hn. SirH.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Hastie, A.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Resolutions rejected.
House adjourned.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—la. Laws concerning Attornies Consolidation; Creditors and Debtors; Law of Evidence.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By a noble Lord, Llangyle, and Llanarmen, from the Clergy of the Deanery of Arvon, from Llanrwsh, from the Ministers of the Rural Deanery of Efwyndd, and Leeyn, from Penmachno, and Bettws Cord, from Bangor, Conway, and Beddgebert, for Repealing the Act for Uniting the Dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor.

ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
The Earl of Liverpoolinformed the House that

191
he had laid before her Majesty the Address in answer to the speech, and her Majesty had been graciously pleased to return the following answer:—
MY LORDS:
"I thank you for your loyal and dutiful Address. I rely with just Confidence on your zealous Endeavours to promote the Public Welfare, and on your Co-operation to maintain the Honour and high Character of the Country."
On the Motion of the Earl of Shaftesbury, her Majesty's answer was ordered to be printed, and entered on the journals of the House.

Poor LAWS (IRELAND).
The Marquess of Clanricarderose to move for certain returns relative to the operation of the Poor-laws in Ireland. He did not intend to detain the House by going into any detailed statement on the subject. He merely wished to state sufficient to give him a Parliamentary ground for moving for these papers. The returns for which he moved, were calculated to show the House the expenses which had been occasioned by the Poor-laws in Ireland; the expenses incurred in fitting up the different poor-houses; the expense of maintaining the paupers; the amount of rates chargeable on the different unions; and the present condition of the finances of the different unions. He should also move for other papers, which would tend to show the feelings of the people of the country generally on the subject of the Poor-laws. He must say, that the matter was one which required the prompt interference of Parliament. He opposed the Bill when it was first introduced, and those who had opposed it, had now every reason to believe that all the arguments which they had adduced against it were well founded, and that all the evils which they had anticipated, had already arisen from its operation. The expense was so great, that it was utterly impossible for that impoverished country to bear it. It could not, however, be denied that the alteration had done some good, but then that good bore no proportion to the charge at which it had been effected. When he got the returns—for he did not anticipate there could be any objection to them, he should be able to prove, that the greatest extravagance prevailed in the administration of
192
the law. When the Poor-law was under consideration in that House, the noble Duke opposite introduced a provision, relative to the choice of guardians by the electoral divisions, which he opposed at the time; but he was now glad that it was introduced, because it showed more clearly than anything else the real state of the case. The consequence was, that in electoral divisions, which were heavily charged, no relief had hardly been afforded, and in others, the relief had been so small that he might fairly rate it as nought. In Ireland, it never was complained that the able-bodied poor were not willing to rely on their own resources as much as they could. The evil of the country was poverty, and he thought that the Poor-law Bill, instead of diminishing would aggravate that evil. He wished to ask the noble Duke whether it were the intention of the Government to introduce any measure on the subject of Poor-laws in Ireland. The noble Marquess concluded by moving for a series of returns.
The Duke of Wellington: I have no objection to the production of these papers, excepting, perhaps, the length of time which will be required in order to make them out. The last return I do not object to, though, as it relates to the employment of the constabulary and troops in putting down any resistance to the Poor-laws, it may be considered confidential. I will now answer the question put to me by the noble Marquess. Her Majesty's Government have already taken measures to acquire information upon all the points on which it appears that this law has not given satisfaction or failed to produce the good effect expected from it. This information, it is hoped, will be obtained before long, and when it is, it is the intention of her Majesty's Government to propose a bill for the alteration of the law. I must observe, that the clause I proposed in the former measure was proposed when the measure was in a different state to that in which it ultimately passed: for when I proposed the clause, the electoral divisions were to be formed out of the town lands. All I can say is, that no exertions will be spared to render the proposed measure as useful and as beneficial to the country as possible.
The Earl of Wicklowsincerely hoped that no alteration would be made in the particular clause which had been referred to

