Commons Sitting of 8 June 1832

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. MAURICE O'CONNELL, an Account of the Sums paid to each Newspaper in Ireland respectively, for the insertion of Government Proclamations, for the period commencing from the date of the last Return thereupon laid before this House; and distinguishing the Amount for each Quarter.
Bills. Read a second time:—Boundaries (Scotland).—Committed:——Limitation of Actions; and Courtesy of England.
Petitions presented. By Lord KILLEEN, from five Places in Ireland, for the Abolition of Tithes; for a Repeal of the Vestries Act; and from Navan and Bective, in favour of the Reform of Parliament (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. HUGHES HUGHES, from Clapham, Battersea, Wandsworth, and Streatham, against the Labourers in Agriculture Bill.—By Captain WILLIAM GORDON, from Aberdeen; and by Mr. HOPE JOHNSTONE, from the Presbyteries of Annan and Linlithgow,—against the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland).

MINISTERIAL PLAN OF EDUCATION. (IRELAND).
Mr. Hope Johnstonepresented a Petition from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, in Council assembled, in favour of the plan of Education in Ireland. They were most anxious that the blessings of education should be extended to all classes in that country, and they hoped the proposed plan would have this effect. They trusted, however, that in any plan which might be adopted the Bible would be left perfectly open to the perusal of Protestant children. He felt it his duty to support this petition, though he was aware that the importance and weight of such a body, distinguished by as much talent and as high character

549
as any body of men in the whole world, was, in itself, sufficient to procure for this petition the attention of the House.
Sir George Warrendersaid, this petition was entitled to great attention, not only on account of the importance of the body from which it proceeded, but from the tone of conciliation and temperance of language in which it was drawn up. The same body petitioned the House in favour of Catholic Emancipation.
Mr. Cutler Fergussonsupported the petition: the body from which it proceeded was certainly most enlightened, and most deserving consideration. He coincided with them in wishing the Bible to be used in the schools entire, at certain times, but it was obvious that the Catholics would not make use of the Bible in that form. He wished for a scheme of education which would unite both classes, and therefore, should object to the use of the Bible at all times, as that would exclude the Catholics from the school.
Mr. James E. Gordonhad to apologise for the frequency with which a sense of duty had compelled him to intrude himself upon the attention of the House, on the momentous question of Irish education, but he felt it impossible to remain silent upon the present occasion. The petition at that moment under consideration was, he had no hesitation in saying, the most important which had been laid upon the Table of that House during the Session. It was, in fact, the recorded sentiment of the Church of Scotland upon the great question of Irish education. His Majesty's Government, and their scheme of education, were unquestionably entitled to the full benefit of any countenance or support which was fairly deducible from a candid construction of the language and sentiments of the petition which had just been presented; but, while he made that admission, be felt himself called upon to direct the particular attention of the House to the very peculiar circumstances which led to its adoption. He held in his hand a paper, containing what he understood to be a correct report of the proceedings of the General Assembly, from which it appeared that the Solicitor General for Scotland had acquainted the Assembly with the fact of his having received a letter from the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland, in which he (the Solicitor General), as well as several others equally entitled to the confidence of Go-
550
vernment, had been assured by that right hon. Gentleman, that a scriptural class would be established in each school, upon which the attendance of Protestants should be compulsory, while Roman Catholics were permitted to exercise their discretion upon the subject. Now, without presuming to represent the views or feelings of the General Assembly in that House, he had no hesitation in saying, and he said it upon the authority of Members of the Assembly, that they understood by the communication made to them by the Solicitor General, that a bona fide scriptural class was intended to be introduced into the body of the daily course. Did this he would ask, accord with the explanation which had been given by the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland, in answer to the question which he (Mr. Gordon) had put to that right hon. Gentleman a few nights ago? Had not the right hon. Secretary declared, that not only had no change taken place in the system, but that no change was contemplated? Had he not stated that the scriptural class was perfectly independent of, and apart from, the daily course? Was it not in the recollection of the House, that the proposed arrangement for such a class was, that it should be optional with the parties concerned, as far as related to its establishment, and that, in cases where it might be found necessary to establish such a class, it should commence half an hour before or after the regular daily course? Such a declaration was one which he (Mr. Gordon) could not reconcile with any rational construction of the communication made by the Solicitor General to the meeting of Assembly; but he had better authority than his own opinion upon this point. A most respectable Member of the Assembly, who happened to be under the gallery when the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland made his explanation, was perfectly astonished at the discovery which that explanation made of the manner in which he and others had been deceived upon the subject. So strong, indeed, was the impression produced upon that Gentleman's mind, that he had, no further back than yesterday, declared upon a public platform, that the two statements were, in his judgment, utterly irreconcileable with each other. Nay, more, he had stated his determination to use every effort to endeavour to set his reverend brethren right upon a subject on which they had been so painfully led astray.

