Commons Sitting of 4 May 1842

MINUTES.
Bills. Public.—1°- Manslaughter. '2° Salmon Fisheries (Scotland).
Reported.—Public Houses; Punishment of Death (Ireland); Victoria Park; Knightsbridge and Kensington Openings.
Private.—1°- Metropolitan Patent Wood Paving Company (No. 2).
Reported.—Great North of England Railway; Bristol Floating Dock; Witt's Estate; Bristol and Gloucester Railway.
3°- and passed:—Kington Roads; Greenock Harbour; Ellesmere and Chester Canal; Northern Union (Newcastle and Darlington Junction) Railway.

NOTTINGHAM ELECTION.
Mr. Hayterreported from the select committee appointed to try and determine the merits of the petition complaining of an undue return for the borough of Nottingham, that Sir John Cam Hobhouse and George G. Larpent, Esq., were duly elected to serve as burgesses in this present Parliament for the said borough.
THETFORD ELECTION.
Mr. Pakingtonreported from the select committee appointed to try and determine the merits of the petition complaining of an undue return for the borough of Thetford, that they had determined, that the Earl of Euston was not duly elected, and ought not to have been returned to serve in Parliament as a burgess for the said borough, and that Sir James Flower was duly elected.

IPSWICH ELECTION.
Mr. Pakingtonmoved, that John Thurston, having in his petition to the House, expressed Contrition for his offence, be discharged from her Majesty's gaol of Newgate.
Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL PETTY SESSIONS.
Mr. G. Bankesmoved the second reading of the Special Petty Sessions Bill. He believed that the principle of the bill would not be contested. He trusted that those hon.

95
Members who had taken the trouble to look into its provisions, would see that it proposed to remedy an evil which was very generally acknowledged as one of the unhappy causes of the increase of crime in this country. The evil he alluded to, was the necessity which magistrates were at present under of sending persons accused of petty offences to the county prisons, to await their trial at the ensuing quarter sessions or at the assizes. Out of this state of the law many evils sprung. In the first place, the accused parties were exposed to the contaminating influence arising from their associating with great criminals than themselves. Minor offenders were often very contrite on being apprehended, and would plead guilty, if the magistrates had the power to dispose summarily of the charges against them. But, as the law now stood, no such power existed. Another evil was the compelling prosecutors and witnesses to travel many miles to the assize town or the quarter sessions, to attend the trial of a prisoner, who perhaps had committed a very petty theft. The loss of time and the expense thus incurred was of serious importance to poor people, who would much rather sustain the first injury. The trouble to those who served on juries also was extremely vexatious. Chief Justice Tindal, at the last assizes held at Aylesbury, in his charge to the grand jury, adverted to this point, and expressed his regret that the magistrates had no option whatever, but were bound however inconsiderable the value of the property might be, to commit the offender. The expense which the present state of the law imposed on the counties was very great. At the summer assizes for the county of Dorset, in 1841, there were sixty criminal causes tried, and each cause, however small or trifling the offence, cost the county upwards of 16 l. These were the evils he proposed to remedy, and the mode by which he sought to do so, was to give to magistrates in petty sessions, summary power to inflict punishment on all offenders who were disposed to plead guilty to the offences charged against them. According to his view, this, so far from working injuriously, would produce great benefit, by very materially diminishing all the evils he had enumerated.
Sir J. Grahamassured the hon. and learned Gentleman that, entertaining as he did, great respect for his legal knowledge and experience, he was disposed to
96
view this measure with a strong prejudice in its favour, yet he was bound to state that the best consideration he had been able to give the subject, had led him to the conclusion that it was his duty on principle to oppose it. He was one of those who were most anxious to sustain the jurisdiction of the magistracy in sessions assembled. He thought that all the advantages of the present system would be lost under the proposed measure. The authority to be given to the two magistrates in petty sessions was not to depend upon the nature of the crime committed, but entirely upon the accident of the party accused pleading guilty. The tendency of the measure was to dispense with trial by jury; the effect of it would be, if adopted, that a large number of offences would be disposed of in petty sessions, in the absence of barristers and of legal advisers, and of all those other checks which now made the administration of justice in this country satisfactory to the people. With respect to the saving of expense, he thought, that where the county funds were administered under the revision of a good bench of magistrates, and the taxation of costs was performed by an intelligent clerk of the peace, the chances were, that the expenses would not be greater by prisoners being tried before the sessions, than if they were summarily disposed of in petty sessions, which would want ail those checks on the expenditure of the public money. For these reasons he felt bound to oppose the second reading of the bill.
Mr. Tatton Egertonwas pleased to hear what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet. That some measure was necessary to diminish the expenses attending prosecutions must be admitted, but that measure ought to be brought forward on the authority of the Government. He disapproved of giving a summary power over a great variety of offences that would be referred to magistrates by this measure. It would tend to render the law of punishment very uncertain. At present, the whole bench of magistrates sat together in quarter sessions, and then a uniformity in the adjudication of punishment was preserved, but if these petty sessions were to be scattered all over the country, different opinions would be entertained as to the nature of offences, and different punishments would be awarded for the same offence.
Mr. Bankes,in reply, said, that he agreed with the hon. and gallant Member, that such a measure as this should be taken up by Government, and it was not till he had understood from the right hon. Baronet, that there was no present intention to bring forward this matter, that he had taken upon himself the introduction of this bill. After what had passed, he should not trouble the House to divide,
Motion negatived.
Bill lost.

CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND).
On the motion that the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Church Patronage (Scotland) Bill be read,
Sir James Grahamsaid, the House would bear in mind, that when his hon. Friend, the Member for Argyleshire (Mr. Campbell), moved for leave to bring in the bill which now stood for a second reading, he stated, on the part of her Majesty's Government, the deep pain which was felt by her Majesty's Ministers on account of the present divisions which unhappily distracted the Church of Scotland. It would be needless for him to repeat what he then stated as to the deep sense entertained by her Majesty's Government of the vast usefulness of that national establishment, and the regret which they sincerely felt, that every effort which had yet been made to arrest the progress of those divisions, had proved ineffectual. It had been his duty on the former occasion to state to the House on the part of her Majesty's Government, that at that moment they had no reason to form any expectation, that any legislative measure, consistent with what appeared to them to be sound principles, would receive so much acceptance in Scotland as to afford them a fair prospect of settling the great question now at issue. That question had not been overlooked by her Majesty's present advisers, before they were called to the council of their Sovereign, and efforts were made by one of the principal Members of the present Administration (the Earl of Aberdeen), by the introduction of a measure to the other House of Parliament, to contribute to the settlement of this question. That measure was not supported by her Majesty's late Ministers; and there appearing to be no such prospect of success as to justify his noble Friend in pushing forward the further progress of his measure, and his noble
98
Friend not feeling the responsibility to rest exclusively with himself, he thought it more prudent at that time to withdraw the bill he had introduced. Her Majesty's present servants almost immediately after their accession to office, directed their attention to this subject as one of paramount importance. They used every endeavour consistently with their sense of duty, to ascertain whether, upon a principle which they could support, a legislative measure would be so countenanced by the least violent portions of the contending parties in Scotland, as would justify them in the expectation, that what they were disposed to bring forward as a measure of concord and peace, would be so received in that country to which that legislation was to apply. He was bound to say, that the result of what took place at that time, did not justify them in entertaining any such hope. So matters stood until the hon. Member for Argyleshire moved for leave to bring in the bill now before the House. He had, however, now to state, that since that period, from various quarters in Scotland, entitled to the highest respect, and from parties acting with what he might term the popular party in the Church of Scotland, information had reached her Majesty's Government which led them to believe, that an opportunity of settling this great question was now afforded, from the temper of the parties to which he had referred, such as had not at any former period presented itself, and of which opportunity her Majesty's Ministers were most anxious to avail themselves. In consequence of these communications he had to state to his hon. Friend and to the House, that her Majesty's Government had resumed the discussion of the question with the parties principally interested in it; and without entertaining too sanguine an expectation, or wishing to raise on the part of the House any such expectation, he felt justified in saying that he did not despair that the result of these communications might lead to a favourable issue. Of this, at all events, he was sure, that if this matter was to be adjusted by a measure of harmony and peace, that measure must be introduced on the responsibility of the executive Government. The principles upon which her Majesty's Government were alone disposed to settle this question, he could state very briefly. They were first to defend the civil right of the patron,

