Commons Sitting of 22 May 1835

Preamble
MINUTES. Bill. Read a second time:—Annual Indemnity. Petitions presented. By Mr. MARK PHILIPS, from Manchester, against the Imprisonment for Debt Bill.

LIVERPOOL POLICE.
Lord Sandonmoved the Second Reading of the Liverpool Police Bill.
Mr. Ewartopposed the Motion. Though this was called a Police Bill, the real object of it was to provide payment for the clergy of the parish of Liverpool out of the funds of the Corporation. It bore the name of a Police Bill, it was true, but it contained a clause which enabled the Corporation to make provision for the clergy of Liverpool out of their funds. Had this clause not been observed in proper time the Bill might have passed through the House unnoticed, with this most extraordinary and most objectionable clause, and Liverpool would, if the Bill passed in its present shape, be completely shut out from the benefit of those legislative reforms of the public institutions of the country which were now in progress. Within the last ten years no less a sum than 120,000 l. had been expended in paying the clergy of the parish and in the building and repairing of churches, by which the Dissenters and the Catholics did not benefit to the amount of one farthing. Was the House prepared to add to the already enormous patronage of the Corporation by passing such a Bill as this? If the Corporation wanted a police, or if they wanted to make provision for the clergy, let each object be provided for in a separate Bill,

15
There was an efficient police already in Liverpool. The town clerk, when examined on the subject, spoke highly of its efficiency, and an officer of the metropolitan police, sent down by sir Robert Peel to inquire into the subject, reported the establishment as excellent. Two years back the Member for Middlesex (Mr. Hume) brought in a Bill to enable districts to establish a local police without the expense and trouble of carrying a private Bill through that House. Why should not the Corporation of Liverpool avail themselves of this without bringing a Bill of this kind before the House? The real object of the Bill was to render the clergy of this parish completely free from anything like popular control, in fixing their provision by Act of Parliament. He felt confident his noble Friend and Colleague would not, with all his talents, be able to invest the Bill with such a degree of plausibility as would induce a reformed House of Commons to pass it. He had no hesitation in calling it a job—a Corporation job—whatever might be the object it professed. He would move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Lord Sandonhoped he should be able to satisfy the House that the Bill did not bear the character given to it by his hon. Colleague. It was not a job, nor a Corporation Bill. He regretted the necessity of being obliged to go into some detail, for the purpose of showing to the House what were the real character and the objects of this Bill. In the course of last year it was proposed by Lord Grey's Government to do away with Church-rates. The clergy of Liverpool would thus be deprived of one of the sources from which they derived their very moderate income and support. Application was made to the inhabitants of Liverpool to ascertain how it would be most advisable to act under those circumstances, and how it would be most advisable to provide for the maintenance of the clergy, which hitherto was derived partly from the Church-rates. The result was, that a deputation waited upon his noble Friend, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Althorp), who, when the matter was explained to him, said, that, in the event of the Bill for the abolition of Church-rates passing, it would be only fair that provision should be made from some other
16
source equivalent to the diminution of income that would arise from the abolition of Church-rates. The whole legal claim of the clergy of the parish of Liverpool was only 400 l., a sum totally inadequate to the wants of so large a parish. It was raised to l,500 l., and this was the whole amount received by two rectors and four curates. The duties they had to perform were very far, indeed, from being a sinecure. There were two churches, and four full services on the Sabbath, besides morning and evening prayer on other days. There were 170,000 souls to be attended to. The House must see, therefore, that the situation of the clergy of Liverpool was no sinecure. There was ample employment, with but very moderate remuneration, which would be greatly diminished when the Church-rate was done away with. So convinced was Lord Althorp that some substitute ought to be provided to make up for the loss to the Church that he suggested the raising of an equivalent sum through the Poor-rates, and paying it to the clergy. The objection to this course was, that the payment made in this way to the clergy would be levied upon all classes and religious persuasions. There was, therefore, against such a course the same objection that lay against the Church-rate. Under these circumstances, a deputation from the inhabitants in general waited on the Magistrates of the town, and prayed them to devise some means of meeting the difficulty. After mature consideration, they thought the most advisable course would be to embody a clause in the Police Bill, by which the difficulty would be effectually, and, as it appeared, most fairly and properly remedied. His hon. Friend said, there was already an efficient police in Liverpool. Now, the truth was, the whole force amounted only to fifty, and they were employed in the prevention of robberies and nocturnal depredations. It must be quite obvious that this number was not sufficient in a place of such a vast population, even for night service alone, much less for the performance of police duty during the day. These were the considerations which led to the introduction of this Bill. The establishment of an efficient police was the real object, and not, as his hon. Friend said, the making a provision for the clergy. The parish came to an agreement to pay two-thirds of the police-rate, and the other third was to go to the clergy, as

17
an equivalent for their loss by the removal of Church-rate. In considering the claims of the clergy it must be remembered that the Corporation derived considerable income from land which had formerly been set apart for the use of the rector of the parish. The objection of his hon. Friend, grounded upon the circumstance, that persons of various religious persuasions would be called upon under the Bill, to contribute to the support of a clergy from which they derived no spiritual benefit, would not, he apprehended, weigh with the House, at least so long as there was a Church connected with the State, and established by law. When the matter was last considered by the vestry there was not one dissentient voice. He believed the Dissenters of Liverpool themselves were most anxious to see an addition made from this, or from some other source to the income of the clergy. The Grand Jury received the presentment for the establishment of a police, and the Recorder was favourable to the measure proposed. Under these circumstances he trusted the House would reject the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend.
Mr. Prymesaid, that the merits of the Question resolved themselves into a single point. It was not so much whether the clergy of a peculiar religion should be maintained by all classes, but whether a fund destined for the benefit of the community at large should have a portion of it appropriated to the benefit of a particular part of that community. Corporate funds, he maintained, were held in trust for the benefit of the whole community. He stated his belief that the churches of Liverpool were very inadequately endowed, and he should like to see endowments made for them, but he must maintain that the Corporation Funds, to which the Dissenters contributed, should not be appropriated to such purposes. He would therefore, vote for the Amendment.
Mr. Thornelysaid, that he had been requested to support the petition which his hon. Friend, the Member for Liverpool, had just laid upon the Table of the House. Locally connected with Liverpool, he was able to state that the majority of the inhabitants were strongly opposed to the Bill now under consideration, and it was regarded by them as an evasion in anticipation of the measure of Muncipal Reform which it was generally understood
18
to be in the contemplation of his Majesty's Government to submit to the Legislature. The Bill might have the support of the Corporate body, which was said to consist of the Mayor, Bailiffs, and Burgesses, though the business was conducted by forty-one self-elected Common-councilmen, but he denied that this body represented the feelings of the majority of the town. The subject had been brought under the consideration of the parish vestry in October last, when, out of between 8,000 and 9,000 rate-payers, only 97 attended. The rector was in the chair, and granted a poll on its being demanded, when sixty-three persons voted in favour of the Bill, and thirty-four, of whom he (Mr. Thornely) had been one, voted against it. He contended that this small division did not by any means manifest the feelings of the town on the subject; and though the Bill had been recommended by the Grand Jury and by the Recorder, still, it ought to be remembered, that the latter, as well as the foreman of the Grand Jury, was a member of the Corporation. In short, he was satisfied this Bill would never have been heard of, had it not been that certain parties in the Corporation wished to steal a march on the good effects expected from the general Government measure of Municipal Reform, and upon the result of the Bill with reference to Church-rates. On the whole, the Corporate Funds, amounting to 100,000 l. per annum (of which 50,000 l. was paid by the natives of England, Ireland, and Scotland, in the shape of town dues), were perfectly adequate for the addition which this Bill contemplated fixing upon the public, and he should certainly vote for the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend, that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Lord Francis Egertonsaid, he should not have risen but that he wished to call the attention of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Pryme) to one fact. The hon. Member had objected to the Bill, because it contemplated a diversion of Corporate Property to purposes other than that for which it was intrusted to the Corporate body. He begged to inform the hon. Member, that very considerable property was vested in the Corporation of Liverpool, for the express purpose of enabling them to provide adequately for the rectors and. clergy of that extensive