193
to. He was persuaded the bill would have been inoperative without that clause. Every argument which the noble Duke so forcibly brought forward was confirmed by experience. If it were not for this clause, those who lived at a distance from the workhouse would never have attended to the local business, and the whole must have been managed by the guardians residing in the neighbourhood, with the inevitable result of being turned into a job. When the noble Marquess brought forward any motion on the subject, he should also call attention to the working of the fifth rating clause. There was another unfortunate circumstance that had just occurred which would render the law inoperative, and that was the opinion of the law officers with respect to the interference of magistrates. He presumed that the Attorney and Solicitor-general were perfectly well acquainted with the law, and able to give a sound opinion, and he knew the present Attorney-general of Ireland to be one of the ablest lawyers in the country; but being no lawyer himself, he was unable to discover the ground of their opinion, which was, that no magistrate who was a rate-payer himself could interfere in any decision in which he paid the rate. The magistrates could be appealed to on their own decision; and as they inflicted the penalty for not paying the rate, the law could not be carried into effect if that opinion were well founded. It would be necessary for the Government to make some alteration in that part of the law.
The Duke of Wellingtonhad heard some complaints as to the clause relating to electoral districts, and he therefore felt bound to state that it was carried into operation under the circumstances which he contemplated when he proposed it. However, at present he had no intention to propose any alteration respecting it.
The Marquess of Clanricardehoped there would be no delay in making the returns, and that they would be given as soon as they were prepared. He would also wish to get a return of the expenditure of the Mendicity Association of Dublin for last year. That institution had been supported by voluntary contributions, and the same number of persons were relieved in it for 3,000 l., which were now relieved at an expenditure exceeding 10,000 l., or, as he believed, 12,000 l.
Motion agreed to.

CREDITORS AND DEBTORS.
Lord Cottenhambegged to lay on the Table of the House a bill which he had brought forward last year, relating to imprisonment for debt on execution. All the provisions of this bill were taken from the Report of the Committee of 1841. He hoped, before they legislated on this question, their Lordships would carefully read that Report, and not omit the names appended to it.
Lord Brougham: As the question was now ripe for settlement—after the bills which had already been introduced, and the two reports which had been presented—he trusted his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack would see that some measure was proposed for consolidating the law as to debtor and creditor, and fusing into one system the whole of the acts respecting insolvency and bankruptcy. He knew, from experience, that the concurrence of Government was necessary to one very essential quality of every proposed measure—its passing.
Lord Cottenhamsaid, one of the objects recommended by the report on which this bill was founded was the consolidation of the laws respecting bankruptcy and insolvency.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, it was impossible to give a distinct answer to his noble and learned Friend until he saw how far the present bill went. He certainly had not lost sight of the accomplishment of the object to which his noble and learned Friend alluded.
Bill read a first time.

LAW REFORMS.
Lord Campbellhoped that a little more information would be given by his noble and learned Friend touching the law reforms intended to be introduced by the Government. The Queen's Speech alluded distinctly to such changes; and, as his noble and learned Friend must know what they were, he hoped he would state their object.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he could not inform his noble and learned Friend, nor could he explain the course which her Majesty's Government might take, until he saw how far the bill of his noble and learned Friend went, and to what point it extended. He, begged, however, to assure his noble and learned Friend and their Lordships that her Majesty's Government had not lost sight of the object which his noble and learned Friend had

