Sitting of 8 April 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Marine Mutiny: and Mutiny.
Petitions presented. By Sir E. KNATCHBULL, from Chatham, against a Petition presented on the 19th of March.—By Mr. POULTER, Sir ANDREW AGNEW, and Mr. Sergeant JACKSON, from several Places,—for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. TYNTE, from Wellington, Somerset, against giving to Doctors' Commons alone the Power of granting Probates and Administrations.—By Mr. RICHAHDS, from Manchester, against the Imprisonment for Debt Bill.—By Mr. PEASE, from two Places, against Drunkenness.—By Mr. M. PHILIPS, from the Dissent,

975
of Liverpool, for the Discontinuance of the Regium Donum.—By Dr. BOWRING, from Irvine, against any Grant of Money for Building Churches.—By Lord JAMBS STEWART, from Irvine, against the Imprisonment for Debt Bill.—By Mr. POTTER, from two Catholic Congregations, against the Dissenters' Marriage Bill, and by Mr. M. PHILIPS, from the Dissenters of Manchester to the same effect.—By Lord JAMES STEWART, from the Handloom Weavers of Ayr, for a Board of Trade.—By Sir CHARLES LEMON, Messrs. NORTH, DYKES, and BLAMIRE, from six Places,—against the Duty on Spirit Licences.—By Lord JAMES STEWART, Mr. STEWART MACKENZIE, and another HON. MEMBER, from several Places,—in Support of the Church of Scotland.—By General SHARPE, from Annan, against any Grant of Money for Building Churches.

CANTERBURY ELECTION.
Mr. Charles Bullersaid, he had two Petitions to present from the city of Canterbury, one in reference to the interference of the clergy in the late Election there, and another complaining of the decision of the Select Committee in the case of the late Member for that city—Mr. Villiers. The first petition was similar to that which had a short time since been presented by the late Member, Mr. Villiers, to the House. The statements contained in that former petition had been contradicted by the right hon. Baronet (Sir E. Knatchbull), and the right hon. Baronet had asserted on a former occasion, that if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Villiers) were himself then a Member of the House, he would admit that they were unfounded. It appeared, however, from the present petition, that the electors and inhabitants of Canterbury were still of opinion that those statements were perfectly correct. The petition was signed by 1,044 inhabitants of that city, who prayed that the House would appoint a Committee to inquire into the truth of those statements. He did not suppose that the House would appoint a Committee to inquire into an individual case of the kind, there being nothing so common or notorious all over the kingdom as the interference of clergy at Elections. If they inquired into one case of the kind, they would have to inquire into similar cases of improper interference on the part of the clergy at every Election throughout the kingdom where there was a liberal candidate to oppose. The interference of the clergy at Canterbury, the petitioners stated, was not merely confined to canvassing before the Election, but they had since the Election had recourse to a species of intimidation disgraceful to any set of men that adopted it, but more especially disgraceful to the ministers of religion. It was stated in the petition that the day after the Election a rev. Archdeacon discharged his butcher, because he voted according to his conscience; that another
976
dignitary of the Church had paid off his grocer on the same ground; and that a rev. Canon had gone round through his tradesmen, and had carried the system of exclusive dealing to a frightful extent. The petitioners specified the names of the reverend Mr. Peel, reverend Mr. Crowther, Archdeacon Croft, and the reverend Mr Morgan as the clergymen who had been active in thus interfering. They prayed the House to adopt the only remedy in their opinion for such practices—namely, the Vote by Ballot. The people of Canterbury, he thought, had a just right to complain as they did that the clergy of that city had abused the wealth left to them for pious purposes, and, instead of devoting it to the purposes of religion, had in this manner devoted it to the purposes of a political faction. The fact was, that the city of Canterbury rang with complaints in regard to the conduct of the clergy there at the last Election. But Canterbury was not singular in that respect, for in almost every city and borough throughout the country clergymen had been not only the most active canvassers, but the most unscrupulous agents for the Tory candidates. He believed that on all sides of the House such conduct on the part of clergymen was considered indecent and improper. There was scarcely a part of the country in which the parsons had not opposed themselves to everything in the shape of civil and religious liberty. In his own borough he was bound to say that he had the good fortune not to have been opposed by the clergymen. He trusted that petitions like that which he now presented would make an impression on the clergy, and induce them to pursue a different course. They had, no doubt, a right to exercise the franchise granted to them, but they should exercise it in a manner becoming Christian ministers. He would call the attention of the House to a handbill which had been just put into his hands, and which he understood had been circulated in Canterbury. It was a printed handbill calling upon the citizens to meet to "resist the attempts made by Papists and Infidels in that House to destroy the Established Church of the country." He hoped that the clergy would see that the Church was in danger, not from Papists and Infidels, but from the folly and violence of its own members. He was sure that these proceedings in Canterbury would excite the disgust of every right-thinking man in the community.
Mr. Winthrop Praedcomplained that the

