Sitting of 11 August 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Exchequer Offices (Ireland); Slave Owners Compensation; Stamp Duty on Newspapers.—Read a second time:—Poor Law Loans; Municipal Elections; St. Clement, Oxford; Marriages Validity.—Read a first time:—Consolidated Fund; Exchequer Bills.
Petitions presented. By Mr. HALL, from natives of Wales in and near London, that the Clause of the Established Church Bill, requiring the appointment of Bishops conversant with the Welsh Language to preside over Welsh Sees, may be restored in its original form.—By Mr. THOMAS ATTWOOD and Mr. BERNAL, from Members of Benefit Societies in the Metropolis and Rochester, for the Amendment of Friendly Societies Act.—By Mr. THOMAS ATTWOOD, from the Birmingham Philosophical Institution, to be allowed, to partake with other Institutions in the disposition of the Duplicate Books, and from various places for Repeal of Poor Law Amendment Act.—By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, (Edinburgh), against the Copyright Bill; and

1121
from the Convention of the Royal Burghs (Scotland), against the Abolition of Royal Burghs (Scotland); and complaining of the burthen of maintaining Prisoners after conviction; and from Birmingham, for Repeal of Duty on Newspaper Stamps.

NEWSPAPER STAMPS BILL.
On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Stamp Duties on Newspapers Bill passed through all the stages subsequent to the first reading, and was ordered to be sent up to the Lords.

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved the Order of the Day for the consideration of the Lords' amendments to this Bill, and said, that he certainly was of opinion that, generally speaking, the amendments made by the Lords, both in this Bill and in the Marriages Bill, should be agreed to. These two Bills would effect a great change, and, in his opinion, a great improvement. By means of the first, a civil registration was secured; and, by means of the second Bill, parties would be enabled to have their marriages celebrated in conformity with their conscientious principles. Now, these two important principles were preserved in the bills as they came down from the Lords; and such being the case, he thought it far better that they should not enter into a dispute with the Lords as to the amendments they had made in other parts of these Bills. If he were simply to go upon his own opinion, he would say, that he disagreed from those amendments; but as the two great and important principles to which he referred were still preserved, and as, what was more than he had expected, the Lords had assented to those principles, he thought it would be far better for them to endeavour to establish them as far as they could, by agreeing to the Bills in their present shape, and leave it then to experience to determine whether, in their practical working, these measures were calculated to carry those principles fairly into effect. His own opinion was that these Bills, as they had been sent up by the Commons, were better calculated to carry into effect the objects they had in view, than in their present altered shape, as they had been returned to them from the Lords, but for the reasons he had already stated, he thought it better not to dissent from those amendments. As, therefore, he should not move the House to dissent from those amendments, he would not now go into the objections he entertained to them.
1122
There were some verbal amendments which he should have to move, in order to carry into effect the amendments introduced by the Lords.
Mr. Humesaid, he perceived, that the Lords had made one amendment in the Bill, taking the appointment of the registrars from the Registrar-General, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and had vested it in an ever-changing and most unfit body for the purpose—the guardians of the poor. Such an alteration would open the door to great abuse and irregularity; and, he trusted that the noble Lord would not object to restore the original provision on that subject to the Bill.
Mr. Wilksexpressed his great satisfaction with the measure. He might refer with pride to the fact, that it was with him the appointment of the Select Committee on the subject had originated in 1833. The measure would be a great national improvement, and he would not give any factious opposition to the amendments made in it. The Member for Middlesex was quite mistaken in what he had stated. By the Bill as it went to the Lords, the appointment of registrars was given to the guardians of the poor, and the Lords had only introduced what appeared to him an excellent amendment as to the qualification of the persons to be chosen registrars.
Mr. Humefelt, that it was useless for him to press his objection, but he did his duty in protesting against taking the power in these cases from the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
The amendments of the Lords were agreed to, with verbal amendments.

MARRIAGES.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved the Order of the Day for taking into consideration the Lords' amendments to the Marriages Bill. The noble Lord observed, that there were several of these amendments to which he had very strong objections, as they certainly did not tend to carry the original intentions of the measure into effect on some important points; but, considering that it was of great importance to get an admission of the general principle of the Bill on the Statute-book, he was disposed to take the Bill even in its present defective slate. It would be necessary, on a future occasion, to propose further measures to carry the whole of the original plan into effect.

1123
At present, he was disposed to take the Bill as it was, and he would not, therefore, object to the Lords' amendments. He moved, that they be agreed to.
Mr. Wilkssaid, that some of those amendments would create difficulties which ought not to be thrown in the way of those whom it was the object of the Bill to relieve—for instance, the substitution of the superintendent registrar; for the registrar would oblige parties, in many cases, to go a distance of fifteen miles to give the necessary notices. He also objected to the production of those notices weekly before the Board of Guardians. After every pauper case had been gone through—after the last relief was doled out to the last pauper on the list, then the time of the guardians was to be taken up by the reading of those notices. But if this form was considered necessary, what, let him ask, was to be done where there were no unions and no Board of Guardians? In that case, this part of the Bill would be inoperative in two-thirds of the United Kingdom.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that the alterations made by the Lords would be productive of great mischief to the Bill itself, and great inconvenience to the country. However, the House of Commons would not be responsible for those changes. One great object of the Bill was, the prevention of clandestine marriages; but would the Bill have that effect? He thought, that so far from it, it would tend to facilitate them. There were at present two sorts of marriages—by bans and by licence, and now there was by this Bill, the marriage by notice to the registrar. The effect of this would be, that those who before had only one door open to clandestine marriages had now two. Those who made this charge would find in time, that they had inflicted a severe blow on themselves and their children, which they would have occasion to regret. However, though he differed much from the amendments of the Lords, he was disposed to take the Bill even as it was, for the reasons stated by his noble Friend (Lord John Russell), because it got the recognition of a most important principle, and they might have opportunities of improving the measure hereafter. When Mr. Canning got a Bill which had been sent up to the Lords, and there greatly altered, he said, that though he considered the amendments most objectionable, he would take them, for, as
1124
he had got the House in a humour to agree to the principle, he hoped to be able, on another occasion, to get them to consent to carry that principle out to the extent which he first intended. One part of this Bill, as it now stood, was highly objectionable. It was to the reading weekly before the Board of Guardians the notices given to the registrar. If this were considered a necessary check and safeguard against clandestine marriages, what check would remain where no Board of Guardians existed? There would then be no check whatever. This was the advantage of the great aid which they had derived from the other House, which thus got rid of the very security, the want of which they had complained of. There was another discrepancy in the Bill as amended. In one part, the notice was to be dated from the time it was given, and in another it was to be from the time of its entry by the registrar. How were these to be reconciled? Another important change which had been made in the Bill was the substitution of an oath for a declaration. He had thought, that with the consent of the other House, they had adopted the principle of getting rid of oaths wherever they could be dispensed with. He thought, that the solemnity of an oath ought as much as possible to be confined to our courts of justice. In the present case, if a disposition to break the oath existed, it would not be observed more strictly than a declaration. However, he repeated, let the House take the Bill, imperfect as it was. Let it not be given to the country to say, that they had sat for so many months and done nothing. They had sent up some good and most useful measures to the other House. It was not their fault that they had not become the law of the land. The principal recognised in this Bill was an important one, and they ought not to risk its loss even for the imperfections which the Lords' amendments had introduced in it.
Mr. Goulburnthought the last reason offered by the hon. and learned Gentleman a very bad one for adopting the Bill, if, indeed, it deserved the strong-censure he had bestowed upon it. He (Mr. Goulburn) had opposed the original Bill as sent up from this House, because it divested marriage of its religious character, and encouraged clandestine unions, and he could not say, that the amendments of the Lords had made him more willing

1125
to adopt it. In one respect, he thought the other House had improved the measure, for it gave every encouragement to members of the Church of England to continue to be married in the Church.