551
The hon. member for Dumfries-shire had stated for the petitioners, that they were anxious to see the blessings of education extended to the people of Ireland, and in that anxiety he (Mr. Gordon) fully participated with them; but he wholly dissented from the opinion of the hon. Member that the petitioners were ready to concur with his Majesty's Government in the promotion of their present scheme. Most of the Members of the General Assembly had already petitioned strongly against that system, and the more they understood of its principle and effects, the greater, he was convinced, would be their opposition to its establishment. The hon. Member had expressed a hope that the Government would persevere in their intention to carry this system into effect. They might do so, but he was sure that the opponents of that system would persevere also; and, what was most encouraging in the consideration was, the persuasion in his mind that they would persevere with success. Nay, he did not believe, that it would be in the power of any Government which ever occupied the opposite benches to carry such a system into execution against the principles and feelings of the class which was opposed to it. The hon. member for Kirkcudbright had expressed his anxiety that a system of united instruction should prevail in Ireland, which would afford to both classes the benefits of a well-ordered education, and in that anxiety he (Mr. Gordon) also participated. Such a system, however, was not to be identified with that of his Majesty's Ministers. On the contrary, their system, to the extent that it had been brought into operation, had broken in upon and interrupted the harmony of a system where Roman Catholics and Protestants were unitedly engaged in learning the initiary lesson which taught the great doctrine of one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all; and, where all was unity and unanimity before, all was discord and confusion now. This was an assertion which he did not risk upon in-sufficient grounds. It was not the opinion of a hot-headed zealot, anxious to propagate and to maintain his own opinions. It was the result of evidence from which there could be no appeal. It rested upon the showing of official data in the possession of every hon. Member of that House. It rested upon the letters and figures of the Return of Applications made to the Board in Dublin, for which he had moved
552
a short time since; and when the proper time arrived, he should hold himself pledged to prove to the House and to the country, that the Government plan of education, to the extent that it had gained a footing in Ireland, was the most exclusive, the most purely Roman Catholic, the most party-spirited which the history of Irish education had ever presented.
Sir John Newportrose principally for the purpose of commenting on the speech of the hon. Member who had just addressed the House who, by turns, assumed to himself the office of interpreter both for the people and the Churches of Ireland and Scotland. He now assumed to be the authority upon whose dictum the House was to be led in reference to what was the opinion of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and that, too, in opposition to the petition from that body which had just been presented to the notice of the House. The hon. Member hid pledged himself to prove a great many things, and, amongst others, that the plan of education proposed by his Majesty's Government was purely exclusive, and Roman Catholic. He had already done everything to exasperate the feelings of the people of Ireland; and not only this, but to endanger the tranquillity of the country. He (Sir John Newport) deprecated that hon. Gentleman's assuming to himself the representation of the opinion of the people of Ireland, seeing that his knowledge of that country had been acquired chiefly by his missionary labours: and also the attempt to draw into collision the Churches of Ireland and Scotland. Respecting what the hon. Member stated, as to the opinion of the Church of Scotland, he (Sir John Newport) would only say, that, in contradiction to his assertion, the House had the petition of the General Assembly, which had been just presented by the hon. Member opposite, accompanied with observations which evinced the true spirit of concord and charity on his part; while the hon. Member who had just sat down, had done everything to disseminate the spirit of discord and mischief. He (Sir John Newport) was old enough to remember a Gentleman of the same name as the hon. member for Dundalk, who rendered himself most conspicuous by pursuing a line of conduct of the same nature, by which he nearly brought ruin upon this country. He hoped the hon. Member would not

