Commons Sitting of 17 June 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time;—Grand Jurie s (Ireland); charitable Trustees; Secular Jurisdiction (York and Ely) Abolition.
Petitions presented. By Mr. COREY and Lord ASHLEY, from various Places, for Sabbath Observance Bill.—By several HON. MEMBERS, from various Places, for the Abolition of Church Rates.—By Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN and Mr. SHEIL, from various Places, for Abolition of Tithes (Ireland).—By Mr. SHAW, from Clonmell, in favour of the Lords' Amendments to the Corporations' (Ireland) Bill

EAST-INDIA MARITIME SERVICE.
Mr. George F. Youngsaid, that he now rose to present the petition of which he had given notice, from Captains Newall, Barrow and Glasspoole, of the late maritime service of the East-India Company, complaining that the compensation to which they were entitled under the Act 3rd and 4th William 4th., c. 85, was withheld from them. While candour obliged him to say, that he thought great injustice had been done to these petitioners, he was sure at the same time that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Board of Control had only acted in accordance with the dictates of his conscience and judgment in deciding against their claim. He was also certain that no one would be more rejoiced than the right hon. Gentleman himself, if he should find, that he had been mistaken in arriving at that decision. He thought it right to say thus much at the outset, and to disclaim all participation in those attacks which he had seen with great regret made upon the part of the Government with which the right hon. Baronet was connected, in reference to this subject. The case of the petitioners was briefly told. They were Gentlemen of great respectability, character, and station, and they had been commanders of ships in the East-India Company's service. In the year 1833, at the termination of the late charter of the company, it was deemed

583
expedient that the China trade should be thrown open. If that arrangement had not gone further, there would have been no claims for compensation on the part of any individuals; but it was also deemed accordant with public policy to exclude the East-India Company from any participation in that trade for the future. The result was, to throw out of employment a considerable number of most meritorious individuals, who derived their subsistence from employment in the Company's service, and whose situation justly excited the sympathy of the Court of Directors, of Parliament, and the public. The principle of compensation was adopted, and the greatest anxiety was evinced that it should be extended as far as a just liberality called for. It would be recollected, that when the clause in the Act was under discussion, care was taken so to frame it that all maritime officers entitled to compensation should be brought within the terms of it. In the rules and regulations, however, which were afterwards framed by the Court of Directors, and approved of by the Board of Trade, for the purpose of carrying the compensation, clause into effect, in his opinion the line was drawn too closely, and many individuals were excluded from compensation who, he thought, were entitled to it. The case of such individuals had already been brought by the hon. Member for Worcester before the House; and he believed that that hon. Member had a notice on the notice-book on the subject. The present petitioners, however, complained of a peculiar hardship, and he confessed, that until he heard the reasons from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he could not conceive why their claims for compensation had been disallowed. These Gentlemen had commanded ships belonging to the East-India Company itself. Now a regulation had been adopted by the East-India Company, that of any of the ships of which the Company itself was owner no one should have the command for more than five voyages. This arrangement had been adopted for two reasons— first, because it was understood that in that period a competent fortune might be acquired; and secondly, because the number of ships belonging to the Company was so small that but for such an arrangement the junior officers would have little prospect of ever being in command of one of them. After making five voyages in
584
Company's ships commanders could command freight ships employed by the company. These three Gentlemen not having made a sufficient fortune for their families while in the command of the Company's ships, had felt it their duty, and had actually made arrangements to take the command of ships freighted by the Company, when the Company's trade was stopped by the interference of the Legislature. Under such circumstances, they submitted their claims for compensation to the East-India Company, when to their great surprise, the Finance Committee of the Company reported that—
"Claims having been preferred to maritime compensation by commanders who have completed the full number of five voyages in the Company's own service, your Committee submit that it never could have been intended to grant the compensation to such commanders, they having had the peculiar benefits of the Company's own service for the whole term allowed by the Regulations, and there not being a single case in which a commander so circumstanced has again gone in the command of a ship. Your Committee, therefore, recommend that, subject to the approbation of the Board of Commissioners, claims for this class of commanders be deemed inadmissible."
