Commons Sitting of 6 July 1853

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL. — 1° Factories.

EXPENSES OF ELECTIONS BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he always had opposed Bills of this description, and he always would, as he considered them Bills of pains and penalties. He did not wish to say anything offensive to any hon. Member, bat he did not think he was using too strong expressions, when he said it was a mean, dirty, shabby, disgraceful Bill. It was a Bill to degrade both the candidate and electors. He had had twenty-five years' experience in that House, and he did not think the Members were so good as they used to be. What they might turn out, time only would show; but he thought it was impossible for them to get worse. By this Bill, a candidate might come down to a constituency—say to the city of Lincoln —and make the constituency the finest professions in the world; but fair words, they all knew, buttered no parsnips; hut, as to giving them even a glass of brandy and water, he would cloke himself under this Bill, when, perhaps, the real fact was, that he had not a shilling in his pocket. Then, they were told, there were to be no
1326
flags at the hustings, and no band, and no ringing of bells. He wondered if the town crier was to be prohibited from using his bell to cry a sale of fish, or whether they meant to stop the dinner bell. He was told that this Bill was brought in by two Members, one of whom was a Liberal, and one a Conservative; but he did not like it the better on that account. It was stated that this Bill was intended to save expenses; but, for his part, he would enact that no man should be allowed to sit in the House who did not pay his election bills, or who did not treat the electors, whose favour he courted, with the common feelings of humanity. Why, such a state of things would be contemptible to the British House of Parliament and the country. He protested against being prohibited in treating his constituents with that hospitality which they deserved; and any man who was mean enough to shrink from the exercise of such hospitality, did not deserve a seat in that House, or in any Christian assembly. He had exercised (he thanked God) those hospitalities, and, in the face of the British House of Commons, he declared his intention, as long as he lived, to continue those hospitalities, in spite of their fanciful fears of bribery or corruption. He would be ever willing to lend a helping hand to a fellow-creature, even at the risk of Being turned oat of that House; and if it did so happen that he was turned out for this practice, he would consider such a proceeding an honour rather than a disgrace. He protested against such trash and trumpery as this Bill was composed of—such a gross violation of the common feelings of humanity towards their fellow-creatures. It was his intention to oppose this measure in every stage; he should now move that Mr. Speaker do not leave the Chair until this day three months [Laughter.] He did not mean to impose any long severe duty upon Mr. Speaker, and would amend his proposition, that the Bill be committed this day three months.
MR. BARROWseconded the Amendment. He never saw so absurd a piece of legislation. Was he to be liable to penalties if any person held a flag out of a window? The imprudence of an accidental voter, over whom he had no control, might deprive him of the great civil right of sitting in that House as the choice of free-and independent electors, and all because some Gentlemen wished to button their pockets closer than they did now. The

1327
House had to consider whether they would disfranchise not only the Member but the constituencies, who might be deprived of a Member whom they wished to represent them, by the imprudent act of any person not an authorised agent of the candidate.
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. MULLINGSsaid, he thought that this measure would prevent much mischief, and do much good, and he regretted that the objections of the hon. Members who had moved and seconded the Amendment had not been made on the second reading of the Bill. It was a well-known fact that a system of great disorder and treating was carried on at elections, by means of different bands going about in support of the different candidates, and meeting at the different public-houses. He believed that there was nothing which occasioned more bribery than the employment of flags and bands of music. It was true the persons so employed were not voters, but then they were all the connexions of voters, and they afforded the pretext for running up large bills at public-houses, where voters were treated ostensibly by these parties. At the last election for Cirencester he determined to employ neither flags nor bands, and he sent a letter announcing his intention to the candidates on the other side. He expected they would have followed his example; but on the day of the nomination two or three bands entered the town, and paraded the streets, in the interest of the popular candidates; while seventeen or eighteen flags and banners were waved in the faces of all who were on the opposite side. The bill for one of these bands amounted to 28 l. For himself, he had not paid a shilling, except upon the legitimate expenses of the election, which amounted in all to 95 l. He. The returning officer called upon him to name twenty special constables, but he refused to do so, thinking it was the duty of the returning officer to keep the peace of the town. The consequence was, that while the other candidates named their special constables, the returning officer named twenty for him, and those twenty obstructed his voters more than all the rest of the people. There was an item of 25 l. charged against him for the hustings, and another item for refreshment for the police. The total amount
1328
of this bill was 104 l. 15 s. In a second bill he was charged for the expenses of the returning officer; for the steward, and bailiff, for stationery, poll-books, &c, amounting in the whole to 73 l. 1s. 11 d. In a third bill he was charged for the indenture of return, for the return of the precept, and for the sheriff's fees, &c, amounting altogether to 220 l. Now, he resisted the payment for the special constables, and the result was that his wife and children could not walk the streets with perfect safety, as the police were unwilling to protect them. Indeed, in consequence of those proceedings, he was determined to retire from the town to a place some miles distant. If this system were persevered in, he would certainly make his bow to the electors altogether, and retire from public life. He had modelled his Bill from the Irish Statutes, where the provisions of his Bill were for some years the law of that country. He therefore hoped that they would be permitted to go into Committee.
MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, he concurred with the hon. Member for Cirencester in the desire—in which the House had shown by its proceedings that it participated—to put down bribery and intimidation. But that House ought so to legislate as to carry with it public opinion. He invited consideration to the Bill as it stood, and to the animus in which it had been drawn up. The hon. Gentleman would be himself the first to confess that it had been drawn up under feelings of rather a peculiar nature. It was, indeed, drawn up in a spirit of great exaggeration. Of two parties, one might adopt an oak leaf, the other a laurel leaf, as symbols of distinction; but if a candidate "knowingly allowed to be borne any banners, flags, symbols," or if he passed them by without making any objection, he would lose his seat by the Bill, and could not be returned for the same borough during the existing Parliament. Those exaggerations did a great deal of harm, prevented the accomplishment of the object which it was desired to promote, and turned the feelings of the people against the legislation of that House. By attempting to enforce such rules, restrictions, and limitations as those to which he had alluded, the House would turn public feeling against them; and, holding such opinions, he should vote against going into Committee on the Bill.
MR. ELLIOTsaid, he thought the wording of the first clause was extremely ob-

1329
jectionable. According to the third clause, if a drunken or stupid elector, coming in from the country to vote, was met by a man who placed a riband in his buttonhole, that voter was liable to the penalty of 10 l., which might be recoverable from him by the very man who had induced him to wear the riband, or by any other person. Surely this was a most monstrous provision. Further, he (Mr. Elliot) could not for his part see upon what principle of the liberty of the subject a man should be prevented from playing a fiddle, or a flute, or any other instrument he pleased, in the street on the day of election the same as any other day, provided he was not paid or employed by any other person so to do. Upon these grounds, then, if such a provision were to form part of this Bill at all, he should propose that, instead of 10 l., the penalty should be altered to 10 s., and that the amount should be applied to the benefit of the poor. Should that alteration not be adopted, he would vote with the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln (Colonel Sibthorp) against Mr. Speaker leaving the chair.
MR. GREENEsaid, that the observations they had just been listening to were more fitted for consideration in Committee than now, and that the most advisable course would be to reserve them until they came to discuss the details of the Bill.
MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he concurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. Member (Mr, Greene.) As regarded the principle of the Bill, however, he thought the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Mullings) was entitled to much credit for having brought forward a measure which existing practices rendered so necessary. The hon. Gentleman had been charged with making exaggerated statements to the House; but he (Mr. Berkeley) could bear his testimony, and so could many other hon. Members, to the fact that his statements were under rather than over the mark. He himself represented a large constituency, and the scenes of violence which occurred between the two rival parties at elections there, with their display of party emblems, and their bands of music, were perfectly disgraceful to a civilised community. The Bill might not be complete in all its details; that, however, might be remedied in Committee; but to the principle of the measure he could not believe that any hon. Member would offer an objection.
MR. MICHELLcomplained of the Bill
1330
as being imperfect, on account of its not containing a clause against the hiring of mobs for the intimidation of electors.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: —Ayes 89; Noes 10: Majority 79.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
MR. BARROWsaid, he had as great and wholesome a horror of bribery and corruption as any Member in that House; and in the opposition he was about to offer to many of the provisions of the Bill, he was not prompted by any anxiety for his own seat, but rather by the desire to enable the constituencies of the country to be represented in the House of Commons by the men whom they wished to honour with their confidence. But he must contend, that the punishment provided by this clause—namely, disqualification for a seat in that House, was a criminal punishment; and he denied that any man ought to be so punished until the criminal act had been proved to be committed by his order and direction. What he now proposed to do, therefore, was to omit certain words from the clause, for the purpose of limiting the responsibility of the candidate to the acts which were done by himself. The words which he proposed should be omitted, were—"by himself or by his agent, or by or with any person, in any manner directly or indirectly."
MR. MULLINGSsaid, he must object to the omission. They were taken from the Bribery Act.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he was of opinion that the acts referred to on the clause ought to be shown to have been committed by the direct authority of the candidate, and that it was not right to subject him to penalties of such a severe nature for the unauthorised act of a too zealous partisan.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he did not understand why the words "agents directly or indirectly" should be struck out, hut he was in favour of the omission of the other words.
MR. BARROWsaid, he must repeat that the objection which he entertained to the clause was the criminal punishment — for criminal he maintained it was, which could be inflicted by it. It was not right that any man should be subjected to such a punishment for the act of an agent, without proof that it was committed by the

1331
order and authority of the principal; and he entertained a stronger objection when he considered the loose manner in which agency was sometimes established.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he had so strong an objection to the measure altogether, that no Amendment could in the least reconcile him to it. The words proposed to be left out might be the words employed in the Bribery Act, but the clause would not the less infringe upon the rights and liberties of the people. His maxim was, let every man do what he liked with his own. If other people did not like to spend their money, it was nothing to him; but he objected to be interfered with in spending his. "Let the galled jade wince, his withers were unwrung."
