Lords Sitting of 12 February 1847

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Destitute Persons (Ireland); Brewing from Sugar.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Walsingham, from South Elmsall, and several other places, for the Repeal of the Poor Removal Act.—By Lord Monteagle, from Limerick, against the Collection of Ministers' Money (Ireland).—From Wexford, for the formation of Seed Depôts by the Government, and for ensuring a proper Supply of Food to the People of Ireland.

THE LABOUR-RATE (IRELAND) ACT—DIVISION OF BARONIES.
LORD MONTEAGLEmoved for copies of applications made to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on behalf of residents in the baronies of Clanwellin and Shanid, praying for the division of those baronies for the purpose of holding special sessions under the 9th and 10th Vict., cap. 107. In making a few observations in reference to this Motion, he should carefully abstain from any attack on the Irish Government for the decision they came to, in refusing to accede to the request, being satisfied that they decided as they thought best. Some of the baronies in Ireland being extremely large, it would be recollected that by the Labour-rate Act a power was reserved to the Government of dividing them. In the two cases to which his Motion referred, application was made to the Irish Government for the division of the baronies; but the application was not complied with. He called for these papers for the purpose of laying a foundation to present to their Lordships hereafter a proposition, on which he thought that the future well-being of Ireland depended; for, whatever system of poor-law assessment it might please Parliament to adopt for that country, it would be desirable to look well to the nature of the districts which should be combined together for the purpose of assessment, and particularly to the extent of the several districts over which the assessment was to be spread. If the districts were made too large, the ratepayers would be exposed to all sorts of fraudulent applications; and, from his experience of the operation of the Labour-rate Act, he could say that in the larger districts the works were ill administered, while in the smaller they were comparatively well administered. According to the existing poor law in Ireland, the electoral districts were chosen, which were of that convenient size that the result was, that in those districts where estates were well managed, and landlords discharged the du-

1223
ties belonging to their station, the rates were reduced. It was of great importance that this principle should be firmly adhered to. Their Lordships would be called on to discuss this question in connexion with measures to be brought under their consideration; and they might be told that the clauses relating to this matter were money clauses, and could not be altered without affecting the privileges of the House of Commons. He did not think that in reference to so essential a matter as this, that argument ought to prevent their Lordships from discussing and deciding on it. He, therefore, took this early opportunity of representing the great importance which the resident gentlemen of Ireland attached to the electoral districts' clause, which was called "the Duke of Wellington's Clause," because it was adopted at the noble Duke's suggestion. It would be fatal to depart from its principle; and therefore, privilege or no privilege, he trusted, if any proposition involving any serious departure from the principle of that clause were made, that their Lordships would not decline to give it due consideration, and deal with it according to their judgment. He disliked referring in one House of Parliament to what took place in the other; but it had been stated elsewhere, in reference to his opinions, that because he contended that there ought not to be a common rating over enormous districts, he therefore agreed that that rating should be assimilated to that of England. The two propositions were totally distinct, and the one so erroneously attributed to him, he had never maintained.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEobserved, that his noble Friend, in moving for these papers, had distinctly disclaimed the intention of casting any imputation upon the conduct of the Irish Government; but even had the noble Lord felt it his duty to call in question the acts of that Government, he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) would still have thought it fitting that these papers should be laid before the House. He would, however, suggest to his noble Friend, that in addition to the papers referred to in his Motion, he should move for copies of the Lord Lieutenant's answers to the applications.
LORD BROUGHAMconsidered it most important that these papers should be produced. He entertained a very strong opinion in favour of what was commonly called "the Duke of Wellington's Clause." He must say that it was intolerable to think
1224
that any notion of the privileges of the other House, should stand in the way of the fullest and most unfettered discussion in that place; and that their Lordships should be told, "You must either swallow the whole, or reject the whole," when it would very likely be as great an evil to reject the whole measure, as to adopt it without some modifications. His reason for saying this was, that the difference of the rating principle might entirely change the character of the measure. He must observe that he strongly approved of the plan adopted in Scotland to prevent abuse in the relief of the poor. In that country twenty-three questions were put to applicants for relief, with reference to their circumstances and situation, before relief was granted to them; and such applicants were also called upon to give an undertaking that if they afterwards became possessed of property beyond what was absolutely necessary for their subsistence, they would repay the money which had been advanced for their relief. He (Lord Brougham) objected, however, to the 17th of this series of questions, which required the applicant to state what place of worship he had attended during his residence in the parish; whether he had been a communicant, and, if so, with what religious denomination; and to produce a certificate of character from his minister. He (Lord Brougham) did not object to calling for the character of the applicant, but he thought the other part of the question most objectionable; for no sectarian feeling ought to be indulged with reference to the distribution of parochial charity. The regulation induced the suspicion that a person might be refused relief on account of his religious opinions; and he (Lord Brougham) was acquainted with a case in which relief had actually been refused to a Roman Catholic. There ought to be no such sectarian interference: such feelings were all very well in their place, but they had nothing to do with a question of charity. He might take this opportunity of observing, that while no one could feel more strongly than he did the importance of Sabbath rest, and of avoiding secular amusements on that day, he thought that a most imprudent course was taken by some persons in Scotland to enforce the strict observance of the Sunday. He had been informed that, at Glasgow, a medical gentleman was positively refused a train on the Sunday in order to attend one of his patients who was in a critical state. His (Lord Brougham's) deliberate opinion was, that the very per-

