Lords Sitting of 4 August 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Marriages:—Head a second time:—Highway Rates; Ecclesiastical Leases Act Amendment. — Read a first time:—St. Clement's Church, Oxford; Marriages validating.
Petitions presented. By Lord STAFFORD, and the Marquess of SALISBURY, from various places, for Charitable Trustees Bill.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from Manchester, for Inns and Alehouses' Bill—By Viscount MELBOURNE, from Donegal, against empowering the Lord-Lieutenant, to remove the In6rmary from Lifford to Litterkenny.—By the Earl of ROSSLVN, from Fife, complaining of the Prison Discipline of Scotland.—By the Earl of RIPON, from the Bishop of Sodor and Man, against the Union of that See with Carlisle.

BRIGHTON RAILWAY.
The Duke of Richmondcould not lay on the table the Report of the Brighton Railway Committee without calling the attention of their Lordships to what he conceived to be the extraordinary conduct of that Committee. He had not the most remote intention of attacking personally any Member of the Committee. He was perfectly convinced, from a knowledge of their character, that they never would think of doing anything which they did not believe to be right. But, in justice to those who were more particularly concerned, and in order that the confidence of the country in the proceedings of Committees of that House, might be retained, he felt it necessary to make a few observations on what had occurred. A Railroad Bill, founded on Stephenson's line, had been laid on the table of the House of Commons, and was referred to a Committee of that House. At the time that the parties became shareholders they did not know anything of those regulations which Parliament had afterwards agreed to; neither did they know that there would be three or four lines competing against them. Well, after fifty days' examination before a Committee of the House of Commons, the Bill came up to their Lordships' House. It was eighteen days before a Committee of their Lordships—a Committee that sat for a greater number of hours than any other which he had ever attended, for they met at ten o'clock in the morning, and remained sitting until five o'clock, when the House assembled; but after all this investigation, after all this examination and cross-examination of witnesses, after the fullest
878
inquiry had been entered into, instead of stating the reasons which induced the Committee to come to a particular result, they had chosen to shirk the question, and, on the second resolution, an amendment was moved and carried—"That it was not expedient to proceed further with the Bill this Session." Those who thought Rennie's line preferable, those who conceived Cundy's line to be practicable, and those who were favourable to the Horsted line, voted together on this question, and thus threw out the Bill. This, he conceived, was a very great hardship on the speculators. It was said, that speculators in such a case had no right to complain; but he maintained that they had. If there were not private individuals in this country ready to undertake works of great magnitude, and of immense importance to the country at large, they would be driven, when such works were required, as was the case in other countries, to apply to the Government, and the necessary funds must be supplied from the public purse. He conceived, that the Committee ought to have stated what they conceived to be the best line of road; and, in saying this, he spoke not for the particular company, but for the community at large. Was it right, when individuals came forward and hazarded 100,000 l., that a Committee of the House of Lords should, after eighteen days' inquiry, turn round and say—"We cannot, or do not choose to, make up our minds on the subject?" Was not such a course calculated to keep in suspense the whole body of landholders between this and Brighton? Were they not, by taking such a step, opening a wide field for the ingenuity of every little pettifogging attorney between this city and Brighton, who, in the utter ignorance which prevailed on the subject, in the absence of any decision, might assert that he knew the predilection which the House of Lords felt for the advantages attached to his particular plan or scheme? The dupes of such people would lose their money, they would be deluded and ruined, because the House of Lords had not done their duty. In his opinion, the Committee were bound to return an answer to every one of those resolutions relative to railways to which the House had formerly agreed. If they had said that Stephenson's was not the best line—if they had resolved that other surveys which had been made presented greater advantages, that would have been intelligible. But such a course was not

879
deemed advisable. The object of noble Lords was to concentrate their forces. Therefore they made no mention of any of the other lines, which might have occasioned a difference of opinion. No, they were desirous of concentrating opinion to one point, and to effect that object no notice was taken of the other lines. He had deemed it right to say thus much, without making a personal attack on any individual. He would say nothing of those noble Lords who had not come down regularly, neither would he advert to the canvass of Peers which had taken place; this, however, he would say, that if, by any act of theirs, they weakened the confidence of the country in the proceedings of Committees of that House, they would do more to shake the authority of that branch of the Legislature than their worst enemies out of doors could effect. Hitherto the people had looked to Committees of that House as far superior to Committees of the House of Commons, and they ought carefully to abstain from doing anything that was calculated to create a different impression. The noble Duke then moved, "that this Report be now received."
His Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberlanddeclared, that no man in that House felt more strongly than he did, that Committees of the House of Lords should be perfectly pure. And he would further declare, that he had never known a Committee more anxious to examine evidence, and thoroughly to consider the question submitted to them, than the Committee which the noble Duke had thought it right to bring under the notice of the House. He believed, that no two Peers on that Committee could make up their minds as to which of the four lines of road should be preferred. Petitions had been presented to their Lordships and referred to the Committee, not only from Brighton, but from London, stating not merely general, but specific grounds of objection to Stephenson's line. Under the circumstances he would not commit himself either to Stephenson's line, to Rennie's line, or to Cundy's line. Finding petitions against them all, the Committee could not decide, and therefore they recommended in the Report, that the further consideration of the subject should he postponed, in the hope that, before the next Session of Parliament, out of these four lines the best might be selected. So far from any canvassing going forward, he knew of none.
880
No such thing had come to his knowledge He found it necessary to make these few observations in defence of the character of the Committee.
The Earl of Abingdon The Earl of Abingdon, having been one of this Committee, would state briefly what was the impression made on his mind by the evidence. He was in very great doubt throughout as to which of the lines was the most preferable. But his mind was made up as to the course he ought to pursue when the noble Duke, after counsel had withdrawn, observed, that he was perfectly satisfied that horse races were far less gambling speculations than those in railroads.
Lord Monsonsaid, that the Committee had not come to a decision until after the subject had been thoroughly examined and discussed.
Lord Wharncliffewas sure, that the present mode of legislation with respect to railroads would never give satisfaction, and ought to be altered. In a recent case, where a Committee had resolved that the preamble of a Railway Bill (the Manchester and Cheshire) had not been proved, without stating any reason for coining to such a conclusion, he wished to have the Bill recommitted, but the House negatived his motion. In that case he conceived, that the parties had just ground of complaint.
The Earl of Glengalldisapproved of the decision of the Committee.
The Marquess of Clanricardewas perfectly convinced, in his own mind, that the course taken by the Committee was the best that could be adopted; and, to his own knowledge, it had given a very considerable degree of satisfaction out of doors. He was not of opinion that Stephen-son's line was the best, but it certainly was brought forward in the best state. If the matter were to be decided merely on that view of the case, perhaps he might have said that it was better than the other lines. But that was not the point on which the question rested; and he was confident, that if that line were submitted to, a Government Commission, such as his noble Friend (Lansdowne) had proposed for Ireland, the Commissioners would not approve of it as the best line.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, the resolution of the Committee declared that it was inexpedient to proceed further with the Bill this Session." Now, that was not what they were called on to decide. It was their duty to have stated whether