On this Report of the Finance Committee being presented, the Court of Directors disclaimed it, and recommended that the claims of the petitioners to compensation should be allowed. Application, however, being made to the Board of Control, it was found that that board concurred with the Finance Committee of the East-India Company in refusing the right of the petitioners to compensation. The Court of Directors had recommended the case of the petitioners to the Board of Control for compensation, and that board having refused to grant it, the petitioners had no other remedy but an appeal to that House. The main objection made to the claim of the petitioners was, that no one who had commanded a Company's ship for five voyages had ever continued to pursue his profession afterwards. But such was not the fact; and the rule laid down by the act of Parliament was, that all persons who suffered injury by the termination of the Company's trade, should be liberally compensated. The petitioners in their case, as laid before the Board of Control, detailed facts to show that there were several instances of commanders, after five voyages in Company's ships, continuing to follow their profession; they gave convincing proofs that they had themselves intended

585
to do so, and that they had made arrangements for that purpose; they subjoined the certificates of most respectable merchants that they intended to present them to ships to he freighted by the Company, and to crown all, they had subscribed the solemn declaration required from all persons claiming compensation that it had been their intention to pursue their profession. In the teeth of such facts, the Board of Control decided against their claims. He should have mentioned that at a meeting of the Court of Proprietors, the following resolution had been unanimously carried—
"At a general Court of the East-India Company, the 16th of December, 1835—Resolved unanimously—That according to the intention of this Court in the scheme of compensation proposed by them for their maritime officers, Captains Newall, Barrow and Glasspoole, are entitled to the pension of 200 l. per annum, granted by this Court to commanders generally of the late maritime service, who had been in actual service between the 28th of August, 1828, and the 28th of August, 1833, and that the Court of Directors be requested to take the necessary steps for paying the same accordingly."
He trusted, that even should the right hon. Gentleman consider it his duty to adhere to the decision already made on the subject by the Board of Control, he would give way, should the feeling of the House appear to be that the regulation should not be drawn so strictly, but that it should be relaxed a little in order to do justice to the petitioners.
Mr. George Palmer Mr. George Palmer, after pronouncing a warm eulogium on the East-India Company's maritime service, gave his cordial support to the petition.
Sir John Hobhousesaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down could not rate that service higher than he did. He also begged to assure his hon. Friend who had presented the petition, that it was not until he had gone through all the facts of the case most minutely, that he had arrived at the conclusion of which the petitioners complained — that they were not entitled to the compensation which they claimed. Having had notice of this petition, he had again gone over the details of the case, and he was again painfully compelled to pronounce the same decision. He could assure the House that of all the labours which devolved on the department with which he was connected, none were so painful as those which related to the consideration of claims of this kind [hear], and it was with the greatest regret he found
586
himself compelled by a sense of public duty to resist the claims of these gentlemen. The hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that the Court of Directors had always regarded the claims of these gentlemen favourably. In the first instance, they took the same view of the subject as their Finance Committee — namely, that the claims of these gentlemen were inadmissible. The Court of Directors came to a resolution to that effect on the 4th of March, 1835. It was true that in a few days afterwards they changed that opinion, and they thought fit to recommend to the then Commissioners for managing the affairs of India, of whom the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Praed) was one, to consider the case of those officers. The then Commissioners did so, and Lord Ellenborough, after a most careful examination of the case, thought fit to decide that the claims of these officers were inadmissible. He would briefly state his reasons for concurring in that decision. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the decision of the Court of Proprietors, but that decision did not carry, in his opinion, much weight with it. They were not a fit body to entertain a question of the kind. They had now no power over the revenues of the Indian empire, and the amount of their incomes would not be at all affected by the decision of such claims as this one way or the other. He doubted very much that the interpretation put by his hon. colleague (Lord Glenelg) on the act of Parliament was correct. He thought that the Court of Proprietors, strictly speaking, had no right to discuss questions of this kind. He begged to assure the hon. Gentleman opposite that there was not a single instance where commanders who had gone in Company's ships five voyages had afterwards taken up freighted ships. What the act of Parliament intended to guard against was, the infliction of prospective loss on any individuals. They had nothing whatever to do with the former circumstances of these gentlemen; all that the Board of Control had to inquire was, whether their claim could have a prospective force. It was just possible that they might have again been called into service; but he had no control over that. They had derived all the advantage they had a right to expect from employment in the Company's service, and being in possession of that, they had no right to attempt to prove a prospective loss, on which ground alone they had any claim to compensation. He contended that the arguments advanced in

587
