Commons Sitting of 14 March 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Lord Howick, copies of the Charter for the Improvement of the Administration of Justice in Ceylon.
Petitions presented. By Mr. TOOKE, from St. Andrew's, Holborn for the Equalization of the Land Tax By Captain GORDON, from Aberdeen, for the Reduction of the Malt Duty; and from Huntley, for the Repeal of the Soap Duty; and from Frazerburgh,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Mr. HUME, from certain Inhabitants of Edinburgh, from Spitalfields, and from the Political Union, Maidstone; by Mr. FRYER, from Bilston and Sedgeley; by Mr. THICKNESSE, from Wigan; by Mr. BROTHERTON, from Salford; by Mr. PEASE, from South Shields, and other Places; and by Sir WILLIAM Guisk, from Tewkesbury, and other Places,—against the Suppression of Disturbances (Ireland) Bill.—By Lord ARTHUR CHICHESTER, from Belfast, in favour of the Bill.—By Sir ROBERT INGLIS, from Albany, and from the Reverend J. Dennis, against the Church Reform Bill (Ireland).—By Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, from Southampton, for an Inquiry into the General Distress.—By Mr. ROBERT STRUART, from Haddington; By Lord EBRINGTON, from Culmstock; by Mr. JOHN SMITH, from Stoney Stratford;
640
by Colonel BAILIE, from Nairn; by Mr. PEASE, from Dissenters at Perth; by Sir JOHN DALRYMPLE, from Dalkeith, and from Edinburgh; by Mr. H. CURTEIS, from Hurstmonceaux and Hailsham; by Sir ANDREW ANDREW, from Rushmere and Playford,—for the Abolition of Slavery,—By Lord MILTON, from Buckland, Newton, and other Places; by Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, from Odiham and Basingtoke; by Mr. ROBERT STBCART, from Haddington; by Mr. TOOKS, from Truro; and by Captain DUNLOP, from Greenock,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath,—By Captain DUNLOP, from Kilmarnock, for the Repeal of the Corn Laws, for the Abolition of all Monopolies, and for the Abolition of Sinecures and unmerited Pensions.—By Mr. ROBERT WALLACE, from Greenock, for the Repeal of all Taxes on the Diffusion of Knowledge; and from Shipowners of Greenock, to admit Foreign Sugar to be imported for Re-fining.—By colonel CLIVE, from Hereford, for the Repeal of the House and Window Tax.—By Sir ANDREW AG-NE, from Cheltenham; and by Sir GRAY SKPWITH, from Harborough magna, against the Beer Act.—By Colonel BAILEY, from Forres; by Captain DUNIOP, from Port Glasgow; and by Mr. ROBERT WALLACE, from Soap Boilers in Greenock,—for the Repeal of the Duty on Soap. By Sir GRAY SKIPWITE, from the Political Union of Kenilworth, for the Repeal of Taxation.—By Mr. ROBERT GRANT, from Isaac Lyon Goldsmid, for the Abolition of the Disabilities of the Jews.

FACTORIES COMMISSION—PETITIONS.
Lord Ashleypresented a Petition from the Cotton Spinners of Glasgow, in favour of the Ten Hours' Labour Bill. Another, to the same effect, from the Operatives of Chorley; a third, from the Churchwardens and other Inhabitants of the Ward of Bishopsgate; and, a fourth, from Little Bolton and neighbouring places in Lancashire. The latter prayed, that the House would not grant the Commission of Inquiry upon the Factories' Bill, as such a proceeding would only tend to delay the measure. He cordially supported the prayer of all these petitions.
Mr. Stricklandwished to declare, that he also gave them his support, and that he did it with the most perfect satisfaction. He hoped the Bill would not be delayed, and it was on account of the fear of delay that he should oppose the appointment of a Commission. Such would certainly be the effect of that Commission, if it was not actually its object. He could not conceive that any person required proof of the fact, that children of a tender age were not fit to stand for fifteen hours in the day upon machinery worked by steam.
Mr. Wilson Pattenassured the House, that he did not propose the appointment of a Commission with the view of delaying the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, but in order that the subject, on which the House were about to legislate, might be better understood, and, also, for the purpose of clearing the characters of the masters from those imputations which seemed to be cast upon them by the

641
friends of this measure, but which further evidence would prove to be utterly unjustifiable.
Mr. Robinsondid not suppose the hon. Member wished to delay, unnecessarily, any measure of this sort, or that he would move for a Commission merely for the purpose of effecting that object, but there could be no doubt that, in fact, such would be the result of the appointment of a Commission. He did not know how any man, aware of the circumstances already disclosed upon the evidence, could think for a moment, that the legislation proposed ought not to be adopted. There was no charge of cruelty against the masters—the charge was against the cruelty of the system, and it was the system that the noble Lord's Bill went to remedy. He thought, that the House were bound to protect these poor children from the effects of the system, against which they could not protect themselves.
Lord Ashleywas of opinion, that the House ought not to be stopped from legislating on the subject, merely because ten or twelve gentlemen fancied themselves aggrieved by the tendency of the matter already known to the public. He knew that they had had an opportunity of considering the provisions of the Bill he had himself introduced, for he had sent 100 copies of it into the country to those most interested in the matter. The only effect of a Commission would be to delay the Bill, so that it would be lost this Session as it had been lost in the last.
Mr. Wilbrahamthought, that a Commission ought to be granted, and that it might be so managed as not to prevent the Bill passing this Session.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that the measure was one of importance, and deserved the best and earliest consideration of the House. He trusted the noble Lord would press the Bill through the House. While they were talking of Commissions the children were perishing.
Mr. O'Connellobserved, that it was a question of humanity and religion that ought not to be neglected. The objection to the present system was, that it not only destroyed the health of the children, but prevented them from having any religious education: that the only way in which they obtained that education, was by having slips of Catechism put into their sleeves when they went to work in the morning, and he regretted to add, that he
642
had been informed that they were often punished for carrying these slips with them to their work,
Mr. Warburtonthought it but fair to all parties that a Commission should be granted. Means might be taken to prevent its delaying the Bill; and of this he was sure, that the more evidence was taken, the more would the necessity for the Bill be shown.
Mr. Wynnwas in favour of the appointment of another Commission. Evidence had been heard only on one side, and it was only fair that the other should have an opportunity of rebutting the charges against them. But, as the Bill should not be delayed beyond the present Session, he thought an instruction should be given to the Commission to make all due haste.
Mr. Brothertondid not consider the manufacturers to blame. The objection was solely against the system, but neither master nor workman could do anything without the aid of the law. In accounting for the present system of overworking children, various causes had been assigned by hon. Members, By some, it was ascribed to the taxes, by others, to the inhumanity of the parents of the children; but a great proportion of the supporters of the Ten Hours' Bill attributed it to the avarice and oppression of the masters. That it was not wholly ascribable to the taxes was evident; for when the taxes were not one-fourth of their present amount, children were employed a greater length of time in cotton-mills than at present. They ought not to throw the blame entirely on the parents, for thousands, and tens of thousands, of them had petitioned Parliament to restrict the hours of labour in cotton-mills. That the masters were not all of them cruel and oppressive, he could take upon himself to assert; for when the Bill, brought into this House by the right hon. Baronet, the member for Westminster, in 1831, was under consideration, he obtained signatures of about forty of the largest proprietors of mills in Manchester and the neighbourhood, to a petition in favour of a reduction of the hours of labour. There must, then, be something in the system which neither masters nor parents nor children could resist, unless they were aided by the law. He did not blame the masters, generally—it was the system he complained of; and he could not see that any useful purpose could be