881
the preamble of the Bill was or was not proved, and to give reasons for their decision. Their Lordships could not pass the matter over. They must send the Bill back to the Committee, to report as to whether the preamble of the Bill was proved or not.
The Duke of Richmondwas compelled to notice the extraordinary statement made by the noble Earl (Abingdon) with reference to what he (the Duke of Richmond) had said in the Committee. That statement was the more extraordinary, as it was made within two days of the time when he had offered the remark to which the noble Earl alluded. The noble Earl was bound in justice, if he asserted that his opinion was changed as to the line of road, in consequence of words said to have been spoken by him (the Duke of Richmond)—the noble Earl was bound, when he completely and perfectly denied that he used such words as the noble Earl had stated, if the Bill should go back to the Committee, to vote for it, and this—that he had not, nor ever had, any shares in that railroad, or in any other railroad whatever,—that he had never had anything to do with any joint-stock companies, any that if he were inclined to embark in and speculation, he should prefer the turf. He felt that Stephenson's line had been very hardly treated, for there never had been any railroad which had so great a proportion of assents on the line. He thought it therefore unfairly, or at any rate harshly dealt with. He did not argue this question on the behalf of any company, but he thought that the House of Lords ought to take care to put a stop to the unwarrantable liberties which the Committee had taken. The noble Baron (Wharncliffe) said, that he had a motion similar to that which he (the Duke of Richmond) was about to make, but was unsuccessful. He must, however, remind the noble Baron that the two cases were not the same. In the noble Baron's case the Committee had only heard the parties who were in favour of the Bill, and had decided that the preamble had not been made out. But here the case was very different; all parties had been examined, and he really believed, that if any one member of the Committee who voted for the Report, were asked, "Where do you find fault with Stephenson's line?" he would be unable to give an answer. Here they had let in the competing lines, and yet
882
the Committee had not reported, as by the sixth resolution of their Lordships relating to railways they were bound to do, in what respect the rival lines were inferior and superior to each other. Had they done so, and obeyed the orders of the House, he believed there would have been some disagreement among them, but by taking the course that had been adopted the opposition was concentrated. He thought this case deserving of their Lordship's consideration. After 100,000 l. had been spent by the parties, 30,000 l. or 40,000 l. of which had been spent in supporting Stephenson's line the Committee ought to have given a decided opinion; and although the money spent upon Stephenson's line might not give him any claim to the success of his Bill, it at least gave him a claim to have the opinion of the Committee on the merits of this line. They were told, that this act of the Committee was popular, but glad as he was to find the illustrious Duke who moved the amendment capable of being influenced by such considerations, he could not make up his mind to do what appeared to him to be wrong, because it might happen to be popular. He should therefore move that the Bill be recommitted.
His Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberlandsaid, that after the personal attack which had been levelled against him by the noble Duke, he trusted he might be permitted to say a few words. He acknowledged that he had moved the amendment, but not in the manner which the noble Duke said. He denied that he had done so on account of (he popularity he should derive from it, for if he thought that he could gain popularity by going to that window, when he believed that such a step would be attended by injustice, he would not stir an inch for that purpose. He had not communicated with any one person on the subject before he moved the amendment in Committee, and he should vote against the recommittal of the Bill; but he must say, that if every noble Lord were to be called forth in the manner in which he had been, after giving his whole attention and constant attendance to the subject before the Committee, very serious obstacles would be interposed to the proper performance of their Lordships' duties. He would only repeat, that in forming the opinion at which he had arrived he had been actuated by conscientious motives

