Sitting of 21 June 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public,—1°. Protection of Purchasers, etc. (Ireland); Juvenile Offenders.
Reported.—Customs Duties (Isle of Man).
3°. and passed:—County Rates, etc.; County Coroners.
Private.— 3°. and passed:—Campbell's Estate; London and South Western Railway (No. 1); Marquess of Ailsa's Estate.

KIDDERMINSTER AND BIRMINGHAM PRISONS.
Mr. W. O. Stanley, seeing the Secretary of State for the Home Department in his place, hoped he would allow him to ask a question which he had put to him at an early period of the Session, as his question related to so great a public grievance. He alluded to the state of the Prisons attached to the Court of Requests at Kidderminster and Birmingham. When he had previously questioned the right hon. Gentleman upon the subject the right hon. Barotnet had promised to do all that lay in his power, and stated that he was in correspondence with the Magistrates to remedy the abuses complained of. He had the fullest confidence in the sincerity of the right hon. Baronet to do as he had stated, but the attention of the public had been directed to the subject, and it would be satisfactory to have an assurance upon the subject. He would state the condi-
1208
tion of the prison at Kidderminster. That statement he had received from a person of whom he had no knowledge, but he believed it to be correct. The prison, or rather dungeon, attached to the Court of Requests there was a small building so constructed that very little sun could reach it or the inmates. The dimensions of the yard were about twelve feet square, the wall about sixteen or eighteen feet high. There was a small room level with the yard, which was both the day-room and the bed-room. The prisoners were not allowed blankets nor fire, and this prohibition extended through the winter season. All they had beyond their own clothing was an old coat; nor were they allowed to have any food beyond their regular allowance (except a little tea), which was a half-quartern loaf for two days, and water. Their bed was loose straw, and they were locked from six o'clock in the evening until eight or nine next morning. There was no resident keeper. The beadle of the court in whose custody they were, lived at a distance, nor had they the least means of calling for assistance should sudden illness overtake them. This evil had existed as long as the Act, which had now been in operation for sixty-six years. The questions which he wished to put to the right hon. Baronet were—first, if Lord Cottenham's Bill would abolish these Courts of Requests, and the prisons, or rather dens, which were attached to them, and which were a discredit to the country? Secondly, if any inquiry had taken place at Kidderminster? Lastly, if the correspondence respecting the Birmingham Court of Requests' prisons was concluded to the satisfaction of the Home Secretary?
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that as to the prison attached to the Court of Requests at Kidderminster, the information of the hon. Member rested upon the statement of an individual who was unknown to him. Inconsequence of a communication which he had received he had sent an inspector to Kidderminster to report. This step had been taken at a recent period, and be had not yet received the Report, although it was about to be made. As to the prison attached to the Court of Requests at Birmingham, he had informed the House of the Report made by the inspector whom, he had sent down there upon the imperfections of the system prevailing in that prison, and that he had called upon the

1209
authorities to rectify them. He had not, however, since received any satisfactory report that any person had been appointed by the authorities to remove the abuses complained of. It would therefore be his duty to apply to the Court of Queen's Bench to enforce the alterations required. The House would be aware that the Secretary of State for the Home Department had no power in himself to act. As to the state of the law upon the subject, the County Courts Bill then before them would remove many of the imperfections complained of; and in the other House there was a Bill in an advanced state for regulating similar matters. It would soon come down to that House, and it would be for hon. Members to consider the principle, and the efficacy of its provisions for removing these abuses in Prisons.

DEMERARA LOAN—IMMIGRATION.
Mr. Hawes, as he saw the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, in his place, wished to ask him if he had any copies of the Ordinance passed by the Court in Demerara, authorising a loan of 500,000 l,., to be secured by the duties on all imports into the Colony, and applied to the purposes of immigration? He also wished to know whether another Ordinance extended the security to the Civil List for seven years, contingent on the refusal of Her Majesty's sanction to the first? He wished likewise to know whether there were any copies of a Decree passed by that Colony removing the restrictions on female immigration? He knew of no objection existing either then or thereafter to laying copies of such despatches upon the Table, and the doing so would be satisfactory to the parties interested, on whose behalf he had put the question.
Lord Stanleysaid, that there had been received by the last mail an Ordinance of the Legislature in Demerara authorising certain persons, upon the granting of Her Majesty's Assent thereto, to raise a loan of the amount which the hon. Member had mentioned in this country. This had been brought to him, and inquiries had been made as to the intention of Government. He then said that he could not then approve of the Ordinance, on the ground that it had been passed in great haste, only one day having elapsed in discussing and passing it. As it had been represented to him that the Colony had not had any op-
1210
portunity of expressing its opinion on the subject, he would postpone taking any step until he had obtained further information upon the state of feeling in the Colony with regard to the scheme. All this did not interfere with immigration for the present year. As to the question of immigration in Demerara it was found that the proportion of females required for that purpose was so great, and their number in the Colony was so small, that it was necessary for the State to interfere. All the papers relating to immigration to the West Indies had been already laid before the House with the exception of one despatch, and that he had no objection to produce. As to emigration from the East Indies a correspondence had been going on with the Governor General upon the subject, and he could state that a measure was under the consideration of Government, requiring that a certain number of women should accompany every batch of emigrants from India. The question had not yet, however, been decided, because great difficulty existed in prevailing on respectable women to accompany their husbands as emigrants; and it were required that a certain number of women should accompany each batch of emigrants, the class of women who would so accompany them would not be likely to conduce to the cause of respectability or morality. With regard to the Ordinance for the Civil List, it depended on the other Ordinance, but the Civil List related to the year 1847; so that there was ample time to take it into consideration.

ABINGDON ELECTION — SCRAMBLE MONEY.
Mr. Christiewould take that opportunity of putting a question to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, which the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite competent to answer if he pleased. He (Mr. Christie) observed by the Votes that the hon. and learned Gentleman had—no doubt as the organ of Government—last night obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the Disfranchisement of Sudbury. The question which he was about to put, and of which he had given the hon. and learned Gentleman due notice, arose out of the proceedings at the late election for Abingdon. The question was this—whether it were or were not true, that on the close of that election, the hon. and learned Member, while seated in his triumphal chair, and borne about in

1211
grand procession, had distributed the sum of 50 1., by scattering it amongst the crowd from a bag of silver which he held in his hand. He did not make this statement on his own authority, but on that of a communication made to him. In that account it was said, that at twelve o'clock the chairing procession moved off from the Crown and Thistle Inn, preceded by a brass band, consisting; of some twenty old men. Then followed many of the hon. and learned Gentleman's supporters, after whom the hon. and learned Gentleman himself was borne in his triumphal chair. The account sent to him went on to say, that an election was always a very important matter at Abingdon, but the chairing was the most important thing of all for on that occasion it was customary for the successful candidate to scatter what was called "scramble money" from a bag of silver which he had in front of him. The amount of scramble money thus distributed varied according to the feelings of the Member. In Mr. Maberly's time, the amount of scramble silver was said to be at least 150 l. Mr. Duffield used to scatter about half that amount, but in the case of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, the scramble silver did not, it was said, exceed 50 l. It was curious to see men and boys, nay, even old women and children, holding out their aprons and caps, while the Solicitor General like an elegant Gentleman as he was, was scattering the silver among them, and for which they were pushing, jostling, scrambling, and fighting, in much admired confusion. He was not answerable for the eloquence of this description, he gave the account as he got it. He did not mean to say that this practice was against the law as it now stood, but certainly it was not calculated to exalt the character of any hon. Member who made himself a party to it. He hoped he should be excused for having put the question, which he had put, not from any personal feeling but with the view of promoting the principle of purity of Parliamentary election.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, that a very inconvenient, and, as it appeared to him, a very irregular practice had been introduced into that House, of putting questions to Members, not in relation to any business before the House, or to any Bills with which Members were charged, but with regard to matters wholly foreign to such topics, and relating to occurrences
1212
in a very different place, and which had no connection with the business before the House, however they might excite the curiosity of hon. Members. The hon. Member had, so long ago as yesterday week, given him notice of his intention to ask this question, but circumstances had prevented him from attending on the evening to which the notice referred: but he had hoped that the opportunity of reflection afforded the hon. and learned Member in the interval would have induced him to give consideration to the extreme impropriety of putting a question of this description. He certainly should not by his practice on this occasion, give his countenance to such a course, and he should, therefore, beg leave most decidedly though without the least want of respect for the hon. and learned Gentleman to decline answering that question.
Mr. Christiesaid, that of course the hon. and learned Gentleman would do as he pleased with respect to the question. He had said, on putting it, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite competent to answer it or not as he liked; but as the hon. and learned Gentleman was a Member of the Government, and as in that character he was one of those who obtained leave to bring in a Bill for disfranchising the borough of Sudbury, he did hope he should stand excused for having put his question, relating, as he conceived it did, to a matter connected with purity of Parliamentary election.
Subject at an end.

SUGAR DUTIES.
Report on the Sugar Duties Bill brought up and read.
On the question that the Amendments be read a second time,
Mr. Ewartsaid, that his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) being unavoidably absent, had requested him to embody the Motion of which his hon. Friend had given notice. He objected to the Bill as it now stood, because it was uncertain in its application, and because the merchants would not know how to act under it. He also objected to it because it left Government the power to say, from time to time, what sugar should be admitted and what should not. This was a power which might be abused; but, at all events, it was most objectionable in this—that it was a transfer of the legislative power of that House to the President of the Board of Trade. It was said that the preterit measure had

1213
for its main object the putting down of the Slave Trade. They had already attempted that by means of treaties and steamers and gun-boats; but they had failed. By our former measures on this subject we had interfered with the external relation of Foreign States. By the present Bill we were about to interfere in their internal affairs. But in this we should also fail, for the Bill was based on erroneous principles. He would call on the House to adopt one of two alternatives—either to define more clearly what were the terms on which free-labour sugars were to be admitted, or at once to admit foreign slave-labour sugars. This was not a question of party, but of principle, and he hoped the House would so consider it. The present measure did not set the door of importation fully open; but rather left it ajar, and so did not do justice to either party. He concluded by moving to leave out from the words
"That the, to the end of the question, in order to add the words, "distinction sought to be established between free-labour and slave-labour sugar not being supported by any adequate definition in the Bill, and such absence of definition (while it devolves an unusual and objectionable amount of discretionary power on the Government) leaving the British and foreign merchant in a state of uncertainty as to the import of sugar, it is expedient, either clearly to define the limits within which the merchant is to act, or to admit free-labour and slave-labour sugar at the same rate of duty."
Mr. Jamessaid, that the Motion now before the House was neither more nor less than one which had been brought forward on a former occasion, and against which the hon. Member for Montrose had both voted and spoke. If anything at his time of life could astonish him, it would be the fact of the hon. Member for Montrose putting such a Notice as the present on the books of the House. It would seem as if the hon. Member had been down to Epsom among the jockies, and, tutored by them, had endeavoured to run an aged horse and a feather against a three-year old and twelve stone. But it would not do. The House would not be taken in by the attempt. He should like to know from Her Majesty's Government whether they intended to give up the emancipation scheme or not? If they intended to act on it, and carry it fully out, it must be by extensive immigration of free-labour in our West-India Colonies. It was said that we
1214
might bring in free-labour to a large amount from India. Upon this point it had struck him as a question for consideration, whether regiments of Sepoys might not be induced to do duty in our West-India Colonies, and after a few years obtain small portions of land, which they might be willing to cultivate by a bounty of a small pension, and that after a little time their officers might be induced to assist in this plan by similar encouragement. At all events, it would enable them to supersede the black regiments, and thus increase, to a certain extent, the number of labourers in the Colonies. He would also put it to the Home Secretary whether convict-labour might not advantageously be employed in the West Indies? In many parts of Jamaica and the other islands they might be employed without serious injury to their health, and thus be enabled to earn a great portion of their subsistence, while the punishment inflicted would be greater. On the whole, he could not support this Motion, because he thought it unjust.
Mr. D. Barclaygave the Government credit for their desire to carry out the great plan of the abolition of slavery. He hoped when they introduced their measure next Session they would bring it forward at an early period, and would effect a permanent settlement of the question, for until it was settled trade would be embarrassed, the revenue would be impaired, and all persons connected with the Colonies would suffer injury. He could not support the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the question:—Ayes 183; Noes 65: Majority 118.

List of the AYES.

Ackers, J.

Barrington, Visct.

A'Court, Capt.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Acton, Col.

Bateson, T.

Adderley, C. B.

Beckett, W.

Allix, J. P.

Beresford, Major

Antrobus, E.

Blandford, Marq. of

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Borthwick, P.

Arkwright, G.

Botfield, B.

Astell, W.

Bowles, Admiral

Bailey, J.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Baillie, Col.

Brownrigg, J. S.

Baird, W.

Bruce, Lord E.

Bankes, G.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Barclay, D.

Buck, L. W.

Baring, T.

Buckley, E.

Barneby, J.

Bunbury, T.

1215

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Hornby, J.

Campbell, Sir H.

Houldsworth, T.

Campbell, J. H.

Hughes, W. B.

Chapman, A.

Hussey, A.

Chelsea, Visct.

Hussey, T.

Chute, W. L. W.

Irton, S.

Clayton, R. R.

James, W.

Clerk, Sir G.

Jermyn, Earl

Codrington, Sir W.

Jones, Capt.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Ker, D. S.

Cresswell, B.

Knight, F. W.

Cripps, W.

Lefroy, A.

Damer, hon. Col.

Legh, G. C.

Darby, G.

Lennox, Lord A.

Davies, D. A. S.

Lincoln, Earl of

Denison, E. B.

Lindsay, H. H.

Dodd, G.

Long, W.

Douglas, Sir H

Lopez, Sir R.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Lyall, G.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Douro, Marq. of

McGeachy, F. A.

Dowdeswell, W.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Drummond, H. H.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Dugdale, W. S.

McNeill, D.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Mahon, Visct.

Du Pre, C. G.

Mainwaring, T.

East, J. B.

Manners, Lord J.

Eastnor, Visct.

Meynell, Capt.

Egerton, Sir P.

Mildmay, H. St. J.

Eliot, Loid

Milnes, R. M.

Entwistle, W.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Estcott, B.

Morgan, O.

Eastcourt, T. G. B.

Mundy, E. M.

Feilden, W.

Neville, R.

Ferrand, W. B.

Newport, Visct.

Forman, T. S.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Norreys, Lord

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

O'Brien, A. S.

Gladstone, Capt.

Palmer, R.

Godson, R.

Palmer, G.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Gore, M.

Peel, J.

Gore, W. O.

Plumptre, J. P.

Goulburt, rt. hon. H.

Polhill, F.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Pollington, Visct.

Greene, T.

Powell, Col.

Gregory, W. H.

Richards, R.

Grimsditch, T.

Rolleston, Col.

Grogan, E.

Round, C. G.

Halford, Sir H.

Round, J.

Hamilton, J. H.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Hamilton, G. A.

Russell, C.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Russell, J. D. W.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Shaw, rt, hon. F.

Harcourt, G. G.

Shirley, E. J.

Hardy, J.

Shirley, E. P.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Sibthorp, Col.

Hayes, Sir E.

Smith, A.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Smollett, A.

Henley, J. W.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Hervey, Lord A.

Stanley, Lord

Hodson, F.

Sturt, H. C.

Hodgson, R.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Hope, hon. C.

Tennant, J. E.

Hope, G. W.

Thesiger, Sir F.

1216

Thompson, Ald.

Vesey, hon. T.

Thornhill, G.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Tollemache. hon. F. J.

Whitmore, T. C.

Tollemache, J.

Wodehouse, E.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Wood, Col.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Wynn, rt. hn. C. W. W.

Trotter, J.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Turner, E.

TELLERS.

Verner, Col.

Young, J.

Vernon, G. H.

Baring, H.

List of the NOES.

Archbold, R.

Marsland, H.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Muntz, G. F.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Murphy, F. S.

