Sitting of 13 July 1848

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Sale of Beer; Sugar Duties; Bankruptcy; Renewable Leasehold Conversion (Ireland); Corrupt Practices at Elections.
2° Ecclesiastical Unions and Divisions of Parishes (Ireland).
Reported.—Incumbered Estates (Ireland).
3° and passed;—Trustees Relief (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. BY Mr. Hume, from the Inhabitants of Carshalton, Surrey, and several other Places, in favour of an Extension of the Elective Franchise.—By Mr. Hume, from Kensington, Hammersmith, Chiswick, and Chelsea, in favour of Returning Two Members, to Represent those Places.—By Lord George Manners, from several Inhabitants of Manchester, for the Adoption of Universal Suffrage.—By Lord Charles Manners, from the Parish of Cole Orton, in the Diocese of Peterborough, for Increasing the Number of Bishops and Clergy of the Church of England.—By Mr. Ormsby Gore, from the Congregation of the Primitive Methodists of the Town of Oswestry, Salop, for a Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Lord Alfred Hervey, from the Parish of Hove, Sussex, against the Sale of Spirituous Liquors on the Sabbath By Mr. Hume, from Stellenbosch, Cape of Good Hope, in favour of a Representative System for that Colony.

HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY.
The EARL of LINCOLNasked the Under Secretary for the Colonies whether a Commission had been appointed, either by the Secretary of State for the Colonies or by the Governor General of Canada, to inquire into the complaints of Mr. Isbister, and others, against the present government of the Red River Settlement, or against the Hudson's Bay Company generally; and whether, if no inquiry were now pending, he would lay on the table of the House any correspondence which had taken place on the subject? Also, whether a grant had been made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies of Vancouver's Island to the Hudson's Bay Company; and, if so, what was to be the form of government; what regulations had been made as to the working of coals and minerals; and what stipulations had been entered into as to the future colonisation of the island? Also, whether there would be any objection to lay on the; table of the House copies of correspondence between the Colonial Office and the Hudson's Bay Company on this subject, and of the charter, if any granted to the company?
MR. HAWES, in answer to the noble Lord's first question, begged to state that in the course of last year certain complaints were made at the Colonial Office against the Hudson's Bay Company generally by Mr. Isbister, who was over in this country; which complaints were referred to the Hudson's Bay Company, with a request that they would answer the various allegations. These answers, however, when received, not being altogether satisfactory, and his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office feeling that the whole subject required more investigation, the original complaint and answers were intrusted to Lord Elgin, the Governor General of Canada, whose attention was specially directed to the whole question. About a fortnight ago an answer had been received from Lord Elgin, who stated that he had found great difficulty in instituting the inquiry which he had been called upon to make, and in obtaining correct information on the subject, which, considering the distance of the territory, was not to be wondered at; but, as a general result, his Lordship stated that his opinion was favourable to the government of the Hudson's Bay Company. An opportunity had since been taken by a Queen's officer, who was going out to the Red River Settlement, to protect the public peace, and who was instructed to inquire into all the allegations, and to report. At the present moment, therefore, he thought it would be hardly just to the Hudson's Bay Company to lay the correspondence on the table.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
LORD J. RUSSELLrose and said: I rise with the view of stating the course which I propose to take with respect to the two Bills which stand first on the Orders, viz., the Borough Elections (No. 2) Bill, and the Horsham Borough Bill. What I propose to do, in the first place, is to discharge the orders for these two Bills, and to state the outline of the measure I intend to propose in their place. I have endeavoured in this measure to avoid some of the objections which were stated to the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for the Flint boroughs (Sir J. Hanmer); but, certainly, I cannot hope that I have succeeded in obviating all of them. The House is aware, that in the Act of Parliament which I had the honour of carrying in August, 184:2, entitled "An Act for the Better Discovery and Prevention of Bribery and Treating at the Election of

