Sitting of 29 July 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—2° Fees Criminal Proceedings.
Reported.—Aprehension of Offenders; Municipal Districts, etc. (Ireland); Games and Wagers.
3° Court of Chancery; Stock in Trade; Removal of Paupers; Small Debts (No. 3); Customs Laws Repeal; Customs Management; Customs Duties; Warehousing of Goods; British Vessels; Shipping and Navigation; Trade of British Possessions Abroad; Customs Bounties and Allowances; Isle of Man Trade; Smuggling Prevention; Customs Regulation,
Private.—1o. Leeds and Bradford Railway (Shipley to Colne) (Mistake Rectifying).
Reported.—Tottenham and Farringdon Street Extension Railway; London and York Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From John Lewis, against Grant to Maynooth College.—By Mr. Hawes, from Llanbyther, and several other places, for Establishment of County Courts.—By Lord Ashley, from Factory Workers in the employ of Messrs. Fielden, Brothers, of Halifax, and from several other Factories, in favour of the Ten Hours System in Factories.—By Viscount Sandon, from Congregation of Welsh Calvinistic Methodists, worshipping in Prussia Street, Liverpool, and from Dissenting Congregations of a great number of other places, for Alteration of Law relating to Promiscuous Intercourse.—By Lord Ashley, from Inhabitants of Warrington, for Diminishing the Number of Public Houses.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from John Wilkes, of 64 Pershore Street, Birmingham, for Inquiry into the Treatment of his Son, whilst in the Queen's Hospital, Birmingham.—By Mr. Hutt, from Proprietors of Land in South Australia, for a General Assembly there.—By Mr. Hutt, from Stockholders and others, of New South Wales, for Repeal of certain Acts relating to that Colony.
House met at twelve o'clock.

SMALL DEBTS (NO. 3) BILL.
On the Question, that the Small Debts Bill (No. 3) be read a third time,
Mr. H. Berkeleysaid, he would be sorry to cause any impediment to the passing of this Bill; inasmuch as he admitted that it contained a great deal of good. He thought that much evil would be inflicted on the people by the exercise of that power given to the Secretary of State by the 8th Clause. The Secretary of State was by this clause empowered to extend or diminish the jurisdiction of the courts, so as to equalize them all. He hoped that the
1194
right hon. Baronet would be induced to alter it.
Sir J. Grahamcould hold out no hope of the kind; for he considered the clause to be highly necessary to give effect to the principle of the Bill.
Bill read a third time and passed.

REGULATION OF CUSTOMS.
The Customs Regulation Bill was read a Third time.
Mr. Wawntrusted that vessels returning to a British port in ballast, after landing a cargo at another British port, would be exempted from the pilotage dues exacted from foreign vessels. The hon. Member moved to leave certain words to give effect to this distinction.
Captain Pechellseconded the Amendment.
Mr. Corrythought the Amendment was brought forward at too late a period of the Session; and he should distinctly oppose any alteration in the clause.
The House divided on the Question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—Ayes 11; Noes 26: Majority 15.

List of the AYES.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Stewart, P. M.

Bowring, Dr.

Tufnell, H.

Brotherton, J.

Warburton, H.

Dennistoun, J.

Yorke, H. R.

Hawes, B.

TELLERS.

Henley, J. W.

Wawn, J. T.

Palmer, G.

Pechell, Capt.

List of the NOES.

Arkwright, G.

Northland, Visct.

Baring, rt. hn. W. B.

Peel, J.

Bruce, Lord E.

Polhill, F.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Sandon, Visct.

Cripps, W.

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

Denison, E. B.

Somerset, Lord G.

Divett, E.

Spooner, R.

Forester, hn. G. C. W.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Fuller, A. E.

Trotter, J.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Greene, T.

Hamilton, G. A.

TELLERS.

Meynell, Capt.

Cardwell, F.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Young, J.

Bill passed.

JOINT STOCK BANKS (SCOTLAND AND IRELAND).
On the Motion for going into Committee upon the Joint Stock Banks (Scotland and Ireland) Bill,
Mr. Bouverieobjected to the measure, because it was to have a retrospective effect,

1195
and would counteract that Act of the Legislature which had been passed at an earlier period of the Session upon the subject, upon the faith of which engagements had been entered into which would be seriously affected by this Bill, if it was permitted to pass into a law. He should, therefore, move that it be committed this day three months.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he did not think the hon. Member was borne out in his statement by the facts of the case. He merely wished the House to go, pro formâ, into Committee now, for the purpose of postponing the arguments upon it until Friday next, when it would be re-committed, and when the extent of the objections to the measure could be satisfactorily known. There was to be a meeting of Scotch bankers to-morrow on the subject.
Mr. P. M. Stewartprotested against the principle of pressing forward this Bill, because the Scotch bankers were said to be favourable to it. They would, of course, be glad that this measure should pass; because it would have the effect of increasing their monopoly, and preventing new banks being established. This was a question which ought to be decided by the mercantile interests of Scotland, who were directly opposed to it. He merely asked the right hon. Gentleman to delay this Bill until they could fairly take the opinion of the people of Scotland upon its merits.
The House went into Committee.
Clauses were agreed to.
The House resumed. Report to be received.
The House then adjourned till five o'clock.

