Lords Sitting of 7 June 1847

MINUTES.
Took the Oath prescribed by the Act of 10 Geo. IV. to be taken by Peers professing the Roman Catholic Religion—Lord Stourton.
Sat first.—Lord Stourton, after the Death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS—1a Quakers' and Jews' Marriages; Loan Discount.
2a Representative Peers (Scotland); Debtor and Creditor.
Reported.—Poor Removal (England and Scotland).
3a and passed:—Naval Prisons; Drainage of Lands.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Guardians of the Nottingham Union, for the Repeal of the Game Laws.—From Rochdale, in favour of the Factories Bill.—From the President and other persons connected with the General Hospital, near Nottingham, for Repeal of the Legacy Duty on Charitable Gifts.

POOR REMOVAL (ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the Order of the Day being read for going into Committee on the Poor Removal (England and Scotland) Bill,
LORD CAMPBELL LORD CAMPBELL moved that the House do now resolve itself into Committee; and expressed his approval of the measure. The Removal Act of the 8th and 9th Victoria had worked most inefficiently, and the object of this Bill was to remedy the evils of the existing law. The Bill would also contain provisions for the removal of Irish or Scotch paupers who might be resident in this country. Their Lordships were well aware that a great number of Irish paupers had recently come over to this country; and he might state that he was acquainted with cases of paupers and their families having been sent to this country from Ireland by members of relief committees. There wore at present no means of sending such persons back to their own country; but the present Bill would provide a remedy for that defect in the law.
LORD BROUGHAMseconded the Motion.
After a short conversation, in which the Earl of ELLENBOROUGH, the Marquess of LANSDOWNE, Earl FITZWILLIAM, and Lord CAMPBELL took part,
The EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, he must oppose the Bill, which certainly was the most unconstitutional, unjust, and iniquitous, that had ever been brought before the House since he had been in Parliament. He was sure that the noble and learned Lord, who, contrary to the usual practice of the House, had seconded the Motion, had never read this Bill, or the Act which it was intended to amend. The noble and learned Lord merely supported the Bill because 236,000 Irish paupers had landed
174
at Liverpool since the beginning of the year. Now he must repeat the statement which he made some time ago when a petition on this subject was presented, that the advantages which the town of Liverpool had derived, in consequence of the high price of food, far counterbalanced the expense to which it had been put in the shape of rates for the relief of the distressed Irish. He must insist, also, that the existing law was only inoperative because the magistrates of Liverpool and other places in England had neglected to perform their duty.
LORD BEAUMONTobserved, that the entire of his noble Friend's complaint really amounted to nothing, as the measure now under consideration merely gave the poor-law guardians the authority which the constables now exercised with respect to the removal of paupers. The noble Lord (Lord Beaumont) defended the Bill on the ground that it was necessary to the country and humane to the Irish poor.
House in Committee.
Bill reported without Amendment.

