The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-02-12 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.---Tur.snAY

Lord STANLEY, after explaining some circumstances re-
lating to the conversation which had taken place on the pre.
ceding evening, as to the arrest of Mr. Macleod, wished to
ask if her Majesty'S government had taken any, and if any,
what, steps for procuring Mr. Macleod's liberation?
Lord PALMERSTON said, that a case of nearly a similar
nature to the present had been expected to occur one or two
years since.' In anticipation of that event, instructions had
been sent out to. Mr. Fox, and although circumstances ren-
dered it unnecessary for him to act upon them at that time,
he had taken them as equally applicable to. this occasion.
The. last despatches from Mr.. Fox had only been received
a day or two since, and the final instructions, the nature of
which be could not be expected to disclose, had been only
that day sent off:,

answer ioTquestions from Mr. Hu= and Mr. Dux-

posses, the noble lord afterwards stated,,that the Governor-
General 'had given his sanction and approval to the destruc-
tion of the Caroline, and her Majesty's government did con-
sider it a justifiable proceeding, as it was done in defending
the territory from unjustifiable invasion.
Mr. FITZROY KELLY began his speech, on moving to
bring in a bill for the abolition of capital punishments, by
adverting to the fact, that wherever capital punishment had
been abrogated, the crime from which it had leen withdrawn
had diminished in frequency, and that in the instances where
the crime had still been committed, the proportion of con-
victions had been greater. The scope of the measure he now
proposed was the same with that which he had introduced
last year, and which had been defeated only in an advanced
stage, and by a small majority. • If the bill he now sotight to
introduce for England should be adopted by the house, he
pledged himself to introduce corresponding bills for Scotland
and Ireland. He did not undertake to legislate upon the
subject of secondary punishment. The expenses and changes
which any such legislation must involve, made it fitting that
the task should be executed by the government. But if that
duty were not taken up by them, or by some member more
competent than himself, he would hereafter move certain re-
solutions, with a view to the establishment of principles for
the regulation of the subject. If the government had them-
selves brought forward a measure, which they were under-
stood to contemplate, for the abolition of capital punishment,
he would not have moved his own bill. At present he should
propose to proceed to the second reading; but he would not
attempt to go into committee till the ministerial measure
should be on the table, unless it were long delayed ; and if it
should be co-extensive with his own, he would proceed no
further.

Mr. EWART seconded the motion.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was favourable to the abolition of
the punishment of death in certain cases, and would therefore
make no opposition to the introduction of the bill ; but in
the declared object of extending that abolition to all cases he
could not concur.
Leave was then given to introduce the bill.

Mr. EWART wished to represent to the house the injustice
of the distinctive duties now pressing on the agricultural pro-
duce of the East Indies, on their manufacturing produce, and
on their inter-colonial trade.

Mr. F. MAULE moved to bring in' a bill on the subject of
county courts. He noticed the evil of separate acts for the
recovery of small debts in separate districts, leading to differ-
ent practices in different places. His first proposal would be
to extend the jurisdiction of the county courts to a larger
sum than at present; he would suggest £3O. He would
make them ambulatory within their own districts. He would
have a judge for each, to be appointed by the Government at
a fixed salary. He would abolish all written pleadings, and
make a summons the only process. On any amount under
£5 the judge might decide without a jury ; on a larger amount
a jury might be demandable by either party. The parties
themselves should be examinable, and no witness should be
incompetent on the score of interest. He would give to the
court a jurisdiction also in the recovery of small tenements.
The patronage of the Government under such a system would
doubtless be considerable; but in fact it existed already, for
the Chancellor at present appointed the judge under every
one of the local acts. It was -ia contemplation to take
away the jurisdiction of Hundred Courts or Courts of Re-
quests ; though he certainly did believe that the County
Courts would soon withdraw their business from them. The
judge was not to practise at the bar ; and his salary was to
be at first £BOO, and to increase, as business should increase,
until it reached a maximum of £1,500. An analogous mea-
sure had been introduced into Scotland with the best effect.
Mr. O'COIVNELL considered the chief defect of the bill to
be, that it did not combine the criminal with the civil juris-
diction. It constituted a paralytic judge, alive on the civil
side, but dead on the criminal. The courts of the present
magistrates were certainly not the courts of the poor man.
He should be very sorry to see any of the patronage given to
judges, except the. Chancellor, who was a responsible mi-
nister of the crown. It would destroy the political indepen-
dence of the junior bar to put their promotion in the hands
of the Lord Chief Justice.

Mr. -CRESSWELL apprehended great dissatisfaction to
suitors if they were forced into a court from which there
would be no appeal ; and great expense to them if appeals
were allowed, into which they could be inveigled by low
practicioners. He vindicated the bar from the imputation
that they would be corrupted by patronage in the hands of
the judges. The judges had now for some years the appoint-
ment of the revising barristers; but no decline of indepen-
dence had followed.

Mr. Fox MAULS deemed it best to abstain for the present
from giving compulsory jurisdiction for a higher amount
than £2O. The county courts had already, and would still
possess, power to decide upon larger amounts, where both
the parties consented.

Leave having been given for this bill, Mr. Fox MAULE
moved the introduction of another connected with it, and
enabling the Chancellor to direct the reference to county
courts of that business in bankruptcy which, in the country,
is now devolved upon local, commissioners. The same sort
of reference might be made in country cases of insolvency.
And the county court might also with advantage take the
business of lunacy in the country. The number of judges to
be proposed in the former bill, which would probably be
about 23, might be expected to suffice for the whole business
committed to them by both bills ' • but, lest they should be
unable to transact it at all, he had inserted in this second
bill a power to the Chancellor of increasing their number.—
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

On the motion of Mr. EMERSON TENNENT, the house
went into committee on the laws affecting the copyright of
designs ; and he then proposed an extension of the term of
three months' the present limit of protection, to a term of
twelve months. After some discussion, the chairman was
instructed to move the house for leave to bring in a bill in
accordance with Mr. E. Tennent's proposal, which was
done, and leave granted. •
Mr. DIVETT asked leave to bring in a bill for allowing
Jews to make the declaration contained in the acts of 1 and
2 Victoria, chap. 5 and tfi, on admission to corporate offices.
He thought it but just to put the Jews on the same footing
with the Quakers and the Moravians.

Sir ROBERT INGLis resisted this motion. He believed
there was only one individual whom such a bill would bene-
fit—namely, Mr. David Salomans, who had petitioned the
house upon the subject. His own objection was, that this
concession would be used as an argument for ulterior mea-
sures. The Jews were not to be considered as a peculiar
sect, but as a separate nation ; and they had, therefore, no
claim to municipal or political franchises in England.
Mr. WARBURTON said, that Sir Robert Inglis, if he
treated them as aliens, ought to bring in a bill for excluding
them from property in land. No evil was stated which their
admission would involve. ' Gentlemen had complained last
year of Mehemet Ali for his alleged persecution of the Jews,
but really their own civil persecution of that people was just
as bad.

Mr. GLADSTONE said Mr. Warburton had illustrated Sir
R. Inglis's objection, in arguing that because Jews are per,
mitted to enjoy the privilege of holding land, therefore Jews
must be admitted to ulterior privileges. He would not,
however, resist the introduction of the bill.

Mr. DzvErr said a few words in reply, and leave was given
to introduce the bill.—Adjourned.