Sitting of 6 April 1835

MINUTES.
Bills, Read a first time:—Courts of Equity; Contempts (Ireland); Infants' Property (Ireland); Wood Duties.
Petitions presented, By Viscount MORPETH, Sir OSWALD MOSLEY, and Sir FREDERICK TRENCH, from three Places, for the Repeal of the Duty on Spirit Licences.—By Mr. WILKS, from the Dissenters of Frome, Selwood, for Redress of their Grievances.—By Mr. CAYLEY, from the Agriculturists of Richmond, York: and by Mr. WILLIAM DUNCOMBE, from three Places,—for Relief.—By Viscount MORPETH, from Factories in Rawden, for the Repeal, or Alteration of the Factories' Regulation Act.—By Sir S. WHALLEY, from the Parish of Marylebone, for the Remission of the Sentence on the Dorchester Labourers.—By Mr. ROEBUCK, from the Dissenters of Liverpool, and Frome, Selwood, for Relief from their Grievances.—By Sir SAMUEL, WHALLEY, from the Parish of Marylebone, for Reform of Church Abuses.—By Mr. ROEBUCK, from Kettering, for the Alteration of the Poor-Law Amendment Act.—Ry Mr. MACKINNON, from the Inhabitants of London and Westminster, for the Better Regulation of Cabriolets and Omnibuses.—By Messrs. ROEBUCK, W. E. GLADSTONE, and another HON. MEMBER, from several Places,—for Amending the Weights' and Measures' Aet.—By Messrs. ROEBUCK, EWART, CLAY, O'DWYER, and E. J. CAYLEY, from a Number of Places, against the Imprisonment for Debt Bill.—By Sir M. S. STEWART and Mr. MURRAY, from the Handloom Weavers of several Places,—for a Board of Trade and for Relief.—By Captain WEMYSS, from several Places, against any Grant for Building Additional Churches in Scotland.

BRIBERY AND INTIMIDATION AT ELECTIONS.
Mr. Roebuckpresented a Petition from a parish in the city of Bristol, complaining of bribery and corruption, and in favour of the ballot. The hon. Member moved that the petition be referred to the Intimidation Committee.
Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, that as there was nothing special in the petition, he had no objection to its being referred to the Intimidation Committee. He had understood, however, from the hon. Member, that he had got a petition from Bristol with something in the way of specific allegations in it. Perhaps the hon. Member would present it now?
Mr. Roebuckwould do so with great pleasure. It was a petition from inhabitants of the city of Bristol, complaining that great corruption and intimidation had been practised by certain persons at the last election for that city. It also stated that a society called "The Mechanics' Conservative Society" had been established there, and that the mechanics who became members of it had good meat and provisions sent to them for nothing. Of course the object of this society was to "conserve" the mechanics of Bristol, and to procure their services at future elections.
834
The petitioners complained that the measures adopted by this society amounted to nothing less than bribery and corruption, under the guise of charity. The hon. Member moved that the petition be referred to the Bribery Committee.
Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, that what was stated in the petition with regard to the formation of the society in question was incorrect. That association was formed in 1831, immediately after the riots. It was called "The Mechanies' Operative Society.—[Mr. Roebuck, "Mechanics' Conservative Society."] Well, "Conservative," if you please. He begged to assure the hon. Gentleman and the House, that at the last election for Bristol there was not a shadow of ground for saying that any bribery had been exercised. If there had been any, why was there not a petition against his return or that of his hon. colleague? There was no such petition at present, though a petition had been presented against him on a former occasion. He perceived, on reading the petition, that the petitioners complained that the members of this society received 14lbs. of prime ox beef, and three quartern loaves each. But surely this afforded no ground for saying that bribery and corruption were practised at the Bristol election. He believed it was the practice every year in Bristol, to give out those provisions to the members of this society, and that it had nothing whatever to do with election affairs. He had no objection to the petition being referred to the Bribery Committee.
Colonel Evanssaid, that he might as well take this opportunity to call the notice of the House to subscriptions which were being raised in the city of Westminster for the same purpose, namely, the corruption of the electors. He had seen in the public prints advertisements calling for such subscriptions, and in which advertisements it was modestly stated, that the object was to send members to Parliament for Westminster, which the advertisers were pleased to say had hitherto been unrepresented. The advertisement also stated that a Westminster Conservative Society had been formed for the purpose, and it specified several noblemen and gentlemen who had subscribed to it. Why should noblemen thus ostentatiously interfere with the freedom of election? He thought that if there was any Member of the Bribery and Intimidation Committee

835
present, they should look into this matter, and he trusted that they would call before them some persons from the city of Westminster to give evidence as to the effects of bribery and intimidation at the last election for Westminster. ["Oh!"] What did the hon. Member for Dover mean by crying "Oh?" Did he know any thing of the matter? His exclamation "Oh!" was no argument. He could aver positively that intimidation, the worst species of corruption, had been practised at the last election for Westminster.
Mr. Henry Bulwersaid, that such acts of intimidation had not been confined to Westminster. They had also been resorted to in Marylebone. He would put it to the House whether it was in accordance with the constitution of the country, and more especially with the constitution of that House, that noblemen should take an open and active part with respect to the return of Members to Parliament. To him it appeared that such practices were highly unconstitutional, and called for the interference of the House to protect its rights and privileges.
Mr. Fectorsaid, that he for one would wish that there was more of proper influence used at elections. What he considered far worse than any thing hon. Gentlemen could state was the bonâ fide intimidation of broken heads, violence, and outrage, too often resorted to by their supporters. If every species of intimidation at elections were put an end to, the gain would be on that (the Ministerial) and the loss on the other (the Opposition) side of the House. It appeared to him a great inconvenience that the public business should be impeded, and the time of the House taken up with these discussions on petitions. Had the Bristol election any thing to do with the election for Westminster?
Mr. Dottinsaid that gentlemen on the other side should not forget the dinners that were given to promote Reform, and the election of Reformers. He recollected many large dinners given for such purposes, and he was certain that many persons subscribed to them who did not go to them. In fact, they were given to promote the Reform Bill.
Mr. Roebucksaid, that the hon. Baronet (the Member for Bristol) had said that no bribery had been practised at the Bristol election, and he appealed in proof to the fact that no petition had been preferred against his return, though there had been
836
one after the former election. Now tha argument, if good for any thing, would go to prove that there had been bribery at the former election. Such, indeed, would be the legitimate conclusion to which it tended. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Southampton, he begged to say, that the persons invited to those dinners in Bristol went there without paying any thing, and that they were obliged to subscribe a Conservative creed before they were admitted to the Conservative banquet. Had there been any Reform dinners given on such terms? He was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Dover say that the time of the House was lost in these endeavours to purge and purify the system of election.
The petition was referred to the Bribery Committee.

CANADA.—THE COMMISSION.
Mr. Roebuckrose to put a question to the right hon. Baronet on the subject of the intended mediation. It had been promised when the question was brought forward by him, that a person should be sent out on the part of our Government as mediator between this country and Canada, whose character should be altogether free from all bias, affection, or partiality. Since then an appointment had been made in his opinion, not conformable with that pledge. Lord Amherst had been named as mediator. Now the Right Hon. Baronet did not, perhaps, know that this Nobleman was connected by marriage (being brother-in-law) with Mr. Haile, who was principal of a party in the colony, against which many of the complaints of the colonists were levelled.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerconfessed he had never before heard of this connexion; remote as it was, he could not for a moment anticipate it would produce a prejudice in the minds of a liberal population, such as the Canadians, against a Nobleman of so much talent, and who had filled so high a situation as the Governor-Generalship of India.—He appreciated justly the character of the people of Canada, and believed they would be above any such groundless and unworthy prejudice.
Mr. Roebucksaid, he entertained no such prejudice himself. He was, however, apprehensive the appointment of a relative of Mr. Haile might be productive of considerable discontent in the colony.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought it impossible any such slight connexion as that alluded to could influence the conduct of the Canadians in this dispute. He entertained too high a respect for them ever to conceive it possible they should harbour suspicions of the impartiality of the noble Lord appointed on that very delicate and important mission.
Subject dropped.

SPAIN.—DON CARLOS.
Mr. Thomas Duncombewished to be informed whether the mission of Lord Eliot to Spain was at all connected with any intention to support the pretensions of Don Carlos to the Spanish Crown.
Lord Mahonsaid it was true that Lord Eliot had been sent out to Spain and it was for objects he would with great satisfaction explain. This Government had witnessed with deep concern the nature of the civil war now raging in Spain, and thought fit to send out Lord Eliot, charged particularly to attempt by all means to put an end to the carnage attendant on this war, by means of the massacre of prisoners, the execution of suspected persons, the burning of villages, and other frightful violences committed in the course of theconflict—The mission had nothing to do with placing Don Carlos on the Spanish throne, for Lord Eliot had not been sent out there but with the full approbation of the Ministers of Spain and the King of the French.
The House resolved itself into a Committee.

CHURCH OF IRELAND.—COMMITTEE.
Lord J. Russell Lord J. Russell moved the Order of the Day for the House again to resolve itself into a Committee upon his Resolution regarding e Established Church of Ireland.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer: It is my intention to adhere strictly to the engagement I entered into with the Noble Lord, by throwing no impediment in the way of proceeding with this debate; but, at the same time, it is my duty to bring before the House our position with respect to the Navy Estimates and the Mutiny Bill. Instead of making any speech about the Navy Estimates, I will merely read a part of a letter addressed this day to the Board of Admiralty by Mr. Briggs, who holds a situation connected with that department:—"The day of payment of wages (says this gentleman) is Friday next, when they become due, for which no sup-
838
plies have yet been voted." Thus the House would see that the matter was extremely pressing; and, with respect to other votes of equal importance, the Admiralty has been already put to difficulty. Then, with respect to the Mutiny Bill, I presume that the House contemplates a recess, and we are now at the 6th of April. It will be very inconvenient if the Bill does not pass before the 15th of April; but I only make this statement to shew, that it is necessary to proceed with these measures to-night. I hope, therefore, that the House will feel no objection to concede such a sum for the Navy Estimates as is absolutely necessary, and to advance the progress of the Mutiny Bill.
Lord John Russell: As far as I am concerned, I can only say that I shall not resist the course which the Right Hon. Baronet proposes to follow with respect to the Navy Estimates and the Mutiny Bill. I, however, beg to be understood to pledge myself no farther. Before the House resolve itself into the Committee on the Irish Church, it may be expedient for me to state the course I mean, with the concurrence of the House, to pursue. I did not wish, on Friday last, to be led into any premature declaration, which had not been duly considered. After what was said by the Right Hon. Baronet on Thursday night—after the vote then adopted by so considerable a majority—a majority, including those who paired off, of the whole House of Commons—I will not enter into the question of the manner in which we may hereafter be met; but merely say, that after mature reflection, the course I propose to take will be this:—Supposing the House should agree to-night, in Committee, to the resolution I have proposed, I shall suggest that it be reported to-morrow; if the House should further agree to that report I shall follow it up by a resolution, of which I cannot now give regular notice, but which I will take the liberty of reading:—"That it is the opinion of this House that no measure upon the subject of tithes in Ireland can lead to a final and satisfactory adjustment which does not embody the principle conveyed in the foregoing resolution." If at the conclusion of the debate it shall appear that this resolution is not satisfactory to a majority of the House, I shall then proceed, as I before gave notice that I should proceed, by moving, on the succeeding day, an address to the Crown, I shall not, however, move

