Commons Sitting of 13 June 1839

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Poor-law Commission Continuance; Collection of Rates; Sugar Duties.—Read a second time:—Joint Tenants Voting (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Lord Cole, and Mr. Thornely,
196
from several places, for a Uniform Penny Postage.—By Mr. Greene, from Bolton, against the Ministerial plan for National Education.

CATHOLIC ASSUMPTION OF EPISCOPAL TITLES.
Mr. Dillon Brownepresented a petition from the Catholic archbishop and clergy of the diocese of Tuam, from which, as it was of very great length, he said, that he would content himself with reading the following passages:—
"That your petitioners beg to approach your honourable House with the unfeigned assurance of their devotion to the Throne and person of our most gracious Sovereign. That while 'they give unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's,' they cannot be unmindful of the other precept that issued from the same divine source, of giving to "God the things that are God's." That the religious education of their respective flocks is a duty exclusively belonging to the spiritual authority of the pastors of the Church, and which they cannot resign into any other hands without a renunciation of those obligations which they owe to its divine founder. The petitioners beg to impress upon your honourable House, that religion, to be effective, must be definite in its creed; and that any plan that would attempt to combine the discordant tenets of different sects of Christianity in a vague belief, would be utterly subversive of its foundation, and equally at variance with that solicitude which Protestants feel for the articles of the Established Church, as well as with the zeal with which Catholics have clung to their faith under the most adverse fortunes. The petitioners further beg to observe, that in the diocese of Tuam alone, there is a Catholic population of four hundred and seventy thousand persons, and there is not more than one to fifty of all other religious creeds; that the petitioners conceive it to be utterly unreasonable, that for one in fifty they should submit to a system of education fashioned for a mixed population of all Christian sects, and regulated by a manifest preponderance of Protestant principles and influence. The petitioners, therefore, seeing no hope of accommodation with a body whose pretensions are so arbitrary, that they cannot be submitted to without the most imminent peril to the Catholic faith, since it undisguisedly supersedes the authority by which that faith is protested, take this solemn opportunity of assuring your honourable House, that henceforward they hold no connection whatever, pecuniary or otherwise, with that board, and they will use all the spiritual influence of their sacred office to withdraw the children of their respective parishes from so dangerous a connexion."
Mr. C. Lawbegged to observe, that by the Roman Catholic Relief Act, any Roman Catholic clergyman who assumed the title of a dignitary of the Protestant

197
Church subjected himself to a penalty. He begged to ask the hon. Member who presented the petition, whether he was correct in supposing, that it purported to be the petition of a person calling himself the Archbishop of Tuam? If such were the case, he should feel it his duty to move, that the petition be rejected.
Mr. Dillon Browne: The petition is signed "John M'Hale." It is described in the heading as the petition of the archbishop and clergy of the diocese of Tuam, but it is not so signed. The signature "John M'Hale" has no such title or character attached to it.
Mr. Lawthen moved, that the petition emanating from a person falsely assuming the title of Archbishop of Tuam be rejected.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge had himself stated, that which was false.
Sir R. Ingliscalled upon the Speaker to protect the Members of that House from the attacks of the hon. Member for Dublin. That hon. and learned Member was not amenable to what he might think fit to say out of that House, but on this occasion in applying the term "false" to the statement of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, the hon. Member for Dublin had been disorderly; and he called on the Speaker to enforce order, and to compel the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that expression, to apologise to his hon. and learned Friend, and to the House.
The Speakercertainly considered, that the conduct of the hon. and learned Member for the city of Dublin, in making use of the term "false" had been most disorderly, and he called upon him to apologise for having made use of that expression.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that as such was the opinion of the Chair he at once withdrew the expression, and yielded to the opinion so pronounced in the fullest manner.
The Speaker: The question is, that the petition be now brought up.
Mr. O'Connellthought the question would more strictly arise, when the question was, that the petition be laid on the Table.
Mr. DillonBrowne brought up the petition, and the heading was read by the clerk at the Table, which was stated to be the humble petition of the Archbishop of Tuam.
Sir R. Inglishaving then examined the petition, said it was signed John M'Hale, with a cross affixed, and there appeared to be an erasure after that signature. He begged to ask the hon. Member for Mayo, whether he was cognizant of any erasure? To his eye the erasure was quite apparent.
Mr. Dillon Brownewould explain how the erasure had been made. The petition had been forwarded to him by the Archbishop of Tuam—he believed the only Archbishop of Tuam now existing—and attached to that name were the words "Archbishop of Tuam." In forwarding the petition to him, Dr. M'Hale stated, that if the presentation of the petition with that term attached to it should be considered irregular, he might erase it if he pleased. Deeming that addition to the name to be irregular—wishing to avoid any unnecessary discussion—and not supposing, that any objection would be stated against the receiving of the petition on such an account, he had erased the words "Archbishop of Tuam." It might be irregular for Dr. M'Hale to describe himself as Archbishop of Tuam; but there was no law to prevent him from so describing Dr. M'Hale if he thought tit. He never could suppose, that the House would evince such an intolerant disposition as to reject the petition, simply because it proceeded from Roman Catholic clergymen.
Mr. Lawtrusted, that the House would not allow the petition to be received. The hon. Member had fairly stated, that it originally bore the style and title of Archbishop of Tuam, in addition to the signature of John M'Hale, which title so affixed to the name the hon. Member had, on authority, removed, to avoid discussion. But still the petition in its heading purported to be the petition of the Archbishop of Tuam, although no such dignitary by law existed. The hon. Member had stated truly, that the Archbishop of the Protestant church ceased to exist, and that the person assuming the title of Archbishop of Tuam might not have brought himself within the meaning of the statute by being merely so designated by another; but when Dr. M'Hale himself assumed the title belonging to the Protestant church, he assumed a character denied to him by law. He, therefore, submitted to the House, that it would be highly improper to receive the petition,