Barnard, E. G.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Bouverie, hon. E.

O'Brien, J.

Bowes, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Brotherton, J.

O'Conor Don

Buller, E.

Paget, Col.

Busfeild, W.

Pattison, J.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Philips, M.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Plumridge, Capt.

Collett, J.

Ponson, hn. C. F. A. S.

Curteis, H. B.

Rawdon, Col.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Redington, T. N.

Dashwood, G. H.

Ricardo, J. L.

Dennison, W. J.

Rice, E. R.

Dennistoun, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Duncan, G.

Scholefield, J.

Duncannon, Visct.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Dundas, Adm.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Dundas, D.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Easthope, Sir J.

Stanton, W. H.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Strickland, Sir G.

Ferguson, Col.

Thornely, T.

French, F.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Tufnel, H.

Howard, hn. C. W. G.

Warburton, H.

Howard, hn. E. G. G.

Ward, H. G.

Howick, Visct.

Wawn, J. T.

Langston, J. H.

White, H.

Langton, W. G.

Yorke, H. R.

Layard, Capt.

TELLERS.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Ewart, W.

McTaggart, Sir J.

Bowring, Dr.

Amendments agreed to. Bill to be read a third time.

DISSENTERS CHAPELS.
Upon the Order of the Day being read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Dissenters Chapels Bill,
Mr. Plumptresaid, he had, after the recent events that had occurred, entertained the hope that Her Majesty's Ministers would have moved the Order of the Day for the purpose of its being discharged. He hoped they would have paid some deference to public opinion, intimated as that had been by 350,000 signatures to petitions against this Bill. All the orthodox Dissenters prayed that such

1217
a Bill should not receive the sanction of the Legislature. He was surprised that such a Bill had received the support of Ministers, for a large portion of their friends had opposed them on the last occasion that this Bill was before the House. If this Bill had been proposed by the noble Lord opposite when sitting on the Ministerial Benches, it would have been opposed by every man of the present Ministry. The Appropriation Clause in the Irish Church Bill was honesty—absolute purity—compared to this Bill. It would violate sacred trusts, and would operate practically in favour of that class of men, who, in the opinion of the great majority of the Christian community, entertained most dangerous doctrines. He assured the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, that the wound inflicted by this Bill was one that would be felt keenly, and would not soon be healed. To hurt Socinians was one thing, but to endow them with property they wrongfully possessed was another. This Bill was withdrawing the key-stone from the arch of Christianity. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macaulay) who succeeded him on the last occasion, endeavoured to hunt him down; but, he should be unworthy of his present situation, if he did not endeavour to express sentiments that came from the bottom of his heart. It was in vain to appeal to the feelings of Her Majesty's Ministers, and though it might not be possible for him to stop the measure, he would try.
Lord J. Russellsaid, none would doubt the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He knew many amongst his own supporters who entertained similar opinions with equal sincerity, and who had intimated to him their intention of withdrawing their support from him should he support this Bill. Notwithstanding this, he must say, after due consideration, that there never was a Bill as to the propriety of which he entertained a stronger conviction. He could not help thinking that the hon. Gentleman, as well as those who had exclaimed so loudly against the Bill out of doors, had mixed up two questions together. Both the hon. Members and the individuals to whom he had alluded, had put forward their religious objections to the doctrines held by the Unitarians. But if this objection was to be allowed to interfere with their political discussions, they ought to have
1218
interfered to exclude this class of Dissenters from the Act of Toleration. Parliament had, however, justly as he thought, decided otherwise; and he, therefore, could not see any reason for making a distinction between Unitarians and others in respect of these funds or trusts. They ought to be treated in the same way as though they were Baptists, or Wesleyan Methodists. The hon. Member (Mr. Plumptre) was not of that opinion; but he maintained that to uphold any other principle was to confess that religious liberty and toleration were not the rule of legislation. He should rather call it religious persecution. If they meant not to tolerate the propagation of certain doctrines, let them do so by direct laws. Such was his opinion in reference to that part of the hon. Member's Speech, in which he stated his strong repugnance to granting any advantages to the Unitarians. As a question of property, the measure had been already fully argued. It had been truly said, that with respect to many of these sects, changes of opinion had taken place from time to time, from the circumstances of their not being bound together like an Establishment, and that, therefore, where you have no means of ascertaining the precise doctrines intended to be taught, a certain period of time should be allowed to give a prescriptive right. If this were denied, he had yet to learn to whom this property should be given. If these congregations, the direct followers of the direct descendants of the pastors who preached immediately after the Revolution, were to be excluded, how could it be proved that any other denomination of Dissenters, Independents, Baptists, or Wesleyan Methodists, were entitled to the property in their possession. The utmost that could be done, would be, to direct that the property should be given to the Crown. He was convinced that, although toleration was not given to the Unitarians till 1813, yet in practice, toleration had existed during the last century. He believed that if such a case had come forward at the time of Sir Robert Walpole or Lord Chatham, the Socinians never would have been divested of their property by the pretence of a Court of Law. The Bill, in his opinion, was merely doing an act of justice to a particular class of Dissenters, and the question of religion ought, he thought, to be kept entirely out of view.
Sir R. Peelafter the observations of his hon. Friend (Mr. Plumptre) of whose sincerity he was perfectly convinced, felt himself bound to state, that subsequent reflection, and a consideration of the arguments used in the former debates by the most able men, had not induced him in the slightest degree to vary from the opinions he had formerly expressed. His hon. Friend said that he had expected that, after what had passed, the Government would only have moved the Order upon this Bill for the purpose of withdrawing it. Now, if the Government had taken such a course on account of anything that had recently passed, they would have been discredited and disgraced in public estimation. At any rate, his hon. Friend had, in the course of his observations conclusively proved that Government could have no other object in consenting to press this Bill than that of promoting what they believed to be justice. The parties chiefly interested in the Bill (according to his hon. Friend) were the opponents of the Government. The Government could not have had it in view to conciliate public support, for the measure was not agreeable to their ordinary supporters. And many of the most zealous members of the Established Church, and many of those classes of Dissenters who were distinguished by their adherence to a faith the influence of which was evidenced in their lives were opposed to the Bill. But the Government considered the question not one of faith, but of property. And there was no ground for saying that an assent to the measure implied any species of sanction to the religious tenets of any sect which might be benefited by it. The Government, however, considered that if it were not passed there would occur something approaching to a legal crusade, on religious grounds against certain classes; and therefore, impelled by a regard for justice, for peace, and for harmony, they had resolved—not to " endow " any religious sect, but to extend to all classes of religious opinions equally the protection of this measure. He concurred in the argument of the noble Lord opposite, that if Parliament had intended to subject Unitarians to the disadvantages and disabilities involved in a concession to the arguments of those who opposed this measure, toleration would not have been extended to that sect. He had only
1220
to observe, in conclusion, that he much regretted his hon. Friend should have talked of "recent circumstances" as nothing but a conviction and a sense of justice could have induced them to take the course they had adopted upon this measure.
Mr. Shawfelt that was not the time for any general discussion of the principle of the Bill; but after the observations of his right hon. Friend, as well as those of the noble Lord, he would beg to say a few words before the Speaker left the Chair. He agreed that the question should be discussed as one rather of property than of religious faith; but putting it upon that ground, he thought great misapprehension existed in the House as to what were the real objections to the measure. The truth was, the case of the opponents, to the Bill had come before the House under very great disadvantage. An hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Worcester (Sir T. Wilde), who had, as he was informed, undertaken to state the case of the English Dissenters, in opposition to the measure on the second reading, who had advised them in the course to he pursued, and was thoroughly acquainted with their entire case, had, the evening before the second reading of the Bill in that House, informed them that he had changed his opinion, and that he must the next night, as he did, vote against the Bill. He did not mention the fact for the sake of throwing censure on the hon. and learned Member, who, no doubt, had good reasons for the line he had adopted, but merely to account for the case of the opponents not having been as fully stated as it otherwise would have been. There was then an hon. Friend of his, the Member for Coleraine (Mr. Boyd), himself a Member of the Presbyterian body, and personally acquainted with the constitution of the Synod of Ulster, who had been obliged suddenly to leave London, in consequence of illness in his family, after having given notice of several Amendments, and being prepared to afford the House every information respecting the case of that important body, containing an immense majority of the Irish Presbyterians. It was peculiarly their case that would arise upon the Amendment of which he had given notice, and he felt quite incompetent to do them justice, from having little personal knowledge on the subject, and being but imperfectly in-

1221
formed of the facts upon which it depended; he still knew enough, founded upon documents and authority which could not be disputed, to encourage him to think that the House could be satisfied of the perfect fairness and reasonableness of the Amendment he should bring forward on behalf of that body; and he could not believe that the Government would refuse to accede to it. First, however, he begged to say these few words with respect to the Bill generally. The Government professed it to be one of mere justice, and introduced without reference to any particular sects or religious opinions. Now, as regarded the first Clause of the Bill—if he understood that rightly —it was intended to place Unitarians on the same footing with regard to their own endowments, foundations, and properties, as if the acts giving them the full benefit of the Act of Toleration had been in operation at the time those properties accrued to them—and to that he did not object. But the second Clause went much farther, and although it was, no doubt, in its terms general, yet, in fact, it would only operate for the benefit of one class of Dissenters, viz., the Unitarians, and he believed the great majority of all other classes of Dissenters were opposed to it. He was a friend to the principle, that length of time should quiet titles, give security to possession, and to staying litigation; but he conceived that if the Bill passed in its present form, it would work great injustice, sanction the violation of trusts, deprive parties of rights of which they could produce the clearest evidence, and encourage litigation, in order to save the period of limitation running. He would not, however, further anticipate the observations with which he should have to trouble the House on his two Amendments to the 2nd Clause, for exempting the Synod of Ulster from its operation, and extending the period of general limitation From 25 to 60 years.
Mr. Serjeant Murphywished to know if the right hon. the Recorder of Dublin had afforded to his learned Friend the Member for Worcester any intimation of his intention to mention the facts alluded to? If not, he begged to state that the inference he deduced from them was, that the opposition to the measure must be perfectly indefensible if one so eminently sagacious and zealous in any cause he undertook, had found himself, after a
1222
careful examination of the case, compelled to abandon its advocacy. He knew apprehensions had been naturally aroused by the result of the "Lady Hewley's" case, as to the probability of litigation disturbing the possession of property which had been long enjoyed by particular classes—litigation set on foot by parties not interested in the subject-matter of dispute. And the principle and protection of the measure would apply to no one sect more than to another. But he was persuaded that the feeling which rankled against this Bill arose from religious hostility to a certain sect.
Mr. Darbysaid, that the objection of the Dissenters to this Bill was, that it excluded in a particular case evidence which was admissible in all other cases, and on this ground he objected to the Bill. He was not inclined to think that the Bill would prevent litigation, as in his opinion it might lead to as much litigation as existed under the present system; if, as had been asserted, the litigation was promoted by attorneys for their own interest.
Colonel Sibthorpesaid, that if the Member for Kent proceeded to a division he should support him. At the same time it was for the hon. Member for Kent to consider, after what had fallen from the right hon. the Recorder for Dublin, whether he would withdraw his opposition to the Speaker leaving the Chair, and see whether it were possible to amend the Bill in Committee. He objected to the principle of the Bill; and he hardly thought it possible to amend it in Committee.
Mr. J. Collettsaid, that the attack on this Bill had been led on by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, and had been renewed by the hon. Member for Kent. They were the representatives of the high Church party. In the other House the opposition came from two right rev. Prelates, who represented no one but themselves, and who advocated the power and supremacy of the Church. Believing the Bill to be a good measure he should support it.
Sir W. James, although he did not approve of the principles involved in this Bill, expressed a hope that the hon. Member for Kent would not press his opposition to the Motion for going into Committee, when its details could be better considered. With respect to the first Clause of the Bill, he thought that con-

1223
sistently with acts which had been passed in the early part of this century, it could not with any consistency be refused. But he hoped that the second Clause, which was the pinching Clause of the Bill, would not be pressed by Her Majesty's Government.
Mr. Wardsaid, if the second Clause were omitted, the Bill might as well be withdrawn altogether. The right hon. Baronet opposite had said very truly, that this was a measure of property and not of religion; and he must say, as far as his own experience extended, he had found much more intolerance manifested upon the subject by Dissenters than by members of the Church Establishment. For his own part, he supported this measure entirely upon principles of justice, and in the hope of putting a stop to much painful, fruitless, and intricate legislation; and he was extremely glad to hear the right hon. Baronet declare his intention to persevere with it.
Mr. Lawsonopposed the Bill, and in this opposition he was supported by the unanimous feeling of those whom he represented. He had presented Petitions against it, not only from Wesleyans and other Dissenters, but also from members of the Church of England. That House was not the place for religious discussions. He therefore did not oppose the Bill because it was in favour of Unitarians, for he thought that whatever trusts had been left by Unitarians for the benefit of that sect should be devoted to the purpose. But he really thought that the Bill would do more injury to the interest of dissent than the present law, for the adoption of the provision respecting the twenty-five years' usage, would drive persons disposed to leave property to a religious trust to leave it to a sect of decided faith and well-known opinions. He opposed the Bill, because he believed it would create great uncertainty with regard to property.
Colonel Vernerbeing connected with the Presbyterians of the north of Ireland, thought he should not discharge his duty unless he made a few observations on the Bill. The learned Attorney General had endeavoured to point out the justice of the measure, but, as far as he could understand, nothing but injustice would be committed by this Bill. He was opposed to the Bill being considered in a political view, and he, therefore, could not forget an observation which fell from the hon.
1224
Gentleman opposite on the second reading,—that the Catholics were to a man in favour of the measure. He thought that assertion was made to influence the opinions of other hon. Members.
Mr. M. Philipshad too much respect for those with whom he was associated in religious opinions to ask them to support a measure which had been designated out of doors as one of robbery and spoliation. He believed it was a measure of simple justice and equity, if not one of right. In his opinion there was nothing less calculated to promote the objects of religion than to allow many of those parties who at present enjoyed foundations, to be turned out of possession by suffering the law to remain as it then stood. If the present possessors of numerous chapels were attacked there was no means of ascertaining into whose hands these foundations might pass, if such attacks were legally successful. He did not think the cause of Christianity nor the cause of religion could be promoted by such proceedings, and he was quite certain, the cause of religious toleration could not be advanced, He asked those who sought to wrest these places of worship from the present occupants whether they thought the conscientious doctrines held by these parties would be put down? He believed such would not be the case. He trusted hon. Gentlemen would view the case as one of equity, and endeavour to dispel some of the erroneous opinions which were held with regard to this measure. He tendered his thanks to the Government for bringing forward the Bill; they had shown themselves superior to all those influences which might have been brought to bear against them, and had placed themselves in a position which, he was sure, they would always look back upon with pleasure, namely, that of endeavouring to reconcile the differences of the religions classes of the country.
Mr. S. Wortleyconsidered, after the long discussion which had been taken on the second reading, it would be proper to allow the Bill to go into Committee. The essence of the Bill was comprised in one Clause, and the essence of that Clause was confined almost to a single line. In dealing with the provisions of the second Clause, they were dealing with an enactment that was intended to apply to several different classes of cases, and the question was, how to construct it so as to give some