FREE CONFERENCE—MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS' ACT AMENDMENT.
The discussion was here interrupted by messengers from the Lords, announcing their Lordships' assent to a Free Conference on the Municipal Corporation Act.
Conference held, and other business suspended till the result was reported.
Lord John Russellreported, that the managers had met the Lords at the Free Conference, which was managed on the part of the Lords by the Earl of Ripon; that they acquainted the Lords that the Commons agree to the amendment in press 4, line 28; that they insist upon their disagreement to the amendments in press 5, line 25, and in press 6, line 17, and upon their disagreement to clause (L); and that they agree to the amendment made by the Lords in the amendment made by the Commons to clause (Z). That the Commons greatly regret that they are unable to agree to all the amendments made by the Lords; that they insist on their disagreement to the amendments made by the Lords in press 5, line 25, and press 6, line 17, because it does not seem reasonable, when the means of popular election are at hand, to refer to chance the nomination not only of the mayor, but likewise, as a necessary consequence, of the body of aldermen, who will remain in office for the period of three and six years.
That the Commons insist on their disagreement to clause (L); that they consider that amendment of far greater importance than the former; that they fear that by giving any assent to it they might countenance the belief, that they were prepared to continue in the members of the late corporations a trust which, in too many instances, has been misused; that the inconvenience of leaving the direction of these charitable trusts to the Lord Chancellor might be obviated, in the opinion of the Commons, by expressly giving to the Lord Chancellor the nomination of trustees to be appointed under the Great Seal for a single year; that the Commons are unwilling to believe that the Lords attach so much importance to this clause as to consider its insertion in
1126
this Bill absolutely essential; that the Commons, therefore, hope that the Lords will recede from the amendments to which the House of Commons have disagreed. That, thereupon, the Earl of Ripon acquainted the managers that, as one who had been deputed by the Lords to meet the House of Commons in conference upon the present occasion, he begged, on their part, to assure the managers, on the part of the Commons, that they felt it to be their duty, and should discharge that duty most conformably to the wishes of the House of Lords, by giving most respectful attention to the suggestions and representations which had been made to them on the part of the House of Commons, feeling most anxious, whatever difference of opinion may exist upon occasions in which the two Houses may be called upon to meet together in free Conference, to do all in their power to promote the public interests and sound legislation by maintaining that harmony, good understanding, and mutual respect, which has always characterised the intercourse of the two Houses of Parliament. That, with these feelings, it would be their duty to represent to the House of Lords the statement which had been made to them, in order that they may receive from that House their final instructions as to the decision to which they will come. That, thereupon, the managers delivered the Bill and amendments to their Lordships.
Mr. Humepresumed that it was competent to any hon. Member, although not a manager, to make a few observations on what had taken place. He had always understood that, at a free Conference between the two Houses, the question in dispute was argued, so that, if possible, the differences of opinion between the two Houses might be reconciled. With that expectation he had attended this Conference, but found no difference between the proceedings and those of ordinary Conferences; except that at the latter a written paper was delivered by the managers of the House of Lords, instead of the parole communication which the noble Lord had just reported at the Bar. Of the two modes of proceeding he certainly thought the usual one the better; for in that there was an authentic instrument that might justly be made the subject of discussion. He certainly could not boast of any experience on the subject; but if

1127
this Free Conference had been conducted according to precedent, he thought it was very desirable to appoint a Committee, to consider by what means a better arrangement might be substituted. He regretted that what had occurred had not been productive of the beneficial results which he had expected from it; but the fact was that it was a mere farce.
Lord John Russellcould not consent to the appointment of such a Committee as that proposed by his hon. Friend; because, if his hon. Friend would inspect the journals of the House, he would obtain as much information with respect to the nature of these conferences as could be obtained by the researches of any Committee. It was the practice in former days in free conferences for both the managers for the Commons and the managers for the Lords to express their opinions with reference to the matter in dispute. But at the same time it was always in the power of the managers for both Houses to break off the conference whenever they thought fit. For instance, at a free conference in April, 1740, after the managers for the House of Commons had stated their reasons, the managers for the House of Lords stated, that not having received instructions from the House, they could not take upon themselves to represent what the answer of the House would be. Now what had been done in 1740 was in effect what had been done that day. Aware of the circumstance, he (Lord J. Russell) had thought it better not to enter into the merits of the question in debate; for if he had done so, it would have been in the power of the managers of the House of Lords to avoid making any reply. It was always in their power to say, "We will acquaint the House of Lords with your reasons, and when we are further instructed, we will communicate our answer." He had acted according to precedent, and in such cases he considered it advisable always to conform to precedent.
Subject dropped.

MARRIAGES.—DEBATE RESUMED.
Mr. Bainesobserved, that the professed object of the House of Lords was to prevent clandestine marriages. Now, not only would those marriages not be prevented by the amendments which their Lordships had introduced into the Bill, but the means of effecting them would be afforded in two ways, instead of one.
Mr. Hindley, adverting to the recent conference, observed, that it was just as dumb as those conferences which were not termed free. The hon. Member proceeded to state his objections to the amendments made by the House of Lords in the Bill under consideration, and proposed that those amendments should be rejected.
The Attorney-Generalbegged to make a few remarks in answer to those hon. Gentlemen who appeared to be disappointed at the course pursued with respect to the free conference. It was impossible to continue any negotiation with the House of Lords, as to the Bill, in question except by asking for a free conference. But the conference which had that evening taken place was not all. The play was not over; only the first act had been performed. There must be a second conference; unless (as he was not without hopes might be the case) the House of Lords should abandon the obnoxious clause, and pass the Bill without it. He repeated, however, that there might be a second conference, and that then the wishes of hon. Gentlemen might be gratified.
Mr. Arthur Trevordefended the amendments which had been made by the House of Lords in the Marriage Registration Bill. He conceived that the Bill, in its original shape, was one of the most deadly blows that had ever been aimed at the Established Church.
Mr. Brotherton, on the contrary, did not think that the Bill was at all calculated to injure the Established Church. In his opinion, it was merely a matter of money. Although the amendments were not such as he entirely approved of, still he would not oppose them.
Mr. George Palmercharacterised the Bill as destructive of the peace and harmony of private families. He should think himself lost to all sense of his duty to his constituents, and to the public, if he did not do all he could to prevent it from being passed into a law. It would lead to infidelity; for what greater encouragement could be given to infidelity than to induce young people to show indifference towards religion.
Mr. M. Philipscould not approve of the amendments introduced by the Lords; but at the same time, conceiving an important principle would be gained by the Bill, even as it then stood, he, for one, should not risk its loss by opposing the amendments.
Mr. Borthwickentertained the most insuperable objections to the Bill. Even in its amended form, he thought it would tend to promote illegal marriages, and therefore, with the view of defeating it altogether, he should move that the Lord's amendments be read a second time that day three months.
The House divided on the original motion:—Ayes 63; Noes 3: Majority 60.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Lynch, A. H.