STANDING ORDERS—RAILWAYS.
At the five o'clock sittings, the Report of the Standing Orders' Revision Committee was further considered.
Various Amendments were agreed to.
On Standing Order 39A, the Committee proposed that the amount of deposit on railway shares should be one-tenth, or 10 per cent., instead of 5 per cent.
Lord G. Somersetsaid, the Committee made this proposition on the expectation that speculation would be as rife this year as it was at present, and in consequence of the recent disclosures in Parliament, it was necessary to procure a more respectable body of shareholders. The Amendment of Standing Order 128 had reference to
1196
Ireland, and required that notices to landholders should be deposited with the clerks of the Unions.
On the Question that the Amendment be read a second time,
Sir R. Fergusonconsidered such a sudden call upon all railways would work most detrimentally to the schemes as public works, and prove a source of very considerable injustice to those persons who had already signed contracts upon the faith of their being required to deposit only 5l. per cent. He moved to omit the words "one-tenth" for the purpose of inserting "onetwentieth."
Sir G. Clerkhoped the House would agree to the Amendment suggested by the Committee in their Report. Considering the mania for speculation which had been exhibited in this country during the past year, and the mode in which the share lists had been proved to have been filled up, he considered that the Committee were perfectly justified in their recommendation, and that the House ought, upon public grounds, to adopt it. Were the Standing Orders so amended, the public would have some security for the completion of the projects by the necessarily increased respectability of the parties promoting them.
Mr. Stuart Wortleyalso suggested the extreme inconvenience that would be caused to shareholders in projected companies by the adoption of this rule.
Dr. Bowringobserved, that the effect of the rule would be to give an unfair advantage in the case of those railroads which were already formed, and to operate as a great injustice on those which were only projected.
Mr. E. B. Denisonsaid, that the effect of this order would be most unjust on those shareholders who had signed the Parliamentary deeds on the faith of the existing orders, and who had been led to believe that only a certain amount would be demanded of them until an Act of Parliament was obtained.
Mr. Greeneobserved, that the injustice of the proposed arrangement might be obviated by confining its operation to companies hereafter to be projected, and not applying it to those which were provisionally registered, or in which the deposits had been paid and the deeds signed.
Lord G. Somersetsaid, that some such regulation as this appeared absolutely necessary, in order to stop the mania for speculating in railway shares. He doubted very much whether the rule would be

1197
found to operate so injuriously as was supposed, and whether the cases in which the increased deposit would be readily paid would not so far preponderate as to render it scarcely necessary to consider the others.
Sir R. Fergusondid not consider that the alteration would prove any guarantee that the share lists were not filled up by fictitious names in the very same manner as heretofore. However, as the feeling of the House seemed to be in favour of the proposition of the noble Lord, he would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment withdrawn. Numerous alterations in the Standing Orders agreed to.

CASE OF COLONEL LAUTOUR.
Mr. Milner Gibsonrose to move—
"That a Select Committee be appointed, to investigate the allegations contained in the Petition of Colonel Augustus Lautour, presented to this House June the 6th, 1844, and printed with the Votes June the 26th, 1844, and to report their opinion to the House."
The claim was founded upon these circumstances. Certain regulations were issued by the Colonial Office in December, 1828, relative to the granting of lands at the Swan River, and containing a stipulation for reclaiming them within a period of twenty-one years. In conformity with these regulations, Colonel Lautour expended a sum of 40,000 l., and sent out 200 labourers to the settlement; but a question had subsequently arisen whether these regulations were binding upon the Government. This being the ground of the doubt, subsequent regulations were issued in January, 1829, declaring that if lands were not reclaimed within ten years, they should revert absolutely to the Crown. In this state of affairs, the Crown having set up a claim to the possession of Colonel Lautour's lands at the expiration of ten years, and the claim being contested, the question was referred to the law officers of the Crown, and both the Attorney and Solicitor General gave their opinions that the regulations of 1828 were binding. Subsequently, however, the present Government referred the question to Sir Thomas Wilde, and he declared that the former opinion was delivered upon an imperfect statement and an erroneous view of the case, and stated that he had then no doubt that the regulations of 1828 were invalid, because they had not been officially promulgated. An argument, however, was raised that Colonel Lautour had put himself out of court by
1198
his own admission, in a letter addressed to Mr. Horace Twiss when Under Secretary for the Colonies, in which the petitioner assured that functionary that his capital had been invested on the faith of the original regulations, and expressed a hope that he should not be considered intrusive in "soliciting the indulgence" of twenty-one years instead of ten. Now, this might be said to be a courteous mode of insisting upon a right; and, as in all contracts between the Crown and its subjects, a generous and forbearing construction ought to be put upon the terms, he trusted that no advantage would be taken of this expression of Colonel Lautour's, even if it were an inadvertence. It appeared to him that this claim of Colonel Latour's was founded upon justice, and he hoped it would receive the indulgent consideration of the Government.
Mr. G. W. Hopesaid, it was admitted on the part of Colonel Lautour, that if he was only entitled under the regulations of 1829, he had no claim whatever. Now, the publication of the regulations was essential to their validity, and there was not the slightest evidence that those of December, 1828, ever were published. Sir Thomas Wilde, in his more recent opinion, declared most decisively that there was no claim under the regulations of 1828. [Mr. Gibson: Because they had not been published.] There were other reasons also. Colonel Lautour had not complied with the conditions. Sir Thomas Wilde stated, as the hon. Member had said, that his former opinion was founded upon an imperfect statement of the case. The fact was, that Colonel Lautour had got 100,000 acres to which he had no title, and then he came forward with that as a ground why he should get 140,000 more. The hon. Gentleman then read a letter from Colonel Lautour, written at the latter end of the year 1829, and received at the Colonial Office in the January following, and which, he contended, was in itself a sufficient answer to the claim.
Mr. Milner Gibsonwould not press the Motion to a division; but he trusted that he had said enough to induce Her Majesty's Government to take the subject into their consideration.
Motion withdrawn.
House adjourned at a quarter to seven o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Customs Laws Repeal; Customs Bounties and Allowances; Customs Management; Shipping and Navigation; Trade with British Possessions Abroad; Warehousing of Goods; Stock in Trade; Isle of Man Trade; Removal of Paupers; Customs Duties; British Vessels; Smuggling Prevention; Customs Regulation.
2a. Real Property (No. 3); Joint Stock Companies (Ireland); Grand Jury Presentments (Dublin); Taxing Masters, Court of Chancery (Ireland).
Reported.—Lunatics; Bills of Exchange, etc.; Railways (Selling or Leasing); Bonded Corn; Land Revenue Act Amendment; Testamentary Disposition Compensa-

1171
tions; Criminal Jurisdiction' of Assistant Barristers (Ireland); Militia Pay: Stamp Duties, etc. Masters and Workmen.
3a. and passed.—Lunatic Asylums (Ireland); Drainage (Ireland); Highways; Silk Weavers.
Private.—2a. Epping Railway; Grimsby Docks; Leeds and Bradford Railway (Mistake Rectifying).
Reported.—South Eastern Railway (Deal Extension); Earl of Powis's (or Robinson's) Estate; Darby Court, Westminster.
3a. and passed:—Eaewash Valley Railway; Glasgow Junction Railway; Manchester and Leeds Railway; Leeds and Bradford Railway (Mistake Rectifying); Glasgow, Barrhead, and Neilston Direct Railway; Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway; Oxford and Rugby Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, and from Haddington, and from Lochwinnoch, against the Poor Law (Scotland) Act Amendment Bill.

