Lords Sitting of 24 June 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. County Rates, etc.; County Coroners.
2a. Marriages Celebration; New South Wales, etc. Government.
3a. and passed:—Lecturers and Parish Clerks.
Private.—1a Rochdale Improvement.
Reported.— Preston and Wyre Docks; European Life Insurance Company; Slamannan Railway; Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway.
3a. and passed: — Sir J. J. R. Mackenzie's (Scatwell) Estate; Mackenzie's (Seaforth) Estate; Liverpool Fire Prevention; South Eastern Railway; Manchester Stipendiary Magistrates; Canterbury Pavement; Lakenheath Drainage.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Wareham, and Isle of
1242
Purbeck, for Protection to Agriculture.—From Doncaster, and 3 other places, against the Union of St Asaph and Bangor.—From Inch, and Burt, for Legalizing Marriages solemnized by Presbyterian and Dissenting Ministers in Ireland.

RAJAH OF SATTARA.
Lord Beaumontsaid, that he had a Petition to present, which was signed by several Proprietors of East-India Stock, and others connected with our East-Indian possessions, and which stated that the Petitioners believed that injustice had been done to the Rajah of Sattara, and prayed their Lordships that they would interfere to obtain justice, though tardy, for his Highness. It might be in their Lordships' recollection, that some time ago, he (Lord Beaumont) presented a Petition to their Lordships, signed by his Highness, and dated from his prison at Benares, in which he complained that he had not been fairly treated as regarded the trial in which he was concerned—that he had not been allowed to attend at the early part of the proceedings—that when he applied for a copy of the evidence, it was given in languages which he did not understand, for part of it was in English and part of it in Hindostanee, whereas the Mahratta language was the only language with which he was acquainted perfectly. It was also alleged in that Petition, that the proceedings against his Highness rested on the evidence of witnesses who were wholly unworthy of credence; and he also stated that, before he was allowed an opportunity of answering that evidence, he was called upon to sign a document to the effect of acknowledging his guilt, and without that acknowledgment he would not be allowed possession of the musnid. The papers which contained an official account of all the proceedings in this case had been laid before the House of Commons, and those who took an interest in the subject, and who examined them, were convinced that the Rajah of Sattara had been unjustly treated, and ought to be afforded an opportunity of obtaining redress—that reliance had been placed upon the evidence of witnesses whose testimony he could have proved to be unworthy of credence, and which evidence he was still ready, if afforded the opportunity, to prove was unworthy of belief. Indeed an impression seemed to have been upon the mind of Sir R. Grant, when he was Governor of Bombay at the time of those proceedings, and of the noble Earl behind him (the Earl of Auckland), that the

1243
evidence was not sufficient to sanction the decision which had been come to with respect to him; and he should show that to their Lordships by reading for them two or three extracts. The noble Lord then read the following extracts:—
Extract from Governor Grant's Minute, dated May 5, 1838:—
"With regard to the letters to Don Manuel, 'there is not a single instance proved of any letter having actually been written at Sattara with the cognizance of the Rajah.'
(Signed) "R. GRANT."
Extract from letter of W.H. Macnaghten, Esq., Secretary to Government of India, to W. H. Wathen, Esq., Secretary to Government of Bombay, October 2, 1837:—
"The Governor-General in Council could not but regard such plots (the Goa) to be too extravagant to be entertained for a moment by any person in his senses, while it appears that the Rajah is by no means deficient in under-standing. In the hopelessness that all further evidence will be otherwise than inconclusive, and looking to the utmost degree of criminality which in any view of the testimony before the Commission, may be regarded as clearly and absolutely established, looking, too, to the interval which has since elapsed in inquiries leading to no further definite and important disclosures, his Lordship in Council would most gladly find that the right honourable the Governor in Council is disposed to concur with him in the opinion, and would close the proceedings; apprising the Rajah that, though several suspicious circumstances regarding His Highness have been elicited during the progress of the inquiry, yet the British Government is unwilling, without the clearest proof of guilt, to condemn any of its allies; and that the right honourable the Governor in Council is therefore pleased to close the proceedings with the expression of his hope that the Rajah will so conduct himself in future as to avoid the predicament in which he has recently been placed."
W. H. Macnaghten to W. H. Wathen, Oct. 16,1837:—
"The proceedings reported in the communications new acknowledged are not, I am
1244
desired to state, such as to meet the approbation of his Lordship in Council. That the Rajah of Sattara, forgetful of all former obligations, and nettled by an alleged grievance, is disaffected to the British Government, and that he has been led by designing people, enemies either to him or the British Government, into acts intended to be injurious to that government, may be conceded; but the result of the late proceedings of the right honourable the Governor in Council has, I am desired to add, tended rather to weaken than to strengthen the case against him, for they either prove the extent of falsehood which is mingled with these accusations, or the imbecility with which the Rajah is entertaining projects of so wild a description. The Governor General in Council will look with some anxiety, though under the circumstances, not without suspicion, to any further confession which may be made by Govind Row, as tending to weaken or confirm the original charge adduced against the Rajah, or any of his family, of attempting to seduce our sepoys from their allegiance; and he is of opinion that whatever the Rajah of Sattara may have further to state in reply to those charges, should be fairly taken into consideration before any measures adverse to his Highness can be taken upon the proceedings already held."
