Commons Sitting of 15 August 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Tithe Compositions (Ireland); Municipal Elections; Poor-Law Loans.—Read a second time:—Borough Funds and Borough Boundaries.—Read a first time:—Equity Exchequer Suits; Malt Duties; Grand Jury Presentments (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. LENNARD, from the Protestant Dissenters of Maiden, for the Abolition of Church Rates.— By the LORD ADVOCATE, from Peebles, to be exempted from the burthen of alimenting Prisoners after conviction. —By Dr. LUSHINGTON, from the Peace Society and others, Southampton, that all national difficulties may be attempted to be settled by Friendly Interposition.

GRAND JURIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord Morpethsaid, that in order to avoid any difficulty with respect to the Lords' amendments to the Irish Grand Jury Bill, and to satisfy their just pretensions, he should move that the Bill, as sent down from their Lordships' House, be laid aside, and that leave be given to introduce a new Bill, omitting those clauses which had been struck out or altered by their Lordships. The noble Lord then brought in a Bill for consolidating and amending the laws for the regulation of Grand Juries in Ireland, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN BOROUGHS.
The Solicitor-General The Solicitor-General moved the second reading of the Borough Justices Bill.
The Earl of Lincolnsaid, the march of legislation had been lately so rapid that hon. Members did not actually know what they were doing. It would surprise the learned Gentleman and other Members when they were told that the Bill now proposed for a second reading had not been read a first time. Such, however, was the fact. On Saturday, some parchments in the form of Bills were laid on the table, and the titles of them read. As some hon. Members on his side of the House wished to know something of them and their contents, they took up one, and on untying it, were surprised to find it all a blank. The other two were the same. Surely, under such circumstances, it would be impossible for them to suspend the standing orders, in order to pass the Bills that evening.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, the entry upon the journals was, that the Bills were ordered for a second reading; which, of course, implied that they had been read a first time. The journals were conclusive. They were Bills on which no discussion could arise, all the clauses having been agreed to by both Houses.
The Speaker: There can be no doubt that a copy of the Bill on parchment should be on the table of the House when the first reading of it is moved. I was not aware that such was not the case in the present instance. I now understand that the reason of this not being so was this—that the Bills were at that moment sent to the printer, in order to insure their being printed and in the hands of Members as early as possible that morning.
The Earl of Lincolnsaid, hon. Members were prevented from knowing what the Bills were on Saturday, and which were only delivered to them that morning; so that it was impossible any Gentleman could know what he was about.
Mr. Charles Rosshad made inquiries of many Parliamentary agents, and none of them had ever known an instance of the kind.
Mr. Charltondeprecated the course that had been adopted. In his opinion, hon. Members ought to have had an opportunity of seeing what the measures were.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, there Was not one word inserted in the Bill that had not been assented to by the House, and

1229
not a circumstance had occurred that Would place any hon. Member in a different predicament to that in which he was at present placed.
Bill read a second time.

CONFERENCE.—COUNSEL FOR PRISONERS.
The House held a Conference with the Lords on the Prisoners' Counsel Bill, when Mr. Ewart and others, who were the managers, laid before their Lordships the Commons' reasons for disagreeing to the Lords' Amendments in the Prisoners' Counsel Bill.