1225
sons who did most to desecrate the Sabbath, were those who made its observance
unpopular by acts of this kind.
EARL FITZWILLIAMconsidered it most important that, in any division they might make for the purpose of rating in Ireland, care should be taken not to deprive the landed proprietors and the real substantial occupiers of the soil of an interest in administering the rates well; prior to which it was necessary that they should administer their estates well. There was one circumstance with reference to the Irish poor law, which seemed to him to be of the greatest possible consequence—namely, the mode in which the town paupers were to be dealt with; whether thay were to be thrown exclusively upon the single electoral district in which the town was situated, or to be spread over a larger surface. He was sure their Lordships would agree with him that it was most desirable they should not act in such a manner as to sanction the principle that there was a distinction between the interests of town and country. The interests of the two ought undoubtedly to be so dealt with as to be rendered as far as possible one and the same. He would have felt more gratified if his noble Friend the President of the Council (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had distinctly expressed an opinion that that House should deal in a free and unfettered manner with the measure to which reference had been made. He was sure his noble Friend would forgive him for saying that all persons connected with Ireland would have heard the noble Marquess's statement with greater satisfaction, had he expressed a decided opinion that, however the House of Commons might send up that measure, their Lordships must deal with it in accordance with those views which they believed would be most conducive to the welfare of Ireland.
Motion, as amended, agreed to. Returns ordered.