Extract from the last Minute recorded by the Right Honourable the Governor of Bombay, dated 31st May, 1838:—
"The Rajah has not been told of the evidence taken by Colonel Ovans, and Undoubtedly he has a right to be heard. I never meant otherwise.
(Signed) "R. GRANT."
Declaration of Don Miguel:—
"I consider it necessary, for the advancement of justice, and for my own honour, to declare that during the whole time I governed the Portuguese possessions in India, I never had any correspondence on political subjects with the said Rajah of Sattara, and whatever documents have appeared on that subject are false."
It was evident from those extracts which he had read, that Lord Auckland and Sir R. Grant were desirous that the Rajah should be fairly and justly treated, and

1245
that an opportunity should be afforded to him of vindicating his character and disproving the evidence which had been brought against him. Since the papers upon the subject of the charges against the Rajah had been laid before the House of Commons, many persons had become impressed with a belief that he had been unjustly treated, who were previously of a different opinion, and he hoped their Lordships would, under these circumstances, see the propriety of doing justice to him. It was of more importance than ever to do justice to him at this moment— it was most important that the Board of Control should adopt a course which would have the effect of impressing the native princes with a sense of the justice of the proceedings adopted with respect to the Rajah of Sattara, and that course would be to afford him an opportunity of establishing his innocence, if he could, and failing to do that, his guilt might be clearly proved. He, therefore, would call on the noble Earl at the head of the Board of Control, to grant such a full and deliberate investigation as would enable the Rajah to vindicate his character, if he were innocent. He did not mean to say anything of the Rajah's restoration; that was a question into which it was not his intention to go: but if he were induced to do so, he might be able to show that others were more culpable than the Rajah, and that even if the evidence were true, his brother ought not to have been raised to the musnid instead of him, as that evidence would affect both of them: He might go further into the case, if he thought it necessary; he might describe at greater length the character of the evidence which had been brought against the Rajah, he might show that part of the evidence consisted of papers taken from a prostitute, who received 400 rupees, and that such were the means which were used to convict him of a charge which was absurd and ridiculous. He had now to present the petition, and to ask the noble Earl, the President of the Board of Control, if he would have the kindness to state whether or not he would afford to the Rajah an opportunity of disapproving the evidence which had been brought against them.
The Earl of Riponsaid, he should state very shortly in answer to the noble Lord the grounds on which he did not
1246
think it expedient or right that any such investigation as he had requested, should take place. It was not his intention to recommend to the Court of Directors that the subject should be again entered into; for he believed that such a course would be attended with the greatest possible mischief and inconvenience, and would have a tendency, so far as it went, to shake the just authority and power of the East-India Company in their possessions in India. It was not a matter of recent origin, as would be seen by the fact that some of the documents referred to by the noble Lord, were dated so far back as 1837. It had been the subject of repeated, most deliberate, and most disinterested consideration by a great variety of authorities to whom the consideration of it had been referred, and who were peculiarly competent to decide it. One of the individuals who was a party to the proceedings against the Rajah, was the late Sir R. Grant; at least, he had a very strong opinion on the subject at the time he was Governor of Bombay; and finally, the decision was confirmed after the most extensive investigation by Sir J. Carnac, who succeeded Sir R. Grant in the Bombay Government. His noble Friend, the Governor General of India (the Earl of Auckland) a most perfectly disinterested authority, who could have no earthly motive, and whose very nature precluded the supposition of any motive to perpetuate an injustice, and whose first impressions led him to hesitate as to some of the facts stated was finally, after the most deliberate consideration, convinced that the case was made out against the Rajah, and that his deposition was an act of justice. That decision on the part of the Governor General of India confirming the subordinate Government of Bombay, was subsequently reviewed by Sir J. C. Hob-house, and confirmed by the Court of Directors. It had been brought before a Court of Proprietors, and had been approved of there. When the late Lord Fitzgerald was President of the Board of Control, the case was again brought forward—for whenever a change took place in such an office, the individual coming in was sure to be called on to revise Some previous decisions, and to be told, they were unjust and improper, and this course had been adopted when Lord Fitzgerald came into that office—Lord Fitzgerald

1247
looked into the case, and had not thought proper to submit the decision of previous authorities to revision. Not long after he (the Earl of Ripon) was appointed to the office which he now held, he was requested to look into it. It was then new to him, and he felt it his duty to look through the papers, which he did, and such was their extent, that if he went fully into them, he should detain their Lordships until tomorrow morning, for they were the most voluminous papers he had ever been called on to look over. He had examined the portions of them which were most important to the purpose; and from what he had been able to learn from that investigation, he did not think that there was anything in the case which would justify him in recommending a reconsideration of it, and he could not, therefore, give any instruction on the subject.