IRISH GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
The Earl of Besboroughsaid, that he thought that no noble Lord who had read the Report, could doubt that fraud had been perpetrated in making out the lists of subscribers to the Railway. It was not intended in the Report to bring a charge of this kind against the directors; but that it had occurred through their negligence. The House was aware that, in undertakings of this kind, it was customary to put in the list of the provisional committee the names of persons of influence, and more especially those connected with other railways; but if persons suffered their names to be thus used, they should take care to see that the proceedings were properly carried on. The noble Earl then proceeded to read extracts from the evidence taken before the Committee appointed to inquire into the allegations of Mr. Pym's petition with respect to the allotments of shares, with the view of showing that the statements in that petition had been proved. He thought that the statement of his noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde), that the first part of the Report had not been proved by the evidence, could not be sustained. He, therefore, was satisfied, in consequence of the utter want of adherence to the Standing Orders of that House by the promoters of this Bill, that they could, not allow it to proceed. It could not also be said, that the second Report did not sustain the allegations in the first. Under these circumstances, he felt it to be his duty to move that the Bill be taken into further consideration this day three months.
The Marquess of Clanricardecould not understand the reason that induced his noble Friend to fix on this particular Railway
1172
Bill with such energy, with a view of preventing the further progress of it. He did not see why this Bill should be stamped with a character of fraud, when many other Railway Bills, against which the same charge could be sustained, as to the names of unqualified persons being affixed to the contract deed, had been allowed to pass without any observation. His complaint against the Report of the Committee was, that it brought the charge of systematic fraud having been used for the purpose of obtaining the requisite number of signatures. Now, had his noble Friend said one word, or quoted a single portion of evidence, to show that any man had been induced against his will to sign the contract deed to which his name was affixed, or that greater frauds had been perpetrated by persons getting shares without reference and inquiry, than was the case with other railways? When a specific charge of fraud was brought against any one, the Committee should show that there was good evidence to sustain such an accusation; but there was no evidence to justify such a charge. He denied the whole of the allegations contained in the Report of the Committee. The whole of the proceedings with respect to the appointment of the first Committee, were irregular. That Committee was named to inquire into the allegations contained in the petition of a Mr. Pym, a stockbroker in Dublin, who was largely interested in the success of atmospheric railways; and who was also a large canal proprietor, and, like other canal proprietors, was opposed to this Bill, under the notion that it might be injurious to his interests. So it might be immediately, but would not ultimately; and some of those people had seen their mistake, and withdrawn their opposition to railways; but then Mr. Pym was a shareholder in another railway, and he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) was glad that the House had inquired into the allegations of Mr. Pym; but he contended that their Lordships ought not to pounce upon an unfortunate Bill, which had been actually victimized by fraudulent persons, and a company which could not protect itself against those fraudulent parties. Their Lordships ought to attack the system, not individuals. He trusted that next year there would be some material alteration in the system of railway government—the present system was most unsatisfactory. He knew that the House

1173
was most unwilling to act against the Report of a Select Committee; but the proceedings of the Committee on this Bill were altogether different from those on any other that he recollected. The House should remember that Mr. Pym went before the Standing Orders' Committee; but his evidence was not received, because it appeared that he had no locus standi, as he was not a proprietor in the line, or had any other interest in connexion or in competition with it. This person, then presented a petition to that House, which was most irregularly referred to a Select Committee, which certainly was against the Standing Orders. He conceived that it would be a most unjust proceeding, if they did not allow this Bill to pass. He did not deny that some frauds had been committed, but he strongly denied that the directors and promoters of the Bill were in any way a party to them. [The Earl of Besborough: The Report.] The Report did not directly make such a charge; but it stated that some persons had got a certain number of signatures improperly affixed to the contract deed. Was it not notorious, that there was no description of ingenuity which was not resorted to for the purpose of obtaining shares, as such large profit was often derived from speculating in them? It was known, also, that the stockbrokers had now lists of persons, called black lists, who were constantly engaged in the traffic of shares, and many of these persons had imposed on persons engaged in promoting English and Scotch railways, who were much better able to protect themselves from such proceedings than the promoters of an Irish railway; and all this arose from the imperfect state of the law. The noble Marquess then proceeded to read a list of the names of persons who had imposed upon the directors of this Company, and who had been referred to in the Report of the Committee, and showed that those persons were subscribers for shares in several English and Scotch Railway Companies to a much larger amount, than was the case with respect to the Dublin and Galway Railway. By referring to The Times newspaper, in which the advertisement for this Company first appeared, it would be found that out of twenty-four advertisements of railway companies published in it, only four required any reference at all; and in the Times of the 6th or 7th of November last—he did
1174
not then recollect which was the date—there were no less than fifty railway advertisements, all inviting the public to take shares, and of these only ten required any reference to be given. Thus the Dublin and Galway Railway Bill was now to be thrown out because they did that which had been done by four-fifths of all the railways in England, Scotland, and Ireland, when they were really in the market. But he would come to what had been described as the model of a railway, and of a board of directors, namely, the London and York, and to that model of a witness, Mr. Moatt. When that gentleman had been asked whether they had had any applications from men of straw, such as stable-boys and men of that class, he replied that they had not above twenty applications in which they had been imposed upon. If, therefore, that Company, which was so much cried up, had been imposed upon in twenty cases, how could it be expected that a number of Irishmen forced to resort to the London share-market should be more successful? That reminded him of another argument. The evidence of this witness showed that even great English companies did not disdain to give allotments of shares at first without inquiry, and that it was only when they got a position in the market that they took the precaution to have men of undoubted credit selected as their shareholders. In fact, it was quite necessary at the commencement of such undertakings that more than ordinary risk should be incurred. The witness stated that it was found to be always the case that when capital was coming in, it begot other capital from subscribers of greater respectability. It was a notorious fact that in the case of the Greenwich Railway, which now, he believed, carried as many passengers as any railway in England, that fully half of the capital, when the Bill passed through Parliament, was utterly bad, but that these shares afterwards fell into good hands. And in another railway, also—the Gloucester and Bristol Railway—which now conferred great benefits on the part of the country through which it passed, upwards of one-third of the subscription list, as it originally stood, was found to be bad, though the shares of this company were now selling, or had been selling two days ago, at 30 per cent. premium. He could not, therefore, see why they were to make an example of the Dublin and Gal-

