Commons Sitting of 27 February 1852

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—Sir Brook William Bridges, Baronet, for Kent (Eastern Division).
NEW WRITS.—For Buckingham County, v. Right Hon. Benjamin Disraeli, Chancellor and Under Treasurer of the Exchequer; for Midhurst, v. Right Hon. Spencer Horatio Walpole, Secretary of State; for Droitwich, v. Right Hon. Sir John Somerset Pakington, Baronet, Secretary of State; for Stamford, v. Right Hon. John Charles Herries, President of the Board of Control; for Oxford County, v. Right Hon. Joseph Warner Henley, President of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Plantations; for Essex (Northern Division), v. Right Hon. William Beresford, Secretary at War; for Abingdon, v. Sir Frederick Thesiger, Attorney General; for Colchester, v. Lord John Manners, First Commissioner of Works and Public Buildings; for Portarlington, v. Francis Plunkett Dunne, Esquire, Clerk of the Ordnance; for Kildare, v. Lord Naas, Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; for Dublin University, v. Joseph Napier, Esquire, Attorney General for Ireland; for Enniskillen, v. James Whiteside, Esquire, Solicitor General for Ireland; for Londonderry County, v. Thomas Bateson, Esquire, Commissioner of the Treasury; for Buckingham Borough, v. Marquess of Chandos, Commissioner of the Treasury; for Chichester, v. Lord Henry Charles George Gordon Lennox, Commissioner of the Treasury; for Lincoln County (Southern Division), v. Right Hon. Sir John Trollope, Baronet, Commissioner for Administering the Laws for the Relief of the Poor; for Lincoln County (Northern Division), v. Right Hon. Robert Adam Christopher, Chiltern Hundreds; for Dorset, v. Right Hon. George Bankes, Judge Advocate General; for York County (East Riding), v. Hon. Arthur Duncombe, Commissioner of the Admiralty; for Tyrone, v. Lord Claud Hamilton, Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household; for Wenlock, v. Hon. George Cecil Weld Forester, Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household; for Cork County, v. Maurice Power, Esquire, Governor of St. Lucie.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Burghs (Scotland).
2° Personal Estates of Intestates.
3° Commons Inclosure.

BOROUGH OF HARWICH.
MR. BRAMSTONsaid, he rose to move that a new writ be issued for the borough of Harwich, that seat having been declared vacant by a decision of a Committee of the House. He was aware that the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans) had given notice of his intention to move that no new writ be issued for the borough in question without due notice having been previously given. He had heard that the hon. and gallant Member did not intend to persist in his Motion. If this report were correct, he (Mr. Bram-
916
ston would have the less difficulty in proposing the present Motion; but he had not the least desire to take the House by surprise, and if it should be the general feeling that the Motion was premature, he would have no objection to postpone it for a fortnight.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Harwich, in the room of Robert Wigram Crawford, esquire, whose Election has been determined to be void."
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, that the hon. Member (Mr. Bramston) was in error in supposing that it was his (Sir De L. Evans') intention to withdraw the Motion of which he had given notice. He had no such intention. He believed the borough in question to be one of the most corrupt, if not the most corrupt, in the kingdom, and he did not think that a, new writ should be issued for the borough without the most deliberate consideration. However, he had no desire to take any course that might be considered as throwing obstacles in the way of the new Government, which would be in opposition to the general feeling of the House; and he would be guided altogether by the amount of support he might receive. It was his own opinion, and he was happy to think that it was an opinion in which many hon. Gentlemen around him were disposed to concur, that it was desirable that such an investigation should be instituted into the abuses and malpractices which had so long prevailed in Harwich as would effectually put an end to them. There was a very strong feeling on his side of the House upon the subject of that borough; and this being the case, however desirous he might be to avoid raising any obstructions in the way of the recently appointed Government, he was compelled to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for South Essex. He (Sir De L. Evans) had given notice that he would, on an early day, call attention to the borough of Harwich, in the hope that an inquiry on the subject would illustrate the very objectionable practices resorted to at elections there, and in other boroughs. He had hoped to have been able to have made such an exposure of evil practices as would have induced the noble Lord, recently at the head of the Government, to introduce into his new Reform Bill some provision which might have the effect of removing one of the greatest stains upon our repre-