99
with respect to his right of presentation; secondly, to defend and to assure the indisputable right of the parishioners who were heritors to make objections to that presentation; and, thirdly, to maintain what he believed to be the right and authority of the spiritual courts to decide on those objections. These were the great principles on which her Majesty's Ministers were disposed to rest the settlement of this question; and he had every reason to believe that upon these principles a settlement might be attained. He was quite sure that his hon. Friend was desirous of effecting a settlement on terms which should be satisfactory to the great body of the people, and that he would be most anxious not to seek any settlement which might thwart such an arrangement, and he had to tell his hon. Friend that it was his deliberate conviction, that pressing his bill at this juncture would be very prejudicial to any arrangement of that kind. He did not ask his hon. Friend for any indefinite postponement of his bill, but he did ask him under the circumstances, and with reference to the peace of the people of Scotland, and with reference to the hope of adjusting this great question, and with reference also to the divisions in that church to which his hon. Friend was so much attached, and which divisions were a shock to the peace, and materially injurious to the prosperity and welfare of the people whom he represented;—on these grounds he did ask his hon. Friend to postpone the Order of the Day for five or six weeks. He believed that if it should be possible to arrive at an arrangement which should appear so satisfactory to her Majesty's Government, as to justify them in bringing forward any measure upon the subject, the time he had mentioned would give them an opportunity to do so, but if, unhappily, they should fail in their endeavour, then he would state frankly to his hon. Friend, that it would be quite open to him to proceed with his measure.
Mr. Campbellneed hardly state to the House that if it had not been for what had been just stated on the part of the Government, he should not have thought of postponing his bill. But when the Government told him that they now had a measure to propose, he thought he should best consult the interest of the church of Scotland in giving way till he saw what that measure was. He would not withdraw his measure, but simply post-
100
pone it. He reserved to himself the right of discussing that measure, and if it were a measure which the Church of Scotland ought not to accept he would oppose it. With that understanding he had no hesitation in postponing the second reading of the bill for six weeks.
Mr. Fox Maulewould make a few observations on what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman and the lion. Gentleman who had introduced this bill, and who had made it the property of the House. He was never more surprised in his life at any course taken than at that taken by the hon. Gentleman who introduced this measure, and more especially after the explanation which had been given by the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the nature of the measure which Government had at last made up their minds to introduce. For as nearly as he could gather from the words of the right hon. Baronet, the measure which the Government made up their minds to introduce, was nothing more or less than the measure of Lord Aberdeen, upon which the opinion of the people and of the church of Scotland had been unequivocally expressed. What was the course which the Government had taken in reference to this question during the present Session? When he asked the right hon. Gentleman at the head of her Majesty's Government, whether it were his intention to bring forward any measure upon the subject, the right hon. Gentleman gave an answer which left it open to him to pursue any course he pleased. But when his hon. Friend the Member for Elgin (Sir A. L. Hay) submitted his proposal which brought the whole question of the present state of the church of Scotland before the House, the Government stated distinctly that they were not prepared to bring in any measure themselves. They did more than that; for in answer to a charge made against them for not introducing a measure, they turned round and asked him and the hon. Gentleman who had introduced this bill, why they did not bring forward a measure of their own, and take the opinion of the House on it. Now that a measure had been brought before the House, not calculated entirely to satisfy the people of Scotland, but affording a basis which might be amended in committee, the Government comes forward to ask the hon. Member for Argyleshire to postpone it for six weeks, because, forsooth, Government had resolved to introduce a bill which, as far as could be understood

