The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-07 00:00:00

OTAHEITE.

The Marquis of NORMA NBY gave notice that he
would to-morrow present a petition from Leeds on the
subject of Otaheite. But he did not wish to raise any
discussion upon the subject.
THE CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND

BEQUESTS (IRELAND). BILL
Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved that the amendments
orthe Cimmons be agreed to.

Lord HATHERTON highly approved of the Bill.
But he was not disposed to go with the House of Com-
mons the whole length of their amendments.

After some conversation the amendments were
agreed to.
A message from the Commons informed their Lord-
ships that the House had given permission to the Earl
of Lincoln to attend and give evidence before the Com-
mittee of Post-office Inquiry.
Mr. Greene and others brought up from the Commons
several Bills.

A conference %as appointed between the two Houses
on the subject of the Commons' amendments on the Coni-
mon Law Courts (Ireland) Bill.

The report upon the Poor-law Amendment Act was
brought up and the amendments were agreed to.
The Lords appointed to confer with the Commons on
the Common Law Courts (Ireland) Bill, reported to the
House that the Commons disagreed with their Lordships'
amendments, and gave the reasons assigned in writing.
On the motion of Lord CAMPBELL the Commons'
reasons were ordered to be printed.
The Arms Bill (Ireland) went through Committee.
On the order of the day for the Committee upon the
Irish Fisheries Bill being read,
The Earl of WICKLOW moved the rejection of the
clause which takes away the power of appeal to the
magistrates at quarter fessions.
The Earl of GLENGALL supported the Bill.
The Marquis of NORMANDY said that if this Bill
had not been introduced by the Irish Secretary it would
never have reached their Lordships' House. The Bill
introduced three important innovations. The first was
the employment of the constabulary in the prevention
of poor fishermen from exercising their calling. The
second innovation was the proposed mode of appeal,
which would place justice almost out of the reach of
the poorer class of fishermen. He objected, thirdly,
to the circumstance that a Bill of that importance was
introduced to that House without their Lordships being
informed as to whether or nbt it was to be dealt with as a
Government measure. —(Hear.)
(LEFT SITTING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this Bill,
Mr. KEMBLE presented a ix tition from Bermond-
sey against the measure. The petitioners prayed that
the operation of the Bill, if passed, might not be extended
to debts incurred before its enactment.

Mr. MONCKTON MILNES proposed to insert the
followir6, clause:—" And whereas, since the 11th day of
November, 1842, the duties of taxing master in the Court
of Bankruptcy have been performed by one of the
deputy-registrars of the said Court, and the duties of such
deputy-registt ar have been performed by Thomas
Acton Warburton, Esq., Barrister-at-Law; be it enacted,
that such person shall be paid by the Governor and
Company of the Bank of England, out of the fund placed
to th.: credit of the Accountant in Bankruptcy, intituled,
The Secretary of Bankrupts' Account,' such remunera-
tion for his servic )s, not exceeding eight hundred pounds,
as the Lord Chancellor shall think reasonable, and by his
order in writing shall direct." The facts of the case
were these :—Mr. Richardson, who had been registrar in
Mr. Commissioner Evans's Court, had since 1842 acted
as taxing master in Bankruptcy, and Mr. Warburton
had performed the duties of deputy-registrar in Mr.
Commissioner Evans's Court without remuneration.
The Lord Chancellor was of opinion that under the pro-
visions of the Act of 1842 he had no power to award
Mr. Warburton compensation, but the present motion
was made with the concurrence and approval of the Lord
Chancellor.
Mr. BICKI-lAM ESCOTT seconded the motion.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the Lord Chan-
cellor had had nothing to do with the original appoint-
mmt of Mr. Warburton, who had been selected by Mr.
Commissioner Evans as deputy-registrar. It ap-
peared to him it was a speculation on the part
of Mr. Warburton, which had turned out a bad
one, and he had now abandoned it, not having performed
the duties for two inonths. It had appeared to him that
the best thing would be to confirm Mr. Richardson as
taxing master, and to appoint Mr. Warburton registrar;
but things had assumed, since he last addressed the
House, a different aspect. The Lord Chancellor had
promised the office to a gentleman whos 3 case Lad ben
brought before the House by the Hon. Member for
Liskeard—a gentleman who had been deprived of his
office by the Act regulating the Court of Exchequer,
without compensation. He had at the time admitted
that the ease was -a hard one, and had pledged himself
to consider it favourably. That gentleman was Mr.
Lee, ani to him the Lord Chancellor had promised this
office. Under these circumstances, although he d d not
like the principle of barristers performing the duties of
public offices on speculation, yet he must admit that
Mr. Warburton had performed his duties most efficiently,
and he would leave the proposition in the hands of the
House.