839
any address to the Crown until I have moved and failed in the resolution I have just read.
The House then went into a Committee.
Mr. Borthwicksaid he would not follow the noble Lord who had moved the resolution through all the misty steps which he had taken, from the history of the first Edward through the reign of Elizabeth, down to the commencement of the present century, because, whatever grievances might in those years have been inflicted upon Ireland, and however favourable the subject was for declamation, he did not feel that any legitimate inference could be drawn from any one of those circumstances to the argument then before the House. The noble Lord had said in his speech that he hoped the time had arrived when the House would legislate in a better spirit than it had done hitherto. No longer ought they to give to the repeatedly enforced complaints of a few what belonged as a right to the people on abstract principles of legislation. If the demands made by the Roman Catholics of Ireland were just, concession ought to be made on the grounds of right and justice, and not on the ground of a compact with the preceding government. Much talk there had been of the Serbonian bog in which the noble Lord opposite had so devotedly plunged; and Burke had been quoted to show that he considered the property of the Church at the disposal of the State. When hon. Gentlemen quoted he would wish them for the future to do it more correctly. The following was the passage from the "Reflections on the Revolution in France," from which it was attempted to establish the principle of the noble Lord:—"From the united consideration of religion and constitutional policy, from their opinion of a duty to make a sure provision for the consolation of the feeble and the instruction of the ignorant, they have incorporated and identified the estate of the Church with the mass of private property, of which the State is not proprietor, either for use or dominion, but the guardian only and the regulator." And this property, which was here laid down to be not for use or dominion, but of which the State was only the guardian and the regulator, it was now argued might be applied to the purposes of the State. A quotation made from Blackstone had been equally infelicitous. Quoting from that high authority, it had been said the Church was the child of the
840
law, and, being the child of the law, it was argued that the law might do that which seemed to the law good. A most unnatural and strange conclusion he considered this to be. Thus, because a child owed to a father the privilege of existence, on these grounds he might despoil him of his property and deprive him of his life. The noble Member for Northumberland had said that, there were many things which might be taught equally well by Protestants to Catholics, and by Catholics to Protestants; but he was of opinion that education must always proceed in connexion with religion. He entertained feelings of the greatest charity toward the Catholic Church, but he would not trust even the wisest of its Clergy to educate Protestant children. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets had said the Protestant Church caused most of the misery in Ireland. He gave the hon. and learned Member full credit for the assertion that accompanied that declaration—that he was a sound Protestant, and that he believed it was the purest and most efficient form for national instruction that could be devised. But his argument was, that the Roman Catholics formed the majority, and the Protestants the minority; and therefore it could not but follow that the majority, contributing to support a religion in which they did not believe, were contracting prejudices against that religion. Other hon. Members had asserted that the cause of the animosity which existed between the Protestants and Roman Catholics was because the latter associated with the Protestant Establishment those acts of tyranny and those scenes of bloodshed on which hon. Members had been so needlessly eloquent. He repeated needlessly, because it inferred that the hon. Members on his (Mr. Borthwick's) side of the House were less desirous of applying remedies to these abuses than those on the other side. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had asked the House to give the people of Ireland appropriation in the name of justice; there might be no surplus, but give them the name. He would not give the people of Ireland an empty abstraction when they sought for bread, or an apple of discord when they asked for peace. The system proposed to be adopted was monstrous, however they might disguise it by calling it a general form of education on the principles of Christianity. It was a scheme of the Utilitarians, and some new

841
term would doubtless be found in their vocabulary significant enough to describe it. But the whole of the argument was based on the presumption that there would be a surplus, and, if there were, that it should be given to support the moral and religious education of the people of Ireland. And the patriots of Ireland wished this most notable piece of legislature, that they might use it as a wedge. And for what purpose was this wedge to be used? Why for unseating the present Ministers, for whom they had little liking, because they perceived that the people of Great Britain had for them a great liking. The Question was one both of measures and men—whether the measures proposed by his Majesty's Ministers were for the good of the country, and whether they were men disposed and able to carry them into effect? Were he disposed to enter on the subject he was prepared to prove that the country had very good reason to be very well satisfied with the present prospect of affairs. The country did not want words but actions; the term Reform was nothing to it, but the thing Reform was; the phrase good government was nothing, but thing good government was something—that which the country had a right to look for. He could, if he were to go at large into the subject, show that the measure proposed within the last four years, under the name of Reform, was not at all equal to those brought in by his Majesty's present Government. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had said, in his speech on a former night, that there never had been an adulterous connexion between the Church of Rome and the State. He would venture to ask the hon. and learned gentleman was not a connexion between the Church and State the very essence of the Romish faith? Was not her Pontiff a Sovereign, and were not her Bishops Princes? He wondered much how any hon. Member could attempt to repudiate the connexion. The union between Church and State was, in his opinion, essential to the integrity of both, but especially the latter. They might, he was aware, be distinct, but in this country the history of the period anterior to 1688 would have to be repeated. England had not forgotten what she had suffered by concession to liberality—aliberality which once encouraged never ceased in its march until it stopped at Whitehall to witness the death of Charles the First. At that fatal
842
time and on that melancholy occasion there was not wanting one of that infamous order of the priesthood who lifted up his voice in mock imitation of the sacred welcome given to the Saviour on the cross when the blood of the martyr King was shed on the scaffold. If he was told that the course of liberality was not that which led to the murder of the King, he would ask those who told him so to go over with him the history of the rebellion. There they would find an exact parallel between the present and those disastrous times. There, they would find men acting in the same manner, only bolder and more openly—men who did not substitute one shadowy changing resolution for another night after night—men who had no cowardly shrinking from their professed principles—no crouching under false colours to attain their object. If there were any difference between the two periods to be found it was in favour of the earlier, for there were individuals among the actors in that epoch who were not only of a bold heroism, but of a dazzling talent, men whose private history did honour to human nature. That there should be no union between Church and State, between religion and politics, were plausible words with but little real meaning as the history of the period just referred to sufficed to prove. They were words calculated to catch the "general" ear, but a single sentence of truth would dispel the delusion. Was there aught in straight-forward politics which rendered their union with religion incompatible, or should religion be ashamed to look politics in the face? In his opinion, when religion formed no part of politics it might be looked for in vain in the land. The noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, and the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, had exhausted all that could be said on the question in reference to religion—all that had been said besides was but a protraction of the debate and a waste of time. The Question before the House was twofold. First, that the resolution of the noble Lord contained a great benefit for Ireland; and, secondly, that it was intended to drive Ministers from their places. What had been hitherto held up before the eyes of his Majesty's Ministers was an unsubstantial, shadowy threat, assuming various forms as the exigencies of the case required, until the right hon. Baronet, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had compelled the opponents of his Government to explain that it meant

843
at last an address to his Majesty. An address to carry what? He wished the noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire, were in the House to explain. Was it the object of the address to tell his Majesty that his exercise of his undoubted prerogative in selecting the Ministers of the Crown was not justifiable? or was it to be, like the message of Jack Cade to another English potentate:—"We are content you should reign so long as you give us an unconstitutional power over the exercise of your prerogative?" In a few days the country would make them hear from all parts its indignation at their course of proceeding—which was absurd, and unworthy of the wisdom of that House and the dignity of the British people. The Government were not to be allowed to carry the Irish Tithe Bill unless they asserted the great principle of appropriation. If the principle were a great one why did the Opposition not assert it before they introduced the Irish Tithe Bill of last session? If it were a principle it could not fluctuate. Why then, in the name of justice, if it were of such importance, did they delay its assertion until the present time? Why, if it were not for the purposes of faction. He would define faction. Faction was a union of persons for the purpose of carrying a measure or measures which had party and not patriotism for their objects. Why did the opposite faction—he used the words advisedly, in a political sense solely, and without intention of retracting them—why did the opposite faction wait for the present time to assert a principle which they termed a great principle, and let pass the time and opportunity when they had the power, if they had the will, of effectually doing so? One of the greatest objections which could arise to the measure of the noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire was, that it would be a fertile means of introducing a spirit of proselytism into Ireland. The moral good derivable at present from the efforts of both Churches, Catholic and Protestant, would be thus neutralised, if not totally destroyed. It would be an apple of discord between the people of both persuasions. The hon. Member concluded by opposing the motion before the Committee as factious, and not calculated to answer the object which it pretended to have in view.
Mr. John Maxwellsaid, that in rising to address a few words to the House, he begged to state that the reasons which had
844
led him to withhold his vote were his vote last session against the motion of the hon. Member for St. Alban's and for a Commission of Inquiry, and the subject being one upon which he could not pretend to state the sentiments of his constituents. He looked also to the unfortunate clergy, whose misfortunes might be aggravated by the premature assertion of a principle—the union of appropriation to tithe commutation—the great object for which all classes of the community were most anxious, and which they would lament the delay and loss of for any principle whatever He regretted that this Question had been made a party one extremely. He did think all classes of religious persons might have been brought to unite in some measure which would bring this tithe property to some useful assistance in Christianizing a population whose acts were too often in violation of every sentiment and moral practice emanating from that faith. If they could not make them Protestants, let them render them Christians. Christianity was the end for which this trust fund was intended. If they could not get them to adopt it in its reformed and purest forms, let them at least give them the means of having some faith and some religious practice flowing from it, more creditable to the state and the Irish—that the vital unchristianity which now disfigured their faith—(that form of faith which disgusted the people, and the poorest and most in need of state provision, and rendered it useless to them), might be changed. Let it be changed, not by party violence, but by absence of party spirit and presence of feeling for Ireland, and anxiety for promoting piety and knowledge in the form and by the guidance of Christian doctrines. He agreed that the terms and object of the noble Lord who had brought forward this proposition made a tolerably good resolution; at the same time Christianity was unnoticed in it, and however they might differ as to exclusive Protestantism, they all agreed, he hoped, in the necessity of adhering to the Christian employment of a Christian trust fund, and he was sure the addition of that word would be likely to give it more success, the omission of it less, if not little prospect of successful legislation in the united Parliament.
Mr. Baring Wallwas grateful as there were no surplus funds, that it was not necessary to raise a religious cry in Ireland; neither was the House called on to pander