1225
necessary, proper, and fair protection, and at the same time to avoid throwing the shield of Parliament over cases to which it was not properly applicable. He was disposed to look upon the question, not as one of religion or theological doctrine, but as one of property and law, and its effects upon the rights of property induced in his mind great doubts as to the propriety of applying it to all those several classes of cases to which, as the second Clause now stood, it would extend. These different classes of course, had been mentioned as coming within the provisions of the Bill. First, that class, for the legal proceedings in which the introduction of the Bill was in a great measure the consequence. Then there was that class in which the case of Lady Hewley's charity was comprised, and which he thought stood upon a different footing to the religious trusts to which the hon. and learned Attorney General had alluded on a former evening, in the course of his opening statement; and then there was that class which related to the Presbyterians of the north of Ireland which stood on grounds essentially distinct from either of the others. All these required consideration as to how far the Bill should afford them protection, and therefore it was, that be hoped the Bill would be allowed to go into Committee.
Mr. B. Escottsupported the Bill as a measure of peace and justice, and he trusted no alterations would be made in it in Committee which were not calculated to further those objects. He had heard much opposition to the Bill, and it had been said, that the nature of that opposition proved the disinterested conduct of the Government in introducing it. He was not of that opinion, for if there ever had been a Bill framed by the Government more calculated to extend their power and influence with the people of this country than another, it was the one now under discussion.
House went into Committee.
On the first Clause,
Mr. Hardyobjected that the Clause did not properly express the object of the Bill. The Clause proposed to relieve Dissenters generally, but it was well known that the great body of Dissenters were opposed to the Bill. He thought that particular body of Dissenters for whose benefit the Bill was intended, should be named in it. He proposed to
1226
insert in the enacting part of the Clause, the words "being Unitarian Dissenters."
The Solicitor Generalcould not have a better proof that the Bill was not generally understood than the observation of his hon. and learned Friend. It was quite clear that his hon. and learned Friend had not the least notion of the scope and effect of the Clause. This, he believed, was the first objection that had been made to this particular provision, which was, in fact, necessary to protect all denominations of Dissenters. From 1662 down to 1689, in England any dissent from the established religion was illegal, and from 1665 down to 1719, in Ireland the case was the same. It was well known however, that between the years he had stated, both in England and Ireland, many dissenting congregations were established. In Ireland, between 1665 and 1719, many Presbyterian congregations were established, all of which, according to the law of that period, were illegal. Now, supposing a question were to arise at this time, as to the right of any trust property held by such congregations, without the protection of this Bill, the parties might be dispossessed. Suppose, for instance, any of these congregations should hold the property under deeds expressing merely the intentions of the founder, that meeting-houses or chapels should be established for the worship of God in those general terms, and any question should arise as to the particular religious worship to which the trust was intended to be applied. If the deed of trust had been executed within the period he had mentioned, as the law now stood, the Chancellor would decide that it must be for the purposes of that particular religion which was legal at the date of the deed, and the consequences would be that the chapels would be taken away from those congregations to whose use they had been applied from the first moment of their erection. His hon. and learned Friend, therefore, had totally misunderstood the protective effect of the Clause. This Bill was intended not to protect Unitarians merely, but as a measure of general justice to protect the rights of all, without interfering with the interests of any. The hon. Member's Amendment, therefore, was a violation of the whole spirit and principle of the Bill.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 2 being proposed,
Mr. Shawthen brought forward the

1227
Amendment of which he had given notice on behalf of the Synod or General Assembly of Ulster. They had now by the 1st Clause placed Unitarians in the same condition as to their property as if they had acquired or founded it after the passing of the Act extending to them the benefit of the Toleration Act. They had then to deal with the 22nd Clause for supplying evidence to quiet possession where it did not exist, in a clear and tangible form, and which was admittedly to continue parties in possession of property which did not originally belong to them, but was intended for different objects. In such case the utmost caution should be observed. The original Bill exempted the case of deeds expressly declaring the trusts, and containing the particular religious opinions. The Bill, as amended by the Government, extended that exemption to the Wesleyan Methodists, whose deeds had reference to documents containing such opinions—and what he contended for was the justice of including the case of the Synod of Ulster, which, generally speaking, had no deeds, but had authentic documents as clear and decisive in point of evidence as to the particular doctrines of the ministers connected with them as any deeds could afford. The Synod of Ulster had existed for about two centuries. Its records had been lost up to 1691, but from that period were as regularly kept as those of a court of justice. From that period to the present, there was the clearest proof upon these records of their Trinitarian faith, and of the necessity of every minister subscribing it. In 1716 they recorded that the Synod had accepted the Act of Toleration on condition of signing the Westminster Confession of Faith—and in 1726, and in about a century after, in 1829, the Presbytery of Antrim and Remonstrant Synod seceded, because subscription was required by the Synod. The Synod of Ulster had about 500 congregations, containing nearly 700,000 members, and when they could prove their doctrine by the clearest documentary evidence, would it be just or right to allow them to be ousted by a chance usage of twenty-five years, where one single clergyman, perhaps, insidiously, or imperceptibly passing into Arianism or Socinianism, might be the means of transferring the congregational and other property from Trinitarian to Unitarian objects. He was not wedded to any par-
1228
ticular form of words, and would adopt any the law officers of the Crown preferred to his, provided they would agree to what in substance he proposed—namely, to provide for the case of the Synod of Ulster, The words he proposed to add were:—
"Or where no particular religious doctrines or opinions are contained in any book or other document, preserved amongst the authentic records of any recognised synod or religious body, concerning the congregation frequenting such meeting-house."
The right hon. Gentleman moved that addition be put from the Chair.
The Solicitor Generalwas sorry to object, not only to the words of the Amendment proposed by his right hon. Friend, but also to any words which would effect an alteration in the Clause upon the principle which his right hon. Friend wished to establish. No form of words, in his opinion, could be framed in which he could be induced to concur for the purpose of attaining the object his right hon. Friend had in view. The end which the Government had endeavoured to arrive at in introducing the Bill before the Committee was, to secure the possession of such chapels and properties to the parties to whom they were conveyed, either by the will or deed of the founder, or other document; in all those cases where such evidence of property existed, the will or original deed of endowment or gift must be held inviolate, and the property was to be held by its possessors upon those terms to the end of time, and nobody was ever to have the right to interfere with them. But the right hon. Gentleman proposed to enlarge the exceptions which it had been found necessary to introduce into the measure, and to extend which, in the manner effected by the Amendment before the Committee, would in his opinion, be to commit an act of great injustice. The Committee would observe that great difficulties presented themselves with respect to the construction which might be put upon the words of the Amendment. What were to be considered the authentic records, or the contemporaneous documents, appertaining to the chapels of the Synod of Ulster? Who was to judge of the doctrines or opinions professed then and now? And of what were the tribunals to consist. [Mr. Shaw: "A regular Court of Justice."] The regular Courts of Law, his right hon. Friend said. But the Com-

1229
mittee would observe, that the will of the founder of the chapels was, by the words of the Amendment, to possess no kind of influence, nor even to be admitted in evidence of the right of possession. That right was to he judged of solely by the doctrines which were preached in the congregations of the Synod of Ulster when that body was first founded; so that those doctrines might be wholly opposed to the will of the founder, if amongst the records that were to govern the decision of the Court any evidence could be adduced of their having been the doctrines taught by the Synod of Ulster at that particular period. He, therefore, said that if the words proposed to be added to the Clause by his right hon. Friend were inserted, they would produce a monstrous injustice. Let him take the case of the Synod of Ulster itself as an illustration of the case. That Synod had existed for 200 years, and yet, as his right hon. Friend had acknowledged, the first record of its doctrines in a documentary form was dated in 1691. That record, therefore, could not contain the will of the founder of the original congregations out of which the Synod had sprung, for they had existed long before that date. He took it for granted that his right hon. Friend had no document which could offer any evidence of what the original founders' doctrines were. And yet what did he propose to do? He proposed to take a document which was neither sanctioned by, nor known to, the founders of the Synod, and which likewise was not evidence either of their doctrines or intentions, and he desired to establish that document, and to have it received as evidence which was to guide the decision in the case as to the doctrines which originally prevailed when these congregations were first collected together in the form of the Synod of Ulster. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Synod required every consistent congregation to sign, in the person of its Minister, one confession of faith, and he moreover, had admitted in consequence of this determination several of the congregations seceded in the year 1726, and formed the separate and independent Presbytery of Antrim; and it appeared in evidence before the Lord Chief Baron that Arian or Unitarian doctrines had prevailed from the year 1726 amongst the congregations forming the Presbytery of Antrim. Now, he would tell the Committee shortly what
1230
the object proposed to be effected by the Amendment was. It appeared by reference to some existing documents and records, that the Synod of Ulster required the individual congregations of which it was composed to sign a general confession of faith. Now, if his right hon. Friend could have obtained the insertion of the words proposed by him, the immediate and inevitable effect would be, that all the property which had been acquired by the Presbytery of Antrim since its secession in the year 1726, would be within the grasp of the Synod of Ulster, for they would in that case refer to documents of the year 1691, and say to the Presbytery, "You seceded from us, the doctrines recorded in the documents of the date of 1691 were those which you, therefore, must originally have held, and, therefore, although you have been Arians from the year 1726, all your chapels belong of right to us, because you yourselves were originally of our Synod." He thought that what he had stated was a sufficient answer to all that had been advanced by the right hon. Gentleman; and in reply to his question, whether the Government would commit an act of injustice, he would merely ask, would the Committee sanction such a proceeding as that which he had pointed out? He' would not go into the other question of twenty-five years being the limit to which the change of doctrines in chapels should be confined; for that formed a separate part of the clause, but he trusted he had said enough to induce the Committee to refuse to agree to the Amendment of his right hon. Friend.
Mr. Shawsaid, the doctrines of the Synod of Ulster had always been the same, and there had been twenty preachers — as that term was generally understood. By his Amendment, it was only proposed to make the written records evidence of cotemporaneous practice, he contended that the Government whose Bill it was were bound to legislate without detriment to any great interest, therefore, they should introduce words to exempt the Synod of Ulster; and also he would agree to their protecting the Presbytery of Antrim and Remonstrant Synod, whose property he was authorized by the Deputation then in London, to say the Synod of Ulster did not desire to touch.
The Attorney Generalmust beg his right hon. Friend's attention whilst he stated to the Committee his objection to

1231
the Amendment under consideration for be disapproved of it so strongly that no form of words could be framed which would meet the object had in view. His right hon. Friend proposed to govern the possession of the property in question by the records or documents which showed what the doctrines of the Synod of Ulster were at the period when the chapels were endowed. But his right hon. Friend had totally overlooked the fact that those endowments might, and in all probability had been made in conformity with the doctrines preached at the present day to congregations of the Presbytery of Antrim, and yet the evidence of such doctrines having been so preached was not to guide the decision of the Court as to the right to the property, but that right was to be decided by the evidence of the documents dated 1691, which set forth what were the doctrines of the Synod of Ulster. Nothing could induce him to assent to such a proposition. His right hon. Friend had stated as a reason for proposing the insertion of the words, that if they were not so inserted the measure would leave the Synod of Ulster open to deprivation of all its property. Now, where let him ask, was that property? In what did it consist? The Synod of Ulster was not the founder of this property. The Bill meddled with no trusts, disturbed no deeds, either of gift or endowment. All that the measure did was to assign to each party his property, but it interfered with no settlements, either by will or otherwise. Looking at the question as one merely of property, the chapels of the Synod were purchased or built by those who now held them, in the same manner as such buildings were bought or erected in England. The congregations occupying them and the Ministers were their support, and yet the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, if agreed to, would merely render it necessary for the Synod of Ulster to prove that the congregations originally belonged to that Synod; that they had seceded, and that the property, therefore, must be transferred to the professors of those doctrines which were originally taught there. Now, what had that question to do with the intentions of the original founders of those chapels? They could not have intended to bind their successors to any formal adherence to the Synod of Ulster, for there was a secession in 1726, and one more recently in 1829, both of which
1232
bodies of seceders were now extant, under the names of the Presbytery of Antrim, and the Synod of Remonstrants. The right hon. Gentleman had declared that it was not the intention of the Synod of Ulster to take any steps to obtain possession of the chapels or other congregational property of the seceders, and that when the law was in its old state no such attempt was ever made. But why were these parties to be treated differently from future seceders? He could not help thinking the alarm expressed by the right hon. Gentleman as to the future secession of the "Congregations of the Synod of Ulster" somewhat unfounded, and even if they were not, Acts of Parliament were but very indifferent means of opposing the spread of Arian or Socinian doctrines. It was not the minister, but the congregation which guided the selection of the doctrines preached to them, and it could not be a reasonable ground for supposition that any minister could for such sinister purposes as the right hon. Gentleman had described, secretly and unknown to his congregation entertain Unitarian or Arian doctrines for the period of twenty-five years. The alarm therefore which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed on this head, and which had induced him to prepare and bring forward the Amendment before the Committee, had no real foundation, and even if it had, the proposed Amendment would in no degree avert the evil contemplated, for the Clause would in no way protect the Synod of Ulster, as it was quite clear to his mind that the Synod had no right whatever to claim the property of its congregational chapels. He, therefore, must offer his decided objection to the Amendment.
Mr. Shawsaid, that in the case of the Synod of Ulster there had been no founders—the congregations were self-constituted, and then formed into Presbyteries, governed by the Synod. The property was in the congregation, but virtually managed by the Synod. He said in answer to his hon. and learned Friend (Sir W. Follett) that he thought it often would be very difficult to detect Unitarianism in the minister, and Lord Cottenham had decided that the usage was to be decided by the doctrines the minister held. The doctrines of the Synod of Ulster were on record from 1691 up to the present moment.
Sir R. Peelcould not help alluding to

1233
one point, which it occurred to him was of no small importance, in relation to the Amendment under discussion, as showing the necessity for legislative interference in the matter. His right hon. Friend had made no reference whatever to the Presbytery of Antrim or the Remonstrants beyond a mere passing allusion; but he had proposed an enactment giving the Synod of Ulster complete power over these two bodies, one of which had seceded from it upwards of a century, and the other of which had been a distinct synod since the year 1829. The right hon. Gentleman had declared that the Synod of Ulster had no intention whatever to interfere with either of the bodies he had just named, either before the Bill was introduced or after it should be passed. Now, that declaration of his right hon. Friend had very considerably relieved his mind from some apprehensions, which were so strong as to induce the Government to think during the last year that some legislative interference would be necessary, in order to protect those very bodies from the Synod of Ulster. For though the right hon. Gentleman had disclaimed all such intentions as had been referred to, yet no longer ago than the 1st of March, 1843, a Committee was formed out of the governing committee of the Synod of Ulster, the decision in the Hewley charity having then become known to them, which committee came to the resolution that legal steps should be taken to compel the restoration of such chapels and other property as were in the possession of congregations which could be proved to have formerly held Trinitarian doctrines, as the possession of congregations of the chapels in question was an act of spoliation committed on the Synod of Ulster. And copies of this resolution were transmitted to the individual congregations, both of the Synod of Remonstrants and of the Presbytery of Antrim. This Resolution excited great apprehensions in the two seceding bodies, and likewise in the Members of the Cabinet, and it would prove a great relief both to Her Majesty's Government and to the parties to whom he referred, to find from the declarations of his right hon. Friend that they were entirely unfounded.
The Committee divided on the question that the words proposed by Mr. Shaw be inserted:—Ayes 43; Noes 161: Majority 118.

List of the AYES.

Acton, Col.

Lefroy, A.

Adderley, C. B.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Archdall, Capt. M.

McGeachy, F. A.

Ashley, Lord

McTaggart, Sir J.

Bateson, T.

Manners, Lord J.

Blackburne, J. I.

Northland, Visct.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

O'Brien, A. S.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Palmer, G.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Pollington, Visct.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Rashleigh, W.

Dickinson, F. H.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Farnham, E. B.

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Grogan, E.

Sibthorp, Col.

Hamilton, J. H.

Smith, A.

Hamilton, G. A.

Smyth, Sir H.

Hardy, J.

Stewart, P. M.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Taylor, E.

Hayes, Sir E.

Tollemache, J.

Henley, J. W.

Verner, Col.

Humphery, Ald.

TELLERS.

Jones, Capt.

Shaw, rt. hn. F.

Law, hon. C.

Jocelyn, Visct.

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Denison, J. E.

Aglionby, H. A.

Denison, E. B.

Aldam, W.

Dick, Q.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Arkwright, G.

Drummond, H. H.

Baird, W.

Duncan, G.

Bannerman, A.