Petition ordered to lie on the Table.

ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR DIOCESES BILL.
House in Committee.
Lord Monteaglesaid, he wished to call the attention of their Lordships, and particularly of the noble Duke opposite, to a subject which was of some importance, although it was a point of form. It would be in their Lordships' recollection that the Bill was before them in 1843, and it was then understood by their Lordships that when it was next brought forward, the consent of Her Majesty would be obtained for proceeding with it. This Bill affected the rights and patronage of the Crown; and, being of that nature, the noble Duke last year expressed his opinion that it would be impossible to proceed finally with the Bill without having the consent of the Crown. He wished, therefore, to ask the noble Duke opposite, if the consent of the Crown had been obtained for proceeding with the Bill?
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he could inform the noble Lord and the House that he had not the authority of Her Majesty to give consent to the Bill. He did when the measure was before them, in a former Session of Parliament, suggest that it would be expedient and proper to obtain the consent of the Crown before proceeding with the Bill; but as the noble Lord says it is not necessary that the consent of the Crown should be obtained at any particular stage of the Bill, he should
1248
have no objection to proceed with the Bill in Committee.
Lord Campbellwas desirous to know if it were the intention of the Government to allow the Bill to pass into a law.
The Duke of Wellingtondid not mean to offer any opposition to the Motion of the noble Earl for going into Committee, or to making any alterations in Committee which he thought proper. If he should be authorized to give the consent of the Crown, he should do so; but at present his answer was, that he had not the authority of Her Majesty to signify her consent to the Bill.
Lord Monteaglesaid, that nothing could be more courteous or more convenient than to enable the noble Earl to go on with his Bill in order that he might make any alterations which he thought proper before the decision of the House upon it; and with that view he hoped their Lordships would not think it an intrusion if he said a few words upon it at that stage. The first Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners on the subject was made in March 1835, and recommended a consolidation of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, and the creation of a Bishopric in Manchester. But so far were the Ecclesiastical Commissioners when they presented the first Report from contemplating the measure which had now become the law of the land, that they recommended one of an entirely different nature. He contemplated a union of the Sees, and the creation of the new See at Manchester, it was true;—but by the second Report, and the legislation founded on it, not only were these Bishoprics consolidated, but another step was taken by the transfer of a certain amount of ecclesiastical revenue derived from the principality of Wales for the purpose of endowing the intended Bishopric of Manchester. Whatever differences of opinion might exist as to other parts of the question, all noble Lords concurred in the obligation and the necessity of creating additional episcopal superintendence for the diocese of Manchester. For the attainment of that object it had been considered necessary to consolidate the two Welsh Bishoprics, and to tranfer the revenues of the principality of North Wales to the endowment of the See of Manchester. Now it was to this second proposition he wished to call their Lordships' attention. He wished to re-

1249
mind their Lordships that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were not at the time the proposition was made aware of the fact which had since been brought under their Lordships' notice in the last Session, and more distinctly in the present Session, by a right rev. Prelate, namely, that there would be a surplus of episcopal revenues, out of which the new Bishopric of Manchester might be advantageously and fittingly endowed without diverting from the clergy of the principality of Wales any of those endowments to which by law they were entitled. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners did not then see any other means by which the object could be attained; but it had since been discovered that fifteen dioceses which had been examined into would yield a surplus of 8,000 l. a-year, and there was no doubt that further investigation respecting the remaining dioceses would show an available surplus, at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, fully equal, at least, to the endowment of the Bishopric of Manchester. He maintained, therefore, that although they had the right absolutely, as the guardians of the religious instruction of the country and of the endowment of the parochial clergy, yet that it would be unchristian to exercise that right—that it would be unjust in the highest degree to divest the principality of Wales of its revenues for the purpose of bestowing them on Manchester. On behalf of the parochial clergy of Wales, he would show their Lordships that it was their duty to apply them in a different way from what his noble Friend proposed. The income assigned to the united Bishopric was .5,000 l., so that there remained about 4,700 l. per annum balance of the former income of the two Bishoprics. The greater portion of this amount was made up of the tithes paid by a population, very many of whose Ministers, it was matter of universal complaint, were most inadequately remunerated, though the appropriation of the tithes thus abstracted from them would place them in a position of due comfort and respectability. In the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, recommending the union of the Sees, it was made a feature that the balance thus arising could most advantageously be applied to increasing the incomes of the poorer clergy. True, it had been since thought that it would be necessary to apply this fund to endow the
1250