199
the best defence for which was, that it purported to emanate from a person who legally did not exist at all. It would be trifling with the House, when an Act of Parliament had decided that no man should assume a title belonging to the Protestant clergy of Ireland, if any one were now acknowledged by the House in such a capacity. He trusted the House would reject the petition, vindicate its dignity, and support the law of the land.
Mr. Warburtoncontended, that according to all precedent and practice the petition should be received. If this were a petition from an individual describing himself to be the Archbishop of Tuam, and if the House thought fit to act with strictness, they might in such a case have rejected the petition; but this was not the petition of an individual. It came from the clergy, also, of a particular quarter, professing the Roman Catholic religion. Therefore, in so far as it was the petition of the Roman Catholic clergy, it ought unquestionably to be received. What was more common than for the chairman of meetings to sign petitions to that House in the name and behalf of such meetings? The House could not and did not receive such petitions as the petitions of such meeting, but they always received them as the petition of the individual whose name was attached. On the same principle, this petition should be received as the petition of the Roman Catholic clergyman who signed it.
Mr. Williams Wynnregretted, that a petition so headed should have been presented to the House. It was unpleasant to decide on such questions, and he wished much it could have been avoided on this occasion. But as the attention of the House had been drawn to the subject, it certainly appeared that the petition was described as emanating from a person assuming a title to which he had no right, and, therefore, they were bound to reject it. It would be a neglect of their duty to receive it. If it had been merely described as the petition of John M'Hale, archbishop, and other Roman Catholic clergy, he should not have objected to receive the petition, because the Protestant church recognized that clerical rank in the Roman Catholic faith. But here a title was assumed claiming jurisdiction as such within a particular province in Ireland. That was directly con-
200
trary to the statute which expressly prohibited any Roman Catholic archbishop or bishop in Ireland, from assuming the style or title of dignitaries belonging to the Protestant church. The hon. Member for Mayo had, therefore, judged right; and in stating, that he had made the erasure of the words originally attached to the signature by the authority of Dr. M'Hale, he only regretted that he had not also been authorised by that gentleman to take away from the heading the descriptive title of the Archbishop of the province of Tuam.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the hon. Member who had just sat down was totally mistaken in saying, that there was any law prohibiting a Roman Catholic archbishop from taking the title of Archbishop of Tuam. There was now no such province in the Established Church, and, therefore, there was no contravention of the Emancipation Act. And it could not be alleged that there was any offence committed by him in so doing against the common law, for in point of fact at common law he was the only person now existing who could assume the title. The hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge had himself admitted that no action would lie against Dr. M'Hale for assuming it. Let them try the question on the petition. Lord Stanley's act had destroyed the title in the Protestant church, and therefore there was no assumption of the style or titles of the dignitaries of the Protestant Church. There was, therefore, no breach of the statute, and Dr. M'Hale was, therefore, perfectly entitled to describe himself as Archbishop of Tuam.
Sir R. Ingliswas not prepared to support the rejection of the petition. The view he took of the case was this. The party by himself or his agent, had erased the words "Archbishop of Tuam," and thus had withdrawn his illegal claim to that title, and virtually admitted, therefore, his knowledge and conviction to the House, that the title which he was at first disposed to assume was not tenable. He had thus in a public document formally and publicly renounced his claim to the title of Archbishop of Tuam. It was on that ground, that he did not feel himself warranted in voting against the receiving of this petition. Although the petition was headed as that of the Roman Catholic Bishop and clergy of Tuam, non

201
constat, that those signing it claimed those titles. It was important, however, as the title of Archbishop of Tuam had been once assumed to know, that it had been formally withdrawn.
Mr. D. Brownesaid, the hon. Baronet had completely misunderstood him. He begged to say that Dr. M'Hale had not the most distant intention of renouncing the title. Dr. M'Hale had written to him authorising him to erase the designation, if contrary to the privileges of the House, and thus cause the petition to be rejected; but he still maintained his claim to the title, believing that he was the only existing Archbishop of Tuam.
Mr. Freshfieldsaid, the House ought to reject the petition. It had been argued that the whole difficulty was removed, because the hon. Member who offered it to the House had erased the words "Archbishop of Tuam," originally attached to the signature. That, in his opinion, did not at all alter the case. It was still the petition of the same persons, and their character was not altered by that subsequent erasure. It had been drawn up and signed by Dr. M'Hale, in the assumed style and title of Archbishop of Tuam, and if he had merely put his mark to it, that would have been an adherence on his part to the description given of him and the other petitioners in the heading of the document. That was the main point, the adoption of the title. It had been argued, that the petition might be received as coming from the Roman Catholic clergy, but if the petition were received it would be entered on their records according to the description in its heading. He should vote for the rejection of the petition, therefore, because the petition was offered by Dr. M'Hale, as Archbishop of Tuam—because the hon. Member for Mayo had distinctly stated, that Dr. M'Hale would not withdraw or compromise his claim to the title—and because he believed it was essential to take that course for the maintenance of true Protestant feeling, and for the vindication of the character and dignity of the House.
Dr. Lushingtonhad been pondering in his mind what probably would be the effect of this debate on the minds of the people of Ireland. He begged to remind the House that it was a matter of the greatest importance to retain the confidence, and, if possible, the esteem and affection of seven millions of their fellow-
202
subjects, although they happened to profess a faith different from the Established Church. When this debate went forth to the public, and when the people or Ireland saw a petition emanating not only from the chief Prelate of their Church, but from other clergymen of that Church—when they saw such a petition rejected on such ground of informality, he must say that it would carry conviction to the minds of the people of Ireland that the House was anxious and astute to avail themselves of every technical difficulty which the law allowed to shut their ears to their petitions, and to prevent an inquiry into the grievances of which they complained. He felt that if the House resolved to reject this petition from being influenced by the high Protestant feeling expressed by hon. Members opposite, they would give rise to much cause for offence on the part of the Roman Catholic people of Ireland. Now that the union had taken place, and the Emancipation Bill was passed, the House ought to consider petitions, come from what quarter they might, whether from Roman Catholics, Churchmen, or Dissenters, all in the same light, and on a footing of equality. Let the House consider the objection itself. He would suppose for a moment that it was a misdescription of one individual in the petition. It might be possible, perhaps, to point out one instance; but he defied any one to show him generally a petition, signed by persons giving themselves certain descriptions, unless in the case of corporations, where the House had examined strictly into the legal rights of the parties to the titles or characters which they assumed. It was said that a character was assumed by a person signing this petition not allowed by law. That was the charge. It was not asserted to be a violation of the Act of Parliament. If Dr. M'Hale had assumed a title belonging to any existing Protestant body, and if the House had evidence of that fact, then they might have grounds for deciding to reject the petition. But there was no one who claimed to be the Protestant Archbishop of Tuam. The case was, therefore, limited to that; and, under these circumstances, there was no provision in law to prevent a Roman Catholic bishop from assuming the title of Archbishop of Tuam. There was no person who could say that there was an Archbishop of Tuam in law. Was it worth while, then—nay, was it wise, was