471
Members of Parliament," it is provided that in all cases where charges of bribery shall have been abandoned, or where there is any suspicion entertained of a compromise having taken place among the parties, or where any other charge of bribery shall have been made, whether in support of the original petition or by way of recrimination, the Election Committee shall have power to examine into the circumstances, and report whether further investigation is needed. If the Committee shall recommend further inquiry, the House shall then instruct them to consider what were the grounds for abandoning such charges, and to prosecute the matter further. I have now to state the general alterations in that law which I propose to introduce. I propose to extend the provision just alluded to, and to provide that in all cases where charges of bribery and corrupt practices are made—whether in the original petition or by way of recrimination—the Election Committee shall proceed to investigate such charges; and if they shall find, as is frequently the case, that the parties do not proceed to bring forward evidence of such charges so as to enable them fully to investigate the case, they shall have power to proceed to report to the House that in their opinion further investigation is needed with respect to the corrupt practices, in order to ascertain whether such corrupt practices have extensively prevailed; they shall also report further their opinion whether such inquiry should be made by the same Committee, or whether it should be made on the spot by Commissioners appointed under the Act. In case they shall recommend that the same Committee should investigate the charges, the Committee shall reassemble within fourteen days, according to the powers given them in the Act of the 5th and 6th Victoria, cap. 102, in the same way as if the charges of bribery had been abandoned, or there was reason to suppose that a compromise had taken place. In that case also the Speaker shall appoint an agent to conduct the investigation before a Committee. Supposing the Committee should take the other course, and recommend that the inquiry should be made by the Commissioners upon the spot, then the Speaker shall notify to the senior Judge of assize going the circuit, who has authority to appoint revising barristers, that the House of Commons have determined that an inquiry shall be made into the corrupt practices in
472
such a borough, within such a county or district, and that he shall nominate two barristers—not Members of Parliament—to investigate the matter. I propose to refer the appointment of these Commissioners to a Judge of assize, because it would then be impossible to say that there were any political motives in making the appointment, and because all suspicion would thus be avoided, by placing such appointments in his hands. These Commissioners shall then, within a certain time, investigate on the spot all the circumstances relating to the charges of bribery and corrupt practices, and report to the House whether the bribery and corrupt practices were casual or general in the said borough. Having made that general provision, whereby bribery and corrupt practices will be investigated in future, I propose to apply the principle of the Bill to those boroughs concerning which inquiries have already taken place before Election Committees, and the Members of which had been unseated in consequence of evidence of corrupt practices having been given. This has occurred at least in one case (that of the borough of Leicester), if not in more. The House will have to decide whether new writs should be issued with respect to those cases, or whether they should be suspended with a view to make further inquiry before such writs issue. In some eases, it is true, the writs have already been granted, but in others they have not. It seemed to me that the general impression of the House, in respect to most of those cases, was that some further inquiry should be made. The principle upon which I proceed is this: assuming that such a Bill as that of which I have just stated the outlines had been in force, in that case the Election Committee would have reported whether any further investigation was required; and if, upon their statement, it appeared that further investigation was required, you then would have proceeded under the powers of the Election Act to appoint a Select Committee, or Commissioners, according as the one or the other should be adopted by the House, to carry on the investigation. What I think to be defective in the Act of 1842 is, that the Committees have been necessarily obliged (with the exception of the case of Leicester) to stop short in their inquiries, and had not the power to proceed with a view to ascertain, in such a manner as would enable them to state it in their report, whether the cases required to

473
be further investigated—whether, in fact, bribery and corruption had been practised in a few instances only, or whether those practices had been general and extensive. This defect will be remedied by the Bill which I propose to introduce. I likewise intend to introduce a clause giving indemnity in certain cases to witnesses examined before such Committees or such Commissioners; also providing that such witnesses shall not be called upon in any penal or criminal proceeding. It has always appeared to me necessary to give an indemnity of some kind to witnesses in cases of bribery and corruption, although I know that many eminent lawyers, Members of this House some five or six years ago, whom I consulted upon the subject, were of opinion that it would be far better to repeal all the laws which fixed any penalties on parties guilty of acts of bribery, and leave such parties subject only to the punishment of the loss of their votes, or of their seats in this House. They were of opinion that that course would be much better than giving an indemnity to witnesses, and continuing the present state of the law. I did not, however, at that time concur in that opinion, although it was given on very high authority by eminent lawyers on both sides of the House. I did not think it advisable to proceed so far as to repeal all penalties on parties guilty of bribery and corrupt practices at elections. I believe that if we were to do so, it would lead to great misapprehension, and, although it may be more efficient in the end, yet I think in the first instance it would occasion a great increase in the practice of those offences. I now beg to move—
"That the Orders of the Dar respecting the Borough Elections (No. 2) Bill, and the Horsham Borough Bill, be discharged, and that leave be given to bring in a Bill for the purpose of instituting Inquiries as to the existence of Bribery and Corrupt Practices in certain Boroughs, and also for the Prevention of Bribery and Corruption at the Election of Members of Parliament."
The order for Committee on the Borough Elections (No. 2) Bill, and the order for resuming the debate on the Horsham Borough Bill, were read and discharged.
Leave given to bring in the Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill.

