Sitting of 17 July 1835

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord ASHLEY, Messrs. E. ELLICE, LENNARD, and R. TREVOR, from Coventry, Lincoln, and other Places, against Parts of the Municipal Corporations' Bill.—By Colonel LEITH HAY, from Montrose and Elgin, in favour of the Royal Burghs' (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. SANFORD, from Chard, for the Repeal of the Duty on Newspaper Stamps.—By Mr. WALLACE, from Colliers in Renfrewshire, against the present mode of calculating Wages; from Greenock, for the Repeal of the Duty on Newspaper Stamps.—By Captain WEMYSS, from Leslie, in favour of the Church of Ireland Bill.—By Mr. HENRY MARYLAND, from Stockport, for Mitigating the Sentence on the Dorchester Labourers.—By Captain GORDON, from Members of the University of Aberdeen, against the Aberdeen Universities' Bill.—By Mr. Sergeant JACKSON, from Kilbrogen and Binny, against the Church of Ireland Bill.—By Sir W. MOLESWORTH, from St. Austell's, for the Suppression of Drunkenness.—By the same and Mr. GOULBURN, from several Places,—against any Alteration in the Timber Duties.—By Sir M. W. RIDLEY, from the Medical and Surgical Society of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, against the County Coroners' Bill.

BERKHAMSTEAD SCHOOL.
Mr. Thomas Duncombepresented a Petition from the reverend Thomas Dupre, master of the grammar-school at Berkhamstead, in Hertfordshire, complaining of a false and most unjust and slanderous attack made upon his character in a petition some time ago presented to that House by the
690
noble Lord, the Member for Hertfordshire. That of which the reverend gentleman had to complain was not confined to the petition, for in the Standard newspaper of the day following the presentation of the petition, there appeared an article commenting in terms of great severity upon the conduct imputed to Dr. Dupre by the petitioners, in which the writer accused him not only of neglecting his duties as a clergyman, but also of neglecting the duties which ought to be performed by any one filling the situation of master of the school at Berkhamstead. The writer gave great praise to the noble Lord, not only for presenting the petition, but for doing so with energy and effect; and the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Cambridge, likewise expressed his approbation of the petition for exposing the misconduct of a person so situated, and endeavouring to place the circumstances in such a point of view, as that the Church should stand aright before the public. Dr. Dupre also wished to stand right with the world, and, therefore, forwarded the present petition to the House. The former petition set forth, that from the year 1811 to 1833, he had never resided at Berkhamstead, but at a place called Willoughby, where he had another living. Now he was not inducted into Willoughby until the year 1815. From 1805 till 1815 he resided at Berkhamstead without the least interruption, nor did he ever leave that place for Willoughby, except during the short intervals that elapsed between the resignation of one curate of that parish and the appointment of another. The former petitioners also alleged that he and his usher were trustees of this school, that they had grossly abused the trust, and misapplied the funds. The fact was they could not have misapplied the funds, seeing that a receiver had long since been appointed by the Court of Chancery. The petitioner also denied the violation of agreement imputed to him, and affirmed, that he was at all times willing, and always had fulfilled the obligations imposed on him by the foundation. It had been charged against him that, altogether, there had been, since he came to Berkhamstead, an expenditure of 15,645 l., that the repairs of the school-house only amounted to 1,711 l., and that Dr. Dupre received for salary 5,933 l. Surely the House would agree with him, that putting the gross sum was not a fair and candid way of treating the matter; it was obviously an attempt to make it appear that the annual payment was 5,000 l. What

691
would any hon. or right hon. Gentlemen opposite think of a discussion on their pensions if they were always to be spoken of as having received the gross and not the annual sum? A further accusation brought against the petitioner was, that he had expended 2,700 l. in law costs. He certainly had somtimes been obliged, by legal means, to resist aggression, but in no case had the Court of Chancery awarded costs against him, which they would not have been backward in doing had he been guilty of the least impropriety, and let it not be forgotten that he was the defendant in every case. For these several reasons the petitioner prayed that the matter might be inquired into, and he pledged himself, as a gentleman, a clergyman, and a Christian, to substantiate the whole of his statements; he staked his character and reputation upon the result, and he prayed that the whole matter might be brought before that hon. House and the country at large.
Mr. Goulburnregretted that the reverend gentleman should have considered him as adverse, for he should rejoice in any opportunity that might be afforded him of setting himself right with his neighbours and the public in a matter of so much importance.
Mr. Wardsaid he had been requested to reaffirm the statements in the first petition, notwithstanding the statements of the reverend gentleman. The petition bore the signatures of men of all parties, including that of the rector of the parish.
Petition referred to the Select Committee on Charities.

DISTRESS IN IRELAND.
Mr. Sharman Crawfordpresented a Petition from the county of Mayo, complaining of the extreme distress of the population of the west coast of Ireland, and praying relief to prevent them from perishing, The petitioners alluded to the hardships of seeing their crops and cattle exported, while they were starving; stated that there were thousands without a morsel of daily food and scarcely a particle of raiment to cover them, and charged the landlords of the country with treating them, not as human beings, but as inferior creatures. The hon. Member said, that he had a further proof of the wretchedness of the people on the west coast of Ireland in letters which he had received that morning from that unhappy country. The first he should quote from was an answer by the reverend Mr. Hughes, parish Priest of Achill, one of the
692
islands on the Galway coast. It stated that some of his parishioners had actually died of starvation, and that he was afraid many others would follow them from the same cause. That hundreds would have perished in the same manner but for the hospitality and benevolence of the poor to the utterly destitute, and that the only means he had to obviate the fearful catastrophe which impended over the island was a trifling sum of about 20 l. subscribed in Dublin, Galway, and Mayo, and about ten tons of oatmeal. He further stated, that he had applied to the Irish Government for relief, but that the answer to his application was, that the Government was quite incompetent to afford relief. The next letter he (Mr. Crawford) should quote, was from the reverend Mr. Mason, parish Priest of another district. The words of it were, "The great bulk of the people are crushed to death with the weight of their misery. Even while I write the cries of starvation pierce my ear and my heart, knowing my utter inability to relieve it. Our streets are crowded by thousands of famished creatures pressing in from the country. Famine has made them well nigh desperate. Some of them say, that they will no longer respect the laws of society or the rights of property, as their dire distress is not attended to by those whose duty it is to relieve it; and they threaten that they will not die of hunger while they have strength left to take the means of satisfying it from those in whose possession they are. They are at the very height of misery; and I shudder to contemplate the results, if speedy relief be not afforded them. The most calamitous consequences may be expected in such a case." After these heart-rending statements, he (Mr. Crawford) would put it to the House whether relief, effective relief should not be immediate. He would not insult their humanity by supposing the possibility of its denial or refusal. He gave the Government credit for its anxiety to relieve the sufferers; but they should be prompt in its application if they had the power of bestowing it. If they had not, the House should furnish them with it. Session after Session the only effectual system of relief—Poor Laws—had been postponed; and, therefore, Parliament were bound to charge themselves with the temporary relief of the sufferers, who were in fact exposed to hardships, through its neglect or of its idea of expediency. He would at the very earliest opportunity, move an humble Address to his Majesty, to cause relief to be extended

