Sitting of 7 July 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Reform of Parliament Act Amendment (Scotland).—Read a second time:—Contempt in Equity (Ireland); Lunatic Act Continuance.—Read a third time:—Soap Duties' Drawback.
Petitions presented. By Captain CURTEIS, from Guilford, Rye, and other Places, for the Commutation of Tithes.—By an HON. MEMBER, from Lachford, in Support of the Established Church (Ireland),—By Sir EARDLEY
278
WILMOT, from Warwick, for the more Speedy Trial of Persons charged with Small Felonies.—By Mr. HUME, from Cupar, against the Appointment of Colonel LINDSAY, to the Fife Militia.—By Sir EARDLEY WILMOT, and Mr. BINGHAM BARING, from several Places,—against parts of the Municipal Corporations'Bill.—By Mr. GROTE, from Oxford, in favour of the Municipal Corporations' Bill.—By Mr. HUME, from Brentford Political Union, in favour of the Ballot.—By Mr. HUME, and Captain CURTEIS from various Places, for the Repeal of the Duties on Newspapers.—By Mr. HUME, from the Stonehaven Society, for the Extension of Civil Liberty.—By Mr. BONHAM CARTER, from Portsea, for a less Expensive Mode of Ejecting Tenants; from Fareham, for the Repeal of the Additional Duties on Spirits.—By Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD, from Mr. Ross, for the Introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland; and from New Ross, for the Suppression of Orange Societies.

COUNTY CORONERS.
On the Motion of Mr. Cripps, the House resolved into a Committee on the County Coroners' Bill.
On the 6th Clause,
Mr. Curteisobjected to it on two grounds. In the first place, because it proposed to pay the Coroners out of the County-rates, and in the next place, because he considered that the sum proposed to be paid for mileage was too large. It was for these reasons that the former Bill was thrown out by the House of Lords.
Mr. Crippswished to correct the hon. Member when he stated, that the Bill was thrown out by the House of Lords in consequence of the payment to the Coroners. Now this was not the case. The fact was, that the House of Lords passed this Clause, but the Bill was subsequently thrown out by their Lordships, as every body must recollect, in consequence of objections which their Lordships entertained to allowing the Coroners' Courts to be open to the public. As to the amount charged for mileage in this Bill, it would be recollected that the Committee had divided upon this part of the Clause last year, and decided by a considerable majority that the amount charged was very reasonable.
Sir George Stricklandbelieved that Coroners were allowed 9d. each way by the Act of George 2nd; and although the Court of King's Bench had decided that they were only entitled to 9d. per mile one way, they continued to receive 9d. per mile each way. The object of the present Bill was merely to secure that allowance to them. When it was recollected that they were only allowed 1l. for every inquest, and that they were obliged to issue summonses, and go to a good deal of incidental expense, he thought the House would not consider 18 d. a mile too much.
Mr. Wilson Pattenregretted that some provisions were not introduced for dividing the counties, as in some cases there were

279
districts twenty miles in extent, and containing a population of several thousand inhabitants, without a Coroner.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause eight regulating the mode of election,
Mr. Crippsobserved, that he was quite aware that there were great objections to this Clause on the ground of its being the means of depriving a number of persons of their votes for the office of Coroner. In supporting this Clause, he did not wish it to be understood that he intended to oppose himself to the wishes of the House.
Mr. Jervissaid, that although he admired the principle of the Bill, he would sooner abandon it altogether than have the present Clause inserted in it. It would altogether abrogate the common law right of voting for Coroner, and substitute the Parliamentary right for it; but the hon. Member violated the common law right by substituting the Parliamentary one, and he violated the Parliamentary one by allowing Peers to vote. The Clause would most seriously alter the law, without the slightest necessity for the alteration; or without it having been shown that any difficulty had been found from the exercise of the law as it stood. He would vote against the Clause.
Sir John Wrottesleytrusted the hon. Gentleman would persevere in the Clause, which, in his opinion, was one of the best in the Bill.
Sir Matthew White Ridleythought, that the hon. Member was acting upon a wrong principle in bringing forward such a Clause as this, tending to take away the rights of the lower classes. The expenses of Coroners were very enormous; and yet, if the question were put to any Coroner throughout England, he would say he was ill paid. Still, however, men were to be found who, for the sake of distinction, or influence, or progress in their respective professions, were ready enough to become candidates; and in the choice of men to fill such office, why should any be excluded from voting, merely because he possessed a smaller amount of property than another man?
Mr. Warburtonsaid, if the hon Member intended to propose any Amendment upon this Clause, he should do so at once. He was decidedly opposed to the limitation of the election to eight hours, because it would have the effect of making the struggle more violent between the parties, whose object would then be to try who could first get possession of the polling place, and bring up the greatest numbers on their own side
280
to keep possession, to the exclusion of the other party, and, therefore, nothing could be apprehended from such a regulation but the most disorderly and tumultuous proceedings.
Mr. Hardymoved as an Amendment, that every election of Coroner shall be by a majority of persons "resident" in the district at the time of the election, who shall be freeholders resident within the district, and also of all such persons resident within the said district who shall be possessed of an estate of land or tenements that shall entitle them to vote for Knights of the Shire, under the Reform Bill. He saw no objection to this principle.
Major Beauclerksaid, that he had voted for the Clause (in the Corporation Bill) for taking away the rights of freemen. He certainly had given that vote with much regret, but he was yet to learn that the vote was a wrong one. He voted upon the principle that a strong case had been made against the freemen; but he would not say that those who had come to an opposite opinion were not in the right. To the present Amendment he would give his warm support, and he hoped they would go back to the original principle of giving to every freeholder a right to vote.
Sir George Stricklandsaid, that he was inclined to extend the franchise as widely as possible. He thought that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bridport was very valuable. Who were the persons most interested in the election of Coroners? The poorest men in the county.
Sir John Wrottesleydid not object to giving the freeholders the right to vote for Coroners; but if the country was to be at the expense and trouble of a registry, it was surely most desirable to make it available for the purposes of this Bill; it was also desirable that the poll should take place in one day.
Mr. Crippshad some difficulty in knowing how to act in regard to the Clause. If the House thought that the Amendment would take away the difficulty, he would not oppose it. There was a difficulty in getting rid of those voters who had no right to vote at all. He agreed that, if possible, it was desirable to prevent all mob influence.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that he was glad to find that the hon. Member by whom the Bill had been introduced had himself seen the difficulty of the case. The object of the Committee should be to attend to the rights of the voters, and at the same time