Aglionby, H. A.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Alston, R.

M'Leod, R.

Bagshaw, J.

Mangles, J.

Bentinck, Lord W.

Marjoribanks, S.

Bewes, T.

Morrison, J.

Blake, M. J.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Blamire, W.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Bowring, Dr.

O'Loghlen, M.

Brady, D. C.

Palmer, General

Bridgeman, H.

Palmerston, Viscount

Brotherton, J.

Philips, M.

Browne, R.D.

Potter, R.

Callaghan, D.

Pusey, P.

Chalmers, P.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Chetwynd, Captain

Rippon, C.

Cockerell, Sir C.

Robinson, G. R.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Crawford, W. S.

Russell, Lord J.

Dennistoun, A.

Ruthven, E.

Donkin, Sir R.

Smith, B.

Duncombe, T.

Stuart, Lord D.

East, J. B.

Tancred, H. W.

Ewart, W.

Thompson, Colonel

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Thornley, T.

Gladstone, T.

Villiers, C. P.

Gordon, R.

Warburton, H.

Grote, G.

Whalley, Sir S.

Hawes, B.

Wilks, J.

Hawkins, J. H.

Young, G. F.

Horsman, E.

TELLERS.

Hume, J.

Lushington, Dr.

Humphery, J.

Stanley, E. J.

List of the NOES.

Hindley, C.

TELLERS.

Law, hon. C. E.

Trevor, A.

Palmer, G.

Borthwick, P.

On the motion that the amendment to the 4th Clause be agreed to,
Mr. Hindleyrose to enter his protest against it. If the members of the Established Church were allowed to marry after the publication of bans in their own churches, he did not see why the Dissenters should not also be allowed to marry after the same form had been observed in their own chapels. It was only common justice that the publication of bans should be allowed in Dissenting places of worship, as well as in the Church of England.
Lord John Russellconfessed he was surprised at the objection now stated by the hon. Member, because in the former Bill which he (Lord J. Russell) introduced upon this subject he proposed to allow the publication of bans in Dissenting chapels; but this proposition no sooner became known than he received a communication from a Dissenting minister, declaring that the Dissenters would never consent to have their places of worship desecrated by the observance of so unholy a form.
Mr. Hindleywithdrew his admendment, and the Lords' amendment was agreed to.
On the amendment to clause B being read,
Mr. Wilksdeclared, that if he stood alone he would divide against it. The clause, in its amended shape, required the superintendent of the district to send to the clerk of the Union the names of all persons, being Protestant Dissenters, who should notify that they had an intention of being married, that he should enter the same in a book kept for that purpose, and that the entry so made should be read over weekly for three successive meetings of the guardians of the poor. This was a degradation to which the Dissenters would never consent.
Lord John Russellstated, that the amendment had been made by the Lords because their Lordships thought the Bill, in its original shape, did not provide a sufficient publicity in the marriage of Dissenters. He certainly did not think the amendment necessary, but, at the same time, he could not regard it as imposing anything like a degradation upon Dissenters.
Mr. Humehoped, that the hon. Member for Boston, seeing the position in which the measure then stood, would not press his objection to a division. There was no doubt but that the clause, as it then stood, would place the Dissenter in a degrading situation; but this was a fault which might afterwards be amended. He should be sorry to follow any course that might hazard the loss of the Bill, and for that reason, although he felt the full force of the objection taken by the hon. Member for Boston, he should not be disposed to divide with him.
Mr. Brothertondeclared, that it would be regarded by the Dissenters as intolerable.
The House divided on the motion that the Lords amendment be agreed to:—Ayes 47; Noes 9; Majority 38.

List of the NOES.

Alston, R.

Robinson, G. R.

Baring, F. T.

Thompson, Col.

Brotherton, J.

Trevor, hon. Arthur

Brownrigg, S.

TELLERS.

Butler, hon. P.

Mr. Hindley

Duncombe, T.

Mr. Wilks

Clause, as amended, agreed to.
The other amendments agreed to.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved, that the Lords' amendments in the Established Church Bill be now considered.
On the amendment of the clause requiring all clergymen appointed to benefices, and all persons appointed to Bishops' Sees, in Wales, to understand the Welsh language, by the striking out so much thereof, as related to Bishops, being read,
Mr. Hallsaid, although he was one of those who entertained the same opinion with regard to this Bill as had been expressed by his hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex, yet, as it had already undergone considerable discussion, and had passed that House by a great majority, it would ill become him to take up the time of the House, or to trespass upon its attention more than was absolutely necessary upon the present occasion. But, connected as he was with the principality, and feeling a deep interest in everything that affected that part of the empire, he hoped he might be excused offering a few observations upon one of the amendments and stating the reasons why he could not concur in the alteration which had been made. It would be in the recollection of many hon. Members that, during the progress of this Bill through the Committee, the Member for Chester introduced a clause, which was carried by a considerable majority—not considerable when viewed numerically, but considerable in importance, inasmuch as the supporters of the humble Church of Wales triumphed, not only when opposed by his Majesty's Ministers, but also in opposition to the leading Members of the party who occupy the opposite benches. The clause, however, to which he alluded, contained two distinct propositions; the first was, that to every vacancy which might occur in any See in the Principality, The clergyman to be appointed, should understand the Welsh language, and the other was, that when any benefice became vacant, the person to be inducted should also
1132
be conversant with the language of that country. Now, as regards the latter proposition, he believed it remained just in the same state as when it was sent up from this House; but with regard to the former, he regretted to say it no longer existed. The argument adduced by the most rev. Prelate who moved the omission of the words which required Welsh Bishops to possess a knowledge of the Welsh language, was, that the duty of a Bishop was NOT to act as the shepherd of the flock, but as the superintendent of the Pastors. He (Mr. Hall) begged with all due submission to differ from that right rev. Prelate; and although he might, for the sake of argument, admit that a Bishop was not the pastor populi but the pastor p storum, yet, in point of fact, if the Bishop did his duty, he must be frequently brought in contact with the flock over which he was called upon spiritually to preside. It was the duty of a Bishop to preach to the congregation, to perform the sacred administration of the Sacrament, and the solemn order of Confirmation, and yet the Archbishop of Canterbury says, it is not necessary that Welsh Bishops should understand the Welsh language. If that right rev. Prelate would look again into the Thirty-nine Articles, and read the twenty-fourth, which treats, "of speaking to the congregation in such a tongue as the people understandeth," he will find "that to have public prayer in the Church, or to minister the sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people, is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God," But the Archbishop of the present day was only to be compared to his predecessors. He would read to the House part of a petition presented to the Pope by the Welsh Princes, in the reign of Henry the 3rd. The Princes set forth a statement of their grievances, and they commence in this way:—"And first, the Archbishop of Canterbury, as a matter of course, sends us English Bishops, ignorant of the language and manners of our land, who cannot preach the Word of God to the people, nor receive their confession but through interpreters; and whatever they can lay upon to get from us, whether by right or whether by wrong, they carry into England, and the lands which were bestowed on the Cathedrals in Wales, they sell, give away, and alienate." They were now living in 1836, and pursuing the same course as that pursued by the