19
and important parish, and, therefore, the objection of the hon. Member was done away with, so far as the provisions in the Bill with reference to the clergy. On this Bill a vestry had been held in the manner stated by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton; but since that period a still more recent general vestry had been held, as stated by his noble Friend, the Member for Liverpool, when no objection whatever was made to this Bill. He was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Ewart) treat it as a job. [Mr. Ewart did not so treat it.] He understood, from what the hon. Member said, that he regarded it as a job of the Corporation. If he thought it a job, he would be the last man to vote for it. If the Corporation had it in trust to make provision for the clergy, they must do so in this or in some other way. He was not disposed to deny the respectability of the opposing party, but he did deny their numbers; and as a proof that that opinion on the subject had changed in some quarters, he might mention, that the petition against it, intrusted to the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Ewart), had since been withdrawn from his hands.
Mr. Sheilthought that a decisive answer might be given to the supporters of the Bill, from the mere fact stated by the noble Lord, that the Corporation of Liverpool held funds in trust for the payment of the clergy. If so, why were the inhabitants generally to be called upon to contribute, and moreover to pay two-thirds of the expense of maintaining the proposed police? All that the rectors could claim by law was 400 l. a year; but this was an attempt to saddle the inhabitants of Liverpool with 350 l. a-year in addition. He was assured by the hon. Member for Liverpool, that the inhabitants at large were averse to the measure; and why could not the matter rest until the Bills to regulate Municipal Corporations and Church-rates were before the House? An inquiry had been made into the several Municipal Corporations, and a measure for the reform of those institutions was actually in readiness. Under such circumstances he could not but consider this Bill as a sort of pious fraud and holy device for the benefit of the Liverpool Corporation and Church. Why not let the matter rest until the Corporation Bill was introduced? Where was the necessity for this haste? He would tell the
20
House, this was a specimen of the expedients which Corporations at this moment were disposed to adopt for the purpose of evading the law, and frustrating the effect of the anticipated Reform. He had only lately received, from the party on whom the utmost reliance could be placed, a statement that the Corporation of Lincoln had met to consider the adoption of measures for the speedy disposal of the Corporate Property. It was proposed to convert the whole into freehold property, and thereby withdraw it from the operation of any reform. Again, calling to mind the non-necessity of hastening this Bill, and the certainty of a Corporation Measure being shortly introduced, calling to mind also the injustice which this Bill would commit on the Dissenters, he did hope that its further progress would not be pressed, or if it were, that hon. Members would join with him in opposing it.
Lord Stanleycould not but think, notwithstanding the impassioned address which had been delivered by the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, that the House would fall into the very error against which he had cautioned them, that of coming to a precipitate and unadvisable conclusion, if they departed from the ordinary course of proceeding, and determined to reject this Bill upon the second reading. He could not but think that the adoption of such a course would be far more precipitate than if they allowed the assertions on one and the other side to be thoroughly sifted and canvassed by the tribunal to which it was proposed to refer the consideration of the Bill. He much regretted that the hon. and learned Member should have thought it necessary to mix up with the immediate Question before them topics of a general nature, certainly only calculated for a discussion upon Corporate Reform, and for those important and extensive measures of which he understood, and which he sincerely hoped, would speedily be brought under the notice of the House by his Majesty's Ministers. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in the course of his address, had affirmed that a vast proportion of the people of Liverpool was opposed to this Bill. Now, that was a point, he submitted, which would more properly and more fairly come under the consideration of the Committee. So far as the House was yet acquainted with the fact, it derived its knowledge from the assertion of the hon.