101
from what the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had said, was exactly that which had been already repudiated by the people of Scotland in a former Session. He could tell the right hon. Baronet most positively that the majority of the church of Scotland, as represented by the non-intrusion committee, will never give their sanction to any such measure: the people of Scotland would never give their assent to it, and if the Ministers imagined that they could settle the question on any such basis, they would arrive at a most precipitate conclusion in its worst form for the final arrangement of the great subject. He had come down to the House assured, both privately and publicly, that it was intended that the measure should go through its second reading this night: the hon. Member for Argyleshire had even sent a circular that very morning, inviting him to be in his place on this occasion; but since then some negociation had been carried on; and the consequence was that the people of Scotland were to be deprived of the opportunity of seeing how the House of Commons would deal with the principle of a measure to which all were looking with the most intense anxiety. Having made these remarks on the question regarding the Order of the Day, he should reserve to himself the right of saying more, if he thought fit, on the question for the postponement of the second reading of the bill.
The Order of the Day read.
Mr. Campbellmoved that the bill be read a second time on this day six weeks.
Mr. F. Maulewas quite aware that he was taking an unusual course when he moved that, without further delay, the bill be now read a second time, but he apprehended that the circumstances of the case justified such a proceeding. The first of those circumstances was the deep anxiety with which not only the church of Scotland, but the whole people of Scotland, were looking forward to the decision of the House of Commons on the principle of the measure. This was the earliest occasion on which that principle had been fairly brought under consideration. He gave the hon. Member for Argyleshire full credit for the best intentions, but unfortunately those intentions had been overruled and frustrated. It was high time that the principle of the measure should be adopted or rejected, and everybody was aware that the church courts of Scotland right hon. Gentleman for the credit the were about to assemble; it would be much right hon. Gentleman had given him for more expedient, and even fair, that those
102
courts should meet after the principle had been either recognised or repudiated by the House, than that they should only be informed that as far as the principle was concerned nothing had been done by the House of Commons. The course taken by ministers was this—first, they induced the hon. Member to suspend his bill for five or six weeks; and next, they reserved to themselves the right, without making any absolute promise, of introducing another measure if they thought fit, and of negociating upon other terms for the settlement of this important question. The right hon. Baronet had said that this was one of the earliest topics to which the present Government had directed its attention on coming into office. He had no doubt that it was anxious to settle the question, but only on a basis to which the church and the people of Scotland would never submit. When the subject was formerly before the House, an hon. Baronet, not now a Member, had introduced a clause admitting the principle of non-intrusion in its mildest possible form—a form which had almost entrapped the right hon. Baronet into acquiescence. Afterwards the principle was discovered, and then the question was not to be settled on any such terms. Unless, then, the right hon. Baronet had seen reason to retract his opinion —unless he had obtained some better information, those would but deceive themselves who fancied that an acceptable or satisfactory measure would be produced at the end of six weeks, six months, or even six years. The hon. Member for Argyleshire might depend upon it that at the end of the delay now sought nothing would be done, while the difficulties would have been increased by the unnecessary suspense. He would not go into the main question at the present moment, but he intended to take a division upon the proposed postponement, that the people of Scotland might see who were the real friends of the church, and who wished to defeat their hopes by the not very novel expedient of delay. He moved that the bill be now read a second time.
Mr. Plumptrewas in favour of postponement, in order to give Ministers time to prepare their measure.
Mr. Campbellsaid that the course taken by the right hon. Member for Perth was most unusual. Though he must thank the good intentions, he must deny that his

103
better judgment had been overruled by his friends. At all events such a charge came ill from the right hon. Gentleman who had done nothing for the settlement of the question while in office, and was as little ready to do anything now. The right hon. Gentleman now complained of delay, but had he complained of it when the Administration, of which he had been a Member, had refused to do anything? All that was now asked was a delay for six weeks. [Mr. F. Maule: The bill is virtually withdrawn.] He denied that it was withdrawn; it was only deferred. The right hon. Member had taken the liberty of supposing that the measure of Government would only be a re-production of Lord Aberdeen's bill. What right had he to assume any such thing? It was a mere act of justice to wait until the House should have seen what course the Government would take.
Mr. F. Maulewas ready to withdraw his motion for the second reading of the bill, if the right hon. Baronet would only say, that the projected measure was anything more than a renewal of Lord Aberdeen's bill.
Mr. Cochranehad not come down to the House expecting that a question of so much moment would be discussed. From ell that had passed, it was fair to infer that the intended measure would not go further than Lord Aberdeen's bill, and to postpone the present motion would hold out fallacious hopes to the people of Scotland. He should therefore vote for the second reading now.
Mr. P. Stewartadverted to the awkward position in which the House was placed by the proposal to adjourn the question for six weeks. Up to the present moment, he had believed that the hon. Member for Argyleshire was a sincere friend to the church of Scotland; but he had shown a very different spirit, by giving his consent to the withdrawal of the bill upon the Table. [Mr. Campbell: It is not withdrawn — only postponed.] He contended that that was a distinction without a difference. Postponing the bill for six weeks amounted in fact to a withdrawal of the measure. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was to meet, as the hon. Member, a good Presbyterian, must know, on the 18th instant, and by the intended delay, in what perplexing and insulting ignorance of the intentions of the House would the people of
104
Scotland be left, by the course now recommended! Neither did the hon. Member know what plan was to be produced by Government, excepting that the right hon. Baronet had led the House to believe that it would be nothing better than that which the church and people of Scotland had already repudiated. The right hon. Baronet had said that he would preserve the civil right of patronage: so did the bill upon the Table. The right hon. Gentleman had further said that he would give the people a right of objection: so did the bill upon the Table. Then came that part of the measure against which the General Assembly had voted by an overwhelming majority—that the presbytery should have the power of weighing the value of the objections, and of deciding judicially accordingly. That to all intents and purposes was Lord Aberdeen's proposal. The speech of the right hon. Baronet was enough of itself to destroy the hopes of every good Presbyterian, and it would be found after the next meeting of the General Assembly, how much had been this night done to prevent the final and amicable settlement of the pending dispute. Scotland had a right to complain of the mode in which a subject of vital interest to her was treated. The friends of the measure had come down to the House prepared to support it. The great principle was involved in it, and it was so reasonable that no Government in its senses would dare to refuse its assent to it. Up to last night the hon. Member for Argyleshire had nailed his colours to the mast, and now at the eleventh hour he was deluded into a consent that the subject should be deferred for six weeks. He could not have a moment's hesitation in dividing with his right hon. Friend; it would, of course, amount to no decision upon the main question, but it would afford the means of solemnly protesting against the delay required by the right hon. Baronet. Let the consequences be what they might, the responsibility must rest upon those who had disappointed the reasonable hopes of the people of Scotland.
Mr. Campbellsaid, that his colours were nailed to the mast, and not only last night but until the middle of this day, when he was requested, on the grounds stated, to consent to the delay he had been determined to bring on the measure to-day.
Mr. Wallaceobserved that, as far as he