693
to the starving poor of Ireland, and that he should direct his Parliament to supply the means thereof.
Lord Morpethsaid, that as the hon. Member had given notice of a Motion he should not raise any discussion on the subject. He should only observe that the attention of the Government, in the meanwhile should not be diverted from the most effectual means of affording that relief so earnestly prayed for and so greatly wanted.
Mr. Henry Grattanbore testimony to the willingness of the Irish Government to afford effectual relief to the suffering poor of Ireland; but he could not help thinking that no mode of relief would be found effectual which did not compel the residence of absentees, or substitute a portion of the expenditure of their estates in lieu of it. Two facts would prove it to the satisfaction of the House: on his own estate, and on that of the hon. Member for King's County, contiguous to it, there was not a single pauper, because he and that hon. Member resided among their tenantry.
Colonel Percevalagreed with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that absenteeism was a very great evil, but he must at the same time say, that until the country was brought into a state of some tranquillity, until agitation had ceased to prevail to its present most dangerous extent, it was impossible to expect that anybody who had the means of living elsewhere would consent to live in the greater part of that country. His hon. Friend knew that an English gentleman who had for some sixteen years retained extremely liberal opinions, had come to settle in the county of Meath, had brought a steward from Norfolk to superintend the agricultural improvements upon his property, and had authorized him to advance small sums of money to such of the tenants as needed such assistance. No man was more distinguished than that English gentleman for his opposition to what was falsely called the ascendancy party in Ireland—no man could have been more popularly liberal in his opinions; but how did all this end? In 1831 he presumed to give his election influence to Sir Marcus Somerville, a gentleman who, like himself, was remarkable for his extremely liberal principles, but who had nevertheless not found favour in the eyes of those who had brought in no small degree the representation of Ireland under their own control. In consequence of this gentleman's supporting Sir Marcus Somerville, who would not consent so be dictated
694
to by that gigantic power which had since been proved sufficiently great to control the Government itself, he was pointed at, and persecuted, and denounced. The steward that he had brought for the purpose of teaching his tenantry to improve their own condition was barbarously murdered. The steward and another man were fired at; the second person being supposed to be that liberal English gentleman who had displayed a disposition so kindly towards the Irish peasantry. The gentleman he alluded to was Mr. Hussey: he had no hesitation in declaring the name, and after hearing this statement, he would ask any gentleman if it was not absurd to suppose that people would settle in the country where conduct such as he had described was rewarded in such a manner? At this moment that gentleman could not go forth to receive his rents without himself carrying arms, and being accompanied by a friend also armed. The fact was, that so long as agitation was suffered to continue, it was idle to hope that there could be either prosperity or peace for miserable Ireland. He admitted once more, that absenteeism was a curse, but agitation was its primary cause, and until they removed the one, it would be impossible to deal with the other.
Mr. Robinsonthought it was idle to argue about effectual relief to the poor of Ireland, unless the House was prepared to apply a compulsory power to the estates of landlords for their support.
Mr. French, in reply to the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member, respecting the ascribing of the evils of Ireland to agitation, begged to remind him that misery and distress existed in it, and that absenteeism was their cause long before agitation was thought of.
Mr. O'Loughlinsaid, that the lion, and gallant Member for Sligo was misinformed respecting the attack on Mr. Hussey, and that he was under a mistake in attributing it to the part taken by that Gentleman on the Meath election. It arose from other causes.
Mr. H. Grattansaid, that his hon. Friend must have been aware that Mr. Hussey was about to turn out the man and his helpless family who fired at him.
Petition laid on the Table.
Lord John Russell moved the Order of the Day for the House to go into a Committee on the Municipal Corporation Reform Bill.

ORANGE SOCIETIES.
Mr. Humerose

695
and said—I wish to put a question to the noble Secretary for Ireland, whether he has received any account of the outrage which it appears by the newspapers was committed on the 12th July at Belfast? The following passage from an Irish paper will explain the nature of the transaction. [The hon. Member here read the quotation, according to which it appeared that the Riot Act had been read by a magistrate of the name of Skinner, in consequence of an illegal assembly of Orangemen; that the military had been called in; that they had been assailed with stones; that they ultimately fired upon the people, and that one young woman was killed and several other persons wounded.] I wish to know whether the Noble Lord is possessed of any corresponding information relative to this transaction?
Lord Morpeth: Accounts relative to that transaction have reached the hands of Government, and I regret to say, that it is but too true, that in consequence of riotous proceedings one young woman lost her life, and several other persons were wounded.
Mr. Hume: Although business of importance stands for this evening, I consider this as a matter of much greater consequence; and before I sit down I shall submit to the House the propriety of taking some measures to put an end to this system of excitement and outrage. I shall be able to show how evidence may be obtained, on which the House can act; and in doing so I shall only occupy a few minutes.
Lord John Russell: I have moved the Order of the Day for the Committee on the Corporations Bill: but if the hon. Member for Middlesex proposes to go into those transactions at Belfast, and into Orange Societies generally, I apprehend that others will be desirous of taking part in the discussion, and the delay will be much greater than he anticipates. If he persists, I might as well at once defer the further proceeding on the Municipal Corporations' Bill till next week.
Mr. Hume: I am as anxious to proceed with it as the Noble Lord, and if the House will only listen to the few words I have to say, the matter will be at an end. I deem the subject of so much importance that I am willing to hazard the delay of the Municipal Corporations Bill for a short time, while I direct the attention of the House to some recent events in that unfortunate country—Ireland. By reference to certain public papers we find that Orange Lodges nave been carried to a great extent there;
696
that they have been established in various regiments, and that as late as the 28th of April last two or more commissions—
Colonel Perceval: I rise to order; there is a Question before the House, to which what the hon. Member for Middlesex says has no reference. If he makes a motion without notice it will be my duty, and that of other Members to counteract his ex parte statements, and to repel his attacks; let him give a notice for a future day.
Mr. Hume: My object is not to raise a discussion now; if hon. Members will but hear what I have to say. A Committee has been sitting, appointed by the House to take evidence respecting Orange Societies, and I find from newspapers published in Dublin, as well as in London, that part of that evidence has been communicated by Members of the Committee. In an Orange newspaper of the 6th of July—
Mr. Wilson Patten: As Chairman of that Committee I protest against such an imputation.
The Speaker: The Question is, that the Order of the Day be read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Municipal Corporations' Bill, and I do not see how Orange Lodges can have any reference to that Motion.
Mr. Hume: I apprehend that it rests entirely with the discretion of the House and of the Members. I am perfectly in order, for I can move an amendment upon any motion, but it is not my wish to do so unnecessarily. I will move if I am obliged, but I wish to submit to the House whether it will not agree that the evidence taken before the Committee on Orange Associations should be laid upon the Table. When that is done, and when we have also the orders of the Commander-in-chief respecting Orange Lodges, for which I am to move in the course of the evening, the House will be in a condition to decide upon a subject of great importance. The question does not involve ordinary individuals; but, if I am correctly informed, it goes to imply that a person of the highest rank in the country has been guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours against the State. If the House is willing that the evidence should be produced, I will not say one word more now, but the moment it is upon the Table I will submit a Motion. I beg to ask the hon Chairman of the Committee whether the evidence is terminated, and whether it is in a condition to be laid before the House?
Mr. Wilson Patten: In reply, I beg to

697
say that the Committee did not meet this morning. When it does meet, I will obtain its opinion whether the evidence ought to be laid upon the Table. A great many witnesses have recently been summoned, and it may be doubted whether the inquiry can be closed in the present Session. I believe it to be the general opinion of the Committee, from the nature of the evidence, which has been brought forward somewhat in the shape of accusation and defence, that it would not be fit to communicate it to the House until it has been given fully on both sides. I may take this opportunity of saying that the Committee has witnessed with great regret communications made to newspapers in Ireland of the proceedings of the Committee. I have seen several statements totally the reverse of the truth: I have seen evidence in English papers also, extremely incorrectly given; but other representations of what has passed in the Committee are true: which are true, and which untrue, I am not authorized by the Committee to mention.
Mr. Finn, as a member of the Committee, thought that the part of the evidence relating to the army being complete in itself, might be laid upon the Table without detriment.
An Hon. Memberobjected to any such statements being made by a member of the Committee.
Mr. Finncontended that he was justified in offering his opinion.
The Speaker: It seems to me that no communication of facts should be made without the sanction of the Committee, but the hon. Chairman was quite in order when he informed the House of the extent to which the evidence had already gone. He did not refer to any particular head of evidence, but to the general course of examination.
Mr. Wilson Patten: At the next meeting, on Monday, I will take the sense of the Committee on the question whether any of the evidence ought to be laid before the House.
Mr. Hume: Then all I will now do is, to give notice that on Tuesday next I will move that the Select Committee on Orange Lodges be directed to report the evidence already taken as to the prevalence and extent of Orange Lodges in the Army at home and abroad, together with copies of any documents for which the Committee may have sent.

