HC Deb 22 May 1835 vol 28 cc14-30
Lord Sandon

moved the Second Reading of the Liverpool Police Bill.

Mr. Ewart

opposed 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 120,000l. 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, 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 Sandon

hoped 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 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 400l., a sum totally inadequate to the wants of so large a parish. It was raised to l,500l., 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 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. Pryme

said, 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. Thornely

said, 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 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 100,000l. per annum (of which 50,000l. 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 Egerton

said, 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 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. Sheil

thought 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 400l. a year; but this was an attempt to saddle the inhabitants of Liverpool with 350l. 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 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 Stanley

could 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. 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 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 Speaker

was 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 Inglis

rose 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. Wilks

begged 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 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 Phillips

protested against Church matters being surreptitiously introduced into a Police Bill, and the entailment of this charge upon the people of Liverpool.

Lord Sandon

begged 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 Sibthorp

would 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. Bowring

begged, 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'Connell

rose 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 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 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. Goulburn

observed 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- 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- 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'Connell

rose 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 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. Potter

had 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.
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.

Back to