INCUMBERED ESTATES (IRELAND) BILL.
House in Committee.
On Clause 2,
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, it was proposed to omit the words which
474
went to limit the sale of property under the directions of the court, unless it sold for a sum sufficient to pay off all the incumbrances.
MR. M'CULLAGHproceeded to state the object of the Amendment of which he had given notice. The Bill as at present framed limited the right of petitioning for a sale to the owner of the estate, to the first incumbrancer, and to the mortgagee who might hold the title-deeds in his possession. He was desirous of removing such limitation, and permitting any incumbrancer to institute proceedings in a court of equity for a sale. The parties on whom the clause exclusively conferred the power, were precisely those who in general were least disposed to sell. The owner of an estate heavily incumbered has ceased too frequently to retain any direct interest in its possession, excepting that which he valued very naturally, and not undeservedly, the consideration and position which had come to him by inheritance, and which, with the inheritance, he is conscious that he must lose. To expect such a man to initiate proceedings in equity for a sale would be idle. Were the highest price realised, and all his creditors paid off, the balance in many instances that would remain would not enable him to maintain what is familiarly termed his position in the county; and if he happened to be but tenant for life, the interest annually payable to him out of court upon this residuum would be inadequate to maintain him in that social sphere in which he had hitherto moved. If you waited until the insolvent, or nearly insolvent, owner petitioned for a sale, you might wait for ever. Then as to the first incumbrancer, he believed it would be found that the first incumbrancer was, generally speaking, a person holding a charge under family settlement, or an old judgment on a bond. In Ireland those early charges and old judgments were looked upon as about the best investment that could be had. They were transferable, and always brought their full price whenever they were sold. They were valued like old pictures, which the possessor was always the loss disposed to part with because he knew that they would always bring him his own money. If, therefore, lands were never brought to sale until persons so circumstanced filed petitions in equity to raise the amount of these charges, sales to any considerable extent there would never be. As for the principal mortgagees, who had the title-deeds in their possession,

