Sitting of 13 August 1834

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. WILKS, from Dissenting Ministers in London and Westminster, against the Church Rates' Bill; from one Place, for Relief to the Dissenters.—By Mr. HUGHES HUGHES, from St. Pancrass, for the Protection of the Church of England.—By Colonel LEITH HAY, from Keig, for Protection to the Church of Scotland.—By Mr. WILES, from Boston, against Drunkenness; from Chatham, for the Separation of Church and State; from three Places, for Relief to the Dissenters.—By Colonel PERCEVAL and Mr. SHAW, from three Places, for Protection to the Protestant Church of Ireland.—By Mr. SHAW, from three Places, for Protection to the Church of England.—By Mr. EWING, from Glasgow, in favour of the Bankrupts' (Scotland) Bill.

CHURCH OF IRELAND.
Colonel Percevalpresented a petition signed by upwards of seven hundred persons, and by the great body of the noblemen and landed proprietors of the county of Cork, which went in his opinion in a great degree to disprove the arguments made use of by certain members of the Cabinet and others, namely, that the landlords of Ireland were in favour of the Bill, which he rejoiced to say had met with the fate it so justly merited in the other House of Parliament. This petition was in favour of maintaining the integrity of the Church establishment,

1241
both as regards its revenues and its connexion with the State. It adverted to the 5th of Queen Anne, which united the Church of England and Ireland as one Church. It also alluded to the Act of Union which, notwithstanding the arguments formerly made use of by the member for St. Alban's (Mr. Ward) was intended to secure to the people of Ireland as a condition of the Union, the maintenance in its integrity, of the Irish branch of the Church of England. The petitioners also deprecated, and in this he heartily concurred with them, the issuing of that commission, which he had on a former occasion designated as "unhallowed" the propriety of which description he (Colonel Perceval) saw no reason to doubt. He was happy to find that an opinion which he had ventured to express in private with respect to the illegality of that commission, had been confirmed by a noble Lord in the other House of Parliament, who had been one of the most distinguished ornaments of the English bar and bench. The petitioners disclaimed any feelings of hostility towards any religious sect. They would willingly extend toleration to every form of religious worship, and grant a participation in political privileges under these safeguards, which the Legislature has provided for the security of the Church. He could not help feeling flattered that a petition of this importance, bearing the signatures of persons who might fairly be considered the representatives of the wealth, respectability, and intelligence of the county of Cork, should have been intrusted for presentation to his hands, in the absence of his gallant friend the member for Bandon Bridge (Captain Bernard), who was prevented by indisposition from attending. He repeated, that the petition offered a strong and substantive denial to the assertions of certain members of the Cabinet, that the landed proprietors of Ireland were favorable to that Bill of spoliation and confiscation, which, he rejoiced to say, met with its fate on Monday night, and he sincerely trusted that if ever a similar measure should be introduced into Parliament, it would meet with a similar fate. If tithes were not paid in Ireland, on the heads of his Majesty's Government be it; but he (Colonel Perceval) would maintain that if the laws were supported, tithes would be paid as willingly as ever in Ireland. The exertions of the clergy to support the laws
1242
and maintain the institutions of the country had been badly repaid by motions such as that of the hon. member for St. Alban's (Mr. Ward) for the spoliation of their property; while, on the contrary, those who had outraged the laws and fostered rebellion, had met with encouragement and support.
Mr. O'Reillywished to ask the gallant Colonel, whether the petition he had just presented, contained any prayer in favour of the rejection of the Bill, which had just been thrown out by the other House; for if it did not, the observations he had made upon that subject were quite uncalled for. He was also desirous to know from the gallant Colonel how it happened, since he had so indignantly deprecated the boon of forty per cent granted by the Legislature, from the Consolidated Fund, and had taken so active a part in the debate, he had entirely forgotten to vote on the question? It was very convenient for hon. Members to absent themselves from divisions, when they wished to maintain a character for disinterested conduct, but he would tell that hon. and gallant Gentleman the real motive for such conduct could not be mistaken. The great objections taken to the Bill were made under a pretence of defending the property of the established Church, and supporting its rights and privileges, but the real object was, to keep up a system that was against the peace and happiness of that country, as it was against the wishes and general feeling of the empire. The boasted loyalty of the opponents of the Bill flowed not from conviction and principle, but from interested motives and a desire to maintain an ascendancy where they possessed political influence and property, which they feared might be wrested from them when the people became in that situation that they might maintain it for themselves. For his own part, he could not look upon the rejection of the Irish Tithe Bill by the other House of Parliament, when he viewed the effects that would certainly result from it, without feelings of dismay." It had been very insolently whispered out of that House, that the representatives of the property of Ireland had voted against the Tithe Bill; but he would fearlessly place the supporters of the Bill, in point of the property they really possessed, against the boasted representatives of the property of Ireland; and when it was fully considered how the