Bishopric of Manchester; but this necessity was now superseded, and there was more reason why the amount should be applied to increase the incomes of the poor vicars in the north of Wales, in the way that common justice and the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners dictated. Sure he was, that the population of this district would feel that the true interests of the Church would be better consulted by more fitly remunerating the clergy, than by giving additional Bishops to North Wales. The noble Duke suggested that the House could not legislate upon that matter; if so, this was an argument also against the Bill which they were about to legislate upon. He (Lord Monteagle) trusted that the House would abide by the laws which it had enacted, or it might be opening a door to some very mischievous inferences, to some dangerous arguments. He might mention the case of one parish in Denbighshire, that of Abigill, whose population was 2,500, occupying a district of not less than 10,000 acres, yet there was not one church for all this large and widespread population, and, moreover, the tithes resulting from it went, not into the pockets of the clergy, not into the pockets of the Bishops, but into the pockets of certain persons who had received a lease of them from a former Bishop their relative. This was a position of things which certainly required to be dealt with efficiently, but it was an abuse which these-verance of the Bishopric would in no way remedy. In the same way, there were in Flint and Denbighshire, three other parishes, whose tithes, amounting to 1,770 l., were leased to the relatives of former Bishops, leaving but an inconsiderable sum to the present Bishop. In the whole dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor. the number of Benefices, amid a population of 350,711, was 258, of which no fewer than 113 were under 200 l. a year. The total revenues of the church in that diocese amounted to 83,964 l. of which 18,324 l. was appropriated to the support of the Bishoprics, cathedral dignitaries, and to sinecures; leaving 65,635 l. for the parochial benefices. The united incomes of thirteen sinecures in St. Asaph diocese alone, amounted to upwards of 4,000 l. per annum. The tithes of thirty-eight parishes were wholly or in part appropriated to the Bishoprics of St. Asaph and Bangor, which parishes contained a popu-

1251
lation of 53,062—more than one-seventh of the whole population of North Wales. Again, take the case of the Isle of Anglesey. The county of Anglesey contained seventy-eight parishes, with a population of 50,000; there were seventy-eight churches and chapels in which divine service was performed, and there were only fifty clergymen appointed to officiate in these seventy-eight churches. The consequence, as stated by competent authorities was, that there were about thirty cases in which two churches were served by one individual; nay, there were cases in which three churches were consigned to the care of one clergyman; in a few churches divine service was performed on alternate Sundays only, and scarcely fifteen out of the seventy-eight churches, had two services performed in them on the Sabbath. The tithes of eight parishes with a population of about 12,000, or one-fourth of the whole island, with eight churches, were annexed to the Bishopric of Bangor: the annual value of the tithes was 2,215 l. Four curates performed the duties in these parishes, and received from the Bishop 582 l. So again, the extensive district of Towyn in Merionethshire, including four parishes, with an area of forty-seven square miles, and a population of 4,651 souls, was annexed to the See of Lichfield and Coventry, and two-thirds of the tithes of the parish of Carnarvon, with a population of 7,642 belonged to the Bishopric of Chester. In fact, while the population of the diocese of Bangor amounted to 153,344 souls, 38,006 souls (being about one-fourth of the whole number) were residents in parishes of which the tithes were respectively appropriated to the Bishoprics of Bangor, the Bishoprics of Lichfield and Chester, and two colleges at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge—while the united income paid to the resident clergy of those parishes amounted only to 3,057 l. per annum. This was a state of things which ought certainly no longer to continue, and he trusted that their Lordships would see the propriety of taking immediate steps to make the property of the Church in North Wales subservient in its just proportions to the due maintenance of that working clergy which had so long been deprived of it. It had been said, let only one of the proposed two Bishops have a seat in their Lordships' House, but this appeared to him to be a proposition fraught with much danger. He had
1252
himself indeed, heard several warm friends of the Church say, that after all, perhaps it would be better were some of the Bishops permitted to devote the whole of their time to their spiritual charge; but it seemed to him that were the question once raised whether any of the Bishops might not advantageously be relieved, as the phrase was, from their Parliamentary duties, consequences of a dangerous and unconstitutional nature might very probably be apprehended; for when he heard persons express a desire to withdraw the Church from all connection with the State, and propose that it should secede from secular duties, it always appeared to him that there was another proposition behind the ostensible one, a proposition, namely, an intention to place the Church above the State; and this was a proposition which he should ever determinately oppose on constitutional grounds, and more especially, for the safety of the Church itself. The more the Church and State were mixed up together—the more the Bishops, the more the clergy at large were taught to consider themselves as Members of the community, and to perform their equal share of its civil functions, subordinately only to their own peculiar duties—the better for the Church; and, on the other hand, most injurious and dangerous would it be for any party to attempt to set up the Church as a separate body, distinct from, apart from the State—and, in the next step, above the State, by reason of its sacred functions.