Eliot, Lord

Baring, hon. W. B.

Escott, B.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Evans, W.

Baring, T.

Ewart, W.

Barnard, E. G.

Ferguson, Col.

Barrington, Visct.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Flower, Sir J.

Bernal, R.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Blakemore, R.

Forman, T. S.

Bodkin, W. H.

Forster, M.

Boldero, H. G.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Borthwick, P.

French, F.

Bowles, Adm.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Bowring, Dr.

Gibson, T. M.

Bramstone, T. W.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Brocklehurst, J.

Gladstone, Capt.

Brotherton, J.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Browne, hon. W.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Campbell, Sir H.

Granby, Marq. of

Campbell, J. H.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Cardwell, E.

Grimston, Visct.

Chelsea, Visct.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Chute, W. L. W.

Halford, Sir H.

Clayton, R. R.

Harcourt, G. G.

Clerk, Sir G.

Hawes, B.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Hervey, Lord A.

Collett, J.

Hill, Lord M.

Collins, W.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Compton, H. C.

Hope, hon. C.

Corry, rt. hn. H.

Hope, G. W.

Craig, W. G.

Hoskins, K.

Cripps, W.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

1235

Howard, hn. J. K.

Protheroe, E.

Howard, hon. H.

Pusey, P.

Hutt, W.

Rawdon, Col.

Ingestre, Visct.

Rice, E. R.

Irton, S.

Ross, D. R.

James, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Jermyn, Earl

Scott, R.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Seymour, Lord

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E

Shelburne, Earl of

Knight, H. G.

Smith, B.

Leader, J. T.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Lemon, Sir C.

Somerset, Lord G.

Lennox, Lord A.

Stanley, Lord

Lincoln, Earl of

Stanton, W. H.

Long, W.

Stuart, Lord J.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Stock, Serj.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Sutton, hn. H. M.

M'Neill, D.

Tancred, H. W.

Mainwaring, T.

Thesiger, Sir F.

March, Earl of

Thornely, T.

Marjoribanks, S.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Marshall, W.

Trevor, hon. C. R.

Marsland, H.

Tufnell, H.

Martin, J.

Turnor, C.

Martin, C. W.

Vane, Lord H.

Mitchell, T. A.

Vivian, J. H.

Morris, D.

Walker, R.

Nicholl, rt. hn. J.

Warburton, H.

Norreys, Sir D. T.

Wawn, J. T.

O'Connell, M.

Welby, G. E.

O'Connell, M. J.

White, H.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Whitmore, T. C.

Packe, C. W.

Williams, W.

Patten, J. W.

Wodehouse, C.

Pechell, Capt.

Wood, C.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Worsley, Lord

Peel, J.

Wrightson, W. B.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Wynn, rt. hn. C. W. W.

Philips, M.

Wyse, T.

Plumridge, Capt.

TELLERS.

Powell, Col.

Young, J.

Praed, W. T.

Baring, H.

Mr. Shawthen proposed his second Amendment, to substitute sixty for twenty-five years. As he had already partly discussed that point, he would be very short, and not again divide upon it, after the result of the last division. His reason for objecting to twenty-five years was shortly that such a subject bore no analogy to adverse possession of land. The period would not cover the life of one minister— and he proposed sixty years, because that was the period in the limitation of action statutes (3 and 4 Wm. IV. ch. 27; and 6 and 7 Vict. ch. 5), in the case of advowsons.
Amendment negatived.
Other Amendments having been proposed, and some accepted while others were rejected, the Committee divided on the question that the Clause as amended stand part of the Bill:—Ayes 188: Noes 62; Majority 126.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Aglionby, H. A.

Gladstone, Capt.

Aldam, W.

Godson, R.

Archbold, R.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Arkwright, G.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Bannerman, A.

Granby, Marq. of

Barclay, D.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Grimstone, Visct.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Baring, T.

Hall, Sir B.

Barnard, E. G.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Barrington, Visct.

Hawes, B.

Bellew, R. M.

Hayter, W. G.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Bodkin, W. H.

Herbert, hon. S.

Boldero, H. G.

Hervey, Lord A.

Borthwick, P.

Hill, Lord M.

Bowles, Adm.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Bowring, Dr.

Hodgson, R.

Bramston, T. W.

Hope, hon. C.

Brocklehurst, J.

Hope, G. W.

Brotherton, J.

Hoskins, K.

Browne, hon. W.

Howard, hn. C. W. G.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Howard, P. H.

Campbell, Sir H.

Hume, J.

Campbell, J. H.

Hutt, W.

Cardwell, E.

Ingestre, Visct.

Chapman, B.

Irton, S.

Chelsea, Visct.

James, W.

Clerk, Sir G.

Jermyn, Earl

Clive, hon. R. H.

Johnson, Gen.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Colborne, hn. W. N. R.

Knight, H. G.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Collett, J.

Leader, J. T.

Collins, W.

Legh, G. C.

Compton, H. C.

Lemon, Sir C.

Craig, W. G.

Leveson, Lord

Cripps, W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Darner, hon. Col.

Long, W.

Davies, D. A. S.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Denison, W. J.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Denison, J. E.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Denison, E. B.

McNeill, D.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Marjoribanks, S:

Drummond, H. H.

Marshall, W.

Duncan, Visct.

Marsham, Visct.

Duncan, G.

Marsland, H.

Duncombe, hon. A. E.

Martin, J.

East, J. B.

Martin, C. W.

Ebrington, Visct.

Milnes, R. M.

Egerton, W. T.

Mitchell, T. A.

Eliot, Lord

Morris, D.

Elphinstone, H.

Morrison, J.

Escott, B.

Muntz, G. F.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Evans, W.

O'Brien, J.

Ewart, W.

O'Connell, M.

Ferguson, Col.

O'Connell, M. J.

Flower, Sir J.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Forman, T. S.

Ord, W.

Forster, M.

Paget, Col.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Patten, J. W.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Pechell, Capt.

1237

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Peel, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Thesiger, Sit F.

Philips, M.

Thornely, T.

Plumridge, Capt.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Powell, Col.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Power, J.

Tufnell, H.

Protheroe, E.

Vane, Lord H.

Pusey, P.

Vivian, J. H.

Rawdon, Col.

Waddington, H. S.

Redington, T. N.

Wakley, T.

Rice, E. R.

Walker, R.

Ross, D. R.

Wallace, R.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Warburton, H.

Rumbold, C. E.

Ward, H. G.

Russell, Lord J.

Wawn, J. T.

Sandon, Visct.

White, H.

Scott, R.

Whitmore, T. C.

Seymour, Lord.

Williams, W.

Smith, B.

Wilshere, W.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Wodehouse, E.

Somerset, Lord G.

Wood, C.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Worsley, Lord

Stanley, Lord

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Stanton, W. H.

Wrightson, W. B.

Stuart, Lord J.

Wyse, T.

Stock, Mr. Serj.

Strickland, Sir G.

TELLERS.

Stuart, H. C.

Young, J.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Lennox, Lord A.

List of the NOES.

Acton, Col.

Lefroy, A.

Adderley, C. B.

Lopes, Sir R.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Ashley, Lord

McGeachy, F. A.

Bateson, T.

McTaggart, Sir J.

Blackburne, J. I.

Masterman, J.

Broadley, H.

Newdegate, C. N.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Northland, Visct.

Bruges, W. H. L.

O'Brien, A, S.

Buck, L. W.

Ossulston, Lord

Chetwode, Sir J.

Palmer, G.

Christopher, R. A.

Polhill, F.

Clayton, R. R.

Pollington, Visct.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Rashleigh, W.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Richards, R.

Darby, G.

Round, C. G.

Dickinson, F. H.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Dundas, Adm.

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Du Pre, C. G.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Farnham, E. B.

Sibthorp, Col.

Grogan, E.

Smith, A.

Hamilton, J. H.

Smyth, Sir H.

Hamilton, G. A.

Smollett, A.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Taylor, E.

Heathcote, G. J.

Tollemache, J.

Henley, J. W.

Trollope, Sir J.

Hughes, W. B.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Verner, Col.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Vivian, J. E.

Jones, Capt.

Kemble, H.

TELLERS.

Law, hon. C. E.

Plumptre, J. P.

Lawson, A.

Hardy, J.

On the third Clause, "Judgments of Courts of Law or Equity to be binding; informations stayed upon terms,"
Lord Ashleywho had a notice on the Orders to substitute the following for Clause 3, regretted that he could not propose it. His object was, to restore the Bill to what it was before the Bill left the Lords, where, after the third reading, the reservation of all rights affirmed by judgments of Courts of Law and Equity originally enacted by this Clause, had been altered entirely, so as to apply to only two cases (he believed) now pending in the Irish courts, and prevent the judgment therein from taking effect. Now, what he proposed was to have made a severance of Unitarian from Trinitarian funds, allowing only the former to be retained by the Unitarian holders.
Mr. Shawalluded more particularly to the two cases in question, both of them having occurred in Ireland, one of them the "Eustace-street," the other the "Strand-street" (Dublin) chapel. In these cases he affirmed great injustice would result from the allowing the judgments to be evaded—the parties adjudged to have the legal right to the property would not even be paid the whole costs to which they had been put. They would also lose a sum of 2,000 l. incidentally depending upon that suit. He believed the plaintiffs never desired more than that each party, Trinitarian and Unitarian, should have the property belonging to each assigned to them respectively.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, while the Bill was pending in the Lords, the Select Committee having agreed the measure should extend to Ireland, a Clause was introduced by the Lord Chancellor enacting that it should be so extended, but making no allusion to the cases in question on which Lord Cottenham declared it had been the intention of the Committee to exclude them, and therefore the Clause had been altered to its present form. Now, the case of the Strand Street chapel was strong. Previously the meeting-house had been elsewhere, and the former lease having expired, another edifice had been secured in Strand Street, where the congregation, Unitarian as at present it was, had been unmolested since 1756, one minister alone having preached for fifty-six years. Unfortunately, Lady Hewley's case, though it had no reference to the circumstances

1239
connected with this Bill, gave hints to parties of what they might do; and the suit was instituted not by "bill," but by "relation" (the course taken when a party had no interest in the result of a proceeding); and the only object which they who instituted that suit could have attained, if it had been allowed to go to a termination in their favour, was costs— which were reserved to them by this Clause. Was it to be permitted, however, that parties having no interest in the result beyond costs should harass a congregation who had so long been in possession? If the congregation had complained it would have been a different thing, of course.
Mr. Shawwas informed that the suit in question had not been instituted by strangers. That one of the principal parties had himself advanced money on (he chapel, and the Synod of Munster, a non-subscribing though in the majority a Trinitarian Synod, supported the suit.
Clause agreed to.
House resumed. Report to be received on Monday.

COUNTY CORONERS.
The Order of the Day for the third reading of the County Coroners Bill having been moved,
Mr. Humeobjected to the 21st Clause which proposed an increase of the charge of mileage from 9d. to 1s., and moved the omission of the words. He thought the Coroners sufficiently paid already, for he found that when there was a vacancy, candidates for that office would spend as much money in the election as if they were putting up for a seat in that House.
Mr. P. Howardobserved, that the sense of the House had frequently been expressed in favour of an increase of remuneration for mileage, and hoped that the Bill would not be rejected because of this Clause.
Mr. Escottreminded the House, that it had last Session agreed to 1s. 6d. a mile but the Bill was thrown out of the other House by a casting vote.
Mr. Wakleysaid, the appointment of deputies was a matter of necessity, and not of choice; the Act of Parliament making it imperative. But did the House provide for the payment of those deputies? No such thing. He did not wonder at the horror some hon. Members expressed at the office of Coroner; it was a very com-
1240
mon feeling, and he often found persons who entertained it afterwards in a condition which rendered them unable to urge their complaints. Such feelings were rather admonitory; and he warned hon. Members against indulging in them. The hon. Member for Montrose was always talking about economy, and therefore he was always trying to diminish sums; but that was not economy. The mileage was fixed at 9d. in the reign of George II., and was paid out and home, making 1s. 6d. per mile up to the year 1828, when some magistrates of Oxford resisted it, and the litigation ended in a decision that only 9d. should be paid. But Sir J. Sheppard, then Attorney General, gave his opinion in favour of the 9d. being paid both out and home. After all, it was not so great an addition as might be supposed. If a Coroner were to travel 4,000 miles a-year it would amount to but 50 1. The addition in Middlesex would not be more, perhaps, than 8l. But it was not in that county that the increased allowance was wanted; but in large counties, where the population was widely scattered, and where often the expenses exceeded the receipts for mileage. In his own case, the cost for turnpikes had frequently exceeded his mileage. Besides that, a Coroner was not allowed anything for parchments and stationery, or for offices, or for clerks. The 18th Clause provided, and very properly, that Coroners who were lawyers should not act either for the prosecution or defence in any case of murder or manslaughter which had come under their jurisdiction. But that was an additional reason why they should be liberally remunerated. The Coroner was elected by the people, and not by the Crown; and therefore he was not so well paid as officers of the Crown; and it was invariably found that, because he was a popular officer, a prejudice prevailed against him, among the magistracy, in Courts of Law, and in that House; and every opportunity seemed to be taken of throwing scandal upon the office, and to make the officer a dependent person.
Mr. Evansthought it difficult for that House to decide what was a proper remuneration for Coroners; but, judging from the competition for the office in all cases, he should think it sufficiently paid. He should, therefore, vote with the hon. Member for Montrose.
The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—Ayes 41; Noes 23: Majority 18.

List of the AYES.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Bellew, R. M.

Hodgson, R.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Hogg, J. W.

Blackburne, J. I.

Howard, P. H.

Boldero, H. G.

Jermyn, Earl

Borthwick, P.

Marshall, Visct.

Bowes, J.

Masterman, J.

Bramston, T. W.

Morris, D.

Clerk, Sir G.

Newry, Visct.

Denison, E. B.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Plumptre, J. P.

Easthope, Sir J.

Rashleigh, W.

Eliot, Lord

Rushbrooke, Col.

Escott, B.

Shiel, rt. hon. R. L.

Flower, Sir J.

Smith, rt. hon. T. B. C.

Fuller, A. E.

Stanley, Lord

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Worsley, Lord

Gladstone, Capt.

Young, J.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

TELLERS.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Darby, G.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Sandon, Visct.

List of the NOES.

Archbold, R.

Hawes, B.

Barclay, D.

Henley, J. W.

Harrington, Visct.

Irton, S.

Brotherton, J.

Johnson, Gen.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Collins, W.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Copeland, Ald.

Redington, T. N.

Cripps, W.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Davies, D. A. S.

Watson, W. H.

Denison, W. J.

Wawn, J. T.

Dickinson, F. H.

TELLERS.

Evans, W.

Hume, J.

Greene, T.

Stanley, W. O.

Bill passed.
House adjourned at half-past twelve.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.— 1a. District Courts and Prisons Establishment; Parishes (Scotland); Court of Chancery (County Palatine of Lancaster); Charitable Trusts in England and Wales.
Reported.—Brothels, etc. Suppression; Law of Libel Act Amendment.
Private. — 1a. London and South Western Railway; Wells Harbour and Quay; Duke of Hamilton and Brandon' Estate.
2a. Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway; Garnkirk, Glasgow, and Coatbridge Railway; Brighton, Lewes, and Hastings Railway.
Reported.—South Eastern Railway; Sir J. .J. R. Mackenzie's (Scatwell) Estate; Mackenzie's (Seaforth) Estate; Manchester Stipendiary Magistrates; Manchester Bonding; Lakenheath Drainage; Canterbury Pavement.
3a. and passed:—Brighton and Chichester Railway; South Devon Railway; British Iron Company; Manchester Police.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Wighill, and a great number of other places, for Protection to Agriculture.—From Aberdeen, and 3 other places, for Legalizing Marriages solemnized by Presbyterian and Dissenting Ministers in Ireland.—From Attornies and Solicitors of Birmingham, against the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Laws Amendment Bin.—From Edinburgh, for Extending the provisions of the Brothels, etc. Suppression Bill to Scotland.— From Weems, for Improving the Condition of Schoolmasters in Scotland. — From Southampton, for the adoption of a Measure for the better Recovery of Small Debts.— From Rochford, and County of Rutland, against the Union of St. Asaph and Bangor.—From Canterbury, and 2 other places, against the Dissenters Chapels Bill.— From Bath, against the Abolition of Church Rates.

