Commons Sitting of 16 June 1842

MINUTE
NEW MEMBER. John Quincey Harris, Esq., for Newcastle-under-Lyme.
BILLS. Public.—1°. Bribery at Elections (No. 2).
Reported.—Assessed Taxes.
Private.—1°. Manner's Estate; Brewood School Estate.
Reported..—Dean Forest Poor; Briavel's Small Debts.
3°. and passed; Sudbury Improvement.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Etwall, from Andover, and Weyhill, for the Repeal or Alteration of the Poor- law Amendment Act By Sir John Hanmer, from Kingston-upon-Hull, against the Poor-law Amendment Bill.—From Teston and Nettlestead, Kingston, Glasgow, Brampton, Tonbridge, and other places, against Railway Travelling on Sundays.—From Headington, for placing Charitable Lunatic Asylums on the same footing as County Lunatic Asylums.—By Mr. Brotherton, from the Members of the Peace Preservation Society, for the Discontinuance of the Wars in China and Affghanistan. —By Mr. T. Duncombe, from North Shields, for Alteration of the of Law of Landlord and Tenant in Ireland.— By Mr. T. Duncombe, and Mr. Byng, from Finsbury, and the Ward of Farringdon, for the Redemption of the Tolls on the Metropolitan Bridges.—By Mr. Mitcalf, from Tynemouth, for securing to Seamen their Wages.—By Mr. H. Berkeley, from Bristol, for the Abolition of Church-rates.—By Mr. Thornely, from Ormskirk, for the Reduction of the Duty on Sugar.—By Captain Pechell, from William Smith, for Inquiry into the Eastbourne Union,—From Droitwich, for Rating the Owners of Small Tenements to the Poor.—From Kilworth, against placing Medical Charities (Ireland), under the Poor-law Commissioners.—From Limerick, against the Fisheries (Ireland) Bill.

BELFAST ELECTION.
Mr. O'Connellmoved, that the following be the select committee to inquire into the Belfast election proceedings:—Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Beckett Denison, Mr. Cripps, Mr. East, Mr. Liddell, Mr. Ellice, jun., Mr. Protheroe, and Sir Benjamin Hall.— Power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Sir R. Ingliswould not trouble the House to divide on that question, but he must protest against such a proceeding as the present. When his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, and the noble Lord at the head of the party opposite, agreed upon any course, it was quite useless to oppose them.
Mr. Darbywished to know, what was the nature of the inquiry which the hon. and learned Member wished to institute under his motion. Did he intend that it should be limited to the distinct cases of bribery which it was alleged led to the compromise?
Mr. O'Connellwished to follow as ex-
1610
actly as possible the precedent laid down by the hon. Member for Bath. The period of the Session was later for inquiry than he could have wished; but he hoped, that there would be no objection to take the order now.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that after the direct allusion, that had been again made to him by the hon. Baronet, he must ask hon. Members to excuse him for adhering to his individual opinion. He did not wish to exercise the influence of the Government on this question, or any personal influence as the leader of a party; and he had not asked any one to vote with him on this or the other questions touching election matters; but he claimed the right of voting on this and other questions in an independent way. He thought, after the statements made to that House, that it was bound to inquire into those cases in which there was an appearance of compromise; and also as to the extent to which bribery had prevailed, in the last election, in those places in which it was alleged compromises had taken place. It was his deliberate opinion, that it would not be very creditable to the character and reputation of the House of Commons, to stand up against inquiry on a mere technical objection. He wished to have the House of Commons remain as it was at present constituted, and, with the view to uphold its character, he was anxious to put a stop to these compromises. If the House of Commons wished to appear before the country as sincerely opposed to the practice of bribery, it must adopt such a course as was proposed, and if it did not take such a step, its character must be impaired in the estimation of the country. If parties said on one side, that we will protect those who act with us, and if those on the other side were equally disposed to support their adherents in such practices, the character of the House must be lowered in the estimation of the country. For his own part, he never would act with the appearance even of a partizan, when parties were accused of bribery, or of a corrupt compromise. In such a case, he never would suffer his conduct to be influenced by party considerations. He gave this public notice (and he did not say, that bribery had, or had not taken place, in this, or some of the other cases—he did not know whether that was the case or not)—that he would not use the influence of party to oppose

1611
inquiry into those cases which had occurred at the last election, and where it appeared there was a primâ facie case of bribery. He was satisfied, that if such inquiries were refused, it would tend to lessen the influence and reputation of the House of Commons throughout the country. If any parties were guilty of bribery, they must take the consequences, and he gave notice, that he would not exercise the influence of office to protect them.
Sir R. Inglisobserved, that his right hon. Friend had mistaken what he had said. He did not insinuate, that his right hon. Friend had used the influence of Government in support of the motion. What he said was, that when his right hon. Friend and the noble Lord opposite, concurred in any one subject, it was vain to divide the House against them.
Motion agreed to.—Committee nominated.
Mr. O'Connellwished to know whether there would be any objection to his proceeding with the bill to indemnify the witnesses to be examined before this committee.
Sir R. Peelthought that it would be better unless in case of absolute necessity, not to bring forward bills of this kind. He thought, as he stated yesterday, that it was desirable that the House of Commons should rely, in the first instance, upon its own constitutional powers. If those powers were found to be insufficient it would be time to make alterations. He doubted the policy of resorting to the assistance of the other House for such bills as the present, as it might hold out an inducement to witnesses to doubt the power of the House to compel answers to questions. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not at present, unless on very strong grounds, ask for this bill.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that he concurred in what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He had been apprehensive, from what had formerly passed, that their present powers were insufficient, but after what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, he would withdraw his motion.

CHURCH EXTENSION.
Mr. Haweshad understood the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, to say at the commencement of the Session, that he intended to bring the question of Church Extension under the consideration
1612
of the House during the present Session. He wished to know whether the hon. Baronet still intended to do so, and if he did at what period he would make his motion.
Sir R. Inglissaid, it was his intention —his fixed intention—to call the attention of the House to the subject of Church Extension. If he might be permitted to add one word in reply to the question, it was this, that if the hon. Member for Lambeth would promise him his support, he would then take his counsel as to the time and manner of bringing the subject forward, otherwise, he must be allowed to bring it forward at that time, and in that manner which he should think best.
Hawesdid not understand the right hon. Baronet to state whether he intended to bring the matter forward before the end of the Session.
Sir R. Inglissaid, it was his fixed intention to bring the subject forward before the close of the Session.

SOUTHAMPTON ELECTION.
On the motion of Mr. W. O. Stanleythe report of the Southampton election committee was read as follows:—
" That James Bruce, Esq., commonly called Lord Bruce (now Earl of Elgin), and Charles Cecil Martyn, Esq., were not duly elected burgesses to serve in this present Parliament for the town and county of the town of Southamption.
" That the last election of burgesses to serve in Parliament for the said town and county of the town was a void election.
" And the said determinations were ordered to be entered in the journals of this House.
" House also acquainted, that the committee had come to the following resolutions:
" That James Bruce, Esq., commonly called Lord Bruce, and Charles Cecil Martyn, Esq., were, by their agents, guilty of bribery at the last election for the town and county of the town of Southampton.
" That Charles Combe Callan was bribed with 10 l., paid to his wife for him; that Joseph Whitmarsh was promised a bribe of 20/., the whole or some portion of which was afterwards paid; that Joseph Redwards was bribed with 5l.; that William Andrews was bribed with 3l; and that Giles Paskin was bribed with 3l.; each of them to vote for Lord Bruce and Mr. Martyn.
" That it has not been proved before the committee that these acts of bribery were committed with the knowledge and consent of Lord Bruce or Mr. Martyn.
"That the evidence given before the committee relative to an extensive system of treating carried on through the means of local associations; the payment of large sums to chair-

1613
men and colourmen, many of whom were voters, and the expenditure of a sum of money for the purposes of the election, amounting to nearly 5,000/., and, therefore, far exceeding the ordinary legal charges, is deserving of the serious consideration of the House.
" That the committee feel they have been prevented from ascertaining the exact mode in which the whole of this money was expended, by the loss or destruction of the vouchers and other documents connected with these payments, especially in the case of William Rouse Mabson, who, after having been served with the Speaker's warrant, disposed of those in his possession."
Mr. W. O. Stanleysaid, that he could not propose his motion without taking that opportunity of expressing his sense of the obligations of the House and the country to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government for the assistance he had given towards raising the character of that House by the course he had taken respecting the alleged cases of bribery and corruption at the late elections. With respect to the committee, he thought that it was desirable that it should be constituted as fairly as possible, and that the Members forming it should not be in any way biassed by previous opinions. The hon. Member moved that a select committee be appointed
" To inquire into the special report of the select committee appoited to try the matter of the petitions complaining of the last Southampton election; and to inquire into the matters contained in the several petitions hereinafter mentioned, namely, the petitions of the electors of Southampton, presented on the 9th day of May, and the 1st day of June; the petition of John Sadler Moody and other electors of Southampton, presented on the 1st day of June; the petition of William Hooke Steere and other electors of Southampton, presented on the 1st day of June; the petition of John Wren, presented, and printed with the votes, on the 30th day of May; the petitions of Abraham Abraham and William Henry Mackey, presented, and printed with the votes, on the 13th day of June, and to report their opinion thereupon."
Motion agreed to.

CHURCH-RATES.
Sir John Easthope,in rising to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, could not abstain from expressing extreme regret and surprise, that the subject had not been undertaken by her Majesty's Government. His regret upon this point was the more deep, because he could not but be sensible that the present Government was
1614
possessed of power which enabled it to execute its will, and therefore, that the question of Church-rates, submitted to Parliament as a Ministerial proposition, could not fail of being promptly settled. His surprise, that the subject had not been considered by her Majesty's Ministers, and especially by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) at the head of the Government, was founded upon the avowals which the right hon. Baronet had so frequently made in former discussions upon the question, which had fairly led those who deemed the matter of importance to the religious peace of the country to conclude, that it was one that would engage the right hon. Baronet's earnest attention at the earliest moment when he felt himself in a situation to give it a successful consideration. It would perhaps be in the recollection of some Members of the present Parliament, that when upon a former occasion (upon the 25th of May, 1835) it was proposed to abolish Church-rates, and to provide a substitute for them, the right hon. Baronet said,—
" He would not attempt to gain popularity at the expense of the noble Lord, by concealing what he had himself intended to do, and, therefore, he would now declare that, although in the course of the present Session he should have attempted, had he remained in office, to effect an immediate settlement of Church-rates, yet it was his intention to adopt the principle of the noble Lord."
Here, then, was a distinct avowal from the right hon. Baronet, made in the debate when the question was brought before the House by the present Lord Spencer, that if the right hon. Baronet's continuance in office in 1835, had not been cut short, it was his intention to have brought the subject of Church-rates under the consideration of Parliament. To all those, then, who regarded Church-rates as an evil in themselves—as oppressive and unjust upon the dissenting body—and as a source of strife and mischief to the Established Church, it was naturally a matter of regret and surprise, that the right hon. Baronet with all the power to carry out his opinions, and to execute his will, should have failed to undertake a subject upon which he expressed so strong and decided an opinion in 1835; and it remained for the right hon. Baronet to explain for what reason it was, that he deemed the question of less importance now than he considered it to be at the

1615
period to which he (Sir J. Easthope) had adverted. In the course of the same debate, in May, 1835, the tight hon. Baronet, showing the importance he then attached to the question, also said,—
" With respect to municipal corporations, he was not about to say a word on that question; but, without undervaluing its importance, he must observe, that the subject of Church-rates did not yield to it in urgency. So far as any question could be important to the maintenance of social harmony, to the promotion of satisfaction amongst the great body of the Dissenters, there was not a single question, excepting that of the Irish Church, which so much pressed for an immediate practical settlement as this of Church-rates."
Again, in the same debate, the right hon. Baronet further said, addressing himself particularly to the present noble Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell): —
" And on the subject of Church-rates, surely the noble Lord, adhering, as he professed, to his former principle, and being in possession of all the facts of the case, surely the noble Lord, himself one of the parties to the bill of Lord Althorp, and being now perfectly able to accomplish his object, surely he was bound to proceed, and not to leave unsettled for another year a subject so pregnant with the seeds of discord and collision. In consideration of the interest of the Church listablishment—for the satisfaction of a large body of the people—for the accomplishment of their own pledges to promote subordination and obedience to the law—to suppress individual complaints of grievance—surely, to accomplish all these objects, a Government fit to be entrusted with the management of public affairs would, without delay, take this matter into their own hands, and not suffer the law respecting Church-rates to be made a theme of discussion in public meetings, and a subject of resistance by parochial martyrs for another twelvemonth."
Thus, then, it would appear, that in 1835 the right hon. Baronet pressed the subject of Church-rates upon the Government of that day as one that peremptorily claimed its attention; and that it would amount to a dereliction of duty if the Ministry suffered it to go on unadjusted for twelvemonths longer. Yet year after year it had gone on, and still remained unsettled. It would be a waste of the time of the House if he were to dwell upon the reasons which had prevented its being set at rest. The House would not fail to remember, that repeated efforts had been made by the late Government to settle the question all of which had failed from the want
1616
of adequate support; but the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), with the powerful majority which he possessed in both Houses of Parliament would have none of the difficulties to contend against which had baffled his predecessors in their endeadeavours to set the matter at rest. It was no part of his duty to attempt to defend any of the different courses that had been taken in reference to this subject. It was not for him to say, whether the late Ministry had done all they might have done to accomplish a settlement of this painful, difficult, and mischievous question. But he thought it would be felt by the House, and—he said this in no unfriendly spirit —that the right hon. Baronet should be induced seriously to consider whether the discord, strife, and bitterness, which resulted from the still unsettled state of the question would not now be chargeable upon his Government which possessed the power of removing the injustice so generally admitted to exist. Church-rates had been so repeatedly declared by all parties in that House to be a grievance upon Dissenters, that he should not deem it necessary to dwell for one moment upon that point. It would be in the recollection of the House, that in 1834 a measure upon the subject was proposed by the present Lord Spencer—that in 1837 another measure was brought forward by the present Lord Monteagle; in both cases the proposition for the abolition of Church-rates was affirmed by the House—in the one case by a majority of 116, in the other by a majority of 23. Leading Members of every Government that had existed for more than the last ten years had made and sanctioned efforts to remove the grievance of Church-rates and to settle the question. Different plans had been brought forward, and whatever difference of opinion had existed as to the nature of the substitute to be established for the maintenance of the fabric of the Church, all had concurred in the point that Church-rates were in themselves a grievance which ought to be abolished. It was felt by the Dissenters to be a very great hardship that whilst the grievance was thus admitted and proclaimed by all, they should still be continued only because a difference of opinion existed as to the substitute to be adopted in lieu of them. Lord Althorp had brought in a measure, which, as a substitute, might have been a bad one. Lord Monteagle had brought in a measure,

