The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-26 00:00:00

TMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 25

Their Lordships met at Five o'clock.
Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition on the subject of
pauper lunatics, praying for further inquiry. The petition was
from inhabitants of the borough of Finsbury.

PRIVILEGE.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from J. Thomas
Russel, of 37, Percy-street, Bedford-square. It was a very
respectful petition. The petitioner complained that he had been
grossly slandered In evidence given before one of their Lord-
ship's Committees by George Ledbitter, William M'Culloch,
and John Pope, who were witnesses there. He complained
that his character and good name had been injured, and prayed
that their Lordships would grant him some mode of clearing
himself from those imputations, which he was fully pre-
pared to do. By a recent decision of their Lordship? House,
he perceived that it would be a breach of privilege to bring an
action against those parties, and but for that he would have
done so. He moved that the petition be laid upon the table,
and next session he would move that it be referred to a Com-
mittee for investigation.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he would be very will-
ing to render the petitioner all the assistance in his power, but
he should have laid his complaint before the House at an earlier
period.
Lord BROUGHAM said the petitioner stated in his peti-
tion that it was not until last Saturday he saw the printed
evidence.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Bat he knew the nature of
the evidence before them.
A -NOBLE Loan said, that surely, it was not too
late for a man to clear his haracter if unjustly accused.
Lord C AMPBELL said he should certainly support the motion
of his Noble &Id Learned Friend, as their Lordships ought to
throw their doors open to persons who felt themselves aggrieved,
If it should turn out that the petitioner had been
unjustly traduced, and that his character had been injured, they
ought to allow him to bring an action against his traducers, and
make provision that by doing se he should not outrage the pri-
vileges of the House.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—ProbabIy my Learned
Friend is acquainted with this gentleman.—(Laughter).
A NOBLE LORD said he was a member of the Committee
referred to, and recollected that the persons named in the
petition gave evidence before it. . _

. •
'I he Earl of WICKLOW said it did not signify who the
person was who had been aspersed. They should disregard
his position, and give him some remedy by which he might
c!ear his character, if it had been injured by evidence delivered
in one of their committee-rooms. The period when the cir.
cumstance complained of occurred was immaterial.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he only referred to a
particular date.
DUBLIN AND GALWAY.

The Earl of HARDWICK said he had to present a petition
to the same effect (we did net hear the name of the petitioner
or petitioners). The petitioner stated that he had purchased
a number of shares in the Dublin and Galway Company at a
large premium, in consequence of the favourable report of the
Board of Trade, and that he should suffer grievous injury if
the Bill was not allowed to proceed, in consequence of the way
in which the contract deed was signed. He therefore prayed
that the parties aggrieved might be heard at the bar of their
Lordships' House.
Lord BROUGHAM regretted that the petitioner had net
invested his money in a better project than the one he did.
However, he had a remedy in his Learned Friend on the wool-
saa, who had funds at hodisposal to reimburse parties who
had lent their money in such speculations.—(Laughter.)
The Earl of DAL H OU S 1 E defended the report of the Board
of Trade en the Irish Great Western, and considered that
the Board of Trade perfectly justified in the course it took. If
the petitioner.had lost his money it was his affair, and not that
of those who made the report.