Mr. C. BULLER, expressed his approval of the kind
and considerate way in which both the Right Hon.
Gentleman and the Lord Chancellor had acted in the
case of Mr. Lee. With regard to the case of Mr. War-
burton, it could hardly be called a speculation. It was
clear that the duties must be performed, and Mr. War-
burton had undertaken them under the express sanction
of the Lord Chancellor. Parliament had sanctioned the
experiment, and having so sanctioned it, was it fair to
take Mr. Warburton's services for a year and a half
without remuneration? If they could arrange so as to
give Mr. Warburton the promise of an office it would be
the best arrangement, but they had no right to put such
conditions on the Lord Chancellor, and therefore he
should support the motion.
Sir R. PEEL considered that Mr. Warburton had a

fair claim to remuneration. Under ordinary circum-
stances he would have most probably been appointed to
an office under the Act, but the House had heard how
that office had been disposed of. He thought the claim
of Mr. Warburton to remuneration was clear, and he
should give the motion his cordial support.
Mr. HAWES said the arrangement was one which
had conduced to the public benefit, and he, therefore,
considered Mr. Warburton was fully entitled to compen-
sation. _ _

Mr. R. YORKE considered Mr. Warburton had taken
up this office as a speculation, without proper authority,
and he should certainly take the sense of the House
against the clause.
WAKLEY would support the Hon. Gentleman
if he divided against the clause. The principle was so
obnoxious, aiad it opened such a door to corruption that
he certainly thought they ought not to sanction it. This
gentleman had undertaken it as a speculation, for there
were no funds out of which he could be pt!id..

Mr. M. MILNES thought there were funds.
Mr. WAKLEY—Then he had made a mistake. As
a lawyer he ought to have known better, and he ought to
suffer for his ignorance. The principle sought to be es-
tablished was a most dangerous one.
Sir J. GRAHAM explained.
Mr.-B. ESCOTT did not vote for this motion as a
case of compensation ; he voted for it as payment for la-
bour done.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL admitted that his first
impression had been adverse to the claim of Mr. War-
burton, but when he considered the case, he thought it
probable that Mr. Warburton might have been induced
to believe that the Lord Chancellor had power to award
him compensation, and he really thought that Mr. War-
burton was fairly entitled to compensation.
Mr. lIENLY thought the Lord Chancellor had just
as much power to give Mr. Warburton a berth now as
he ever had. It struck him as a speculation, and if he
had any claim it ought to have been brought forward by
the Government Oa their own responsibility.
Mr. MONCKTON MILNES replied.
Strangers m ere then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—

For the clause 44
Against it
Majority in favour of the clause 39
The clause was then agreed to, and ordered to be
added to the Bill.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then moved certain
verbal alterations in various clauses.
Mr. SPOONER moved, as an amendment, that the
operation of the fifty•fourth and fifty-fifth clauses
should be postponed until the month of March.
He was aware that he was occupying a very un-
gracious position in appearing there to advocate
the continued imprisonment of various poor debtors
now waiting for their liberation. He objected to
the clause because it -would inflict a great injury on
industrious artisans in large towns. He admitted that
the state of discipline in small debt prisons was bad, but
they ought not to pass a measure of this nature merely
on account of local mal-administration in prison discip-
line. He cautioned the House against attempting to
remedy one evil by calling a greater one into