203
it prudent, or even decent, upon an objection of this kind, to reject a petition containing a statement of the feelings and opinions of a large portion of the clergy and people of Ireland?
Sir G. Clerkwas surprised at the warmth evinced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman on a question of mere form in their proceedings. He agreed with that right hon. and learned Gentleman that to object to the reception of a petition coming from the Catholic clergy of Ireland upon a subject on which they appeared to take a deep interest, upon a mere point of form, was a step which ought not to be taken He thought it was very easy for the hon. Member for Mayo to escape from the difficulty. That hon. Member had stated, that he was authorised by Dr. M'Hale to strike off the adjunct of Archbishop of Tuam to his signature in the petition why not also strike out the same designation at the head of the petition, and then the petition would appear to be from the Roman Catholic clergy in certain parts of Ireland. The noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on a former occasion stated, that he had refused to present an address to her Majesty to which a Catholic Archbishop had signed his name as Archbishop. This being so, he hoped the hon. Member for Mayo would not object to withdraw the petition for the purpose of making the alteration suggested.
Mr. Dillon Brownesaid, that although he had been authorised by Dr. M'Hale to strike off the adjunct to his signature, yet he had no authority to make any other alteration in the petition, inasmuch as it was not merely the petition of Dr. M'Hale, but of a large portion of the Catholic clergy.
Mr. Goulburnsuggested, that by striking out the word "Tuam" at the head of the petition, the difficulty might be obviated.
Lord John Russellconfessed that he was unable to give any very competent opinion upon this subject, because a great part of the discussion had taken place before he entered the House. He wished, however, that the House should be relieved from the difficulty of deciding upon the question. There was an obvious objection to the hon. Member for Mayo making any alteration in the petition; on the other hand, the statement that it was the petition (among others) of the Archbishop of Tuam, placed he House in a situation of
204
very great difficulty; because, if they rejected the petition on that ground, it might be conceived to be a captious objection; and yet, at the same time, it was obvious, that to receive such a petition would be contrary to the spirit of the Act of Parliament—the description evidently militating against the spirit of the Act, although it might not against the letter. As the hon. Gentleman had stated, that he had no authority to withdraw the petition or to alter the wording of it, he should certainly feel compelled, if the question were pressed, to vote against its being received.
Mr. M. J. O'Connelladmitted, it might be true, as the noble Lord said, that this was a violation of an Act of Parliament, but that Act was in its nature a penal one against the people of Ireland, and therefore he was not inclined to extend its operation one jot beyond what was in strictness the letter of the Act. It was admitted, that there was no violation of the letter of the law; it would, therefore, produce a strange effect in Ireland, to hear it said that the House of Commons was inclined to do what no court of law ever did, namely, extend a penal Act beyond the letter.
The House divided on the question, that the petition do lie on the table: Ayes 82; Noes 165: Majority 83.

List of the AYES.

Anson, Sir G.

Evans, W.

Attwood, T.

Fielden, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Barron, H. W.

Ferguson, R.

Bewes, T.

Finch, F.

Blake, W. J.

Hawes, B.

Brotherton, J.

Hawkins, J. H.

Bryan, G.

Hector, C. J.

Buller, C.

James, W.

Busfield, W.

Lambton, H.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Langdale, hon. C

Callaghan, D.

Langton, W. G.

Chapman, Sir L.M.C.

Leader, J.T.

Chester, H.

Lister, E. C.

Childers, J.W.

Lushington, C.

Codrington, Admiral

Lushington, rt. hon. S.

Collins, W.

Macnamara, Major

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Duff, J.

Murray, A.

Duncombe, T.

Nicholl, J.

Dundas, F.

O'Connell, D.

Eliot, Lord

O'Connell, J.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

O'Connell, M.

Ellice, E.

Ord, W.

Ellis, W.

Parrott, J.

Evans, Sir De L.

Pattison, J.

Evans, G.

Philips, M.

205

Phillpotts, J.

Wallace, R.

Pigot, D. R.

Warburton, H.

Power, J.

Ward, H. G.