553
be allowed to bring matters to a similar crisis. He begged pardon of the House for having trespassed thus long on their patience, but he implored them to look at the question in a fair point of view and not to excite the angry feelings of the people.
Mr. Robert A. Dundasthought the right hon. Baronet had made a very unworthy attack on his hon. friend. Every Member of that House had a right to speak his mind upon, this or any other subject. He believed the tenor of this petition was misunderstood. What the General Assembly wished to see introduced in Ireland was, a plan of education similar to that of Scotland, where Protestants and Catholics were educated together in the schools of the General Assembly, the schools being under the direction of the clergy of the Church of Scotland.
Mr. James Grattandenied, that the Protestants of Ireland were to be deprived under this system, of the use of their Bible. Nothing of the kind was ever intended or proposed. Even under the Kildare-street plan the Bible was not used in schools: the only part of the Scriptures introduced was the New Testament. This was the case in four schools that had been under his (Mr. Grattan's) direction; and the member for Dundalk knew it as well as he did.
Sir George Murraysaid, he should not enter into any discussion of the merits of the Kildare-street Society. This petition had his entire approbation. It was conceived and expressed in a tone of moderation, at the same time that it supported the great principle of Protestant education. He should be the last man to entertain feelings of hostility towards any person on account of his opinions, but he thought one great defect in this plan was the separation of moral and literary, from Scriptural education. He fully concurred in the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Newport.)
Mr. Andrew Johnstonethought the language used by the hon. Gentleman opposite was too strong, for he had, in effect, charged the Solicitor General for Scotland with having practised a deception upon the General Assembly. But, notwithstanding this assertion, it would be observed, that what had fallen from the Solicitor General was corroborated by the speech made the other night by the
554
right hon. Secretary for Ireland; at least, the statement of the learned Gentleman was explained by what occurred in that House afterwards. He submitted that it was better to postpone all further discussions on this subject until it was brought. forward regularly for consideration in voting the Estimates. In the mean time the hon. member for Dundalk might communicate with the General Assembly, and ascertain exactly what was the opinion of that body.
Petition to be printed.

DUCHY OF CORNWALL.
Colonel Evanswished to ask the noble Lord a question relative to the Leases that were granted by the Duchy of Cornwall. He knew of a gentleman whose family had held certain lands under the Duchy for more than 200 years; and now, quite unexpectedly, the Commissioners of the Duchy refused to renew his lease on the usual terms, but had demanded fines to the amount of 70,000 l., to which he must submit, or enter into a most tedious and expensive lawsuit. He (Colonel Evans) therefore, would be glad to know if the noble Lord could give him any information on the subject: and he also wished to ask, whether, in the event of this 70,000 l. being received, it was to be placed to the account of the Duchy of Cornwall, or accrue to the public, in the shape of a set off against the Civil List.
Lord Althorp: I must decline answering the question of the gallant Officer, the estates of the Duchy of Cornwall being the private property of the Crown, they not having been surrendered to the public with the other hereditary revenues of the Monarch. Under these circum stances, I think that the House has no more power to inquire into the management of the Duchy of Cornwall, than into that of the estate of any private gentleman. At the same time, I may be allowed to observe, that I have heard something about the case to which the gallant Officer has alluded, though it would be contrary to my duty to enter into any discussion of it. This, however, I must say, that in my judgment nothing has been done which a private individual would not be justified in doing.
Mr. Briscoesaid, that there certainly was an impression abroad, that the property Of the Duchy of Cornwall belonged to the public. Many constituents of his

555
were deeply interested in the question; and some of their cases, if examined, would prove to be cases of great hardship; as they had all moral justice, if not all legal equity, on their side. They had, however, taken steps for laying their cases before the Commissioners of the Duchy of Cornwall; and he hoped that they would meet with that attention which would prevent the necessity of any application to Parliament on their behalf.