977
hon. Member on presenting a petition had taken the opportunity to make a most unmerited attack on a most deserving body of men. The hon. Member had said, that there was not a single borough in the country in which clergymen of the Church of England had not been distinguished for their interference in Elections. Now, he would beg to tell him that the instances of interference in any respect blameable on the part of the clergy, had not been more numerous, in proportion to the number of that body, than those of any other class of the community. As the clergy were not allowed to sit in that House, they had a right to express their political opinions in a proper manner, as he contended they had done in a majority of cases. The hon. Gentleman had made an exception of his own borough in his general charge against the clergy of interference. He could furnish the hon. Gentleman with another exception, that of the borough which he represented. The first person that he canvassed for that borough was the minister, a relation of his own, and a member of a high Tory family. In writing to that Gentleman on the subject, he had staled that he did not ask for interference in the Election, and the clergyman, taking that to be an intimation that it was not necessary to vote for him, had, at the request of the opposite candidate, actually remained neuter.
Mr. Charles Bullersaid, he had now to present a petition from the city of Canterbury, complaining of the decision of the Election Committee lately appointed to inquire into the Election for that city. The petitioners prayed that so mischievous a decision might not be drawn into a precedent, which would be alike destructive to the rights of the petitioners and of the elective body in general; they also prayed that a new, more competent, and more satisfactory tribunal might be constituted for the decision of controverted Election cases. They complained that the Election Committees of that House were frequently influenced by political bias, and were oftentimes most incompetent to decide the points of Election Law laid before them. The hon. Member called the attention of the House to the extreme hardship to which the petitioners had been subjected by the incomplete decision come to by the Committee. One bad effect of it was, that the country was led to entertain the opinion (he did not mean to say a correct one) that political bias influenced Members in deciding in such cases. He would just mention
978
to the House a remarkable statement that had been forwarded to him from Canterbury. It set forth, that as soon as the names of the Committee were known there, Mr. Lushington's deputy-chairman put them up in his window, marked with the letters "C." and "R." Conservatives and Reformers—and that so sure an indication was this considered of what the decision of the Committee would be, that preparations were actually made beforehand by that party to celebrate their triumph.
An hon. Member, who had been one of the Members of the Canterbury Election Committee, stated that their decision had been an unanimous one; he had seen nothing of political bias amongst them, and for himself, he could answer that he had been influenced by none. He knew what an oath was, and he had acted in accordance with principle and common sense.
Mr. Charles Bullerhad not impugned the decision of the Committee. He had only stated the opinion of the petitioners.
Mr. Stephen R. Lushingtonsaid, the hon. Member had called the decision of the Committee an unlawful one. Now, he would maintain that never was there one more in accordance with the evidence adduced. The validity of the return was the first thing for the Committee to decide. And what were the circumstances of the case? Eight votes tendered for him (Mr. Lushington) were rejected by the Sheriff, because the names of the parties were mis-spelt in the register, though they were perfectly good votes, and there was no doubt as to the identity of the persons. Mr. Villiers had thus a majority of two over him. The Committee, acting upon all former precedents, first proceeded to decide whether the return was true or false. They decided that it was false, and by adding those votes to the poll he had a majority. So far from the petitioners having any ground of complaint, he (Mr. Lushington) was the party that ought to complain, having been deprived by the returning officer of his right for two months and a half. The right hon. Member was understood to say that the allegations in the petition with reference to the conduct of the clergy were totally unfounded.
Mr. Spring Ricedeprecated such a discussion as this. If indeed they were prepared to abandon the Grenville Act, they might then discuss matters of this kind, but as long as Election Committees were authorized by law to decide on those cases, their decision should not be called in ques-