Pryme, G.

White, A.

Rich, H.

White, S.

Rundle, J.

Williams, R.

Salwey, Colonel

Williams, W.

Scholefield, J.

Winnington, T. E.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Wood, G.W.

Sharpe, General

Worsley, Lord

Somers, J. P.

Wyse, T.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Yates, J. A.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Stuart, V.

TELLERS.

Strutt, E.

Browne, R. D.

Thornely, T.

O'Connell, M. J.

List of the NOES.

Alsager, Captain

Fazakerly, J. N.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Feilden, W.

Ashley, Lord

Fellowes, E.

Bailey, J.

Filmer, Sir E.

Bailey, J. jun.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Baker, E.

Fleming, J.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Follett, Sir W.

Barneby, J.

Freshfield, J. W.

Barrington, Visct.

Gladstone, W. E.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Goddard, A.

Bethell, R.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Boldero, H. G.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Broadley, H.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Brownrigg, S.

Grant, F. W.

Buck, L. W.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Burr, H.

Grimsditch, T.

Burrell, Sir C.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Burroughes, H. N.

Hale, R. B.

Campbell, Sir J.

Harcourt, G. G.

Canning, rt. hon. Sir S.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Cartwright, W. R.

Heneage, E.

Christopher, R. A.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Clerk, Sir G.

Herbert, hon. S.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Codrington, C. W.

Hill, Sir R.

Cole, Viscount

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Hodges, T. L.

Compton, H. C.

Hodgson, F.

Copeland, Alderman

Hodgson, R.

Corry, hon. H.

Hogg, J. W.

Courtenay, P.

Holmes, hon. W.A 'C

Crawford, W.

Holmes, W.

Cresswell, C.

Hope, hon. C.

Darby, G.

Hope, G. W.

Darlington, Earl of

Howick, Visct.

Dennistoun, W. J.

Hughes, W.B.

De Horsey, S. H.

Ingestrie, Lord

D'Israeli, B.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Duffield, T.

Irton, S.

Dugdale, W. S.

Irving, J.

Dunbar, G.

Jackson, Mr. Sergeant

Duncombe, hon. W.

Jones, Capt.

Du Pre, G.

Kemble, H.

Eastnor, Visc.

Kelburne, Viscount

Eaton, R. J.

Knight, H. G.

Egerton, W. T.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Egerton, Sir P.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Erle, W.

Lefroy, rt. hon. T.

Farrand, R.

Lennox, Lord A.

206

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Lincoln, Earl of

Russell, Lord J.

Lockhart, A. M.

Russell, Lord C.

Long, W.

Sandon, Viscount

Lowther, J. H.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Lygon, hon. General

Sheppard, T.

Mackenzie, T.

Shirley, E. J.

Macleod, R.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Mahon, Lord Visc.

Smith, A.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Somerset, Lord G.

Maunsell, T. P.

Speirs, A.

Miles, W.

Stanley, E.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Stanley, E. J.

Muskett, G. A.

Stanley, Lord

Norreys, Lord

Stanley, W. O.

Packe, C. W.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Paget, F.

Sleuart, R.

Pakington, J. S.

Stuart, W.V.

Palmer, R.

Sturt, H. C.

Palmer, G.

Teignmouth, Lord

Parker, J.

Tennant, J. E.

Patten, J. W.

Turner, W.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Perceval, Colonel

Waddington, H. S.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Wall, C. B.

Planta, rt. hon. J.

Whitmore, T. C.

Plumptre, J. P.

Wilde, Sergeant

Pollen, Sir J. W.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Powerscourt, Visct.

Winnington, H. J.

Praed, W. T.

Wood, T.

Price, R.

Wynn, rt. hon. C.

Pusey, P.

Young, J.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Richards, R.

TELLERS.

Rolleston, L.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Round, C. G.

Law, hon. C. E.

Petition rejected.

CHURCH LEASES.
Mr. Lambtonwished to ask the noble Lord, whether it was his intention this Session to introduce any measure founded on the recommendation of the committee on Church Leases. The holders of that property could not at present borrow money on that security, owing to the unsettled state of the question, and it was of importance that some measure should be enacted as speedily as possible.
Lord John Russellwas fully aware of the importance of the subject to which the hon. Member had referred, but from the many difficulties attendant on it, he begged to say, it was not his intention to propose any bill on the subject during the present Session, but early next Session he hoped to be able to submit to the House some measure that would prove satisfactory to the country.

CANADA.
The order of the day for the resumption of the adjourned debate upon Canada, and the first resolution,—