AFFAIRS OF SPAIN.
Captain Bolderosaid that having complied with the usual rule of courtesy by giving the noble Lord notice, he rose in the exercise of his privilege to put a question to him. He wished to be informed whether Government had received any official intelligence announcing that the National Guard of Madrid had been disembodied, and that the municipality had refused to take up arms, having been ordered to do so? If such were the fact, the noble Lord would, perhaps, add what passing events had led to this proceeding. The present posture of affairs in Spain seemed to require all the noble Lord's judgment. Having put this single question, he should make no further observation, being sure that the answer to it would receive all attention.
Viscount Palmerstonstated, that official information had been received, that an attempt had been made at Madrid to proclaim the Constitution of 1812, by a portion of the National Guard. That attempt was successfully resisted by the Queen's Government; but an order had in consequence been issued for remodelling the National Guard: that force was disembodied for a short time, in order that it might be remodelled and reformed.
Sir George Sinclairinquired whether the British Legion was to be employed in supporting the Constitution of 1812?
Lord Palmerstonreplied, that that force was in the pay, and under the orders, of the Spanish Government. It was not for him to Say on what service it would be employed.
Viscount Stormontsaid, some painful events had occurred at Saragossa, and he begged to know whether the force on board the British squadron was to be employed in support of the Constitution of 1812, then proclaimed?
Viscount Palmerstonremarked, that a
1230
great poet had represented Bohemia as a maritime country, and the noble Lord had converted Saragossa into a sea-port. He did not think it likely that the British naval force was likely to undertake any operations at Saragossa.
Viscount Stormontdid not put the question with reference to the squadron, but to the supernumerary marines on board it. He had said nothing about vessels, but marines, who had been acting on shore, and who had nothing to do with the vessels.
Viscount Palmerstonadded, that the noble Lord was quite mistaken in supposing that the marines had nothing to do with the squadron. They were attached to the squadron, and were under the command of Lord John Hay. Their service was of a character very different to that of marching to Saragossa, and taking part in political affairs there.
Mr. Grove Pricewas by no means satisfied with the answer of the noble Lord. He was about to refer to Corunna, and to the coast of Spain adjacent to where the British squadron was stationed, without wandering to Bohemia. He wished to know whether the British force under Lord John Hay, paid and victualled by this country, was to remain neutral, or to take part for or against the friends of the Constitution of 1812.
Viscount Palmerstonanswered, that the British force would decidedly remain neutral. It was at present acting in pursuance of the engagements of a treaty: that treaty had reference to a civil war between the Queen of Spain and her party, and Don Carlos and his party, but no reference whatever to any internal divisions between the Constitutionalists of 1812 and their opponents.
Sir John Elleyhoped he should not be considered irregular in offering a few words. The situation of General Evans seemed very critical and difficult. It appeared that an order had been sent for three battalions of Spanish troops to quit the British Legion, and to return to Vittoria; and this had been done by order of Cordova. The noble Lord had said that the British Legion was at the disposal of the Spanish Government, which Spanish Government had named Cordova as Commander-in-chief. Having attached the three battalions on a former occasion, Cordova had issued orders to detach them again and on the receipt of the orders, the troops became a deliberative body.
Subject dropped.

PENSIONS DUTIES.
The Pensions Duties Bill was read a third time. On the question that it do pass,
Mr. Warburtonrose to move the omission of that clause in the Bill which exempted the Duke of Marlborough from the payment of the duties it imposed. Those duties were a four-shilling duty, a shilling, and a sixpenny duty. With respect to the first, there could be no doubt whatever that the pension of the Duke of Marlborough was liable to it. It had been constantly paid since the first granting of the pension, with the exception he should explain to the House. It had, indeed, been represented by a paper which had been put into the hands of Members, that by the 5th Ann, it was provided that the pension should be paid without any charges or fees. But he (Mr. Warburton) affirmed that this was not a fair quotation from the Act. The language of the Act was, that the pension should be paid without any fees or charges "to be demanded or taken for paying the same, or any part thereof." And that very Act gave his Grace a remedy in case any deductions were attempted to be made from the amount of his pension, on account of any fees or charges which could not legally be demanded; it provided, that in such case, he might bring his action in a court of law against the persons making the illegal demands. It was clear, therefore, that even admitting the law of the case to be on the side of the Duke, he was not under the necessity of appealing to Parliament: for if either the four-shilling, the one shilling, or the sixpenny duty were illegally imposed upon him, he had his remedy by an action at law. As to the one shilling, and the sixpenny duties, he (Mr. Warburton) admitted, that by the 31st and 32d Geo. 2nd c. 33, his Grace was exempted from the payment of the four-shilling duty, for that Act undoubtedly exempted from the payment of all duties belonging to the crown, any pensions granted by his Majesty's successor, by any Act of Parliament, in fee or fee tail. And as by the 48th Geo. 3rd, any pension was exempted from the payment of the duties then levied, (the sixpenny, the one shilling, and the four-shilling duties) which had been specially exempted from the payments of any or either of such duties, his Grace, in being exempted from the four shilling-duty, was
1232
undoubtedly exempted also from the one shilling, and the sixpenny duties. But by the 49th Geo. 3rd, these Acts were repealed: and therefore, as far as the law of the case went, he (Mr. Warburton) agreed in the opinion expressed by the Attorney and Solicitor General, that his Grace's pension was justly liable to the payment of those duties. But then it was contended, that though, according to the strict law of the case, his Grace might be liable to the payment of those duties, yet such was not the intention of Parliament at the time of granting his pension, he (Mr. Warburton) contended, that the Acts of that Parliament were the only just interpretation of its intentions. And by Parliamentary returns, it would be found that the duties in question had actually been charged immediately after the pension was granted, in 1705. Let it be recollected, that by the resolutions of that House, the Duke of Marlborough was charged with having fraudulently and illegally taken large sums of money, amounting, altogether, to 247,000 l.; and though he was never called upon to refund that money, the recollection of the great services he had rendered the country, having probably prevented Parliament from proceeding to extremities against him, yet, no doubt, Parliament considered those matters in determining upon the amount of his pension. And when the House of Commons of that day had decided that, taking all things into consideration, 5,000 l.; a year, subject to the payment of all aids and taxes, with the magnificent estate of Blenheim, were a sufficient reward for his services to the country, he (Mr. Warburton) asked, what was there in the services rendered by the present Duke to justify the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. G. Harcourt) in calling upon Parliament now to give him an exemption from taxes and charges to which the great Duke, his progenitor was liable. He (Mr. Warburton) should feel himself justified in the course he was now taking, even upon the question of form alone. He objected most strongly to the manner in which the clause in question had been introduced into the Bill. Had it been expected that the Members of the Government would have voted for it, the benches upon his (Mr. Warburton's) side of the House would have been much better filled. A vote obtained from the House, so taken by surprise, could not be considered as expressing the real sense, of the