21
and learned Member, and the hon. Member sometimes made assertions merely by way of rhetorical flourish. Now these were the facts which were in the possession of the House. Out of the whole body of the inhabitants of Liverpool only thirty-four persons recorded their votes against this Bill, and on another occasion sixteen vestrymen, having thought fit to petition against the Bill, gave such displeasure to their constituents, that at the next vestry meeting they were removed from their offices, and supplanted by others whose support had been given to the measure. The whole number consisted of eighteen; of these sixteen were hostile to the principle of the Bill, and they without any difficulty were removed, and sixteen supporters of the principle elected in their place. At this parish election, be it moreover remembered, the votes were not given according to the amount of property, but upon the most approved basis of equality. So much for the public opinion of Liverpool in regard to the matter, and for the vast preponderance of opposition, and for the consequent necessity of throwing out the Bill, and leaving all to the coming measure of Corporate Reform. With regard to the Church-rates of Liverpool, this was a very peculiar case. It was admitted so to be by his noble Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lord John Russell), and by the noble Lord who formerly filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Althorp); and it was stated by them that if the Ministerial measure relating to Church-rates were approved of and passed, it would be absolutely necessary to make certain provisions for meeting the specific case of Liverpool, where there was no endowment for the clergy. Under these circumstances, and there being a general desire for the improvement of the police, it was determined both by the parish and the Corporation to send up a Bill to Parliament, comprising provisions for improving the police, and also for putting an end to the difficulty which existed in reference to the local Church-rates. What course did they take? Why, they agreed upon their terms, and then asked to go before the ordinary tribunal, by which they well knew every provision in their Bill, from first to last, must be searchingly sifted and examined. What course could be fairer and more likely to give satisfaction to all? "But no," says the hon. and
22
learned Member for Tipperary; "I will not allow this. I call on this House not to act precipitately; therefore, I call on them to throw out the Bill precipitately." Could the House really believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman had fairly and candidly stated the ground on which he wished the House to throw out the Bill at once? Was not the real fact this? It was felt that by the Bill which had been agreed to both by the inhabitants and Corporation of Liverpool, a greater degree of firmness and stability would be given to the very moderate provision of the clergy of a large and increasing population. On that ground it was that the House was called upon not to act, and yet to act, with precipitance, and to prevent the completion of a beneficial and satisfactory measure. When the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Corporation of Liverpool ought not to spend their funds for the benefit of the Established Church, he begged to remind the hon. and learned Member that the Corporation held a considerable portion of their property on a grant in trust for the purpose of enabling them more adequately to provide for the Clergy of the Established Church, and of remunerating those spiritual services on which, from the increase in population, the calls were now more frequent and onerous. Against this grant not a single voice had been raised, either by Dissenter or any other, since the year 1752 up to the present period. Under these circumstances he hoped that the House would not act with such injustice as to postpone indefinitely the second reading of this Bill, but would allow it to go, in the ordinary course of proceeding, to a Committee, where the details would be properly discussed. He would readily admit that this measure ought not to clash with the Corporation measure about to be introduced, and therefore he should hope that his noble Friend would see the fairness and expediency on all accounts of not pressing the third reading of the Bill until he was acquainted with the Ministerial plan of Corporate Reform. This was the equitable way of proceeding. He wished for nothing out of the ordinary course of legislation. He only pressed for the second reading of this Bill, because to the principle no substantial objection had been made, and in regard to the details a Committee was the proper tribunal for examining them.
Mr. Sheil: I rise, Sir, to explain one circumstance relating to the Bill, and not, of course, to answer the very unprovoked—[Cheers interrupted the hon. and learned Member, and the conclusion of the sentence was lost.] Perhaps I have no right to advert to what I do not call a wanton attack, but certainly a venomous one.—[Cries of "Spoke, spoke," and "Order!"]—I know I have no right to speak again. I feel that. But upon other occasions other individuals who have been attacked have been allowed to make—
Lord Stanley: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt him, and assure him that if I have used one word personally painful to his feelings, such was not my intention?
Mr. Sheil: Oh! the words of the noble Lord are like the spear of Achilles; they wound with one end and heal with the other.—["Spoke."]—I must explain. The noble Lord says, that I made assertions on my own authority—assertions which he calls rhetorical flourishes, and which, he adds, I am in the habit of making. I say that it is a wanton provocation. I say that I made no assertions on my own authority. The assertions were those of the hon. Member for Liverpool and of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. The noble Lord forgets those hon. Members, and attributes them only to me.
Sir Robert Inglis: I rise to order. I put it to the Chair, whether the hon. and learned Member is not at this moment making a distinct speech? I believe that this is against the rules of the House.
The Speakerwas understood to say that the hon. Member in explaining that he had not made assertions on his own authority, the hon. and learned Member was so far in order. Beyond that he had not gone, nor would he be in order if he did.
Mr. Sheil: I bow willingly to your decision, Sir, however I may think I suffer by it.
Sir Robert Inglisrose amidst some confusion—I never heard any hon. Member after receiving an apology like that of my noble Friend, make use of such an adjective as the hon. and learned Member has used. I never knew any hon. Member persevere—[Mr. Sheil again rose, but cries of "Order," compelled the hon. and learned Member to resume his seat.]
Mr. Finn: Is the hon. Baronet in order?
Sir Robert Inglis: The hon. Member does not know me if he thinks he can so easily put me down. The hon. Member for Tipperary is the first individual in my memory, and I hope he will be the last, who, after such an apology as that made by my noble Friend, with his accustomed feelings of high honour, should again and again have stated what he has. I say this not in particular justification of my noble Friend, but as I would have said had any other hon. Member been placed in similar circumstances. An hon. Member makes a remark, which appearing to give pain to another he immediately retracts; and yet, notwithstanding this apology, the other hon. Member persists in declaring that he has been attacked, and that to such an attack he will reply. To a scene of this description, so, discreditable to the dignity and order of our proceedings, is it not essential that some stop should be put? I will now, Sir, advert to the subject immediately before us. I was certainly not the person who diverted the attention of the House from that subject, and when the hon. Member for Tipperary rose to instruct us I did not know, this being a Committee of Supply day, but that he would take some opportunity of adverting to that notice which he lately gave. I cannot now but feel that he might with some consistency have left the matter to hon. Members more directly connected with such a local question—particularly a question involving the very point in respect to which the hon. and learned Gentleman was necessarily ignorant.
Mr. Wilksbegged to express his hope that, notwithstanding the eloquent appeal of the noble Lord, the House would not allow this Bill to proceed further, opposed as it was to the feelings of the majority of the most wealthy and respectable inhabitants of the town of Liverpool. The House ought to recollect that the majority of the people of that town were dissenters from the Established Church, and, therefore, they ought not to be astonished that the hon. Member for Tipperary was opposed to the Bill, when they knew that 2–8ths of the population were of the same persuasion as the hon. and learned Member. It was also to be recollected that the Dissenters of Liverpool considered themselves as placed in a state of peculiar oppression, and complained greatly of the violation of their rights. The Corporation of Liverpool had a council, consisting of

