Lords Sitting of 17 December 1847

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—Lord Grinstead.
PUBLIC BILLS.—Reported.—Public Works (Ireland).
3aand passed:—Crime and Outrage (Ireland); Railways; Public Works (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Earl of Winchilsea, from Bury St. Edmund's, and other places, against the Admission of Jews into Parliament.—By Lord Brougham, from Tipperary, complaining of the Insufficiency of the Measures proposed for Ireland, and praying that Powers of
1336
greater Stringency may be granted.—By the Marquess of Clanricarde, from Dissenters of Taunton, and other places, for the Removal of Jewish Disabilities

THE NAVAL AND MILITARY MEDALS.
LORD COLVILLEwished to put a question to the noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty, on a subject which had been alluded to a few nights ago. It might be in the recollection of the noble Earl opposite, that soon after the publication of the Order in Council of June last, with regard to the distribution of medals to officers of the Army and Navy, a large meeting of naval officers was held for the purpose of expressing respectfully to the Ministers of the Crown their feelings upon that subject, and of asking them to reconsider the decision to which they had come. At that meeting a deputation was appointed, of which he (Lord Colville) had the honour to be a member, to wait upon the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty. The deputation was most courteously received by the noble Lord, who was good enough to say, that though the case was a very difficult one to deal with after the lapse of so many years, it should receive the consideration of the Government. The question he (Lord Colville) now wished to ask was, whether it was the intention of the Government to recommend any extension of, or any deviation from, the Order in Council of June last, respecting the granting of medals for particular actions therein specified?
The EARL of AUCKLANDsaid, he could have no objection to give the noble Lord all the information in his power on the subject to which he had referred. Shortly after the publication of the Order in Council in the Gazette of the 4th of June last, a committee of Flag Officers was appointed to inquire into the claims of officers under that notice, and also the claims of other officers who might consider themselves equally entitled by their services to a similar distinction. That committee had subsequently made a report, in which they expressed their opinion that there should be a considerable extension of the rule under which it was originally proposed that medals should be awarded. He (the Earl of Auckland) had submitted this report to the Government, and he was glad to say that the recommendations of the committee had been approved and sanetioned, though some matters of detail still remained under consideration. As soon as the arrangements had been completed, notice would be given in the Gazette.

DR. HAMPDEN—THE BISHOPS' REMONSTRANCE.
The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRYrose to put the question of which he had given notice respecting the appointment of Dr. Hampden to the see of Hereford: Having recently seen in the Times newspaper certain documents relative to the appointment of Dr. Hampden as Bishop of Hereford, and believing that they must have some foundation—though at the same time he was aware that many publications vent forth to the world in a shape which might not be altogether authentic—he felt it his duty, having heard very much on this subject in the diocese in which he lived, to put some questions to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) respecting it. Though his diocesan, possessing great ability, might not, perhaps, have expressed his opinions on this subject as other right rev. prelates had done, yet he (the Marquess of Londonderry) had had various communications with many clergymen and others in that diocese, and he could say, that their alarm at the proposed appointment was equal to that entertained by the country at large. Having seen, he repeated, the published document, which was signed by no less than thirteen bishops, at the head of whom was a right rev. prelate of sound principles and great learning, he could not have believed that such a document, addressed to the First Minister of the Crown, would have received from that individual an answer which he must characterise as most inadequate and unsatisfactory. Since the period when that answer first appeared, it had received from a right rev. prelate so complete, able, and full a reply, that he did not suppose that any one could now attempt to uphold that communication of the First Minister of the Crown, if it really were his. If no more reason were given for the appointment in question than appeared in the letter of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, he believed that it would create great dissatisfaction in the country, prove highly injurious to the present Government, and tend to increase unfortunate differences in the Church. He was quite sure that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), if he were determined to press this appointment forward, could not be displeased or surprised that a humble individual like himself should wish, if possible, to bring it forward in discussion before the Legislature of the country, because the noble Lord himself, at a former period, when an
1338
appointment was made of a high diplomatic character which there was no reason or ground to dispute, challenged that appointment, and said that it was the duty of every Member of the Legislature, if he thought any appointment of the Crown improper, to bring it before the face of the country. He (the Marquess of Londonderry), therefore, had a right, following the example of the noble Lord, to challenge the present appointment to the see of Hereford. Of course, he admitted the right of the Crown to make the appointment; but as to the wisdom of the advice given by the Minister to the Crown on the point, he had his doubts. Indeed, he considered that advice to be not only inexpedient, but unwise and impolitic at the present moment, and fatal to the best interests of the Church and the country. He had been assured that, if the appointment were persevered in, it would be the cause of great discontent. He thought he had a right to bring this subject before their Lordships' notice, because, following the example of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), he conceived that he was entitled to find fault or cavil at any appointment made by the First Minister of the Crown, and because he believed this appointment to be opposed to the universal feeling of the country. He therefore wished to ask the noble Marquess opposite, whether the published documents to which he had referred were authentic and official; secondly, whether it was the determination of the Government to persevere in the appointment to which they referred; and, thirdly, whether it was the determination of the Government to take measures between this and the termination of the recess, and before the return of the right rev. prelates from their dioceses permitted them to attend that House, to confirm that appointment, and thus to prevent any noble Lord moving an address to Her Majesty, if he should so think fit, on the subject of the appointment, before it actually took place? Whether, in other words, Her Majesty's Ministers intended so to hurry forward the measures connected with the appointment as to prevent it being discussed in their Lordships' or the other House of Parliament by those who thought the appointment uncalled for, inexpedient, and in every respect unjustifiable?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: The noble Marquess gave notice yesterday of his intention to put two questions on the subject to which he has referred; and