THE PARISH OF MANCHESTER.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that in consequence of a statement made by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) on a recent occasion, in presenting a petition from the churchwardens of Manchester, the Dean of Manchester considered that an opinion had gone abroad extremely detrimental to his character, and that an imputation had been cast upon him, not perhaps for neglecting to discharge a legal
1226
duty, but, at all events, for the neglect of a moral duty. The dean had accordingly written a letter, which he had requested him to read to the House, for the purpose of removing the stigma which attached to his conduct after the statement made by the noble Lord. The letter was as follows:—
"My dear Lord—Having read the report in The Times of that which was stated by Lord Stanley in the House of Lords, on the presentation of a petition from the three churchwardens of Manchester, I find that one point in the petition, which is unfounded, but much relied upon by his Lordship, had been overlooked by me, and that he seems disposed, upon that ground, to cast on the chapter the heavy reproach of a violation of moral duties, though neither he nor the petitioners can charge them with any violation of the law. That point is an assertion absolutely false, that 'it was arranged that, of the whole income of the college, the warden was to have two shares, each fellow one, and each chaplain one-half, or, at that time, 70 l., 35 l., and 17 l. 10 s. respectively;' from which he draws a conclusion that the fines imposed were intended to amount to more than half the entire income. If that were true, the position of the chaplains would have immeasurably exceeded that of the members of the chapter, for there is a reservation of all their fees and rights to the chaplains. But there is no such allotment of a share to them, and these fixed stipends had no reference to the ultimate and entire funds of the college. It appears that by misrule the property had been leased out on fines, so that it possessed little besides reversionary interests; and the chapter were ordered in the first instance to take what they were then actually receiving, however small the funds might be, 'ex collegii fructibus et redditibus temtis seu tantillis quantum eidem nunc annuatim accrescunt;' but, when the income should be increased by reversions, they should take the special stipends mentioned, of 70 l., 35 l., and 17 l. 10 s. But, after that, the charter proceeds to will, that out of the increased funds of the college, the warden should take two shares, and each of the fellows one, without limitation; but with a proviso that the choir, which was fallen into decay, should be first repaired in a suitable manner, and houses provided for their accommodation, the stipend being the sum which they had a right to take in the first instance, that is, before applying any portion of the funds to those purposes; after the completion of which, they were to divide the annual income—two-sixths to the warden, and one to each fellow. It is, therefore, certain that the original intention was not to proportion the fine to the increasing revenues, but to limit the fines to a fixed amount, while the expectation of a future increase of the funds to be enjoyed by the chapter was expressly avowed; nor do these funds arise mainly out of rectorial tithes, but out of the especial endowments of the college also. The charter did not enforce, as asserted, and did not intend to enforce, by the forfeiture of half their income when it should be increased, the constant presence of all the members of the chapter, except as specially allowed, without penalty. The complaint set forth was, that successive wardens had entirely absented themselves, and performed no duty what-

1227
soever. I should be strictly discharging the real intentions of the charter if I were to permit and direct one or two of the canons to abide without paying any fines during all this Session of Parliament in London, for the purpose of striving that the chapter should take no detriment from this hostile petition to the House of Lords; but I think it unnecessary, though in the reign of Charles the First it would probably have been thought expedient. No abuse has crept in by lapse of time. It was intended from the first that the warden and fellows should hold other preferment, and the days of absence were not to enable them to perform duties elsewhere, but to attend to their private affairs, 'dum necessaria sibi obit negotia.' The very first warden after the charter was rector of Ashton: and most of the wardens, and, I believe, of the fellows, in succession, have held preferment with their stalls. The present canons, before the late acceptance of St. Bees, were almost the first who, having no other preferment, have made Manchester their usual place of residence; and, in fact, it is not neglect of duty, but the increased attention of the chapter to the wants of the population of Manchester, that has suggested this bitterly-worded and grossly inaccurate petition against them.
"Considering that Lord Stanley is reported, I would fain hope incorrectly, to have charged us with a violation of moral duty, I hope that the House of Lords will favour me by permitting this letter to be read in their presence.—I remain, my dear Lord, yours faithfully,
"W. HERBERT.
"Manchester, Feb. 11, 1847.
"P.S.—The fifth warden held the wardenship with the bishoprick of Chester."
LORD STANLEYsaid, he would not quarrel with the latitude taken by the noble Marquess in reading this letter, although he thought it was hardly regular to read a letter of such a description, referring to a former statement made in their Lordships' House. Still, as this was a personal question, he was willing to allow every opportunity for explanation. He was sorry that the statement he had made should hurt the feelings of the dean and canons of Manchester. He had the honour of a slight acquaintance with the dean, and none whatever with any other member of the chapter, or with the churchwardens, whose petition he had presented. But he must be permitted to say, that upon the statement read by the noble Marquess, the case was left precisely where it was always his intention to leave it, viz., upon the point of the non-fulfilment of a moral duty. What he had said was, that from the time of the earliest charters downwards, complaints of non-residence had always been made, and that it was the object of the founder to secure the continued residence of the warden and fellows, for the breach of which regulation some of the charters were forfeited. There could, therefore, be
1228
no doubt that it was the intention of the founder that there should be residence. The noble Marquess made his (Lord Stanley's) case stronger than he supposed it to be, because it appeared that when the fines for non-residence were imposed, the revenues of the body were lower than he imagined. When the fines were first imposed, they amounted to more than one-half of the income of the college, and there was, therefore, a sufficient restriction upon non-residence. At that time, the warden was to have 70 l., the fellows 35 l. each, and the chaplains 17 l. 10 s. a year each. But now, when the increased income of some of these gentlemen amounted to 1,000 l. or 800 l. a year, the fine became an absolute nullity. It was now asserted that these were not rectorial tithes, but chapter tithes, and that question deserved inquiry. But the points which still remained manifest were, that it was intended the dean and chapter of Manchester should reside; that they did not reside; and that they violated, not only the intention of the founder, but also the moral duty which devolved upon them with reference to the population of Manchester. They had avoided the legal responsibility, and they had not fulfilled the moral obligation which had devolved upon them. One word with regard to the statement that the petition had been agreed to at a meeting attended by six persons only. He had some communication on this subject with the parties by letter, before he left the country. He had been consulted on the prudence of convening a public meeting by advertisement; and it was suggested to him that if that course were followed, it might lead to much violence and ill-feeling. He had replied that he thought it would be a wise and judicious course to abstain from calling a public meeting, and he represented that the churchwardens were charged with the welfare of the parish, and that he thought under the circumstances they would exercise a wise discretion if they did not call a meeting of that description. The dean would, therefore, probably find himself mistaken in supposing that the churchwardens had held a public meeting. The dean stated that he should hold himself warranted if he sent two of the canons to watch the proceedings of Parliament. For himself, he (Lord Stanley) thought the question of so much importance, as affecting the spiritual interests of a large population, that if their Lordships were of opinion that a Committee of that House should be appointed to consider the expe-