25
64; and, though the Test and Corporation Acts had been repealed, not a Dissenter had as yet been admitted into it. They had not allowed one Member of any sect except that of the Church-of-England, to become one of their Corporation, though twenty-three of the Bankers and Merchants of Liverpool were Dissenters. The truth was, that this Bill, bearing the name of the Liverpool Day-Police Bill, was framed for the purpose of giving a permanent appropriation of the public money to the clergymen of the Established Church—although the Corporation was bound to provide for them out of the property entrusted to them for that very purpose. On the showing of the noble Lord that was the case. Then, he asked, how could the Corporation account for their conduct in the past century—during which the salary paid to the rectors and curates had been paid, not out of the property in trust, but out of the pockets of Dissenters and Roman Catholics? Under these circumstances he hoped the House would not consent to the further progress of the Bill.
Mr. Mark Phillipsprotested against Church matters being surreptitiously introduced into a Police Bill, and the entailment of this charge upon the people of Liverpool.
Lord Sandonbegged permission to explain that the Bill stated in the title that it was to provide for the improvement of the Town Police, and for the payment of an annual sum for the parochial clergy of Liverpool.
Colonel Sibthorpwould assure the House, as some allusion had been made to the Corporation with which he was connected, that when its affairs were brought forward the corporate authorities would be found to have acted with the greatest purity.
Dr. Bowringbegged, as a Dissenter, to protest against the opprobrium which the hon. Baronet opposite sought to throw upon those who differed from his own religious creed. He would not intrude upon the House further than to protest against that House being set up as a religious tribunal.
Mr. O'Connellrose to protest against the Bill, on behalf of a number of the contributors to the fund which the Bill proposed to dispose of. The city which he (Mr. O'Connell) represented was a great contributor to the Corporation funds
26
of the town of Liverpool. He protested against the Bill, because there were 45,000—he was told 62,000—Roman Catholics resident in Liverpool, not one of whom had ever been admitted into the Corporation of that town. There were also an immense number of Protestant Dissenters resident in the town, not one of whom had ever yet been admitted into the Corporation; and yet charges of bigotry were constantly heard against those who were opposed to the oppressors and the exclusionists. He was not, indeed, much surprised that the noble Lord should take a fancy to a Bill which included at once provisions for police and parsons; but he (Mr. O'Connell) submitted the Bill was a fraud upon the House. There was not one word about the clergy in the recital. In the title it was true there was a slight mention of them; but neither in the recital nor the preamble was the slightest allusion made to them. Until you came to the 13th page of the Bill not one word was said about the clergy. In the 14th page of the Bill the clergy were introduced; but under what head were they introduced?—how was the attention of the House directed to their introduction? They were introduced under the head of "Limitations of Actions". How could a parson grow up under that clause? He had certainly heard of the precedent of a Turnpike Bill, in which a Bristol Magistrate obtained the introduction of a clause to enable him to send his slaves from one island to another in the West Indies in spite of any local act to the contrary. The present Bill appeared to furnish an instance of a similar exercise of ingenuity. Here the day police of the town were mixed up with the parsons of the town; and this was done because it was said that the Corporation had funds in trust for the clergy. They did not want an Act of Parliament to execute the trust, but they did want an Act of Parliament to evade it, by throwing the burden upon others. There was not one word about the trust in the Bill—it was entirely omitted. There was something oratorical in stating that 34 only voted against the Bill, and on the other side keeping back the equally important fact that only 63 voted for it; and when it was found that neither Catholic nor Protestant had ever supported it, was not the House to be convinced by the assertions of the hon. Gentleman near him, that the

27
majority of the people of Liverpool were essentially opposed to it? "It is an attempt," exclaimed the hon. and learned Gentleman—"it is an attempt to prevent the reform of Corporations which we have in contemplation. Yes, all of us on this side of the House, and many on the other side also, are prepared for a measure of Corporate Reform; but in the meantime this Bill, is brought, in the hope that it may go to a Committee, and that by some accident—such things have happened before—persons who have not heard one word of the merits of the Bill may come down and vote in its favour. The Bill is pressed forward now in the hope that 63 persons may be got together again, as they were got together before, to vote for the Bill whether they understand it or not." If a police bill were wanted, why not introduce a police bill? but do not, under the name of a police bill, introduce a parson bill—do not establish the unnatural conjunction of thief-takers and parsons in the same measure. It was a most ridiculous and preposterous conjunction. And who made it ridiculous and preposterous? Was it he who exposed the ridiculousness and preposterousness of it, or was it he who was guilty of the absurdity of proposing so absurd and unnatural a conjunction? He knew that insinuations were thrown out by those who could not speak openly. There was not a worse habit of persecution than that of insinuation. If any man had been guilty of what had been foully and foolishly stated elsewhere, let it be openly and manfully avowed. He alluded not to any who sat within the House, but to those who out of the House had stated things which no one in the house would dare to assert. If there were any truth in the insinuations to which he referred, let it be spoken out manfully. He was not one of those who would merely insinuate. If there were such an insinuation to be made, let it be boldly put forth in words. Until it were so put forth, he should treat it with sovereign contempt.
Mr. Goulburnobserved that the hon. and learned Gentleman complained grievously of those who alluded to the motives of the persons who conducted public measures, or who took part in them in Parliament; and yet the whole of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech on that occasion had been an insinuation of mo-
28
tives against those who brought forward the present Bill. Throughout the whole of his speech the hon. and learned Gentleman had insinuated, that it was the intention of the promoters of the Bill to obtain surreptitiously from the House a provision for the clergy of Liverpool, under the plea of providing for the police of that town. The hon. and learned Gentleman had asserted that there was no mention of the clergy in the early part of the Bill; but if the hon. and learned Gentleman had condescended to read the title of the Bill, he would there have found the objects of the Bill expressly specified. The noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, had read the title of the Bill to the House; but as it seemed so soon to have passed from the recollection of several of the hon. Gentlemen who were present, he might perhaps be excused if he ventured to read it again. It was entitled "A Bill for the establishment of a day police force in the town of Liverpool, and to provide for the payment of annual sums to the parochial clergy." But then, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, "the preamble contains not one word of the clergy." What was the fact? Why, that, instead of one, there were two preambles—one relating to the police, the other to the clergy. That which related to the payment of the clergy, not only stated that it was expedient that the payment should be made to the clergy, but entered into a detail of the whole of the circumstances which rendered the payment necessary. And that being the state of the Bill, the hon. and learned Gentleman, with that fact before him, after imputing to those who advocated the Bill an intention to act surreptitiously, concluded by a laudable lecture upon the impropriety of insinuating motives. The Question before the House was simply this:—an arrangement had been entered into by the inhabitants of Liverpool for the establishment of a day police, and for the payment of the clergy. They desired the House to consider, in Committee, whether the arrangement into which they proposed to enter was fair and proper; whether the funds in question could be fairly and properly applied to the purposes mentioned in the Bill. In that shape did the question come before them, and he (Mr. Goulburn) contended, that justice required that they should go into Committee, and inquire whether the arrange-

29
ment proposed to be entered into by th inhabitants should be affirmed or refused by the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, "No!—I will not hear the parties before a Committee of the House—I will not entertain the proposition, however favourably it may have been received at Liverpool—I will crush it at the outset, lest it should go towards the establishment of a principle which I should object to." Such a course of proceeding did not accord with his (Mr. Goulburn's) idea of fairness. He would say, "Go into Committee! inquire whether the Corporation have the right to apply these funds—whether, if so applied, they will be beneficial to the town, and then let the House determine whether the Bill shall pass or not."
Mr. O'Connellrose to explain. The right hon. Gentleman had checked him, and had reproached him with having accused others of having made insinuations that they would not clothe in the words of a direct charge; and the right hon. Gentleman had also accused him of making or insinuating charges against the promoters of the Bill out of the House. He had insinuated no charge. The difference between an insinuation and a direct charge was precisely the course that he took. He made no insinuation against the parties; he charged them directly. As to what he had said about the preamble, if anybody would look to the Bill itself, they would at once perceive what he had alluded to. What he (Mr. O'Connell) had said was, that, up to page 12 of the Bill there was no mention of the clergy; nor was there. In the 13th page, in the middle of a section, entitled "Limitations of Actions," for the first time, by a rhetorical flourish, was a preamble relative to the clergy introduced. That was, certainly, a queer way of introducing a preamble.
Mr. Goulburn: What the hon. and learned Gentleman said was, that there was an intention to take persons by surprise in introducing a question for the payment of the clergy in a Bill which professed to be for the establishment of a day police. In reply to that, he (Mr. Goulburn) stated, and he repeated, that the title of the Bill distinctly denoted the whole object of the Bill; and that although the preamble to the first part related only to the police, yet that there was a second preamble setting forth the
30
whole of the objects of the Bill as regarded the clergy.
Sir Charles Burrell(as we understood) congratulated the Government on the now avowed accession of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. The hon. and learned Member had said,—"The measures of Corporate Reform which we contemplate."
Mr. Potterhad always thought that the preamble of a Bill stood upon the first page; but in the present instance it seemed it would be necessary to wade to the 13th page before more than one-half of the purposes of the Bill could be discovered.
On the question that the Bill be read a second time, the House divided: Ayes 185; Noes 171; Majority 14.