DON CARLOS.
The Earl of Clarendonsaid, that seeing his noble Friend, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in his place, be wished to ask him for some explanation respecting a matter on which he saw, from the Votes of the other House, a Notice
1172
of Motion had been given; and on which he should not have troubled him but for a statement which had been made by the right hon. Baronet, at the head of the Government, when the subject was lately brought forward in the House of Commons. He alluded to the correspondence which had taken place between Don Carlos and a noble Lord, containing the proposal which that Prince had made, or had been induced to make, for the marriage of his son with the Queen of Spain. He said "induced to make," for it appeared that Don Carlos had been in communication with a party in this country; or rather, he should say, a party in the House of Commons—a party which had lofty intentions respecting the regeneration of everything at home, but whose foreign policy seemed to be confined to the restoration of Don Carlos to the throne of his ancestors, from which he (the Earl of Clarendon) should say he had been lawfully excluded. The question of the right of Don Carlos did not appear to have been taken into consideration by these Gentlemen; and it was said that an Ambassador had been sent with full powers to Don Carlos previous to further measures being taken for his restoration. He returned, proposing this marriage, but without any renunciation of Don Carlos's claims to the Throne of Spain, and without any allusion to the form of Government hereafter to be established in that country. He (the Earl of Clarendon) was aware of this application at the time, but he took no notice of it, and he should not have done so now, if it had not been for the speech of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, who said that that communication had been forwarded by Her Majesty's Government to the Spanish Government without any communication, because they thought that it was a matter in which the Spanish people were alone concerned. If this were correct, it might give an unfortunate character to the transaction, because it might make it appear that Her Majesty's Government were indifferent to the consequences which would result from such an union. The noble Earl must be aware that the return of Don Carlos into Spain would call into activity the Church party, which, of all others, was the most ruthless and fanatical, and which would, in fact, perpetuate the civil war. But as such a communication had been made to

1173
the Government of the Queen of Spain, without any renunciation on the part of Don Carlos of his claims to the Throne, and with no expression from the British Government, except that the Spanish people were to decide the question—he considered that an unfortunate proceeding, for it would cause some doubt as to the policy which the British Government intended to pursue for the future. He would have moved for the Correspondence which had taken place between Don Carlos and the Government, but as he understood there would be some difficulty in the way of its production, in consequence of its not having been of an official character, he should merely content himself by asking some explanation of his noble Friend, and he had no doubt that his answer would be satisfactory.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that he would request his noble Friend and the House to believe, that whatever part the Government might take in connexion with this delicate question of the marriage of the Queen of Spain, all due attention would be paid to the honour and independence of that country. He by no means meant to deny that it might not be the duty of a friendly state to give advice on that or any other question in which its interests might be concerned, and which, though confined essentially to Spain, might affect the whole of the system of European policy. It was perfectly true that a noble Lord, not a Member of that House, had delivered to him (the Earl of Aberdeen), a letter from Don Carlos, in which His Royal Highness referred to that noble Lord as possessing his opinions and intentions, and as being authorized by him to declare his intentions, and to describe the whole of the sacrifices which he was disposed to make for the pacification of Spain. As far as he (the Earl of Aberdeen) understood those sacrifices, they amounted undoubtedly to a renunciation of his own claims to the Throne of Spain, on condition of the marriage of his son with Queen Isabella; but whether or not this renunciation was to be contingent on the marriage, or whether his son was to marry the Queen as her subject, or as her Sovereign, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) did not now know. Consistently with the policy which Her Majesty's Government had always followed on the subject, he thought it only a part of his duty to bring the proposal to the knowledge of the Spanish Government; and
1174
when his noble Friend said, that he did not press it on the Spanish Government there must be some mistake. What was said, or ought to have been said, was, that he did not press for any answer to that proposal: but he thought it his duty to communicate it, leaving them perfectly free to do what they thought proper, and he had at the same time also communicated it to the French Government, with whom we were acting in strict concert. He did not press for any answer, for he did not consider one necessary, for this reason, because the opinions of Her Majesty's Government on the subject were perfectly well known to the Spanish Government, and to every other Government in Europe. If this contest had been confined to a mere question of succession, such a marriage, supported by the Spanish people, he could conceive might have been a very proper means of terminating the differences, and reconciling the claims of the respective parties in that country; but, during this contest of more than seven years of civil war, he apprehended the whole question had undergone a complete change. It was now no question of doubtful succession, but a question of a principle of government—it was now a question between constitutional government and despotic rule. Therefore, a marriage which might, in the origin, have reconciled the difference between these parties, would now have the effect of introducing civil war into the palace, as well as into the country. This was not the first time that he had expressed this opinion, and he saw nothing in the state of Spain which gave him any reason to change it; but, at the same time, he wished to put the Spanish Government in possession of the proposal, and he consequently had communicated to them the overture to which his noble Friend had referred, Personally, he had no objection to the production of this Correspondence; but, on the whole, he thought, that it was scarcely of a nature proper to be called for, and, as he had now shown the exact nature of the case, his noble Friend, he believed, would hardly think it necessary to press for it.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Lord Broughammoved, that the Report of the Amendment be now received. The object of the Bill now before their Lordships was to amend the Act passed two years ago for amending the Law with respect to Insolvent Debtors. By his noble

1175
and learned Friend's Bill, passed seven years ago, 1 and 2 Vict. c. 110, arrest on mesne process was abolished, except where the party was immediately going abroad, and even then he could only be arrested on a Judge's warrant. The only question consequently which remained to be dealt with was, how most safely and efficiently to get rid of arrest in execution, with due reference at once to the just claims of the creditor and the interests of the well-intentioned but unfortunate debtor. With a view, therefore, to the interests both of debtor and creditor, it was advisable they should, as far as possible, comply with the recommendation of the learned Commissioners, made ten years ago, and get rid of imprisonment on arrest in execution, still, however, keeping in view those five classes of misconduct on the part of a debtor, viz., when he contumaciously refused to disclose his property; when he refused to be examined as to his property; when, his property being known, he refused to give it up; when he fraudulently made away with it; and when he had been guilty of gross and scandalous extravagance —running in debt, for instance, to the extent of 15,000 l., when his income was not more than 150 l. The question was, how was this object to be best effected? There were two ways proposed; one of these was what he had introduced in 1842, and which passed into law in the month of August in that year. Since that period, indeed, it might be said that Imprisonment for Debt had practically ceased, since every debtor who thought proper to petition the Court of Bankruptcy, or giving due notice to his creditors, was entitled to the protection of the court from arrest. This placed him in a different position from the man who went before the Insolvent Commissioners, because their jurisdiction was grounded upon the presumption of previous imprisonment. The Act of 1842, the present law, enabled him, without going to prison, or even through the form of an arrest, to present his petition, and obtain his protection. It was an interim protection at first, but on obtaining the final order it became an absolute protection, which was a complete protection for his person against all creditors and all debts contracted before the date of his petition; but there were cases in which the interim protection ceased without his obtaining the absolute protection; and those were the five cases he had already enumerated. He could mention the case of a person who, with an estate of
1176
10,000 l. a-year in the West Indies, refused to give up a farthing of it, and lived in the Queen's Prison for ten years. The creditor, no doubt, got little by incarcerating him; but no one would say that such a man had a right to claim his liberty, or that in such cases the party ought to obtain the benefit of his (Lord Brougham's) Act of 1842. What was the principle of that Act? One which it was most important should characterise every great measure,—a self-executing principle, acting thus:—the Commissioners, perceiving that a fraud had been committed, would say, "Go about your business, we shall leave you to the mercy of your creditors; a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum may exist against you, because you do not deserve to be freed from imprisonment." In other words, the Act of 1842 abolished Imprisonment for Debt in favour of the innocent, but not in favour of the fraudulent or contumacious insolvent; and the present Bill amended that Act, by giving a discretionary power to the Judge to examine into the whole case of the insolvent, and in the event of his being found guilty of any of the five acts of misconduct already enumerated, to limit the amount of imprisonment according to the circumstances of the case; the insolvent, at the end of the imprisonment, being entitled to claim the benefit of the Act, so that the creditor would have no further power over him. Thus the law of imprisonment was retained only when crime had been committed. Nobody said that for such crimes the parties ought to be transported, scourged, or pilloried, the only remedy was to resort to imprisonment for a certain period. The difference between this Bill and the Bill of his noble and learned Friend was great. His noble and learned Friend's Bill began by abolishing imprisonment for debt absolutely and in all cases, guilty as well as innocent; but then it said that when a debtor underwent an examination, and that crime was found to have been committed, the creditor or the court might prosecute him—that was to say, for, amongst other crimes which the Bill enumerated, "raising money under false pretences." That was a crime in the eye of the law already; so was pretending to be a trader, and getting goods with the intention of defrauding; so also was "making fraudulent conveyances." But, supposing they were not crimes as the law at present stood, still there was to be a prosecution; an indictment, counsel engaged to find flaws in it; a trial, judgment,

1177
and sentence, just as if the debtor had committed a crime totally unconnected with fraudulent dealing. He (Lord Brougham) objected to that principle, because it was not self-executing, while it gave every advantage to the fraudulent and contumacious debtor. But here was a case the most frequent of all, for which no provision was made in his noble and learned Friend's Bill, he meant the case of gross and culpable extravagance; a man not worth 20 l. borrowing 20,000 l., or getting goods from a jeweller which he did not want, had not the means to pay for, and obtained merely perhaps for the purpose of squandering them on some worthless person, such as came within the operation of the Bill of the right rev. Prelate opposite. The Bill of his noble and learned Friend did not make that an offence, although it was one which demanded the severest punishment, because attended with the greatest injury to the creditor, while he who committed an offence of perhaps not one-tenth part, the magnitude was liable to the punishment of transportation. The man who got credit from an honest tradesman to the extent of 1,000 l., without any means of payment, morally speaking defrauded him; but his noble and learned Friend made no provision for preventing or punishing the fraud, although such a person not only defrauded the tradesman but he inflicted an injury on those who really did pay, for the tradesman was obliged to charge so much more as an insurance against bad debts. This had all the consequences of swindling, but yet it was no offence as the law stood, nor was it made one by his noble and learned Friend's Bill. Then, in the cases his noble and learned Friend's Bill did reach, it left the execution of the law to the creditor or the court. If, however, in such a case, imprisonment were enjoined, there would be a chance of getting a surrender of some property, or the friends of the party would come forward and enter into a compromise with the creditor. This was the advantage of his proposed arrangement by which the law would execute itself, and facilitate the chances of the creditors, getting their farthing in the pound, which was the average amount paid out of the Insolvent Court, while they had nothing to get by prosecuting; on the contrary, that it would cost them 3l. or 4l., together with much loss of time. They might depend upon it that the creditor would not put himself to the trouble or expense of prosecuting his debtor by indictment; but his noble and
1178
learned Friend proposed that the Court should be allowed to prosecute; but it was a matter of absolute certainty that the Court never would prosecute, for if they did they would send so many cases to other courts as to occupy all the time of the latter. He had been asked to give up his own Bill, and to support that of his noble and learned Friend, but he had refused to do so, because he had previously been in possession of the field; for his measure on this subject had become law, and been in operation two years. Under the operation of his Bill the bankruptcy law had been applied in cases of insolvency, and the debtors of the persons applying to the Courts had to pay all their debts to the official assignee, and the debtor had also to surrender all his property, bills, mortgages, and everything else to the same officer of the Court. Therefore, he said that the whole machinery of bankruptcy was made applicable in all such cases. To show the beneficial working of the Bankruptcy Act of 1831, he would mention that not less than 2,000,000 l. of money had been found out and paid as dividends, and which had been allowed to accumulate in various hands under fiats of bankruptcy. His late respected friend, Mr. John Smith, the banker, had stated on one occasion, when somebody observed that that provision of the law would be inoperative, that he knew of a case of 100,000 l. being in the hands of a banker, and which amount had accumulated from unclaimed dividends on bankrupts' estates, or from sums which had been lost sight of. He happened to know where large sums, under such circumstances, had accumulated from bankruptcies which had taken place thirty-five years ago, and that some of them, in consequence of the money so discovered, had paid 20 s. in the pound, and had left a surplus to the bankrupt or his representatives, and this had been effected by the joint agency of the learned Commissioners and of the official assignees. He felt some little confidence in his Bill, and thought it rather hard if, after so many years' labour and experience in connexion with this subject he should be called upon to abandon it. He said, abandon imprisonment for debt in every case in which it could be shown that the debtor was an innocent debtor, and not a culpable contumacious defrauder. His noble and learned Friend said, abandon imprisonment for debt, and force the proof upon the claimant—upon the creditor. His learned Friend said, "Don't continue the debtor in prison, but send him to the Old

1179
Bailey or the Court of Queen's Bench, that he may be indicted, and punished with one year's imprisonment for one offence, with two years for another, and three years for another." But his (Lord Brougham's) Bill gave a summary power which would have the effect of punishing those who were really guilty: whereas, under the Bill of his noble Friend, 99 out of 100 would escape; and for those, the most numerous class of offenders — persons who, being possessed of 100 l. borrowed 1,000 l., no provision was made. His noble and learned Friend had provided no remedy for such cases. Another thing — he had originally framed this Bill with an addition of compulsory process, so that if a man chose to petition, he would be brought into the position of a quasi debtor. He was anxious to enable a creditor to compel a person to petition and undergo examination, and to give up his property; because, unfortunately, as he said before, persons generally waited until their property was gone, because they sought the benefit of the Insolvent Act; but only insolvents who were not traders could voluntarily take the benefit of the Act. Unfortunately, ever since bankrupt laws were established, from the time of Henry VIII. downwards, a broad distinction had been made between persons in trade, and those who were not in trade; and though in later Acts greater restrictions were applied to the distinction, still there was an exception in favour of all persons not really and substantially gaining their livelihood by trading. That was the reason why he felt great difficulty in approaching this subject; for this distinction had grown up, and assumed its present form, and men were divided into classes, and they thought they enjoyed or were entitled to certain immunities. Had a Bill been made retrospective, and so framed that every one of their Lordships, all the Members of both Houses of Parliament, lawyers, judges, physicians, the clergy, and country gentlemen, whether in Parliament or not, could be liable to be summoned before a Commissioner of the Bankruptcy Court, and directed to deliver up their property in fourteen days, such a Bill would never have passed through the House of Commons. For past debts had been contracted upon the strength of the distinction between traders and non-traders; and a man might say—"If I had known that, I should have been more prudent, and not have contracted such debts." But this Act would not affect any debts
1180
before the 1st of January, 1845, nor any mortgage, bill of security, any liability of trust, or any money payable as administrator or executor on any mortgage contracted after that time to pay off a former mortgage; because, otherwise, the mortgagee might say, "If you do not pay me my 5, or 4, or 3½ per cent., I'll make you a bankrupt." The operation of the Clause would, therefore, only be with regard to debts prospectively contracted, and when the debtor would have a full knowledge of the consequences that might attend his contracting debts. He had felt it expedient to consult several learned Friends of his, on whose judgment he placed great reliance, and he found that there existed the strongest feeling against breaking down the distinctions drawn by the law between traders and non-traders. He, therefore, would not proceed further at present with this part of the subject. He had taken a broad step for the benefit of debtors in 1842, and having got a footing, and being able to step firmly, he felt disposed to do something towards drawing a distinction between the two classes of debtors; but after the best consideration that he could give to the subject, he had arrived at the conclusion that it was better that the whole question of the consolidation of the bankruptcy and insolvent laws should be postponed to another Session, as it required more attention than could be given to it at that late period of the Session. It should be recollected that the distinction between the classes of debtors had always been drawn by the law of England; and although the whole of the law conferred some advantages on the trader, it also extended advantages to the non-trader. The trader who became a bankrupt, on receiving his certificate, obtained a protection against all past debts, whereas this was not the case with the non-trader; and the reason of this was, that the presumption was that the debts of the non-trader, as was the fact in 99 cases out of 100, were contracted without necessity; and the inference was, that the trader was almost invariably obliged to contract debts to carry on the speculations which were essential to traffic, This was one reason for the distinction, but another was, that if you made the future gains of the trader who had been a bankrupt, liable for past debts, that you never would afford him the means of getting credit, for no person would let him have goods which might be swept away at any moment by the officer of the Court of