1243
estates of these great land-owners were incumbered by mortgages and judgments, he had not the least doubt but the balance would be vastly in favour of the rejected measure. Upon all occasions like the present, the Church was invariably put forward as a stalking-horse; but it was for the purpose of maintaining the unhallowed ascendancy of party, and the defence of those last strongholds of corruption, the corporations, that hon. Members had in view when they raised the cry of "The Church is in danger."
Mr. Wardsaid, that the gallant Colonel had taken rather an Irish way of introducing a discussion on the Tithe Bill, as not one word was said respecting it in the petition which he had just presented. The petitioners talked indeed of the Commission of Inquiry, which the gallant Colonel called an unhallowed commission. He regarded this commission with very different feelings. He thought it would prove the first step towards the removal of that accursed system (he would reply to one harsh epithet by another) which had so long rendered Ireland a prey to agitation and anarchy. As to the Bill, upon the fate of which the gallant Colonel was bold enough to congratulate the House, he viewed its rejection in a very different light. He lamented to see, perhaps, the only opportunity of settling a great national question, gratuitously thrown away; and the clergy of Ireland, whose individual rights he had been most anxious to respect consigned for a whole twelvemonth to hopeless penury and the most abject destitution. There was not a possibility of enforcing the law as it now stood, and that the gallant Colonel well knew; for when he talked so loudly of the responsibility of others, he only did it in the hope of hiding, by a little blustering, his own apprehensions as to the effects of the blow which he and the hon. and learned Recorder for Dublin, and those who thought with them, had induced the other branch of the Legislature to direct against the unfortunate clergy. As to the articles of union, upon which the gallant Colonel had done him the honour to appeal to him personally, he (Mr. Ward) should be most happy to argue the point with the gallant Colonel at a very early period of the next Session; and he moreover pledged himself to do so; for the rejection of the Tithe Bill would at least, produce this good effect—it would convince the House of the absolute
1244
necessity of asserting its right of interfering with Church property in whatever manner the interests of the community might require, by a distinct and decisive vote, as a necessary preliminary to any legislation. He, therefore, should beg to give notice of his intention to bring forward this question again next Session, in the hope of seeing it brought to a very different decision; but, whatever the result of this notice might be, he was convinced that the clergy would never again have such terms offered to them as their so-called friends had now thought proper to reject.
Mr. Sinclair, having had the misfortune to differ from his Majesty's Ministers with respect to the Irish Tithe Bill in its ultimate form, could not participate in those feelings of indignation, regret, and alarm, which its rejection in another place had excited in the minds of his hon. friend opposite, and the hon. Member near him. The fate of that measure had been somewhat singular. It had gone through many editions during its passage through that House; but he did think, that none of the later editions had been either auctior or emendatior, than that which preceded it. He had himself been a subscriber for the editio princeps, a goodly folio, with which he had been highly pleased, and which had been "ill-exchanged" for the mutilated duodecimo, which had been substituted in its place. The changes effected, both in the principles and details of the Bill, had been such as to force many politicians, who at first most cordially supported it, to contemplate its final arrangements with apprehension and repugnance; whilst others, who had originally denounced it as a measure injurious to the people of Ireland, had at length been induced to honour it with extravagant eulogy and suspicious approbation. The House of Lords had done their duty, and retrieved their character; they had obeyed the dictates of their consciences, and could not be held responsible for the results. He held, that it was man's province to act conscientiously, and leave the consequences to God. He lamented the fate of the original measure in this House much more than the rejection which the mangled edition had met with in the other. He would rather have shed a tear over its grave, than blushed at the spectacle of its mutilation. He would rather that the tree, once teeming with a nation's hopes, had been cut down, and burnt at once as a