1617
which, as a substitute, might also have been deemed a bad one, but both and all agreed that the grievance was severe and unjust upon Dissenters, and that the abolition of Church-rates was important and essential to justice. With this general admission of the severity of the grievance, it was indeed very hard that it should be allowed to continue merely because there was a difference of opinion as to the remedy to be adopted. In the year 1837, the expediency of legislating for an adjustment of the question of Church-rates was alluded to in the speech from the Throne, in the following words: —
" We are required to convey to you his Majesty's desire that you should consult upon such further measures as may give increased stability to the Established Church, and produce concord and good will."
In the debate on the Address, at the commencement of the Session of that year, a general understanding prevailed that there was to be an abolition of Church-rates, and that some substitute would be sought and found for the maintenance of the fabric of the Church. In the course of the debate upon Lord Althorp's motion in 1834, no individual Member of the House more strongly characterised the grievance of Church-rates than the noble Lord the present Secretary for the Colonies (Lord Stanley). Looking to the strong feeling which that noble Lord then expressed upon the subject, he (Sir J. Easthope) could not help believing that the noble Lord, with many other Members of the Government, must now be sincerely desirous of terminating this irritating and painful question. In the debate of 1834, the noble Lord stated that
"He was perfectly ready to admit that such maintenance of an Established Church ought to be conducted upon principles and in a manner the least irritating and offensive to other parties, both as respected the amount and the mode of collection. He was equally ready to acknowledge that Church-rates, as they stood, formed to the Dissenters a serious and substantial grievance. "
In the same debate, referring to a speech which had been made by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis), the noble Lord also said:—
"Did his hon. Friend think that the best mode of advancing the true interests of the Church was by maintaining every one of its abuses? Did any man suppose that those in
1618
terests were to be promoted by a profanation of the Church itself year after year—by a desecration of the House of God, by a squabble about Church-rates at each succeeding Easter? "
He was afraid, the House would feel that he was needlessly trespassing upon its attention, by bringing under its notice sentiments which had been so strongly expressed; but he begged the House to consider what must be the feelings of Dissenters—of those who had submitted to bear this oppressive impost, when they had heard from the Throne an intimation that their grievances should be remedied — when they had seen all parties in that House concurring in the opinion that Church-rates were a heavy and severe grievance—when, one after another, they had found the leaders of parties, as well as individual Members of a more retiring caste, all agreeing, and proclaiming Church-rates to be an impost that ought not to he borne—a tax unfit for the present time, every way injurious to the Church, for whose benefit it was intended, and utterly disgraceful to the age in which it existed. Upon the point of its being a grievance, an unjustifiable and unnecessary grievance, there was, (this he thought must be admitted a combination of authority almost amounting to an universal agreement. If he were correct in that statement, then it followed that the grievance naturally became heavier in the estimation of those who had to bear it. What could be harder, than to be told that they were subject to a wrong, but that they must continue to endure it, because all the substitutes proposed in lieu of it had been defective—because, in the one case, those who were unfriendly to the rate did not think it right to throw the burden upon the Consolidated Fund, and because, in the other case, the supporters of the Established Church would not agree to the appropriation of funds belonging to the Church to a purpose to which they were fairly and justly applicable. Because there was disagreement upon these points out of doors, because there was no concurrence in that House as to the character of the substitute, did not the grievance operate with double hardship upon those who, hearing it universally condemned, were yet compelled to endure it from year to year? Whatever the difficulty, whatever the difference of opinion amongst different parties might be as to the nature of the remedy, he apprehended that there was no

1619
man in the House who would be bold enough to get up and say, that injustice should be prolonged, and unchristian and anti-social strife perpetuated, until some substitute for Church-rates could be discovered to which the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) could not object, and against which the most ascetic and rigid Dissenter could raise no murmur. No. A measure essential to the preservation of social peace —to the true interests of the Church—to the first objects of religion—to the happiness of the people—was not to be delayed because of a difficulty between different parties in the House and the country about the substitute to be provided to meet an inconsiderable charge. He remembered, that in the debate upon Lord Althorp's motion the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford stated, that he thought the Dissenters bore but a very inconsiderable portion of the burden of Church-rates. Upon that occasion, the hon. Baronet said,
" As to the amount paid by the Dissenters, he did not believe that it could amount to any thing which could so press upon their resources as to be deemed a grievance on that account. The whole amount raised by Church-rates in England and Wales was 566,000 l. a year. He would ask any Gentleman whether the Dissenters share of this payment could be estimated at more than one-twentieth of the sum? He was sure, he might safely say it was not more than a fortieth."
If that were so, the sum chargeable upon the Dissenters would not exceed 14,000 l. to 15,000 l. a-year. For such a sum, was it worth while to perpetuate a grievance upon the consciences of Dissenters? Could no other means of raising such a sum be found? Was there no other source than the pocket of the Dissenter from which this pittance towards the support of the fabric of the Church could be devised? Upon these points, he appealed to the good sense and good policy of the House. As he had already stated, Church-rates were admitted by all parties to be a grievance; the only difficulty was as to the remedy. Now, he apprehended that a strong Government like the present could not have much difficulty in devising a remedy. He believed, that that which he should have the honour to propose, would be amply sufficient to meet the difficulty of the case. If it were not—if it could be proved that it was not suffi-
1620
cient to meet the difficulty, he should be one amongst the last who would desire to see the fabric of the Church endangered, and one amongst the first to prevent, by every means in his power, whether private or public, that which he should deem to be so great an evil, as the decay of our religious edifices. The measure he had now to offer to the House proposed, in the first place, to abolish Church-rates, except in so far as related to arrears, or to the payment of debts or sums heretofore borrowed, to which Church-rates had been pledged for the repayment. The maintenance of the fabric of the Church he proposed to meet in all cases, where endowments or voluntary subscriptions were not sufficient, by giving to the churchwardens and the minister the power of charging and fixing rents on pews in all cases, except where the pews belonged to the minister, the trustees, churchwardens, and overseers of the poor for the time being, and all such as were allotted as free sittings for the use of the poor. The grievance would thus be redressed. Church-rates would be abolished, and a substitute established which, by many who had given it a careful attention, was thought would be attended by many advantages. In large places, Church-rates were very much upon the decline. It was notorious that most of the large towns had dispensed with the necessity of levying them. In one of the largest parishes in the kingdom—the parish adjoining to that in which they were then assembled—Church-rates had not been collected for years; yet the fabric of its churches had not decayed, nor had the comfort or convenience of those who attended the churches been in any way curtailed or impaired. If Church-rates, then, were not absolutely necessary, let them be abolished in the manner he proposed. No rational friend of the establishment could apprehend danger to the fabric of the Church by a concession so much in accordance with Christian charity and social virtue. There could be no danger of the want of sufficient funds to sustain the Church in large towns. The possibility of such a danger could only exist in small and rural districts, and even in such places the more the matter was investigated, the less ground did there appear for the apprehension of any great difficulty or any real danger. But supposing, that in some instances, some difficulty should arise, still

1621
he would ask, could there be a greater libel inflicted upon the members of the Established Church, than to say, that whilst Dissenters found no difficulty not only in supporting and maintaining, but in rearing and completing the fabric of the houses in which they worshipped, the members of the Established Church were too indifferent to the religion they professed to bear the expense of sustaining the edifices in which their religious services were performed? There was another point that ought not to escape the attention of the House, and which he remembered was much felt in the debate upon the question in the year 1835. Lord Althorp then stated, that whilst the sum at that time raised by Church-rates might be estimated at something short of 600,000 l. a year, it was confidently believed, that only one-half of that sum was positively required for purposes essentially necessary to the Church establishment. The noble Lord, upon that occasion, stated the large and extravagant expenditure which always attended the proceedings adopted by parish officers and vestries; and it was at that time generally considered that one-half of the sum then raised by way of Church-rates would be found fully adequate to meet all the charges to which Church-rates could be properly applied. The House would at once perceive that this was another source from which anger, strife, and discord, would readily and constantly proceed. It went to identify those officially connected with the sacred edifice with a system of jobbing, or with a profligate wasting of the money entrusted to their care for the uses of the Church. This was not only likely to engender anger and strife, but was calculated to bring the established religion itself into contempt. He thought that for a consideration so unimportant as the sum which Dissenters were said to contribute towards the support of the Church, there were few who would consider that that trifling contribution should be extorted at the cost of sacrilegous strife, anti-social bitterness, legal controversy, fines inflcted on tender consciences generating, it might be, spurious martyrs for unholy objects, but certainly leading to the imprisonment of godly men, who, submitting to the loss of liberty, waste of property, and the deprivation of family comfort, had resisted what they felt to be a grievance in their consciences,
1622
even though it involved them in so much affliction. Every one who had attended to the subject, and had marked the mischiefs resulting from the present state of the law, could not fail to ask "for what object, for what great advantage, is this state of things continued?" The answer was to be found in the estimate made by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, as to the amount contributed by the Dissenters to the support of the Established Church. All the mischiefs, all the miseries entailed by the present law were continued for the sake of some 14,000 l. or 15,000 l., extorted from the Dissenters to sustain the fabric of the Established Church. Would the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford say that the advantage thus derived to the Church was in any degree equal to the mischiefs inflicted upon society by the enforcement of this obnoxious impost? Upon a former occasion the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford had stated that he believed it to be a question of property. How that which depended upon the will of the individuals who attended parish vestries at Easter, and upon the accident of whether upon such occasions there happened to be more Dissenters or more Churchmen present, could be deemed a legal charge upon property, he was totally at a loss to conceive. Then there was the question of ecclesiastical pre-eminence; it was said that the Church had the authority to levy this rate, and that it was essential to its importance that it should exercise that authority, that it should say to those who differed from it, "We have the power of making you contribute to our support, and we will exercise our power." That doctrine was so totally at variance with every Christian and benevolent principle, so fraught with mischief, and so utterly repugnant to every liberal and charitable feeling, that he could no longer expect to hear it advocated within the walls of Parliament. He could scarcely imagine that there was a single individual in the House who would attempt to justify the continuance of Church-rates either upon the ground of their being a charge upon property, or upon the still worse, and less tenable ground, of their continuance being necessary as affording an opportunity for the exhibition of the strength and authority of the Church. He felt that he should best consult his own feelings upon the subject by not taking

