Commons Sitting of 3 August 1838

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Militia Ballot Suspension; Oaths Validity.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of GRANBY, from Stamford, against the Parochial Assessment Bill.—By Mr. GIBSON, from Chelmsford, and by Sir G. GREY, from Devonport, against Idolatrous Worship in India.—By Sir J. CARNAC, from Shipowners and others engaged in the East India Trade, to appoint Commissioners to examine the fitness of Masters and Mates of Merchant Vessels.—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Proprietors of the Bath Journal, that the Libel law may be altered; and from the Licensed Spirit and Malt Dealers of Dublin, for a continuance of the Clause prohibiting Grocers from selling Spirits.—By Mr. GOULBURN, from Bilston (York shire), against the Qualification of Members Bill; from the same place, praying that the Military stationed at Malta might be excused from attending the Religious Ceremonies of the Inhabitants; and from the Registrars and Deputy Registrars of the several Dioceses in Ireland, to be exonerated from making a return ordered by the House.

RAILWAY REPORT (IRELAND).
Mr. Ellissaid, he wished to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (Mr. Ellis) held in his hand a copy of the second Report of the Railway Commissioners for Ireland, addressed "to the Queen's most excellent Majesty," and in a note at the end of page 93 he found the following—
"So long back as in December, 1836, a body of capitalists, represented by Pierce Mahony, Esq., after an interview with the chief secretary, communicated to the commissioners a readiness to undertake any lines to the south-west that they should recommend, and offered to contribute 1,000 l. towards mak-

979
ing the necessary survey, and in May, 1838, they repeated their desire, on understanding that the Commissioners' Report would be very shortly after presented to Parliament. They explained the cause of their not having pressed on Parliament any views of their own, as they considered, that such a proceeding must have tended to embarrass the execution of the propositions that should be made by us."
And the note concludes thus—
"This is, no doubt, true, and we must think, that these gentlemen deserve credit for their forbearance. We have added the two letters to our appendix."
In the other copies of this Report which he had seen, and which had been freely distributed, the note he had just read did not appear, and as it seemed to him to be of particular importance, especially after the complaints made by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin the other evening against that Report of the Commissioners, the question which he, therefore, wished to ask was, by what authority so important a note had been expunged in the other copies of the report to which he had alluded?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas not aware of the fact to which the hon. Member had called the attention of the House, but he would make inquiries on the subject.

PENSIONS.
On the motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Pensions Bill,
Mr. Humesaid, that knowing the great interest which the public took on the subject of pensions, he was anxious, that any arrangement which might now take place should be such as to give that satisfaction which the public had a right to expect from this proceeding. He wished, therefore, to propose, that instead of proceeding with the bill now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should, as a former Chancellor of Exchequer had done, take a vote for whatever was requisite to pay the pensions, and bring in a measure early next Session to settle the whole question. The advantage of the course which he submitted was this—that Members would have an opportunity of seeing what was done in Committee, and of judging of the claims of those who were allowed to remain, as well as those who were removed. He had no hesitation in saying, that he differed very much from many of the decisions at
980
which the Committee had arrived, particularly those by which they continued pensions to persons whose circumstances and connexions, in his opinion, gave them no claim whatever to the bounty of the Crown. He was also of opinion, that time should be allowed to consider the opinion which it was said was given by the law officers of England and Ireland as to pensions granted by patent. This opinion declared, that these pensions could not be disturbed, though he had always thought, that the right of the Sovereign to make such allowances ceased with his life. It was not clear, also, whether the pensions to be granted by her Majesty were to continue for the lives of the parties or for the life of the Queen. As he had already said, he dissented from many of the votes of the committee, and one of the points on which they and he differed was as to the propriety of continuing their pensions to the sisters and daughters of Peers, whose demands he could not sanction, because he was disposed to apply, as far as possible, the same rule to them and to those of the humbler classes who sought relief under the Poor-law Bill. He thought it a violation of the principle which should regulate these grants, that they were given to those who had other sources of income. It should be recollected, that the parties themselves were not called, with one exception before the committee, and the abstract of each party's claim, given in the Report, furnished in many instances very meagre evidence by which to judge of his right to be continued on the list. On all these grounds, he should move, that the further consideration of this bill be deferred to this day three months.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he meant no disrespect to the hon. Member for Kilkenny when he said, that he never felt more astonishment than at hearing such a speech as that which he had just delivered, particularly when he recollected, that the hon. Gentleman was most sedulous in his attendance in the committee, not being absent a single day, and that he was a party to the Report, which was carried without a dissentient voice. There might be some ground for the argument of the hon. Member if the authority of the committee went for nothing; but when they sat thirty or forty days, and no effort was spared to arrive at the exact truth, he thought the report of that body to which