CORPOBATION REFORM—COMMITTEE.
The House resolved itself into Committee on the Municipal Corporation Reform Bill.
On Clause 62 being proposed,
Mr. Parrottwished to move an Amendment. This Clause gave the Council of every borough to which a separate Commission of the peace should be granted, power to grant alehouse licences. The Amendment which he wished to propose was to empower the Councils of boroughs not having a Commission of the peace, to grant licences to persons to keep inns, alehouses, and victualling houses in the same way as the Councils in the larger boroughs were empowered to do. He also thought it would be necessary to introduce a Clause specially to restrain the county Magistrates from granting licences in any of the boroughs. He therefore moved, that the words "to which a separate Commission of the peace shall have been granted" be omitted.
Mr. Grotesupported the proposition, which in his opinion would effect a material improvement in the Bill, and prevent jobbing and corrupt practices in reference to licences. The power of county Magistrates to grant licences in the smaller boroughs might easily be rendered subservient to improper purposes, and on that ground he supported the Amendment.
Lord John Russellsaid, that although he felt justified in proposing that the power of granting alehouse licences, which had been enjoyed by the county Magistrates ever since the time of Edward 6th, should be taken away in certain cases, yet he was not prepared to do so in all cases. He was of opinion that in the larger boroughs, those persons who would be chosen members of the Council would be of sufficient weight and consideration, and would have a sufficient degree of responsibility imposed on them, to allow of their exercising the power of granting licences without the intervention of the Magistrates; but he could not agree that the same argument held good with respect to the members of the Council in the smaller boroughs. He had endeavoured to carry the improved principal as far as it was proper; but he was not disposed to give any great powers to the Councils of small and insignificant towns. He thought it would be better to leave these towns under the jurisdiction of the county Magistrates. He, therefore, begged his hon. Friend not to persist in the Amendment he had now proposed.
Mr. Aglionbyregretted that the noble

699
Lord should oppose the Amendment, because he was sure that by so doing the noble Lord would not give satisfaction to the country. He entreated the noble Lord not to do anything to strengthen the political power which was already in the hands of the Magistracy. In that part of the country with which he was more particularly acquainted he knew that the licensing system was the strongest political engine the Magistrates possessed. It was well known the Magistrates were the mere nominees of the Lord-lieutenant, and that in exercising their power of granting licences they invariably favoured their own partisans; and as they themselves were only the nominees of the Lord-lieutenant, their partisans must necessarily be the partisans of the Lord-lieutenant himself. Now, it was likewise very well known that the Lord-lieutenant of the county of Cumberland entertained political opinions quite opposite to those entertained by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department. He would, therefore, again entreat the noble Lord not to strengthen the power of his political opponents by resisting the present Amendment.
Mr. Lawsondeprecated the principle of giving the power of licensing to the Town Council in any borough. He begged to repudiate, in the strongest terms, the attack which had been made upon the Magistrates of the country; it was a gross libel.
Mr. Charles Bullerwas quite willing to admit that the attack was a libel on the principle of the English law—but the greater the truth the greater the libel. The Lord-lieutenants jobbed in the appointment of the Magistrates, and the Magistrates jobbed in the discharge of their duty. He would prefer taking the power of licensing from the Magistrates in all cases.
Mr. G. F. Youngdeprecated the attack on the Magistracy. He admitted that they had not in every case properly discharged their duty; but he thought the House ought not to condemn their character generally, on a few incidental circumstances.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, it was matter of history on the Reports of Committees of the House that the Magistrates had abused the power of licensing; and in order that the public might not be thrown prostrate before them, he should vote for the Amendment.
Mr. Arthur Chichesterdefended the conduct of the Magistrates, and contended
700
that they were a body with whom no nation could produce a parallel. He felt bound to oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for Totness.
Mr. Ewartobjected to intrusting the Magistrates with the power of licensing, on the ground that it was not one for the exercise of which they were not sufficiently responsible, either to the Government or to the people. For this reason he should decidedly vote for the Amendment.
Sir Robert Inglisdefended the conduct of the Magistracy, and opposed the proposition of the hon. Member for Totness.
Mr. Parrott, in deference to the opinion of the House, consented to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.
Mr. Lawsonrose to move a proviso, which he hoped would meet with the noble Lord's approbation. As the Clause then stood, the Town-Council were to be invested with the whole power of licensing. He wished to know now any individual could bring his action, having been refused, against the Council of any borough within the Act. The proviso he meant to propose was, to provide that the Corporate Funds might not be used in defending the action against any such individual, that he might have a fair chance against any Magistrate of the Town-Council by whom his license might have been refused. It provided, "that no Corporate Funds be ever applied to paying any penalties to which any Town-Council or Town-Clerk may be justly liable in any action or suit, or to the paying of any costs pending any action or suit, brought against them or him for the recovery of such penalties."
The Attorney-Generalsaid, no action could be brought against any Town-Council, in which, if damages were obtained, it would not be a most gross misapplication of the funds of the Town-Council, to apply them to the payment of those damages. He could, therefore, assure the hon. Member that his proviso was wholly unnecessary, as the Corporate Funds could never be applied to such purpose.
Amendment withdrawn, and Clause agreed to.
On Clause 64,
Mr. Hughes Hughesrose to repeat the Amendment which he had before attempted to carry, for giving the Recorder and Magistrates of the boroughs concurrent jurisdiction with the Town-Council, in licensing alehouses, &c. Having stated his reasons on a recent occasion, he should not

701
trespass at any length on the Committee at present. But there were one or two arguments in favour of his Amendment, which he would just take the liberty of stating. He knew an instance in which, as the Clause stood, a charitable person having built some almshouses, and vested them in four aldermen of the borough, he would, by the Bill, be prevented from having any right to vote at all in the election of persons into his own charity, simply because he had vested in four Aldermen the right of electing and presenting unto the alms-houses, he would have no voice at all in it. This was one of the many instances in which the rights of persons now living would be affected by the Bill. There were many other institutions in which, if the founders were alive, they would protest against such alterations of the testament by which they appropriated their property to particular purposes. Now, if the power were placed in the hands of Magistrates acting under the King's Commission of the Peace, there would be a far greater degree of assurance that the election of persons into these almshouses would not be conducted for political purposes, than if the power were in the hands of the Town-Council annually elected. Would any one say, that, in charities solely vested in the Town-Council, those would not be much more likely to obtain the benefit of these charities who voted for them at the annual elections? or that those who acted under his Majesty's Commission of the Peace would not be expected to exercise the right of appointment in those cases with less view to political purposes, or the security of elections, than the Town-Councillors. The Magistrates could have no object to grant it, as the Town-Council would have. In many charities (at Oxford) they were vested in the Mayor, Recorder, and Aldermen. The noble Lord retained the Aldermen, and, surely, he might continue the Recorder and Magistrates, if there were any, in a borough, acting for that borough, conjointly with those charitable trustees, and the noble Lord might secure to them the right of presenting to those charities. As he understood, the noble Lord would have no objection to that, he was sure that his suggestion was founded in equity, and was agreeable to the will of the donors. Why should those persons be excluded from all connexion, in conjunction with the Town-Council appointed under the Act, as the charitable trustees. That was the nature of his proposition. Having
702
urged it on a former occasion, he would not say any more at present. He only begged the noble Lord to bear in mind the case of the individual which he had mentioned, who, having vested four Aldermen with the right of presentation to the alms-houses, would, if the Clause passed as it stood, have, in future, no right of voting in the elections for his own charity. In conclusion, he begged leave to move the following Amendment—"together with the Recorder for the time being in any such borough, and all persons acting under the Commission of the Peace for the said borough."
Lord John Russell: "I am of opinion that all persons ought to be responsible for the duties imposed on them under this Act, and that there ought not to be imposed on them other duties, for which they will not be immediately responsible. I think this is the fault of the hon. Member's Amendment. We propose that the Town-Council shall appoint a certain number of persons as trustees of the charities in the borough—that it would make it their especial duty to take care of the interests confided to them in that capacity, and they would be amenable for neglect of duty or breach of trust. It is proposed to add to these the "Recorder and the Magistrates of any such borough." Now these, having other duties to perform, and qualified in a much different manner, would be much more likely to neglect the duties which the hon. Member proposes to throw on them, because engaged in other duties, and considering, naturally, that these were not immediately under their superintendence. We should put them into the situation of being personally liable to duties for which they were not personally hound, and reduce that species of security which is the best in all such cases—viz., the pointing out the exact persons to whom you propose the intrusting those duties, and the holding these, and these alone, personally responsible for the due performance of them. This consideration appears to me a sufficient reason for not agreeing with the hon. Member's Amendment, and, though I am as anxious as he is to separate all charities from political purposes, I feel bound to oppose it."
Mr. M'Leansaid, the argument of the noble Lord went upon the principle that the persons proposed to be added would be unable to attend to their new duties. Now, that argument would equally apply to the Town-Council, separated as it would be into different Committees for the better