The Earl of BESBOROUGH said, as he bad moved for the
Committee which had inquired into the allegations
against the Company in question, he wished to
say a few words with respect to their report presented to the
House yesterday. The Committee reported that they had
heard evidence on the allegations, and had arrived at the opi-
nion that systematic frauds had been committed to obtain
signatures to the subscription contract; that no proper atten-
tion had been paid to the distribution of the letters of allot-
ment; that letters had been sent to country postmasters that
they might be posted and sent to London as applications for
Shares; also, that a petition had been presented to the House
of Commons with respect to these frauds, but that it had been
withdrawn on account of the payment of 2501. to the party
who had petitioned that House, and that 5001. morsewas Pro-
mised on the Bill passing the standing orders; that the sub-
tieription deed had not been executed in a bona fide manner,
and at an amount insufficient to enable it to pass the House.
He doubted whether it was true, as had been stated, that
the same system was adopted in ether Railway Companies.
He blamed the Standing Orders' Committee for not paying
greater attention to the subscription deed. Unless they paid
great attention to this, no security would he afforded to the
pre lie. The parties now stated by petition that they were
ready to insert the necessary number of names as security for
the amount required by law ; but this ought not to be done
after the Bill had passed the Standing Orders' Committee. He
regretted that parties had taken shares in the Company, and he
also regretted that the important railway accommodation which
was proposed in that part of Ireland could not be carried out by
what bad occurred, and which could not be too highly repro-
bated, as it would have employed those who at that period of
the year stood much in need of employment. He should
therefore move that the further consideration of the Bill be
postponed to that day three months.
The Marquis of CLANRICARfIE was of opinion that the
debate should be adjourned, that the report and evidence
might be printed and placed in the hands of Noble Lords. He
did not hold one share in that or in any other Company. He
spoke as a disinterested party.
Lord BROUGHAIII said that having been a member of
the -Select Committee appointed to inquire into the allegations
set forth in the petition, he wished to make a few observations
on the question before the House. They should remember
that there were two different kinds of fraud that might be
practised in Fueb a case—one on the Company by forging
names, for the purpose of obtaining shares, and the second for
pereetraling a fraud upon the House, viz., by an inferior agent
of the. Company making a fictitious allotment for the purpose
gelling up a hat of the number of shares taken. Ile would
tell them now in what way these fraud., being actually
coalesced. hail been both practised on the Company and the
Hou.e. If a set of parties went about to gamble in the
ma k,-t—if surrey-r:, eeginsers, agent &c., for the our, ose
of obtainine planes and employment, and having an interest in
promoting the Bill, cither by fabricating letters or forging
names, foisted tip the names of Irish vaulters, deceased trades-
tern, peeies reedent in the West Indies, or other such ficti-
tious representatives, as shareholders in the company, that was
a gross impestufe. Put there was another course which was
equally efriictual in committing a fraud upon the House. Par
tic, issurd a prospectus, contriving a puffing account iif a
scheme, and invited the world to apply for sharso. In ;inured
applications from all quarters, and, even if they posieseed them,
they titsik no means to see that those applications were genuine.
They shut their e;e:s to the character of the references, they
never inquired into the respectabili'y of any parties, and it-
was just the same thing as if the fabrication bad been practised
by the company to defraud the Ilouse. In the present case
970 vrsor.s appiied for shares, out, of whieb t 1 I only gave any
proof of soiv.ncy. Was that the course the London and York
Company pursued? When they got a letter without a re-
ference they threw it in the fire, but out of 11l applications
made to the Dublin and Galway Company, only twenty:nine
were inquired into, out of which about one-half or fourteen
were totally unknown. No inquiry was instituted when
they had proceeded so far, fearing, he supposed, that the
further they went the worse they would fare. Therefore
without knowledge, or attempting to know the nature of their
qualifications, shares were given to the other eighty. Amongst
others, a chimerical man, to whom the name of Tenbury was
accorded, but who never had an existence, whose address was
stated to be Crosby Chambers, received an allotment of shares.
Another, called lialtiran, resident for the last seven years in
the West Indies, received thirty shares ; and Margaret Mere-
dyth, a pauper, the inmate of a workhouse, whose residence
was made to be Lower Tooting, Surrey, obtained shares to the
amount of 7,5001 , upon which a deposit of 751. was expected,
when, in reality, she had not 75 pence in the world !—( A
laugh.) Feurteen hundred and fifty applications were inquired
into, anti took four hours in their examination, or at the rate of
about ten seconds each. Two hundred and forty recommenda-
tions were received from Hesseltine, the broker, founded
upon these applications, and such was the way of pro-
ceeding in this notable Company, the very reverse,
be it remembered, of the method pursued by the London
and York. There was a rule in law that if a person
had the means of discovering a fraud and did not avail
himself of it, he was respodsible for his wiifal negligence. That
principle was founded upon justice and common sense, and
was squally applicable to parallel cases like the present. As
tolhe scheme and its merits, per se. he had every reason to
believe it was a good public work. He had no objection to it
as a project brought forward to promote social and commercial
prosperity ; on the contrary, he believed that under better
auspices, with greater priidence and circumspection, it might,
in a future session, be reintroduced advantageously, if not
successfully. Nevertheless, the House was bound to protect
itself against fraud, and he, therefore, felt bound to support the
motion of his Noble Friend (Lord Besborough.)
Lord MONTEAGLE said that having been a Member of
the Committee which inquired into this Bill, he also wished to
offer a few remarks. When it was proposed on a former occa-
sion to go on with the Bill he advised their Lordships that it
would be better to deny all railway communication whatever
to the country than to refuse an inquiry into the allegations of
fraud. The question was referred to a Select Committee,
and when fully discussed the evidence adduced before it was
laid on the table of the House; and he thought it so clear from
that evidence that mal-practices had existed, that he imme-
diately proposed the postponement of the Bill. What he now
wished to call the attention of the House to was, the course
that had since been taken. Their Lordships did not come to the
conclusion he desired, but referred the Bill, with
the report and evidence of the Select Committee, to
another Committee. This latter tribunal had taken further
evidence, and made a report to the House. The motion now
made by the Noble Marquis was, that the evidence taken be-
fore the second Committee should be printed before their
,Lordships finally legislated on the Bill. He thought this pro-
position was fair and rational, was consistent with the
.pro-
ceedings and practice of the House, and with what was just.
He did not think that any doubt could be entertained of the
ultimate result, but still he considered that in a case charging
nuthing short of personation and forgery, involving the ques-
tion of the grossest criminality, the House, after having them-
selves asked for the evidence, could not, consistently with jus-
tice, venture to decide absolutely without the production and
publication of that evidence. He therefore felt that the motion
of the Noble Marquis being calculated to afford information,
anti conduce to the promotion of justice, it was his duty to give
it his support.
Lord BROUGHAM—Undoubtedly, if the evidence goes to
rebut the evidence which was given before the other Commit-
tee, let it be brought forward. He, however, misunderstood
that report. He thought they had got additional evidence in
the other Committee. What he said was, however, that if the
n ittee—if the second Committee, had taken evidence
toe*rebur the evidence given before the other Committee, by all
means let them have it. They had carried the case further,
but he thought they.shoul d have an opportunity of hearing
it.—(A Noble Lord said that in that case they would have to
hear counsel at the bar of theba House.) Oh no, if they allowed
counsel to be heard at the the House, he considered that
that would be an infraction oittfeetoVers of 1837, of far greater
been
ben committed.
consequence than any that had
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said' that
traekthey
beforetook anyta e
newf ur-
ther steps, they should hear the evideucefo
Committee.
A desultory conversation then ensued, on the point whether
or not they should wait till they heard the evidence taken be-
fore the other Committee, before they came to a decision.
The debate was then adjourned till Monday.
PORTSMOUTH DIRECT RAILWAY.
The Earl of HARDWICK then brought up the report on
this Bill, and was proceeding to read it when he was inter-
rupted by
Lord BROUGHAM, who rose to order, and asked if it was
a special report ?
The Earl of HARDWICK—No ; it is not a special report.
The Noble Lord then continued to read.
Lord BROUGHAM—This,. my Lords, is the most extraor-
dinary proceeding I have ever witne,sed.
The Ear! of HARD WICK ;..‘tntinued to read, and was again
interrupted by
Lord BROUGHAM. My Lords, I rise again to order. We
cannot now enter into the subject at all. Unless the Noble )
Lord is about tg make a motion on the....