281
to limit the number of days for polling. If limited to one day, he feared that tumult alone would carry the election. He believed the time was gone by when he should have proposed in the third Clause that the voting should take place in parishes, because if they wished to prevent tumult, they should subdivide the polling places. He would move, on the bringing up of the Report, that the Churchwardens do take the votes in the several parishes which would tend very much to diminish the expense of election.
Mr. Phillip Howardthought the Coroners would be much less independent, if the voting took place in parishes. It would throw the election into the hands of large proprietors, and totally destroy all freedom of election.
Mr. Cripps,previously to the Question being put, wished to state to the Committee if they objected to the original Clause, he had drawn up another, which he thought would obviate the difficulty—that Clause was to the effect, that all persons duly qualified to vote should have been in actual possession of lands and tenements in respect of which they were qualified, or should have been in possession of the rents and profits for six months previous to the election.
Mr. Warburtonproposed to omit the provision which recognised the right of Peers to vote.
Mr. Bainessaid, he could see many reasons why a Peer should not vote for a Member of Parliament, but none to prevent him from voting for a Coroner.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, if they had now the right, why give it them by the Bill?
Clause eight, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause eleven, which provides that Coroners' Inquests be an open Court, having been put, much discussion arose.
Mr. Warburtonobserved, that this Clause had been introduced in consequence of a Resolution adopted by the House two Sessions ago. There was nothing in this Clause which he objected to, until they came towards the close of it. Power was there given to the Crown "to order all persons to retire from the said Court, when, in the judgment of the said Coroner, the ends of public justice require the exclusion of such persons from the said Court." This power was subject to the approbation of the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, or the Secretary for the Home Department; but this restriction did not appear to him to be sufficient. It appeared that very
282
frequently in those cases, when the Court ought to be open, endeavours were made to exclude the public. He would not allude to any other instances than those of Manchester at the time of the unfortunate destruction of life there, and the late affair at Wolverhampton; for considering this investigation, though there was no loss of life, it was very much in the nature of a Coroner's Inquest. It was clearly a case of great excitation on the part of the people. The troops were called out, and there was contradictory evidence; and in order to quiet the public mind, it was very important that the Court should be open during the progress of investigation. Yet the individual deputed to take the examination, if it had been left to his judgment, would have excluded the public, and the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, was willing to confirm the decision of the officer so deputed, unless that House had interfered and induced the noble Lord to throw the Court open. The judgment of the officer himself, or of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, was not, therefore, sufficient, and he was desirous to limit the exclusion of the public to particular cases, in which the ends of justice would be defeated, if the public were not excluded. He would, therefore, propose as an Amendment, that after the words "public justice," the following words be inserted—"where the ends of public justice might be defeated by the escape of an accused party, or of a material witness, in case the Court was allowed to be open."
Mr. Poultersuggested, that after the words "in the judgment of the Coroner," the words, "and the Jury," should be introduced, as it would be important to have their approbation in case of the public being excluded.
Mr. Crippssaid, that he could not consent to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bridport. The Committee must be aware that the House of Commons was in favour of an open Court, and the other House in favour of a close Court; and in consequence of this difficulty the learned Attorney-General had framed the Clause as it now stood, and which had afterwards received the sanction of the noble Lord, then Lord Chancellor. Both these learned Gentlemen had said, that there could be no objection to this Clause; and, as it had received their sanction, he would not presume to alter it.
Mr. Macleanobjected to the introduction of the words "and the Jury," as it

