Sitting of 10 May 1848

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Scientific Societies. 2° Waste Lands (Ireland).
Reported.—Joint Stock Companies; Collectors of Cess (Ireland); Imprisonment for Debt (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Sir R. H. Inglis, from the Minister and Inhabitants of Swerford, Oxfordshire, against the Jewish Disabilities Bill.—By Mr. Matthew Bell, from Howdon (Northumberland), and by other Hon. Members, from several Places, for Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. Duncan, from Dundee, for Alteration of the Places of Worship Sites (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. Newdegate, from Members of the Church of England Lay Association of Birmingham, against the Roman Catholic Relief, Roman Catholic Charitable Trusts, and Diplomatic Relations, Court of Rome, Bill.—By Lord G. Hallyburton, from Carmylie (Forfar), and by other Hon. Members, from several Places, for Alteration of the Law respecting Sites for Churches (Scotland) Bill.ߞBy Mr. Blewitt, from Pontypool (Monmouth), for Repeal of the Duty on Attorneys Certificates.

HORSHAM BOROUGH BILL.
On the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Horsham Borough Bill,
SIR G. GREY moved that it be read a second time on that day week.
MR. STAFFORD objected to the postponement of the Bill. It was unfair to keep the electors of Horsham in a state of suspense with this Bill hanging over their heads; it ought either to be proceeded with immediately or abandoned.
SIR GEORGE GREY thought it advisable that a preliminary inquiry should take place upon oath. It would be better to include Horsham in the General Bill, which it was intended should be introduced for regulating cases of this nature.
MR. BANKES S said, that there was a considerable difference between the case of the Horsham Bill and the General Bill, which was this: with regard to the Horsham Bill, no one objected to it; but with regard to the General Bill, there was a great deal of objection to it, and it never would pass without a very considerable discussion. He looked upon it as a most unconstitutional measure, to which he trusted the House would never assent. Why, then, should the Horsham writ be suspended to await the discussion on the General Bill? The Horsham Bill was the result of the Committee which sat upon the inquiry. It was stated that it was a case

827
which called for immediate inquiry. The noble Lord brought in the Bill, and he had no right to abandon it.
MR. NEWDEGATE said, that the question of the Horsham election was one which ought to be decided by itself. It was a case which had been proved and admitted to be worthy of a separate cognisance. He could understand the motives of the noble Lord in thus reserving the case of Horsham, to give strength to the grounds for a general Bill. He believed it was intended to lay the foundation of machinery which would have
a more extended and complex operation than it appeared to have; and if the House of Commons meant to do their duty, they should take the advice of the Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden), who said that if they meant to do their business well, they should do one thing at a time. Here was an obvious case of corruption, which ought to be dealt with at once. There was an admitted necessity for further inquiry; the case being already proved before the proper tribunal, and delay was objectionable and improper.
SIR G. GREY said, that it would be hardly fair to deal thus peremptorily with Horsham. It was distinctly stated that it was a case only for suspicion. The Committee, not having gone into the case, only reported that it was one of suspicion, which warranted further inquiry.
MR. HENLEY conceived the course proposed to be taken would be found extremely inconvenient. Government, in their official capacity, had brought in a Bill on this subject, which they afterwards postponed, and postponed sine die until the general measure of the hon. Baronet was brought forward—a measure analogous to putting charges of murder, rape, and treason into one indictment. Every borough ought to be dealt with upon its own merits by a separate Bill.
MR. HUDSON called upon the House either to proceed with the Bill, or consent to the issuing of the writ. At all events, when the general Bill came on, it should have his most decided opposition; for he had no idea of commissioners being sent down to boroughs and towns to create heartburnings and dissensions. If he recollected aright, a pledge was given by the Prime Minister that this Bill should be proceeded with without delay, and he called upon the Government to fulfil that pledge. He saw the symptoms of a job in the Government Bill. It was for the purpose of assisting the lawyers, and if it
828
passed into a law there would be lots of pettifoggers receiving the five guineas a day under it; but he trusted if the Bi11 did pass, that the first commissioner who was sent to a town would be kicked out by the people without ceremony. The Government appeared exceedingly anxious to find fault with a few poor men for getting a breakfast for half-a-crown; but how many of the supporters of the Government were not receiving favours just as palpable? The borough of Horsham ought not to be left so long unrepresented, and it would have a fair ground of complaint if the Bill was not proceeded with at once.
COLONEL SIBTHORP denounced the conduct of the Government on this occasion as another proof of Whig corruption. When there was so much talk of bribery out of doors, he would say that if bribery were to be punished, the Treasury bench ought to be scoured, for it was well known that all that the men had to do who got seats there was to play into the hands of the Government. It was notorious that the influence of the Treasury had been exercised very extensively in many boroughs. He firmly believed that a portion of the secret service money which was voted every year was expended in the return of Members who adorned the Treasury benches. He believed that the public money was so expended; and until he heard it distinctly and emphatically denied by the Government, he would remain of the same opinion. He had no objection to a general inquiry, and commissioners by the dozen might be sent to Lincoln, as he courted the fullest investigation into his affairs; and he believed that the Bill about to be introduced for the purpose of causing local inquiries to be instituted respecting local boroughs was of a most dangerous description, and therefore he would feel it to be his duty to give it every opposition in his power.
MR. SPOONER hoped the Government would give some explanation of their conduct with regard to the Bill for disfranchising the freemen of Great Yarmouth. He objected to the postponement both of Great Yarmouth and that of Horsham; and he had some apprehersions that there was something with regard to the borough of Horsham that the Government found it convenient to keep back. If it were really the intention of the Government to allow the Bill to be proceeded with, there should be no longer delay, but they should permit the matter to be finished at once. He