475
those parties had usually taken very good care either to buy up prior incumbrances before they lent any considerable sum to the owner, or to leave a sufficient margin of rent to secure the payment of their interest. Sometimes these parties were wealthy individuals who had lent their money in this way as a permanently safe and profitable investment. Sometimes they were joint-stock companies or moneylenders; but, almost invariably, they felt themselves to be in exactly the position where there was seldom any object or motive to institute proceedings for a sale. The estate might deteriorate, as heavily incumbered properties were apt to do; but they were distant from the scene; indifferent to the slow decay; safe, by their possession of the title-deeds, from the practical consequences of the evil. To wait till such parties filed petitions of sale would be to wait for ever. In the course of the discussions that had taken place upon this Bill on a previous day, he regretted to observe a tone of argument indicative in some sort of a feeling that, after all, this was a mere wrangle between landlords and lawyers. But there was another and a far wider interest concerned, which he trusted the House would protect and guard—he meant that of the tenantry on incumbered estates in Ireland. Their position was most lamentable. Improvement was unknown, and escape from the evil impossible. Year after year the condition of the embarrassed property grew worse, until, in the sad progress of deterioration, the time came when, every other duty of proprietorship having ceased to be discharged, the collection of the rents devolved upon a receiver; and what misery and demoralisation were comprehended in that fatal phrase, it could be hardly necessary to explain. Now, what was the condition of the puisne incumbrancer? He watched the gradual deterioration of the estate on which he had lent his money with a very different eye. The eventual danger of a deficient fund was ever present to his mind. If he were enabled to do so, he would institute proceedings for a sale before it was too late. By doing so he would do a real service to the improvident owner, and an inestimable benefit to the tenantry of the portion which might be sold. The Amendment which he had the honour to move, would clothe the minor incumbrancer with this power; and it would, he believed, go far towards the gradual encouragement of what was so desirable,
476
but what, at present, did not practically exist in Ireland, a market for land. People talked of bringing land into the market. Into what market? If they meant by a market the competition of small capitals for moderate portions of land, he could understand it; but if they meant a forcing of large estates, unbroken and in great numbers, suddenly to sale, then he would tell them that the only practical effect would be to depreciate most ruinously the present value of land, and to hand over a vast portion of the soil of Ireland to a class of mere land-jobbers. He was sure that such was in no respect the purpose or aim which the framers of the Bill had in view. But he very much feared that such would to some extent be its unintentional tendency, if some means were not found of permitting portions of estates rather than entire estates to be sold in liquidation of minor incumbrances. He had heard with the deepest interest the speech delivered on a former day by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham); and by nothing was he more struck than by the caution with which he guarded his strenuous support of the principle of the Bill from any approval of recklessly throwing more land upon the market than the capital of Ireland could appropriate, and thus incurring the incalculable evil of general depreciation. The Amendment would restore the second clause to the condition in which it stood when the Bill was originally introduced into the other House last year; and he earnestly hoped, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government would not refuse to adopt it.
SIR J. GRAHAMsaid, they should keep in view that the purpose of the measure was not so much the sale of large estates as the formation of small ones, for the purposes of creating a yeomanry connected with the land, and living on their estates. Upon this ground he thought it important that the attention of the noble Lord should be directed to the subject of the stamp duties, with a view to their reduction, so far as regarded the transfer of property in land. [Mr. OSBORNE observed, that notice had been given of a clause for that purpose.] The Stamp Acts, as they at present stood, greatly favoured the sale of large estates, or rather rendered it very expensive to acquire small ones; and he thought that the objects of the present measure would not be efficiently advanced without an alteration in the stamp duties on the transfer of real property.
The SOLICITOR GENERALcould not assent to the suggested alteration. All the expenses of effecting a sale must eventually fall on the estate; and he did not think it expedient to give to any one incumbrancer the power of subjecting the estate to a forced sale, contrary to the interests of the owner and the other incumbrancers.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 7,
MR. NAPIERhaving moved its omission, the Committee divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 8: Majority. 56.

List of the AYES.

Abdy, T. N.

Lewis, G. C.

Adair, R. A. S.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Armstrong, R. B.

Maitland, T.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Monsell, W.

Mullings, J. R.

Baines, M. T.

O'Connell, M. J.

Barnard, E. G.

Osborne, R.

Bellew, R. M.

Palmer, R.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Parker, J.

Bright, J.

Perfect, R.

Brotherton, J.

Rendlesham, Lord

Brown, H.

Romilly, Sir J.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Russell, Lord J.

Caulfield, J. M.

Salwey, Col.

Clive, H. B.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Cobden, R.

Smith, J. B.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.

Craig, W. G.

Sullivan, M.

Drummond, H. H.

Tancred, H. W.

Fagan, W.

Tennent, R. J.

Fitzpatrick, rt. hon. W.

Thompson, Col.

Fortescue, C.

Thornely, T.

Greene, J.

Trelawny, J. S.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Turner, G. J.

Hastie, A.

Vivian, J. E.

Hawes, B.

Wawn, J. T.

Hay, Lord J.

Williams, J.

Hayter, W. G.

Wilson, M.

Heald, J.

Wood, W. P.

Henry, A.

Wyld, J.

Herbert, H. A.

Young, Sir J.

Hood, Sir A.

TELLERS.

Humphery, Ald.

Hill, Lord M.

Kildare, Marq. of

Tufnell, H.

List of the NOES.

Bourke, R. S.

