Sitting of 3 May 1848

Preamble
MINUTES. NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Carlisle, William Nicholson Hodgson Esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—Reported.—Great Yarmouth Coal Duties. PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Aglionby, from Horsham, for Inquiry respecting Lewes, and other Boroughs. By Mr. Wood, from Stamford, for Inquiry into the Election of that Place.—By Mr. H. Drummond, from Arthur P. Perceval, B.C.L., Chaplain to the Queen, respecting the Consecration of Dr. Hampden.—By Mr. J. Bailey, from Hay (Brecknockshire), and other Hon. Members, from several Places, for Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. Duncan, from the Presbyterian Congregation of Wallacetown, Dundee, and by Mr. Loch, from Cromarty, for Alteration of the Law respecting Sites for Churches (Scotland).—By Mr. Milner Gibson, from Manchester, and by Mr. Stuart Wortley, from Members of the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association, for Repeal of the Duty on Attorneys' Certificates.—By Mr. Rufford, in favour of the Exemption of Small Tenements from Rating Bill.—By Mr. Childers, from Members of the Loyal Vale of Mowbray Lodge of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Manchester Unity, Malton District, for Extension of the Benefit Societies Act.—By Mr. Cardwell, from the Liverpool Guardian Society for the Protection of Trade, for Alteration of the Law respecting County Courts.—By Mr. Loch, from the Council of Tain (Scotland), in Favour of the Crown and Government Security Bill.—By Mr. Duncan, from Wallacetown, Dundee, and by Mr. Greene, from Cockerham (Lancaster), against the Diplomatic Relations, Court of Rome, Bill.

RIOT AT LIMERICK.
MR. G. A. HAMILTON begged leave to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, whether he had received any official intelligence from Ireland, in confirmation of a statement which he had read in the Times of that morning, and which he could not help adding was most ably and amusingly commented upon in that newspaper, namely, that there had been a moral force demonstration in the city of Limerick? An émeute, in fact, in that city, on the part of the moral force party against the leaders of the physical force party—that the leaders of the physical force party, including Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Meagher of the sword, and Mr. Mitchell, had been seriously maltreated and injured by those moral force men; and that these bellicose gentlemen of the physical force party had actually been obliged to seek protection from Her Majesty's troops, and the constabulary of the city of Limerick?
SIR G. GREY: In reply to the question put by the hon. Gentleman, I beg to inform him that I have received a letter from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland which substantially confirms the statement he has alluded to. It appears, that a meeting was held at the city of Limerick, at which about 400 persons assembled, the gentlemen to whom the hon. Member has alluded being present, and that, during the meeting, an attack was made upon them by the people of Limerick, and I believe that it is to the prompt intervention

591
of the military and the police that the safety of the three gentlemen may be attributed.

THE TRIALS IN IRELAND.
MR. G. HAMILTON said, he would take the liberty of asking the right hon. Secretary for Ireland another question of a kindred nature—it was, whether it was true that Mr. Mitchell, the United Irishman, who some time ago seemed to pant for a collision with Her Majesty's Government either in a court of law or elsewhere, had resorted to the expedient of putting in dilatory pleas, which would have the effect of delaying the trial, and postponing that collision for a considerable time?
SIR W. SOMERVILLE said, it was certainly true that Mr. Mitchell had put in a plea of that description; but he hoped it would not have the effect of delaying the trial.