1623
up the time of the House at greater length. The subject had been so often under the consideration of Parliament, the merits and demerits of the question had been so thoroughly discussed, and he believed were now so thoroughly understood, that he did not deem it necessary to do more upon that occasion than at once to move,—
"For leave to bring in a bill to abolish Church-rates and to make other provisions for the maintenance of churches and chapels in England and Wales."
Sir R. H. Inglissaid the hon. Baronet who had just sat down had referred to him so frequently in the course of his speech, that he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for North Nottinghamshire would excuse him for endeavouring to address the House as early as possible. Though he would have yielded with pleasure to any Member of the Government, he felt it his duty to take the earliest opportunity of expressing his objections to this measure, and he hoped his hon. Friend would excuse him for not yielding to him on this occasion. No speech, in his opinion, that had been heard in that House during the present Session had been so easily made as the speech which had just been delivered by the hon. Baronet the Member for Leicester, for he would almost take upon himself to say that if reference were made to Hansard's Debates for the 25th of May, 1841, there would be found not merely the same arguments that had been used now, but the same arguments and the same quotations from speeches of different Members conveyed in the same words. It was not to be expected, therefore, that to old objections he could oppose other than old refutations. Such, at least, must be the case on a question so repeatedly brought forward, and with such an utter failure as regarded legislation. For, whether they looked at the proposition of Lord Althorp in 1834, or that of Lord Monteagle in 1837, or to the repeated endeavours of the hon. Baronet the Member for Leicester himself, to call the attention of the House to it in what he would consider a happier state of feeling with respect to legislation, it was equally clear, that nothing practically had been done. In one year leave was given to bring in a bill, of which the second reading was afterwards indefinitely postponed, without division or discussion. In another a substitute for church-rates from the Con-
1624
solidated Fund was proposed, and rejected almost with unanimity by the great dissenting body, of whom the hon. Baronet, the Member for Leicester, was, not unworthily, the organ. At any rate, he had presented a number of petitions to that House urging their claims. He did not say, that the hon. Baronet was identified in principle with that body. It was not necessary for his argument to make that assertion. But the great body of Dissenters, of whom the hon. Baronet was the organ in that House, repudiated as strongly the proposition with respect to the Consolidated Fund as any other mode of providing for the fabric of the Church, on the ground that the Consolidated Fund was the produce of taxation of the country, and that that plan would be only another mode of burdening the consciences of Dissenters—that it would be another way of robbing their pockets, by taking money from them indirectly, instead of directly, in the shape of Church-rates. The hon. Member for Leicester asked him how, with his views of refusing to contribute to the support of that which he did not conscientiously believe, he could be willing to impose the tax of Church-rates on Dissenters? The hon. Baronet told him that he could no longer deny, that the tax was a burden upon conscience, because it was not strictly a burden upon property. He in return would ask the hon. Member for Leicester how he could contend, that Church-rates were not a tax upon property, on the ground of the amount being variable, and because, though imposed by a majority. of churchmen in one year, it might be negatived altogether by a majority of Dissenters in the next; how he could deny, on account of such fluctuation, that Church-rates were a tax upon property, and avoid applying the same principle to poor-rates. How did the case of-poor-rates differ from that of Church-rates? The poor-rate was fixed by the vestry at so much a pound— in one year 13 d., in another 18 d., according to the varying wants of the body for whose relief the rate was imposed. Unless the hon. Baronet, the Member for Leicester, could prove that poor-rate, on account of its fluctuations, was not a tax upon property. he was not entitled to say, that Church-rates, because of their fluctuations, were not a tax upon property. In both cases property was liable, according to the discretion of a vestry, and the

1625
chief difference between them was, that, whereas one was imposed under a law— the Poor-law about two centuries and a half old; the other was imposed under a law of which no man knew the date, but which was coeval with the existence of landed property in England. It was sustained by decisions not merely of the ecclesiastical courts, but of the courts of common law, and until within the last half century the law was never disputed, for though there had been individual suits for the subtraction of tithes, there was no instance of a parish being brought into one of the ecclesiastical courts for refusing a rate. Within the last few years, of course, the case had been different; but; still the number of cases in which Church- rates had been resisted was comparatively small. He believed the hon. Baronet would confirm him when he said, that in one year they had been only fourteen. In another year they had no doubt increased to forty or fifty, but, at the same time, he maintained now, as he had maintained before, that the resistance to the maintenance of the law, if met by the means which the law now presented—ameliorated, however, as far as the processes were concerned — would meet with the same result that had attended the maintenance of the law in regard to other matters in this country—that of a gradually diminishing amount of opposition As regarded the Church-rate question, this result had occurred already. The number of cases now in which opposition to Church-rates had been prosecuted in any courts was less than it was when the question was first brought forward. What the cause was he could not undertake to say, but the fact was, that the number of such cases had decreased. The hon. Member, however, had referred to the small amount of money paid in Church-rates by the Dissenters—some 14,000/. a-year—and then had applied the argument ad verecundiam to him (Sir R. Inglis), asking him whether for the sake of so small a sum he would consent to continue such a burden on the consciences of his fellow-countrymen. That argument told two ways. But, in the first place, he would say, that he never looked upon Church-rates as a mere pounds, shillings, and pence question, nor did he consider that Dissenters wanted merely to be liberated from the payment of a certain amount of money. His claim was this, that Church-rates were a national tribute paid to
1626
the national Church, and as such they ought to be continued. He said that the great body of the people of England, so far from feeling this tax a burden, esteemed it a privilege to be allowed to maintain the fabric of the churches by means of Church-rates, and this was proved by the unprecedented number of petitions which were presented a few years ago in support of the existing system. There were not less than 3,188 petitions presented from every part of the country in favour of the existing system. Those petitions were not got up, but were spontaneously sent from people asking to be allowed to continue to pay this burden. They did not feel it a burden. He repeated, that Church-rates were a tribute of the nation to the national Church. Strictly speaking, it would be equally a tribute if paid by the Consolidated Fund; but paid in that way, there would be no diminution in the objection of conscientious Dissenters. In the next place, if the support of the fabric of churches were placed on the Consolidated Fund, it would not be so secure. At present it was a tax on land. It was a tax on a man by name, but in respect of such and such property. He did not understand the hon. Member for Leicester to deny this, at all events there was nothing in his speech to prove the contrary. The Church-rate was a tax on John Thomas in respect of such a house or field, but it followed the property whether John Thomas or John Smith held it. Therefore, he contended it was not a poll-tax, but a tax upon property. With that conviction, he could not understand—he did not wish to use harsh language—but he must say, he did not understand the honesty of the man who, having, in the presence of the auctioneer, made a deduction from the price of a property to the amount of the tax, should turn round and say, that his conscience hindered him from paying that burden because the money would be applied to certain uses. Uses had nothing to do with the payment of a debt. A man was bound to pay his debt, whatever profligate expenditure he might encourage in his creditor. The obligation to pay Church-rates was one to which every acre in this country was subjected. From that obligation the proposition of the hon. Baronet the Member for Leicester would relieve those acres, and against that proposition he would strenuously contend. The hon. Gentleman's immediate proposi-

1627
tion would render a Church-rate still legal if imposed on pews or sittings in churches. But it was one great privilege of the people of England—and a privilege which he wished to extend, and not to diminish—to have free access to their parish churches. He would not have them pay for going to church as for going into a theatre. In the majority of parish churches in Leicestershire, the chief part of those who attended were poor persons. The hon. Baronet opposite proposed to levy a tax on sittings in parish churches for the maintenance of those churches. Against that he contended. He maintained that the Church was the church of the poor, and they ought not to be deprived of the privilege of attending public worship by subjecting them to any burden which they did not now bear. For these and many other reasons, he maintained it was inexpedient to grant the permission which the hon. Baronet asked. Believing that his bill was founded on a vicious principle, and feeling that in such case it was more respectful both to the House and the hon. Member, to take the sense of the House at once, instead of giving him the trouble of bringing in, and the House of considering a bill, which at a future stage would be rejected, he would at once oppose the present proposition.
Mr. S. Crawfordsaid, that his constituents and he himself felt a great interest in this question. They had met with success on every occasion in contending against Church-rates, and he would therefore trouble the House with a very few words. The question, in his opinion, really at issue was the connexion of Church and State. The question at issue was, whether there should be a Church Establishment in England paid by the people or not. In his opinion, that was the real question at issue. If there ought to be a church by law established, it had a right to Church-rates, If it had a right to tithes, it had a right to Church-rates. It was his opinion that all such practices should be abolished, and no man compelled to pay in any shape for the religion of any other man. The reason why the system of Church-rates was a grievance was, that it compelled one man to pay for another's religion. He thought that all that should be abolished, and therefore he supported the motion of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Leicester, that he conceived the hon. Baronet went
1628
far short of the true principle. If he started with the great principle of opposing the payment of any state Church, he would, in his opinion, be more likely to attain his object. The Irish people did not limit their opposition to Church-rates. They contended that tithes should be abolished, and they succeeded in effecting the abolition of Church-rates. He only regretted that they did not persevere with more steadfastness in their opposition to tithes. He called on the hon. Baronet to take the ground of opposition to the claims of any Church to be supported by the State. That was the claim of the Dissenters, and if they did not proceed upon that grand principle, they were not deserving of the remission of Church-rates.
Mr. H. Gally Knightsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had put the question upon its true grounds. The hon. Gentleman objected to Church-rates because he objected to an established Church, and fairly avowed that he thought the one depended upon the other:—that was the very reason which would induce him (Mr. Knight) to oppose the motion which was now before the House. The hon. Baronet who brought it forward had stated, that the sum which the Dissenters paid was paltry in amount. If it was so paltry, why make such a disturbance about the matter? He considered that if there was to be an established Church in the country there must be some compulsory provision for the support of the fabric; — because, without the fabric the service could not be performed, and without a compulsory provision the fabric would not be maintained. He admitted that the voluntary principle was a useful auxiliary, but he asserted that it could not be relied upon as the basis of an institution which was meant to be permanent. Neither would the pew-rents, which the hon. Baronet proposed as a substitute, afford anything like an adequate provision, especially in rural districts. After having frequently and anxiously meditated upon the subject — after having considered the various substitutes which had at various times been proposed, he could not but remain in the opinon that the old parochial system offered more advantages than any other. The fabric is, then, maintained by those in whose sight it ever remains. The "stitch in time" is applied, which saves so much. If repairs on a large scale are required, the expense is chiefly, and cheer-

1629
fully, met by the landed proprietors in the neighbourhood. No other system would be either so safe, or so economical. And when the hon. Baronet talked of the injustice of the present system, he must deny it in toto; because our forefathers had imposed the duty of maintaining the fabric upon all real property: whatever any man had inherited, he had inherited subject to that condition; and whatever he had purchased, he had bought for less money on account of that condition Now to excuse the Dissenters from this obligation—to relieve their property from this burden, would only be making them a present to which they were no more entitled than other people; and, if the pre- sent were made to them alone it would be a direct premium on dissent. A Dissenter might just as well say that he had conscientious objections to the land-tax, as object to the Church-rate. In addition to which, he would assert that, in England, the Church of England was part and parcel of the Constitution—that Constitution of which the Dissenter as much enjoyed the protection as the Churchman—that Constitution under which he would not pass so comfortable an existence, if the Church were not part of it. Whatever the Dissenter pays, he pays because it is an obligation attached to his property, and he pays, not as a Churchman, but as a citizen. He would add, that there was less reason for entertaining this question now than there had been before, because the Church was more on the alert, and because dissent was on the decrease. The proportion of Dissenters to members of the Church of England had never been so great as had been asserted. The dissenters, including Catholics and Wesleyans, had never amounted, in England and Wales, to 2,000,000— whilst the population amounted to 16,000,000, a proportion of 1 to 8. But now the Church, which he admitted, had at one time been asleep— now the Church had roused herself into activity; the duties of the Ministers of the Gospel were efficiently discharged, additional church-room was provided, many who had not been satisfied before now went regularly to church;—the consequence was, that the number of the members of the Church of England is increasing, whilst that of the Dissenters is diminishing. And in this, he confessed, he rejoiced; because he could not but be of opinion that the greatest possible evil
1630
arises from a multiplicity of sects, with which England, more than any other country, has been distracted. From that multiplicity arise heartburnings, strife, uncharitableness, and, above all, the absence of that humility without which no man can be a true Christian. Far, therefore, from agreeing with the hon. Baronet who brought forward this motion, he was entirely of opinion that by far the better course would be, for this House to declare that to be law, which is believed by many to be law already, and which few can bring themselves absolutely to assert not to be law— he meant, that the churchwardens should have power to distrain for so much as is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of the fabric, and no farther. He would not ask for a rate for what is called the incidental expenses— for the warming, lighting, the organ, and the like, those things might be left to the congregation,—but he did think that the maintenance of the fabric itself should be secured. The present state of the law provoked opposition— make it clear, and it would soon cease to be disputed, and motions like the present would cease to be brought before that House.
Lord J. Russellcould not, after the speeches of the two hon. Gentlemen who had spoken last, suffer this subject to pass without explaining the ground on which he would vote. The hon. Member for Rochdale, and the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, both affirmed, that there could be no Church Establishment without Church-rates— that the existence of a Church Establishment and of Church-rates must go together. Now, it did so happen, that, out of the three parts of the United Kingdom, in Ireland there was a Church Establishment and no Church-rates, and in Scotland a Church Establishment, and no Church-rates. There was a different provision in Scotland, by which the landed property of the country was charged; therefore it was not true that there must be Church-rates, as established in England, in order to maintain an Established Church. All that was necessary for an Established Church was, that there should be some provision made by law for the maintenance of the fabric, and for the performance of public worship. If that, was the state of the case, then the question was, whether there was any considerable evil, any existing grievance which should induce them to alter the form in

