Commons Sitting of 22 June 1852

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Colonial Bishops.
3° Militia Ballots Suspension; Militia Pay; Consolidation Fund (Appropriation); Nisi Prius Officers; Common Law Procedure; Master in Chancery Abolition.

MILITIA PAY BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he had supported the Militia Bill because he believed the enrolment of the militia was necessary for the proper defence of the country, but he was very much disappointed at the manner in which this important measure was proposed to be carried out. The right hon. Secretary at War had issued a circular with regard to the Chelsea Pensioners and the militia which, in his opinion, was highly objectionable. The militia, if he understood the circular rightly, were to be drilled by pensioners, and not in battalions by field officers, but in squads; and he had no hesitation in stating that if that arrangement were carried out, the militia would be found to be a very inefficient body. The experiment, he was convinced, would disappoint the country, and he had therefore felt it to be his duty to warn the Government of the error they were falling into.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he begged to ask what was the intention of the Government with regard to the policy of allowing the formation of voluntary rifle corps? The time had arrived when the public ought to know what were the reasons why the Government refused to accept the offers which had been made for the voluntary formation of such corps. An opinion had been thrown out, that as the persons making the offer belonged to the middle orders of society, the Government did not like to trust arms in their hands; but that he did not for a moment believe. He would take that opportunity of putting a question to the right hon. the Secretary at War. It appeared to be the intention to attach a portion of the militia force to the artillery. He hoped, in that case, means would be adopted to give the men a more able tuition than was usually given. Though he did not approve of the Militia Bill, still, as the country was to have it, he was anxious that the force

1179
should be made as efficient as possible. With regard to the accoutrements and arms of the men, he hoped such alterations would be made in them as the experience of medical and scientific men had of late years suggested and recommended.
MR. BERESFORDsaid, that this was not exactly the time for making the observations which the hon. and gallant Member had offered to the House, as the Bill now before the House was merely the Annual Bill for the payment of the staff for the militia, and quite distinct from the Militia Bill. But he should be sorry, however, to pass by in silence the points adverted to by the hon. and gallant Member. It was quite true that it was proposed to take 3,000 of the men to be raised under the Militia Act to be trained to artillery practice, and these would have a trifle extra pay for their services. This portion of the force would be sent to the artillery to be instructed with them and by their officers by which the expense of drilling by separate officers would be saved. He expected that in a very short time, under such instructions, the men would be so far efficient as to be able to perform the secondary duties of artillerymen. With regard to the clothing of the men, the Master General of the Ordnance would provide it. Patterns had already been considered. With regard to the arms, should the militia be embodied, the Government would endeavour to give them a better description of musket than was formerly used.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, in reply to the question respecting the acceptance of the offers made to form rifle corps, he could assure the hon. and gallant Member (Sir De L. Evans) it was not from any feeling of distrust of the middle classes that the Government had declined those offers. On the contrary, if any necessity for such volunteer corps arose, the Government would not only not refuse any such offers, but would accept them with gratitude. As to the question whether the Government was now prepared to sanction the voluntary system, it should be remembered that the Government had to get the militia in the first instance by voluntary enlistment, and, should that fail them, they would have to resort to the compulsory method of the ballot. Now, what would be the effect of having a voluntary enlisting militia in the first instance, and also accepting the services of voluntary corps, if, after all, you should be obliged to have recourse to the
1180
ballot? It must be quite obvious that you would be taking away many men who would be liable to the ballot; and in that case you would be making the ballot operate with greater severity upon the remaining portion of the community who would be liable to that compulsory proceeding. It was therefore as a matter of prudence and precaution that the Government were not willing to sanction the formation of these volunteer corps at the present moment, when there was no immediate necessity for them.
Bill read 3°, and passed.

THE COLONIES—JAMAICA—NEW SOUTH WALES.
MR. BERNALsaid, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies in reference to letters which he (Mr. Bernal) had just received from Jamaica, dated May 23, stating that the smallpox was raging in that island, and that the ravage among the labouring popluation was frightful. The question he wished to put was whether the Colonial Office had had time to turn their attention to the point of affording assistance to the Colony in the way of supplying labour, and whether there was any chance in a short time of applying means for the furtherance of that object?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, in reply, stated that the question was similar to that which had been put on a former occasion. It appeared that attention had been freshly drawn by the arrival of a new mail. He was aware of the arrival of the mail that morning, but had not yet seen the papers which it had brought. But it was quite impossible for any fresh papers to have arrived which could strengthen his conviction of the painful distress under which the Colony was labouring. And, when his hon. Friend asked him whether he could hold out any hopes of assistance being rendered to the Colony, he (Sir J. Pakington) must say that it was his duty to be cautious how he raised hopes which it might not be in his power to fulfil. He could not, therefore, add anything to the answer which he had already given, that he would lose no time in devoting his serious and anxious attention to the subject, to see whether there were any means in existence by which the supply of labour and the pressure of the labour laws could be relaxed in favour of the West Indies. Since the question was before the House, on a former occasion, he had been prevent-