917
sentative system. He was grieved to be obliged to say that there were many corrupt boroughs in England, but there were strong grounds for believing that Harwich was the most corrupt of all. It was a decaying town—falling off in wealth, and wasting away in population; and there was; this remarkable peculiarity about it, that the number of voters increased in proportion with the poverty and progressive ruin of the town. This fact alone was sufficient to awaken suspicion and justify inquiry. It was his own opinion that so universal and so deep-rooted were corruption and bribery in Harwich, that there was but one method of putting an end to such practices, and that was by disfranchising the borough altogether. They might depend upon it there was no other mode of abating the nuisance. There was scarcely such a thing known as an election in Harwich which was not followed by an inquiry before a Committee of that House; but the worst of it was that when the Committee had once seated or unseated the Member petitioned against, there was an end to the matter, and the House did not care to institute any further investigation into the prevalence of corrupt practices in the borough. He looked on the present Motion as ill-timed and unnecessary, and would more as an Amendment that the writ be suspended for six months.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE, in seconding the Amendment, said, that regard being had to the changed circumstances of public affairs, he was sure that the House would give credit to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury (Mr. Mackenzie), who had just moved for certain writs, for declining to move a new writ for the borough of Harwich. Although it might not be known to many Members on the Ministerial side of the House, it was not the less notorious out of doors, that the present Solicitor General (Sir F. Kelly) intended to present himself before the immaculate electors of that borough; and he held in his hand an address to that right hon. Gentleman from certain of the electors of that borough, inviting him to come down to that purest and most estimable of constituencies. He therefore was not surprised that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury should not have moved for a new writ for that unhappy place; but he certainly was not a little amazed that the hon. Member for South Essex (Mr. Bramston), who knew so well what Harwich was, should
918
have done so. That hon. Gentleman could not be ignorant of the state of Harwich, for he was one of the most prominent Members of the Committee appointed in 1841 to inquire into the affairs of that depraved and degraded borough. Many inquiries had, from time to time, been instituted respecting the electors of Harwich, but he (Mr. B. Osborne) would not go further back than to the Commission of 1842. The Commission appointed in that year had presented a Report which was eminently worthy of the attention of the House. They stated that three petitions had been presented against the return of Mr. J. Attwood and Mr. Beresford on the ground of bribery and corruption—that arrangements had been entered into by the agents of those gentlemen, which had been carried into operation by their principals, to the effect that Major Beresford should retire within a month, by accepting the Chiltern Hundreds—that Sir Denis Le Marchant should be allowed to retain his seat—and that Mr. J. Attwood should guarantee the fulfilment of those stipulations by the payment of 2,500 l. The Commission, moreover, had had it in evidence from Mr. J. Attwood himself, that he had paid 2,000 l., and they also discovered that one of his agents had been so obliging as to pay 500 l. more. The Report then went on to state that the election of Messrs. Attwood and Beresford had cost 6,300 l.—that thirty-three voters had received for their votes sums varying from 50 l. to 100 l. a piece, and that the great majority of the whole constituency had been bribed. That was in 1842. And what occurred in 1847? Why, in 1847 a Committee of that House declared that J. Attwood, Esq. had not been duly elected to sit for the borough of Harwich, having been by his agents guilty of bribery; and the noble Lord who had just accepted the office of Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Lord C. Hamilton) had been very eloquent, a few evenings ago, about the corruptions which were proved to have prevailed at St. Albans, and had even declared that, in his opinion, Mr. Coppock would have been treated just as he deserved had he been called to the bar of that House to answer for his misconduct—a course which he (Mr. B. Osborne) regretted was not persisted in. But such a proceeding would not have remedied the evil of which the noble Lord complained; for what was Mr. Coppock but one of the effects of their present Parliamentary

919
system? Did the noble Lord (Lord C. Hamilton), a member of the Carlton Club, forget that Mr. J. Attwood was a member of that club? Did it occur to the noble Lord to take his name from the list of members of the club because Mr. J. Attwood, who had bribed more boroughs than any one of Her Majesty's subjects, was also a member? Away, then, with all these impurities, and away with the mock modesty which shrunk from the task of bringing the guilt home to the real offender. Why should they pursue and persecute the unfortunate Coppock, and spare the man who could subscribe to a magnificent club—give splendid dinners and entertain his friends? Such conduct he did not hesitate to stigmatise as pretended purity and mock modesty. It was to be hoped that, if the noble Lord recently at the head of Her Majesty's Government should ever again come into office, he would destroy, not conglomerate, such boroughs as Harwich. In 1841 there were 180 voters in that borough. The population since then had greatly decreased, and yet they were told that the number of electors at the present moment was no less than 282. Surely this was, to say the least of it, exceedingly suspicious. He hoped that the House would assent to the Motion for suspending the writ for six months, and he trusted that the day was not far distant when the inestimable borough of Harwich would be erased from the list of places entitled to send representatives to Parliament.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'that' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'the Writ for the Borough of Harwich be suspended for six months,' instead thereof."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. FERGUS, as a Member of the last Harwich Election Committee, upon whose Report the present vacancy had occurred in the representation of the borough, said it was perfectly true that the decision of the Committee rested upon a technical point with regard to the time of closing the poll; but he could safely appeal to any man who had sat on that Committee to place his hand on his heart and say whether he was not convinced, from the facts which were elicited in the course of the inquiry, that the most fraudulent and iniquitous practices had been carried on in the borough; and that those prac-
920
tices were so habitually familiar to the inhabitants and electors as not even to create surprise amongst them, but rather to be regarded as a part of the legitimate proceedings at every election. It was proved that voters were abducted, and that treating to a most extraordinary extent prevailed at the last election. Bribery was not, however, shown to have existed; but it was well known that that was an offence which it was extremely difficult to establish before Committees of that House. With regard to the question now under consideration, he thought it would be a more dignified course, at the same time that it would be more in accordance with the wishes of the public, if a Commission similar to the one which was issued for St. Albans last year, were appointed to investigate the case of Harwich. He was satisfied there was not another borough in the kingdom in which corruption and fraudulent practices had been more widely prevalent. Moreover, it was universally acknowledged, and not denied; and he believed that no service the House could render would be more acceptable to the country than the appointment of such a Commission, which he felt assured would arrive at the same result as in the case of St. Albans.
MR. GRENVILLE BERKELEYsaid, he had sat on the previous Election Committee for Harwich, and it was his opinion, formed on the evidence given on that occasion, that the evil in that particular case was only to be cured by disfranchisement.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsaid, the vacancy in any borough ought of right be filled up the moment it occurred. The rule was, where a Committee of that House had not recommended disfranchisement, or any other ulterior proceedings, as in the case of Harwich, that the House would not interfere to deprive the electors of the right, given to them by the Constitution, of sending Members to that House. He was not for affording protection or encouragement to bribery: far from it; but he did not think that they would be justified in withholding the writ from any borough against which bribery and corruption had not been distinctly proved by the judgment of that House. He would ask hon. Members who now sought to disfranchise Harwich, what had become of all their virtue during the last Session of Parliament? He trusted he should be pardoned for saying it, but the