1631
which Churches were at present maintained. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last thought, that the old mode was the best, and yet suggested an alteration of that law which he thought so excellent— admitting, at the same time, that heartburnings were caused by the present system. That was admitted, and the existence of such evils could hardly be denied. There were contests carrying on from year to year with respect to Church-rates, and, whatever way the majority was, the evil was great. If there was a majority against Church-rates, the rate was refused, and the Church left to voluntary contributions. If the Church-rate was granted, it was a triumph to the Churchmen over the Dissenters, and a humiliation to the latter, who were thus more alienated from the Church than they would otherwise be. These evils the hon. Baronet who made the present motion proposed to remedy. He did not propose simply to abolish Church-rates, but to make another provision for the maintenance of churches. He thought it perfectly fair, to make a proposal for the abolition of Church-rates, provided care was taken to make provision by law for the maintenance of churches. He might not agree with the particular provisions of the hon. Member's bill when they came before the House. They might be found insufficient, and either upon the second reading, or in committee, he might have to vote against it. It was not very likely that the hon. Gentleman would be able to carry his measure, but he hoped the grievance of Church-rates would not be of many years' duration. Considering how much the present system was objected to by Dissenters, he thought that the proposal made by Lord Althorp, in the name of Lord Grey's Government, to provide a substitute for Church-rates out of the public revenue would be a far better arrangement than the present law. But he certainly did not expect that the Government, in the present year, would introduce any such plan, having many other matters to occupy their attention. He, therefore, did not blame them for not having brought forward the question of Church-rates in the present Session. But he did hope, that the measure would not escape their notice in some succeeding year, but that they would seriously turn their attention to the subject, and endeavour to devise some mode by which the maintenance of churches might be adequately provided
1632
for without giving rise to those contests which were so injurious to the Church, and so humiliating and vexatious to Dissenters.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that although he differed from the vote to which the noble Lord was about to come on the present occasion, still he agreed with very much of the principles which the noble Lord had laid down in the commencement of his observations,— namely, that it should be an essential point with them to secure the maintenance of the Established Church, for the purpose of affording religious instruction to the great body of the people. Agreeing, then, with the noble Lord on that principle, they had then to discuss what was the best mode in which that provision could be made. Before, however, they consented to abolish the existing system, he must be satisfied as to the means that were to be provided to supply a better mode for repairing the fabric of the Church. He must say, that before he gave a vote for the abolition of the present system of Church-rates, he must be satisfied, that the project offered to him, was likely to answer the purposes to which it was to be directed. He gave to the hon. Baronet who brought forward this measure, credit for the greatest possible sincerity, when he declared it was his wish that there should be adequate means for maintaining the fabric of the Church; but then he must say, that the hon. Baronet had signally failed in the attempt that he had made to provide these means. When the hon. Baronet last year brought forward this subject, he acquiesced in the motion for bringing in the bill, in order that he might see what the proposition was. The hon. Baronet had submitted it to their judgment; they could see whether they could possibly accept it. He had it now before him. The hon. Baronet had detailed it at considerable length; and the House was now in a condition to say, whether they would adopt the principle, or object to it. The noble Lord concurred in this, that they ought to establish proper funds for the maintenance of the churches in this country. What, however, was the remedy proposed by the hon. Baronet? That the charge should fall upon pew rents, and, that with the exception of the churchwardens and ministers, the people should be charged for their pews, a sum adequate to execute the repairs that might be required.

1633
He said, that that was directly at variance with the principle of an Established Church. The gospel was to be brought to the poor, and the hon. Baronet took the surest means for preventing the gospel from being so preached. The hon. Baronet, he knew, said, that he exempted the seats, that were specially allotted to the poor. That might apply to modern churches which were established by special funds, and by which there was a provision, that there should be a certain number of seats for the poor—it did not apply to churches in the country. He lived in a parish, in which pews in the church were held by each holder of a cottage, who from time to time succeeded to it. They did this, not in the character of the pauper, but they had their seats in the church just in the same way as their wealthy neighbours. They had an honest pride, as inhabitants of the parish, in holding their seats—in having a right to their seats in the house of God, and being free to hear the word of God. But what was the plan of the right hon. Baronet? that for the future the churchwardens must put up, if not at auction, yet at a fixed price it must be taken by the parishioners. He asked the hon. Baronet what was to be done, if, in some church, it was found, that considerable repairs were required, and the number of pews extremely limited? What then was to be done? Were the churchwardens to estimate the amount, and when 200 l. was required, and only twenty pews, was each pew to be charged 10 l. And if it were, and the pews to be occupied only by those who paid, must it not be the means of excluding the poor? To that plan, and to that principle, he could not concur. It would exclude from the Church those who had a right to sit there. Still less could he accede to the plan, that if the parishioners were too poor to take their seats at the price set on them, that they were to admit persons from the neighbouring parishes to occupy them— thus driving the parishioners out of their own church, and those seats which the law allotted to them. This, he conceived, would give rise to great hostility, to great complaints, and so far from relieving the evils that were said to follow from Church-rates, that the walls of the House would be made to ring with complaints of such a grievance, and Parliament would be at once called upon to put a stop to it. The remedy proposed was one, that he could
1634
not concur in, and therefore he could not consent to the motion, that was proposed to them.
Mr. O'Connelldid not agree with the hon. Gentleman in much that had fallen from him. He particularly differed from him in his historical account of the early Church. The hon. Gentleman had said, that in modern churches there were seats for the poor, but the ancient churches were occupied with pews. The hon. Gentleman was historically mistaken. In the ancient churches there were no pews at all. They were free to the public of every kind. "The gospel was, "indeeed in them, "preached to the poor," for in them there was no distinction between the rich and the poor. He differed, too, from the principle which the hon. Gentleman had stated, that they ought to maintain a church by a Church-rate. Why, they could maintain and uphold a church without any Church-rate at all. They had already an instance of this in the case of Ireland. There there existed an Established Church, and Church-rates did not exist. But there was a stronger case than that. They had also there a church with its regular hierarchy, without a particle of Church-rate, without a Government provision, without any legalised contribution in any way. They had twenty-seven archbishops and bishops besides, and other dignitaries of the church; they had subsisting an entire unbroken hierarchy, and they did not require the crutch of the State to keep them up. Were they to tell him that the Protestant religion was not at least as good as the Catholic religion; that it could not rest in security on the sincerity and devotion of its adherence? Were they to say that they could not support their Church without resting upon something that was foreign to it? There was, he thought, something dishonest in the argument of the hon. Baronet, who said that persons did not bid so high for property because it was liable to Church-rates—that when the property or land was put up by an auctioneer, it was calculated what was the Church-rate, and deducted that from the price they offered it. Let them suppose a man wished to buy a piece of land— it was subject to the land-tax—that man deducted from the purchase money the amount of the land-tax. The exigencies of the State required it; but let it be supposed that the tax were no longer necessary—that it was abandoned—would the

1635
man be regarded as unconscionable because he would not in that case give up the land he had purchased with the land-tax affixed?—or would it not rather be affirmed that he had made a bargain, and had a right to abide by it? The Church-rate was a tax, but it was not a tax at common law. At common law tithes were given, and one of its purposes was the sustentation of this charge. It was by the statute of Edward 1st. that Church-rates were enforced. It was a tax created by act of Parliament, and, like every other act, it could be repealed by act of Parliament. Now, the application of Church-rates to the building of churches was quite a modern practice. Up to the time of the Reformation, the Church-rates were for the repair of churches, and not for building them. All the churches that were built up to that period were built by means of voluntary contributions. And yet, did England then want churches? No; she had four times as many churches then as she has now. There were not less than 55,000 churches, and not less than 44,000 free chapelries and chapels of ease, and every one of these was built on the voluntary principle. He had the documents to prove the facts he mentioned, if they were denied. He asked them, then, to contrast the situation of England then and what it was now, when they impose a tax for building churches. They were right in canvassing the nature of this tax, and in seeking to be free from it. The object for which it was raised was a serious objection to it. It was against the conscience of a Christian man to pay for the support of a church, which he believed taught erroneous doctrines. And he would ask the hon. Baronet opposite— he did not do so disrespectfully, for none were less inclined to an harsh expression to another than that hon. Gentleman—but still he would ask him, that supposing a Church-rate were to be levied to-morrow for the Roman Catholic church, would not the hon. Baronet shrink from it? Would not the hon. Baronet be inclined to think that he ought not to pay it? That his conscience might not be quite safe in paying it? Although, perhaps, some lingering feeling as to the ancient faith of Oxford might instigate his hostility? An hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gaily Knight) had spoken of the church awaking after sleeping the greatest portion of the century. He believed if there were new
1636
energy in the church, it was not with the object of increasing the number of Dissenters, but it was to dispose her to shrink more and more from dissent, and to come back again to that state where unanimity could alone be found. The hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) had referred to petitions from persons who wished to pay Church-rates. Why, no one asked for a law to prevent those who chose from paying Church-rates. He greatly feared that those pious individuals were not asking so much for leave to pay rates themselves, as to throw the burden of payment upon somebody else. No one wished to prevent others from being generous, but that they themselves might be relieved from a grievous burden. He said it was a burden upon conscience for a man to be called upon to pay for doctrines he did not believe to be true. He would not wish to say anything in disparagement of the Established Church; but this he would say, that no man would consent to pay, for instance, for the promulgation of doctrines which denied the redemption or that impugned the Christian faith. On the same principle, but of course in a lesser degree, he said that no man ought to be called on to pay for the religious observances of another.
Sir John Easthope,in reply to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, begged to assure the House, that no one could be more unwilling than himself to do anything to endanger the fabric of the Established Church. He did not desire nor intend it, and as far as his influence extended, he would not permit it. No one was more desirous than he was to see the fabric of the church properly and securely supported. He must also add, in corroboration of his own convictions, that his plan would lead to no difficulty; that it was not mere theory; it was a plan that had practice in its favour. In confirmation of his conviction, that the religious zeal of members of the Established Church would not fail when properly appealed to, he would state as a fact within his own knowledge, that in a small village in the county of Surry, wherein it had been lately found, that the number of church pews was insufficient for the growing population, there, without an appeal to a Church-rate—in a very small village, too—upwards of 600 l. were subscribed in a very short time, for the pur-

1637
pose of enlarging the church. If such manifestations of regard for our national church could be seen in a small village, who, then, ought to doubt the sufficiency of voluntary aid, and the means suggested by his proposed measure for the general support of the fabric of the Church? He knew, and deeply felt for those who laboured under the grievance entailed on them by the enforcement of Church-rates; he knew how deeply it was felt; he proposed a remedy— he believed a sufficient remedy; and he trusted that the House would adopt it.
The House divided;—Ayes 80 ; Noes 162; Majority 82.

List of the AYES.

Aldam, W.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Barnard, E. G.

Mitcalfe, H.

Bernal, R.

Morris, D.

Brotherton, J.

Morrison, J.

Busfeild, W.

Murphy, F. S.

Clive, E. B.

O'Connell, D.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Craig, W. G.

Old, W.

Crawford, W. S.

Paget, Col.

Currie, R.

Palmerston, Visct.

Curteis, H. B.

Parker, J.

Dalmeny, Lord

Pechell, Capt.

Divett, E.

Philips, G. R.

Duncan, Visct.

Philips, Sir R. B. P.

Duncan, G.

Protheroe, E.

Duncombe, T.

Rice, E. R.

Dundas, D.

Bundle, J.

Ebrington, Visct.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Shell, rt. hon. R. L.

Ellice, E.

Smith, rt hon. R. V.

Ellis, W.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Ewart, W.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Ferguson, Col.

Stuart, Lord J.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Stuart, W. V.

Gibson, T. M.

Strutt, E.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir J.

Thornely, T.

Hall, Sir B.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hastie, A.

Villiers, hon. C.

Hawes, B.

Vivian, J. H.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Vivian, hon. Capt.

Heathcoat, J.

Walker, R.

Hill, Lord M.

Wallace, R.

Hindley, C.

Ward, H. G.

Hutt, W.

Wemyss, Capt.

Johnson, Gen.

Wood, B.

Johnston, A.

Wood, C.

Labouchere. rt. hn. H.

Worsley, Lord

Leader, J. T.

Wyse, T,

Macaulay, rt. hn. T.B.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

TELLERS.

Marjoribanks, S.

Easthope, Sir J.

Marsland, H.

Phillips, M.

List of the NOES.

Allix, J. P.

Arkwright, G.

Antrobus, E.

Astell, W.

1638

Bailey, J.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Baillie, Col.

Grant, Sir A. C.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Greene, T.

Baring, H. B.

Grimsditch, T.

Bateson, R.

Grogan, E.

Beresford, Major

Hamilton, W. J.

Blackstone, W. S.

Hampden, R.

Bodkin, W. H.

Harcourt, G. G.

Botfield, B.

Hardy, J.

Bramston, T. W.

Hawkes, T.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Bruce, Lord E.

Herbert, hon. S.

Buck, L. W.

Hervey, Lord A.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Hinde, J. H.

Bunbury, T.

Hodgson, R.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Houldsworth, T.

Carnegie, hon. Capt.

Holmes, hn. W. A'C.

Chelsea, Visct.

Hope, hon. C.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Hope, A.

Cholmondeley, hn. H.

Howard, Lord

Christopher, R. A.

Hughes, W. B.

Chute, W. L. W.

Hussey, T.

Clayton, R. R.

Ingestre, Visct.

Clerk, Sir G.

Irton, S.

Cochrane, A.

Irving, J.

Cockburn, rt. hn. SirG.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Collett, W. R.

Jones, Capt.

Compton, H. C.

Kemble, H.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. SirE.

Courtenay, Lord

Lawson, A.

Cripps, W.

Lefroy, A.

Darner, hon. Col.

Legh, G. C.

Darby, G

Lincoln, Earl of

Dawnay, hon. W. H.

Litton, E.

Denison, E. B.

Lockhart, W.

Dickinson, F. H.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Douglas, Sir H.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Maclean, D.

Duncombe, hon. A.

M'Geachy, F. A.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Mainwaring, T.

Du Pre, C. G.

Manners, Lord J.

Eaton, R. J.

Marsham, Visct.

Egerton, W. T.