1175
way Company, whilst others had been allowed to pass. It was quite possible for parties to get up fraudulent cases, for the purpose of extorting money from the directors. For instance, four persons, A, B, C, and D, might sign the subscription list for each other, and then if they found the speculation not to answer their wishes, they could go to the directors, and, under threats of exposing their own dishonesty, extort money from them. In this way, he could account for the petition of the person, or rather the name of Gerard Barry. No such man could be found, and though the name was one that sounded familiarly enough, it could not be discovered that this person had ever existed. The entire amount required to be subscribed in this Company, under the Standing Orders, was 810,000 l., while the amount really subscribed was 819,000 l., of which 67,200 l. was found to be bad. But then by the alteration which had been proposed in the original plan, a saving of twenty miles would be effected, in consequence of the Galway line joining the Cashel line at Portarlington. A sum amounting in the entire to 228,000 l. would, from this and other circumstances, be available over and above what was necessary to complete the line, independent of which the Great Southern and Western Railway Company now offered to subscribe 100,000 l. additional capital if the Bill were now passed. The noble Marquess proceeded to refer to the evidence of Mr. Mulvany, the engineer, and of General Sir John Burgoyne, chairman of the Board of Works in Ireland, given before the Committee, to show the great importance of this line of railway, and then continued to say that he would humbly submit to the House that this Bill should be allowed to pass on the ground of its great utility to the country—on the ground that its rejection could effect no public good—on the ground that by throwing out the Bill they could do right to no person who had been wronged—that they could not remedy any imperfections in their law—and that they could do nothing except put a stop to one of the most important works that could be undertaken in Ireland, and that, too, at a most critical period in the affairs of that country. The present Session had not been either a very short or a very unimportant one, and yet he would put it fairly to the House what had they done for Ireland? They had certainly made an at-
1176
tempt to improve the social, political, and religious feelings of the country, by passing certain bills for the promotion of education, but they had effected nothing farther. They had old reports from Committees appointed over and over again to inquire into the state of Ireland, and to these they had now to add the report of the Commission over which his noble Friend (the Earl of Devon) had presided. All these reports described again and again the misery and wretchedness of the people, and the necessity of procuring employment for them, if the Legislature wished to alter their condition. But the Parliament had done nothing. They had made no additional grant for public works in Ireland—they had made no provision for improving the Poor Law, or for providing for emigration, or in any other way for benefiting the country; and yet now when a number of great capitalists came forward and offered to execute this great public work, which would give employment to the poor, develop the resources of the country, and add to its improvement in every possible way, and when all they required was permission to lay out their money, the House was about putting an entire stop to this most beneficial undertaking, solely on the ground that the directors had been deceived by fraudulent persons in London. It was not unlikely that such men as General Caulfield (and a more honourable, respectable, and venerable officer could not be named) would be unable to detect such parties, when men like Sir I. Goldsmid and Mr. Hudson had been deceived by them. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) could not believe that the House would thus stop this Bill; it ought, he conceived, to be re-committed.
Earl Bathurst, as chairman of the Committee on the Bill, wished to state that they had not felt themselves the less bound to report the frauds they found, because such practices might have existed elsewhere. In fact, the Committee had given no opinion on the Bill, nor was the House placed under the necessity, therefore, of sustaining any finding of theirs. The Committee had only reported that certain frauds had been committed; and they had left it to the House to decide whether those frauds so vitiated the Bill that it ought not to be passed.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, he was extremely sorry to find that he was compelled

1177
to vote against the further progress of the Bill. He believed that the work would be a most beneficial one for Ireland. But it should be remembered that that was the first case of gross and palpable fraud in connexion with the proceedings of railway companies that had been brought under their Lordships' notice; and he certainly thought that they ought not to allow those frauds to pass unpunished. He had a further reason for objecting to the passing of the Bill, and that objection was founded on the fact that their Lordships could have no security that the money necessary to construct the works would be forthcoming, and that those works would be completed.
The Earl of St. Germanssaid, he could not agree in the remark as to the peculiar character of the parties deceived. The directors were not unsophisticated Irishmen, but, for the most part, gentlemen resident in London. It would not, in his opinion, be desirable that the House should interrupt the labours of the Committee on the Bill. It appeared to him, on the contrary, that they ought to allow that Committee to proceed, and to hear all the evidence that could be adduced in the case. He believed that it would be quite consistent with the practice of Parliament to allow supplementary subscription lists to be put in, and that practice might be adopted in the present case. He did not ask their Lordships to pause before they determined on rejecting the measure, on the ground that they should look more favourably on the Bill because it was one affecting Ireland, than they would look on a Bill affecting England. All he asked was, that justice might be done in the matter. He admitted that a case of great laxity and carelessness had been made out against the promoters of the line, but he did not think that they ought at once to determine at that stage on rejecting the Bill. Let the Select Committee proceed with its inquiries, and pronounce a decision on the merits of the case, after they had heard all the evidence that could be brought forward on the subject.
Lord Beaumontsaid, that he should not have had the least hesitation in acceding to the Motion of the noble Earl, if he thought that by rejecting the Bill he would be punishing the parties who had committed those frauds. But the fact was, that they would not by that means be
1178
punishing those parties, but innocent persons, who had in no way contributed to those frauds. The individuals who had fraudulently obtained the scrip had since parted with it, at a considerable profit to themselves; and that scrip was now held by persons who were ready and able to pay up the amount of their shares. It appeared that they could not punish even the managers; for those managers had sold out the 500 shares which each of them had taken in the first instance. In his opinion, their Lordships ought, if possible, to adopt such measures as would prevent the sale of scrip immediately after it had been allotted; for that was the source of all the most objectionable proceedings in connexion with railway speculations. He considered the fairest course would be for the Committee to enter upon the consideration of the preamble of the Bill, and ascertain whether there were funds sufficient to carry out the project in case the Bill should ultimately pass. But he had only to observe in conclusion, that it seemed to him very expedient that the House should, without delay, adopt some general measure for the prevention of the perpetration of any similar frauds in future.
The Duke of Clevelandfully agreed in the sentiment expressed by the noble Lord who had just sat down, that it was most desirable for that House to take some means to prevent such frauds as those complained of from being practised. It was alleged as an excuse for the conduct of the Company under consideration, that similar practices were carried on in all Railway Bills; but that was no ground for permitting a fraud which was detected from being punished. The present case was, it seemed, the first one in which those frauds had been found out; and it was then certainly the duty of Parliament to take cognizance of that which had been detected. The time had arrived when it became absolutely necessary to endeavour to put an end to the system of jobbing which was now going on; and before the present Session terminated he thought it indispensable that the Legislature should come to some general resolution on the subject—a course which would deter the promoters of railways hereafter from pursuing the line of conduct which they now did. One way he would suggest, by which he conceived the evil alluded to might be remedied, and that was, to in-

