Lords Sitting of 11 March 1841

MINUTES
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of Bute, from Bute, Rothesay, and other places, and by the Earl of Rosebery, from Edinburgh, and other places, against the Intrusion of Ministers, and for the Abolition of Patronage.

POOR LAW RECORDS (IRELAND).
The Duke of Wellington: Seeing the noble Marquess (Normanby) in his place, and understanding that there will be no opposition to the motion for papers of which I have already given notice, I will not now trouble your Lordships with any observations on the subject. Your Lordships are aware, that when the Poor-law Amendment Bill passed the House, extraordinary powers were given to the commissioners, but that also measures were taken by Parliament to prevent the abuse of those powers without such abuse coming to the knowledge of the Government, the Parliament, or the public. They were directed to keep an accurate, record in writing of all their proceedings, and no doubt if that direction has been minutely followed, every transaction can be traced from its origin up to the order of the commissioners. I will now therefore move, in consequence of the discussions which have recently taken place, that an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will be pleased to order that there be laid before your Lordships' House a copy of the record in writing of all the proceedings of the Poor-law commissioners relative to the unions of Clonmel, Cashell, Naas, and Mountmellick.
The Marquess of Normanbyhad no objection to the motion, but as he had led their Lordships to expect that Mr. Nicholls would be this day in attendance on the House, he begged to state, that he had to-day received a letter from that gentleman, assigning two reasons for his absence. First, it had happened that he was absent from Dublin at the time the correspondence as to the election of the returning officer of Clonmel took place, and therefore he could give their Lordships no personal information on the subject; and, secondly, at the present moment, in consequence of the elections going on in all parts of the country for guardians, his absence from Dublin would be exceedingly inconvenient to the public service. He thought it right to state, that those letters had been written before Mr. Nicholls had
106
heard of the second complaint which had been made, in consequence of which, he had written to Mr. Nicholls, desiring him to come over, at whatever inconvenience, and therefore he hoped that he would be present on Monday. The whole matter, however, could be explained by Mr. Stanley, the secretary to the Poor-law commissioners, who had signed the letter, and who had offered an explanation to him, stating that there was no intention to deceive; and, indeed, he could not see what was to be gained by deception. He admitted there had been some irregularity; but, as the explanation was very complicated, it would be doubtless more satisfactory to their Lordships, to himself, to the Government, and to Mr. Stanley, that that gentleman should have an opportunity of giving their Lordships that explanation himself. Therefore, as soon as the motion of the noble Duke should be disposed of, he would take the opportunity of moving, that Mr. Stanley be ordered to attend on their Lordships on Monday next.
The Earl of Glengall,having brought forward these complaints relative to the Poor-law commissioners, could assure their Lordships that he was fully prepared to substantiate every allegation he had made, by evidence, either at the bar of the House or before a Committee; and as to there being no intention to deceive, he could prove by evidence, that what was done had been done for the express purpose of deception, and for no other.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that that would all come out at the proper time. He had not formed a decided opinion, but had only stated, that upon a cursory examination of these papers, there did not appear to him to be any intention to deceive, and that he could not see what object could be obtained by such deception; but, at the same time, he had stated most distinctly that it was clear an irregularity had been committed.
Motion agreed to.
The Marquess of Normanbythen moved, that Mr. Stanley be ordered to attend the House on Monday next.
Agreed to, but the day was subsequently altered to Tuesday.

ST. SULPICE.
The Marquess of Normanby The Marquess of Normanby moved for a return of a despatch from Lord Amherst to Lord Aberdeen, and of other papers respecting the motion

