Lords Sitting of 6 August 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Linen Manufactures, &c. (Ireland); Dublin Police; Postage; Highway Rates; Ecclesiastical Courts (No. 1); Stock in Trade (No. 2).—Read a third time:—Militia Pay; Militia Ballots Suspension; East India Shipping; Bank of Ireland; Isle of Man; Slave Trade Treaties (Venezuela); Notice of Elections; Attorneys and Solicitors (Ireland); Slave Trade Treaties; New South Wales and Van Dieman's Land; Pilots; Population (Ireland); Court Houses (Ireland); Joint Stock Banking Companies; Church Temporalities (Ireland); Population; Loan Societies; Commerce and Navigation.
Petitions presented. By Lord Lyndhurst, from the Solicitors in the Metropolis, to reform the Court of Chancery.

HOLYHEAD ROAD.
Viscount Duncannon Viscount Duncannon moved the Order of the Day for the House going into committee on the Holyhead and Shrewsbury Roads bill The object of the bill was the improvement of this line of road. The alteration on the road between London and Dunstable had been executed for less than the estimated sum, while the improvement beyond Dunstable exceeded the estimate, chiefly in consequence of the purchase of lands. The bill provided, that the sum of 2,000 l. which was saved on the estimate of the works between London and Dun-stable should be made applicable to the expence incurred by the works beyond Dunstable.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, had this bill been introduced earlier in the session, he would have moved, that it be referred to a committee up stairs, in order to show not only the gross negligence, but, to use a harsher phrase, the gross malversation which was observable in the proceedings of (as we understood) the Dunstable trust. He had many objections to this measure. By the former bill the funds necessary for the improvement of the road were voted by Parliament, but by the present measure Sir Henry Parnell, and four commissioners, were authorised to expend any money they pleased without any efficient control. The noble Marquess moved "that the bill be committed this day three months."
Their Lordships divided on the original motion:—Contents 24; Not Contents 23; Majority 1.
Bill went through committee.

CRACOW.
Lord Lyndhursthad to present to their Lordships two petitions, the one from the merchants of the city of London, the other from the merchants of the borough of Birmingham, on the subject of the present state of the republic of Cracow, with reference to its commercial relations. He had been in possession of those petitions for a considerable period, and he rejoiced that he had not presented them sooner, because, from circumstances which had recently occurred, he had some reason to hope, that events were in progress that would beneficially alter the situation of the inhabitants of Cracow. He alluded to the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (who must be taken as the representative of the Government) with respect to the conduct that had been observed towards the republic of Cracow. That noble Lord was stated to have described the proceedings adopted with reference to the republic of Cracow as a gross violation of the treaty of Vienna, and so far an injury, and consequently an affront, to the people of this country. The noble Lord further admitted that the pretence on which those proceedings were founded was false in fact, and afforded no justification for them. It was also, he understood, stated by the noble Lord, and he rejoiced in it, that Her Majesty's Ministers took a deep interest in the prosperity and welfare of this republic; and further, that pressing remonstrances had been made, and were
1346
still making, to Austria, to induce her to withdraw her troops from the territory of that republic, and to restore it to the situation in which it was placed by the treaty of Vienna. All these facts were admitted by Government; and when he heard that a new alliance had been entered into between this country and the courts of St. Petersburg and Vienna, which must, of course, give so much additional influence to Her Majesty's Government at those courts, he could not but express his extreme regret that the remonstrance made by Her Majesty's Government to those courts, earnest as they might have been, were not attended with success. However, he looked forward with hope to the withdrawal of the Austrian troops from the republic of Cracow at no distant period, and the consequent renewal of that state of commercial as well as political independence which was guaranteed to the republic by the treaty of Vienna. The petitions referred merely to the commercial character of the republic. One of them was signed by merchants of the city of London, the other by merchants and manufacturers of the town of Birmingham; and when he adverted to the names by which the former was signed, when he looked at one name which was affixed to the petition that he then lied in his hand, he confidently expected that the appeal would be successful. The second name appended to the petition was that of a firm supporter—nay, he might add, the guide and director of Her Majesty's Government, and he could not suppose that a petition thus signed would not be attended to. The signature was that of "Daniel O'Connell, a Governor and Director of the National Bank of Ireland, No. 13, Old Broad-street." He knew that some persons were inclined to underrate the commercial importance of the republic of Cracow. but that, he believed, arose from a want of knowledge as to the geographical position of the republic, and a gross misunderstanding as to the spirit and enterprise of the merchants of this country, who were anxious to avail themselves for commercial purposes of that advantageous position.