1245
cumberer of the ground, than have seen it carted into the House of Lords lifeless and leafless, a misshapen and unseemly log, the mere magni nominis umbra, and bearing on its sides, instead of the choice and goodly boughs of national confidence and security, the ignominious and unhallowed trophy of Popish intimidation and ministerial servility. He repeated what he had stated on a former night, that the enemies of the Church would think that all their achievements amounted to nothing, as long as the Church had any privilege to forfeit or any property to lose. his hon. and eloquent friend, the member for St. Alban's, had just given notice that, at the earliest period of next Session, he should come forward, and, like grasping Goneril, insist on a further reduction of an already crippled establishment. When that attack had proved successful, some rapacious Regan—perhaps the learned member for Tipperary—would call for still greater reductions of the clergy and hierarchy of the Church; and then, from the vantage ground of these concessions, his hon. and learned friend the member for Dublin would discharge the whole artillery of his energetic eloquence against the shattered fabric which might still remain. At some remote period in the history of the Church—as distant, perhaps, as the year 1839, the hon. Member would address the House as follows:—"As long as Gentlemen contended for the inviolability of Church property, I could at least understand their principle. I might admire their consistency, however much I might differ from their views. But when once you had acknowledged this property to be national, how could you expect that the Irish nation would permit one fraction to be lavished in un-national or rather anti-national objects, such as the maintenance of an alien Church, which during centuries of misrule and oppression, has been bedewed with Ireland's tears, and fattening upon Ireland's blood? Oh! you would not treat any other portion of the empire as you do Ireland. You cannot even attempt to do a gracious act towards that unfortunate country without marring all its advantages by the ungracious manner in which you perform it. You cannot make up your minds to remove the galling manacles of ecclesiastical bondage, without leaving a few links entwined round our necks, to remind us of our national degradation." These were the arguments which the
1246
House must prepare to meet. These were the principles which, he feared, would ere long prevail. An hon. and learned friend of his, the member for the Tower Hamlets had stated, on a former occasion, that he was ready to go a great way. If he once proceeded to the point, at which he at present intended to stop, he would find himself irresistibly compelled to advance a great deal further. Let him only be once snugly seated in the O'Connell omnibus, with the member for Tipperary standing on the steps behind, and blandly inviting other passengers to get in, his learned friend would travel very complacently to the bourn at which he was resolved to alight; but he would, perhaps, be a little startled when the vehicle drove past at a rail-road pace; in vain would he put his head out of the window, and say, "Hollo, coachman, stop! I want to get out. I am only booked to the half way house—stop, stop!" The skilful and experienced coachman would only accelerate his pace in proportion to the vehemence of his hon. friend's exclamations, who will find himself, at a moment when he least expected it, fairly landed at the goal of Church annihilation. He (Mr. Sinclair) had always advocated in that House the principles of civil and religious liberty. He had supported the Roman Catholic claims to civil privileges, not in 1829 "when fortune's favour filled the swelling sails," but in 1812, in the days of Mr. Percival, when a vote in behalf of that measure was a sure ground of exclusion from political aggrandisement. He had also been a Reformer, not merely in the days of Lord John Russell, but in opposition to the sentiments of Lord Liverpool and Mr. Canning. He might, therefore, fairly claim the merit of having lent to these measures an independent and disinterested aid; but he had no hesitation in avowing, that he would rather see despotism in the State than anarchy in the Church. He would rather that our civil privileges were encroached upon or swept away, than our spiritual blessings arid privileges annihilated or abridged; they transcended the former in importance in the same ratio, which eternity bore to time. To a temperate and effectual Church Reform he was a zealous and consistent friend; but such a measure stood at the greatest possible distance from giving countenance to Church destruction. Supposing that a noble and majestic river, which fertilized extensive districts, and

1247
supplied their inhabitants with the most essential of all aliments, became somewhat turbid in its course—he asked if it would not be wiser to discover and dam up the sources whence the noxious ingredients proceeded, than to cut off (if it were practicable) the stream from the fountain, and consign whole regions to dearth and sterility by leaving the channel dry? He was not surprised that the Papist, the Socinian, and the Infidel, should combine in an unhallowed confederacy to overthrow the Established Church. Each knew that the Church of England was the depositary and the bulwark of those great principles and doctrines which had been defined and laid down at the Reformation, and was, therefore, the chief obstacle to the success of his peculiar views. But he was not a little surprised, as well as mortified, to find the orthodox Dissenter concurring in the furtherance of such an object, and in endangering or limiting the propagation of those fundamental truths which he held in common with the Church. On such occasions, he was reminded of an occurrence, recorded by Dr. Southey, in his admirable biography of Nelson. The circumstance to which he adverted took place on the night before the battle of Trafalgar, a conflict on which the honour, the happiness, and the liberty of this country might be considered as mainly depending. At this critical moment, the Illustrious Hero was informed that a distinguished Admiral and a not less gallant Captain, on whose co-operation much depended, were not on good terms with each other. "Terms!" exclaimed Nelson; "Not on good terms? Why, yonder is the enemy!" These few emphatic words at once went home to the hearts of these brave men. They shook hands, and embraced as Englishmen; and, by their united exertions, essentially contributed to the glorious achievement of the following day. And he (Mr. Sinclair) would thus address both the Churchmen and the Orthodox Dissenter. Is this a time for jealousy and estrangement? Is this a time for weakening each other's hands, and discouraging each other's hearts? Yonder is the enemy? Yonder is the Romanist, whom nothing can ever satisfy but the establishment of that worship, which both deem idolatrous in every Church and Cathedral throughout the realm. Yonder is the Socinian, striving with sacrilegious hand to rend the diadem
1248
of his divinity from the Saviour's hallowed brow. Yonder is the infidel, surprised as much as delighted, at your mutual infatuation—wondering to see you turn against each other the weapons which he feared you would have co-operated in employing against himself, and hoping that, when your unhappy dissensions shall have led to the overthrow of each other's altars, he may be enabled to erect the temples of human reason with materials extracted from their ruins." He would exhort them to listen to the words of that volume, to which both professed an equal reverence. "Sirs, ye are brethren, why do wrong one to the other? Let brotherly love continue, and dwell together in unity; but if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed, the one of the other." He apologized for having troubled the House at such length, and should conclude by adding, that the Church of England and Ireland, as well as that of his native country, should always find in him a zealous and cordial supporter of their doctrines, their property, and their rights.
Mr. Pottersaid, that he was so far from rejoicing at the decision of the other House of Parliament on Monday evening, that he regarded it with the most painful forebodings; because that measure he contemplated as the harbinger of peace to Ireland. So far as he could learn it was so considered by the clergy themselves for the noble Premier had presented a petition from a number of them expressive of their approbation of the measure. But it was not alone the people of Ireland who had reason to complain of the conduct of the other branch of the Legislature. The Bill to admit the Dissenters to the Universities had also been rejected, and he earnestly hoped that the House would not separate without expressing its opinion of the conduct of the Lords. The hon. member for Caithness had spoken of Dissenters, Socinians, and Infidels, thus classing them together; now he begged to tell that hon. Gentleman that the Dissenters were as moral and religious, and as firm believers in Christianity, as the Church, or even the Kirk itself. The hon. member had also made a gross attack on the Socinians as he termed them, but Unitarians were meant. He had the privilege and the happiness to belong to that sect, and he was ready to justify his belief. This was not the first time the Unitarians had been attacked and grossly misrepre-