703
discharge of their duties, who might be all of them engaged as charitable trustees. He (Mr. M'Lean) was convinced it was the wish of the noble Lord to make such distinct provision as the case might admit of. But he would put it to the noble Lord whether Councillors might not, under the present Clause, erect themselves into charitable trustees. The Clause enabled them to elect not less than nine, but it did not point out the individual persons. Care was taken that the members for the Town-Council should be qualified for being members, but there was no provision against Councillors being elected who were trustees; and as they would be perfectly irresponsible, they might, any three of them, dispose at a meeting of all the property, no security whatever being taken of them as trustees. He saw the possibility, nay the probability, of such abuses; and he, therefore, thought that all possible precaution should be taken against such possibility of malversation in the charitable funds, and that security would be given by the admission of respectable persons, such as the Recorder, Magistrates, &c, into the management; he hoped that those precautions would not be passed over by the noble Lord in the final settlement of this great measure.
Lord John Russellremarked that the case which the hon. Member for Oxford had stated was certainly a hard one. But it was impossible, in a measure of this kind to legislate for particular instances. Moreover, he must observe, that if the individual alluded to was remarkable for his benevolence and wisdom, the Town-Council would certainly pay some attention to his recommendations.
Amendment withdrawn.
On Clause 127,
Mr. Macleanrose and said, that at the request of his constituents, he had given notice of his intention to move to add a proviso to this Clause, with a view to relieve them from a very disagreeable and troublesome ceremony. It had long been the custom for the mayor of Oxford, previously to entering upon his office, attended by sixty-two of the burgesses of the city, to appear before the Vice-Chancellor of the University at the high altar of St. Mary's-Church, and there to take an oath to observe all the customs and privileges of the University. Now this had always been felt to be a serious grievance by the citizens, and he earnestly hoped the House would now relieve them from it. It had always been his desire to maintain
704
the privileges of the University, and on more than one occasion he had found the University willing to yield some objectionable claims, when their charter did not interfere. He trusted, therefore, that this extreme privilege would not be insisted on. He was not aware that the hon. Member for the University of Oxford entertained any objection to his Motion, and he should therefore move this proviso be added to the Clause—"Provided always, that in place and stead of the present custom of the mayor of the city of Oxford, previously to entering upon his office, attended by sixty-two of the burgesses, appearing before the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford, at the high altar of St. Mary's Church, in the said city, and making oath to observe all the customs and privileges of the said University, the mayor shall, previously to entering upon his office, attend and take such oath before the Vice-Chancellor, at his residence, in like manner as is now done by the Sheriff of the county of Oxford."
Mr. Estcourtsaid, that the proviso appeared to him totally inconsistent with the object of the Act, and if that was the only ground for opposing it, he should object to it on that score alone. But there were other reasons why he did not agree to the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend. This custom had been established for many hundred years, and it had never produced any serious inconvenience. It should be remembered also, that this privilege had been conferred upon the University by Royal Charter, and had been confirmed by successive Parliaments. He denied the value of the comparison drawn by his hon. and learned Friend between the Sheriff and the Mayor. The Sheriff took the oaths for himself, but the mayor for the whole of the citizens of Oxford.
Mr. Maclean, in reply, said, that he should be very happy to leave the question to the consideration of the University itself, for he was sure that they would look at it in a liberal spirit.
The proviso was withdrawn.
On Clause 12 th—one of the postponed Clauses—
Sir William Follettsaid, that in this Clause the noble Lord had conceded the principle that persons having inchoate rights to the property mentioned in it should be entitled to the full advantages to be derived from such property; but it appeared to him that the Clause as it was framed did not carry into effect the intention of the

705
Bill. The noble Lord could, therefore, have no objection to the Amendment he was going to propose, as it was designed to attain the same end with greater certainty. He did not object to the person to whom the preparation of the lists was to be intrusted; but as it was agreed upon as a fundamental principle of the Clause, that all persons having inchoate rights should have their full enjoyment secured to them, he objected to the time and the mode defined by the Bill for this purpose. Every person to whom these privileges of property were to be reserved, was to have his name inserted in a list to be made out by the mayor on or before the 25th of October in this year, and no person whose name did not appear in such list was to have any right to such property. Now, he must observe, that by the Clause, no notice was required to be given by the person claiming any right to property of this nature, or by any person claiming on his behalf, but the mayor was to make out the list on his own authority, and when it was made out it was to be conclusive against every one not in that list, but not to be conclusive in favour of those who appeared in it. Now let the House consider the situation of a person having inchoate rights in a great trading town. Many persons answering to this description would probably be at sea when this Act passed. Were they to be deprived of their rights on this account? The case of a soldier or sailor on service would be similar. Were they also to lose their rights? Persons of all ages would be entitled under the Clause, yet how were infants without guardians to put in their claims before the 25th of October, 1835. Were they to be excluded? A very great number of persons of the poorer classes could not possibly get their names put on the list by the time appointed. Take, for instance, the case of Hull. A great number of persons who ought to possess these rights would not return to their native town till the time fixed had elapsed, and would it be fair that the noble Lord should say to them, "Here are a number of persons in the same condition with yourselves, whom we have admitted to the enjoyment of this property, but because you were away you shall be excluded?" The first thing he wished to do was to extend the time. The Bill could not pass before the beginning of September, and then there would not be above six or seven weeks for making out the lists. He should propose, therefore, that the day fixed should be the 25th of October,
706
1836, and he saw no objection that could be raised to this proposition, as it was not likely that any fraudulent claim would be made in consequence of the delay thus interposed. With regard to the right of any person not in the country at the time, he should move that no one should be put upon the list unless such person should have made out his claim within six months after his return to England, and in other cases, unless some sufficient reason, to be allowed by the mayor for the time being, for not having made his claim, should be shown, and in such case the mayor should be required to put such name on the list of persons entitled. He would take the opportunity of observing that the Clause which enabled Corporations to purchase out the rights of persons thus entitled was very objectionably framed. In the first place, it compelled every existing freeman to sell his rights. It gave him no option, but he was compellable, if the Council thought fit to buy, to sell his interest, and not only his own, but his wife's or children's. Another very strong feature of objection was, that the money was to go into the pocket of the husband or father, and no provision was made for the benefit of the wife, or children. The hon. and learned Gentleman moved an Amendment to the effect, the object described in his speech.
Lord John Russellwas understood to say, that the period of the 25th October, 1835, had been fixed, because at that time the old Corporations would cease to exist, and the new Councils would come into being. To the general extension of the time, he was not disposed to assent; but to some proviso, reserving the rights of persons absent beyond seas, he should have no objection; with respect to the other Clause, compelling the sale of freemen's rights of property, he did think that some such power ought to be given to the new Council, with a view to the general interest.
Mr. Lowthersupported the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Exeter, for extending the time in the case of persons beyond seas.
Mr. Warburtonthought it necessary that at some time a precise list should be obtained; and, therefore, that some limitation should be fixed for the case of persons beyond seas.
An Amendment was inserted as assented to by Lord John Russell.
Clause agreed to.
Sir Robert Inglisin rising to move the Clause of which he had given notice,