Martin, C. W.

Egerton, Sir P.

Masterman, J.

Eliot, Lord

Meynell, Capt.

Emlyn, Visct.

Miles, P. W. S.

Escott, B.

Morgan, O.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Munday, E. M.

Farnham, E. B.

Murray, C. R. S.

Feilden, W.

Neville, R.

Ferrand, W. B.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Fitzroy, Capt.

Northland, Visct.

Fleming, J. W.

O'Brien, A. S.

Ffolliott, J.

Packe, C. W.

Forbes, W.

Patten, J. W.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Fuller, A. E.

Pringle, A.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Pusey, P.

Gladstone,rt.hn.W.E.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Gladstone, T.

Richards, R.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Rolleston, Col.

Godson, R.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Russell, J. D. W.

Gore, M.

Sandon, Visct.

Gore, W. R. O.

Scarlett, hon. R. C.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Scott, hon. F.

1639

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Sheppard, T.

Verner, Col.

Sibthorp, Col.

Vernon, G. H.

Smythe, hon. G.

Vesey, hon. T.

Somerset, Lord G.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Welby, G. E.

Stanley, Lord

Wilbraham. hon. R. B.

Stuart, H.

Wood, Col. T.

Sturt, H, C.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Young, J.

Taylor, T. E.

Thornhill, G.

TELLERS.

Trotter, J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Turnor, C.

Knight, G.

CAPTURED SLAVE-VESSELS.
Captain Pechellrose to move for certain returns of which he had given notice. He had to complain that vessels condemned by the courts of Sierra Leone, of from seventy to eighty tons, were only estimated at forty tons, and thus the captors lost much of what was strictly due to them. By an omission in the act of 1839 the proceeds of slave-vessels captured had never been distributed to the captors, and it was therefore desirable that the country should know in what department the mismanagement lay. The prizes were valued by the Admiralty at extraordinarily low prices, and a disproportionate amount of the proceeds was paid to the captors. He hoped the Government would not be scared by the treaty of Portugal, or by the apprehension of a rupture with the United States, or by discussions in the Chamber of French Deputies, but that it would cause some efficient alteration to be made in the existing law, and would take care that the proceeds of vessels captured should be disposed of in the manner originally intended by the act of 1839. The hon. and gallant Officer moved,—
" For a return of slave-vessels brought before the several courts of mixed commission or before the British Vice-Admiralty Courts for adjudication between the 1st day of January and the 31st day of December, 1840, with the name of the capturing ship and the commander thereof, describing the flag under which each vessel was seized; distinguishing those under the late treaty with Spain and under the act 2 and 3 Vic. c. 73; the registered tonnage of each vessel as well as that by British admeasurement; and if slaves on board, stating the number at the time of seizure, the date of the decretal part of the sentence, whether forfeiture or restitution, with the amount of proceeds of sale or of costs awarded, the expenses of condemnation and of breaking up of each vessel; the period when the proceeds for distribution were paid into the Registry of the High Court of Admiralty, and when the same
1640
were paid to the captors. Also, account of all claims for the several bounties or tonnage between the 1st day of January and the 31st day of December, 1841, and of all slave-vessels that have been taken into her Majesty's service under the provisions of the act 2 and 3 Vic, c. 73; stating the appraised or estimated value of the same, the registered tonnage as well as that by British admeasurement, and the sums which the commissioners of the Admiralty have deemed proper price for the same."
Sir G. Cockburnnot having received any intimation of the gallant Officer's intention, was not prepared to say how or where these vessels were valued. All he could say was, that he had never heard any complaint of the conduct of our navy on the coast of Africa, and that he believed the officers there exerted themselves to the best of their ability, and to great effect. He had reason to believe also that the slave-trade was rapidly decreasing, and that not a single slaver was fitting out at Havanna. If it were desired, he should be happy to afford any information that it might be in his power to give on a future occasion.
Motion agreed to,

DISTRESS OF THE COUNTRY.
Mr. Ferrandsaid, that, in rising to submit his motion to the House, respecting a grant of money to the distressed manufacturers, overflowing as its benches were (there were barely forty Members present), he was prepared to offer his testimony, residing, as he did, in the heart of the manufacturing districts, and having means of ascertaining the truth, not only from what he himself saw, but from the best authority, to the fact that distress of the most fearful description was now raging in every quarter. He must appeal to the House to do their utmost to relieve the poor industrious classes in the manufacturing districts, and save them from starvation. He believed that there was no one in that House who would stand up and declare that the labourers in the manufacturing districts were not suffering the most fearful distress, and the House had it on the highest authority that the people had borne this distress with a patient endurance which claimed not only respect, but an earnest desire to relieve them. He found that in the speech from the throne her Majesty used the following language:
" I have observed with deep regret the continued distress in the manufacturing districts of the country. The sufferings and privations

1641
which have resulted from it have been borne with an exemplary patience and fortitude."
He was prepared to prove, that the legislation of that House had caused this distress, and therefore they were bound to assist in relieving it. He made this statement, not only on his own authority, but on that of the right hon. Baronet, the Prime Minister of this country, who said on the 9th of February of the present year, when addressing the House on the Corn-law question.
"If you look to the immigration of labour from the rural districts to the seats of manufactures, and to the immense increase of mechanical power which took place in the course of the years 1837 and 1838, you will hardly be surprised to find that the result which has before attended similar excitement and stimulus should again ensue."
This great immigration of the working classes into the manufacturing districts was caused by the New Poor-law. He held in his hand a letter written by a large cotton-spinner in Lancashire to Mr. Chad-wick, the secretary to the Poor-law commissioners, relating to the removal of labourers from the southern districts to the north, part of which he would take the liberty to read to the House. The writer said,—
" Perceiving, as I do, that the right understanding of this subject of immigration may become a means to promote the future welfare of the workmen and their families, some of whom may be suffering great distress, that by immigration they may be enabled to elevate themselves and their children to the honourable condition of independent labourers, I feel anxious that the best attention of the Poor-law commissioners should be directed thereto, and I would respectfully suggest, that one or more of the body should come down to this neighbourhood to ascertain the condition and prospects of the working classes, to examine the extensive preparations now making to furnish further employment, and thereby judge for themselves what course they can best recommend or adopt."
That letter was dated the 13th of February, 1839, and signed, H. Askworth. After the poor people had been removed according to this plan from the rural districts of the south of England into the manufacturing districts a stimulus was given for a time to trade, and things went on with apparent prosperity. During that time he found, that the House of Commons voted 20,000,000 l. of money for the emancipation of the black slaves of
1642
the West-Indies—men, who he was prepared to prove were a thousand times happier, and more contented, more prosperous, and better provided for, than the workmen of the manufacturing districts of England were at the present time. He would give the House the opinion of a Gentleman, who he was proud to say, was a fellow-countrymen of his own, a Whig in politics, and a Roman Catholic in religion, respected by all who knew him, and deservedly so. He found in Mr. Water-ton's work, describing his wanderings in Demerara in 1816, a passage denying in the strongest terms, that the condition of the slaves was so deplorably wretched, as it had been represented. Mr. Waterton said,—
"It is not so. A Briton's heart, proverbially kind and generous, is not changed by climate, or its streams of compassion dried up by the scorching heat of a Demerara sun; he cheers his negroes in labour, comforts them in sickness, is kind to them in old age, and never forgets that they are his fellow-creatures."
What a pity it was that the manufacturing workmen of England were not at the present moment so well off as the slaves of Demerara had been. Were their masters' hearts open to their wants and distresses? Were they ready to relieve them? Did they soothe their hours of sickness and declining years? Were they not cast out to perish at the present moment, and dying at the doors of their masters? There was no one to relieve them and protect them, and he would appeal to the House of Commons, the representatives of the people, to save them from destruction. He asked for a grant of the public money to the manufacturing labourers, on the broad ground, that it was their right. The Legislature of the country had reduced them to their present state. Were the working classes of the north of England dying of want before the New Poor-law passed? Were they starving before the Poor-law commissioners passed them by tens of thousands into the manufacturing districts, and decoyed the poor wretches from their homes in the south by telling them their removal would put an end to their distress, would procure every comfort for themselves and their families, and would save them from want in old age, by enabling them with frugality and industry, to retire to competence. He would now quote the language of a noble Lord

1643
justly respected not only in that House House, but throughout the whole country —he meant the Secretary for the Colonies. On the 33rd of July, 1833, during the debate on the Slavery Abolition Bill, the noble Lord, when calling upon the House to agree to a grant of 15,000,000 l. by way of compensation to the West-Indian planters, was interrupted by Mr. Fryer, who asked,—
"Why should we pay anything?
And the noble Lord said,—
"The hon. Member has asked a short and pithy question. He would tell him why the planter should be indemnified, because the principles of justice required that no man's property should be taken away without compensation."
But the working classes had their property taken from them without compensation. What right had they to send forth a mighty mass of labourers from the south to the manufacturing districts of the north, for the purpose of relieving the proprietors of the soil? The noble Lord went on to say,—
"Because the laws of England forbade taking away a man's property without the consent of the owner: because in this case the property would be taken away in a manner the most offensive."
Could anything be more offensive than the manner in which the men from the south had been made as strangers in the land to compete with those in the north? Could anything be more disgraceful to England than the state of the working classes in the north of England at the present moment? The noble Lord continued:—
"Acting on the principles of justice, the House had declared that emancipation and compensation should go together."
Well, then, the landed interest in the south of England had been emancipated from the charge of the poor, by which means it was calculated they had put into their pockets at least 2,400,000 l. This was not a party question; both sides of the House were to blame, the landed proprietors of England, for agreeing to carry out the principles of the New Poor Law, and the manufacturers of the north were most reprehensible for holding out to the working classes inducements to migrate thither which they knew they could not realize. Those poor people had been sent from the south into the manufacturing districts un
1644
der promises the most exaggerated—with pledges not only from the Poor-law Commissioners, but also from the owners of the soil, as well as the manufacturers themselves, that they should never again know distress or want. Oh, what a frightful state the north of England was in at this moment! He stated what he knew to be true, that there were thousands of the working classes, those who had been induced to migrate from the south, now actually living on boiled nettles, drinking the water in which the nettles had been boiled as a beverage, and lying in bed during the day for the purpose of saving their bodies from the exhaustion of walking about. And what were the measures which had been adopted for the purpose of rescuing the working classes from the deplorable condition in which they were involved? The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had satisfied an immense majority of the people that he was exceedingly anxious to relieve the necessities of his indigent and distressed fellow-subjects; and, although differing from the right hon. Baronet on some of the questions brought forward, he would say there never had been in the history of this country a Prime Minister who laboured with such mighty determination, and such great talents, to bring about relief to the working classes. He would quote a sentence or two from him; and call upon the manufacturers of England, to whatever party they might belong, to learn thence their duty to those who had built up their enormous wealth, and who were literally dying from want at their very doors. The right hon. Baronet said, in words that ought to be written in gold, to be remembered while he lived and long after he was dead:—
" I am one of those who have derived our fortunes from the industry of the operative classes, and I trust that others, who owe their prosperity to the same cause, will feel as I do —that it is our duty to relieve the public, by taking on ourselves the charge of a just requital to those classes from whom our prosperity has sprung."
Here was an appeal to the manufacturers; had they responded to it? Had they done their duty? Had they rendered a just requital to the working classes? Had they not rather stood by and seen them die by their side? Did any one ever see a more paltry sum than had been raised for the distressed manufacturers'

1645
committee? It was a disgrace to England; and he would tell the House whose fault it was that the subscription had been a failure. It was to be ascribed to the efforts of those wicked and unprincipled men who were abroad in the country endeavouring to take advantage of the distressed state of the working classes—hired lecturers, base and cowardly wretches, going about like thieves in the dark, striving to excite men to rebellion, but who, in the hour of danger, instead of appearing at their head, skulked off, and left their ignorant dupes, when the law performed its office, cither to be trampled under foot by the military or led to the scaffold. Throughout Yorkshire and Lancashire they had circulated a beastly, filthy placard, headed "Murder," and stated that a minister of the gospel in the neighbourhood of Stirling had declared that a shopkeeper and a constable, having gone into a poor man's house who had stolen three potatoes, found a pan on the fire (if fire it could be called where there were but a few burning embers), and in the pan a dog boiling with the three potatoes. He had it from the best authority that there was not a syllable of truth in the whole statement, yet it was circulated at enormous expense by men having education, and who under the blessing of God, and the laws of this country protecting them, had been enabled to amass millions in order to excite the illiterate and distressed into rebellion. But he was happy to say the working men resisted the base instigations of these evil men, and appealed with loyalty and devoted affection to their Queen and country, to the House of Commons, the representatives of the people, saying, "In God's name have mercy, help and save us from death." The distress which prevailed pressed heavily on the mind of our devoted, beloved, affectionate, and maternal Queen. Her Majesty, deeply commisserating the sufferings of her people, had appealed to the affluent, in what was called "the Queen's Letter," imploring them to come forward and rescue the working classes from destitution and misery. Had the Queen's Letter been responded to as it should have been? It had not. The Queen felt more deeply for the distress and suffering of her people at the present moment, because there was none to deliver them. She had done her duty towards her poor subjects; an obstacle stood in the way, or she would have relieved them long ago. That impediment was the Bri-
1646
tish House of Commons. With deep humility he suggested a response to the wishes of her Majesty; and in the name of the distressed among the working classes he called upon that House, in whose hands alone were the means of saving them from destitution and death, to relieve their dreadful necessities. He begged leave to move—
"That the House will, on Tuesday, the 21st of this instant June, resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, for the purpose of taking into consideration the following resolution:—that it is the opinion of this House that immediate measures be taken to alleviate the deplorable distress and destitution which now afflict many of the working classes in the manufacturing districts, and that an address be presented to her Majesty, beseeching her Majesty to employ for their temporary relief a sum of money not exceeding 1,000,000 l, sterling, and that this House will provide for the same."
Sir R. Peel:Sir, I hope that the decided opposition which I shall feel it my duty to offer to this motion will not be construed into any symptoms of an indifference on my part to the distresses of the people. I feel, Sir, most deeply for those distresses, but feeling for them and deploring their existence, I still never can consent to establish so fatal a precedent as to give my assent to this motion, on behalf of the Crown, nor will I ever consent to sanction so fatal a mistake as to imply that the distress of the people at large could ever be alleviated permanently or properly by such an expedient as to temporary and a limited grant of the public money. If the allegations of the hon. Member with respect to the sum of 2,400,000 l., saved to the landowners of the south, by the emigration of the working classes to the north, be true, it is upon them that the burden of giving temporary relief ought to fall. How could the sum of 1,000,000 l, which the hon. Member proposes to grant, be levied but by taxation; and upon whom does this burden of taxation fall but upon the labouring classes, who are the chief consumers of the articles upon which taxation is levied?. If the motion of the hon. Gentleman were to be granted, it would establish, I beg to say, a fatal precedent, and one which would be constantly recurred to in similar cases. One of the bad consequences which would arise from it would be the immediate cessation of all efforts at raising charitable funds in the locality