981
the House had delegated its power should be decisive.
Mr. Harveydid not mean to take part in this discussion farther than to ask a question. He saw, by the Report, that the names of the persons who were to have pensions granted them, were to be printed by the next Session. Now, what he wished to know was, Whether this was done, that Members might have an opportunity of challenging the grants, or merely with the view of giving information as to those who were the recipients of the royal bounty? Because, if it were for the latter purpose, it would be of no use; but, if for the former, it would meet the suggestion of his hon. Friend. He had not the pleasure of hearing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) in introducing this subject, but he had the curiosity to read it, and he could not help thinking, that the right hon. Gentleman was too covetous in monopolising all the credit of having the inquiry instituted. Indeed, he had heard, that a public meeting was contemplated by those in the receipt of pensions, for the purpose of having their thanks returned to those through whose exertions a committee of inquiry had been appointed. Now, he must put in his claim for a share in this disinterested eulogy, because it could not be forgotten, that the right hon. Gentleman, Session after Session opposed inquiry, and that one of the arguments which he had unsuccessfully urged in favour of such a proceeding was, that some of the fairest forms, as well as the homeliest matrons would be saved from unjust imputation. He was quite willing to concede, on the one hand, that a great number had produced evidence well calculated to remove all suspicion as to the source of the grants, and as to the right of their continuance; but, on the other hand, there was no satisfactory evidence given which could induce the House to recognise many of those claims. Indeed, he was astonished, that any pension had been withheld at all; for with one exception (of the character of whose claim one might judge from the unanimity with which it was rejected), none of the parties were called on to produce any parol evidence. There was not a pauper who received his one or two shillings a-week, and whose name appeared on an union list which underwent the inspection of the guardians of the poor, who if written
982
to to state the grounds on which the original allowance was conceded, and on what it was continued, but would make out as good a case as many of those reserved on the pension list had done. He admitted, that many had written very pleasing replies to the circular which had been forwarded to them, and in many instances very ancient pedigrees for family service and individual suffering, but in many instances he saw urged as a justification for the continuance of the grant, the fact, that the claimant had three or four brothers in the army, who for thirty or forty years passed through all the gradations of office. This might generally, be taken as a proof, that the party had no further claim on the bounty of the public, because those for an alliance with whom he claimed consideration had abundant opportunities wherewith to supply that accumulation which those who were prudent never lost sight of. But how many old and poor parochial pensioners were there; and how often did it happen, that the mother whose seven sons had enlisted, and who for a shilling a-day had undergone the fatigues of many campaigns, and sustained the glory of their country by their fall in its service, found her appeal met by this inquiry, "What is your present situation, what are your own resources, and what are your means of industry." The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had imposed on those who were on the pension list an obligation to which he could not pretend any claim (though it seemed he had entitled himself to their gratitude by urging the necessity of inquiry), because the right hon. Gentleman was always to be found on the divisions of the committee in the majority where any pension was to be continued, and in the minority when the reverse was the case. It seemed, that the result of the inquiry was, that some had established their claims, there were others whose demands required further investigation, and there were others again whose names ought to have been altogether excluded.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerfelt bound to give a frank answer to the question which had been put to him by the hon. Gentleman. The view with which he intended to lay the returns which had been referred to on the Table next year, was simply this, that the House might see whether the Government carried into effect

983
the recommendations of the committee or not. The House had a right to see, that the recommendations of the committee were carried strictly into effect; and if there were any deviations from those recommendations, it was the duty of the hon. Gentleman to censure the Government for the course which they had thus advised. The hon. Gentleman was mistaken if he supposed, that he took any credit to himself in his first speech on this subject the other night for anything further than a desire to protect the just rights of the pensioners, and to perform his duty to the public. When the hon. Gentleman stated, that he had a right to share in the credit of having the committee appointed, he was too modest in pressing his merits on the attention of the pensioners, for his suggestion as to an investigation was not only adopted, but the very mode of writing to the parties to ask what were their claims, which the honf Gentleman had recommended was ollowed. Indeed, the inquiry was made stricter than the hon. Gentleman had proposed; for when the reply was not satisfactory, he, and in some special instances, the Chairman of the committee, wrote to the party to ask for further information as to their claims. There was, he was sure the hon Gentleman must admit, a wide distinction between granting a pension, in the first instance, and continuing it after it had been enjoyed for years. This difference was his justification for those votes of his upon which the hon. Gentleman had dwelt with so much earnestness.
Mr. Humedid not think, that he had been treated with perfect fairness by the right hon. Gentleman, who stated, that he had acceded to the report of the committee, without adding, that he was to be found in the minority on many of the resolutions. For instance, he was to be found in a minority of three to ten on the question whether the daughter and sister of a Peer should be continued on the list, and also when the question was as to the continuance of the pension of a lady whose husband had 18,000 l. a-year, and who left her 120,000 l.
House in Committee.
On the first clause granting 136,000 l. for the annual payment of pensions.
Mr. Humeasked, whether the pensions granted during the reign of the Queen would be binding on the present Sovereign only?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the civil list of her Majesty had been settled wholly apart and distinct from the list of pensions. That was the recommendation of the Civil-list Committee, and that was the principle on which the late Committee had proceeded. In respect of pensions granted by her Majesty, he could tell the hon. Member, that in case of a certain melancholy event, to which he would not more particularly allude, they would again come under consideration. But those pensions to which the present bill referred had no connexion with the life of her Majesty in any possible respect.
Mr. Humesaid, that precluded the possibility of his agreeing to the measure. He wished to know whether there would be any objection to lay on the Table the opinion of the law officers of the Crown as to this bill. He was not satisfied with what had been done, and he appealed in justification of his dissatisfaction to the case of the pension of a certain marchioness, on which there was not a difference of opinion in the Committee, but that it ought to be struck off the list. But they were told that, as the law stood, could not be done.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the principle of laying opinions of the law officers of the Crown on the Table of that House had always been much objected to. Besides, the cases to which the opinion of which the hon. Member had spoken referred were all stated in the Report, and they were by no means numerous. The case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman was, undoubtedly, one of those which ought to have been struck off, but the Committee felt, that to recommend its abolition in the present state of the law would be, to commit a violation of the rule on which all rights of property depend.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) was quite mistaken as to the common-law prerogative of the Crown in respect of grants of pensions. By the common law the Crown could alienate any of the real property and revenues of the Crown. That was the ancient and undoubted prerogative of the Crown, and that prerogative was only limited and restrained so late as the reign of Queen Anne, since which none of the English possessions of the Crown could be alienated beyond the life of the reigning Sovereign. There was no such restriction