195
in view; and further, that every endeavour would be made to accomplish that object with all possible speed. The attention of the Government had been recently occupied by several measures for the improvement of the law, and for its better and more effectual administration. A most important bill had been prepared for the improvement of the ecclesiastical courts, and was now complete. This bill would shortly be laid before their Lordships. Another bill which her Majesty's Government had it in contemplation to introduce, corresponded with that which was before their Lordships in the course of the last Session relating to the establishment of certain local courts. The object of this measure was to facilitate the recovery of small claims by a more expeditious and less expensive process than was now required for that purpose. A third and most important measure was intended to effect an improvement in the law relating to insolvency, and, would, he believed, provide for the better administration of that law. He felt it was not necessary that he should go further than to say that these measures would be brought under the consideration of their Lordships without loss of time.
Lord Campbellhad heard the announcement of his noble and learned Friend with great satisfaction, and hoped the measures to which his noble and learned Friend had alluded would be laid before the House as speedily as possible, in order that they might meet with that full discussion which from their importance they deserved. Many measures had in the last Session of Parliament been introduced at a later period than was desirable. The Bankruptcy Bill was brought forward at so late a period that those noble Lords who entertained objections to particular clauses in that measure had no fair opportunity of discussing them. He therefore hoped that these measures would not only be introduced early, but that they would be pressed forward in their progress, in order that they might come back to their Lordship's House at a conveniently early period of the Session.
The Lord Chancellorbegged to assure his noble and learned Friend that the Bankruptcy Bill of last Session was introduced at a sufficiently early period. It was fully discussed by their Lordships, before it went to the other House of Parliament. It was there discussed fully,
196
deliberately, and repeatedly. It was there discussed in all its stages, and for several successive nights. Indeed, he might venture to say that no measure was ever more fully discussed than the Bankruptcy Bill of the last Session. As to the suggestion which had been offered by his noble and learned Friend, he could not accede to it. He felt it to be impossible that a system so complicated and intricate as the bankruptcy law of this country could be satisfactorily administered by an ambulatory tribunal, as suggested by his noble and learned Friend. In regard to the Local Courts Bill, her Majesty's Government had used all diligence to carry that measure into a law. It had been sent down to the other House of Parlament, and was there discussed on the first and second reading, was committed and recommitted, and he (the Lord Chancellor) had never been able to ascertain the precise reason why it was not passed.
Conversation at an end.

LAW OF EVIDENCE.
Lord Denmansaid, that during the course of last Session he had introduced a bill for amending the Law of Evidence, by substituting affirmations for oaths in certain cases. That bill had, after having been read a second time in their Lordships' House, been referred to a select committee. That committee had repeatedly sat; had come to certain resolutions; had sent down the bill to their Lordships in an amended state—in which state it had been agreed to by their Lordships, and had been sent down to the House of Commons. It had been sent down to that House at a very late period of the Session, and owing to the opposition of certain parties in that House, it had not been passed; it had not even been brought under discussion. Under these circumstances, he thought he was justified in again presenting the same bill to their Lordships in the same state in which it had been sent down to the House of Commons last year, and he also thought that their Lordships would not think it necessary to enter into discussion on the subject, although, should their Lordships think it necessary, he was perfectly prepared to justify the course he had adopted. He would, therefore, lay the bill on the Table, and move that it be read a first time.
Lord Broughamsaid, that with respect to the case of the impediment which had

197
been thrown in the way of the bill of his noble and learned Friend in the other House of Parliament (he spoke of it as a matter of history, and their Lordships might learn from the votes on the Table of the House), that, opposition was not directed against the bill of his noble and learned Friend. But it so happened, that on the same night in which the bill of his noble and learned Friend was to have come on for discussion in the other House, another bill—a bill introduced by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack—a bill for extending to Ireland the provisions of the English ecclesiastical law, usually known as the Nullum Tempus Bill, was to come on. Of that bill, he himself approved, but he would admit that there was a strenuous opposition to it, and that there were merits in that opposition. Those who had the conducting of that opposition had taken advantage of the forms of the House, and had counted the House out on the night which had been fixed for the debate. His noble Friend's bill, and also all the other bills behind it, had consequently shared its fate; but the opposition had not been directed against the bill of his noble and learned Friend, and he trusted their Lordships would at once consent to its introduction.
The Lord Chancellorretained the same opinion on the subject which he had expressed last Session.
Bill read a first time.
Adjourned at six o'clock.