The Earl of Powissaid, that he had felt it to be his duty previously to the introduction of the Bill, to communicate with his noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington), and since the second reading, he had further communicated with the noble Duke on the subject of the Royal consent being given to the measure, and that the noble Duke had informed him that it was not his intention to oppose the progress of the Bill unless material alterations were made in it when in Committee; but that he would take an opportunity of expressing the intentions of the Crown at a future stage. With respect to the argument of his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) who had just sat down, he did not think that it was fairly introduced by him upon the measure at present before the House. He (Lord Monteagle) objected to the income of the Bishops of North Wales arising from tithes. Such was, more or less, in

1253
almost every diocese the source from which a considerable part of episcopal incomes was derived. But the objection of his noble Friend came whimsically from him who had been himself, if his recollection was correct, in office, and a Commissioner when the Act passed which transferred these incomes from the Bishops of North Wales to the Episcopal Fund. His noble Friend objected to this proceeding as altering a Statute lately enacted. An Act would be equally necessary to repeal the Act referred to, and to apply the surplus episcopal income as advised by his noble Friend; and redeem it from the power of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. When the tithes were in the hands of their own Bishops, these revenues found their way back to the Principality, but it would be a very different thing when they were in the hands of an Ecclesiastical Corporation from whom it would be idle to expect any return of income. In parishes with which he (Lord Powis) was much connected, a large portion of the tithes were taken away by a college at Oxford, and he did not wish to see such means of disposing of the tithes of the parishes of North Wales increased. If his noble Friend intended to alter this state of things did he intend to limit his alterations to the episcopal tithe-holders of North Wales alone, or to extend it to the Sees of Lichfield and Chester, and other collegiate foundations which derive their income from North Wales tithes. If the evil was to be remedied, let it be met upon its own merits, and not confined to the Principality alone, but extended to the whole country, to England as well as to North Wales. Though such a reform might be very desirable, it would be difficult to carry it into execution, and his noble Friend was too well acquainted with Parliamentary practice not to know that to introduce his recommendations into the present Bill would be tantamount to ensuring its rejection in the other House of Parliament. Its appearance there, the Bill having assumed the character of a money Bill, would be to secure its being thrown upon the floor as interfering with the privileges of the House of Commons. During the discussion respecting the two Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, there never had been an occasion (and he said it to the honour of the Clergy of both Dioceses) in which individual and pecuniary interests had less operated upon the Clergy, or been put forward by them; and he was convinced that if application were made to their indivi-
1254
dual interests, and they were told that they would derive pecuniary benefit from the destruction of one of the Bishoprics, one and all would openly and directly declare, that whatever inconvenience poverty entailed upon them, they would rather continue to suffer that inconvenience, than be made the excuse for inflicting on North Wales the serious evil of diminishing the number of her Sees and thereby of depriving the country of the benefit of episcopal superintendence. He hoped that the Bill would be allowed to pass the Committee, and he would only say, with regard to the recommendations and wishes of the noble Lord, that if he would introduce a measure for relieving the Principality from any existing grievances no man would be more ready to enter into the consideration of it than himself.
The Bishop of Bangorwished to set the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) right as to one matter, respecting which he laboured under a mistake. He had represented the tithes as having been abstracted from the local clergy in order to make part of the revenues of the Bishops. This was a mistake. They were tithes anciently appropriated just like other impropriate tithes; they had not been taken away from the local clergy; they were ancient appropriations belonging to the archdeaconries of Anglesea and Bangor, and were attached to the Sees they at present belonged to by Act of Parliament. In England tithes had been similarly appropriated and let on beneficial leases. The tithes in question were never let, but the Bishop received them just as a lay impropriator received them. With respect to this Bill, he knew that the clergy throughout Wales was almost unanimous in opinion that the Bishoprics should be preserved, and that it was the general wish of the inhabitants of the two dioceses.
The Bishop of Salisburythought that some parts of the speech of the noble Lord opposite deserved consideration. But he would remind the House that the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Commission, of which he had been a member, had been given ten years ago, but had not yet been acted upon. He agreed with the noble Lord that a Bishop of Manchester was much wanted, but if such a Bishopric were so necessary, could not the Government, with the co-operation of the Houses of Parliament, find means to procure it? In the progress of years, new divisions of

1255
the dioceses would always be wanted, but the want of new Bishops formed no ground for the destruction of old Bishoprics. He trusted that their Lordships would pass the present measure, and that whatever question might incidentally arise upon the subject of tithes, in connection with it, they would not allow those difficulties to interfere with its success.