THE "NO HOUSE" ON TUESDAY.
MR. HUME wished to call the attention of the Government to the fact of there being no House on Tuesday, no Member of the Government being present. He trusted that some means would be devised of securing an attendance sufficient to make a House, for the sake of public business. At present there was only one day upon which Government had not the priority. Yesterday, several important Motions stood for discussion, especially one, of which notice had been given by the on and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Wood), and no Member of the Government was present at four o'clock.
SIR G. GREY agreed with the hon. Member that it was desirable, for the sake of public business, that the House should not adjourn for want of a sufficient attendance of Members. He had not been aware that the House would be counted out, and when he came down at half-past four he was surprised to find that a House had not been made. The Members of Her Majesty's Government were much occupied, but it was not their wish that there should be no House on Tuesday.
MR. G. BERKELEY, in order to continue the discussion, moved that the House do now adjourn. This was not the first time, he said, that a House had been prevented when there was business before it disagreeable to the Government. He had himself been canvassed at the door, and asked not to go in, as there was business disagreeable to the Government; and it
592
was well known that a Motion stood for discussion last night which would have involved inquiry into the conduct of a noble Marquess. As the question of the ballot was approaching, he thought the Government ought to be on its guard, and at least have one or two Members always present to make a House; instead of which, they canvassed Members not to make a House. He hoped the House would not suffer questions to be got rid of by private agreements made at the door of the House.
MR. PAGE WOOD having been present yesterday, he was not open to any imputation of neglecting his duty, and he wished to take this opportunity of offering a few observations upon the subject of his Motion. He had undertaken to bring it forward solely as a matter of duty. A petition had been put into his hands, complaining of a severe grievance suffered by one-third of the electors of the borough of Stamford, and bringing a serious charge against a noble individual—the Lord Lieutenant of a county; and upon those two grounds he had been exceedingly anxious to bring the matter forward as speedily as possible. He had presented the petition on the 14th of March, and he had endeavoured to fix as early a day as he could to bring it on. The first day on which he had fixed it he had been prevented by the illness of the Speaker; and yesterday he was prevented by there being no House. In justice to the noble individual he had referred to, as well as to the parties complaining of a grievance, he was anxious to bring the question on as speedily as possible; and he thought there should have been one individual at least connected with the Government in the House when it was expected to come on. He was connected with no party; this matter had not been sought by him, but he had undertaken it from a sense of duty. It was a question of great public importance; and, therefore, though he did not wish to impede the business of the country, he had given notice to bring it on the first day the House went into a Committee of Supply.
MR. HERRIES hoped the hon. Member did not mean to be understood as insinuating that there was any indisposition, on the part of any persons in that House, to discuss the subject he had referred to, or that they were not prepared to repel the accusations made in the petition, and to protect the character of the noble individual who had been so unjustly accused.

593
Nothing could be more unfounded than to suppose that there had been any understanding with the Government that this matter should not be brought before the House. He was anxious that it should be brought forward, and was prepared to vindicate the character of the nobleman who had been so unjustly attacked in the petition.
COLONEL SIBTHORP said, he thought the House ought to have some explanation from the right hon. Gentlemen opposite as to what they tad been about yesterday. Where had they been? How had they been employed What duties had they been engaged in? If they could not be present themselves, they had a precious lot of well-paid underlings, some of whom might have been there. He therefore thought the House had a right to know what they had been about, that none of them could attend in this House yesterday.
SIR G. GREY said, that when he received information that there was no House, he and his Colleagues were intending to come down, they having up to that time been engaged with important public business. He was quite ready to admit that the hon. Member for Oxford had used his best endeavours for the purpose of bringing his Motion under the notice of the House; and he regretted the occurrence which had occasioned the disappointment to which reference had now been made. Sufficient explanation, as he thought, had already been given on the subject, and he therefore should not further occupy the time of the House than to say that the hon. Member for Glasgow had a Motion on the Paper, and yet he never attended the sitting of the House, neither did the Member Stafford.
MR. HORSMAN thought it was hardly possible to suppose that the occurrence of yesterday was accidental. It was not the first time that such an attempt had been made by the Government—the practice was habitual and systematic; it had been resorted to the last time that he had an Ecclesiastical Motion on the Paper. It was within his own knowledge that subordinate Members of the Government went to the clubs, and told hon. Gentlemen not to go down, for that it was wished not to make a House: that course had been habitually and systematically pursued. Now, he wished to put this to the Government—independent Members of that House had hitherto enjoyed the advantage of two Mo-
594
tion days in the week; owing to the pressure of public business they had given up one of those, and he therefore thought they had a fair claim on the Government to secure them a House upon the other day. If something of that sort were not done, the result would prove rather an impediment to, than a means of, advancing public business, for Members would bring forward their Motions on going into Committee of Supply, and the supply days would, therefore, be lost to the Government; hence the conduct of the Government in this matter would be not only unfair, but unwise.
SIR G. GREY said, the hon. Member who spoke last had asserted that the Government habitually and systematically endeavoured to prevent the attendance of a sufficient number of Members to constitute a House on those occasions when they wished to get rid of a disagreeable Motion; but he did not show that the Government succeeded, and he had given no proof whatever of the assertion which he took upon himself to make. It was, perhaps, not unworthy of notice that amongst the hon. Members who so loudly complained that no House had been made yesterday, not one of them had attended at 4 o'clock. He also could not help observing that the hon. Member for Cockermouth never lost an opportunity of endeavouring to cast a slur upon the Government, although he was wholly unable to prove that any subordinate Member of the Government had interfered in the matter. It was apparently contended by some Members that, without regard to the question whether any Government business stood on the Paper or not, Ministers were bound to make and keep a House; that certainly appeared to him a very novel addition to their duties. If an hon. Member gave notice of a Motion, and 40 Members out of 658 were not sufficiently convinced of its importance to take the trouble of coming down at 4 o'clock, he did not see how any blame could attach to the Government. The true reason that a House was not made yesterday was this, that so soon after the holidays a great many Members had not yet returned to town. He regretted the occurrence, but he did not see how any responsibility with regard to it could attach to the Government.
SIR J. WALMSLEY said, it was only fair to the hon. Member for Glasgow to state that he came down at 4 o'clock, and the only cause of his not having been included in the 27 Members present was,