List of the Noes.

Aglionby, H. A.

Fitzsimon, C.

Angerstein, J.

Fitzsimon, N.

Baines, Edward

Folkes, Sir Wm.

Barnard, George

Gaskell, D.

Barron, H. W.

Gisborne, T.

Beauclerck, Major

Goring, H.

Bellew, R. M.

Grattan, J.

Berkeley, Capt.

Grote, G.

Bewes, T.

Gully, J.

Blackburn, John

Hall, Benjamin

Bowring, Dr.

Harvey, D. W.

Brady, Dennis C.

Hay, Colonel L.

Brocklehurst, J.

Hawkins, J. H.

Brodie, W.

Hawes, B.

Brotherton, J.

Heathcote, R. E.

Browne, Rt. Hn. D.

Heathcoat, J.

Buckingham, J. S.

Heron, Sir R.

Buller, Charles

Hindley, C.

Burdon, W. W.

Hodges, T. L.

Callaghan, D.

Hoskins, K.

Campbell, Sir J.

Howard, P. H.

Cayley, E. S.

Hume, J.

Chalmers, P.

Jervis, John

Clive, E. B.

Kemp, T. R.

Cobbett, W.

Kennedy, J.

Cockerell, Sir C.

King, E. B.

Crawford, W.

Langton, W. G.

Crawford, W. S.

Leader, J. T.

Curteis, Herbert B.

Lefevre, C. S.

Dalmeny, Lord

Lennox, Lord G.

Denison, W. J.

Lister, E. C.

Dennistoun, Alex.

Lushington, C.

Divett, E.

Lynch, A. H.

Duncombe, T. S.

M'Cance, J.

Dundas, Hon. J.

Macleod, R.

Dunlop, Colin

Macnamara, Major

Edwards, Colonel

Maher, J.

Elphinstone, Howard

Mangles, J.

Evans, George

Marjoribanks, S.

Evans, Colonel

Marshall, W.

Ferguson, R.

Marsland, H.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Maule, Hon. Fox

Fergus, John

Methuen, P.

Fielden, J.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Finn, W. T.

Mostyn, Hon. E. M.

31

Musgrave, Sir R.

Strickland, Sir G.

Nagle, Sir R.

Stuart, Lord J.

O'Brien, C.

Steuart, R.

O'Brien, W. S.

Strutt, E.

O'Connell, D.

Talbot, J. H.

O'Connell, Morgan

Talfourd, Sergeant

O'Connell, J.

Tennyson, Rt. Hn. C

O'Connell, M. J.

Thornely, T.

O'Connell, Maurice

Tooke, W.

O'Connor, Feargus

Trelawney, Sir W.L.S.

O'Dwyer, C.

Troubridge, Sir T.

O'Loghlen, Sergeant

Tulk, C. A.

Ord, W. H.

Turner, W.

Ord, W.

Villiers, C. P.

Palmer, General

Walker, R.

Parker, J.

Walker, C. A.

Parrott, J.

Wakley, T.

Parry, Colonel

Wallace, R.

Pattison, J.

Warburton, H.

Pease, J.

Ward, H. G.

Philips, G. R.

Westenra, Colonel

Philips, M.

Westenra, Hon. H. R.

Potter, R.

Whalley, Sir S.

Power, J.

Wilbraham, G.

Power, P.

Williams, Sir J.

Pryme, G.

Williams, W.

Robarts, A. W.

Wilks, S.

Robinson, G. R.

Wilmot,Sir E.

Roche, W.

Wood, C.

Roche, D.

Wrightson, W. B.

Roebuck, J. A.

Wyse, T.

Rolfe, R. M.

Young, G. F.

Ronayne, D.

Rundle, J.

Tellers.

Ruthven, E.

Ruthven, E. S.

Ewart, W.

Sanford, E. A.

Sheil, R. L.

Scholefield, J.

Scourfield, W. H.

PAIRED OFF.

Scrope, P.

Clay, W.

Seale, Col.

Tynte, C J. K.

Seymour, Lord

Hutt, W.

Smith, J.

Carter, B.

Speirs, A. G.

Codrington, Sir E.

Stanley, E. J.

North, F.

Bill read a second time.

CONDUCT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
Mr. Cobbettrose to complain of the irregularity and uncertainty with which public business was generally conducted.
The Speakerinformed the hon. Member that there was no question before the House, and it was irregular for him to proceed, unless he meant to conclude with a motion.
Mr. Cobbett—Then, Sir, I will make a Motion. The Ministers of the Crown, he must observe, were expressly bound to give the House every explanation they could reasonably require; and so to conduct the public business as to enable them to understand its progress, and to transact it most conveniently. With the present
32
Ministry, however, there was no knowing what was to be done. First they hrought forward the Navy Estimates, then the Civil Contingencies; then they left the Civil Contingencies and took a dip at the Army Estimates. Well: the House might reasonably have expected that they would have proceeded with the Army Estimates until they were completed—no such thing; to-night they were to go on with the Navy Estimates, and perhaps before they finished them they would be called upon to proceed with something else—he knew not what. He would, therefore, move the following resolution:—"That it is the opinion of this House, that when an Estimate of any description is presented to the House, the moving of all the votes in that estimate should be continued until the estimate be concluded."
Lord John Russellwas sorry he could not concur in the motion of the hon. Member; but as he considered that it would have the effect of placing an undue limit to the discretion of Ministers, he felt himself obliged to resist it.
Resolution negatived.