985
enacted with respect to Scotland until the reign of George 4th. But in Ireland the prerogative remained as before that date in regard of pensions. Such was the conclusion to which, with the assistance of his right hon. Friend, the Attorney-general for Ireland, and his hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor-general, he had reluctantly come; but in that opinion he believed, that there was no lawyer in England, Ireland, or Scotland, who would not, without hesitation, concur.
Sir R. Peelwished to say a few words in reference to the subject immediately before the House. The sum the Committee had to deal with was about 138,000 l. The entire saving by compulsory reduction was 3,400 l., or about 2 per cent. upon the whole amount of the pensions. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had very fairly stated, after the inquiry, that there was decisive proof that the power held by preceding Governments had not been corruptly exercised in granting those pensions. They might have acted with too much liberality, but the right hon. Gentleman entirely acquitted them of having perverted their power for the sake of influence or other corrupt purposes. The result of the Committee was, that there was to be a saving of 2 per cent. Now, considering that the uniform practice heretofore was, to have those grants revised by the Crown, but that they were now about to establish new regulations which would prevent the possibility of abuse henceforth—considering, likewise, that all the good they were to effect by reduction was 2 per cent. on the original amount, he must say, he wished, that the Committee had concluded their Report with a recommendation, that Queen Victoria should not, for the sake of that 2 per cent., be put in the disagreeable and painful position of being obliged to discontinue pensions not granted for corrupt purposes, but for which the holders had a fair claim. He thought it would be much more liberal and much more just, when they were establishing regulations for the future, that they should have secured what was past, and continued those pensions they were about to strike off to the amount of 2 per cent. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer chosen to pursue that course, he (Sir R. Peel) would have voted with him whether in the majority or minority. He most assuredly would have done so. He had no difficulty in avowing his opin-
986
ions on this subject, however unpopular they might be. He most certainly wished it had been possible for the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the close of this inquiry, as the index of her Majesty's feelings, to have recommended, that they should humbly represent to her Majesty, that upon the whole it would be better to adhere to the uniform practice of her predecessors in reference to existing pensions, and adopt whatever measures might be deemed necessary for the future.
Clauses of the bill agreed to. The House resumed.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS(IRELAND)—LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
Lord J. Russellmoved the Order of the Day for resuming the consideration of the Lords' amendments to this bill.
Mr. Ballobjected to that part of the amendments by which charitable trusts were to continue to be vested in the present corporators during their lives or until Parliament should otherwise determine. He moved, that the Committee disagree from that amendment.
Lord Stanleysaid, that in effect this would be to bring back the bill in this respect to its original state. He approved of this amendment of the Lords, and he hoped the House would concur in it. As the bill went up to the Lords, the power was given to the Lord Chancellor to appoint trustees, provided, that by the end of a year after the passing of the bill Parliament should not have otherwise determined. Now, he had a strong objection to resting the appointment of the trustees of charitable trusts in the Lord Chancellor, who was a political functionary, and must be supposed to be under the influence of political feelings and prejudices.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he did not claim for his noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, or for any other Lord Chancellor, a total exemption from the influence of political feelings; but let him ask, were the old corporators so far removed from all such influence as to be the best depositaries of those trusts? To him it appeared that they, without comparison, were much more objectionable on the ground of political feelings than a Lord Chancellor. He thought it would be much better to adhere to the old clause than to agree to the amendments sent down by the noble Lords.
Mr. Goulbourndenied, that the old corporate bodies would be influenced by such strong political bias as the Lord Chancellor. It should be understood that the corporations were the trustees originally selected by the founders of the charities, as persons most likely to advance the interests of the trust, and he thought it would be most unjust to remove the powers legally intrusted to them, and vest those powers in the Lord Chancellor, who, from the nature of his appointment, must have strong political feelings. He was determined to support the amendments discreetly introduced into the clause by the other House.
The Solicitor-Generalcontended, that the system of appointing charitable trustees in England had not been a failure; on the contrary, it had given every satisfaction. He denied, that the Lord Chancellor was at all actuated by political bias in making those appointments. He sate in his court to decide on all cases referring to charitable trusts, with feelings of as little partiality as if he were deciding in any case brought under his consideration as the chief law officer in the country. He heard all petitions on the subject as the presiding judge of the Court of Chancery, and not as the partisan of the Government; but if the trusts were vested in the ex-corporators, who had left office with excited and angry feelings, great party bias would prevail.
Mr. O'Connellexpressed great surprise at the remark of the noble Lord (Stanley), that the Irish Corporations had not abused the trust vested in them. Had it not been proved that a sum of 2,900 l., which was held by the Corporation of Belfast as trustees in 1787, was not applied to charitable purposes, but actually expended on the corporate body themselves? The same parties had let out at nominal rents for ninety-nine years to Protestants, their own private and political friends, lands left for the benefit of a charity called the Poor of St. John's. How did the Corporation of Dublin act? Did they not vote from the charitable trusts 2,500 l. for corporate hospitality, and 1,000 l. to the Lord Mayor! They also had entertained a notion of voting a sum to the Recorder. An appeal was then made to the Government for an information to be filed by the Attorney-General against the Corporation, but it was made in vain; time after time was it refused.
988
At length, however, an information was filed, and to this a demurrer was entered; but this having been reversed on an appeal to the Lords, the cause came on to be tried and there was found a defalcation of 75,000 l. in the funds of this charity. Now, was it intended that the present trustees should continue to have the management of these funds, which produced 13,000 l. a-year? As the clause stood now in coming down from the Lords, this would be the case. The noble Lord opposite had excused himself on this point, when he said, there were no abuses in the charities of Ireland, by saying that this was no charity; but that was not correct, for this was a charity. Under these circumstances, he thought the House ought not to hesitate about changing the trustees. Why, since the Chancellor of England, although a political officer, was trustee to other charities, should he not have the management of this? If he were trusted with the countless millions that came under his control, why should he not be allowed to act as trustee, or appoint trustees of this comparatively trifling and insignificant sum? He would not speak of Lord Plunkett, but would propose the Chancellor of England as the trustee; and since the noble Lord had spoken of that learned Lord with some degree of distrust, as to being biassed by political feelings, he must say, that it was the first time he had heard a word spoken about him, except in terms of the highest praise, and he believed, that no man had ever filled a judicial office who had given such entire satisfaction. It had been hardly expected of him when he was appointed, but the result had realized what had not been looked for, and he was as good a Chancellor as any one who had ever filled that important office. Or why, indeed, should not Lord Plunkett be the trustee? That learned Lord had never, he believed, been accused of sacrificing his judicial situation to his political feelings, and there was no reason why he should not be trusted with these funds. If the clause continued as it stood now, the corporators would in future be liable to no responsibility whatever, except in the Court of Chancery. This was very bad; it was, in short, making them a present of the money; and was it to be supposed that the Dublin corporators were men of such property and respectability that they would not accept it? He thought not; for there was