1249
sented in that House and the other House of Parliament; this he considered most unfair, because that body could not defend itself. If this was the arena for religious discussions—if they were permitted in that House, he was prepared to prove by Scripture that the Unitarian doctrines were founded on truth and sanctioned by the New Testament itself.
Sir Edward Codrington>believed a greater misfortune could not befall the country at the present moment than the rejection of the Irish Tithe Bill by the other House of Parliament. The event would be deeply lamented by every real friend of the Establishment, as it must effect a serious injury on the Church. He confessed he was at a loss to understand how the professed friends of the Irish Church could rejoice at the rejection of so beneficial a measure, and he could not help thinking, that such an event would tend ultimately to the great injury not only of the Church, but even the Peerage itself. He was surprised to hear any measure termed unhallowed which had passed that House by such a large majority.
Mr. Shawsupported the Petition, and entirely concurred in the sentiments which had been expressed by his noble friend, who presented it. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side seemed to think, that the House of Lords was to be influenced, not by a sense of duty, as regarded the merits of the question under their consideration, but that they were to be overawed by the majorities of that House—then, indeed, would their usefulness be at an end. He conscientiously believed that the House of Lords rejected the Tithe Bill, from a just regard to the rights of property, and to the truest principles of justice and sound legislation: and he was persuaded that the good sense of the people of England, whatever temporary delusion they might labour under, would eventually approve of a course directed by such motives. The truth was, hon. Members very little understood the Bill; and he did not wonder at it, after all the changes it had undergone. They blamed him (Mr. Shaw) and those with whom he acted, for not endeavouring to meet the Government by some concessions in the settlement of that important and difficult question; whereas, in fact, they had made many and great concessions, in order to support the Bill as first introduced by the Government—because, in itsoriginal form, it proposed, that
1250
which had been so frequently recommended by committees of both Houses, in speeches from the Throne, and in those of the Ministers themselves—namely, a final adjustment of the tithe question by means of redemption; but the Bill, in its altered form, abandoned the principle of redemption, leaving the annual payment still to be made by the same persons. It also failed to vindicate the law—holding out a premium to outrage, and violating the rights of all other, as well as of Church property. It was, then, a little too much to expect that those who, though generally differing from the Government, nevertheless supported a measure of the Government which promised to be beneficial, were bound to follow them through all the windings of that devious and vaccinating course which they subsequently adopted, and by which the Bill they brought out in the end was not only different from, but the very opposite of the Bill they had at first introduced. With regard to the Commission which the hon. Member for St. Alban's (Mr. Ward) had described as calculated to put an end to what the hon. Member called an accursed system—in other words, that Established Church to which the hon. Member belonged—all he could say was, that he believed that Commission would tend, above all other experiments that had been tried in Ireland, to increase party animosity, and embitter religious discord, by suggesting to the Roman Catholic population, that they would lighten their burthens by diminishing the number of Protestants—and to Protestant proprietors, that they could alone preserve their religion by excluding Roman Catholics from their estates.
Mr. Charles A. Walkerregretted, that the Tithe Bill had been lost, but he chiefly rose, being a Protestant, to deny, that the Protestants of Ireland were of the same opinion with the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin. He was convinced, that the rejection of the Tithe Bill would produce the most serious injury to the Catholic peasant, and to the Protestant clergy, the great majority of whom he was equally convinced were anxious for the passing of this Bill, but were controlled by their assessors, who never felt the pressure of want from the refusal of the people to pay tithe. Many even of those who voted in this House for the rejection of the Bill were glad it had passed: and one hon. Member who voted for the throw-