DISSENTERS'MARRIAGES.
Sir Robt. Peelbegged to ask what course was to be pursued with respect to business, as there were several Orders of the Day equally important, the first of which was the Dissenters' Marriages Bill, which stood for a second reading? He had brought in that measure as a Member of his Majesty's Government in concert with the rest of his colleagues. He then thought, and he conceived the House could entertain no doubt, that it was a measure the conduct of which ought to be undertaken by the Executive. At the same time, as he had reason to believe, from some discussion which took place upon the introduction of that Bill, that there would be no very marked difference of opinion as to the principle on the second reading, he thought it would be inexpedient to drop the order altogether, and at once abandon the charge of it. If, however, his Majesty's Government contemplated any alteration in that Bill which would materially vary its character, he thought it quite clear that the second reading ought to be proposed by them, and that they should fix a convenient day for that purpose. He wished, therefore, to ascertain the noble Lord's intentions with reference to that measure. Of course the

33
main character of the Bill must depend upon its details—and if the noble Lord, approving of the principle, proposed to make any alteration in those details, he would then deliver up the charge of the measure to him, as the representative of the Executive in that House. The noble Lord, in all probability, had made up his mind upon the subject, and would be able to state whether it would be more convenient to read the Bill a second time that night, or to adjourn the second reading to some future day. If there was no objection taken to the principle of the bill, or if Gentlemen were willing to take the discussion in a future stage of the proceeding, he was willing to move the second reading pro formâ. He believed an hon. Member opposite had a notice on the paper which affected the very existence of the Bill. He was not aware whether it were the hon. Member's intention to persevere in that motion, or whether he would waive his objection until the measure came to be considered in Committee.
Mr. Kennedywas desirous of stating, that he had understood that the right hon. Baronet would not bring forward the Bill again, but that another would be substituted by the present Government. Under these circumstances he had withdrawn his notice; and as he had assigned this as his reason for doing so to several persons who had applied to him on the subject, he hoped the right hon. Baronet would not persevere. Many petitions had been prepared against the measure, but they had not been forwarded, on the understanding and for the reasons he had already stated.
Sir Robert Peel: The hon. Gentleman had, perhaps, better means of ascertaining what the intentions of his Majesty's Government were than he possessed. He certainly did not understand that they intended to abandon the measure altogether, and he was sure that he had never authorised the hon. Gentleman, by any act of his, to suppose that he meant to give it up. At the same time, if the Ministers thought it expedient, to drop this Bill, and to introduce another entirely differing in its character, he had no wish to press the second reading. If, on the other hand, they, approving of the principles, intended to modify it by alteration in detail, he was ready to give it up to them.
Mr. Kennedycertainly had neither the
34
authority of the right hon. Baronet, or of any Member of the Government, for the impression he had just stated; but it was his general impression, nevertheless. His idea of what his Majesty's Ministers intended to do, was derived entirely from the tenor of the noble Lord's speech in Devonshire.
Sir Robert Peelwas quite certain the hon. Gentleman had acted under the impression he had just stated. He only wished to add, on his own behalf, that when the Bill stood for a second reading before, he distinctly expressed his wish that the Government would undertake it. He had, therefore, postponed it—not to a distant period, but to a day by which he thought it likely the noble Lord would have taken his seat in the House. He had acted thus from a conviction of the expediency of passing the measure with as little delay as possible.
Lord John Russellgave the right hon. Baronet full credit for his exertions on this important subject, but must say, at the same time, he thought the Bill now before the House did not appear likely to answer the object of affording practical relief to the Dissenters unless considerable alterations were introduced into it. He believed that such was also the impression of his hon. and learned friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets, who had expressed his doubts on the introduction of the Bill, but who was not now present to state his opinion. Since the measure was under discussion on a former occasion, he had not had sufficient time to consider the details of the subject, or to make up his mind as to what alterations he should propose himself, or support if proposed by other Members. Perhaps it would be better that the second reading of the Bill should be postponed under such circumstances; at all events, whether it were or not, before the proceeding could reach another stage, he would communicate to the right hon. Baronet whatever alterations he might consider necessary, and then the right hon. Baronet might either go on with the Bill or leave the question in the hands of the Government.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that he was certainly prepared to propose the second reading of the Bill and support it in its present shape; but the noble Lord's present communication was sufficient for him as to what ought to be his future course, and, therefore, with the noble Lord's per-

35
mission, he would deliver up to him the charge of the measure altogether for the future. At the same time, if there were no objections raised, and if it was understood that there should be no discussion on the present occasion, he had no objection to move the second reading now, as a formal proceeding.
Mr. Kennedyobserved, that he had given notice of his intention to propose an Amendment on the Bill when the right hon. Baronet sat on the Ministerial side of the House; but it was not now necessary to press it. He approved of the Bill on this subject which was proposed last year by the noble Secretary for the Home Department, the main parts of which Bill had been embodied in the present measure, and under such circumstances he thought he should be able to approve of the course which he doubted not the noble Lord would take, and was content to leave the matter in his hands.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the only communication he recollected to have received on this subject, when the right hon. Baronet was at the head of the Administration, proceeded from a large body of individuals who did not conceive it expedient to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but were content to have there opinions expressed in Committee.
Mr. Wilkshad no objection to the second reading, but thought that the Bill would require considerable alteration in Committee.
Sir Robert Peelwould be extremely sorry that any unnecessary delay should occur in the progress of the measure at this period of the Session, and repeated that, with a view to remove all difficulty, he was willing to move the second reading, pro formâ, on the present occasion, and then to deliver up the Bill to the control of Ministers.
Mr. Mark Phillipswould offer no objection to the second reading under such circumstances.
Sir Robert Peelmoved the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. Kennedysaid, that the Bill in its present state was exceedingly obnoxious to the feelings of the Dissenters, inasmuch as it tended to deprive the Ceremony of Marriage of its religious character. He thought that the one proposed by the noble Lord (Russell) last year was not open to the same objection.
Mr. Humewas of opinion that the right
36
hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had acted wisely in leaving the conduct of the Bill in the hands of the present Government, for by the Government alone could it be properly managed. He trusted, that the Government would propose a much more comprehensive measure than that introduced by the right hon. Baronet, and remove all grounds for discontent on the part of the Dissenters, by placing them on the same level, as regarded Civil Rights with the Members of the Church of England. He believed that no Bill for the regulation of Dissenters' marriages would give satisfaction, unless it were grounded on some measure of general registration; and he thought it would be much better for the noble Lord to refrain from making any proposition on the subject, until he should be in a situation to bring forward such a comprehensive measure as would settle the Question for ever.
Sir Robert Inglisthought he should consult the wishes of the House by not urging any objection to the principle of the Bill in its present stage. At the same time he reserved to himself the right of opposing it at a future period.
Mr. Peaseexpressed a hope that time would be given to allow the public at large to become perfectly acquainted with the nature and effect of the alterations which it was the intention of the present Government to make in the Bill.
Mr. Potterwas of opinion, that considering the advanced state of the Session, it would be well to allow the present Bill to drop altogether. No Bill would, in his opinion, be satisfactory to the Dissenters on the subject of marriage unless it were connected with a general registration.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that in the course of his professional life he had had occasion to turn his attention to the subject under discussion, and he felt convinced that the preparation of any legislative measure with respect to it must be attended with the greatest possible difficulties, provided due regard was paid to the rights of the Dissenters, without any infringement being at the same time made on the rights of the Established Church. In his humble judgment, the questions of Dissenters' Marriages, of Church-rates, of Tithes, and of Registration, were all intimately connected with the interests both of the Established Church and of the Dissenters, and he felt perfectly satisfied, that in proportion as more comprehensive views were taken on