921
fact was, that unless the writ had been moved for with a view to serve the purposes of a candidate attached to Her Majesty's present Government, they would have heard of no opposition to the writ from those who now opposed it. ["Oh, oh!"] Then, why was not a Motion brought on last year for sending a Commission? He simply contended that the Committee empowered to investigate the matter reported that the sitting Member ought to be unseated, but did not recommend any ulterior proceedings; and he thought, as there was no record on the table of the House showing any grounds on which the borough of Harwich ought to be disfranchised, they were bound, consistently with the ordinary rules of the House, to concur in the Motion that Mr. Speaker be directed to issue his writ.
MR. HUMEsaid, he could not refrain from expressing his surprise that his hon. Friend who had just addressed the House should have risen to be the advocate of corruption. He was sure his hon. Friend would be obliged by a correction of the statement, that if the Ministers who were lately in power had remained in office, no such proceeding as that proposed respecting Harwich would have taken place. Notice was given on the subject last Session, and notice was given this Session; and he had himself put a question whether steps would not be taken by the Government for the issue of a Commission? They who wished to see rotten boroughs disfranchised, and an end put to corruption, expected in the coming reform that the borough of Harwich would be one of the first to be dealt with. The late Ministers had sanctioned the course of not issuing the writ. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bramston) who had moved for the writ should have waited till the Ministers of the Crown were in their places. Ministers would have had a glorious opportunity of showing how far they were determined to support such practices as had prevailed in Harwich. The hon. Gentleman was, he (Mr. Hume) knew, as hostile to such practices as any one, and would, he hoped, yield to the opinions intimated by the House, and abstain from pressing the Motion.
MR. AGLIONBYobjected to the continued suspension of writs without steps being taken for inquiry. The constitutional way of proceeding would have been to have had a Commission issued long ago. On this point he held himself to be as free
922
from the charge of encouraging corruption as any Member of the House. It was not right for the House to encourage this unconstitutional mode of proceeding against suspected or convicted boroughs. They ought to take the manly course of disfranchising the borough if they had evidence of its corruption; but, since they had altogether failed in obtaining sufficient legal evidence, however strong the moral evidence might be, of bribery or corruption on the part of the borough of Harwich, he protested against their withholding the issuing of the writ. He would ask whether, at the last two elections for that borough, there had been a tittle of evidence to sustain the charge of bribery? He believed there was no proof at the last election or the one before, of either bribery or corruption.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he had sat upon the Harwich Election Committee, and he could state that the evidence produced referred only to the premature close of the poll, in consequence of a riot, and not at all to bribery or corruption. Therefore there was no ground of proved malpractices to justify the refusal to reissue the writ. But he also objected to the Amendment before the House, on the ground that the practice of suspending writs was most unconstitutional. If the House allowed the principle, the result would be, on occasions, to place in the hands of a tyrannical majority a most unconstitutional power.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYbelieved that the practice of the House in the case of transferring the franchise from one borough to another, was to consider what had taken place in that borough, not at one election only, but at all preceding elections. That was the rule applied to the borough of St. Albans. At the same time, he considered it very unconstitutional to suspend the issuing of a writ for any borough, and to take no steps for purifying that borough. But, voting for suspending the issuing of the writ, as he should do in this instance, he should do so upon the understanding that Harwich would be dealt with in the same spirit in which St. Albans had been. He could not help agreeing with the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) that this was a glorious opportunity for Her Majesty's present Ministers, which it appeared they had failed to take advantage of. They should have come forward at once and proposed an inquiry into the practices not only at Harwich, but at Staf-

