Lords Sitting of 14 June 1832

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Representative Peers for Scotland; Churches Building Acts Amendment; Norfolk Assizes. Read a third time:—Privy Seal.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of DENBIGH, from Chelsea, to enforce the due Observance of the Sabbath Day.—By Lord KING, from Caister and Kirton in Lindsay;—by Viscount MELBOURNE, from Poole;—and by the Earl of DERBY, from Hinckley,—against the Punishment of Death.—By the Earl of RADNOR, from four Places in Ireland the Marquess of LANSDOWN, from Weymouth and Melcombe Regis;—and by the Marquess of WESTMINSTER from Chester,—in favour of the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland).—By the Earl of WICKLOW, from Swords;—by the Archbishop of YORK, from the Presbytery Edinburgh;—and by the Marquess of LANSDOWN, from certain Inhabitants of Melcombe Regis and Weymouth,—against that Plan.—By the Earl of RADNOR, from Limerick, and another Place, against Tithes.

CHURCH PROPERTY.
Lord King, in presenting a Petition from Beominster (Wilts), against Tithes, declaring that Church property was the property of the public, of which Parliament might dispose in that way which it might consider most advantageous to the public interest, said, as there were several Prelates present, he would take that opportunity of noticing a declaration made on a former occasion by a right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London), who denied that the property of the Church was public property, or that the Legislature had a right to interfere with it. That right rev. Prelate had asked, if a man had charged his estate with a certain sum for the maintenance of a clergyman, would he

609
(Lord King) disturb that charge, or think that the Legislature should interfere with it? He (Lord King) would admit, that the Legislature had no right to touch it. But this case bore no analogy to the question of Church property as it now stood. But supposing that the major part of it had been the gift of pious individuals, even in that case the Legislature had a right to interfere, if the property had been diverted from the objects for which the pious donors had bestowed the property. The manner in which the property of the Church had been disposed of at the Reformation, and at the Revolution, showed that it was considered public property. But as the right rev. Prelate had put a question to him, he would put a question to the right reverend Prelate, in his turn. He would suppose a case—it was a case merely hypothetical, and which, of course, was in the highest degree improbable. Suppose that the Bishops of our Church were to become political characters, and were to take a very decided part against the general feeling of the country; so much so, as to become unpopular and odious to that degree, that they could scarcely show themselves in the public streets, or even appear in their own pulpits; and suppose that, in consequence of their political conduct, it was deemed expedient that they should be deprived of their temporal power, and further, that they should be deprived of their seats in that House; and suppose further, that it should be deemed expedient to change the whole discipline of the Church, and to abolish the hierarchy, and establish a presbytery in its stead, would it not follow that the present holders of Church dignities and Church property would be obliged to relinquish those dignities and that property, if they refused to conform to the new state of things? Undoubtedly it would; for, if the State had a right to make such changes (and who would question that right?), it would have a right also to arrange and dispose of the Church property in conformity with them. But could this be the case if the property of the Church were to be considered solely as private property? The property of the Church, he contended, was originally given for the general purpose of promoting Christianity itself. During the dominion of Popery in this country, no other form of Christianity was permitted to be publicly preached or taught; and for a long time after the Reformation, the Church of England kept up the same intolerant spirit; but now, all
610
civil distinctions being removed, and all men being equal in the eye of the law, without any reference to their religion, it might well become a question for consideration, whether the property originally given for the general promotion of Christianity, ought not to be divided amongst the various Christian sects in this country; and the more so, as it was well known that the great body of the inhabitants of this country did not belong to the established Church. With these remarks, he would now move that the petition be read.
The petition read.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that as the noble Lord had taken three weeks to answer his one question, he might take three weeks to answer the questions put to him. He would not enter into the answer now, not that he was unprepared to do so, but that he felt, and their Lordships must feel, the inconvenience of entering into discussions on presenting petitions, for which more fit occasions would come hereafter. He would, therefore, content himself, for the present, with denying the opinion attributed to him by the noble Lord, that the Legislature had no right to interfere with Church property. He admitted that Parliament had a right to interfere with it, as far as regulation, and as seeing that those who received it did the duty for which it was given.
Petition laid on the Table.

