Commons Sitting of 2 May 1837

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By several Hon. MEMBERS, from various places, that a Bill for the Better Observance of the Sabbath may be allowed to go into a Committee of the whole House.—By Mr. BAGSHAW and other Hon. MEMBERS, from various places, for, and by Mr. C. BARCLAY and other Hon. MEMBERS, from various places, against the Abolition of Church-rates.—By Mr. JOHN FIELDEN, from Oldham, for Repeal of Duty on Tobacco, and from various places, for Repeal of Poor-law Act.—By Mr. BROTHERTON, from various places, for the Repeal of the Poor-law Act.—By Mr. HINDLEY and Mr. BROTHER-TON, from Ashton-under-Lyne, against the Interference of the Poor-law Commissioners in the Manufacturing Districts, and from the Medical Profession in Buckinghamshire, for an Inquiry into the Medical Treatment of the Sick Poor.

NEW POOR-LAW. (ENGLAND).
Mr. Fieldenhaving presented a great number of petitions, praying for a total repeal of the Poor-law Amendment Act: proceeded to remark upon the extreme unpopularity of the New Poor-law in the manufacturing districts. In one of these petitions the petitioners stated their determination to resist the enforcement of this law amongst them.
The Speakerrequested the hon. Member to read that part of the petition in which this determination to resist the law was declared.
Mr. Fieldensaid, that the petition was from Bury, and he would read the whole petition, as he thought it only fair that the House should be in possession of the allegations on which the petitioners grounded their determination [Cries of Chair]. If the House would not allow him to read the petition at length, he should decline reading it at all. The hon. Member then proceeded to read the petition, which alleged that, from the reports of coroners' inquests and other authentic sources, they had ascertained that, in numerous instances, persons had met their deaths owing to the rigorous imprisonment and spare diet enforced by the regulations of the Poor-law Commissioners. That besides these indirect means of shortening life, persons, in certain cases, had died in consequence of being denied shelter; that the petitioners looked upon the separation of husband and wife, and parent and child, which was enforced in workhouses under the new was
456
with great abhorrence; that the petitioners protested against the Bill, and stated their belief that it was calculated to lead to a despotism no less despicable in its instruments than cruel in its execution; and they humbly represent to the House that its introduction into the manufacturing districts was looked on with great alarm, as likely to lead to continual disputes and expensive litigation.
Sir Robert Inglissubmitted that the hon. Member was out of order in the course he was pursuing.
Mr. Wakleythought, that the hon. Member was strictly in order as he was only reading an extract from the petition in question.
Mr. Fieldenthen proceeded to read as follows "Your petitioners have seen with scorn and disgust the same disregard to moral principle evinced in the low cunning and deceit with which the Commission under the pretence of having no object in view, but to carry into effect the Act for the Registration of Births, Marriages, and Deaths, have attempted to foist the new Poor-law on those manufacturing districts in which there exists a general conviction that its enforcement will be destructive of the peace of society, and of the security of life and property. Your petitioners, convinced of the illegality, as well as the moral turpitude of the proceedings of these Commissioners, and denying the right of executive officers to issue rules and regulations inconsistent with the law of the land, have determined not to pay the slightest regard either to their orders, or of any officers under their control." For his part he admired and approved of this determination of the petitioners, and he hoped they would be successful in their disobedience. He moved that the petitions be referred to the Committee on the Poor-laws.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that it was quite contrary to the rules of the House that a petition should be received which set forth that the petitioners would resist the rules of Commissioners appointed by Act of Parliament.
Sir James Grahamsuggested, that the petition be read by the clerk at the table.
This having been done,
Mr. Wynnsuggested, that the hon. Member should withdraw the petition, and endeavour to have the part in question altered.
Mr. Fieldenwas proceeding to address the House, when
Mr. A. Trevorrose to order. It was not right that the hon. Member should proceed to take up the time of the House.
Major Beauclerksaid, that this was a point of very great importance to the country. He heard everywhere the question—why do you put an extinguisher on the petitions of the public? A quarter of an hour could not be mis-spent in the discussion of petitions.
Mr. Warburtonrose to order. If the hon. Gentleman was allowed to proceed it would break through a very convenient rule.
Mr. Harveyremarked, this was the petition of parties who had no representatives in that House.
The Speakersaid, this was a very important question, and one which ought to be decided either in one way or the other. He would state what was the practice of the House. There were many Members of that House who were aware of the former practice, from having had, like himself, for nearly thirty years, a seat there. When he first entered the House, and for some time after, no one was allowed to read a petition, or to do more than state its prayer. The practice of addressing the House on the presentation of petitions had arisen subsequently, and after many expedients had been tried, none of which met the approbation of the House. He had, when he was placed in the Chair, reverted to the ancient practice, in accordance with what he deemed his duty to the House and to the public. This was the third Session in which, with the concurrence, as he thought, of the House generally, he had endeavoured to enforce the rule; and he could assure the House he felt himself placed in a very difficult situation when any such circumstances as the present arose. He very much wished that the House would come to some decision on this point, by which he might in future be guided. He would only add, that he had endeavoured to do his duty to the House and to the public in enforcing this rule; and he would say it had been the means of saving a very great deal of time to the House, and saving the time of the House was doing justice to the country.
Mr. T. Duncombebegged to move, that the hon. Member for Oldham be heard in support of these petitions. This would bring the matter directly before the House.
The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took place, and the hon. Member for Oldham brought up the petitions.