283
might give rise to unseemly collisions between the Coroner and the Jury. The Coroner was the presiding officer, and to his decision he should be willing to leave the matter.
Sir S. Whalleythought that it would give the public additional protection if the approbation of the Jury were necessary before turning it into a close Court. He thought the Amendment would be satisfactory to the House.
Mr. Wilson Pattenthought that Juries who were casually summoned, and knew nothing about the case, would be very incompetent persons to decide upon the impropriety or fitness of excluding the public.
Mr. Macleanasked the hon. Member for Shaftesbury how he meant to manage, in case there was a difference of opinion between the Coroner and the Jury? The Coroner might wish to close the Court, and the Jury might wish to have it open?
Mr. Hardysaid, that there was much of plausibility in an open Court, but he thought that there was a great similarity between a Coroner's Jury and that of the Grand Inquest. They did not sit for the purpose of punishment, but of inquiry, and pending that inquiry no person was so fit a judge as the Coroner of whether the public should be excluded or not. All the mischief which they wished to avoid might be done if the Coroner were obliged publicly to state to the Jury his reasons for wishing to exclude the public, and therefore he was willing to leave the matter to the discretion of the Coroner. His acts would always take place in the presence of twelve witnesses, who would be afterwards enabled to give their opinions to the public (as there was nothing to prevent their doing so), in condemnation of the conduct of the Coroner, if they thought he had improperly excluded the public. He had known instances where criminals had escaped for the want of the inquiry being kept secret. He remembered, not long ago, a case of a most cruel murder, where the person who had actually committed it, was present at the time the inquiry before the Coroner took place, and finding the evidence likely to implicate him, took himself away and never was heard of afterwards. If on that occasion there had been a close Court, the probability was, that the criminal would have been brought to justice. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Members would withdraw their Amendments.
Mr. Jervisthought that all ancient practice showed that the Court of the Coroner ought to be open, reserving to the Coroner the power to dismiss from the place all those who acted against decorum.
Sir M. W. Ridleyconsidered that the Coroner's Court ought to be a close Court, as it bore the most strict analogy to the Grand Jury. He was decidedly of opinion that if the Coroner's Court were allowed to be open the ends of justice would be defeated.
Sir George Stricklandsaid, as an Englishman, he was of opinion that all Courts of Justice should be open; but he was of opinion that, under peculiar circumstances, the ends of justice might be defeated, if the Coroner had not the power of closing his Court when those circumstances arose. He was satisfied with the Clause as it stood.
Mr. Poulterdid not mean that the discussion upon whether the Court should be open or not should be public; that would defeat the very ends he had in view.
Mr. Palmerdid not see that any advantage would arise from inserting the word jurors, because the Coroner, who was usually a professional man, was to be supposed the best judge of whether the Court ought to be open or not.
Mr. Potterinstanced the case of a man who was executed at the last Assizes for Lancaster under peculiar circumstances. In the absence of his family he administered poison to a child. An Inquest was held before a Coroner who always kept his Court closed, and the verdict was "Accidental Death." The neighbours heard of that, and applied to the Magistrates who instituted an inquiry, and the man was afterwards found guilty.
Mr. Macleanobserved that the Coroner could not exclude strangers without alleging some reason for so doing to the Jury; and although the hon. Member for Shaftesbury contemplated two cases, that of an individual accused who might hear something that would lead to his escape from justice, yet he thought the statement of such a reason for closing the Court would be very unfair, and have the effect of prejudicing the Jury.
The Committee divided on Mr. Poulter's Amendment. Ayes 44; Noes 37; Majority 7.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H.

Alston, R.

285

Baines, E.

Potter, R.

Baldwin, Dr.

Ronayne, D.

Barnard, E. G.

Rundle, J.

Beauclerk, Major

Russell, Lord J.

Berkeley, F. F.

Sheldon, E. R. C.

Brotherton, J.

Strutt, E,

Collier, J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Curteis, Major

Thornley, T.

Elphinstone, H.

Trelawney, Sir W.

Ewart, W.

Villiers, F.

Fielden, J.

Wakley, T.

Harland, W.C

Warburton, H.

Hector, C. J.

Whalley, Sir S.

Hindley, C.

Williams, W. A.

Howard, P.

Wilmot, Sir J.

Jervis, F. G.

Wood, Ald.

Lennox, Lord G.

Wrightson, W. B.

Mangles J.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Maule, F.

Moystyn, Hon. E.

TELLER.

O'Connell,.J.

Poulter, J.

O'Connell, M.

Parrott, J.

PARIED OFF.

Pendarves, E. W.

Divett, E.

The House resumed, Committee to sit again.