1647
of the distress. The obligation to make strenuous efforts to raise funds for the relief of the poor, was both legal and moral upon those who were resident in the same locality with them, I will not enter upon this subject further, nor am I willing to go into a discussion of the facts, so called by the hon. Member for Knaresborough. But when he states, that he has inquired into the story of a dog having been boiled with three potatoes, and that he had found it to be false from beginning to end, I confess, 1 think it might have been hoped he would have exercised the same prudent caution with respect to the story of the boiled nettles; and he might have been expected to have suppressed that statement unless he had cautiously assured himself that it was not an exaggerated story. I entirely agree with him in one respect, that the distressed people have a strong claim on the munificent charity of the opulent classes; and if the public attention be strongly called to these charitable endeavours much good may be done by them. I hope that those who are affluent will contribute liberally as soon as they find their efforts are still needed; and, moreover, I hope that the opposition which I must offer to the hon. Member's motion will not be construed into indifference; for I can assure the House, that the Government is labouring silently, though indefatigably, to alleviate the sufferings of the working classes, and with some hopes of success. I trust, therefore, that the House, however alive it may be to the distresses of the people, will never consent to establish such a precedent as would be created by any attempt to interfere, by legislative grant, for the purpose of affording relief under the circumstances of the case.
Mr. F. Maule:Nobody could question that a deep feeling of sympathy prevailed, on both sides, with the sufferings of the working classes; but he must deprecate such language as that used by the hon. Member for Knaresborough, who, at a time when the people were suffering severely, thought fit to say of the manufacturers, who raised this country to its present greatness, that the people were perishing at their doors. He regretted the use of such terms, when speaking of a population which was undergoing great misery. He should oppose the motion.
Dr. Bowringwished to make one observation. The hon. Gentleman (Mr.
1648
Ferrand) was in the habit of condemning the emigration from the south to the north of England. He felt bound to say, that a friend of his an intelligent and excellent man, was a party to that immigration. He proposed, that the working classes of the south should have the advantage of higher wages than they possessed in their original place of habitation. He (Dr. Bowring) had the advantage of seeing these people lately, and he ventured to say, that all connected with Mr. Ashworth stood in advantageous contrast to much of the misery by which they were surrounded. There was no living man who had a stronger desire than Mr. Ashworth to benefit the working classes, and if the hon. Member for Knaresborough wished to see a population contented and happy, he should point to those who were privileged in having Mr. Ashworth as a master.
Captain Polhillsaid, that as the hon. Member had received an assurance from the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government that her Majesty's Ministers deeply sympathized with the present sufferings of the population, he would, probably, feel that it was merely superfluous on the part of an individual Member to take up a measure of this kind. His hon. Friend could not do better than trust the matter to the care of the Ministers and withdraw his motion.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he could not consent to accept the vote of his hon. Friend who had just spoken, on account of any misconstruction of the observations which had fallen from him. He objected, decidedly, to a vote of public money being taken with a view to ameliorate the distress of the country; and his hon. Friend must not suppose that in the event of the failure of the present motion, Government would take any similar measure into consideration.
Mr. Wardgave the hon. Member the fullest credit for a sincere desire to alleviate the distress of the country, but it was his firm belief that the hon. Member's proposition, if carried, would rather tend to aggravate the distress and drag down those classes which were still sustaining themselves against the difficulties of the time to the same level as the class it was now proposed to relieve. The present distress, he feared, was not of a temporary nature, and the proofs of its magnitude were rushing in every day. He had received a letter from one of his constituents

1649
in which it was stated, that it was impossible to overrate the prevailing distress among the labouring and commercial classes. Those who four years ago were in a state of comparative prosperity now saw hardly a hope left them. They certainly did not see hope in those changes which the right hon. Baronet had effected in the tariff, though they were all in the right direction. But they did not come home to the point—they did not open a sufficiently wide field for our trade elsewhere, and especially in the United States. He had been entreated to make a statement of the actual condition of the labouring population in Sheffield, and contrast it with the condition of the population in 1836. In the latter period there was not one man of common industry and decent character who was not employed at good regular wages. Since that time the progress had been constantly downwards. No effort of industry could enable the population to make good their ground against the influence of the narrow commercial policy of the country. The trade with the United States was destroyed by the refusal to take American flour, and so far from the spring having brought with it a better prospect of relief, as the right hon. Baronet had anticipated, all hopes of the amelioration of the distress had vanished. Whereas, in 1836, there was not one individual to be found in Sheffield on the casual relief fund, the sums paid to men willing and able to work up to March in the present year had been 229Z. perweek. Since then it had gone on increasing to 312 l, 350 l., 370 l., and 390 1., and in the last three weeks the sum paid was 1,115 l. The policy of the right hon. Baronet had not gone far enough, but must be extended. The right hon. Baronet must therefore take the subject of the present distress into his serious consideration, but not with a view of temporarily relieving it by the expedient of a money vote, which would not enable the Government to alleviate the distress by any possible devices which they could adopt. In point of fact, the ruin of the country, or its escape from its present state of suffering, depended entirely on the policy of the Government in the succeeding year. For these reasons, though deeply sensible of the sufferings of the population, he was unable to support the motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
Captain Polhillbegged to say one word
1650
in explanation. He had been misunderstood by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel). He did not mean to say that Government would attempt to alleviate the distress by a grant of money from the public funds, but only that they would use their best exertions to alleviate it whenever it was brought under their notice.
Mr. Villiersrose in consequence of the right hon. Baronet having adverted to a statement made by him relative to the distress in a certain district of Scotland. It alluded to a poor Catholic family, who were found in such destitution, that they were actually eating a dog which had been boiled in the house. The hon. Member for Knaresborough, who was not in his place, stated that there was no foundation for that statement. He would ask the House to pause before they believed that there was no foundation for that, when he told them on what authority he made that statement. Seeing the hon. Member in his place, he would again repeat that he hoped the House would pause before they supposed that that statement was without foundation, as the hon. Gentleman himself often made statements which were loose and turned out to be untrue. No doubt the hon. Member believed them, but he did not take the trouble to inquire into them. The statement he had made he had seen in a Scottish newspaper, and the paragraph had been copied into an English paper. This it was that he stated to the House, and he had since written to the Provost of Stirling, and he had received an answer, saying that he would inquire into the subject. His hon. Friend gave the hon. Member credit for benevolent motives. He did not wish to dispute his benevolence, but he did not agree with his system of personal attacks. Both from the hon. Member's manner, and the topics he introduced, he always seemed to have a party object. He had described persons who were going about the country lecturing for the purpose of misleading the people. He begged to tell the hon. Member that the people of this country were well enough informed to appreciate the motives of such persons. He begged to remark that the hon. Gentlemen who had brought these charges had been for nine months resorting to every topic calculated to excite the common people both in that House and out of the House. The hon. Member had referred to the ill usage of men by their masters. The hon. Member had alluded in the most violent language

1651
to the mode in which the public relief had been administered. But the people were in a far different state to what they were in when the hon. Member first began. The people's patience was nearly exhausted. He had stated these things so frequently, that the people now began to believe them, and he could not help thinking that the hon. Member was beginning to be a little alarmed at the aspect and state of the country. He thought the hon. Member had pretty strong evidence on his own committee. It was there stated that one cause of the riots of Newport was the exciting topic of the truck system.
Mr. Ferrandrose to order.
The Speakerintimated that what had occurred oh a committee then sitting could not be alluded to by the hon. Member.
Mr. Villiersonly mentioned this to show that the hon. Gentleman was beginning to get alarmed. He thought he could not read a newspaper without seeing some cause for apprehension from the distress and temper of the people. Complimented they had been, no doubt, on their patience, but there was something different in their spirit. Now the hon. Member came forward, without the most distant chance of success, and in the most reckless and loose manner proposed that one million should be given to the people. Did the hon. Member mean to say, that even for one instant the hon. Member had an idea that the grant would be made. What was the course of the hon. Member on every single measure that was calculated to relieve the people? If those who advocated the repeal of the Corn-laws were wrong in proposing that relief, they had also proposed to give the people the power to legislate for themselves. The hon. Gentleman refused them that relief— he refused them the power of legislating for themselves. He had refused to repeal bad laws, causing a burden to the people of millions sterling a-year. The people came there and claimed their political rights, they claimed to have the power of redressing their grievances, and pointed at the character of the legislation which caused them. Where was the hon. Gentleman then? Was he for extending that power? The hon. Member condemned that House, he had said that it was standing between the benevolence of the Crown and the poor. But when the question of reform of abuses came before the House, where was the hon. Gentleman? Did the hon. Gentleman think the
1652
people were so stultified as to give credit to his motives in proposing a measure which could not relieve the distress such as had been described 1 He could not suppose that the hon. Gentleman could believe that the House would grant his motion. He could not believe that the hon. Gentleman was earnest in his proposition. There were four millions in the country—say two or three millions—who required relief, and were suffering the greatest distress. What was a million of money to those people? Every head of a family was supposed to represent five persons. What was a million of money distributed amongst those people? The hon. Gentleman was violent against the New Poor-law. What had the Poor-law to do with the distress of the country? Did not the hon. Gentleman know that before the present Poor-law was passed the agricultural labourers were much worse off than now? Did he not know that those agriculturists were then treated worse than the people were in the collieries, as described the other night? How then could he attribute the distress to the operation of the New Poor-law? No, there was a more permanent cause than that. This was the opinion of more experienced men than the hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman seemed to him to come into that House as the champion of restrictive laws, and in order to be consistent with that character, he asked for a grant of money, to save the people from the consequences of those laws, or rather to save the landed proprietors. The poor-rates were increasing in the agricultural districts, and the reason was, the people were going back, from the manufacturing and commercial districts, by shoals, to their parishes. The hon. Member would find that the agriculturists were suffering; and he would tell the hon. Member another thing, that the consumption of agricultural produce was diminishing. Well might the hon. Member come forward as the champion of the Corn-law, and ask for a million of money. Anything that was not a permanent relief, was a mockery. This proposal was almost an insult to the people, and was making them paupers.
Mr. Wallacesaid, the extent of distress that prevailed in the country was by no means generally known. Although he differed from the right hon. Baronet in the principle he had laid down, and thought that the time might come when it would