DIVISION OF COUNTIES AND BOUND- ARIES BILL.
The House went into Committee on this Bill. Clauses A, B, C, D, E, and F, and Schedules L, M, N, and O were agreed to, with some verbal Amendments.
On the Question concerning the Borough of Arundel,
Lord Dudley Stuartrose to object to the arrangement which the Commissioners had made with respect to Arundel. It was firmly believed in that borough, and also in the county of Sussex generally, that the whole arrangement had been made for the purpose of placing the borough under the dictation of the Duke of Norfolk. Although he knew nothing of that noble individual beyond his general character, and could not boast the honour of more than the slightest possible acquaintance with him, yet he could not believe that he would have employed any intrigues to obtain one arrangement under this Bill rather than another, with a view to his own political interests; nor, on the other hand, could he suppose that, had such an attempt been made, it would have been suffered by Ministers to influence them in the slightest degree. But though he distinctly disclaimed all participation in this belief, the Committee would not be surprised that such an impression should be made, when he stated the facts that had given rise to it. The Commissioners, instead of adopting the obvious course of taking in the parishes immediately adjoining Arundel, only took in one of the parishes next to the borough, and then went on and took part of the parish beyond that. In this parish the town of Little Hampton was situated. The part of the parish left out did not belong to the Duke of Norfolk, it lay on the opposite side of the river from the bulk of the parish, which was, he supposed, the reason for leaving it out. It only comprehended about 120 acres, and
556
there was only one house upon it, but there might be more houses upon it; and when Tamworth, which had 325 10 l. houses, only occupied eighty-three acres, it could not be contended that it was an insignificant portion of land. He objected to the union of Little Hampton to Arundel, on the ground that, so far from being united in interest, the greatest rivalry and jealousy prevailed between them: they had natural causes of rivalry, which had hitherto always produced, and were such as to perpetuate and jealousy; and whatever of advantage accrued to the one was sure to be felt as a detriment to the other. The only reason that he had heard given for joining them was, that Little Hampton was the port of Arundel; that was a mistake, they were two separate ports. The vessels belonging to Arundel sailed up to the town of Arundel, and discharged their cargoes at the wharfs there. Little Hampton was a harbour of the port of Arundel, but that was no reason for uniting it to Arundel for the purpose of electing a Member to Parliament. If it were, Brixham ought to be joined to Dartmouth, from which it was not further than Little Hampton from Arundel. The port of Bridport, which was referred to last night, would, in like manner, be joined to the town of that name, as they were only one mile asunder; while between Little Hampton and Arundel the distance was four miles. The inhabitants of Arundel were extremely averse to the annexation of Little Hampton, and those of Little Hampton were no less reluctant to be so joined. In fact, the interests of Little Hampton were sure to be better looked after if left in the hands of the county Members, in the election of whom it had great weight. Ministers had recognized the principle, that towns entertaining feelings of rivalship and dislike towards each other ought not to be united; upon their authority, therefore, he contended, that Arundel should not have Little Hampton added to it. He contended, too, that it ought to be left without any addition, for it contained 320 10 l. tenements; the Commissioners reported only 254: but a very careful investigation had been made by a number of most respectable persons, inhabitants of the borough, and they were ready to prove, that there were 320. He called upon his Majesty's Ministers to afford them an opportunity of proving that; let them appoint persons to investigate