643
answered by the Commission proposed by the hon. member for Lancashire. The masters were fully heard before a Committee of the House of Commons in 1816; and again in 1818 and 1819 evidence was taken on oath before a Committee of the House of Lords, when it was proved, that children of eight and nine years of age were employed ninety-three hours a-week. He had been connected with cotton spinning forty years, and, during the last twenty years, he had assisted in obtaining every Act which had been passed for the regulation of cotton factories—being convinced that legislative interference was necessary, and consonant with justice, humanity, and sound policy He, therefore, hoped that the noble Lord would persevere with his Bill; which, he was sure, with some alterations, would be beneficial to the manufacturing population.
Lord Althorpsaid, as the sense of the House appeared to be against a Commission, he hoped the hon. Member would postpone moving for it.
Petitions laid on the Table.

LIVERPOOL ELECTION.
Lord Sandonregretted very much that he could not follow the example which had just been set him by other hon. Members, and postpone his Motion; but its nature was such that it would not admit of postponement, and it would be unnecessary for him to enter at any length into the grounds upon which he called upon the House to accede to it. His Motion was, "that the Corporation of Liverpool should have leave, by their Counsel and Agents, to examine witnesses before the Committee on election transactions at Liverpool." The purpose of this Motion was to enable the parties whose rights and privileges were involved in this investigation, to have the benefit of the skill and practical experience of Counsel in cross-examining witnesses. He could not conceive upon what grounds the Motion could be objected to; but, he might state, if there should be any objection, that the Corporation were willing that their interests in the Committee should be confided to a single Counsel.
Mr. Wasonopposed the Motion, on the ground that it would lead to great delay and increased expense, as the funds of the Corporation of Liverpool would be misapplied in the defence of the persons charged with bribery. If Counsel were admitted,
644
however, he did not see upon what principle they could limit the number. The noble Lord said, the Corporation of Liverpool would be satisfied with one Counsel; but every freeman of Liverpool might claim to be heard by his Counsel.
Mr. Nichollthought there was great reason for acceding to the Motion on this ground, that in truth and in fact there was already Counsel on the other side; so that if the House rejected the noble Lord's Motion, there would be Counsel for the prosecution and not for the defence. When he said that there was Counsel for the prosecution, what he meant was, that the hon. member for Ipswich (Mr. Wason), who was not a Member of the Committee, but who was a Barrister, sat behind the hon. member for Wilts (Mr. Benett), and suggested such questions as his legal skill and education enabled him to frame, in order to sustain the charge of bribery. This was giving an advantage to one side, which should be made up to the other by allowing Counsel. Some observations had been thrown out as to delay, but he thought the House could scarcely expect the investigation to close very soon, when he informed it that summonses were already sent out for above a hundred witnesses.
Mr. O'Connellthought the appointment of nominees was for the express purpose of excluding Counsel; and when the accused had a Gentleman of such ability as the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Nicholl) for their nominee, it was quite certain that their interests would not suffer from the absence of Counsel. For his own part he would never throw the shield of his humble abilities over corruption. The delay which would be produced by permitting Counsel to exercise their ingenuity in cross-examination would be ruinous to those who had only justice in view. In giving nominees every thing necessary for justice was done, and he therefore trusted that the House would not accede to the Motion.
Mr. Wynnthought it was a great mistake to conclude, that, because there were nominees there should be no Counsel. The nominees could not, and ought not, to act as Counsel; for, when placed on the Committee, they were judges, and were bound to act in that character. The hon. and learned Member who spoke last, said they ought not to throw their shield over corruption. Now he (Mr. Wynn)