1181
ed by the pressure of Parliamentary business, night and day, front paying that attention to the question which he desired.
MR. HUMEsaid, he begged to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) to the petition which had been presented from the Legislative Council of New South Wales. It was a protest and a remonstrance on the part of the former Legislative Council against the conduct of the British Government towards that Colony. That protest was afterwards adopted by the new Legislative Council. As to the facts stated in it, he (Mr. Hume) could bear witness to their accuracy; and he would exhort the Government not to let the experience of former days pass by. Let them recollect the population of that Colony, and yield to their reasonable requests. They asked no more. If nothing should be done by the Government before the new Parliament, he should, if he had a seat in that House, feel it his duty to bring the matter forward early in the Session. The second subject which he wished to make some observations upon, was relative to the state of the Ionian Islands. All he had now to say upon that subject was, that every act of which we complained of Louis Napoleon towards the French, had been committed by the English Government in the Ionian Islands, and that the only difference between the two cases was, that the French people were satisfied, and the Ionian people were disgusted. What were the cruelties that bad been practised? As an instance he would mention the case of a member of the present Parliament of those islands. He was dragged from his home, and transported to a small, bare island, there to linger in captivity; and Madame Dominichini, the wife of that gentleman, was now undergoing the greatest sufferings. Every island under the Governor of the Ionian Islands was the abode of unfortunate captives, men without trial, without sentence, and without crime. The whole system was a discredit and disgrace to people owning the name of Englishmen. All regular government had been suspended, and violence and lawlessness had been established throughout the islands. He hoped when Parliament met again they would meet under different auspices. Early in March last he had moved for papers on this subject, but they had not yet been presented. He was sorry he was precluded by circumstances from doing more than entering his protest against the system now pursued in the Ionian Islands.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he did not think it necessary to follow the hon. Gentleman into all the points he had touched upon, but he certainly must complain of the manner in which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) had brought subjects of such immense importance before the House. He (Sir J. Pakington) was placed in a somewhat extraordinary position, for the hon. Member had on such an occasion as the present embraced subjects of no less importance than the recent petition sent home from the Legislature of New South Wales, and the present state of the Government of the Ionian Islands. He would, however, briefly reply to the hon. Member on both those subjects. With regard to the first point to which the hon. Member had adverted, namely, the petition from the Legislature of New South Wales, he thought that petition embraced a subject of too much importance and magnitude to be lightly and incidentally dealt with. Upon that subject he would only say, that although he believed the Legislature of New South Wales were not borne out in all the allegations which the petition contained, he was ready to admit that the petition was entitled to the deepest and most respectful consideration of Her Majesty's Government. He at once acknowledged that it was their duty, and he assured the House, that individually it was his inclination, to concede to the Colonies every fair right they could claim, and which could tend to promote their prosperity and liberty, consistently with the maintenance of the connexion between them and the mother country. Acting on that principle, he could assure the House and the hon. Gentleman that between the present time and the next Session he would make it his duty carefully to analyse every part of the prayer of that petition. But he should also beg the House to remember that two of the most important prayers in the petition related to the management of waste lands, and the management of the casual revenues derived from mineral sources. He hoped the House would do him the justice to recollect that, in the Bill which they had lately passed for the better government of New Zealand, he had conceded to that Colony that very prayer relating to the management of waste lands; and he trusted the House would also recollect that Her Majesty's Government had conceded to the Australian Colonies, and also to New Zealand, if it should be necessary, the management, distribution, and expenditure

1183
of any revenue they might derive from minerals found in their respective Governments. He had, therefore, the satisfaction of feeling that in these two important points, in the one case as regarded New Zealand, and, in the other, as regarded all the Colonies in the same quarter of the world, Her Majesty's Government had already anticipated the prayer of that petition. He would next advert for a moment to what the hon. Gentleman had said on the subject of the Ionian Islands. He made no objection to the hon. Gentleman's having thus a second time brought that subject before the House; but he thought he had a right to make some objection to the manner in which the hon. Member had discharged that duty. The hon. Member had that day introduced that delicate and difficult question, as he had done on a former occasion, without having given notice of any particular Motion with respect to it. The hon. Gentleman had previously brought the subject under their notice on a Motion for a Committee of Supply; and although the Government had at that time been only recently formed, he (Sir J. Pakington) had felt it his duty to state at some length what were their views and feelings with respect to the conduct of Sir Henry Ward, and more especially as an event of some importance had, a short time previously occurred, namely, the prorogation of the new Parliament in the Ionian Islands within a few days after its having first met. But he thought he had a right to complain that a high public officer, placed in the extremely difficult and arduous position in which Sir Henry Ward stood, should be thus exposed to an incidental attack of that description, without any warning whatever as to what the nature of that attack was to be. When the hon. Member had brought that subject before the House at the beginning of the Session, he had stated that after the Easter recess he would make a Motion with respect to it. And why had not the hon. Member redeemed that pledge, and made that Motion? [Mr. HUME: Because you have not given the papers I asked for.] If the conduct of Sir Henry Ward, in the discharge of an important public duty, was to be made the subject of grave complaint, he was entitled, as a public officer, to have that complaint brought forward after due notice; and he himself (Sir J. Pakington), as the Colonial Minister, ought to have been made acquainted with the case with which he was to have to deal. He thought
1184
it was not fair to Sir Henry Ward to introduce grave attacks against him in that casual and incidental manner. Why had not the hon. Gentleman made a Motion on that subject? The hon. Gentleman said it was because he (Sir J. Pakington) had not produced the papers relating to the case. Now, it was true that those papers had not yet been laid before the House; he was sorry for it, and he would tell the hon. Gentleman how that had happened. When the hon. Gentleman had moved for the papers, he (Sir J. Pakington) had told him that they would be very voluminous, and that he could not give them without a reference to the Ionian Islands. He had referred to those islands; but the papers which had then been sent to him had been incomplete, and he had found it necessary to make a second reference to the Ionian Islands on the subject. He was happy to be able to add that the papers were at present complete, and were nearly ready, and that they would be laid before the House in a very few days. But he should like to ask whether the hon. Gentleman had been induced to refrain from bringing forward a Motion on that subject by a recollection of the fact, that, when he had a few years ago introduced a similar Motion, he had found thirteen Members only to support him. He (Sir J. Pakington) was disposed to think that that circumstance had something to do with the determination of the hon. Member not to bring at present any substantive proposal under the consideration of the House. [Mr. HUME: Not at all.] All he could say was, that whenever the hon. Member brought forward the question in the shape of a Motion, he (Sir J. Pakington) should be prepared to vindicate the conduct of Sir Henry Ward, who had no political connexion with the present Government, if he should think it could be vindicated; and if he should not think so, he should be prepared frankly to make an admission to that effect. But he should express a hope that, under any circumstances, the question would be fairly brought forward. He thought he had reason to complain of the hon. Gentleman's having introduced the case of Madame Dominichini's petition in order to excite the sympathy of the House. It was not the Government that was answerable for the melancholy position of the wives of men who had drawn down on themselves the vengeance of the law by their own misconduct. He was sorry for the position of Madame Dominichini; but he believed the

