Sitting of 2 April 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1o. Registration of Electors (Ireland); Municipal Corporations (Ireland); Ecclesiastical Courts; Church Temporalities (Ireland).
Private.—1o. Cababe's Naturalization.
2o. Pulteney Town, Harbour, and Improvement; Reversionary Interest Society.
3o. and passed:—Edinburgh Poor Assessment.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Master Coopers of London, against the Duty on Staves.—By Mr. Murray, from Kirkcudbright, for Improving the Condition of Schoolmasters (Scotland).—By Mr. P. Howard, from Carlisle, against Restricting the Hours of Labour in Factories—By Mr. Fuller, from Llanbadrig, and by Sir R. H. Inglis from Oxtead, against the Union of St. Asaph and Bangor—By Mr. Pryse Pryse, from Aberayron, in favour of the Establishment of Local Courts.—By Lord Eliot, from John Fry, and others, in favour of Medical Reform.—By Mr. Tatton Egerton, from Staleybridge, against the Duty on Cotton Wool.—By Mr. Pusey, from Wallingford, in favour of the Commons Inclosure Bill.—By Mr. J. P. Somers, from Sligo, in favour of Repeal.—By Mr. Morrison, from Fortrose, and Nairn, against the Prisons (Scotland). Bill.—From John Malcolmson and others, against Railway Companies becoming Steamboat Companies.—By Lord Eliot from St. Germains Union, for Rating Owners of Tenements.

ADJOURNMENT FOR THE HOLIDAYS—PUBLIC BUSINESS.
Sir R. Peelmoved that the House, at its rising, should adjourn till Monday, the 15th instant. He wished, at the same time, to state that he had promised the noble Lord opposite, that he would, on moving the adjournment, explain the order in which the Bills brought in by the Government, or intended to be brought in, should be proceeded with after Easter. In consequence of the absence of his right hon. Friend, the Secretary for the Home Department, he was unable at that moment to give the explanation. He would take care, however, that the order of proceeding should be set forth in the Papers of the House to-morrow. In the meantime he would say, that it would be a great public inconvenience if the Irish Franchise Bill should not pass before June, and it was, therefore, his intention that the Bill should be read a second time on Monday, the 15th, if the House would allow it, and that the discussion be taken in Committee, An

1747
hon. Member opposite (Mr. Ewart) was anxious to know if the Government proposed to do anything respecting Charitable Trusts; and he (Sir R. Peel) had to state that he believed his noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor would, that evening, in another place, give notice of a Bill upon the subject. Another hon. Member (Mr. Hume) was anxious to know what progress had been made in opening communications with Paraguay. A Commissioner (Mr. Gordon) had been sent out there by the Government, but, unfortunately, from his over desire to make himself useful, he exerted himself to have vaccination introduced into Paraguay, and thus caused great prejudice to be created, and he had been obliged to leave the country. Since then, however, news of a more satisfactory character had been received; and he indulged the hope that England, in common with France and Brazil, would be able to make some progress in opening friendly and commercial communications with that part of the world.
Lord John Russell: I certainly am quite satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Baronet, that at a later period of the evening, or upon the Notice-paper to-morrow, an announcement would be made as to the course of public business after Easter. As to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman that the Irish Franchise Bill should be read the first day after the assembling of Parliament, though I personally have no objection to such a course, yet I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not express any surprise if hon. Gentlemen, the representatives of Irish boroughs and counties, who are at present in Ireland, may think fit to raise a discussion on the question that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House. The attendance of the Irish Members has been very small during the last few days, and I can well suppose that many hon. Gentlemen will wish to state their general views before the House enters into a discussion upon the Clauses in detail. There is another subject upon which I will take the liberty of saying a few words to the House. We have not as yet, unhappily, made any very great progress in Legislation, but we have shown our loyalty to the Crown by voting very willingly, indeed almost unanimously, those Supplies which the Crown has thought proper to require of the House of Commons. Among these Supplies there
1748
was a very large sum and a considerable number of men voted for the Navy. I am one of those most willing to concur in that Vote; but considering its large amount, I do think it necessary to say a few words on this occasion with respect to that Vote, and to the rumours which are abroad as to how our naval force is to be disposed of. With respect to the men voted, I find, that although the number is considerably less than that agreed to in 1841, it is considerably greater than that voted in 1835. I should say, from the numbers which I have looked at, that there were about 43,000 persons, including men and boys, voted in 1841, about 26,500 in 1835, and for the present year about 36,000. There has been, then, no niggardly disposition evinced in voting a sufficient number of men. Now, the statement abroad is, that our force in the Mediterranean is to be reduced to a very small number of ships of the line—indeed, it is reported that only one such vessel is to be left upon that station. If such is to be the case, or at all events if the amount of our naval force in the Mediterranean is to be reduced very low, I must say, that I think any such proceeding would not be in accordance with the general policy of the country. We have important stations in the Mediterranean, which require the presence of a naval force. We have likewise great interests in the Mediterranean which from time to time call upon us for defence or interposition. There may not, indeed, be at the present moment any immediate danger in that quarter, the most amicable intercourse with Foreign Powers may continue; but, should any accident occur—and we cannot control the councils of foreign countries—any sudden augmentation of our naval force, however easily it may be made, would infallibly create the greatest alarm, and would appear like preparations for war. It must be recollected that there are rumours of Spain interfering in Morocco, and a revolutionary nucleus is forming in Italy, and circumstances of this kind may give rise to the necessity for some diplomatic representations to foreign Powers; and the best way for making these representations with effect, is to have a sufficient amount of Force in every quarter of the world. Now, if you reduce to so small an amount the number of ships of the line in the Mediterranean, you will not be adequately sup-