645
had always understood that the grosser the charge was against any individual, or any body of men, the greater reason there was to afford every facility for defence. Though he was assured of the delinquency of the accused, he should say that they were entitled to be heard in their defence, He had never known an instance in which parties accused of corruption had been refused the assistance of Counsel by that House, and he should regret to find the House adopting such a course.
Colonel Williamsthought there could be no necessity for the ingenuity of lawyers in this case, the delinquency of the accused was so flagrant.
Mr. Benettthought Counsel unnecessary, as nominees had been appointed. Admitting Counsel to cross-examine witnesses would produce expense and delay, and probably throw the ulterior measures which might be necessary over to another Session of Parliament. He had already devoted himself for three years to the investigation of this question, and he must oppose every proceeding which he thought would lead to unnecessary delay.
Sir Matthew White Ridleysaid it was quite obvious, that some how or other a considerable degree of party spirit had found its way into this Committee more than was usually to be found in Committees in that House. With great respect for the Members of the Committee, he was bound to say, too, that the choice had fallen, by mere accident, no doubt, on very young and inexperienced Members of that House. This being the case, he thought" it desirable that they should be assisted by the knowledge and experience of Counsel; and if the noble Lord (Lord Sandon) called for a division on this Motion, it should have his support.
Mr. Harveysaid, that it would greatly expedite the inquiry, if Counsel were allowed, as their habits of examining evidence would enable them, to despatch ten witnesses, whilst the ordinary mode of examination by a Committee would enable it to hear only one. He therefore felt it right to sanction the Motion of the noble Lord.
Lord Althorpdoubted very much, if Counsel were allowed, whether it would not be for their interest to delay the proceedings before the Committee, and thus protract the inquiry to an unnecessary length. If, however, any regulation could be adopted, by which unnecessary delay
646
in the proceedings could be avoided, he felt no objection to the Motion of the noble Lord, as he was of opinion the legal habits of Counsel would be of great advantage towards the attainment of the objects proposed by the Committee.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, that he was glad to hear what had fallen from the noble Lord in favour of Counsel being allowed; because he could with great sincerity avow it to be his opinion, that, instead of delaying the inquiry, the aid of Counsel would operate by way of despatch. It ought, however, to be a regulation of the Committee, that no speeches should be allowed, but that the Counsel should simply direct their attention to the examination of witnesses.
An Hon. Membersaid, that he objected to the appointment of Counsel, because he never saw a lawyer enter into any business which he abridged; and as he was one of the Committee, he could not but observe that, in justice to them all, it was but fair for the House to order the Ballot to be gone over again, upon this new understanding.
Motion agreed to, and Petitioners ordered to be heard by Counsel,

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS.
Lord Althorpmoved the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Church Reform Bill (Ireland).
Mr. O'Connellbegged to ask the noble Lord whether some time could not be set apart for the reception of petitions against the Irish Coercion Bill, before it proceeded any further in Committee? He understood there were a vast number of petitions yet to be presented against that Bill.
Lord Althorpthought the request of the hon. and learned Gentleman was not quite reasonable. Nine hours in the week were already devoted exclusively to receiving petitions, which would be ample for the purpose, if Gentlemen would not make such long speeches whenever they presented a petition.
Lord John Russellsuggested, that when there were a number of petitions on one subject, and with the same prayer, they might all be brought up together, and only one question be put on them, namely that they be laid upon the Table.
Mr. Cobbettapproved of that provided the petitions were read at length and printed.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that in presenting

647
petitions, as little time as possible should be uselessly consumed, for the time of the House was the time of the public. With respect to the sittings at twelve o'clock, they did not seem to have much advanced public business. Besides other objections, they were open to a very material one; namely, that reports of those sittings went abroad, the incorrectness of which, when they happened to be so, could not be contradicted without the loss of a day.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, perhaps the noble Lord would consent that petitions against the Irish Bill should be presented at a late hour on that evening.
Lord Althorphad no objection to that proposition.
The subject was dropped.

CHURCH REFORM (IRELAND).
The Question put that the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of Church Reform Bill (Ireland) be now read.
Mr. Wynnsaid, before the House entered into any discussion upon the Bill itself, he was anxious to state the reasons which induced him to think that the Ministers had adopted an irregular course of proceeding-, in their mode of introducing it. When this Bill was first introduced into Parliament, it was doubted whether, as it related to a great change in the religions establishment of the Church of Ireland, it ought not to have originated in a Committee of the whole House. By this Bill it was proposed, to put an end to nearly one half of the bishoprics of Ireland, and to suspend all appointments to certain benefices in that country. Whether an alteration of so great an extent, did not bring this Bill within the standing order of the House on matters of religion, he would not then stay to examine; he would only say, that in his opinion. Ministers would have acted more prudently, had they conformed to the usual practice in cases of this sort, instead of originating a new precedent upon it. They had however transgressed another rule of ancient standing of still more importance, by which it was provided, that no bill imposing a tax upon the community, should originate, except in a Committee of the whole House. On the 18th of February, 1667, the House resolved, and the resolution had since become a standing order,—"That if any motion be made in the House for any public aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate
648
thereof ought not presently to be acted upon, but adjourned till such further day as the House shall think fit to appoint, and then it ought to be referred to a Committee of the whole House, and their opinions to be reported thereupon, before any resolution or vote of the House do pass thereon." Now, if a tax varying from 5l. to 15 l. percent could be laid upon Church property without originating the Bill imposing it in a Committee of the whole House, what was to prevent a similar tax from being laid without similar formalities upon any other species of property? The principle upon which our ancestors had adopted this form of proceeding was, that when money was to be raised from the people, the proposition should have the fullest and most frequent discussion; and the House of Commons, acting upon that principle, resolved on the 11th of March, 1716, "That no Bill be ordered to be brought in for any work proposed to be carried on by tolls or duties to be levied on the subject in particular places, till such petition has been referred to a Committee, and they have examined the matter thereof, and reported the same to the House." Mr. Hatsell, in noticing that resolution, says, that on the 28th of February, 1734, it was declared to be a standing order of the House, and the conclusion to which he came was this—that "in every mode in which any pecuniary burthen can be imposed upon the people, whether for public or private purposes; whether in consequence of a requisition from the Crown, or on the application of individuals for a particular purpose; whether in the form of tolls and duties, or as a pecuniary penalty; in all these cases, the orders and practice of the House of Commons require that there shall be a more frequent, and, being in a Committee, consequently a more free discussion, than other propositions are entitled to, in which the levying money on the subject is not included. And the time at which this discussion shall be had is determined by the nature of the proposition, whether previously in a Committee of the whole House, or whether in a Committee on the Bill; or, if the proposition is made upon the Report, or on the Third Reading of the Bill, in a Committee of the whole House upon the clause by which the sum is to be imposed." If any man took up this Bill, and only read the marginal notes of it, he would find that