Sadlier, J.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Grogan, E.

Hamilton, G. A.

TELLERS.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Dunne, H.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Napier, O.

Clause to stand part of the Bill.
On Clause 34, which provides for notices of proposed sales without order of the court,
SIR J. GRAHAMthought that the particular clause then under consideration required the most serious attention, because he held it to be of primary importance that while every facility should be
478
given to tenants for life to sell encumbered estates, peculiar care should be taken that there should be no collusive sale, and that the full value of the land should be obtained. It had been suggested to him that for the purpose of preventing collusive sales, and with the view of obtaining the full value of the land, the sales should take place by public auction. It had also been suggested, that for the purpose of securing the same object, it was desirable that the sale should take place in the master's office, with the power of opening the biddings; but to this last proposal he had an insuperable objection. He wished to know, however, from the Solicitor General whether he had any strong and decided objection to the proposal that the sales should be by public auction?
The SOLICITOR GENERALcertainly would not object to the proposal, provided he was quite sure that sales by auction would be a security against fraud; but he feared that if fraud was intended, it would be perpetrated by public auction as well as by private contracts. He had always found, and he thought it would be the experience of most persons, that it was far the best course to give the power of selling either by public auction or by private contract, as might be found most advisable; because, if they limited the sale to either the one or the other mode, they would in many cases preclude a party from selling to the best advantage. He admitted, that if they were to limit the sale to one or other of these modes, it ought to be limited to sales by auction. If it was the opinion of the Committee that the sale should be by auction, he would not oppose it; but he presumed the right hon. Baronet, to whom he owed great obligations for the assistance he had rendered in improving the provisions of the measure, would not object to the estate being sold by private sale, if it could not be disposed of by auction.
SIR J. GRAHAMcould conceive the case of a tenant for life having an interest in effecting a sale to the detriment of the heir in remainder, he being a minor, or under parental control; and therefore be thought the greatest care should be taken to prevent fraud. Perhaps the Solicitor General would consult the other law authorities on this point, and be able, on the report, to bring up the clause so altered as completely to meet the case.
The SOLICITOR GENERALacceded to the suggestion.
Amendment agreed to.
On Clause 63 being proposed (no petition for sale without consent where an incumbrancer is in possession or during pending suits),
COLONEL DUNNE COLONEL DUNNE moved its omission.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 165; Noes 30: Majority 135.

List of the AYES.

Adair, R. A. S.

Hayes, Sir E.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hayter, W. G.

Armstrong, R. B.

Headlam, T. E.

Baines, M. T.

Heathcoat, J.

Barkly, H.

Henley, J. W.

Bellew, R. M.

Henry, A.

Benbow, J.

Heywood, J.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Hindley, C.

Boiling, W.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Bowring, Dr.

Hodges, T. L.

Brand, T.

Hood, Sir A.

Brockman, E. D.

Horsman, E.

Brotherton, J.

Howard, P. H.

Brown, W.

Howard, Sir R.

Buller, C.

Hume, J.

Bunbury, E. H.

Jervis, Sir J.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Jones, Capt.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Kildare, Marq. of

Carew, W. H. P.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Caulfield, J. M.

Knox, Col.

Christy, S.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Clay, Sir W.

Lewis, G. C.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Clifford, H. M.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Clive, H. B.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Cocks, T. S.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Courtenay, Lord

Maher, N. V.

Cowan, C.

Mahon, Visct.

Craig, W. G.

Maitland, T.

Crawford, W. S.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Cubitt, W.

Milner, W. M. E.

Devereux, J. T.

Mitchell, T. A.

Drax, J. S. W. S. E.

Monsell, W.

Drummond, H.

Morris, D.

Dundas, Adm.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Ebrington, Visct.

Mullins, J. R.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Muntz, G. F.

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Neeld, J.

Evans, W.

Noel, hon. G. J.

Fagan, W.

Norreys, Lord

Farrer, J.

O'Connoll, M. J.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

O'Connor, F.

Fitzgerald, W. R. S.

Ogle, S. C. H.

FitzPatrick, rt. hn. J. W.

Osborne, R.

Floyer, J.

Paget, Lord C.