1133
Archbishop 600 years ago! But what he complained of most was the unbounded spirit of nepotism which seemed to take possession of some of these English Bishops the moment they took up this Episcopal power in the Principality. He was not one of those who would ever for the sake of argument hazard statements or make assertions which were not founded on facts, neither would he, in illustration of any argument, bring forward unnecessarily the names of any individuals; but, as what he was about to state was already published to the world, he would trouble the House by reading a few extracts from a very clever and interesting work, which had thrown great light on this spirit of nepotism. He found that in the Diocese of St. Asaph, a relation of the late Bishop held the following preferments. He was Dean and Chancellor of the Diocese, with the Deanery house, with about 40 l. a year; Parish of Henllan, 1,500 l.; St. Asaph, 426 l.; Llan-Neoydd, 300 l.; Llanvair, 220 l.; Darowain, 120 l.; Chancellorship from fees, 400 l., making 3,006 l.; besides all this, he was lessee of Llandegle and Llanasaph, worth 680 l., and this all exclusive of the Rectory of Cradley, in the Diocese of Hereford, 1,200 l.; Vicarage of Bromyard, 500 l.; Prebend of Hereford, 50 l.; portion of Bromyard, 50 l. at present, but expectant at the death of an old life, that this preferment will be worth 1,400 l. Thus he had no less than eleven sources of emolument, producing between six and seven thousand a year. It appears, also, that his brother had about 3,000 l. a year, and the total enjoyed by relations of the late Bishop of the Diocese alone amounts to between seven and eight thousand. But it appeared by reference to the same work, that the amount enjoyed by the Bishop and the relations of the former Bishops alone amount to 23,679 l., and exceeds the whole amount enjoyed by all the other resident and native clergy put together. He would not weary the House by going more into detail, but he would merely state, that in the Diocese of Bangor great abuses appeared also to exist. So much for the acts of the Bishops, and now he would again return to the Archbishop, as head of the Church Commission; and he would advert to what was intended to be done with the revenues of the Welsh Church. Not content with taking one Bishop away, and leaving the Principality with only
1134
three, they take about an eighth of the whole income of the Church in North Wales for the purpose of founding a Bishoprick of Manchester, so that the property arising from the industry of the inhabitants of the barren mountains is alienated, in order to maintain a Bishop in one of the most wealthy towns and in the richest county of England, where he is not desired, and where the people present a formidable mass of Dissenters. If the Church Commissioners considered that three Bishops were sufficient for Wales, why did they not take the surplus and apply it to the enlargement of small livings? why did they not give the Welsh curate, who did the work, an honourable and sufficient maintenance? It was no uncommon thing in Wales for the Incumbent to leave his parish to the charge of some curate, who could preach and teach the doctrines of Scripture to the congregation in the language which they understood. The Welsh were a people strongly attached to their country, and some might say, that their attachment was so strong to their language, that they were superstitiously devoted to it,—could it be expected, then, that they would or could pay that respect to their Diocesan which the heads of their church might desire, unless he was able to address them in a tongue they had the power of understanding? In his own parish they had an Incumbent, who was in every respect an excellent man, but he lived at a distance, deriving a large income from the united parishes, whilst a curate performed the Welsh service, and although he did all the duty of two churches, he received only 100 l. a year, out of which he had to pay 10 l. for his residence, leaving a surplus of 90 l. a year to maintain himself, his wife, and as large a flock of children as curates generally are blessed with; and such was frequently the miserable stipend of the Welsh curates, that he has many times seen them working in the fields, eking out a miserable pittance, and endeavouring to add to their means through the force of their own manual exertion. He had had t! honour of presenting two petitions to the House that evening, one from certain natives of the Principality resident in London, who were Dissenters, and the other from members of the Established Church, residing in the metropolis; they expressed themselves grateful to that House for having passed a clause by which their fellow-

1135
countrymen might have the spiritual benefit of Welsh Bishops and Welsh clergymen; they stated their regret at learning that this wise provision was overthrown in another place, and they prayed, rather than have a continuation of English Bishops, that they might have no Bishops at all, and that the funds arising from the abolition of the Bishopricks might be given to the poorer clergy. This would shew how strong the feeling was, and it was one that was very general in the Principality. He entertained very strong opinions in opposition to this amendment of the Archbishops, and he considered it not a little invidious, that the Archbishop of Canterbury should allow that persons appointed to the benefices in the Principality ought to understand the Welsh language, whilst he advocated the omission of that part of it which laid the same obligation on the Bishops. He should, therefore, move, that the House do not agree to the Lords' amendment.
On a message being sent from the Lords, another free Conference was agreed to.