207
"That it is the opinion of this House, that it is expedient to form a legislative union of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, on the principles of a free and representative government, in such a manner as may most conduce to the prosperity and contentment of the people of the united provinces," having been read,
Lord John Russellasked for leave to withdraw the resolution which had been read, intending immediately to ask for leave to bring in a bill.
Lord Stanleysaid, that his objection the other day was to the mode which had been adopted by her Majesty's Government. His desire was, that no opinion should be given by the House as to the expediency or the practicability of uniting the two provinces of Upper and of Lower Canada, till they saw the details of the bill to effect that object; and as the noble Lord had proposed to withdraw the resolution, which as he (Lord Stanley) thought unnecessarily and improperly pledged the House to the abstract principle, his purpose had been altogether answered. He had no objection to the course now proposed, or to the noble Lord's proceeding by bill; on the contrary, he was most anxious to see the mode in which it was intended to deal with this question, for it was most desirable, not only for this country, but for all persons in Upper and Lower Canada, that the views of her Majesty's Government should be known at as early a period and as distinctly as possible; and he regretted that the noble Lord should think that it was not possible to carry out their intentions during the present Session. The interests involved were so important, that it was desirable that there should be no party discussion; and considering what had passed, and the present condition of the colonies, he thought that it would be better that there should not be any partial debate into which topics of an irritating nature might be introduced upon the present occasion. He would therefore content himself with stating the satisfaction he felt at the course which had been pursued by the noble Lord, and he would abstain altogether from expressing any opinion upon the measure till he was in possession of the bill.
Resolution withdrawn;
Lord John Russellwould proceed to move for leave to bring in two bills, which he stated he would submit when he wished
208
to withdraw the resolution, and, with the noble Lord, he felt that it would be unnecessary now to have any discussion, or to ask for the opinion of the House. After what he had stated the other day in proposing that resolution, as to the general views of her Majesty's Government, it was not necessary for him, nor would it be advantageous, that he should enter into any details on the subject of Canada. He might state generally, that it was their opinion, that upon the whole, it was most advantageous that the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada should be united; but that it would expose such union to great risk, and to a great probability of failure, if they did not previously take all possible means to provide for legislation in Lower Canada, so that no topics of irritation should exist at the first meeting of the Assembly of the united provinces. With this view he proposed, that till the period of the union, efficient and certain powers should be intrusted to the Government of this country, and to the Governor in Canada, for effecting this desirable change in the legislation of that colony. It was stated, that practically there was now an important obstacle to those proceedings which were necessary to avert immediate danger. He, therefore, proposed to introduce a bill for the temporary continuance of the Act of last Session for the suspension of the constitution, so that the colony might be brought to a desirable state before the bill for the union should come into operation. By the new bill he intended to amend the Act of last Session in several particulars. He proposed, in the first place, to alter that clause of the Act in which so much difference of opinion was expressed last Session in that House—a difference of opinion which had extended to the judicial bench in Canada. It had been stated upon high authority, not, indeed, by any person holding any judicial office, but by persons of eminent legal authority, that the bill of last Session did not authorise the Governor to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, or to take other immediate measures to prevent treason. He would now propose to alter the clause which was generally known as Sir William Follett's clause, and to limit its operation to measures affecting the clergy, whether Protestant or Catholic, or affecting the tenures of land. It was stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that this was the principal object which he had in view, and

209
that whatever the legal effect of the clause might be, he did not intend it to prevent necessary measures of legislation. Another inconvenience which was felt, was the want of a power to impose taxes for strictly local purposes, such as the watching, and the local roads. He proposed, therefore, to alter the clause introduced by themselves, and to give power to impose rates and taxes; these were not to be paid into the public treasury, but to be applicable only for local purposes, for the watching and the roads. He likewise proposed that the powers given under that Act to the Governor and Council should be continued for eighteen months beyond the period at which they would now by law expire. That Act would now expire in November 1840, and he proposed, that with the alteration to which he alluded, it should be continued till March 1842. He did not say, that that was the precise period of extension that was necessary. It might be possible to call together the General Assembly of the united provinces before that time; but it was better to state in the bill a time beyond which it was improbable that it would be necessary to continue the Act. If her Majesty's Government found that it was the general wish and opinion of both provinces, that the united Assembly should meet earlier, the special powers given by this bill might meet at that time. With regard to the other bill for the union of the two provinces, as a consequence of not proceeding to enact a law in the present Session, it might be necessary to change some of the proposed provisions. The bill, however, which he would ask leave to introduce, provided for the establishment of a central district at Montreal and its neighbourhood, in which the government should be carried on, and where the Assembly should meet. The other parts of Upper Canada and of Lower Canada were each to be divided into two districts. It was proposed, that these districts should be formed for the purpose of becoming municipal districts for the imposition of taxes and rates for all local purposes. He need not, then, enter into the reasons which, in his opinion, justified such a proposition. It had been intended to have local commissioners belonging to the former legislative assemblies of Lower Canada and of Upper Canada, to ascertain and fix the districts to return members to the united Assembly; but in consequence of the recent change
210
of intention, it was thought better that the division should be effected by direct enactment by the Imperial Parliament receiving all the local information that could be obtained as to the boundaries and districts. Those boundaries and districts were not defined by the bill, but they were referred to as to be defined in the schedule. He had said, that it was proposed to have a central district, and that there were to be four other districts. Each of these districts was to be divided into nine other divisions, so that there would be in the whole, supposing each such division to return two members, ninety members for the different divisions or electoral districts. In addition to these, he proposed that the four largest towns should each return two members, making ninety-eight members in the whole. He believed, that he had stated on a former occasion, his opinion as to the Legislative Council, and other parts of the bill relating to the local legislature. He would not, therefore, now go into them. It would be better that the House should see the bill itself, and judge of its provisions, rather than that he should enter into any further explanation at present, and he would content himself with moving for leave to bring in a bill to reunite the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada.
Sir Robert Peelconcurred with his noble Friend, in thinking that in a matter of so much importance, it would be better to postpone all discussion upon the bill till they had an opportunity of examining the provisions. He wished, however, to ask the noble Lord one or two questions. The noble Lord had said, that he had stated his views with respect to the Legislative Council, and, as he understood the noble Lord, that council ought to remain constituted upon the same principle as at present. Upon a matter of so much importance, without meaning to provoke any discussion, he would ask the noble Lord to explain the principle on which the council would be constituted? The other question which he wished to ask was, whether the elective franchise for the five districts for constituting municipal bodies, having power to impose local rates and taxes, was to be identical with the elective franchise in the counties?
Lord John Russellreplied, with regard to the first question, that what he had stated upon a former occasion was, that he did not propose to depart from the