845
to the worst feelings in that country, and it was easy, therefore, to get rid of the difficulty, and leave the question of surplus to posterity. He could not but observe that in all Irish debates, from whatever side of the House they originated, it seemed invariably to be forgotten that any other party existed in the country save themselves. He much regretted that the moderate party was so little represented in this House, because if he felt satisfied that the civilization of Ireland, which had hitherto been so much impeded, would completely flourish under the influence of moderate counsels, for this party so little represented the House was called upon to act, and he felt satisfied, though he was no advocate for the members of the sacred profession mixing themselves up in the common politics of the country, that if some of the Irish Protestant clergy could be heard at the bar, or from seats in that House, they would well be able to maintain those rights and claims which the noble Lord's resolution went to infringe. With as much moderation as talent, they would secure to themselves numerous friends and supporters. He asked the House to pause, and to consider whether or not this resolution would lead to a final and satisfactory settlement of the Question. In his judgment, it would be far from leading to any such result. The only two ways by which a satisfactory settlement could be arrived at was, either by recognizing the Protestant Church, and connecting the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian Churches with the State, or by allowing the religion of the majority to have sway. Although he did not wish now to pledge himself to any measure not at present before the House, he would not hesitate fearlessly to say, that the matter could only be set at rest, and peace and tranquillity in Ireland established on a permanent footing, by connecting with the State the Catholic and Presbyterian Clergy of Ireland; at the same time he could not for a moment acquiesce in any proposition which should have the effect of diminishing the efficacy and efficiency of the Protestant Establishment. That Establishment had been charged as a proselytizing Church; he denied that such was the fact, and to it, therefore, on this occasion he should give his support. He objected to this motion both as regarded the time and the spirit in which it was brought forward, and further he objected on the ground of the want of
846
sufficient information. He contended that it was not a fitting time to entertain and discuss so important a question when so much of party feeling prevailed. He, however, trusted that the right hon. Baronet below him (Sir Robert Peel) would turn his attention to the important consideration of some provision by the State for the Irish Roman Catholic Clergy, and to the relations in which the Protestants and Catholics of that country stood, for he was satisfied that peace and tranquillity would never be secured in Ireland until some provision in this respect was made.
Mr. Lucasas the representative of a county in Ireland which was peculiarly Protestant, hoped he might be permitted to offer one or two observations. In his opinion the surplus revenues of the Protestant Church, if any, should be first applied to strictly Protestant purposes, such as the repairs of Churches and the building of glebe-houses, and, next, to the education of the Protestant population. If, after this, a further surplus should remain, instead of a general indiscriminate system of education, the members of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland should be considered, and the education of that class of the Irish community should be provided for, instead of the funds being applied to Roman Catholic purposes, even those of education. The remaining surplus ought then to be devoted to the repayment of the 1,000,000 l. loan so liberally advanced by the British Legislature to the suffering Clergy of Ireland. He did net consider that the cause of morality and tranquillity would be served by keeping any class of the community in ignorance; but he contended, if any provision was to be made for the education of Roman Catholics, it ought to be provided by the State, or even by a tax on the land, but not. certainly out of the revenues of the Protestant Church. In saying thus much he was only speaking the sentiments of a numerous portion of the county he had the honour to represent.
Mr. Henry Lytton Bulwercommenced by alluding to the observations of the hon. Member for the county of Lanark (Mr. John Maxwell), in reference to the fact, that a Commission of Inquiry having been issued, the returns from which might soon be expected to be laid on the Table of the House, it would be unfitting to come to a decision on this Question until that information was afforded, This objection had

847
already been answered the other night by the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, who had said, that, even supposing the returns had been made showing a large surplus, yet as he did not suppose it was contemplated to do away with the interests of the existing incumbents, and as, therefore, such surplus could not be touched for at least thirty years, it signified nothing waiting for returns to deal with the principle of the proposition. Now, he believed every man was agreed that, ever since this country had a footing in Ireland, that country had been governed by tampering with the parties into which its population was divided. In short, there had been no difference in the principle of governing the majority by the minority. The first step towards equalization of rights was the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. That measure extended only to civil rights, and complete equality could in no way be established except by the adoption of such a Resolution as that which had been proposed by the noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire,—a Resolution which declared that, after providing for all the wants of the Protestant Established Church, the remaining revenues should be appropriated to the purposes of general education. He supported this proposition because he conceived it to be a fitting appendix to the Bill of Catholic Emancipation, and to complete an equality of religious rights as the last named measure had perfected the establishment of equality of civil rights. He would not, however, as a sincere Protestant, diminish, in the least degree, the strength of the Protestant religion in Ireland. It had been stated that the Establishment was not a Proselytizing Church. If so, he would inquire upon what ground the continuance to it of greater wealth than was sufficient for its wants could be justified? He was convinced that the country would not believe the present Ministers to be sincere reformers; his real opinion was, that if the right hon. Baronet opposite continued in office, he would not only have to satisfy the wishes, but the suspicions, of the great body of the community. Much had also been said of the character of the present Opposition, and the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, in allusion to the parties composing that Opposition, had said, that out of them it was possible that two Administrations might be formed, but that it was
848
impossible to frame from it one Administration without a great compromise of opinion. What had been the conduct of the noble Lord himself? Had there been on his part no compromise of opinion when he gave his support to the Administration of Mr. Canning, who declared himself opposed to all reform? Again, had there been no compromise of opinion in the formation of the present Government? The Opposition had carried the Resolution on a former evening, by, he would admit, a small majority, and might not carry the present by a greater; but how was that? It was because there were many Members of the House who were disposed to support a Ministry because they were a Ministry, though they disagreed with them then on this Question, and who were willing to give almost any Administration credit for acting on fair principles. There was an instance of this kind of support in the case of a Mr. Hamet, in 1784. That gentleman stated, that he had a great regard for the Ministry which was then falling, but he had a great affection for that which was coming in. He had supported the late Government with all his power, and he would support that which was about to be formed. Something of the kind had been stated to him the other day by an hon. Friend. He said that there was nothing which he had regretted more than the retirement of Lord Melbourne, but that he was extremely glad to find the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government; and the only thing he regretted was, that the hon. Member for London (Mr. Grote) did not form a part of it—a regret in which he had no doubt many Members opposite would not readily join. He had no confidence in the present Administration, and, therefore, he would support the Motion of the noble Lord.
Mr. Francis Bruen: Will the Committee favour me with its attention for a few moments? I never had the honour of addressing the House before. The subject is of the deepest importance to my country. I have resided in that country for an uninterrupted period of nearly twenty years, and for the few observations, which I shall feel it my duty to address to the Committee, may I hope for its courtesy and indulgence? Nothing has surprised me more in the course of of this debate than the conflicting accounts with regard to the real property of the Church of Ireland—the discrepancies

849
which prevail in the statements, even among official personages, who have been connected with the administration of Ireland. The House has resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House to consider the question of the Irish Church, particularly as to the appropriation of its revenues, and nobody seems to know what those revenues are. I apprehend that they have been greatly exaggerated, and that the statement of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, is correct, and that it is, after all, but a poor Church. Hon. Members seem to have forgotten—at least, it has not been noticed on either side of the House—that the parochial clergy of Ireland, at the time of the introduction of the Composition Bill by the right hon. Secretary of the Home Department, harassed by dissensions with their own flocks, and anxious to conciliate the Catholic tithe-payers, sacrificed in every instance one-half of their incomes. In the parish where I lived at the time the tithe was reckoned at about 1,500 l. and the clergy compounded for 750 l. In the neighbouring parish the tithe sometimes reached nearly 2,000 l. and the rector compounded for 900 l. In the parish adjoining that, the tithe was 1,400 l. and the rector compounded for 700 l,; and in the parish where I at present reside, which I and another Gentleman entirely possess, the average rent being 1l. or nearly so, the clergyman compounded for 1s. an acre, thus receiving not the tenth of the produce, but the twentieth of the rent. Now conies the Bill of the Secretary for Ireland, striking off twenty-five per cent, and if this be not sufficient depletion for the most plethoric establishment, sufficient to satisfy every political doctor on the other side of the House, not excepting the great Sangrado himself, (the hon. Member for Middlesex), I know not what is. But I would grant for argument sake, that it is a rich Church, and that a surplus could be spared, but I still contend most resolutely that every farthing of such surplus would be more than swallowed up by Protestant objects and Protestant wants. What funds are now wanting for the building of churches. In the parish where I lived the number of attendants at church were at first about 200 or 300; they increased to 600. A new church was called for and built, and both were completely filled. A similar instance took place in a neighbouring
850
parish, with similar results. In the parish where I at present attend Divine Worship, a few years ago there were but five or six Protestants, a new church was demanded, so bad was the state of the old one; funds were difficult to procure; but the new church has been built, and there is at present a congregation of 150, and subscriptions are about to be set on foot to erect a gallery, as there are no funds, the church not being able to contain those anxious to come. And near the borough of Carlow, which I have the honour to represent, within two miles of the town, the union having been divided, a house has at present been consecrated, as no church has as yet been built, and it already contains a congregation of fifty. But I would go further still, and granting that there were a surplus, even after effecting Protestant objects, I would ask the House, is it reasonable to hand over such surplus to the Catholic party for the moral, religious, and general education of the people of Ireland? Have not the national efforts been lately given in abundance to that party for that especial purpose? Have they not erected school-houses? But where have they placed them, in order to insure the attendance of children of all religious persuasions? Is it on neutral ground? No; but in their own chapel yards, thereby at once putting an insuperable bar to the system of national education, which was intended to be general, and without distinction of sect or party. But I have another strong ground upon which I object to this Resolution, because it will throw an impediment in the way of the Bill to be introduced by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, which would effect, as he stated, I quote his own words, the abolition and extinction of tithes; that it would do so I am firmly convinced. You have the testimony of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, that the plan, when partially tried on his own property, Ireland, completely succeeded; and I have been favoured by a communication from the hon. Member for the University of Dublin, stating that he had received a letter from the agent of a noble Lord, which letter I read, in which the tenants are said to have come in without summons to repay the landlord the composition he had paid to the clergyman, stating that they considered it the most satisfactory method of settlement, and a great boon