923
ford, at Malton, and in several other boroughs where there would have been found practices that required to be dealt with quite as much as with Harwich itself.
MR. KER SEYMERcould state, as Chairman of the first Harwich Election Committee, that no evidence had been given to justify a report that bribery and corruption had been proved. If this Amendment was carried, the mover of it would be bound to call upon the House to issue a Commission; and in the event of a Commission for Harwich being appointed, he (Mr. K. Seymer) would feel it his duty to ask the House to appoint another Commission to inquire into the state of affairs at Leicester at some recent elections. He had sat on the Leicester Committee, and the report of that Committee had been that the bribery proved to have been practised at Leicester required the attention of the House.
SIR GEORGE GREYthought that as such different opinions had been expressed by different Members of the Harwich Election Committee, with regard to the character of the evidence produced in this case, it would be advisable for the House not to come to any conclusion without being well informed as to the precise facts. He believed that on a former occasion it was clearly understood, at the suggestion of the present hon. and learned Judge Advocate, that the writ for Harwich should not be moved for without forty-eight hours' previous notice being given. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bramston), however, had moved that the writ be issued; and the hon. Gentleman was understood to say that he would not take the House by surprise, but that, if any opposition should be offered he would at once withdraw or postpone his Motion. At least, if the hon. Gentleman pressed his Motion, the best course would be to adjourn the debate for a fortnight. He (Sir G. Grey) had not understood from the observations of hon. Members who had sat on the Harwich Election Committee, that gross corruption had been proved to prevail at Harwich: if, however, that were so, the House should certainly be called on to issue a Commission. But under present circumstances he thought the discussion had better be postponed.
SIR DE LACY EVANSunderstood that sufficient evidence of corruption in the borough of Harwich had been adduced to prevent the present Judge Advocate from moving for a new writ. He (Sir De L.
924
Evans) would give notice that if the House suspended the issuing of the writ, he should move for a Commission of Inquiry.
MR. BRAMSTONsaid, he had entertained no intention whatever to take the House by surprise, and he should not have moved the issuing of the writ, if he had not understood from the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans) that he merely wished to make some remarks upon the question, without opposing the Motion. He (Mr. Bramston) admitted that he was a Member of what was called the "Roebuck Committee" of 1841, when the state of Harwich and other boroughs was inquired into; but the House had no right to concern itself now with what took place in 1841. Upon receiving a communication from some of the electors of Harwich, requesting him to move a new writ, he at once felt it to be his duty to look into the decisions of the two last Harwich Election Committees, and the result of his investigations was, that in the case of the inquiry which took place before the Committee of April, 1851, he found that Mr. Prinsep was deprived of his seat for want of the property qualification required by Act of Parliament; and that in the recent instance Mr. Crawford was unseated because a not took place in the town which brought the poll to a premature conclusion. No mention of bribery or corrupt practices was made by the Committee in their Report, or any recommendation for the issue of a Commission of Inquiry; but the Committee contented themselves with simply stating the facts to which he referred as grounds for a fresh election. In cases of bribery and corruption, he (Mr. Bramston) was as ready as any man could be to visit boroughs and even counties with the punishment such an offence deserved; still it was due to those boroughs that they should not be punished without evidence to convince the House of the guilt they had incurred. Having satisfied himself by consulting the Reports of the two last Committees that bribery was not proved or imputed against the borough of Harwich by those Reports, he felt that he was doing no more than his duty as one of the Members for the county of Essex when he acceded to the request which was made to him, and moved for the issue of a new writ. He would not, however, press his Motion further at this moment.
Ms. ELLISbegged permission to refer to one point in the remarks of the hon. Gentlemau (Mr. K. Seymer) opposite. He

925
begged to assure the hon. Gentleman, whatever might have been the scenes at Leicester at the period at which the hon. Gentleman had sat on the Leicester Committee, that, at the last election, he (Mr. Ellis) and his hon. Colleague had been returned for Leicester without the expenditure of a single shilling. And all he could say was that if Leicester should ever again be in the predicament in which she once was, he would be among the first to urge the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry.
Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LONDON NECROPOLIS AND NATIONAL MAUSOLEUM BILL.
Order for Second Reading read,
COLONEL CHATTERTONmoved that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
MR. FORBES MACKENZIEconsidered that it would be better to postpone the Bill until some Minister was present, as it was much more of a public than a private measure.
MR. HENRY DRUMMONDtrusted the House would not consent to any postponement of the measure. No question of local or general interest was involved in this Bill, but the promoters, he should show, contemplated a direct fraud on the public. The prospectus put forth by them informed the public that they had already obtained 2,600 acres of land for the purposes of the Necropolis. Now, he could assure the House they had done no such thing. All they had done was to go to Lord Onslow and offer him 35,000 l. for his manorial rights over the land in question; but they had consulted no one else who had any interest in the land. Their allegation, therefore, was not true. The prospectus, which he held in his hand, was full of tropes and figures. The promoters told us they had a soil well adapted for the purposes of interment. Now, his idea on the subject was, that any soil in the world in which a ditch could be dug was adapted for the purposes in question. ["No, no!"] At all events, he thought any would be as favourable as the "dry yellow sand" of Woking Common. In another part of the prospectus the ground was declared to be "favourable to the rapid and vigorous growth of appropriate vegetation"—cypresses and forget-me-nots he supposed; and the promoters seemed so fond of this sort of language, that they went and told the noble Lord who was late the head of
926
the Government the same story. The writer of the prospectus in another part declared that the situation of the proposed Necropolis was so delightful that "solitude herself might here find retirement;" that the land possessed "an undulating surface," which meant, of course, that there were little vales and little hills; and this was in order that "the head of the humble may be laid low in the glen," that "the ashes of the world's favoured ones may be mingled with the dust of the mound, and the sculptured marble on the height proclaim the end of earth's greatness." Then it was stated that "the footsteps of commerce would not cross the pathway to the tomb," or profane this hallowed spot. But this was the fraud of which he complained. The promoters intended to take powers to purchase 2,600 acres, while they themselves calculated that 400 would be necessary for the purposes of the cemetery; and they proposed to let on building leases the remaining 2,200 acres as a mere commercial speculation.
SIR JAMES DUKEwas not answerable for the language of the writer of the prospectus to which the hon. Member for West Surrey had alluded; but he knew that the hon. Member himself frequently indulged in such tropes and figures. The real question, however, was, whether this was a scheme deserving of public support? It seemed difficult, in this great metropolis, to find necessary burial grounds; and if a number of gentlemen were associated together, and obtained the grant of a large tract of land, which they proposed to devote to the purpose he had mentioned, without any compulsory clause whatever, he did think it was a scheme which was well deserving the favourable consideration of that House. He could assure the House that he had no interest whatever in the scheme; he had only been called upon in his official position as Member for the City of London to accompany the deputation which had waited on the Prime Minister; but if the hon. Member for West Surrey, or any other Gentleman, entertained objections to any of the clauses in the Bill, the promoters, he believed, would be quite ready to submit to any regulation which the Committee might lay down to carry out that object. He believed, also, that the promoters had no intention whatever to devote the ground in question to purposes of speculation; at all events, he trusted the House would take care not to allow anything of that kind; and he would willingly