CONVOCATION OF THE CLERGY.
Mr. Borthwick, in pursuance of his notice, rose to call the attention of the House to the subject of the convocation of the clergy. He requested the House simply to give to the question a calm consideration. The ecclesiastical body had been placed for nearly a hundred years in a singular position, as self regulation had been allowed to all other corporate bodies. From the length of time that had elapsed it had been all but forgotten that a convocation was recognised by the constitution of the country. He had intended to bring in a Bill to remodel the constitution of the convocation so as to make it practically useful; but if he had done so he might have appeared to give his sanction to the principle that laymen sitting in Parliament had a right to legislate on the internal affairs of the Church. The Church of England was placed in an anomalous and most unfavourable position; its concerns were managed by legislators, many of whom were inimical or indifferent to its interests. Had the convocation been sitting at the time when the Registration of Marriages Bill was introduced into Parliament, the noble Lord would not have been obliged to postpone its operation for several months, as he would have been enabled by the advice of that body to put its details in such a shape as would have admitted of its being carried into effect immediately. Hon. Gentlemen would naturally associate with the name of convocation bitter feelings and discreditable altercations. It was true, that the contentions of that body had been such as would disgrace any deliberative assembly, but this was to be ascribed to the unsettled state of the Church for a long time subsequent to the Reformation. Previous to that great event the Church of Rome had struggled to grasp a larger share of power than the genius of the constitution could grant to it, and the same spirit was visible afterwards, at various periods, down to the extinction of the convocation in 1717, sometimes taking the form of disputes between the whole body of the clergy and the Legislature, or of collisions between the higher and lower houses of convocation. The assembly of the Church of