1233
House; and upon the ground both of merit and of form, he felt it his duty to move, that this clause be omitted from the Bill.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, he should support the motion of the hon. Member for Bridport, and he entirely agreed in the arguments by which that motion had been supported. The House had no reason to suppose that Ministers intended to support the clause brought forward by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, nay, more, when that motion was under discussion, not one Member of the Government had expressed his approval of it: the Chancellor of the Exchequer, indeed, had said, that he considered it a question of doubt, and that he should give his vote in favour of the doubts; but no other Minister had in any way expressed himself favourable to it. He (Mr. Robinson) contended, that a vote taken when the House was under such a false impression, could not be considered indicative of its real feelings. He did not feel it necessary to argue the merits, but he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the first Duke had submitted to the deductions in question, what services had the present Duke rendered the country that entitled him to exemption from those deductions?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad nothing more to say upon the subject than what he stated the other evening, except this, that the hon. Member for Bridport was completely mistaken, when he supposed that the clause in question had been taken up by the Government. It was true that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had supported the clause when it was under consideration on the former occasion, and it was equally true that he should do so again; but in doing so, it must be understood, that he was expressing only his own individual opinion on the merits of the case. Looking at the Acts of Parliament, and at the various circumstances connected with the grant, as originally made to the great Duke of Marlborough, there appeared to him to be a doubt as to whether a tax could possibly be imposed upon it; and having that doubt in his mind, he determined to give the present Duke the benefit of it. As a proof that the clause had not been treated as a Government measure, he need only observe, that three members of the Administration had voted against it.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, he was one of
1234
those three. If a distinct proposition were brought forward, to place the pension of the Duke of Marlborough on the same footing as that of other great military commanders, he was not prepared to say that the House ought to reject it; but understanding that the clause now proposed to be struck out, was founded exclusively upon the supposed construction of the Act by which the grant to the Duke of Marlborough was originally made, he felt bound to oppose it, because, according to his reading of that Act, the pension of the Duke was clearly liable to any tax that Parliament might impose upon it.
Mr. Humethought, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he had any doubt upon his mind, ought to give it in favour of the public, not of the Duke of Marlborough, whose ancestor had been sufficiently well paid for the services he performed; and who, moreover, had always been liable to such deductions as that from which now, for the first time, it was proposed to exempt his descendant. He begged to ask, whether at the end of a Session, with no more than fifty Members present, it was fit or proper for the House to overrule that which had been an invariable custom for upwards of 100 years?
Mr. Brothertonfelt that he should not be doing his duty to his constituents if he did not oppose this clause. He felt satisfied, indeed, that this country never could be happy or prosperous till war was discountenanced, and warriors held in less estimation than at present.
Mr. Trevorsaid, it was unjust and un. fair to represent this clause as giving the present Duke of Marlborough any increase of pension. He should not enter into the line of argument which had been taken by the hon. Member for Salford. He deprecated war and warriors. But he (Mr. Trevor) should like to ask him, what would have become of this country at the time of the Duke of Marlborough, had it not been for the splendid victories achieved by that celebrated general. We were fighting then, pro aris et focis, and this pension had been granted to the Duke by the unanimous voice of the Parliament of that day, as a reward for those distinguished national services. True; war was no benefit to any country, but he (Mr. Trevor) contended, that it would be a violation of public faith and national honour, to allow any deductions from the amount of pen-