707
said, his object was, to make the Bill as perfect as he could consistently with his own principles. He did not mean to say that if the Clause proposed were adopted, he should think the Bill very materially improved; far from it. But if it were adopted, he considered the alteration would he consistent with the principles of the Constitution; and not inconsistent, even with the principles upon which the Bill was founded. The hon. and learned Attorney-General had stated, (in a speech which lasted for above one-quarter of an hour) with reference to the 128th Clause, that a fair majority of the inhabitants ought to decide whether a town should receive the benefits of the Bill, which under that Clause they were to be entitled to if they pleased. All he asked, in the Clause which he now introduced, was, that the Boroughs included in the Schedules annexed to the Bill might equally receive the privileges conferred by this Bill upon them if the majority of the Registered Burgesses should be willing to accept of them. But that it should not be enforced upon the inhabitants of those boroughs any more than upon the inhabitants of the town of Nottingham with respect to which, Clause 128 provided, that there must be a clear majority of the inhabitants accepting the Bill before the Charter of incorporation containing any of the provisions of this Bill could be introduced. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) asked the same thing for Liverpool, for Bristol, &c. namely: that when the Burgess roll was made up according to the provisions of the Bill there should be the assent of the majority of the Burgesses (to be ascertained in some way or another as it should be seen fit) expressed, before any other provisions of the Bill were introduced. There was not a lawyer in the House who was not aware that if the King were pleased to grant a corporation to the 658 gentlemen by whom he was surrounded:—that the Charter would be good for nothing till accepted by the majority of those gentlemen. It was not in the power of his Majesty to confer chartered rights, or demand chartered duties, without ascertaining that the majority were willing to accept the one, and receive the others. If he were proposing any plan which tended to weaken the just power of the King he should not expect, nor have any right to expect, the slightest attention: but he was certain that the Clause he proposed did not in any degree trench upon those rights. It merely required
708
the promoters of the Bill should take the slight trouble of intimating their intention of imposing the Bill before they did impose it upon any borough. They were making a very great change: upon a given day, all the Corporations in England and Wales—all the Municipal Authorities, would cease to exist: and an entirely new state of Authorities would come into exercise. It might happen, (he entered not now upon general principles)—nay he would take it for granted, that they were right: but he still said, that it never could be right that they should impose upon the unwilling, and the willing, a uniform system,—and enforce it whether good or bad upon every borough in the Kingdom. Let the men who were willing submit to the measure: but let not those who were unwilling be constrained. Let not the Noble Lord make one uniform system applicable to all bodies Corporate—that was all he asked: that the same system (for instance) which was imposed upon Manchester should not be enforced with, out consent, upon Liverpool. The Clause he proposed was this:—"And be it further enacted, that, excepting so far as relates to the granting the burgess right to all the inhabitants of the borough—and the making up of the burgess-roll of the inhabitants of such boroughs (as hereinafter mentioned)—that no provision shall be enacted, or come into operation in any borough, until the majority of the Town-Council shall (by writing or in any other way) have accepted the Constitution thereby enacted."
Lord John Russellobjected to the Clause that it was wholely inconsistent with the preamble and recital of the Bill.
Negatived without a division.
Sir Robert Inglis moved the following Clause:—"That the Town-Council shall be styled the Court of the Mayor and Council of our Lord the King in and for the borough of A, and shall have the powers of a Court of Record."
Negatived without a division; as were also the Clauses moved by Sir Robert Inglis to the effect,—"That members of the Town-Council shall not be removeable, except by the absolute majority of the Burgesses registered in the borough:" "That Municipal Oaths shall be taken by the Burgesses, and by the Mayor and members of the Town-Council, and by the Recorder and Town-Clerk."
Mr. Brodie moved the following Clause:—"And be it further enacted, that in no

709
case where there is a trust now existing for charitable uses, in which it is required that every person shall be disqualified to act in the trust, if he shall become a member of a body Corporate, shall any person, being such trustee, be disqualified to act in the trust, in consequence of his being elected a member of the Town-Council of any city or borough under this Act."
Lord John Russellsaid, that it appeared to him that to agree to this Clause would be to set aside one of the provisions of the Bill.
Clause negatived without a division.
Sir John Yarde Bullerrose to move the insertion of a Clause depriving the Dissenting Members of Town-Councils from disposing of Church patronage. Under the Bill it was to be expected that numerous Dissenters would be elected Councillors; and in cases where the boroughs were possessed of property they would become possessed of the power of disposing of that property; including, of course, the power of disposing of Church patronage. The principle on which he ventured to propose the Clause was this. He did not think it useful that Dissenters should have any interest whatever in the management of the Established Church. And he found, on reference to a former Act, that he was not asserting a new principle. The 5th Geo. 4th (the Church Bill) provided that the members of the Church of England were to have the management of the Church property. And the 10th Geo. 4th (Catholic Relief) prohibited any Member of the Catholic Church from holding any such trust. He (Sir J. Y. Buller) thought it only fit that Dissenters should be placed in the same situation with respect to Church property as Roman Catholics were. But in stating his opinion on the subject, he thought he should not be opposed by Dissenters themselves as he found they had expressed a desire not to interfere with the management, or discipline, of the Church of England and among others, the lion, and learned member for Dublin, on behalf of the Catholics, had stated a very strong opinion on the subject. It might be objected to such a provision perhaps, that under the law it was well known Dissenters did enjoy the power of holding presentations to livings. But he could not see why the defect of the law on one point should be brought as an argument against remedying it when they had the means. The Committee of the Town-Coun-
710
cil would under the Bill have the same Ecclesiastical patronage as the whole Council now had; and he, therefore, without further remark, moved the insertion of the Clause as it stood on the Notice-List. The hon. Member accordingly moved that the following Clause be added:—"And whereas certain bodies corporate are seized or possessed of divers advowsons or rights of presentation to rectories, vicarages, and other ecclesiastical benefices, and also of churches or chapels devoted to the purpose of religious worship, according to the rites of the Established Church of England: And whereas it is expedient that the exercise of such right of presentation, and the direction, care, and superintendance of such churches and chapels, and of all the matters and things relating thereto, be in the direction of, and exclusively vested in, members of the Established Church of England: Be it therefore enacted, that in every borough in which the body corporate is seized or possessed of any advowson or right of presentation to any rectory, vicarage, or other ecclesiastical benefice, or is seized or possessed of any church or chapel devoted to the purpose of religious worship, according to the rights of the Established Church of England, the Council of such borough shall, on the 1st day of November, in this and every succeeding year, nominate and appoint out of their own body a committee for the management of the Ecclesiastical property and affairs of such body corporate, such committee to be composed of persons being members of the Established Church of England, and such committee exclusively shall exercise the right of presenting to every such rectory or vicarage, and other Ecclesiastical benefices, and shall also have the entire and exclusive care, management, superintendence, direction, and control of the said churches and chapels, and all matters, proceedings, and regulations whatsoever connected therewith, and over which the body corporate have now any power or authority, and shall do or cause to be done at the costs, charges, and expense of such body corporate, all acts and things which the said committee may deem necessary or expedient for the maintenance, keeping up, and support of such churches and chapels, in the same manner and in all respects as the same have been hitherto maintained, kept up and supported by the body corporate to which the said churches and chapels belong.
"And be it enacted that all the acts of the committee for the management of the