851
for them. I can corroborate the statements, and also from my own experience. I have tried the experiment, and by this tithes on the greater part of my estate are virtually abolished. I come now to speak of the great principle of the measure. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Nottingham, accused the eloquent Solicitor-General below me, of having appealed to the basest of all passions—fear. Has the right hon. Baronet never heard of a fear which is the noblest of all passions—a fear which is the elementary principle of all sound counsel—a fear which is the beginning of wisdom—the fear of doing wrong. To that fear I apprehend the eloquent Solicitor-General alluded, and to that fear I in humble language would appeal—the fear, I say, of violating a great and vital principle, upon which, in my conscience, I believe hinges the dearest interests of the Irish community—the very causas vivendi. Cast but the spoils of the Irish Church—afflicted indeed, but not yet fallen, persecuted, but not yet utterly forsaken—cast that prize into the centre of the ring to be scrambled for, and let but the majority of this House cheer on to the quarry a deluded and infuriated multitude, maddened by agitation, with their hearts naturally most kind and warm, steeled to the cruelty of the grave by religious hatred and bigotry, who, in despoiling the heretic Church and endowing to them a true one, think they do God service, and you will soon indeed draw over my most miserable and devoted country a sword that will reek with the blood of the best and bravest of Protestants, aye, and Catholics. To all appearance you seal the doom of the Protestant establishment—the child, the champion of toleration, and at this present moment in Ireland, the great breakwater which alone interposes to repel the storms and waves that assail the power of civil and religious liberty. And do English Members, in the plenitude of their pride and power, think that their own Church and realm will be safe "within the wind of such commotion?" I tell them they will rock to their very centre, and inasmuch as in them lies, they will put in peril and jeopardy that constitutional throne under the shadow of which, through the blessing of Divine Providence, the people of these kingdoms have enjoyed more rational freedom—more firm security for life and property—more individual happiness, and
852
more rational glory than has fallen to the lot of any nation under Heaven. But Gentlemen perhaps do not, or will not, heed these sentiments. I appeal to the hon. and learned Member for Dublin upon another score—I appeal to him, by the love he bears the Catholic peasantry of Ireland, who have such solid and substantial claims on his consideration, and for whose interests I willingly admit he keenly feels. I can assure the hon. and learned Member, and my statements could be corroborated by the written evidence of the Catholic clergy, that I never have put off from my estate a Catholic tenant, even if he could not pay his rent, deeming it repugnant to humanity, as there are no Poor-Laws in Ireland, to turn him houseless on the world. I have done my best to support him; but pass these Resolutions, and in what position do you put the landlords of Ireland? I reside perhaps in a remote district, where there are few Protestants. There has hitherto been a Church, but suddenly I find the clergyman suspended, the doors of the temple of God closed against me, and am spurned from the horns of the Protestant altar; I am denied the means of Grace; I stand excommunicated on the earth. It becomes, then, a most sacred and paramount duty to stock my lands with Protestants that I may again worship God after the manner of my fathers. I appeal to every man in this House to point out any other course that I could or ought to pursue. I do, then, implore the noble Lord, and those who act with him, if they yet adhere to true Whig principles—if they yet, and I know they do, love civil and religious liberty—I implore the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and those that act with him, for their country's sake—for the Catholic people's sake—I implore every Protestant that hears me, for peace sake—for truth sake—for God's sake—to pause ere by pressing these Resolutions on the House, they inflict such multiplied woes on that country, lest when they are carried, and the struggle that must ensue begins, the awful doom of retributive justice be passed upon us, and because for mean party purposes and low party politics, we have "bitten and devoured one another," we be "consumed one of another."
Mr. Bainesobserved, that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and all who had spoken on the same side, had

853
founded their arguments upon their determination never to consent to the application of the revenues of the Church of Ireland to any but Ecclesiastical purposes. But they forgot that much of the revenues of that Church had, from the earliest to the present time, been applied to other than Ecclesiastical purposes. Suppose the case of a parish—there were many such in Ireland,—without a Protestant family in it yielding 500 l. per annum in the shape of tithes, which were sent out of the country to a non-resident clergyman, by a tithe-proctor, who constituted the only representative of the Church of England in it—would the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer say, that 500 l. per annum was devoted to Ecclesiastical purposes? He could not: such funds were appropriated to the purposes of Ecclesiastics, but not to purposes Ecclesiastical. If, on the other hand, the Resolution of the noble Lord, the Member for Devon, were carried into effect, a portion of the revenues of the Irish Church would be devoted to purposes to a certain extent Ecclesiastical, viz. to the moral and religious education of the people. This, however, was but part of a system ["Hear, hear!" from the Ministerial benches.] Gentlemen opposite would not, perhaps, have cheered had they waited the close of his sentence. This proposition was but part of a system of kindness and affection by which Ireland ought to be governed, instead of by the sword. The right hon. Baronet, at the close of his eloquent speech on Thursday night, delicately hinted that there might be an appeal from this House to the country. The hint was not very broadly given, but the right hon. Baronet was so understood on his (Mr. Baines's) side of the House. Not a single individual, he believed was intimidated from discharging his duty to his constituents, to Ireland, and his country, by that intimation; but he would take the liberty of whispering in his turn to the right hon. Baronet, that such an appeal would be an appeal from the people to the people, who had so recently sent to that House persons really representing what he believed to be their sentiments. Addresses and petitions might come up from different parts of the country to prop up a somewhat tottering Administration, but he was much mistaken if counter-addresses and counter-petitions, as numerously and respectably signed, would not be sent to that House
854
in support of the Resolution now under consideration. As far as regarded the numerous constituency he had the honour to represent, and a very large body of people in the North of England, he thought he might venture to say, that there was nothing to which they were more opposed than a sinecure Church and a non-resident clergy. Not only would they petition for the abolition of a sinecure Church, and the depriving a non-resident priesthood of its revenues in Ireland, but for the enforcement of residence and abolition of pluralities in this country. In conclusion, he repeated, that he had risen principally to say, that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of his Majesty's Government, and those with whom he was connected, had during the whole of their public life, consented to a large portion of the revenues of the Irish Church being applied to other than Ecclesiastical purposes; and that, if the Resolution of the noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire, should be defeated, those revenues would still continue subject to similar misapplications. He thought that he could not render to his constituents, or to the people of England and Ireland, a more acceptable service than that of making the surplus revenues of the Irish Church conducive to the general education of the Irish people: and under this impression he should give to the measure now under consideration his most cordial support in every stage of its progress.
The Marquess of Chnndossaid, that in part of the remarks of the last speaker he fully concurred. He was anxious to correct the abuses of the Church establishment, and for this purpose he should be disposed to lend his humble aid to enforce the residence of the clergy, and the abolition of pluralities in the Church; but while lie was disposed to correct those abuses, he would not do away with the Church altogether, and hand its revenues over to another establishment. Whatever might be the object of the noble Lord, in bringing forward this Resolution, the noble Lord might be assured that if he once handed over the revenues of the Church to another religion, he could not stop there; and though he might think that he did enough in applying the surplus for the purpose of moral and religious education, he might rely upon it that he would be called upon to do more—he would be called upon to hand over other portions of

855
the Church revenue for other purposes than those of moral and religious education. He had opposed—most conscientiously opposed—the Question of Catholic Emancipation, though he had done so without any feeling of personal hostility against any members of that Church, for many of whom he had the highest respect; but, as a member of the Church of England, he must protest on the part of that Church against any portion of Church revenues being applied to the use of Catholics as well as Protestants. However humble his station in the country might be, he must raise his voice against the proposition now made. Besides, when they talked of a surplus of Church-property in Ireland, what evidence had they that any such surplus existed? Would it not be right that they should first have some information on the subject? Would it not, he would beg to ask, be better to wait till they had the Report of the Church Commissioners, and not, in the absence of all accurate information on the subject, to assume that a surplus did exist, and then to decide that it should be handed over for the use of the Catholics? The hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House had alluded to what he considered as an intimation of an intended dissolution of Parliament. He did not know, nor was it likely that he should, what the intentions of his Majesty's Government were in this respect: but this he would venture to state, that if an appeal should be made to the sense of the people, it would be found that there was a staunch Protestant constituency in the country, who were prepared to protect the Church, and who would not allow its revenues to be handed over to others. The appeal, therefore, to which the hon. Member had alluded, if it were to be made, might not respond so much to the opinions which had been declared by a majority of that House as he seemed to anticipate. If the noble Lord should succeed on this occasion in overthrowing the Government, he might not find it so easy to reconstruct and manage another as he imagined. He would soon be called on by his new supporters to make another alteration in the Protestant Church. Those who now carried him on triumphantly, would, before long, insist on a further reform in the Church Establishment. He asked, did the noble Lord indeed trust in the support of his allies at that side of the House? He gave those hon. Members
856
credit for being honest in the avowal of their principles, and he was convinced they would not go with the noble Lord in a middle course. He was convinced they would, under all circumstances, advocate the principles which they advocated at present. If the noble Lord were to join a new Government, he must be content to go with the stream, and he must go much faster than he went at present, or than he, perhaps, might at any time wish to go. He was one of those who had conscientiously opposed the emancipation of the Roman Catholics of Ireland—he had regarded the measure as impolitic. He, however, honoured the consistency of the Catholic advocates, while he had opposed himself to their claims; and now, acting on the same feeling, he was determined to protect the Protestant Church and to prevent its property being handed over to the Roman Catholics. He was unwilling that this Question should go to a vote without his stating, as the Representative of a large Protestant constituency, his honest opinion on the subject. If he were to refer to the opinions of an hon. Member, given some few years ago, now a noble and learned Lord, and at all times distinguished for his abilities and eloquence, he might almost in his words express his own feelings. Lord Plunket, in a speech delivered in 1824, said—"But speaking of it in a political point of view, he had no hesitation to state, that the existence of the Protestant Establishment was the great bond of union between the two countries; and, if ever that unfortunate moment should arrive, when they should rashly lay their hands on the property of the Church, to rob it of its rights, that moment they would seal the doom and terminate the connexion between the two countries."*
Mr. William Rochesaid, in reply to the quotation with which the noble Lord who had just sat down concluded his speech, importing that the Union of Great Britain and Ireland depended upon an union of their Churches, I beg to say that whether Lord Plunkett, whose sentiments he quoted, be right or wrong in that respect, there is another ingredient still more necessary in my opinion—namely, an union of hearts, arising from a sense of justice and good Government. Sir, I was unwilling to interfere in this debate, because
*Hansard, (New series) vol. xi., p. 574.