NORFOLK ASSIZES REMOVAL BILL.
Lord Suffieldrose to move the second reading of this Bill. The object of it was, to substitute Norwich for Thetford as the place of holding the Assizes for the county of Norfolk, and the substitution was most earnestly wished for by a large majority of the magistracy of the county, and by five-sevenths of the population. Men who differed widely on all public questions, were all agreed on this point. The inconvenience of holding the Assizes at Thetford, situated as that was in one corner of the county, and removed from the chief seat of the population, was very great; while many advantages would accrue by holding them at Norwich, a large manufacturing town, from the neighbourhood of which the greater number of prisoners came to be tried; the prisons, and other necessary, accommodations were very good at Norwich, and very defective at Thetford. He concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time.
The Duke of Graftonopposed the Bill. It was not required, for, if the object it

611
proposed to accomplish were necessary, the Judges had the power to order the change. The law gave them that power, and it was not prudent in the Legislature to interfere with it. The Lent Assizes for Norfolk had been held at Thetford for 600 years. He moved that it be read a second time this day six months.
The Earl of Roseberysupported the Bill, and said, that his views of its propriety coincided with those of his noble friend who moved the second reading.
Lord Tenterdenthought this Bill unnecessary; for, though the Magistrates of the city of Norwich had never exercised the power, the Judges of England had held unanimously, that under the charter of that city the Magistrates and the Recorder had the power of trying prisoners for capital felonies committed within their jurisdiction. If prisoners were confined there for an unreasonable length of time, that was, therefore, the fault of the Magistrates, and not of the Assizes being held at Thetford.
The House divided on the original Motion:—Contents 32; Not Contents 21—Majority 11.
Bill read a second time.

SEATS IN PARLIAMENT BILL.
The Marquess of Northamptonrose to move the second reading of the Bill for repealing so much of the Act of Settlement, passed in the reign of Queen Anne, as rendered it necessary for Members of the House of Commons to vacate their seats on being appointed to certain Ministerial offices under the Crown. This measure was intimately connected with the great measure of Reform, which had lately become the law of the land, and might be considered a sort of appendix to it. The measure was certainly one of very considerable importance, and he felt the weight of the consideration, that it, to a certain extent, interfered with the Act of Settlement; but he thought that such a measure as this became highly expedient since the settlement of the great question of Reform. He had himself been decidedly opposed to Reform, down to a recent period; but, after what had occurred throughout the whole country, and after the declaration made by a self-condemned House of Commons, he felt that concession could no longer be resisted. He also felt, that with a view to a satisfactory adjustment, the question ought to be brought forward by his Majesty's Government, as now constituted—by men who were honest
612
and sincere in the cause. It was certainly much better that the question should have been settled by the authors of the Reform Bill, who deemed the measure expedient and necessary, than by others who were adverse to it. At the same time, he intended to have proposed some amendments in the Reform Bill, and this was one of them, and he had been induced to postpone it only in the hope that it would be carried into effect by a specific bill. He would consider, first of all, the arguments which might be urged in support of his measure, and he would then proceed to refute the objections which might be advanced against it. The necessity of Ministers vacating their seats, whenever they accepted office under the Crown, was accompanied by some difficulty and inconvenience. When an individual accepted high office, he must at first be ignorant of the details of office; and it was, therefore, important, not only to himself, but also to the public, that his entire and immediate attention should be directed to his new duties. It was, therefore, a great inconvenience that, when he ought to be attending to public business, he was obliged to be attending to the success of his election. That inconvenience might also be increased by accidental circumstances. If it was an inconvenience, when a single Member of the Administration was changed, how much was that inconvenience increased when a whole Administration was changed, and new men were called upon to take their situations? An individual might be called upon to take the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the midst of a very difficult negotiation, or the office of Secretary of State for the Colonies in the midst of an insurrection in the West Indies, or the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department in times of excitement, like those of the last three weeks; and would it not be productive of great public detriment, if, at such a time, such an individual should be obliged to go to the most distant part of England, Scotland, or Ireland to secure his return to Parliament? The present state of the law led also to another inconvenience. It might interfere, and, in point of fact, had interfered, with the choice of the Crown in appointing its Ministers, for individuals had declined to take office, because they would be compelled to vacate their seats, and so be exposed to a ruinous and vexatious opposition. The consequences of the present state of the law might also be dangerous, for, in a case