595
that he had gone up to the library and other parts of the building to search for others in order to make a House.
Motion withdrawn.

SMALL DEBTS BILL.
MR. B. COCHRANE, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said he hoped the Government would not object to the alterations he proposed to make in the 9th and 10th of Victoria, subject to such revision as might be made in Committee. The principal object of this Bill was to prevent any party from being imprisoned for debt in any part of a gaol except on the debtor's side, or in any gaol where there was not a debtor's side. If it should be answered there was already an Act, the 2nd and 3rd Victoria, directing that prisoners should be classified, and that debtors should be separated from other prisoners, he would reply that this could be no objection to his Bill, which did but make that more clear. But he had good reason to believe, that the judges of the Small Debts Courts had assumed the power of committing debtors to the felons' side of the prisons: if this were doubted, he could state a dozen or fifteen instances which had been reported to him. Of Mr. Pollett's case he had ample confirmation; so that a debtor could be consigned to a felon's cell, and be compelled to have his hair cut off—for this appeared to be the custom of the prisons in that case. By the 99th Clause of the Small Debts Act, the judge of the court had the power to imprison for forty days a debtor whom he believed to have had since the judgment the power of paying, and who had not paid, a debt ordered to be paid; and this could be repeated on non-payment of each instalment, the judge having the right to divide the payment into as many instalments as he thought fit. In fact, a debtor who owed a sum under 20 l. was much worse off than one who owed more; and, as the small debtor was not entitled to demand a jury where the debt did not exceed 5l., he was in such a case entirely at the mercy or caprice of the judge. Moreover, by Section 103, imprisonment under this Act did not operate as a satisfaction or extinguishment of the debt. He (Mr. Cochrane) should prefer seeing imprisonment for debt abolished altogether, except in cases of positive fraud or false representation.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL could not, consistently with his duty, consent to
596
the second reading of this Bill. The House had far better at once repeal the late Act for the more easy recovery of small debts, than attempt so to alter it as to suit the views indicated by the hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the provisions he complained of were introduced for the first time in the 9th and 10th of Victoria; but how stood the fact? By the 7th and 8th of Victoria, c. 96, imprisonment on final process, or in execution, was abolished where the debt was under 20 l., except in cases where it should appear to the judge that the debt had been contracted under false pretences, or with a fraudulent intent, or without reasonable assurance of being able to pay it, or where the debtor had fraudulently concealed or made away with his property. This Act was found to operate so prejudicially upon the lower class of tradesmen that they were all in arms against it; and then the 8th and 9th of Victoria, c. 127, was passed, giving power to a creditor who had a judgment for a sum under 20 l. to summon the debtor before a Bankruptcy Commissioner or a judge of a Small debts court; and if the debtor should appear to the court to have been guilty of any of the frauds mentioned in the former Act, or to have the means of paying the debt which he neglected to pay, he might be committed for forty days to any gaol or debtor's prison in the county, and the imprisonment was not to extinguish the debt. This Act restored to the local courts the business which under the previous Act they had lost; and it was found absolutely necessary, therefore, to retain that clause in the present Small Debts Act. Accordingly, that Act gave power to commit in such cases, not for misfortune, but for fraud, to the prison of the court, or the common gaol or house of correction of the district; and if it were to the debtor's side, to live in idleness, these local courts might as well be shut up at once. He felt bound to move that this Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Bill put off for six months.