THE EDUCATION QUESTION.
The BISHOP of EXETERrose, pursuant to the notice he had given some time since, to ask certain questions of the noble Marquess the President of the Council. Under ordinary circumstances he should not have considered it any part of his duty to have made inquiries respecting communications which might have been made between the Dissenting bodies and her Majesty's Ministers; but the present was not an ordinary occasion, as it was notorious that in another place (which other place he was not permitted to mention) the matter had been alluded to by a Colleague of the noble Marquess. Under those circumstances he hoped he should not be deemed intrusive if he put the questions of which he had given notice. They were three in number. The first was, whether any communications had been held on the subject of the Minutes of Council of Education, dated the 25th of August, and the 21st of December, 1846, between the President of the Council and the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and any deputation of Wesleyans or other Dissenting bodies? Secondly, whether any, and, if any, what promises of alteration in, or addition to, same Minutes were made by Lord John Russell to the deputation? and, if any such communication had taken place, whether there was any record of the same?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE, who was very indistinctly heard, was understood to say that the questions of the right rev. Prelate did not require any prefatory apology, as they were quite pertinent and justifiable, and such as it was extremely probable should have emanated from his Lordship's bench. In reply to the right rev. Prelate, he had to observe that soon after the Minutes on Education were laid on the Table of the House, communications were sought for between his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) and himself, as President of the Council and Chairman of the Committee of Education, on various points connected with those Minutes, by persons connected with several bodies of Dissenters, especially on the part of the Wesleyan body. Great anxiety was expressed with respect to various points, as it might be considered to apply to them, and the fullest possible explanation was given. A record did exist of the explanation so given, which record would ultimately be laid on the Table of that House. A report was also made by the deputation of the Wesleyan body to those who sent them, which was also sufficiently accurate. In reply to the second question, he begged to say, that no alteration had been made in consequence of that communication in the spirit of the Minutes of Council—either those recently laid on the Table, or those presented and adopted on a previous occasion. The only result of that request for a communication was, in fact, an explanation of the Minutes, and of the principles on which they had proceeded; and by the greater portion of the Dissenting bodies interested, that explanation had been deemed satisfactory. Great apprehensions had been entertained by some of the Dissenting bodies as to the effect of the new Minutes on their system of education—apprehensions, for which great allowances were to be made. They feared, in consequence of the measures that were about to be taken to elevate the position of the schoolmasters, making it more respectable than heretofore, that the office of schoolmaster would be brought too much into direct relation with the Church of England—that the profession of the schoolmaster would be made, as it were, ancillary to the Church. The answer given to this objection was, that the intention was to consider the profession of the schoolmaster as one entirely separate and distinct—that where the inspectors happened to be clergymen also, it was intended that they should not exercise any
176
ecclesiastical function so long as they continued inspectors; and, although there was not the same reason to make such a rule in the case of the schoolmasters themselves, they not being ecclesiastics, yet they were told it was not intended that they should exercise the profession of schoolmasters at the same time with any ecclesiastical employment, should any ecclesiastics hereafter fill the office of schoolmaster. This he conceived to he the substance of the objections chiefly set forward by the Wesleyans, and of the explanation given by himself and his noble Friend.
The BISHOP of EXETERrose to express a hope that the noble Marquess would have no objection to lay on the Table of the House the papers to which he had just referred. It was most desirable that the House should take into its serious consideration the expediency of expressing an opinion upon this most important subject. He understood the arrangement to he, that no person in holy orders, or exercising ecclesiastical functions, should be appointed to the office of schoolmaster; that, in fact, all persons of the Church of England, exercising ecclesiastical functions, were to be excluded from being schoolmasters. He had not heard anything about the exclusion of Dissenting ministers. He wished to give the noble Marquess an opportunity of saying whether he intended to exclude every minister of religion from the office of schoolmaster; and he thought that an opportunity ought to he afforded their Lordships to consider the whole question.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEwas glad that the right rev. Prelate had put the question which the House had just heard; and, in reply, he had merely to state that the rule which excluded persons exercising ecclesiastical functions was intended to apply equally to all denominations—to other religious communities as well as to the Established Church; that had been already stated by Government, and understood by Parliament.
The BISHOP of EXETERwished to know if that statement applied equally to the inspectors and to the schoolmasters?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEreplied that it did.
The BISHOP of EXETER: Does it also apply to religious teachers of all denominations?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: To all, and to both classes of school officers—teachers and inspectors.
LORD STANLEYinquired whether, as

177
the noble President of the Council had said that no person discharging ecclesiastical functions could be a schoolmaster, he meant that a schoolmaster should be disqualified who might have obtained deacon's orders? If persons who had obtained the lowest distinctions in the Church, were to be disqualified from the office of schoolmasters, he considered the arrangement would be an exceedingly injudicious one, for nothing could so much tend to raise the character of the schoolmaster as to hold out to him the expectation that he should he permitted in addition to hold the inferior degree of a churchmen. He must say, with great deference to the noble Marquess, that one of the great wants of the Church of England at the present moment was the want of a class of inferior clergy, who should be engaged in its schools. He did not mean to say that when they were schoolmasters they should be performing the duty of clergymen of the Church of England; but that those holding inferior degrees in the Church should be admitted to be schoolmasters. He admitted the right of any body of Dissenters to object to regulations which they might think likely to injure themselves; but he disputed their right to object merely because those regulations would increase the efficiency of the Church of England. An objection on such a ground ought neither to be made by any body of Dissenters, nor allowed by Parliament. He concluded by asking the noble Marquess whether the fact of any applicant for the situation of schoolmaster being in holy orders would be considered a disqualification?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEthought the objections made by the Dissenting bodies were misunderstood. The principal one was, that public money, levied upon the whole community, and to which, therefore, Dissenters contributed, ought not to be taken from the purposes for which it was intended when granted for education, and made instrumental to the benefit of the Church, by supplying a new order of clergy. That was the main ground of their objection, and he was bound to say that it was a feasible objection, as the establishment of such an order of clergy out of the profession of schoolmaster would be inconsistent with the objects of the grant. Those objects were certainly to improve the condition of the schoolmaster, but not that persons should take upon them the profession of school-
178
masters with the view of entering the Church by that means.
LORD STANLEYthought the noble Marquess had not at all answered the question; and he would repeat it. Whereas many of the duties of schoolmaster, as defined by the Minutes of the Council, were duties of a religious nature, the question was, whether the fact of a person being in deacon's orders would be considered a disqualification for the office of schoolmaster?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEanswered in the affirmative; though he was not prepared to say cases might not arise in which being in holy orders might not be considered an objection—as, for instance, when a person had laid aside all intention of continuing in the Church, and was desirous of devoting himself to the office of a schoolmaster. But if he intended to adhere to the Church as his profession, he was ineligible for that of a schoolmaster.
The BISHOP of EXETERwished to avoid a discussion on that occasion. He thought it would be most inconvenient, and indeed unfair, to the noble Marquess, as neither he nor their Lordships were aware that any discussion would be raised; but the noble Marquess had stated that it had always been understood and always been acted on that the schoolmaster should employ himself in the duties of his school and in nothing else; and he wished to give the noble Marquess an opportunity of explaining himself, or of setting him (the Bishop of Exeter) right if there was any misunderstanding. Now, he held in his hand the Minutes of the Council for the year 1839-40, at which time the noble Marquess filled the office of President, that office which he now so ably filled, and he found the following at Question 18:—"What income shall be derived from other sources, if they devote their whole time to the duty of their office? and if not, state what other occupation they have. "If he (the Bishop of Exeter) understood anything of the English language, he thought that implied that schoolmasters might have other occupations than the duties of their schools; and that he thought rather inconsistent with what the noble Marquess now said.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEadmitted that it had been the practice to have other occupation than that of schoolmasters.
The BISHOP of EXETER: Did the noble Marquess admit that it had been the