Fortescue, hon. J. W.

Paget, Lord G.

Freestun, Col.

Palmerston, Visct.

Glyn, G. C.

Parker, J.

Goddard, A. L.

Patten, J. W.

Gore, W. O.

Pearson, C.

Gore, W. R. O.

Pechell, Capt.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Perfect, R.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Pilkington, J.

Greene, J.

Pinney, W.

Greene, T.

Price, Sir R.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Raphael, A.

Grey, R. W.

Readlesham, Lord

Halsey, T. P.

Reynolds, J.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Ricardo, O.

Hastie, A.

Rich, H.

480

Robartes, T. J. A.

Thompson, G.

Romilly, Sir J.

Thornely, T.

Russell, Lord J.

Townley, R. G.

Rutherfurd, A.

Trelawny, J. S.

Salwey, Col.

Turner, G. J.

Sandars, J.

Vesey, hon. T.

Scholefield, W.

Villiers, hon. C.

Scully, F.

Vivian, J. H.

Seymer, H. K.

Ward, H. G.

Shafto, R. D.

Watkins, Col.

Shell, rt. hon. R. L.

Wawn, J. T.

Sheridan, R. B.

Williams, J.

Simeon, J.

Wilson, J.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Wilson, M.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Wood, rt. bon. Sir C.

Spearman, H. J.

Wood, W. P.

Stuart, Lord D.

Wrightson, W. B.

Sullivan, M.

Wyld, J.

Talbot, J. H.

Young, Sir J.

Tancred, H. W.

Tennent, R. J.

TELLERS.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Tufnell, H.

Thompson, Col.

Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.

Baldock, E. H.

Hotham, Lord

Bateson, T.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Bennet, P.

Napier, J.

Beresford, W.

Newdegate, C. N.

Boldero, H. G.

Nugent, Sir P.

Bourke, R. S.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Bremridge, R.

Sadlier, J.

Burghley, Lord

Somerset, Capt.

Cole, hon. H. A.

Stuart, H.

Dodd, G.

Tollemache, J.

Farnham, E. B.

Waddington, H. S.

Forbes, W.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Fox, R. M.

Wodehouse, E.

Frewen, C. H.

Fuller, A. E.

TELLERS.

Hamilton, G. A.

Dunne, Col.

Hodgson, W. N.

Grogan, E.

Clause to stand part of the Bill.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
House resumed. Bill reported. To be printed and further considered.
House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Protection of Women; Charity Trusts Regulation.
2a Canada Union Act Amendment; County Cess (Ireland); Officers of Courts of Justice (Ireland) Assimilation of Appointments.
3a Cruelty to Animals Prevention; Payment of Debts out of Real Estate.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Citizens of Montreal, Canada, for the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Navigation Laws, and for the Opening of the River Saint Lawrence, to Ships of all Nations.

PROTECTION OF WOMEN BILL.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, it would be in the recollection of the House that the Protection of Females Bill was rejected a few evenings ago; but as he thought that it was most desirable to obtain the chief object of that measure, he had prepared another Bill on the subject, which he would lay on the table, which would impose penalties only in case of the seduction of virtuous and correct females by fraud and covin. He should move that the Bill be now read a first time, and appoint the second reading for Monday.
LORD CAMPBELLhoped his noble and learned Friend would be able to accomplish the object in view, which was extremely laudable; and he certainly was unwilling to throw any impediment in the way of his noble Friend. What he wished to state was, that when a Bill for the attainment of a particular object had been rejected during the course of a Session, he doubted whether, consistently with the Orders of the House, a Bill for the same purpose cauld be brought forward during the same Session. He would suggest, therefore,
464
whether it would not be better at once to defer the measure to the next Session.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he would propose instead of Monday to take the second reading on Tuesday; and if upon conferring with his noble and learned Friends opposite, and with his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, and with the noble Chairman of Committees, he found the feeling was against him, he would not proceed further with the measure this Session.
LORD DENMANsaid, he should not be able to attend on Monday or Tuesday; but he must say he felt the greatest apprehension and alarm at any such measure as that now proposed, on which his noble and learned Friend had touched lightly. The subject, however, was one on which every one must feel great anxiety: for his own part, he could only observe, that it was only after much consideration that he had come to the conclusion that such measures would do more harm than good.
Bill read 1a

