The Sun. — London, England, 1830-04-30 00:00:00

Ilitions, as that would demand ao extensive inquiry. The Noble Earl who had already addressed their Lordships had called their attention to the anomalous state of the law as to the small notes of England, Scotland, and Ireland ; but the law relating to ardent spirits was not less anomalous. The duty, he believed, was ss. less in Scotland anti Ire land than in England—so that a man might there step over the borders and drink spirits for ss. less than on the side he had left ; nay, he might there pay fur the cheap spirits with a one pound note, by one hand, which he dare not exhibit in the other. This was an anomalous state of the law that required revision. Their Lordships must also recollect, that if the duty were raised, illicit distillation would be again encouraged. The Noble Lord, in conclusion, said that he hoped at least that these altera tions would not be carried into effect without investiga tion ; and if it were attempted, he did not know that he should not himself move for an investigation.—The peti tion was read, and ordered to he laid on the table. Viscount GODERICH said, that not only the petitioners were deserving of attention, but there was a great principle involved in those alterations which he had the honour to propose to Parliament, and which ended in an alteration of the law. That alteration originated in the necessity of taking some decided step to put an end to illicit distillation, which prevailed to a great extent in Scotland and Ireland. He presumed that only those who were on the spot or who had made it a special matter of inquiry, could be aware of the great extent to which the evil was carried. It had produced in Ireland a state of civil war between the inha bitants and the King's troops. The duty had been changed twenty times; the most severe and oppressive laws had been enacted ; but all there things had failed to put an end to the illicit distillation ; and it was then resolved, as the only remedy, to diminish the duty, which was, in consequence, lowered in Scotland and Ireland, from Os. to 2s. 10d. At that time, as the Irish and Scotch spirits were excluded from time English market, the re duction of duty widened the door for smuggling into England. That restriction was both unjust and unpalat able, and could not be maintained. It was impossible, therefore, that the ditty should be continued so much lower in Scotland anent Ireland than the duty in England. At that time too (1824), the West India interest was labouring nnder great difficultim s; and one of the causes of their difficulties was, the imposibility of finding a market for their rem. It was further stated, that a re duction of the duty on rum might give them some com pensation for the low price of sugar, by causing an in creased consumption of ruin. The difficulty was, to levy such a duty on rum and English spirits as should be equal for both. He considered that the owners of the soil in Jamaica were as much British subjects as the owners of the soil in England, and were to he treated on a fair foot ing of equality. When the duty was reduced in 1825, he was not prepared to say what duties would place these in terests on the same footing; and in order to ascertain that, he instituted au investigation. The corn distillers claimed a protection of 2s. the gallon, and the Jamaica planters said they could not allow more than Is., and he th oug h t h e should - he acting on a fair principle if he struck the balance between them, and gave a protecting duty of Is. 61 to the English corn distiller. This sum was given him as a compensation for the greater charges to which he was ex posed. At that time he had conclud e d th at t h e conse quence of lowering the duty on rum would he that time consumption of the article would be increased, and in this anticipation he had not been disappointed. He had cal culated that the loss to time revenue of lowering the duty would be about 600,0001., but as ha concluded that there would he an increased consumption, he had estimated it at 300,000/. He was told that he was too sanguine ; but the result had justified his expectation. The duty in the year 1828 was only 200,0001. less, instead of being 600,000/. ; and he was informed that in 1829 the con sumption had increased even more than in 1828 ; so that the loss to the revenue was still less.. He agreed with the petitioners and the Noble Lord that no circumstances had occurred since 1825 to justify the change now proposed. He had always stated to the West India interest, that the arrangement then made might at any time he revised by Parliament; but he saw nothing in the present circum stances to warrant a departure from the scale adopted in 1825. Like his Noble Friend, he apprehended that some mischief would result from the proposed change. It would widen the difference between the price of the English, and Scotch, and Irish spirits, and renew the stimulus to smuggling ingenuity; and he could inform their Lord ships that in their calling, smugglers—gentlemen as well as ladies—were an ingenious class of people. If ne cessary to make any alteration, he should have thought it would have been one in the reversa sense. He should rather have proposed to increase the duty on Irish and Scotch spirits, for he did not think thmt even 2s. or 6d. a gallon added to them would touch diminish the cen iiiimption. He understood that the motion was proposed only for the purposes of revenue, and for the purpose of time additional duty he had mentioned, would have been as equally efficacious. The arrangement now proposed, if intended for the advantage of the West India interest, would not, he thought, answer t'ee'end, though he did not agree with his Noble Friend that the planters would derive all the benefit he seemed to suppose from that reduction of the duties on sugar which he recommended. A part of the benefits of that reduction would go into the pockets of the consumers. The Noble Viscount concluded by apolo gising to their Lordships fur having troubled them, which he should not have done had he not been appealed to by the Noble Earl concerning the regulations made in 1825. The Earl of 114ALMESBURY explained. He had for gotten to state, that the consumption of rum had increased at the rate of 55 per cent. since 1825.—The petition was read and laid on the table. POOR LAWS (IRELAND). The Earl of DARNLEY presented a petition from the inhabitants of Chatham and Gillingham, in Kent, praying that the system of Poor Laws might be extended to Ireland. The Earl of LIMERICK said this petition showed pre cisely what was wanted. The petitioners only sought to obtain relief from the burdens that pressed on themselves ; but he would tell them:that if 10,000,0001. a year were le vied on Ireland for the relief of the poor, that would not send one man less over to England.—The petition was read. EAST RETFORD, On the motion of the Marquis of Saussuar, the Order of the Day for continuing the investigation into the East Retford case was re•id. Counsel were then called in and the forming witnesses examined :---Mr. Handley and Mr. Thornton. The next witness's name was Samuel Buxton, During his examination by Lord Dunham, Lord ELLENLIOROUGH rose to order. Till very lately it had been the custom for Noble Lords, when ex amining witnesses, to stand ; by retaining their seats, a conversational tone and limner arose, which prevented those Peers who were further from the witness hearing the examination. Lord DURHAM said that the Noble Lord was welcome to make what remarks he pleased upon his tone and man ner, but if he found occasion to alter it, at all events he should take care not to adopt the tone and manner of the Noble Lord. With respect to standing or sitting, all he could say wag, that during the examinations last year he had perceived it to be the custom for Peers to retain their seats. Lord ELLENBOROUGH explained. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the custom had been, in set examinations, for Noble Lords to stand ; but when only a few questions were asked, a Peel' u,ually re tained his Seat. On the whole, perhaps, it would be better to leave such a matter to the discretion and good taste of each Noble Lord. Lerd DURHAM then continued to examine the witness in his seat, as before. The only other witness examined was William Hodson. At the close of his examination, the further hearing was adjourned till to-morrow (this day). Their Lordship* then adjourned, at a Qwtrter pazt mine. HOUSE OF COMMONS--(LAST NIGHT.) LONDON-BRIDGE APPROACHES BILL. On the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of this Bill, S r E. KNATCIIBULL moved the introduction of a clause, empowering the levy of a duty on the parish of Gravesend, amounting to one half of that paid by the City 01 London. After a few words from Mr. Alderman WOOD, Mr. TENNYSON, and Mr. Ifinnus, The clause was agreed to without a division, and the Bill read a second time, Mr. M. A. TAYLOR presented a petition float the City of Durham, praying that the punishment of death for forgery might he abolished. INSOLVENT DEBTORS. Lord ALTHORY presented a petition for the amend ment of the law respecting Insolvent Debtors front a re spectable individual, who, having for some time held an official situation in the Insolvent Debtor.: Cour', was thereby rendered peculiarly competent to express an opinion upon the subject. The prayer of the petitioner was, that a debtor, instead of being arrested, should have power to apply to the Insolvent Court for permission to divide his property among his creditors and also, that creditors should have power to compel an imprisoned debtor to divide hi■ property among his creditors, and not to remain in prison and defy them. In both those prayers he (Lord Althorp) entirely concurred. He believed that impri sonment for debt was in many cases detrimental to the debtor, without being in any way useful to the creditor. In eases where the debtor was an honest man, and really insolvent, imprisonment could do no good. He would now move that the petition be brought up. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON said the gross amount of the debts for which insolvents have been discharged was eleven millions sterling ; and upon those debts the creditor hid received upon an average a dividend of fourpence farthing is the pound. Surely that fact was in itself a proof of the necessity of some alteration. The law, as it :it present stood, operated with peculiar severity on the retail trader. There ought to be a provision in the law, empowering the creditor to compel the debtor to come before the Commissioners at once, and assign over the whole of his property to the payment of hie dellts, instead of squandering it in prison. The demoralization which the present system created was most extensive. Unless additional protection were afforded to the retail traders es pecially, they must soon he entirely ruined. He had in his possession a petition on the subject, most respectably signed, which he should take an early opportunity of presenting. Sir JOHN NEWPORT declared that he was every day more and more convinced of the necessity of some material change in the law upon the subject. As the law at pre sent stood, one of its chief tendencies was to protect the fraudulent debtor. In his opinion it required very exten sive amendment. Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN declared it to be his opi nion, after a great deal of experience on the subject, that there never was any thing so pernicious as the Insolvent Debtors' Act. It operated as an encouragement to fraudu lent persons, who found themselves just as well off if they paid only the smallest fraction of their da-bts as if they had paid the whole. It operated as a legal oppression on an honest man, who was unwilling to recur to the same means of relieving himself from inevitable embarrassment, which were resorted to by the individuals who incurred large debts, well knowing that he had not sixpence to pay them with. So strong was this feeling that he had known some persons who had been rendered insolvent by unfore seen calamity, but who had declared they would suffer death rather than take the benefit of the Act. It was well known that all the dividends paid under the Insolvent Debtors' Act, would not defray half the sa!aries of the Commissioners of the Insolvent Court. Was that a system to be endured ? During the last year 4000 persons took the benefit of the Act; and probably as many more ob taMed a release from their creditors under the threat that they would do so. It was very easy for Hon. Gentlemen to say that tradesmen ought not to give such easy credit. If those Hon. Gentlemen would lounge fur an hour or two in a tradesman's shop, they would perhaps be surprised to observe the caution and circumspection on the one hand, and the dexterous attempts at fraud on the other. There were many cases in which it was utterly impo.sible for a tradesman to avoid giving credit. He had no doubt that if a tradesman were to send goods to any Hon. Member, and order his messenger not to leave them without the money, that llon. Member would turn round and exclaim, You rascal, what do you mean by such impertinence ?" If a tailor were to send clothes to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite, with such an intimation, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman would be very apt to say, " Am I not his Majesty's Attorney-General ?"—(A laugh.) He trusted that, before the Bill or the subject before the House were proceeded with, a Committee would b, appointed to investigate the matter, and see if nothing better could be devised. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was unwilling to go into any detailed statement of his opinions on the subject at the present time, as it was not customary or convenien t to do so on such a qmstion as the present. At the same time the Noble Lord knew that he had no prejudice in fa vour of arrest. Of the expediency of the proposition for empowering the debtor without arrest to apply to the Commissioners for power to divide his property among his creditors, he had considerable doubts. As to that which went to enable creditors to compel their debtors, living in prison, to divide their property among them, if the Noble Lord would prepare a clause fur the purpose of introducing it in the Bill in progress, he should be happy to give it every possible consideration. As to a Committee of In quiry, he should be happy to accede to any proposition for the appointment of one. He would not pledge him self to any ulterior measure; but, if any gentlemen would undertake the labour of the investigation, he could have no possible objection to it. Mr. BRIGHT was glad to find that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had no objection to an investigation by a Committee. Mr. W. HARVEY was very desirous that a Com mittee should be appointed to examine the state of the law rcspectin debtor trul creditor, and concurred with the Hon. Member for Bristol, that until the result of that in quiry should be ascertained, the beet course would be to re-enact the present Bill for a short period. As to the amount of the debts of insolvent. during the continuance of the Act being eleven millions, it ought to he retnem bared that the amount of each debt was repeated in the schedule two or three times. It was true that the divi dends were trivial; but that was hecause the debtors had no