support of the claim were founded on a total misapprehension of the Act of Parliament. His hon. Friend was quite mistaken if he supposed that Parliament could exercise any power in granting compensation, or in any particular except in distributing it. If they were to undertake the settlement of the various claims which were urged by individuals, the time of the House would be entirely taken up in considering them. He had given the most careful attention to this case, as well as to all that had come before him, and if he could fancy for a moment that injustice had been done, he would not hesitate to reconsider it. But he conceived that Lord Ellenborough was right—that the gentlemen concerned had not proved a prospective loss, and that not having proved it, they had no right to claim compensation. The argument pressed by the hon. Member for Middlesex in favour of the claim was, that other parties had received sums of money, not as pensions, but gratuities, larger perhaps than those gentlemen would think it just to claim. He replied, that he was not responsible for the scale on which those gratuities were granted. It was, in his opinion, an extremely improvident one. Any Gentleman who could prove that there would have been a certainty of his being employed as captain of a Company's ship, not having been so previously, was entitled to a gratuity of 5,000 l., and a pension of 200 l. a,-year, that is, for giving up his chance of the advantage to be derived from five voyages he was entitled to what was equivalent to 7,000 l. His hon. Friend admitted that the profits, on an average of five voyages, did not amount to a great deal more than 7,000 l. He thought, the compensation was unnecessarily large; but, comparing it with the alleged amount of profit, certainly no ground of complaint could be advanced by the parties. He had to apologize to the House for entering into this detail; but he thought he had made out such a case as proved he had come to a correct decision, and; that this was not a case which Parliament should consider, or in which the House of Commons ought in any way to reverse the decision to which the Commissioners for Managing the Affairs of India had, after due deliberation, arrived.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, that the only question was whether these officers were or were not injured by the opening of the trade to China. The right hon. Baronet said, that they had brought forward no proof of this; but he would remind the
588
right hon. Baronet that the Board of Control would allow no proof to be adduced. The Court of Proprietors had admitted the justice of their claim, and that by an unanimous vote. Under these circumstances he was bound to say that he considered this a case of extreme hardship, and even injustice. They were driven to petition Parliament to interfere in their favour, and he hoped that the House would see the justice of their claim. The right hon. Baronet had denied the right of the Court of Proprietors to interfere; but he differed with the right hon. Baronet on this point, because that Court was one of the parties to the contract entered into with the naval officers of the Company. There were three parties to that contract—the Company, the public, and the Company's maritime officers. He was aware that this was not the time to argue the question at length, but he did not very well know what remedy would be left to the officers, if the Board of Control, after the favourable conclusion come to by the Court of Directors which was confirmed by an unanimous vote of the Court of Proprietors, were to annul those decisions without assigning any definite reason. Parliament having delegated the distribution of the compensation fund to the Court of Directors and the Board of Control acting with them, those bodies had exercised their right in a perfectly fair and equitable manner, and he did not think it just that their sentence should be reversed.
Mr. Praedagreed with the right hon. Baronet, that the Act of Parliament warranted the awarding compensation under certain regulations laid down to some classes of the officers of the East-India Company. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the scale of compensation adopted was needlessly profuse; but he thought the restriction of it to those who had served within the last five years was very inexpedient and impolitic. But these regulations were made before Lord Ellen-borough came into office. He thought there was a strong primâ facie appearance, that a captain who had made five voyages in the service of the East-India Company could have no prospective loss to complain of, and such a person. could not be regarded as entitled to compensation within the restriction made by Mr. Charles Grant,, now Lord Glenelg. It had, however, been the opinion of Lord Ellenborough,

589
and he entirely concurred in it, that the rule, though strong as to the inclusion, was not strong as to the exclusion, and that it might be relaxed if there were any circumstances affecting; a particular case, which gave the individual special claims to compensation. His view of the opinion held by Mr. Grant on this subject was this,—he believed that Mr. Grant came to a resolution to compensate all officers who might sustain injury by the new arrangements entered into respecting the trade to China; but he found that if all those who considered themselves injured were called on to make out their claims, the property of the Company would be wasted to an indefinite amount, and was therefore induced to restrict compensation to those who had served a certain period. It was certainly his opinion that the petitioners had made out a claim founded on prospective loss.
Mr. Vernon Smithhoped the hon. Member would allow him to set him right on one point. They had imagined that in all they had done, with regard to claims for compensation, they had acted in complete accordance with the precedents laid down by Lord Ellenborough. He contended that the Board of Control had offered no objection to the production of evidence in support of the claim of. the petitioners; but the proofs they produced were of a very unsatisfactory character. The hon. Member for Worcester said, that the Board of Control had thrown obstacles in the way of the petitioners. He admitted this; but he did not agree with him in thinking that they were not entitled to throw obstacles in the way of a claim which they considered did not rest on any sufficient ground. He thought that one of the principal uses of the Board of Control was to prevent the extravagant expenditure of the property of the East-India Company. If the hon. Gentleman thought they had acted improperly, he might bring their conduct before Parliament, or he might, if he thought proper, introduce a Bill for altering the functions of the Board.