1251
ing out the Bill told the hon. and learned member for Dublin, on leaving the House, that he was glad that the Bill had passed. He was convinced that the clergy would think themselves well off if they got such a Bill next Session.
Colonel Stawellcould state, from communication which he had received recently, that many of the clergy were anxious for the passing of the last Bill. He regretted that the Bill had been lost, as he thought it would have been a great advantage to the Established Church.
Colonel Perceval, in explanation, said, that an hon. Member (Mr. O'Reilly) having alluded to the fact of a number of the landed proprietors of Ireland having their properties mortgaged, rendered it necessary for him to say a few words. It was true a great many of the gentry were so circumstanced, but in the county which he had the honour to represent, there were a vast number of gentlemen who possessed great wealth, and who, fortunately for their country, resided on their estates. The county of Sligo was as peaceable as any part of England—there were no soldiers stationed within it, nor was it even asserted that the slightest disturbance existed there.
The Petition laid on the Table.

COUNTY CORONERS.
A Conference was held with the Lords on the County Coroner's Bill, and a Report presented, stating, that the Lords insisted on their Amendment.
The reasons having been read by the Clerk,
Mr. Cripps Mr. Cripps moved they be agreed to.
Mr. Warburtonopposed the proposition, and said, that it was his intention to move that the reasons of the Lords be taken into consideration on this day three months. He referred to a case in "Barnwall and Creswell's Reports," contending, that it had been misquoted and misunderstood, and that the question whether the Coroner's was an open or a close Court had never been brought before the Judges. He also read an opinion given by Sergeant Russell upon the same point, in which he argued upon the notoriety of the proceedings in the Coroner's Court, as a Court of Record from which the public could not be excluded. To the same effect had been the opinion of the Attorney-General. He admitted, that the House had placed itself in a difficulty by making the clause
1252
it had inserted, and which the Lords had struck out, enacting instead of declaratory. Had he had the framing of the clause, he should have worded it otherwise. On the whole it seemed much more expedient that the measure should be dropped for the present Session, and such would be the result if his Amendment were carried, than passed in its present imperfect state. It was quite clear, that the House ought not to give the go-by to the great principle involved in the question with the Lords. If the Court of the Coroner were a close Court, and if he could exclude the public at his pleasure, there was possibility that that office might be bribed either to screen the guilty, or to inculpate the innocent. In all these cases, the House would have to decide upon the balance of good and evil; and it seemed to him, that the evil which might possibly arise from making the Coroner's Court open, would be infinitely less than the good to be derived from the publicity of its proceedings. He moved, that the Lords' reasons be taken into consideration on this day three months.
The Attorney Generalregretted extremely that the Bill, after the minute consideration which it had undergone, should be allowed to drop; but, all circumstances considered, he was nevertheless disposed to support the Amendment of the hon, member for Bridport. The clause which had been struck out by the Lords involved matter of infinite importance, and it was the duty of the Legislature not to pass a Bill on the subject of Coroner's Courts without setting the question at rest, whether they were open Courts. In his opinion they were open Courts, Coroners having the power, on particular occasions, to close the Court, in the same way as Judges of other Courts of Record. A declaratory clause to that effect ought to be introduced, requiring at the same time, that the Coroner should Report to the Court of King's Bench or the Secretary of State what passed in his Court when the doors were shut, and the reasons which induced him to exclude the public on any particular occasion. He hoped the Bill would be introduced and considered next Session; he should then give all the assistance in his power to improve its provisions and accelerate its progress.
Lord Granville Somersetexpressed his regret that the Bill should be thrown out.
Mr. Crippshad had many difficulties to contend with, and he could not help regretting, therefore, that all his pains would be thrown away, if the Amendment were carried. He felt satisfied, that the object of the Lords was, to prove that the Coroner's Court ought to be an open Court. His opinion, supported as it was by the opinion of the learned Attorney-General, was, that the Coroner's Court ought to be an open Court. Of course he was in the hands of the House, and whatever they might deem right he should at once bow to.
Motion and Amendment withdrawn, and the Report of the Conference was ordered to he taken into consideration that day three months.