Petitions laid on the table.

ANTI-MINISTERIALPETITIONS.
Lord Lyndhursthad another petition to present, signed by 40,000 operatives of the city of Glasgow; and, from the statements made

1347
to him, he had reason to believe that it was so signed without any recourse to those arts which were usually resorted to on similar occasions. It was, he conceived, of the utmost importance to their Lordships that the petition of such a numerous body of persons of this class should be seriously considered and attended to by their Lordships. With that view he would read the contents of the petition to their Lordships. He did so, because there was no other mode by which he could fairly and properly discharge the duty which he owed to the petitioners. The noble and learned Lord accordingly read the petition.
"That Her Majesty's present Ministers came into office through the support they obtained from the operatives of this country, in the expectation they had held out and the pledge they had given, of effecting the reform of existing abuses, of retrenching lavish and insupportable expenditure, and of preserving the blessings of peace to the empire.
"That, in regard to the reform of abuses that did exist, they have done nothing of that which they promised, and that they have created abuses unknown before. That in regard to the public expenditure, insupportable before, and which they had pledged themselves to retrench, they have done nothing, but, on the contrary, augmented that expenditure. That in regard to peace,— they found peace— they have brought war.
"That these Ministers are the first Ministers of the British Crown who have come into office through popular agitation. That, using with cruelty the power which they had obtained by perfidy, they have directed the worst rigours of the law against the very men by whom they have been raised, while in pursuit of objects identical with those which they had encouraged.
"That at the period when these Ministers obtained the management of public affairs this country was oppressed with an enormous debt, the result of the previous mismanagement of our foreign affairs, was oppressed still more grievously by the injurious mode in which the revenue was assessed, resulting from the miscomprehension of their predecessors of our domestic concerns.
"That the present Ministry have done nothing to reduce that debt, or to correct the false and oppressive mode of taxation, but, on the contrary, commenced their career by an assault upon the last remnants of the constitutional taxation of this empire. That whereas even the previous Administrations had, during peace, diminished the burden of the public debt. That whereas the Administration which immediately preceded them had reduced the taxation of this country to the
1348
amount of several millions sterling yearly, the present Ministers have ceased to pay off that debt, and have furthermore brought about a defalcation in the public revenue, and are now about to impose new taxes, and to make this taxation fall on objects of primary necessity to the working classes.
"That a degrading system of corruption has been introduced on the pretence of commissions to inquire into grievances, through which extensive corruptions of men of ability have taken place, money is expended, and the people have been beguiled by delusive hopes.
"That the prospects of increased expenditure, of additional demands for troops and for ships, are presented in the colonies, at home, and throughout the world, by the universal mismanagement of our affairs, by the violation of the rights of our fellow-subjects, by the submission to insult and to outrage from foreign Powers, by the contempt into which Her Majesty's crown has been brought, and by the injustice inspired into the councils of every foreign stale, through the hopes awakened of the dismemberment of the British empire-
"That Her Majesty's present Ministers found the colonies of North America in a state of tranquillity, that they have brought them into one of insurrection.
"That they found this country allied to France—that they have submitted to the encroachments of that power upon the territories of our allies, and to the violation by her of our commercial rights, and, consequently, they have placed present hostility, and laid the grounds of war, between this country and France.