857
as an Irish Roman Catholic, I considered it to involve a subject which could be more satisfactorily and usefully advocated by Protestant good sense, good feeling, and justice; nor would I interpose now, were it not for some observations which incidentally fell from hon. Members during the course of the discussion, and which I conceive require to be set right. Sir, I understood an hon. Gentleman to say that there were three millions of the Irish people who could not speak or understand the English language, and, therefore, that it would be advisable to publish and circulate the Bible among them, in the Irish tongue. Such a project may perhaps be beneficial to the printer, but quite unwanted by the people, for so far from there being three millions so circumstanced, there are not one million, nay, nor I am sure, half-a-million. As a Magistrate in the south of Ireland, I have good opportunity for ascertaining, and I can accordingly say, that whether at Assizes, Quarter Sessions, or Petty Sessions, the aid of an Irish interpreter is now seldom or never required. Sir, I also heard it insinuated that the Catholic Clergy are desirous of sharing in Protestant Church revenue—so far from such a desire having any existence, I am sure that if the supposed boon were offered them, it would be, I may say, universally refused; for, Sir, the Catholics have seen that rendering a clergy too independent of their flock, is not the mode best calculated to make them active or ardent in the performance of their duties. Sir, an hon. Member has adverted to the policy of the Court of Rome in advocating an union of Church and State. Doubtless every Roman Catholic looks up to the Pope of Rome as the spiritual head of his Church; but, Sir, no British or Irish Catholic feels disposed to look to Rome or to Italy for any portion of its political creed. Permit me now, Sir, to briefly advert to the main Question under debate. I was one of those who, by my vote, contributed to, and was gratified by the result, of our late decision, founded, as I consider it to have been, on justice and judiciousness. Why, Sir, if it went forth to the Irish people, or, indeed, to any reflecting people, that be the number of Protestants what it may, whether one thousand or one million, the same staff and expenditure should be maintained, it would certainly and rapidly accelerate an already-growing impression (originating
858
very much. I believe, from previous clerical pertinacity) that Church Establishments are in their nature so inherently selfish, as never to yield, if possible, to any amelioration, or bend to any change of circumstances, but proceed, under all circumstances, in the same career of power and aggrandizement. Why, Sir, would it not be as consistent to say, that whether a regiment be composed of one hundred or a thousand men, it should possess the same amount of staff? It may, however, be replied, that it is expedient to continue the full staff, with a view of re-increasing the rank and file, but if it be found that after three centuries of experiment and experience, such expectation is utterly fruitless, would not common sense and justice dictate the reduction of the staff, till at least the rank and file really, not hypothetically, required its augmentation. Then, Sir, as regards the purpose to which it is intended that the proposed surplus of Irish Church revenue should be applied, namely, the education of all classes of the Irish people, what purpose ought to be more highly approved of by the Protestant clergy, or to what object ought they to make more willing, or greater sacrifices, if it be true, according to the opinion of over-ardent Protestants, that Catholicity is based upon ignorance, for then, according to such opinion, Catholicity must fade away before the light of education; and the force of mental enlightenment and Protestantism shine forth in opposing lustre. But, Sir, if the Catholics thus dreaded the influence of education and enlightenment, would they be anxious and solicitous as they are for the attainment of these objects to their people. No, Sir, the Catholics do not fear or deprecate, but ardently desire, the utmost scope of mental and moral improvement, for no religion emanating from God can fear the fullest enlightenment of the human mind; under which persuasion, the Catholics dread not, but, on the contrary, warmly desire the education and enlightenment of their people. Sir, it is, indeed, high time for the Protestant Church to commence to render itself less unamiable and obnoxious than it has hitherto been in Ireland, and to proceed in making some amends for the past, by promoting, for the future, the improvement, the peace, concord, and happiness of that country, as regards all its classes and denominations. Trusting, Sir, that the Resolution lately

859
adopted, and now reported to the House, is a prelude to those desirable results, it carries with it my cordial support.
Mr. Scarletthad great satisfaction in being able to state that his sentiments on this question were entirely in accordance with those expressed in a petition which he had had the honour to present from his constituents. This was not a mere question whether, by the disposal of an imaginary surplus for some undefined purposes, funds should be supplied for education, but whether, under that pretence, a confiscation of those funds should take place for the use of the Catholic priesthood. The declarations which had been made by many of the Roman Catho-Members during the Debate were at variance with the oaths which they had taken on their entrance to that House. They were told that it would be no impeachment of their consistency to go a certain length. It would, however, be a great impeachment of their prudence. Would they embark in a vessel that was manned and steered by their enemies? If they did so, they must expect to see the crew take her to an enemy's port, and would be very sorely suspected of connivance. He had as yet heard no good reasons stated why they should abandon the right and pursue the expedient. The noble Lord who brought forward the Motion said he saw no difference between appropriation and distribution. "If," said the noble Lord, any part of the property of a Dean and Chapter, or of a Bishopric, may be taken away and transferred to other church uses, there was no reason why it might not be transferred to a stranger." The right hon. Member for the town of Cambridge (Mr. Rice) endeavoured to support this view of the matter by reference to the times of Henry 8th, and by a proposition brought forward by Mr. Orde, the Secretary of State in Ireland, which, however, had never passed into a law. Henry 8th was not so weak or so foolish as to seize on the goods of the Church. He only took the goods of the monasteries. This, however, was a lay appropriation, and, as matter of right, under the circumstances reverted to the Crown. This was quite clear from the case of the Abbey of Kendal and others. Despotic tyrant as Henry was there was another despotism still worse, that of a majority, who, though differing in everything else, countenanced each other in a
860
spoliation which a king would be ashamed of. Tithes never belonged to the State. They consisted of private property given for the support of the Church. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) was spoken of as having disgraced himself by his conduct in relation to this question. So far from being a disgrace no man could do an act more gracious than to support the institutions of his country. Could they be the friends of the country who would expose their ancient mother the Church to spoliation? The proposition was supported on the ground of expediency. They were told it would produce peace in Ireland. If there was any hope that the Catholics could be conciliated that might be some inducement to violate a principle. But they were not warranted by experience in entertaining any such hope. Ireland could never be tranquillized but by justice. No man would go further than himself towards the attainment of that desirable object, if he saw some statesmanlike plan submitted to the House. This question was produced and discussed merely on party grounds, to turn out Ministers. They would not succeed. The Opposition had not the confidence of the country. They were already tried, and were condemned by the united voice of the country. When it was understood by the people at the last general election that the Church was to be defended, with what joy did they come forward at the call, and return a majority of Conservatives.
Mr. Ronaynesaid, the whole Question resolved itself into this—if the Protestants of Ireland were reduced to 600, in place of 600,000, must the Establishment remain the same? It was surprising how opinions altered with circumstances. In a debate upon the Irish Church in 1824 would be found recorded the name of James Scarlett, the father of the hon. Member who last addressed the House. On his side of the House no language had been made use of disrespectful to the Protestant clergy as was then made use of by that hon. Member. He wished he could say the same of the Gentlemen on the other side. So far from this, the Member for Cumberland (Sir James Graham), whose speech had been lauded to the skies by the Ministerial press, thought fit to insult the Roman Catholic people of Ireland by saying that an unmarried clergyman must be an unholy one. Such

861
an expression as that had never been used on his side of the House in reference to the clergy of the Established Church. Much had been said by hon. Members as to the alliance between the noble Lord who made this Motion and the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. Now there was a kind of alliance between the right hon. Baronet opposite and the noble Lord the member for Lancashire. Of that junction he had read in the English history an excellent illustration, and with permission he would read it to the House. It was in the third volume of Hume's history, and had reference to the Lord Stanley of that day. Just before the decisive battle of Warwick, "the Lord Stanley of that day" said Hume, "raised a powerful body of his friends and retainers in Cheshire and Lancashire, but without openly declaring himself, and though Henry had secret assurance of his friendly intentions, the armies of both sides knew not what to infer from his equivocal behaviour. The two rivals at last approached each other at Bosworth, near Leicester. Henry had 6,000 men, Richard's army was double that number, and a decisive action was every moment expected between them. Lord Stanley, who commanded 7,000 men took care to post himself at Atherstone, not far from the hostile camps (that was just below the gangway) and he made such a disposition as enabled him, on occasion, to join either party." The Lord Stanley of this day had not a tail of 7,000, nor could the Derby dilly contain them. He should not trespass further on the time of the House, he only begged them to remember that not to pass this Resolution would be tantamount to the declaration of war against the prosperity and peace of Ireland.
The Committee divided on the Resolution:—Ayes, 262; Noes, 237—Majority, 25.

List of the AYES.

Acheson, Viscount

Baring, Francis T.

Aglionby H. A.

Barclay, D.

Ainsworth, P.

Barclay, C.

Alston, Rowland

Barnard, E. G.

Angerstein, J.

Barry, G. S.

Anson, Sir George

Beauclerk, Major

Astley, Sir J.

Beaumont, T. W.

Bagshaw, John

Bellew, R. M.

Baines, Edward

Bellew, Sir P.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Belfast, Earl of

Bannerman, Alex.

Berkeley, Hon. C.

862

Bewes, T.

Fielden, J.

Biddulph, R.

Finn, W. F.

Bish, T.

Fitzsimon, C.

Blake, M.J.

Fitzsimon, N.

Blamire, W.

Fort, J.

Bodkin, John James

Fox, Lieut.-Colonel

Bowring, Dr.

Gaskell, D.

Brady, Dennis C.

Gisborne, T.

Brabazon, Sir W. J.

Gordon, R.

Bridgeman, H.

Grattan, H.

Brocklehurst, J.

Grattan, J.

Brodie, W.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Brotherton, J.

Grote, G.

Browne, Dominick

Grant, Rt. Hon. C.

Buller, Charles

Grey, Hon. C.

Buller, E.

Grey, Sir G.

Bulwer, E. G. E. L.

Guest, J. J.

Bulwer, H. L.

Gully, J.

Burton, H.

Hawes, B.

Butler, Hon. Pierce

Hall, Benjamin

Byng, Sir J.

Harvey, D. W.

Byng, G.

Hay, Colonel L.

Campbell, Sir J.

Hawkins, J. H.

Campbell, W. F.

Harland, W. C.

Carter, B.

Handley, H,

Cave, Otway

Heathcote, R. G.

Cavendish, Hon. G. H.

Heathcoat, J.

Cayley, E. S.

Hindley, C.

Chapman, M. L.

Hodges, T. L.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Hodges, T.

Clay, W.

Hoskins, K.

Clayton, Sir W. R.

Howard, P. H.

Clements, Visct.

Howick, Viscount

Clive, E. B.

Holland, Edward

Clive, Hon. R.

Hurst, R. H.

Cockerell, Sir C.

Hume, J.

Codrington, Sir E.

Hutt, W.

Collier, John

Jervis, John

Crawford, W.

Kennedy, J.

Crawford, W. S.

Kemp, T. R.

Crawley, S.

King, E. B.

Crompton, S.

Lambton, H.

Curteis, Herbert B.

Langton, W. G.

Curteis, Edward B.

Leader, J. T.

Dalmeny, Lord

Lefevre, C. S.

Denison, John E.

Lennard, T. B.

Dennistoun, Alex.

Littleton, Rt. Hn. E. J.

Dobbin, Leonard

Lister, E. C.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Long, W.

Dunlop, Colin

Lushington, Dr.

Dykes, F.

Lushington, C.

Ebrington, Visct.

Lynch, A. H.

Ellice, E.

Martin, T. B.

Elphinstone, Howard

Marshall, W.

Etwall, R.

Macleod, R.

Euston, Earl of

Macnamara, Major

Evans, George

Maher, J.

Evans, Colonel

Marjoribanks, S.

Ewart, W.

Marsland, H.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Maule, Hon. Fox

Fellowes, Hon. N.

Mangles, J.

Fergus, John

M'Cance, J.

Fergusson, Rt. Hon. C.

Methuen, P.

Ferguson, R.

Milton, Viscount

Ferguson, Sir R.

Mostyn, Hon. E. L.

French, F.

Moreton, Hon. A. H.

863

Molesworth, Sir W.

Ruthven, E. S.

M'Taggart, J.

Scholefield, J.

Murray, J. A.

Scott, J. W.

Mullins, F. W.

Scrope, G. P.

Nagle, Sir R.

Seale, Colonel

O'Brien, C.

Sharpe, General

O'Brien, W. S.

Sheil, R. L.

O'Connell, D.

Simeon, Sir R. G.

O'Connell, Morgan

Smith, B.

O'Connell, J.

Smith, J. A.

O'Connell, M. J.

Speirs, A. G.

O'Conneli, Maurice

Steuart, R.

O'Connor, Feargus

Stewart, P. M.

O'Dwyer, C.

Strutt, E.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Stuart, Lord D.

Oliphant, L.