1185
conduct of her husband had been such as fully to deserve the punishment he was suffering. The conduct of Sir Henry Ward in dealing with the press had been much censured by some parties; and he (Sir J. Pakington hoped the House would allow him to read a few words from one of the Ionian papers, which had partly led to those acts of Sir Henry Ward of which complaints had been made. The following was a translation of a passage in the Rigas, a Zante paper, and was an article or a specimen of articles for which Pizzara was banished:—
"The ferocious and insane Ward, the type and image of Turkish brutality and silliness, after shamefully treading the heroic soil of Cephalonia, stained in all its Hellenic parts with his inauspicious name, returned to Corfu, torn with remorse of conscience, inflamed with a fever of vengeance, and showing in his dark and hangman face that savage and Attilian brutality which his Colleagues have displayed in India and other places, where, through Divine permission, the British sword has appeared."
And then further on the writer proceeded as follows:—
"But how is this, while we are at liberty to express our wishes as to our fate, while through our representatives we possess a sovereign will, may we not freely utter our firm opinion that we do not desire you for our protectors—that we do not wish to be governed by you—for we have another national mission, and we seek another political destiny, incontestable, and suggested by the inalienable rights of nations? How, are we not masters, to send you whence you came, miserable being, who for our misfortunes have trodden this land of Paradise, and made it a hell, and a source of death and of tears."
He would only read that one specimen from the press of the Ionian Islands. He hoped that while a Governor had to contend with a people willing to support such a press, some allowance would be made for the acts of rigour to which he might feel compelled to resort. He would only repeat that if Sir Henry Ward were to be attacked at all, he ought to be attacked in a fair and open manner, and upon a Motion of which previous notice had been given.
MR. HUMEbegged to explain that he had spoken to the right hon. Gentleman more than once, in order to ascertain when the papers would be produced on which he intended to found a Motion. Dominichini was a Member of the House of Representatives, who was torn from his family and imprisoned in a rock.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he must beg to express his satisfaction at
1186
the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to its being his intention carefully to consider the condition of New South Wales. He hoped the wise policy which the right hon. Gentleman had pursued towards New Zealand, would be pursued towards all the other Colonies. He considered the giving up the revenue of the mineral discoveries to the Colonies, did the right hon. Gentleman the greatest credit; and by pursuing the same course in other respects, the right hon. Gentleman would at once prove himself to be the wisest Colonial Minister the country had ever possessed, and the adoption of this measure would strengthen, more than any other means, the union between the Colonies and the mother country.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he thought that if the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) took credit to himself for defending the conduct of the Governor of the Ionian Islands, though Sir Henry Ward was not a member of his political party, that his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) was still more entitled to credit for consistency and fairness, for Sir Henry Ward was a political connexion. The right hon. Baronet had read a violent invective published in the Ionian Islands against the Governor; and he (Sir J. Pakington) had stated that when a Governor was attacked in that way, some excuse ought to be made for the means of repression which he might adopt. That might be true, but he could not help remembering that he had heard that when there was a disturbance in the Ionian Islands on a former occasion, Sir Henry Ward had resorted to means of repression which brought disgrace upon the British name, by publishing and proclaiming a reward for all offenders who should be brought up dead or alive. Such a proceeding was unknown to civilised Governments, and was only practised by the despots of Austria.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he believed the conduct of the noble Lord who had just addressed the House, and of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), on that subject, could not be sufficiently deprecated. He had been several times in the Ionian Islands, and he could tell the noble Lord and the hon. Member that the course which they had pursued had contributed to create or to aggravate those unhappy feelings which had been productive of so much misery in those islands. He could find no justification for the charges they had brought against such a

1187
high-minded and honourable gentleman as Sir Henry Ward. Subject dropped.