37
these subjects, the more probable it was, that the House would be able to legislate according to the principles of justice and expediency. The whole of those questions were closely connected with one another; and legislation with respect to any one of them must have a certain effect on the fees of the clergymen. He was, therefore, of opinion that if the Government desired to consider these great questions on true and statesmanlike principles, they must look at their united operation, and regard them as parts of one system; and notwithstanding; that there existed, in the opinion of many persons, an urgent necessity for the speedy settlement of the subject under discussion, he thought that full lime ought to be given to the Government to take a comprehensive view of the whole Question, in preference to bringing in isolated measures, either with reference to the Dissenters' Marriages, Church-rates, Registration, Church Reform, or Commutation of Tithes. Now, he was clearly of opinion that the Government could do nothing with regard to this subject in the present Session. It appeared to him that some hon. Members opposite were not aware of the immense difficulty of the work of legislation.
Sir Robert Peelbegged to state to the hon. and learned Member, that during his absence from the House it had been agreed that the second reading of the Bill should be taken merely as a matter of course, with the understanding that the Government should have the future management of it. In allowing the Bill to pass through its present stage, the hon. and learned Member would not be precluded from opposing it, if he so thought fit, on a future occasion. Many Gentlemen had left the House, under the impression that no discussion would take place on the principle of the measure.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that it was not his intention to discuss the principle of the Bill, but merely to express his opinion with respect to the impossibility of legislating on the subject at present, in accordance with a comprehensive and statesmanlike view of the whole Question. With respect to the Bill before the House, he would not, after what had passed, say one word; but considering the advanced period of the Session, he could not help thinking, that though legislation on the subject was necessary, delay was infinitely better than inconsiderate and crude legislation. The
38
hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by observing that though the present. Bill might be liable to objections, he felt gratitude to the right hon. Baronet for the admission of the important principle on which it was founded.
Mr. Wilkssaid, that having understood that the House was not to enter into a discussion of the principle of the Bill, he felt greatly surprised at some of the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman, which almost challenged reply. Still, after the understanding that had been come to, he (Mr. Wilks) should feel it to be very improper to protract the present conversation; but he must take the liberty of saying, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman stood in the same situation as the Dissenters—if he were labouring under the grievances which they had endured for so many years—he would, in all probability, be very reluctant to allow of any delay in the adoption of measures for their removal.
The Bill was read a second time.
The Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply was read.

FOREIGN SECRETARY.—APPOINT- MENT OF LORD PALMERSTON.
Lord Darlington: I wish to ask the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether Lord Palmerston is to be created a Member of the British Peerage, and thereby obtain a seat in the other House of Parliament, or whether any vacancy is likely to occur in this House to enable him to procure a seat here? The public know nothing upon the subject except that Lord Palmerston has been gazetted as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and it is highly important that the fact should be understood. If the noble Lord answer in the negative, I wish to ask him whether it be intended that the noble Lord should continue to hold the situation as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I believe it is perfectly unusual and almost unprecedented for an individual not in Parliament to hold a Cabinet situation.
Lord John Russell: The noble Lord has asked me several questions, all of them of rather an extraordinary and novel nature. One is, whether it is the intention of the Crown to confer the dignity of the peerage upon a certain individual; the next, as I should understand it, is whether it is the intention of any Member of this House to

39
vacate his seat for that individual, or, as my right hon. Friend near me suggests, to vacate in that individual's favour by dying himself [cheers and laughter]. The question then arises, whether, in that case, any particular body of constituents would be disposed to elect the noble Lord who has been referred to, as their representative in this House, or whether they would choose some other Representative? There then arises a fourth question, or a fifth; whether supposing none of those things to happen, it is intended that Lord Palmerston shall then continue Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs? Really these questions are of so extraordinary and novel a nature, that I can only entreat the noble Lord to bring forward a distinct Motion on the subject.
Lord Darlington: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to ask him another question. The noble Lord talks of novelty: is it novel, or is it not, for an individual holding the office of Foreign Secretary to have no seat either in this or the other House of Parliament.
Lord John Russell: I can only say, that if the state of things of which the noble Lord complains had continued for any length of time, these might be very proper questions; but as the absence of Lord Palmerston is merely a temporary one, I must decline giving any other answer than that I have already returned to the noble Lord.
Here the matter ended.

CANADA COMMISSION.
Colonel Sibthorpwished to ask the noble Lord whether there was any truth in the report that Colonel Fox, who had so obligingly vacated his Seat for Stroud in favour of the noble Lord, was to be transported or sent out as a Commissioner to Canada?
Lord John Russellstated, in reply, that the Government entertained no intention whatever of sending Colonel Fox as a Commissioner to Canada.
The House resolved into a Committee of Supply.

ARMY ESTIMATES.
On the Motion that a sum not exceeding 118,111 l. 4s. 6d. be granted to defray the charge of the general staff officers,
Mr. Humesaid, he thought the charge for the staffenormous. and wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to attend to the recommendation of the select Committee on the subject? The Report of that Committee was dated in 1831, and
40
they recommended that the staff of the army should be placed on the same footing as the staff of the navy. It was notorious that in the British Army, certain officers were treated with partiality and favour; and one half of the whole number of general officers had been selected from the officers of the household troops. If the Commander-in-chief of the army was unwilling to alter this system, it became the duty of the House to express their strong disapprobation of it. The question next arose, whether the Commander-in-chief, or the Secretary-at-war, who was responsible to that House, should regulate the amount of the charge for the army. He regretted to say, that for the last four years the Commander-in-chief seemed to have been the master of the Ministers. Until the period when Lord Grey became Minister, it was always understood that the Commander-in-chief should be a person appointed by, and politically attached to, the Administration; but since that time something had taken place which prevented that rule from being acted upon. The consequence was, that the expenses of the army never could be diminished, and all the patronage was disposed of in a manner hostile to the interests of a liberal Ministry. The only excuse the present Government had for not making a change in the department of the Commander-in-Chief was, that they had scarcely been long enough in office to allow of their turning their attention to the matter. It had been admitted by two Secretaries at War, (the right hon. Member for Dundee and the right hon. President of the Board of Control) that the reductions in the staff proposed by the Committee to which he had alluded, might be carried into effect; and he wished to learn from the noble Lord, what opinion he had formed with respect to the recommendations of that Committee.
Lord Viscount Howickstated, that there was every disposition on the part of Government to attend to the recommendations of the Committee alluded to by the hon. Member for Middlesex, and especially to that part of it respecting the staff at head quarters, and the consolidation of the different military departments. At that moment, however, they laboured under difficulties, owing to the short time they had taken office; he need hardly say they had not had time to come to a determination on the points alluded to by the