1229
diency of altering the law, and of imposing more stringent restrictions upon the canons in respect of residence, he should be prepared to vote for such a Committee; or, if necessary, he would himself move for the appointment of such a Committee.
LORD BROUGHAMwould observe that in the place of the dean and chapter appointing two of the canons to watch over the proceedings of their Lordships' House, they had better appoint them to watch over their own. He would strongly recommend these reverend persons to fulfil the obligations of their office, and to reside. They had all sworn to reside, and they ought to know that they could not escape from the obligation of an oath by paying the penalty prescribed for breaking it.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that as this was not a question of a political character, and as it was an open question, he begged to remark that he adhered to the opinion he had expressed on a former occasion. The question was, whether the will and the intention of the donor or the founder ought not to be obeyed. He gave each of the canons sixty days on which they might be absent, and the warden eighty; and nothing could more strongly express his intention that they should not absent themselves for a longer period. There was no ground for the allegations that the payment of the penalty was a sufficient excuse for non-residence. A court of law would compel the performance of a covenant, although a penalty might attach to the nonperformance, and the courts of equity held that there must be a specific performance of a contract, and that a party could not get off by paying the penalty. The Lord Chancellor would compel him specifically to perform the contract.

BREWING FROM SUGAR BILL.
The EARL of CLARENDONmoved the First Reading of this Bill.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he apprehended there would be no opposition to the second reading of this Bill; but he hoped the Government would, in this case and in that of the Sugar in Distilleries Bill, refer those Bills to Select Committees up-stairs; not that it was desired to interpose unnecessary delay, but that the distillers and others interested might have an opportunity of fully stating their case, and that the figures and calculations might be gone into more fully than they could be in Committee in that House. He thought it very possible that such an investigation might
1230
prove that this Bill would be very likely to be nugatory, for that the introduction of sugar into breweries would not take place except when the price of sugar was lower and the price of barley and malt higher than they were at present.
Bill read 1a.
House adjourned.