CORPORATION OF TAMWORTH.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, he had been desired by the Corporation of Tamworth, the borough which he had the honour to represent, and holding as he did the situation of High-Steward in that Corporation, to present a Petition to the House, praying that the provisions of the Bill which the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had brought in might not be extended to that Corporation. If it had been charged with any abuse, or if there had been a general desire expressed on behalf of the inhabitants to have a change made in the constitution of that Corporation, he should have felt some hesitation in presenting the petition, but the most honourable testimony having been borne by the Commissioners who conducted the examination into the affairs of that Corporation, with respect to the conduct of the Corporate body, he hoped that the noble Lord would not object to except the town of Tamworth from the provisions of the Bill. The Corporation of the town was not so considerable as to justify the application of the Bill to it; and there were other towns which also sent Representatives to Parliament, having Corporations, to which the Bill did not apply. He begged leave to call the attention of the House to a short extract from the Report of the Commissioners with respect to the Corporation of Tamworth, and then he would appeal with confidence to any man whether it was possible to have received
286
more honourable testimony as to their complete integrity of character and conduct. The right hon. Baronet read the following extract:—"From the description which has been given to the constitution of the borough, it is obvious that the governing body is wholly self-elected. It does not appear, however, that the power thus vested in the body has been in any respect abused. The vacancies which have occurred from time to time have been filled up from among the most respectable inhabitants, without reference to party or to political opinions. Neither does it appear that the Corporation, either as regards the appointment of members of the body Corporate, or the exercise of the elective franchise, have been subject, to the operation of any undue local influence. It appears that the Magisterial duties have been discharged with intelligence and integrity. The circumstance of the Town-Clerk, a gentleman of intelligence and professional experience, instead of being merely the legal adviser of the Magistrates, being himself a Magistrate, and thereby sharing the responsibility of the Magisterial acts, appears to have been attended with beneficial effects. The Corporation afforded every facility to this investigation; they gave notice to the inhabitants of the holding of the inquiry, but no complaints were preferred, or matters suggested for investigation. The absence of all complaint, together with the evidence laid before me, leads me to conclude that the objects of Municipal Government have been satisfactorily attained in this borough; that the governing body have been judiciously selected, justice well administered, and the revenues carefully applied to public purposes." He submitted that if every other Corporation had received the same well-merited eulogium, there would have been no need for the introduction of the noble Lord's Bill. This was a matter in which he had no personal interest whatever, but he could not help stating that he did not believe either the cause of good government, or the satisfaction of the inhabitants generally, would be promoted by any change such as the present Bill would introduce in that Corporation, if, unfortunately, it should be applied to it. Had the Corporation been possessed of large revenues, there might have been a reason for change, which would countervail any disinclination on the part of the inhabitants, but he really did not see, as the matter was, that any public

287
object would be answered by it. The Corporation was free from all imaginary imputation. Party feeling undoubtedly had run high, and there had been several severe contests, but they never had allowed themselves to be influenced by electioneering or party considerations. He was afraid the House was now about to introduce a new element into the constitution of the governing body, which was not likely to work so satisfactorily as the noble Lord seemed to anticipate, With respect to the festivities of this Corporation, he might also state, although it had revenues and was not less hospitable than others, yet the members themselves had always paid their own expenses, without at all interfering with the borough funds. Under these circumstances, he did hope that the noble Lord would exclude Tamworth from the operation of the Bill. At the same time, if its provisions were to be extended to towns similarly situated, it was not probable that his Motion for a particular exception in favour of the borough of Tamworth would be attended with success.
Lord John Russellwas quite ready to admit the remarkable and honourable testimony which had been borne to the Corporation of Tamworth by the Commissioners in their Report; and if it had been general in favour of the Corporations, there would have been no necessity for introducing the present Bill: but as the Measure was general in its nature, while there was no reason to apprehend any evil to result from its introduction in the particular instance alluded to, it would be inconsistent with its leading policy to make individual exceptions.

TITHES AND CHURCH (IRELAND).
Lord Morpethbrought up and laid on the Table of the House a Bill for the Better Regulation of Ecclesiastical Revenues, and for the Moral and Religious Education of the People of Ireland; which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Monday next.
Sir Robert Peelrose and said: I wish to take this public opportunity of stating the course which I intend to pursue with respect to this Bill. It comprehends some enactments in the general policy of which I concur; it comprehends others to which I feel the most decided objection in point of principle. I concur in the policy of making some new arrangement with respect to the collection of tithe in Ireland; I con-
288
cur in the policy of substituting for the payment of tithe in kind, and also for composition for tithe, a rent charge, as provided by one part of the noble Lord's Bill. I disagree as to making that rent-charge perpetual. I disagree as to the omission of conversion and redemption of the rent-charge, and its conversion into land. But at the same time, in the present state of Ireland, and with my strong feeling of the policy of making some immediate arrangement in respect to the collection of tithe, I have, notwithstanding the decided objection which I feel to other parts of the Bill, a difficulty in giving a vote on the second reading, the effect of which, if successful, would probably be to preclude that arrangement with respect to the substitution of a rent-charge in lieu of tithe, in the general policy of which I concur; but I have no hesitation in saying that my objection to other parts of the Bill, particularly to the appropriation of Ecclesiastical property to other than Ecclesiastical purposes immediately in connexion with the interests of the Established Church, and my objection to the wholesale suppression of the spiritual charge of so many parishes in Ireland, are so strong that I cannot consent to purchase the benefit of the substitution of a rent-charge for tithe on the conditions which the noble Lord has annexed to the change. The course, therefore, which I mean to pursue is, that on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair for the purpose of enabling the House to go into Committee on this Bill, I shall move an instruction to that Committee, that the Bill introduced by the noble Lord be divided into two Bills. I do this for the express purpose of enabling those who may concur in the view I take to support that part of the combined Bill to which I am ready to give my assent; and I do it also for the express and avowed purpose of enabling myself and those with whom I act to reject altogether, if we can, that portion of the Bill from which I entirely disagree. By taking that course, I relieve myself from the difficulties which I must necessarily incur on my rejecting or attempting to reject the Bill as it now stands on its second reading. I should be affected by the opposition of those difficulties on many grounds, and amongst others by being obliged to manifest an apparent disposition to prevent some arrangement being made for that relief to the suffering clergy to which they are justly entitled. If I should succeed in my Motion, and if the instruction to the Commit-