979
tion in that House. It was true that in many cases Committees might make mistakes, but it was better that the law should stand as it was at present, than that that House should undertake to revise their decisions. At the same time it was open to petitioners to call the attention of the House to any wrong construction that a Committee might put upon the existing law, and to do so, not by attacking the Committee, but by asking the House for a declaratory law on the point. He recollected, in an Election case of his own, his right hon. Friend now in the Chair of that House presenting a petition from him, not throwing any discredit on the Committee, but asking the House for an amendment of the law.
Sir Edward Knatchbullhad been anticipated by his right hon. Friend in what he had intended to say. The inconvenience of presenting petitions of this nature to the House, when the period allowed for petitioning against the return for Canterbury had not as yet expired. On the presentation of the former petition, he had assured the House that the allegation that the reverend Mr. Peel, the brother of the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer had interfered in the Election was unfounded. He now held in his hand a county paper, in which was advertised a letter from the individual who it had been alleged had been applied to by the right reverend Gentleman, in which the writer stated distinctly that the reverend Mr. Peel did not apply to him for his vote, and that neither intimidation nor anything else had been employed to induce him to vote for Mr. Lushington. The hon. Member should have inquired into the matter before he made the statement he did.
An hon. Membersaid, that if the Canterbury Committee had gone into the whole case, the grossest bribery would have been proved against the supporters of the hon. Member Mr. Lushington.
Lord Sandonmust call the hon. Member to order. The case had been decided before the Committee, and the House was not now to discuss what would be proved before it. Was that House to become an arena where all elections were finally to be tried? The Grenville Act was thought to be the greatest step ever made towards rescuing the House from scenes so disgraceful to its character and dignity, but hon. Gentlemen opposite would now seek to draw the House through, the mire of con-
980
troverted Election politics. If the decision of an Election Committee under the Grenville Act had any thing in it that could be complained of, there was a court of appeal for the purpose.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, that the question was not yet decided. His hon. friend (Mr. Buller) had moved for the minutes of the Committee, and the question as to their decision would be on a future day brought before the House.
Mr. Charles Bullersaid, he had not at all impugned the motives of the Committee in coming to the decision that they did, he had merely stated the opinion on that point of the people of Canterbury. He would maintain, however, that the decision of the Committee, constituted a mischievous precedent. They should not have decided the return alone—they should have decided both the return and the election. He had, he confessed, no respect for the Grenville Act. It appeared to him one of the most stupid Acts that had ever been passed, and he should like to see it greatly altered. He would follow up the presentation of this petition by moving on a future day that no Election Committee should have the power in future of deciding on one part of the case without going into the whole of it.
Petition laid on the Table.

RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer: It was his intention, to move that the Mutiny Bill should be read a third time, and in making that Motion, he wished to avail himself of the opportunity which it afforded him of notifying to the House that he, in conjunction with all his colleagues in his Majesty's Government, and in conformity with their unanimous opinion, had felt it incumbent upon them, upon a combined consideration of the vote to which the House of Commons had come last night, and of their position as a Government in that House, to signify to his Majesty, that they felt it to be their duty to place the offices which they held at the disposal of the King. He did not hesitate to say, that they had taken this course with the utmost reluctance, and not without the deepest conviction of its necessity. They felt, that being in possession of the entire confidence of the King, and having received from his Majesty the most cordial and unremitting support—looking to the present position of public affairs, to the present state of political parties—looking