INDEPENDENCE OF PARLIAMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BROUGHAMwished to ask a question of his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) as to this Bill, which stood for a second reading to-night. His noble Friend was aware that in 1812 the late Mr. John Smith introduced a Bill, which received the sanction of Parliament, by which it was enacted that if a person became a bankrupt as a trader, and did not resign his seat before the expiration of twelve months, a new writ should be issued for the place he represented at the end of this period. Now he (Lord Brougham) did not see why this should not extend to all insolvents, when the parties were not traders. It should be recollected that this class of persons thus holding seats in Parliament who were law makers, were in point of fact law breakers, and by their conduct guilty of a gross fraud in Parliament. He wished to ask his noble Friend whether he was prepared to introduce a Bill for the purpose which he had in view? If his noble Friend thought it better not to pass the Bill at present, he would postpone it.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsuggested that however good the object of the Bill, such a measure ought more properly to proceed from the other House.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he was ready to admit that this measure, in extent, more properly affected the House of Commons than that House, and it might he well to allow it to originate there. He would not proceed with the Bill at present.
Order for the second reading discharged.
Bill, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

CRIMINAL LAW ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL.
LORD CAMPBELLwished to make a few preliminary observations before he moved that the House should resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. This Bill had been sent upstairs to a Select Committee, and some important changes had been made in it. He was extremely anxious that the public should be satisfied that everything had been done which was requisite to perfect this measure. One of the very important questions which came before the Committee was, as to whether in all criminal cases the power should be given of moving for new trials as in civil cases. For his own part, he saw many objections to carrying out this object to the fullest extent; but still it was a matter worthy of serious consideration. The Committee had examined many witnesses who entertained opinions on both sides of the question, from whence the most satisfactory information could he obtained on the subject; and amongst others they had called before them two gentlemen of great learning and ability, who had devoted much attention to the subject—he alluded to Sir Fitzroy Kelly and Mr. Greaves—and they gave it as their opinion, that the same course should be pursued in criminal as in civil cases, and that no judgment or execution should be enforced on any criminal tried until four days after the commencement of the next term, during which period application could he made to one of the courts in Westminster Hall. In such cases the parties, on applying for a new trial, should produce affidavits showing that the witnesses examined on the trial were not worthy of credit, for that further evidence could be produced for the defence; and it was also proposed that the other party might show cause against the rule for the new trial. It was admitted that parties might go on for three or four trials, until a satisfactory verdict was obtained. He (Lord Campbell) need hardly say that under such an arrangement very great delay would arise, and they must
466
bring all the criminals convicted throughout the country up to London. He did not believe that the allegation as to the extent of cases in convictions in criminal law had been substantiated. He did not conceive that it would he necessary to go beyond the provisions on this subject contained in the Bill, namely, to allow an appeal from conviction at quarter-sessions to Judges going the assizes. One of the most learned of the Judges—he meant Mr. Justice Pattison—had authorised him to say, that in the course of his experience, which went to the extent of twenty years, he did not remember any case in which the verdict of guilty was not justified by the evidence. He had also stated that, if applications for new trials were to be made on the ground of the discovery of fresh evidence, it would open the door to fraud and perjury to such an extent as would be utterly ruinous to the administration of justice. It would have the effect of producing numberless false witnesses, and in many cases the prosecutor would be bought off. This opinion of the learned Judge was fully concurred in by two of the most distinguished legal ornaments in this country. He thought after this the House would agree with him in thinking that they went to the proper extent in limiting the appeal from the quarter-sessions to the Judges in Assize to questions of law.
LORD DENMANsaid, that he entirely concurred in much that had fallen from his noble and learned Friend. Before, however, he proceeded to advert to what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend, he wished to make a few observations. Probably their Lordships were aware that there was then before the other House of Parliament a Bill to authorise applications for now trials in all criminal cases. He believed that it would be impossible to carry on the proper administration of justice under such a system, nor did he believe that the state of things in any degree justified such a measure. The delay that would be occasioned by the endeavour to carry such a law into effect, would be an immense evil. With respect, however, to the Bill before the House, it was his intention to move the omission of its two first clauses; for if appeals were to be sent to the Judges on every doubtful point of law which might arise at quarter-sessions, it would become a most serious obstruction to the business of the courts. He believed, also, that at present there was no just ground of complaint as regarded points of