"That they found Poland an independent slate, and they have reduced it, suffering the violation of a treaty guaranteed by Great Britain, to the condition of a province of Russia.
"That they have suffered, encouraged, and co-operated in the progressive encroachments of Russia, while setting treaties at nought— assaulting our allies—fomenting insurrections and organizing conspiracies throughout the territories that own allegiance to your Majesty's crown.
"That by their concurrence with Russia they have overthrown the strength of Circassia, suffering on its coasts the seizure of a British vessel while engaged in lawful traffic.
"That by secret and treasonable collusion with Russia to set up her protegé on the throne of Persia, they have reduced that state to subserviency to Russia, and led it to join with her for the conquest of India.
"That they have invaded Afghanistan without a declaration of war, and for the purpose of forcing on that people a monarch whom they had thrice expelled, in violation of all laws, human and divine, as in scorn of every British feeling and interest. That they have thus laid prostrate, by treachery and violence, every barrier which withstood the advance of Russia upon India.
"That they found relations of amity and

1349
friendship with China. That they have brought about a state of war.
"That they found India tranquil within, at peace with its neighbours, and defended by a powerful army. That they have fomented revolts and conspiracies, at once by acts of injustice, and by the disbanding of troops, while they have engaged in war in Central and in Eastern Asia, and rendered the whole population of that quarter of the globe, our enemies.
"That they found the differences with the United States, in respect to the North American boundary, adjusted by treaty, that they have broken up that adjustment, and that they have sown the seeds of war between the United States and Great Britain.
"That they have suffered the violation of British rights, and the interruption of British commerce throughout Poland, throughout Germany, along the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, around the whole coast of South America, along the northern and the eastern coasts of Africa, through the kingdom of Persia, and by a voluntary act have interfered to upset the lights of British commerce in Turkey.
"That, under the pretext of settling the affairs of the Peninsula, they have deluged it with blood, and filled it with convulsion.
"That, prolonging' the disasters of Spain, they have expended British blood and treasure in an assault on the rights of British commerce, guaranteed in the institutions of that country, which they have assailed.
"That they have paid to Russia the Russio-Dutch loan, in opposition to the spirit of the original compact, and after existing treaties between Russia and England had been abrogated by her act.
"That they have betrayed to Russia a nation who had placed its independence in the hands of Great Britain—Greece; sacrificing many millions sterling to effect that purpose, and abrogating the rights of the British bondholders in order to transfer the same to Russia.
"That by a secret conclave established in London they have overthrown the internal liberties, and the external independence of all the minor states of Europe, Asia, and America, and have done so in conjunction with two powers, our enemies—Russia and France.
"That, while prostituting the power of England in every region of the globe for the advancement of the hostile designs of powers whom their treason has rallied against England, they have sacrificed British property or British money, and British commerce, to an extent of 50,000,000 l. sterling.
"That they have suffered the decay of the strength of Britain in her navy — that the shores of England are unprotected—that the vessels they possess are sent to distant stations where they are useful only to advance the designs of foreign powers, and that they suffered armaments in peace only calculated for war,
1350
and which enable other powers to insult this country with impunity, and to endanger its existence.
"That this dilapidation of the public affairs has imposed the necessity of increased taxation, the weight of which must fall upon the operatives, and fall the more severely, because of their intention to make this new taxation rest upon the necessaries of life.
"That the sacrifice of commercial rights, and the further diminution of our commerce, must fall on the working classes, throwing them out of work, and depriving them of food.
"That the prospect held out by the past presents increase of taxation, loss of commerce, further expenditure of our blood and treasure, and ultimately war with the states whose hostility has been created, and the dismemberment of the colonies whose affections have been lost.