Petition to lie on the table.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND)—LORDS' AMENDMENTS — CONFERENCE.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerstated, that a Committee had been appointed to draw up reasons, to be communicated to the Lords at a conference,
590
for disagreeing to certain amendments introduced by the House of Lords in the Municipal Corporations Bill for Ireland. He begged to move that they be reported.
They were read accordingly. For them, see the Lords, ante p. 676 et. seqq.
On the question that they be agreed to,
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that he hoped it would be distinctly understood, that those who did not wish to provoke any discussion on the subject were at the same time not to be considered as coinciding with the reasons. It was impossible to urge any grounds of disagreement to the amendments to the Bill made by the Commons, without provoking a general debate on the point under discussion the other night. A division might take place on each of these amendments, especially as the reasons had not been read at length, and he trusted that it might be understood, that they the (Opposition) dissented; that their acquiescence was given under protest, and with a distinct reservation of their own opinions.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that a similar course had been pursued last year on the English Municipal Reform Bill, and it was then distinctly understood and expressly stated, that the reasons for disagreeing to the Lords' Amendments were only the reasons of the majority, and, therefore, the minority, could not stand in the slightest degree pledged to abide by them. Many clauses of the reasons were not very intelligible, without reference to the Bill; it was not necessary to read them at full length, and they could only be regarded as the reasons of those who agreed to the Bill in its present shape. That was the course pursued on a former occasion, and the one which would prove most conducive to the public convenience.
Sir Robert Peelremarked, that considering the important charge intrusted to a Committee, in drawing up reasons whether they were such as had no reference at all to the opinions of the minority or not, he doubted, where that was the case, if it would be a good precedent to establish that such a Report should be received without objection. It was not right that the House, as a House, should sanction such a proceeding, and it might materially increase the weight of the reasons assigned, if it were known that they passed as those of the whole House, and that no objection was offered to the Report.
Report agreed to; and the Chancellor

591
of the Exchequer, with other hon. Members were deputed to demand a conference with the Lords. The conference was held and the Chancellor of the Exchequer reported that the managers for the Commons had delivered to the managers for the Peers the reasons of the Commons for disagreeing from the Peers' amendments, and had left with them the Bill and its amendments.

COMMUTATION OF TITHES (ENGLAND).
Lord J. Russellmoved, that the order of the day be now read for taking into further consideration the Report on this Bill.
Sir George Sinclairobserved, that in the orders of the day the Church of Ireland Bill stood at the very head of the list. Why then was it postponed? The House had now sat four months, and he really did think that a Bill purporting to be one for the relief of the Church of Ireland, one of the most important measures that could possibly be submitted to the House, should long since have been carried to a conclusion. It seemed to him that the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers, now that they were in power, was very different from what it had been when they sat on that (the Opposition) side of the House; for while there a great deal had been said by them about the impossibility of tranquillizing Ireland without a settlement of the question relating to the Church of Ireland: yet week after week, and month after month, was now allowed to elapse without the measure being brought to a conclusion. This he could not reconcile with his ideas of what ought to be a manly, straightforward, and statesmanlike conduct. The only reason, indeed, that he could possibly discover as probably actuating his Majesty's Ministers in the course of proceeding they had adopted, was the fear they must necessarily entertain of the manner in which the appropriation clause of that measure was likely to be received in another place. It appeared to him that they had thought the appropriation clause a very convenient millstone to be launched from their catapulta to break down the rampart which kept them from the Treasury benches, but that they had at last found it a heavy millstone round their own necks. He trusted that some day would be fixed, on which the discussion might really and fairly be entered into, so that it might be ascertained whether the Bill
592
should be carried on or not. The conduct of Ministers was the same as it had been during the former session when they carried the appropriation clause, did nothing whatever in it until June, but brought forward many other questions, although that was the question on which they took office. He would be glad to know from the noble Lord why the question had not been brought forward, and when it was likely to be gone into?