METROPOLITAN BURIALS BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 2 (Her Majesty may order a discontinuance of burials in any part of the metropolis).
SIR WILLIAM CLAYmoved to add the following Proviso:—"Provided that no burial ground in the metropolis where burials should have been discontinued by such order as aforesaid, shall be allowed to have any dwelling-houses, shops, or warehouses erected thereon." The only ground of objection he could anticipate to this Motion would be in fact obviated by the clause to be proposed for compensation, which he understood would not be opposed. He therefore could not see any reason why the Government should not endeavour to make some provision to obviate the violation of decency and public feeling which would take place if burial grounds were allowed to be devoted to building purposes.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he fully concurred in the feeling expressed by the hon. Baronet on this subject. Burial places ought not to be applied to any other purposes than those to which they were originally devoted, but there was a difference between consecrated and unconsecrated burial grounds. The consecrated grounds were already protected by the law, but the unconsecrated burial grounds were not. It might, therefore, be necessary to bring up a clause to effect that object. He would suggest to the hon. Baronet to postpone his Amendment till the bringing up of the Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 2 to 9 inclusive.
Clause 30 (The Burial Board may lay out burial ground and build a chapel; that a portion of the ground may be consecrated, and a portion not consecrated).
SIR WILLIAM CLAYsaid, he should move to strike out the Proviso at the end of this clause, which provides for liberty in the parish board to have part of the new parish burial ground unconsecrated, and to substitute the Proviso of which he had given notice. The clause provided that the board may build a chapel on the burial ground for the performance of the funeral service according to the rites of the Church of England, and that such
1188
burial ground should be consecrated by the bishop of the diocese; it then provided that a portion of the ground might be set apart which should not be consecrated, and that a chapel might be built thereon for the performance of funeral service. This distinction between consecrated and unconsecrated ground was of recent invention, having originated from the establishment of commercial Cemetery Companies, and was intended to obviate the opposition of the bishops in the House of Lords. The clause, as it stood, involved either an absurdity or an injustice. If they built a chapel for the members of the Church, and another for Nonconformists out of the rates, they saddled the ratepayers with a double expense, which was an absurdity; but if they did not intend to build a chapel for the Nonconformists, then they would do them a great injustice, by requiring them as ratepayers to contribute to the building of a place of worship of which they could not make any use. It was an indirect mode of extending the system of church-rates. There was no objection on the part of Nonconformists to be buried in consecrated ground. Nor would they have any objection to a portion of the funeral service on occasion of the interment of their relatives or friends being performed in the chapel provided for the use of members of the Church. It should be recollected that a chapel for such purpose was not strictly a place of worship, there being no direction in the Rubric for any portion of the funeral service being performed within the walls of a consecrated building. There was a precedent in an Irish Act of Parliament (the 5th of George IV.), which contained this clause:—
"To the end thereof that all classes of His Majesty's subjects may be permitted to have the said easement of burial according to the rites of the several religions professed by them, be it enacted, that from and after the passing of this Act it shall and may be lawful for the officiating minister of the Church of Ireland by law established, in each and every parish in Ireland, upon application being made to him in writing by any clergyman or minister of any church or congregation not being of the Established Church of Ireland, duly authorised by law to officiate in such church or congregation, stating the death of any member or members of such church or congregation, for permission to perform the burial service at the grave of such person or persons in the churchyard of such parish according to the rites of such church or congregation, to grant permission accordingly; provided always, that such permission for the performance of such burial service at the grave, according to the rites of such church or congregation, shall be in writing."

1189
They had therefore a precedent for doing away with the invidious distinction between consecrated and unconsecrated ground; and thus Nonconformists might be able to use the same building as the members of the Church of England. This was an opportunity for doing a gracious act. He knew the power of parties in another place to oppose this proposition; but he would warn the members of the Established Church that the time was coming when it would be worth while for them to conciliate friends. which they could now do without shocking the feelings of any party. This was not a time for adding to or continuing religious divisions among the people; but, on the contrary, they should seize the occasion to introduce conciliation and goodwill between the different religious sects, who agreed in so much and differed in so little. Lot them not continue their religious differences beyond the grave. In the name of their common humanity, and in the name of common sense, be would recommend to the Committee the adoption of the change he had suggested in this portion of the measure.
SIR JAMES DUKEseconded the Amendment, and hoped the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Works would remove from the Bill, which in other respects was so acceptable, a clause that was most unfair and unjust towards the Nonconformists.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 9, line 3, to leave out from the word 'providing' to the end of the Clause, in order to add the words 'every case in which the party having the direction of the funeral of a person whom it is intended to inter in such Burial Ground shall give notice to the keeper of the said ground, that the services of a Minister of the said United Church of England and Ireland will not be required thereat, it shall be lawful to inter in any part of such Burial Ground the body relative to which such notice shall have been given without the services of any such Minister, and to have the Burial Service performed as well in the said Chapel as in the said Burial Ground, according to the usages of the religious denomination to which the deceased, or the party having the direction of the said funeral, may have belonged, or belong."
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he deeply regretted that the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Clay) should have felt it his duty to propose this considerable alteration in the Bill. So far from believing that the Amendment would have the effect of checking those religious discords of which he complained—so far from believing that it would have the effect of keeping these
1190
burial grounds free from the painful scenes which they must all deprecate and deplore, he was deeply persuaded that the Committee could take no course more fatal for the preservation of religious peace than by adopting this Amendment. One would suppose, from the speech of the hon. Baronet, that it was proposed to deprive the Dissenters of some right which they at present enjoyed. The Bill did no such thing. Every right which the Nonconformists enjoyed by law, they would enjoy under this Bill. The hon. Baronet had referred to an Irish precedent, but it was not wise to select an isolated piece of Irish legislation and apply it to a measure of this nature. In every Act for the formation of Cemeteries similar provisions to those contained in this Bill were adopted without opposition. The clauses were inserted, not in hostility to the Nonconformists—God forbid!—but with their approbation and approval. The hon. Baronet had now asked them for the first time to depart from this way of moderate arrangement, which conciliated all religious feelings, and did injustice to none. The clergy of this metropolis had acceded in the most frank and fair spirit to the various provisions of the Bill, which certainly in many respects materially trenched upon their incomes. He had felt it his duty not to take into his counsels the clergy of this metropolis; thus guarding himself by anticipation against any imputation of that nature. And now having, with the assent of the clergy, brought this difficult measure up to this point, they were met by the hon. Baronet with a proposition which, if carried, would materially, if not altogether, tend to defeat the beneficent objects which were contemplated by the Bill. It was for the public convenience, and for the well acting of this Bill, that the Committee should adhere to those provisions which in all previous instances had been found to work satisfactorily in promoting religious peace among the people. He must, therefore, however painful to himself, resist the proposal of the hon. Baronet.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, feeling the spirit of fairness and equity with which the noble Lord had conducted this Bill, it was with regret that he differed from him in this instance; but, as he thought the clause was lessening the common-law right of the Dissenters, he felt bound to support the proposition of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Clay). The Com-