649
the preamble began with these words:—" Whereas it is expedient to make provision for the abolition of first fruits in Ireland, and the substitution of an annual tax in lieu thereof." If he went from the first page to the last, he would there find schedule A "containing the yearly tax to be imposed upon all benefices, dignities, and other spiritual promotions under the rank of bishoprics." This and other taxes mentioned in the Bill, were to be paid to ecclesiastical commissioners to be appointed by the Lord High Chancellor of Ireland; and after many enactments, with which it was unnecessary at that time to trouble the House, were to be applied to such purposes as Parliament might afterwards direct. Those purposes, he understood, were the repair of churches, the salary of parish clerks, &c. These burthens, which now fell upon the landed proprietors of Ireland, were in future to be thrown upon the clergy, and were therefore, pro tanto, a tax upon the clergy. Looking to the whole subject, it would, in his opinion, be most dangerous to depart from the old rule by which the House had been hitherto guided, and which had by many years' experience, been proved to be an excellent protection for the subject.
Lord Althorpsaid, that on a question of this nature, which came upon him also by surprise, he felt great unwillingness to state his own opinion. It did, however, appear to him that the rule which had been referred to always applied to cases where the tax was clearly laid on the subject for the public service generally. A bill had been passed something in the nature of the present, by which incumbents were compelled to pay larger sums to their curates. The money clauses of that Bill were not referred to a Committee of the whole House, and he never heard any complaint made on that account. It was most important, certainly, that they should not interfere with any regulation of Parliament having, for its object, the protection of the subject; but he did not think that the present was one of the cases which came within the rule. The word "tax," it was true was made use of in the preamble of the Bill; the tax there spoken of was not, however, for the general benefit of the State, it was entirely applicable to a particular purpose. The tax so mentioned, was specifically for "the building, rebuilding, and repairing of churches, and
650
other such like ecclesiastical purposes, and to the augmentation of small livings," &c. Everything contemplated by the Bill, even to the increase of the salary of a parish clerk, was absolutely exclusively for a Church purpose. On the best consideration that he could give to the subject, he thought that this could not be considered as a general tax. Having heard the statement of his right hon. friend, and knowing what Ministers propose by this measure, he could not consider the present as a tax-bill, in the ordinary meaning of the word; and, therefore, he thought that it did not come within the rule of his right hon. friend. If he conceived the objection to be well founded, he certainly would not persevere with the measure. He did not, however, think that it was so; and it appeared to him that it would create unnecessary delay, if they were to call for a Committee of the whole House, in which a resolution on this subject should be proposed. The Bill might be read a second time, and the money clauses could then, if it were considered necessary, be referred to a Committee of the House, and a report received before it went into the ordinary Committee. Whether the Report of such a Committee would answer in that case—supposing the objection of his right hon. friend to be well-founded—was worthy of consideration, but it certainly did not appear to him that this was a tax-bill coming under the rule that had been quoted.
Sir Robert Peelnever felt more perfectly satisfied of the validity of any objection, than he did at the present moment, of the validity of the objection which had been taken by his right hon. friend; and, although the expression might be a bold one, he felt certain that he could convince the noble Lord of the actual necessity, conformably with the rules of the House, of not proceeding without previously discussing the clauses referred to, in a Committee of the whole House. The noble Lord had stated very fairly, that the authority of his right hon. friend had great weight, but that he was not prepared to accede to it; and the two main grounds upon which he founded his objection were these—first, that it was not a general tax on all his Majesty's subjects, that it was a tax on the clergy, and that the purposes to which it is to be applied, were local rather than general.
Lord Althorphad said, that a certain

651
portion of the monies derivable from this Bill would be applied to the purposes of the Church, such as building, repairs, &c.; therefore, what he meant to express was, that the Bill imposed a burthen only on a certain class, and not on all; that its object was specific, not general.
Sir Robert Peelwas only stating the case with greater limitations than the noble Lord. In the first place, the noble Lord stated that it was a tax for the Church, and not for a general public concern; and, second, that the House might proceed to the second reading of the Bill, and before going into Committee upon it, that we might refer the money clauses to a Committee of the whole House. According to the practice of the House, the Bill ought not to proceed to a second reading without those clauses being submitted to the preliminary ordeal of a Committee of the whole House, by whom they would be affirmed, modified, or rejected. On the 29th of March, 1707, it was resolved—' That this House will not proceed on any petition, motion, or bill, for granting any money, or releasing, or compounding, any sum of money owing to the Crown, but after examination by a Committee of the whole House, and the same is declared to be a Standing Order of the House.' On the 27th of June, 1735, a bill was introduced for establishing a police force in Westminster, which was found to contain clauses for a stamp duty, and other taxes. No motion having been made to submit it to a Committee of the whole House, it was thought advisable the next day, said Mr. Hatsell, to withdraw that Bill, and to proceed in the regular course. That was merely a local tax, providing for the police of the city of Westminster, and because there was not a preliminary Committee of the whole House, the Bill was withdrawn. Was not that a strong case? In that instance it was a local tax which was proposed for a local object; and yet the neglect of the preliminary proceeding caused the withdrawal of the Bill. Mr. Hatsell said, upon that principle the House laid it down for a rule as long ago as the year 1667—' That no motion or proposition for an aid or charge upon the people should be "presently" entered upon; that by this means, due and sufficient notice of the subject should be given; and that the Members should not be surprised into a vote, but might come pre-
652
pared to suggest every argument which the importance of the question may demand. And, (continued Mr. Hatsell)—That such propositions shall receive their first discussion in a Committee of the whole House (not, be it observed, after the first and second reading, as the noble Lord proposed), is no less wise and prudent. There every Member may speak as often as he finds it necessary, and is not confined in delivering those rules which when speaking in the House, and which, in matters of account and computation, would be extremely inconvenient, and would necessarily deprive the House of much real and useful information.' He could quote several other cases where a Committee of the whole House was required, though the object was a mere special one. In 1825, a case occurred on the petition of a Mr. Campbell, who prayed for compensation on account of losses sustained by riots at Glasgow. This related to an individual, and yet the case was reported on by a Committee of Ways and Means. In 1831, a bill which brought in by the noble Lord himself for regulating the Game-laws, and a duty of 2l. was imposed on granting licences. Was that Bill brought in with the clause in it proposing a tax of 2l.? No; the Bill was brought in with only a reference to the clauses which imposed the duties. There was this note affixed to them, and printed in Italics—" these clauses to be introduced in the Committee." These were all instances of local taxes, to be applied to local objects. Now, what were the objects of the present Bill? One of the objects was the building of churches through-out Ireland. Could there be any object more general than the building of churches throughout all that part of the empire? He would assert, that this tax had a reference generally to the people; and if that resolution of the House of Commons which he had read, and which declared that no tax should be proceeded in but through the intervention of a Committee of the whole House, were not considered a dead letter, then there could not be a doubt raised, but that, before they proceeded with this Bill, a Committee of the whole House should come to a resolution as to the money clauses. He conceived that the noble Lord must see the necessity of consenting to his proposition, and of introducing those clauses to the House