883
alone, and he trusted he should always continue to be so influenced.
The Duke of Beaufortobserved, that although he had voted with the noble Duke (Richmond) in the Committee, he could not concur with him in charging the majority with unfairness. He himself had voted against the Report, because he thought Stephenson's line the best; and he had no doubt that the noble Lords who composed the majority voted for the Report because they were not satisfied with the evidence adduced in favour of any one of the competing lines. Indeed, the illustrious Duke expressly said, that his view in moving the amendment was not that one line was preferable to another, but that he was not satisfied that any one line was superior to another. He could not agree with the noble Duke in thinking that anything wrong or unparliamentary had been done by the Committee.
The Earl of Falmouthfelt himself qualified to say that he had never entered a Committee who, as far as his observation went, meant to act more fairly. He did not see the slightest symptom of partiality either one way or the other.
Lord Hollandasked where the Bill was, and whether it was in the possession of the House?
The Duke of Buccleughcould not remain quiet when he heard the noble Duke (Richmond) declare that Mr. Stephenson had been treated with unfairness, or at least with harshness, nor did he understand what the noble Duke meant by the unwarrantable liberties which the Committee had taken. Was it an unwarrantable liberty for the Committee to report one way or another? If every Committee which differed in opinion from the chairman were to be called on to explain why they differed, such a course would be followed by the greatest inconveniences.
The Duke of Richmond, when he used the words "unwarrantable liberties," meant the liberty which the Committee had taken in not obeying the orders of the House.
The Marquess of Lansdowneunderstood the noble Duke who had just sat down to have so expressed himself, and he must say, that looking at the orders of their Lordships' House, under which the Committee was appointed, it did not appear to him that the Committee had complied with the instructions they contained. His noble Friend (Lord Holland) had asked whether the Committee had reported
884
or not. There seemed some doubt upon the point. He understood that the Committee had absolved themselves from their duties, and instead of making a special report and declaring their opinion in the terms of the sixth resolution, they had determined and reported that it was not expedient to proceed further with the Bill this Session. Upon these grounds he should vote for sending back the Bill to the same or to another Committee.
The Earl of Westmorelandsaid, that it was not his intention, after the discussion which had taken place, to enter at large into the merits of the question, but their Lordships' would recollect that they had given directions to the Committee to examine the parties who had come before them and to report upon the evidence. Instead of that, however, without entering upon the merits of the different lines, the Committee had come to no decision at all, but they had come to a decision that they did not choose to obey their Lordships' orders. He could not but concur with the noble Duke (Richmond) in thinking that the parties were placed by the Report of the Committee in a very grievous situation, since they had been allowed to spend 100,000 l. without any information being given to them for it. If the Committee had done their duty, they would have told the parties that their opinion was unfavourable, and then they would not have been urged to risk another application. It was, he thought, the least thing they could have done after such a waste of Parliamentary labour, and such an expenditure of money, to let the parties know what course they were to pursue another year.
Lord Hollandsaid, that the Committee had departed from the general practice of Committees, and from the instructions of the House. They had not reported whether the preamble of any of the Bills was proved, nor upon the evidence which had been laid before them.
The Marquess of Salisburythought, that for most practical purposes the orders of the House had been complied with.
The Duke of Richmondin reply said, that the Committee were bound to report upon all the matters mentioned in the resolutions of the House, and he thought it not right that they should take on themselves to exercise a power which only belonged to their Lordships at large. If a special report had been made, then he

885
should move that the Bill be recommitted; but if not, then that the Committee should resume their sittings. He could wish that another Committee might be appointed, but as he believed there was no precedent for such a course, and it would be dangerous to establish one, he should now move that the Committee do re-assemble for the purpose of reporting to the House the evidence, and their reasons in detail for which they came to the resolution in their report.
Their Lordships divided: — Contents 42; Not-contents 44: Majority 2.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Duncannon

Richmond

Torrington

Sutherland

Falkland

Leinster

St. Vincent

Argyll.

MARQUESSES.

LORDS.

Headford

Foley

Ormonde

Seaford

Lansdowne

Hatherton

Westminister

Plunkett

Westmeath

Langdale

Queensberry

Holland

Conyngham.

Byron

EARLS.

Glenlyon

Minto

Barham

Glengall

Wharncliffe

Haddington

Stafford

Scarborough

Templemore

Albemarle

Saye and Sele

Westmoreland

Lilford

Leitrim

Mostyn

Chichester

Dinorben

Ilchester.

VISCOUNTS.

BISHOP.

Melbourne

Bristol.

STAFFORD.—PREVENTION OF BRIBERY.
The Marquess of Clanricarde The Marquess of Clanricarde moved the second reading of the Stafford Borough Prevention of Bribery Bill. In doing so he should not detain their Lordships by reciting facts which were within their knowledge, and of which he conceived there could be but one opinion. Undoubtedly, if he could, it would not be a small and partial measure of this nature that he should desire to have passed, but one completely disfranchising the borough. No one could doubt that there had been the most flagrant bribery and corruption in the borough. This was a poor punishment for such an offence. Their Lordships, however, had decided otherwise and he now offered this Bill entirely out of respect to their Lordships; because if it went to the public, that when such a
886
case as this was established, they were not disposed to put a stop to the practices disclosed in it—if they did this, it would give great room for those who were found inclined to attack their Lordships to declare that that House was not disposed to put an end to bribery and corruption. He did not say one word of what was his opinion on this subject; but if their Lordships allowed a case of this kind to pass without punishment, they would certainly show an extreme lenity for offenders of this class. It was known that their Lordships had held out against reform of Parliament; when this was known, would not, he asked, the natural conclusion out of doors be, that in all cases of reform such as this, the Peers did not desire a reform in the representation of the people? The Bill proposed to disfranchise the burgesses; at the same time, regulations were made, as many of them were householders, to enable them to register in that capacity before another election could take place. Of the 850 burgesses of Stafford, it was admitted that 700 were distinctly proved to have been bribed. This occurred in the elections of 1831, 1832, and 1835. He moved that the Bill be read a second time.
The Earl of Devonwas not surprised that the noble Marquess had forborn to go into any details upon the question, because the evidence, when analysed, would by no means bear him out in some of the assertions which he had made. If that evidence had been accurately examined it would have been found that this measure was fraught with the greatest injustice to many of that class of persons who were at one sweep deprived of their franchise; whilst, on the other hand, it left altogether untouched many upon whom, according to the evidence taken at the bar, the punishment and indignation of the House ought justly to fall. It was the principle of justice, and the principle of common sense, to punish only those who were proved to be guilty; but this Bill went to a much greater extent. Was it, then, to be charged upon that House that they were the abettors of bribery and corruption if they hesitated to punish the ignorant man alone, who had taken the bribe, having positive evidence before them, and well knowing, that A and B were the parties who offered that bribe? Those were the grounds upon which he felt it was their duty not to