927
agree to any postponement of the Bill, with a view to give hon. Members an opportunity of examining it, and of having their doubts removed.
MR. HENRY DRUMMONDsaid, that in the 11th clause of the Bill it was distinctly stated that it was proposed to devote the remainder of the ground purchased to purposes of building speculation.
MR. J. BELLsaid, when he saw the opportunity offered of removing the nuisance of intramural interment, he hoped the House would not hastily determine on discarding that opportunity. It was well known that the Metropolitan Interment Act had proved inoperative, and he trusted therefore that the House would not discourage private enterprise in this, as in other undertakings. He hoped that the second reading of the Bill would be affirmed, and that the company would be bound down by such clauses as would insure that public benefit which they declared would result from the scheme. The 11th clause of the Bill was one common to every railway or other Bill which had for its object the enclosure of land. He trusted that the House would lend its encouragement to a measure which had for its object the abatement of a great public nuisance.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONwould object to any Bill of this sort for making the burial of the inhabitants of this Christian country a purely commercial speculation. What had been stated of this Bill would not lead the House to draw a very favourable conclusion with regard to it; and he appealed to such Members of the new Government as were present whether, in the absence of the higher and more responsible Ministers, it was right that they should be committed to support so large and important a Bill as this, which, in fact, reversed the policy already deliberately adopted by Parliament with regard to this question.
MR. MOWATTsaid, the subject could not be disposed of in this offhand manner. Every one agreed that there was an absolute necessity for making provision for interments without this great city. The late Government had announced that their Bill was a failure; but yet the noble Lord who had just spoken seemed to think it a shocking idea to leave burials in the hands of private individuals. Were we, then, to leave the dead to bury the dead? It was all very well to condemn the present plan; but the noble Lord ought to have stated what better one he proposed. With regard
928
to the noble Lord's objection to making the interment of the dead a matter of commercial speculation, he would like to ask him when was it, or how could it be otherwise? What was the profession of an undertaker? He was sorry to say that clergymen had made the dead a matter of speculation, and there was not a cemetery in the metropolis where a clergyman did not claim a fee for interment. In the absence of any more rational objections than he had hitherto heard, he should vote for this Bill on principle, without knowing its particular merits, trusting that they would be fully gone into.
MR. MANGLESsaid, he did not object, and the people of Woking did not object, to a moderate portion of the common land being taken for the purpose of this Necropolis; but this Bill proposed to take every acre of common land, and either convert it into a cemetery or to private purposes. He never saw such a clause in his life as the 11th clause of this Bill, which rendered it lawful for the company to dispose of either by public auction or private arrangement, in fee-simple or on lease, all or any part of this land not required for the purposes of the company; and, wanting only 400 acres of land for their cemetery they yet applied for power to purchase 2,600 acres, in order that they might speculate with the surplus. The opponents of this Bill were the small freeholders and copyholders of Woking living around the common; and it was futile to suppose that men in such humble circumstances could incur the cost of opposing this Bill in Committee. The fact was, the scheme was a great job, and he should move the postponement of the measure.
Amendment proposed, "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
COLONEL CHATTERTONdefended the promoters of the Bill, who, he said, were guided by the most liberal principles. All the metropolitan Members were, he believed, favourable to the scheme, together with several of the parishes. He therefore hoped the measure would not be rejected.
MR. BETHELLsaid, the House had now ascertained the reason of the course which had been taken by the copyholders. They had readily assented to the principle of the measure, and had never commenced

929
any opposition until the bargain which they had attempted to make had failed; but surely it would be a matter of deep regret if the House permitted parties to come there and oppose the second reading of so important a Bill, simply because they had been baffled in making a bargain. Allusion had been made to a silly prospectus which certain persons had issued; but, really, what had that to do with the matter? Then, again, as to the rights of the copyholders; the fact was, there was no one with whom a contract could be made, except the lord of the manor. He was the only proprietor, and the rights of the copyholders were only a subject for compensation. Exceptions had been taken to the clause enabling the company to re-sell any portion of the land they had taken but which they did not require for the purposes for which they were established; but there was not a single Railway Act, nor a single Act for purposes similar to those contemplated by this Bill, which did not contain a similar enactment. Indeed, without such a clause it would he impossible to dispose of a single particle of land which the company had bought, but which they might not want.
SIR DE LACY EVANShoped the House, when they recollected the dreadful evils which arose from intramural interment in the metropolis, would not prevent the Bill from going into Committee.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, his constituents were deeply interested in the question of providing fit and proper places for the interment of such persons as died in the metropolis; and he should be very sorry if he appeared to oppose a measure that promised to remedy, to a certain extent, the evils of the present system. At the same time he thought that on a measure of such importance they should wait until some responsible Minister was in the House. They ought surely to know what were the views of the Government, and therefore he trusted the hon. Gentleman would consent to postpone the second reading for a fortnight, when they would be able to learn if the Government were prepared to propose any measure dealing with the whole subject. At the same time he must inform the hon. Gentleman who had said that the whole of the copyholders were opposed to the Bill, that that was not the case. He (Lord R. Grosvenor) had had a correspondence with some of them, and they stated that their only objection was that they had not been
930
promised sufficient compensation. He begged, therefore, to move that the debate be adjourned.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
MR. HUMEwould remind the House of the pressing necessity that existed for the measure, there being no fewer than 58,000 human beings who required interment in the metropolis every year. Last Session the Government, in opposition to the opinion entertained by him (Mr. Hume) and many other hon. Gentlemen, who would have preferred leaving the matter to private enterprise, had taken the subject into their own hands. They had failed, and now that a Bill was once more brought in, he would not consent to refer the matter again to the Government. As to the compensation due to the copyholders, that was a matter for the Committee.
MR. HENRY DRUMMONDsaid, that if this was merely a question of making a cemetery, there would be no dispute or difficulty about the matter. When the hon. and learned Gentleman near him (Mr. Bethell) gave an opinion of law, it would ill become him (Mr. H. Drummond) to dissent from him; but when the hon. and learned Gentleman favoured the House with a fact, he should like to examine that fact a little. He should like him (Mr. Bethell) to quote a single instance amongst all the railways, where they took 2,600 acres, and only intended to use 400. He asserted it was not a cemetery company. They meant to make their money by their building leases, and it was in fact a building society under the mask of a Necropolis.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 92; Noes 104: Majority 12.
Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2°, and committed, and referred to the Committee of Selection.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE—THE MAYNOOTH GRANT.
MR. FORBES MACKENZIEmoved that the House, at its rising, adjourn until Friday, the 12th of March.
MR. HUMEsaid, he supposed this was to allow time for the returns, and therefore he should not object to the Motion, but he hoped that hon. Members would have an opportunity given them of present-