211
principle that the Legislative Council should be named or proposed by the Crown, but that some care should be taken, pursuant to the resolution of that House, to select men of some mark on whom the confidence of the Crown had been bestowed, or who were entitled to confidence in consequence of the elections of the people. He would provide, therefore, that the Council should be composed of persons who had either held some office of consequence or importance, or of well-known authority, or of Members of the Assembly. Certain qualifications, therefore, were to be insisted on, and the selection was not to be left to the caprice of the Governor, who could not, for the future, appoint persons unknown in, or not belonging to, the province. The Members of this Council, too, were not to be appointed for life, but were to hold office for eight years only. With regard to the franchise, the right of election was to be the same for the municipal and the general elections.
Sir R. Peelinquired whether, at the end of the eight years, it was to be in the power of the Crown to re-appoint the parties?
Lord, J. Russellanswered, that the Crown was to have power to re-appoint.
Leave given to bring in the bill.
Lord J. Russellnext moved for leave to bring in a bill to continue and amend the act 1 Vict. c. 9, for making temporary provision for the Government of Lower Canada.
Mr. C. Bullerwould not allow to pass through a single stage, without giving to it his strenuous opposition, a bill to continue the present system of provisional government, were it not that the bill not merely continued the present system, but it also gave to the Special Council a power which they did not at present possess. His experience, however, of Canada, convinced him that, leaving the Special Council with its present limited power, would be leaving the colony without any legislative power at all. A bill, therefore, having for its object to give to the Council further powers, ought to pass in some form or other, though he would oppose, in the most strenuous manner, any attempt to continue, unaltered, the present provisional and arbitrary power in Lower Canada.
Sir C. Greywould venture to say, with reference to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, that the best thing the Government or that
212
House could do, under present circumstances, was, to continue the powers of the Governor and Council. The only other remark he had to offer, related to a statement which he had heard made, that neither the Government nor the Imperial Legislature had done anything to extricate the province of Lower Canada from the difficulties in which it was placed. That was an erroneous view of the case; and if hon. Members would look back, they would find that much had been done, and that they were now in a situation which rendered them more capable of dealing with the difficulties which they had to encounter, than they were five years ago. They had made two very important steps. They had suspended the Constitution, a proceeding which he considered absolutely necessary for the final settlement of the Government, and they had got into their hands those revenues which were absolutely necessary for carrying on the government. The revenue of the colony was more than double what was necessary for carrying on the government. He should not trouble the House further at that time, but reserve his remarks until the bills which it was proposed to introduce were laid upon the Table.
Leave given.

METROPOLIS POLICE BILL,
On the motion of Lord John Russell, the House resolved itself into Committee on the Metropolis Police Bill.
On clause 3],
Captain Bolderoobjected to it, because it provided that the superannuation fund, out of which the half-pay of the men would have to be paid, would accumulate out of stoppages from their pay in cases of sickness, of fines for assaults and other petty offences, and by the sale of their old clothing. It was especially unfair, he thought, that the proposed stoppages should form any part of the fund. Indeed, as the clause stood, the superannuation was no boon to the men, but their absolute right from their own contributions. They were an intelligent body of men, possessed of great physical and moral courage, and after the harassing servitude of fifteen years, were deserving of half-pay from the public as a matter of right, and not as a result of their own contribution. He had no amendment to offer, but threw out the suggestion to the framers of the bill.
Mr. Fox Maulesaid, the clause had

213
been inserted to enable the Commissioners to reward those who suffered in the service, or remained during the specified period—a power not previously possessed; and by a very trifling reduction, that of 50 s. a-year from their pay, with the other items, they would, under the present bill, be provided for in the way they deserved.
Sir R. Peelsaid, every encouragement should be given to the men. In this the public at large was deeply interested. Every inducement should be held out to respectable and well-behaved men to become members of the force; for upon them much of public liberty and safety depended, and the protection of property at all times, but most particularly so at night. It was unwise, therefore, to curtail them of their pay. And he did not think that they should have anything short of 52 l. a-year; indeed, the sum first proposed to paid to them was 60 l. a-year.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, that, adding the fines for assaults and other minor cases to the superannuation fund was an inducement to the men to commit perjury.
Mr. Goulburnrejoiced that the fines would go into the general fund, out of which the superannuations would be paid; and it was too much to suppose that the police would be guilty of false-swearing for so indirect a mode of contributing to their own superannuation, particularly when they would have to wait fifteen years for a chance of participation.
Lord John Russellobserved, that the necessity for the creation of a superannuation fund had been long obvious.
Clause agreed to.
On clause 47, which provides that all booths, caravans, and other places of entertainment at fairs, shall be shut at eleven o'clock in the evening, until six in the morning, and gives the police a power to take into custody the keeper of such place of entertainment, if kept open beyond eleven o'clock or before six, or any person present in such place of entertainment in violation of the Act, if he shall have refused to quit on being desired so to do; the clause further imposing a penalty of 5l. in the former case, and 2l. in the latter.
Colonel Sibthorpopposed the motion as a most unnecessary and unwarrantable interference with the amusements of the public. He did not see why the people should not have as much right to stay at a fair as her Majesty's ministers had to go
214
to Blackwall to eat whitebait. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving the omission of the clause.
The Committee divided, on the question that the clause stand part of the Bill.—Ayes 54: Noes 8: Majority 46:—

List of the AYES.

Abercromby, hon. G. R.

Nagle, Sir R.

Aglionby, Major

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Baring, F. T.

Pigot, D.R.

Blair, J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Pryme, G.

Chester, H.

Rice, E. R.

Clive, E. B.

Rickford, W.

Craig, W. G.

Rolfe, Sir R.

Curry, Mr. Sergeant

Rundle, J.