467
law in criminal cases, or the decisions at quarter-sessions. He happened to know that the opinions of nearly the whole of the Judges were against the adoption of the proposed plan. [The noble and learned Lord proceeded to read extracts from the evidence of the several Judges examined before the Select Committee on this Bill.] The House would therefore see that almost the unanimous opinion of the Judges was against this Bill. Under these circumstances, he thought that he had said enough to justify him in asking the House not to consent to these clauses. The deliberations ought not to be secret in their nature. Every means should be taken to ensure the acquittal of innocent men; but this should be done consistently with the prevention of impunity to offenders through technical points, when all the world saw that they were guilty. Those who beheld the law thus defeated, had their minds most injuriously affected with regard to its administration.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he entirely agreed with his noble and learned Friend who had just spoken. An opinion had prevailed for a long time, especially in the other House of Parliament, that the criminal law of this country was very defective, and that prisoners tried for offences were often ill-used through having no power of appeal. It was a great mistake to suppose that it was possible to apply the same rule in criminal as in civil suits; and he could never agree with Sir F. Kelly that in criminal cases there ought to be a new trial. If the criminal law was to be administered, their Lordships could not adopt the proposal under consideration. Any one who examined the practical details of the subject, whatever had been his previous prejudices, must rise from the perusal with a complete conviction that the question was not one at the option or discretion of the Legislature. In order to carry out the proposal, it would be necessary to double the year, to double the number of Judges, and to have judicial sittings in July as well as in November. There was not a single power exercised by the Court of Cassation in France, which was not exercised in a Court of Error in this country. He admitted that the Bill was in some respects an improvement on the present practice; but he entirely concurred with his noble and learned Friend in wishing to omit the first two clauses.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he could not accede to the Amendment.
House in Committee.
LORD DENMAN LORD DENMAN moved to omit the first two clauses.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that it was proposed to enact that there should be an appeal from the courts of assize and from the Central Criminal Court, where the Judges of the land presided, to another tribunal, which was to be constituted of a selection from all the Judges. The necessity for such a tribunal was admitted; the only question was, whether or not there should be a similar tribunal to decide the difficult questions which arose in the courts of quarter-sessions. Many difficult questions undoubtedly arose in these courts, and, primâ facie, it appeared that on questions which concerned the liberty of the subject, the power of appeal should exist. The parties who presided at quarter-sessions were gentlemen who, devoting their leisure to the service of the country, performed their duties with great diligence, and with benefit to society; but surely they were not more deserving of trust, or less liable to error, than the Judges of the land, who had received a regular professional education, and were intimately acquainted with the law. During the time that he (Lord Campbell) held the office of Attorney General, the practice, when difficult questions arose, was for the chairman of the quarter-sessions to write to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary then consulted the Attorney and Solicitor General; and if their opinions were in favour of the prisoner, he was pardoned; if against him, the sentence was executed. He could not consider that a satisfactory mode of proceeding. It was generally considered one of the imperfections of the court of quarter-sessions that there was no appeal whatever in criminal cases. Both Mr. Baron Parke and Mr. Baron Alderson had frequently expressed to him their entire approbation of giving the same right of appeal from that court as existed in the case of the courts of assize. The noble Lord then referred to the evidence of a learned Serjeant, who had for many years filled the office of chairman of the court of quarter-sessions for Sussex; and of another legal gentleman, who had been chairman of a similar court in Gloucestershire, both of whom were in favour of appeal; and the former stated that he had little apprehension of the appeals being inconveniently numerous. The great evil which he (Lord Campbell) wished to remove was the circumstance of a man's re-

469
maining at present a convicted felon, even though it turned out that he had been improperly found guilty.
Motion agreed to. Clauses struck out.
Remaining clauses assented to.
Bill to be reported.
House adjourned.