981
to the strength, not only the numerical, but the moral strength, of that great party by which they had had the honour of being supported, they felt it was their duty, under existing circumstances, to continue the attempt of administering public affairs, as the responsible advisers of the Crown, to the latest moment that was consistent with the interests of the public service, and with the honour and character of public men. [Cheers.] When he did not hesitate to avow the reluctance, with which they had tendered their resignation, he believed he should have credit with a great majority of the House of Commons [much cheering from both sides of the House], that that reluctance arose from public considerations alone [renewed cheering], and was wholly unconnected with everything of a personal nature. ["Hear, hear.!" and much cheering, particularly from the Opposition.] He had a strong impression, that when a public man at a crisis of great importance undertook the public trust of administering the affairs of this country, he incurred an obligation to persevere in the Administration of those affairs as long as it was possible for him to do so consistently with his honour. ["Hear, hear!"] No indifference to public life, no disgust with the labours which it imposed, no personal mortifications, no deference to private feeling, could sanction a public man in withdrawing on light grounds, from the post in which the confidence of his Sovereign had placed him. [Much cheering.] But at the same time, there was an evil in exhibiting to the country a want on the part of the Government of that support in the House of Commons which could enable it satisfactorily to conduct the public affairs—which could enable it to exercise a control over the proceedings of the House—a legitimate and necessary control conferred upon it by the possession of confidence. ["Hear, hear."] There was an evil in such an exhibition of weakness to which limits must be placed; and he must say, reviewing all that had occurred since the commencement of the present Session—looking to the little progress the Government had been able to make in the public business of the country—looking at what had occurred on each of the last four nights—to the fact that Ministers had had the misfortune, on each of four successive nights, to be left in a minority—on Thursday last, on
982
Friday last, on Monday last, and last, night—considering that that minority was smaller in relation to the majority than the minorities in which they had been at the commencement of the Session—adverting also to the fact that they had received the support of those who, not having a general and unlimited confidence in the Government, yet had given to the Government a cordial and honourable support [cheers] on every occasion on which it was consistent with their public principles to give it—adverting to all these considerations, he must say, that, in his opinion, the time was come when it was incumbent on the Ministers of the Crown to withdraw from the responsibility which office, under such circumstances, imposed upon them. In addition to these considerations were the nature and consequences of the vote of last night. That vote, he conceived, implied a want of confidence in his Majesty's Government, because, in his opinion, it was not necessary for any public purpose to come to that vote. ["Hear, hear!"] It was tantamount to a declaration on the part of the House, that it had not that confidence in his Majesty's Government which entitled that Government to submit to the consideration of the House the measures of which they had given notice. The noble Lord had signified his intention, if the vote to which the House came last night did not lead to the result to which it had now led, to follow it up with an Address to the Crown, conveying to his Majesty the Resolution respecting the Irish Church, which the House had affirmed. As he conceived that embarrassment to the public interests would arise from the presentation of that Address, and as he had no right to assume that the House would take a view with respect to the policy of that Address different from the view which it had taken with respect to the Resolution, it did appear to him and to his colleagues (whose views were in exact conformity with his own) that a public duty was imposed upon them, particularly since they felt that the time was fast approaching when resignation was inevitable—not to persevere in a fruitless struggle, which might involve his Majesty, public men, and the country, in additional and unnecessary embarrassment. [Much cheering.] The vote of last night was not only tantamount to a declaration of a want of confidence in the Government, but implying, as it did, the necessity of a total

983
change of system in Ireland, so far as the Church revenues were concerned, it would impose such difficulties in the practical administration of Government in Ireland, by parties opposed to the principle of the vote, that they were fairly entitled to decline a responsibility which others were bound to incur. The vote of last night was not an abstract Resolution; the vote of last night was not one the practical execution of which could lie dormant. There might occasionally be points on which the House of Commons might express a different opinion from that of the Government: there might be cases in which it would be possible for Government to continue the conduct of public affairs, even in opposition to the House of Commons upon questions involving mere abstract principles, admitting of delay in their practical application; but the House of Commons could not leave the tithe question in its present state. ["Hear, hear!"] At present laws were nominally in force, but were actually disregarded. Nothing could be more dangerous than to leave the law in its present state,—to habituate the people to the daily violation of it,—to exhibit to them, a state of things in which those who were charged with the enforcement of law connived at its non-execution. It was not merely that the particular law would lose its authority; but the fatal example would extend to all laws, particularly to laws confirming and enforcing the rights of property. [Cheers.] Under these circumstances, it would have been the duty of the Members of his Majesty's Government, if they had continued in the Administration, to have pressed for an immediate decision with respect to the law as to the recovery of tithes in Ireland. The Tithe Bill of which they had given notice they could not have proceeded with, without previously proposing the Resolution for the remission of the claims upon the Irish clergy, on account of the repayment of the advances under the Million Act. He had no right to anticipate a different conclusion from that to which the House had already come—he could not anticipate that they would sanction the grant of a million without a distinct understanding that the Irish Tithe Bill was to be framed upon the principle of the vote of last night; and under these circumstances, having no reason to apprehend that a delay of a few days would make any material difference in the position of the Government—consi-
984
dering that it was impossible to permit the vote of last night to lie dormant,—that the Government must proceed with the Tithe Bill, being firmly resolved to adhere to the principle of their own Bill ["hear, hear;"] being firmly re-resolved, not to adopt the principle of the vote of last night ["hear, hear;"] under all these combined considerations, they had, as he had said before, felt it to be their duty, as public men invested with a public trust, respectfully to request his Majesty to permit them to restore that trust into the hands of his Majesty. They, therefore, now only held their offices provisionally, and for the temporary execution of public business, until his Majesty shall have made other arrangements for the conduct of the Government. Under these circumstances, he should submit to the House, that, perhaps, the best course he could propose would be, that there should be a short adjournment. It would not be necessary that the adjournment should extend beyond Monday; and he should make the Motion for an adjournment at once, had it not been that there was an election Committee for which a ballot was appointed for to-morrow. Perhaps the House would feel that any discussion on public matters, in the present state of affairs, could not be proceeded with to any advantage. He had not the slightest hesitation in supposing, from the forbearance which the House had always shown on similar occasions, that the Motion would be unanimously agreed to; but lest any inconvenience should arise with respect to the Election Committee, the ballot for which stood for to-morrow, the House would perhaps meet to-morrow for the single purpose of that ballot, and when it was completed, adjourn till Monday. ["Hear, hear!" from both sides of the House.] The Motion also which he had now to make, and which he made merely in consideration of public interests—namely, the Motion for the third reading of the Mutiny Bill, he was quite sure would be cheerfully acquiesced in. ["Hear, hear!"]
He had been anxious to give this explanation as briefly as he could, and in a manner the least calculated to give offence, or to excite angry feelings. [Great cheering from all parts of the House.] For himself, the whole of his political life had been spent in the House of Commons—the remainder of it would be spent in

