Lords Sitting of 12 August 1834

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Royal Burghs' Burghs' (Scotland); Registration of Voters' (Scotland).—Read a third time:—Trading Associations'; Letters Patent.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of WicKlow, from several Places, for Protection to the Protestant Church of Ireland.—By the Duke of CUMBERLAND, from Dublin, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Lord KENTON, from three Places, for Protection to the Church of England.

CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND).
Their Lordships went into a Committee on the Church Temporalities Bill.
Lord Ellenboroughobserved, that as the deaneries, together with their emoluments, were in a great measure removed, it would be a very proper act to enable his Majesty, by a clause in the Act, to bestow on pious and exemplary clergymen, as a reward for their good conduct, the honorary title without emolument. The noble Lord proved a clause to that effect, which was agreed to.
When the clause was read respecting the election of clergymen to fill livings appropriated to the University of Dublin,
The Earl of Wicklowobserved, that when this Bill was first brought before their Lordships, the noble Dube (the Duke of Wellington) below him had proposed that a certain number of livings should be appropriated to the use of the University of Dublin. That proposition was acceded to, and the noble Earl, then at the head of the Government, undertook to frame a clause to meet the wishes of the noble Duke. That clause gave the nomination to the Primate of Ireland and the Archbishop of Dublin alternately. Now, he (the Earl of Wicklow) proposed, that the

1229
nomination should be conjoint on the part of those dignitaries, and not alternate. He thought that the selection would be much more judicious and proper if made by the two prelates together, than if they acted alternately. If they made appointments conjointly, it appeared to him that these most reverend prelates would have but one object in view—namely, that of selecting the most eligible persons in the college. When he proposed this, he was happy to find that the Archbishop of Dublin, who then sat in that House, coincided with him in opinion, and supported his view of the case. The noble Earl also at once acceded to his view, and it was agreed that the Primate and the Archbishop of Dublin should nominate conjointly. Some error, or oversight, in drawing up the Bill, had, however, created confusion on this point; for in the Bill it was stated, "that the first nomination should be by the Primate, the Archbishop of Armagh." This left a doubt as to the course and mode of presentation. Now, he wished the words which he had quoted to be omitted, and that the clause should be reinstated in its original form, giving to the Primate and the Archbishop of Dublin the conjoint right of nomination. He should, therefore, move to expunge the words "that the first nomination shall be by the Archbishop of Armagh."
The Bishop of Londonapproved of the alternate nomination, and he had at the time objected to the proposition, which was agreed to by the First Lord of the Treasury. It was most difficult to decide on a question of patronage, where two parties had the gift. He was decidedly of opinion that the better way would be for the two Archbishops to nominate alternately.
The Earl of Carberysaid, if there were a conjoint nomination, and the parties disagreed, it would be proper to refer the matter to the provost as arbiter.
The Bishop of Londonobserved, that a collision might take place between the two most reverend Prelates as to the nomination, if they were called on to act conjointly, and he would put it to their Lordships whether it was not better to avoid such a collision. Either, as had been proposed by the noble Earl, the provost ought finally to decide, or the most reverend prelates should nominate alternately.
The Amendment was agreed to. The Bill went through the Committee.
The House resumed.

BOROUGH OF WARWICK.
On the question that the House should resolve itself into a Committee on the Beer Act Amendment Bill,
The Earl of Warwickbegged leave to enter into a vindication of his conduct from the imputations cast upon him for his alleged interference in the election for the borough of Warwick. He begged to state, that immediately on receiving a communication from the Secretary of State of the Home Department, respecting the charges alleged against him in another place, he wrote to his Lordship, and gave, he trusted, a satisfactory explanation. During the last Session of Parliament he attended in his seat, ready and anxious to meet any accusation that might be brought against him. And though he had been subjected to the grossest aspersions in the public newspapers, as unmanly as they were untrue, and as malignant as they were false, yet he allowed them to pass by with the utmost indifference, conscious that his conduct on the occasion alluded to, would bear the test of the strictest inquiry, an inquiry which he was at all times more desirous to court than to shrink from. Since he had known the borough of Warwick it had been perfectly open and independent. He was first returned for that borough on coming of age, without any solicitations on his part. He continued to represent the borough in every successive Parliament till his accession to the Peerage in 1816, and was, on each occasion, returned by a great majority of the electors, without any electioneering agency whatever, there not being so much as a poll-book used. When the vacancy occurred in the representation of the borough, consequent on taking his seat in that House, the town spontaneously elected his brother, Sir Charles Greville, as his successor, free of expense, and invited him to a public dinner, at which the parties who prosecuted the Warwick Borough Bill, attended. As for the Bill itself, their Lordships had already come to a decision on it. For himself, he could say, he took no part in the proceedings at the late election; and he knew no more of them than he had learnt from the evidence. One charge which their Lordships had not

