inquiry, came down on the last day, and voted against the bill. In this way a measure which would have been of great advantage to the public, had been lost, and with it no less a sum than 30,000l. which had been expended in order to carry it through parliament. The manner in which private business was conducted in com, mittees above stairs was a disgrace to the country. Mr. T. Wilson concurred in the necessity of a reform in the mode in which private business was conducted in commit tees. Mr. W. Smith agreed, that the manner in which business was conducted by committees above stairs called loudly for reform. So much did he disapprove of the practice pursued, that he had not entered a private committee room for many years, Mr. Tremayne concurred in the necessity of such a reform. Mr. Calcraft said, that the general system undoubtedly stood in need of reform; but it could not be denied that it was a matter of considerable difficulty. The practice of deciding on the merits of a question, without hearing it argued, was one of daily occurrence in that House. He by no means, however, meant to set up one vicious practice as a defence for another. He had not himself matured any plan of reform, but he thought the best precedent they could follow would be the Grenville act, the provisions of which had been found to be an effectual remedy for the abuses which prevailed in Election committees. He should recommend the appointment of a special committee by ballot, whose duty it should be to consider and report on the merits of private bills. The conduct of private committees above stairs, had given great dissatisfaction to the public. Mr. Sykes said, that in the present instance a measure of great public advantage had been thrown out by a majority of members, who had a direct private interest in opposing it, and who had voted against it without hearing a syllable of the evidence. He had never met with a case of more gross injustice. Mr. Littleton expressed his astonishment, that any individual, who had the slightest pretension to the character of a gentleman, or a man of common honesty, could venture to conduct himself in the manner in which some of the members of this committee had acted. That any member who had not heard a tittle of the evidence on a private bill should venture to come down on the last day and vote against it, was so scandalous a proceeding that he could not find language strong enough to express his reprobation of it. He could not think, that there was any resemblance between this case and that of the votes given by members in that House. It was the duty of private com, mittees to decide on details of which they could only judge by hearing the evidence; whereas members in that House decided on principle, and might have other oppor tunities of judging of the merits a question, independently of the arguments which they might hear in that House. Mr. Trant concurred in reprobating the conduct of private committees above stairs. For his part he was resolved never again to enter the door of a private committee room, until the business was put on a different footing. Mr. J. P. Grant said, he had abstained from voting on this committee, because he had been unable to attend it. Though there must be a great number of members in the House who voted on that committee, and who now heard their conduct reprobated, not one of them had ventured to contradict the statement. Mr. Bright recommended the imme, diate appointment of a committee. Ordered to lie on the table, LAW OF MERCHANT AND FACTOR.] Mr. J. Smith rose to present a petition on the subject of the law of Merchant and Factor. The petition was signed by the whole ofthe principal merchants of London, except one, who refused to sign it, because he was unwilling to sign a petition to the House on any subject. The petitioners complained of the operation of certain laws relating to merchant and factor, which they described as most injurious to the general interests of the commerce of this country. It had fallen to him, sometime since, to introduce a bill on this subject; but, from circumstances which occurred in another House, his object was defeated. Another measure was then introduced, applying to the same question; but it was imperfect, and wholly inefficient to remedy the evil. Mr. Serjeant Onslow thought the country was indebted to the hon. member for calling the attention of the House to this important subject. Mr. T. Wilson said, the subject was most important to the commerce of the country. The petition was that of the | taken a bad way to attack the religion of merchants of London; but it represented the opinions of the merchants of every town in England. Mr. Huskisson said, he was not at all indifferent to its importance, and if any measure should be introduced respecting it, he was disposed to give it his best consideration. Mr. Scarlett hoped, that if any measure should be introduced, it would be so intelligible as to be understood by all. For his own part, he did not understand the bill of last year. He would not object to any measure which might be for the general benefit of the commercial body; but he hoped that it would not embrace that objectionable clause, which took the entire control of a man's property from him, and gave to another the power of raising money on it. Ordered to lie on the table. the country, it was incumbent upon us not to take a bad way to defend it; and the worst of all possible ways would be to inflict severer punishment than their offences required. Having thus endeavoured to guard himself against misconstruction, he would say, that he could conceive no harm as likely to accrue to religion from fair and free discussion; and that until the mode of discussion became so offensive as to excite against it the feelings of almost every man in the