Lords Sitting of 25 March 1831

MINUTES.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Lord AUCKLAND, the last Report from the National Vaccine Establishment; summary statements of the number of Persons charged with Criminal Offences, who were committed to the different Gaols of England and Wales for trial at the Assizes and Sessions held for the several Counties, Cities, Towns, and Liberties therein, during the last seven years, distinguishing the number in each year, and shewing the nature of the crimes, respectively, of which they were convicted, acquitted, and with which those were charged, against whom no bills were found, and who were not prosecuted; also, the sentences of those convicted, and the number executed of those who received sentence of death.
Petitions presented. In favour of Reform, by the Duke of GRAFTON, from Suffolk:—By Lord AUCKLAND, from Hereford:—By the Duke of DEVONSHIRE, from Derby, Youghall, and Clapham:— By the Duke of Norfolk from Tuam:—By Lord KING, from Miles Platting (a suburb of Manchester), and various places in Scotland:—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Hailsham:—By Earl GREY, from Hounslow, and other places:—By the Marquis of BUTE, from the County of Glamorgan. By Lord KING, from the Agricultural Associations of South Hams and Teignbridge; and from a Parish in Devonshire, for the Amendment of the Poorlaws. By the Duke of RICHMOND from the Apprentice Boys of Derry against a Repeal of the Union:—By Lord PLUNKETT, from Macroom, in the County of Cork, for such a Repeal. By Lord WHARNCLIFFS, from Rothwell, for a Repeal of the Assessed Taxes.

COUNTY OF DOWN PETITION —EXPLANATION.
The Marquis of Londonderrybelieved, that their Lordships were always kindly disposed towards any Member of that House, who was anxious to explain any misconception or misstatement in the public journals, respecting any thing he might have said. He trusted that the noble Earl (Grey) would be good enough to attend to the explanation he was about to make. It regarded an expression which was alleged to have fallen from him in animadverting last night upon the petition from the County of Down. Some of the public journals, not all of them, had said, that he had described some of the persons who had signed that petition as the lowest rabble in the County of Down. Now he most unequivocally denied, that he had used any such expression, and he was sure their Lordships would Feel for him, when he had had attributed to him an expression which, if he had used it, would prove him to be unworthy of that place in the esteem of the county which he and his family had always enjoyed. He had been born in that county, and was naturally much attached to it, and it was quite impossible that he should have cast such an imputation upon any of the freeholders of that county. He had not said that the petition was signed by the lowest rabble. What he had said was, that the petition was signed by the lowest freeholders, and this was very different from what had been attributed to him. Another point which he was anxious to explain, related to a most respectable individual — namely, Colonel Forde. He had not seen the petition, and he could not believe that it had been signed by that gentleman, after having been informed, as he had been, by letters from the County of Down, that the petition was signed by the lowest freeholders. Besides, he had read a speech of Colonel Forde's, in which Colonel Forde opposed the expediency of the meeting at which the petition was agreed to, and also objected to triennial Parliaments as being too short. A third point upon which he wished to explain was this. He held in his hand two requisitions for meetings in the County of Down. One called upon the Sheriff to convene the meeting at which the petition was agreed to, and it was signed, he was bound to say, by nine or ten most respectable individuals. In contradistinction to this, he had a requisi-
924
tion which called upon the High Sheriff to convene a meeting, for the purpose of agreeing upon an Address, congratulating the Lord Lieutenant on the firmness of his administration, and expressing their attachment to the Legislative Union, and to that Constitution under which the empire had enjoyed so many blessings. The signatures to this requisition contained, not the names of nine or ten most respectable persons, like the other requisition, but the name of every man of rank, and wealth, and respectability in the county. Such names not being attached to the other requisition, he had thought himself justified in stating, that the petition did not express the opinion of the rank, the wealth, and the respectability of the county.
Earl Greywas sure that their Lordships would always receive, as they had now received the address of the noble Marquis, with the greatest readiness, any statement which was made for the purpose of a noble Lord's relieving himself from the imputation of having used an expression which he might think injurious to him. He was glad the noble Marquis had had an opportunity of disclaiming an expression, which, as the noble Marquis said he had not used it, he (Earl Grey) was bound to conclude that he had laboured under a false impression last night, in attributing it to the noble Marquis. He certainly had repeated it, and, as he supposed, after the noble Marquis; he had answered it also; and yet he had not been corrected by the noble Marquis at the time. He must have laboured under another misapprehension also; for if he had supposed that the noble Marquis had merely said that the petition was signed by the lowest freeholders, he should certainly never have made to their Lordships the observation which he did make,—namely, that the petition was signed by 1,300 persons, every one of whom was either registered, or entitled to be registered, as a freeholder of 10 l. a year; for such, their Lordships were aware, were the lowest freeholders entitled to vote at elections in Ireland. It must be clear, then, to their Lordships, that he had misconceived what had fallen from the noble Marquis, and that he laboured under a wrong impression. As to the value of the petition, he left it to their Lordships to decide that matter. The noble Marquis had admitted that it was signed by many respectable persons; and as to the other point,—the address to the