MR. MASTERS SMITHsaid, he believed the Bill would be entirely inoperative. If a measure were passed upon the subject, let it at all events be one of a good and efficient character—not such a one as this, to which he must say he was surprised to see attached the name of a Gentleman remarkable for his business habits and intelligence. If the Committee divided, he should certainly rote for the Amendment.
MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, he did not think the Bill would accomplish the object its promoters had in view; but he deprecated the discussion of the principle of the measure upon this clause.
Amendment negatived.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, that as the clause was at present worded, if any gentleman accepted an invitation to a dinner in the borough for which it was intended that at some future time he should come forward as a candidate, the fact of his having done so might hereafter be brought against him, and disqualify him from sitting in that House.
MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, he would suggest that the clause should define some period—say a certain number of days before the election took place.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, that music was very often played, and bells rung too, at elections., and no harm done. But because that model of purity, the city of Bristol, got into scrapes, he did not see why other boroughs and cities should be wisited with the consequences.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he would be glad to know how far the prohibition against bellringing was to extend? As he read it, if he happened to go down to see his constituents at any time, and they rang the bells, as they were apt to do, that very
1332
circumstance might deprive him of his seat in that House.
COLONEL SIBTHORP: Ringing parish bells! Well, I believe parish bells do often ring, and I hope will long continue to ring. The ringing of bells can do no harm. On the contrary, I think it is rather cheering in every sense of the word. Respect is shown to the candidate or representative. The ringers are paid for their trouble, and they have a chance of enjoying themselves in a manner which but for that they would not have had.
MR. R. PHILLIMORE: It was competent to the clergyman at any time to refuse the use of the parish bells; and, in spite of what the hon. and gallant Colonel said, he thought that in any borough where a fierce party spirit prevailed, the clergyman would be exercising a wise discretion if he refused to allow the bells to be rung on either side.
MR. GREENEsaid he must contend that the clergyman ought to be relieved from the responsibility of preventing the ringing of bells. Parties might break open the belfry, and ring against his wish. Indeed, he understood this had been the case at some contested elections.
VISCOUNT GODERICHsaid, he would mention that in one instance which had come under his notice, where the clergyman had refused permission for the bells to be rung, the ringers had struck and refused to ring on the following Sunday.
MR. BARROWsaid, he considered the penalties inflicted by the measure far too severe. It was hard that a constituency should on account of a slight indiscretion be prevented from returning to Parliament the man of their own free choice.
VISCOUNT DRUMLANRIGconsidered that the loss of his seat was the only proper penalty which could be imposed on a candidate placing himself within the operation of the measure.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that legislation in this direction had been satisfactory in its results. It bad been the practice to distribute ribands at elections, but that had now been done away with. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, according to his experience, the practice had ceased.
MR. PHINNsaid, he did not consider it fair to subject a candidate for a trifling imprudence to the same penalties as for bribery and corruption.
MR. HENLEYwas of opinion that the loss of a seat would not be too severe a penalty, but he did not think it ought to

1333
be carried further. He would move as an Amendment, to leave out the words after the word "shall" to the end of the clause, and insert the words "be deemed not duly elected, and his election void."
VISCOUNT DRUMLANRIGwould suggest that the effect of the Amendment might be, that if there were two candidates, and one of them was declared not duly elected on account of one of the transactions specified in the clause, the other might be declared elected.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, he considered that such would not be the case.
MR. MULLINGSconsidered that the loss of the seat was the fitting penalty. A pecuniary fine would not be felt by a rich man, while the loss of a seat would.
MR. BECKETT DENISONsaid that it ought to be clearly stated whether the contingency to which the noble Lord the Member for Dumfriesshire, (Viscount Dumlanrig) had referred, could possibly concur.
MR. MULLINGSwas of opinion that it could not.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he could only denounce this clause as most unmanly. If a lady should wave a blue, pink, or red handkerchief from a window, she would be fined 50 l. An election was worth nothing without the ladies. Could men be found to vote for such a clause as this?
MR. VERNON SMITHthought the clause as it stood would have the effect of putting a stop to all musical performances in Westminster during an election. The Bill was "most unmusical, most melancholy" as it was; but if this clause were not altered, it would render an election time doleful indeed. Under the clause as it stood, the ringing of bells on the occasion of a marriage, or the hiring of music for a theatre, if at the period of an election, might be brought under the penalties of this Bill.
MR. MULLINGSsaid, he held that the words clearly applied to the purposes of the election.
MR. VERNON SMITHrejoined that he should be satisfied if the words "for the objects of such election" were introduced.
MR. VANCEurged that before they passed this clause they should define what an "agent" was. In Election Committees they carried the meaning of the word "agency" a great deal too far, and made it applicable to persons who, in common law, could not be held to be agents.