1191
mittee ought to remember that the Dissenters would be deprived of their own burial-grounds by this measure. Their claim, therefore, was more imperative that this clause should not pass in its present form.
ADMIRAL STEWARTsaid, he could bear testimony to the fact, that the Nonconformists had no objection to be buried in consecrated ground. The noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Works said that no injustice would be done to Dissenters by this Bill, but he would mention a case in which great injustice would be inflicted on their feelings. It was a feeling of our common nature that we all wished to lie by the side of those whom we loved when living. Well, suppose the parents should be members of the Church, and the children should be Nonconformists—in that case the parents would be buried in the consecrated portion of the ground, and the children would be obliged to be buried in the unconsecrated portion. He thought the distinction was most injudicious and uncharitable.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, if the clause remained in its present form, the Nonconformists would have to contribute to the expense of a chapel which they could not use, and the members of the Church would also have to do the same.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, this Bill differed from all other Bills, this being a general Bill, whereas all former were Joint Stock Cemetery Company Bills.
MR. TENNYSON D'EYNCOURTsaid, he considered this provision of the Bill calculated to create more heartburnings than had ever existed before between Dissenters and members of the Church of England.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the common law assumed that every man belonged to the same religious community, and was therefore entitled to burial in the same consecrated ground, and by the same religious ceremony. But, since there were many persons who dissented from the Church, it was necessary to provide them with a burial ground also. Again, with respect to the chapels—a chapel was provided for the members of the Church, and also one for those who dissented from the Church. These appeared to him to be very reasonable provisions. There was no objection to Nonconformists being buried in consecrated ground, provided they would submit to have the burial ceremony performed by a minister of the Church of England.
LORD SEYMOURwished to remind the Committee that if the whole ground were consecrated, it would be under the authority of the bishop, and any monumental inscription to which the bishop might object, however agreeable to the feelings of the friends of the deceased, might by his order be removed. He thought great inconvenience also might arise from the use of the same chapels by Nonconformists and members of the Church.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, persons of all persuasions were buried in Bunhill-fields burial ground, and he had never heard of any difficulties arising therefrom.
MR. PETOsaid, he must complain of the conduct of the clergy of the Church of England refusing to perform the funeral service at the funeral of a Dissenter, ro of permitting the service to be performed in the churchyard by his own minister. But the Dissenters of this country were too numerous, too important, and too powerful a class long to submit to this amount of degradation, which was so undeserved.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, he did not see the necessity of the distinction between consecrated and unconsecrated grounds, and, as the chapel was erected simply as a place of shelter and not of worship, he was of opinion that the ratepayers should not be put to the expense of building two chapels. But that was a small part of the question. It was important they should not make these distinctions.
COLONEL THOMPSONsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. the Home Secretary, whether he had correctly understood him to say, that Dissenters might be buried in what was called the consecrated ground, if no objection was made to the Church of England's service. If he was assured of this, it went to remove much of the difficulty before the House. He took for granted, few Protestants attached much more importance to the consecration of ground, than to the consecration of bells, candles, oxen, asses, and various other matters which were made the subject of consecration in another Church; unless in so far as the practice had a tendency to secure respect and repose to the remains of the deceased. But if this was so, it made it a peculiarly impolitic ground to enter into contest with the Dissenters on; and he hoped the Government would think so.
Question put, "That the words 'pro-

1193
viding any Burial Ground such Board shall' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 40: Majority 22.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 31 to 38 inclusive.
The House resumed. Committee report progress.

