fendants being anxious, and very na- | to interfere on behalf of poor persons turally anxious, to secure the advocacy who have lost their money; but if we of my hon. and learned Friend the Soli- are to interfere on behalf of the poor, citor General in his capacity as a private this is not a case in which we ought to practitioner at the bar, he has, I believe, interfere. There are multitudes of cases for months past been engaged on their in the private walks of honourable comside in this case, and will be bound to merce where a man is stripped, through appear for them, notwithstanding any the delinquency of others, of every farMotion which directs that he as counsel thing he possesses, and has not the for the Crown shall assist in conducting means of invoking public justice. There this prosecution. ["Hear, hear!"] What are multitudes of other cases in which I mean is not to use any exaggeration, you have the principle of joint-stock but to convey the exact and literal liability, but the whole body of sharemeaning of the Motion. It is not possi- holders are persons of such humble ble for the Government to depart from means that they would not increase their judgment in obedience to a pre- their strength if they were to club tosumed and undefined opinion of the gether those means for the purpose of House; all they can offer is that, when vindicating their rights. But here it is that opinion is expressed, it shall be an undoubted fact that there are a taken into their most respectful consi- number of shareholders perfectly able, deration. But what is now proposed is if they think fit, to vindicate the interests that, without any judgment as to the of themselves and their fellow-sharepropriety of the prosecution, without holders. They do not choose to do it; any power of examination as to the pro- and a proposition is made that the Gobability of a sucessful issue, my hon. vernment should step into the places of and learned Friends, on the part of the those wealthy persons, and seek for Crown, shall rush into the midst, and them that redress which they are able, charge the State with the responsibility but not willing, to seek for themselves. of all that has been done and all that I wish in the most dispassionate manner remains to be done. So much with re- to join issue on the question of the gard to the probability of a favourable moral result which is to be attained by result. I now come to a third ground our undertaking-I do not say at the for exceptional interference, which is present stage of the proceeding, for that one of very great plausibility. It is said is another matter-but our undertaking that the case where interference takes at all the conduct of this prosecution. place should be one in which the parties My hon. Friend has a moral good in are poor, and destitute of means to vin- view, and wants to remove a scandal dicate their interests. But is that ap- and a disgrace. It is my opinion that plicable in the present case? The fourth in all these cases of the administration and great ground alleged is that the of justice, the same rule ought to be interference of the Crown is desirable adopted as in determining the punishbecause of the magnitude of the case. ment of crime. When we have a case What does magnitude mean? It means of enormous guilt, we do not attempt to that the scale of the transactions was proportion our punishment to the guilt; enormous, for the figures were counted what we look solely at is the effect upon almost by tens of millions; and, further, the future-it is our business to deter and it means that whilst a large portion of the repress crime. Now, what would be the suffering shareholders may be persons of effect on the future prudence and self-resmall or moderate means, a large portion straint of a generation too greedy of money of them also are persons of great and and too ready to adopt one of the most almost unlimited wealth. I do not think doubtful means of making money-that you can name a case where there has been of placing their investments in concerns imputed commercial delinquency, and a of which they know nothing at all, with body of sufferers by the delinquency, in the view of making large and easy gains, which those sufferers were so unques- of reaping the fruits of industry without tionably possessed of ample resources its toil-what would be the effect if you for the vindication of their rights. This said to all the class of persons who have is a consideration of the greatest impor- such views, "Despise the rules of prutance. The hon. Member for King's dence and duty, whereby patient toil County (Sir Patrick O'Brien) calls on us and frugal habits may see the rewards Mr. Gladstone of labour growing up around them and reap the fruits they deserve; look only to the best prospectuses and try the utmost limit of speculation without caring whether you know anything about it at all; the advertisement will stand instead of funds. Great and noble names, which Englishmen are only too fond of seeing, will stand to you instead of commercial knowledge, experience and skill; and you will have this advantage over your humble and obscure competitors in the race for wealth who carry on a regular trade that if they fail they must take the consequences, but you, if you fail, will fall with a tragic splendour; the whole nation