MR. MULLINGSsaid, he would admit that the wording of that part of the Bill might require some alteration to confine it to the object he had in view, namely, to put down processions, with bands of music, banners, and all their attendant evils.
MR. BECKETT DENISONbelieved the clause would be inoperative. If a person desired to have a band and a procession, he might have them, but he would have to pay a penalty of 50 l.
Mr. HENLEYsaid, that the object being to put down processions, the most effectual course of proceeding was to make the penalty apply to those who took part in them.
VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, he concurred with the view taken by the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. B. Dennison) in thinking that a penalty of 50 l. would not put down processions when they might be thought desirable.
Mr. HUMEsuggested that the penalty should be increased to 50 l. a day.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that in a subsequent clause every person who took part in the pro-cession was made liable to a penalty of 10 l.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought it would be monstrous to make any person who, within ten days of an election, might hire a band, liable to a penalty of 50 l.
Mr. VERNON SMITHsaid, he held that the effect of the clause, as proposed to be amended, would be to stop all amusements of every kind during an election, or within ten days of it. He thought it desirable that the promoters of the Bill should agree to the form of the clause before they were called upon affirm it.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 4, to leave out the words "Agent of any such Candidate, or any other"—
Question put, "That the words Agent of any such Candidate' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: — Ayes 60; Noes 70: Majority 10.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: — Ayes 99; Noes 17: Majority 82.
Clause 3.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had objected to that part of the clause which imposed a penalty of 10 l. for exhibiting "any banner, emblem, flag, or symbol" at an election. This paltry sort of legislation could only create annoyance, without improving their election law. In many bo-

1335
roughs old tattered flags were preserved like household gods, and exhibited on election and other occasions, and he thought it was really going too far to prohibit such innocent manifestations. Even women and children would sometimes hang out a flag during an election, and surely it would be absurd to talk of subjecting such persons to a penalty of 10 l.
MR. MILESsaid, he thought the prohibition should he retained, for it was well known that persons paraded banners at elections without the consent of a candidate, trusting to the chance of being paid in the end.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he believed it would be impossible to carry this clause into effect. It was usual after an election to have a dinner, and on such occasions the room was generally ornamented with flags; but by the clause this mode of decoration would he prevented. Then, how could they expect to recover penalties for hanging an old flag—it might be a pocket handkerchief—out of a window?
MR. HENLEYsaid, the exhibition of music and banners in the streets frequently led to riots, and therefore it ought to be suppressed; but perhaps his hon. Friend would confine the prohibition to the bearing of flags in the highway, or in public places.
MR. MULLINGSwould insert the words "in any street or highway, or exhibited from any inn, public-house, alehouse, or beerhouse." This would obviate the objection which had been raised, and would, he considered, entirely meet the right hon. Gentleman's object.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, that at Brighton the popular candidate was sure to have his flag at the masthead of all the vessels. How would they deal with that case?
MR. BARROWsaid, the penalty proposed by this clause was enormous, looking at the class of persons to whom it would apply. He was surprised to hear such anxiety on any side of the House to put down every demonstration of popular feeling.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he must again denounce the Bill as a "dirty, shabby measure," which ought not to be entertained by that House.
MR. HUMEsaid, the first thing to look to was to preserve order, and prevent bribery and treating; and all the provisions of the Bill had that object.
MR. WILSON PATTENthought the penalty of 10 l. wholly unreasonable. He
1336
moved, as an Amendment, to substitute the words "ten shillings."
MR. PHINNwould make the penalty "not exceeding 40 s., "to be recovered before any two justices of the peace.
MR. MULLINGSconsented to adopt the latter Amendment, which was inserted in the clause.
Clause, as amended, agreed to; as was Clause 4.
Clause 5.
MR. HUMEcontended that no expense whatever ought to fall on candidates; the whole ought to be borne by the community sending him to Parliament. At a future stage of the Bill he should move clauses to that effect. The expenses he referred to would include the fees of sheriffs and other officers. He would therefore suggest the postponement of this clause, which went to legalise some of these expenses.
MR. ELLIOTsaid, it was a common case for sham candidates to be put in nomination, and to proceed no further. If their liability for expenses were removed, there would be a poll in every case, at the expense of the county or borough.
MR. HUMEsaid, the hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose that nobody but rich men were to be candidates at elections.
MR. PHINNsaid, he quite approved of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), and thought a more extended clause necessary. To meet the objection of the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Elliot), it might be provided that only those who were returned should be exempt from the expenses.
MR. BECKETT DENISONsaid, it was certain that, if this provision were introduced, there would be a contest at every election; in many places there would be as many as ten candidates.
MR. MULLINGSsaid, he had had a hill submitted to him for 220 l. for expenses connected with his return; but, knowing what were the legal charges, he taxed the bill accordingly, and only paid a small portion of it.