"While, therefore, the present Ministers of her Majesty have come into power on the confidence they have falsely created in the industrial population of this land by professions of reform, by pledges of peace, by hopes of retrenchment, they have introduced new abuses, increased expenditure, involved this land in unjust and injurious wars with small states, and rendered next to inevitable collision with the great powers of Europe and America. That they are, therefore, unworthy of confidence, and that their removal and punishment is necessary to save this country from ruin,"
He had another petition, the noble Lord continued, of a similar description, from the merchants, manufacturers, operatives, and other inhabitants of the town of Newcastle - upon - Tyne; it differed, however, from the other in two particulars for it condemned the course taken by Ministers in making an assault upon the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, and thus attacking the weak, while they crouched to the strong; and it complained of the alienation which existed between England and the power whose good-will it was especially our interest to preserve, namely, Austria. Having stated to their Lordships the contents of these petitions, he had performed that which his duty prescribed to him, and should not trouble their Lordships any further.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that with respect to the observations which the noble and learned Lord had made on the subject of Cracow, they required no remark on his part, nor was it necessary, that the noble and learned Lord should have given him any notice of his intention to present that petition. The noble and learned Lord had stated with

1351
perfect accuracy both the language and the intentions of her Majesty's Government upon the subject, and he might depend upon it that those intentions would be fully acted up to, and every exertion made, in order to induce Russia to observe the terms of the treaty entered into at Vienna. With respect to the petitions from Glasgow, and from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which the noble and learned Lord had rather in an unusual, and according to the strict usage of the House, in a somewhat irregular manner read at length to the House, he did not know whether the noble and learned Lord concurred with the statements contained in those petitions or not. The noble and learned Lord contented himself with reading them, without stating, whether he agreed with all, or any, and if with any, what part of those statements, or whether he disagreed with them, and what part of them. Perhaps, the noble and learned Lord, finding such petitions placed in his hands, thought it very fair to make them stand in lieu of and serve for that speech he generally made at the end of every Session of Parliament. The first petition certainly was very much like the speeches which the noble and learned Lord usually delivered at the close of their sessional labours. It was just as unmeasured in language, just as unfounded in assertion, and precisely tending to the same end, namely, to cast obloquy on her Majesty's Ministers, to produce if possible, their dismissal, and to serve as a theme during the whole vacation for speeches at Conservative meetings and Conservative dinners. The noble and learned Lord had said, that the petition was put into his hands early in the Session, therefore it was quite fair to conclude that he reserved it for this period exactly on that account, and because he conceived it would serve that purpose. But he knew not how much of that petition the noble and learned Lord adopted as expressive of his own opinions, or how much of it he did not adopt. It professed to be the petition of certain operatives of Glasgow, but it was pretty clear that no operative had anything to do with its concoction. It was tolerably clear where the document came from. It was impossible not to know the style, and that if it were not from the noble and learned Lord's own pen, it was from the pen of one entertaining kindred feelings with the noble
1352
and learned Lord on many topics. However, all that he felt it necessary to say was, that if the noble and learned Lord should at any time think it his duty to bring forward as matter of charge against her Majesty's Ministers any of the allegations contained in the petition from the operatives of Glasgow, they would be ready to meet him and defend themselves against any such accusations.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, in explanation that he either must have stated the substance of the petition, or must have read it, to enable their Lordships to understand the grounds of its prayer; and from the complicated nature of the things to which it referred, and from the expressions it used, he thought it much safer to read the petition at length. He did not know to whom the noble Viscount alluded when speaking of the probable author of the petition, but he presumed that the noble Viscount did not mean to suggest that he had had anything to do with it.