Talbot, C. R. M.

O'Loghlen, Sergeant

Talbot, J. H.

Ord, W. H.

Tancred, H. W.

Ord, W.

Tennyson, Rt.Hon.C.

Oswald, R. A.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. P.

Oswald, J.

Thornely, T.

Paget, F.

Tracey, C. H.

Palmer, General

Trelawney, Sir W. L. S.

Parker, J.

Troubridge, Sir T.

Parnell, Sir H.

Tulk, C. A.

Parrott, J.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Pattison, J.

Vivian, J. H.

Pease, J.

Villiers, C. P.

Pelham, Hon. C. A. W.

Verney, Sir H.

Perrin, Sergeant

Vivian, C. C.

Pepys, Sir C. C.

Wakley, T.

Philips, G. R.

Walker, R.

Philips, M.

Walker, C. A.

Phillipps, C. M.

Wallace, R.

Ponsonby, Hon. J. G. B.

Warburton, H.

Ponsonby, W.

Ward, H. G.

Potter, R.

Winnington, Sir T.

Poulter, J. S.

Winnington, Captain

Power, J.

Wilson, Henry

Power, P.

Wood, Alderman

Price, Sir R.

Wyse, T.

Pryse, Pryse

Wigney, I. N.

Ramsbottom, J.

Williamson, Sir H.

Ramsden, J. C.

Williams, Sir J.

Rice, Rt. Hon. T. S.

Wilde, Sergeant

Roche, W.

Westenra, Colonel

Roche, D.

Westenra, Hon. H. R.

Roebuck, J. A.

Whalley, Sir S.

Rolfe, R. M.

White, S.

Ronayne, D.

Williams, W. A.

Rooper, J. Bonfoy

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Rundle, J.

Wilks, J.

Russell, Lord

Williams, W.

Russell, Lord John

TELLER.

Ruthven, E.

Wood, C.

PAIRED OFF.

Blunt, Sir Charles R.

Fitzgibbon, R. H.

Bowes, J.

Gillon, W. D.

Burdett, Sir Francis

Hector, C.

Burdon, W.W.

Heron, Sir R.

Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W.

Howard, E.

Chalmers, P.

Humphery, John

Conyngham, Lord A.

Morpeth, Viscount

Colborne, N. W. R.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Denison, W. J.

Pendarves, E. W.

Edwards Colonel

Pryme, G.

864

Speirs, A.

Talforud, T. N.

Stuart, Lord J.

Tooke, W.

Surrey, Earl of

Tynte, C. K. K.

Resolution agreed to. The House resumed.

SUPPLY.—NAVV ESTIMATES.
The House went into a Committee of Supply.
On the Question, that a sum not exceeding 118,547 l. be granted for the expense of his Majesty's Marine Establishment at home,
Sir Edward Codringtonwished to be informed whether Mr. Dawson had authority to use the Admiralty flag for election purposes, at the late election for Devonport? That the flag had been used, and that a salute had been fired in honour of it, was unquestionable. The Admiralty flag was never hoisted in that town on ordinary occasions, but in the arsenal itself. It was very important that it should be known whether the Secretary for the Admiralty could constitute himself into the Admiralty, and hoist the Admiralty flag. He felt very strongly, as a professional man, that it was most important that the Admiralty flag should not be made an improper use of.
Sir Henry Hardingebegged to ask the hon. and gallant Admiral, whether from his past experience he supposed that if in any instance an officer hoisted the Admiralty flag at an inn window, it would be saluted.
Sir Edward Codringtonbelieved, if the hon. and gallant General looked to the Naval Instructions, he would find that the Navy were bound to salute that flag.
Sir John Beresfordsaid, that if the gallant Admiral had ever hoisted his flag out of the window of an inn, he would have found that the Navy would never think of saluting it. However the fact might be, he was quite sure of this, that Mr. Dawson had never hoisted, he might say, as improper flags as other people.
Sir Edward Codringtoncould not allow the Question to be so slurred over, as a professional man he felt bound to express his sentiments on the subject. He had been greatly misrepresented. The question was asked whether Mr. Dawson had hoisted the Amiralty flag for election purposes. He wished to know this, and he wished also to ask, if the fact should prove to be so, whether Mr. Dawson had the authority of the Admiralty for the course he had pursued? He waited for a distinct answer.
Lord Ashleysaid the hon. and gallant Admiral must be perfectly aware that, he had no opportunity of giving him an answer to his question. He had risen twice for that purpose, but had been unable to gain a hearing. The hon. and gallant Admiral had had the kindness to mention to him, two or three hours before, that he intended to put the question. He had had, however, no opportunity of making himself acquainted with the subject, for he had not since been enabled to leave the House. He assured him that he would inquire into the case, and when he had been enabled to ascertain the truth, the gallant Admiral should receive the fullest information. Personally, he knew nothing whatever upon the subject, because during the whole period he had been engaged in Dorsetshire on his own business.
Sir Edward Codringtonhad merely waited for an answer. Had he known that it was the noble Lord's intention to make any reply to his question, he should not, of course, have hurried him. He thought it a very important point; and considering that the House was going to other business without any explanation having been given, he had felt it his duty to put the question. He had now to say, that he did not think such an answer as they had received at all satisfactory. The question had not arisen yesterday—it had been before the public mind for some time. "I say," (continued the hon. and gallant Member), "that yon ought to have come here prepared with an answer. I say so fearlessly—it is an important point. We are not to be trifled with; the Admiralty is not to be trifled with, nor is the Admiralty flag. I ask Sir James Graham, the Member for Cumberland.—well, then, I ask the right hon. Member for Cumberland, if he be in his place, I ask him whether, wheu he was first Lord of the Admiralty, and hoisted the Admiralty flag, it was not treated with every possible respect; and whether that respect was not paid to the Board of Admiralty composed of a certain number of Lords of the Admiralty and their Secretaries? I ask the right hon. Baronet whether, as Secretary for the Admiralty, going down into the country for electioneering purposes, he would have hoisted that flag for the purpose of procuring the degree of respect and influence in the election which belongs to the Admiralty? I repeat this as a very important point, and I say, moreover, that unless we
866
get some satisfactory information upon the subject, I shall feel it my duty to bring it specially before the House."
Sir George Greyobserved, that nothing was further from his wish than a desire to fight election battles over again in that House. He felt hound, however to corroborate the statement made by his hon. Colleague, having resided during the whole election within a few yards of the place from which for a period of three weeks, if he remembered light, the Admiralty Hair had hung out. He was unwilling to make any remarks on the subject, but sitting next his hon. Friend, and hearing his statement disputed, he felt bound to say that there was no doubt whatever of the fact. What the explanation might be, when the noble Lord came down prepared to make it, he knew not; but this he knew, that the fact certainly was as he had just represented it.
Mr. Fectorwas surprised at the soreness of the hon. Gentleman opposite on so trifling a point, when some of them, particularly the hon. Member for Sandwich had been returned by menus of the Admiralty influence.
Sir Thomas Troubridgereally did not understand the hon. Gentleman. Surely he did not allude to the last election!—surely the hon. Member did not mean to say, that he had been returned to that House at the last election by means of the influence of the Admiralty. He had had no such influence on his side, but every possible influence fair and unfair—fair and unfair, he repeated, and he wished the phrase to be so understood—was used against him by the Lord Warden and all parties concerned with him. He was surprised—perfectly astonished—at the charge which had just been made.
Mr. Barlow Hoyexpressed his opinion that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite could have been very little versed in contested elections, or he would have known that it was customary on such occasions to use flags of every description. He was prepared to maintain what he said. He had not only seen common flags in every-day-use, but even the Royal standard hoisted at elections; the fact was, that they were merely considered as ornaments. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite talked of misrepresentation. He did not think the charge came with a very good grace from that side of the House. The gallant Admiral himself had been pecu-

867
liarly unlucky in the charges he had brought forward. The House could not fail to remember several instances in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been singularly unfortunate. He recollected the fate of a charge which he brought against the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, relative to something that had been said two or three years before. He remembered, too, the fate of another charge—a very serious charge—brought forward by the gallant Admiral, which, when the facts were tried, could not be substantiated—he alluded to the case of Captain Dickenson. He could not help thinking that the gallant Admiral had been much more forward in making charges than was in his ability to substantiate. The instances of which he had reminded the House, would, perhaps, induce them to form a similar opinion.
An Hon. Memberrose to order. The debate was one of a personal nature, and and wholly unconnected with the Question before the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad stated, at a very early period of the evening, that the votes for which Government asked, connected with the Navy Estimates, were really indispensably necessary. He had received a letter from the Accountant of the Navy, the concluding paragraph of which he would take the liberty of reading, because in all probability many Gentlemen were then present who had not heard his previous statement. The Accountant said that many votes were extremely pressing, and, amongst the rest, the first payment of the wages of the artificers in his Majesty's dock and victualling yards would come due on the 10th inst., for which no supply had yet been granted. His noble Friend had promised to inquire into and answer the question relative to this circumstance with respect to the flag. It appeared to him that this question of the flag had perhaps been sufficiently discussed already; and he did submit that, considering the exigency of the public service, the matter had better be allowed to remain where it was at present.
Captain Berkeleyquite agreed with the right hon. Baronet, and he would therefore conclude with one plain and simple question relative to another subject. Had any person been appointed to supersede Sir George Cockburn on the Jamaica station?
Lord Ashleyreplied that Sir George
868
Cockburn's successor had been appointed, but had not yet gone out.
Sir Edward Codringtonhad not thought it necessary to notice the charges which the hon. Gentleman opposite had thought proper to bring against him, but as the hon. Gentleman had made an attack upon him, he begged to give notice that he would move for a return of the proceedings of the court-martial on Captain Dickenson. He really did not know what motive or what feeling could have induced the hon. Gentleman to bring such charges forward.
Mr. Humebegged to ask the noble Lord whether any Navy bills had been refused payment at the public offices in consequence of the Navy Estimates not having been passed?
Lord Ashleywas understood to reply, that in consequence of the Government having no money in hand at the close of the financial year, the Admiralty had withheld their authority for the payment of certain demands until the money necessary for the purpose was at their command.
Mr. Humesaid, it appeared to be very extraordinary that any Navy bills should be refused payment, and he considered the objection to paying them was a mere pretext for throwing blame on the Opposition side of the House for not allowing the Estimates to be passed; but the noble Lord knew perfectly well that no obstruction had been thrown in the way, but that every indulgence had been shown by the opposition to his Majesty's Government. It was not owing to him or his friends that the delay had taken place. The difficulty had arisen from the right hon. Baronet and those who acted with him in dissolving the late Parliament. The House was bound to notice the circumstance which the noble Lord had avowed, for this was the first time during the twenty years that he had been in Parliament that the public credit had been so dishonoured.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermust say that the delay which took place in consequence of the dissolution of the late Parliament was not the cause of the delay in passing the Estimates; the main cause was, that the Government, being limited in bringing forward votes of supply to two days in the week only—Monday and Friday—amendments had on each of those days been moved by hon. Gentlemen opposite, so that it was impossible to proceed with the supplies. Even on this very