SIR GEORGE GREYthought the clause required more consideration. It was essential that some legal provision should be made to check these exorbitant expenses; and if returning officers could legally make no charge at all, it was unwise to legalise such charges, as was done by this clause. He would suggest that the clause should be omitted.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he should never cease to complain of the false eco-

1337
nomy and the "gagging" mode of proceeding of this measure. It would encourage a parcel of fellows, with scarcely a shirt to their back, in going down to boroughs and trying to force themselves into Parliament solely by their fine speeches. He would oppose the Bill in every stage; it was trash, trumpery, and humbug.
Clause struck out.
Clause 6.
MR. PHINNsaid, he thought this clause ought to follow the fate of the preceding one. The sheriff was charged with the peace of the county, and if he incurred any expense he might charge it on the Exchequer. This clause would give people the notion that the charge was a legal one, and under it a great number of persons might be unnecessarily employed by an adverse sheriff.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he objected to the clause, for he did not see how any specific sum could be fixed upon for the payment of special constables, who might be engaged in some places at 3s. 6d. per day, whilst in others it would be impossible to obtain them for less than 5s. or 7s.
MR. MULLINGSsaid, he did not think special constables were appointed generally with the view of keeping the peace. He considered the employment rather as an indirect way of bribing the voters.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he also objected to the clause, which would tend to legalise the charge to the extent of 3s. 6d. per day. The real remedy would be to provide that no candidate should pay any portion of the charge.
MR. BARROWsaid, the effect of the clause would be to enable the sheriff to employ any number of men, provided the payment of each did not exceed 3s. 6d. per day. The clause, in his opinion, ought to be omitted.
MR. CRAVEN BERKELEYsaid, he must say that right hon. and hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House were doing all in their power to uphold the present state of things, while they expressed anxiety to provide a remedy.
Clause struck out.
House resumed; Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Tuesday next.

PROBATES OF WILLS AND GRANTS OF ADMINISTRATION BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. R. PHILLIMOREsaid, he trusted, after the statement made last night by the hon. and learned Attorney General, that the hon. Member (Mr. Hadfield) would not proceed with this Bill, which would have the effect of multiplying the evils which he was desirous to prevent. That was the opinion of every lawyer who had looked at its provisions.
MR. HUMEsaid, the object of the Bill was, that one probate only should be necessary for the whole kingdom. When the Bill was read a second time, the hon. and learned Solicitor General made one of the best speeches ever made on the subject, and said he had a Bill ready. It had not been brought in, and they ought to know what the impediment was. Every year since he had been in that House, promises had been made that the Ecclesiastical Courts should be reformed, but they had not been reformed yet. If they could not get the whole they wanted, let them have part.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he should he glad to be relieved from the responsibility of going on with this Bill, if other persons more competent than himself would take charge of it. The measure had received the sanction of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, and the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside). It had also been approved of by the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins). Not seeing any Member of the Government present, he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) what prospect there was of the Commission now sitting recommending any measure of this description?
MR. HENLEYsaid, that having been appealed to by the hon. Member for Sheffield, he must say that he thought if this Bill became law, it would make the confusion so intolerable that the whole country would cry out against it. The provision with respect to grants of administration was full of faults, and would aggravate the evils of the present system. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) was aware that the subject had occupied the attention of the Legislature more or less in the course of the last twenty-five years, and that Bills more extensive than the present had been introduced at various times by some of the first men in Parliament on the subject. None of these Bills, however, had been passed, owing to the defects in them having given good grounds for their rejection. The late Government had appointed a Commission, or, he should say

1339
rather, had extended the powers of a previous Commission, in order that the question might he inquired into. That Commission, which numbered seven Judges among its members, had been continuously occupied with the subject; but he could not say what might be their ultimate opinions with regard to it. The hon. and learned Solicitor General had not long ago announced that he had a measure prepared on the subject; but that hon. and learned Gentleman was not now present to answer for himself. His own opinion was that the present Bill would create a great deal of confusion, and he would recommend the hon. Member not to proceed with it, more especially as the subject would be taken up next Session, at all events, either by the Commissioners or the Government.
MR. CROSSLEYsaid, that as no Member of the Government was present, he would move that the debate be postponed to next Wednesday.
Debate adjourned till Wednesday next.