The Marquess of Londonderrydid not agree in all that the petitioners alleged. He regretted that the noble and learned Lord had not given regular notice of his intention before the close of the Session to bring forward the question of our foreign policy, because he felt strongly that if the Session were allowed to terminate without some discussion and some understanding as to the course which her Majesty's Ministers were determined to pursue with respect to Spain, and with respect to the new alliance which the British Government had recently formed, the noble Viscount would incur a responsibility heavier than had ever rested upon any Minister. He remembered (and he lamented it extremely) that in the course of the last year a sort of an itinerant orator went about thecountry—in the north more particularly—and made harangues at public meetings on our foreign policy, and gave out opinions which were calculated to mislead persons not accustomed to look into such questions. He talked about Russia, and Austria and Prussia, and a great deal more which he would venture to say the speaker himself knew very little about: and there was no doubt that these petitions were got up at that time. With respect to our policy in Spain, what he would ask their Lordships, had been the fruits of the quadruple alliance ever since 1834? That alliance, which had been followed by a new quadruple

1353
alliance of a very different character? Certainly a most extraordinary, a most desirable, and a most delightful change seemed to have taken place in the opinions and "foreign sentiments" of her Majesty's Ministers. Their Lordships had arrived at a most extraordinary era, when they found the same Ministry who, almost within "six months," concocted and framed a quadruple alliance to keep the despots of the north (as they were designated) in subjection, now entering into au alliance with those very powers. Their Lordships knew that great apprehensions were entertained that France would not act up to the terms of the quadruple alliance, and that repeated complaints had been made as to the course she was taking, not only in Spain, but in the north, in Egypt, and at Buenos Ayres; that she had never given any explanation respecting her retaining possession of Algiers. Altogether she had not acted with that openness and fairness, and with that intimate and cordial friendship towards England that she was bound by treaty to do. The same Ministers were now turning about and making a treaty, and wisely so, with the very powers against whom the former quadruple treaty was formed, and what to do? Why, to keep France in awe. Could these Powers trust the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the same way as they would an individual who had not been, as he had been, connected with all those former transactions with respect to the original quadruple treaty? The conduct of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was, to use a vulgar expression, like what the song described in the words:—"Wheel about, turn about, jump Jim Crow." He did not, however, wish it to be supposed that he was the individual who disapproved of the line her Majesty's Ministers had taken with respcet to the new negotiation. With every wish to keep on the very best terms with France, and with every desire to preserve that state of amity and mutual co-operation that had so long existed, he was not willing that the British Government should allow France to cajole us, or that they should suffer it to be supposed that England was afraid of France, or that she was not determined to do her duty because France chose to put off, by negotiation and delay, an important arrangement of European affairs. He
1354
congratulated her Majesty's Ministers at having taken a decided and bold line of policy, and if they were determined to pursue it, humble as his support was, he would readily give it to them. He believed that the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was coming round to the Conservative policy, and he heartily congratulated him upon it. He would now state what had been the result of the first quadruple treaty. It was this; first, that from twenty-five millions to thirty millions of pounds sterling had been obtained from the capitalists of this country by loans, of which the lenders, he believed, found great difficulty to obtain the interest. Secondly, there had been two millions in stores supplied by the Government; and thirdly, 10,000 lives had been sacrificed. These were the fruits of the first quadruple alliance. He wished to know, now that that treaty was at an end, what were the relations of this country with Spain? Were they disposed to support the queen and her ministers, or Espartero? There might be a difference of opinion between those who were parties to the new quadruple alliance and those who signed the old quadruple alliance with respect to the course of policy to be pursued in relation to the affairs of Spain. The old quadruple alliance had now ceased. Don Carlos being in France the treaty was at an end; but our ambassadors and ministers were there, and what he wished to know was to whom were they accredited? Were they accredited to the queen's government or to Espartero? He called upon the noble Viscount to state the course he intended to pursue with respect to the civil war that still existed in Spain. He could not for his life and soul help thinking that the foreign policy of her Majesty's Ministers was, like other things, made an open question. After eulogizing the Emperor of Russia, whom the noble Marquess described as the most able, the most accomplished, and the soundest politician in the world, the noble Marquess concluded by saying that he looked upon the new alliance formed by this country as a means of preserving the peace of Europe. He never could believe that France failing, as she had done, in her engagements, would be mad enough to attempt unnecessarily to embark in a war. He gave her Majesty's Ministers credit for the course they were pursuing. He hoped, before the Session closed, they

1355
would come down and ask for a vote of an additional number of seamen. When he saw France adding eight or ten sail of the line to her fleet, and looked at the preparations she was making in every quarter, he could not but hope that the noble Viscount would take effective measures in time to show to France, that though we were most desirous of preserving an alliance and an intimacy with France, yet we never would submit either to be deluded or kept in ignorance, month after month, of what were her intentions, or ever submit to be dictated to in any shape as to what were the true principles we ought to pursue for the best interests of Europe.