931
ing the petitions which they had received within the last few days.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Motion for adjournment, but he wished to make a few observations with reference to a matter which was somewhat personal. It would be in the recollection of the House that he had given notice, on Monday last, that he should postpone his Motion on the subject of the grant to Maynooth to an early day after Easter. That notice had been received by hon. Members who then sat on his side of the House with very unequivocal marks of a nature such as to lead to the inference that he had altered his plans, and was about to give up his Motion. He would, however, at once put hon. Members out of pain by assuring them that he had not altered his opinions, and had not changed his determination, neither did he see any reason why he should do so. He certainly did not expect that his Motion would receive any opposition from Her Majesty's present Government. He could not pretend to say what course the Government would take on the question, but it would be contrary to his expectations if they should oppose him, the more especially as in last Session of Parliament the then Lord Stanley, now Earl of Derby, made use of the following words in the House of Lords. [Mr. Hume: He was not in office then.] Lord Stanley said—
"I do not hesitate to say, that you ought now to consider fully and deliberately, dispassionately, temperately, but at the same time firmly, the whole of the difficult question of the relation in which the Roman Catholic subjects of this country stand to the Crown." [3 Hansard, civ. 29.]
All that he (Mr. Spooner) asked for was inquiry, and he asked for it upon the ground of this fact, that the relations of Roman Catholics to the Crown stand at present in a very different position from what they did a short time ago. He was one of those who, though a general supporter of the late Sir Robert Peel, had always done the best in his power to oppose the endowment of the College of Maynooth. He had, therefore, nothing to retract or to regret in now coming forward and asking that that grant should cease; but he also felt that those who formerly voted otherwise need not be under any difficulty at present, for they must see that the whole conduct of the Roman Catholic hierarchy had completely changed since the endowment was given. If there had been any understanding whatever that this endowment
932
should continue, it was plain that it was intended it should be received as a mark of kindness towards the Roman Catholics, and that it was expected in return that at least the original objects of the Maynooth foundation should be carried out. What were those original objects?
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYrose to order. He begged to ask if the hon. Member was in order in bringing forward the question of the grant to Maynooth, on the Motion that the House should adjourn till the 12th of March?
MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was "in order" and usual for any hon. Member to address the House on a Motion for adjournment.
MR. SPOONERsaid, that the adjournment was often moved by hon. Members for the sake of addressing the House, and by no one had such a Motion been oftener taken advantage of than by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal. The original object with which Parliament had granted the endowment to Maynooth was, to provide ministers of religion better instructed and with more kindly feelings towards the State. He would ask whether they had had any proof whatever that the College of Maynooth had provided ministers of the Roman Catholic religion more nationalised in temper and views, and less hostile to the Established Church? He, therefore, thought that whatever understanding there might have been, that understanding had been completely annulled by the subsequent conduct of the Roman Catholics. He had the great authority of the late Sir Robert Peel for inquiry into this question. On the 23rd of June, 1840, that right hon. Baronet said, in the House of Commons—
"I cannot agree that the system of education carried on at Maynooth is a matter of indifference to the Legislature. I think that the system pursued at Maynooth is a legitimate subject for the censideration of Parliament; and it would be an abandonment of duty for the House of Commons to avow the doctrine which would allow us to say to the Roman Catholic professors—here is the money, we are pledged to grant it—do with it as you please—inculcate doctrines subversive of order, and injurious to morality: we cannot interfere." [See 3 Hansard, lv. 57.]
He (Mr. Spooner) charged the system carried on at Maynooth with being at the same time subversive of order and injurious to morality, and he should be prepared to support that charge at the proper time. If he did not expect opposition to his Motion from Her Majesty's Government, still less did he expect it from Ro-