1749
porting the interests of the country. It may happen that no danger will arise—that nothing will occur to cloud our prosperity; but, if anything untoward should happen, the Government would be found to have pursued a very inexpedient course in so far diminishing our Mediterranean force. If the number of men voted had been inadequate, that might have been a valid excuse; but with the large numbers which have been voted, and considering the force which has been kept in the Mediterranean in past years, I must say I should be very sorry to see so great a reduction take place as that rumoured. The right hon. Gentleman may think it necessary to make some reply to these observations. I do not know whether he will do so or not. I do not ask him; but I repeat that the general policy of the country has always been, to have some considerable force of ships-of-the-line stationed in the Mediterranean.
Sir R. Peel: I confess that the noble Lord has rather surprised me. I do not find that he has alleged that any of our interests have hitherto suffered in the Mediterranean or in any other part of the world. The noble Lord suggests that it would be desirable to station a large force in the Mediterranean; and that observation of the noble Lord is perhaps abstractly true as regards any other part of the world. There may be good grounds urged for our having a large naval force off the coast of America, in the Pacific Ocean, or in the Baltic, as well as in the Mediterranean. Quite agreeing as I do with the noble Lord, that British interests should everywhere be protected, I still think that the constitutional principle is to leave the appropriation of the force voted by Parliament to the discretion of the Executive Government. Now the Government may have thought it adviseable to have a fleet of eight sail of the line in the Channel for the purpose of exercise, and ready to meet any exigency. These vessels may soon be sent to the Mediterranean if their services are required there; and it is surely a great advantage to have an available force in a position from whence their power may be concentrated upon any station requiring its presence; and do not let the noble Lord suppose that there is any danger of our interests in the Mediterranean being injured because our force happens to be off the mouth of the Thames, or cruising in the channel. I ask the noble Lord to allow
1750
the Executive Government to exercise its own discretion in the matter. Our interests in the Mediterranean are doubtless very important, but I need not here enter into the particular reasons which induce the Executive to appropriate our force in other quarters. I only appeal to the noble Lord, whether if, in that confidence in his powers to which he has so just a right, he would take the command of the channel fleet, he will not allow that there may be reasons for concentrating a strong force in the Channel in a time of peace, from whence, however, it is ready to be sent to any part of the world.
Viscount Palmerston: I should feel no want of confidence in my noble Friend in the command of the Channel fleet, or in any other command in which resolution and determination may be required; and if his spirit and determination in the naval capacity should, as I have no doubt they would, be backed by the professional skill and enterprise of the hon. and gallant Member for Marylebone, I think that between them they would present a very formidable appearance to any power which might be disposed to take liberties with Great Britain. I am quite willing to admit that the disposal of the Fleet should be left to the Executive; but I have yet to learn that that discretion should be free from the animadversion or remark of Parliament. On the contrary, I have always understood it to be within the discretion, and history has shown it to be the practice of this House to control such disposal. I think, therefore, that my noble Friend, in taking the opportunity which he has taken of making these remarks beforehand, and directing the consideration of the Government to the subject, has not departed from the appropriate exercise of those functions which devolved on him as a Member of this House. It is true that it is only a question of prudence, according to the existing state of things, whether we should concentrate a large force on the home station, or distribute it more equally among the different foreign stations, where its presence might be required, not for purposes of hostility, but to give that moral effect and support to our commercial interests which the presence of a naval force invariably affords. In the present state of things, if any thing occurred requiring the presence of a large naval force on the home station, it would be quite as easy to order the