Lord John Russell: The hon. Member who had just sat down had been dreaming away his existence, without paying the least attention to the events of the last few years. The hon. Member had said, that when out of office his Majesty's Ministers had pretended great anxiety to obtain a settlement of the tithe question in Ireland. To that it was almost superfluous in him to reply, that they had really felt, and had not pretended, that anxiety. For his own part, he had felt it for sometime past, and had shown it in 1834, when, as one of the King's Ministers, he had assisted in preparing a Bill for that purpose which had been thrown out by the House of Lords, even though it did not contain any objectionable clause of appropriation. Again, in 1835, Ministers, as soon as they had time to consider this question, had propounded another Bill for the same object, and that Bill too had been thrown out by the House of Lords. Those facts appeared to have escaped the attention of the hon. Member who seemed to be in complete ignorance of the fate of those two bills. He (Lord J. Russell),however, could not exclude the past from his memory, and the consequence was, that he did not entertain the same hopes which he formerly entertained, that the Bill which he had proposed for the settlement of tithes in Ireland would be suffered by the other House to pass into law. With regard to the Bill to be debated that evening, he had only to observe that the Tithe Commutation Bill for England was brought into that House early in February last, that it had since then been frequently discussed, that it was a Bill of great importance, that it was a measure in which the interests of many parties were materially concerned, and that it was one on which he entertained hopes that Parliament would agree, there being no such question involved in it as was involved in the Irish Church Bill. He therefore could not see any reason why this Bill,

593
which was introduced in February last, should be postponed to make way for the Church of Ireland Bill, which was not introduced till a month later. It might perhaps suit the convenience of the hon. Member better to have the Irish Bill discussed that night. Perhaps he had some speech ready cut and dried for that Bill, of which he was anxious to deliver himself. If that were the case, he would make no objection to the hon. Member's delivering it upon the English Tithe Bill, as it would probably be just as appropriate to one Bill as to the other.
The order of the day was read.
Lord John Russellsaid, before the Bill was recommitted he wished to make a few remarks to the House. He would remind the House that when this subject was last under consideration, he had stated, that although they had been some time in Committee upon it, still the attendance had not been so numerous, nor had the sense of the House been so fairly taken on the 34th Clause, as to justify him in proposing that the Bill should pass, without affording them an opportunity of pronouncing some more decided judgment upon that particular provision. The effect of that clause was, that if it should be found in certain cases that the amount of tithe paid, or the amount of the composition for tithe, was above seventy-five per cent, on the gross value, it should be reduced to seventy; that, in cases where it fell below sixty, it should be raised to seventy; and that in special and peculiar cases it might be fixed at between sixty and seventy. He had since considered the subject with a view to meet, if possible, the objections of those who had spoken and voted against this clause as one which, in their opinion, would commit a very great injustice against the landowners. The result of that consideration was, that he gave notice of a motion for the recommittal of the Bill, for the purpose of effecting a very considerable change in this enactment. That change would be a modification of this clause, as the former clause was a modification of the 33rd Clause originally proposed. It was essentially necessary that that clause should undergo some modification, because it was evident that in many cases the sum of money taken as composition fell very much below what ought to be taken as its fair amount; and it was represented—with great justice, as be thought—that it would be very unfair
594
if persons who from their own leniency, or other creditable motives, had taken a small amount of composition for a certain period, were to be fixed for ever to that precise amount; while others, who had got as high a rate of composition as they possibly could, were benefitted in proportion to the tenacity with which they had insisted on exacting the utmost farthing. However, so much alarm having been created by the principle he originally proposed to adopt in the 34th Clause, he now-proposed to modify it in a different manner, and to fix a limit, beyond which the tithe should not be varied by the Commissioners. He now proposed that the Commissioners, upon a consideration of the circumstances of the case, should ascertain the gross value of the tithe, and should have the power of raising or diminishing the sum to be paid in future, with this limitation—that they should not raise or diminish it more than one-fifth beyond the amount paid for the last seven years. He proposed, likewise, that the Commissioners should, by the 1st of May next, make a report to his Majesty, which should be laid before Parliament, stating what rules and regulations they thought fit to adopt, according to which this amount—never exceeding the one-fifth—should be estimated. This would the better enable Parliament to decide upon the rule they would lay down, which would naturally be founded partly on the state of the different districts, and partly on the proportion which they should be told the sum taken bore to the actual tithe. He had thought it necessary to give notice that he should propose this clause in lieu of the 35th: at the same time he must express his opinion, that the clause he originally proposed was founded on the principles of justice, and his regret that it had met with so little support when first brought forward. The noble Lord in conclusion moved, that the Bill be recommitted.