The Bishop of Norwichcould give his testimony that throughout Anglesea and North Wales, there was a loud and general complaint of the unjust appropriation of the tithes, and of their alienation from the support of the local clergy: and he felt assured that his right rev. Brother must be deeply distressed at receiving such tithes. The feeling of the principality on the subject was so decided that he (the Bishop of Norwich) believed that a great part of the dissent which prevailed there was attributable to the alienation of tithes from the Clergy. There could not be a more objectionable mode of deriving an income than when it was derived from the tithes of a parish which you are conscious ought to be paid to the parish clergyman. He was sure his right rev. Brother must feel, as he (the Bishop of Norwich) should assuredly do under similar circumstances, some hesitation in calling to account pluralists and sinecurists within his diocese, knowing that they might turn round and say that, in his own case, the tithes of so many parishes went to swell the income of his See. He rejoiced at the notice which this subject had received, for he saw in it the sure prospect of justice to the clergy of the diocese in question. At the same time he looked forward to the establishment of a Bishopric in Manchester. Look at its population. He was surprised, after the recommendation of the Commissioners that the wealth of Manchester had not come forward with a voluntary tender of an amount sufficient to endow a Bishopric. It would not be an item worthy of consideration compared with the vast wealth of that town. But, if they did not come forward, as he thought they ought to do, there was a resource of 10,000 l., which might be appropriated to the purpose of establishing a Bishopric in Manchester. A right rev. Friend near him intimated that it was not so; he hoped, however, that he was wrong: at all events, he should look forward from the debate of that evening to a revival of religion in Wales, and to the prospect of the clergy of
1256
North Wales again possessing their rights.
The Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be read a third time on Monday.

BROTHELS, &C, SUPPRESSION BILL.
The Order of the Day for the House going into Committee on this Bill, having been read,
Earl Fitzhardingesaid, he wished to make a few observations before the House went into Committee on this Bill. When it was referred to a Select Committee of that House, he had the honour of being a member of that Committee; but he did not long continue so, for he withdrew, thinking that the Committee were not pursuing a proper course; he would—
"—nothing extenuate,
Or aught set down in malice."
but he could not help saying that he thought the Committee pursued a wrong course, when they refused to go into evidence on the subject. He divided the Committee on the subject, and they thought otherwise; but he thought it desirable that they should have full information before they proceeded to pass an Act which contained some very stringent clauses—not that he was one of those who gave way to morbid feelings upon the punishment of criminals. He did not fear the effect of legislative enactments to check crime, if they legislated upon such subjects on sure grounds. He proposed no other test than that which he would have required himself, viz., he would have inquired what prohibitory clauses had been put into leases to prevent the evils complained of. On his own property, he had no prohibitory clauses in his leases, but then there were no brothels. On the property of the Marquess of Westminster, prohibitory clauses had been introduced; on the property of the late Duke of Dorset they had also been introduced. Now, he held in his hand the copy of the prohibitory clause in a lease of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, taken from a lease in 1841; but there was no prohibitory clause against brothels. Other nuisances were prohibited, such as the making of tallow and glue, but not brothels. He had also a copy of the prohibitory clause in leases of the property of a most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury. He did not know whether the right bank of the river was defiled by the same im-

1257
purities as the left bank, but he did not find that brothels were amongst the nuisances forbidden. But he would take no unfair advantage. After it was decided that no evidence should be called, he directed his agent to call on Mr. Vincent, the agent of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, to inquire if there were prohibitory clauses in their leases against brothels, and the answer which had been given was, that in some of the leases the prohibitory clause against brothels was inserted, but in others it was not, that it was not the practice to insert in ancient leases, but only in the modern. His agent was referred for further information to the Bishop of Gloucester. Now, it was said in the Committee, and it had been also said elsewhere, that he had made an accusation against the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, but he had not made any accusation at all—he knew nothing of them—he wanted to know something, and that was the reason why he moved for evidence; he told them when the accusation was made, and he knew nothing of it himself. If this subject was fit for legislation, it was necessarily fit for examination. If they would look into a sewer they must expect to find a certain scent; and he must say that he thought they had been rather too hasty in their legislation. It was said that he had made an accusation against the Dean and Chapter of Westminster; but he would repeat that he had not done so. He would, however, now make an accusation against them, and he would say that the brothels within two minutes' walk of that House, on their property were still extant, and he would give his authority to their Lordships. [The noble Earl then mentioned several houses and streets which were notorious.] He had no great reason to doubt the accuracy of this information; for it was given to him, not by any schismatic or anonymous writer in a newspaper, but by the vestry-clerk of the parish of St. Margaret's. They might legislate on the subject if they pleased, and he would not oppose their going into Committee upon the Bill before the House; but if the statement of Mr. Rogers, the vestry clerk, were true, he thought they were rather premature in legislating on this matter. He would beg to call their Lordships' attention to the third Clause in the Bill:
"And be it enacted, that any person who shall knowingly participate, directly or indi-
1258
rectly, in the profits arising from the keeping of any brothel, or who shall on any pretence directly share or become a partner with any prostitute in the wages of her prostitution, shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished in the same manner in all respects as hereinbefore authorized with reference to the keepers of brothels."
After what he had stated did anybody mean to say that the Dean and Chapter of Westminster were ignorant of all this? Did they not then come within this very Clause? If their Lordships legislated at all, let them legislate fairly. Let them not attack consequences without examining first into causes. Let them not satisfy themselves with lopping off' twigs, but let them lay the axe re the root of the evil. If they passed that Bill, knowing that the Dean and Chapter had been breathing the air of prostitution, and sharing the very wages of public infamy, he would tell them that they would not deal out even-handed justice unless they brought in a Bill of pains and penalties against the Dean and Chapter of Westminster.