289
tee be agreed to, I shall then have an opportunity of giving my assent to that part of the noble Lord's Bill of which I approve; but if that Motion be objected to, and if it be determined that the principles involved in the Bill shall not be separated, I shall have taken that mode of manifesting my decided objection to an appropriation of Ecclesiastical revenue to other than Ecclesiastical purposes, and to the suppression of the cure of souls in 868 parishes in Ireland. I should, I repeat, thus declare my sentiments as to these two principles, whilst I would give my assent to that by which the conversion of tithe or composition for tithe into a rent-charge was intended to be effected. The noble Lord may easily see, therefore, what course I mean to take on the second reading of the Bill. As I shall have an opportunity of fully explaining my views when I introduce my Motion for an instruction to the Committee, and as I do not wish to trouble the House with a double explanation of them, I shall move no amendments nor occupy at all the attention of the House by addressing them on the second reading. It would, therefore, be for the convenience of the House, and of all the parties concerned, if a fair notice were to be given by the noble Lord of the day on which he proposes the House should resolve itself into Committee for the consideration of the Irish Tithe Bill. I think it, therefore, probable (though I cannot, of course, answer for the other Members on this point) that there will be no lengthened discussion on the second reading, and, therefore, it is desirable that the noble Lord should tomorrow, or, at all events, on an early day in the week, give a public notice of the day on which he means that the House should go into Committee on the Irish Tithe Bill, and the Debate on the important question involved in the Bill should take place.
Lord John Russellsaid, I agree with the right hon. Baronet that some day should be fixed on which this Debate on the Irish Tithe Bill may be brought forward. I do not think, however, that my noble Friend, the Secretary for Ireland, can state tomorrow, or the day after, the precise day on which the discussion is to be taken. My noble Friend will move the second reading of the Irish Tithe Bill on Monday and in the course of the week I mean to propose that the Report on the Corporation Bill be brought up. On that occasion I should think there will be considerable dis-
290
cussion, but I do not anticipate that the third reading of the Bill will occupy much time. Immediately after the Corporation Bill is read a third time, my noble Friend will propose that the House should go into Committee on the Irish Church Bill. I fully agree with the right hon. Baronet that taking the view which he does of this question, and being disposed to deal with it in the manner which he has described, it is perfectly consistent with that view that he should not take the sense of the House on the second reading of the Bill. When the question comes before the House in the shape in which he proposes to introduce it—as an instruction to the Committee—I shall then be prepared to argue that it is absolutely necessary to insert some provision regulating the appropriation of Ecclesiastical revenues in any Bill with respect to tithes, and I shall likewise be disposed to contend that if that appropriation shall not be carried into effect by an Act of Parliament containing similar principles to those on which the measure just introduced by my noble Friend is founded, it is my conviction that so far from such a determination tending to the benefit of the Church of Ireland, it is not likely that any settlement of this great question will ever take place so beneficial to that Church as that which might result from the measure which we have now brought forward.
Sir Robert Peel: I don't mean to say a word more, or adduce a single argument in favour of my views on this subject. All I desire is, that it should be understood that it is my distinct object to take the sense of the House on the principles involved in the two parts of the Bill to which I have already alluded.
Mr. Shawsaid, that in the present position of the question he begged to say a few words to guard his conduct, and that of his friends with whom he acted, from misconstruction. He confessed that at first he had felt a great repugnance to allow even the first reading of the Bill without a division, such was his aversion to the principle which the bill contained, of appropriating Church property to secular purposes, and suppressing 860 parishes in Ireland. But under all the circumstances of the case, he was disposed to think the course proposed by his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel) the best. Considering the difficulties which had been interwoven with the tithe question in Ireland by four years of non-assertion of the law—the dexterous mixture of two distinct questions

291
in the present Bill by the Government, and also having regard to the opinion of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), expressed on the subject the night before, it would probably be more intelligible to the House and to the country, to move to divide the Bill in order that they might deal with that branch of it which related to the settlement of tithe property, and direct their undivided opposition against that which included the appropriation and suppression clauses. With regard even to the tithe part of the measure he had many objections to such parts as those which made large deductions from the clergy—the want of redemption—the making the clergy pensioners on the Crown, and their property payable to the Crown—and above all, in point of practical justice, opening agreements for composition which had been settled years ago, and when there was no possibility of having access to the evidence upon which they were established. Nevertheless he was ready to consider, and endeavour to improve, that part of the Bill which was for the adjustment of tithe property; while he should give his irreconcileable opposition to the other part, which had reference to the alienation of Church property. On the subject of appropriation he would mention a fact of which he thought the House generally was not aware, and the accurate particulars of which but recently came to his knowledge; it was, that the whole clerical income of the Irish Church, which had been rated by its opponents at 3,000,000 l. annually, did not exceed, after the noble Lord's deduction, 450,000 l., including the Bishops, as well as glebe-lands, ministers' money, every possible charge that could be brought into account; and could it be believed that, in the present impoverished, disturbed, and deserted state of Ireland, such a sum (a sum not much larger than was drawn away from it by a few absentees), should be grudged for the support of twelve resident noblemen, and above two thousand resident educated gentlemen scattered through that country. The whole Church revenues of Ireland, if curates were included, did not afford an average income of 200 l. a-year to each clergyman. If a better distribution of property were desired, to that he did not object; and at that moment unions were being dissolved under the existing law—pluralities had virtually ceased, as no faculty had been granted since 1829—and residence was every day increasing; but the truth was, the real motive of the pro-
292
moters of the present Bill—he did. not mean the Government, but those whose pressure from behind they could not withstand—was not that the Irish Church was, inefficient, but too efficient—not that it did too little, but too much; and he (Mr. Shaw) verily believed, as had been stated in some petitions he had presented the day before, that if the principle of the Bill was carried into operation, the poorer Protestants in the remote districts of Ireland must either apostatize or emigrate—must either forsake their religion or their country. With regard to the Irish clergy, he could only repeat what he had said before—that they were most anxious for a permanent and final settlement of their property, and they were most justly entitled to it, for they had suffered wrong with a meekness and moderation which no other body of men in the community would have shown under similar circumstances. But still they would never purchase temporary relief for themselves at the expense of the permanent interests of the Church, or for any personal advantage make unworthy concessions, detrimental to that body of which they considered themselves but as the trustees, In short they would, notwithstanding all their privations and sufferings, rather have no Tithe Bill, than one containing a provision to misappropriate Ecclesiastical property, and to destroy the Church establishment in nearly half the parishes in Ireland. He trusted that no person would so entirely misunderstand the course which in point of form it was thought best for the friends of the Church to adopt, as to consider that they had in the slightest degree mitigated their opposition to that most destructive principle.
Mr. Harveysupposed, that there would be some qualification, to the unqualified opposition threatened by the opposite side to the principle of appropriation. He presumed that they did not design to oppose the grant of the million first voted as a loan to the Irish clergy and Irish tithe payers. He had listened for an intimation of any such intention on their part; but he could hear nothing of it in any of the observations which had been made. However, that was not the object of his rising. It was to put a question to the noble Lord respecting certain returns of the defaulters in the matter of tithes, which he had moved for some time since. He wished to know whether these returns had been made, according to the order of the House, or whether they were in progress? It was im-