711
Ecclesiastical property and affairs of a body corporate appointed under this Act, shall be done at some meeting at which not less than one half of the whole number of the committee shall be present, and a majority of those present shall concur in such Acts, otherwise they shall be void and of none effect; and at every meeting the members of the committee present shall choose a chairman, and in case of equality of votes, the chairman for the time being shall have a second or casting vote; and all the resolutions of the said committee shall be entered in a book, to be kept by the Town-Clerk of the body corporate, who shall attend the meetings of the said committee, and the said book shall be open at all reasonable times without fee, to the inspection of any Councillor. Provided nevertheless that no act or proceeding of the said committee, in the execution of the powers or authorities given to, or vested in, them by this Act, shall require or be submitted for approval or confirmation to the Council."
Lord John Russellthought that such a Clause would be improperly introduced in such a Bill as the present; and that it would be contradictory to several enactments of the Bill. The Bill gave no additional power to Dissenters—the principle was already by law established, and there were at present some Corporations in which they had a decided majority. Ecclesiastical endowments would only be disposed of in the same manner under the Bill as at present: if, therefore, they introduced such a Clause it would be without any immediate necessity, and it was placing the disability on religious grounds. He was not fond of introducing religious tests, and he was afraid that so far from strengthening the Church of England they would weaken it, by introducing restrictions which had been recently abolished. The greatest danger would result, in his opinion, from conferring peculiar advantages upon those of the Council who might happen to be members of the Church of England. Nothing could be worse than that there should be a corporate body of twelve—six of whom should have the power to dispose of Church livings, and the other six, being Dissenters, should be excluded from any participation in that power:—they would naturally say you have an opportunity of benefiting your friends, of which we are deprived. For his part he did not see that such security was necessary; there was none now, and it was possible for a man, although he might not agree with all parties
712
of the Church, to dispose of Church property as conscientiously as the members of the Church themselves. There were instances without number of persons who do not belong to the Church having the power of nominating to its livings. He should resist the present Clause, thinking it unnecessary, while, if any such provision were introduced, the Clause proposed was not the best which might be proposed.
Mr. Goulburnwished the House to understand the real state of the question. The noble Lord had stated that the Bill made no alteration in the state of the law at present, or with respect to the power of appointing to benefices. Now, he was at direct issue with the noble Lord upon that point; and he thought he could satisfy him and the House that the Bill did make an alteration in the principles laid down by Parliament; and if the noble Lord acted on principle, and really meant that things as to this subject should stand on the same footing as they did at present, he would not resist the alteration recommended for the purpose of giving effect to the noble Lord's own intentions. The noble Lord was aware that the livings which were in the patronage of Catholics could not be appointed to by those Catholics, but that the right of presentation to those livings was vested in those who professed the doctrines of the Church of England. When the Legislature thought proper to give relief to the Catholics they did continue this restriction on them by the Act of 1829. The right of appointment to any benefice was taken from them; and yet, by the general Clause at the beginning of this Act, the noble Lord substantially repealed that provision of the law. After the passing of the present measure Roman Catholics would have the power of presenting to benefices in their patronage. He (Mr. Goulburn) said, therefore, that if the noble Lord rested on the state of the law at present, he was bound, so far as to Catholics, to conform to that specific provision. But he agreed with his hon. Friend (Sir J. Y. Buller) that, independently of the express provision on the statute-books (of which he thought they had a right to demand the re-enaction), it was not proper that those who professed opinions at variance with the Established Church should have invested in them the right of patronage over that Church. The noble Lord might tell him that such an exception as that proposed would beget ill will; if they were conscientious men, he (Mr. Goulburn) did not believe there

713
would be ill will. However opposed he might be to the Roman Catholics, he for one had no desire to appoint individuals to the superintendence of Catholic churches. He should feel it a most painful duty were it imposed upon him, from which he should urge Parliament to relieve him. And, therefore, as he said before, he could not conceive on what principle it was, that the noble Lord rested his proposal. The noble Lord said, that even if it were desirable to attain the object, it should be pursued by another course. He did not wish to quarrel as to the mode; if the noble Lord could propose any other method which, in his opinion appeared calculated to attain the same object in a manner more agreeable to the feelings of Dissenters, it was to him a matter of perfect indifference, he only wished to remove the dissatisfaction which he believed would remain if appointments in the Church were dispensed by parties dissenting from the Church; for he was certain, if any improper appointments were made, the public observation would be called to the character of the persons nominating, and a feeling would arise in the country which would render their situation little to be desired. He would press the subject no longer at present. He wished to call the attention of the House to the propriety of giving to the Roman Catholics a power which they never before possessed; and, with respect to Dissenters, extending to them authority which, on other grounds, he for one should have thought it inexpedient for themselves that they should hold.
Viscount Howickobserved, that when this question was brought forward the other night, hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side grounded their desire for the introduction of some such Clause as this, not upon the danger of Ecclesiastical patronage falling into the hands of the Catholics, but into the hands of Protestant Dissenters. They all knew that, in point of fact, in the great towns of this kingdom, the Catholics were few indeed in number; it was against Dissenters, therefore, that the measure of the hon. Baronet was chiefly levelled—it was of Dissenters that the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge entertained such a fearful jealousy. Now, with regard to Dissenters, what was the state of the law? Not only might they be members of corporations interested in Ecclesiastical patronage, but they might, at the present day, hold
714
that patronage to any amount in their hands. It was true that the Bill for the Relief of Dissenters was proposed by his noble Friend, but after it had been carried by a considerable majority it was adopted by the late Government, and when that Act passed, the right hon. Member opposite (Mr. Goulburn), was a member of the Government, and was, therefore, in some sort responsible. By that Act a Dissenter might not only be a member of a Corporation, but there was nothing in the world to prevent a Dissenter from being Lord Chancellor or Prime Minister of England, and so giving away every Bishopric and a considerable number of livings. Therefore, it was not the principle on which Parliament had acted to distrust the exercise of that power in Dissenters, nor did he (Lord Howick) know on what ground that distrust should now, for the first time, be exhibited, and exhibited as to the patronage of Corporations. His noble Friend had stated (he thought correctly), that it was much better to leave the security against improper appointments to those who made the selection of persons to take orders than by filling up the livings, or presenting to churches. The ordination was in the hands of the Bishop, and it had been the principle on which the Legislature acted in the Test and Corporation Act (Repeal), to take it for granted that, as the Bishops had the power by law of selecting such as were proper persons to officiate as clergymen, so the Bench of Bishops were responsible if any improper persons were appointed, and, therefore, it might be permitted that Dissenters should choose from among the persons approved of by the Bishops, who were to be appointed to particular livings. That was a wise and just principle of legislation, and he (Lord Howick) must confess he thought that, far from contributing to the safety, or the honour, or the welfare, of the Church, the Clause proposed would only lead to injure and weaken it. They were much mistaken if they thought the Church of England could ultimately rest upon any other grounds than the affection, and esteem, and protection of the great bulk of the people of this country; and they were no friends of the Church who would wish to rely, not upon the broad ground of that love and esteem, but on laws and restrictions which one Parliament might pass, and another re-

715
peal. On these grounds he should most decidedly oppose the Clause. He thought it would be impolitic, in the last degree, when they had swept away so many distinctions now existing, that they should again revive one which he considered they had so happily done away with. He thought that calling on persons to declare if they belonged to this or to that sect would increase the jealousy which at present existed, and widen those differences that too often prevailed. He, therefore, hoped the House would concur with him in resisting the Amendment now proposed.
The Clause was negatived.
Schedules agreed to, and the House resumed. The Report was received, and the Bill ordered to be read a third time on Monday.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—General Turnpike Act Amendment.
Petitions presented. By Lord MONSON, from East Surrey, for Protection to the Protestant Church.—By Lord ASHBURTON, from Miramichi and other Places in British North America, against any Alteration in the Timber Duties.

ADMISSION OF LADIES.
Lord Broughamsaid, that he wished to put a question to his noble Friend at the head of the Committee for Re-building the Houses of Parliament, or to his noble Friend at the head of the Woods and Forests, on the subject of a matter which he found mentioned in the Votes of the other House. He referred to the matter of providing accommodation in that House for Ladies to hear the Debates. On this subject he must say, that he differed from some other people in this matter; and, disliking the introduction of politics into private society, he thought that the Ladies would be infinitely better employed in almost any other way than in attending the Debates of that House. He should, therefore, if no other noble Lord
680
opposed a proposition for setting apart a gallery for their use, oppose it himself. His noble—he might almost say his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Wharncliffe) seemed to laugh at what he was saying. He could assure his noble Friend that not even his noble Friend felt a more absolute and entire devotion to the sex than he did; but he wished also always to sec them in their proper places.
Lord Wharncliffeassured his noble and learned Friend, that he did not wish to ridicule what his noble and learned Friend had said. On the contrary, he entirely agreed with it.
The Marquess of Lansdowneobserved, that in the Report of the Building Committee it was stated, that after providing accommodation for various persons, a certain quantity of room would remain, which might be dedicated to other purposes. The name of the ladies was not, however, introduced into the Report; and, as far as he was concerned, it never should be introduced there.