1179
troduce a clause into every Railway Bill to prevent parties to whom shares were allotted, and who were subscribers to the subscription contract, from selling their scrip until at least two-thirds of the money should have been paid up. He hoped the House would not suffer the Session to pass, however advanced it might be in the year, without coming to some general resolution on this subject.
Lord Redesdalesaid, the real question before their Lordships was this:—A charge had been brought against certain parties of not having complied with the rules and regulations required by that House to be observed in its proceedings, and that charge having been fully brought home to them, were these parties to be allowed to go scot free? It was said, indeed, that their Lordships would not be punishing the guilty individuals; that the weight of their censure would fall upon those who purchased shares bonâ fide. Now those who had purchased shares knew very well they were doing an illegal act; and they should, therefore, be satisfied to take the risk and the consequences of their own conduct. The question here was, not whether or not this Bill would be a good measure for Ireland, but whether that House was prepared or not to uphold its own rules and Standing Orders? If it was a reason that these parties should not be punished because others had been guilty of similar practices, not a pickpocket who was detected in his guilt but might say, "Oh, you ought not to inflict punishment on me alone; there are twenty other persons picking pockets in the same place, you caught me—am I alone to suffer?" He had only to say in conclusion, that this was an occasion on which the House ought to enforce its own rules, if it did not make up its mind to let them be all considered as mere waste paper in future.
Lord Monteaglefeared that when once a spirit of gambling got abroad, it would be impossible for any measures they might introduce to repress it. There were many laws at this moment in existence to prevent fraudulent practices, but they were found insufficient for that purpose. He doubted very much whether throwing out the present Bill would lead to any such salutary consequences as were calculated on. But at the same time, he should say that after the fraud which had been discovered in this matter, to pass this Bill now, would be productive of mischievous
1180
results. The House having adopted certain rules and regulations for the management of its business, was bound to enforce them; and though he confessed he did so with some reluctance, believing that this measure was calculated to be of great benefit to Ireland, he felt constrained to give his vote in favour of the Motion of the noble Earl behind him (the Earl of Besborough). He did not think that those gentlemen who took an active part in the management of this Company were guilty of fraud themselves; but they had not acted with sufficient caution, and were bound to have used more care in preventing the interests of others which were entrusted to them from suffering through their neglect. The rejection of the measure, however, did not by any means prejudice the undertaking hereafter; and as it was one calculated to be of great benefit to Ireland, he regretted that it should be postponed even for a time.
The Earl of Devonwould briefly state why he intended to vote against the proposition then before the House. He would be glad to know how it was in any way necessary to the ends of justice that this Bill should be thrown out? Who were the parties to whom they were doing justice by rejecting this measure? Was it necessary to do so, with respect to the individual who had presented a petition to that House? Was it in justice to the landed proprietors through whose properties the line was to pass, that they adopted this course? Was it in justice to any other project that might be more advantageous, that they were called upon to throw out this Bill? No such thing. It was merely in justice to the House of Lords itself they were asked to do so. Now, such being the case, he thought there were peculiar circumstances in this matter which made it fit for them to consider whether it was right to take this means of vindicating their own orders. The Report of the Select Committee charged certain promoters of the Bill with having been guilty of frauds. Now, he did not think there was any evidence before it which sustained such an allegation. It was said the course the House was about adopting was for the purpose of punishing the parties who infringed its Standing Orders. Now, they would not be punishing those parties; they would be punishing others. Was not the arm of the law, however, sufficiently long to reach those who were really guilty? The

1181
throwing out of a measure of so much importance as that was not the way to proceed. They might, even in vindicating their own orders, commit a great public evil in attempting to punish parties who were guilty of a fraud that they could not reach after all. He concluded by announcing his intention to oppose the Motion before the House.
The Marquess of Clanricarde, in explanation, observed that, notwithstanding all the allegations they heard about the Standing Orders, the reception of that petition had been an infringement upon them, such as had not taken place on any other Railway Bill in England or Scotland.
The Earl of Besboroughthen briefly replied.
The Duke of Wellingtonwished to make only one observation on what had fallen from his noble Friend near him (the Earl of Devon). There could be no doubt that the evidence went to show that nothing more could be charged against the directors than negligence in the performance of their duty. He had to observe, that in the commencement of the Report, the directors had been called upon, if they thought proper, to answer those charges, but as they had not thought fit to do so, he thought the proposition of the noble Lord must fall to the ground.
On Question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion? House divided:—Contents 35; Non-contents 8; Majority 27.
Resolved in the Affirmative, and she further consideration of the Bill put off for three months.

NEW STANDING ORDER.
The Marquess of Lansdownerose to propose the adoption of a Standing Order of which he had given notice. His attention had been called to the subject, in consequence of a court of justice, after full consideration, having determined that a special case should be made, for the purpose of trial by full court, of the simple and legal question, whether a person whose name was inserted in the Act of Parliament, although there was no proof of his having consented to its being inserted, was sufficient evidence of his being a director of the company to which the Act alluded? Whatever might be the result of that proceeding, he thought it was necessary for the protection of their Lordships and the public, that they should adopt the Standing
1182
Order he was about to propose. It was well known that it was the common practice to insert names of persons as directors of a company who had no knowledge whatever of its existence, for the purpose of inducing the ignorant multitude to embark their property in the undertaking. For the protection of the public, therefore, as well as of individuals, it was necessary that some such Standing Order as that which he had to propose should be adopted by their Lordships. The noble Marquess then laid on the Table a Resolution, that when in any Bill to be hereafter introduced for the purpose of establishing a Company for carrying on any work or undertaking, the names of any person or persons should be introduced as manager, director, proprietor, or otherwise concerned in carrying such a Bill into effect, proof shall be required before the Standing Orders' Committee, that the said person or persons had subscribed their names to the petition for the said Bill, or to a printed copy of the Bill, as brought up or introduced into the House.
Motion to be taken into further consideration on Friday next.