107
of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter), standing for discussion on the next day.
The Bishop of Exeterinquired if they were printed?
The Marquess of Normanbyunderstood that they were, and would be delivered tomorrow.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that their Lordships knew how difficult a thing it was to read papers and proceed at once to debate upon them. He accordingly thought that it would be desirable for the right rev. Prelate to postpone his motion until Monday or Tuesday next, as there would still be ample time to move the address to her Majesty before the thirty days—the time during which the ordinances had to lie on the Table—had expired. Under these circumstances he would not now press other circumstances which appeared to him to be of the greatest importance, but would merely suggest to the right rev. Prelate that it would be for the convenience of the House if he would accede to this proposal.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that he was sure their Lordships would not suppose that any personal inconvenience whatever could induce him to state that he was afraid that it would not be in his power to accede to the application that had been made to him. He was at that moment under the orders of the Court of Queen's Bench, having been subpoenaed to attend at Exeter, at the present assizes, and he was bound to leave London early on Saturday morning. Under these circumstances he would venture to suggest to their Lordships that it was rather hard on the eve of a motion of this kind that an application of this sort should be made, the more especially as the attention of the Government had been called to this subject for a period of eight or nine months, and it had not been until the eleventh hour that they had thought fit to lay upon the Table papers that appeared to be important. He was afraid he could not attend on Monday next without disobeying a mandate of the Court of Queen's Bench.
Lord Ellenborough: It can only be a matter of twenty-four hours. The right rev. Prelate could not get there before Monday, and if he postpones his motion he may get there by Tuesday night.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, he was bound, previous to his arrival at Exeter,
108
to go to Worcester on business of great importance relating to the Church, and to be in Exeter on Tuesday night. He understood from the noble Marquess these papers were printed, and as he supposed they could, therefore, have them early to-morrow morning, he thought there would be sufficient time to consider them.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that the papers had been ordered by the House of Commons, on Tuesday, and he believed that they were now printed.
The Earl of Riponsaid, that the despatch which was referred to, seemed to be held on all sides as of great importance. The question now was, whether they ought to be called on to give an opinion on a very important subject, to which everybody attached the greatest consequence, without their having the means of considering the principles on which the measure rested, and which principles they were told were to be found in a certain despatch which they would not be able to read till to-morrow. He ought to have a perfect recollection of what was contained in that despatch; but, written as it was ten years ago, he could not at that moment undertake to explain to their Lordships either the principles upon which it was founded, or the motives which induced him to advise his Majesty to send that despatch to Canada. Under these circumstances, they ought not to decide on such a question without having more' time to examine into it. If the motion were postponed to the end of the week some arrangement ought, he thought, to be made by her Majesty's Government, as they were concerned in the postponement of the discussion, that the question should be put in the same position as it would have been in if the thirty days required for the ordinance to lie on the Table of the House had not expired. What occurred in the present instance happened last year in the Clergy Reserves Bill. It was impossible to proceed on that occasion without the advantage of an assurance such as he referred to being given by her Majesty's Government; and on the present, if Ministers would give a similar assurance, the right rev. Prelate might be able to postpone the question.
The Bishop of Exeterwould accede to the postponement of the motion until Monday, trusting that, under the circumstances of his attending his parliamentary duties, the judge of assize would consent to

109
put off the trial. At all events he (the Bishop of Exeter) would undertake to bring forward his motion on Monday next, and he would accordingly now move, that the order for proceeding with the motion to-morrow be discharged, and that the question be postponed till Monday.
Ordered accordingly.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
The Earl of Roseberypresented a petition from a very large and influential body of people in Edinburgh, praying for the immediate and total abolition of Church patronage in Scotland. The noble Earl said, that he could give no countenance or support to the prayer of the petition. In his judgment, if the wishes of the petitioners were complied with, it would not remove the difficulties which surrounded the question, nor would it improve the deplorable condition in which that country was now placed with reference to the Church. He thought the mode which the petitioners approved of would turn out to be the worst that could be adopted for insuring a proper choice of Ministers. At the same time, he was decidedly opposed to the intrusion of ministers into parishes contrary to the wishes of the inhabitants.
The Earl of Aberdeenwished his noble Friend to explain how he meant to prevent intrusion. He supposed his noble Friend did not wish that the veto should be legalized. Did he then wish the course which he (the Earl of Aberdeen) approved of to be adopted—namely, that no minister should be rejected without reasons assigned and cause shown—that no minister should be set aside at the mere caprice of the parties intrusted with the power?
The Earl of Roseberysaid, he did not mean to stale what would be the proper remedy against the intrusion of a minister into a parish contrary to the desire of the congregation. Various modes had been pointed out for obtaining that result; but he had not, at any time, made up his mind as to which was the best. Individuals, much better acquainted with the question than he was, and who had considered it deeply, had not, up to this hour, been able to see their way clearly through it. He would not, therefore, be entrapped into saying whether, in his opinion, the legalization of the veto would or would not be the best mode of establishing non-intrusion. He did not give his support
110
to the bill introduced by the noble Earl, because, while he gave the noble Earl credit for the goodness of his intentions, he felt that it would not satisfy the people of Scotland.
Petition laid on the Table.
Adjourned.