985
the House of Commons; and, whatever might be the conflicts of parties, he, for one, should always wish, whether in a Majority or in a Minority, to stand well with the House of Commons. [Immense cheering throughout the House, which continued for some minutes.] Under no circumstances whatever, under the pressure of no difficulties, under the influence of no temptation, would he ever advise the Crown to resign that great source of moral strength which consisted in a strict adherence to the practice, of the principles, to the spirit, to the letter of the Constitution. ["Hear, hear!"] He was confident that in that adherence would be found the surest safeguard against any impending or eventual danger, and it was because he entertained that belief that he, in conformity with the opinions of his colleagues, considered that a Government ought not to persist in carrying on public affairs, after the sense of the House had been fully and deliberately expressed in opposition to the decided opinion of a majority of the House of Commons. It was because he had that conviction deeply rooted in his mind, that regretting, as he most deeply did regret, the necessity which had compelled him to abandon his Majesty's service at the present moment, yet upon the balance of public considerations, he felt that the course which he had now taken was more likely to sustain the character of public men, and to promote the permanent interests of the country, than if he had longer persevered in what he believed would have proved a fruitless attempt, to conduct as a Minister, the King's service, in defiance of that opposition which had hitherto obstructed the satisfactory progress of public business. [The right hon. Baronet, at the conclusion of his speech, was most enthusiastically cheered from all comers of the House for a considerable time.]
Lord John Russellsaid, he wished only to state that he was perfectly satisfied with the course which the right hon. Gentleman had proposed for the convenience of public business, and that he believed there would be no objection to the adjournment. He did not wish to make any comment on what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, except to express his opinion that the right hon. Gentleman had acted entirely in the spirit of the Constitution.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of GORDON, the Earl of ROSEBERY, and Lord SALTOUN, from several Places,—for Protection to the Church of Scotland.—By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from four Places, against any further Grant of Money for Building Churches.

DISSOLUTION OF THE MINISTRY.
The Duke of Wellingtonrose, and said, my Lords, circumstances having induced his Majesty's Government to consider it their duty to tender the resignations of their offices, they have tendered them, and I have therefore to announce to your Lordships, that they continue to hold them only until their successors shall be appointed. They will do this that the necessary business of the country may not be impeded. I should have announced this before, but that it was desirable, if the Mutiny Bill should be brought up from the other House of Parliament, that it should be read a first time. I therefore waited to see whether it was brought up, that I might move the first reading of the Bill. We shall continue, while we hold our offices, to carry forward such matters as the necessity of the public business may require.
Lord Broughamsaid, that even under the circumstances which had been stated by the noble Duke, there could not, he thought, be the slightest objection to the introduction of his Motion on Education. He should, therefore, bring it forward on Tuesday next, as their Lordships were not likely to be overburthened with business, because, with reference to that Motion, it was of no consequence who was in or out of office.