293
portant that the House should know on whom and to what purpose they had bestowed such a large sum of money, the produce of the toil of the English people, before they proceeded farther in the matter. He apprehended that it would be found the defaulters were not among the poor, whose tithe amounted to a few shillings, but among the rich, whose tithe amounted to several pounds. He believed that these returns would show that the poor tenant was not the defaulter in most instances; but the rich landlord. It was only right and just that the people of England should know the objects of their benevolence.
Lord Morpethsaid, that he was as anxious as the hon. Member that everything which could be known on the subject should be before the House; and that he should, therefore, make special inquiry on the subject of the question put by him.
The Bill was read a first time.

CORPORATION PROPERTY.
Mr. Charles Bullerwished to draw the attention of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) to the circumstance that several Corporations had lately proceeded to dispose of their property with a view to defeat the operation of the Corporation Reform measure.
Mr. Cayleyhad, on a previous occasion, called the noble Lord's attention to the subject just mentioned by the hon. Member for Liskeard, and he wished now to ask his noble Friend if any of the new Clauses would contain provisions with respect to this matter. In corroboration of the disposition of the old Corporations to alienate property, he had that morning received a letter from Yeovil, in Somersetshire, stating that the Corporation had lately advertised the whole of the landed property for sale;—property estimated at 25,000 l.; a practice they had never been used to, although they had been in the habit of letting out land on long leases. The letter also stated that parties lately returned from Weymouth to Yeovil had brought tidings of the Corporation of that borough having already sold part of the corporate property there. Surely these cases demanded immediate interference: and he hoped the noble Lord would provide a Clause to meet the case, and to render nugatory all bargains of this suspicious character.
Lord John Russell: The accounts I have lately received of this nature have been so numerous, that it will be quite necessary to introduce some Clause such as has been suggested by my hon. Friend.

COLONEL LYNDSAY.
Lord John Russellsaid, that as he understood a Petition had been presented to the House in his absence, complaining of the appointment of Lieutenant-Colonel Lyndsay to the command of the Fifeshire Militia, he should beg to say a word on the subject. He was ready, and fully prepared, to justify any recommendation to any appointment made by him at any time. But he thought that before he did so it was quite as well that those who forwarded the petition, as well as the hon. Members who presented and supported it, should be made aware of the law on the subject. The Militia law vested all appointments to the command of regiments in that service in the Lord-lieutenant of the county. The only provision which made that right of appointment not absolute was the necessity of a notification, on his part, to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, stating the fact and describing the individual appointed. If, within the space of fourteen days, the Secretary of State returned no answer, then the appointment was to be considered as final. In his (Lord John Russell's) view of the law the appointment was in the Lord-lieutenant solely—and it was merely for the Minister of the Crown to negative the introduction of any improper person into the command of the Militia. On the ground of unfitness alone, then, he could notify the disapprobation of the Crown. But he did not conceive that for motives purely personal, still less for motives connected with political opposition, the appointment of the Lord-lieutenant should be superseded. Yet these were the only grounds alleged against the appointment of Col. Lyndsay. Acting on that interpretation of the law, he had recommended to his Majesty to sanction the appointment made by the Earl of Rosslyn. He need scarcely assure the House that upon nothing less than very serious grounds was the disapprobation of the Crown to the appointment of the Lord-lieutenant ever signified, and it was never done upon political grounds. Of course there had been no notification made in the case adverse to the appointment of Colonel Lyndsay, and for the reasons he had stated, he felt entitled to deny that in the appointment of Militia Officers the same degree of responsibility attached to the Secretary of State as if he had directly counselled the appointment He felt it necessary to say these few words in the way of explanation, as there had been a good deal of misrepresentation on the subject.
Sir Robert Peelhad had the honour of being one of his Majesty's Secretaries of State—Secretary for the Home Department—for many years; and he felt bound to state to the House that during that period he had put the same construction on the Militia Law, as respected the matter of the petition, as had been put on it by the noble Lord opposite. He never should have thought of setting aside the recommendation of Lords-lieutenants of counties to Military Commissions, however contrary those who recommended, or those who were recommended, were to him in political feeling and opinion. He was convinced the noble Lord acted rightly; and he was also convinced that he acted in entire accordance with the spirit of the law. He believed the spirit of the law to be the design of depriving the Crown of the power of negativing the appointments of Lords-lieutenants of counties on the ground of political disagreement alone. With respect to the appointment in question he could only say, that any one who knew the characters of Lord Rosslyn and Colonel Lyndsay would be fully satisfied that the former would not recommend an improper person to such a high situation, and that the latter was as honourable a Gentleman as existed; and, moreover, as well fitted as any one in the kingdom for the office.
The subject dropped.