829
hoped the right hon. Baronet would state to the House the reason why he wished to pursue in this case a course quite different from that which he had followed in the Great Yarmouth Bill, when he called on the House to proceed at once with it.
SIR G. GREY would confine himself strictly to replying to the question of the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, as to the supposed difference between the course taken by Government respecting the Bill of Great Yarmouth and that for Horsham. The whole mystery existed in the imagination of the hon. Gentleman. The cases were not at all parallel. In the instance of the Great Yarmouth election, the Committee reported that, owing to bribery and corruption, the election was void, and recommended that the freemen of the borough should be disfranchised. A Bill for that purpose was accordingly brought in, under the sanction of Government; but so far were Government from wishing to press the immediate consideration of it upon the House, that he, on last Wednesday, suggested the very same course which he now called on them to adopt, namely, that further proceedings should be stayed till the House determined whether or not they would give a second reading to the Borough Elections Bill, introduced by an hon. Baronet near him. The hon. Member who had charge of the Great Yarmouth Bill refused to listen to that suggestion, but the division was against him; and as he was influenced by the same feelings respecting the Horsham Bill, he would again take the sense of the House upon the question for its postponement.
The House divided on the question that the Bill be read a second time on Wednesday next:—Ayes 56; Noes 37: Majority 19.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Fordyce, A. D.

Armstrong, Sir A.

French, F.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Gibson, rt. hon. T.M.

Granger, T. C

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Grenfell, C. W.

Bernal, R.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Hall, Sir B.

Brown, W.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Carter, J. B.

Hawes, B.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Hodges, T.L.

Clifford, H. M.

Hume, J.

Crawford, W. S.

Kershaw, J.

Cubitt, W.

Langston, J. H.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Lushington, C.

Divett, E.

Maitland, T.

Ebrington, Visct.

Melgund, Visct.

Evans, J.

Mowatt, F.

Evans, W.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Ewart, W.

Ogle, S. C. II

830

Pechell, Capt.

Towneley, C.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Townshend, Capt.

Pilkington, J.

Tyne, Col

Romilly, J.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Scrope, G. P.

Wawn, J. T.

Shafto, R. D.

Williams, J.

Smith, J. B.

Wilson, M.

Stuart, Lord D.

Wyvill, M.

Sullivan, M.

Thicknesse, R. A.

TELLERS.

Thompson, Col.

Hill, Lord M.

Thornely, T.

Hayter, W. G.

List of the NOES.

Adderley, C. B.

Hope, Sir J.

Baines, M. T.

Ingestre, Viset

Bankes, G.

Lacy, H. C.

Berkeley, hon. G. F.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Bremridge, R.

Newdegate, C. N.

Buck, L. W.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

O'Connor, F.

Chaplin, W. J.

Pigott, F.

Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B.

Prime, R.

Colvile, C. R.

Repton, G. W. J.

Compton, H. C.

Sibthorp, Col.