933
man Catholic Gentlemen, because he did firmly believe—and living, as he did, on terms of friendly intercourse with many Roman Catholic families, he had reason to know—that great ignorance prevailed amongst the members of that persuasion with respect to the doctrines that were taught, the principles that were inculcated, and the books that were used, at the College of Maynooth. If Roman Catholics would but give themselves the trouble of inquiring, instead of taking for granted what they were told by the priests, there was not one amongst them who would not cry out to have that system abolished, or brought into such a state as they themselves, as honourable and independent men, could desire. Since he gave notice of bringing forward this question before the House, it had been his duty to inquire more particularly into the system taught at Maynooth, and he would affirm, without hesitation, that that system not only did what the late Sir Robert Peel told them they would be justified in guarding against, namely, teach doctrines subversive of order and injurious to morality, but also that it inculcated principles and doctrines completely antagonistic to the word of God. [Cries of"Question!"] He could only attribute that cry of "Question" to a flinching from assertions that could not possibly be contradicted. He would repeat the assertion, that Maynooth inculcated doctrines antagonistic to the holy word of God; that it put the priests in the place of God, and exalted the Church above the Saviour; and that it inculcated principles and taught doctrines so horrible in themselves, that any nation that gave its money and its authority to support such a system was guilty of a great national sin, which would, if persisted in, certainly draw down great national judgments. He knew that he should be called a bigot, and should encounter the ridicule of some persons for the course he intended to pursue; but he would say, as a Member of that House, that he had diligently examined the subject, and was prepared to prove every word that he had asserted, and he dared not flinch from what he considered to be his duty, lest he should be guilty of being ashamed of Him who had said that those who were ashamed of Him and of His word, of them would He also be ashamed before His Father in Heaven. He would merely add that he should avail himself of the first opportunity to bring this question before the House. It was his intention
934
to ask for a Committee to inquire into the system of education carried on at Maynooth, and he pledged himself to prove the assertions which he had used, and to show that they were founded on facts that could not be controverted.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, that after the long discourse—and he used the term in an ecclesiastical sense—of the hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat, he thought that, in his joy at a change of the Ministry, he had intended to move as an Amendment to the Motion made by the Secretary for the Treasury, namely, that the House should adjourn for a fortnight, that the House should continue sitting de die en diem, investigating the system of education pursued at Maynooth, and the merits of the works of Ligueri, De la Hogue, and Peter Dens. He (Mr. C. Anstey) was sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to proceed with his Motion until after Faster, and then only if the Government did nothing on the subject.
MR. SPOONERwas sure the hon. and learned Gentleman did not mean to misrepresent him, but he had distinctly stated that it was his intention to bring on the Motion after Easter.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY: The hon. Gentleman meant to go on in this or some other Parliament after Easter. If the hon. Gentleman would carry out his proposal to its legitimate consequences, and bring in a Bill to repeal the Maynooth Act, he (Mr. C. Anstey), and he believed many hon. Members, Protestants as well as Roman Catholics, might support him, on the ground that it was inexpedient to give support to religious establishments out of the resources of the State. The hon. Gentleman spoke from behind the Treasury bench. If not in office it was merely because he had refused office, and no doubt his sentiments on this subject might be considered those of the Government. Maynooth, as a public establishment, would, he was persuaded, court inquiry. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in order in denouncing, in the way he had, judgment upon those who differed from him in religious opinions; but that he had erred in good taste in so doing, few, he believed, would deny. He did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman, for he thought the most prudent course was to give him rope enough. He had now had as much rope as the indulgence of the House would

935
permit, and he (Mr. C. Anstey) thought that he had used it so as to hang himself most effectually.
MR. GRATTANsaid, his object in rising was to entreat that this discussion might not go on; and he now hoped that it would be allowed to close. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner) had given notice of his intention; he might be right or he might be wrong in doing so; but at all events, if they were to part, let them part in peace. He hoped that hon. Members would now be allowed to present petitions. The hon. Member (Mr. Spooner) must be a most courageous man to speak in the way he had done; he reminded him (Mr. Grattan) of a great personage described by Milton, who from
"His horrid locks shook pestilence and war."
MR. NEWDEGATEwished to state that the Government had nothing whatever to do with the notice of his hon. Friend (Mr. Spooner). His hon. Friend had never been offered office, and, therefore, the idea which seemed to be insinuated that there was some difference of opinion between the Government and him had no foundation whatever. He would bring the Motion forward entirely on his own responsibility.
MR. B. OSBORNEwas quite ready to believe that on whatever side the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) sat, there was no measure of intolerance and bigotry that he would not advocate. He gave him, therefore, the most perfect credit for sincerity. Without, however, adverting to the subject of Maynooth, he should like to know whether the Secretary for the Treasury (Mr. G. A. Hamilton), who he observed had just left the House, intended to persevere in the Motion he had put on the paper for a modification of the national system of education in Ireland, so as to make it accord with the convictions of the members of the Irish Established Church? The House ought to know whether the hon. Member intended to act upon that notice, or whether, as was too often the case in that House, it was one of those notices which were given in opposition, and dropped when the Opposition came into office?
MR. ROCHEsaid, that if evil effects arose from discussing these questions in the House, the responsibility must rest with those who introduced them. Religious questions, above all others, should be dealt with in a straightforward and manly
936
manner. And as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner) found many supporters of his opinion in the country, he (Mr. Roche) hoped he would bring the question before Parliament at an early day. It was important to know the opinions of Her Majesty's Government on the subject; but when he looke4 at the appointments, particularly the law appointments, there could be little doubt on the matter. The Attorney General and the Solicitor General for Ireland were steeped to the lips in opinions which he believed to be unfounded prejudices, and were determined to interfere with the religious liberty of Roman Catholics in that country. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the new Attorney General for England, were the most strenuous supporters of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill in its most stringent form, so that the Roman Catholic body of England had not much favour to expect from them. He had no objection to have this question discussed on its broad and general bearing. The hon. Gentleman complained that 30,000 l. was given to support Maynooth by a Protestant State, whilst they were supporting in Ireland a Protestant Church which cost 800,000 l. a year.
MR. EWARTsaid, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner) might fix a day for his Motion, as there was a ballot that night for notices. If the hon. Gentleman put his name on the balloting paper, he would have a chance of an early opportunity to do what he so much desiderated. The hon. Gentleman was in a glowing state on this important question, and it was better that his ardour should not cool.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at half after Eight o'clock, till Friday, 12th March.
[A LIST OF THE MINISTRY formed by the EARL of DERBY is given on the following page. The acceptance of office by those Members of it who were also Members of the House of Commons necessarily vacated their seats: they were all re-elected, with the exception of the CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND.]