CORPORATIONS.—(MR. HOGG'S PROTEST.).
Mr. Lechmere Charltonobserved that as the hon. Member for Huddersfield was now present, the noble Lord would, perhaps, allow him to trespass, upon the attention of the House for a few moments. It was well known that the Report of one of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the Municipal Corporations had not been laid on the Table of the House. Mr. Hogg, the individual in question, finding that he differed from his brother Commissioners on the subject, sent a Report to the noble Secretary of State, which the noble Lord, however, declaring that it was personal and irrelevant, declined to receive. He had reason to think, that it was neither personal nor irrelevant. On the Report of the Commissioners, the so-named important Municipal Corporations Bill was founded; and yet it appeared that the opinions of two of the Commissioners were not in conformity with those of the other Commissioners. From their statements, it appeared that much of the evidence in favour of the existing Corporations
296
had been kept back. In his opinion, the least that the House could do, before they consented to a measure which was calculated to derange social order, to invade the prerogatives of the Crown, to violate the rights and privileges of—
The Attorney-Generalrose to order. There was no question before the House.
The Speakerobserved that the question before the House was to read the Order of the Day for going into a Committee on the Municipal Corporations Bill, for the purpose of postponing it. It was not usual on such occasions to raise a discussion on another question; and the effect of the introduction of extraneous matter must be the defeat of those hon. Gentlemen who had notices on the books of the House.
Mr. Charltonsaid, that to remove all objections in point of order, he would conclude by asking if the noble Lord had received Mr. Hogg's protest on the subject of the Corporation Report and if he would lay it on the Table.
Lord John Russellanswered, that he had received as he had told the House some days ago, a paper from Mr. Hogg, which that Gentleman had first called a report, and had then called a protest. Containing, as it did, only general observations, he did not conceive that it was his duty to receive it, and of course he could not lay it on the Table.
Mr. Blackburneobserved, that if Mr. Hogg had chosen to send in his Reports with respect to the places which he had been appointed to visit, they would have been published in the Report of the Commissioners. There was no disposition to suppress anything. If he had done that he, would have done what the other Commissioners had done, and what it was his duty as a Commissioner to do. Mr. Hogg had sent nothing whatever but Reports respecting two places, which Reports were published in the Report of the Commissioners. He (Mr. Blackburne) felt himself personally to blame for the appointment of Mr. Hogg as a Commissioner. He had especially recommended him to the noble Lord to whom the formation of the Commission devolved. He was sorry to say that he no longer entertained the opinion of Mr. Hogg, which he entertained at that period; and he could assure the House that that change of opinion was not occasioned by Mr. Hogg's thinking differently from him on this subject. By the terms of the Commission, any three or more of the Commissioners were entitled to make a report to his Majesty

297
on the subject for which the Commission was appointed; but no single Commissioner was entitled to do so. If Mr. Hogg had sent in his Reports to the Commissioners he (Mr. Blackburne) would have taken care that they should have been laid before the Board. As the head Commissioner, he had pressed Mr. Hogg to send in such Reports. He had so pressed Mr. Hogg until the last two months; when circumstances, which he had rather not detail, had induced him to determine that he would have no further communication with that gentleman. He had had no further communication with him rather than renew it he would resign his situation tomorrow.
Mr. Lechmere Charltonrepeated that he only wished to have the opinions of Mr. Hogg, as well as those of his fellow Commissioners, especially as they totally differed.
Mr. Blackburnesaid, that Mr. Hogg's duty was to have sent in his reports, accompanied with the evidence on which they were founded. He had done so, however, only in two cases. If he chose to send them in they should all be published.
Mr. Charltonexpressed his satisfaction with the explanation and promise of the hon. Member; and the subject dropped.