CASE OF MANUEL PEREIRA.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps had been taken to expedite the course of public justice in the case of Manuel Pereira, a coloured seaman, under British protection, detained in the prison of Charleston, in the United States, in consequence of the vessel in which he was employed having put into that port in distress, and in whose favour Mr. Matthew, Her Majesty's Consul at that place, had applied for a writ of habeas corpus on appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina, in session at Columbia, which Court had now postponed the hearing of the said case till January next?
LORD STANLEYwas glad his hon. Friend had put this question, because he thought it desirable that public attention should be drawn, both in this country and in the United States, to the harsh and oppressive working of those laws of the Southern States which related to British coloured seamen. It was true that a British vessel, coming from Jamaica on her homeward voyage, having struck on a reef near Charleston harbour, had been compelled to put into that port in a sinking state. Among her crew was one Manuel Pereira, a coloured man, a native of the Cape Verd islands, and consequently a Portuguese, and not a British subject, though being at the time an articled seaman on board a British ship, he was under British protection. In conformity with the law of South Carolina, this man, on the arrival of the ship in port, was taken out of her, and lodged in the common gaol. The vessel was condemned and sold: the master and crew, after a short delay, the exact length of which was not stated, were able to leave Charleston; but when they applied for the release of Pereira, the master was charged with the expenses of his detention in gaol, and, refusing to pay, went away, leaving the unfortunate man in confinement. It was stated that Pereira had applied through the master to the Portuguese Consul on the spot, and to the Minister of his country at Washington, but that no notice had been
1194
taken of cither application. He then had recourse to Mr. Matthew, and these cases being unhappily not of rare occurrence, Mr. Matthew had received previous instructions how to act. A question arose, whether it would he better to apply to the State Court of South Carolina, or to the District Court of the United States: a legal opinion was taken, and it was decided to apply to the State Court. The circumstances immediately following were detailed in Mr. Matthews 'despatch:—
"I have to state that Judge Withers (of the South Carolina Court), attended by the State Attorney General, has received the application (for a writ of habeas corpus) in court, and has refused it without argument, reserving his opinion for the Upper Court, to which, consequently, an appeal has been taken. This court, which meets in Columbia in May, is empowered, if so inclined to take up, on petition, the hearing of the case, which would be otherwise deferred to the November term in Charleston; and an immediate hearing would be very desirable, as forwarding greatly, in time, the ulterior appeal (should such be requisite) to the Supreme Court at Washington. I am not very sanguine of success, however strong the ground of a vessel in distress, in the State courts: hut I can scarcely entertain a doubt of the decision of the Supreme Court; it will then rest with the Federal Government to enforce in this State the decision of that tribunal."
And in another despatch, dated May 28th, which was the latest information Government had received on the subject, Mr. Matthew spoke of the case as still pending in the State Court of Appeal. With regard to the laws under which Pereira was imprisoned, he must observe that this was by no means the first time they had been the subject of discussion. The question was not a new one: it was one of great difficulty, and which required very delicate handling, for every one who knew anything of America, knew that there was no single political question in the United States, on which a greater diversity of opinion prevailed, or which had given rise to more party feeling, than that which related to the mutual rights and obligations of the provincial and federal Legislatures. Energetic remonstrances had been addressed to the American Government, on more than one occasion, and, greatly to his honour, by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, when Foreign Secretary. A relaxation had already taken place in the laws of one State, Louisiana, on this subject: and he confidently hoped that, sooner or later, the influence of public opinion on a nation which claimed, and justly claimed, to he one of the most enlightened on earth, would do away with enactments

1195
which, as they now stood, were a disgrace to any civilised community.

APPORTIONMENT OF LAND TAX.
MR. WODEHOUSEbegged to put a question to the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, relating to the subject of the inequalities in the apportionment of the land tax, and would refer more particularly to the evidence given by Mr. J. Wood, the chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, before a Committee of the House of Lords, on the subject of the burdens affecting real property, in 1846.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that, as far as he understood the hon. Gentleman's question, what he wished to know was, whether there was any prospect or any possibility of obtaining a better adjustment of the land tax. He would, therefore, inform the hon. Gentleman, that the question whether under the existing laws it might not be possible to effect a better adjustment of the land tax, was now about to be solemnly argued in the Court of Queen's Bench, on the first day of next Michaelmas term. The parish of Tower Hamlets had obtained a mandamus against the local commissioners, and it had also obtained a rule nisi. If that rule was not set aside after argument, then a more equal adjustment would, of course, be secured under the present law; hut if the mandamus was refused, then the time might arise when the subject should be considered by that House. But under the present circumstances, while the question was about to be solemnly argued in one of the Superior Courts, he thought it unnecessary to speculate regarding a legislative remedy, when the existing law might he ruled by the court, so as to give the relief which the hon. Member desired.

EMIGRATION.
MR. BONHAM CARTERbegged to ask the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies if he had directed his attention to the subject of the assistance which might be afforded to emigration from this country by obtaining the co-operation of the local Legislatures in Australia, in facilitating the recovery of loans advanced in England, in individual cases, for emigration purposes?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, in reply, said, that he admitted the importance of the question, which had received his best attention. He very much doubted whether any Legislature, home or colonial, could
1196
remove the difficulty and remedy the grievance to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. It would he most difficult to devise any means whereby sums advanced as loans to emigrants in this country would be recovered in the Colonies from those emigrants. He believed the existing law in the Colonies was adequate to the recovery of loans under ordinary circumstances. There were several cases in which benevolent persons had raised the necessary funds and sent out emigrants, who were well selected, and who, acting with a feeling of honour and honesty, returned the loans so made, in the hope, as was generally expressed, that other members of their family would be sent out. But, looking at the great extent of territory which we possess in this part of the world, compared with the scattered nature of the population, it was plain that there must be the greatest difficulty in recovering, by legal means, the loans so made—first, in proving the debt; and, secondly, that the defaulters were in a position to return the money. He feared, therefore, that any exertions of the Home and Colonial Legislature to achieve this object would be unavailing.
MR. HUMEwished to know whether the Government had made up its mind to assist emigration from the distressed and populous districts of Scotland.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONreplied, that considerable relaxation in the rules laid down for the guidance of the Emigration Commissioners had already taken place in order to promote this object.
Subject dropped.

VALUATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read; Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. F. SCULLYsaid, it was his intention to move that the Bill be committed that day three months. The valuation of Ireland had been in progress for the last six years, in consequence of a Committee of that House which sat in 1845. Six counties had been valued under the 9th and 10th Victoria, which Act was the result of the labours of the Committee to which he had alluded. But this Bill proposed to legislate in direct opposition to the principles of that measure. He thought the Bill which had been prepared for the purpose of ascertaining the value of agricultural produce ought now to be produced, for it was a necessary concomitant to this measure. The prices of agricultural pro-