SIMONY LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. R. PHILLIMORE,in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, that the object of it was to amend the law respecting simony, and to render illegal the sale of the next presentation to any ecclesiastical benefice. The evil which he hoped to be the instrument of diminishing, was one of the very gravest character. He wished to prevent a trust of a most serious and important character—no less a trust than the cure of immortal souls—from being made, as it at present so often was made, a matter of barter, of merchandise, and of commercial speculation. The evil to which he alluded was generally stigmatised by the name of "simony." It was one of those tares which the enemy sowed early in the Church, and which grew up in its present form soon after the Church became endowed. The great question was how the difficulty was to be met, and how the evil was to be remedied. The remedy had been supplied partly by the ecclesiastical and partly by the common law. By the ecclesiastical law the sale of any spiritual benefice or dignity was wholly and entirely void, and in this country the evil had been left entirely to be repressed by ecclesiastical censures until the time of the Reformation. The earliest Acts of Edward VI. and of Elizabeth were passed for the purpose of strengthening by temporal laws those ecclesiastical provisions which had been found
1340
insufficient to restrain the avarice of the lay patrons. Nothing could be more decided than the language in which this evil was denounced in the Proclamations of the Crown, in which it was described as "that sin and simony which is execrable in the eyes of God." The same expression was to be found in the 14th canon of James I.; and the 31st of Elizabeth—the first Statute passed on the subject, and the only one which affected the laity—denounced in the strongest terms the evils which to this day still remained to a certain extent practically unredressed. It was not indeed merely by Statute law that the evil of appointing an inefficient and disqualified clerk was attempted to be remedied, because a certain amount of check was ensured by the authority possessed by the bishop, of refusing the presentee; but, after all, the bishop could only refuse to admit for those reasons for which he might subsequently deprive. The next Statute which was passed on this matter was one, the provisions of which he proposed to extend to the laity of this kingdom, the 12th Anne, c. 12, by which, on account of the increase of the practice of simoniacally obtaining livings, the clergy were prevented, directly or indirectly, from procuring themselves to be appointed to any ecclesiastical benefice whatever. Why that statute was confined to the clergy of this country it was difficult to say; but such had been the construction put upon it. The recent Act of 3 & 4 Vict., c. 13, took away from any clergyman the power of disposing of the benefice which he held, not in his private but in his politic or public capacity; and by a section of that Act the option of the Archbishop was also taken away. The present Archbishop was the first who had been deprived of the archiepiscopal options. The true principle was, that the power of presenting was a spiritual trust in essence, and the right of property in the presenter was subordinate and accidental. It was sufficient to say that he looked at this matter in the light in which it was regarded by Lord Mansfield, who said it was on the ground of public morals and public utility that the common law as well as the civil law forbad the simoniacal contract. The Act of Elizabeth was unquestionably intended to prevent presentations made for any corrupt consideration whatever; nevertheless the construction which a series of judicial decisions had put upon it was this, that though you might not present when the living was actually vacant— because, said the common law, that would

1341
be gross simony, and an injury to public piety and morals — yet when the church was occupied, even though the incumbent might then be in articulo mortis, then forsooth, you could sell the next presentation, and the sale was perfectly good, and the Court of Queen's Bench would compel the bishop to institute. The House would remember the remarkable case of "Fox v. the Bishop of Chester," which reduced to an absurdity the doctrine of simony as expounded by the common law. The patron of the living in that case, while the incumbent was actually on his deathbed, conveyed away the next right of presentation to another person; but the Bishop refused to institute the presentee to the living; "for," said he, "it was a grossly simoniacal proceeding." What was the consequence? A quare impedit was brought in the Queen's Bench, the facts were stated, and Lord Tenterden, one of the greatest Judges who ever adorned the Bench, said, the sale was, no doubt, an evasion of the law of Elizabeth; that he would never countenance such an abuse; and he upheld the Bishop in refusing the presentee. The case was taken by appeal to the House of Lords, in 1829, and Lord Chief Justice Best, speaking in the name of all the Judges, reversed the sentence of Lord Tenterden, because he said it was impossible to say that the person might not have recovered, and impracticable to define what amount of illness was to be considered as necessarily fatal. The Judges on that occasion, through the Lord Chief Justice, expressed themselves in this language, on which he (Mr. Philli-more) was content to rest the justice and propriety of this Bill:—
"It may be wise (said they) to carry the restraint on this species of property further, and to say the next avoidance shall in no case be sold, for undoubted simony is indirectly committed by the sale of the next presentation."