105
could understand the wishes of the people of Scotland, they were that this bill should be read a second time without delay. It did not go far enough, but his hope was to amend it in committee, and what the people of Scotland wanted was a law to enable them to elect their own parsons— nothing in the shape of veto, but the plain power of electing their own parsons. That was the end at which he would aim, and that end, without faltering or tergiversation, he would do his best to attain. No half-measure would do, but he was anxious that the measure before the House should go through the proposed stage, in order that hereafter it might be rendered more acceptable.
Mr. Ellice,junior, believed the motives of the hon. Member for Argyleshire to be sincere, but he could not concur with him that anything was likely to be gained by the delay required. He did not approve of the details of the bill, but he thought that it ought to be read a second time, in order that the details might be improved.
Sir. R. Peelsaid, that within his experience the almost invariable course had been to allow a Member who undertook legislation upon any particular subject, to fix his own day and manage his own bill. In this case, the promoter of the measure was a private individual, unconnected with any public department, and influenced solely by a desire to promote the permanent interests of the church of Scotland. He scarcely recollected an instance in which, under such circumstances, a Member was not allowed, if he thought fit, to defer the stage of his bill. Above all, he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. F. Maule) should be so anxious to hasten on the discussion. That right hon. Gentleman was himself a Scotchman, and had been three years in an office which might be said to be connected with the Church of Scotland; yet during those three years he had made no attempt at legislation. He had then shown no such hasty anxiety to have the question settled. He had remained perfectly tranquil at his post, and had maintained a most acceptable and judicious silence. Now, however, because a delay of only six weeks was required, the right hon. Gentleman was at once up in arms, and insisted that the great question was most injuriously and dangerously deferred. The measure on a sudden became
106
I an admirable scheme for the adjustment of the dispute, and the hon. Member for Renfrewshire (Mr. P. Stewart) was against {the postponement of it for a single day. Why, had not the hon. Member brought forward a measure himself? [Mr. P. Stewart: One was introduced into the House I of Lords.] But the hon. Member might! himself have originated a bill. [Mr. P. Stewart: I was not then in Parliament.] Certain it was that the measure brought into the House of Lords did not meet with the support of the late Government. However, he was far from wishing to introduce anything like party asperity into a question of this serious and important kind, connected as it was with religion, and so highly interesting to many meritorious and! conscientious persons. His right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) had told the simple truth; when out of office an attempt had been made to effect a settlement of the important matter in difference; that attempt was resisted, no doubt from the best motives, and from a firm belief that the proposed adjustment would not be satisfactory. It was, therefore, abandoned; but, on the accession of the present Ministers to office, one of the first points to which they addressed themselves was that now before the House. They had no wish but to terminate and reconcile the unfortunate differences which were diminishing the influence of the clergy in Scotland; but they feared that a fruitless and ineffectual endeavour would only aggravate the evil, and on that ground the intention was abandoned. The single motive for reviving it was this—that Ministers had received from Scotland, and from persons on both sides of the question, an intimation that if Government would now undertake the settlement of the question there was at least a chance of success. Upon these voluntary communications Ministers had acted, they had not been menaced nor terrified into any proceeding, but they had felt it consistent with their duty to renew the attempt. They were willing to take any steps rather than close the door against a satisfactory arrangement, and they only asked for a reasonable delay to enable them to consider of their course, and prepare their measures. They did not ask the hon. Member for Argyleshire to make any concession, but merely appealed to him, after the declaration made by Government in the House of Commons, whether it would not best pro-