Mr. Goulburndid not know whether the noble Lord would prefer, that he should enter into the question now or in Committee; but in his opinion the alteration now proposed was so completely a substitution of one principle for another, that he did not conceive himself, or any other hon. Member, called upon to enter into the merits of the proposition without time for consideration. The proposition appeared to him to contain an entirely new principle. The noble Lord said, that tithe

595
should in future be rated upon the average of the last seven years; but, said he, that would operate unjustly—it would be a tax on the liberal and a premium to the illiberal. He agreed with the noble Lord on this. The Bill, however, already provided against this objection, by specifying a sum which might be supposed to meet the exigences of every case; but the noble Lord now abandoned that principle in his subsidiary clause. He proposed, that the composition should be estimated from the actual value of the tithe, yet he now went back to the contrary principle, and actually did that which he proposed to avoid, encouraging the illiberal and taxing the liberal. This mode of proceeding overlooked entirely the value of the tithe, and went only upon the amount actually received by the incumbent. This he conceived to be a very great variation from the avowed principle. Indeed, the noble Lord himself seemed to be sensible of the inconvenience it might occasion, and to distrust the operation of the clause he was about to introduce, for he proposed to call on the Commissioners to report the rules and principles upon which they proposed to make the additions or deductions. He confessed, that he could not see how the Commissioners could possibly make such a report. The subject-matter of it must depend upon the knowledge the Commissioners might have of the nature of the agreements for composition in individual cases, and they could have no better means of judging than the noble Lord himself or the House. The noble Lord said, that the arrangement was necessary, because persons had entered into compositions with the existing incumbents, on the faith of which they had commenced a course of improvements. This he could understand as a reason why existing engagements should not be interfered with; but it must be remembered that a party making such an agreement would make it for a definite period, either for the life of the incumbent or for a certain number of years, and that it, would be most unjust to make that which was originally the basis of a temporary arrangement the foundation for a permanent one. He begged not to be understood as either supporting or opposing the clause; but if the noble Lord did not afford the country time to consider it he would not be doing justice to his own measure, to the landowner, the tithe-owner, or to any of the interests involved in its operation.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, that if he understood the plan of the noble Lord correctly, it was quite contrary to the principle on which he had previously proposed to act, that was, to take the past receipts as the basis of future payments. Now, on the contrary, the noble Lord proposed to take the gross amount of the tithe, and to reduce them on another scale. He thought that they should have a valuation of the entire tithe-property of England, as the right hon. Member for Cumberland proposed, until which time the noble Lord could scarcely have a clear idea of the subject. When that was done it would be quite time enough for the hon. Member for Southwark to move its appropriation according to his sense of justice and propriety. For his (Sir It. Inglis's) part, he thought it should be kept as much as possible in the hands of its present owners, and especially not be given up as a bonus to the landowners.
The House went into a Committee on the Bill.
The clause proposed to be substituted for the 35th having been read,
Mr. Hodgessuggested, that as the clause involved matters of a complicated nature it would be much better to postpone the consideration of it until it had been printed. He recommended that the debate on it should be postponed.
Mr. Goulburnwas quite incapable of discussing the clause with anything like satisfaction to himself till he had seen it in print, and had had time to consider the probable effect of it.
Mr. Shaw Lefevrethought, that the adoption of this clause would be a decided improvement of the Bill, and would materially assist the working of it. He felt obliged to the noble Lord for adopting it. He did not see the necessity for postponing the discussion of it, as there could be no objection to adopting it.
Mr. Ayshford Sanfordapproved of the principle of the clause, because it gave a greater discretionary power to the Commissioners.
Mr. Goulburnobserved, that it was probable that the hon. Member for Hampshire (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had seen the clause, as he had expressed so strong an opinion in favour of it; but this was not the case with the rest of the Committee. He once more suggested the necessity of putting the Committee in possession of the clause with which they had to deal. He could not conceive that his propo-

597
sition would be regarded as unreasonable.
Mr. Blamiresaid, that he did not perceive that there was any difficulty in understanding the clause, although he had not seen it. He thought that it was highly advantageous that it had been brought forward. By means of it they would be enabled to guard against much injustice, which otherwise would have been inflicted.
Viscount Ebringtonhoped the clause would be agreed to. Hon. Members could state any objection to it on bringing up the Report.
Mr. Estcourtobjected to the clause being inserted in the Bill without the fullest discussion.
Mr. Benetthad no objection to give large powers to the Commissioners. Indeed, he thought the clause did not go far enough in this respect, for there were many cases in which the Commissioners ought to have the power of lowering the commutation beyond the twenty per cent. Although most anxious for the disposal of this Bill, which he considered as calculated to do much good in the country, he certainly thought this clause ought to be maturely considered before it was adopted.
Mr. Cayleylooked upon the clause as a great improvement.
Clause agreed to.
The House resumed.

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND MARRIAGES.
Lord John Russellmoved the Order of the Day for bringing up the Report on the Registration of Births and Marriages Bills. The noble Lord observed that several amendments had been made in these Bills. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulburn) objected to the provisions of the Bill. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would consent to take the sense of the House upon those objections on the third reading.
Mr. Goulburnwas understood to say that, if considered more convenient, he should dicuss the provisions to which he objected on the third reading.