Lord Chancellor Eldon also upheld the judgment given by the House, because he said, many presentations had been sold under the belief that the law was what it had been decided to be; the Judges had no power to make new laws, and he should prefer a new Act of Parliament to the arbitrary extension by the Judges of the law as it stood. Now, four things followed from that opinion of the Judges stated by Lord Chief Justice Best:—1. That there was a great evil under the existing state of things; 2. that simony was practised under the sale of next presentations; 3. that a remedy was required; and, 4. that the remedy
1342
pointed out was the one he (Mr. Philli-more) had now the honour to submit to the House. The injury and the scandal which the practices prevailing under the present law brought upon the Church, and the triumph which they gave to its adversaries, were familiar to every man who had turned his attention to the subject. No one could take up a newspaper without being shocked and scandalised at seeing the number of sales of next presentations, and still more at the style and manner in which they were advertised. He held in his hand a list of advertisements of the sale of the next presentation to benefices, which he would not weary the House by reading: suffice it to say that in no one of them was there to be found the slightest intimation of any condition that the patron, who was to have by purchase the power of presentation, should present a person to administer the cure of souls possessed of any of those qualifications by which every pious individual would wish to see him characterised. Those who advocated the separation of Church and State, and those who cared little or nothing about any Church whatever, found the strongest arguments for their opinions in the scandalous frequency of this disgraceful traffic. Let the House observe how the cure of souls was sometimes described. In one of the advertisements to which he had referred, he found the recommendations of the living set forth in these words—"duties single"—that was, there was only a single service—"house comfortable, or may be made so; a trout stream would be of great advantage." He might goon reading advertisement after advertisement; but it would only prove to the House, usque ad nauseam, that anything and everything was considered in that shameless traffic but the fitness of the future presentee to discharge the sacred duties of a minister of the Gospel. "Oh, but," it was said, you are going to touch the rights of property." Did they think of the rights of property when the Act of Anne was passed by which they deprived clergymen of the power of buying or selling or taking the next presentation; or when they passed the 3 & 4 Vict., and prevented the highest Prelate in the kingdom from exercising a power which, from time immemorial, had been annexed to his see? In the case of Archbishop Herring, an ecclesiastical option had been actually put up by his executors at Garraway's coffee-house, and sold by public auction as part of the chattels of the deceased prelate. That was, indeed, an ex-

1343
ercise of the rights of property, but a total disregard of the sacred purposes for which the livings were created. The sale of the judicial office was guarded against in this country with the most jealous care. Why, he would ask, was there to be such laxity with regard to the sale of the spiritual office—in itself of a judicial character— surely not of less importance, not less meriting to be invested with the most entire respect and veneration? Did they think of the rights of property when they passed the Reform Bill? What was the value of Gatton the year before the Reform Bill, and what was it the year after, when it came into the market? It was, nevertheless, not unfrequently urged at that time as an argument against the measure that it would affect the sacred rights of property. Let him remind the House of the magnificent and indignant refutation which that argument received from the lips of Sir James Mackintosh, when that distinguished jurist and philosopher said that the test which distinguished property from a public trust was simple and easily applied; property existed for the benefit of the proprietor, but political power was only given to be exercised for the benefit of the State. Surely hon. Members opposite, who had such deep concern for the rights of property in this matter, would not say that that distinction had no application whatever, because the trust was not only of a public but also of a spiritual character. The House might depend upon it that they could not deceive themselves in the present state of enlightened public opinion. It was not by denouncing ecclesiastical abuses—it was not by rising in that House, and earning by vehement general invectives a cheap reputation for an ardent reformer—it was not by writing anonymous letters in newspapers, misrepresenting the state of the law, and calumniating those who were compelled to administer it—that they could expect to shelter themselves from the specific reformation of this monstrous abuse, denounced as it was by common sense, common reason, common decency—by the principles and precepts of every Christian Church in the universe— by the common law of this country, and by the assembled Judges of the land. They could not screen themselves from the extirpation of this monstrous evil by simply invoking the sacred name of property, which was not now for the first time prostituted and degraded to cover the guilt of convert-
1344
ing a solemn public trust, so awful as the cure of immortal souls, into a mere instrument of sordid private gain. It was for these reasons, and for others he might have adduced had time permitted, that he confidently hoped and trusted that the House would allow this Bill to pass a second reading and to go into Committee. He had only the further remark to make, namely, that he had carefully guarded the preparation of the Bill, so that it should be prospective and not retrospective in its operation. It did not touch the question of advowsons at all; it only had reference to the sale of the next presentation, which he thought he had demonstrated to the House was a continual source of profligate and shameless abuse.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that as it would be impossible to discuss the measure at that late period of the sitting [20 minutes past 5 o'clock], and as there was a great deal of other business on the paper, he would move the adjournment of the debate.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsaid, the hon. Gentleman's Motion for adjournment, if made at all, should have been made earlier.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that he could not move the adjournment of the debate until after the Motion had been made.