GREAT YARMOUTH FREEMEN DISFRANCHISMENT BILL.
House in Committee on the Yarmouth Freemen Disfranchisement Bill.
On the question that the preamble of the Bill be postponed,
MR. STAFFORD moved that the Chairman report progress.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 107; Majority 91.

List of the AYES.

Bagshaw, J.

Hodges, T. L.

Barkly, H.

Sturt, H. G.

Berkeley, hon. G. F.

Thompson, Col.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Clay, J.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Clifford, H. M.

Cobbold, J. C.

Colvile, C. R.

TELLERS.

Fox, W. J.

Stafford, A.

Greene, T.

Hume, J.

List of the NOES.

Arkwright, G.

Hornby, J.

Armstrong, R. B.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Arundel and Surrey,

Jervis, Sir J.

Earl of

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Baines, M. T.

Kershaw, J.

Barrington, Visct.

Lewis, rt. hn. Sir T. F.

Bentinck, Lord H.

Lewis, G. C.

Beresford, W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Bright, J.

Lushington, C.

Brockman, E. D.

M'Naghten, Sir E.

Brotherton, J.

Mahon, Visct.

Brown, W.

Maitland, T.

Bunbury, E. H.

Manners, Lord G.

Busfeild, W.

Martin, S.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Cardwell, E.

Melgund, Visct.

Carew, W. H. P.

Miles, W.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Monsell, W.

Cholmeley, Sir M.

Mowatt, F.

Christy, S.

Newdegate, C. N.

Cocks, T. S.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Colebrooke, Sir T E.

Ord, W.

Cripps, W.

Palmer, R.

Cubitt, W.

Patten, J. W.

Divett, E.

Pearson, C.

Duncan, G.

Perfect, R.

Duncuft, J.

Philips, Sir G. R.

Dundas, Adm.

Pinney, W.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Prime, R.

Evans, Sir D. L.

Raphael, A.

Fellowes, E.

Rawdon, Col.

Fergus, J.

Ricardo, O.

Foley, J. H. H.

Rice, E. R.

Fordyce, A. D.

Romilly, J.

Fortescue, hon. J. W.

Russell, Lord J.

French, F.

Scrope, G. P.

Fuller, A. E.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Galway, Visct.

Shelburne, Earl of

Gaskell, J. M.

Somerville,rt. hon. Sir W.

Gibson, rt. hon. T M.

Spooner, R.

Granger, T. C.

Stuart, H.

Grenfell, C. W.

Talfourd, Serj.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Thornely, T.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Towneley, C.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Waddington, H. S.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Harris, hon. Capt

Wilson, M.

Hayes, Sir E.

Wood, W. P.

Headlam, T. E.

Yorke, H. G. R.

Heald, J.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

TELLERS.

Hildyard, R. C.

Seymer, H. K.

Hill, Lord M.

Stuart, J.

On Clause 1 being proposed,
MR. STAFFORD felt it his duty again to assert a principle which no majorities of that House could convince him was unsound. There were two reasons why he objected to this Bill: first, because it punished the innocent for the guilty; and, secondly, because it refused to punish that class of persons whom he maintained to be the most guilty of all. It was stated in the report of the Committee, that the amount of bribery proved to have been committed at the last election in the borough of Great Yarmouth was 46 l. 10 s.; that the sums given as bribes varied from 7l. to 10 s.; and that the number of freemen bribed consisted of thirteen or fourteen persons. The Committee recommended, upon this evidence, that the whole of the freemen should be disfranchised, though they had been unable to find any proof of systematic corruption, except so far as that proof rested upon the testimony of a single witness. He contended that, in accordance with the principles which ordinarily regulated the administration of criminal justice, the promoters of this measure ought to have contented themselves with bringing in a Bill to disfranchise the fourteen persons convicted of having received bribes. He maintained also, that those who offered the temptation, and held out the bribe, were at least as guilty as those who, in their destitution, accepted it. He held that to select a particular borough, and a particular class in that borough, and visit them with political extinction because they were poor and had yielded to the temptation of being bribed, while they avoided all mention of the tempters, appeared to him impolitic and unjust. He held that when they were taking means to punish those who had been bribed, they at the same time ought to take steps to reach those who were infinitely more guilty. They might depend upon it they never could promote purity of election by such a course as that now proposed; and he believed they could only do so by passing a general Act which would make it criminal not only to be bribed, but to offer a bribe to any elector. If they passed such a Bill as the present, they never could convince those who had no votes that they were actuated by a desire to preserve purity of election. If a Bill was brought in for the purpose of disfranchising Mr. Coble, who had been active in bribing, it would be much more to the purpose.
MR. SEYMER had a word or two to