Lord Stanleythought the House was bound to take into its consideration the situation in which a class of persons, the parish clerks, would be placed by this Bill. Some of those persons received in fees from 100 l. to 150 l. Now, although he could easily imagine it might not be desirable that those persons should fill the
598
office of registrars, yet it might be proper, when it could be conveniently done, that those persons should fill those offices. He wished to know whether means could not be taken to afford compensation to those persons?
Lord John Russellthought that there would be very great difficulty in providing a remedy for the grievances referred to by the noble Lord. Until the Bill was in operation they could not say what loss those persons would sustain. He did not well know how clauses for compensation could be introduced into the Bill.
Report received—Bill to be read a third time.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
Lord John Russellmoved the second reading of the Established Church Bill.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, his objection to the Bill was, that it made the Bishops of the Church of England, instead of being great proprietors, stipendiaries of the State. The apportionment of the salaries he considered of minor importance. As he believed that any opposition which he could offer to the present motion would not be in the slightest degree successful, he should content himself with entering his protest against the principle of the Bill.
Mr. Poultersaid, that this was a question which ought to be completely discussed and receive the fullest consideration. The object to be obtained was one of no less importance than the real efficiency of the Established Church. He should not oppose the motion, bat he must express his hope that the noble Lord would fix some day on which the question might be discussed fully.
Mr. Peaseconsidered it his duty to state, that it was intended, when this Bill came into the Committee, to propose a provision for the See of Durham, previous to any portion of the funds being set apart for Manchester and other places, which were in a situation to provide for their own wants without abstracting anything from the poor See of Durham.
Bill read a second time.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.
On the Motion of the Attorney-General, the Registration of Voters' Bill was committed.
On the 49th Clause,
Mr. W. M. Praedproposed, an amendment for the purpose of allowing

599
Counsel to appear in support of votes before the revising barristers.
The Attorney-General opposed the amendments.
The Committee divided on the original clause Ayes 68; Noes 22:—Majority 46.
Original Clause agreed to.
On Clause 50, which gives the right of voting to charitable trustees,
Mr. George F. Youngproposed as an amendment, that no trustee should be allowed to vote who was not a trustee for property of the amount of 30 l. a year, and who was not in actual possession of the rents and profits.
Mr. C. Rossobjected to the clause, on the ground that it gave the power of voting to charitable trustees.
The Attorney-Generalsupported the clause. It was but just that all property should be represented.
Mr. George F. Youngsaid, that according to the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman (the Attorney-General), the property owned by females should be represented.
The Attorney-Generalobserved, that the property possessed by females was deprived of representation, precisely for the reason that property belonging to minors and lunatics could not be represented— namely, that from its very nature it was unfit to have the privilege of representation granted to it. The property under the superintendence of trustees, however, was capable of being represented, and therefore it was the object of the present clause that it should be represented.
Lord Stanleythanked the right hon. Gentleman for his illustration respecting minors and lunatics, as it appeared to him to bear precisely on the present clause; for he was persuaded that, on the very same ground on which the guardians of the property of minors and lunatics should not have votes, trustees, to whom it was intended by the present clause to give the right of representation, should be excluded —namely, because they have no beneficial interest whatever to entitle them to vote.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, that if the noble Lord would look at the words of the clause, he would see that those trustees only who exercised a controlling power over the property of which they were appointed guardians were empowered to vote.
Mr. C. Rosssaid, that the effect of this clause would be, that nominal charities would be created in every part of the country, in order to give a fictitious right of voting.
Mr. Fosterwas in favour of some amendment of the Reform Act, as it stood at present, with reference to trustees, for he knew instances in which men having a trusteeship, without any beneficial interest whatever, were allowed to vote, though he, who was similarly circumstanced, had his claim disallowed.
The Committee divided on the original question, Ayes 44; Noes 23:—Majority 21.