653
between the first and second reading of the Bill. There was at least, so much doubt on the subject as called for serious consideration.
Mr. Stanleysaid, the right hon. Baronet had, on a former night, suggested a similar course to that he had now recommended. He (Mr. Stanley) had not such a great knowledge of the rules and orders of the House as the right hon. Members who had recently spoken possessed, and he had not looked into precedents as they had done; it struck him, however, that the whole of the argument turned on the fact, whether the general interest, or a local interest only was affected by this measure. The right hon. Baronet had quoted a resolution of the 29th of March, 1707, providing, that "The House would not proceed on any petition, motion, or bill, for granting any money, or releasing or compounding any sum of money owing to the Crown, but in a Committee of the whole House." Now, he read that resolution, and the practice of the House, as arising from a constitutional jealousy of the power of the Crown. It had reference to money advanced by that House to the Crown. He would not attempt to follow the right hon. Gentleman opposite into the precedents which he had quoted, but there was a case to which he would call the attention of the House, because it appeared to him to go on all-fours with the present—he alluded to the Bill for the regulation of the salaries of curates. By that Bill certain reductions were made in the salaries of incumbents, in order to enlarge the incomes of a portion of the clergy who were inadequately provided for. That Bill was not submitted, in the way proposed, to a Committee of the whole House, nor did it originate in that House at all, but in the House of Lords. That Bill consolidated the law for enforcing persons not residing on their benefices to support and maintain stipendiary curates in England and Wales. [Sir Robert Peel: The Bill did not originate in the Lords.] It seemed that he was mistaken in stating that the Bill had originated in the Lords. It might be so; but certainly it had not been referred to a preliminary Committee of the whole House. What, then, did the Bill to which he referred do? It provided for the augmentation of small livings—the building of glebe-houses—the repair of churches, and, in short, everything almost that was contemplated by the present Bill.
654
Substitute Commissioners for diocesan, and the two measures were precisely the same. There was absolutely in the Bill to which he alluded a graduated scale of taxation; for if the living produced so much, the curate was to be paid in proportion. Was not that as much for the benefit of the curate as any provision in the present Bill for improving small livings. There was nothing connected with this measure to call forth that constitutional jealousy which was properly entertained when money was to be granted to the Crown. In both the cases which he had mentioned, the measure was restricted to Church purposes and to Church purposes only. If it was competent in the House (and it was competent, for the House had done so) to pass the Curates' Bill, and thus to tax (and he used the word purposely) a portion of the clergy, without the preliminary form of a Committee of the whole House he thought he might fairly say, that, according to the common sense of the matter, they ought in the present instance, to be guided by the same principle.
Mr. Goulburnwas of opinion, that great advantage would accrue by affording time for deliberation on a point which appeared to him, if the objection of his right hon. friend were well founded, to be one of very great importance. If this were a tax on the people, it was important to prevent the House from levying it without adopting those safeguards which were hitherto deemed indispensable. If there were only a doubt on the subject, it was of importance to give it due consideration, and thus to avoid the evil consequences that might arise from a wrong and hasty decision. The right hon. Secretary had not proved the least analogy between the Curates' Bill and the Bill then before the House. The Curates' Bill was in the nature of a penalty on those individuals who forbore to do that which the law called on them to do. In that case, it was a penalty on the non-residence of the incumbent, who was liable to the payment of the several penalties which the Act stated, but which did not touch the resident clergyman. But how stood the case in the present instance? There was no possibility for any clergyman, resident or non-resident, to escape from the tax. The Bill imposed upon every clergyman in Ireland a tax, varying from five to fifteen per cent. It was a tax levied by that House, paid to the Commissioners of the Crown, and applied to a

655
public object—the building and repairing of Churches.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, the question was, whether this were a bill for imposing a tax on the people, or for granting a revenue to the Crown? If it were either one or the other, then it would be necessary to submit it to a Committee of the whole House; but if it were merely a measure for regulating the property of the Church, for the benefit of the Church, then he conceived that such a proceeding was not called for. In that case he did not think there would be any violation of the orders of the House if they went on with the second reading. The right hon. Baronet had quoted the case of the Westminster Police Bill; but it was mixed up with a provision for a stamp duty, and he knew of no such duty that was not levied for the Crown. The case was not, therefore, in point. The right hon. Baronet had also adverted to the Glasgow case, but about it no question had arisen, and, therefore, he thought it carried little weight with it. The proceedings of the Committee of Supply and of Ways and Means with respect to Mr. Campbell's claim, were of so different a nature from the present measure that the Glasgow case did not apply to it. With respect to the Curates' Bill, he contended that it was a tax on every incumbent in England, according to the annual amount of his living. If it were 1,000 l. a-year, the incumbent was obliged to pay a certain sum to his curate; if it were less, he paid less in proportion. Now, he would ask, was not that a tax? The provision was substantially the same as that of the present Bill; and as in that case, no Committee of the whole House was called for, he conceived that they might safely proceed with the second reading of the present Bill.
Mr. Shawsaid, he thought he could at once meet the Solicitor General upon the ground that he had taken to defend the propriety of the present mode of proceeding. The Solicitor General said, it was imposing no tax upon the people. Now, as to its being a tax, what were the words of the 14th section? That the Commissioners should make a valuation of all livings, and "levy thereout, from and after the commencement of this Act, for ever, a yearly tax." Then surely the hon. and learned Gentleman would not deny, that the clergy of the Established Church were a portion of the people not disentitled to that
656
protection in having imposts laid upon them, which that House extended to every class of the King's subjects—and indeed possessing the peculiar claim of being the most defenceless—the most unrepresented, and so far as the particular clergy (those of Ireland) to which that Bill applied, were concerned, the most oppressed body in the community. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley) contended, that the principle on which the cases quoted by the two right hon. Gentlemen went, was a jealousy of the power of the Crown; but, by reference to the Debates which occurred at the time of the passing of the resolution of 1667, as well as by the able current authorities since, it would appear that the true principle of the rule was, "that the charge may be made as light as possible upon the people." A case of a Turnpike Road Bill occurred in 1770, which was held an irregular proceeding, because a pecuniary penalty was laid on, with the Speaker in the Chair; and in a tobacco case in 1789, it was laid down as a rule "that whether it was a pecuniary penalty or a rent, or by whatsoever name it could be called, it certainly was raising a sum of money upon the subject, and therefore ought not to be determined upon by the House, while the Speaker was in the Chair, but ought to undergo the previous deliberation of a Committee;"—and Mr. Hatsell states in his observations on the subject—" that this resolution of 18th November, 1667, has been, particularly of late years, very strictly adhered to; and it appears to be one of those rules, which as it has its foundation in prudence, and an attention to the ease of the people, ought to be in all cases inviolably observed." Then the right hon. Secretary, and the Solicitor General compared this case to the Curates' Bill, and said it was only regulating the property of the Church within itself. That certainly was the case with the Curates' Bill, and then they only regulated the mode by which the incumbent should pay the charge to which he had been previously liable in law; but the present Bill proposed to tax the income of the clergy from 5l. to 15 l. per cent—with a payment to which the parish at large was legally subject; and not to speak of the hardship and injustice of that partial income tax, surely it could not, at all events, be denied to be a tax, and the clergy were at least entitled to the ordinary protection which the forms of the