• • ' • t • •

_

The Earl of HARDWICK—No ; I will make no motion on
the subject.—( The Noble Lord resumed the reading of the re-
port amidst great laughter.)
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY and the Earl of DEV )rr having
declared their opinion that the presentation of the leport was
irregular, the motion was withdrawn.
SCOTCH POOR-LAWS.

Lord COTTENHANI presented a petition fraying that
Mr. Henry Miller might be heard by counsel at the bar of
their Lordships' House, against the Scotch Poor-law Bill.
COAL DUTIES.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY moved for a return of
the quantity of coal imported into the City of London during
the years 1843 and 1844, and to June in the presnt year, dis-
tinguishing the quality of each kind.
PAUPER LUNATICS.

On the motion that the Pauper Lunatics Bill be read a se-
cond time,

Lord BEAUMONT moved, as an amendment, that the Bill
be referred to a Committee up stairs, on the ground that it had
not yet received that consideration hich its nature warranted.
He wished to know, would the Bill include within its provisions
other lunatics than paupers? The Noble Lord was proceeding
to notice, seriatim, the objections to the Bill, when

Lord WHARSCLIFVE said those objections might be
much more suitably urged in Committee, where they would
receive full consideration. He wished to inform the Noble
Lord that the Bill merely referred to pauper lunatics.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then put the question, and
the House divided. The numbers were—
Contents
Non-contents
Majority for the second reading.. —l6
CRIMINAL LAW CODE.