989
only a small number of them of rank or fortune. He had reckoned himself that during the last thirteen years, there were nine of the Lord Mayors who were either bankrupt or very nearly so. Were these, then, the persons who were to be intrusted with these funds? Any scheme to continue the management of them in such hands was a monstrous proposition, and better would it be to leave things entirely as they were now than to introduce an arrangement so objectionable.
Mr. Shawwas sorry to go into a discussion of subjects not entirely belonging to the bill before the House, but he must say, in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, that what he had stated with respect to the Pipe-water Charity was in substance a misrepresentation; for the defalcation which he had spoken of, was wholly a matter of accounts, and there was no charge or proof whatever of fraud. Now as to this property being corporation property, he should only say, that in the Court of Chancery, and also in the Rolls, it had been declared to be the absolute property of the Corporation, after the trusts for which it had been given, were performed. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say, that the Lords in their amendment, intended to divest the Corporations, either new or old, of this property? For if so, he should say, that it was not their intention, and that it would be most unjust and most unfair to do it. The question indeed, was, whether the trustees should be filled up by the Lord Chancellor, or by the appointment which had been made at a given time. There was, however, one great improvement in this clause, which consisted in vesting the property in the governing body only of the corporation, and not in the whole corporation. He wished to hear from the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) whether the funds of the Pipe-water Charity were to be taken from the Corporation of Dublin or not?
Lord J. Russellsaid, in reply, that he proposed to withdraw, at the end of the clause, the words that "no use or trust for supplying water should be deemed a use or trust under this Act."
The Attorney-Generalagreed in the principle of this clause. He thought that where there was a charity belonging to the Church of England it was improper that its funds should be administered by Ca-
990
tholics or Dissenters, and the same principle would apply mutatis mutandis. But his objection was, that the clause interfered with what properly belonged to the Lord Chancellor. It was a principle which ought to be acted on, and a principle on which any Chancellor would act.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he should be content with the clause if it stood as he originally proposed—that is, without any specific reference to Roman Catholics. He should not think it necessary to make any specific provision with respect to Protestant Dissenters. He should be content to enact that, where there was any money left under charitable trusts, exclusively applicable to religious education, according to the principles of the Protestant Church of Great Britain and Ireland, the trustees should be of the established Church without any specific exception as to Roman Catholics.
Mr. O'Connellconcurred in the principle stated by the right hon. Baronet, that religious trusts should be in the hands of persons professing that religion; but the clause went further, and would tend to introduce religious exclusions. The superintendence would be in the hands of Protestants, and that would suffice. The visitors of Maynooth College (except one or two) were Protestants; the visitors of charitable donations were all Protestants, so there would be sufficient superintendence. As the clause stood, it was an offence to Protestant Dissenters, and especially to Roman Catholics.
Amendment agreed to.
After clause 161, several new clauses were proposed by Lord Morpeth, for the purpose of giving power to certain towns not included in the act to apply the provisions of the act of the 9th of George 4th.
Sir R. Peelcontended, that the amendments proposed by the noble Lord would really not have the effect of introducing the provisions of the act of the 9th of George 4th. The inhabitants of the towns to which that act was applicable, had it in their own option to accept its provision or not. It required, first, that an application should be made by the 20 l. householders to have it applied; next, that a meeting of the inhabitant householders should have determined in favour of it. But the noble Lord's clauses would dispense with these preliminary steps, and