country, prosecutions for blasphemy were among the very worst methods of defending religion. That was his deliberate and sincere opinion; for he could hardly conceive any instance in which toleration could be carried too far, either to the religion professed or to the persons professing it. Mr. Secretary Peel agreed, that prosecutions should not be instituted on the IMPRISONMENT FOR RELIGIOUS OPI- score of religious opinions, so long as NIONS-PETITION OF R. CARLILE.] Mr. those opinions were expressed in fair and Brougham presented a petition from temperate language; but, he contended, Richard Carlile, and six other individuals. that as soon as they vented themselves in The petitioners stated, that they had been scurrilous attacks on established instituprosecuted, and were immured in different tions, they deserved the attention of the prisons of the country, for not being civil authorities. He maintained that the Christians, and for stating their reasons libels published by Carlile and his fellow, why they were not so. They prayed that petitioners were revolting to the feelthe House would rescind the various senings of every moral man in the country, tences which had been passed against and were therefore properly selected for them, and admit them to the same toler- prosecution. He did not see how Carlile ation that was enjoyed by other Dissenters. could be held up as an object of mercy. No one who knew him (Mr. Brougham) So far from expressing any contrition for would suppose that he was inclined to the offence he had committed, he gloried patronize any species of indecent ribaldry in it, and not only boasted that he would against the institutions of the country. continue to repeat it, but actually carried He considered such ribaldry to be a crime his boast into execution. To his sister, in itself, and the very worst mode of pro- the mercy of the Crown had been extendpagating any kind of opinions. For, sup-ed; and she had shown herself not undepose the party who held such opinions to be right, and the rest of the country to be in the wrong, the expression of them in ribald or indecent language was calculated to affront the feelings of those whom he ought to conciliate rather than offend, if he wished to make them proselytes. At the same time, he thought that the law ought not to press too heavily upon them, because they appeared to be, in a certain degree, enthusiasts and fanatics; and toleration, as well as expediency, required that they should not be subjected to that degree of punishment which would entitle them to be considered as martyrs to the principles, such as they were, that they professed. If they had serving of it, by refusing to participate any further in the blasphemous publications of her brother. Mr. Monck ridiculed the idea of defending religion by prosecution. There was no law in America against blasphemy, and yet no country in the world was more free from blasphemous publications. Sir F. Burdett contended, that all prosecutions for religious opinions were inexpedient. It was agreed on all hands, that religious opinions ought to be toler ated so long as they were expressed in temperate language; but it was now argued, that as soon as those opinions were so expressed as to disgust every honest mind, then they ought to be visited with selling "Palmer's Principles of Nature;" and he would say that a more horrible, blasphemous, and scurrilous libel had never issued from the press. The juries who had tried these petitioners were not more shocked by the work itself, than by the manner in which the parties bad ventured to defend it. punishment. Now, it appeared to him that under such circumstances they ought not to be noticed; because if they were as poisonous as was represented, they carried along with them their own antidote. If Mr. Carlile had not been prosecuted by the government, he would at this moment have been totally unheard of; whereas, by prosecuting him, the govern. ment had given him a notoriety which he could not otherwise have acquired; and had got themselves into a scrape from which they found some difficulty in get-height as to be thought fit ground for alting extricated. The infliction of great severity on any man for his opinions, no matter how offensive they might be, was the most certain way, not to wean him from, but to confirm him in, those obnox-ence. ious opinions. Mr. Brougham did not blame the lawofficers for prosecuting these individuals, but rather for leaving them unprosecuted, until their offences had risen to such a were tering the old statute law of the country. He blamed them for bringing down six new acts upon the country, without trying the efficacy of those which were in existLong before those acts were passed, Benbow had kindly offered the throats Mr. Brougham said, that so far was the of several individuals to the knife. Why punishment inflicted on these petitioners had he escaped prosecution? If any man from having put down publications of this deserved prosecution, it was that indiobnoxious character, that they were now vidual, but the government abstained from sold openly in all parts of the town [hear]. indicting him, and others who It had been said, that if the discussion of equally culpable with him, in order that religious truths were calmly conducted, it they might repeat their offences, and so ought to be permitted. A wonderful ad- afford a pretext for innovating upon the mission truly; Why, where would be the constitution. It had been said, that prouse of the discussion of religion, if the ar-secutions were not instituted because gument was to be all on one side? He juries would not convict. He had always then pointed out the glaring inconsistency said, that, though juries might not be inof denying to the poor the right of reading clined to convict for libels