existence. If this Bill came into operation at once
it would be impossible for the labouring man to get
credit, and credit was necessary to his subsistence.
and it would certainly greatly palliate the evil to which
the labouring classes would be exposed by this Bill to
defer its coming into operation until the month of
March, in order to give them time to prepare themselves
for the change which was about to come upon them. To
show the beneficial operation of the power of ordering
imprisonment being conferred on Courts of Requests,
and the small amount of imprisonment actually inflicted,
he would state to the House that since 1808 the number
of cases in Courts of Requests throughout England had
amounted to about 4,000 annually, the number of execu-
tions amounted to about from 1,000 to 1,200, and the num-
ber of persons imprisoned amounted b only 150 annually.
He had presented a petition from the Chamber of Com-
merce of Bristol, pressing the necessity of delay ; peti-
tions to the same effect bad been presented from Man-
chester, from the shopkeepers of Southwark, and other
places, and the} all prayed for delay. If this Bill were
carried in its present shape, it would inflict a great in-
jury on the large body of tradesmen who had given
credit to the labouring classes on the faith of the law
continuing in its present state. He had received various
letters from different tradesmen, who complained that if
the power of imprisonment was taken away, they would
be deprived of the security on which they had given
persons credit. As they diminished the fear of im-
prisonment, they took away the stimulus to pay.
The House had had no opportunity of examining the
evidence upon which the House of Lords had decided in
favour of this Bill. He should have liked to have had
a Committee of Inquiry before the House decided in
favour of this Bill, for although those who had intro-
duced it were perfectly competent to decide upon general
principles, yet they did not possess that practical know-
ledge of the subject which would enable them properly to
legislate upon it. It would be a dangerous experiment
to change the system of credit so suddenly as it was
proposed to change it by this Bill, and he besought the
House to pause before they acceded to the Bill. He
concluded by moving that in the 54th clause the words
"from and after the passing of this Act" be omitted, and
the words " from and after the 25th of March next" be
substituted for them.
Mr. KEMBLE seconded the motion. This was an
ex post facto'law against the creditor, by depriving him
of the security of imprisonment, on which security he
had given his debtor credit. He had returns from a
Court of Requests for the year 1839. In that year, 5,682
causes had come on for hearing ; 2,543 executions had
been issued against the person, and only 25 against the
goods: 1,741 of those executions had not been carried
into effect ; 990 of the persons taken had been discharged
before the terms of their imprisonment had expired, and
478 only had suffered the full period of the imprison-
ment. It was well to consider the case of debtors, but
creditors ought to be considered also.
Mr. H. BERKELEY had presented a petition against
the Bill which had been agreed to at a most respectable
meeting of tradesmen in Bristol ; bat after the statement
of the solicitor-General and the Right Hon. Baronet, he
was convinced that legislation was necessary, and that
he could not hope for delay. He had stated as much at
the time, although he had stated his ob;ections to certain
clauses. He thought it would be advisable that some
little delay should be interposed before the Bill came into
operation ; but if the Government were determined that
the Bill should come into immediate operation, he would
advise the lion. Member for Birmingham to withdraw his
motion. If he persevered in the motion, he (Mr. H. B.),
although he wished for delay, would be compelled to
vote against him, for he believed it would be be a greater
evil to lose the Bill than to have it come into immediate
operation.
Sir J. GRAHAM bad never heard a fairer speech
than that of the Hon. Member for Bristol. He be-

lieved that if the measure ought to come into ope-
ration at all, it ought to come into operation imme-
diately. With regard to the working classes, it
was said that the Bill would entirely deprive them
of credit. If that were the case, it could make no dif-
ference to them when the Bill came into operation. He
could not think that legitimate credit would be at all
narrowed. Many were annually imprisoned, without
he believed much benefit to the creditor and to the
system of credit. With respect to the shopkeepers, he
could think of nothing more unwise than the measure
proposed by the Hon. Gentleman. Every creditor
during that six months would pursue his unhappy
debtor to the utmost, as the gaols would be crowded,
and the amount of misery which would be inflicted
would be appalling. The Bill gave the creditor a remedy
against the property, and if the debtor gave up all his
property. what more could the creditor require?—(Hear,
hear.) No doubt it was a shorter and more summary
process to sieze the person than the goods of the
debtor ; but it was most unjust in cases where
a debtor had no property to apply the torture of im-
prisonment, in order to extort from his relations and
friends the means of paying debts which they were
not morally or legally called upon to liquidate. The
Bill was supported by the Members for the
Tower Hamlets, Finsbury and Lambeth, and the consti-
tuencies of those place were shopkeepers and not debtors.
The measure had been well considered, and had received
the highest legal support. It was approved of by the
Lord Chancellor and the ex-Chancellors, by Mr. Justice
Wightman, by the Chief Baron, by the law officers of
the Crown— all the authorities were in favour of it. The
.case of Scotland, too, was a case in point. There
the power of imprisonment for small debts had
been abolished, and although that measure had
been opposed by the same arguments as this'
measure was opposed, yet it was now admitted that the
system had worked well in Scotland, so that they had
authority and experience in favour of this measure. He
was persuaded that in exercising greater caution in re-
spect of credit, the retail shopkeepers would be conduct-
ing their business on a safer and better system, and the
poorer classes would be benefited by being freed from the
system of extortion practised on their relatives and
friends by the system of imprisonment. He therefore
pressed upon the House the necessity of rejecting the
motion.