FREE CONFERENCE—MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved, that the managers of the last Conference should be appointed managers of the present.
The clerk read over the names of the managers.
Mr. Humeasked who nominated the managers on the former conference?
The Speaker: the House.
Mr. Humewas present in the House when they were nominated, but believed that the nomination had been made by the Speaker. He, out of deference to the right hon. Gentleman, did not make any objection, although he certainly considered that the names which had been selected were not a fair specimen of the opinions entertained by hon. Members on his side of the House. If it was intended that the Bill should pass, with the amendments, then it might be all very well to appoint hon. Gentlemen entertaining the same opinions; but if the proceedings of the Conference were to be conducted fairly, having due regard to the differences of opinion prevailing among hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House, then he must say that the selection had not been properly made.
Mr. Thomas Duncombe: How many constitute the body of managers?
The Speaker: sixteen.
Mr. T. Duncombe: Then I beg to move that the hon. Member for Middlesex, be substituted for one of those hon. Members who have not answered to their names.
Agreed to.
Other Members were appointed, and the managers withdrew.
On returning, after an absence of about an hour and a quarter,
Lord John Russellreported, that the managers had met the Lords at the free Conference, which was managed on the part of the Lords, by the Earl of Ripon, who acquainted them that the Lords adhere to their amendment in press 5, line 25; because the Municipal Corporations Act, not having provided that a fresh election should take place in the event of an equality of votes, the Lords consider that it would be in accordance with the principle of that Act, which this Bill is intended to amend, to meet the difficulty arising from an equality of votes, in the manner in which it is met under the provisions of that Act, namely, by the casting vote of the person presiding at the election. That the Lords likewise adhere to the insertion of Clause (L); because they are of opinion that the inconvenience arising from the placing of the Charitable Trusts under the management of the Lord Chancellor would be much greater than that of allowing them to remain until the end of the next Session, or until Parliament shall otherwise provide, in the hands of the persons in whom both Houses of Parliament concurred, in continuing them by the Act of last year. That the Lords observe, that it has not appeared that any practical injury has arisen from the disposition with respect to these trusts, made with the concurrence of both Houses in the course of last Session, but the Lords are, nevertheless, anxiously desirous that the management of these charitable funds should be placed upon a permanent and satisfactory footing, whereby the administration of charities, intended for the benefit of the poor, might, as far as possible, be divested of all party influence. That, thereupon, a discussion arose between the managers, on the part of the Commons, and the managers on the part of the Lords [for the proceedings of which, see Lords' debates—this day]; and that the managers on the part of the Lords, thereupon deliver back the Bill, and amendments to the managers of the Commons. It being quite clear, therefore, the noble

1137
Lord continued, that the two Houses can come to no agreement on these clauses, it is obvious that the best course for this House, is to postpone the further consideration of these amendments to this day three months. He moved, that the consideration of the amendments be postponed accordingly.
Amendment postponed.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH.—DEBATE RESUMED.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the question before the House was, that they should disagree with the Lords' amendment, and it should not be necessary for the Welsh Bishops to understand the Welsh language. He believed in the diocese of Llandaff, that language was not spoken to any great extent, and therefore it was unreasonable to make it a necessary qualification there; he thought also, that it would be an improper restriction on the prerogative of the Crown, to make such a rule as to the selection of Bishops, and in some cases, it would be found to operate in a most inconvenient manner.
Mr. Aglionbyhad not heard any reason to induce him to assent to the Lords' amendment, striking out the provision that the Welsh Bishops should understand the language of that country. As soon as the English became the vernacular language of Wales, then it would not be necessary that either the Bishops or Clergy should be acquainted with Welsh, but until that time, some restriction of the kind was necessary.
Mr. Goulburnbelieved, that the number of persons who were in other respects qualified to act as Bishops, who were well acquainted with the Welsh language, was very small, so that if this restriction was adopted, the choice would be very limited. He did not conceive that it was necessary that the Bishops should understand that language, although this might be the case with the great body of the Clergy in Wales, and there could be no doubt that all the Clergy understood the English language. If this rule were acted upon, they might get very incompetent persons appointed Bishops, and that merely because they spoke the Welsh language
Mr. Humeimputed the great preponderance of Dissenters in Wales, to the ignorance of the vernacular language of that country on the part of the clergy. In reply to the observation of the right hon. Gentleman, he would ask whether
1138
resident Bishops ought not to be required to be acquainted with the language of the country in which they were called upon to act? Was it not the duty of a Bishop to preach to the people of his diocese? He declared that a Welsh Bishop, who could not speak the Welsh language, was very incompetent to perform his public duties, for he should not only be able to preach in a language which could be understood by his auditory, but he should be able to hold communication with the inhabitants of his diocese. The truth was, that it was the Bill of the Bishops, and was not a measure of reform.
Mr. George F. Youngobserved, if the hon. Member for Middlesex regarded the Archbishop of Canterbury, as an anti-Reformer, because he supported the clause in the Bill as it stood, he should also view the noble Lord in the same light. The hon. Member might also call him an anti-Reformer. He was perfectly ready to be designated by that name by the hon. Member, for no doubt he was an anti-Reformer in the estimation of the hon. Gentleman; but he (Mr. G. F. Young) felt satisfied, that he was not regarded in that light, either by his constituents, or by the enlightened portion of the public.
Mr. Ewartsaid, he should support the amendment of his hon. Friend, for, in rejecting the amendment of the Lords, he considered he should be only maintaining the principle of common sense, that the superintendents of the Church should understand the language of the people over whom they were set.
An hon. Membersaid, he could assure the House that they were little aware of the prevalence of the Welsh language in the principality. He believed, four-fifths of the inhabitants spoke it: he should give his vote for the amendment of the hon. Gentleman, because he considered it of great importance that the dignitaries of the Church should be able to converse with and address those over whom they presided.
Mr. Borthwicksaid, he should support the amendment of the Lords on two grounds, first because he considered it was of great importance that the widest possible range should be allowed to those who had to select persons to fill the episcopal office. And, secondly, because although unquestionably he admitted it was desirable that the Bishop should know the lan-

1139
guage of those over whom he presides, he did not consider it the highest qualification. If you enact that no person shall fill a Welsh see who is not fully conversant with the Welsh language you necessarily greatly narrow the limits within which the choice must be made. Surely the hon. Member would not contend that the language was so difficult to acquire that any learned and rev. person nominated to a Welsh Bishoprick might not easily acquire a knowledge of it in the course of a few months after his appointment. The first qualifications of a Bishop were prudence, a deep knowledge of divinity, thorough acquaintance with theological and general literature, and unlimited knowledge of the constitution of his Church. That he should understand the language of the people over whom he has to preside, is a great and desirable qualification; but it is still of comparatively minor importance and in his (Mr. Borthwick's) opinion, might be safely left to his own conscience and sense of duty, if he really possessed the others. Therefore, though he did not agree with those hon. Members who contended that all the duties of a Bishop might be efficiently discharged without a knowledge of the language of those whose spiritual interest he has the care, and though he hoped and expected that Prelates appointed to Welsh sees would feel it their duty to acquire the Welsh language, he could not vote with the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Hall) for making it a necessary preliminary to their selection.
Mr. Mark Philipssaid, that really many of the arguments of those who supported the amendment of the Lords appeared to him to go the length of proving that Bishops were not wanted at all. He would not then maintain that proposition (though it was well known he was a Dissenter) but he did say this, that the duties of a Bishop could not be efficiently discharged without a knowledge of the language of those over whom he presides, so as to be able to converse with and address them. What would be said of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, if he were to send out as envoys to Continental Courts, men who were altogether ignorant of the language spoken in those countries? Was there no similarity in the cases? Was it not inconsistent with the religious and moral interests of a community that their spiritual superiors
1140
should be unable to hold any communication with them? He certainly should vote for the proposition of his hon. Friend, the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Hall).
Mr. Trevorhad supported the motion of the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Jervis) for enacting that all clergymen appointed to livings in Wales should be fully conversant with the Welsh language; but he did not consider the same reason which held good in the case of clergymen held good in the case of a Bishop which would justify him in placing the same restriction upon the choice of persons who were to fill Welsh Sees. He did not consider it necessary to urge as a sine qua non for a Welsh Prelate, that he should be fully conversant with the Welsh language and he should, therefore, support the amendment of the Lords.
The House divided on the motion, that the Lords' amendment be agreed to:—Ayes 51; Noes 45: Majority 6.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Lynch, A. H.