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.
the Duke of Buccleuch, the Bill was read a third time.
On Question, that the Bill do pass,
The Marquess of Breadalbanesaid, that the Government would best consult the interest of Scotland, if they postponed the passing of that measure till next Session. If they persisted in passing it during the present, the consequence would be, that they would have to bring in a Bill to amend it next Session.
Lord Cottenhamproposed to strike out the 17th Clause, which had no connexion with the Bill, and which went to unite South Leith to Edinburgh, for the purpose of parochial assessment for the poor, which was in direct opposition to the judgment of the Court of Session, and that of their Lordships, on the point involved in it.
The Duke of Buccleuchsaid, he could not consent to the omission of the clause. The decision of their Lordships had made the alteration in the law necessary.
Lord Campbellwas surprised that Her Majesty's Government should still persist in this clause, which would bring a reproach on the Government. It completely reversed the decision of that House, confirming the decision of the Court below, on an appeal which he, as an advocate, sup-

1183
ported, and his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cottenham), as Judge, being at the time Lord Chancellor, gave his unprejudiced opinion in favour of that decision. He had no hesitation in saying, therefore, that to attempt to upset it by a clause of this kind would be regarded as an iniquitous proceeding. He trusted, that his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack would not hesitate to give the House the benefit of his opinion judicially upon the subject.
The Earl of Dalhousiedefended the clause as a simple measure of justice. There was no intention whatever in proposing it to impugn the decision of that House, or to question the correctness of the opinion as to the law of the case laid down by noble and learned Lords opposite; but he was certainly astonished to hear it now argued, that because that House had decided that the law was so and so, therefore the Legislature was to be precluded from altering it. He admitted, that by the law, as it existed, the parishioners of South Leith were liable to be assessed for Edinburgh; but it was most unjust that they should be so, and he hoped their Lordships would not refuse them relief by acceding to this clause.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he had read the case, and looked at the Act of Parliament, and would state his impression as briefly as possible. In the year 1756 the Heriot Hospital was the owner of the ground in question. That hospital had granted it under a certain contract to the persons under whom the present parties claimed. That was a contract for building houses, and it was provided that, if upon any future occasion it should be taken within the royalty of Edinburgh, it should pay poor-rate burdens to that city. It was clear that the contract entered into between these parties could not affect the parish of Leith, and the land in question was liable to pay parochial burdens to the parish of Leith. Therefore, in consequence of this contract, if the land in question had been included within the royalty of Edinburgh, it would have been liable to pay parochial burdens both to that city and to the parish of Leith. It was clear that that would be the effect of the contract between the parties, because no contract between particular individuals could affect the rights of the parish of Leith. The next point of the case was this—an Act of Parliament was passed ten years afterwards for the purpose of carry-
1184
ing the contract into effect. It recited the terms and provisions of the contract, and declared in express terms, according to the stipulations of the contract, that the spot in question should be included in the royalty of Edinburgh, and contribute to the public burdens of the city of Edinburgh. It had been said that it dissevered or disjoined that district from the rest of the parish of Leith; but although it did so, it said, in express terms, it should continue to contribute to the public burdens of the parish of Leith as heretofore. If there had been no Act of Parliament, the contract would have imposed double burdens. The Act of Parliament did not vary the case; on the contrary, it confirmed it, and in express terms stipulated that it should be liable to double burdens. That was the case decided before the Lord Ordinary, and the Court of Session, in conformity with the contract and the terms of the Act of Parliament. It afterwards came before their Lordships' House, and was argued at the bar, and their Lordships confirmed the decision of the Court below on the same grounds, viz., on the footing of the contract. Now what was the state of the case? The parties who held the property at this time, held it subject to all the liabilities of the original agreement, by which they were bound. The agreement passed with the land, with the title, and the parties were as much bound by the contract as the original contractors, and that was the decision of their Lordships' House. Under these circumstances what was now proposed to be done? It had been decided that the property was to be arranged between the parties by a certain mode. Their Lordships were now interposing after that decision, and, by Act of Parliament, practically to reverse it. They were saying this right shall be decided in a different way. If two parties litigated together in a court of law, and the decision was in favour of A, would it be reasonable to come to the Legislature and say, "Although the right is with A, we will legislate and say that in future the right shall be with B?" And that was really the case in the present instance. He had been called upon judicially to give his opinion, and he felt bound, however favourably disposed towards the measure, to say that he concurred in the decision that had already been pronounced on the question. Whatever decision their Lordships might come to, he was bound to state his real opinion.

1185
He did not believe that the parties anticipated all the consequences of such a contract—that they would be liable to be taxed according to their "means and substance," and not according to the value of the land. The effect of it was hard, because persons residing in the district were liable to be taxed, not according to the value of the land, but by their means and substance, to Leith and also to Edinburgh. That was no doubt a case of extreme hardship, but still it was a contract, and a binding contract. Whether their Lordships would interpose and put an end to it, was for their Lordships to determine.
Lord Campbelltrusted, after the declaration of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, that the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Buccleuch) would at once withdraw the clause.
The Earl of Haddington, speaking as a legislator, and not judicially, was of opinion that the clause ought to be retained; for the purpose of removing the hardship complained of.
Lord Cottenhamfelt extremely surprised that the Government should persist in transferring, by Act of Parliament, the property belonging to one man into the hands of another. He was quite certain that the clause had been framed by parties who knew nothing of the facts; and he could not imagine how the clause could be retained, after the opinion delivered by his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, it was rather unfortunate, that in the consideration of this question, the abstract legal question should have been mixed up a little with party views. It certainly did appear to him, when the question was first started, that the legal question was brought forward very much with the view of promoting the postponement of the consideration of the Bill to a distant period. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had stated his entire concurrence in the legal opinion of the noble and learned Lords opposite; and, most undoubtedly, notwithstanding the law was intended to make a great alteration in the system of administering the Poor Law in Scotland, and most particularly on this very spot—in the very locality which was the subject of this clause, he felt that it was absolutely impossible for the House, upon a question of this description, to differ in opinion with such authorities as the two noble and learned Lords opposite, backed by the opin-
1186
ion of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. Under these circumstances, he should recommend his noble Friend to withdraw the clause.
The Duke of Buccleuch, after what had fallen from his noble Friend, said he would not persist in pressing the clause.
Clause omitted.
Bill passed.