869
night an hon. Gentleman had given notice of a motion for Friday next respecting some additional allowance to East-India Officers. But that was only in pursuance of the course which had been adopted during the whole of the present Parliament—a course which he thought very inconvenient to the public service. He would deny that the slightest attempt had been made to create a prejudice against the course taken by the hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House. Indeed an opportunity was taken the other night to state fairly what was the actual situation of the Government with respect to the Navy half-pay.
Mr. Laboucherewas anxious to ask the noble Lord whether he had any objection to mention what was the nature of the engagements which the Treasury had not discharged. He should hear with extreme regret that any Board of Admiralty would refuse to take upon itself the responsibility of preventing Navy Bills being dishonored, merely because a particular vote had not passed through a Committee of that House
Lord Ashleyhad great pleasure in answering his hon. Friend. Although the Admiralty had thought it right to delay the payment of certain accounts, yet it had not gone to the extent of dishonouring any bill. The Board having satisfied themselves that there was not any money in hand to meet the accounts delivered, they delayed drawing out the document which would be a warrant to the Treasurer of the Navy to pay those accounts.
Mr. Labouchere,under these circumstances, could not help expressing his regret that the noble Lord had not come down to the House, and stated distinctly that such an emergency existed. He was quite satisfied there would not have been the slightest obstruction placed in the way of a vote in order to meet the exigency. It was worthy of the consideration of Government, whether there should not be some new arrangement entered into, by which the financial year should be altered; because circumstances must often occur that would render it impossible for the House to pass the Estimates before the 1st of April.
Mr. Baringsaid, that it was rather a novel doctrine to hear advanced in that House, that the Government should be blamed for not paying money which had not been voted by the House of Commons
870
Hon. Gentlemen had spoken of this as a matter of complaint against the noble Lord (Ashley). The fact was, the Navy Estimates were introduced by his noble Friend on the 13th of last month; and if Hon. Gentlemen would look to the Order-book, they would find that night after night one hon. Gentleman got up after another to interpose some obstruction, and then having done this, they now came forward and made it a matter of accusation against the Government, because, forsooth, they had not paid money for which no vote had been passed. He hoped that the noble Lord would always be subject to that imputation. The hon. Member for Middlesex, and others, were speaking against time for two or three hours when these Estimates were brought in, and now they complained that the money was not expended which the House had not voted. It was the duty of Government to expose to the House of Commons what that sort, of conduct had led to. If he had been in the navy department he would not have expended one sixpence until the House showed to the country whether they would or not obstruct those supplies which they now said they never wished to refuse. Of all men in that House the hon. Member for Middlesex was the last who had any right to complain, he having, night after night, upon every vote retailed the same old story which for the last thirty years the House had heard with little or no novelty, and which left no doubt upon the mind of every one that it was expressly interposed for the purpose of delaying the Supplies. He could only remind the hon. Gentleman of the expression he used when the Government wished to go into Committee for a vote. The hon. Gentleman then exclaimed, "No more money to-night!" And this the hon. Gentleman did after taking up three or four hours of the night in making statements which nobody listened to, and which had no bearing on the Question bforee the House.
Mr. Humesaid, that if he had acted as the right hon. Gentleman had alleged, he should only have been acting with perfect consistency. The only time in which he had deviated from his usual course had been during the present Session; and more especially upon the Navy Estimates, when he did not occupy five minutes of the time of the House. It was on the Army Estimates that he made the state-

871
ment to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded; but as to the Navy Estimates he had only to appeal to the recollection of the House to show how utterly unfounded was the allegation of the right hon. Gentleman. The observations, therefore, of the right hon. Gentleman were inapplicable, because they were untrue. But he would appeal to the House whether the very moderate and temperate speech of the right hon. Gentleman was the best mode in which to carry these Estimates. If there was any thing calculated to interfere with the passing of these votes it was the speech of the right hon. Gentleman; and if it were not for the sake of the public service that, these Estimates should be carried, he could assure that right hon. Gentleman that he would, in all probability, have got just as much as he deserved, and that would have been not a farthing; and with respect to the cry—"No more money to-night!"—he begged to ask what it was o'clock at the time he uttered those words? It was one o'clock? and on the motion for another vote, his answer was, "No more money after midnight." This had been the rule of the House in former Sessions, and it had only been transgressed in order to oblige the Government. So much then for this story, got up by the right hon. Gentleman, from some old recollection floating on his mind as to something which had fallen from him. But as the right hon. Gentleman did not always recollect what fell from himself, it was not likely that he should have a better recollection of what fell from others.
Resolution agreed to.
On the Resolution that the sum of 361,713 l. be granted to defray the expense of Naval Stores, &c, for the building and repairs of ships, docks, wharfs, &c.
Sir Thomas Troubridgesaid, this was the most important vote of the whole Estimates, and required more discussion than it could now undergo. He must protest against the system which had gone on so many years of building new ships, and never using the ships we already possessed. It was an absurdity to keep up a naval force in order to cope with the whole world. It would be impossible to reduce the Estimates if they persisted in such a system. There were fifty or sixty vessels now building, while there were already too many ships in ordinary. He begged the House to give its attention to
872
this subject, and to insist upon the old ships not being suffered to rot for want of use, while new ones were constantly being built.
Lord Ashleysaid, that it was most important that there should be no delay in passing this vote. He could assure the hon. and gallant Officer that there were at present fewer ships in ordinary than ever there had been before. In 1793, the number of line-of-battle ships in ordinary was 141; at the present time there were only 120, while in the year 1821 there were 160. The number of shipwrights employed in the dockyards in 1793 was 3,184; in 1821, 4,300, while the number now was only 2,560. Of the shipwrights, the number employed in 1793, in constructing new ships, was 1027, while the number at present so employed was 785.
Mr. George F. Young,in allusion to a subject to which he had referred on a former evening, hoped that the noble Lord opposite would pledge himself that Government would not build any more ships upon Captain Symonds's plan, until it was first ascertained by actual experiment that the plan was a good one. He objected, too, to the expensive mode in which every new surveyor of the navy was permitted to new-model ships on any plan which he might choose to adopt. He hoped that a uniform and fixed plan might be adopted.
Sir James Grahamobserved that, as the hon. Gentleman wished for a categorical answer, he would give it. He was not prepared for the discussion, but he happened to have in his hand a letter which he had received that day from Captain Cosby, who was with the experimental fleet in the Mediterranean. The letter stated that the writer had great pleasure in saying that the experiment had been most successful. In a fleet consisting of several vessels, in which the Endymion was the fastest sailing frigate, every day there had been signals given for the rate of sailing for the fleet, either together or alone, and the Vernon (the vessel built on Captain Symonds's plan) astonished them all, as she walked away from the other vessels as if they had been merchant ships. The manner in which she left them behind was like magic.
Mr. Aaron Chapmanhoped that the Government would never forget that the Navy was the best defence of the empire.
Mr. George F. Youngsaid, that if he had been aware of this discussion, he would have produced statements directly in the teeth of that read by the right hon. Baronet. He understood that ships built upon that plan sailed well in smooth water, but that in a heavy sea they were very uneasy.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that from the Revolution downwards there never had been so few ships in ordinary as at the present moment; but it was impossible that new ships should not be built to replace those which, in the course of time decayed.
Sir Edward Codringtonapproved of Captain Symonds's plan, and denied that his ships did not sail well in a heavy sea.
Sir Thomas Troubridgehad one other question to ask—with regard to the Chaplains in the Navy. He understood that there were a great number of chaplains on half-pay who were anxious to get employment, but still that new chaplains had been put upon the establishment. He begged to know if this was the case?
Lord Ashleysaid, that the question came so seldom before him that he was not prepared to answer it: but there was a return moved for by the hon. Member for Middlesex, which would shortly be on the Table, and which would show the exact state of the case.
Vote agreed to.
On the Resolution that a sum not exceeding 98,550 l. be granted for the expense of ships for the convict service; and in answer to an observation by Mr. Hume,
Mr. Secretary Goulburnstated that the Government had exerted itself to reduce the number of convicts in the dock-yards, and the number was much less than it had been for several years.
Mr. George F. Youngremarked, that the understanding was, that convicts should not be employed in the dock-yards. The system, when formerly alluded to in the House, had been universally reprobated, and the right hon. Baronet, then First Lord of the Admiralty, promised that the system should be discontinued.
Sir James Grahamobserved, that he had stated last year, when the subject was alluded to, that the Admiralty had discontinued the employment of convicts at Sheerness and Woolwich, and it was determined to proceed in reducing the number employed in the other yards. Of
874
course it was inexpedient to send out those convicts to the Colonies who had served a portion of their time. In addition he would only observe, that he had not contemplated the entire abolition of convict labour, but that convicts should only be employed in that description of work which it was difficult to get labourers to perform.
Mr. Humeasked whether all persons who were now sentenced to be transported for seven years were sent out to the Colonies? It was an advantage to get rid of them, and their services would be valuable in the Colonies.
Mr. Secretary Goulburnreplied, that the number of convicts sent out last year was upwards of 6,000. This was a much larger number than had been sentenced during that period, consequently the number of convicts in the hulks and dock-yards had been reduced.
The vote was agreed to.
The House resumed.

MUTINY BILL.
The House resolved itself into Committee on the Mutiny Bill.
In answer to a question from an hon. Member,
Mr. Herriesstated, that the Commissioners who had been appointed to inquire into military punishments had not yet made any report; but they were proceeding in the inquiry with great care, and he had no doubt they would shortly make a satisfactory report. Of course the substitution of confinement for corporal punishment would come under their consideration, as indeed would the whole penal code for the army.
Mr. Humestated, that he was most anxious to get rid of the disgraceful punishment of Hogging in the army, but he feared he should not succeed in doing so until there was a great alteration made in the mode of reward in the army.
General Sharpebelieved that the soldiers would consider themselves much more degraded by being placed on the tread-mill with felons, than by being flogged. He believed that any soldier, with proper feeling would prefer the latter punishment to the former; and he was satisfied that the discipline of the army would be much better preserved by it, as well as the character of the soldiers.
Sir Edward Codringtonwas well aware however unpopular it might seem, that good soldiers were in favour of the continuance of the punishment. Something,