991
make it imperative on the inhabitants to submit to the provisions of the act, however much they might detest them. The noble Lord had not enabled the House to judge of the effect of the clauses, by giving any notice whatever. [Lord J. Russell.—Last night I gave notice.] It was quite inaudible. It seemed clear to him, in fact, that the noble Lord had determined not to pass the bill into a law. He felt it was quite impossible to discuss the clauses with effect, no notice having been given; and if Government had determined not to pass the bill, it was quite clear.
Lord Stanleysaid, if there were any measure on which the House took care that the most deliberate caution should be exercised, it was one that involved taxation. Yet here was a clause which proposed to levy a new and compulsory tax on the people of Ireland submitted to the House without the least previous notice, without preliminary consideration in a Committee, and without passing through any of those other stages which were necessary in the case of all enactments relating to money. It was very questionable whether they had the power of considering the clause in point of form, and it was most unquestionable that they ought not to consider it in point of justice.
Lord J. Russellmust say, that he thought the tone of complaint adopted by the noble Lord and right hon. Gentleman opposite rather extraordinary. This was a bill sent down from the House of Lords with ninety-two new clauses. The noble Lord had already told them, when another amendment was under consideration, that it would be an insult to the House of Lords to replace in the bill the words originally fixed upon by the House of Commons. Well, he did not now propose to insist on the original proposition; he was willing that some thirty or forty towns, to which by the provisions of the House of Commons' bill corporations would have been extended, should be deprived of them; he accepted the proposal of the Lords, and then he was told, that he ought to have abstained from making this proposal, because it was new. Then, if they were not to do either of those things, there could be nothing left for them except to agree word for word to every one of those ninety-two clauses inserted by the Lords, and to express their unqualified
992
assent to the omission of the twenty-six that had been left out. If they were to be told, that the Lords having changed the whole bill, in principle almost as much as in form, having altered every clause, they could not make any changes that might seem required in those amendments, then it was at least as competent for him to say that the House of Lords could not have so made amendments without supposing that there would be some risk of the rejection of the bill in consequence, sending down, as they had, so many clauses which must be peculiarly objectionable to those on his side of the House, so many provisions which must be peculiarly obnoxious to the representatives of Ireland. He might say this with as much justice as the right hon. Gentleman opposite had said, that he (Lord J. Russell) had determined not to pass the bill at all, because he had not submitted himself, because he had not bent his neck, to the yoke of the House of Lords. As to the assertion, that the clauses would not in effect introduce the provisions of the act of the 9th George 4th into the smaller towns of Ireland, he should only remark, that the Lords had determined that the Irish towns, with the exception of twelve, should be governed by a board of commissioners, elected by persons occupying houses rated at 10 l. annual value. To the principle of this alteration, taking away, though it did, corporations from the greater number of towns included in the original bill, he would not object; but he proposed, that the Commissioners should be elected by persons rated at 5l. instead of 10 l. Many of those boroughs were very small, of inconsiderable population and property. Was it unreasonable in him to say, that a 10 l., or even an 8l. rating, would be too high in a small town of 3,000 or 4,000 inhabitants or less, and that it was expedient to extend the elective body somewhat further? It was no doubt true, that the optional principle of the 9th George 4th was not retained. He hoped he might be permitted humbly to protest against the entire repudiation of even the least important principles of the original bill. When the amended bill should be returned to the House of Lords, he had not such an opinion of that body as to suppose that they would not take the Commons' reasons into consideration. If they saw fit on some points to differ from