925
Lord Lieutenant,—he could assure the noble Marquis, that no man rejoiced more to hear of it than he did. Allow him, however, to observe, that addressing the Lord Lieutenant upon his wise and spirited administration in Ireland, was by no means inconsistent with the sentiments contained in the petition in favour of Reform; nor did he think, because so many noble and respectable individuals had concurred in such an address, that their Lordships had a right to conceive, that they were opposed to a measure, which seemed to have been received with so much approbation by almost every class of the community. He had only to repeat, that in what he had said last night upon this part of the subject, he was under a misapprehension, which, it appeared by the explanation of the noble Marquis, he had shared in common with those through whose instrumentality the proceedings of that House were communicated to the public.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that the reason he had not explained last night was, that he felt great diffidence in addressing one syllable to their Lordships, after that most able and eloquent speech which they had heard from the noble Earl. He assured their Lordships, that to the best of his belief he had not used the expression "rabble," and if he had, he was most heartily sorry for it. As to the connection between the two requisitions, he took it to be this—the one spoke of the blessings of the Constitution. Now he was much afraid, that if this Reform Bill were to pass, those blessings would be seriously impaired, if not altogether destroyed.

TITHE MODUSES.
Lord Wharncliffegave notice, that he should on Monday next move for the returns which a noble kinsman of his had yesterday given notice for him of his intention to move for. He should at an earlier period have taken this means of bringing under the notice of their Lordships the Reform measure, if he had not been prevented by indisposition.
Earl Greyasked, if the noble Lord meant to move for the same Returns which were contained in his former notice; because, if so, it might be convenient to the noble Lord to know that there would be no objection to the Motion.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, he should move for the same returns as had been before named, and that he had anticipated there
926
would be no objection to his motion. He had now to present to their Lordships a Petition, which he called their attention to with great pain. It was on the subject of tithes, and came from the owners and occupiers of lands of the parish of Cadoxton-juxta-Neath, in the county of Glamorgan. It appeaed from the statement of the petitioners, that a modus had existed for a long period in the parish; that this modus was contested by the Vicar, in the reign of William and Mary, when the Vicar's bill was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious, and himself fixed with the costs of the suit; and that, about twenty years ago, another suit was instituted, when the modus was again confirmed by Sir W. Grant. The petitioners complained that the present Vicar had contested the modus again, and had succeeded in setting it aside as against one person, and the rest of the parish apprehended renewed litigation. Now, he was sure that no one would accuse him of any inclination to infringe the rights of the Church; but when they had cases like the present forced upon their notice, he thought they must all agree that some measure should be introduced on the subject, in order to prevent constant litigation of the worst character. He trusted, therefore, that the bill of the Chief Justice would prove successful. If that bill did not meet the case of the petitioners, he would again bring it under the notice of the House when that bill came into Committee.
The Bishop of Gloucesterdid not, he was sure, need to remind their Lordships, that the petition was an ex-parte statement, and he had no doubt that many of the assertions it contained could be answered or explained.
Petition to lie on the Table.

REFORM—YORK AND DEVON PETITIONS.
The Duke of Norfolkpresented a Petition from the county of York, in favour of the Reform Bill now before Parliament. The petition had been agreed to at a public meeting, regularly convened upon requisition, by the High Sheriff of the county. The petition was signed only by the gentleman who presided at the meeting, in the absence of the High Sheriff, who had been prevented by in- disposition from attending the meeting. The petition, therefore, could, by the forms of the House, be received only as the petion of the individual whose name was

927
attached to it, though it was, in fact, the petition of the meeting.
The Petition read at length.
The Earl of Carlisleobserved, that he had been credibly informed, that no fewer than 50,000 persons in the county of York had signed petitions in favour of Reform. He was satisfied, that the vast majority of the inhabitants of Yorkshire, including the majority of the wealth and respectability of the county, was in favour of the Ministerial measure.
Lord King,said that he had to present a similar Petition, from a county next in importance, perhaps, to that of the great county of York. It was a petition from the county of Devon; and it was something like a proof that the people of that county did not feel that apathy with regard to Reform which a noble Lord had yesterday attributed to them. Before they had heard of the Ministerial plan of Reform, the county of Devon had petitioned for Reform. Now that they had become acquainted with the nature of that measure, they had petitioned in favour of it, as a measure which they believed would be beneficial to the empire, and which they therefore entreated their Lordships to pass.
Lord Rollesaid, that he had been informed that there were not above 100 or 200 freeholders at the meeting at which this petition was agreed to. Such a meeting could not be called a meeting of the county.
Lord Kingsaid, he could not tell how many were present at the meeting; but it had been regularly advertised, and the opponents of the measure, if there were any, must have had full notice of it.