temptation to make them greater. In what situation would creditors be placed, if the law of arrest were abolished, and nothing die substituted ? What was the remedy proposed, but to have recourse to the property of the insolvent ? This ought to be accompanied by other provisions, and he trusted that the Solicitor-General would let the Bill stand ever till next S ess i on. _ _ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL had no objection to a Committee, but be thought creditors had a better chance of having their cases attended to by the House than debtors, although he hoped that the House would have humanity enough to attend to the latter. It was a great blot in the legislation of this country, that whilst it gave every facility to the debtor to incur debts, it enabled him to set his creditors at defiance, if he did not choose to give up his property. It power were given to break up all men who could not pay twenty shillings in the pound, it would he most injurious to society. His principle was, that when a man was in such a state that he could not go on with his business, and even spent his days in prison, he would compel him to Fettle and give up his property to his creditors. This, however, was not a time to dis cuss the subject. Mr. HUME had heard with satisfaction that Govern ment had no objection to a Committee upon the subject. He thought the law of Scotland might be applied to England with advantage. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL explained. Mr. O'CONNELL said it was disgraceful to the country that the question of debts should be postponed by the Courts as they were—sometimes for six weeks or even nine months—and upon the most frivolous pre tences. When a debtor was brought before a Judge, why should fictitious delays and postponements be allowed? It was a great evil that there should be one bankrupt law in England and another in Ireland. If a man in trade became insolvent, and gave up his property to his credi tors to obtain his release, why should the same law not extend to persons not in trade ? At present, any man might be arrested by any person who chose to go to a certain office and make affidavit of a debt against him, and he had known a gentleman to be arrested for a debt of 60,000/. by a person to whom lie did not owe any thing. He had not been long in that House, but from what he had seen, he did not think that Committees of Inquiry did much good. Mr. O'DOIIERTY said, that when the Hon. Member brought forward his subject of the Union, he should be fully prepared to meet him upon every question relating to Ireland. Mr. BARING thought that a settlement between debtor and creditor could never be attained without some power of arrest for debt. On the motion that the petition be brought up, Mr. O'CONNELL said, he had spoken of the Union only with reference to the Bankrupt Laws. Mr. O'DOHERTY would wish to assimilate the laws of the two countries as much as possible. Lord ALTHORP thought that provision ought to be made against any decided cases of carelessness or extrava gance. The petition, which was from H. Dance, Esq., of Lin coln's-iim-ields, was then ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed. THE JEWS, The SOLICITOR-GENERAL rose to present a peti tion from one Lewis Levi, a Jew, praying that the Jews might he allowed to acquire and dispose of real property. The petitioner had informed him that neither he nor those Jews with whom he was acquainted, wished for the elec tive franchise. They merely wanted the rights of property. After a few words from Mr. FERCUSSON, Mr. SPRING RICE, Mr. HUME, and the SOLICITOR-GENERAL, the petition was ordered to lie on the table. Captain BRADSHAW presented a petition from the innkeepers of Runcorn, against the free trade in beer. The Hon. Member then said that he disagreed with the petitioners in their views. Mr. S. RICE said, he would take the liberty of inform ing the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was his intention to move for certain returns respecting. the Press of Ireland. He wished the Right Hon. Gentle man to consider, before he proceeded farther in his pro- P"sed measure of taxation ; and he hoped he wool I see reason to a b an d on i t a l toget h er . I n say i ng t hi s, h e b egge d to be und erstoo d not as contending against, but in favour of an increase in the revenue. And he was anxious to impress it upon the English Members, and on the Right Non. Gentleman himself, that in proceeding with tkis subject he would not only lose revenue, but extinguish re venue altogether, and also take away the means of exist ence from a large ciass of his Majesty's subjects. For the fict was, the Press of Ireland could not survive the new duties. The Hon. Member concluded by moving for a Return of the Amount of Stamp Duties received fur Newspapers in Ireland during each of the last tw en ty years; and also for a s i m il ar Return of the Duties on Advertisements. Mr. O'CONNELL was satisfied that the Right Hon. Gentleman was misinformed respecting the State of Ire • land when he proposed the imposition of new duties. lie was fortified in this opinion by tie statements respecting the distress prevailing iu that part of the kingdom, which had been made during the Session. The present mea sure was, in Lis opinion, decidedly cAculated, thou 4 li he hoped not intended, to extinguish the expression of public opinion in Ireland. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, it was not quite fair when a notice was standing on the books for a discussion on this subject to introduce it after the present fashion. He would try to reserve what he had to say upon the 'natter until it was brought before the House in the regular course of business. The 'Returns were then ordered. Mr. DAVENPORT presented a petition from the licensed victuallers of Chester, against the Sale of Beer Bill. Mr. MONCK moved for a Return of the Pensions and Allowances granted to the Widows of Officers in the Civil and Military Departments of the Army, Navy, Ord nance, and Commissariat, from 1794 to 1829.---Ordered. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON presented a petition from the wholesale and retail ironmongers, respecting the Ltw of Arrest ; he also presented a petition from Appleby, praying that the punishment of death fur forgery might be abolished. Lord STANLEY presented petitions from the common brewers of Wigan and St. Helens, in Lancaster, against the Sale of Beer Bill. The CHANCELLOR of the , EXCHEQUER stated the principle of the llill was simply to enable any man to open a public house on a licence from the Excise; but this did not relieve him from the subsequent restrictions embodied in the Act. He also wished to remark, that it was not intended to touch the replations atfeting the seine and spirit trade. Mr. BYNG presented a petition from Uxbridge, in Middlesex, praying that the punishment vf death in cases of forgery might be abolished. Lord STANLEY moved for a Return of the amount of Stamp Duties received on Newspapers in England during each of the last twenty years. Also for a similar, Return of the Duties received on Advertisements. Mr. O'CONNELL took that opportunity of giving no tice, that with his consent no Irish business should be brought on after twelve o'clock at night. Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from the letter press printers of Dublin, against the plan for assimilating the duties on Irish newspapers, and on advertisements in serted in them, with the duties payable on rewspapers and advertisements in this country. The petitioners acknow ledged the friendly disposition shown by the Government towards the encouragement of literature, especially among the Irish people, but they added, that these new stamp duties would most effectually counteract their benevolent intentian.