The LORD CHANCELLOR then handed in a report on
the criminal code of this country. He said that the Commission
which drew up the report was not issued while he was in office.
It was issued when the great seal was entrusted to his Noble
Friend, and be had no concern in their appointment, but he
felt it his duty to bear his testimony to the admirable manner
in which they had discharged the duties entrusted to them.
It was impossible to read these reports without feeling strongly
a consciousness of the industry, intelligence, accuracy, and
acuteness which were applied to this complicated subject, and
to admire also the comprehension and masterly manner in
which the Commission treated every part of the report.
Should it be their Lordships' pleasure to legislate on
the subject of the criminal law in next session of
Parliament, it would be quite unnecessary for them
'to apply to any other sources of information. There was
ample information in the volumes of these reports. He felt it
his duty to bear his testimony with respect to the manner in
which those reports had been executed, and to express his gra-
titude, as one of the public, for the industry which they ex-
hibited in the discharge of their duty.
Lord BROUGHAM said, that though he was in office
when the Commission was issued, yet his Noble Friend on the
Woolsack added one or two individuals to it whose services
were invaluable. They had now before them the whole crimi-
nal code. It was reduced to a digest and presented last
session, and afterwards postponed until the Learned Commis.
sioners should complete their report, which was this evening
presented and laid upon their Lordships' table. It was done
in a manner so satisfactory, that little more remained for them
to do to make a digest of the criminal law for both judges and
the people, than to reduce these two reports—these invaluable
documents—into the form of a statute. He would implore her
Majesty's Government, and particularly his Noble Friend on
the Woolsack, in whose department it was, not to omit the op-
portunity of securing the services of such men as these Com-
missioners in the formation of a board for systematically and
constantly revising the statutes from time to time. He threw
this out for their consideration.

Lord CAMPBELL said that though be concurred in the
view of his Noble Friend as to the value of the reports, he
nished to express his_desire that they would not be allowed to
remain on the table till they were covered with dust. There
was not a country in Europe which had not a criminal code
published for the benefit of those who were to administer and
those'who were to obey the law.
Lord BROUGHAM said that he did not wish that they
should lie covered with dust. He wished last session to reduce
one of them into the form of a Bill. He, however, postponed
it till it should be revised by the Commissioners. They should
have the whole reduced into one digest, or into two codes, as in
France, the code penal and the code de procedure.
The reports were then ordered to lie on the table.
The Duke of BUCCLEUCH presented a petition from the
inhabitants of Norttfleet, against a certain clause in the Poor-
law ( Scotland) Bill.
The Unclaimed Stock and Dividend Bill went through
Committee, as also the Rothwell Prison Bill.
The Highway Bill was read a second time.
The Excise Duties on Spirits (Channel Islands) Pill went
through Committee, as also the Spirits (Ireland) Bill.
On the motion that the Waste Lands ( Australia) Bill be
read a third time,

Lord STANLEY moved that the 7th clause be expunged,
which was agreed to.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
The Geological Survey Bill was read a third time and passed.
The other Bills on the table were advanced a stage, and their
Lordships adjourned.

FIOUSE OF COMMONS, July 25.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)

The House resumed at Five o'clock.
The Earl of Onslow's Estate Bill was read a third time, and
passed.
BOLTON AND LEIGH, &c., AMALGAMATION BILL.

On the order of the day for the consideration of the Bolton
and Leigh, Kenyon and Leigh Junction, North Union, Liver-
pool and Manchester, and Grand Junction Railway Companies
Amalgamation Bat being read,

Mr: WILSON PAtTEN moved the insertion of the
clauses brought forward in the former debate.
A discussion ensued, in which Mr. Escott, Sir George Clerk,
and Mr. T. Duncombe took part, and which was totally unin-
telligible to the gallery.
Mr. DARBY thought that every system of amalgamation
agreed to ;:hould be such as to oi'erate for the benefit of the
public as well as fur the shareholders. Care should be taken
that the tolls and fares should not be extmtionate.

After a few words from Mr. ALDAM, the Bill was read a
third time and ppssed.

1 li E MALT. TAX.

Mr. DARBY presented a petition from a place in Cornwall
in favour of a repeal of the malt-tax, and several other peti-
tions on various aubjects, but their purport we could not learn,
owing to the low voice in which the Hon. )(ember spoke.