Conolly, Col.

Stafford, A.

Fuller, A. E.

Stuart, J.

Galway, Viset.

Urquhart, D.

Goring, C.

Wodehouse, E.

Gwyn, H.

worcester, Marq. of

Harris, hon. Capt.

York, H. G. R.

Henley, J. W.

TELLERS.

Hindley, C.

Hudson, G.

Hood, Sir A.

Spooner, R.

Bill Postponed.

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES BILL.
House in Committee on the Joint-Stock Companies Bill.
On Clause 2,
MR. HUDSON (in the absence of Mr. Headlam) rose to move the following Amendments, of which that hon. and learned Gentleman had given notice. In Clause 2, to add the following words:—
"The word 'commissioner' shall 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" occurs, to substitute the words "master or commissioners."
Mr. MILNER GIBSON had understood that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Headlam) did not intend to press his Motion, and he hoped that it should be allowed to drop.
MR. HUDSON said, he thought the agreement between the hon. Member for Newcastle and the Government was of a, totally different character. The object of the Government in bringing in this Bill should be to enable the affairs of partnership concerns to be wound up as speedily as possible; and the best way of doing that

831
was to enable the local officers to manage local affairs. He objected altogether to their present system of centralisation, and protested most strongly against the course they were pursuing in endeavouring to get rid of so useful an Amendment.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL defended the clause as it stood. It would be better to leave it to the discretion of the Judge to say whether the local powers should take cognisance of certain cases or not. He was not prepared to accede to the proposition placed on the Paper by his hon. and learned Friend, and it remained with the hon. Gentleman opposite to say whether he would press it to a division.
MR. JOHN STUART said, he had certainly understood the Solicitor General had stated to the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle that he would consider whether his Amendment should not be adopted. He was surprised he (the Solicitor General) had not made up his mind to adopt it by this time. The Government would, it appeared, oppose the Amendment. He should like to know on what grounds. Had the Solicitor General consulted any local practitioner on the subject, or had he inquired into the views of the bankruptcy commissioners of the remote towns, such as Newcastle and Sunderland, with respect to the practical working of the Bill? He was sure his hon. and learned Friend had not done so, or he would have found these gentlemen approved of the principle of the Amendment. Of course, the great body of London practitioners would be in favour of doing all the local law business in London; and he was far from saying they were not right in that view; but, at the same time, he was certain every country practitioner would give an opinion exactly opposite. The only question between him and those who opposed the Amendment was, whether or not cases might occur wherein convenience might be consulted and expense saved by reference to the local tribunals, such as the Commissioner of Bankruptcy. In his opinion, the Lord Chancellor should have a discretionary power to refer any case to the local commissioner; but the Bill, as it stood, would deprive him of that power. He would like to ask if the Society for the Amendment of the Law had come to the decision that the Commissioner of Bankruptcy should not be trusted in any case? He trusted every one interested in the practical administration of the law would support the Amendment.
Mr. HAYTER thought it rather unfair to press on this discussion in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle. It certainly would have been more convenient to have waited till he was present, in compliance with the agreement which had been entered into between him and Government; but if the Government were to be driven to a division, he should oppose the Amendment. The Bill had nothing whatever to do with bankruptcy: the object of it was to enable joint-stock companies to wind up their affairs, and came quite after the question raised in the Amendment. The Bill was not framed to enable creditors to come except incidentally: after they were paid, the question of the distribution of property arose, and the necessity for the sprang solely from the latter question. At present, the property of partners can only be distributed under the Court of Chancery by means of a bill filed, and of lengthy and expensive proceedings; and the result was, that there did not exist on the records of that Court a case in which a large partnership had been wound up and the surplus property distributed. He did not mean to attack the local functionaries: they were a highly respectable body, but, as he believed, utterly incapable of discharging the arduous duties which would devolve on them if this Amendment should be carried.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL said, he would, before bringing up the report, consider whether it would be expedient to give a discretionary power to the Lord Chancellor. He believed that de cheapest mode of reference was to the Master in Chancery.
Mr. JOHN STUART said, if the right hon. Gentleman would pledge himself to bring in a clause to that effect, it was all he wanted.
MR. T. M. GIBSON assented.
Amendment withdrawn; Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The remaining clauses agreed to.
The House resumed.
Bill to be reported.
House adjourned at Four o'clock.