887
agree to the second reading, but to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
The Duke of Wellington: My Lords, after the observations which I made on the former Bill, some few nights ago, in opposition to going into Committee upon that Bill, it is necessary for me to address to your Lordships a few words with respect to the course which I mean to take regarding the Bill to-night. My Lords, this is a Bill which puts forward some very curious principles; and, first of all, after reciting bribery and corruption in the borough of Stafford, it states, not that those who are corrupt shall be disfranchised—that would be a fair principle to act on—but it says the burgesses and freemen shall be disfranchised. I conclude, my Lords, that by "burgesses and freemen" it means the burgesses and freemen under the charter of impropriation, and not those who have become burgesses under the Corporations Act. I apprehend that it alludes to burgesses and freemen under the old charter granted to the town. Now, my Lords, it does seem to me rather a strange circumstance that those persons should be disfranchised by name, there being, with regard to some of them, no proof of their having been guilty of any corruption whatever; and that the burgesses and freemen under the Corporations Act should not be included in this Bill, against many of whom there were clear proofs of bribery and corruption. But this Bill, my Lords, contains another very curious principle. When the burgesses under the Corporations Act, or even the freemen under the Corporations Act, are disfranchised, according to the provisions of this Bill, they may be admitted into the freedom of the corporation over again, and be corrupt again or not, as they please—but they may again be admitted by taking out their freedom under the law as it now stands. This is what the noble Marquess calls a cure for corruption. ["No, no!"] Well, then, a punishment for corruption. But, my Lords, in the evidence which has been given at your Lordships' bar, there are certain proofs against those who, have been guilty of bribing the voters. Now, my Lords, there is not a line in the Bill against them—not a syllable in the Bill against them. They who hold their privilege of voting under Act of Parliament, whose right is confirmed by Act of
888
Parliament, are disfranchised, though nothing is proved against them; those who are disfranchised are allowed again to become freemen; and, lastly, there are others of whom, though proved to be guilty of corruption by the evidence given at the bar of your Lordships' House, no notice whatever is taken. Then, my Lords, we are told that if we do not pass this Bill the public will be convinced that we do not desire to prevent bribery. Now, I beg to say that I am prepared—and I have already shown myself to be so—for I believe I myself proposed to a Committee of your Lordships a measure which tended to bring to justice all offenders of this nature; that measure was, however, thrown out in another place—but I repeat, my Lords, I shall be ready at any time to vote for any measure which may tend to the punishment of that species of corruption, after proof shall have been produced at the bar. I am ready now to vote for any measure which will punish those who are found to be guilty of corruption, and upon whom punishment would justly fall. But, my Lords, I have a very great disinclination to vote at this period of the Session for a Bill the object of which is to carry out such principles as those which I have just enumerated to your Lordships. It is impossible for the House to adopt such a sweeping measure—a measure which goes to disfranchise all the burgesses and freemen of Stafford, and which in the same clause gives to the same burgesses facilities for again becoming free, and affords opportunites for the practice of bribery and corruption a second time. Under these circumstances, my Lords, I shall certainly vote against the second reading of this Bill.
The Bishop of Gloucesterwished to say a few words with reference to a misrepresentation that had appeared in the Morning Chronicle newspaper, respecting the votes of his right rev. brethren and himself when this Bill was before their Lordships on a former occasion. The writer in that paper asserted that the bench of Bishops voted against the measure, and that through their votes it was rejected; then in a strain of malignant invective he charged them with encouraging vice and profligacy, by granting impunity to persons guilty of corruption. Had the first assertion of that writer been proved—namely, that the votes of the bench of Bishops had effected the rejection of the, Bill-he did

889
not know that the circumstance could be considered as reflecting any discredit upon them, but it was not the fact. A considerable number of his right rev. brethren had attended on that evening because a Bill was expected to come on in which they were much interested; it did not come on, and only three out of the thirty remained. He was not amongst the three—he did not vote upon the Bill at all, for he had determined not to vote on it, not having heard the evidence. He confessed it appeared to him in the light of a judicial proceeding, and he thought, that in order to form a sound opinion on the subject, it was necessary to hear the evidence. What motives might have influenced others it was not for him to say, but those were the considerations which governed his mind, and he really thought it due to himself and the right rev. Friends near him to correct such a gross misrepresentation. As to the Bill, he looked on it as a one-sided measure, and not calculated to render that impartial justice which would be expected at the hands of their Lordships.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, if the Bill of the noble Marquess proceeded upon a fair principle of justice he would have found it his duty to have disfranchised all those who had been guilty of taking bribes, whether they were burgesses, freemen, or 10 l. householders.
The Marquess of Clanricardereplied. It was difficult to suit the taste of noble Lords opposite. When he had formerly brought in a sweeping measure to punish those who offered as well as those who received the bribe, he had been told, that if he brought in a Bill which would affect any particular class they might perhaps accede to it; though it was now argued in opposition to the Bill, that it punished only one class of offenders. If they went into Committee they might introduce a clause to spare those particular persons against whom there might be no positive proof of guilt.
Lord Lyndhurstmerely wished to correct an observation which fell from the noble Marquess, imputing to noble Lords on that (the Opposition) side of the House a disposition favourable towards bribery. Now, it appeared upon the face of the evidence, that at the election in 1826 the bribers were two Whigs; in 1832 the bribers were Chetwynd, Gronow, and Blunt, three Whigs—no bribery from a Conservative;
890
in 1831, Campbell (Sir John Campbell), I believe, said the noble Lord, he is a Whig. So that the bribery originated with their opponents, and the imputation of the noble Marquess was not sustained.
The Marquess of Clanricardecould assure the noble Lord, that he had never intended to renew any of those ridiculous distinctions and bickerings between Whig and Tory: everybody knew there had been Whig borough mongers. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had not been one; but he wished he had had the good fortune, for they were very profitable. There could be no doubt that there were Whigs who bought boroughs, and Whigs who sold them; but, unfortunately, perhaps, for the country, there had been more Tory boroughmongers than Whigs.
Lord Straffordwould support any measure that went to punish those who had been proved guilty.
The Marquess of Salisburywas inclined to think, that it would be better than proceeding by Bill to move an Address to his Majesty, begging him to instruct the Attorney-General to institute criminal proceedings against the offenders; but if they were to proceed by Bill, he would suggest to the noble Marquess, instead of pressing this measure forward to a Committee, to withdraw it, and introduce another more acceptable in its stead.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that if they deprived any town of the elective franchise, such a proceeding must prove injurious to some innocent parties. It was quite clear that there had in this case been gross corruption, at the same time that it would be most unjust to disfranchise by name persons who had no opportunity of stating their defence in person or by counsel. He was favourable to the principle of the present Bill, and thought that in Committee it might be so modified as to prove acceptable to their Lordships, and just in its operation; he should therefore vote for the second reading.
Their Lordships divided on the amendment that the Bill be read a second time in three months:—Contents 38; Not-Contents 22:—Majority 16.