1751
force home from the Mediterranean as to order the force from the home station to the Mediterranean, so that the argument of the right hon. Baronet is equally applicable to either side of the question. But I do not admit the argument of the right hon. Baronet, that there is no distinction between having—not a large force, my noble Friend does not contemplate that—but a respectable and ordinary amount of force in the Mediterranean, and having the same force in the Baltic, the Pacific, or on the coast of the United States, because it is usual in the ordinary state of things that we should have a force in the Mediterranean. We have important military stations there; we have colonies there. We have Gibraltar, Malta, and the Ionian Islands; and therefore, it is natural that we should maintain a large naval force there. The maintenance of such a force there implies nothing hostile or suspicious towards foreign powers; but the right hon. Baronet and the House will admit, if a large force were to be sent either to the Baltic, the coast of the United States, or the Pacific, it would be supposed either that we apprehended hostilities from some other powers, or that we intended something against them. The cases are not parallel. The question of the disposableness of the force applies, as I have shown before, as much to the one case as to the other. Our commercial and political relations are of more importance in the Mediterranean than anywhere else on the face of the globe. More things may happen there in which the interests of Great Britain are concerned, than could happen elsewhere. If, therefore, the Government intend only to maintain one sail of the line on that station, I contend that they would not be properly representing British interests in a quarter in which they require the most scrupulous care and attention. I can testify, from my own experience, as foreign secretary, that nothing is more common than for British merchants connected with the Mediterranean, to apply for protection and assistance. Considering, too, the difficulties which will arise from time to time in that quarter, I think it not a wise distribution of the naval forces, to have only one ship of the line in the Mediterranean, and not the ordinary amount of force usual on former occasions. If it were a privilege of Members of that House to criticise events after
1752
they happen, I think it a more useful privilege to throw out suggestions before the occurrence of those events.
Mr. Humewas sorry to hear any objection made to the reduction of the large force which we had for some time maintained in the Mediterranean. He had heard from the best authorities, that there was nothing more useless than to have a large force lying, as our ships were accustomed to lie, in Malta harbour, during nine months out of every twelve; losing all discipline, and costing an infinitely large sum to the country. If there was to be a large naval force in any sea, it would be better to concentrate it where the ships could be subjected to proper discipline, and where the cruising could be carried on with some useful purpose. It was all very well for the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) to talk of maintaining a large force in the Mediterranean. His policy was to be always doing, and it was no doubt very convenient for him to have a fleet at hand ready to send just anywhere he might think fit. Why, only a year or two ago, we had fifteen pennants in the Mediterranean, more than the whole number we had flying all over the world in the year 1792. It was incurring a needless expense to keep up such a force. It was this and such like doings that led to the imposition of an Income Tax,—a tax of which every one of course complained. He hoped the number of ships in the Mediterranean would be reduced; and he hoped, too, that the Home Secretary would consider the propriety of reducing the magnificent squadron which was under his command—he meant the squadron of gun-boats he employed in the River Shannon to collect tithes and poor-rates.
Mr. Wysehad not heard from any Member of Her Majesty's Government whether they intended to persist in moving the second reading of the Irish Registration Bill upon the 15th? There were many Irish Members who were, he knew, most anxious to be present when the Bill came on for discussion, but who might not be able to arrive the first night after the recess. It was right, too, that the Irish people should have a longer time to consider the Bill, and to express their opinion upon it by petition. If it was understood that the discussion should be taken, not upon the second reading, but upon going into Committee, perhaps that would obviate the difficulty; but, in any event,