657
House gave a every case where a tax was to be levied upon any portion of the people.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, they had much business to do, and they ought to put an end to this discussion. It was most clear to him that this was a tax. That was his opinion. In the preamble of the Act this was called neither more nor less than an annual tax. He never felt himself abashed in performing a public duty; but if ever there was a case where he regretted to do his duty it was the present. He did not want to postpone this Bill, but he wanted to know how this blunder had been committed. It was set forth in the Bill, that first fruits in Ireland should be repealed, and that there should be "the substitution of an annual tax in lieu thereof." This stared them in the face in the very first line; and when that was so, how could they go on with the second reading of this Bill without first submitting it to a Committee of the whole House? How did they happen to overlook such a circumstance as this? What, he asked, was this but an annual tax? Here was a certain portion of the property of a certain class of the King's subjects which was to be taken every year, and at all events. Now, if that was not a tax, he really did not know what a tax was. What could Gentlemen opposite call it but a tax, which they had called it in the Bill? With respect to the Curates' Bill, it was a very different matter. The Act of Parliament said, if the curate be not paid so much, the incumbent shall be compelled to make it up. This was not a tax, but it was a penalty for not performing a duty. What, he asked, would future Parliaments say, if, after debate and deliberation in that House, it should be determined that this was not a tax? Why, they might carry the precedent to the most alarming extent. In his opinion the Bill ought not to proceed now, because the proposition was a plain and a clear one. He, therefore, could not vote against the Gentlemen who cheered him, without violating that which he would never violate—a great constitutional principle.
Mr. Prymesaid, there were several descriptions of bills connected with money which did not originate in a Committee of the whole House. A turnpike bill or a drainage bill was a tax bill, yet it was never known that such measures originated in a Committee of the whole House.
Lord John Russellsaid, that Gentle-
658
men wished them to settle the question at once, because the word "tax" was found in the Bill; but that circumstance would not decide the question, which was, whether the word bore the ordinary meaning of that term? The right hon. Gentleman opposite had argued against the second reading, and founded his argument upon the authority of Hatsell as well as his own; and he was ready to admit, that the right hon. Gentleman was as well acquainted with the Orders of the House as any individual that ever rose to speak on the subject. Hatsell, it appeared, was in favour of a Committee of the whole House, even when a bill was introduced for local purposes. But, he would ask, had such a principle as that been acted on of late years, or not? The Stipendiary Curates' Bill bore strongly on the question. It was argued, that that bill was in the nature of a penalty. But as it gave the Bishop power to permit an incumbent not to reside on his benefice, provided he paid so much annually, then it appeared to him to partake rather of the nature of a tax than of a penalty. There were certain Acts, the effect of which was, to raise money on the people, and yet those who brought them in never thought of referring the subject to a Committee before those measures were introduced. There was, for instance, a bill for the establishment of a police in the metropolis, and, in order to carry the plan into effect, a charge of 8d. in the pound on the Poor-rates was enacted by Parliament. That was done without any intervention of a Committee of the whole House. Again, there was the Vestry Act of Ireland, which provided for levying money on the whole people, and yet it had never been proposed to refer that bill to a Committee. The right hon. member for Montgomeryshire proposed to have a Committee of the whole House upon this subject, and, according to his plan, they might vote a Resolution authorizing this tax, as it was called, of five or fifteen per cent on the clergy. But where was the necessity for this when the measure was local, and when the money levied would be applied for the benefit of the Church of Ireland, the source from which it was taken? He knew nothing similar to this case in the whole course of parliamentary proceedings. It was very important, and he should be glad to hear further discussion on the question; but, above all, he should be gratified by