Mr. NE WDEGATE thought it would not operate
favourably on the morals of the poorer classes that they
should be permitted to evade the guarantee of their
liberty which they had given to enable them to procure
the means of subsistence. He should vote with the Hon.
Member for Birmingham.
Mr. BROTHERTON could not bring his mind to the
conclusion that it would be wise to adopt the motion of
the Hon. Member for Birmingham. The arguments of
the Honourable Member were against the principle of
the measure, and not in favour of delay, and the House
was almost unanimous in its approval of the principle.
Mr. HAWES said the Hon. Member for Surrey had
given some accounts respecting the Court of Requests in
Surrey, and the number of cases brought under the
consideration of that court. The Hon. Member, how-
ever, said nothing about the costs which were incurred

in that court, and which were, he understood, enormous.
He (Mr. Hawes) contended that the present system of
imprisonment was not beneficial to the creditor ; on the
contrary, it was greatly to his disadvantage. That
system was only calculated to feed revenge in relentless
creditors without producing any beneficial result. Under
these...circumstances he could not support the motion of

the Hon. Member for Birmingham. -
Mr. HARDY could not see why imprisonment for
debts under 201. should be abolished any more than for
debts amounting to 401. or 501. He should support the
motion of the Hon. Member for Birmingham, believing
that delay. was necessary, in order that small shop•
keepers might make themselves acquainted with the
provisions of this measure. When a poor man asked
for credit, he said, "I have no goods, but, if I do not
pay, you can imprison me." It was, therefore, unjust to
abolish the present system.

Mr. WAKLEY would put it to the Hon. Gentleman
whether such a system of credit was founded on a good
basis. No, it was not—it was most injurious and de-
moralising. The only sound basis for credit for the poor
man was good conduct and good character. The
Honourable Member for Southwark (Mr. Humphery)
had just told him that a great number of persons were
confined for debt in the Compter prison, and the highest
debt was 9s. Was not that a disgrace to a country like
this ? The present system was only calculated to feed
revengeful feelings ; and if they were to continue it, that
House, instead of being called the House of Com-
mons, ought to be called the house of Shylocks.
For the sake of the working classes he was quite con-
tent to receive this Bill. He believed it would be bene-
ficial to the shopkeepers themselves. The Hon. Mem-
ber would serve his constituents much better by allowing
bis motion to be negatived without a division, instead of
being left in a small minority. As the House had deter-
mined by large majorities that the principle of the Bill
should be adopted, he hoped the Bill would come into
operation the moment it had received the Royal assent.
Mr. SPOONER. said he should be content to let his

motion be negatived without a division.
Mr. I'. DUNCOMBE concurred in what had fallen

from his Hon. Colleague, and reminded the Hon. Member
for Birmingham that it was that town which had taken
the lead in the opposition to the system it was sought
to abolish.
The motion was then negatived without a division,
and the Bill read a third time and passed.
ART-UNIONS. _ _

, Mr. WYSE moved the further consideration of the
Lords' reasons for rejecting the amendments of the Com-
mons in the Art-Unions Bill

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said the object of his Hon.
Friend was to insist on these amendments being retained.
The Lords were not satisfied that the parties origi-
nating these Fine Arts distributions had acted
like the Art-Unions in ignorance of the law.
But they had followed in the footsteps of
the Art-Unions, and when among the share-
holders and patrons were such men as the Duke of
Cambridge and Lord Denman, how could they imagine
that they were breaking the law ? The House, he un-
derstood, was to meet to-morrow, and, if necessary, he
should have no objection to a postponement of the
question.
After a few words from the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER,
Mr. WAKLEY said, till the Art-Unions were stopped
by the Government, no one was aware that they were
illegal ; and it was on the faith of their being legal
that the parties alluded to by his lion. Colleague had
commenced their proceedings. He was perfectly wil-
ling to leave the matter in the hands of the Govern-
ment, confident that full protection would be given to
all parties.
Mr. B. ESCOTT was not sure there was not a dis-
tinction between the two cases. Art-Unions were es-
tablished for the encouragement of art without a view
to the profit of individuals, whereas the other was that
of individuals engaging in lotteries with a view to profit.
Mr. ACKLAND said the parties had been driven into
the course they had taken, in consequence of the loss
the Art-Unions caused them, in self-defence.
Sir J. GRAHAM said, as this was a question of in-
demnity for the past, he thought both parties ought to
have an equal benefit from it, as they had both acted in
ignorance of the law ; at the same time, it would be for