Darby, George

Russell, Lord J.

Davies, Colonel

Russell, Lord C.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Smith, B.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Steuart, R.

Hawes, B.

Stewart, J.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Stock, Dr.

Hope, G. W.

Tancred, H. W.

Horsman, E.

Teignmouth, Lord

Kemble, H.

Vigors, N. A.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Warburton, H.

Law, hon. C. E.

Williams, W. A.

Litton, E.

Wood, Sir M.

Mackenzie, T.

Wood, T.

Macleod, R.

Young, J.

Marsland, H.

Maule, hon. F.

TELLERS.

Melgund, Lord Visct.

Dalmeny, Lord Parker, J.

Morris, D.

List of the NOES.

Barnard, E. G.

Salwey, Colonel

Dundas, C. W. D.

Talfourd, Mr. Sergt.

Finch, F.

Williams, W.

Hodgson, R.

TELLERS.

Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.

Sibthorp, Colonel Duncombe, T.

Clause agreed to;
On Clause 67,
Mr. T. Duncombethought, that the section which inflicts a punishment of fourteen days' imprisonment on persons found drunk in the streets should be altered, so that such punishment should not be inflicted in the case of labouring men. Hitherto the discretion vested in the magistrates had been but too generally exercised in favour of the higher classes. However, he thought the whole clause objectionable, because it was confined to a particular locality. It was absurd, that a man should be imprisoned for drunkenness in London, while he might go down, to Windsor and get drunk without being liable to any other punishment than a finer of five shillings.
The clause was amended by the substitution of" seven," days for "fourteen."
The Committee divided on the clause—Ayes 75; Noes 7: Majority 66.

List of the AYES.

Abercromby,hon.G.R.

Noel, hon. W. M.

Aglionby, Major

O'Connell, J.

Alsager, Capt.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Archbold, R.

Pigot, D. R.

Bailey, J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Baines, E.

Pringle, A.

Baring, F. T.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Barry, G. S.

Rice, E. R.

Beamish, F. B.

Rickford, W.

Bewes, T.

Round, C. G.

Blake, W. J.

Rundle, J.

Busfeild, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Chalmers, P.

Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.

Clive, E. B.

Salwey, Colonel

Collier, J.

Sandon, Lord Visct.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Scholefield, J.

Curry, Mr. Sergeant

Scrope, G. P.

Davies, Colonel

Sheppard, T.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Smyth, Sir G. H.

Elliot, hon. John E.

Somerset, Lord G.

Filmer, Sir E.

Steuart, R.

Finch, F.

Stock, Dr.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Strutt, E.

Hawes, B.

Talfourd, Mr. Sergt.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Teignmouth, Lord

Hindley, C.

Thorneley, T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Vigors, N. A.

Hodgson, R.

Wallace, R.

Hope, G. W.

Warburton, H.

Horsman, E.

White, A.

Howick, Lord Visct.

Wilbraham, G.

Hutton, R.

Williams, W. A.

Kemble, H.

Winnington, T. E.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Wood, C.

Knatchbull, rt. hon. Sir E.

Wood, Sir M.

Wood, G. W.

Law, hon. C. E.

Marsland, H.

TELLERS.

Morris, D.

Maule, F.

Nicholl, J.

Rolfe, Sir R.

List of the NOES.

Craig, W. G.

Williams, W.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Wood, T.

Pechell, Capt.

TELLERS.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Duncombe, T.

Smith, B.

Darby, Mr.

Upon clause 68,
Mr. Williamssaid, it was very inconsistent. The penalties affixed by these clauses to petty offences, did not extend to the city of London. He believed, indeed, the noble Lord would not venture to attempt such an extension, or he would be frightened out of it the next day, and be counselled by the hon. Alderman below him (Sir M. Wood), to abandon it, in order to conciliate the good will of the citizens of London.
Mr. Fox Maulesaid, it was intended to introduce clauses which would have the effect of including the city, on the bringing up of the report.
Mr. C. Lawcomplained that this would be a violation of the pledge given to the city. It was promised, that the principle of the new enactment should not be introduced into the city; but it seemed to be intended to introduce the substance of it in details.
Mr. Fox Maulesaid, that the pledge applied to the management of the police force, which would be left with the city. But there was no pledge to exempt the city from any changes that Parliament might think fit to make in the criminal law.
Sir Matthew Woodsaid, that when the clauses extending this part of the enactment to the city were brought up, he would be happy to support them.
Clause agreed to.
House resumed. Bill reported.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
The order of the day for the House resolving itself into a Committee on this bill was read. On the motion, that the Speaker do now leave the chair,
Mr. Sheppardmoved, that it be an instruction to the Committee, to introduce the following amendment:—"And be it further enacted, that the judgment required by the beforesaid act, previous to a debtor's discharge, subjecting any property that may otherwise accrue to the debtor, at any period (exclusive of all assets, prospects, and claims set forth in his schedule), shall cease to be of effect beyond the term of three years from the date of the discharge of the debtor."
The Attorney-Generalfelt it his duty reluctantly to oppose the motion of the hon. Member for Frome. It must be remembered, that this was not a general bill to revise the law of imprisonment for debt, but merely a bill brought in for the specific purpose of doing away with the great grievance to newspaper proprietors, which compelled them to insert advertisements relating to insolvent debtors at 3s. each, without reference to the length to which those advertisements might extend.
Instruction withdrawn.
Bill went through the Committee; and to be reported.

HIGH SHERIFF'S EXPENSES.
On the motion for the third reading of the High Sheriff's Expenses Bill,
Sir Edward Knatchbullobjected to proceeding with a measure of so much importance at so late an hour of the night. The bill had now advanced to its last stage, but had never yet been discussed or considered. He should certainly oppose the motion.
The House divided.
Ayes 40: Noes 16; Majority 24.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Pigot, D. R.