993
them, they would, he might expect, give their reasons for disagreement in a Parliamentary way, and not declare, that because the Commons did not at once agree to their amendments, it was evident they were determined not to have the bill passed.
Sir R. Peelmust say, he had never heard a greater msrepresentation, or one more unfair to himself and his noble Friend, than that made by the noble Lord. Had he objected in any way to the rejection of the amendments of the House of Lords, to the competency of that House to deal with them as they pleased? No such thing; he had himself proposed, in the course of the evening, important alterations in the amendments of the Lords; but he had objected to the course taken by the noble Lord in calling upon them to adopt an important principle without the slightest notice. Nothing could have been easier than for the noble Lord to have given the regular and usual notice; but instead of doing so, he had called on the House summarily to decide whether the 9th of George 4th should be forced on certain towns in Ireland without consulting their wishes; and this convinced him that either the regulations of the House were defective, or the conduct of the noble Lord was objectionable. But the noble Lord had found it convenient, in order to raise a cheer from those behind him, to mistake altogether the tenour of their objections, and to assume that he had asserted that the House of Commons had no right to alter amendments made in a bill by the Lords, and that the noble Lord was called upon to bow his neck to their yoke. He had said nothing of the kind—nothing that could justify such an interpretation.
Viscount Morpethmaintained, that his noble Friend had not made the slightest misrepresentation. The noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, had twice that evening objected to making alterations in the amendments of the Lords, and the right hon. Baronet had inferred from the proposal of those alterations, that Government was determined not to have the Bill passed. He contended that his noble Friend, in his speech last night, had given ample notice of his intention to submit the proposition now before the House. Why! the right hon. Baronet had raised the objection, and said, that he disliked this very part of the proposition of the noble
994
Lord. He begged the House to consider that the clause which it was now proposed to insert, did not involve any greater amount of taxation than that which originally stood in the Bill as sent up to the House of Lords.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, before the House went to a vote, he was anxious to ascertain from the chair, whether in point of form at this stage of the proceedings it was competent to propose a clause of this nature, involving a question of taxation, for insertion in any Bill. With respect to the last assertion of the noble Lord, he utterly denied that any such power as the noble Lord spoke of, was contained in the Bill as sent up to the House of Lords.
The Speakersaid, it appeared to him that the existing regulations of the House were inadequate to meet cases of this nature and it was absolutely necessary, if the course now proposed with respect to inserting this clause were to be adopted generally, that the House should institute some other mode of proceeding more calculated than their present mode to meet the exigencies of such cases as this. He knew of no mode of proceeding among the existing regulations which was calculated to give satisfaction in this case. As to the question which had been put to him, he was not able to state an opinion, because he did not know the facts; but if he were to take the statement of the right hon. Baronet, he should say, that there might be very great room for doubt, whether or not the House could adopt this amendment in this stage of the proceedings. If the difficulty which had been stated by the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, should arise, then the proper course would be, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider the amendments, and that, he must say, to him, did seem to be the best course to adopt.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the proposition of his noble Friend was rendered necessary, by the amendments introduced by the Lords. The House had heard the objection that this clause gave a taxing power, and that it ought, therefore, to be previously considered in a Committee of the whole House. But the fact was, that this clause contained no taxing power whatever, except what was contained in the bill as sent up from the House of Commons, and that power was proposed to be

995
carried out by machinery, if not the same as that in the bill as sent up to the Lords, only differing from it by a limitation on it. He contended, therefore, that it was competent for them to introduce this clause, which was either the same as their own clauses, or if it differed from it, only differing by being within them. With respect to the act of the 9th of George 4th of which so much had been said, he begged to observe that the whole of that bill, as well as a similar bill for England and Wales, had originated in that House without any previous Committee of the whole House, respecting the taxing clauses. The question was as to the taxing power. Now their own original taxing clauses went through Committee, and that original clause was infinitely wider than in its present form.
The House divided on the question that the clause be agreed to. Ayes 116; Noes 97: Majority 19,

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Hastie, A.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hector, C. J.

Alston, R.

Hill, Lord A. M.

Archbold, R.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Ball, right hon. N.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Bannerman, A.

Hodges, T. L.

Barnard, E. G.

Hollond, R.

Bellew, R. M.

Hoskins. K.

Benett, J.

Howard, P. H.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Howard, Sir R.

Bernal, R.

Howick, Lord

Bowes, J.

Hume, J.

Brabazon, Lord

Hutt, W.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Hutton, R.

Briscoe, J. I.

Labouchere, H.

Brotherton, J.

Lemon, Sir C.

Bryan, G.

Leveson, Lord

Cave, R. O.

Lushington, Dr.

Cayley, E. S.

Lushington, C.

Chalmers, P.

Lynch, A. H.

Childers, J. W.

Macleod, R.

Clements, Lord

Marshall. W.

Codrington, Adm.

Martin, J.

Collins, W.

Morpeth, Lord

Crompton, Sir S.

Morris, D.

Curry, W.

Murray, J. A.

Dalmeny, Lord

Muskett, G. A.

Dashwood, G. H.

O'Connell, D.

Divett, E.

O'Connell, J.

Duke, Sir J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Easthope, J.

O'Connell, M.

Ebrington, Lord

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Evans, G.

Palmer, C. F.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Palmerston, Lord

Finch, F.

Parker, J.

Gordon, R.

Parnell, Sir H.

Grattan, J.

Pattison, J.

Grey, Sir G.

Pechell, Captain

Harvey, D. W.

Pendarves, E. W.

996

Ponsonby, J.

Strangways, J.

Power, J.

Style, Sir C.

Pryme, G.

Thomson, C. P.

Redington, T. N.

Thornley, T.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Rich, H.

Turner, E.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Vigors, N. A.

Russell, Lord J.

Villiers, C. P.

Russell, Lord

Vivian, Sir R. H.

Russell, Lord C.

Wallace, R.

Salwey, Colonel

Warburton, H.