1181
Bankruptcy. No reason of this nature could operate in the case of a non-trader. For instance, a man might have contracted several large debts, and being imprisoned in execution for them, he takes the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors' Act, and comes out of prison whitewashed, as it is termed. Now, supposing some years afterwards, this man came into possession of 10,000 l. a year, was there any impropriety in the law making him pay his former debt? He had known cases of this kind, and he thought that it was only fair to the creditor that the future property of the insolvent should be liable. There was one general observation which he wished to make relative to the two Bills for Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt. He thought that in all cases the presumption was in favour of the creditor rather than the debtor, for the latter was obviously a man unable to pay debts which he had contracted, and which the creditor was entitled to. For this reason, he held that in the case of an insolvent the presumption was that a mere trader should not go without imprisonment, until he showed that there was no culpability on his part in contracting these debts. He thought, therefore, that his noble and learned Friend's Bill put the saddle on the wrong horse. It had been said, that if they abolished imprisonment for debt, that tradesmen would not give credit. Now, he was fully aware of the evils of an extensive system of credit, which ruined many creditors as well as debtors. He believed, however, that it was impossible to carry on trade as a merchant or broker, or even as a tradesman, without credit. He was fully alive to the evil of tradesmen entering into competition, not as to the goodness of the articles they sold, but as to the extent of credit which they gave. As long as this race of competition continued amongst tradesmen, there must be a long system of credit. He did not believe, as they had been told at the time would be the case, that the abolition of imprisonment on mesne process had diminished the extent of credit given by tradesmen. All that he asked, then, was the House to consent to take further steps to improve the measure of 1842; and, if they found by experience that it did not abolish imprisonment for debt in consequence of an imperfect machinery, still that there was plenty of time to go on, and he urged them not to adopt a new system which was very different from the one which they adopted two years ago. The noble and learned Lord concluded with
1182
moving that the Report of the Bill be then received.
Lord Cottenhamsaid, that he did not expect that towards the end of June, he should be called upon to discuss a subject which that House had unanimously disposed of on the 30th of April. On that day he moved the second reading of the Bill for the Abolition of Imprisonment on Execution, and he knew that he should receive the support of several noble Lords, and he thought amongst others the support of his noble and learned Friend. He stated that he should be happy to postpone his measure until his noble and learned Friend came back, because he thought him to be favourable to it, and he was anxious to have his assistance; he therefore, postponed it. His noble and learned Friend, after his return, not finding it convenient to be in the House on a particular day, asked him again to postpone it, and he did so. The day at last arrived when his (Lord Cottenham's) Bill was to be read a second time, and when he had entered fully into its details, it was approved by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, which gave him the greatest pleasure, and such approval afforded great satisfaction to the House and to the country; it also informed every unfortunate man in gaol for debt that the time would soon come when he was likely to be liberated from his incarceration without going through the tedious, expensive, and useless process of the Insolvent Debtors Court. From the day of that debate there had not existed in the mind of any unfortunate person in prison for debt any doubt that before the close of the Session the law would be altered, and he would be released—there were a great number of persons in that situation, who were anxiously waiting in anticipation of his (Lord Cottenham's) Bill becoming law. He had received letters from many of them on the subject. He found now that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) objected to the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt; he was willing, it appeared, to mitigate it in certain cases, but he preserved it in principle. He said, he objected to destroying the distinction which had hitherto existed between insolvency and bankruptcy, and above all things, he objected to any proposition that had for its object the protection of the insolvent in the enjoyment of his future property, his debts remaining unpaid. He (Lord Cottenham) had hoped, when he saw his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack rise, that instead of putting the question, he was

1183
about to repeat the cogent arguments which he used on the 30th of April last in opposition to every one of the principles of the noble and learned Lord, and in favour of his (Lord Cottenham's) Bill. He would not ask their Lordships to recollect what passed on that occasion, for he had furnished himself with one of these authorities which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would, no doubt, recognise as containing an accurate report of what he (the Lord Chancellor) said on that occasion:✶—
"The Lord Chancellor did not rise to oppose the Bill of his noble and learned Friend; on the contrary, he begged to say, that he fully approved of its object and provisions for carrying that object into effect. His noble and learned Friend was perfectly correct in saying, that the subject had been maturely considered by the learned Commissioners to whom he had referred, and they had reported distinctly in favour of such a measure; and his noble and learned Friend, when he introduced the law for amending the Bankrupt Law, had provided for such an alteration in the law as this Bill proposed as part of his general measure. Unfortunately, however, his noble and learned Friend had not the opportunity of carrying his intentions in this respect into effect; for, while the Bill was upon their Lordships' Table, his noble and learned Friend ceased to hold the Great Seal. Nothing could be more inconsistent than the law as it at present stood that there should be two separate and distinct laws in the country with respect to the two different descriptions of insolvency —the Bankrupt Law and the Insolvent Law— which were distinctly opposed to each other as to the principles upon which they were respectively administered, especially in that one particular to which his noble and learned Friend had last alluded—the important particular which rendered the insolvent debtor, after all his property had been taken from him —when he had to commence the world again —liable to the payment of those debts for which he was supposed to be discharged by the Insolvent Debtors Court. It was, surely, sufficiently hard for a man to have to commence business, and as it were life again, without capital or property of any kind after his discharge by the Insolvent Debtors' Court; but if, in addition to this, they imposed upon him the liability to pay all the debts he had previously incurred, it would require more energy than most men were possessed of to bear up against it, and to endeavour, under such circumstances, by industry to acquire property. He (the Lord Chancellor) had always looked upon this as a most unwise provision in the Insolvent Debtors Law, and one that ought to be repealed. Another great absurdity was, that the two laws should be administered by two different description of Judges—the Bankrupt Commissioners in
✶Hansard (Third Series), Vol. lxxiv. p. 457.
1184
the one case, and the Commissioners for the relief of insolvent debtors in the other. It was for these reasons—it being represented that the Bill of his noble and learned Friend had for its object to assimilate those two branches of the law, and that it had also for its object that the law so assimilated should be administered by one set of Judges—that he supported it, reserving to himself, of course, the consideration of its details by the Committee. And he begged leave to say further, that he had himself carefully considered the subject when he brought forward the Bankrupt Law Amendment Bill, which was now the law of the land; and the only reason why he had not imitated the example of his noble and learned Friend, by including such a measure as a part of that Bill was, that feeling most anxious for the success of that Bill, he had avoided encumbering it with the provisions necessary for accomplishing his noble Friend's object, knowing too that the object might be effected by a separate Bill which might afterwards be introduced. He most heartily approved of these provisions of his noble and learned Friend's measure, and he would suggest that it should now be read a second time, and should then stand over for a short period before going into Committee, because he understood his other noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had a measure in contemplation, which had been alluded to, and which, being in some degree connected with the same subject, ought to be before the House at the same time; and he thought his noble Friend (Lord Brougham) and their Lordships would concur with him that it might lead to some inconvenience to pass the one before they had the other before them, in order that they might have an opportunity of judging how far the machinery and objects of the one Bill bore upon the machinery and objects of the other."
His noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had followed the Lord Chancellor, and stated that a learned person, a Sergeant at Law (Mr. Sergeant Manning), had been engaged in investigating the codes of many countries on the subject of the laws of Bankruptcy and Insolvency; and the statement which that learned person was preparing would shortly be put into his hands. A copy of this document had been sent to his house—he did not know what name to give it unless he called it a Report—it was addressed to the Lord Chancellor; but it had no beginning, or rather it began like a narrative, and it concluded, "all which is respectfully submitted to your Lordship," and was signed, "James Manning, Serjeant-at-law." He thought he had a sufficient knowledge of printing-office matters to say, that this document had been printed by direction of the Government, or of some Member of

1185
it. That document had assumed the form of a Bill which his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had introduced, of a most gigantic character, for it repealed all the Bankrupt Laws as they existed in this country, and enacted an entirely new code, which took away from the Court of Chancery the most important parts of its jurisdiction, and gave to the Insolvent Debtors' Court jurisdiction in accounts between parties, and the control over estates and other matters of account which now formed a great part of the jurisdiction of the Courts of Equity. [Lord Brougham: It is not compulsory.] It was in some cases; but, it appeared, his noble and learned Friend meant to postpone it. When, however, he found that this was the Bill which it was suggested in the debate of the 30th of April was proper to be considered with his (Lord Cottenham's) Bill—
Lord Broughamsaid, that finding that Bill had such a variety of objects, he had singled out portions from it. The present Bill contained such parts of it as no one entertained any doubt about—namely, the improvement of the jurisdiction given by the Bill of 1842.
Lord Cottenham: Now, after a lapse of two months, when the abolition of imprisonment for debt was a matter believed to be decided upon by the country at large, and more particularly by the unfortunate persons now confined, he hoped he should be able to convince their Lordships that they ought to adhere to the vote which they had given on the 30th of April, and not rescind it. There appeared then not to be two opinions on the subject. If ever Parliament gave its sanction to a measure before it was formally passed, they had done it by the course adopted on that occasion—he alluded more particularly to the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, which had the sanction of the noble Duke opposite, and he believed he was not going too far if he assumed that it was approved by Her Majesty's Government. It certainly also had the approval of their Lordships: for, in fact, he had not heard an opinion expressed against the principle of the Bill; and were their Lordships now going to say that imprisonment for debt should remain part of the law of the land? Were their Lordships now about to say that an insolvent discharged under the Insolvent Act should not have the enjoyment of his future property. Was the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack now going to unsay all that he had then said?
1186
He did not, neither would he, believe it. Had any new light been discovered? Why did not his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) state then what he had stated now? his opinion then appeared to be the very contrary of what he stated it to be now. After, however, the course which the noble and learned Lord had taken, he must ask for the indulgence of the House, whilst he refreshed their recollection of the grounds upon which he asked them to come to the decision which they had come to on the 30th of April. His noble and learned Friend had referred to a Report of Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject in 1832. One of the individuals (Mr. Stephen) dissented, but the other four joined in the Report; and he trusted their Lordships, before they consented to undo now what they had done on the 30th of April, would look back to what those Commissioners had said. They came to the conclusion that imprisonment for debt in execution ought to be abolished; that it ought not to continue to he the law of the land. They examined many witnesses, and the result of all their inquiry was, that they came to that conclusion. Did his noble and learned Friend object to the conclusion to which they had come? When he (Lord Cottenham) had the honour of holding the Great Seal he found this Report, and found, also, that nothing had been done upon it. He concurred in the opinion of those learned persons, but he knew that he had great interests to contend with, and wishing to arm himself with all the authority he could before he introduced any measure into that House, in the year 1840 he advised the appointment of a Commission again on the subject; he did not confine that Commission to lawyers—they knew well how the matter worked; but there was another class of persons who were also well acquainted with the subject, and he therefore also appointed merchants and traders in the city of London, who were best able from their knowledge and experience to form an opinion as to how this law operated on their interests. The lawyers on that Commission were, the present Mr. Justice Erskine, Mr. Joshua Evans, Mr. Fonblanque, and Mr. Holroyd—two of the most distinguished Commissioners of the Bankruptcy Court now exercising their duties in London—and he thought when he mentioned the names of the merchants he had selected, it would be admitted that they were also well qualified for the performance of the duty which they had un-

1187
dertaken; they were—Mr. Wynne Ellis, Mr. Benjamin Hawes, Mr. George Glynn, and Mr. Horseley Palmer, to whom he added Mr. Law, one of the Commissioners of the Insolvent Debtors Court. From this Report—as from the former—one individual dissented—not a merchant—Mr. Commissioner Law, who was one of the Commissioners of the Insolvent Debtors Court. He thought it was infinitely for the advantage of this inquiry, as it was for the previous one, that there was one dissentient. Both of the Gentlemen in each case—Mr. Stephen and Mr. Commissioner Law—made a long and elaborate Report, so that their Lordships and the public knew upon what ground it was they differed. All these authorities, with the exceptions he had named, gave it as their most unqualified opinion that imprisonment for debt ought to be abolished, and that it had been found to be totally inoperative. Accordingly, armed with this Report, in the Session of 1841 he had a Bill prepared, and as the Commission of 1840 had carried their inquiries into an improvement of the laws both of bankruptcy and insolvency, and had recommended that they should be united, his Bill was framed to carry into effect all their recommendations—the principal object of the Bill being to abolish imprisonment for debt, and give greater facilities to creditors for obtaining the property of their debtors. The events of 1841 prevented his carrying on this measure before their Lordships, but he stated, before he went out of office that he would renew the Bill in 1842; but in that year a Bill was brought in under the authority of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack which adopted half of his Bill of 1841, viz. all that part relating to the improvement of the Bankrupt Law; and the noble and learned Lord gave the reasons which he (Lord Cottenham) had just read why he had not adopted the whole of his Bill. The Bill which their Lordships read a second time on the 30th of April had for its object the carrying out of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Commissioners he had appointed in 1840. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack supported the Bill, as he had before stated; —and after what had taken place, would their Lordships rescind their former vote, and support the Bill now brought forward by his noble and learned Friend, framed upon exactly opposite antagonist principles? The noble and learned Lord's elaborate Bill was not then before the House, but he had
1188
gone into his (Lord Cottenham's) Bill for the purpose of showing how much better his (Lord Brougham's) Bill was than the Bill which he (Lord Cottenham) had proposed. The object of the noble and learned Lord's Bill was, to amend a former Bill; it certainly went a great way as a Bill to amend; but still it was founded on that former measure—which was simply this: it provided that any person, not a trader, and any trader owing debts under 300 l., might apply to the Court of Bankruptcy, and upon a representation of the state of his property and debts, he might get an ad interim protection, and if nothing was found to militate against his claim for protection, he was ultimately to have a final order of protection. Now, their Lordships would observe, that this assumed that imprisonment for debt was to continue. It only affected a certain class of persons, and it also possessed this fault—it provided for the protection of the debtor, but it totally omitted to provide any remedy for the creditor. When the debtor obtained his protection, his estate, became vested in an assignee, it applied only to the lowest description of persons who were traders, and, after they had obtained their protection, it was generally found that the value of their effects would not warrant any further proceedings with a view to distribute them amongst the creditors, and the consequence was, that nothing further was done. The creditor had no means of enforcing payment of his debt after protection was given. The noble and learned Lord had stated that hundreds and thousands of persons had taken the benefit of that Act, but in very few cases had the creditor received any benefit, because there was no machinery in the Bill for dividing the property among the creditors. That was a measure, in fact, in his opinion, to encourage fraud, and he believed that it had been a source of great evil throughout the country. There was a Bill on this subject in the other House of Parliament which had not been proceeded with in consequence of his (Lord Cottenham's) Bill. They might, when his Bill came before the other House, consider which they would adopt, but after a lapse of two months, he did not for a moment suppose that the Government would throw out a measure of which they had then approved. He could not believe it. After the second reading, on the 30th of April, he found great difficulty in getting his Bill into Committee, in which he did not succeed until the 23rd of