1653
be necessary to alleviate the distress with public money, still he agreed with him, that it ought to be the last resource. As a matter of principle, therefore, had he felt bound to vote in maintenance of it, he should have divided with the hon. Member for Knaresborough, much as he regretted the manner in which his motion was brought forward; but agreeing entirely in the sentiments so ably expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, and feeling that this amount would be but a drop in a bucket, he thought it would be wise before taking any step to make every possible inquiry on the subject. If the hon. Member proceeded to a division, he should certainly not divide with him.
Mr. Escottthought the motion of the hon. Member for Knaresborough a most extraordinary one. He could not, consistently with what he felt due in the discharge of his duty, refrain from saying that he not only thought it an extraordinary motion, but also a most mischievous motion. He felt, too, that not only was the motion mischievous, but he would tell his hon. Friend and the House plainly, that he thought the speech with which it was introduced a mischievous speech. There was one charge that his hon. Friend had made in that speech which, as long as he had the honour of a seat in that House, he would never hear made by any hon. Gentleman without rising in his place to protest against it. His hon. Friend said in his speech, after stating the distresses of the people of this country, that that House stood between the people and their relief. He positively denied that charge. That charge was not fair to that House. It was not fair to the Government. In the same speech in which his hon. Friend made that charge, he admitted the Government was doing all in its power to relieve the distress which every feeling man so deeply deplored. Upon the principle of the motion, he would say one word. His hon. Friend proposed a grant of public money for relieving the distress that prevailed. Now, he believed that if that motion were carried, there was no one mode which his hon. Friend could devise, that would be so likely to draw off the attention of the Legislature and of the people from those measures which might be necessary at some future time, for relieving the distresses of the people; He must also protest against the doctrine, that be-
1654
cause there happened to be a great pressure of distress at a given time, they must have recourse to a grant of public money, which must come from the pockets of the people who were so distressed, and which, being- so taken away, must throw an additional pressure on their industry. He hoped, however, that his hon. Friend, seeing the feeling so plainly manifested on both sides of the House, would not trouble them by proceeding to a division, but would withdraw his motion.
Mr. Ainsworthsaid, that as the hon. Member for Knaresborough had mentioned the name of his Friend, Mr. Ashworth, he wished to state, that he concurred with his hon. Colleague, in the character he had given of that Gentleman, and in hoping, that the hon. Member for Knaresborough would, at some future time, pay him a visit, and allow him to take him over Mr. Ashworth's manufactory, feeling sure, that the hon. Gentleman would be quite satisfied with the manner in which Mr. Ashworth conducted his business. At the same time, if the hon. Gentleman proceeded to a division, he felt bound to give him his support.
Mr. W. Williamsconsidered the cause of the present distress in a great measure, to be the high price of provisions in this country, as compared with the prices of provisions in other countries. Now, the speech of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, and the votes he had given in the House, were strangely inconsistent; for upon every occasion, that a proposition was made to relieve the distresses of the country by reducing the price of provisions, the hon. Gentleman had been universally opposed to such a measure. Had he not opposed the removal of the tax upon bread in every shape that it was brought before the House? And had he not stood forward above all other individuals, in bringing charges against those persons who had been so active in their endeavours to do away with the tax on corn? Had he not brought those charges from time to lime in that House? Had he not made attacks on individuals, and the whole of that body called the Anti-Corn-law League, whose object Was to remove the tax on the bread of the people? Had he supported any measure in that House to reduce the price of food of the working classes? [Mr. Ferrand: Yes; the tariff on foreign cattle.] [Laugh-ter.] He thought the hon Gentleman was

1655
not in the division for admitting foreign oxen into this country at 1s. per head. Did he vote for the lowest duty upon foreign cattle? He believed, that the hon. Gentleman did not.. Was the hon. Gentleman aware, that two-thirds of the taxes, from which he would take this 100,000,000 l., were actually paid by the poorer classes of this country upon the necessaries of life? If the hon. Gentleman would assist in removing those taxes, no motion of this kind would be requisite. He believed, however, that the working classes of this country had too much good sense to be led away by any motion so delusive. They knew too well, that it could not relieve them. It might afford some relief to send large sums of money to large towns, but the question would be, to which towns the money should be sent, and how it should be applied, and there would be a scramble for it without its producing any general or extensive benefit.
Mr. Cobdenwas deeply impressed with the condition in which this country was now placed. It was such as ought to engage the serious consideration of all who had anything at stake. He had long been anxious, that the House should take the subject into its serious consideration; that the facts should be brought out, without its being made a question of Whig or Tory; and he should before then have brought forward certain facts connected with this subject, had he not been constantly met with the charge of impeding the tariff, which it was said, was calculated to restore in some degree the prosperity of the country. He believed, however, that there was no hope in the country, that that would be the effect of the tariff. [Cries of "Oh, oh ! "] Hon. Gentleman might say "Oh, oh !" but he would tell them, that the number of unemployed was greater, and the amount of Poor-rates higher now than ever. Capital was wasting away, and there was no means of employing it in trade. [_Cries of " Oh, oh," and laughter.] When the hon. Gentlemen said "Oh, oh!" and shut their ears, let them ask themselves what would be the consequence if that state of things went on? In Stockport, twenty-nine large concerns were closed; they did not belong to members of the Anti-Corn-law League, but chiefly to persons who agreed in political opinions with hon. Gentlemen opposite. In that town, there was an
1656
instance of one concern, which seven years ago was estimated to be worth 100,000 l. The senior member of it retired after thirty years hard labour, thinking himself worth 100,000 l., but the son of that individual was now receiving parish relief, and showing the mill at 1s. a-week. What, too, were the Poor-rates there? Why, a 2s. rate only yielded now one-sixth of what it did two years ago; and a 1s. rate only two-thirds of what a 6d. rate did at that time. Of a rated rental of 80,000 l., only 36,000 l. was received. Several years since that state of things had been foretold in the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester. But were they solitary in their distress— were they not a link of one great chain? Were not the various commercial interests of the country in the same depressed condition? He implored the House then not to separate, until they had done something directly and avowedly for giving contentment to the people. He entreated them not to separate now, and defer until next spring the consideration of this measure. The hon. Member for Sheffield said they must next spring reconsider the Corn-laws; but he would say they could not wait until the spring, and that they must throw open their ports for grain if they wanted to have peace in the country. He had lately received a letter from Sheffield which pointed to that place as one of the most perilous in the kingdom. He entreated the right hon. Baronet, then, not to think of dismissing the present Parliament without taking measures to relieve the distresses of the people. The right hon. Baronet would certainly be compelled at the opening of next Session to reconsider the corn question. Nor would he want a most just vindication for his consistency in such a course, for the right hon. Gentleman had expressly declared that he had brought forward his Corn-law measure from a conviction that trade was reviving. Now the very reverse had proved to be the case since the right hon. Baronet spoke thus; and the measures which had been brought forward by the Government had not at all been suggested even as remedies for the national distress. On the contrary, the right hon. Baronet had distinctly disclaimed any persuasion that his measures would remove that distress. The consequences to be apprehended from a continuance of the existing state of things were most serious. Not that he was desirous of employing language to provoke

1657
alarm or imply menace. He would not say that there was any prospect of popular outbreaks, which might peril the parks and the palaces of the Conservative party. He knew well that in the desperation of distress—in the frenzy of famine—the friends not less than the foes of the people would suffer; and his apprehension was not so much that the people might break out into violence as that the nation might break down altogether. He commended, then, this condition of things to the earnest consideration of the Legislature, that ere too late some measures might indeed be taken for the averting of dangers so imminent and so appalling.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, had he entertained any doubt at all as to the propriety of supporting the motion, that doubt must have been entirely removed by the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down. That hon. Member had vigorously pictured the national distress, and had contended for the necessity of an inquiry. Now, the present proposal was for an inquiry. The terms of the motion involved necessarily, first, a committee for the purpose of inquiry; and true it might be, that the object professed was the granting of pecuniary relief to the people. Now, his only objection to the motion was that it did not go far enough, seeing that it limited the amount of that relief to a million, whereas he should be prepared to support a vote of not less than five millions, convinced that not less than five millions would really relieve the distress of the people. It was said that the motion was without precedent; so far from it, there had been plenty of precedents. There had been in 1832 a vote of a million to the Irish clergy; and there were constantly votes to refugees — Polish, French, or Corsican, &c. His firm belief was, that the House really knew nothing of the popular distress. And whose fault was that? Why, the fault of the Gentlemen opposite. When it had been stated that poor wretches had been reduced to positive carrion, the statement had been treated with perfect indifference. It had been disbelieved. The majority opposite could have, indeed, no sympathy with the people. They had been returned by gross bribery. The right hon. Baronet, the leader of the party had declared it. Could any one deny it? The people knew it to be true. The Government had been forced into power by such means. Why, would
1658
they dare dissolve to-morrow? Would the right hon. Baronet the Member for Kent (Sir E. Knatchbull) like it? Depend upon it there would he more heard of the tariff then than now. [" Hear!"] The right hon. Baronet cheered. He did not like to hear of the tariff. Truly, the House had heard enough about it, and so had the country, and the people knew it to be one of the grossest delusions ever practised on a nation. But now to return to the question at issue. The people would never obtain redress till some 400,000 or 500,000 men from the manufacturing districts came to the metropolis to demand it. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes; and he knew that preparations were making with that intention. And not till those thousands came would their condition be attended to or their wrongs redressed. Then, indeed, they would obtain relief. The Corn-laws might be repealed. While they continued, distress would remain, which the Legislature was bound to do their utmost to relieve. But a most instructing spectacle had the House that night presented. First, all relief whatever had been denied to the Dissenters; and now all hope of relief was about to be withdrawn from millions of loyal and industrious, but distressed and suffering people.
Mr. Ferrandwould not notice the speech which had just been delivered. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockport, about the distress caused to the manufacturing interest by the Corn-laws, it certainly was strange that any one should make such statements who recollected, that in despite of all the agitation of the question in the most populous manufacturing districts, Anti-Corn-law candidates had been defeated. Now it had been said that he had excited the people. To that he replied, that when he took his seat in that House he found that in the manufacturing districts there had been for some time a system of agitation for the purpose of exciting the people against the Government of the country. He found that gentlemen belonging to the party opposite had hired men, utterly devoid of honesty and reckless of truth, to use among the people the most outrageous language. He found, nevertheless, that notwithstanding all the expenditure of money and mischievous energy, they had entirely failed to win the people to their side, and to accomplish their great object of replacing Gentlemen

1659
opposite in office. How was it that the League as a body had been quite annihilated? True, there were some mischievous incendiaries going about the country, endeavouring to raise a popular excitement, endeavouring (under the sanction of gentlemen belonging to the party opposite) to excite the people to rebellion; but they would fail, as hitherto; or, if they succeeded unhappily in exciting the people into acts of violence, they would exhibit the cowardice common to those who for selfish purposes led others into unlawful proceedings. He had done his duty in that House— supported by a consciousness of rectitude— he trusted he had been of some service to the country in telling the truth manfully, and in thus putting down the hired agitators of selfish men. As to what had been said of the looseness of his assertions, he regarded them not, for he was sustained by his own conscience and by the belief that the people at large gave him credit for his intentions and his integrity. With respect to the particular instance of the dog, adverted to to-night, his denial of the story had been supported by communications direct from the locality alluded to, declaratory of perfect ignorance of any such circumstance. He had now to leave in the hands of the House a motion which was justified by the precedent of the great grant of 20,000,000 l. for purchasing the freedom of the West-Indian slaves, whose condition, even in slavery, had been far better than that of millions in Great Britain, and who now were positively acquiring something like the position of independent proprietors. He should, at all events, continue to pursue the straightforward course which he had marked out for himself, and in which he believed he had not less the approbation of the country than of his own conscience; for he was persuaded that the people put more confidence in his assertions than in those of the whole party opposite.
The House divided: — Ayes 6; Noes 106; Majority 100.

List of the AYES,

Ainsworth, P.

Johnson, Gen.

Blake, M. J.

Crawford, W. S.

TELLERS.

Heathcoat, J.

Duncombe, T.

Hindley, C.

Ferrand, W. B.

CUSTOMS ACTS—THE TARIFF.
The report on the Customs' Acts was brought
1660
up, the resolutions were read and agreed to by the House, and a bill ordered to be brought in.

DEAN FOREST ECCLESIASTICAL DISTRICTS.
The Earl of Lincolnmoved that the House do resolve itself into a committee on the Dean Forest Ecclesiastical Districts Bill, to make provision for the maintenance of certain chapels in the Forest of Dean.
Dr. Bowringthought such a bill as the present ought not to have been introduced. The Church had quite sufficient property to meet any demands for spiritual instruction in any part of England. The bill, he must say, had taken him by surprise, and he decidedly objected to such an application of public money to ecclesiastical purposes.
Mr. Protheroesaid, that in his part of the country the bill had not taken them by surprise. He had often knocked at the doors of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, calling on them to make provisions for the spiritual instruction of the inhabitants of the Forest of Dean. Nothing could be more unjust than to say that, in a case like the present the Church were endeavouring to obtain any exclusive advantages. There was no one having the least acquaintance with the condition of the people who inhabited the Forest who could for a moment doubt that they were in a state of spiritual destitution; but if any one were in a state of uncertainty on the point, he should refer him to the report of Mr. Elijah Waring, whom he had not the pleasure of knowing, though the perusal of his report would lead any one to desire his acquaintance. As to the present bill, he should give it his support, being decidedly of opinion that even a larger grant of money ought to be made. It was well worthy of observation that when Monmouthshire was in a state of extreme agitation and disturbance, the most perfect tranquillity prevailed in the district with which he was connected, and those who were best acquainted with the feelings of the people imputed that tranquillity to the influence of religious instruction derived from the clergy. On these grounds be entertained a strong wish to see additional churches in that part of the country.
Mr. T. Duncombehoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose would divide the House on the question, the more especially as no explanation on the subject