Barclay, D.

Marjoribanks, S.

Baring, F. T.

Morpeth, Viscount

Borthwick, P.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Bowring, Dr.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Bramston, T. W.

Palmer, G.

Brownrigg, S.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Campbell, Sir J.

Praed, W. M.

Chapman, A.

Price, G. S.

Chetwynd, Captain

Pusey, P.

Dalmeny, Lord

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Donkin, Sir R.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

East, J. B.

Russell, Lord J.

Elley, Sir J.

Seale, Colonel

Etwall, R.

Smith, R. V.

Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C.

Steuart, Robert

Fleetwood, P. H.

Tancred, H. W.

Gladstone, Thomas

Thompson, rt. hn. C.P.

Gordon, Robert

Thompson, Col.

Gordon, hon. W.

Townley, R. G.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Trevor, hon. A.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Howard, P. H.

Wood, C.

Howick, Viscount

Young, G. F.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

TELLERS.

Loch, J.

Maule, hon. F.

Lowther, J. H.

Stanley, E. J.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Butler, hon. Pierce

Alsager, Captain

Chalmers, P.

Bewes, T.

Codrington, Admiral

Biddulph, R.

Crawford, W. S.

Blamire, W.

Duncombe, T. S.

Boldero, Henry G.

Elphinstone, H.

Bridgeman, H.

Harvey, D. W.

Brotherton, J.

Hector, C. J.

Browne, R. D.

Hindley, C.

Buckingham, J. S.

Hoskins, K.

1141

Hughes, W. H.

Rippon, Cuthbert

Hume, J.

Robinson, G. R.

Hutt, W.

Ruthven, Edward

Kemp, T. R.

Thompson, Alderman

Leader, J. T.

Thornley, T.

Lennard, T. B.

Tulk, C. A.

Lennox, Lord G.

Villiers, C. P.

Morrison, J.

Wakley, T.

Oswald, J.

Ward, Henry George

Pelham, hon. C. A.

Wilks, John

Philips, Mark

Williams, Wm.

Potter, R.

TELLERS.

Pryse, P.

Ewart, William

Richards, R.

Hall, B.

Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved, that the Lords' amendment in Clause A be agreed to.
Mr. Humehoped, that the noble Lord would not persist in continuing in the Bill the clause which had just been adopted by only a majority of six. He objected to the Bill altogether. It was a reflection on the Bishops that they appeared so anxious to get so much for themselves, and proposed to leave so little to the working clergy. The Bill had been brought from the other House, and if it had been a sound measure it would have encountered much more opposition than it did in its passage through that place. He thought that the House would only do justice if they postponed this Bill until they got some really good measures through the Lords. It must be evident, from what had taken place elsewhere, that they had little to expect from the other House in the shape of Reform. He hoped that the noble Lord would consent to postpone the further progress of the Bill until next Session, and he should propose an amendment to that effect. Anything that tended to reform abuses was sure to be rejected elsewhere, and the Commons were almost treated with indignity. He was not prepared to let Peers sit in that House while he and other Members had to stand if they wished to listen to the debates elsewhere. Even at the conference that had just been held they had been treated in a manner which he thought the House should not submit to. It was degrading to the Commons of England that the managers on their part had to stand uncovered, while the managers on the part of the Peers were seated and covered.
Mr. Arthur Trevorrose to order. The observations of the hon. Member had nothing to do with the provisions of the Established Church Bill.
Mr. Humedid not know what the hon.
1142
Member's opinion of order was, but if he had called the hon. Member to order whenever he (Mr. Hume) thought that hon. Gentleman spoke irrelevant to the subject matter of debate, he should have had a great deal more to do than would have been agreeable to him. He repeated, that the conduct pursued at the conference—
Mr. Arthur Trevoragain rose to order, and appealed to the Chair.
The Speakerobserved, that the hon. Member for Durham must be quite aware that it was extremely difficult to define on any occasion the exact limits within which an hon. Member must confine himself not to be out of order. At the same time, he must admit, that it did appear a little strange to urge as a reason for rejecting the Lords' amendments to this Bill that they had rejected the Commons' amendments to another Bill.
Lord John Russellreminded his hon. Friend that this Bill had been sent up from this House to the House of Lords, and they had added certain clauses to it which were now under discussion. The question then was as to how they should deal with these clauses?
Mr. Humerepeated, that the Members of the House of Commons who attended the conference had been obliged to stand, and had been driven into a corner like a parcel of sheep. He also wished to know why a Peer should sit with his hat on while a Member of that House was obliged to stand with his hat off, so that it was not possible for the Commons to do their duty.
The Speakerobserved, that the question before the House was, whether the amendments made by the Lords in the Bill should be read a second time?
Mr. Humesaid, that the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct, and so was he. His motion was, that the farther consideration of this amendment should be postponed until the next Session.
Lord John Russellthought the clause a very proper one. To agree to the proposition made by his hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex would be, eventually, to reject the whole Bill.
Mr. Robinsonopposed the motion, and added, that although he had a great respect for the hon. Member for Middlesex, no man wasted more of the time of the House than that hon. Gentleman. Government had a right, instead of being impeded,

1143
to all the facilities which could be afforded them in the completion of their measures.
Mr. Ewartheld an opinion different from that of the hon. Member for Worcester. No man had done more good in that House than the hon. Member for Middlesex. There were some men who wasted a great deal of time in a little way. [Hear, hear!] He perceived by that ironical cheer, that the hon. Members opposite took that observation to themselves. He allowed that all due facilities should be afforded to his Majesty's Government; but, at the same time, the House ought to have a sufficient opportunity of deliberately considering every measure submitted to them.
Lord John Russellapprehended that, although the immediate effect of the motion of the hon. Member for Middlesex would be only to postpone the clause, yet it would place the House in the difficulty of being unable to pass the Bill until that postponed clause had been considered. He was willing, therefore, to take the division on his hon. Friend's motion as if it were a division on a motion for postponing the Bill altogether.
The House divided on the original motion:—Ayes 66; Noes 31: Majority 35.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Hughes, W. H.

Alsager, Captain

Hutt, W.

Barclay, D.

Jackson, Sergeant

Baring, F. T.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Boldero, H. G.

Lennox, Lord G.

Borthwick, P.

Loch, J.

Bramston, T W.

Lowther, J. H.

Brownrigg, S.

Morpeth, Viscount

Burrell, Sir C.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Campbell, Sir J.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Chapman, A.

Palmer, G.

Charlton, E. L.

Palmerston, Viscount

Codrington, Admiral

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Corbett, T. G.

Pelham, hon. C. A.