1189
May. On the 6th of May, he found a Bill brought in by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), who had expressed no disapprobation of his (Lord Cottenham's) Bill, entituled "A Bill for Facilitating Arrangements between Debtors and Creditors." Of that Bill, however, they had heard no more. On the 13th of May, his noble and learned Friend brought forward his voluminous "Bill for Amending the Laws of Bankruptcy and Insolvency, and for Facilitating the Settlement of certain Matters of Account;" and this was the Bill which his noble and learned Friend had stated his intention not to proceed with at present. The Bill of his noble and learned Friend now under discussion was not introduced until the 21st of May; so that in the interval between the second reading of his (Lord Cottenham's) Bill and the Committee on his Bill, these three measures had been produced. Neither of these three Bills interfered with the Bill which their Lordships read a second time on the 30th of April, excepting the extensive Bill, which was not now brought forward, His noble and learned Friend said, that this Bill and his (Lord Cottenham's) were dissimilar—and so they were—in this: The Bill of his noble and learned Friend did not abolish imprisonment for debt except in certain cases, at the option of a judge; but his (Lord Cottenham's) object was to abolish it by destroying it altogether. His noble and learned Friend said, "Do not abolish imprisonment for debt, mitigate it, but maintain it for certain acts of dishonesty at the discretion of the individual judge." He, however, thought that was not right—it was not just—it was not consistent with the spirit of the English law. [Lord Brougham: It is consistent with the Insolvent Debtor's Act.] He said it was his object, and he had thought before that it was also the object of his noble and learned Friend, to get rid of the Insolvent Debtors' Act altogether. Let acts of dishonesty be tried by a jury, and if a party was convicted let him be punished; but to give to any individual the power of continuing imprisonment, abolishing it, or mitigating it at pleasure, and according to his own discretion or caprice—a power which would be administered by one man in one way, and by another in a different way—was contrary to the principles of British law. By the noble and learned Lord's Bill, any two execution creditors could set the law in motion, but any one creditor of 20 l.
1190
could equally do it. Surely this required some further consideration. The machinery was very defective; and why was a debtor, who owed 300 l., to be subjected to imprisonment before he could procure his protection? Imprisonment appeared to him to be the great evil of the Insolvent Debtors' Act, and yet the Bill of his noble and learned Friend went to perpetuate the evil. It was futile to talk about "protection," because a person might be sent to prison— his business might be broken up, and his affairs become irremediably deranged before he could obtain the protection. If the debtor knew that the creditor were on the look out for him to place him in prison, he might apply for and obtain protection, but if the creditor was too quick for him, and come upon him suddenly, he might be taken to prison before he could apply for protection, and there was nothing in the Bill of his noble and learned Friend to prevent such a man from being arrested. He might indeed be released after arrest, but there was no provision against the arrest in the first place. Upon this ground he (Lord Cottenham) considered that the Bill before their Lordships was open to all the objections of the Insolvent Debtors' Bill. [Lord Brougham: He can be released next morning.] That might be; but still there was nothing to prevent the arrest. He trusted that their Lordships, having already allowed his own Bill to go through certain stages, would not now consent to a Bill which was based upon antagonistic principles. It might be available, if his own Bill failed in another place; and therefore he made no opposition to the progress of his noble and learned Friend's Bill—but he hoped that they would at least send his Bill to the other House.
Lord Ashburtonsaid, that as he had for many years past paid considerable attention to the subject then under discussion, he trusted he might be excused if he ventured to say a few words in reference to it. He was not going to say anything with reference to reversing former expressions of opinion, but he must say that he thought it was too much the practice of their Lordships' House to postpone the discussion upon. Bills from one stage to another, until at last the Bill seemed to come before them with some claims for approval before any discussion had been taken upon it. He would now state to their Lordships what appeared to him to be the two leading distinctions between the Bill of the noble Lord (Lord

1191
Cottenham) and that of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) who had opened the debate. In the first place, there was a difference as to the distinction of Insolvency from Bankruptcy; and secondly, there was a difference with regard to imprisonment; not, however, as he understood it, very material with respect to the question of the propriety of imprisonment or non-imprisonment, but rather as to the manner in which imprisonment might possibly be applied. It seemed to be admitted on all hands that the principle of Imprisonment for Debt, regarded as a punishment for having incurred a debt, was not to be justified; for though in many cases the debtor might deserve imprisonment, yet its general application would involve the punishment of the innocent with the guilty, which was a practice wholly indefensible. It was also admitted that there was no other mode of obtaining from the debtor a fair and proper disclosure of his property but some kind of restraint upon the person; nor did the noble and learned Lord who spoke last recommend any other mode of coercion as necessary, in order to ensure a full disclosure of the debtor's effects; the measure of the noble and learned Lord being quite as stringent on the point of punishment as that of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham). The principle of punishing a person for contracting a debt was in his opinion indefensible; but it had always struck him that the sensitiveness and apprehension of the public, lest the liberty of the subject should be infringed in the imprisonment of debtors for the purpose of forcing them to surrender the whole of their property, and of deterring others from recklessly incurring debts, was very much misplaced; and that much of the compassion lavished on the debtors more properly belonged to the unfortunate creditor. He entertained no doubt, that if an accurate inquiry into the matter could be made, it would be found that the great mass of debts had been incurred under some circumstances which would make it no very great hardship that the law should hold out something as it were in terrorem against parties recklessly incurring debts. If a person took the property of another having no right so to do, he was liable to punishment of a severe nature, but the man was in his (Lord Ashburton's) opinion no less guilty who took the property of another under a promise to pay, knowing at the time that he had no means of paying. He thought, therefore, that it
1192
was a false principle in legislation to be too sensitive upon this point. Now, the two plans of employing imprisonment were, as it appeared to him, the following:—His noble and learned Friend proposed that the Commissioner should have the power of determining whether the conduct of the debtor were satisfactory or not, and if he should decide that his conduct was unsatisfactory, then he had the power of remanding or of suspending the discharge of the debtor. If the means of obtaining a knowledge of the effects, and getting at a proper settlement, made the remedy of a restraint upon the personal liberty necessary, it was no more than was at once a wholesome and proper restraint. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Cottenham) said that many unfortunate persons now in prison for debt were anxiously looking forward to the day when the law should release them from their thraldom; while he (Lord Ashburton) believed that no person, who was ready to give a fair and honest account of his affairs, and to surrender the whole of his property need remain in prison an hour under the present Bill. As he said before, it was an acknowledged principle on all hands that imprisonment was not to be allowed for debt, but only as a wholesome restraint, and as a means of obtaining a knowledge of the property of the bankrupt, so that the creditor might not be fraudulently deprived of that which was his due. The noble and learned Lord did not propose to leave to the Court the conduct of the debtor as the case went on, but meant the debtor to be entirely free in his person.
Lord Cottenham: No, no.
Lord Brougham: Then, after all, you don't abolish Imprisonment for Debt.
Lord Cottenham: My Bill gives power to the creditor to summon the debtor before the Court, and to examine him as to what property he has, and if the Court think that he honestly discloses all his affairs, then he is not to be imprisoned; but if he refuse to answer, or if the Court be of opinion that he has property of which he has made no disclosure, then he is to be imprisoned.
Lord Brougham: But not for any extravagancies, mind. He may have spent 20,000 l. upon extravagance—that doesn't signify.
Lord Ashburtoncontinued.—It really appeared to him, then, after all, that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cottenham) did not abolish Imprisonment for Debt. If

1193
imprisonment, then, were to be held in terrorem, over the debtor, if he were to be remanded and kept in prison till his conduct was quite satisfactory, then he did not see much difference upon that point between one Bill and the other. He submitted that there might be many cases in which the evidence might be quite clear during the examination between the parties, yet might not be clear as it could be got up to send it for trial. A great deal of the evidence on which the Court would have power to send the debtor to another Court of Justice would be his own evidence, but then that evidence could not be used against him. The noble and learned Lord's provisions seemed to proceed from what was no doubt a very amiable motive—viz, a degree of solicitude with respect to the personal liberty of individuals; but which was not in his (Lord Ashburton's) opinion consistent with justice to the creditor. With regard to the separation of Insolvency from Bankruptcy, the noble and learned Lord seemed to treat them as identical, but he (Lord Ashburton) must say, that it appeared to him that for all purposes, whether moral or commercial, they were totally and essentially distinct. In the case of Bankruptcy, it might so happen that the debtor had got into difficulties from unforeseen misfortunes whilst engaged in a laudable desire to promote his own business pursuits; his debts were the honest and fair liabilities of the trader, whose very name imports speculation; who makes purchases or ventures in the way of honourable commerce. But the case of an ordinary insolvent was very different. In this case, the man was generally one who incurred debts in the purchase of things for his own consumption and enjoyment, perhaps without the means or even the intention of meeting those engagements. That man's moral liability was in his (Lord Ashburton's) opinion much greater, and totally distinct from that of a Bankrupt. Great distinctions always had been recognised between the two by the laws of the country, and he trusted that a distinction would still continue to be drawn between them. There could be no objection, that a person, not a trader, incurring debt, should be freed as to his person, but he could see no reason why, if he should again become prosperous, he should not then be answerable for his liabilities previously incurred. Not so, however, in the case of the trader, who, upon obtaining his certificate, was released from all previously
1194
contracted liabilities. He trusted that nothing might be done injurious to the system of credit, for credit there must always be; and it had hitherto been to the praise of this country that her credit was unimpeachable. That same system was extended from the greatest merchant down to the smallest trader, and any Bill which should be injurious to their interests could not fail of being detrimental to the interests of the country.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, as his noble and learned Friend had alluded to the course which he had taken and the observations he had made on the second reading of his (Lord Cottenham's) Bill, he felt called on to make a few observations on the present position of the question. Their Lordships were placed in a situation of very considerable difficulty. The one noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) had introduced a Bill for the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt, and which he declared to be a very good Bill, and much better than that which the other noble and learned Lord had introduced. Again, the other noble and learned Lord (Lord Cottenham) had also introduced a Bill respecting Debtors and Creditors, which he said, possessed all the advantages of the Bill of the other noble and learned Lord, besides some improvements; and therefore, although the noble and learned Lord's was a very good Bill, he (Lord Cottenham) would recommend their Lordships to give the preference to his Bill. They were thus called upon to decide respecting the merits of those two measures. Now, how were their Lordships to decide between these two Bills? If they were able to say at once which of those measures ought to be preferred, he must give them credit for the possession of faculties much more acute than he conceived them to possess. The question submitted for their Lordships' decision was a question which every one must admit to be one of great importance, great nicety, and great difficulty; and it appeared to him, that considering the circumstances under which it came before them, the course to be pursued was, to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. If such a Committee recommended one of the Bills, then they might safely proceed to consider that, or on the recommendation of the Committee, they might adopt the other measure; or if the Committee so advised them, and that they found the two Bills, reconcilable, they might amalgamate the two Bills by adopting all that was good in both, He thought

1195
that by no other course could they come to a safe conclusion on these subjects. Then, with respect to what had been said about the course he had pursued on a former occasion, it was quite true, that he had approved of the principle of his noble and learned Friend's (Lord Cottenham's) Bill. The question was, what was the principle of that Bill? His noble and learned Friend had ingeniously converted into the principle of the Bill, what he had never considered to be its principle, while he had departed from that which he (the Lord Chancellor) had considered to be its principle, and to which every observation he had made was directed. But what was the principle he had contended for, and which he had omitted from the Bankruptcy Bill, solely because he did not wish to clog that measure? As he understood it, it was to assimilate the Law of Insolvency to that of Bankruptcy. All his observations were made with reference to that subject. He had then said, as he said still, that it was absurd to have one law for Insolvency and another for Bankruptcy; that it was absurd also that the one law should be administered by one set of judges, and the other by another set of judges; and further, that it was impolitic that when an individual had been discharged under the Insolvent Debtors Act, he should be considered liable for the payment of those debts for which he had been so discharged. He thought they should get rid of this incumbrance, and assimilate Insolvency to Bankruptcy. To those principles he still adhered, but he went no further. He would remind their Lordships also that he stated his other noble and learned Friend had a measure in contemplation on the same subject, and that he counselled their Lordships to wait until that measure was submitted to their consideration. He had, moreover, always intended, in the progress of the Bill, to call their Lordships' attention to the nature of the measure. Their Lordships were not, perhaps, in the habit of reading, in detail, the various clauses of the Law Bills which passed through their House; and he had, therefore, felt it his duty to call their attention to some of its provisions. There was one especially, though not at all essential to the principle of the Bill, to which he begged to call attention. It was, that if any individual had a judgment for debt entered against him, and had not the means of immediately satisfying it, whatever might be his rank or station in society, whether he were a Peer
1196
of Parliament, or a Prince of the Blood —in short every individual in this realm, except the Sovereign—he might be cited before one of the Commissioners of Bankruptcy in town or country to be interrogated, and have his answers taken down in writing, and if they were not perfectly satisfactory the Commissioners might immediately commit him to prison, there to remain, without bail, until he had given answers to the entire satisfaction of the Commissioners before whom he was called for the purpose of examination. Now he did not say that this would not be right, but it was a great innovation, introduced for the first time by the Bill of his noble and learned Friend; and, as he had stated, no one would be exempt from it. It might be said that the exalted personages he had referred to were not likely to be placed in such a situation, but he had lived long enough in the world to know that, in point of fact, such things might have happened. He had in the course of his professional career known many persons of the highest rank, who might have been placed in this unfortunate situation. He did not say it was wrong to frame a Bill in the manner in which the present measure had been drawn up; it might be perfectly right to establish all that equality which it would be the effect of this Bill to create; but the question was one of a very grave and important nature; and he said, before they adopted it, they ought to consider, inquire, and examine whether it were necessary, to what extent they would go, or what limitation could be made, if it could be made with propriety. It was the same with respect to insolvency. Every person, whatever might be his rank or station, might be summoned before a Commissioner. All that would be required was the question, "Do you own this debt? "Yes." "Now, why don't you pay it?" and if the answer were not satisfactory, perhaps fifteen days would be given to pay it in, after which all the debtor's property would be liable to be seized and vested in an official assignee, for distribution among his creditors. Now, this he repeated, might be right, but it was a great and extensive alteration, and they ought, therefore to proceed cautiously and see whether it was proper and necessary. All he would suggest, therefore, was, that as they had two measures presented for consideration by two of the highest legal authorities in the House, they should refer them to a Select Committee for the purpose he had mentioned. With respect to