TITHE COMMUTATION (ENGLAND).
A Conference was held with the Commons, when the Commons stated their reasons for disagreeing to some of their Lordships' amendments to the Commutation of Tithes (England) Bill, and returned the Bill with their own amendments to.

CHARITABLE TRUSTEES.
The Lord Chancellor, in moving the second reading of the Charitable Trustees Bill, reminded their Lordships, that it was resolved last year to insert a clause in the Municipal Corporation Act to allow charitable trusts to remain in the hands of the existing trustees until the 1st of August in this year, unless Parliament should pass some other measure prescribing other regulations. That time was now past, and their Lordships were called upon by the exigency of the case, as well as by the petitions which had been laid upon the table of their Lordships' House, to provide some measure for the future, as well as for the better, administration of the charitable trusts. For that purpose the House of Commons had passed the Bill, the second reading of which he now moved their Lordships to agree to. The noble and learned Lord then proceeded to quote from the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into charitable trusts, the cases of Exeter, Truro, Cambridge, Ipswich, and Winchester, in respect to the corporations of which the Commissioners had reported, that in some cases a considerable portion of the charitable funds placed in their trust had been devoted to purposes of bribery and corruption at elections, and in others malversation and waste had been practised to a great extent. The noble and learned Lord said, that in referring to those cases it was not his intention to point out to public censure any particular individuals belonging to those corporations, or to say which of them might or might not be guilty of the transaction stated, but to show generally that the Commissioners had made out a case which proved, that great misappropriation and mismanagement were chargeable upon some corporations in whom the charitable funds had been invested. The reasons why a similar Bill was not passed last Session were, he believed, first, the late period of the Session at which it was brought before the House, and, secondly, the great difficulty which was felt in providing a proper remedy for the evils which were acknowledged to exist. He regretted that the present Bill had not been brought before their Lordships at an earlier period of the Session, but he trusted, that as the subject was a most important one, they would not begrudge the time which they might be called upon to devote to it, in order to come to a conclusion as to the mode in which charitable funds should be hereafter administered. The Bill proposed
892
plans which he thought likely to meet with the support of their Lordships. It would secure the election of individuals proper to be entrusted with the management of the funds in question; it would secure an investigation into the mode in which those funds were administered; and it provided for the publicity of the accounts—a sure safeguard against mismanagement. The new trustees were to be elected in a manner least likely to engender party feeling, and at the same time, in places where there were two parties, to meet the wishes of both. The council of each borough would first meet, and having ascertained and fixed the number of trustees, they would call upon the burgesses to elect them; but it was provided that each burgess should vote for only one-half of the number of trustees, thus giving both parties in the borough an equal chance. The trustees, not being a corporation, were to elect their own chairman, but in the event of their being so equally divided as not to agree in electing a chairman, the mayor was to be the chairman. The trustees were to be elected every three years. That was the outline of the Bill; the other parts of it related to minor regulations among the trustees, who were to appoint their own treasurer and secretary, and to make such arrangements as they might deem necessary to carry into effect the objects of the respective charities.
The Earl of Falmouthwished to take the earliest opportunity of replying to some observations which the noble and learned Lord had quoted from the Report of the Commissioners with respect to the corporation of Truro having been guilty of mismanaging the charitable funds committed to its care. He could not let it go forth to the public that Truro had been convicted of such conduct, without putting in his protest against such a statement. It was true that the Commissioners had made that statement in their Report; but in his opinion, and in the opinion of persons who were best acquainted with the corporation of Truro, there never was a more iniquitous Report. The corporation of Truro would have proved that at the bar of their Lordships' House, if they had not been prevented by a summary process, on which it would not become him to express an opinion. Truro had been convicted without a fair hearing, but he strenuously protested against that conviction; and he would say, before their Lordships and the country, that there never was a corporation more

