Lords Sitting of 8 July 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—3a. and passed:—Marriages Celebration.
Private.—1a. Paisley General Gas; Market Harborough and Coventry Road.
Reported. — York United Gas; Holmfirth and Dunford Road; Eastern Union Railway.
3a. and passed:—London and South Western Railway; Newport (Monmouth) Dock.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lords Teynham, and Ashburton, from Dorchester, and 2 other places, in favour of the Dissenters Chapels Bill.—By Duke of Richmond, and Lord Ashburton, from Fife, and 3 other places, for Protection to Agriculture.—From Nutfield, and 32 other places, against the Repeal of the Corn Laws.—By Duke of Richmond, from Hereford, and Alresford, respecting the Bank of England Charter Bill.—By Bishop of London, and Earls Somers, Galloway, and Brownlow, from Darlington, and an immense number of other places, against the Dissenters Chapels Bill.—From Romaldkirk, for Restoring the Powers of Convocation. — By Earl of Kinnoul, from Perth, for Extending the Provisions of the Bawdy Houses, etc. Suppression Bill to Scotland—By Earl of Mountcashell, from Fermoy Union, against the Poor Law (Ireland) Bill.—By Earl of Malmesbury, from Settlers in New Zealand, for Protection to Lives and Property.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
On the Motion to postpone the Order of the Day on this Bill to Friday,
The Bishop of Exeterrequested permission to state his objections to the measure now, as he should not be able to be present on the day proposed. He objected to the 11th Clause, because it violated a great constitutional principle, for it provided that property bequeathed for Roman

449
Catholic purposes might be held by trustees according to the laws and constitution of the Roman Catholic Church. To this he objected, because it gave the Pope a power of deciding on the legality of such trust. The 17th (the interpretation) Clause was worded thus, "that the word 'Roman' Catholic shall include all persons in Holy Orders, of whatever rank or degree, according to the laws, discipline, and constitution of the Roman Catholic Church," &c. Now, such language as this really established the jurisdiction of the Pope within this realm, contrary to the Oath of Supremacy—that bulwark, that most essential part of our Constitution; founded as it was in this respect not merely upon principles and doctrines, the origin of the Reformation, but on prior legislation, as established in the "Statute of Appeals." He begged to repeat, he objected not to the enabling provisions of the Bill provided they were not coupled with language of this character.
Lord Wharncliffewould not now enter into a discussion of the question, but would merely say that so far as the noble Lord had alluded to the constitution of the Catholic Church as necessarily recognising the Pope's authority in such matters, the noble Lord was correct. And undoubtedly this point should not escape consideration in further deliberations on the Bill the proceeding with which should be postponed till Tuesday, the 16th.

INCENDIARISM AND THE POOR LAW.
Lord Wodehouse: My Lords, I wish to say a few words on behalf of certain of the yeomanry of that county of which I have the honour to be Lord Lieutenant, in reference to certain remarkable and injurious assertions that have been made against them in a newspaper, in which they are charged with having wrongfully applied and mal-administered the New Poor Law, and have thus been the cause of the incendiary fires in their neighbourhood. My Lords, the individuals in question are well known to myself; they are, particularly, Mr. Neave, Mr. Read, and Mr. Gooch. My Lords, I declare, without any qualification whatever, the whole of the statements as to these gentlemen to be utterly false! I declare they are most excellent men, and universally beloved for the kind manner in which they administer the Poor Law; and I am most proud to call them my friends. None are more
450
beloved by all classes, from the nobleman to the pauper. And yet these men are by the "gentlemen" of the press, as they call themselves, but who I say are a disgrace to the press, to be dragged forward and disgraced before the country, and perhaps—if their labourers were wicked enough to attend to such attacks—held up to execration, and as fit subjects of incendiarism. My Lords, I say such calumnies are not to be endured, and I will undertake personally to assert, and to prove—and the "gentlemen" of the press, as they call themselves, may be present if they please ["Order, order"]—some of them, perhaps, may be now present ["Order, order,"]—if so, I hope they will take down what I say. ["Order."]—I say, my Lords, I will undertake personally to prove these statements false; and I should like the person who wrote them to be there; and I should like to meet such calumniators face to face, and put questions in his presence to every pauper, every guardian, every officer of the union to which these farmers and myself belong, and I know the result would be the entire exposure of these scandalous and infamous calumnies! "Gentlemen" of the press, my Lords! ["Order, order."] Oh, my Lords, I feel I have a right to say what I do; they are a disgrace to the word "gentleman;" when they write such base, such infamous calumnies, they deserve no other name than calumniators? My Lords, I never knew anything more base and infamous than such attempts to run down the best men in their district, by exposing them to ignominy and disgrace! I would meet these calumniators—I would question, and cross question witnesses; I would prove that the Poor Law is well administered—that there is no fault to be found with its administration—that the poor are better off in every respect, under it, than under the former law! Besides, my Lords, if there was ever an unfounded rumour, it is that which has connected the names of these gentlemen with the administration of this law—these most unfounded reports would bear no examination of the facts. My Lords, I beg pardon for having so addressed you, but I felt personally on the matter having had two fires on my own property and near me; and certainly there is as much reason in my case to conclude the cause was the administration of the Poor Law as in the

451
case of those gentlemen of whom I have spoken. I have spoken warmly, I admit; but, my Lord, when such things are written of such men it is really too bad.
The Marquess of Normanbydid not wonder at the warmth with which the noble Lord had spoken, considering the characters of the persons attacked, and considering that he is personally acquainted with them. He had been requested by other parties to move for a Return calculated, they believed, to throw light upon the subject (and it is not opposed by the Government),—a return of names, ages, and descriptions of all the persons committed for trial for incendiarism at the last assizes for Norfolk and Suffolk, with the results in each case.
Lord Wodehousebegged to be understood as restricting his assertions to what occurred within his own hundred or union.
House adjourned.