STATE OF IRELAND—THE PEERS.
Mr. Henry Grattanrose to submit the Motion of which he had given notice—"That an humble Address he presented to his Majesty, praying that his Majesty, being pleased to take the affairs of Ireland into his most serious consideration, and the loss of life and calamitous consequences that have resulted from the various conflicts between the soldiery, the police, and the peasantry of Ireland, on the levying and collecting of tithes, may direct that the military force shall not in future be employed in that service." The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that having seriously considered the importance of the question, and the danger of exciting still more the angry feeling of the people of Ireland—a consequence which, probably, would ensue if a debate arose on the Motion of which he had given notice; considering also that so few Members remained, and so few Irish Members were present, he deemed it to be more prudent not to bring forward the Motion. At the same time, he could not but dispute the prudence of the House of Lords in rejecting the Bills of the Commons, though he admitted their right to do so. He reserved to himself the full scope on this subject, and in the next Session opportunities would occur of discussing the expediency of nullifying the proceedings of that House, and rejecting so many popular and salutary measures as the House of Lords, in the undoubted exercise of their constitutional rights, had thought proper to do. Their right was one thing: the expediency of exercising it, and thus going against the sense of the people, was another. For
1254
instance, the Dissenters' Bill, the Jewish Disabilities Bill, the Warwick Disfranchisement Bill, the Bath and Bristol Railroad Bill (or Irish Bill, it might be called), and last, though not least, the Irish Tithe Bill. In addition to the rejection of these, they had mutilated other measures—the Coroner's Bill, the Punishment of Death Bill, and the Bribery at Elections Bill. The allusion to the measure would rekindle great warmth, and possibly no public good would result from it, particularly in Ireland. He, therefore, felt it more advisable to sacrifice his feelings, and yield to the dictation of numbers, and to trust the cause of Ireland to the calmness and the cool forbearance to be exercised by the noble Lord, now at the head of his Majesty's Government, and to commit to his care the peace of Ireland and her real interests.
Motion withdrawn.

MINUTES.
Bills. The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the following:—Exchequer Bills; Assessed Taxes Composition; Newspaper Postage; Stamp Duties Repeal; Excise Revenue Management; Pensions (Civil Offices) Act Amendment; Capital Punishments; Militia Ballot Suspension; Militia Pay; Newspaper Stamps (Ireland); Arms Importation; Fever Hospital (Ireland); Valuation of Counties; House of Commons' Offices; Land
1234
Tax Amendment; County Rates; Spring Quarter Sessions; Justices of the Peace (Scilly Islands); Insolvent Debtors f Merchant Seamen's; Weights and Measures; Courts o; Justice (Dublin) Offices; County Bridges (Ireland) Norfolk Ireland; Roads Act Amendment (Ireland); Lancaster Court of Common Pleas; Dean Forest Boundaries; and to eight Private Bills.—Read a third time:—Customs'; Insolvent Debtors' (India); Assessed Taxes' Repeal; Exchequer Bills; Public Works; Bank of England Debt; Starch &c. Duties' Repeal; Spirit Duties; Payment of Creditors' (Scotland; Tithes Stay of Suits; Turnpike Road Act Continuance; Fines and Recoveries (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By the Duke of WELLlNGTON, from Deal, against the Cinque Ports' Pilot Bill.—By the Earl of ROSSLYN, from two Places, for Protection to the Church of Scotland.—By the Marquess of BUTE, from the Shareholders of the London and Westminster Bank, for a Bill to Incorporate their Society.—By the Bishop of LONDON, from the Parish of St. Pancrass, Middlesex, for Protection to the Church of England.

JUSTICE OF PEACE BILL.
A conference having been held with the Commons, on the subject of this Bill, the Report of the Conference was presented.
The Lord Chancellorwished to say a few words to their Lordships on a subject that gave him great concern, he meant on the subject of the disagreement between the two Houses of Parliament upon the Justice of Peace Bill. The House of Commons had refused to agree to the Amendment of their Lordships, who had omitted two clauses which had been in the Bill when sent up from the Commons. On the first of these he should have said nothing; but he could not assent to the other. He could not avoid expressing the discontent he felt on this subject; and he must say, with all due deference for the House of Commons, that it was impossible to comply with their wishes on this point. One of these clauses required, that all Justices should, in all cases, take down all the evidence that was offered on any subject brought before them. Any one who knew what sort of evidence was frequently offered, and, from the want of professional assistance, what sort of evidence was often admitted, would know that this could not be done. Anything so wild, then, as this proposition he had never heard of. He never could bring himself to agree to the restoration of those two clauses. The Bill itself was a beneficial measure; but rather than impose upon it the two clauses which their Lordships had rejected, he would consent to lose the Bill. The second of these clauses gave to the Justices of the Peace authority to set aside or annul all Acts of Parliament affixing a penalty upon certain offences. He had great respect for the magistracy, but he could not consent to give them such power