1231
thought it necessary to investigate affecting him, was that of making fictitious votes. He would, therefore, call upon the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to bear witness that he did, in his seat in that House, take the only proper mode in which it became him to offer any interference—namely, that during the passage of the Reform Bill, he proposed an Amendment in the 33rd clause to prevent scot-and-lot voters, not then on the returns, being put on, to the end of July, 1831. This the noble and learned Lord at the time highly approved of, and named it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Amendment was not however made, and had it been, all chance even of fictitious votes, would have been done away with on both sides. As to his property, generally, in Warwick, having been laid out for political purposes, or put under any system of arrangement for such objects, every one connected with the borough knew it to be not so, and none were more accurately acquainted with that fact than his accusers themselves.
The Lord Chancellor, in consequence of what had fallen from the noble Earl, felt it necessary to say, that it was criminal for any member of the House of Lords to be concerned in bribing, treating, or any other acknowledged illegal act; but he did not hold it to be contrary to law for any Peer to interfere in elections in the same manner in which a commoner could legally interfere. He spoke as a lawyer, and constitutionally. He was aware that such interference on the part of Peers was contrary to a resolution of the House of Commons, but their Lordships had never admitted (whether rightly or wrongly their Lordships were the best judges) that they were concluded by a resolution of the other House of Parliament. It was, perhaps, a thing to be avoided, but it was not illegal—it was not contrary to the character of a constitutional man, a good subject, or a man of honour. The predecessor of the present Earl Marshal, who was a very constitutional man, attempted not only to interfere in, but to vote at elections—that was to say, he offered to vote, but his vote was of course rejected. He held, that a Peer was entitled by law to canvass, though it was declared improper for him to do so by the Resolution of the House of Commons. The respect which he had for the Resolution of the House of Commons
1232
would prevent him individually from interfering in elections, but, he should hold any Peer who did so, not guilty of any dishonourable act, or of anything which could affix a stain upon his character.
The House resolved itself into the Committee on the Bill; the clauses were agreed to, and the House resumed.

CINQUE PORTS PILOTS BILL.
Lord Auckland Lord Auckland moved the second reading of this Bill.
The Duke of Wellingtonopposed the Motion. He hoped that an institution like that of the Cinque Ports Pilots would not be destroyed without an inquiry being set on foot and evidence given on oath. He contended that the effect of this measure would be to take away from the pilots, by giving the boatmen of Folkestone permission to go on board vessels, that remuneration which their labour deserved and the boatmen would not be able to perform the services which would be required of them in a manner satisfactory to the public. Again, he objected to this Bill on the score of its imposing a virtual tax of 1l. on merchant vessels, by enacting that those boats should be compelled to take pilots from the vessels they had navigated to shore. Every means had been tried to make the navigation of the coast, particularly those parts of it which lay over against the narrow seas, cheap, commodious, and, above all, safe; and, as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, he felt it his duty to tell their Lordships that they would act most unwisely in overturning an establishment of men fitted by long experience and nautical skill to pilot vessels, to substitute a body of men who had not knowledge to enable them to perform the duties they undertook. As far as he was personally concerned he did not care one pin what became of the Bill, but as a public man, he thought it his duty to move, that it be read a second time that day six months.
The Earl of Radnorobserved, that a boatman might go on board a ship, but as soon as the vessel rounded Dungeness, and a pilot went on board, the boatmen was superseded, and was not entitled legally to any remuneration. Now this Bill only enacted that the boatmen should receive payment proportionate to the distance he had carried the ship before the pilot came on board. As to the tax on

1233
the trade of England of which the noble Duke had spoken, if the trade of England wished to be put to this expense, he saw no reason for any objection. But the reason was, that unless boatmen were bound to take the pilot on shore, ships would be frequently obliged to carry a pilot a great distance from his home, and a Dover or Deal pilot would be landed at Plymouth or Falmouth, or perhaps, for he knew of such an instance, at Madeira. The object of this Bill was to establish twenty more pilots at Folkstone, which was a most desirable station, lying to the west, and sheltered from the violence of those winds which chiefly prevailed in that quarter, and a station, from which could be seen every vessel that rounded Dungeness. The noble Duke had really made a mountain of a molehill, and he trusted that the Bill would be read a second time.
Lord Aucklandconcurred with the noble Duke opposite in thinking that an inquiry ought to be made either before a Committee of the House or in some other manner into the whole system of pilotage of this country. He admitted that this was particularly necessary in consequence of the growing distrust amongst the commercial interests to the prevailing system generally. The numerous Corporations under the guidance of which the system worked, and including the Newcastle, Bristol, Liverpool, Deptford, and Trinity-house Companies, ought to be inquired into, as well as the Cinque Port Pilot and cutter system, and an uniformity of practice introduced by the Legislature. He could assure the noble Duke that the objects of the present Bill were not regarded as trifling by the mercantile interests; but notwithstanding this he should not, after what had passed that evening, persist in pressing the Bill during the present Session.
The Amendment was agreed to. The Bill to be read a second time in six months.