557
the matter—let them hear evidence at the bar of this House—let them grant Select Committee to inquire into the fact—let them, at least, some way or other give to the inhabitants of Arundel the opportunity of proving the truth of their assertions. Supposing that Arundel had only 254 10 l. tenements, still no addition ought to be made to it. So far from it being insisted on, in all cases, that every borough should have a constituency a 300 10 l. houses, there were no less than nine left with a number interior to that Maldon (with two Members) had only 260; Marlborough (with two Members), 299; Wilton, 299; Petersfield, 298; Rye 294; Northallerton, 294; Reigate, 276 Thetford (with two Members), 203; Wareham, 168. It had not been thought necessary to make such additions to times boroughs as should raise the number o their 10 l. tenements to 300; and to Thetford no addition whatever had been made, although its qualifying tenements amount only to 203. Why, then, if Thetford was thought worthy to send two Members to Parliament, with a constituency of 203, and Wareham to send one with only 168, why must Arundel have 300 in order to return one Member? Arundel possessed now a constituency of 463, and it was probable that, long before any considerable number of the scot-and-lot voters should have dropped off, the number of 10 l. voters would have increased. The place was flourishing; it had a considerable trade; it possessed a cattle and a corn market; it was a sea-port, situated on the most important river between the Thames and the Tamur; its population and its houses were increasing—and, compared in these particulars with the boroughs allowed to remain, with a constituency less than 300, the comparison would be found highly favourable to Arundel. Taking all these considerations into account, and seeing that Arundel possessed now, and was likely always to have a constituency considerably more than 300, it appeared to him that it ought to be suffered to retain its present limits without alteration. He called, therefore, upon Ministers to abandon their proposed plan a plan likely to be beneficial to no one—not to Arundel, not to Little Hampton, not to the county, which it would deprive of many votes—not to the noble individual possessing property in the neighbourhood since, however unmerited, it threw obloquy
558
upon him—not to Ministers, since it was calculated to affect them in a similar way, and even to throw discredit on the Reform bill itself. Feeling the impropriety and injustice of the plan, he would move that all the words after Arundel be left out.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the gentlemen who went to Arundel were as competent to decide upon questions of this kind as any persons in the kingdom; but it was natural enough that persons interested should complain of their recommendation to add Little Hampton to the borough, and should even cast imputation upon their motives. The noble Lord, indeed, had done himself the credit of disavowing his belief of any such imputations being well founded. The boundary having been proposed by the Commissioners, it went through the same sort of examination which all the boundaries had undergone. It did not appear that there was anything unreasonable or unfair in making these boundaries, but, since the noble Lord and the inhabitants of Arundel had remonstrated upon the subject, he had taken the opinions of persons well acquainted with the county of Sussex, and unconnected with the Duke of Norfolk, upon it; and had been told by them, that, if he wished to make a good constituency for Arundel, be could not do better than adopt the Report of the Commissioners. Generally speaking, it was the small scot-and-lot boroughs which had been most liable to those corrupt elections that had been the disgrace of this country. Without making any charge, therefore, against Arundel, it had been thought a general duty to extend the constituency beyond the borough as the means of preventing or curing such an evil. The noble Lord seemed to think that a very peculiar course had been adopted with regard to this borough. It was true that, in general, the parishes surrounding the borough had been taken; but whenever it was easy, by taking in a small town, to obtain at once a good and sufficient constituency, that natural and obvious course had been adopted. In this way Godmanchester had been added to Huntingdon; and, in some instances, additions of towns had been made to boroughs which had been larger than the boroughs themselves. The noble Lord said, that Little Hampton and Arundel were rivals; but they were not the less connected together; and as Little Hamp-

559
ton at once furnished the constituency wanted, it was taken. The noble Lord further stated, that there was a sufficient number of voters in the borough, and that no addition at all ought to be made to it; by which it appeared, that the people of Arundel were not more moved by dislike of being joined to Little Hampton, than by dislike of having the principles of the Boundary and Reform Bills carried into effect in their borough. The noble Lord said, that there were 300 voters in the borough; but there were many cases in which boroughs having more than that number of voters had been enlarged: so that, even if that number really existed in Arundel, it was not a sufficient reason to prevent this addition being made to it. But he could not think that such was the case, when he looked to the Mayor's letter, and the other documents before the House. According to the Commissioners' Report, there were only 245 houses rated at 5l. He thought, therefore, they were more likely to get a pure constituency by adopting the recommendation of the Commissioners than by acting on that of the noble Lord. It certainly would be an inconvenient course to adopt the recommendation of the noble Lord, and to say that Arundel alone, of all the boroughs of this class, should have no addition made to it. As so much complaint had been made of the four parishes adjoining to Arundel not being taken into that borough, he would move that they be added to it; and, as the noble Lord implied a sort of charge, on account of that part of the parish of Little Hampton which was beyond the river not being taken in, he had no objection that it should be combined as the noble Lord wished.
Mr. Goulburnrecommended, as the noble Lord himself (Lord John Russell) seemed not satisfied with the present arrangement, that the question should be postponed.
Lord John Russellhad no objection.
Question accordingly postponed.
The remaining Clauses of the Bill, with some verbal Amendments, agreed to. The House resumed, and the Report was brought up.
On the question that it be received, [Mr. Bucke objected to two villages being added to Exeter, that city having already a sufficient constituency.]
Lord John Russellmaintained that the
560
addition was advisable, inasmuch as there was a community of interest between the city and those parishes, and because the constituency would be rendered more independent by the addition.
Mr. Baillieobjected to the proposal in this Bill to take portions of the counties of Gloucester and Somerset, in the immediate vicinity of the city of Bristol, and to add their inhabitants to the voters for that city. Two evils would be effected by this arrangement; the first was, that the already numerous constituency of the city of Bristol would be increased by between 3,000 and 4,000 voters; and the next was, that the portions of these two counties, adjoining that city, would be rendered almost close boroughs, He supposed, however, that his objection would have as little effect as that of the hon. member for Exeter had produced; but still he felt it his duty to make it.
Report received, and to be further considered.
Lord John Russellmoved, that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Report of the Commissioners upon the limits of the borough of Arundel, and to report their opinions thereon to the House.
The Motion agreed to, and Committee appointed.