107
mote his own views to grant the time required. Ministers, he assured the House, had no motive but to restore and promote peace and harmony, to maintain the best interests of religion, and to do nothing that would warrant or sanction the novel and unparalleled course now attempted to be taken. The hon. Member for Argyleshire had only undertaken the task of legislation from his deep anxiety for the welfare of the Church of Scotland, and he conscientiously believed that that welfare would be best promoted by giving way upon the present occasion, and consenting to a delay of six weeks. Within that period Ministers would inform the House, and the hon. Member, whether they saw a chance that by interfering they should be able to accomplish their wishes. He had not said thus much without feeling the deepest interest respecting the Church Establishment of Scotland, and the at most regret at the condition in which it was at present placed; nor without being convinced that one of the proudest acts of any public man would be the settlement of the question upon equitable principles —principles which would preserve the just rights of the people, and maintain also the just rights of the Church. If there were any hope that these contests, in which civil and religious rights were confounded, and civil and religious jurisdictions confused, would be terminated, surely it was not too much to ask that a measure, which even the opposite side did not approve, should be delayed for so short a period. He hoped that the House would adopt no precipitate decision, and that while Government was attempting, with the aid of moderate men on both sides, to effect an amicable settlement, nothing would be done which might have the effect of deferring, if not of defeating, so happy a consummation.
Mr. Rutherfurdobjected, under the circumstances, to the postponement of the discussion on this bill, and he believed that a postponement, instead of advancing a settlement of the question, would greatly embarrass and encumber it. This was not the first time that legislation had been proposed, and he could not forget that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had, upon a former occasion, said, that he never would consent to a settlement, unless upon the principle of a bill introduced into the other House by Lord Aberdeen. If the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had
108
expressed any hope that the results of the negotiations would be satisfactory, he would not have opposed the postponement of the bill: but they knew who were the organs in this matter of the clergy of Scotland, and of the members of the Church of Scotland; and he believed that the bill of Lord Aberdeen never would settle the question. If they legislated on the principle of that bill they would make a schism in the church of Scotland which would shake the establishment to the foundation. The bill of the hon. Member for Argyle went beyond the bill of Lord Aberdeen, but it did not go far enough, and by any middle measure he despaired of effecting any good. They were asked to postpone this bill when the General Assembly was about to meet in three weeks, and it was a matter of immense importance that they should know, and that the people of Scotland should know, whether the Parliament of this country would give its sanction to the principle of the particular measure proposed. It was said that the opposition to the postponement was against the ordinary usage of the House; but no one had so little right to complain of his right hon. Friend (Mr. F. Maule) as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell, for he considered the hon. Member pledged, as much as any one could be pledged by conversation, to persevere in the discussion of his measure. After hearing the statement of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), that he was not prepared to go one step beyond the bill of Lord Aberdeen, having heard when the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) had that night stated, and not expecting that any measure would go beyond that of the hon. Member for Argyle, he was not prepared to consent to the present postponement.
Mr. Hume,having lately visited Scotland, knew the desire to have this question brought to a settlement; yet, as he could not recollect a single instance in which a postponement had been refused by the House for the purpose of giving time to the Government to introduce a bill, he would not now press for the second reading.
Captain Wemyssintended to follow the course of the hon. Member for Montrose. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that this was a question which ought to be settled by the Government, and not by those

109
who were irresponsible. He could not expect, however, that the Government bill would be satisfactory to the people of Scotland. He had observed the mode in which the right hon. Baronet had exercised the church patronage in Scotland since he had been in office; and he did not think that the people of Scotland could expect much from the Government, if they took the presentation to Kettle and other parishes as an example.
The House divided on the question that the word now be inserted:—Ayes 48; Noes 131;—Majority 83.

List of the AYES.

Acheson, Visct.

Muntz, G. F.

Bannerman, A.

Murray, A.

Barnard, E. G.

O'Connell, M. J.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Oswald, J.

Brotherton, J.

Pechell, Capt.

Cobden, R.

Philips, M.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Powell, C.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Rawdon, Col.

Craig, W. G.

Ricardo, J. L.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Rundle, J.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Rutherfurd, A.

Duff, J.

Scholefield, J.

Duncan, G.

Somers, J. P.

Ellis, E.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Evans, W.

Stuart, Lord J.

Ferguson, Col.