893
incapable of mismanagement of charitable funds than that of Truro; it was composed of men who were above suspicion, and although he was unwilling to make comparisons, yet with respect to property, education, and qualifications for good local government, there was no comparison between the late corporation and that which had been called into existence by the new law. It might be suspected, that he was connected with the corporation of Truro; he might have been if he had thought proper to adopt certain manœuvres, but since the passing of the Reform Bill he had had no connexion whatever with the corporation. He was, however, acquainted with the facts of the case, and he must protest against Truro being again pointed out as an instance of mismanagement of charitable funds.
The Duke of Wellingtonwould acknowledge, that their Lordships were bound to find some means for the proper administration of charitable funds; but he wished to point out to the House, that the noble and learned Lord had adverted only to some of their past proceedings in reference to this subject. Their Lordships would remember, that in the course of last year, when this subject was under consideration, a noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham), whose absence from that House he sincerely regretted, more particularly because if he had been in his place he believed they would have been spared the pain of the present discussion, but that noble and learned Lord moved the clause in the Municipal Corporation Bill, now in existence as an Act of Parliament, under which the persons who now administer those charitable trusts referred to were to continue in power untill the 1st of August in this year. The object of that provision was to give the noble and learned Lord time to consider of a measure to be proposed to this House for the future regulation of those trusts. That was the professed object of the noble Lord, and he (the Duke of Wellington) must confess, that he agreed in that proposal, because he felt, that there was no man in this country who had given so much of his attention to that subject, and therefore so capable, as that noble and learned Lord, or at all events, more capable, of producing to that House a proper measure for the administration of those trusts hereafter. Their Lordships had not had the advantage of the presence of that noble and learned Lord this year, and for that reason, as they had, in the course of the present Session,
894
upon the question of certain amendments upon the Corporation Reform Bill being discussed, inserted a clause to continue the present trustees for another year, up to the end of the next Session of Parliament, in order to give time to that noble and learned Lord to come into his place in that House, and to propose a measure for the future administration of these trusts; or, if the noble and learned Lord should, unfortunately, not be able to attend in his place in that House, that some other noble Lord might come forward and place such a proposition before their Lordships as would be worthy of their adoption. Now that was a part of the question to which the noble and learned Lord, in moving the second reading of the Bill, had omitted to advert, but which he ought to have borne in mind, because, in point of fact, the House now stood precisely in the same position in which it did last Session, because provision had been made for the temporary administration of charitable trusts—that was to say, up to the 1st of August next year. No step had been taken which could prevent any measure which the noble and learned Lord, whose absence they all lamented, might think proper to propose; the question was left fairly open. As to the measure which the noble and learned Lord had now recommended to the House, the object of which professed to be to appoint trustees for the better management of those charities which had been left by beneficent individuals to their fellow-citizens, and which he believed had been generally well managed, although it appeared that some persons had been accused of mismanagement, but of which there was not much proof, he did not expect they would be much better administered hereafter. The mode of electing trustees proposed was similar to that in the case of assessors under the Municipal Corporation Reform Act; but there was a wide difference in the nature of the offices; the duties comprised not only a regular mode of keeping and auditing the accounts, but the administration of the patronage of those charities; and he was not disposed to give that administration to either party in these corporations. He regretted exceedingly that corporations had been formed on party principles at all; but he objected still more to those parties being invested with a power over the patronage of these charities, and he believed that the noble and learned Lord, to whom he had so frequently alluded, had that object principally in view, and wished to prevent

895
the patronage of those charities from being at the disposal of parties in corporations. With these views, he would recommend the noble and learned Lord to adhere to the rule which had been adopted by the House already, to secure which he should move, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
Viscount Melbournebegged to submit to their Lordships that the cause stated by the noble Duke did not afford sufficient ground to warrant their Lordships in delaying the progress of the present measure. The noble Duke had stated, with great accuracy, that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), whose absence they all regretted and deplored, had intended to bring in a Bill for the general supervision of all charitable trusts, and therefore it was that the clause to which the noble Duke had referred had been introduced. It was also perfectly true that when the Bill for the amendment of the Municipal Corporations Act was in Committee, a clause was introduced containing the arrangement as to the administration of these funds, until the same period in next year, as was enacted in the Municipal Corporations Act of last year. But he begged to call the attention of the noble Duke and the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst) to the fact that he (Lord Melbourne) took an objection altogether to the introduction of the clause, because, as he had then stated, its introduction was likely to interfere with the course of legislation; he was, however, told that the clause only provided for things remaining as they were until Parliament should otherwise direct. He, therefore, contended that that circumstance ought not to be any bar to their considering any measure that might come up from the other House of Parliament in the course of the present Session. He thought, therefore, that although the clause in question had been adopted, it ought not to be pleaded in bar of going to the second reading of the Bill before their Lordships. He begged also to state, that the fact of his noble and learned Friend's having intended to introduce the Bill to which the noble Duke had referred, ought to be no bar to their Lordships proceeding with the present mesaure, because the Bill so intended to be introduced by his noble and learned Friend, was to be a general measure applicable to all charitable trusts, and for the purpose of affording
896
a more easy remedy for the abuse of these trusts than the courts of law of the country at present supply. It never was the intention of his noble and learned Friend to supersede all local administration of these charities, because it was absolutely necessary that there should be some local power to whom the authority of administering these charities should be confided, in the places where they exist. It was an argument in very common use in that House, that the lateness of the period of the Session ought to induce their Lordships to pause in passing Bills. Now that was a very proper argument to use, if the Bill to which it referred was of a complicated nature, and required much consideration; but if it was a short Bill, distinct, clear, and simple in its enactments, then that was only a formal mode of objection, and had nothing real or substantial in it. He would not enter into the subject as to whether these Corporations had abused the charitable trusts or not; but that they had used them for political purposes was a ground of charge against many of them, and perhaps, in some instances, not without good reason. There must be a local control of charitable trusts, and where could it be better placed than in the hands of the people of the town? and that was what was proposed to be carried into effect by the present Bill. If any objections existed as to the details of the measure, they might be considered in Committee; but as it was an admitted fact that these funds were placed in improper hands, would it not be folly not to remove them into others? Would it be justifiable to leave them where they now were, if a remedy could be found? If, therefore, the present Bill would do that, and suit the circumstances which were to be provided for, surely it ought to pass. It was highly necessary for the due administration of justice, in the first place, that such should be the case; it was also prudentially necessary in the second because, if the proper administration of these trusts were not provided for, they would prove the source of great evils, rather than of benefit, to the places to which they belonged. It was also imperatively necessary that they should be administered without a view to party interests, or to party politics. He thought the present Bill well calculated to effect these objects; and he did not think there was anything in the arguments of the noble Duke to