1339
I am sure that the noble Marquess will excuse me, if, understanding those questions, I confine myself to answering them, and not his remarks, which, perhaps, I do not understand so well. The first of the two questions is, whether the remonstrance of the Bishops against the recommendation of the Rev. Dr. Hampden to the see of Hereford, addressed to Lord J. Russell, is an authentic and official document? I apprehend that document not to be an official document; but if the noble Marquess asks me whether I believe that document to be correct and genuine as published (I do not know how published), I have to tell the noble Marquess that I believe it to be perfectly correct. The next question is, whether the Government intends to persevere in that recommendation? My answer to that question the noble Marquess may infer from the best authority—the Gazette of Tuesday last, in which he will find notice of the issue to the Dean and Chapter of Hereford of a congé d'elire. The next question of the noble Marquess, of which he has given no notice is, whether the congé d'elire having been issued, that appointment will be pressed? I have to answer that the appointment will be pressed. The particular moment when it will take place I am unable to state, as that depends on certain forms with which I am not acquainted; but I can assure the noble Marquess that the matter will take the usual course. As to what the noble Marquess has stated as to the constitutional right of the Members of the Legislature to discuss this subject, there is no doubt, if due notice be given of the intention to do so; that due notice being most particularly required on a question directly affecting the prerogatives of the Crown.
The BISHOP of ROCHESTER: My Lords, in the absence of so many of the right rev. Prelates more accustomed than myself to address your Lordships, I feel called upon to make a few observations on this subject. I have filled the office of bishop for thirty-four years, and during that period I have enjoyed the friendship of at least sixty bishops; and I must say that it was with very deep regret that I heard the determination which had been expressed in reference to the appointment in question. I believe that determination has been founded on very erroneous grounds, because, in the answer given to the Bishops, as well as in that given to the lay members of the
1340
Church, the noble Lord who wrote them seemed to have entertained the mistaken belief that the opposition had arisen from a certain portion of the Church to whom he alludes in these answers. I can positively state that this is not the case. There is no person more opposed than I am to what are called tractarian principles, and in my own diocese, comprehending upwards of 600 clergymen, the feeling is almost unanimous in opposition to those who are supposed to entertain extreme opinions in the Church. In one district 103 clergymen assembled, all having different views, and yet there were only two dissentients to the address which was agreed to. That address was moved by a person supposed to have tractarian views, and seconded by one supposed to entertain evangelical views. Therefore, I think that the noble Lord is deceived in this respect. I believe the noble Lord has acted from conscientious motives, and I have a great respect for the noble Lord personally, but I regret the determination to which he has come. We are told that the congê d'elire is issued. This may be true. I do not know what course the Dean and Chapter of Hereford may adopt. They may possibly decline the election, and in that case Her Majesty has the power of creating the bishop. Therefore, whether they elect or not is only matter of importance as far as regards the expression of their own opinion. But after this there is another step which must be taken. All the bishops in the province of Canterbury are obliged, before consecration, to appear at Bow Church, and go through the ceremony of confirmation, and at that assembly all opposers are called on by the Queen's Proctor to come forward and state whether they have any objections to make. The right rev. Prelate here read, in reference to this ceremony, the following extract from Burn's Ecclesiastical Law:—
"A citation against opposers, which (the time of confirmation being first fixed) is published and set up by order, and in the name of the archbishop, at the church were it is to be held, as well to notify the day of confirmation as to cite all opposers (if there be any) who will object against the said election, or the person elected, to appear on that day, according to the direction of ancient canon law But if any appear, it seemeth that they shall be admitted to make their exceptions in due form of law. To which purpose, a passage in Collier's Ecclesiastical History (vol. ii., page 745) is applicable:—' Soon after the recess of Parliament, Bishop Laud was translated from Bath and Wells to London, and Montague promoted to the see of Chichester. Before he was consecrated an unexpected rub was thrown