The Bishop of Gloucestersaid, he was sure that their Lordships would lend an ear to a member of a body against whom there had been dealt out very large, loud, and he must say, intolerable accusations. From the tone and manner of the noble Earl it appeared that his temper had been greatly moved by what had passed the other night. He (the Bishop of Gloucester) did then complain, as he might now, that he had received no notice of the intention of the noble Earl, nor had any person connected with the Dean and Chapter of Westminster; otherwise he should have been provided with those details in a manner fitted to he laid before their Lordships. At that time, however, he could only state everything he knew, or had heard, or could recollect upon the subject; which was, that two years ago it had been communicated to him, for the first time in his life, that there stood upon the property of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster in the Almonry houses of ill-fame, and he mentioned the matter to the proper authority immediately, urging that steps should be taken at once for the removal of that nuisance, which he saw was so discreditable to a religious and learned body. Their Lordships would recollect that he also stated that all the property was under leases of forty years, and their Lordships were well aware that during the currency of those leases it was impossible for the

1259
Dean and Chapter to take steps against the possessors, provided the conditions of the leases were not infringed. He had heard with satisfaction that a resolution had been taken long ago that those leases should not be renewed, and that they were in course of expiration. It was right to say for himself that, though be had been for many years a member of the body, he had never taken any part in the management of the property belonging to the Dean and Chapter, his time was entirely occupied by duties of another character, and more appropriate—duties which he could exercise with more benefit to the Church. The property of the Dean and Chapter, though very trifling as compared with that of the noble Earl and many of their Lordships, being of a scattered and complicated kind, it was thought better to leave its management to two or three members of that body, or even to one only,—to the Dean, who was more properly vested with the charge and attention to all that concerned the credit, respectability, and honour of the body; and he was glad to say that he could at this time give his confidence to the present Dean of Westminster, a gentleman whom he had known from his earliest youth, and of whom he could say that there lived not a man of purer mind, or one more incapable of encouraging, or profiting by, or tolerating such abominations as those described by the noble Earl. He said also on the occasion previously alluded to, that he had the satisfaction of learning, that not only had some of the leases expired, but that the Dean and Chapter had purchased some of the unexpired terms, and had pulled down some of the houses. Now, he was assured by those who best knew the detail of the subject, and to whom he had referred, that his statement was substantially correct; and had he gone further the statement would have told more creditably even than that to the Dean and Chapter, for not only had they expended their money in purchasing the unexpired terms of some leases, for the sole purpose of suppressing these nuisances, but they had also, under the power of a private Act of Parliament, expended considerable sums of money in purchasing freehold land in the vicinity on which stood houses of the same description, because they felt that the mere suppression of such houses on their own ground would not be of any benefit to the community if their inhabitants could immediately take refuge in the vicinity. He was not aware
1260
that in what he had said he was guilty of any inaccuracy. He understood that the houses were let on lease for forty years. But if he had received due notice he should have told their Lordships that a great many leases, not one only, were let upon similar terms, and that the Dean and Chapter, when aware that houses of an improper kind existed, had in every instance refused to renew the lease. Though the property seemed to be of considerable extent, its value was small, being situated in the lower parts of Westminster; and their Lordships might be assured it would be much more agreeable to the Dean and Chapter to possess property in other parts of the town,—in Berkeley-square for instance, where they could command the most respectable tenants in the kingdom. But there was a matter which the accusers of the Dean and Chapter had kept out of view, and when he said accusers, he meant the noble Earl and the newspapers upon which he built his faith, that was, that those leases were frequently under-leases, and that there was very great difficulty indeed in exercising that influence of property of which the noble Earl spoke in such cases; though it might happen, and did happen in the cases under consideration of which he had spoken, that the immediate tenants were respectable persons, but that the property had got into the hands of under-lessees, over whom there was no means of exercising a salutary control. However, the present state of things was this: several of these leases (the whole number of which was considerable—he believed between a dozen and twenty-some of them comprising a good many houses) had already fallen in—the forty years had expired; others had been bought, and as to others, the Dean and Chapter were at that moment in negotiation for the purpose of purchasing them, and pulling down or shutting them up. Some had been pulled down and others had been shut up; one in particular he was told was formerly held by Caxton, the celebrated printer. The noble Earl stated the other night that he grounded his accusation upon the fact that it had been made two years and a half ago in a newspaper, and had never been contradicted; and that the noble Earl repeated with much emphasis. Now, he (the Bishop of Gloucester) must complain of that reasoning. If it was to be held that an accusation was true because it was made anonymously in a newspaper, he wished to know which of their Lord-

1261
ships or what number of the community would be safe? Most happy must the noble Earl be if he had passed through life unassailed by slander: but it was surely an untoward and tyrannical doctrine that a person should be considered guilty of a charge made in a newspaper, because he had not chosen to come forward and defend himself from an anonymous accusation. He would add one thing more—it was not always possible to do it—contradictions of anonymous calumnies might be sent to newspapers, which if they had an object in view—that of writing a person down, as it was termed—they would refuse to insert; though, to be sure, generally speaking, they might be printed in the form of a paid advertisement. But the truth must be told; the noble Earl was far too hasty in his reasoning and conclusions. He also omitted, no doubt through forgetfulness, to acquaint their Lordships what newspaper it was that he rested upon. Their Lordships might suppose that it was one of those papers which might come under the eyes of the Dean and Chapter, and therefore they would be obliged to know of the accusations. But he (the Bishop of Gloucester) had found out what paper it was — it was a paper called the Patriot. [Earl Fitzhardinge.—"No. no."] I have the paper in my pocket.