41
hon. Gentleman. They were anxious, if possible, to act upon the principle adopted by his right hon. Friend the Member for Cumberland with regard to the Navy—namely, consolidating the different departments, provided this could be done with advantage to the service. He regretted that the hon. Gentleman had chosen to mix up with his advocacy of consolidation an attack upon Lord Hill, respecting the distribution of the patronage of the Army. He had not had much experience on the subject, but he believed, from all that he had seen, that the charge was not borne out. With respect to any difference that might exist on political subjects between Lord Hill and the present Government, he would only say, that his Majesty's Ministers did not desire, that the patronage of the Army should be made subservient to the support of the Government. They only desired that the patronage of the Army should be distributed in such a way as to promote the good of the service—in the same way, indeed, in which the Navy patronage was distributed under their immediate direction. He hoped and believed that the sole object that those who possessed the patronage of the Army had in view, was to promote the good of the service, and at the same time the strictest economy in the public expenditure.
Sir Rufane Donkinfelt bound, as a soldier, to bear his testimony to the honest and impartial manner in which Lord Hill had distributed the patronage of the army. He believed that never, for one moment, since that noble Lord had taken office had he given way to private feeling or political bias in his distribution of the army patronage at his disposal. Although opposed in politics to Lord Hill, he felt it his duty to bear his testimony to the impartiality always manifested by the noble Lord.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, that the nation had just right to complain of the enormous number of officers in the army. Taking both full and half-pay, there was an officer to seven men and three-quarters. The people looked to a Reformed Parliament for a reduction of the expenditure, but notwithstanding it had existed two years, nothing had yet been done; and if they did not do so, the people would cease to look to the Parliament for what they chiefly cared for, retrenchment, and as a consequence the removal of the burdens that oppressed them.
Sir Charles Dalbiacalso vindicated the
42
character of Lord Hill. He was satisfied, from a strict examination of the Estimates, that the consolidation of the Army and Ordnance, as well as the consolidation of the various civil departments of the Army, would not be productive of those advantages and that economy anticipated by the hon. Member for Middlesex. That hon. Gentleman had stated, that if the Church in Ireland was reformed as he recommended, the Army in Ireland could be so reduced as to effect a saving to the amount of one million annually; and yet the whole charge of the Army in Ireland, including the staff, did notexceed 840,000 l. a-year.
Mr. Humesaid, that it had been objected to his statement as to the extent to which economy was practicable, that the cost of the Army in Ireland was only 840,000 l.; but it should be borne in mind that this sum was the amount of the mere pay of the men. What, he would ask, became of the expenses of the artillery, commissariat, and other departments?
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, the hon. Member for Middlesex might send forth his venom if he pleased; this he knew, that it would not affect him. The hon. Member first said he had nothing to charge against the noble Lord at the head of the Army, and then, with a peculiar inconsistency, he alleged against the noble Lord that his conduct was marked by partiality. He believed the noble Lord to be incapable of the conduct imputed to him, but when the hon. Member for Middlesex made that charge, he was cheered by the other side of the House. [Cheers.] Oh yes, they must cheer him—"similis simili gaudet,"—birds of a feather—all fowls of the same plumage. What could the hon. Member know of the Army? He had been but a short time in India, and then only in a medical capacity. He thanked God that they were not obliged to swallow any of the hon. Member's physic.
Mr. Humehad just one remark to make. It was gratifying to him to think that there was one dose the hon. and gallant Member and his Friends had swallowed, which was the "Russell purge," and it had been he was happy to say, very effectual.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, the hon. Member for Middlesex had not stated a single instance of the partiality he had charged. Those who supported the hon. Member with their cheers, should support him with some statements of fact.
Mr. Finnsaid, Ministers ought not to allow their political powers to be in abeyance; such had not been the course of the Duke of Wellington. They had the Church, the Army, and the Corporations, arrayed against them; but having the people with them, they would nevertheless maintain a fair position, if they gave power only to those by whom they were supported.
Mr. Cobbett: The hon. Member argued that because Ministers had the people with them, they would carry all before them: but they had not the people with them; and he trusted they never would have, till they did something to relieve the people. The people expected that some of the taxes which oppressed them should be taken off; they would not allow themselves to be led away by mere professions. For his part, he saw little difference between the Whigs and the Tories. The people would never be satisfied till they ceased to play into one another's hands—till they dissolved partnership.
Mr. Feargus O'Connormust declare, in reply to what had just been stated, that it would give his constituents great regret to see the Gentlemen who now occupied the Ministerial benches displaced by a Tory Government. He would not, in their support, go quite the length of voting that black was white, though perhaps he would do so in the sense that was meant by the hon. Member for Middlesex when he made that declaration; but he certainly would consent to receive even less from the present than he would be contented with from a Tory Government, because he knew the difficulties they had to encounter, and that they would, at least, put an end to that domestic cruelty which had for years been practised in Ireland.
Lord Howickobserved, there was an old saying, that none were so deaf as those who would not hear: and applying this to the hon. Member for Oldham, he must declare that he despaired of producing any effect on that hon. Gentleman. As regarded, the mere reduction of the burdens of the people, suppose the Whigs had done nothing else during the four years they were in power, had they been quite as unsuccessful as the hon. Member would represent? Had the hon. Member for Oldham forgotten, that during the period be had referred to, the taxes reduced amounted to nearly 5,000,000 l.? The whole of the vote required for the Army
44
was under 6,500,000 l.; therefore in the course of the four years, neatly the whole of that charge was saved to the country. The votes for the Army alone were, previous to the year 1830, never less than 7,300,000 l., and frequendly more; at present the sum demanded was 6,490,000 l.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, the Government had shown a disposition to do good, and he hoped they would have nerve enough to proceed as they had commenced.
Dr. Bowringrecommended a more systematic arrangement of the Estimates, so that hon. Members might make themselves masters of the subject, and follow the discussions with greater facility.
Captain Parryrecommended, that officers on half-pay should be allowed the option of the first vacancies that occurred, which would enable them to obtain full pay.
The vote was agreed to.
Upon the vote of 106,000 l. being proposed for the pay of general officers, in his Majesty's forces,
Lord Howickremarked, that it was his intention to propose, in accordance with the wish expressed by the Committee who sat on this subject, that general officers not having a regiment, should be allowed the pay of 400 l. per annum each. This charge was apt included in the present estimate; but he intended to introduce it in a supplementary estimate, to which, he was sure, the House would readily assent.
Vote agreed to. Various other sums were voted, and the House adjourned.