1235
sion which had been unanimously granted to one of its most eminent military heroes.
Mr. CutlarFergusson agreed with his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that as there was doubt upon the Subject, it ought to be given in favour of the Duke.
Dr. Lushingtonobjected to the form and mode in which the clause had been introduced into the Bill. Such a clause should have been proposed, not on the bringing up of the report, but in a Committee of the whole House. He was decidedly of opinion, that the pension of the Duke of Marlborough Was liable to taxation, in the same manner as other pensions, and for that reason he should now vote with the hon. Member for Bridport for the omission of the clause.
Colonel Sibthorpwould support the clause. The pension of the Duke of Marl-borough, it must be recollected, had been fairly earned; an observation which would not apply to the pension of many a Chancellor of the Exchequer or Secretary of State.
Sir George Grey Sir George Grey, after mature consideration, Was of opinion that it was undesirable to introduce the clause into the present Bill.
The House divided on the question, that the clause Stand part of the Bill:—Ayes 34; Noes 36: Majority 2.

List of the AYES.

Ashley, Lord

Price, S. G.

Attwood, Thomas

Pusey, Philip

Byng, G. S.

Reid, Sir J. Rae

Chandos, Marquess of

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Churchill, Ld. C. S.

Richards, R.

Cockerell, Sir C. bt.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Cooper, E. J.

Sanford, E. A.

Dalmeny, Lord

Sibthorp, Colonel

Fergusson, rt. hon. R. C.

Stanley, E. J.

Gordon, Robert

Steuart, R.

Howard, hon. E.G.

Stormont, Lord

Jones, Theobald

Tancred, H. W.

Lennox, Lord G.

Trevor, hon. A.

Macleod, R.

Tynte, C. K. K.

Maule, hon. F.

Wall, Charles Baring

Morpeth, Viscount

Murray, John Arch.

TELLERS.

Neeld, Joseph

Harcourt, G.

Palmerston, Lord

Young, G. F.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Bonham, R. F.

Alsager, Captain

Bowring, Dr.

Baring, F. T.

Brotherton, J.

Baring, Thomas

Callaghan, D.

Bewes, T.

Chalmers, P.

Blamire, W.

Duncombe, T. S.

1236

Gladstone, Thomas

Robinson, G.

Grey, Sir G

Ruthven, Edward

Hawes, B.

Scrope, G. P.

Hindley, C.

Smith, Benjamin

Hotham, Lord

Thompson Col. T. P.

Hume, J.

Thornley. T.

Humphery, John

Tooke, William

Labouchere, Henry

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Leader, J. T.

Wakley, T.

Lushington, Dr. S.

Williams, W.

Pattison, J.

Philips, Mark

TELLERS.

Potter, R.

Ewart, W.

Robarts, Abraham W.

Warburton, H.

Clause excluded, and Bill passed.

JEWISH CIVIL DISABILITIES' BILL,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the third reading of the Bill; for removing the civil disabilities under which the Jews labour.
Mr. Arthur Trevorsaid, I feel it my duty before a Bill, which will finally unchristianize this House, (for if it pass, it will be quite possible for this House to become a Jewish Sanhedrim), I feel it my duty to give it my most strenuous opposition. Some hon. Members may think it immaterial what is the religious creed of the body representing the people in this House. I cannot concur in that feeling. Nor can I—God forbid that I should offer such an insult to any dissenting Christians, as to place their claims with regard to civil disabilities upon a par with those of the Jews, who deny the birth and the existence of the Messiah. I should like to ask, how can the Jews, if admitted into this House, join in the prayers which are offered up to the supreme Being for a blessing upon our undertakings before we proceed to business? Do they not deny not only the divinity, but the very existence of the Being, in whose name they are offered up. And am I not justified in saying, that by admitting the Jews into this House, you unchristianize this House? You do not merely dissever Church and State; you separate between the State and Christianity. I believe I have good ground for asserting, that this measure is looked upon with execration and disgust by a considerable portion of the reflecting community throughout England. I trust I shall find among the Dissenters of my constituents those who will justify me in the course I have taken with regard to it. I do believe, that any man possessing genuine Christian principles, must view this measure with disgust. I speak not thus with any feelings of ill will towards the Jews. I believe them to be a peaceful and