Tancred, H. W.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Thornely, T.

Gore, hon. R.

Traill, G.

Hastie, A.

Vivian, hon. Capt.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Wallace, R.

Hill, Lord M.

Wawn, J. T.

Howard, hon, E.G.G.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Marjoribanks, S.

TELLEKS.

Morris, D.

Maule, hon. F.

Morrison, J.

Stewart, P. M.

List of the NOES.

Acton, Col.

Buller, C.

Allix, J. P.

Carnegie, hon. Capt.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Chelsea, Visct.

Arkwright, G.

Clayton, R. R.

Astell, W.

Clerk, Sir G.

Bailey, J.

Conolly, Col.

Baillie, H. J.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Baird,W.

Cripps, W.

Bankes, G.

Darby, G.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Denison, E. B.

Baring, H. B.

Douglas, Sir H.

Beckett, W.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Blackburne, J. I.

Drummond, H. H.

Boldero, H. G.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Borthwick, P.

Du Pre, C. G.

Botfield, B.

Egerton, W. T.

Bramston, T. W.

Eliot, Lord

Broadwood, H.

Emlyn, Visct.

Bruce, Lord E.

Escott, B.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Buckley, E.

Feilden, W.

110

Ferrand, W. B.

March, Earl of

Fitzroy, hon.H.

Master, T. W. C.

Flower, Sir J.

Masterman, J.

Ffolliott, J.

Milnes, R. M.

Forbes, W.

Mundy, E. M.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Neville, R.

Fuller, A. E.

Newry, Visct.

Gladstone,rt.hn.W.E,

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Gordon, hn. Capt.

O'Brien, A. S.

Gordon, Lord F.

Packe, C. W.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Pakington, J. S.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Patten, J. W.

Granby, Marquess of

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Greenall, P.

Peel, J.

Greene, T.

Pollington, Visct.

Grogan, E.

Pringle, A.

Halford, H.

Richards, R,

Hamilton, J. H.

Round, C. G.

Hamilton, W. J.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Sanderson, It.

Harcourt, G. G.

Scarlett, hon. R. C.

Hardy, J.

Scott, hon. F.

Hayes, Sir E.

Sheppard, T.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Shirley, E. P.

Herbert, hon. S.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hodgson, F.

Stanley, Lord

Hodgson, It.

Stanley, E.

Hume, J.

Sutton, hon. H M.

Jackson, J. D.

Tennent,J. E.

Johnson, W. G.

Thornhill, G.

Johnston, A.

Tollemache, J.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Trotter, J.

Johnstone, H.

Turner, E,

Jones, Capt.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Kelburne, Visct.

Verner, Col.

Knatchbull, rt. hon.

Vernon, G. H.

Sir E.

Wall, C B.

Knight, F. W.

Wemyss, Capt.

Lindsay, H. H.

Wodehouse, E.

Lockhart, W.

Wortley, hn. J. S.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Young, J.

Lyall, G.

Young, Sir W.

Mackenzie, T.

Mackenzie, W. F.

TELLERS.

M'Geachy, F. A.

Campbell, A.

Manners, Lord J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Bill to be read a second time on Wednesday, June 15th.

PUBLIC HOUSES.
Captain Rousmoved the re-committal of the Public Houses Bill pro formâ, and said that the sense of the House could be taken upon it on its third reading.
Captain Pechellsaid, that this bill was before the House for the last six weeks, and various provisions had been introduced into it which were contrary to the title of the bill. He wished to know what the hon. and gallant Captain proposed to do by this motion of a re-committal pro formâ? He did not like these pro formâ motions. He wished to know whether

111
the hon. and gallant Captain intended to persist in bringing forward that clause which related to steam-vessels upon the river Thames? He hoped that that clause would be struck out, but if it should be | otherwise, he would give it every opposition.
Captain Roussaid, with respect to the question, of the hon. and gallant Member he could only say sufficient for the day was the evil thereof. On the third reading, the matter could be fully discussed.
Bill went through committee pro formâ, and was ordered to be printed.