875
however, must be done, for much injury had been clone to the army by the late unhappy agitation of this Question. Some punishment must be settled. In consequence of the suspension of the flogging, men were in the habit of going away for three days at a time, and when they came back they were "built up," as it was called, which was that for a certain time they were confined. They would then go away again, finding that imprisonment was the only punishment. In this way was the condition of the army deteriorated. This system of imprisonment, too, lost the army—and the hon. Member for Middlesex would appreciate his regard to economy—the use of a man. The services of a man was worth 20 l., and it made the good man work harder. He wished some other punishment could be substituted.
Mr. Humereminded the gallant Admiral that it often happened that soldiers, after being flogged, were unable to move from their beds for several weeks.
Major Beauclerkstated that he was satisfied that nothing would raise the moral character of the English army so much as getting rid of the punishment of flogging.
Mr. Kennedytrusted that the attention of the proper authorities would be directed to the circumstance of soldiers wearing their side-arms. He had seen a few days ago a number of drunken soldiers, who drew their side-arms in the street, to the consternation of the passengers. The practice of allowing them to wear side-arms ought to be discontinued, as no advantage could arise from the custom, and much mischief might result from it.
Sir Henry Hardingewas convinced that there was no country in Europe in which the troops in garrison behaved better than they did in this country. He had no doubt the statement of the hon. Member was true, as he had stated that he saw the occurrence, but he (Sir Henry Hardinge) was greatly surprised at it. He should strongly oppose abolishing the custom of allowing the troops to wear their side-arms.
Mr. Lamfelt sorry to be obliged to state, that he had on that morning occasion to send a presentation of the Grand Jury of Middlesex to the Officers of a regiment in London, in consequence of a soldier, while in a state of intoxication, having drawn his side-arms and stabbed a person. He regretted that this was not a solitary instance which had
876
come under his cognizance of the danger that had resulted from allowing the soldiers to wear their side arms in the street.
Sir Henry Hardinge: After what hafallen from the hon. and learned Gentle man he begged to observe, that it had ever been the custom in the British service for the soldiers to carry their side-arms, and he should be extremely sorry to see the day when it ceased. He was extremely sorry to hear of the case which had been alluded to by the learned Recorder.
Mr. Humewas astonished at the observation of the right hon. and gallant Officer. Did he mean to say that a practice could be justified by which the soldier, instead of being the guardian of the public, became an aggressor? It was no justification of the practice that it had existed for centuries. He was not such an admirer of the wisdom of our ancestors as to approve of a custom, merely because it had long existed. In his opinion no good could result from allowing the soldiers the constant use of their side-arms, and a change ought at once to take place.
Mr. Lawremarked that the object he had in view in the observation he made was, not to impose any restraint on the discipline of the Army, but he thought that if the practice were continued the soldiers should be under the wholesome fear of sufficient punishment in cases where they made an improper use of their side-arms.
Sir Henry Hardingehad not the slightest objection to the most severe punishment being inflicted in such cases as had been alluded to; and he trusted that if any case came before the learned Recorder, that he would treat it accordingly. When a soldier so far forgot his duty as to act in the way described, it was impossible to condemn his conduct too severely. He, for one, would never consent to withholding their side-arms from the soldiers.
The Bill passed through Committee.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—On the Motion of the Earl of MULGRAVE, Bribery Witnesses' Indemnity.
Petitions presented. By Lord BROUGHAM, from eight Places, for Alterations in the Factories' Regulation Act; from Yorkshire, for a Modification of the Beer-Laws; from Bridgetown, for an Alteration of the Laws relating to Imprisonment for Debt; from Ardquir, against Tithes in Ireland.—By the same, and Viscount MELBOURNE, from several Congregations in Edinburgh, Glasgow, &c.—against any farther Grant of Money for Building Additional Churches in Scotland.—By the Earl of CARNARVON, from the Parishioners of Blagdon, for an Inquiry into the Sequestration of their Rectory.—By the Earl of RIPON, from Landed Proprietors in Canada, against any Alteration in the Constitution of that Colony.—By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from Irvine, against, and by the Duke of RICHMOND, from the same Place, in favour of Separating that Parish into Districts, or uniting part of it with the Neighbouring Parish of Dundonald.—By the Dukes of GORDON, ARGYLE, and RICHMOND, the Earl of RIPON, and Viscount MELVILLE, from a Number of Places,—for Additional Accommodation in Scotch Churches.

CHURCHES OF SCOTLAND AND ENGLAND.
Viscount Melbournepresented a Petition from the Inhabitants of Glasgow, declaring themselves opposed to the endowing of new Churches. The Petition stated that, taking into consideration all the Churches and Chapels in the place, there was at present ample accommodation. The petition was agreed to at a public meeting, and was signed by the Provost of Glasgow on behalf of the meeting. The meeting had been called by an advertisement that was signed by 340 persons, among whom were some of the principal merchants in Glasgow. The Provost was supported by several of the principal Ma-

829
gistrates of the city, and out of between 700 and 800 persons who were present, not more than fourteen or fifteen persons dissented from it. The noble Viscount also presented a petition, on the same subject, from the seceding congregation of Old Cross-street, Paisley. This latter petition contained some strong language respecting the Church, and urged the abolition of the Establishment. On this point he did not agree with the petitioners, though he felt bound in duty to present their petition. The petitioners stated that there was ample room for the accommodation of persons who were desirous of going to Church. He expressed himself opposed to the building of new Churches, unless absolutely required by the people. The noble Viscount also presented similar petitions from Auchtenmuchty, from Kirk-wall, and from St. Andrew's.
Petitions laid on the Table.
The Earl of Carnarvonpresented a petition from a curate, who complained that for some time past he had received no stipend. A sequestration had, some time ago, been issued against the profits of the rectory, and while that sequestration was in force, the petitioner was duly paid his stipend, but when it was set aside, no further stipend was paid. There was no blame whatever imputable to the Bishop of the diocese; it was the fault of the law that left the curate without a stipend; he hoped that the subject would receive the attention of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. There certainly was something in the law that required to be altered, for there was one instance where a man had paid tithes twice over. He believed that the administration of Church matters in the hands of the Prelates, was as pure and as unimpeachable as any administration whatever.
The Bishop of Bath and Wellsthanked the noble Earl for the fair and candid manner in which he had stated this case. Of the incumbent he should say nothing, for he could not say anything favourable. It was not in his power to do anything to relieve the curate; nor had it been in his power to enforce a payment of the stipend. He had made every sort of inquiry, and he believed that the incumbent had kept out of the way that he might not be laid hold of. He hoped that the law would be altered. He had done all that he could, but he could not go beyond the law.
Lord Broughampresented a petition
830
from Eastwood against the increase of Churches. He said that Eastwood had been mentioned by the Church Assembly as one of the places where a new Church was wanted, and the fact that this petition came from this place, proved that the example had been improperly quoted on the other side; for the petitioners stated that there was already ample accommodation.
Lord Kenyonsaid, that the fact of an objection made by a parish, was no proof that such accommodation was not wanted in it, for when the Church Building Commission was sitting, objections were made by some of the most populous parishes. One of these was the parish of Shoreditch. The objection, however, was not that there was not a want of accommodation, but that they did not wish to pay anything, and were, in fact, in support of the measure, or against it, according as they were friendly or unfriendly to the Church.
Lord Broughamsaid, that that might sometimes be so, but that even that was not conclusive against the present petition, for this petition was signed by the majority of the Churchmen of the place. The petitioners objected to the use of public money, which was raised from all persons whatever, and which was to be expended in building Churches, which were to be beneficial only to a part of them.
Lord Kenyonsaid, that they might be called Churchmen, but he believed persons were often called so merely because they did not belong to any other sect. He did not think that they were really much attached to the Church.
Lord Broughamsaid, that the observation reminded him of what he had told the noble Baron the other day, with reference to an observation of a similar kind, namely, that if it was not persecution, it did not look much like tolerance. The noble Baron was very sincere in his opinions, but it did not follow, because a man was sincere in his opinion, that, therefore, his opinion was the right one.
The Bishop of Londonwished to add, to what the noble Baron had said, one fact—that the Commissioners for building Churches, notwithstanding the objections made to them, as in the case referred to, did advance money for the building of new Churches, and that those Churches, from that time to the present, had been well filled. He should not quote an opinion of an English Bishop on this subject, but he should refer to that of an eminent

831
Scotch divine, namely, Dr. Chalmers, who had said that it was precisely because some people did not care to go to the labour and expense of increasing the accommodation in Churches, that the public ought to come forward for the purpose, for that the Church was the means of religiously educating, or, as Dr. Chalmers said, of christianizing the people; and it was the duty of the public to take care that ample means were afforded to produce that effect. He himself had no hesitation in saying, that whatever might be the remonstrances from some part of the people in Scotland, the rest of them were highly in favour of the recommendation which was contained in one part of his Most Gracious Majesty's Speech.
Lord Broughamsaid, that Eastwood was an instance that even one of the places especially selected by the Church Assembly, was not desirous of having any new Churches built, and that there was not any necessity for such an outlay of the public money. He was disposed to differ from the authority of Dr. Chalmers on the subject, and for this reason, that Dr. Chalmers was one of a small number of the Ecclesiastical body in Scotland who repined at the smallness of the endowments of the Scotch Church, and who, he should not say they envied, but that they looked with affection on the much larger endowments of the Anglican Church. Dr. Chalmers held opinions of that sort, but, happily, was in a decided minority of his Ecclesiastical brethren of Scotland.
The Bishop of Exeterwished to make one remark upon what had just fallen from the noble and learned Lord respecting Dr. Chalmers. That very learned and reverend Divine entertained the opinion just referred to, because he thought that the opulent endowment of the English Church, afforded the means of leisure, and thus gave a means of extending learning; and he said that that was highly beneficial, not only to the English Church, but to the Scotch Church, for that the Church of Scotland, as it were, lived upon the overflowings of the learning of the Church of England, as the opulence and station of the chief members of the Church of England enabled them to devote themselves so much to the cultivation of theological learning.
Lord Broughampresented another petition, and then said, that he protested
832
against the doctrine attributed to Dr. Chalmers, that the Scotch Church lived upon the superfluity of the learning of the Church of England. This was, indeed, a most fantastical theory. The fancy that the great endowments of the English Church made it have the effect of making the English Church so much more learned than the Scotch Church, was a great error, flowing from the very great admiration which Dr. Chalmers had of the more wealthy endowments of the English Church. That it was an error, no one could doubt who would look back through the two last centuries, where they would see quite as many eminent men—men of general celebrity—men whose names were celebrated throughout Europe for their learning—quite as many in the Scotch Church, in proportion to the number of its ministers, as in the more richly-endowed English Church.
Petitions laid on the Table.

THE MINISTRY.
Lord Wardrose and said: For the first time, and perhaps for the last, I now address your Lordships. I beg to know from his Majesty's Ministers whether they have advised an hon. Friend of mine, the member for Dudley, to present an address, from that place, to his Majesty, in favour of his Majesty's present Ministry? Am I to infer from the silence of the noble Lords opposite, that such is the case—that the hon. Member for Dudley has presented such an address to his Majesty? because, if he has, I feel myself called on to say that it is not founded in fact—that that address was got up at a hole-and-corner meeting—that it did not express the opinions of the people of the town of Dudley—that his Majesty has been deceived and cajoled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury; and I think it high time that his Majesty's confidence should be disabused, and that he should be informed that such are not the sentiments of my hon. Friend's constituents.
The Duke of Wellington: I understand that the noble Lord has inquired if any Members of his Majesty's Government, in this House, have advised the presentation to his Majesty of an address from the town of Dudley, in favour of his Majesty's present Ministers. In reply, I beg to assure the noble Lord, that I have no knowledge whatsoever of any such address.
Subject dropped.