1237
miserly body of people; but so long as the Christian faith is professed in this country, I do say, that by admitting those who deny that faith altogether—not merely to the rights and privileges of a civil nature, but to the right of legislation in all matters affecting the Christian Church as well as the State, we are doing that which is unworthy of our name, and placing our-selves in a very despicable position in the eyes of surrounding Christian nations. I do trust there will be found some in this House to unite with me in recording their opinion against the Bill in this its final stage in this House. I know, indeed, that from the lateness of the Session it is not likely the Bill will pass into a law this year. But that is no reason why a measure of this kind should pass a yet Christian House of Commons unresisted. I am fully aware that my opposition will be unsuccessful; but it is no reason why we should shrink from a contest, that we anticipate defeat; and I feel that, as one of the representatives of a Christian country, I have a solemn duty to discharge—a duty which I will not be deterred from performing. I consider this a truly disgraceful Bill. As I said before, it will be quite possible, if it should ever pass into a law, for this House to be composed entirely of Jews—no very enviable state of things. I consider it my duty to oppose at its last stage its really execrable enactments. I, therefore, move, that this Bill be read a third time this day three months.
Mr. Borthwick: I cannot allow this Bill to pass its final stage in this House, without expressing my strong opposition to it, and my entire concurrence in what has fallen from my hon. Friend, the Member for Durham, (Mr. Trevor) in regard to it. On a former occasion, when I ventured to say, that I opposed this Bill, not as a Christian, but as a citizen, I had not time to state why I made that distinction, and it is for that purpose alone I now rise. I do not apprehend any evil to the Church of England from this measure. I believe her to be founded on a rock, which cannot be shaken by any act of this, or any other legislative assembly; and we are too much accustomed to speak, as though we were the protectors of the Church, and as if she were in danger from any acts of ours. But so soon as you admit those, who have been properly represented as deniers of the very God whom we worship, and whom the Church acknowledges, into the legislative assembly of the country you sever
1238
at once, and for ever, between Church and State.
Colonel Sibthorp: Sir, I am not afraid to divide. I think if the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had brought forward so important a mea-sure as this, affecting, as it does, the religion and the institutions of this country, at an earlier period of the Session, so as to have allowed time for proper discussion, he would have acted with greater credit to himself, and given more satisfaction to the country. I agree with my hon. Friend who spoke first, that this measure will be viewed with disgust and dissatisfaction through out the reflecting part of the community. I believe it will be so among my own constituents. Sir, I have no hostility to the Jews; but I say, that if they are admitted into this House, it will be impossible for them to attend to duties here, with all those forms which are prescribed to ourselves, unless, indeed, they go through them pro formâ. I shall certainly support my hon. Friend in his amendments.
Sir Charles B. Vere: I consider this a measure pregnant with danger to the Established Church in this country. I hope we shall still continue to be governed by a Christian Legislature, and that our laws will still have the sanction of Christianity upon them. I regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not bring forward so important a measure at an earlier period of the Session. I think that if it pass into a law, our laws will be stripped of that which constitutes the national honour and glory: for I remember the words of a celebrated Frenchman, when comparing the British with the French law, said, the difference was, that the law of England was the law of its religion, the law of France, was an episcopal law.
The House divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 13: Majority 31.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir Charles

Gordon, Robt.

Aglionby, H.

Grey, Sir G.

Bagshaw, John

Hindley, C.

Bernal, Ralph

Howard, P. H.

Bewes, T.

Hume, J.

Blamire, W.

Lennox, Lord G.

Bowring, Dr.

Lushington, Dr. S.

Brotherton, J.

Macleod, R.

Callaghan, D.

Maule, hon. Fox

Chalmers, P.

Murray, rt. hon. J.

Churchill, Lord C.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Falmerston, Lord

Dalmeny, Lord

Philips, M.

Fergusson, rt. hon. C.

Potter, R.

1239

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Tulk, Charles

Robinson, G. R.

Wakley, T.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Wall, C. B.

Scrope, George P.

Warburton, H.

Smith, B.

Williams, W.

Steuart, R.

Young, G. F.

Tancred, H. W.

Thompson, Col.

TELLERS.

Thornley, T.

Ewart, W.

Tooke, W.

Hawes, Benjamin

List of the NOES.

Alsager, Captain

Stormont, Lord

Ashley, Lord

Trevor, hon. Arthur

Gladstone, Thomas

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Lincoln, Earl of

Twiss, Horace

Neeld, Joseph

Vere, Sir C. B.

Price, S. G.

TELLERS.

Richards, R.

Borthwick, P.

Ross, Charles

Sibthorp, Col.

Bill read a third time and passed.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Mr. Aglionbymoved the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report.
Colonel Sibthorphad opposed the Bill in every preceding stage, and would oppose it in the present. He concluded with moving, that the report be taken into consideration that day three months.
The House divided, when there not being forty Members present, the House adjourned.