LUNATIC ASYLUMS AND PAUPER LUNATICS BILL.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he would take the opportunity, before the House went into Committee on this Bill, which was a Bill to regulate the care and treatment of Lunatics, of briefly stating the nature and objects of the measure. The subject was one of deep interest, as their Lordships would concur with him in thinking, when he told them that at this moment there were nearly 21,000 lunatics in England and Wales, a great proportion of whom were paupers, who would in a certain degree come within the range of the Bill now under consideration. Before the year 1774, before the 14th Geo. III., there was no adequate protection for persons in that unhappy condition: not only was scarcely any adequate protection afforded to them by law, but they were often made the instruments of fraud in order to obtain possession of property, and for other unjustifiable abuses. The Statute 14th Geo. III. did, to a certain degree, afford a remedy; but its provisions were in many instances neglected, and were in many other instances found wholly inadequate to meet the evils they were intended to remedy. The law remained in this state until 1830, when a friend of his, with whom he was on terms of intimacy, in the other House of Parliament, Mr. Robert Gordon, directed his attention to the subject; and, after a good deal of consideration, embodied his views in a Bill, which afterwards passed into a law, in the 2nd and 3rd year of the late King, by which Commissioners were appointed with powers to license houses for the reception of lunatics, within a certain district round the metropolis, and to visit establishments of this nature all over the kingdom. Other provisions were also adopted for the purpose of remedying the evils to which he had referred. That Bill was a mere temporary measure, to endure, he believed, for three years, or to the end of the next Session of Parliament. That was a considerable improvement. Former experiments having failed, Parliament had no confi-

1187
dence that any settlement of the matter could be effected by this Act. The measure, however, worked so satisfactorily during the period to which he had referred, that before it expired it was again renewed, with some alterations, by the unanimous consent of both Houses of Parliament. It continued in force for another period of three or nearly four years, and application was again made to Parliament to renew the provisions of the Act, with further alterations and additions which experience had suggested; so that the Act had been twice renewed. It was now on the point of expiring, after an experience of twelve years; and the satisfactory manner in which its provisions had worked, the w holesome discipline exercised through its means over this unhappy class of persons, in the opinion of the Government, rendered it advisable to embody its provisions in a permanent measure. A noble Lord (Lord Ashley), one of the Commissioners under the Act, who had attended most sedulously in the performance of his duty as an unpaid Commissioner, and who on all occasions had displayed the greatest activity, wherever motives of humanity called for his exertions, was the author of this Bill, and introduced it into the other House of Parliament. It would be necessary for him to state, now that the Act was intended to be made a permanent measure, what alterations, suggested by experience, it would be desirable to introduce into the Bill. During the last year, a Report of the Lunacy Commissioners had been laid on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament, pointing out the defects of the existing system, the manner in which they might be remedied, and suggesting various additions to the existing provisions. The first alteration, which was rendered necessary, indeed, by the measure becoming permanent, was the permanent appointment of the Commissioners. The present Commissioners were twenty in number, of whom eleven were paid, consisting of barristers and physicians, or medical practitioners; the remaing nine being gentlemen who performed their duties gratuitously from motives of benevolence. It was proposed by the present Bill to reduce the number of paid Commissioners to six, and of the unpaid Commissioners to five. The whole number of Commissioners, under the present Bill, would therefore be eleven. While the measure was temporary, it followed as a matter of course that the paid Commissioners were also temporary; they were
1188
renewed every year, and the same individuals were retained; the gentlemen originally appointed having shown themselves most efficient in the discharge of their duties. The consequence of having Commissioners appointed for such short periods was, that you could not abstract them entirely from the professions to which they belonged, and to which it would be impossible for them to return with advantage after an absence of four or five years. This, undoubtedly, led to considerable inconvenience; for that their professional occupations should occasionally clash with their attendance for the purposes of the Commission, was inevitable: it was, therefore, thought expedient, in making the Commission permanent, to secure the attention of its members exclusively to the duties required by it. They were not to be allowed to practise either in the professions of law or medicine, but they would be required to give their entire attention to the duties of their office as Commissioners. By deciding upon this, they were enabled to diminish the number of Commissioners in the proportion which he had just stated. Another change, which had been the subject of some comment, was the mode in which it was proposed to remunerate them for their services. Under the existing Act, they were paid by means of fees for their attendance at boards, and a certain allowance which they received for travelling expenses in visiting the various establishments of the country. The scale of remuneration was one guinea for every hour they attended at the board, and five guineas for every day's attendance in the country, besides, he believed, an additional guinea for sustenance during the journey. Instead of this, it was proposed to remunerate them by means of a fixed salary; for considerable inconvenience was found to result from the former mode; for if the whole eleven paid Commissioners happened to attend a board, and the proceedings lasted four or five hours, the expense of the board might amount to 50 l.; and it sometimes happened that scrupulous members, fearing lest they might be suspected of consulting their own interests rather than the performance of their duty to the public, were often unwilling to hold boards. He was aware that the new mode was regarded by some as calculated to lead to increased expenditure; but that was a mistaken idea, for the result would be a saving, as he trusted he should be able to satisfy their Lordships in Committee. The salary pro-