1661
had been given by her Majesty's Government. They had just rejected a motion, by a majority of 100, for giving relief to the distressed manufacturers—not a shilling would the House give to them; but yet they now proposed to grant 600 l., 700 l., or 800 l. to endow a certain number of churches. They had often heard in that House that ecclesiastical funds ought to be applied exclusively to ecclesiastical purposes; — was there any one who would say, that the funds at the disposal of the Church were insufficient for the wants of the Church? There was Queen Anne's Bounty, there were the sums at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and recourse ought to be had to those before any claims were made upon the property of the Crown. It was preposterous to propose that new churches should be endowed, when the House refused to grant a single shilling for the relief of the starving manufacturers in the north of England. On these grounds he should decidedly oppose the motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair.
The Earl of Lincolnsaid, he should have risen sooner if he could have anticipated that the bill was to be opposed; and he was under an impression that he had last night given a sufficient explanation on the subject. An hon. Member on the other side appeared to lay great stress upon this point, that by the bill it was proposed to apply a certain portion of the public money to the endowment of churches, and last night the hon. Member for Montrose urged the same argument. Now, he conceived there was a broad distinction between the provisions of this bill and the construction put upon it by the hon. Members who made use of that argument. There was an obvious difference between giving a grant of public money and doing that which the bill proposed to effect. If the Forest of Dean belonged to a private individual, he certainly would not be justified in allowing it to remain in its present state of spiritual destitution— many individuals would give much more than was proposed to be given under the present bill. At the beginning of every reign the Crown property was transferred to the care of public commissioners— of course for a consideration— but that circumstance did not alter the degree of responsibility which attached to the possession of property. It had often been observed, that property had its duties as well as its rights,
1662
and the property in question was not by its peculiar circumstances divested of its duties any more than other property. He would repeat that which he had stated on a former occasion, namely, that there were contained in the forest 25,000 acres, that the population amounted to 11,000 souls, and that for the spiritual instruction of that population there were only three clergymen. Besides those the deputy-surveyor in the employment of the Crown was the only person in the whole district who could be regarded as belonging to the rank of gentlemen. The three clergymen had incomes respectively of 119 l., 92 l., and 75 l. In such a state of things, and in such a condition of society in that part of the country, he felt that he ought not to shrink from the responsibility of introducing such a measure; at the same time he believed there was much more of merit than of responsibility in bringing it forward. The House had probably not forgotten that in 1835, during the Government of hon. Members opposite, a commission had been issued by the Crown to inquire not so much into the spiritual destitution as into the general circumstances of the forest, amongst other objects with the view of parochializing the district. They made their report in 1839, and they recommended that the incomes of the clergy should be increased. It appeared from that report that it was not imperative upon the clergy there to administer the rites of burial or of baptism, and that no marriages were solemnized within the forest. They recommended that a church and parsonage-house should be built, and that a benefice should be endowed, by the Crown giving to the clergyman an annual stipend of 150 l. a-year, and raising the stipends of the existing clergymen in the same manner and to the same amount. The commissioners were Mr. Serjeant Ludlow, Mr. Bathurst, and other eminent persons; and although Serjeant Ludlow differed from the other commissioners on several points, he was agreed with them on this one, as appeared from a separate report which he signed. The present proposition was by no means a novel one, the case of the Delamere Forest being a precedent; and there were other cases in point. The hon. Gentleman had said, that if the church required any additional endowments, they should be taken from Queen Anne's bounty; but the Governors of that bounty

1663
never consented to increase livings without an equivalent from the proprietors of the estates concerned. The hon. Member for Montrose yesterday had said that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners ought to be called upon to supply the means sought by this bill, and that unless he had a return of their revenue he should oppose any grant; but on referring to the rules of the commissioners that day, he found that their rules precluded them from contributing to such an object. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would see that there was no necessity for persisting in his opposition to this bill.
Mr. Labouchereobserved, that as the hon. Member for Finsbury seemed to intimate his intention of taking the sense of the House upon this question, he would state in a few words the grounds on which he should give his vote. He objected to the principle of what was called church extension, by coming to that House to demand money for the purpose of increasing the establishment, and he thought it was much more advantageous to the Church in the present state of the country to leave it as it was—an establishment partly supported by the State and partly by voluntary contributions. But that was a very wide question, upon which he would not then enter. The present question was of a different nature, and had been placed upon its true grounds by the noble Lord, the bill being merely intended to enable the Crown to do that which it was the duty of every proprietor of land to do, namely, to see that the spiritual wants of the population living upon his property were adequately supplied. He was convinced that only when the proprietors of land throughout the country understood their duty in that way would the population be properly provided with religious instruction. He thought it better to trust to their sense of duty than to come to that House for a grant from the public funds for church extension. He should certainly support the noble Lord's motion.
Mr. Haweswas compelled to take an entirely different view from his right hon. Friend, though he did not disagree from him upon the general proposition he had laid down. But this bill did contain the principle of church extension; for it was clearly and manifestly intended to apply a portion of the public funds for that purpose; therefore he should oppose it. But there was another reason why he should
1664
oppose it: since the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act and other measures affecting the Church the property of the Establishment had increased in value, and in some instances beyond the returns and estimates submitted to Parliament while those measures were under discussion to an extent of 20 or 30 per cent. As that increased value had been derived by the Establishment, he thought they ought to look to that for the endowments proposed by this bill. As a friend to the Church he would oppose this bill, and also because he thought it unjust and unnecessary, seeing that there were other funds which ought to be looked to for the aid required.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought the argument of the hon. Gentleman both unfair and inconsistent. If it were just in reference to the Crown, so it would be if applied to private persons. And what a bad example would the hon. Gentleman set! It was just the argument which a niggardly person would take up when appealed to for alms, that because other parties were rich and did not direct their riches to a particular object, therefore he would do nothing for it. He trusted the House would feel that the public was a proprietor of a large estate, and that it could not neglect its duty to provide for both the temporal and spiritual destitution of the population. When it was understood that the whole amount asked for was but little more than 300 l., and that the district comprised 25,000 acres with 11,000 population, he thought the opposition to the measure must be very limited.
Mr. W. Williamsthought the noble Lord would have given some reason why there was to be this augmentation in the salaries of these three clergymen. Were they to perform increased duty? Had not their salaries been sufficient hitherto, and if so, why should they not be sufficient now? The noble Lord had said, that there were 11,000 persons to whom these three clergymen were to minister. He should like to ask the noble Lord how many of those 11,000 were Dissenters? He ventured to say that a large majority of them were Dissenters. But suppose they were all members of the Church of England, were not three clergymen enough to minister to the 11,000? [" No, no!"] Well, he knew that there were many clergymen who did take the care of as many souls. He should like the noble Lord to

1665
point out any individuals possessing 25,000 acres who had ever provided 300 l. to pay ministers for the population. [Ironical cheers.] Well, he did not know any instance of the kind in modern times. He considered that the Government might just as well have proposed to take the money out of the Consolidated Fund at once, for that was neither more nor less than the effect of the bill.
Mr. Hardysaid, that hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to treat the Church of England as an abstract institution with which the nation had little or nothing to do, whereas it was an ecclesiastical Establishment founded and maintained by the State for the religious instruction of the people, and he hoped they received, and would continue to receive, instruction from it and through it. [Mr. T. Duncombe:" Hear. "] He wished the hon. Gentleman who cheered him would tell him what denomination of Dissenters afforded more or better religious instruction? The hon. Member for Coventry seemed to think three clergymen quite enough for 11,000 persons; why, it had always been held that 2,000 souls was the greatest number that should be committed to the care of one clergyman; so that here there ought to be five at least, instead of three. He did not know what number of Dissenters might be found amongst these 11,000 persons; but those who made the laws were bound not to depend upon the uncertain supply of religious teaching which Dissenters might supply; they must see to make the national establishment efficient, so that she might meet the wants of the people. If the population were to receive spiritual instruction the Legislature must decide what sort it should be, and they must give that decision according to the Established Church of the land. Was it not a fixed law that the sovereign of these realms must be of a certain religion,—a member of the national Church, and those who objected to his argument might as well bring in a bill to say that the sovereign should be of what religion he pleased. The Legislature was bound to provide religious instruction for the people by means of the Established Church, and, therefore, he should support the bill.
Mr. Humesaid, he could not conceive upon what principle her Majesty's Ministers had brought forward this bill, because it was one which called upon the people
1666
to grant money to a church already having 5,000,000 l. of money at its command, which money was inadequately and unequally applied. He would ask, what was the House about to do? It was pressed to vote a sum of money for Church Extension, there being now a sufficient sum in the hands of the Ecclesiastical commissioners for that purpose. He would appeal to the right hon. Baronet—he would ask the Prime Minister of this country, under what pretence he called upon them to vote 10,800 l. for the Church Establishment out of the public funds? There was to be a perpetual annuity of 315 l. in the shape of salary to the clergymen, and 330 l. as a Church-rate. He should unite with his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury in resisting the motion.
The House divided, on the question that the Order of the Day for going into committee be read—Ayes 101; Noes 25: Majority 76.

List of the NOES.

A'Court, Capt.

Greene, T.

Ainsworth P.

Grogan, E.

Alford, Visct.

Hamilton, W. J.

Allix, J. P.

Hampden, R.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Hardinge, rt. hn. SirH.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Hardy, J.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Henley, J. W.

Beresford, Major

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Hinde, J. H.

Boldero, H. G.

Hodgson, F.

Botfield, B.

Hodgson, R.

Brodie, W. B.

Humphery, Ald.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Childers, J. W.

Jermyn, Earl

Clerk, Sir G.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Cockburn, rt. hn. SirG.

Jones, Capt.

Colborne, hn. W.N.R.

Kemble, II.

Collett, W. R.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. SirE.

Colvile, C. R,

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Corry, right hon. H.

Lawson, A.

Darby, G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Denison, J. E.

Lindsay, H. H.

Desart, Earl of

Litton, E.

Dickinson, F. H.

Lockhart, W.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Lopes, Sir R.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Dundas, D.

Mahon, Visct.

Eliot, Lord

Mainwaring, T.

Escott, B.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Ferrand, W. B.

Marsham, Visct.

Fitzroy, Capt.

Martin, C. W.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Masterman, J.

Ffolliott, J.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Fuller, A. E.

Napier, Sir C.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Norreys, Lord

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Palmer, R.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Palmer, G.

Grant, Sir A. C.

Patten, J. W. 3 H

1667

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Stanley, Lord

Peel, J.

Stanton, W. II.

Pigot, Sir R.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Praed, W. T.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Pringle, A.

Taylor, J. A.

Protheroe, E.

Towneley, J.

Pusey, P.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Rashleigh, W.

Waddington, H. S.

Round, C. G.

Wortley, hon J. S.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Young, J.

Sanderson, R.

TELLERS.

Scarlett, hon. R. C.

Baring, H.

Scott, hon. F.

Fremantle, Sir T.

List of the NOES.

Aldam, W.

Mitcalfe, H.

Blake, M. J.

Pechell, Capt.

Bowring, Dr.

Plumridge, Capt.

Brotherton, J.

Rundle, J.

Busfeild, W.

Scholefield, J.

Collins, W.

Strickland, Sir G.

Dashwood, G. H.

Thornely, T.

Duncombe, T.

Wallace, R.

Forster, M.

Wawn, J. T.

Granger, T. C.

Williams, W.

Hindley, C.

Wood, B.

James, W.

TELLERS.

Johnson, Gen.

Hawes, B.

Marsland, H.

Hume, J.

On the question that the Speaker do now leave the Chair,
Mr. Humesaid, that no Member of the Government had condescended to answer the question which had been put—viz., upon what principle was the House called upon to vote away the sum of above 10,000 l., while no provision was to be made for the religious instruction of the Dissenters in the district?
Sir R. Peelconsidered it to be rather inconvenient that, after a full discussion, such a question should be put. However, although it had been answered before, he had no objection to satisfy the hon. Gentleman. Admitting fully that the property belonged to the public, he still thought that the representatives of the people being, as such, the possessors of 25.000 acres of land, upon which was set-tied a population of 11,000, for the instruction of whom only three clergymen; were appointed, considering that they were not congregated in a town, but were spread over a large district, he doubled j whether the money proposed to be expended would not, on the part of the State, be a profitable outlay, even in a temporal view of the matter.
Mr. Wallacedid not think the question had been answered at all. From the statement of the right hon. Baronet, it appeared that no provision was to be made for the religious instruction of the Dissenters, although the money was to be taken from the public funds.
The House again divided—Ayes 101; Noes 13: Majority 88.

List of the NOES.

Blake, M. J.

Plumridge, Capt.

Bowring, Dr.

Scholefield, J.

Brotherton, J.

Wallace, R.

Collins, W.

Wawn, J. T.

Johnson, Gen.

Williams, W.

Mitcalfe, H.

TELLERS.

O'Connell, M. J.

Duncombe, T.

Pechell, Capt.

Hume, J.

House in committee.
The Earl of Lincolnmoved,
"That provision be made out of her Majesty's land revenues for the endowment, repair, and maintenance of certain chapels in her Majesty's Forest of Dean."
Mr. Humesaid, he thought that there were funds arising from the abolition of sinecures in the Church, which might be applied to the increase of the salaries of these clergymen, without having recourse to the public funds. This appeared to him one of the most unprincipled proceedings he had ever seen, though it was not contrary to the principles of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He should take every opportunity of offering opposition to the measure.
Captain Berkeleysaid, that knowing the county of Glocester, and the want of spiritual aid that prevailed there, he was quite ready to support the measure. He was surprised that the hon. Member for Finsbury should be ready to vote 1,000,000 l. sterling in a wild scheme for the relief of the people, and yet would not give 300 l. for the spiritual instruction of the people.
Mr. Brothertonsaid, that the funds required might be got from the surplus which they knew the Ecclesiastical commissioners had in their hands.
Resolution agreed to.
House resumed, and adjourned at a quarter past 12 o'clock.