1197
the present measure, it was stated that he had said imprisonment for debt ought to be abolished without reserve; but he had never considered that the principle of the Bill, and had never said a word about it. He did not say that imprisonment for debt ought not to be abolished, but it certainly-deserved the most serious and attentive consideration, before they decided on abolishing it without reserve or qualification. This very question had been before referred to a Committee above-stairs. His noble and learned Friend was at that time on the Woolsack, and his object was to abolish imprisonment for debt. But what was the decision of the Committee? Why, that it was wise and expedient to abolish arrest for debt in mesne process, but that it was not wise to abolish imprisonment in execution. That was the deliberate opinion given by a Committee of this House on the Bill of his noble and learned Friend. True it was, that subsequent experience might possibly have thrown more light upon the subject, but when once already decided by a Committee of their Lordships' House, he (the Lord Chancellor) thought it became a matter that deserved full, serious, and anxious consideration. There were various classes of persons in this country, against whom, if imprisonment for debt were abolished in the manner in which it was now proposed, there would be no remedy whatever. Let their Lordships suppose an individual who went fashionably attired, who was in the receipt of an allowance from his father, and lived in furnished lodgings, incurring debts to a very large amount. Now, if this Bill were to pass, what remedy would there be against him? Creditors could not seize his goods, for goods he had none. He could not be arrested, because imprisonment for debt was entirely abolished. But it might be said, "What was the use of imprisoning a person who had no property?" The answer he would give was, that it was not to make that individual pay his debts; but it was the fear of that imprisonment which operated to restrain such persons from involving themselves in debts that they themselves knew they had no means of discharging. It operated in terrorem, and in that respect was a very useful check. But was there not also a question of great importance depending upon this subject which rendered it still more material to institute inquiry? If they abolished imprisonment for debt in ordinary cases, they must abolish it in all cases. If they were to do so in cases of
1198
100 l.. and 150 l. with what show of justice or consistency could they retain it in cases of 10 s. or 15 s.? Then what was the course which would be pursued? Would they sweep away all the Small Debts Courts; not that many persons were sent to prison under the authority of those Courts, but that the fact of their possessing such authority produced caution and exertion amongst the class of debtors. If they abolished imprisonment for debt in larger cases, they could not retain it in smaller. If they abolishad it in the Small Debts Courts and the Courts of Requests, these Courts, it was said, would no longer be able to exercise jurisdiction; and if there were no remedy for the recovery of debts— no means of enforcing payment, how, he asked, was the poor man, who happened to be thrown out of work by sickness or other cause —how was he to maintain his family? How was he to procure credit in such circumstances, when there would be no mode of compelling payment? He (the Lord Chancellor) therefore advised their Lordships to be cautious in their proceedings, and to inquire into and consider the subject well, before they legislated on the subject, or before they preferred one of these Bills to the other. He did not say what the result of an inquiry was likely to be. Possibly it might be in conformity with the opinion of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), or with that of his other noble and learned Friend (Lord Cottenham). But at least inquire into a matter of such great importance before proceeding to legislate. His noble and learned Friend saw the difficulty to which the attention of their Lordships had just been called, and in order to guard against it introduced a clause, whereby an employer might be called upon to retain the wages of an operative in his service, and if he did not owe the wages at the time, to be held responsible for the debt when the wages became due. Their Lordships could not fail to see how that must operate; for no one would think of retaining a servant who involved him in such confusion and complexity as must necessarily arise from having to pay fractions of his wages to he knew not how many creditors, the more especially as it would affect not only such wages as might be due to the servant, but those which he might afterwards earn. This was copied from the law of Scotland, or perhaps it was not exactly copied, for it went much beyond that law, the Scottish law applying only to existing wages, and

1199
not anticipating future wages, which his noble and learned Friend's provision did. It was rather extraordinary that a very few years ago a Commission of lawyers, merchants, and others were appointed in Scotland for the purpose of considering the question of arrest of wages, and the decision of that Commission was, that it was a principle that could not be enforced; that it was a very mischievous one, and they therefore advised its utter abolition. Yet such was the measure his noble and learned Friend introduced to get rid of the difficulty in the case of debts contracted by working men. Unless their Lordships, after the discussion of to-night, were in a condition to pronounce between the respective measures of his two noble and learned Friends, the only wise and proper course that could be pursued, considering the difficulty and the delicacy of the question —the only wise, sober, and discreet course was to recommend the whole subject to the consideration of a Committee above-stairs, by which means they would have an opportunity of considering the subject in detail and deciding on its merits. If, on the contrary, their Lordships thought they were in a condition to decide at once on the merits of the two Bills, and were of opinion that the Bill of either of his noble and learned Friends ought to pass into a law, he should subscribe to their opinion; but if they thought that the measure was deserving of further consideration they would adopt his recommendation and refer it to a Select Committee.
Lord Broughamfor his part, readily acceded to his noble and learned Friend's proposal, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. He would, however, set his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cottenham) right in one or two particulars. He had said that he considered that bankruptcy should be equivalent to insolvency. His noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) approved of that, and said that noble Lords, the Earl of A—, or Duke of B—, would be dealt with the same as traders. If the noble and learned Lord said, that a distinction ought to be made between them, he was not prepared to pronounce any opinion upon that point; he had not made up his mind. Let them, however, take one step at a time. If they determined to abolish imprisonment for debt, let it be done gradually. If his Bill passed, there was not a single insolvent who might not obtain his certificate.
Lord Campbellhad heard the speech of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack with very deep regret and disappointment. The inference to be drawn from it was that nothing could be done during the present Session for the mitigation of imprisonment for debt. They bad now reached the third reading of the Bill of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cottenham), and it was only at that stage at the end of June, that his noble and learned Friend discovered its defects, and made as excellent a speech against it as he made in its favour when it was read a second time on the 30th of April. On the second reading, his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) pledged himself to give the measure his support throughout its details. The se-second reading was carried nemine contradicente—their Lordships were quite unanimous, and there was not a word about qualification, or censure, or suspicion that the Bill was exceptionable in any part. Then it went into Committee, which was the proper time for his noble and learned Friend to bring forward any amendments to clauses of which he disapproved. But the Bill passed through Committee also, and the Report was brought up and agreed to, and yet no objection was raised. Now, however, on the third reading, the Bill was to be rejected, because the referring it to a Select Committee at this period of the Session was a pretence that did not deserve the least weight. Why, the subject was referred to a Commission in 1830, and again to another Commission in 1835, which Commission sat days, weeks, months, and years. He (Lord Campbell) was altogether at a loss to discover the reasons of his noble and learned Friend for taking such a course. Was it that he was afraid to give offence to his other noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), and interrupt that harmony which had hitherto prevailed between them; his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) having previously introduced a Bill on the same subject. Why should the noble and learned Lord have altered his views now? In his (Lord Campbell's) opinion, his noble and learned Friend's conduct would not reflect much credit on Her Majesty's Government, or give much satisfaction to the public. The Bill was agreed to on its second reading, not by a majority of twenty, but with unanimity, and yet their Lordships were

1201
now called upon to reject it. For this change in his noble and learned Friend's conduct, he was totally at a loss to conceive any reason. The security of Her Majesty's present Government did not depend upon the measure—there was no threat of a resignation if it were carried. The Exchequer would not suffer by its enactment. Where then was the reason? That might be a reason why, in another place, a particular vote which had been come to should be reversed, but now, at this stage of the Bill, to call upon their Lordships to reject that which they had before unanimously approved of two months ago, seemed to him a wanton insult to this House.
The Duke of Wellington: Their Lordships were not called upon to reject the Bill of the noble and learned Lord. The fact was, that there were two Bills before their Lordships, and what his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack recommended was that both the measures should be referred to a Committee. The Bill of his noble and learned Friend being approved of in a great measure by the noble and learned Lord opposite, alt they were now called on to do was to refer the two Bills to a Committee, which should adopt the course which might seem most expedient. That was the simple proposition, and he begged their Lordships to recollect that it was not that either measure be rejected.
Lord Cottenhamreplied. The noble Duke said this was not a proposition for the rejection of the Bill. It certainly was not in point of form, but it was in substance. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had proposed a reference to a Committee up stairs.
The Lord Chancellorwished to correct the mistake into which the noble and learned Lord had fallen. He (the Lord Chancellor) it was who moved that the Bills be referred to a Select Committee, in order that their relative merits might be better decided on.
Lord Cottenhamsaid, in that case his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had shown more candour than he had given him credit for. This measure was of two years standing, and his noble and learned Friend had had ample knowledge of the measure. In 1842 he not only had knowledge, but expressed his approbation, of the Bill; in 1843 the same thing occurred,—not a word of dis-
1202
approbation fell from his noble and learned Friend. In the present Session, and in the first two or three days of it, he (Lord Cottenham) had again produced the measure, stating that it was the same measure as before, and he had fixed the second reading at such a time (viz. the first day after the Easter recess) as would give noble Lords an ample opportunity for making themselves acquainted with the details of the Bill. His noble and learned Friend knew of both of the measures in ample time, and had expressed no disapprobation; yet now he told the House that he never meant to express approbation of the details of his (Lord Cottenham's) measure. On the second reading, the noble and learned Lord, as appeared by the Report, which he (Lord Cottenham) could testify was accurate in other respects, and which he believed the noble and learned Lord would not contradict, stated that "he fully approved of the objects and of the provisions of the Bill." What could be the reason of the change, he would not say in his noble and learned Friend's opinion, but in his decision? He had reason to think that it was but within a few days that his noble and learned Friend had come to that decision. It had once been said, that there was a power behind the Throne stronger than the Throne itself; perhaps in this case there was room to say that there was a power behind the Woolsack stronger than the Woolsack itself. What could it be? He could say, but he would not. Did the noble and learned Lord think that the credit of Her Majesty's Government would be impaired by passing this measure? Would the public think that justice had been done? As to inquiry, there was nothing to inquire into. The two measures were quite incompatible; one proceeded on the principle of maintaining imprisonment for debt, the other on the principle of abolishing imprisonment for debt. What was the Select Committee to inquire into, when they had already volumes of reports on the subject to such an amount that no Select Committee could go through them in a year? They had the fullest evidence of lawyers, and bankers, and others taken before the Commission in 1833; they had a voluminous inquiry again in 1840; so that, in fact, nothing remained to inquire into. He utterly repudiated the distinction between referring the Bill to a Select Committee and reject-

1203
ing it. To have rejected it at once would have been the more manly course.
The Lord Chancellorwas understood to say, that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cottenham) had complained that no intimation had been given to him of the course he (the Lord Chancellor) intended to pursue with regard to this measure. He had, however, communicated to his noble and learned Friend some days since that he intended to oppose the Bill.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, that the Bill of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham), who had quitted the House, proposed to abolish imprisonment for debt to as great an extent as he was prepared to go. He did not think it advisable to abolish entirely, and in all cases, imprisonment for debt.
The Lord Chancellorwould state the origin and history of this Bill. A Commission was appointed to inquire into the law relating to Bankruptcy and Insolvency; that Commission reported in favour of the principle of cessio bonorum as a substitute for the present system of insolvency; and when he stated that he intended to adopt that principle as a part of his Bankruptcy Bill, he meant it as being adopted on the recommendation of the Commissioners. The Bill was drawn by one of the Commissioners themselves, and the Report was intended to be embodied in that Bill. And when so adopting that principle of cessio bonorum, he meant to confine himself to that alone—he never intended the total abolition of imprisonment for debt. It never crossed his imagination at that time. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Cottenham) complained that this was an endeavour to defeat the Bill which he himself had brought in, called the Debtor and Creditor Bill. Now, the fact was, that he (the Lord Chancellor) communicated to his noble and learned Friend some days since that it was his intention to oppose his Bill.
The Earl of Winchilseaconsidered the course which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack proposed to take to be a most proper one. He certainly did not object to the principle of cessio bonorum, but he was entirely opposed to a total abolition of imprisonment for debt.
The Lord Chancellor, in accordance with his views, moved as an Amendment, that the Order for receiving the Report of the Amendment be discharged, and that
1204
the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
Amendment agreed to; Order discharged; Bill referred to a Select Committee.

CREDITORS AND DEBTORS BILL.
Lord Cottenhamsaid, he should now move that this Bill be read a third time.
The Lord Chancellormoved, by way of Amendment that the Order for the third reading be discharged, and that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
Lord Denmanhad hoped that, during the present Session, Imprisonment for Debt would have been totally abolished. When the present Bill was introduced, the principle of it was adopted by their Lordships; but then his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had since introduced another Bill on the Law of Insolvency, stating that it would produce the same result but in a different manner. He (Lord Denman) regretted that that Bill had not been presented at an earlier period, when they might both have been referred to a Committee, and their Lordships might then have been able to have arrived at some reasonable conclusion during the present Session. He (Lord Denman) confessed he feared that the very principle of the abolition of imprisonment for debt was now placed in great jeopardy. Even the delay that would take place would in itself be a great evil, and that that principle should be jeopardized was what their Lordships could not consent to without extreme danger, and was a course greatly to be deprecated. If it was not the intention of his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) to abolish imprisonment for debt, then he (Lord Denman) would press it upon the noble Duke, personally, and with the greatest energy, that he, as a Minister of this country, should lend all the weight of his high character and station to bring this matter to a real and decisive issue; in order that they might not go on from month to month, and from year to year, playing with the feelings of a great body of persons in this country, who were entitled to their Lordships commiseration, and also leaving in doubt what the actual law of the country was to be. He would entreat that the noble Duke should put an end to this suspense, and that the Government would be pleased to take proceedings to have the principle again as-

1205
serted by the same unanimous vote by which it had already been adopted, or that at least some other system should be manfully avowed, in order that the people whom it concerned might know what was the law of the country.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that if his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cottenham) would accede to the course which he (the Lord Chancellor) had suggested, he would propose that the Select Committee be appointed on Monday and they should meet de die in diem, till they made their report. He conceived that a Report could be made in a few days, so that there would really be no loss of time by the appointment of the Committee.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, as the noble and learned Lord had particularly addressed himself to him, he must say that he understood from his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) that the intention of the Amendment was not to reject the third reading of the Bill, but was to inquire with respect to the two measures under the consideration of the House which was the preferable measure, and whether one measure could not be framed founded on these two Bills which would meet with general approbation. He (the Duke of Wellington) was sure that it was not the intention of his noble and learned Friend, nor of any noble Lord, to reject the principle which had been adopted.
Lord Cottenhamwas strongly opposed to the delay which the appointment of a Committee would occasion; yet having the object so much at heart, he would follow the measure to any tribunal in order to do his best endeavours to afford some relief to those unfortunate persons who were so deeply interested in this matter.
Lord Campbellwas willing to give full credit to the sincerity of the noble Duke, when he declared that there was no intention to reject the principle of this Bill; but it would be in vain to attach the smallest consequence to that declaration because, arrived as they were to the 21st of June, what was now proposed could not in the slightest degree, in the present Session, be effected. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had complained of the impossibility of getting noble Lords to attend Select Committees for purposes in which they had no immediate interests, and yet, with an inconsistency which excited his (Lord Campbell's) wonder, his
1206
noble and learned Friend at this late period of the Session, had proposed to refer to a Select Committee two Bills in which it was not possible for any of their Lordships to have any personal interest whatever. He (Lord Campbell) rejoiced that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cottenham) was opposed to the Amendment, and if his noble and learned Friend should be defeated on a division, his (Lord Campbell's) advice to him would be to wash his hands of the measure altogether. Whatever the noble Duke's opinion might be as to the intention of this Amendment, still he (Lord Campbell) thought the better course would have been, instead of proposing the appointment of a Committee, to have moved that this Bill should be read a third time this day six months.
Lord Kenyonstated, that the delay in the proceedings of the Committee appointed to consider the Bill relating to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was caused by the difficult nature of the subjects it was their duty to investigate.
Lord Cottenhambegged it to be distinctly understood that when he said he should follow this subject to any place where he thought there was the least chance of doing good to those whose interests he wished to serve, still he did not mean to encourage the least hope that anything would be done this Session; but that he considered that the Amendment, if carried, would be conclusive against the Bill this Session. He could only say to those who had been most cruelly and unjustly treated by the existing system of the law of Debtor and Creditor that he had done his best endeavours to forward the object they so anxiously desired.
The Earl of Mintowished to explain the grounds of the vote he should give on this occasion. If the object of the Amendment was to gain information necessary to enable their Lordships, or more properly speaking, to enable the noble and learned leaders of their Lordships' House to form their opinions upon the subject, he should certainly, even at the hazard of some risk of the success of the Bill, be disposed to acquiesce in the appointment of a Committee, but he could look at that proposal as nothing but an indirect mode of deferring the Bill altogether. Looking at this Bill as a measure to make a great change in the law, it must have engaged the attention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and he could not but express

1207
his surprise at that noble and learned Lord having sat in their Lordships' House during the previous discussions of this Bill, he should not now be able to say 'aye,' or 'no,' about the passing of it, without going tip to a Committee to settle his opinion. If he (the Earl of Minto) did not think that the opinion of the noble and learned Lord was already thoroughly formed, and that their Lordships' opinions would be ultimately decided by the opinions of the noble and learned Lord, he should be disposed to go into Committee, but viewing the matter as he had already stated, he should certainly vote for the third reading of the Bill.
The question was then put, and their Lordships divided. For the third reading: —Contents 4; Not-Contents 28: Majority against the third reading 24.
The Bill was then referred to a Select Committee, and the same noble Lords were named of the Committee that were named of the Committee on the Insolvent Debtors Act Amendment Bill.
House adjourned.