against the goany discussion upon the truths of Chris-vernment, they would be ready enough tianity, and of allowing to the rich the privilege of having in their libraries the works of Gibbon, and all such writers. Mr. Hume said, that this was the only country in Europe where individuals were imprisoned for religious opinions. If our prisons continued to be filled with individuals suffering for religious opinions, England would succeed to the vacant post of inquisitor-general for Europe. Mr. Peel said, it was ridiculous to talk of the prisons of the country being filled with sufferers for religious opinions, when there were not more than eleven persons confined for blasphemous publications; and of that number five had been prosecuted since his accession to his present office. The Attorney-General contended, that the prosecutions had been effectual in suppressing blasphemous publications; and argued, that it was unfair to blame ministers for keeping these individuals in prison, when they were consigned to it by a sentence of the court of King'sbench, arising out of those prosecutions. They were most of them imprisoned for to convict for libels inciting to assassination. With regard to "Palmer's Principles of Nature" he would undertake to say, that it was not half so bad as any publication of Hume or Gibbon. Voltaire's works were full of ribaldry and indecency, and yet they had not been prosecuted for corrupting the morals of the ladies and gentlemen at the west end of the town. If works of this description were to be prosecuted, the prosecutions should be directed to the works read by the rich, instead of being confined to works read exclusively by the poor. Ordered to lie on the table. REPEAL OF THE BUBBLE ACT.] The Attorney-General rose, for the purpose of moving for leave to bring in a bill to repeal so much of the act of the 6th Geo. 1st cap. 18., commonly called the Bubble Act, as related to Joint-stock companies. He would shortly state to the House his object in introducing this bill. The act to which it related had of late excited considerable discussion in the courts of law and equity, and it appeared to be agreed on all hands, that its meaning and effect were altogether unintelligible. It was, in fact, impossible to ascertain what had been the intention of the legislature in passing that act. When, coupled with this fact, it was recollected, that the penalty imposed by the act, was, among others, that persons offending should be guilty of a præmunire, that was to say, that they should incur the heaviest penalty for committing an offence against an unintelligible act of parliament-he thought he need state no more to induce the House to agree with him as to the necessity of repealing this act. But, there were other grounds which manifested that necessity still more strongly. From the year 1720, the year in which it was passed, down to the present time, Joint-stock companies had been formed for the most useful and laudable purposes, and many of them still existed. Some of them had been the means of acquiring great wealth to the individuals connected with them, and also advantageous to the public. Among them, the companies for the insurance of lives and property were the most eminent; and all of those, under the interpretation which was sometimes put upon this act, were said to be illegal. For the protection, then, of these individuals, it was highly expedient to repeal part of the existing law, He might be asked, whether it was his intention to propose any provision instead of it? And to this he must reply, that he had at first intended to do so, but that, after having very attentively considered the subject, he had been convinced that to do so would be at once difficult, unwise, and impolitic, The reasons which had induced him to believe that it would be inexpedient to legislate on this subject at all were, that up to the period of passing the Bubble act, although the commerce of the country had been extended to a very important degree, no legal enactments had been considered necessary. After the events which gave rise to this act in 1720, with the exception of a criminal prosecution, the nature of which was not very clearly understood, and which took place two years afterwards, no legal proceedings had been had under it, until ten or twelve years ago. It had, in fact, become a dead letter; and he had therefore a right to conclude that no such law was necessary. It could not be objected, in answer to this view of the subject, that it had not been exercised because it had accomplished the objects for which it was passed, because this had been done before, and companies were established shortly afterwards which had continued ever since. If any other hon. gentleman took a different view of the matter, it would be competent to him to bring in a bill for regulating companies in such a manner as he might think fit; but, he must be permitted to say, for his own part, that he did not think any such measure necessary. He would add, that he meant to insert in the bill he should bring in, a provision that it was not to interfere with any proceedings now depending in any of the courts, but that they were to be decided according to the law as it stood when those proceedings were commenced. There was another provision which he meant to add, with a view of facilitating the granting of charters by the Crown to companies for trading and other purposes. Under the charters as they were commonly granted, the persons incorporated were not individually liable for any of the debts of the company, but only so far as the corporate property extended. This circumstance caused considerable reluctance on the part of those whose duty it was to advise the Crown to grant charters. Persons wishing to form a company were therefore obliged to apply, in