Lord Broughamsaid, the petition presented by my noble and learned Friend embraces so wide a scope, and goes over such an unlimited length of time, and matters of such various kinds, and alludes so much to almost every topic of policy of this country, whether foreign, colonial, or domestic, that I can hardly imagine any observations upon any branch of our policy which would not be strictly regular upon the question that the petition be laid on the table. I do not, however, mean to be tempted by the noble Marquess to follow him over any one part of that wide field to which his observations have been applied. I rise simply to guard myself against any misconstruction or misapprehension of what I stated the other evening, and to which the noble Marquess has referred this night, and which I shall do in one single sentence. Upon facts not before us, upon matters which were unknown to me, and upon which I could only speak hypothetically, of course I could give no opinion; but I meant to state, and if I did not then distinctly stale it, I will state it now, that I should most deeply lament (and herein, I think, however we may differ on other matters, even the noble Marquess and I shall be found to be in alliance)—that I should most deeply lament not only anything which tended to shake, still more to interrupt, but anything which even had a tendency to endanger that good understanding between England and France which has happily for so many years prevailed— and by prevailing, preserved the peace of the world; and that I should in proportion to that feeling disapprove, and pointedly disapprove, of any alteration in our policy which could lead so to endanger
1356
that alliance.—Petitions laid on the table.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
Viscount Duncannon Viscount Duncannon moved the Order of the Day for their Lordships taking into consideration the Commons' amendments to the Lords' amendments of the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that he understood the amendments of the other House were to be merely verbal, but instead of that being the case, they opened up every question which their Lordships had been discussing for the last three months. Whatever other noble Lords might do, he would not discuss these questions over again, but when the amendments were moved would simply state whether he agreed or disagreed with them.
The amendments were then read seriatim. Those which Lord Lyndhurst objected to were negatived without a division; the others were adopted.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, he had not objected to the course which the noble Lord had adopted, in dealing with these amendments, solely because he wished to bring the question to a determination, and without reference to the course which, under other circumstances, he should have felt himself bound to have followed. He was desirous of taking the present opportunity of stating, without wishing to revive discussion, that he thought the House of Commons had given the strongest proof that it was possible for them to give of their desire to come to some agreement with their Lordships, by abstaining from re-introducing into this bill, and by assenting to the amendment of their Lordships, for withdrawing any provision for the better administration and delivery of the prisons in Dublin. He had reason to know, that nothing but a desire to see the question set at rest could have induced the House of Commons to concur in the withdrawal of that provision. It was partly for a like reason that he now offered no opposition to the proceedings of the noble and learned Lord, and partly because the subject was one which was capable of being re-considered, as indeed it ought to be, in conjunction with the state of prisons, and separately from the objects of the present bill. The subject would be considered in another Session, which he hoped would not terminate without giving to Dublin a more frequent

1357
delivery of prisons, for their present state was such as to call for the interference of the Legislature, and the vigorous determination of Government. There was no sacrifice which he was not prepared to make to carry out this important measure, which he hoped would work for the happiness of Ireland, and for the benefit of the United Kingdom.