Dalmeny, Lord

Perceval, Colonel

Donkin, Sir R.

Praed, W. M.

East, J. B.

Price, S. G.

Elley, Sir J.

Pusey, P.

Etwall, R.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S,

Fergusson, rt. hn. R.C.

Robinson, G. R.

Fleetwood, P. H.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Gladstone, T.

Ross, C.

Gordon, R.

Russell, Lord J.

Gordon, hon. W.

Sandon, Viscount

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Seymour, Lord

Hobhouse, right hon. Sir J.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Smith, R.V.

Howard, P. H.

Stuart, R.

Howick, Viscount

Tancred, H. W.

Hoy, J. B,

Thompson Alderman

1144

Thompson, Colonel

Wood, C.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Young, G. F.

Townley, R. G.

TELLERS.

Twiss, H.

Bernal, R.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Lushington, Dr.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Kemp, T. R.

Bowring, Dr.

Leader, J. T.

Bridgeman, H.

Lennard, T. B.

Brotherton, J.

Oswald, J.

Browne, R. D.

Philips, M.

Buckingham, J. S.

Potter, R.

Butler, hon. P.

Rippon, C.

Callaghan, D.

Ruthven, E.

Chalmers, P.

Trevor, hon. A.

Crawford, W. S.

Tulk, C. A.

Duncombe, T. S.

Wakley, T.

Elphinstone, H.

Warburton, H.

Hall, B.

Wilks, J.

Hawes, B.

Williams, W.

Hector, C. J.

TELLERS.

Hindley, C.

Ewart, W.

Hoskins, K.

Hume, J.

The remaining clauses were agreed to.

GREEK LOAN.
Viscount Palmerston Viscount Palmerston moved the third reading of the Greek Loan Bill.
Mr. Robinson: I wish to make a few observations on the present occasion in justification of the course I have felt it my duty to take with regard to this Bill. My complaint of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, respecting the Greek Loan is, that he must have been, for the last twelve months, aware of the situation of Greece, and the diversity of opinion existing among the three great Powers who had taken that country under their protection; but for some reason or other, which the noble Lord has not explained, the House of Commons was not called upon to express an opinion upon this subject until nearly the close of the Session. I find by the papers which the noble Lord has laid upon the table of the House, that correspondence has taken place between the noble Lord and the Ambassadors of France and Russia, Lord Durham at Petersburgh, and Lord Grenville at Paris, for several months past. And I have a right to ask the noble Lord why, considering the importance of the subject, when the noble Lord thought it necessary to ask the sanction of Parliament for guaranteeing the third instalment of the Greek Loan, why the House of Commons was not called upon to decide upon this question at an earlier period of the Session? When the noble Lord brought the Bill first forward he produced no papers, but

1145
took the vote of the House upon his own statement; and it was not until he proposed going into Committee that we were put into possession of that last series of correspondence which is now before us. And only yesterday, certain papers connected with this subject, were put into the hands of Members, though the third reading of the Bill stood for yesterday, and would, undoubtedly, have been proposed had not a Committee of Supply occupied us until an unexpectedly late hour of the night. Without any undue asperity, I am bound to say, this is not treating the House of Commons with proper respect. When we reflect how important are the considerations involved in this question—that disunion between the three great Powers respecting Greece may lead to consequences that would prove fatal to the preservation of the tranquillity of that country, the House of Commons ought to have had full time to deliberate upon the whole subject, and to have considered all the information that could have been laid upon its table, to enable them to arrive at a just decision. When this Loan was first entered into it was consented to by this House, on the ground that Russia, France, and England, concurred in their views of the policy which ought to be pursued with respect to Greece, viz., the establishment of a separate independent kingdom in that country. To effect that object these three Powers agreed to guarantee a loan of 60,000,000 francs. Now it was one thing to concur with those two other Powers for the purpose of effecting that object: it is quite another thing as the noble Lord proposes, to endeavour to effect it without the concurrence of Russia and without (as I have been informed on good authority) any concurrence on the part of France—as to the noble Lord's present proposition, I maintain that this Bill is founded upon false pretensions. The preamble states, "Whereas doubts have arisen," whether Government has power to advance the third instalment of the Greek Loan; the noble Lord comes to Parliament and asks for that power, I maintain there is no doubt upon the subject. The noble Lord knows well that he has no power whatever to guarantee this money, the Act stipulates that the Loan shall be guaranteed by this country if with the consent of France and Russia. If either of these Powers refuse their consent the power of Government ceases; the
1146
noble Lord has admitted that in his correspondence, indeed what occasion could there be for applying to Parliament at all if the noble Lord possessed the power of guaranteeing this instalment without its consent? The noble Lord has assured us that he has every reason to believe, that France at least is disposed to enter into the views of the British Government with respect to Greece; undoubtedly it would remove much of the objection, which I entertain to this measure, to know that France was ready to guarantee her portion of this instalment, because it would prove she was ready to co-operate with this country in extricating Greece from her present condition; but I have looked all over the correspondence in vain to discover any signs of a disposition on the part of France to fulfil her engagement in that respect. We have only the noble Lord's assurance. I believe that in the present situation of Greece (which the noble Lord depicted in such favourable—nay, glowing colours—much more favourably I fear than the truth would bear him out in doing) the independence of that country is not likely to be finally established in the absence of that co-operation which Russia, in common with France and England, stipulated to advance. I am persuaded that the sum which he now asks the House to guarantee, will no sooner be raised than expended, and that, within twelve months, Greece will be in as bad (or worse) a situation as she now is. I understand the situation of Greece to be at this moment deplorable in the extreme, an insurrection is prevented only by the presence of the Bavarian troops, the whole country is over-run with banditti, who defy the Government to put them down. And is it in a country like this—Russia having declined to guarantee any further pecuniary assistance—without any co-operation on the part of France, that the British Government is called upon to guarantee a further sum, in addition to the large amounts she has already guaranteed, with no security for the re-payment, either of present or past advances? I deny that, as it was stated on a former occasion, if we do not guarantee this third instalment, Greece will again fall into the state in which she was when the three Powers undertook to guarantee her independence; I deny at least that such will be the necessary consequence of our refusal. But if this coun-