the first place, to parliament, for an act enabling the Crown to grant a charter, and afterwards for the charter, thus doubling the expense. To remedy this, he should propose a clause enabling the Crown, whenever application should be made for a charter, to insert in it a provision rendering any individual member of a corporation liable for the debts of that corporation, according to the judgment of the Crown in each particular case. Simple legislation had many advantages; he should not therefore substitute any act for that which he wished to repeal; for he thought it expedient that the Crown should have the power of exercising its discretion as to granting charters, and of modifying such charters according to the nature of the respective cases. He would now move, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to repeal part of the act of the 6th Geo. 1st, cap. 18, and to empower the Crown to grant Charters of Incorporation," Colonel Davies approved of the motion, but feared that the learned gentleman's bill might encounter opposition in another place, from a learned lord who had already expressed his opinions on this subject. He regretted that the law, as laid down by lord Ellenborough, in deciding a case on this act, had not been adhered to; because, in his opinion, that decision sufficiently explained the act of parliament, and would have rendered the proposed bill unnecessary. A learned person in another House had uttered a general exclamation against all joint-stock companies. He supposed that learned person must be completely acquainted with the laws; but if, in uttering his indiscriminate denunciation, he had spoken intelligently as a lawyer, it was palpable that he had spoken with the utmost possible ignorance, both as a statesman and a political economist. Mr. Huskisson said, that the proposition of his learned friend was one which he concurred in, because he was satisfied that the interests of commerce required the proper encouragement and protection of joint-stock companies. When the gallant member said that if lord Ellenborough's decision had not been called in question, the proposed bill would not have been necessary, he showed that by the possibility of that decision being disturbed, it was highly expedient to have the law made certain. That decision was, that all companies not prejudicial to the public interests were legal. But, where there were so many companies, was it fit that this question should be left to the consideration of the jury? Where persons had embarked large properties in a speculation, ought they not to be guaranteed by some secure provision of the law, instead of having their interests left to the eloquence of a counsel, or to the discretion of a jury? He had no reason to doubt that lord Ellenborough's interpretation of the law was correct; but the law itself was still left in a state of uncertainty, and the object of his learned friend was, to remove that uncertainty. The impulse which had recently been given to commerce, and which would in all probability be extended much further, called for some further protection than that which existed. The mere provision, that parties should sue and be sued was not enough, as the inconveniences which were every day experienced, abundantly proved. His learned friend, in bringing in this bill, had done that for which the commercial world and the whole community would be infinitely indebted to him. Parties would in future be enabled to enter into their speculations, without any other restriction than that which the Crown would exercise in pronouncing upon the utility and propriety of their designs. He trusted that the House would approve of the proposition, and he had no reason to believe that it would experience any opposition in another quarter which had been alluded to, because it was evidently calculated to do away with all the evils of the present state of things. Mr. K. Douglas was glad to see this subject engaging the attention of the House. There were several companies in Scotland, which had subsisted for many years under an impression that they were legal, and without the least notion that they were incurring the penalties of an act which had become a dead letter. In some recent cases, however, great inconvenience had been experienced by the parties, in consequence of the objections arising under this act. The Attorney-general said, that the bill he proposed to bring in, was for the repeal of the Bubble act, which applied only to England. He believed it was intended to propose measures in the other House respecting Scotland. Mr. Denman could not agree with his gallant friend, as to lord Ellenborough's decision, because it left the law just in this state the persons composing a company were liable to be indicted, and there were two points to be decided; the first by the jury, whether the object of the company was beneficial or injurious to the public; and the second what interprétation the judge might think fit to put upon the words of the act. Both these points were, in his opinion, very unfit to be left either to judge or jury. Since the passing of the act, only two cases had arisen upon it, in which the jury had found that the objects of the companies were beneficial; but it was nevertheless a subject which, in its nature, admitted of so much variety of opinion, that it was unfit to be left to the decision of a jury. The act to be repealed was a specimen of the inexpediency of occasional legislation. It was not passed until after the evils which, it pretended to remedy were over, and at the end of a century it was the cause of serious inconveniences, to obviate which another application to the legislature had become necessary. As to the power proposed to be given to the Crown to grant charters, he questioned the propriety of it. |