1753
more time should be given. If it were said that it was necessary to press the measure, why, he would reply, that it would have been more convenient, had the noble Lord brought in the Bill at an earlier period of the Session.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that if the hon. Member on the part of Irish Members generally, expressed a wish that the day for the second reading of this Bill should be postponed, he would not on any account press the second reading upon the 15th. He did not think it would be advisable to take the second reading without affording an opportunity for discussing the principle of the Bill, and he did not think that the House would gain anything by taking the second reading, and postponing the discussion until the House went into Committee. He would, therefore, say at once, that he would not take the second reading earlier than the Friday after the re-assembling of the House. As regarded the observation about pressing the Bill, his only feeling with regard to the matter, was, that if the measure was to be adopted, it would be better to bring it into operation this year than subsequently, and he believed that it would be most convenient for its practical working that it should be passed by the middle or end of June.
Mr. Ewartwould ask, whether it were the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose any digest or code of Criminal Law, founded upon the Report of the Criminal Law Commissioners?
Sir R. Peel—I am not prepared to say that it is my intention to bring in a Bill to embody all the Criminal Law of England in one code. Indeed, at present I do not contemplate any measure upon the subject.
The Motion for the adjournment to the 15th inst. agreed to.

CHINESE TREATY—SIR H. POTTINGER.
Sir R. Peelappeared at the Bar with Papers by command of Her Majesty, and, on the call of the Speaker, brought up and laid upon the Table a copy of the Supplementary Treaty with China. The right hon. Baronet said, Sir, I cannot move that this Paper, which will probably be the last diplomatic act of Sir H. Pottinger, who is now retiring from his post in China at his own wish and request, and against the desire of Her Majesty's Government—I cannot move that this Paper be printed without paying a
1754
tribute which is justly due to the ability, the firmness, the zeal, the energy, and the disinterestedness with which that gallant Officer has performed those duties, which he undertook at a most critical moment, but which have been performed in such a manner as to secure for him the confidence and esteem of the Chinese, as well as the entire approval of the Government of the nation which he represented. I might, Sir, say a great deal in praise of the conduct and character of Sir H. Pottinger, but I believe that sometimes panegyric is weakened and diluted by words; and I will only add, that it is impossible to pay too high a tribute to the singular ability, tact, and talent with which he transacted all the duties committed to him.
Viscount Palmerstonhad heard with great pleasure the honourable and well-deserved tribute which had been paid to the merits of Sir H. Pottinger, for those who knew with what difficulties he had had to contend, and how admirably he had overcome them, must feel how extremely eminent were the services which he had rendered. Not only had Sir H. Pottinger by his own merits acquired the praise which had been so handsomely bestowed on him, but it was by his own merit that he owed the appointment which he had received at the hands of Her Majesty's late Government. In selecting Sir H. Pottinger for the Chinese mission he had been in no way influenced by his political opinions. He did not to that hour know what those opinions were, and he had selected him solely in consequence of the ability which he displayed in performing the duties of the appointment which he formerly held in India. In justice to Her Majesty's Government he might express his belief that the successor of Sir H. Pottinger owed his appointment to similar consideration, and certainly it was doubly honourable to that gallant Officer, that having been appointed by one Government for his merit, he had by his merit obtained the approbation of another.
The Papers to be printed.