Lord Broughamperfectly agreed with the noble Marquess who had just spoken, that great sacrifices had been made to carry this bill; but in regard to the other measure adverted to by the noble Marquess, namely, that relating to a general delivery of prisons, he hoped that Government would not stop there, but that they would proceed at an early period next Session, not only with that particular measure, but with that other one to which reference had been made some time ago— he meant the general measure for the purpose of excluding all judicial officers— not from their Lordships' House, for there was no need of that, but from holding a seat in the other House of Parliament.
On the motion of Lord Lyndhurst, a committee was named to draw up reasons for not agreeing to the amendments of the Commons, and a conference requested for the following day.

CANADA—CLERGY RESERVES.
On the motion of Lord Duncannon, the Canada Clergy Reserves Bill was read a third time.
The Archbishop of Canterburywas sorry to see that a noble Lord (Lord Ellen-borough), who had on a former night moved an amendment on this subject, was not in his place; that amendment, which their Lordships had adopted, would bear most heavily on the Church. It was to give a power to the Crown to give its consent to any bill which the colonial legislature might pass, enacting that the proceeds arising from the sale of the clergy reserves should form a separate debt, and should bear a uniform rate of interest. He thought that it would be inconvenient not to make this question final; but their Lordships would observe, that such an amendment would give a power to the colonial Legislature and the Crown, to apply all the money received from the sale of clergy reserves to the use of the province —the interest proposed to be allowed to the clergy for the use of the money was five per cent,, to be paid before any other
1358
debt. But even with this advantage, he asked their Lordships whether they would consent to dispose of their own funds or property in this way. The security was not very good; the interest was limited to five per cent.; and the clergy would be without the power of drawing out any amount of principal, however much it might be required. More than this, the stock so proposed to be created would be naturally affected by any resolution which might take place in the province. He, therefore, moved that the clause be struck out.
Agreed to.—Bill passed.

ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES AND REVENUES.
The Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill was committed, and several amendments agreed to.
The House having resumed, the standing orders, Nos. 26 and 155 were dispensed with, after the Earl of Harrowby had warmly protested against this indecent haste.
The report ordered to be received.
The Bishop of Exeterrose to move a proviso to be added to the 24th clause, to exempt the deanery of Exeter from the general operation of the clause. The ground upon which he made this motion would be gathered from the following facts:—The crown lawyers applied to the Court of Queen's Bench to issue a mandamus to compel the chapter of Exeter to admit the person whom the Crown had chosen to appoint as dean. After a full and careful consideration, the court came to an unanimous decision, which it delivered in the following terms:—
"We are of opinion that no court would be justified in originating proceedings, of which the termination desired by the applicant could be obtained only by a jury affirming by their verdict, as a fact, that which the said court is fully persuaded to be false, and no man acquainted with the subject believes to be true."
Language so strong as that was seldom employed by the Court of Queen's Bench in its decisions. But that was not all. The Crown having insisted that it had the right to recommend the dean to the adoption of the chapter, the court proceeded in its decision, to say:—
"The deanery of Exeter is a private foundation, of which the Crown is not the patron or founder, and cannot furnish any ground on which the court would be warranted in issuing

1359
a writ of mandamus. The writ, therefore, must be discharged."
If this decision of the court had been given before the ecclesiastical commissioners drew up their recommendations, he was perfectly certain that the deanery of Exeter would have been excepted. The decision of the court, however, was comparatively recent, whilst the recommendations of the commissioners were made in 1837. Under the circumstances he had stated, he was sure their Lordships would have no difficulty in agreeing to the proviso he now proposed, which was to take the deanery of Exeter out of the operation of the clause.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that notwithstanding the peculiar circumstances which had no doubt been accurately detailed by the right rev. Prelate, he apprehended that as the appointment of the deanery of Exeter had been for more than two hundred years in the recommendation of the Crown, and as fourteen successive appointments had been thus made, their Lordships would not see fit to alter the clause. Unquestionably the matter had been brought before the Queen's Bench, and that court had decided they could not give relief in the form in which it was brought before them, but at the same time the court had intimated a strong opinion on the main question of right. Upon the grounds, then, of ancient usage—upon the ground that the deanery in question bad been for such a length of time in the recommendation, and, in fact, in the gift of the Crown—upon the ground of public policy that these high dignities should be in the gift of the Crown—he thought that Parliament ought to continue in the Crown that which had been attached to it so long. Upon these general grounds, not disguising that the question was one of no small difficulty, he considered their Lordships would do well to keep the clause in its present form.