659
receiving the benefit of the knowledge and experience of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, that tills Bill most decidedly imposed a tax on the Irish clergy. He relied on that word, and he would force it into discussion. He saw clearly that it was a tax on one part of the community; and he contended, that no portion of the King's subjects should be deprived of the benefit of any of the forms of that House.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that this was a case of great difficulty, and he did not underrate it when he declared, that it was well worthy the attention of the House. He wished to adhere to the utmost extent to the ancient and well-known usages of Parliament. He should rather be inclined to put up with any partial inconvenience than to break through the rules and orders which Parliament had long established. He would state the case as he understood it, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair would favour the House with his opinion, because, he believed, the House relied on his knowledge of the subject, and not only on his knowledge of the orders and usages of the House, but on his well-known and often manifested impartiality. The House, he was sure, would be entirely satisfied, and the minds of Gentlemen would be set at rest, when he gave his solemn and deliberate judgment. An Order on their Journals directed that where taxes were to be granted to the Crown a Committee of the whole House should be appointed to inquire into the subject. This was done with a twofold view—for the protection of the people, and to avoid, if possible, any jealousy of the Crown. If he was to construe the Order strictly, nothing but taxes to be raised for the Crown was contemplated by it. If he looked to the letter of the Order it related only to taxes imposed on the people that would ultimately be placed at the disposition of the King. When he considered the precedents cited by the right hon. Secretary, they left him in a state of doubt. One of the precedents was that of Westminster. In that case certain stamp duties were included in the bill. Now, as he had not learned whether those stamp duties were independent of the Crown—and, he confessed, he knew no instance where such duties were not for the Crown—then he scarce knew how to decide as to the weight of the pre-
660
cedent. If, however, the duties were apart from the Crown, then he feared that little reliance could be placed on the precedent. The precedent of Glasgow did not appear to him to be a satisfactory one. The question really was, whether the money to be raised under this Bill was or was not to be placed at the disposal of the Crown? Might they tax the clergy inter se, or amongst themselves, for purposes connected with the Church? Could they, or could they not, do that, without first coming to a Committee of the whole House? There was nothing in that Order which proved to him the necessity of going into a Committee of the whole House upon such an occasion. He was of opinion, that the present Bill did bear a strong analogy to the Curates' Bill, which was not considered by a Committee of the whole House. By that bill it appeared, that in all cases where the curate was directed to reside in the parsonage-house, which, under certain circumstances, he was obliged to do, he became liable to the payment of all those King's and other taxes, which the incumbent, had he been resident, would have been accountable for. Now, if this was not to impose taxes on the curate under the bill to which he alluded, he was at a loss to conceive what did constitute the imposition of taxes. Yet that Bill was not considered by a Committee of the whole House. The hon. Member concluded by appealing to the Speaker for his opinion on the subject.
The Speakersaid, that, having been called upon by the hon. and learned Member to state to the House what were his views upon the point now before it, he begged to say, that while he was ready to admit, with all those hon. Members who had spoken upon the subject, that it was one beset with difficulties, it appeared to him that those difficulties arose out of the meaning, intent, purport, object, and character of the Bill, rather than out of the interpretation to be put upon the rules and forms of that House, with regard to which there could be little or no difference. He took it, that the question now before the House was, whether one of the objects of this Bill was the imposition of a tax, or not; and, in order to ascertain that point, it was necessary that they should come to a clear understanding as to what the meaning of a tax was. Now, as he took it, according to the

661
Standing Orders of the House, any imposition upon the subjects of the Crown, either for public purposes generally, or for purposes entirely separate and distinct from the interests of those individuals upon whom the said imposition was to be levied, was to be considered as a tax. In considering this question there was a point which he thought had been overlooked by the House, and which materially affected the subject matter at issue, and that was, whether a certain surplus of money, which would arise out of the operation of this Bill, was not to be applied to purposes to which it had not hitherto been applied—to public purposes, and whether a burthen would not be imposed by the Bill to be paid by the clergy which hitherto had not usually been borne by them. That was a point which materially affected the question, as to whether this Bill should or should not emanate from a Committee of the whole House. It would be seen that he alluded to the part of the Bill relating to the Church-cess, and that part of it, he conceived, ought to occupy a prominent position in the consideration of this question. As to his giving an opinion himself upon the question, whether the purposes for which the Bill was intended came within the meaning of a tax or not, he was satisfied that the House would not expect him to give any such opinion, and he was quite sure that it would not be decent for him, if he had formed any opinion on the subject, to obtrude it on the House. He had merely felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to the question which was before it—namely, whether the purposes for which this Bill was intended, came within the meaning of a tax or not; that was to say, whether the object of it was to raise money upon the subjects of the Crown for general purposes, or to raise money upon a particular description of the subjects of the Crown, to be devoted to purposes with which the interests of those subjects were not connected.
Mr. Humesaid, that he certainly could not look upon the imposition proposed to be made by this Bill in any other light than that of a new tax, like the tax upon pensions, or any other tax; and he had, therefore, no hesitation in saying, that such an imposition ought to originate in a Resolution of a Committee of the whole House. He repeated, that he considered the tax proposed to be imposed by this
662
Bill as direct a tax as the tax upon pensions, soap, &c., and that it ought, therefore, to originate in a Resolution of a Committee of the whole House. He would, however, suggest to the noble Lord, whether this course might not be pursued, at it was a course often adopted with respect to bills containing money clauses—namely, to read the Bill a second time, and then that the House should go into a Committee of the whole House, for the purpose of deciding as to the imposition of a certain tax, which, if adopted, might be afterwards incorporated in the Bill. That was a course, as, he thought, strictly in accordance with the forms and proceedings of the House in reference to other bills with money clauses, which bills it was usual to read a second time; then for the House, in Committee to decide whether a certain tax should be imposed, and then to incorporate it in the body of the Bill. If that course could not be followed on this occasion, there was no other way of proceeding with this Bill, for it most assuredly went to impose a new tax, the imposition of which could alone originate with a Committee of the whole House.
Lord Althorpsaid, that after the discussion which had taken place, he would if the House agreed to it, be ready to postpone the second reading of this Bill to a future day. The question having been raised as to whether this Bill did not impose a tax, and whether, therefore, it should not originate with a Committee of the whole House, he should be extremely sorry that such an important constitutional question should be determined without the fullest and most deliberate consideration, and, whatever might be his own opinion on the subject, after so much doubt had been thrown upon it, he should be sorry to call upon the House to come to a decision upon the point at once. He was therefore ready to defer the Order of the Day for the second reading of this Bill until some day next week, in order that the House might in the meanwhile have time to consider the question that had been raised.
The Order of the Day read and discharged.
On the Question that the Bill be read a second time on Monday,
Lord John Russelltook that opportunity to controvert the opinion of the hon. member for Middlesex as to bills with money clauses being read a second time,