897
induce their Lordships to refuse to go on with the measure.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, true it was, it was a very short Bill; yet the subject was a most difficult one to deal with; indeed, as much so as any that could be proposed to Parliament. The Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on the 7th of June; it was much discussed there, divisions took place upon it, and it did not come up to their Lordships' House until the 29th of July, and it was not until that very morning that the prints of the Bill were in circulation. Under such circumstances it was, that their Lordships were now called upon to discuss the merits of this question. Now what was it which passed last Session on this subject? His noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) objected as strongly as any individual could do against a principle which was contained in the original Bill —namely, that the election of the trustees should be vested in the town-council. He proposed to strike out that clause, that proposition was adopted, and the clause to which the noble Duke had referred was introduced in its stead. The measure intended to be introduced by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) did not relate to the charitable trusts, of Corporations alone, but to all the charities in the kingdom, and for the framing of such a measure his noble and learned Friend was, of all men in England, the most competent. In consequence of the absence of his noble and learned Friend the clause extending the period to the 1st of August next was adopted in the Municipal Corporations Act Amendment Bill, in order to afford his noble and learned Friend the opportunity of redeeming the pledge he had solemnly given to Parliament. If their Lordships did not allow him to have the opportunity of redeeming that pledge they would be acting inconsistently with the view they took last Session. The objection to the clause in the Bill of last year was, that the trustees were to be elected by the town-council, who were party men. How was this objection met by the present Bill? Why it increased, because it placed the election in the hands of the burgesses at large. Would they not be party men, and would they not administer these trusts on party principles? But then he knew it would be said, that, in order to prevent partiality, no person could vote for more
898
than half the number of trustees to be elected. The result of this would be, that there might be an equal number of each party, and the most bitter conflicts would take place between them. Was there ever a principle so absurd? The charitable funds were to be administered by two parties, who were equally divided as regarded the questions that were to come before them for decision. But, then, there was a device framed; and these devices, he observed, were always creeping in to get rid of an obvious difficulty—the chairman of the trustees was to have the casting vote. If the trustees did not elect a chairman, then the mayor was to be chairman. He would belong to the Ultra-liberal party; and, considering the parties to be equally divided, the mayor would then turn the balance in favour of his own party. To this principle he had the strongest possible objection, and he thought it insurmountable. Be it remembered also that a great portion of these charitable trusts belonged to members of the Established Church; but they would be administered by Dissenters, seeing that the election was to be vested in the burgesses at large. He begged it to be understood that he cast no reflection on that body. He knew among the Dissenters from the doctrines of the Church of England there were to be found men of great piety, of learning, and of most exemplary character; but he did not choose to accede to the proposition of appointing Dissenters to administer the funds belonging to the members of the Established Church. He knew he should be told that having admitted Dissenters into Corporations by the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, they ought to have this power. But that was a doctrine to which he could not accede. Upon these grounds, shortly stated, it was, that he opposed the second reading of the Bill, which he considered fraught with mischief and inconvenience. Now what was it they were to expect from the operation of this Bill? By the Municipal Reform Act, Louth School was exempted from its operation; but under this Bill it would come under the Corporation. He called upon their Lordships to look at one of the petitions which had been presented from Louth. The petitioners did not say, that that school was not well managed; but they said it was improper that it should be a grammar school, and that it ought to be turned into

899
a commercial academy. Was not this a touchstone to show what the intentions of the provisions of the Bill were, and did it not show that it was intended to give to Dissenters the control over funds which were intended only for the benefit of members of the Established Church? Now, he, for one, would never consent to such a proposition. He, therefore, concurred in the motion of the noble Duke, in order to give his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) an opportunity of redeeming his pledge, not only as regarded the charitable trusts of corporate towns, but of every other town throughout the kingdom.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the question was not whether their Lordships agreed to all the details, but whether the principle of the measure was one which they would reject. With regard to the case of Louth School, to which his noble and learned Friend had referred, that had been not only an educational charity, but a municipal charity also, but by the Municipal Reform Act, the municipal portion was taken away from under its former trustees, and the educational portion continued in their hands. The House of Commons had not yet finally decided upon the rejection of, or the acquiescence in, the Amendments made by their Lordships in the Municipal Corporations Act Amendment Bill. He begged their Lordships to consider what would be the state of these charitable funds, and of the persons whose existence depended upon their application, if that Bill should be lost. The consequence would be, that every borough which had any charitable funds to administer would be under the necessity of applying to the Court of Chancery. He hoped their Lordships would enter into the consideration of this measure, particularly as it would not interfere with any general measure which might be introduced.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that when the noble and learned Lord stated, that this Bill vested the rights and the patronage of the Church of England in Dissenters, the real objection which the noble and learned Lord entertained, although he did not choose to state it in those words, was to the majority of the burgesses and inhabitants in the various towns. The noble and learned Lord objected to their having the election of the persons by whom the charities instituted for their benefit should be administered.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, the noble Marquess had altogether mistaken his argument. The case which he (Lord Lyndhurst) had put, with respect to the interference of Dissenters, applied not to charities, as the noble Marquess seemed to suppose, intended for the general benefit of a town, but specially dedicated to purposes connected with the Church of England.
Lord Ellenboroughregretted, that the effect of rejecting this Bill must be to continue for another year the administration of charitable property as it now stood; but, whatever inconveniences might arise from such a state of things, he thought it would, nevertheless, be preferable to passing a measure such as this, including, as it did, many provisions to which he had the strongest possible objection. For any delay which had occurred in legislating upon this subject, his Majesty's Government were alone to be held responsible.
The House divided on the original question: — Contents 22; Not-Contents 39: Majority 17.