613
of excitement like that which prevailed during the last three weeks, it was important that Ministers should be in their places in the House of Commons, and should not be driven away from them, merely because their presence was most wanted. If such was the mischief which might take place now, let the House consider how much it would be increased under the Reform Bill. It had been said, that his measure would alter a great Constitutional provision; but then it ought not to be forgotten, that the Legislature had altered, and altered greatly, the Constitution. What was stated to be the reason for that constitutional provision? That a Member of Parliament, when appointed to office, was not in the same situation as when he was elected; and that, therefore, it was fitting that his constituents should have an opportunity of showing their concurrence in his appointment to office. He did not propose to repeal the present law, except in cases of appointment to high office, for the individuals who obtained such office were not placemen, but the leaders of parties; and, with regard to them, their constituents must know, that even at the time of their election, they were inclined to take a share in public business. It was said also, that the practice which he proposed to abolish operated as a check to the power of the Crown; but, unfortunately for that argument, it happened that the check never came into operation, except when the power of the Crown was weakest. Some persons maintained that the appeal to the people afforded a criterion of the popularity of the Minister. That criterion appeared to him to be absurd and false. It was in the highest degree absurd to suppose that three or four towns or counties, as the case might happen to be, were to be considered as representing the feelings of the whole of the United Kingdom. Because, some time since, a right hon. Gentleman, on accepting the office of President of the Board of Trade, lost his election for the county of Clare, would it not have been monstrously unjust to argue from that circumstance the unpopularity of the Ministry to which he belonged, not only in Clare, but throughout the whole of England, Scotland, and Ireland? That election had nothing whatever to do with the question of the popularity of the Ministry for the time being. He would remind their Lordships of a stronger case in illustration of this argument. It was impossible, he thought, to deny, that at the last election the present Ministers were extremely po-
614
pular, on account of their advocacy of the Reform Bill, and yet, if the proceedings of particular bodies of electors were to be taken as the criterion of their popularity, it might be inferred that they were disliked by the country; for, in one instance, a right hon. Gentleman, holding a high office in the Government, on appealing to his former constituents, in the great commercial town of Preston, was defeated by an individual who had never sat in Parliament before. A noble Lord, also a Member of the Government, lost his seat for the University of Cambridge. A noble friend of his carried his election in the county in which he (the Marquess of Northampton) resided, by a large majority, owing more to the esteem in which his character, as well as that of his venerable father, was held, than to any political consideration. The party struggle took place between two other candidates, one of whom held a principal office in the Government, and the voting for them was nearly equal. If, therefore, the manner in which Ministers were received by some portion of the constituent body at the last election, were to be taken as a criterion of their popularity, it would lead to false inferences, and therefore it would be better not to have it at all. He was not aware that any other argument could be urged in favour of leaving the law as it at present stood. He would now state the offices which he proposed to exempt from the operation of the Act of Queen Anne. They were—first, all the great offices usually held by Cabinet Ministers; and, secondly, by what might be called the principal Law Officers, the presence of the persons holding which was generally supposed to be necessary in the House of Commons. He had not decided whether the office of Secretary at War ought also to be inserted in the Bill, but this was a question which might be considered in Committee. He concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, there could be no doubt whatever, that some measure of this description would be necessary, in consequence of the passing of the Bill which had occupied so much of the time of Parliament; but it appeared to him, that the Bill of the noble Marquess was but half a measure, because it provided for only half of the inconvenience likely to result from the Reform Bill. Moreover, he objected to the Bill being brought forward by the noble Lord in his