‘.—Ordered to lie on the table. Mr.O'CONNELL presented a petition from the traders, manufacturers, and artisans of the town of Galway, in favour of the Galway Franchise Bill. The petitioners stated that that Bill would have the aft et of restoring them to those rights which their ancestors had exercised, and they prayed that a petition which had been pre sentee, as from the Mayor and Corporation of the town of Galway, might be distnis ed—the petition not deserv ing that character, for though the corporate seal had been affixed to it, the petition had not been agreed to at a cor porate meet,ng. Mr. HUME said the statement made in this petition, if truly made and capable of being substmtiated, was one that considerably affected the privileges of that [louse. He trusted that the Hon. and Learned Member would move for the appointment of a Select Committee, to see whether that statement was capable of being proved. After a few words from Mr. NOATII and Sir J. NEw- PORT, Mr. O'CONNELL stated thit he would, at an early opportunity, make a motion on the subject. Mr. O'CONNELL prosented a petition from the Ca tholic owners and occupiers of land in the county of Wex ford, against the tithe and vestry system ; and another from a town in Carlow against the Vestry Bill. LIBEL. Mr. O'CONNELL, under the feeling of the great im portance of the subject which the lion. and Learned Member for Winchelsea was about to bring before the Muse, begged to postpone his own motion, which stood in the way, and to give notice thot he should being it be fore the House on the 30th of May. Mr. DOHERTY said, that the conduct of the Hon. and Learned Member for Clare, with respect to the peti tion reflecting upon the Mayor of Galway, was most fair and honourable. Ile had no doubt that the Hon. and Learned Member would act with equal candour towards another individual, and he therefore begged to ask the Hon. and Learned Member, when he should present those petitions, copies of which he had sent to the Secretary for Ireland, and which had been stated as reflecting strongly on the character of that individual who was then address ing the House ? Mr. O'CONNELL had sent the copies of the petition to the Secretary for Ireland, because he felt himself bound to do so; but he had since had reason to induce him to wish to examine into the subject before he proceeded further, and he should not bring forward the petitions until he had had an opportunity of being snore accurately informed on the matter to which they related. Mr. DOHERTY observed that the conduct of the Hon. and Learned Member would be quite becoming and proper if he had not already made the charges in these petitions matter of such notoriety, and if he had not forwarded the petitions to the. Irish Government. But the Hon. and Learned Member had even gone further than that, for, un less the Press of Ireland had most grossly misrepresented him, he had, at the late assizes in Ireland, most directly and positively asserted that his (Mr. Doherty's) conduct or misconduct should be made the subject of Parliamentary inquiry. Under these circumstances the Hen. and Learned Member, having gone se far, was bound to go farther, and give him the opportunity of clearing his character. Mi. HUME submitted that the Hon. and Learned Meamber for Clare having answered the question put to him, and having declared what was the line of conduct he should pursue, the Hon. and Learned Member opposite had no right to press him further. Mr. O'CONNELL did not know what the Irish news papers had reported of him; but what he knew was, that what he had said he had said on the authority of commu nications made to him. If the facts were as they had been represented to him, he should certainly bring the matter forward ; but he should not do so till he was assured as to the truth of these facts. At present he was not in posses. sion of sufficient evidence to justify him in calling the at tention of the House to the subject. Sir C. WETHERELL did not think that any mean's character ought to be thus as it were kept afloat on the au thority of mere allegation in a petition. It was unjust towards any man to suspend charges over his head in that manner ; but most of all was it unfit to do so with regard to so high an officer of the Government as the Solicitor- General. If the Hon. and Learned Member for Clare had a case against the Irish Solicitor-General, let him use it.—(llear, hear.)—lf nut, let bite say so at ones.— (Hear, hear.)—Advocate as he (Sir C. Wetherell) was for the utmost latitude in the use of the right of peti tioning—advocate as he was for a perfect freedom to be allowed to petitioners to state complaints which they might justly entertain against the officers of Government, he must say that that House would be a place most unfit far any man to sit in, if these insiduous opportunities were there to be afforded for the invasion of a man's cha racter—if these insinuations against it were allowed to be made, while the party making them was permitted to decline commencing any substantive attack. He said it was the duty of Mr. O'Connell, as a lawyer, as a Mem ber of Parliament, and as a Gentleman, fairly and dis tinctly to come forward with his attack, if he meant to make one, and if he did not, at once, like a liberal man, to state to the House that he had no complaint to urge against the Hon. and Leaned Gentleman op posite. Mr. O'CONNELL had a right to reply to the liberal or illiberal discourse of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who was now liberal enough in assailing him, and would have been liberal enough to keep him out of that House if he could; He (Mr, O'Connell) had, however, been re turned to that House, and being there had the seine privi leges as the lion. and Learned Gentleman. Ile would ask whether the petitions contained one single particle against the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General? It was not his fault if the complaints that bad been stated to him were unfounded —and whether they deserved considera tion or not, he had felt he could not bring them forward in the absence of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. He wished to add, that since the petitions had been given to him, a report of the trial had appeared, edited by a most respectable barrister, and the reading of that report had given him a different view of the subject, and he should, therefore, abstain from presenting the petitions till he had evidence to show him that the former accusations were ju-t, and that the book was incorrect. He had strong reason to think that the book was not incorrect, as the author of it -was a gentleman of great respectability, and he had, therefore, been at great pains to institute an in quiry, and had not since uttered one word on the subject either in or out of that House —(Loud cries of " hear, hear," from all parts of the House.) " Hear, hear," in deed—lie should be glad to know whether there was any gagging power in this country? He knew there was in Ireland, but he had not been aware that it extended into England—and especially into that House—and miserable indeed would be the situation of any Honourable Mem ber in that House if he were to he kept silent by the Ho nourable and Learned Gentleman on one side, whose opi nions were echoed by the equally liberal, Hon. and Learned Gentlemen on the other. lie disclaimed their authority. He contended that he had pursued a cautions and prudent course. He had not lent, anti would net lend himself to any individual; nor woull he present petitions of this sort unless he was satisfied there were evidence to hear them our. If he were satisfied with