459
Scotland discharged all the duties of an ecclesiastical council without injuring that establishment, and he did not see that there was reason to apprehend that the same Would not be the case in the present day with a body representing the Church of England. The Church of England itself was most anxious for wholesome reform, and where could questions relating to Church reform be discussed with more likelihood of success than in convocation? In times like the present it was absolutely necessary to restore this self-regulating power to the Church. As a protection for the Established Church against Roman Catholic Members of Parliament, he would prefer the convocation to an oath, such as that now taken by them. He intended to propose that an address should be presented to the King, that he would from time to time assemble the clergy in convocation, to afford his Parliament advice and assistance in matters ecclesiastical. He did not believe that the measure would be carried into effect at once, but he felt himself called upon to call the attention of Parliament to the subject. It was his intention to ask permission to bring in a Bill on this subject, and in which he should propose, that the convocation be confined to one assembly, and that it should at the same time have full power to communicate with that House. The other objects which the Bill would embrace he would not trouble the House with at that time. He regretted that so little attention had been paid to the motion by Members on both sides of the House, particularly at a time when measures were brought forward night after night to sap the foundations and endanger the very existence of the Established Church. Was it not proposed to dissever the connexion between Church and State? The Church once overthrown, the State could not long endure. It was only of late that Members of that House had dared to stand up and pronounce democracy as the best form of Government, propose the expulsion of the Bishops from the House of Lords, and declare the Church of England to be the greatest curse that ever was inflicted upon Ireland. A more shallow notion never floated on the shallowest brains than to think a State could go on without being in connexion with some religion, To what were the ancient republics indebted for their unrivalled progress in art button
460
the respect they entertained for the religion they professed? He believed the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) was sincerely attached to the Established Church, and desirous to uphold it. One of his ancestors had suffered death in the cause, determined to support the liberties of this country against the power of the Pope, who, while he pronounced himself servus servorum Dei, sought by all means to bring the world into subjection to the power of Rome. He would on the 20th of June, move for leave to bring in his Bill. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to take steps for the introduction of such reformation into the convocation of the clergy as shall render the meetings of that reverend court practicable, and efficient for the purposes for which it was recognised by the Constitution.
Mr. Arthur Trevorseconded the motion, and contended, that, as the clergy were not directly represented in that House, they ought in some way to be enabled to take a part in their consultations as regarded matters connected with the interests of the Church. This was the more necessary at present, when so many motions of great importance were daily brought under their consideration on the subject of Church reform. The destitution of the working clergy was often alluded to in that House. What tribunal was more fit to submit the consideration of it to than the convocation? In the case also of clergymen who might have disgraced their sacred calling, who were more fit to give judgment than an assembly of the clergy themselves?
Mr. Humecongratulated the hon. Gentleman on his motion, and on the full attendance of Members on his side of the House. He believed, that during the greater part of the speeches of the hon. Mover and Seconder there had been one solitary Member on the Opposition benches. With respect to the motion, by all means if the convocation was still an existing institution, let it be in the exercise of its full powers. But certainly, when the hon. Member brought in his Bill he should move a clause to relieve the bishops from their, attendance in the House of Lords, as they then would have an opportunity of attending to their affairs in their own convocation, and a very

461
large portion of the House had already voted in favour of such a proposition. He believed the great mass of the clergy would be much better pleased if it were so.
Lord John Russellmust express his dissent from the views of the hon. Member even if a convocation were to meet, its regulations and resolutions would have no effect without the sanction of Parliament. For his part, he could not see the advantage of reviving the religious disputes of the reign of Queen Anne, nor could he conceive that the hon. Member's motion was at all in concurrence with the views of the Church itself. He should not now, however, enter into any arguments on the subject. Indeed, it would be highly inexpedient that a debate on this question should proceed in the absence of the Members of the Universities, who, he had observed, had left the House since the debate had opened.
Mr. Forbessuggested the withdrawal of the motion.
Mr. Borthwickhad no objection.
Mr. Hindleyobjecting to the withdrawal of the motion,
Mr. Borthwick Mr. Borthwick, said he would divide, even though he stood alone, but he thought it would be more courteous in hon. Members to allow him to withdraw the motion.
The House divided. Ayes 19; Noes 24;—Majority 5.

List of the AYES.

Balfour, T.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Bodkin, J. J.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Buller, C.

Palmer, G.

Butler, hon. P.

Rundle, J.

Crawford, W.S.

Thompson, Colonel

Fector, J. M.

Tulk, C. A.

Forbes, W.

Wakley, T.

Hindley, C.

Wood, Alderman

Hume, J.

TELLERS.

Hutt, W.

Borthwick, P.

Lushington, C.

Trevor, hon. A.

List of the NOES.

Attwood, T.

Howick, Viscount

Baines, E.

Marsland, H.

Barnard, E. G.

O'Brien, W. S.

Bewes, T.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Bowring, Dr.

Parry, Sir L. P. J.

Brotherton, J.

Pease, J.

Chapman, L.

Pryme, G.

Crawley, S.

Russell, Lord J.

Ewart, W.

Scrope, G. P.

Hawes, B.

Stewart, P. M.

Heathcote, J.

Warburton, H.

462

Ward, H. G.

TELLERS.

White, S.

Lushington, Dr.

Grey, Sir G.

TOBACCO AND FOREIGN SPIRIT DUTIES.
Mr. Prymerose to move the appointment of a Committee of the whole House, to consider the expediency of reducing such duties on foreign commodities as give rise to extensive smuggling, especially those on tobacco and foreign spirits. The hon. Gentleman was proceeding to explain the object of his motion, when the House was counted out.