NEW COLONY—SOUTH AUSTRALIA.
Mr. C. Villierssaid, that seeing the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Hull (Mr. Hutt) in his place, he (Mr. Villiers) wished to ask him, as one of the Commissioners appointed by the Crown to carry the Act of Parliament for establishing a new colony in South Australia into execution, whether any, and what steps had been taken with regard to effecting the object of that Commission? He asked this question, at the instance of many persons interested in the formation of this new colony.
Mr. Huttwas happy to give the hon. Gentleman such information as it was in his power to do on this interesting subject. As soon as the Commission was issued by the Crown, the gentlemen named in it directed their earnest attention to the object, with a view to carry into effect the provisions of the Act under which they were appointed. However easy or simple that task might appear, the Commissioners had found it surrounded with considerable difficulties. They had, however, overcome those difficulties, and had printed and circulated widely, a paper, the result of their labours, in which were set forth the rules and regulations by which the new colony
298
of South Australia was to be governed. By these rules and regulations the Commissioners had endeavoured to prevent that dispersion of persons which had been too much the case in former colonies. He was anxious to set the Commissioners right with the public on one other point. This Commission had been described out of doors as being a mere job. He denied this; and to shew that it was no job, he begged to inform the House that the Gentlemen who were now appointed Commissioners to carry the Act into effect, were the identical persons intended to be appointed by the Government of which the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel) was the head. With respect to the Commissioners themselves, he could only say that they had undertaken a duty considerable responsibility—that of carrying into effect a measure of great public good; and they would endeavour to obtain that reward which they hoped would not be withheld from them—the public approbation.
Mr. Mackinnonsaid, that as his name was connected with the Commission in question, he was desirous of saying one word. He felt extremely anxious to do his duty to the best of his power; but it would be upon a clear and distinct understanding that he would never receive any reward or compensation whatever for any duties that he might perform. It was unnecessary for him to say more than that; generally speaking, he concurred with the hon. Gentleman, the member for Hull, in what he had stated; and that he believed the object they had in view in that part of the world to which the Commission related, would ultimately be attained. How long it might be before South Australia should become such a colony as it was desirable to make it, he could not possibly say; but that it would eventually be successful, he did not hesitate to declare as his decided opinion.

MEETING AT DUNGANNON.
Colonel Vernerrose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the case of Mr. Harpur and others, against whom informations had been sworn, for attending a meeting called by the Lieutenant of the county of Tyrone, at Dungannon, in December last, and for which they had been bound over to take their trial at the next assizes. In bringing forward this subject, the hon. Member contended, that the meeting in question was, if at all a violation of the

299
Processions' Act, much less so than the procession which attended the present Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, when he made his public entry into Dublin. He had received a Letter on the subject, which, with the permission of the House, he should read, for it put the case in a clear and, as he conceived, an unanswerable point of view:—
"As Grand Master of Tyrone, I feel called upon, in consequence of the interpretation which Lord Melbourne gave to the debate upon Lord Mulgrave's processional entry into Dublin, to request, on the behalf of Mr. Harpur, one of your constituents, and others, members of the Orange institution, that you will, in your place in parliament, ascertain from the Home Secretary (Lord John Russell, I believe), or from the Attorney-General for Ireland, whether their interpretation of the act agrees with that of the Prime Minister.
"This is of no slight importance to us, whose personal liberty, and property, to a certain extent, are involved in the reply. The late administration, though we were known to be amongst its most zealous supporters, felt it to be their duty to institute prosecutions against some of us for a breach of the procession act, in attending the call of the Lord-lieutenant of the county of Tyrone (of which county, as well as of Armagh, Mr. Harpur is a freeholder) to address the King in support of his prerogative. The meeting took place upon no anniversary, and was connected with no political event. This prosecution still hangs over them, and they are bound over to stand their trials at the next assizes. You will perceive how strong our case is. We were regularly convened by a lawful authority, while the Dublin assemblage originated with the processionists themselves, without any legal sanction, unless the letter of the Lord-lieutenant's State Steward (I think he styles himself), stating the hour at which his Excellency would join them, can be reckoned such.
"I further beg leave to add, that I witnessed the procession, headed by Lord Mulgrave, into Dublin, which was called a procession of the Trades' Union, but which I assert was one of revolution, for, independent of standards with the harp without the crown, and 'Erin go bragh,' 'Repeal of the Union,' the cap of liberty upon a pole, with the word 'Liberty' placed on it, each member carried a long white rod, with the tri-colour floating from its end—viz. red, white, and green ribbons; and although the streets were lined with military, and the police apparently on the alert, some ruffian was permitted to place the tri-colours in the hand of the statue of King William, in College-green.
"As friends and constituents, a slight apology for the trouble we impose upon you would, we know, be accepted; but we feel certain that you will readily undertake this matter for the sake of the public, to whom it
300
is of the Utmost importance that it should be distinctly understood to What party and what occasions the law applies; whether an orange or a purple flag is within the act, while a green or a white one is without it? Whether a jury is to be called to investigate the tendency of a Protestant fife, while a priest with his piper behind him, may head a mob unmolested?"
There could be no doubt that if a riot had taken place at the Dublin procession, the parties would have been liable to all the penalties of the statute regarding processions, and he saw no reason why parties engaged in one meeting should be prosecuted, and those in the other allowed to escape with impunity.
The hon. Member was proceeding when the House was counted out.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord BROUGHAM, from Manchester, against Stamp Duties on Newspapers.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from the Magistrates of Warwick, Complaining of the Expense of Prosecutions.—By the Earl of KINNOUL, from Kincardine and Auchtergavan, for Protection to the Established Church (Scotland).—By the Duke of NEWCASTLE, from Boroughbridge, for Protection to the Protestant Church (Ireland).