the evidence, he would bring the matter forward, if not, he would allow them to remain in that ebscurity from which, by this discussion, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had attempt ed to draw them. Having• said so much, he now ap pealed to the Speaker to know whether this discussion was in order? The SPEAKER decided in the affirmative. Mr. DOHERTY would not press the former question further, but he wished to put another to the Hon. and Learned Member. He th-n referred to the trials which hid lately taken place in Cork, and said that they were scarcely over when the Hon. and Learned Member stated, at a public meeting, that he should avail himself of the power he possessed as a Member of that House, to drag him (Mr. Doherty) to its bar to answer for his conduct. He now wished to ask the 116 n. and Learned Member whether he intended to bring forward any accusation re specting those trials? - Mr. O'CONNELL said it was hie intention to do so when that House had furnished him with the fitting docu ments. The question he should then submit to the House involved this important question—how far Counsel for the Crown were justified when they had in their possession documents which proved a witness for the Crown to be perjured, in proceeding for a convicti.:n on his testimony? He could not move for the documents he now referred to before the close of the last Cork Assizes. He had but one line of conduct to pursue, and that he would pursue. Further conversation on this subject was here prevented, by the evident unwillingness of the House to permit it to proceed ; and though Mr. North afterwards referred to it atzain, he was called to order, and the subject was finally dropped. Lord J. RUSSELL presented a petition from Daventry, complaining of distress.—lt was referred to the Commits:•e on the Poor Laws. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. Lord J. RUSSELL give notice, that on the 7th of May he should bring the subject of Reform before tI.! Ilouse ; but, instead of moving any general resolution, de cluing that reform v. - as necessary, be shoul•1 move for a Committee of the whole House to examine into the Scate of the Representation. LAW REFORMS. Mr. BROUGHA3I—I have now, Sir, to call the at tention of the House to a subject which I brought under their notice about two years ago ; and I ought, perhaps, to begin by explaining why I did not renew the considera tion of it at an earlier period than the preaeut. In con sequence of the motion I then made, two Commissions were issued for the purpose of instituting inquiries into the state of the Common Law and Equity. Both Com missions have since made reports on the subjects referred to them. The Equity Commissioners made one report, and a second was soon expected-from them. The Common Law Commissioners made a full report. If I had pursued the subject after the first report had been published, I should have done it under every disadvantage ; for the Commissioners then disclosed their doubts and difficulties on several question., and announced their second report, in which they said that many of these questions would re ceive their decision. Of course, it was impossible for me to know what to do, till I knew what course they would adopt. Let it not here escape notice, that I am anxious to express my perfect and entire satisfaction at the manner in which the Commissioners have discharged their duty. They have proceeded with the greatest possible delibe rateness, and although much remains to be performed, the portion of the subject they have investigated is unques tionably of paramount importance. I therefore do not complain that they have treated the question before them too lightly, and certainly not of inadequate execution of the duties imposed upon them. I hold their inquiry to have been conducted in a proper spirit, pursuing a middle course between rashnesa and subserviency—neither setting too much at naught the long-pondered decisions of autho rity, nor evincing that overstrained respect for existing institutions which too often degenerates into a veneration for existing abuses. They brought to the enquiry not only great theoretical learnings but long experience as practical men ; and their second report, especially, con tains suggestions well worthy the most anxious considera tion. The report is full of profound thought and of moat ingenious invention (if I may so speak), upon the science and practice of the law, and it has received from the pro fession at large—and, indeed, from all who are not of the profession, and who are capable of understanding the ques tion, the most unqualified approbation. I will venture to say, that not within a century and a half ha. been pro duced in this country anything like a document with so much important matter, partly their own suggestions and partly the facts they have been enabled by evidence to establish. This being my deliberate opinion of the merit of the Commissioners, and of the importance of their labours, it cannot he supposed for a moment that I bring forward this subject in any spirit of hos tility. On the contrary, I go hand-in-hand with them ; I take up the part of the question they have left untouched, and if, in the first place, I saw any prospect (I mean any prospect within a reasonable time), that their inquiries would be disected to the residue of the subject; or if, in the second place, that residue avers inseparably connected with the duties they have already discharged, I should be at least willing to defer my motion, if I did not leave it entirely in their hands. After the best consideration I have been able to apply to the matter, I do not think that their attention is likely to be directed to what still remains undone within a reasonable time; nor do I see that it is inseparably and essentially mixed up with the result of their inquiries, and I therefore presume to call the atten tion of the house to it. If a man was told that there was a country, in which, in order to recover a debt of 6/. or 71., it was necessary that the creditor should begin with the expenditure of 601. or 70/. of his own money, thus running the risk, according to the old raying, of " throw ing good money after bad," I think the man who was so told would at once assert, that whatever other advantages such a country might possess, it was unfortunate in its system of law. But if he were farther informed, that after spending this 601. er 701. for the recovery of 61. or 71., the creditor should he subjected to long delay---ta great anxiety—to no little anxiety; and, being bandied shoat from province to province, before he could obtain a verdict, his envy of such a country and its legal institu tions would be still further diminished. If, to this infor mation, it were added, that in the same country, after having spent 60/. of 701., the adversary of the creditor would have the power of keeping all his property out of his way, so that after his expencs, all his delay, and all his anxiety, it was doubtful whether he could obtain a single farthing of his debt ; if, furthermore, it was added, that in the saute country, if the debtor were solvent and willing to pay what the law required from his hands, the creditor would receive, it is true, his original claim of 61. or 71., but not the whole of what he had expended to recover it, by about 20/., so that on the balance he would he some 14/. or 15/. out of pocket by success; the individual to whom this strange information was given, if he supposed j it possible that such a country existed, would at least pro neunce it to he one of the most barbarous and unen lightened of the world. That it must be a poor country, h e would think quite obvious—of no commercial power, of no extent of capital— o f no density of popul a ti on , b ecause those circumstances would necessarily produce from hour to hour transactions involving important and valuable in terests—nevertheless, I need not remind the House, for • every man who hears me, or does not hear me, must be aware of the fact that such a country, so unfortunately cir cumstanced, is no other than that in which I now speak— England. Then arises the question, how is this admitted j evil to be remedied ? and in order to know how tie reme dy is to be applied, the first point is to ascertain whence proceeds the evil ? I am thus entering at once into the middle of my subject, and 1 am persuaded that such is the most convenient and expedient course, because it ena bles me at once to see and grapple with the real difficul ties of the inquiry, to which, far be it from me for one moment to shut my eyes. That part of the mischief that can be got rid of, I call upon you to remove. I formerly took the opportunity of stating a kind of experiment I made at one of the Lancaster assizes, when my Right Hon. and Learned Friend (Sir T. Scarlett) was present. I re quested the prothonotary to furnish me with a list of about fifty verdicts recovered during that assize, and the average amount of those verdicts I found to be under four_ teen pounds—thirteen pounds odd shillings each. I do not mean to represent that there were not three or four actions in which the damages were nominal ; some of them actions .of ejectment, and others suits to decide rights ; !hilt the bulk of the verdicts were on actions of debt, or of the nature of debt, and the average IV3B less than the sum for which, by law, a creditor may hold his debtor to bail. I am far from saying that such is the general re sult of actions, either at the assizes; or in London ; but still it is not muchout of the general course. Taking the'eve rage of the five years ending in 1827, the number of ac tions brought in all the Courts of Westminster is some thing under 80,000. I believe that the precise amount is 79,600. The number of these brought to trial is only 69,000, for many, after they have been commenced, are not pursued on account tf the cost, delay, and vexation to which I have already directed attention. It is not, however, with that viaw that I state the fact. If lion. Members wish to form some estimate of the sums for wh:ch such actions are generally brought, they will be enabled to do so front a document upon the table. I will not go into its details, but what I am about to state is at least a near approximation to the results. A retuin was made in 1827 of the number of affidavits of debt in the Courts of King's Bench and Common Pleas for two years and a half. The number of those affidavits for sums above 10/. was 93,000 odd hundreds, but in round numbers we will call it 93,000. These 93,000 affidavits were made the found i tions of 79,000 actions; for an affidavit of debt, as every body knows, is the, earliest proceeding in the commence ment of an action. Let us see, then, in what proportion :he affidavits were fur small sums, moderate sums, and large sums. Twenty-nine thousand eight hundred were for stuns between 10/. and 201, and no more; 34,200 were for sums between 20/. and 501.,i mak ing together 64,000 out of 83,000 for sums no t e x cee di ng 50/. For sums not exceeding 1001., and, of course, in cluding the 64.000, the number of actions was no less than 78,000. Thus the House will observe, that of the whole number of 93,000, there were no less than one-third for sums not exceeding 201 ; no less than two-thirds fer sums not exceeding 501. ; and no less than five-sixths for sums not exceeding 1001. The House will pardon me for not going inure into details—what I have stated is the result of recollection, and I pledge myself for its . accuracy, and it will be perceived at once that it leads to a most important practical conclusion—that the vast bulk of the litigation of the country resolves itself, as far as actions of debt and in the nature of debt go, into actions where the sum in dispute is not more than 100/. I now beg to draw the notice of the House with greater particalarity to what a creditor is exposed who undertakes to prosecute an action: I have hitherto dealt only in general description of his ex pences and sufferings. In their first Report, towards the close of their appendix, the Commissioners have inserted some valuable tables of costs, and to one of them, applicable to an action in the Court of King's Bench, I beg leave to request especial attention. First, I should state, that these are teal bills of costs; and next, that they are re- • duced to the very lowest scale of expenditure. One of them was an action front Lancaster tried in London, and the Bill clearly shows not only that the costs are set down at the lowest possible ra , e, hut in the proceeding there was no incident at all out of the ordinary course. There fore, the circumstances were most favourable, both as re gards cheapness and expedition. The costs, in order to obtain the verdict (and before anything was don e upon a specie! ca a reserved for the opinion of the Court), where eighty-six pounds odd shillings. The whole costs, includ ing that flu ther proceeding necessary before the plaintiff could derive any benefit front his verdict, was 1101,; but of that sum is to be deducted no more than the sum of 10/. odd shillings, for the delay of a term in hearing the argument, and of 6/. fur the delay of a sitting in bringing the cause to trial. The recommendations of the Commis sioners are most proper and important, and when carried into execution by legislative enactments, will be productive of great practical good in this respect ; and I admit that a considerable part of the costs was occasioned by the at tendance of witnesses—l do not mean to ray that I admit it—l assert it--I maintain it, for it is to he one of the principal grounds on which I rest the proposition I ant about to submit. True it is, the cause was a country cause brought to be tried in London, and equally true it is, that if, instead of being tried in London, it had been tried at Lancaster or at York, the same expence must have been incurred according to all ordinary calculations of chances. The witnesses were an architect, a master carpenter, and labourers ; and in taxing costs, two guineas a day are allowed for an architect, or surgeon, physician, or any person of skill and science. Fifteen shillings a day are allowed fur a master carpenter, and five shillings a day for a labourer, to which are to be added travelling ex , pences, which I perceive, are at the rate of eightpenee per mile. Then, as to delay, let me remark that the delay in trying a cause at the assizes is often much greater than in trying a cause in London ; and there can be no manner of doubt that this very circumstance was one of the causes operating upon the plaintiff in inducing him to prefer London to the country. In London, by making the case a special jury, his attorney and witnesses would only have to wait one, or at most two, days, while at York or Lancaster, they might be deteined for lour, five, six— aye, and 1 have known it, for ten, twelve, or fourteen days before the trial was brought on. Attorney s are allowed two guineas a-day if they have only one cause at the Assizes, and one guinea a day if they have two; and a plaintiff is not answerable if it should happen that his at torney has only one cause ; all his witnesses are to be paid, not only going and returning, but while they are in the Assize town; and as long as the present system continues, I look upon this as essential to and inseparable from it— as necessary a part of the expenditure as the retaining of Counsel or the employment of an attorney ; indeed, I am not sure if it be not even more necessary. Now, how much is to he added on account of the difference between the costs incurred and the costs taxed? That is to say, after obtaining the costs recovered front an a lveraary as the consequence of the verdict, how much is a plaintiff out of pocket? It may be remembered that I formerly pro duced to the House four bills of casts, all from the offices of most respectable attorneys ; in one of 4001. about 2001. (or half) was deducted on taxation ; in another one-third was taxed off, 70/. being deducted from 210/. or 2201. ; in a third instance, which was the lowest of the whole, be cause the action (for 501.) was undefended, 15/. out of 60/. (or one-fourth) was deducted on the taxation of the bill. If the defendant had been litigious, and, with the aid of a long purse, had resisted the claim, the expence would have been raised to SOL before the plaintiff obtained his verdict, according to the plan recommended by the Commissioners, and 1001. before he obtained his final judgment. The result of the whole is, that the party gained exactly nothing by re covering his verdict for 50/. In addition, he would have been exposed to all the vexation of delay, anti to the dis tress of uncertainty, and if he be a man, who, for the first time, has brought an action in a Court of Justice, it is most likely to be his last experiment of the kind. I am here taking au instance most favourable to the other side of the question, and it is needless to say, that it is any thing rather than an average case ; in general, those who succeed have to pay more than they receive, and are often considerably out of pocket. What is the result but this?.—that no man in his senses would think of proceed ing in an English Court of Justice for such a sum as 20/. or 301., or I should sty for any sum under 40/. or 501., and a wise man would almost put up with an ex tortionate claim to that extent, rather than incur the hat ird of resisting it, even thought he might have the plaintiffs stamped receipt in his pocket. If a party succeeds he cannot gain, and if he is defeated, he is sure to be a great loser. I had very lately occasion to speak with an - attorney of extensive practve, residing only twenty miles from the Assize town, upon this point, and he agreed with me that no plaintiff ought to think of seeking redress, even at the distance of only twenty miles, for a smaller sum than 401. I am well aware that it is not only always easier to point out defects than to apply remedies; but he that propounds a cure for mischief of the widest extent, and for intolerable oppres • sione, according to the unanimous admission of all persons of all ranks, exposes himself, and gives an opponent a de cided advantage ; he is always more or less in the predi cament of an adventurer; he always seems to he a person who sets his wits above those of wiser men who have gone before him ; and I therefore unfeignedly avow that I feel much distrust of myself, in bringing forward that which Appears to me a remedy. I ant peifectly sensible that something will be done when the recommendations of the Commissioners are carried into elf et ; and I know, and I rejoice to know, that some of the great evils will be re moved, as the result of their inquiries ; but I am equally certain, that still mouth will remain to be done, and 1 trust the kind of remedy I propose will be one which, while it carries further the deign of the Commissioners themselves, will be found most accurately and nicely to chime in with, instead of being repugnant to their prin ciples. I have stated the principal causes of the evils we all see and stiffer ; and I now proceed at once to the re medy. The great evil arises out of the distance to which parties arc necessarily dragged, in order to obtain a deci sion upon their rights. For many, many ages it has been the system of English jurisprudence, that justice should be administered in the centre of the kingdom, er what is politically, though not geographically, its centre. The metropolis; has been made as it were the great mart of justice, front whence all process issues, and to which ail process is returned. This is not of itself the cause of the expence of which I complain—because the mere difference of sending to town for a writ is not of itself worth con sidering in point of expends, for it would be little les. were it sent from York or .Lancaster. Out of this fact, however, arises another part of the system to which the same observation is not applicable. The Judges corn,: (rum London, as well as the writs, and a plaintiff must wait until the Judge visits the country, before he el' e have his cause tried. The .Judge arrives in the province once in every half year, and in the interval ne redress eaa be had. But that is not all ;—when the cause is tried the party must go perhaps to the remotest corner of th e county where the assize town is situated, and there he must be attend. d by his legal agents, advisers, an ti witnesses, and perhaps they may be detained during the whole assizes. Witnesses must be paid for their time, and must, besides, he maintained ; and if an attorney behaves shabbily to his witnesses, he is sure, frosts one or other of them, to pay for it before the conclusion of the cause. Then conies another stage of the proceeding equally attended with expense any point he reserved on an appeal made from the decision at Nisi Priug, it must be discussed in London, and to London the agents must be sent with great delay and great and unnecessary expellee. Now what is the obvious remedy for these evils? One proposition of mine would certainly- go to alter the mode of issuing proem, and an other would be to diminish the arrear of costs—so that portion of the bill of the costs which arises from unnecessary delay, lopping off 101. from the larger, and 01. from the smaller. I expect that there will be :steel) facility in respect of time, much facility in respect of certainty, and somewhat of diminution in respect of costs. The means to which I look, as I think capable of producieg those effects, I shall not now more particularly allude than as regards that improvement which will be brought about by having documents proved by th e sub' scribing witnesses without the cost of bringing then' down in attendance upon the Court at the time of trials.-- frnm which I iunicipate a very considerable saving of e):' ence. I think, also, that the system of pleading will be most materially improved by the suggestions made in this Report--some of these suggestions contain some of the happiest thoughts—some of the most ingenious contriv ances, I will say some of the most profound suggestions fur promoting convenience and despatch, with which th e science of pleadi ng h as yet been enrich e d, well worthy °f the attention of the most learned lawyers, and well worthy of the learned lawyers from whom they have proceeded• Impel-tent as are convenience and certainty, there is no greater evil than the remove] of suitors and causes to 5 distance from the ordinary residence of the former to the capital, where alone I am, of course, perfectly willing to admit, causes should be heard in the last resort. I hope the House will pardon me, if I remind them that tee gr eat and crying mischief in this matter arises from causes in volving amounts between 20/. and 100/ , not being ea.- pall , . of being brought to trial in that cheap, easy, and speedy manner which suitors have a right to expect. in order to make my views better appreciated, I would fain solicit the attention to what was oar old scheme of juris prudence. I still regard with admiration and attachmen t that principle which recognised the seat of justice at th e capital, as the heart from which all the members of th e judicial body circulated twice a year throughout the king' dons, conveying from Westminster Hall justice in its peril, and full vigour to the remotest parts of the country. feel as fully as any man the great and manifest advantag e , of that practice. But l o ng ant ece d en t to t h a t t h ere ex i s ted in this country a practice much more simple, no doubt, anti more likely to have arisen in a backward state of societY' while at the same time it was a much more convenien t mode than any now in use. I speak of this mode of trial in the Couuty Court, antiquaries differ not a little 55 to the origin (if this Court, but as to its early e"u stitution and jurisdiction of that Court, there can h e less debate. My (awn opinion is, that it was origi nally a Court of Commercial as well as of Civil Juris diction—at all events there can be no question that in Saxon times it had jurisdiction of all causes. Ecelesias tical as well as Civil, and that the Bishop sat in it as the Civil ruler of the county. We learn front Kennett, that the Bishop and the Earl were to meet the county—the one to stare the law of God—the other the law of the laud; or as he expressed it, the one to teach the people the law of God, and the other the law of the land. pt that time then, every man in all ordinary causes, in the first place, w as t o see k j ust i ce at h ome, and when he h a d been refus e d it, th en , an d not t i l l t h en, he was to sees. it of the King. He was in no case to seek it of the King until he had failed to obtain in the County Court. 03 this point nothing can he more satisfactory than Sir HarrY Speiman. "No marl," he says, " shall seek justice from the King till he has first endeavoured to get his burden light ened by the Sheriff." In the Gth of William the Con queror there was a celebrate.' cause ie the County Court of Kent, at which the Bishop, the Earl, the Sheriff, acd all the principal persons of the county attended ; it was a meeting which lasted rather longer titan some late meetings of that county have lacteal; it continued during a period of three days, and matters of great importance were dis posed of at it, and property of great value.—manors t'l great value were disposed of. This was the state of the County Court at the time of which I am speaking. BY degrees, however, the authority of the Sheriff came to he limited from the extensive civil jurisdiction which he had formerly enjoyed, and an inferier description of suitors assigned to him—in a more advanced society, perhaps, it was found that what hail been extremely well adapted t° a more simple social system, was not so well suited to so ciety in its further progress. By the Statute of Glonces' ter in the 6th of Henry I. the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sheriff's Court was limited to cases of forty shilling" Perhaps a century, or a century anal a half elapsed before the maximum and minimum were fixed ; but at the time of which it was that the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court was fixed at forty shillings. I say exclusive, for it might entertain causes of larger amount in common with o her Courts. This Court was essentially English, what ever changes it may have undergone in the lapse of ages. I shall now, with the permission of the House, call ite attention to the history of the County Court in the Sister kingdom of Scotland. I am far from saying that Iv" should be too easily led by precedents, but when there a good example, when the precedent is safe and the ex ample good, I can understand nu reason why we should be slow te take advantage of it. Its considering whether or not we ought to adopt a new system or recur to the old one, we migie act prudently in looking to see how it acted in any other country in which it might have been iutroduced or preserved. I presume I need not remind the House that, however widely our present systeill , of jurisprudence way differ—l mean the system' of England and of Scotland—time was when they were one and the same ; their origin was exactly identi cal. The best illustration I can give of this is that the oldest laws of both are so closely allied, that the distinc tions subsisting between them can scarcely be traced- Though proceeding for a long time together, and in close resemblance with each other, and though England may have effected vast improvements, far surpassing any adopted by Scotland, yet something possessing a good deal of valise too might have been preserved in Scotland , which was lost in England. With all my prepossessions in favour of the law of England, I think Scotland may yet have retained some portions of the ancient Hystero, common to both countries, which we have lost, the, original County Court, at which the Bishop and Earl or Alderman, with the Viscount or Sheriff, presided. In Scotland the Sheriff's Court took cognizance of the four pleas of the Crown, with the permission of the Justiciars and in all civil suits, the County Courts were of unlimited jurisdiction. The appointment to the office of Sheriff soon took a different turn ; the office of Sheriff, originally elective, was then made an appointment for years, and afterwards for life ; it then came in Scotland to he con ferred in fee—the Earl became hereditary, and the Vie count or Sheriff a privileged individual, well known to the laws of that country. It was not until lately that at the abolition of the heritable jurisdictions, the County Court was put upon its present advantageous footing- The number of forfeitures in the rebellions of 1715 and in 1745 vested almost all those jurisdictions in the Crowns There are. none of the hereditary jurisdictions not open to serious objection, except the hereditary jurisdiction vested in the Peers of this realm of England, to which no ob jections of that nature at all apply. In the year 1746 an Act was passed abolishing all the hereditary jurisdictions, and vesting all the shrievalties in the Crown ; and the first step taken thereupon was to appoint Sheriffs-depute in each county. The persons appointed to that o ffice were for the most gentlemen of sonic professional stand' ing at the bar, and the Court over which they presided took cognizance of all matters, to which a very extensive civil juriedieth n could be applied. Those officers were paid a modera e, reasonable salary and their appointment was attended with the best effects to the administration of justice in that country. I should be happy to witness a still further improvement ; I should he glad to see a Sheriff-depute residing within this county, and holding his Court himself, and not leaving it to be held by hi' substitute ; and I think the system, in its main principle, could be introduced into this country with the highest ad vantage. Those Court!, were found to have worked well in Scotland, and afforded (heap and convenient justice. The Sheriff's Court in Scotland was competent to enter tain nearly all ordinary causes of actions—all actions of debt to any amount—actions of damages on almost any cause of complaint—actions of defamation, assault, false imprisonment, malicious prosecutions, criminal conversation, trespass, trover, seduction, and almost all actions of tort. Now, let us look to the works. ing of the Sheriff's Court in Scotland. During an aye.. , rage of three years—the e Ira 1821, 2, and 3, there were 22,000 some odd hunched causes tried in the Sheriff's Courts in Scotland in each year for till: , amount of tad uprit term as h taking a and in one wag I the other, have bete land in tl tnenced, Laps 7,0 one pecu auiturs ; always be have ino graver c alway s he iand di Sv rna ys greet a , Which in property ' a nle pro to t h e an 'ay a fe tion, hear)._ co rnp i a , the las