THE LAW OF PARTNERSHIP.
Mr. Gladstonerose for the purpose of moving for a Committee of the whole House to consider the state of the Law of Partnership, with a view to providing for the following purposes, viz.:—For the Registra-

1755
tion of Joint Stock Companies, and for conferring on such Companies certain privileges of Corporate Bodies, subject to the payment of certain fees, and on certain conditions and regulations, and for preventing the establishment of fraudulent Companies; for the regulation of Joint-Stock Companies; for facilitating and improving the remedies at Law and in Equity in reference to Joint-Stock Companies, their members, directors, and other officers, whether inter se or in relation to persons not being members thereof, and for winding up the affairs of Companies unable to meet their pecuniary engagements; and for enabling private Partnerships to register the names of their partners, and to sue and be sued in the name of their firm. The propositions he had to make, or the greater part of them, were founded on a Report of the Select Committee of that House which sat during several Sessions of Parliament for the purpose of investigating the position of Joint-Stock Companies. The inquiry had not been extended to that important class of subjects connected with banking; but with that limitation the whole of the rest of the subject had been investigated. There were two classes of evils connected with Joint-Stock Companies that required a remedy. The first was the formation of fraudulent companies, into which innocent and inexperienced persons were induced to enter on account of the respectability of the names connected with them, to their own great, and, in many instances, ruinous loss. The other class was that of the formation of companies which, although not dishonest, were badly constructed and unwisely conceived. It was proposed to meet these evils by applying a remedy in various forms. It was not intended by this measure to give an indiscriminate encouragement to Joint-Stock Companies, nor, on the other hand, to impose burthens and restraints upon them other than such as were necessary or were manifestly to the public benefit. And as to those burthens or restraints, they would be attended in many instances with benefit in respect of existing evils. He should first propose to apply to Joint-Stock Companies that which was the most wholesome remedy for a public evil, when it was necessary that there should be a remedy for the public—that of giving a power of public opinion, and creating that responsibility which attached to all acts done in a public cha-
1756
racter. For that purpose he should move in the Committee for leave to bring in a Bill for the Registration of Joint-Stock Companies; but in registering those Companies it would be necessary to recognize them for certain purpose as corporate bodies. That was an important change in the law. At the same time, it did not change the course of the law, but rather accelerated it; because, in the present state of the law, Joint-Stock Companies had, under the pressure of absolute necessity, extorted, piecemeal, from the courts of law, a recognition of their distinct existence; and, without any strictly statutory title, they had become, to all intents and purposes, recognized creatures in the eye of the law. He should propose that the Companies on being registered and subjecting themselves to inspection, both with regard to the persons who conducted them, and likewise the mode in which the affairs themselves were conducted, should acquire in all cases the privilege of suing and being sued, and therefore of doing certain legal acts, for the purposes for which they are associated, with as much facility as they could be done by individuals. At the present moment Joint-Stock Companies had not ability to appoint any memner of their body in whose name they could sue and be sued. It was undoubtedly conferring a great boon on them to enable them to do so; but it was giving to the public a much greater boon, because he believed it would be admitted that the present inability of Joint-Stock Companies to sue and to be sued was an inability of which they contrived to avoid the effects for purposes beneficial to avoid the effects for purposes beneficial to themselves. There were modes in which, by the intervention of trustees, they might attain many of the purposes which they could more directly attain if they were legally entitled to sue; but, when we came to regard them as bodies which required to be sued, their present inability was a complete bar to the public, and, therefore, in giving Joint-Stock Companies the power, both to sue and to be sued, we were giving the public a complete means of calling them to account when guilty of malversation. What was given to them was to be justified on the ground of its being a boon to particular bodies, but a much more important boon to the public. Independently of the system of registration, he proposed to provide, by another Bill, for the regulation of Joint-