Scrope, G. P.

Williams, W. A.

Seymour, Lord

Winnington, H.

Sheil, R. L.

Wood, C.

Smith, J. A.

Wood, G. W.

Smith, hon. R.

Wyse, T.

Smith, R.

Yates, J. A.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Stewart, J.

TELLERS.

Stock, Dr.

Steuart, R.

Stuart, Lord

Stanley, E. J.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Herbert, hon. S.

A'Court, Capt.

Herries, J. C.

Attwood, M.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Bagge, W.

Hodgson, R.

Baker, E.

Hope, H. T.

Barrington, Lord

Hope, G. W.

Blackburne, I.

Hotham, Lord

Blackstone, W. S.

Ingestrie, Lord

Blair, J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bleunerhasset, A.

Irving, J.

Bramston, T. W.

Jones, T.

Broadley, H.

Kemble, H.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Knightley, Sir C.

Canning, Sir S.

Lascelles, W. S.

Chute, W. L. W.

Lockhart, A. M.

Codrington, C. W.

Lowther, J. H.

Compton, H. C.

Lucas, E.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Lygon, Gen.

Corry, hon. H,

Mackinnon, W.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Mahon, Lord

Darby, G.

Manners, Lord C.

De Horsey, S. H.

Meynell, Capt.

Douglas, Sir C.

Miller, W. H.

Douro, Marquess

Neeld, J.

Dowdeswell, W.

Neeld, Jos.

Dunbar, G.

Norreys, Lord

Duncombe, W.

Ossulston, Lord

East, J. B.

Peel, Sir R.

Eaton, R. J.

Perceval, Col.

Egerton, W. T.

Perceval, hon. G.

Eliot, Lord

Praed, W. T.

Estcourt, T.

Richards, R.

Farnham, E. B.

Rushbrooke, R.

Filmer, Sir E.

Rushout, G.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Shaw, F.

Fleming, J.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Forester, hon. G.

Somerset, Lord G.

Gordon, Capt.

Spry, Sir S. T.

Goulburn, H.

Stanley, L

Graham, Sir J.

Sturt, H. C.

Granby, Marquess of

Tennent, J. E.

Grimston, Lord

Thomas, Col.

Grimston, hon. E.

Thornhill, G.

Heneage, G. W.

Tollemache, F

997

Trench, Sir F.

Walsh, Sir J.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Wood, T.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Young, J.

Verner, Col.

TELLERS.

Vivian, J. E.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Waddington, H.

Holmes, W.

Clause inserted.
The remainder of the Lords amendments were disposed of, and a Committee appointed to draw up reasons for dissenting from the Lords amendments, to be stated in a conference with the Lords.

REWARDS FOR THE APPREHENSION OF OFFENDERS IN IRELAND.
On the order of the day for going into the Committee of ways and means,
Sir F. Trenchrose, pursuant to his notice, to move for a select Committee to inquire into those cases in which the Irish Government had offered rewards for the apprehension or conviction of offenders against the laws, and in which such rewards or any portion of them have not been paid after such apprehension or conviction, and into the causes why they have been withheld. The hon. and gallant officer observed, that the system of offering rewards for the apprehension or conviction of offenders and not paying them, tended to give to the Irish people a notion that the Government was not in earnest in enforcing the laws. Many instances had occurred where rewards had been offered, and where the parties who had claims to those rewards had received only the half, and in others only a fifth, of the reward offered. One man had got not a fifth of the offered reward, and when he stated, that he had exposed his life to danger in the conviction of the offender, he was told that his life could not have been in danger as he was still alive. The effect of this refusal to pay the reward in full would be to discourage persons from all attempts to detect and bring offenders to justice. In one case a man named Kelly had been murdered in Kildare. A reward of 50 l. was offered by the Government for the apprehension of the murderer. He was apprehended and brought to justice, but the party who had caused his apprehension received only 10 l. of the 50 l. Perhaps the noble Lord (Morpeth) would inform the House why this man had not received the whole. He thought the system adopted by the Irish Government extremely bad and injudicious, and he regretted that an opportunity had not been afforded him of
998
bringing the subject earlier under the consideration of the House. He thought the noble Lord ought to give a distinct pledge that the Irish Government would henceforward act up to its promises. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving the amendment as above.
Colonel Percevalseconded the amendment, but thought it was rather too late in the Session to have any practical good result from the Committee.
Viscount Morpethregretted, that there was so great a disproportion between the rewards offered and those paid; but the Government did not depart from the practice adopted by their predecessors. He thought it judicious that before rewards were paid the stipendiary magistrates should be consulted, and that the evidence taken in the courts of justice should be considered. If witnesses who had prevaricated were to receive all the rewards offered, it would establish a precedent that would frustrate, instead of advance, the ends of justice.
Motion withdrawn.