will feel the shock, and the attention of Parliament will be roused by the magnitude of the transactions-benevolent men in the House of Commons will be excited to make Motions invoking for you the assistance of the State; and for your neglect of the rules of prudence, and your hasty and unrestrained indulgence of the pursuit of gain, you will receive the exceptional favour of the State, and the British taxpayer will be at the expense of carrying your cause to a successful conclusion?" MR. R. N. FOWLER said, he was acquainted with four of the persons to be prosecuted. One of them, long a Member for King's Lynn, was one of his oldest friends, and, having called him his friend in prosperity, he should be ashamed not to do so now, believing in his honour. However much the directors might have been mistaken, he felt sure they never intended to commit a fraud on the public, and that the result of the trial would vindicate their character. MR. MORRISON said, the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) was not responsible for the form the Motion had taken. He should vote for the Motion of the hon. Member if it went to a division, because he wished to express his censure, not only of the present Government, but of past Governments also. He had come down to vote with the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Eykyn) to which he felt impelled by a sense of duty. He must respectfully submit that the concluding remarks of the First Lord of the Treasury had very little direct bearing on the present question. The question had come round to a very small point-whether, owing to a technical rule of practice in the Queen's Bench there should be to-morrow an VOL. CXCVII. [THIRD SERIES.] absolute failure of justice? It would be very unseemly in any way to discuss the question of guilt or innocence. He most honestly inclined to believe that there was weakness rather than guilt in the directors; but, if the trial should break down in consequence of the absence of counsel, those gentlemen would have no reason to congratulate themselves on a verdict of Not proven." He believed it was not correct to say that Government had never intervened in a prosecution started by a private individual, as they had intervened in the trial of Palmer for poisoning Cooke. MR. CLAY said, he was certainly not about to prejudge the case; but he could not allow that debate to close without expressing his opinion that the course of the debate tended to show a triumph of commercial delinquency. If it should be proved that that had been done which was currently reported, he thought they could hardly share in the indignation expressed at the poor men who had been deceived. The right hon. Gentleman said if men would desert quiet and unostentatious industry-if they would seek a higher road to wealth by indolence and avarice, we could have no pity for them. ["No!"] He should be exceedingly happy to learn that he had placed a wrong interpretation on the language of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. He certainly should have expected that the indignation expressed would have been at the guilt which might be proved, although he hoped it might not be so. The folly of the poor men who had been deceived was that they believed in the word and prospectus of those whom they considered men of honour. MR. MUNTZ said, they were not there to try the directors, but to discuss whether Government ought to take up this prosecution and pay a private solicitor to carry it on. He entirely agreed with the Attorney General and the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill) that if the Government should have taken up the prosecution, they ought to have done so at the beginning. He was not prejudging the case, but, however bad the case might be, it was too late for the Government to undertake the prosecution. He must give credit to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury for the remarks he had made; for it was well known so wealthy was 2 K this concern only five years ago that few hon. Members would have declined to take shares when they stood at £12 per cent premium. Why, he himself had been ridiculed because he would have nothing to do with it. At that very time and afterwards savings' banks were failing, by which poor men lost every shilling; but who came forward to invoke a prosecution by the Government? This was a limited liability concern; but do not let them find fault with limited liability, but rather with the unlimited fools that took shares in businesses of which they knew nothing. He should not vote for the Adjournment, or for the Motion of the hon. Member for Windsor. It was no reason they should do wrong because others had neglected to do what was right. He hoped the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) would with draw his Motion. MR. FAWCETT said, as he had taken a somewhat exceptional course, perhaps the House would allow him to explain. MR. SPEAKER said, the hon. Member could only be heard if he wished to explain his grounds for desiring to withdraw his Motion. Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn," -(Mr. Fawcett,)-put, and negatived. Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." Question put and agreed to. SUPPLY considered in Committee: Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow. COVENTRY ELECTION. MR. BOUVERIE moved that the Petition of Charles Flint and others, relating to the Coventry Election Petition Inquiry, be printed with the Votes. MR. RUSSELL GURNEY said, he thought that there was no occasion to have the Petition printed with the Votes. The Petition was printed, but there were blanks for certain names which could be filled up. Motion made, and Question, "That the Petition of Charles Flint and others [presented 10th June] relating to the Coventry Election Petition Inquiry, be printed with the Votes," (Mr. Bouverie,) -put, and negatived. Mr. Muntz LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (NO. 2) BILL. On Motion of Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders under the Local Government Act (1858), relating to the Bath, Cleckheaton, Crompton, Newport (Mondistricts of Aberystwith, Ashton under Lyne, mouthshire), Reading, Southport, Stalybridge, and Weston super Mare; and for other purposes relative to the district of Gorleston and Southdown, ordered to be brought in by Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN and Mr. Secretary BRUCE. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 192.] TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE, &C. BILL. On Motion of Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, Bill to continue certain Turnpike Acts in Great Britain, to repeal certain other Turnpike Acts, and to make further provisions concerning TurnKNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN and Mr. Secretary BRUCE. pike Roads, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 191.] FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL. On Motion of Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, of Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHIBill to amend the Laws relating to the Fisheries CHESTER FORTESCUE and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND. Clause 25 (Enactments with respect | Amendment made, line 38, after to churches). ("therewith") insert ("together with any land occupied with such schoolhouse.")-(Lord Cairns.) Amendment agreed to. LORD DUNSANY said, that the clause disposed of all churches in Ireland, whether in use or ruinous. It provided, amongst other things, that "Where any church was in use at the time of the passing of this Act, and no application in respect thereof is made by the said representative body of the said church within the said prescribed period, and such church was erected at the private expense of any person, the commissioners shall, on the application of the person who erected such church, if alive, or of his representatives if he died since the year one thousand eight hundred, by order vest such church in the applicant or applicants, or in such person or persons, as he or they may direct." Now, he wished to propose, the omission of the words "if he died since the year 1800;" for he could not see why such a limitation should be imposed, or why a church built by a person who died in 1799 should be dealt with differently from one the founder of which survived a year or two longer. He thought, moreover, that the Bill contained no provision for churches in course of repair or re-construction, and he presumed that, under the 4th sub-section, the Commissioners could dispose of them as they thought fit. Amendment moved, line 28, to leave out ("if he died since the year one thousand eight hundred.")-(Lord Dunsany.) EARL GRANVILLE said, a limitation of time must necessarily be somewhat arbitrary; but he thought the date selected was a very fair arrangement, and to go much further back would lead to great difficulty in the way of ascertaining facts. He did not quite understand the noble Lord's objection to the 4th sub section. LORD DUNSANY explained that he feared the Commissioners would be unable in strict law to treat churches undergoing repair or re-construction as churches in actual use. LORD CAIRNS believed that in the original Bill the 3rd sub-section was limited to cases where persons had died within twenty years, but the extension of time to 1800 was afterwards conceded; and, unless his noble Friend had reason to think that there were some particular churches which might be unfairly dealt with, he thought the present arrangement was satisfactory. Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn. THE DUKE OF SOMERSET asked whether a provision was not necessary for applying to secular purposes consecrated buildings not claimed by the Church Body? THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, there was no difficulty on this point; the Bank of England stood on the site of a church, and a great many churches had been pulled down for the construction of railways. THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY said, that in those cases application was made to the Bishop for his consent to the removal of a church. on the Report, a provision would be inEARL NELSON said, he hoped that, serted in this clause for capitalizing the first fruits and deducting them from the commutation, to which the clergy were said to be favourable. This fund might be applied to keeping cathedrals and churches in repair. THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY said, as the Bill was originally drawn, provision was made for the repair of cathedrals, and the churches that were specified in the Bill. But that provision was agreeable to neither party in Ireland. The Protestants objected to it, because they said these edifices might be regarded in some manner as not belonging to the Protestant Church, and might be given hereafter to the Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholics objected, because they said the provision was a relic of endowment. For these reasons the Government withdrew the clause. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 26 (Enactments with respect to burial-grounds). LORD CAIRNS moved, in line 9, after ("thereto") leave out ("but not separated therefrom by any public highway"). The clause proposed that a burial-ground annexed or adjacent to a church should continue under Church management, subject to the rights of all parties; but in many cases a church had been re-built at a short distance from the burial-ground, and separated from it by a highway. The burialground ought surely to remain with the' 2 K 2 [Committee-Clause 26. EARL DE GREY said, he thought a sufficient concession had been made in allowing burial-grounds which were not separated from the church to be vested in the Church Body. Church Body, irrespective of this cir- this clause that part which lay on one cumstance. side of the path would belong to the THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY said, the church, and the other part to the Bill proposed that a burial-ground sur-guardians. rounding a church should be vested in the Church Body; but, in other cases, it was thought better for the general interests of the Irish population that the burial-ground should be separated from the control of the Church Body, and vested in the Poor Law Guardians. An Act was passed last year, of which he took charge in this House, which prevented clergymen from obstructing the interment of Roman Catholics and Dissenters; but, although this was necessary in order to prevent disturbances, such legislation was of an exceptional kind, and it would be better to place burialgrounds separated from churches under a distinct authority. THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE doubted whether the guardians would possess sufficient powers. Many burialgrounds were formerly attached to monasteries and convents, and had never been connected with churches; but though the interment of persons of all communions was allowed, disputes often arose. He knew a case where a gentleman, having one of these burial-grounds on his property, refused access to it for the interment of the member of a family with which he was on unfriendly terms; nor was this a solitary occurrence. Would the guardians, under such circumstances, have power to enforce access? LORD CAIRNS said, his objection had not been met by the reply of the noble Earl. Why should a burial-ground, accidentally separated from the church by a public highway, be handed over to guardians, not one of whom might be an attendant at the church? EARL GRANVILLE remarked, that the Board of Guardians represented rate-payers of all denominations, and that all had the right of interment. The compromise proposed by the Bill was in the interest of the Church, a claim having been made that all these burialgrounds without distinction should be handed over to the guardians. It was useless to make Amendments, to be struck out in the other House. LORD CAIRNS said, he would withdraw his Amendment, not wishing to divide on so small a point, and hoping that the Government would re-consider the question. Although the concession had not been made, he would endeavour to return good for evil by pointing out the absence of a nominative in line 18. The verbal defect pointed out by the noble and learned Lord having been supplied, LORD DUNSANY suggested that something might be done in the case of burial-grounds situated in the centre of gentlemen's parks, so as to avoid annoyances which might arise from their being vested in the Boards of Guardians. THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY said, he would consider, before the Report, whether any provision was necessary to meet the contingency. THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH said, having conferred with the noble Earl (Earl Granville), he would defer until the Report two Amendments, one vesting the custody of interesting ruins in the Board of Works, instead of in the Poor Law Guardians; and the other relating to buildings licensed for Divine service other than churches. Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn. Clause agreed to. Clause 27 (Enactments with respect to ecclesiastical residences). THE DUKE OF CLEVELAND, who had given notice of an Amendment said, : My Lords, I feel it necessary to make a short statement in limine of the course I propose to take. It has been urged upon me by one or two noble Lords on the opposite side of the House that, though I am entitled to precedence, yet, the principle of my Amendment being identical with that given notice of by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH I should waive that right in his favour, said, he hoped the Government would so far as regards the first part of the accept the Amendment. A footpath Amendment, and should subsequently often crossed a burial-ground, and under undertake the second portion of it. In Lord Cairns |