1757
Stock Companies, by which was meant a certain amount of provision, which, of course, it would be in the discretion of the House to restrict or extend, for the purpose of determining the constitution of Joint-Stock Companies. It was at present usual, in Acts of Incorporation obtained from Parliament to provide for the constitution of Joint-Stock Companies; and now that they were going to make all Joint-Stock Companies, in some sense, recognised by Statute, it seemed obviously to follow, that they should take those securities from Joint-Stock Companies at large which heretofore it had been usual to take in those particular isolated cases which were the subject of statutory enactment. He proposed also to meet another great evil of the present state of these Associations, viz., the extreme deficiency of legal remedies, both as applicable to remedies of shareholders against the managers and directors, and likewise as applicable to the remedies of the public against these Companies. This, perhaps, of all parts of the subject, was one on which it was least convenient for him to enter in the present early stage of the business, but the resolution of the Committee on Joint-Stock Companies, which was recently laid on the Table, would explain the measures he proposed to take to facilitate and improve these remedies at Law and Equity; and he trusted that the Bill, which he should shortly lay on the Table, would completely explain this to the House. Lastly, it would be his duty to ask the House to bring in a Bill to introduce modifications into a particular part of the Law of Partnership, as related to private partners. It was well known that private partnerships laboured to a considerable extent, although not to the same extent, under those inconveniences which attached to Joint-Stock Companies—viz., that although there was really no ground for exercising over them the restraints which the Legislature ought to exercise over large associations of persons associated together on the principle of Joint-Stock Companies, yet private partnerships were not in the condition of being able to appoint any person to use the common name under which they acted for the legal purpose of suing those against whom they might have claims. It was obvious, that if the House were to confer on Joint-Stock Companies the power of suing and being sued, and were to withhold that
1758
power from private partnerships, there would be very great danger of their acting in contravention of a principle which had received almost universal sanction in the regulation of commercial concerns in this country; which principle he took to be that where you could attain a commercial purpose by means of private partnership you should attain it by those means, and you should only resort to those larger associations in which the principle of responsibility and individual vigilance of control was weaker, in cases which were exceptional, and where from the amount of capital required, or the extent of the risk, you could not work out your purpose by other means. On that ground he proposed, lastly, to bring in a Bill to enable private partnerships, associated for mercantile purposes, to sue and to be sued. He would not at this moment go into the details of these measures, but would move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider the state of the Law of Partnership.
House in Committee, when the following Resolutions were adopted:—

1. That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill for the Registration of Joint-Stock Companies, and for conferring on such Companies certain privileges of Corporate Bodies, subject to the payment of certain fees, and on certain conditions and regulations, and for preventing the establishment of Fraudulent Companies.

2. That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill for the regulation of Joint-Stock Companies.

3. That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill for facilitating and improving the remedies at Law and in Equity, in reference to Joint-Stock Companies, their Members, Directors, and other Officers, whether inter se or in relation to persons not being members thereof, and for winding up the affairs of Companies unable to meet their pecuniary engagements.

4. That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave he given to bring in a Bill for enabling private partnerships to register the names of their Partners, and to sue and be sued in their name of their firm.

House resumed.
Resolutions reported and Bills accordingly ordered to be brought in.

UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN.
Mr. Wysemoved for various Returns relative to the incomes of Dublin University and Maynooth College.
Sir R. Peelthought that it would be establishing a dangerous principle to call for returns from a public institution which like the University of Dublin did not receive any grant of public money. Such a Motion ought not to be consented to without serious consideration. He also objected to the House requiring any specification of the religious opinions of the Members of the University. He hoped that the hon. Member would not call for a return from any institution receiving no public aid or emolument.
Mr. Shawthought, that the hon. Member could scarcely press his Motion. The University of Dublin did not receive any grant of public money. He thought the Return required in the third paragraph, with reference to the "emoluments enjoyed by the provost, senior and junior fellows, scholars, professors, and other officers of the University of Dublin," would be most invidious. They had no right to pry into the private emoluments of these parties. With regard to the "fellows," it was well known that they must be Protestants. The undergraduates embraced both Roman Catholics and Protestants, and a large number of the former were yearly educated in that University.
1760
All the honours and emoluments of the University were as much open to Roman Catholic undergraduates as to Protestants.
Mr. Wysedid not attach much importance to the observation of the right hon. Member; but he did to the objection of the right hon. Baronet. If his Motion was not within the jurisdiction of the House, of course he would not press it. He merely wished to show that, by the Constitution of the University, many Roman Catholics were deterred from entering it. The Professorships of the University were open to Roman Catholics as well as Protestants. He wished by his Motion to show, how few of these Professorships were held by gentlemen of the Roman Catholic persuasion. He would withdraw the first part of his motion, but he trusted that the House would not object to the second part.
Sir R. Peelstill objected to a return of the emoluments of the officers of the University, who were paid by fees, and not by a public grant.
Mr. Wysesaid, he would withdraw his Motion, with the view to its alteration.
Motion withdrawn.
House adjourned to Monday the 15th of April.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Forestalling, Regrating, and Engrossing; Bail in Error; Edinburgh Poor Assessment
3a. and passed:—Dean Forest Encroachments; International Copyright.
Received the Royal Assent.—Mutiny; Marine Mutiny; Indemnity.
Private—2a. Brandes Burton Inclosure.
Reported.—Severn Navigation; Great Western Railway.
3a. and passed:—Edinburgh Cattle Market; Rochdale Gas.
Received the Royal Assent.—Ribble Navigation; Bury (Huntingdonshire) Inclosure; Ramsey Inclosure.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Earl of Roseberry, from Birkinhead and Manchester, against the Dissenters Chapels Bill.—By Lord Lorton, from Hepworth, and from Poslingford, and 3 other places, against any further Grant to Maynooth, or Payment of Romish Priesthood by the State.—By Lord Campbell, from Portaferry, in favour of the Presbyterian and Dissenters Marriages (Ireland) Bill.—By the Marquess of Bute, from Glasgow, and other places, in favour, and by the Marquess of Lansdowne, from Paisley and Greenock, against, the present Laws respecting Scotch Universities.

RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE.
Lord Monteaglebrought in a Bill to repeal certain Laws now upon the statute-book but obsolete in practice, though liable to be brought into mischievous operation at any time, restricting the purchase and sale of goods, which restrictions were opposed to the spirit of modern legislation, and if carried into effect would interfere with almost every operation of trade. In Ireland, none of these Acts had been repealed, and his object was to make the law similar to that in England, and also to improve the latter. This was only pursuing the same course which had been long since recommended in the House of Commons.
Bill read a first time.

CRIMINAL APPEALS.
Lord Campbellrose to present to their Lordships a Bill of some importance as connected with the administration of justice, which had been prepared, not by himself, but by an hon. Friend in the other House of Parliament, where it was intended to have been brought in, but as it affected the judicial jurisdiction of their Lordships, it was found that in the House of Lords only could it properly be introduced. The object of the Bill was to remove a great objection which, as the law now stood, might be taken against the administration of justice in this country respecting Appeals and Writs of Error. Their Lordships would be aware that the right of Appeal was given both in civil and criminal cases; respecting the decision in an Appeal in one of the latter class of cases, he had that night presented a petition in which the Appeal had been against a conviction for bigamy. In civil cases the parties prosecuting the Appeal entered into recognizances of double the amount in dispute, and the execution of the judgment was suspended until the

1743
decision on the Writ of Error was given. There was, consequently, in civil cases, no difficulty. But in criminal cases much doubt existed as to what should be done with the party convicted while the Appeal was pending—that was, whether or not the sentence should be carried into effect pending the Appeal. As an instance of the inconvenience and injustice which might be inflicted by carrying the sentence into effect, notwithstanding an Appeal against the conviction, suppose the case of a man sentenced to transportation, he might be sent abroad before the Appeal was decided, though it might be ultimately found that the conviction was wrong, and the party undeserving of punishment; while on the other hand, if the sentence were unconditionally suspended until the superior court had decided, every criminal would appeal in the hope of delaying or escaping the punishment due to his offence. To remedy this, the Bill he was about to submit provided that upon the defendant giving security to the satisfaction of the Court, and in such sum as the Court might direct, that any fine that might be imposed should be paid, and that the defendant should be forthcoming to undergo any sentence which might be pronounced upon him, that sentence should be suspended until the Court of Appeal should have decided upon the merits of the case. He did not propose that this alteration in the law should be retrospective, and therefore he had inserted a Clause providing that the Bill should not come into operation until the 1st of August next.
Bill read a first time.