615
individual capacity. As the Bill was intended to remedy certain inconveniences arising out of a measure which Government had brought forward, he conceived, that it was the duty of the Government to introduce it as a Government measure, and to recommend it to both Houses of Parliament upon their responsibility. The noble Marquess must be well aware, that the object of his Bill was to repeal a part of the Act of Settlement, and of other Acts founded upon the Act of Settlement. This surely was no light matter. Under these circumstances, considering the importance of the subject, and seeing that the principal Minister of the Crown was not in his place, he thought that the noble Marquess ought to postpone the second reading of the Bill. If the noble Marquess would call upon their Lordships to agree to the principle of so important a Bill as this was, the House at least ought to be more full than it happened to be at that moment, and all the Ministers should be in their places, if indeed the noble Marquess would not throw upon them the responsibility of bringing forward the measure themselves. In conclusion, he would repeat his conviction, that some such measure as this, and many others, upon other points, would be necessary to remedy the inconveniences which would result from the Reform Bill.
The Earl of Radnorcould not entirely concur with the reasoning of the noble Duke. He could not admit, that if the question were to be entertained at all, it ought not to be entertained in the absence of Ministers; but he confessed, that he did not see the necessity of the Bill. The noble Duke said, that the necessity might arise. Sufficient for the day was the evil thereof. He would suggest, that when the evil should arise, it would be ample time to apply the remedy. The noble Duke had correctly stated, that the Bill was a very important measure, and would repeal a clause in the Act of Settlement. This was a question which required grave consideration. It was a modern practice to declare, in the preamble of Bills, that it was expedient to do so and so; but the House would require some other reason for repealing a part of the Act of Settlement, than the mere declaration that it was "expedient." He certainly joined the noble Duke in asking for the postponement of the measure. The noble Marquess had stated one or two inconveniences which arose from the existing state of the law, but they had not heretofore been felt very
616
grievous. The case upon which the nobe Marquess particularly relied, in illustration of his argument was not a case in point, for at the time the present Ministers were appointed to office, they all vacated their seats, and were all re-elected. The election to which the noble Marquess alluded was the general election, and if the Bill now proposed by the noble Marquess had been in force at that period, it would have made no alteration in the case. He saw no occasion whatever for the Bill. He thought, that the other House of Parliament might take a technical objection to the measure, on the ground, that it was one which ought not to have arisen in the House of Lords. That, however, was a point upon which he would not dwell; but if it were intended to remedy inconveniences which might arise out of the Reform Bill, he would say, wait till the inconveniences should actually arise. He hoped, that the noble Marquess would withdraw the Bill altogether.
The Marquess of Lansdownsaid, that in justice to the noble Marquess, he felt it necessary to state, that he brought forward the proposition, which he had embodied in the present Bill, when the noble Duke opposite was not present—namely, during the discussion on the Reform Bill. It was then generally admitted on both sides of the House, that great inconvenience resulted from the law which the noble Marquess proposed to repeal, but it was suggested that the remedy should be applied by the introduction of a separate Bill on the subject, instead of by the introduction of a clause into the Reform Bill. Certainly no distinct opinion was given upon the question at that time, but it was felt to be one which deserved the serious attention and consideration of the House, for the purpose of inducing which, the noble Marquess had most judiciously in manner, and clearly in matter, brought the present Bill before the House. He had no hesitation in saying, that he had long considered the existing state of the law to be productive of great inconvenience. At the same time the subject was one of considerable delicacy, and it would be for their Lordships to weigh the inconvenience resulting from occasionally delaying the public business, at moments when it was most urgent, and when the executive was called upon to act with the greatest decision, with the advantage which arose from the people having a check upon public men. He would consider the question as attentively

617
as he could, before he pronounced a decided opinion upon it, and in the mean time he concurred with the suggestion of the noble Duke, that the subject should be brought forward in a fuller House.
The Marquess of Northamptonsaid, in reference to what had fallen from the noble Earl, that the election for Preston took place in consequence of the right hon. Gentleman who sat for it having vacated his seat on being appointed to office. The noble Earl, however, seemed to have misunderstood his object in referring to the election, which was to show, that the election of three or four Ministers did not furnish an accurate criterion for judging of the popularity or unpopularity of their measures. He had intended to have introduced a clause into the Reform Bill, to effect the object which he proposed to accomplish by the Bill, but he was at first detained in the country by indisposition, and then the Bill travelled through the Committee with such speed, that he did not reach the House in sufficient time to give notice of his intention to propose the clause, on the bringing up of the Report. He moved the clause when the Report was brought up, and when the noble Earl at the head of the Government suggested, that he should introduce a separate Bill on the subject. This suggestion was also approved of by a noble Lord on the other side of the House, who took a distinguished part in the discussions on the Reform Bill he mentioned these circumstances in order to guard himself against any charge of presumption in having, young as he was in that House, and unaccustomed to business, brought forward so important a measure. He thought there could be no objection to have the Bill now read a second time, and to take the discussion on another stage. If it were intended that the Bill should pass, it was of importance, that it should not be delayed, as it would have to pass through the other House.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that nothing could be more fair and candid than the noble Marquess's mode of proceeding. Although he was perfectly aware, that according to the strict forms of the House, the discussion on the principle of the Bill could be taken on any of the stages succeeding the second reading, yet as no material inconvenience would result from the delay of a day or two, he thought it advisable, in a case of this importance to take the discussion on the principle at the usual step—namely, the second reading. The
618
principle upon which the statute of Queen Anne (which the noble Marquess proposed to modify, not to repeal) was founded, was this—that the Crown should not have the power to choose for its Ministers any persons who were not agreeable to their constituents, whose suffrages they were sent back to solicit. The practice was undoubtedly attended with some inconveniences; nevertheless, the principle out of which it grew was embodied in the Constitution, and he could not help thinking, that an opportunity should be afforded their Lordships of more maturely considering the Bill. He had not had an opportunity of directing his attention to the Bill, so as to form an opinion on the subject. He really was not aware, that the measure stood for a second reading that evening, otherwise he would have prepared himself to state his opinion; upon the whole, he thought it would he best for the noble Marquess to postpone the second reading.
The Marquess of Northamptonsaid, that after what had taken place, he had no objection to postpone the second reading of the Bill; but at the same time he must observe, that the House was tolerably full some time ago, and if noble Lords would go away when they knew an important measure was fixed for that night, it was not his fault.
Second reading postponed.