663
and then the clauses in question being carried in a Committee of the whole House and incorporated with the bills. There was always a resolution of a Committee of the whole House in the first instance, and then there was a resolution passed for bringing in a bill founded upon the foregoing resolution.
Mr. Humerepeated that where the money clauses did not constitute the essence of the Bill, the course he had referred to was the one usually pursued.
The Speakersaid, that the only question was, whether the part of the Bill in question did not constitute the essence of it. It was quite true that Bills were often read a second time, and then that money clauses, such as clauses granting salaries, were afterwards passed by a resolution of a Committee of the whole House, and incorporated in such Bills; but that was in the case where it was not the sole intention and object of the Bill to grant salaries, but where such salaries were granted in aid of the objects of the Bill. Here, however, the question was, whether, from the beginning to the end of it, the whole object of the Bill was not the imposition of a tax.
Mr. Humethought that the first principle put forth in the preamble of the Bill, and to which all the other principles in it were subordinate, regarded the reduction in the number of the Bishops in Ireland. He considered that to be the first and most important object of the Bill. He looked upon the principle of the Bill to be the reform of the Church of Ireland, beginning with a reduction of the number of Bishops there; and he regarded the part that related to Church cess as only incidental to the main object of the Bill.
The Speakerobserved, that the principle to which the hon. Member had alluded had not the precedence in the preamble of the Bill. The preamble in the first instance stated, that "whereas it was expedient to make provision for the abolition of first fruits in Ireland, and the substitution of an annual tax in lieu thereof." Its second object was announced in the following words: "That it was expedient that compulsory assessments by exclusive vestries should be abolished." And then came its third object, "That the number of Bishops in Ireland might be conveniently diminished," &c.
Mr. Hume: the preamble of the Bill was, it was well known, always postponed.
Sir Robert Peelwould suggest to the noble Lord whether it would not be better at once to appoint a Select Committee to search into precedents upon this point, and to make a report to the House, either to-morrow night or upon Monday next, on the subject, in order to direct the judgement of the House with regard to it. If such a course should not be adopted, the House would come to the decision of the question upon Monday not one whit better prepared than it was at present.
Bill to be read a second time on Monday.
Lord Althorpmoved that a Select Committee be appointed to examine precedents and to report their opinion whether the "Bill to alter and amend the laws relating to the temporalities of the Church of Ireland" should by the rules and orders of the House have originated with a Committee of the whole House.
Mr. O'Connellwould recommend the noble Lord to form two Bills out of one. That part of the present Bill which related to the lessees of Bishops' lands, would meet with great difficulties in its details; and, in the present state of Ireland, persons with a command of capital would have great advantages, while persons of straightened means would be exposed to great disadvantages in purchasing this property. He would recommend, therefore, that the Bill should be divided into two parts, one part should be referred to the Committee, and the House should proceed with the other.
Mr. Stanleywas sensible that the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman had much to recommend it, but there was one circumstance which rendered the proposed separation a question of much difficulty. The part relating to Bishops' leases hung so much together with the other that it would be almost impossible to run the risk of passing one and of not passing the other. One of the leading principles of the Bill was, to suppress ten Bishops' sees, and place their revenues in the hands of a permanent board. At present the possessors of Bishops' leases derived many of their advantages from the apprehension which the Bishops had to run their lives against the leases which induced them to renew these leases every year for a reasonable fine. But of course no motives of that kind could exist in an undying board. There was a necessity

665
then to give an entire security to the holders of Bishops' leases, by enabling them to purchase them in perpetuity. There were certainly grounds in the length of the Bill why it should be separated, but the connexion he had pointed out between the suppression of the Bishoprics and the holders of Bishops' leases was of such paramount force as made it impossible to separate the measure into two Bills.
Mr. O'Connelladmitted the existence of the difficulty pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman but it might be obviated by ascertaining the average fines paid by the lessees of Bishops' lands and compelling the Board to renew the leases at a similar rate, or to make the lease perpetual on the term, regulated by that average proposed by the noble Lord. Allow him then to say one word of himself. He had been represented in the newspapers, both of England and Ireland, as giving his support to this Bill because he possessed property of this description. He had not, however, a single acre of land in his possession held on lease from the Church, and was not in any way, either directly or indirectly, interested in Church lands.
Mr. Baringthought the impossibility of now getting anything like a proper value for the Church lands in Ireland, owing to the state of the country, should they be disposed of, ought to be taken into consideration. He suggested, therefore, that the average fines heretofore obtained by the Bishops should be ascertained, and that the Board should be compelled to dispose of the lands at that rate.
Mr. Stanleysaid, there would be a considerable loss if the Board should be bound not to ask a higher sum than the average of that paid to the Bishops. There was a considerable difference in the value of a lease for twenty-one years and for perpetuity, and if the hon. Members advice were followed, the present holders of Bishops' leases would obtain all the advantage of the perpetual lease without paying for it. The object of the Ministers was to make the tenants pay for that advantage, and the surplus thus obtained would be placed in the hands of the Board to be disposed of as Parliament might please.
Mr. Harveysaid, that the question bad been treated only with reference to the Church and the holders of the leases, but there was a third party who ought to be considered—the people. It was of great
666
importance that they should not be lost sight of. The lessees of that property had no more interest in Church lands than had the lessees of any other property in the lands they held. They were only lease-holders, and he wished that the value of their leases should be ascertained. He wanted to know why these lessees should be allowed to acquire these lands in perpetuity for six years' purchase? He had heard the subject discussed in several places, and had heard only one sentiment of astonishment at the low rate at which the purchase was to be made. He had not met with one person who thought the leases should be acquired in perpetuity for less than twelve years' purchase. He should, therefore, call on the House to interfere for the protection of the interests of the public. The money to be realised by this sale was estimated at 3,000,000 l.; and he hoped the time was not far off when this and other sums, which were now devoted to ecclesiastical purposes, would be applied to the exigencies of the State. He wished to know how the amount was ascertained of Church property in Ireland? It was said that the property of the Bishops was only 600,000 l. a-year, obtained from 700,000 acres of land—that of this sum the Bishops only got 100,000 l.—and that the interest of the lessees in the 500,000 l. was to be made perpetual, for a sum equal to six years' purchase. The House was certainly nut acquainted with the nature and extent of that property, and he therefore thought it right that attention should be directed to the subject.
Question agreed to, and Committee appointed.