1341 i
in the way. At the confirmation of bishops there is a public notice given that if any person can object either against the party elected or the legality of the election, they are to appear and offer their exceptions at the day prefixed. This intimation being given, one Jones, a bookseller, attended with the mob. Appearing at the confirmation, he excepted against Montague, as a person unqualified for the episcopal dignity; and, to be somewhat particular, he charged him with Popery, Arminianism, and other heterodoxes, for which his books had been censured in the former Parliament. But Dr. Rives, who then officiated for Brent, the vicar-general, disappointed this challenge.'"
Now, these are my grounds for believing that if this appointment should be brought before the proper tribunal, it might not yet take place. I myself should be satisfied with its being brought before the proper tribunal. I have not the honour of knowing Dr. Hampden; but, with the exception of his holding what I conceive to be erroneous doctrines, I believe him to be a very estimable person. If the appointment were brought before the proper tribunal, no doubt the result, whatever it might be, would be satisfactory; but until it is so brought, my objections will remain in full force. I must state that I, for one, many years ago, informed candidates for holy orders from Oxford, that I should require them to have a certificate, not from the Regius Professor of Divinity, but a testimonial from the Margaret Professor. I can only add that, supposing at the confirmation, which is one of the most solemn ceremonies of the Church, and at which it is said by lawyers that bishops are not obliged to confirm against their consciences, any legal objection should be made to the newly appointed bishop, I will be no party concerned in the ceremony.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that as there was no Motion before the House, he certainly should not make any remarks on what had fallen from the right rev. Prelate.

CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND) BILL.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE moved that the Bill be read 3a.
The EARL of WINCHILSEAsaid, that unless some measure more stringent than the Bill now before them were introduced, and speedily passed through Parliament, the condition of Ireland would soon be such as to place that country altogether beyond the control of the Government. The evil was every hour increasing—assassination was every hour driving away from Ireland the best of its land-
1342
lords. The case had at length assumed the most alarming character; and he must be allowed to say that on the Government the whole responsibility rested—the responsibility of a Bill which, instead of repressing, would, he feared, give direct encouragement to the crimes and outrages which were at present the disgrace of Ireland.
The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRYcould not agree with those noble Lords who had thanked Her Majesty's Government for the measure, for he thought the measure was by no means sufficient for the occasion; it was not severe nor stringent enough. Last Session he had laid on the table of the House information that in various places in Ireland arms were publicly sold. He brought down a printed list of those arms, and charged upon the Government the responsibility of such proceedings. It had been said in another place that Lord Clarendon was satisfied with the measure. Would to God he might have reason to be so! but he (the Marquess of Londonderry) feared the noble Lord would find himself under a mistake, for this Bill did little more than give the Lord Lieutenant the power to proclaim a certain number of districts, while the great evil was allowed to remain, namely, leaving the people in possession of arms. He (the Marquess of Londonderry) thought there should be a general search for arms throughout the country, for as long as the indiscriminate use of arms was permitted, it would be impossible to prevent secret assassination.
Bill read 3a and passed.

PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
House in Committee. House resumed, and Bill reported without Amendment.
The EARL of DEVON The EARL of DEVON moved, that "the Standing Orders No. 26 and No. 155 be dispensed with," in order that the House should immediately proceed with the remaining stages of the Bill.
LORD MONTEAGLErose and protested against a Bill of this importance being hurried through Parliament. This was a Bill which, if it were to be entertained at all, required the deliberate consideration of Her Majesty's Government; yet within two days of the close of the Session it had been sent up for their Lordships' consideration. He was not prepared to deny that some attention had not been given to it in another place; but that ought not to supersede the consideration of it by their Lordships. The principal objections to the Bill of last year were, that works were

1343
incautiously undertaken—that there was a great waste of public money, and a great malversation of funds. For himself, he wondered under all the circumstances not that abuses had existed, but that they had not existed to a much greater extent than they had done. Under that Bill enormous sums of money had been voted, and enormous works undertaken, and as a natural consequence of stopping the supplies, enormous works had been left unfinished, and some of the best communications in the country had been completely destroyed. Such being the case, no doubt it was necessary to complete certain of those works. But how did they propose to do it? By introducing a Bill containing all the objectionable portions, with none of the safeguards of the former Bill. He objected altogether to the system of special sessions. Let him give a specimen now of a special sessions—take for example that presided over by his noble Friend near him (the Earl of Devon). Why, his noble Friend, universally esteemed as he was, and those who assisted him, had no more power of controlling the acts of those sessions, than they would have of arresting the tide under London-bridge. The power was wrested entirely out of their hands by the mob; and his noble Friend, in his own town of Lucan, was obliged to have the military called out, in order to keep the semblance of regularity. The consequence was, that there could be no deliberation; force carried the day, the mob ruled, and his noble Friend, who was responsible for the law, had not a shadow of authority. They were now again going to bring into action that old broken mechanism at a time when the people were more exasperated even than last year; and they none of them knew what powers they were going to give those sessions. He could assure their Lordships, that under that Bill, in one county alone, no less a sum than 120,000 l. could be presented by those irresponsible sessions. He objected also to the mode of raising the money, to the rate of interest charged, and to the whole of the powers, such as the diversions of roads, &c, invested in the special sessions. He should be unwilling, however, to ask their Lordships to reject the Bill upon the present occasion; but he trusted that at a future period it might be reconsidered, and with these remarks he left the responsibility in the hands of the Government.
The EARL of DEVONsaid, the Bill had been introduced in the other House accor-
1344
ding to the request of a large body of Irish proprietors, who wished it to be passed as soon as possible; they considered that delay would be very injurious. During the last year, many roads in different parts of Ireland were rendered useless by being left in an unfinished state. All that was done by the Bill was to give an opportunity to the proprietors and ratepayers, with their own money, not that of the public, to complete works that were now absolutely useless.
The EARL of ENNISKILLENvery briefly opposed the Bill.
The Standing Orders Nos. 26 and 155 were then dispensed with. After a short discussion, Bill read 3a
On Motion that the Bill do pass,
The EARL of ENNISKILLENintimated that he should divide against it.
Some conversation took place on the point, during which
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he had not intended to divide the House against the measure, but merely to state his objections to it.
House divided on the question that the Bill do pass:—Content 5; Not-Content 4: Majority 1.
Bill passed.
House adjourned.