AFFIRMATIONS.
On the motion to go into a Committee on the Affirmations Bill,
Mr. Goulburnobjected to the principle of the bill because it was retrospective, inasmuch as it extended the exemption from taking an oath to all those who had ever been at any period of their lives Quakers or Moravians. This mode of dealing out exemption by measure after measure was most paltry, and although he was of opinion that oaths were not only lawful, but did much to elicit truth, yet it would be better to pass a general measure embracing all classes.
Mr. P. Thomsonobserved, that this measure had been introduced in another place by a noble Lord of opposite politics to himself, and yet had passed unanimously. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) had said, it would be better to decide at once if oaths were to be abolished entirely, and he certainly agreed with him, and would most willingly have carried a measure of that kind, but he could not get it. One or two bills of this kind that had been introduced into the other House had been all rejected from their going too far. He himself was willing to have a general measure, but he was unable to carry it. The right hon. Gentleman now said, he should dissent from any such measure, though he

999
had understood him to say the contrary. In the present bill, however, he had done; as much as he had been able. Was there no practical grievance here? In his opinion there was one of a most serious kind; for he had known the ends of justice to be entirely defeated, because the body whom this bill was intended to relieve would not give their evidence in a court of justice if they were obliged to take an oath. He, therefore, hoped the House would consent to his motion.
Mr. Prymesupported the bill, as enabling litigant parties to avail themselves of the evidence of witnesses who had religious scruples against the taking of oaths.
Sir R. Inglisopposed the bill, inasmuch as it would enable every person to come into a court of justice, and exempt himself, on the simple declaration that he had belonged either to the Society of Friends or the sect of Moravians, from that test of truth to which others were liable. The bill dispensed with that superstitious feeling which those conversant with courts of justice well knew was attached to the solemnity of an oath by witnesses generally, and he therefore joined with his right hon. Friend in opposing its further progress.
The Attorney Generalregretted that such petty legislation should take place on so important a subject, as he felt convinced that the only remedy for existing evils would be a general bill, not for the abolition of oaths altogether (for to that he for one was not prepared to assent), but to enable all those who entertained a religious scruple to the taking of an oath to give evidence on a solemn affirmation, which such individuals considered would be as binding upon them to speak the truth, and which would be attended with the same secular and penal consequences if they did not, as if they had been guilty of perjury. A general measure must ere long meet the approbation of the Legislature, for numerous sects were almost of daily growth, and their claims on the ground of religious scruples were too strong to be resisted. He could not see the distinction between a man who had been a Quaker or Moravian, and another who still continued of those sects—the latter was exempted, while, however, the other would be disabled by his scruples from giving evidence. Thus, in many cases, justice was defeated, and in the absence of a general measure, he should support the present bill.
Bill went through Committee, the House resumed.

SPIRIT LICENCES (IRELAND).
Mr. E. Tennentmoved the order of the day for the House to go into Committee on the Spirit Licences (Ireland) Bill.
Mr. Shawopposed the motion, as he considered that a measure of this sort would be productive of the worst consequences. He did not mean to cast any reflection upon the grocers of Ireland, because he knew that they were a most respectable class of individuals, and he only objected to this measure because he felt that by so doing he was performing his duty to the public. What he objected to was, that the grocers should be allowed to sell spirits to be drunk upon the premises when those premises were not licensed as public-houses, and consequently not subject to the public-house regulations. He thought the conduct of the Government in regard to this measure totally inexcusable, as they had given him to understand that they would oppose this bill, while they now supported it, although he was persuaded that they and every other authority allowed that such a system as this bill would continue for another year, ought to be put an end to. He was willing to accord ample time for the grocers to dispose of their stock of spirits, but two years had already been granted for that purpose, and, under all the circumstances of the case, he felt bound to oppose the further progress of the measure, and he should give it his most strenuous opposition in every stage.
Lord Clementssaid, he felt compelled, although reluctantly, to support the motion of the right hon. Gentleman, and resist the further progress of this bill.
Mr. O'Connellsupported the bill, and said that a Committee of that House had decided in favour of the grocers having the power of selling spirits. It had, however, afterwards been reported that they had abused the privilege, but a deputation which they had sent over had proved that that report was unjust. He trusted that the House would consent to allow the grocers another year to dispose of their stock, and in that time they and the Legislature would have ample time to make arrangements for the future.
The House divided on the question that the Speaker do now leave the chair:—Ayes 28; Noes 23:—Majority 5.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Pechell, Capt.

Archbold, R.

Power, J.

Blennerhassett, A.

Pryme, G.

Bridgeman, H.

Redington, T. N.

Finch, F.

Salwey, Colonel

Grattan, J.

Sheil, R. L.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Hodges, T. L.

Steuart, R

Howard, P. H.

Stock, Dr.

Lynch, A. H.

Verner, Col.

Morris, D.

Vigors, N. A.

O'Connell, J.

Wallace, R.

O'Connell, M. J.

O'Connell, M.

TELLERS.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

O'Connell, D.

Parker, J.

Tennent, E.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Lowther, J. H.

Acland, T. D.

Perceval, Col.

Brotherton, J.

Perceval, hon. G.

Clements, Lord

Rushbrooke, R.

Curry, W.

Style, Sir C.

Darby, G.

Thornhill, G.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Trench, Sir F.

Goulburn, H.

Wood, G. W.

Graham, Sir J.

Young, J.

Hawes, B.

Hodgson, R.

TELLERS.

Hutton, R.

Lucas, F.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Shaw, F.

Jones, T.

The House in Committee, but almost immediately resumed.
Committee to sit again.