1235
as this. He could not consent that they should say, that certain penalties should not be paid, though the Legislature had imposed them. One of the results of investing them with such a general power, would be to make the Legislature itself careless about imposing penalties, inasmuch as the discretion of the Justices could correct any error. He should, therefore, move, that the Amendments of the Commons be read a second time this day six months.
Lord Wharncliffesupported the Motion, on the ground that it would be impossible for the Magistrates to do what was required by the first clause, and improper to intrust them with the discretion given by the second.
The Motion agreed to, and the Bill was put off for six months.

AMENDMENT OF THE POOR LAWS.
A conference was held with the Commons on the subject of the Poor-laws' Amendment Bill, and the report of the conference was presented.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, it had been determined in their Lordships' House, to amend the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill, by leaving out certain clauses. His proposition with respect to this Bill would not be the same as in the last case, because, although he disagreed from the Commons, he should be most unwilling upon that account so important a Bill as this should be lost. He was clear that the clause the Commons proposed to retain, giving the ministers of dissenting sects a right to enter the workhouses in order to administer religious assistance to the followers of their particular sect, was entirely superfluous; and but for the great respect which he entertained for the House of Commons, he should say it was absurd that this clause should be left in. For why were they to suppose that there was some sufficient cause to bind down the discretion of the overseers, and, above all, of the Commissioners, whom they were about to intrust with very large powers in this one case, when they did not think it necessary to bind them down in others. He should be inclined to reprehend, in the severest manner, any master of a workhouse who wished to preclude a sectarian minister from having access to his follower in the workhouse; and he could not conceive why this was the only case in which they should suspect the overseers of folly
1236
or harshness. In fact, overseers were less likely to err upon this delicate point of religious instruction than upon any other. There was another clause that the Commons wished to retain that was also unnecessary. Now, on this subject their Lordships had one of three courses to pursue. The first was, to reject the Amendments of the Commons, a course which, for the reason he had already stated, he should not propose to be pursued. The second was, to have a free conference with the Commons, and have the matter argued and discussed to-morrow morning; and the third was, to receive the Amendments of the Commons, but to enter a protest against them. He should feel inclined to adopt the last course, and to withdraw his objections to the clauses, but to give notice at the same time, that on the first day of next Session he should move for leave to bring in a Bill to correct what he conceived to be errors. There was a deficiency in the clause respecting the admission of Dissenters to workhouses; for, as it was now framed, it would not describe those to whom it was intended to apply. He knew from the legal advisers of those who had framed the clause, that they who introduced it would gain nothing by it; for the Methodists, for whose benefit it was, no doubt, specially intended, were not included in it as it now stood; and, indeed, as others appeared to be named when they were not, they might, perhaps, be actually excluded.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, there had been no intention whatever to place any restrictions on the admission of Dissenting teachers when this clause was omitted; but he felt with the noble and learned Lord, that there was no necessity for the clause, as there never would be any difficulty about their admission.
Lord Wynfordwas not so sure that a declaratory clause might not be necessary, because he did not feel the same confidence in the Commissioners that was felt by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He had every confidence in their integrity and knowledge, but not in their ability to carry this Bill into effect in all its very numerous enactments.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, there was an objection, in point of form, to a free conference, and that was, that their Lordships must give their reasons for their resolution from which they could not afterwards re-