1189
posed to be given to each paid Commissioner was 1,500 l. a year, making a yearly expense of 9,000 l. for the whole number; and it turned out on inquiry that the expenses of the Commission last year exceeded that sum; so that their Lordships would find a considerable diminution in expense effected from circumstances to which he would now refer. By the effect of this Bill, the duties of the Commissioners would be greatly increased and extended; so that if they were still paid by fees, they would necessarily receive much larger incomes than they obtained under the existing Act for the discharge of their additional duties. The Commissioners were named in the Bill; they were not named by him (the Lord Chancellor), but with his approbation. They were selected from the existing Commissioners, and were some of the most able and most efficient of that respectable and honourable body; and he felt assured that all those of their Lordships acquainted with the subject, and with the qualifications of the gentlemen so named, would be perfectly satisfied that the selection was a most judicious one. So much with regard to that part of the subject. He had stated that the duties of the Commissioners were to be extended. It was a very singular circumstance, that although the Commissioners had the power of visiting all private asylums, they had no power to visit hospitals; subscription hospitals, in fact, were out of the range of the existing Act; they were entirely out of the range of the regulations imposed by law. It was not necessary for a party to be received into a subscription hospital that he should have a certificate or an order; he was received as a matter of course, and these hospitals could not be visited by the Commissioners. A provision had, therefore, been introduced into the present Bill, empowering the Commissioners to visit establishments of this description; and he felt assured their Lordships would join with him in thinking that a due supervision and scrutiny by experienced and intelligent persons, was just as necessary in these establishments as in private asylums; would prove most advantageous for the public interest; and would conduce greatly to the comfort and happiness of those subject to such a calamity, and afford an additional hope of their ultimate restoration to reason. Another improvement in the Bill, to which he was anxious to direct their attention, was one of considerable importance. At present,
1190
paupers were confined, by order of the justices, on production of a medical certificate; but it was not necessary that the justice who sent him into confinement should see the pauper; and it frequently happened that paupers were sent into confinement without being seen by the justice signing the order. It was certainly necessary that the certificate should be recent; but everything was vague and indefinite on this point. The present Bill required that no pauper should be confined unless he should have been seen immediately before by the person signing the order, and that no medical certificate should be allowed except where the person signing it had seen the pauper within seven days of the period of his confinement. Their Lordships, he trusted, would see the great importance of establishing salutary guards in a system of this description. Another point which it was material to consider was, that these visitors would be empowered to examine and inspect any establishment where any pauper might be confined, or was supposed to be confined. They were not to interfere with Poor Law Guardians or with the Poor Law Commissioners; but if they saw anything requiring amendment, it would be their duty to report it to the Poor Law Commissioners, so that it might be rectified. Their Lordships would also find a power conferred in the Bill of visiting gaols. This was a material provision, introduced into the Bill for the purpose of extending the operation of the former Act. There was another most important point to which he wished to draw their attention. He did not know how it happened, but in the first Bill introduced, although every establishment of this description was liable to inspection, and was put under the jurisdiction of the Commissioners, when the Bill came up to their Lordships' House, a clause was introduced for the purpose of exempting what were called "single" houses—that is, houses where only one patient was confined. It was considered a matter of delicacy that such establishments should be screened. Now, it had always struck him that these, above all others, were the establishments which required to be examined and inspected with the greatest degree of vigilance, being more liable to be made the means of abuse, and of inflicting cruelty on patients. A power was certainly given to the Lord Chancellor, on sufficient information being adduced to warrant an inquiry, to direct an inspection; but when he informed their Lordships that,

1191
although he had held the Great Seal for several years, he did not remember a single application of this kind ever having been made, he apprehended they would be of opinion that this remedy was not of a very effectual kind. One provision with respect to these houses was this: they were not obliged to make a return until a year after the patient had been placed there. Now, it was notorious that there were a great number of such houses in which single patients were confined, yet the number of returns did not exceed thirty or forty a year; and he understood that it was by no means unusual to transfer patients from one asylum to another, in order to evade the return. If it were left to him, he confessed he should be for placing these establishments on precisely the same footing as the rest. Such a course, however, did not seem palatable to their Lordships; and, as a different course had been pursued by the other House of Parliament, he was willing to recommend that course for their Lordships' adoption. Certificates would be required, and returns must be made to the Commissioners, when any person was lodged in an establishment of this kind, and a year would not be allowed to elapse, as formerly. The visiting of these establishments was not to be open to all the Commissioners; but the Chancellor was to have the power of selecting two, for the purpose of private inspection. These provisions appeared to him a great improvement on the former law. Their Lordships were aware, that in a matter of lunacy, the Lord Chancellor did not put himself in motion; he could only act on an application being made to him, upon which he ordered an inquiry, if the case seemed to warrant it; after which he took possession of the property, and made an order for its proper application. But a party might possess a great deal of property, and might be confined in a lunatic asylum—perhaps in an asylum for the reception of one patient merely, on the certificate of a medical man, without any commission whatever issuing, unless a petition were made to the Lord Chancellor for that purpose. What became of the property? It was wholly unprotected; and, in many instances, those who had obtained possession of it, after paying the allowance for the lunatic in an asylum for a year or two, dissipated or lost the whole of it. Many such cases had come under his own notice. Under this Bill, the Lord Chancellor was empowered to appoint a receiver of the property, and a
1192
guardian of the person of the lunatic; and then, if there should appear no prospect of ultimate recovery, the Lord Chancellor might order a commission of lunacy. These were the principal alterations proposed. There was another subject to which he would briefly call their attention. At present, persons who kept private asylums were in the habit of receiving as boarders, persons suffering from a nervous temperament, or a weak understanding. These individuals were without any guard or protection, and were allowed sometimes to execute instruments binding their property. Now, these cases it was highly necessary to subject to some control; the present Bill prohibited private asylums from taking any inmates of this description. There was another abuse to which he would also advert. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Bill, and the activity and vigilance of the Commissioners, it was found impossible to detect all the windings by which due inspection was sometimes defeated. The Commissioners were allowed to inspect every part of these asylums; but it was necessary that they should exercise their utmost vigilance to see, that they discovered every part. In more than one instance, series of apartments had been discovered entirely concealed from view, and to which the Commissioners had never been allowed admission. In one instance, the Commissioners, by mere accident, discovered three sleeping cells of such a description that they would not have been allowed for a moment, if they had been open to inspection; and would, in all probability, have caused the keeper of the house to lose his license. It was, therefore, proposed in the present Bill, not only to empower the Commissioners to examine every part of a building, but to make it the duty of the keeper or superintendent to show every part of the house, making him liable, for neglect of this duty, to animadversion and punishment. The noble Lord then moved that the House should go into Committee on the Bill.
The Earl of Eldon, in general, approved of the Bill; and he had no intention of doing more than moving that the Warne-ford Hospital, near Oxford, upon which a private individual had bestowed several thousand pounds, be exempted from its operation, he having been entrusted with a petition from the noblemen and gentlemen who superintended it, praying to that effect.
Lord Monteaglewas of opinion that the

1193
certainty of a degree of supervision and inspection, would be a guarantee for the introduction of all the improved practice of treatment into those institutions, and would induce persons more readily to endow them; and he was sorry that the Bill was not extended to Ireland.
House in Committee. Amendments made. Report thereof to be received on Thursday.
The House adjourned at 11 o'clock, until Thursday.