Earl Fitzhardinge: I made no charge on mere newspaper authority; and I now make the charge on the authority of Mr. Rogers, the vestry-clerk of the parish of St. Margaret. It was not in that paper that I saw the statement; it was in the Examiner of the 18th of December, 1841. I never saw the Patriot in my life.
The Bishop of Gloucesterbelieved that the explanation of the noble Earl would not very much alter the state of things. But he held the Patriot newspaper in his hand, a paper which was devoted to the most bitter and rancorous attacks upon the Established Church of this country, which paper contained the statement. But the noble Earl dwelt much on the circumstance that the accusations had not been contradicted. It did so happen that they were contradicted in two respectable newspapers, the Morning Herald of the 16th of January, 1843, and the Standard of the 18th of January, 1843, and they were contradicted not anonymously, as the charge had been made, but with the name of a respectable member of society attached, Mr. Hunt, a house-agent and surveyor, who was employed by the Dean and Chapter in
1262
surveying these houses and property, and his statement was a very satisfactory contradiction. Had the noble Earl been aware of the fact, he would not have read with so much glee as he did the statement of the atrocities which the Dean and Chapter tolerated. He said that in Pye-street there were forty brothels, and in Orchard-street thirty, most or all of them being the property of the Dean and Chapter. Now, what was stated upon the plain authority of a man of business? There were two streets in Westminster, at right angles with each other, called Great Pye Street and Little Pye-steet, but in neither one of them did the Dean and Chapter possess a single house. So much for the accuracy with which the noble Earl's statements were made. But why was this bitter attack made upon a body which, at least, were entitled to respect and decency. A few years ago it was found, and complained of loudly, that a house which the Dean and Chapter had leased for forty years as a dwelling-house, had been converted into a Dissenting meeting-house. When this lease came to be renewed, the Dean and Chapter inserted a covenant that the premises should not be occupied as a Dissenting meeting-house, and they inserted similar covenants in other leases. Hinc illœ lachrymœ! Hence all the rancour which they had been subjected to. In future they would take care also that a covenant (thanks to the noble Earl for his suggestion) should be inserted in their leases to prevent the evil complained of; and the first time he was present at a Chapter meeting he would recommend it to the body to which he belonged. Their attention had been anxiously directed to this subject—they had done all that they could do to remedy it, and much as the noble Earl had said about love of lucre, and of the money the Dean and Chapter put into their pockets, the wages of prostitution, as he was pleased to call it, he should observe that a very slight inspection of the accounts respecting those leases, the fines received for them, and the money paid for purchasing the remaining terms, would make it appear that the Dean and Chapter had not profited at all, but had rather been losers by the property. He could not help again saying to their Lordships that he did think it would be a proper, as well as courteous practice, whenever attacks of that kind were to be made, that previous communication should be given to the parties who were to be at-

1263
tacked, in order that they might be prepared to answer, for when persons so attacked replied upon the spur of the moment they were liable to be charged with inaccuracy, and, in fact, could not be expected to be sufficiently informed so as to give a complete answer, which he trusted he had now done. From his own personal knowledge of course he could not speak, but he rested upon the statements of persons of veracity, and not upon anonymous paragraphs in newspapers, as the noble Earl had done.
Earl Fitzhardinge: No, no! I found my accusation upon the authority of the vestry-clerk of St. Margaret's, and not upon anonymous papers. His name is Rogers.
The Bishop of Gloucester: The noble Earl has told the House what Mr. Rogers states; but not that the property is under the control of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster. That very day being quarter-day, the Dean of Westminster had sent notices to parties to quit houses belonging to the Dean and Chapter, in order that inquiries might be made as to the respectability of their houses, upon which some suspicion had been thrown; because their Lordships must be aware of the exceeding difficulty of obtaining respectable tenants in a neighbourhood which laboured under the disadvantage of a bad name.
The Bill went through Committee, and the Report was ordered to be received tomorrow.
House adjourned.