On the question being again put, that the clause stand part of the Bill,
Lord Stanleyobjected to it, as being opposed to the provisions of the Reform Bill. By the statute of William, trustees in actual possession were allowed to vote; but by the statute of Anne which followed, no trustees were allowed to vote unless they were in actual possession of the rents and profits for their use and benefit. In the Reform Bill there was one clause with regard to trustees which declared negatively that no person who was not in possession of the rents and profits should be allowed to vote, This clause did not certainly say, that they should be in possession of the rents and profits for their own use and benefit; but by a subsequent clause it was distinctly declared, in conformity with the statute of Anne, that no trustee should be allowed to vote, unless he were in possession for his own use and benefit. It was rather extraordinary that the latter restrictive clause was that relied on by the Attorney-General as a justification for the change now proposed, which must have the effect of materially enlarging this class of voters. He asked the Committee whether they would, in the face of the statute of Anne, in the face of the abuses which his hon. Friend (Mr. C. Ross) had alluded to, as the inevitable result of their sanctioning his proposal:—he asked them whether they would in the face of common sense and the plain meaning of the Reform Act, consent to the creation of a number of faggot votes grounded on no beneficial interest whatever? If this clause passed, a man having 60 l. a year out of a school would have nothing to do but to make two or three trustees, and they would thereby be entitled to vote for Members of counties, they having no direct beneficial interest in the property. He called upon the Committee to reject the clause.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that the noble Lord happened to differ in his opinion of the right of a trustee to vote under the Reform Bill from the Chief Justice of the

601
King's Bench. He had himself heard the Chief Justice declare, in the case of the parish of Mary-la-bonne, in which a question as to the right of trustees to vote arose, that under the Reform Bill a trustee had the right of voting. And any judge in England might, he thought, have expressed the same opinion. Before the Reform Bill passed trustees in possession had, under the Act of William, the right of voting. [Lord Stanley: But what do you say to the statute of Anne?] He did not mean to pass over the statute of Anne. But under the statute of William trustees in possession were considered to be entitled to vote. Then came the statute of Anne, which declared nobody entitled to vote unless he were in possession of the rents and profits for his own use and benefit. A doubt existed whether the statute of William was repealed by that of Anne; and then came the Reform Bill, in which was inserted the statute of William in totidem verbis. When, therefore, that statute was expressly re-enacted in law, how could the noble Lord argue that it was repealed by the Reform Act? By a subsequent clause of the Reform Act, however, it was declared that trustees were not entitled to vote unless they held for their own use and benefit. Taking this clause by itself, trustees certainly appeared to be excluded from the right of voting; but considering the two clauses together, it did appear to be a reasonable construction, that when the trustee was in possession as a mere receiver he should not have the power of voting; but that, where he was intrusted with a discretionary power over the rents and profits, his claim should be admitted, because sub modo he had a beneficial interest in the property. That interpretation of the Act appearing to receive the most general approval he had embodied it in the present clause, which he trusted would be approved of by the Committee.
Mr. Praedcontended, that unless, as argued by the Attorney-General, the words "for his own use" included trustees having a regulation or control over the trust funds, the objection taken by the noble Lord was not removed. He should certainly take the opinion of the Committee upon the point.
Lord John Russellobserved, that the object of the 26th Clause of the Reform Bill was to place the law in regard to trustees in the same state as it was placed by the Act of William 3rd.
Mr. W. Mileswas of opinion that the bonâ fide administrator of a charitable bequest had a valid claim to vote.
The Committee divided on the question that the clause stand part of the Bill—Ayes 90; Noes 50; Majority 40.
Clause to stand part of the Bill.
On Clause 52,
Mr. Praedmoved, that it be omitted. He objected to it on two grounds; first, as an infringement of the provisions of the Reform Bill: and, secondly, as a disfranchising clause introduced into a Bill of which the title and preamble were of an enfranchising nature. The clause of the Reform Bill which the clause before the Committee went to repeal, was one introduced by the House of Lords, and on its being sent down from that House, the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Kilkenny both expressed their approval of it. Unless, therefore, it could be shown that it had operated prejudicially, the House would be stultifying its own proceedings by repealing the clause. The only ground of objection which, he believed, could be found to the class of voters now proposed to be disfranchised was, that they were unfavourable to the present Government. That, however, was not a valid ground, or one which the Legislature could entertain. His objection, however, extended as well to the manner in which the clause was introduced, as to the matter it contained. If it was found necessary to meddle with the Reform Bill, it ought to be done openly, and the necessity ought to be stated in the preamble. The measure before the House was entitled, "A Bill for the more effectual registration of persons entitled to vote in the election of Members to serve in Parliament, and its preamble was of a similar enfranchising character. How, then, was a voter to know that, by a disfranchising clause smuggled into the centre of it, his right of voting was taken away? He should certainly take the sense of the Committee upon the question.
Sir Harry Verneyexpressed his conviction that the clause of the Reform Bill proposed to be repealed was introduced into it by mistake, and Ministers had properly availed themselves of the present opportunity to destroy its operation.
Mr. Ewartconsidered, that the clause proposed to be omitted, so far from being an infringement of the Reform Bill, was in strict conformity with its principles.
The Committee divided on the question that the clause stand part of the Bill. Ayes 86; Noes 44; Majority 42.
Clause to stand part of the Bill. Clauses to the 67th agreed to.
The House resumed: Committee to sit again.