CORPORATION COMMISSIONERS.—MR. HOGG.
Lord Wharncliffewished to ask whether the noble Lord at the head of his Majesty's Government had any objection to lay before their Lordships a protest made by one of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of Municipal Corporations, against the Report of his brother Commissioners. He was perfectly willing to admit, that it would be extremely inconvenient to have each Commissioner allowed to make a separate Report; but he thought if one Commissioner dissented from those with whom he was appointed to act, Parliament should not be deprived of the benefit of his opinion. He did not then wish to say anything of the merits or demerits of the measure which was introduced on the subject of Corporate Reform into the other House of Parliament; and still less desirous was he to state any opinion adverse to the question of Corporate Reform. He was quite willing to state, that great Reform was necessary in Municipal Corporations; and the only difference which existed between him and the noble Lords opposite, was as to the mode in which that Reform was to be effected. Parliament had a perfect right, however, to require that all the important evidence laid before the Commissioners should be submitted to their jurisdiction, in order that they might determine whether the conclusions drawn from facts deposed, were just and well

681
founded. He must say, that the protest which had been some time since sent in by Sir Francis Palgrave, had gone far to substantiate the charge which had been brought against the Commissioners, viz.:—that their Report was not drawn up on fair grounds; but, on the contrary, was marked by party views, and a predetermination to view the subject in a certain light which suited their own purpose. Mr. Hogg also, the Commissioner to whose opinions he (Lord Wharncliffe) had now called their Lordships' attention, had sent in a paper, in the shape of a protest, to the Secretary of the Home Department, which would not be received by the noble Lord in that shape, but which contained this Commissioner's reasons for refusing to accede to the Report which had been returned by the other Commissioners. He thought it most desirable that their Lordships should be made acquainted with the contents of this document; and he therefore wished to know whether the noble Lord opposite had any objection that the correspondence which had taken place between Mr. Hogg and the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and also the paper which Mr. Hogg sent in the shape of a protest, should be produced.
Viscount Melbourneconceived that the noble Lord had fully answered his own question; for he admitted, that if each Member of a Commission were suffered to send in a separate Report, there would be no end to such proceedings, and no advantage could be derived from the appointment of a Commission to inquire into any subject. But then the noble Lord had said, that if this paper of Mr. Hogg's were not received as a Report, it might nevertheless be sanctioned as a protest. Why, if it were not right that it should be received as a Report, it followed as a matter of course that it ought not to be received as a protest, which was a mere change of its name. [Lord Wharncliffe: Then why receive the protest of Sir Francis Palgrave?] That protest was erroneously received at the time the measure on Corporate Reform was in course of preparation, and formed no ground for the reception of the paper from Mr. Hogg. He apprehended, however, that no disposition whatever to stifle Mr. Hogg's Report would be displayed; and he was sure, if the noble Lord was anxious to obtain the information contained in that Report, that the Gentleman from whom it proceeded would be most willing to communicate it. The noble Lord might, there-
682
fore, enjoy the full benefit of the Report, and introduce it to the close and immediate attention of their Lordships, by embodying it in his speech on the question of Municipal Reform, when the Bill relating to that question was brought up for discussion in that House.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that nothing was more common than for a Member or Members of a Commission to enter a protest against the Report on which the majority of their brother Commissioners might have decided. This was done in reference to a question which had come under their Lordships' notice that night:—he alluded to the subject of the Scotch Universities. Commissioners had been appointed to inquire into the state of learning in those Universities, and some of them had returned a Report, which was accompanied by a protest from others. He was convinced that the same course might be pursued in the present case consistently with precedent and with advantage to the public service; and he was the more convinced of the expediency and justice of having Mr. Hogg's protest received, because he thought that Parliament would have lost much valuable information on the question of which it treated, if the protest of Sir Francis Palgrave had not been made and admitted.
Lord Ashburtonsaid, that the only question in the present case appeared to him to be whether Mr. Hogg was a fit person to be placed on this Commission; and as it seemed to be acknowledged that he was, his opinions were, he thought, exactly those which it was necessary that their Lordships should be made acquainted with. When he stated that protests were frequently the means of conveying the most useful information to Parliament, he felt it his duty to allude to the very valuable Reports of the Common Law Commissioners, a comparison of which with the protest appended to it, had alone enabled him to make up his mind on a most important question—the Bill of Non-imprisonment for Debt, which had been introduced into the other House of Parliament.
Lord Wharncliffeobserved, that Mr. Hogg complained that he had not been allowed a fair opportunity of stating his opinions on the subject of Municipal Corporations. If Mr. Hogg had a right to complain that he was hardly treated, he thought Parliament was justified in saying that they were still more hardly treated, by being deprived of such valuable information as that contained in this Gentleman's

683
protest. Mr. Hogg had also said, that he sent in Reports with respect to Liverpool and other places, which were not printed. The noble Lord had no objection, he presumed, to the production of the correspondence which had passed between Mr. Hogg and the Secretary of State.
Viscount Melbourne: None whatever.
The Earl of Harrowbydid not consider the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, justified in rejecting the protest of Mr. Hogg. From what had been already stated, their Lordships were aware that it was a very common practice to make such protests; and if this were not so, such a practice ought, in his opinion, to be encouraged. If the Report of the majority were in every case to be taken as the result of the deliberations of any set of Commissioners, the most unfair conclusions might be arrived at; for that majority might have been decided by a single Commissioner, and the opinions of all the dissentients, which it might be most important to hear, would thus be shut out from the consideration of Parliament. The case was different with a Committee of that or the other House of Parliament, the minority of the Members of which had the opportunity of stating, in their places, the grounds on which they might feel it their duty to differ from the statements made in a Report agreed to by the majority. Such Commissioners as Mr. Hogg, however, had no such opportunity, and their opinions were completely shut out by those of the majority. He trusted, then, that some mode would be devised by which the important information contained in the protest of Mr. Hogg should be laid before Parliament.
Viscount Melbournedid not think that it was attaching any undue importance to a Report to have it decided upon by a majority of Commissioners, as those only who assented to it affixed their names to the document. This proceeding did not, however, put Parliament in possession of the grounds on which the assent of those who refused to sign the Report was withheld. As it was far from his intention that any information which could be properly afforded should not be laid before their Lordships, he should take care to see his noble Friend the Secretary of the Home Department on the subject, before Monday, and determine on what course to pursue with a view of meeting the wishes expressed by some of their Lordships.
The Bishop of Exeterrecollected a re-
684
markable precedent for the adoption of the course proposed to be taken with respect to Mr. Hogg's protest. It was the Report of the Commissioners on National Education in Ireland, three of whom decided on a Report which the two other Members of the Commission dissented from. To the Report, however, was subjoined the protest of the dissentients. Subject dropped.

STATE OF CRIME (IRELAND).
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that he should trouble their Lordships with but very few words on the subject of which he had given notice, and to which it was his intention to call their Lordships' attention that evening. He should not, perhaps, trouble their Lordships upon this subject were it not for the very peculiar circumstances in which the country was likely to be placed by the measure which it was intimated it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to introduce into Parliament. He might possibly be liable to the suspicion of wishing to gratify a feeling of enmity or animosity to his fellow-countrymen of the Romish persuasion in Ireland. But it would be rather too late for his Majesty's Government, at least, to make such a charge. It would be too late for them, after the circumstances attending the religious census which they had appointed, to charge him in making this motion with any intention of drawing an unnecessary or improper distinction between persons of different religious persuasions in Ireland. By granting the return for which he was about to move, certainly no worse consequence, in this respect, could follow than was produced by the census to which he had adverted. He admitted that very many circumstances which were to be regretted had occurred in the progress of that inquiry which might have been wholly avoided, if the Commissioners had adhered strictly to the instructions of the Commissioners under which they acted. He had gone carefully through the whole of the Report of the Commissioners, and it struck him that they had studiously avoided the instruction which had been given them. He only found one notice of this instruction in the Report, to which he should call their Lordships' attention. [The noble Marquess read an extract from the Report of the Commissioners, adverting to the view they had taken of the instruction given them in the Committee.] And to this lame conclusion were their Lordships left. This was all the informa-