179
practice heretofore for schoolmasters to have other occupations, so long as they did not neglect their school duties?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEwas understood to say that in many cases it was impossible to obtain schoolmasters without allowing them some other source of income; hut that the amount and nature of their other occupation was undoubtedly a subject for the Council to inquire into before it sanctioned any grants of money to the schools so circumstanced.
The BISHOP of EXETER: Then the noble Marquess did not object to other occupation provided it did not distract the attention of the schoolmaster from his duties. He trusted the noble Marquess and their Lordships would remember this declaration when the subject hereafter came under discussion.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEmade no such declaration. What he meant to say was, that in many poor schools it was necessary to allow the schoolmaster to pursue some occasional occupation, such as might not be entirely disconnected with his duty as master of the school. The right rev. Prelate might point out some other form of question by which it might he obtained from an applicant what was the nature of his former duties; but he doubted whether he could show that some such questions were not necessary to determine as to the fitness of the applicant.
The BISHOP of EXETERreplied that if the noble Marquess had at first expressed himself as clearly as he had now done, there would have been no misunderstanding.
Subject at an end.

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The EARL of EGLINTOUN The EARL of EGLINTOUN moved the second reading of the Bill to remedy abuses in the mode of electing the Representative Peers of Scotland. After the admissions which had been made on all sides of the House of the necessity of some alteration in the present system, he anticipated no opposition to the Bill. In England, a Peer had only to prove his descent from his predecessor to obtain his title and privileges; in Ireland it was equally necessary to prove that his predecessors had exercised the functions of a Peer; but the Peers of Scotland were alone in the enviable position of having nothing to prove; but this laid the matter open to every species of misrepresentation, fraud, and even forgery. The only thing at present
180
which gave the right to vote was being on a roll, which was made out at the time of the Union, and laid before their Lordships' House. That roll was, no doubt, right and correct at the time; but after a lapse of 140 years many rights had become extinct or dormant, and many new claims created. The Bill now before the House proposed to purify this roll, and remove from it all those who had not exercised their rights during the present century. It did not in any way interfere with the rights of any one who might claim hereafter or prove their right to any of these Peerages. In Ireland the right was considered perfect if it was not challenged within a year after the death of the last holder; hut in Scotland there was no limit whatever. It was proposed in this Bill that in the event of any Peer protesting against any vote, that that vote should be sent up to the House for adjudication, and retained or struck off the list accordingly. He would not detain the House by going through the details of the Bill, but had to say, in reply to the objection that had been raised against it, that the proper mode of procedure was not by legal enactment, but by a resolution of the House—that that point had been most carefully considered by the Committee to whom the whole question had been referred—and that the present Bill was the consequence. In fact, in 1832 an attempt had been made to stop the abuses complained of by a resolution of the House, which had turned out to be totally ineffective; and he therefore trusted the Bill would at once he read a second time.
LORD CAMPBELLwas willing to admit the necessity of some measure to meet the evils of which the noble Earl complained. He was fully aware that the greatest abuses existed in respect to this matter. He had, however, considerable doubts whether the course proposed was, under all the circumstances of the case, the proper one. He was disposed to think that it would be better to proceed by a resolution of the House, directed to the Lord Clerk Registrar. If it were said that this course had been before tried without much success, he would remind their Lordships that the reason why their former resolutions had not effected their object was, that they had never been properly framed. Having expressed these doubts, he should not, however, oppose the second reading of the Bill.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, that an enactment was indispensable. When an elec-

181
tion was to take place, the Peers were summoned by the authority of an Act of Parliament under which they claimed to vote; and resolutions only could not give the Lord Clerk Registrar the power to refuse a vote so tendered.
The EARL of ROSEBERYsupported the Bill, and complained that the Resolutions of 1832, to which a reference had been made, were brought forward as a legislative enactment, and that he had been compelled by the opposition he met with in introducing them to modify them into resolutions.
The DUKE of RICHMONDentirely agreed with the noble Earl who had just sat down. It would hardly be believed that in Scotland when a name was called out, if two persons answered to the name, the returning officer took the vote of both. Under these circumstances, he for one felt indebted to those noble Lords who had directed the attention of Parliament to the subject, and should give the measure his cordial support.
Bill read 2a
House adjourned.