FINES AND RECOVERIES.
Mr. John Campbell moved, that the House should go into Committee upon the Bill to amend the Law relating to Fines and Recoveries.
The Solicitor Generaldid not mean to oppose the Bill, but he wished his hon. and learned friend would postpone its consideration, as it had come on rather unexpectedly, and several hon. and learned Members, who had wished to give their opinions on some of its details, were now absent.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, that the Bill had been postponed so often, that, if he wished to carry it this Session, he must refuse any further delay, and he did so: he was resolved to press it on now.
Mr. Charles W. Wynnrecommended a further postponement, because those hon. and learned Members, who were alone capable of discussing the technical details of the Bill, were now absent.
Mr. O'Connellthought there was no reason for the postponement of the Committee, for all the advantages were on one side, and there was no dread of disadvantages to balance them. The simple

561
object of the Bill was, to get rid of many useless forms, that not only occasioned expense, but endangered the holder's title to property.
The Bill went through a Committee.

DOWER. BILL.
On the Motion of Mr. John Campbell, the House went into Committee on this Bill.
Mr. Blamirewished to know, whether the hon. and learned member for Stafford intended to persevere in introducing a clause to enable a husband to take away his wife's dower by will? If so, he thought it very unjust, and he should oppose it.
Mr. John Campbellbelieved, that the Bill had been more favourable to the ladies than the hon. Member seemed to suppose, for it had given them a right of dower out of the husband's equitable, as well as out of his legal estate; and the disadvantage, if any (which he much doubted), of the other clause, was more than compensated by this benefit.
Mr. Blamirewas not at all of that opinion, and he should therefore move that the words "or by will," now forming a part of the fourth Clause, be omitted.
Mr. Goulburncomplained that the Bill would work injustice, in cases where marriages had taken place with a view to the rights secured by the existing law.
Mr. O'Connellrecommended that the law should not be made ex post facto, or apply to any woman now married.
Mr. John Campbellexpressed his willingness to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for Kerry, to make the Bill operate prospectively only.
Sir James Scarlettsuggested that it might be made to depend upon the consent of the wife.
Mr. Sheilsupported some alteration of the Clause, as it gave the husband a power to the injury of the wife.
Mr. Fysche Palmerthought that the Bill did not sufficiently protect the rights of married women. At present, a woman could not surrender her jointure to her husband without the consent of trustees; but, under this Bill, her assent alone would be necessary. A wife might be induced to sacrifice her interests, on the solicitation of a profligate husband, when trustees would interfere to protect her. So far, therefore, from being a boon to wives, he thought it placed them in a worse situation than that in which they stood under the existing law.
Sir James Scarlett, being anxious to consider more maturely the details of the measure, moved that the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Upon this motion the Committee divided—Ayes 43; Noes 18;—Majority 25.
The House resumed.