1237
cede, and by such means the Bill might be ultimately lost—a consequence that he would not by any means run the risk of incurring. The clause, however, was unnecessary, for the Commissioners after all would have, without it as with it, the power of giving admission to the workhouses—but there was the less evil in agreeing to the clause, as, however accurately this Bill might be now framed, he thought there would not more than four months elapse before practice would discover some Amendments to be necessary, and when they were introduced, this matter could be amended.
The Duke of Wellingtonthought, that in this age of liberalism, they ought, if possible, to exclude religious schisms and disputations from the workhouse.
The Lord Chancellormeant to protest against the clause, and therefore did not wish to be the person to move its adoption.
Lord Wynford Lord Wynford moved the adoption of the Amendments of the Commons which was agreed to.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
The Marquess of Londonderry, seeing the noble Viscount at the head of his Majesty's Government in his place, wished to say a very few words relative to a subject on which a discussion took place a few evenings ago—namely, the contest now carrying on in Spain. On the occasion to which he referred he understood the noble Viscount to declare that it was not the intention of his Majesty's Government to interfere on behalf of either of the belligerents in that country; but, if he were rightly informed a demonstration had been made on the part of the Government of Great Britain which was altogether inconsistent with either the literal interpretation or the spirit of that declaration. He had heard, that a British officer, Colonel Caradoc, was now at the head-quarters of the army of General Rodil, but whether that officer was there as an accredited military Commissioner on the part of the Government of this country, he, of course, could not undertake to say. He trusted, however, that he was not, and for this reason, that if the Government of Great Britain had placed one of the officers of their army in such a position, it would go the length of demonstrating beyond all manner of doubt a disposition on the part of England to interfere in favour of one of the belligerents.
1238
Their Lordships must recollect that the officer to whom he alluded was employed in the trenches during the siege of Antwerp; but in that case they all knew it was the intention of this Government to act in support of Belgium. He noticed the information which had reached him on this subject merely to point out to the noble Viscount the effect which placing a British officer in such a position must have, and he would only add that if the demonstration were not real, it certainly wore that appearance, and was contrary to the statement which the noble Viscount had made. He had no doubt, however, that the noble Viscount would explain to their Lordships whether the fact were so or not, and under this impression he should advert to another topic which seemed to him to call for inquiry. He begged leave to call the attention of the noble Viscount to the affairs of Portugal, and to ask him if the Government of this country had received any information respecting, if they were cognizant of, the confiscations and spoliations which were now going on at Lisbon, on the part of the Government of Don Pedro, against the property of the parties who opposed him in the late contest for the Crown of that kingdom. By the Treaty which had been entered into a general amnesty was guaranteed, not only to the people of Portugal, but to all other persons; and he contended that the Government of this country was bound to see that the whole of the stipulations contained in that Treaty were properly and fully carried into effect. He therefore hoped that no time would be lost by his Majesty's Ministers in taking some steps for the relief of the parties thus oppressed. To show their Lordships the extent to which the proceedings he described had been carried, he had only to say, that he held in his hand a list of twelve British ships, worth 100,000 l., which had been confiscated by the new Board established by Don Pedro at Lisbon in the place of the Admiralty Court, which, with other old tribunals, had been abolished. An appeal lay from the decision of the Admiralty Court, but from this new Board there was no appeal, and therefore those merchants who had thus unjustly, as he contended, been deprived of their property, were left without redress. He hoped, however, that the subject would be inquired into by the noble Viscount, and that his Majesty's Ministers would see that justice was done

1239
to the injured parties. For his part he could not conceive that any Board should have the power of confiscating property to such an amount as 100,000 l. without the owners having the right of appealing to some other tribunal.
Viscount Melbournemust in the first place deny, that he said on the occasion referred to by the noble Marquess, that it was the intention of his Majesty's Government not to interfere in the contest now carrying on in Spain. He had made no such statement, neither had he said anything to that effect; on the contrary, he had left the matter entirely open. He, however, had no objection to say, that Colonel Caradoc was at the head-quarters of General Rodil's army, because whatever related to the affairs of Spain at the present moment was of so much importance that it was indispensably necessary, not only for this Government, but for the other Governments of Europe generally, to have full knowledge of all that occurred in that country. With respect to the confiscation and spoliation which the noble Marquess said, had taken place at Lisbon, he was wholly uninformed. He had not heard of any transactions of the kind, and although he did not wish to say, that the noble Marquis's information was unfounded, he must be allowed to doubt the accuracy of his statement that the amnesty guaranteed by the Treaty had been violated by the Portuguese Government. It was undoubtedly the case that an amnesty had been granted, but he had no information as to its having been carried into effect. With respect to the confiscation of the ships which the noble Marquess said had taken place, all he could now say was, that proper inquiry should be made into the subject.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, it was not only his impression, but the understanding of other noble Lords, that the noble Viscount did the other night make the declaration which he had attributed to him. The noble Viscount might find it convenient now to back out of his former statement; but he must repeat, that according to his recollection, and the impression which remained on the minds of other noble Lords, the noble Viscount had stated distinctly that it was not the intention of the Government of this country to interfere in the contest now going forward in Spain, and that the Treaty bound them to no such interference. The Government
1240
of this country were, however, interfering in that contest, for were not our vessels actually cruising along the Spanish coast to assist, if there should be a necessity for it, one of the belligerent parties against the other? This was most unfair, and he would say to the noble Viscount, "If you mean to support the cause of the Queen why not candidly and openly avow your intention at once?" The conduct of our Government relative to the contest that took place in Portugal was extremely improper, and all he hoped was, that a similar course might not be pursued in the present instance.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that the observations of his noble friend clearly showed how important it was for the Government to declare their intentions on this subject. Unless the noble Viscount did so, he was likely to be led into a situation of considerable embarrassment, for he ought to know that it was not usual for a Government to send an officer to the head-quarters of a foreign army without it being understood that they meant to take part with the power to whom that army belonged.
The conversation was dropped.