PAYMENT OF WAGES COMMITTEE.
On the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the nomination of the committee respecting the payment of wages,
Mr. C Bullersaid, the committee nominated on this subject by the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Fer-rand) was composed almost entirely of gentlemen who embraced the same views as the hon. Member. The hon. Member (Mr. Ferrand) had dealt very fairly in selecting almost an equal number of gentlemen from each side of the House: but he had contrived to confine his choice almost entirely to gentlemen who supported his opinions on this question. He thought that a committee so constituted was not very likely to conduct an inquiry with fairness towards those whose conduct was impugned. His opinion was, that as the Government had acceded to the appointment of this committee, they ought to consider themselves in some measure responsible for the manner of forming it. The inquiry to be conducted by this committee was of a most important nature, and yet not one gentleman connected with the Government was nominated on it to protect the interests of the public. This was not the fault of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, but of the Government, whose duty it was, if they acceded to the inquiry, to see that some gentlemen connected with them was placed on the committee. He thought great mischief might result from the careless appointment of a committee of this nature. Such committees were generally attended only by persons who supported particular views, and consequently a mass ef ex parte evidence, frequently of a most objectionable character, was collected. He did not intend to propose any alteration in
112
the constitution of the committee, for he thought that was the duty of the Government. The object of the inquiry seemed to be to ascertain the extent to which a particular law had been violated. [Sir J. Graham: The inquiry is as to the operation of the law.] It seemed to him the object of the inquiry was to ascertain whether there had not been a systematic violation of the law. He repeated that he considered it the duty of the Government to see that a committee appointed for such a purpose was fairly and impartially constituted.
Sir J. Grahamhad stated last night, that he did not entertain any very sanguine expectations that a beneficial result would be attained by the appointment of this committee. It was notorious that, in many cases, the law had been violated; but he considered this was rather a subject for legislation than for inquiry, and he thought no legislative interference could effectually suppress the practice of which the hon. Member for Knaresborough complained. He had great doubts whether the truck system—the partial payment of wages in goods—was not frequently advantageous to the working classes. He did not, on the part of Government, desire such an inquiry as that proposed by the hon. Member for Knaresborough; he did not anticipate any injurious consequences from such an investigation, but he considered it would lead to no satisfactory result. He would propose, that one of the Under-Secretaries of State for the Home Department should be placed on the committee, in addition to the Gentlemen already nominated; and that in the place of the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. G. Wood) the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Cobden) should be added.
Mr. Muntzsaid, an application had been made to him to serve on this committee, and he had declined. He was convinced that no satisfactory result would be obtained by the inquiry. It was undoubtedly true that the law on this subject was now evaded; but that would still be the case, whatever laws might be made.
Mr. R. Yorkeexpressed his concurrence in the sentiments of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz).
Mr. C. Bullersaid, the proposal of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) would not remove his objections to the motion.
Mr. Hardythought that no manufacturer, nor any person employing a large number of workmen, should be placed on a committee of this nature. He considered that if the committee was composed in whole or in part of manufacturers, great dissatisfaction would be occasioned among the working classes.
Dr. Bowringsaid, the stringency of the law on this subject frequently led to its evasion. He thought the establishment of a shop in connexion with extensive manufactories was frequently beneficial to the workpeople, and was so regarded by them.
Mr. Ferrandsaid, hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House had, in several cases, violated the engagements he understood them to have made when he first brought forward this question. He had applied to the hon. Member for Fins-bury, and the hon. Member for Paisley, requesting them to serve on this committee, and they had declined to do so. It was his wish to constitute the committee as impartially as possible. He had mentioned to several hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House that it was his intention to propose that the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Lord Ashley) should preside over the committee; for nothing would induce him to take that office, lest he should be accused of partiality. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Cobden) had made a personal attack out of the House upon a gentleman who had favoured him with information on this subject; and that gentleman had, in consequence, declined to furnish him with further information. The Anti-Corn-law League, and the newspapers in that interest, had given publicity to the name of the gentleman to whom he referred; and he was prevented from receiving the further assistance of that gentleman in obtaining evidence on this subject. He should not be behaving handsomely to those who had consented to act on this committee if he had not consented to have the names of those withdrawn who objected to act on it.
Mr. Brothertonhad the authority of the hon. Member for Kendal for stating that he had not been consulted as to whether he would allow his name to be placed on the committee, and that he certainly should not act upon it.
Mr. Ferrandsaid, he had given the usual notice that Sir B. Hall should be substituted for Mr. Wood.
Mr. Cobdendenied that he had been guilty of any breach of confidence in communicating the name of the writer of the letter read by Mr. Ferrand in the House, and afterwards communicated to him by Mr. Ferrand.
Question put, that Mr. Ferrand be one of the committee.
Mr. Borthwicksaid, if any of the names were objected to, and the House came to a division, it was quite clear, from the attendance in the House, what must be the result. He moved that the debate be adjourned.
Debate adjourned.
House adjourned.