FEES To JUSTICES' CLERKS, &c.
The Marquess of Lansdownemoved for a return from each of the Clerks of the Peace at the several Assizes in England and Wales, of the amount of the Fees received by him during each of the last three years ending the 31st of December, 1842;—his object being to bring before their Lordships a tabular statement of those fees in continuation of those returns which had been already ordered in respect to the fees taken by the Clerks of the Magistrates. He would take that opportunity of stating, that having seen the partial returns which had been laid before the other House upon this subject, his opinion was confirmed that this was a case requiring legislative interference—and legislative interference under the authority and
1744
sanction of the Government. From all the information he had obtained he was persuaded that there existed two or three classes of poor persons on whom the system, as it prevailed in regard to these fees, pressed most severely and unjustly, and whose case called for redress. In the first place, there were those poor persons, who, though guilty of small offences, were, by the practical effect of that system, subjected to a punishment out of all proportion to the offence committed; then there were those persons who were charged with those small offences, but were acquitted; and then, though declared to be guilty of no crime, were nevertheless punished by being taxed with certain fees; then again, there were those persons, who, in the protection of their own property, found it necessary to prosecute, and then, though prosecuting justly, were yet subjected themselves to punishment in the shape of pecuniary demands made upon them, and which they were compelled to pay. In regard to the first class of persons, those who were convicted and sentenced to pay such fines, this was a matter which pressed most heavily upon them, because the costs which they were called upon to pay also amounted in many cases to twenty or thirty times the amount of the fine. For instance, in one case a man had been fined 1s., and the costs were 22 s. 6d. Thus, as he had stated, there was no proportion between the crime and the punishment to which the unfortunate culprit was subjected. On the other hand, the charge to which the prosecutor was liable deterred him in many cases from prosecuting the offender. A clergyman had informed him that in one case, in which a farmer had prosecuted a party for stealing some trifling articles of garden produce, he had been mulcted in the sum of 18 s. as fees; and the consequence had been, that in that parish no one would now prosecute, and a system of lawlessness, resulting from the impunity with which these crimes could be committed, prevailed. He was sure this was a question in which all their Lordships would feel a deep interest; and he thought, in addition to the Motion he made, considering the subject had been noticed both in that and the other House of Parliament, and had attracted the attention of the right hon. the Home Secretary, it was not too much to ask the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) now to state whether the Government had any

1745
intention to do that which no private Member of either House could do so effectually—viz., to introduce some measure of legislation to remedy the evil?
The Duke of Wellingtonreplied, that his attention having been called to the subject, he had consulted with his noble Friend as to the course to be adopted, and his noble Friend, admitting fully its importance, had turned his attention to it, and had now under consideration measures for remedying the grievance complained of in regard to the fees paid to the Clerks of the Peace, Clerks of Assize, and Clerks to the Magistrates at petty sessions. It was intended to submit those measures to Parliament during the present Session. He could not now state at what time, but he assured their Lordships that it should be at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Wharncliffewas informed upon good authority that the fees which had been referred to did not go wholly to the Magistrates' Clerks, but were generally appropriated to defraying the incidental expenses of the trial, such as paying witnesses and constables, so that very often only a very small amount of the fees reached the Clerk of the Peace.
Lord Beaumontsaid, it was a mistake to suppose that the whole of the fees went to the Magistrates' Clerks. They received a very small proportion of them, the rest going towards the necessary expenses.
Lord Redesdalesaid, there was another erroneous impression which he was anxious to correct. It was mentioned as the gist of the complaint that a small fine, as of 1s., did carry large costs, the fact being that the Magistrates in inflicting such a small fine upon a poor man did so in consideration of the amount of costs; whereas, if the defendant had been a public company or a richer party, the fine inflicted would have been much higher.
The Marquess of Lansdowneobserved, that the Magistrates could not always tell beforehand what the costs would be.
Lord Colchestersaid, that he considered it the duty of a Magistrate to inquire what the costs would be, and that such was the practice at the Sessions which he attended. Besides, in many cases the Act of Parliament provided that the fine and costs should not together exceed a certain amount.
Lord Campbellsaid, that as the subject was about to be taken into consideration by Her Majesty's Government, there was
1746
one point upon which he hoped they would take care to make provision, namely, that the amount of fees should not depend upon the length of the proceedings. He knew that great extortion was practised at present by swelling out the proceedings, for the mere purpose of increasing the costs at so much per folio.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned.