The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1835.

if a man were in trade his landed estates should be liable
to simple contract debts. The creditor had a lien on 11;s
estates. It was to the honour of the Reformed Parliament
that this distinction between real and personal property had
been avoided. The next enactment of the Bill related to
the principle of the sessio bonorum without imprisonment.
By the present law the most lamentable consequences were
known to ensue. A man who went within the walls of a
prison seldom left them so good a man as he had been when
he had entered. He lost his own respect and the respect of
his friends, and of the community. He was contaminated by
bad example, he spent his time in vice, and the money that
ought to pay his debts among lawyers. The expense of going
through the Insolvent Court on an average minimum was 10/.,
and which was thrown away amongst the lowest practition-
ers of the law. The greatest disssatisfaction had arisen from
that tribunal, and the dividends on the estates of debtors had
not amounted on an average to one farthing in the pound.
I A man who failed in business for 1,000,000'. was discharged
without going to gaol, and why not make the same law for
a man not in trade who owed a small sum, and honestly
-gave up his whole property to his creditors?—(Hear, hear.)
Such was the law in Scotland. He allowed that trade
could not be carried on without credit, but there was a vast
difference between prudent and wholesome credit and ficti-
tious and mischievous credit.--( Hear, hear.) The first effect
of this Bill was to make the creditor inquire into the charac-
ter and condition of the pc: son who wanted credit. Trusting
to the power of imprisonment persons now gave credit with
too much facility. He would come to the most important
clause of the Bill, that which abolished all imprisonment for
debt except in cases of fraud. At present imprisonment,
as far as the ends of justice were concerned, was a
mere farce. A man receiving his capias ad faciendem, went
into the King's Bench, where by bribing the Marshal in the
purchase of day rules, he took all the pleasures of life' and set
his creditors at defiance. The rules, he believed, extended
two miles, and a mar, might take an elegant house, and his
Lady give routs without the visitors having any suspicion that
the parties were prisoners for debt within the rules of a gaol.
He maintained that such a system ought to be abolished. The
gao's cf the kingdom would not be sufficient to contain the
crowds of debtors that might be thrust into them by the pre-
sent law, and therefore was it that there arose a necessity to
have these fictitious gaols. The Right Hon. President of the
Board of Trade had made no distinction between imprison-
ment upon mesne process and upon judgment or execution,
Imprisonment upon mesne process was unknown on the Con-
tinent, and it was the opprobrium of this country. At present
any man, upon making a false affidavit, might throw anothei
into gaol. It was only lately that the Duke de Cadaval, on
his arriving in London, was arrested for a debt of ten thou-
sand pounds, without the smallest colour or pretext, and he
had actually to pay four hundred sovereigns in order that he
might not go to gaol. The expenses oParrest, on the mos-
moderate calculation, amounted upon an average to 300,0001.
per anuum. Arrests upon mesne process had not been the
ancient law of England. It had been introduced in compa-
ratively modern times, and to the disgrace of the country it
had been allowed to exist too long. As knowledge advanced,
as science was propagated, and as they had their influence
upon society. the power of imprisonment for debt was found
to vanish. In France the power was limited more and more
every year, and he should be proud if England should have
the honour of setting to France the example of abolishing im-
prisonment for debt altogether. He hoped he had satisfac-
torily answered the objections of the Right Hon. Gentleman
opposite, for whom he personally felt the most sincere re-
spect. The more he considered the subject the more dis
tinctly did he see the beneficial consequences likely to result
from the adoption of the measure he had had the honour to
propose to the House.--( Hear.)
Mr. CARRUTHERS said, if the Bill in the shape in
which it had been introduced were suffered to pass, all parties
concerned in manufactures and commerce would be seriously
damaged by one portion of it—the pre-emption given to bills
of exchange over book-debts. By the laws as they stood, all
the creditors of a bankrupt were entitled to an equal share in
the assets of his property, but by this Bill a preference was
given to one class of creditors, the holders of bills of ex-
change. That was one of the objections he had to it. An-
other objection was that a new Court was to be created by it
into which all persons having overdue bills of exchange out
against them could be driven. If the bankrupt laws were suf-
ficient for all purposes connected with credit, he should have no
objection to this Court ; but that they were not so was per-
fectly well known to all who were engaged in trade
or commerce. There were cases of daily occurrence which
the bankrupt laws could not reach ; and it would be found
that no assets would exist in many of these, on account of the
pre-emption given to bills of exchange when bankruptcy en-
sued. One of the great evils likely to arise from granting a
pre-emption to a particular class of credit might be briefly
alluded to. In the time of the late war the merchants of this
country had not alone to wait for convoys, and to take the
chances of the weather, but also to send the goods made up by
them through the most circuitous routes to the continental
market. For instance, there were many cases, and those of
common occurrence, where goods made up in this country were
cent to Macedonia for the purpose of being transported over
land to Frankfort on the Maine, in consequence of the ports
being closed against England. Bills of Exchange of course
passed between the parties shipping and the parties manufac-
turing. In many of these cases, in consequence of the great
delay arising from the causes stated, the merchants were
obliged to get their bills kept back until they should have
advices of the arrival of their respective shipments at thei,
1 destination. If such cases were to occur again, and the Bil,
of the Hon. and Learned Member for Edinburgh to be in
operation, the right of pre-emption given to bills of exchange
would be the cause of ruin to numbers ; for it would give the
holders a power to pounce upon the property of the merchant,
the moment the hills became due, and it would give him nc
power to avert his destruction. He would cite a case of recent
occur; ence, as quite in point with the matter at issue. In the
recent extensive failures in India, it was well known that seve-
ral great commercial houses in town were affected, in one o
which were deposits to the amount of eOO,OOO/., the properti
of various individuals. If the Bill of the Hon. and Learned
Member was then in operation, the holders of any overdue bills
of exchange could come in and seize possession of the sum, and
leave the depositors to their secondary share of the assets.
Since the passing of the Bankrupt Laws, such was the severity
of their operation in the matter of expenses, that there was
scarce a great failure in London in which the solicitor and the
creditor did not endeavour to compromise rather than inctir the
enormous costs of a Commission. In a recent case, a house its
the City failed for 200,000/., and it was compromised, because
' it was ascertained that the expenses of a Commission of Bank-
ruptcy would amount to 10,000/. This was bad enough in all
conscience ; but if the Bill before the House passed in the
shape in which it then stood, it would be worse. No merchant
would be able to keep out of the Bankrupt Court, if pre-
-emption was given to bills of exchange over other kinds of
credit. It would be a vet y grievous thing for the merchant,
but a very good harvest for the lawyers. He (Mr. C.) fully
agreed with the Hon. and Learned Member on the injurious
tendency of unlimited credit ; but he was free to say that his
Bill would not permit it. With respect to the main question,
imprisonment for debt, he (Mr. C.) could safely say that he
was not partial to it. He had lived up to the present day
without ever having arrested any man for debt, and he hoped
he should terminate his life without being compelled to have
recourse to it as a remedy. But he thought the Bill of the
Hon. Member for Edinburgh went too far on the subect. If
credit were injured, as the Bill in its present form had a ten-
dency to do, the industry of the country would be seriously
detrimented.
Mr. BERNAL said that with respect to the presumed dan-
ger to mercantile houses from the pre-emption given to bills
of exchange, urged by his Hon. Friend the Member for Hull,
he would beg to inquire of that Hon. Gentleman whether that
presumption was not founded on assumed malice of the enemies
of that house ? That being the case, he would beg to ask his
Hon. Friend whether by the law, as it now stood, an equal de-
gree of injury to an establishment could not be caused by any
individual entertaining such a feeling and having the power of a
large creditor over it ? IVith respect to the assertion of his Hon.
Friend, that the Bankrupt Laws caused an enormous expense,
he could only say that those expenses existed before the bank-
rupt laws came into operation, and, therefore, that could be no
argument against the foundation of the new Court proposed
by the Bill, on the model of the Court of Bankruptcy. Hon.
Members had talked of the curtailment of credit. Now he
(Mr. Bernal) thought that those who did so were seeking out
objections against the Bill which had in reality no existence.
Credit was one thing and unlimited confidence was another.
The latter, which existed to such a ruinous extent in this
overgrown metropolis, was what the Bill of his Hon. and
Learned Friend sought to suppress, and not that healthful cre-
dit without which all trade was at an end.—(Hear.) As to
imprisonment for debt, in itself regarded as a punishment,
it was plainly in many cases quite the contrary. It had been
urged against the Bill that it gave protection to fraudulent
debtors ; but the contrary was the case. It protected credi-
tors by giving them power over all species of property, and it
protected unfortunate debtors only.
Mr. C. W. WYNN fully agreed with the principle of the
Bill (as we understood) and regretted that he should be ob-
liged to differ in some of its details. However, he thought the
Hon. and Learned Member for Edinburgh had began at the
right end of the subject. He (Mr. W.) had been for many
years most anxious for the success of that or a similar mea-
sure. Twenty-eight years since he bad been one of the very
few who supported the late Sir Samuel Romilly in his first
attempt to make real property liable to the creditor ; he was,
therefore, glad to perceive that the object of his endeavours
was now nearly accomplished. With respect to the imprison-
ment for debts no one could doubt its inefficiency for all useful
purposes in connection with credit. The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman concluded by expressing a hope that the portion of the
Bill which related to the granting of certificates to debtors (as
we understood him) would be considered well in the Com-
mittee, and by giving the principle of the measure his fullest
approbation.
Mr. CLAY could take upon him to assert, with the utmost
confidence, that nothing was more rare than the circumstance
of one merchant arresting another for debt, and ho was stare
that if the whole of the merchants of England were polled
upon the question but few would be found to set any value
upon the power of arrest which the existing law gave them
over their creditors. If the power of arrest was of any value
to mercantile interests of any class it could only be to small
dealers ; yet he had reason to believe that even with this class
but little value was set upon it. He had the honour of re-
presenting perhaps the largest mercantile constituency of all
classes in the country, and not one single petition had been
entrusted, or a single representation made, to him from any
portion of them against this Bill. On the contrary, he had
every reason to believe that it met with universal approbation
amongst them.
Mr. E WA RT said that, like his Hon. Friend who had last
spoken, he too represented a large mercantile constituency,
from no portion of which had he received any instruction to
offer opposition to this Bill. Convinced as he was that the

measure was calculated to add to rather than diminish the
security of property, ho should give it his most warm support.
The titles of Doctrinaires and Utilitarians had been applied,
as if they were synonymous to the promoters of such measures
as the Bill now under consideration. But those who made
use of those terms did not seem to understand their meaning.
There was a wide distinction between the two. A Doctrinaire
%WAS a much more aristocratic character than an Utilitarian.
But he would refer to the opinion of a man who was neither
one or the other—he meant Lord Eldon. That Noble and
Learned Lord bad denounced the law of arrest for debt as the
worst species of slavery. This Bill would be a wholesome
warning. It was saying " Caveat, creditor." If no other
country had ever tried this experiment he should be proud that
England, the greatest mercantile country in the world, was
the first to set so beneficial an example.
Mr. GROTE said that the principle of this Bill seemed to
him to be recommended both by policy and humanity, and he
was more convinced of this by the speech of the President of
the Board of Trade, than by any other reasoning upon the
=subject. He always preferred having his own views sustained
by the failure of his opponent's arguments than the success of
his own. This was the case as regarded the speech of the
President of the Board of Trade. He did not think that
small tradesmen would have any reason to complain when they
:-'ound that the} were only placed on a footing with all the
other classes of the community. He should be glad if some
t'acility were superaddcd for the recovery of book-debts, and
'le would not give any advantage to the holders of bills of ex-
change that he would not give to creditors on book-debts.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS said that it was impossible for any
mercantile man not to see that the existing law was totally in-4
consistent with the interests even of those whom it affected to
:arotect.

Mr. O'CONNE LL regretted that the Bill was not to ex-
tend to Ireland. He did not know if it might not be so al
'erect in Committee as to let Ireland have the benefit of it ;
but he doubted much that it could be so altered. If not, he
would pledge himself to bring in a similar measure for Ireland.
He regretted for the sake of humanity that this Bill had not
passed sooner, and it would have passed, had the late Govern-
ment remained in office.

Mr. ROLFE supported the Bill.
Mr. WARBURTON approved of the measure as founded
on the great principles of justice. The principle of justice
was, that the creditor had a claim upon every species of pro-
perty in the possession of the debtor.
_ After a few words from Mr. BARING and Sir J. CAMPBELL,
in explanation,
.Mr. SMITH expressed his approbation. One of its good
effects would be to free that House from the odium to which
its members were heretofore exposed on account of the exemp-
tion from arrest.

An HON. NlEmavn should be glad to see the power of arrest
taken away.
Captain PECHELL said the retail traders of Brighton
thought their interests would not be protected by this Bill.
lie had a petition from them to this effect.
The Bill was then read a second time, and referred to
:he following Select Committee.

Campbell, Sir John
Pollock, S r F.
Follett, Sir NV. W.
Aglionby, H. A.
Blamiro' V.
1; rod ie, NV. D.
B,therton, J.
Puller, C.
Carruthers, David
Carter. J. B.
Clzzy, W.
Crip2i, J.
Civett, E.
Ewart, V.
Fergimson. R. C.
Finn, NY. F.
Fleetwood, H.
Freshtield, J. W.
Graham, Sir J. R. G.
Grey Sir G.

Hawes, B.
Hogg, J. W.
Lushington. Dr.
Lynch. A. R
Morpeth, Viscount
Murrrly, J A.
O'Connell, D.
O'Dwyer, C. A.
(PLoghlen, 151;
Ord, W. H.
Pembei ton, T.
Poulter, .1. S.
Perrin, 1.
Prvme, G.
Richards. J.
Sir M. W.
Roesuck, .1. A.
Rolfe, J. M.
Shaw, F.
Shell, R. L.

Smith, .T. A.
Talniurd, T. Noon
T.tiscred, H. W.
'►woke, W.
\V rhurton, H.
Jackson, J. D.
Hardy, J.
Egerton, Lord Fran.
Stuart, Lord James
Lefroy, A.
Perceval, Colonel
Himiphery, J.
Bernal, R.
Parry, I . J. P.
Copeland, W.
Philips, )1
Nlaule, Hon. Fox
Dalmeny, Lord
Baring, A.
Rundell, John

Graie, G. I
Sir J. CAMPBELL s.tid a wish had been expressed that
the measure should extend to Ireland. To that he had no ob-
jection. He wished to know from the Chair whether it would
be competent to the Committee, without special instruction, to
report upon the Bill as embracing Ireland.
The SPEAKER (as we understood) answered in the affir-
mative.

The Bill was then read a second time.
The Copyhold Bill was read a second time, and committed,

COURT OF SESSION-SCOTLAND.

The LORD ADVOCATE moved the Order of the Day
for the second reading of the Court of Session ( Scotland) Bill.
Mr. WALLACE objected to the Commission which re-
commended this Bill, as formed • entirely of professional gen-
tlemen. Merchants and commercial men ought to have been
included. He objected to the fees provided in the Bill. They
were objectionable in every Court, and ought to be abolished.
The Learned Lord proposed to reduce eighteen clerks. He
.vould submit whether it would not be better at once to super-
annuate them.

Mr. C. FE RG USSON said commercial men could give
no assistance whatever to the Commission on a question of this
kind. Professional men also could know whether clerks in
Court might or might not be reduced without inconvenience.
The Learned Lord was entitled to greatcredit for what he had
lone. He was glad to sec the fees diminished. They were
great grievance. He wished to knew whether the effect of
the Bill would be to take off the half of the former fees? The
Hon. Gentleman referred to the great defects of the Scottish
conveyancing laws, and called the attention of the House to a
late decision of the Court of Session, by which a deed in
ether respects perfectly valid had been nullified in consequence
)f a single figure in a date being written upon an erasure.
Such a decision was likely to unsettle a vast amount of pro-
perty, and great anxiety was naturally entertained upon the
subject by the proprietors of land. He hoped therefore that
the Learned Lord would see the necessity of introducing into
9arliament a Bill for explaining that particular branch of the
law.

The LORD ADVOCATE said that his desire was as ar-
dent as that of any other Hon. Gentleman to afford relief to
suitors by a considerable reduction of fees. His intention was
to lay before the Committee a statement of the whole case to
which the present rate of fees would be set out on the one
hand, and on the other the standard to which he thought it
would be proper to reduce them. In reference to the defects
)f the conveyancing laws he had to state that in a former
,ession he brought in Bills for the amendment of certain parts
)f the system, but although he earnestly endeavoured to get
them passed into a law, his exertions were unattended by suc-
cess. He had not lost sight of the subject, and even now he
was prepared to legislate upon it.
Mr. MURRAY agreed that the subject of fees would be
most fitly considered by the Committee, and also that it would
be advisable to wait for the result of the inquiries which the
Commissioners were then making. With regard to the deci-
sion to which his Hon. and Learned friend (Mr. Fergusson)
had referred, he begged to ask whether he was aware that the
question was still pending, and whether in such a case he would
have the Learned Lord to interfere in any way whatever ? This
much he would add, that anything written upon an erasure had
always been held by the Scottish law as a valid objection, and
that it mainly accounted for the purity of deeds in Scotland
being greater than in any other country.
SirJ. CAMPBELL hailed with the utmost satisfaction
these beneficial alterations of the Scottish law. He should es-
teem it a distinguished honour to be placed upon the proposed
Committee.
The Bill was then read a second time, and the following
Committee appointed to take it into consideration :
Rae, Sir W. Pringle, A. Balfour, T.
Oswald, J. Murray, J A. Stewart, Sir M. S.
Dunlop, C. liackenzie, J. A. S. ::ope, Hon. J.
Maxwell, J. Bruce, C. L. C. Forbes, W.
Hay, Sir J. Wallace, tt Campbell, Sir J.
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the Order of the Day for the second reading of this
Bill being read,
Mr. MAXWELL suggested that the Bill should be
transmitted to Scotland before being sent up to the House
of Lords. The measure had not been introduced too soon.
If it had not been brought forward all the gaols in Scotland
would have been filled with unfortunate debtors.
The LORD ADVOCATE said it was intended to refer
the Bill also to a Select Committee.

Sir J. CAMPBELL suggested that the amount for which
debtors were not to be liable to imprisonment should be ex-
tended to 10/. He had rather it was 201. ; but he would be
satisfied with the sum he had named.

Mr. WALLACE begged to say a few words in reference
to the conveyancing law of Scotland, to which allusion was
made on the former question. It was a most scandalous sys-
tem—a barbarous relic of antiquity. The report of the dila-
tory Commissioners ought not to be waited for. As they
were unpaid, it was not likely they would leave their personal
engagements for the sake of the public; and their report, he
was assured, would not be completed till August, when any
attempt to legislate on the sabject would be useless and pre-
posterous. He had four Bills already prepared, which had
cost him much labour and expense, and he saw no reason why
he should not offer them to the House, either to supersede the
forthcoming recommendations of the Commissioners, or to
compete with the Bills which the Learned Lord had intimated
that he had in readiness.
Mr. S. M CK EN ZIE saw no objection to an extension of
the amount stated in the Bill.
The LORD ADVOCATE explained that the amount had
been limited to 81. 6s. Bd., because for that sum there was a
particular summary process, under which a great number of
debtors were imprisoned. The limitation was recommended
by the Commissioners, and it would effect the release of two-
thirds of the debtors confined for small sums. If he had not
carried the Bill the whole length of the principle, it was from
a wish to see the English measure first adopted by the Legis-
lature.—(Hear, hear.) When that had been effected, he
would have no objection to the further extension of the Bill
before them. This question, however, would also be for the
discussion of the Committee.
The Bill was then read a second time.
The Illegal Securities Bill was read a second time.
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS' BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this Bill
being read—
Nrr. POULTER when he brought in this Bill, did so with
an intention to propose that it should be referred to the consi-
deration of a Select Committee. On the principle involved
it was necessary that the Legislature should come to same de
termination, and the reference o f the Bill to a Committee
would be thought to be the best mode of arriving at a satisfac-
tory conclusion on some of the points connected with the sub-
ject. The plain and simple principle he took to be this :
The Legislature had conferred upon a numerous class in the
country a most important political right, and therefore it was
incumbent on them to secure to that class the free and inde-
pendent exercise of the franchise with which they were in-
vested. The proper exercise of this franchise was essential to
the interests of the nation, so it was held out when the privi-
lege was granted, and therefore no means should be neglected
to give to it that freedom and independence it required. To
political parties or to political opinions he meant not to refer.

His opinion was that the greater part of those evils which
afflicted the country, and had called. forth such heavy com-
plaints, proceeded not from individuals in whose power it was
to carry into execution the threats and annoyances which ob-
structed the free action of the voter. They proceeded not
from the principals, at whose door the blame was usually laid,
but from unauthorized persons, from inferior parties, from
agents, who threatened and intimidated the voter without
the concurrence or even the knowledge of the honourable
persons whose names they employed. How many tenants
were there who had been alarmed without the slightest
knowledge or authority of their landlords, who were dis-
posed to leave them to the free and plenary enjoyment of
their political rights ? How many tradesmen had been
threatened by servants with the loss of their masters' custom
and trade, the masters themselves being totally ignorant of
such mean and petty, but not the less injurious, intimidation !
He next came to the statute of the sth of Geo. IV.. cap. 95,
which yielded to workmen and artificers of every description •
the right of combining and co-operating for their mutual in-
terests ; but also made it a criminal offence on their part to
use threats or intimidation to any person. He felt that he
was completely fortified by both departments of the law in the
limited object which he had in view. That object was to
render threats and intimidation, used for the purpose of
biassing the mind of the voter, a misdemeanor, punishable by
fine and imprisonment. Of course the amount of the punish-
ment inflicted would be left entirely to the discretion of the
Judge and Jury, and must depend on the peculiar circumstances
of each individual case. It was, however, the intention of his
Bill to give an increasing punishment i❑ the event of a second
conviction, and to disqualify a party repeating the offenca from
ever again voting for the election of a Member to serve in
Parliament. It also contained the form of an oath, analo-
gous to the bribery oath, which an elector could be called
upon by either party to take before his vote was received, but
he had studiously avoided any thing that could lead to secret
voting. • The ballot he was convinced would be a perfectly
fallacious remedy. It would spread fraud and deception
throughout the country, and, instead of preventing the evil,
the only tendency silent voting could have, would be to subvert
that spirit of manly independence which was characteristic of
Englishmen. Such were the provisions of his Bill. His object
was to extend and strengthen that just moral influence which one
class of society ought to possess over another, and if any thing
were more than another calculated to uproot and destroy that
necessary influence it was the use of threats and intimidation.
—( Hear.) With these few observations, and in this spirit,
he would 'conclude, and, without occupying the time of the
House longer, move for leave to bring in a Bill to protect the
free exercise of the political franchise in Great Britain and
Ireland.—( Hear.) _ _

Mr. F. MAIJI.E rose to second the motion of his Hon.
Friend ; and as he had since the passing of the Reform Bill
been conversant with elections, he could from experience as-
sert that nothing hindered the free exercise of the right of
voters so much as threats and that species of intimidation
which was commonly resorted to. He did not apprehend that
any objection would be made to the introduction of this mea-
sure, inasmuch as the evil which it proposed to remedy was
one which became the subject of animadversion on the part of
tho losers as well as the winners in elections.

Dr. BO WRING said that the ballot was the only means by
which that moral influence of which the Hon. Member had
spoken could he either appealed to or brought to bear, as it
was on all hands admitted that there would be almost insur-
mountable difficulties in bringing-a case of intimidation home to
the party who had used it. Indeed this was illustrated by the
late election for Blackburne, and it was his intention to call the
attention of the House on some future occasion to the mode of
canvassing and personal visits of the Hon. Member for that bo-
rough to the voters, as well as to the applications made and the
letters written to them on his-behalf.
Mr. SC A RLETT was convinced that the ballot—secret
voting—was not only unmanly, but unworthy of the character
of Englishmen.---( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had
thought fit to allude to the conduct of the Hon. Member for
Blackburne, but surely the Hon. Gentleman should take the
beam out of his own eye before lie plucked the mote out of
another's. The conduct of the Hon. Gmtleman himself was
not quite so spotless as he would have the House believe it was.
Mr. PO ULTE R, in reply, said that the Bill embraced the
whole of the United Kingdom, and included as well religious
as every other species of intimidation.

Mr. O'CONNELL said that the Reform Bill had thrown
the oligarchy of the hereditary aristocracy out of power, and
now the influence of money exercised by that body was placed
in much worse hands. It became the Members of that House
to sustain the present motion. The Bill certainly did not go
far enough, so far as he could wish ; but although it did not
go the length of secret voting, it still went one step towards
rendering intimidation criminal, and as that would relieve
those to whom such means of procuring votes was usually
attributed, he trusted that the House would allow it to be
brought in.
Mr. FE CTOR said, that he would have been ashamed
to owe his position in that House to such arts and means as
those by which it was alleged some Hon. and Learned Mem-
bers on the opposite benches had procured the seats which
they now occupied.—( Cheers, in which Mr. O'Connell and
the Irish Members joined ironically.) He owed his return
to no intimidation ; no threats had ever been used towards any
elector who had voted against him ; and he repeated, that if
either he or the party by whom he was supported had re-
sorted to such unworthy means, he would scorn to occupy a
seat in that House.—( Cheers ) He was prepared to maintain
that the ballot was not the way in which Englishmen would
wish to exerciee their political privileges. Secret voting, he
asserted, was not only un-English, but would afford protection
to none but the skulking coward, who blushed for his own
weakness.—( Cheers. )
Mr. EWA RT said that the ballot was not the question
which they had now to deal with ; but he could not help re-
marking that whenever any mention was made of it some pe-
culiar sophistry, which he termed subterfuge, was resorted to
for want of better reasons to negative its necessity. When the
Hon. Member for Norwich spoke of religious intimidation he
( Mr. E wart) thought he alluded to a petition which had that
day been presented to the House, complaining of the influence
used by certain clergymen in this country at the Canterbury
election. It was evident that Ireland was not the only place
in which religious intimidation was resorted to.—( Hear, hear,
from Mr: O'Connell and the Irish Members.) What he
hoped was that such an interference, whether by clergy or
laity, would speedily be restrained.—( Hear.)
Mr. TREVOR said that the interference of Clergymen in
election matters seemed to oceasian dissatisfaction in the minds
of many Hon. Gentlemen; but for his part he did not under-
stand why Clergymen as well as other persons should not be
at liberty to exercise the legitimate influence which they pos-
sessed.—(Cheers from Mr. O'Connell and the Irish Mem-
bers.) The Hon. Members opposite cheered ; but he
was ready to repeat that the Clergy had as much right as any
other body to use on such occasions the influence they had ac-
quired. Could it be said that they had attempted that which
was illegal', or that their conduct bore any resemblance to that
of the Roman Catholic Priests. He must protest against the
odium endeavoured to be cast upon the Clergy of England,
because they exercised the influence which they possesse,dbut,
although he said this, he would defy any one to prove that in
a single instance a Protestant Clergyman had used anything
like intimidation.—( Cheers.)

Mr. GOULBURN deprecated such a discussion, and was
of opinion that Gentlemen would better consult the interests of
the country by endeavouring to avoid them. For his part he
approved of the pill, and would endeavour to give every as-
sistance in his power to prevent intimidation at elections.
Leave was then granted.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

Lord EBRINGTON moved for a Select Committee to in-
quire into the provisions of the Act of last session for establish-
ing the uniformity of weights and measures, and to consider of
such amendments in that Act as may be calculated to carry its
objects more fully and satisfactorily into effect.
After a few words from Messrs. GOULBURN, WALLACE, and
others, the motion was agreed to, and the following Committee
appointed

Knatchtaill, Sir E.
Jephs n, C. D. 0.
Wilmot, Sir Eardley
Stewart, P. M.
MileA, W.
Thornley, Thomas
A iniworth, Peter
Davenport, J.

f.hrington, Viscount Stanley, E. J.
Goulburn, H. Wrottesley, Sir J. B
Baring, A. Walker, C. A.
Clerk, Sir G. Ferguson, Sir R.
Scholefield, J. Mosley, Sir 0.
Rae, it Gore, W 0.
Gi,borne, T. Whalley, Sir S.
Wallace, It IMRl:flu, L.
Adam, Adm*ral I Wilks, .1.
Mr. S. LEFEVRE moved for leave to bring in a Bill for
the amendment and consolidation of the laws relating to the
highways in England and Wales.—Leave granted.
Mr. W. MILES moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the
more effectually preventing canine madness, and for giving
relief to persons and property injured by dogs.
After a few words from Messrs. O'Connell, Ewart, War-
burton, C. Buller, and Hume, against the propriety of the
measure, the motion was withdrawn.
LAW OF LIBEL.
Mr. O'CONNELL rose to move for leave to bring in a
Bill to amend the Law of Libel. He intended that a day con-
venient to the law officers of the Crown should be appointed
for the second reading of the Bill, and that it should be re-
ferred to a Select Committee, with power to report thereon to
the House. In the absence of the legal advisers of the Crown
he should not enter fully into the subject; be would content
himself wish the course he meant to pursue, and at a future
stage, the law officers of the Crown would be enabled to exa-
mine all the details of the measure. If there was any propo-
sition upon which all parties were agreed it was upon this, that
the law of libel was in a most unsatisfactory state, and in no
way in unison with public feeling. There were three modes
of proceeding according to the law of libel as it at present
stood. The first was by an action for damages : and with
respect to the words printed and published it was immaterial
how maliciously they were used : if there was a true and per-
fect defence the party was subject to costs. On the other
hand, if proofs were not brought forward, according to the
terms of the allegation, all the Jury could do was to award
small damages ; but those damages might be aggravated by
carrying very large costs. There had been instances of men
bringing actions for libel from mercenary motives, in which,
after patient investigation, there were damages only to the
amount of sixpence, while the costs amounted to 500/. The
anomaly of the law in the Court of King's Bench was striking.
In criminal prosecutions no one could apply to the Court of
King's Bench with a certainty of success. The truth of the
alleged libel would not be a justification. At present the truth
was kept from the consideration of the Jury. Now the best
criterion of malice was the truth or falsehood of the charge.
He (Mr. O'Connell) would go no further into the details of
the Bill, as the law officers of the Crown, without forfeiting
any portion of the duty they owed to the country, declared
they would wait for the development of the details of the Bill,
and would then give their opinions upon it.—( Hear.) The
Hon. Member spoke in so low and hoarse a voice as to be
inaudible in most parts of his very short address.
After a few words from Mr. BULLIR and Mr. GOULBURN,
leave was given to bring in the Bill.
The House then adjourned, at Half-past Twelve o'clock.