Archbold, R.

Power, J.

Baines, E.

Pryme, G.

Baring, F. T.

Redington, T. N.

Beamish, F.B.

Russell, Lord John

Blake, W. J.

Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.

Brotherton, J.

Salwey, Colonel

Busfield, W.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Chalmers, P.

Stanley, W. O.

Duncombe, T.

Steuart, R.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Stewart, J.

Hastie, A.

Strutt, E.

Jervis, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Lemon, Sir C.

Turner, W.

Maule, hon. F.

Wallace, R.

Mildmay, P. St. John

Warburton, H.

Morpeth, Lord Visct.

Westenra, hon. H. R

Morris, D.

Winnington, H. J.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

O'Connell, M.

TELLERS.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Davies, Colonel Parrott, J.

Pechell, Captain

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hodgson, R.

Burroughes, H. N.

Kelburne, Lord Visct

Collins, W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Darby, G.

Rice, E. R.

Filmer, Sir E.

Talfourd, Mr. Sergt.

Finch, F.

Williams, W. A.

Gore, O. J. R.

Grimsditch, T.

TELLERS.

Hector, C. J.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Barneby, J.

On the question, that the bill do pass,
Mr. Barnebyobjected to the second clause, because the Sheriffs would be able to appoint their own dependents, a javelin-men, and call upon the county to clothe and pay them.
He moved the omission of part of the clause.
Mr. F. T. Baringsaid, that the sheriffs were answerable for the javelin-men, and therefore ought to have the appointment,
The House again divided on the question that the clause remain:—Ayes 36 Noes 17:—Majority 19.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Adml.

Archbold, R.

218

Baines, E.

Pigot, D. R.

Baring, F. T.

Power, J.

Beamish, F. B.

Pryme, G.

Busfield, W.

Redington, T. N.

Chalmers, P.

Russell, Lord J.

Duncombe, T.

Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.

Eliot, hon. J. E.

Salwey, Col.

Hastie, A.

Stanley, hon. W. J.

Jervis, J.

Stanley, W. O.

Lemon, Sir C.

Steuart, R.

Maule, hon. F.

Stewart, J.

Mildmay, P. St. John

Turner, W.

Morpeth, Visct.

Warburton, H.

Morris, D.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Winnington, H. J.

O'Connell, M.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

TELLERS.

Parrott, J.

Davies, Col. Wallace, R.

Pechell, Capt.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.

Brotherton, J.

Burroughes, H. N.

Plumptre, J. P.

Collins, W.

Rice, E. R.

Filmer, Sir E.

Talfourd, Mr. Sergt.

Finch, F.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

Gore, O. J. R.

Williams, W. A.

Grimsditch, T.

Hector, C. J.

TELLERS.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Darby, G.

Hodgson, R.

Barneby, J.

Bill passed.

POOR-LAW ACT.
Lord John Russellmoved for leave to bring in two Bills, one to continue the Poor-law Commission for one year, the other to amend the law relative to the assessment and collection of rates to the Poor-law Amendment Act. He had already stated, that it was too late in the present Session to introduce the bill he had originally intended as to details, which had been under discussion both in the House and before a Select Committee; but all he now proposed to do was, to make a provision to prevent any occurrence to put an end suddenly to the Poor-law Commissions. The bill would provide for the continuance of the commission for a year longer than it would now exist by law; it would now expire at the end of the next Session of Parliament. He wished, also, to introduce a bill to amend the system of the collection of rates. Much difficulty and inconvenience was now felt in the collection of the rates, in consequence of the different authorities between the board of guardians and the overseers. By this bill, he proposed to enable the board of guardians to order the collection of the county and other rates collected with the poor-rates.
Mr. Darbyregretted that the noble Lord did not mean to introduce the bill as he originally intended; particularly he regretted, that he had omitted from this bill an alteration of the bastardy clause. He would also refer to the Report of the Committee of 1837, in which the special attention of Members was directed to the cases of widows with children; of men who were married before the Poor-law came into effect, who had large families; and persons who were unable to work. And as the proposed bill was only to last for a year, he thought that it would be a good opportunity to try to amend these points. He had had much experience with respect to the working of the Poor-law Bill, and the noble Lord would do him the credit of saying, that he had not factiously opposed it or used it for any party purpose. He might at first have objected to the Commissioners, but as it was now quite impossible to get rid of the system, they must make the best of it. He had personally received great attention from one of the Commissioners, Mr. Lefevre, whenever he had had occasion to consult him; but he had seen so much mischief from parts of the bill as it stood, that he would be glad to see it altered, and trusted that the amendment would not be made to depend upon any bill which was not likely to pass in the present Session. The bastardy clause, especially, was so drawn that it was perfectly incomprehensible—one part was totally inconsistent with the other, and the judges had said that they could put no construction upon it. He hoped the noble Lord would introduce a bill to clear up these points, and it would be certain of being carried.
Sir E. Knatchbullmight see, from the absence of any opposition to the noble Lord's motion, that it was not the intention of that side of the House to oppose any obstacle to the introduction of those bills. He regretted, however, that the noble Lord had not brought forward the measure he had intended to propose with respect to this subject, at an earlier period of the session, when it might be fully considered. He thought that, with respect to the bill, for the assessment and collection of rates, it ought not to be brought forward at so advanced a period of the Session.
Lord J. Russellhoped the hon. Baronet would give his attention to that bill when in Committee, and he should be happy to
220
attend to any suggestions he might offer.
Leave given.
The two Bills were brought in and read a first time.