599
say in favour of Mr. Coble and a learned Serjeant, whose name had also been mentioned. He believed that so long as there were persons ready and anxious to be bribed, as was the case at Great Yarmouth, there would always be found persons willing to bribe them; so long as they found people avowedly waiting on for the purpose of being bribed, crowding the stairs of particular houses with that object, and asking for the back arrears of former elections, so long would bribery exist. The evidence given before the Committee clearly proved that many of the electors of Great Yarmouth looked upon bribery as a matter of course, as a custom of the place. The evidence also showed that the freemen were the persons who corrupted both candidates and agents. It would be impossible to avoid corrupt elections so long as persons willing and even claiming to be bribed were found to exist.
MR. PLOWDEN said, printed papers had been sent to him from Great Yarmouth, in which the most unblushing avowal of bribery was put forth. They called it an "ancient custom," a "privilege" to which they were entitled, denounced as their greatest enemies those who had brought these transactions to light, and styled as their dearest friends those who defended them. He trusted steps would be taken by that House to put down such occurrences as had been proved to take place in this borough.
The clauses of the Bill agreed to.
House resumed.

JOINT STOCK COMPANIES BILL.
House in Committee on the Joint Stock Companies Bill.
On Clause 2,
MR. HEADLAM proposed to add, that "the word 'commissioner' should mean any country commissioner of the Court of Bankruptcy, having jurisdiction in the town where the principal office of the company is situate." In all subsequent parts of the Bill, wheresoever the word "master" occurred, he proposed to substitute the words "Master or Commissioner."
The SOLICITOR GENERAL considered that the alteration would be a source of inconvenience to all parties. The first effect would be to establish a system of local Masters in Chancery all over the country in the resident Commissioners of Bankruptcy; and incessant appeals would be made, from the diversity of decisions
600
which might be expected from so many different parties.
MR. HUDSON observed, that the compliment paid to the Masters in Chancery in the present instance was not a compliment in which people throughout the country would generally concur, for they had a horror of coming under their jurisdiction. With respect to the particular objects of the Bill, the feeling prevailed that a local administration would be greatly preferable to an administration centralised in London. Bringing home justice to the door of the people was one of the greatest boons that could be conferred upon them; and, therefore, if the operations under this Bill could be administered by the local courts of bankruptcy rather than by the Masters in Chancery, he should greatly prefer it. He earnestly hoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) would not throw over a suggestion like the one then before the House; but that, if he was not inclined at once to consent to it, he would at least take time to consider it.
MR. GIBSON said, that was just asking them to give equity matters over to Commissioners of Bankruptcy. [Mr. STUART: The Commissioners are all equity lawyers.] That might be so; but their modes of proceeding were not analogous to the practice in Chancery. If ever there was a case more than another in which business would be carried on better in London than in the country, it was the case of winding up the affairs of joint-stock companies whose shareholders resided not in any one locality, but were to be found scattered all over the kingdom. In these circumstances, where could they find a more central place than London? It would introduce great confusion to depart from the original plan; and he hoped, if the hon. Member for Newcastle wished the Bill to pass, he would not press his Amendment.
MR. AGLIONBY said, that from the correspondence he had had on this subject, he was persuaded that, good as the Bill was, it would not be well received by the country generally, if the power of administration was left entirely in the hands of the Masters in Chancery. He hoped, therefore, especially after what had been stated by the hon. Members for Newcastle and Sunderland, the Government would take time to reconsider this matter. He did not doubt the Masters in Chancery were men of ability; but it was well known that their mode of doing business gave satisfaction to no one; and he was satisfied that

601
the Commissioners of Bankruptcy would be found quite as competent. He felt disposed to move that the Chairman report progress, in order to give the Government time to reconsider the subject.
MR. J. STUART entertained so strong an opinion that there should be a discretionary power vested in the Lord Chancellor in any case he thought fit of sending the matter to a Commissioner of Bankruptcy in the country, that he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General) would accede to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cockermouth, and take time to consider the point.
House resumed.
Committee to sit again.
House adjourned at Six o'clock.