PLURALITIES—THE BISHOP OF ELY.
Lord Kingpresented a Petition from Barnsley, praying for a Commutation of Tithes. The petitioners stated, that they paid tithes to persons who performed no spiritual duties among them, and whom they never saw; and they mentioned a remarkable instance of a district in which there were twenty-five livings with only two incumbents. The noble Lord also adverted to a remarkable instance, in the diocese of Ely, of the accumulation of Church livings, one of them of the value of 6.000 l., and Church dignities, in the hands of one person; namely, a prebend of Ely, the rectory of Bexwell, the rectory of Felt-well St. Mary, the rectory of Feltwell St. Nicholas, the vicarage of Waterbeach, and,
928
lastly, the living of Wisbeach. These were curious instances of non-residence and an abuse of patronage; and it had been said, that the Chancellor was not altogether exempt from blame on this last head, as the patronage of one of the livings was in the Crown.
The Lord Chancellorbelieved that his noble friend alluded to a statement in one of the public journals, in which he had been commented upon in no very measured terms, for having been a party to increasing the pluralities of a clergyman.
Lord King.—I do.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he could assure their Lordships that that statement, so far as he was concerned in it, was erroneous, and that the author of it had misled his noble friend. There was a certain living, the living, he believed, of Wisbeach, or some such name, — the presentation to which was alternately in the Great Seal and the Bishop of Ely. Upon the application of the Bishop of Ely, Lord Eldon had given up his turn to present to the Bishop, who was anxious to provide for a son, or a son-in-law, or some other relative. The consequence of this was, of course, that the next two presentations were in the Great Seal. Shortly after he had the honour of being appointed to the custody of the Great Seal, he received a letter, written in the hand of a person apparently infirm, but certainly not in the hand-writing of the Bishop, which was very different. The letter was signed with the Bishop's name, and the purport of it was a request that he would give up the next presentation—so that then the Great Seal would have had the three subsequent presentations. Recollecting, however, that if he acceded to this request, he should be doing a favour to the present Bishop at the expense of the next Bishop, he thought it right to pause before he did anything of the kind. He took no notice, therefore, of this letter. About three weeks afterwards he had received another letter, in the same handwriting, and bearing the same signature. He could hardly believe that it was written by the same person. He could not believe that the party, whose signature it bore, knew any thing of it. The letter was an application to him upon totally different grounds, so much so, that it gave him the idea that the presentation was in the Bishop, and not in the Great Seal. The letter stated,

929
that the author of it had written to him (the Lord Chancellor) before; but that he supposed that his letter had not come to hand, from its not having been answered. It requested an answer by return of post, and stated, that if no answer was sent, silence would be taken for consent, and the presentation would be made. In consequence of that letter, he wrote down to the party, whose signature was attached to the letter, desiring that no nomination should be made till he had seen his noble and learned friend Lord Eldon. That noble Lord had given up his turn of presentation, when Lord Chancellor; and he therefore wrote to the right rev. Prelate, informing him that the whole matter must depend upon his noble and learned friend, Lord Eldon. His noble and learned friend gave his consent to the application, and he therefore signed the document, discharging thereby, as their Lordships would see, nothing else than a Ministerial duty. Had the patronage belonged to himself, he should not have done it, but he considered it as a matter of delicacy to Lord Eldon, and therefore acted as if the patronage had not belonged to the Great Seal, but to his noble and learned friend. He repeated, that he should not have done it had it been left to himself, for the succeeding Bishops would lose three turns, as the four next would be in the Great Seal. What the state of health of that rev. Prelate might be, he did not know. He hoped that he was in a good state of health; sure he was that the rev. Prelate ought to be in a good state of health, for he had recently given away a prebend and the valuable living of Wisbeach, which was worth 2,000 l. a year, to a near relation of his own. He had suspicions—and as a Minister of the Crown he felt bound to state them—that there were persons near that rev. Prelate who disposed of his patronage in a way which he would not sanction if in perfect health. He did not know who was to blame in this business; all he knew was, that he (the Lord Chancellor) was not. Whilst he was a Minister of the Crown, he pledged himself to their Lordships to take care that the patronage of the Crown in this department would not be abused, or, that if it were abused, he would be no party to the abuse.
Petition laid on the Table.