List of the CONTENTS.

The Lord Chancellor

Minto

DUKES.

LORDS.

Leinster

Duncannon

Richmond

Holland

MARQUESSES.

Lilford

Clanricarde

Lyttleton

Headfort

Melbourne

Lansdowne

Plunkett

Tavistock

Prudhoe

Westminster.

Torrington.

EARLS.

BISHOPS.

Charlemont

Bristol

Ilchester

Hereford

Leitrim

List of NOT-CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Warwick

Cumberland

LORDS.

Wellington

Bayning

MARQUESSES.

Carbery

Bute

Colville

Ormonde

De Lisle

Salisbury

Dunsany

EARLS.

Ellenborough

Abingdon

Farnborough

Bandon

Gage

Beauchamp

Gort

Brownlow

Lyndhurst

Falmouth

Maryborough

Glengall

Montague

Harrowby

Redesdale

Liverpool

Strangford

Mansfield

Wharncliffe

Ripon

ARCHBISHOPS.

Rosslyn

Armagh

901

Canterbury

Gloucester

BISHOPS.

Lincoln

Cork

Oxford

Exeter

Bill put off for three months.

ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGES.
The Marquess of Clanricarde The Marquess of Clanricarde moved the second reading of this Bill.
The Archbishop of Armaghadmitted that the present state of the law with respect to Roman Catholic marriages required amendment; but he had great objection to several provisions in this Bill. In his opinion it would tend very much to encourage clandestine marriages, and for that reason he should move that it be read a second time that day three months.
Lord Plunkett supported the Bill.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas surprised that the noble Marquess or the noble and learned Lord had not brought forward a general measure for the benefit of Ireland, by giving publicity to marriages, which should be applicable to all Ireland. He was quite sure that there was no one on that side of the House who would not hail such a measure with infinite satisfaction, and if the noble Lord or the noble Marquess would bring forward such a measure in the next Session of Parliament, he would give it his best consideration, and his support in carrying it into execution. He objected to this measure because it referred to only part of the subject, and, therefore, he should vote for the amendment of the most rev. Prelate.
Their Lordships divided on the original motion:—Contents 19; Not-Contents 39: Majority 20.

List of the CONTENTS.

The Lord Chancellor

Leitrim

DUKES.

Minto

Argyll

VISCOUNTS.

Leinster

Duncannon

Richmond

Melbourne

MARQUESSES.

Torrington

Clanricarde

LORDS.

Headfort

Holland

Lansdowne

Lyttelton

Tavistock

Plunkett

EARLS.

Prudhoe

Charlemont

Bill put off for three months.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
Report on the Established Church Bill brought up.
The Archbishop of Canterbury The Archbishop of Canterbury moved as an amendment to the clause requiring
902
the Welch Bishops to possess a knowledge of the Welch language, to omit the words which would make that qualification necessary. The duty of a Bishop was not to act as the shepherd of a flock, but as the superintendent of the pastors, and as all the Welch clergymen understood the English language, and the proposed restriction would unnecessarily limit the exercise of the prerogative, he should move that the words be omitted.
Amendment agreed to. Report received.

MARRIAGES.
Viscount Melbourne Viscount Melbourne moved the third reading of the Marriages Bill.
The Bishop of Gloucesterhad called the attention of their Lordships a few evenings back to the case of a refusal of a certificate or licence by the superintendent-registrar. He now moved a clause giving an appeal to the registrar-general.
Motion agreed to.
Lord Plunkettwished to call their Lordships' attention to the 43rd Clause. It provided, that if any person, knowingly or wilfully, after the first day of March next, were married in any place other than a church or chapel, or such office as pointed out by the Act, or without due notice to the superintendent-registrar, where such notice was necessary, or without a notice of certificate duly issued, or without a licence, or in the absence of the registrar or superintendent-registrar, where his presence was necessary, such marriage should be null and void. Here were no less than five provisions, any one of which would annul the marriage, and leave the issue to all the consequences of such a misfortune. He proposed, therefore, to limit at least the time within which proceedings were to be taken to annul such marriage to one year from its solemnisation —a provision which would be in accordance with the 9th George 2nd.
Lord Ellenboroughthought the amendement of the noble and learned Lord was open to great objections. It would raise up again voidable marriages, to which their Lordships had expressed a strong repugnance, and last year had passed a Bill whereby such marriages were declared for the future void.
Amendment negatived. Bill read a third time.
On the question that the Bill do pass,
The Earl of Mansfieldsaid, that not

903
having been present at the second reading of this Bill, he had not had an opportunity of stating his opinion of the measure, but he could not help expressing his wish that it had received fuller consideration than it had even during the several nights it had been under discussion. However, the Bill had been assented to by so great a majority of their Lordships, that any expectation that he might have entertained that they might have been induced to take a different view of the measure would probably have been disappointed. He could certainly have very much wished to have addressed them upon the question, and to have pointed out the defects of the Bill, but it would be unwarrantable and unpardonable in him to trespass upon their Lordships' indulgence, even if they were disposed to extend it to him, by stating in detail his objections now. He should, therefore, satisfy his sense of duty by saying "not content" to the passing of the Bill, and in doing so he must express his apprehension, that a full consideration of the measure would show, that its effects and consequences would be different from those which their Lordships had anticipated, and which he feared they would have reason to lament.
Bill passed.