THE MINISTRY.

  IN THE CABINET.
  First Lord of the Treasury

  Right Hon. Earl of Derby.

  Lord Chancellor

  Right Hon. Lord ST. LEONARDS.

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Right Hon. BENJAMIN DISRAELI.

  President of the Council

  Right Hon. Earl of LONSDALE.

  Privy Seal

  Most Hon. Marquess of SALISBURY.

  Home Secretary

  Right Hon. SPENCER HORATIO WALPOLE.

  Foreign Secretary

  Right Hon. Earl of MALMESBURY.

  Colonial Secretary

  Right Hon. Sir JOHN SOMERSET PAKINGTON, Bart.

  First Lord of the Admiralty

  Most Noble Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND.

  President of the Board of Control

  Right Hon. JOHN CHARLES HERRIES

  Postmaster General

  Right Hon. Earl of HARDWICKE.

  President of the Board of Trade

  Right Hon. JOSEPH WARNER HENLEY.

  First Commissioner of Works and Public Buildings

  Right Hon. Lord JOHN JAMES ROBERT MANNERS.

  NOT IN THE CABINET.
  Commander in Chief

  Most Noble Duke of WELLINGTON.

  Master General of the Ordnance

  Right Hon. Viscount HARDINGE.

  Paymaster of the Forces, and Vice-President of the Board of Trade

  Right Hon. Lord COLCHESTER.

  Secretary at War

  Right Hon. WILLIAM BERESFORD.

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Right Hon. ROBERT ADAM CHRISTOPHER.

  Joint Secretaries of the Treasury

  WILLIAM FORBES MACKENZIE, Esq., and GEORGE ALEXANDER HAMILTON, Esq.

  Secretary of the Admiralty

  STAFFORD AUGUSTUS O'BRIEN STAFFORD, Esq.

  Under Secretary for the Home Department

  Sir WILLIAM HYLTON JOLLIFFE, Bart.

  Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs

  Lord STANLEY.

  Under Secretary for the Colonies

  Right Hon. Earl of DESART.

  Secretaries of the Board of Control

  CHARLES LENNOX CUMMING BRUCE, Esq., and HENRY JAMES BAILLIE, Esq.

  Lords of the Treasury

  Marquess of CHANDOS, Lord HENRY GEORGE CHARLES GORDON LENNOX, and THOMAS BATESON, Esq.

  Lords of the Admiralty

  Rear Admiral HYDE PARKER, C.B., Rear Admiral PHIPPS HORNBY, C.B., Captain Sir THOMAS HERBERT, K.C.B., Captain Hon. ARTHUR DUNCOMBE, and Captain ALEXANDER MILNE.

  Clerk of the Ordnance

  Colonel FRANCIS PLUNKET DUNNE.

  Attorney General

  Sir FREDERICK THESIGER, Knt.

  Solicitor General

  Sir FITZROY KELLY, Knt.

  Judge-Advocate General

  Right Hon. GEORGE BANKES.

  Chief Poor Law Commissioner

  Right Hon. Sir JOHN TROLLOPE, Bart.

  SCOTLAND
  Lord Advocate

  Right Hon. ADAM ANDERSON.

  Solicitor General

  JOHN INGLIS, Esq.

  IRELAND
  Lord Lieutenant

  Right Hon. Earl of EGLINTOUN.

  Lord Chancellor

  Right Hon. FRANCIS BLACKBURNE.

  Chief Secretary

  Right Hon. Lord NAAS.

  Attorney General

  Right Hon. JOSEPH NAPIER.

  Solicitor General

  JAMES WHITESIDE, Esq.

  QUEEN'S HOUSEHOLD.
  Lord Steward

  Most Noble Duke of MONTROSE.

  Lord Chamberlain

  Most Hon. Marquess of EXETER.

  Master of the Horse

  Right Hon. Earl of JERSEY.

  Master of the Buckhounds

  Right Hon. Earl of ROSSLYN.

  Vice-Chamberlain

  Right Hon. Viscount NEWPORT.

  Treasurer of the Household

  Right Hon. Lord CLAUD HAMILTON.

  Comptroller of the Household

  Right Hon. GEORGE CECIL WELD FORESTER,

  Chief Equerry and Clerk Marshal

  Right Hon. Lord COLVILLE.

  Mistress of the Robes

  Duchess of ATHOL.