Their Lordships divided—Contents 21; Not contents 31: Majority 10.
Proviso rejected.
The Bishop of Salisburysaid, he had a another proviso to propose, which he trusted would meet with their Lordship's approbation. It related to the residentiary prebends of the old foundation, whose stipends it was proposed to vest in the hands of the commissioners for the improvement of the livings of the parochial clergy. Agreeing with the proposition of
1360
the commissioners, that these offices should be retained as honorary distinctions, he wished that this object should be attained in such a manner as at once to promote the efficiency of the cathedral establishments, and of the parochial administrations. Although these offices were termed sinecures, the holders of them had some statuteable duty to perform, such as preaching at the cathedral at certain periods. Now, it was highly desirable that this duty should be continued or resumed, if for some time back omitted; and the distinction might with great benefit be conferred on the rural deans; but though the attendance at the cathedral would cost but little, it was a charge which these clergymen could not conveniently bear. He therefore merely asked what would cover these expenses. His proviso was to this effect:—"That, under the authority hereinafter mentioned, such stipend, not exceeding 20 l., shall be provided out of the said endowments, as by that authority shall be deemed sufficient."
The Bishop of London:The bill retained these prebends as honorary distinctions. Nothing more was asked for in all the petitions presented on the subject; and he thought they preserved that character much better by having no allowance, than if 20 l. a year were assigned to each. Indeed, in his opinion, they were absolutely useless, except as marks of honour; and so generally was this view adopted, that one of the most able opponents of the bill in that House (the Bishop of Exeter) declared his opinion that the proceeds would be much better devoted in increasing small curacies. He could state as to his own diocese that these prebends seldom attended, and when they did they preached to very small audiences.
The Bishop of Salisbury,in reply, observed that this bill was drawn up too much in accordance with the wants of the diocese of London alone, and maintained that his right rev. Friend the Bishop of Exeter was favourable to his proposition.
Lord Lytteltonproposed a clause, providing that the four canonries of Ely should be attached to the fifteen professorships of Cambridge, and that selection should be with the bishops. He also proposed that the master of Jesus should be included amongst the persons eligible to these canonries.
The Bishop of Lichfieldexpressed his entire approval of the general principles

1361
of this important measure, and also of the clause now proposed, which was in entire accordance with the spirit of this measure. This clause would act as a stimulus to the profession, and he had no doubt that these four stalls would be always filled by the most eminent men in the University.
The Archbishop of Canterburyopposed the clause, as the subject had been deliberately considered by the commissioners, and the resolution they came to was embodied in the bill as it now stood.
The Bishop of Gloucestersupported the clause on the ground that, with the exception of that of divinity, the professorships of Cambridge had no other remuneration beyond 40 l. a year, and were, therefore, obliged to seek to increase their incomes by other employments. The present clause would lend to put these gentlemen upon a footing which the interests of learning deserved.
The Marquess of Lansdowneopposed the clause as being a very inconvenient infraction of the general rule on which the bill was founded.
Their Lordships divided—Contents 20; Not-contents 20: Majority 0.
By the rules of the House, therefore, the not-contents had it, and the clause was rejected.
Lord Lytteltonthen proposed a clause that certain stalls should be appropriated to professorships in the University of Cambridge.
The Archbishop of Canterbury opposed the clause.
Their Lordships divided—Contents 19; Not-contents 25: Majority 6.
The report with amendments was adopted, and the bill read a third time and passed.