1197
duce were to constitute the basis of this Bill, but there was no regular or correct mode of ascertaining such prices—none, except by vague rumours and newspaper reports. No less than seventy amendments had been moved, and many more would have been moved, but the Irish Members thought the Government would not have pressed the Bill at so late a period of the Session. The great mistake in the valuation of Ireland was in the mode in which the valuation had been carried out. The great objection to the present law taken by Mr. Griffiths, the Chairman of the Board of Works in Ireland, was to the principle of a tenement valuation, in opposition to a townland one; but lately, Mr. Griffiths, the Chairman, changed his mind, and was now in favour of a tenement valuation. But, in truth, as he had already stated, the real objection lay not against the form of the law, but to the mode in which it was now worked out. He must object to the power of appeal which was now proposed to be given; and he maintained that it was not right that a measure of this importance should be pressed forward in the absence of Irish Members, of whom not more than nine were at present in the House at the present moment. However, if this measure passed, he should not think that the question was settled; for early next Session, if he was honoured with a seat in that House, he would move for an inquiry into the whole subject, with a view to put the state of the law relative to the valuation of land and agricultural produce in Ireland on a more satisfactory basis.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed, "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,' instead thereof."
MR. MONSELLsaid, he believed that this Bill would remedy many of the evils which were complained of in connexion with the present system of valuation in Ireland. That system was costly, and had produced the most disastrous results. The noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland had promised that he would next Session introduce a measure on the subject of the valuation of agricultural produce, and under these circumstances he hoped that the present measure would be allowed to proceed; for he believed that the universal
1198
feeling of the people of Ireland was in support of it.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, he differed from the hon. Member (Mr. Monsell), and he hoped that the Bill would not be pressed forward during the present Session. The subject was far too important to be brought forward at this period of the Session, for it required the united attention of every one connected with Ireland. He admitted that the present system had produced disastrous results, but he did not think that this measure would remedy them. This Bill introduced an entirely new system of valuation, differing from every Bill which had preceded it, and he considered it entirely unjustifiable to press it at this late period of the Session when so few Irish Members were present. He objected to the whole system of valuation in Ireland. He was not averse to the Government exercising a supervision over the valuation; but considering that the present system cost about 2l. 10 s. per cent, while the best private valuations only cost 5s. per cent, he thought he was fully justified in asking that the system should not be renewed without giving an opportunity for full examination into its actual working. Were they quite sure that they had grounds to stand upon now more sure than those they worked on hitherto? Had the system contained in that Bill ever been discussed in that House as yet? He thought it a cruelty to force on this measure, and would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman opposite as a far better course that he should as early as might be next Session appoint a Committee, which could have witnesses over, and thoroughly examine the system before there was any more legislation upon it. All he wanted was a fair relative valuation, but this the Bill was not likely to give. There was the grossest injustice in it as between town and country; and besides, examination, if time were allowed for it, would probably show that the system might be greatly simplified and improved.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, the hon. Member's speech should have been delivered on the second reading. The hon. Member had appealed to right hon. Gentlemen opposite not to press the Bill at this period of the Session; but he thought it most desirable, in the present state of affairs in Ireland, that the House should at once go into Committee on the question. He had himself introduced a Bill last Session upon the subject; but

1199
many objections having been made to it he had withdrawn it, because he was anxious to give a fair consideration to those objections. The Bill which they were now discussing was to a great extent similar to that of his introduction; and seeing the condition of this question in Ireland—seeing how absolutely necessary it was to set these matters to rights there—he thought it must be a subject of regret if the House did not do something this Session. He hoped therefore that the Government would persevere, and that in a very short time the Bill would become law.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYadmitted that the system of valuation now in force in Ireland was almost as bad as possible. They were all, no doubt, most anxious to have a good and perfect mode of making valuations in Ireland, and therefore he should be very sorry indeed to oppose the present measure, if he entertained the belief that it justly merited the commendations which it had received from the right hon. Baronet. But even were the present Bill an improvement upon the existing system, it ought not to be hurried through its various stages at so advanced a period of the Session, and in a House which necessarily exhibited so very small an attendance of Irish Members. He had recently urged the same objection against the Crime and Outrage Bill, and he was answered by statements on the part of Government that that Bill was merely for the purpose of continuing in force a necessary measure. But there were no such excuses for now introducing and urging forward a Bill, not for continuing any existing mode of valuation, but for setting aside all former modes of valuation, and substituting an entirely new system. A mere glance at the Bill would suffice to satisfy the House that the subject was one which required the most mature deliberation. It had occupied the attention of successive Governments from a period antecedent to the time of Sir William Petty, during Cromwell's Protectorate, and Parliament had been attempting to legislate upon it for the last twenty-six years, within which period they had passed no less than six different valuation statutes, including the latest Act of 9 & 10 Vict., c. 110, which had purported to terminate all the difficulties of the question. The Bill introduced last year by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland differed wholly from that Act as well as from the present Bill. That Bill of last Session was referred to a Select Committee, which he believed had
1200
done little more than merely approve of a bad measure, and had not done its duty by inquiring fully into the whole subject. By the present Bill they were called upon, without any sufficient time for due consideration, to set aside all former modes of valuation, and to settle suddenly what had continued unsettled during so many years. There were many matters which required deliberation in connexion with the present Bill. In the first place, the great defect in the past valuations of Ireland was that which had been already so well pointed out by the hon. Member for Tipperary. The primary valuations made on the spot by professional valuators were usually completed many years afterwards by a staff of inexperienced clerks in an office in Dublin. He would not dilate upon the evil effects of that vicious practice; but until it was wholly altered, they might pass a new Valuation Bill every Session of Parliament, and the result would still remain of the same unsatisfactory character. It was now proposed that in future the value of land should be assessed according to the average prices of agricultural produce, taken in forty market towns of Ireland, as stated to have been collected from loose and conjectural entries found in some local newspapers. It was very well known that with the exception of wheat and oats in the single city of Dublin, there was never any official mode of ascertaining the average prices of any sort of produce in any town in Ireland; and it had been distinctly proved before the Devon Land Commissioners, that even in Dublin the averages were of a most unsatisfactory character, and could not be depended on at all, inasmuch as they were purely voluntary returns, and were based chiefly upon the prices of large quantities of foreign wheat and oats sold in the Dublin markets. He had upon the former discussion of this Bill pointed out the absurd character of the averages upon which its scale of prices professed to be based. He thought it undesirable to base a valuation upon the average prices of produce until after some correct mode for taking them should have been provided; and he wished now to obtain from the Government some distinct pledge that they would introduce a proper Bill for ascertaining the averages. Various comments had been made on the mode of procedure, which the present Bill proposed to adopt in assessing the value of land. It appeared to him that it would be very desirable that, independently of valu-

1201
ing land according to the average prices of produce, the valuators should also be directed to ascertain its net letting value. He thought that this would be most useful for many purposes apart from those of taxation; and amongst others it would act as some sort of check upon the accuracy of the valuations. For instance, in appealing from a valuation, suppose a person found his farm valued at 20 l, a year, and that he knew quite well its fair letting value was only 15 l. a year, he would possess some sort of guide to enable him to determine whether or not he ought to appeal. But under the proposed system of valuation, to be based entirely upon an arbitrary scale of prices of several articles of agricultural produce, it would be practically impossible for any person to judge for himself whether he ought to appeal, and it would be equally impracticable for his attorney or counsel to understand his grounds of appeal, or to make them intelligible to a court of quarter-sessions. His suggestion of a contemporaneous valuation, based upon the net letting value, as well as upon the prices of produce, would not involve any additional expense. In one respect he entirely approved of the principle of the present Bill, for it proposed to introduce one uniform mode of levying both poor-rates and county rates. Being anxious to affirm that principle, and hoping that the Government would cither have adopted his former suggestions or have deferred the further consideration of the Bill until a future Session of Parliament, he had voted for its second reading. They seemed, however, now resolved to cany through this Bill in its present objectionable form; and of course in the absence of the other representatives of Ireland, it was not in his individual power to offer any effective opposition. He felt that in the necessary absence of so many of his brother Members, he was forced to form one of a sort of forlorn hope, in resisting the introduction of ill-advised or immature measures. The Bill, as it then stood, provided no mode whatever for auditing the accounts and expenditure. He had already shown that the past expenditure had amounted to about 300,000 l., and in the single county of Tipperary to near 30,000 l. for not one shilling of which had the grand juries or the ratepayers received any sort of account or audit. In conclusion he would only repeat, that he entirely felt the futility, under present circumstances, of attempting to oppose the Bill, or to im-
1202
prove it in any material respect, and he should therefore, for his own part, content himself with simply suggesting to the Government the adoption of some minor amendments—at the same time protesting in the most emphatic terms against this annual system of crude and hurried legislation upon important Irish subjects at the close of each Session.
MR. F. SCULLY, in the present state of the House, agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Cork county, that it would be perfectly unavailing to proceed further in their opposition. He would, therefore, now leave the matter in the hands of the Government, and on their shoulders let the consequences rest of imperfect legislation.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
House in Committee.
Clauses 1 to 46 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 47.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, he would beg to move to add to the end of the Clause the Amendment of which he had given notice.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 20, line 22, at the end of the Clause to insert the words, 'and the person occupying the property so rated for County or other purposes shall be at liberty to deduct from the rent payable by him on account of the tenement whereon the rate has been levied, such proportion of the rate paid as he would have been entitled to deduct had the rate been levied for the relief of the Poor.'"
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 3; Noes 81: Majority 78.
Clause agreed to; as were the remaining Clauses.
House resumed. Bill reported.

PATENT LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
On the consideration of this Bill as amended,
MR. S. CARTERmoved the adoption of a clause, providing that—
"If any person should, by himself or by the agency of any other person, knowingly and fraudulently pirate or manufacture, for sale or profit, any article or part of an article protected by Letters Patent under this or any other Act, he should he guilty of a misdemeanour, and on conviction thereof before any Court of General or Quarter Sessions, should be liable to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding twelve calendar months, with or without hard labour, or to pay a fine not exceeding 100 l., with or without imprisonment; provided always, that no conviction for this offence should prevent or defeat any civil remedy

1203
which the party aggrieved might have by action or otherwise."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EHCHEQUERsaid, that it appeared to him that this clause appeared to he taken from the Whiteboys Act. A more monstrous proposition he certainly never heard; and that it should have been made by an hon. Member distinguished for his extremely liberal principles, was exceedingly remarkable. It was perfectly opposed to the spirit of modern legislation, and he trusted that the House would not sanction for a moment a proposition which would inflict upon any ingenious person who might violate the law by any manufacture, a punishment of so savage and almost of so sanguinary a character as that now proposed. He believed that no House of Commons of the nineteenth century would sanction such a proposition, more especially when hon. Members were about to appear before their constituents so shortly. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Member would not persist with his clause.
Clause negatived; Bill, as amended, agreed to.

PIMLICO IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he must object to proceeding with the Bill at so unseasonable an hour. The Bill was called the "Pimlieo Improvement Bill," but it was in reality a Bill to carry out the private views of certain interested parties at the expense of the public, and that, too at a period of great distress, and when the country was groaning under the continued imposition of an odious income tax. He had ventured to raise his voice against the job of removing the Marble Arch, and he had been told that that object would be effected without any cost to the public. Old birds, however, were not to be caught with chaff, and it appeared that a very large sum of money had been exhausted in the removal of the fright. Then there was the National Gallery, upon which the public had lavished so large an amount of treasure; and what a miserably ludicrous spectacle it presented! He objected to this system of picking the pockets of the public by what were termed public improvements.
Bill read 3°, and passed.
The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.