685
tion they were to obtain after the instruction which had been given, and the expectation they had been led to entertain. In moving for a return of this kind, it might probably be necessary to say something of the gross and relative amount of crime committed in Ireland at different periods. Without trespassing upon their Lordships' attention at any length, he should just observe, that the difference in the number of persons committed for crime between the years 1833 and 1834, was 1,783. It might be said that there would be a difficulty in obtaining the information sought for in the return; it might be difficult to ascertain the number of persons committed for crime, who were Roman Catholics, and the number who were Protestants. For his own part he could see no difficulty in the case. If a return could be procured, as no doubt it could, of the absolute number of persons committed for offences, why could they not be distinguished into Roman Catholics and Protestants, or professors of any other creed? His object in moving for this return was twofold. He wished, in the first place, to show the House and the country the effect which the Protestant religion produced upon the morals and the conduct of its members. No doubt in the arduous struggle in which the Protestants of Ireland might be now supposed to be engaged in the protection of their religion, they had strong claims upon, and would obtain the sympathy and assistance of those who were able to protect them; but it was their duty to show the salutary and the beneficial effects which the Protestant doctrines produced upon the minds of those by whom they were professed. The Protestants of Ireland should show by their conduct what was the character of their doctrines, and thus entitle themselves to the respect of the Protestant community of the entire kingdom. It was with this view that he was about to move for the returns to which he had adverted. He could not suppose his Majesty's Ministers would oppose his Motion, for he saw no ground to justify them in doing so. It might be said, that the Catholic population in Ireland was much larger than the Protestant; and that, therefore, it was only natural to expect that the amount of crime amongst them would be greater. But what he meant to contend for was, that the amount of crime amongst the Catholic population was much greater, even in proportion to their numbers, than it was amongst the Protestants. Without trespassing further upon the atten-
686
tion of the House, he should conclude by moving for a Return of the number of persons committed in Ireland for crime, from June, 1834, to July, 1835, distinguishing them into Protestants or other Dissenters and Roman Catholics.
Viscount Duncannonshould certainly oppose the Motion of the noble Lord. Indeed the noble Lord, in the course of his speech, had stated quite sufficient to justify their Lordships in refusing to accede to his Motion. The noble Lord had stated, that under circumstances different from those in which the country was at present placed, he should not have thought of moving for such a return; and in the course of the noble Lord's subsequent statements, he had certainly failed in stating any Parliamentary grounds to induce their Lordships to order the return for which he had moved. That return he could not help regarding as extremely invidious, and of a nature that would be highly offensive to the people of Ireland. The noble Lord had, in effect, moved for a return which would require those who made it out to go into the gaols in Ireland, and ascertain what proportion of its inmates were Roman Catholics and what Protestants. He, as well as the noble Marquess, was quite aware that the Grand Juries of Ireland granted a sum of money for the payment of clergymen who attended the gaols, to administer religious consolation to such of its inmates as might be willing to accept it at their hands. The prisoners might have the aid of a Catholic priest or a Protestant minister; but no record, he apprehended, was kept of their several religious persuasions. He did not know, then, how the noble Marquess proposed to obtain these returns, even if he succeeded in carrying his Motion. He could imagine no other means for the accomplishment of this measure than the issuing a new Commission, for the purpose of ascertaining the religious persuasion of individuals committed to the different gaols in Ireland. The only ground urged by the noble Marquess to justify the House in granting this return was, that a Commission was issued by the Government for the obtainment of an object similar to that contemplated by the Motion of the noble Marquess. Now the object with which the Commission was issued by the Government was to ascertain the relative proportion of Roman Catholics, and Protestants and Dissenters, for the better guidance of the Legislature in framing a measure for the regulation of the Church Establishment in

687
Ireland. Such was the single object of the Government; and he should ask, what was the object contemplated by the noble Marquess? Did that noble Lord suppose, if it reached Ireland that the House of Lords had ordered a return of the number of Roman Catholics and of Protestants committed to the different gaols, it would not be regarded as a most invidious proceeding, and would not be highly offensive to the great mass of the people of that country.
The Duke of Richmondhoped that the noble Marquess was not really in earnest in bringing forward this Motion. Did the noble Marquess really suppose he should be able to procure the relative number of Roman Catholics and Protestants who were committed to gaols in Ireland? Now he (the Duke of Richmond) was prepared to say, that the greater proportion of those who were committed to gaols had no religion at all. At least the fact of their being so committed was primâ facie evidence that they did not act up to the principles of any religion. And even though the noble Marquess were able to procure the return for which he moved, was he not aware that the great proportion of the wealth of Ireland was Protestant? And therefore the nobleMarquessmight as well move for a return of the number of pickpockets in the House of Lords, compared with the number in St. Giles's, as move for the number of Protestants compared with the number of Catholics committed to gaols in Ireland. Of course, where there was a large number of people uneducated and poor, they had a stronger temptation to commit crime than the wealthy and educated. He quite agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Duncannon), that a Motion of a more hostile and invidious nature, so far as the Catholics of Ireland were concerned, could not be made. Where could such a proceeding, if it were once established, cease? Similar returns would no doubt soon be moved with respect to the comparative numbers of the English Protestants and Dissenters committed to our gaols. The Motion, if complied with, would be of no use; and if they got the returns asked for, they could lead to no good end. The noble Lord was no doubt acquainted with the comparative number of Catholic and Protestant prisoners in the gaol of his own county; and he would recommend him to confine himself to the information which he possessed with respect to that part of Ireland; and to which he might direct the attention of their Lordships at the first favourable opportunity.
The Marquess of Conynghamsaid, that the Motion of the noble Lord must have precisely a contrary effect from that which he seemed to anticipate from it; for if it were acceded to, it must inevitably lead to an aggravation of the existing differences on the subject of religion in Ireland. It would be contrary to every principle of justice and moral right, if the Judge in Ireland were to ascertain the religion of every prisoner before his trial was entered on; yet this was a mode of proceeding which would be justified on the principle of the noble Lord's motion.
Lord Hathertonsaid, that he objected to the Motion, not so much because he considered that it would be difficult to comply with it, but because the returns could not possibly lead to any useful result. It was a complete fallacy, though a very popular error, to suppose that the number of crimes in Ireland was proportioned to the existence of the Catholic religion amongst the people. The fact was, that crimes attributed to the people of that country were not of such a character as were generally supposed. They were usually such as were likely to be committed by a population which were poor, and engaged in agricultural pursuits. He would only mention, in corroboration of his opinion, that in Tipperary the number of murders, larcenies, and crimes of that description, was much smaller than those committed in his own county, while the population of the former county was infinitely larger, and the calendar contained a greater number of offences.
The Marquess of Westmeathshould certainly not persist in his Motion, if the sense of their Lordships' House was opposed to it. The noble Duke who had addressed them had said, that he conceived those persons who were committed to gaol had no religion at all. He did not mean to say that they had much religion; but he wished to ascertain to what religious persuasion they belonged, in order that their Lordships might be able to see how far their conduct was influenced by the principles which they professed. He could not see any weight in the argument of the noble Duke. The noble Viscount opposite thought that the return moved for, if granted, would be offensive to the Catholics of Ireland. Upon this point he wished to be distinctly understood. He was anxious, if possible, to avoid giving any offence to any class; but the Protestants of Ireland were put upon their defence, and therefore called on for that return for which he felt himself bound

689
to move, and to which objection had been made. He was perfectly indifferent as to whether the Roman Catholics thought that the House meant to offend them or not. His object was to show the moral conduct of both classes, and for this purpose he thought the return he had moved for would be extremely valuable. However, if the sense of the House was, that he ought not to persevere, he would withdraw his Motion. He was not anxious to defend himself from the charge of having moved for a return which would require a census to be made that would be regarded as offensive by those who not only took no exception to, but supported the census ordered by the Government. That census, not only distinguished Catholics from Protestants, but the object for which it was taken tended to make the Catholics anxious to get rid of the Protestants. With these observations he should withdraw his Motion.
The Duke of Richmond,in explanation, said, that he did not mean to say, that all those who were committed to gaols had no religion at all. He merely meant to suggest that in the census which would be required if the Motion of the noble Marquess were agreed to, there should be a class for those who had no religion at all.
Motion withdrawn.