MR. G. BUTTsaid, he thought that, if the hon. Gentleman had desired, for the sake of other business on the paper, to postpone this question, he might readily have done so by an arrangement with the hon. and learned Mover of the Bill, before the Motion was made. As the matter now stood, he was anxious that the mistakes and the fallacies which had been put forward by his hon. and learned Friend, should, to some extent at all events, be explained to the House. He readily admitted the learning and the ability which his hon. and learned Friend had displayed; but his hon. and learned Friend had throughout proceeded upon this leading fallacy, that it was simony for a layman to hold the next presentation to a living, and to exercise the right which the law gave him in the disposal of that presentation; and, having advanced that assumption, the hon. and learned Mover declared that it was high time that such disgraceful proceedings, as he called them, should be put an end to. Now, leaving aside altogether

1345
the. canon law and its theory of simony, with which we had nothing to do, he begged to remind his hon. and learned Friend and the House that ever since the Reformation this had been the clear law of England, sanctioned by an unbroken series of authorities—the untouched and unshaken law—that a layman might buy, sell, settle, and dispose of, as he thought fit, the next presentation to a living. That law had been clearly defined by a long series of authorities in our courts of judicature. Now this Bill, which purported to be a Bill to amend the law relating to simony, in reality declared that what was not simony now should be simony hereafter, and in doing so affected, to a great extent, property which had hitherto been dealt with under the sanction of a clear and undisputed law; had passed like any other property; had been bought, sold, or disposed of, just the same as any other property. His hon. and learned Friend had very accurately stated that the Statute of Anne declared the corruptly obtaining of a next presentation to a living to be simony; but the Statute of Anne applied to corrupt practices on the part of clergymen, and did not at all affect the rights which the law enabled laymen to exercise with reference to the purchase, sale, and disposal of presentations. That interference, however, with the long acknowledged rights of lay impropriates, the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman now proposed to effect. Pass the men-sure, and the rights of property in this important respect would be extinguished for ever. He held in his hand a letter from a gentleman who had bought for the large sum of 15,000 l., under the sanction of the existing law, the next presentation to a living for his son; this gentleman put it to him, as he would put it to the House —suppose any circumstances should occur to prevent the presentation from taking effect as the purchaser had contemplated, how great would be the hardship of a measure which should prevent that purchaser from selling again the presentation which he had thus purchased. It would be not a whit more unjust to pass a law preventing any person seised in fee of an estate from granting a lease for a term of years after the termination of an existing tenancy. The hon. and learned Gentleman had assimilated the property in next presentations to the property in Gatton; but there was no analogy between the cases. The hon. and learned Gentleman would hardly say that the owner of Gatton had any legal pro-
1346
perty in the votes of the voters in respect of Gatton. As little would he deny that the owner of a next presentation had a legal right to its disposal. The principle of the measure, if carried out, would operate as a wholesale confiscation of the property of persons who had purchased that property under the sanction of the law. That it was matter of regret that by the plunder of kings for the endowment of favourites, and for other very questionable purposes, a great deal of the property of the Church had been separated from the purposes for which it was originally applied, he quite admitted; and it was especially matter of regret now that so much was needed to be clone for the spiritual welfare of the people. But this was no reason why the House should be called upon to pass a measure directly interfering with the rights of acknowledged property; nor did he sec that the Bill would do anything to benefit the public. The proposition was, that any next presentation in reference to which a violation of the contemplated law should occur, should be forfeited to the Crown. Now he extremely doubted whether the extension to the Crown of the rights to these presentations would much benefit the public. He was he must confess, rather disposed, if anything, to abridge the presentations in the Crown, considering that the exorcise of these presentations had so much to do with political influences. Nor should he he much more disposed to place the increased patronage in the hands of the bishops, having the clear opinion that, practically, this patronage was exercised far better for the general good in the hands which already held it. The bishop had to see that the clergyman presented was a fit and proper clergyman —and no other than a fit and proper clergyman should ever be presented—but it was a question of importance, whether a bishop would be more or less scrupulous in his investigation of his own son, nephew, or friend than he would be with the nominee of another person.
An HON. MEMBERrose to order. He would appeal to Mr. Speaker whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, or to the merits of the question?
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Motion now before the House was, that the debate should be adjourned; but the hon. and learned Gentleman had not shown in the course of his argument any reason why the debate should not be adjourned.
MR. G. BUTTsaid, be had begun by stating why the debate should not be adjourned, namely, that it seemed to him of the last importance that they should clear the question of the observations with which it had been introduced to the House by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He would, in deference to the wish of the House, content himself by saying that the existing law relating to simony had remained Unaffected since the time of Henry VIII.; the property in question was established under that law; and the House Was now Called upon to destroy that property, and that without rendering any compensation to those whom they so injured.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, the hon. and learned Member had given no reason why the Motion for the adjournment of the debate should not be agreed to. There was some business of importance with which the Government were anxious to proceed that evening; and as it was near six o'clock he hoped the House would see the propriety of consenting to the adjournment of the debate.
MR. MALINSsaid, he trusted that the debate, if postponed, should be adjourned to a period of the day when the legal Members of the House would have an opportunity of expressing their opinions with respect to the measure under their notice. It was a measure of the utmost importance, arid one which it was most desirable that those conversant with the subject with which it proposed to deal should have a full opportunity of discussing.
MR. BANKESsaid, Wednesday was a day allotted to the special purpose of discussing Motions brought forward by independent Members, irrespective of the convenience or inconvenience of the Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Phillimore) had therefore a perfect right to introduce his Motion that day; but the hon. and learned Gentleman happened to sit on the side of the Government, and directly he made his long and effective speech, up jumped a Member of the Government and moved the adjournment of the debate, to prevent a reply being made".
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he begged to state that he was not a Member of the Government.
MR. BANKESsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman was a Member appointed to an office by the Government, and as such should have been the last man in the House to have made a Motion of that kind.
Debate adjourned till Wednesday next.
And it being Six of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House till To-morrow, without putting the Question.