1147
try guarantee the third instalment of this Loan (as I contend they ought) with the concurrence of, and in conjunction with Russia and France, these two Powers will have an interest in continuing those exertions for the maintenance of Grecian independence, which have been carried on since 1832. Can the noble Lord believe that the pecuniary assistance, which he now asks Parliament to afford to Greece, looking at her present condition, will be sufficient to meet all her exigencies? Four millions go to the expense of raising the Loan, an annual sum of nearly one million goes to the support of the widows of those who died in the struggles for liberty, so that in fact little will remain after adding the sum paid to Turkey as the price of Acarnania and Natolia. I ask the House to pause before they consent to separate ourselves from our great Allies in regard to Greece. What interest has this country in the establishment of King Otho's Government in Greece, which France and Russia does not share in common with us? I maintain, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to support the Bavarian rule in Greece, without the cooperation of Russia, and with no likelihood that France will lend us any efficient aid. Upon these grounds, I feel it my duty to move, that this Bill be read a third time this day nine months.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, that having at length stated on former occasions the grounds on which he asked the House to agree to this measure, he should not at this late hour of the night (half past twelve) attempt to follow the hon. Member through the many topics he had dwelt upon in the course of his long speech. He certainly had hoped, that Russia would have concurred in the proposition, and would have paid her proportion; and he had not applied to Parliament for the discretionary power the Government now asked for, till it was ascertained that Russia would not fulfil the engagement. This was only known the other day; which would probably be a sufficient answer to the objection of the hon. Member for Worcester as to Ministers not bringing the question forward at an earlier period. The delay with regard to the papers, was accounted for by the same cause, which would also shew that Ministers had no disposition unnecessarily to pursue a course different from that of France and Russia. To demonstrate that they did not wish to urge the Bill precipi-
1148
tately forward; let hon. Members remember that on asking leave to bring it in, they pledged themselves to postpone any ultimate proceedings until the papers were in the possession of Members. The hon. Member for Worcester said, that he was as anxious as the Ministers to carry this honourable object into effect; but yet, with all his generous anxiety for Greece, he refused the means of serving it. How could he make the zeal of his profession agree with the coldness of his practice? The principal charge against the Ministers was, that they separated England from France and Russia. The hon. Member's fear was, that we should act alone. It would undoubtedly be highly desirable to act in conjunction with the two other Powers, but he was not so distrustful of the means of England—of her power and moral influence—as not to hope that even without other assistance she would be able to effect that for which the hon. Gentleman professed so earnest an anxiety. It seemed to be supposed that she ought to proceed by the way of conference, but the time for such a mode of proceeding had passed by. Greece was an independent nation, and henceforward England could only assist and protect her as an ally. The hon. Member asked, would the assistance now proposed be sufficient to rescue Greece from the dangers and difficulties which threatened her? To this he answered that if the present aid were refused, it would be certain ruin, though the grant of that aid might not prevent for her future embarrassments. She required all the instalments due, to enable her to provide for her internal arrangements; and what this Bill proposed to give would be sufficient to cover the expense of those steps which had been taken by the Government to check the inroads of the bandits in the north. Of course the fulfilment of the Treaty entered into by the Crown, must depend on the support of the Parliament; but he had little doubt that if England performed her part of the contract, the French Chambers would not refuse to ratify that part of it for which the French Government had become guarantee. But, suppose that the French Government refused to make good its guarantee, that would not remove our obligation to perform our part. The argument that if we assisted Greece now, she would again fall into similar embarrassments in future was untenable. Was a drowning man not

1149
to be helped, lest he might fall into the water again next year? The argument in both cases, would be equally conclusive. He thought the cheapest mode of sending the money would be to pay it in Paris out of the proceeds of the loan, rather than to send it to Athens—to have it sent back again to Paris. With respect to the condition of Greece, he had good authority for stating that at present it was tranquil—and that the prospect of increased improvement was very considerable. He trusted, that the House, under these circumstances, would not join in the opinion of the hon. Member; and would reject his amendment by a considerable majority.
Mr. George F. Young, notwithstanding the statement made by the noble Lord, must concur in the view of the subject taken by the hon. Member for Worcester
Amendment negatived, and Bill read a third time, and passed.

STAFFORD BOROUGH.
Mr. Hume, brought up the Report of the Committee appointed to examine the Lords' Journals, to ascertain the course taken by their Lordships with respect to the Stafford Disfranchisement Bill.
Laid on the table.
The hon. Memberthen moved, that a new writ for the borough of Stafford be not issued until ten days after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament.
Mr. A. Trevorobjected to the motion, and moved, as an amendment, that the writ be not issued for one week.
Captain Chetwyndopposed the motion. The report had undergone a very full and patient investigation in the other House of Parliament, and none of the illegal and immoral practices attributed to the borough had been substantiated. But whatever the supposed delinquency of the borough might be, he thought it had already been sufficiently punished by the length of time during which it had been left with only one Representative.
The House divided on the original motion:—Ayes 45; Noes 5: Majority 40.
Writ suspended till after the meeting of Parliament.

CIVIL OFFICES DECLARATION.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the third reading of the Civil Offices Declaration Bill.
Colonel Sibthorpwas decidedly opposed to the Bill and to the practice of proceeding with measures of this important description at so late a period of the Session.
Mr. A. Trevorentirely coincided with the gallant Member for Lincoln. The principle of the Bill appeared to him to be most objectionable, and rather than suffer it to pass in such a hurried manner, he would continue to divide against it till eight o'clock in the morning.
The House divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 2: Majority 43.
Bill read a third time and passed.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
On the motion for bringing up the report of the Bribery at Elections Bill,
Colonel Sibthorphad strong and insuperable objections to the measure. He moved as an amendment, that the House do adjourn.
Two divisions took place on motions for adjournment, and though the minority was only three, it was found necessary to defer the further consideration of the report.
After a short discussion the further consideration of the Report was deferred till to-morrow.

POOR RATE. PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENTS.
Mr. Poulett Thomson Mr. Poulett Thomson moved, that the Lords' amendments to the Parochial Assessments Bill be taken into consideration this day three months. The amendments made by the Lords were undoubtedly calculated to improve the measure, but being a Bill for rating, there was a technical difficulty to its receiving any amendment in the other House. He had therefore no alternative but to move that the amendments be rejected, and then to move for leave to bring in another Bill upon the subject.
Amendment rejected, and another Bill was brought in, and read a first time.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time. Spirits (Excise); Assessed Taxes; Court of Exchequer (Scotland); Foreign Lotteries; Ecclesiastical Appointments Suspension; Western Australia; Gold and Silver Plate (Scotland); Exchequer Suits in Equity Bills.—Read a second time:—Church Temporalities (Ireland); Sunk Road Island Militia; Ballot Suspension Bills.
Petitions presented. By Lord WYNFORD, from Penryn and Falmouth, against Stannaries Bill.—By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from various Clubs, for an Alteration of the Law concerning Benefit Societies.—By Lord WYNFORD and the Earl of BURLINGTON, from various places for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Lord FITZGERALD and VESEY, from St. Paul and St. Andrew's, Dublin, against the clause in Spirit Excise Bill permitting Grocers to sell Spirits.—By Lord WYNFORD, from Ludlow, taking notice of certain Provisions in Municipal Corporations' Act, and praying for the Relief of the Poor.

STAMP DUTIES (NEWSPAPERS)
The Newspaper Stamp Duties Bill having been brought up from the Commons,
Viscount Melbourne Viscount Melbourne moved, that it be read a first time; and gave notice that he would to-morrow move, that the Standing Orders be suspended, in order that the Bill might then be put through the other stages. The Bill was the same as had been originally introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer into the other House of Parliament, with the exception of the substitution of the 15th of September for the 1st of September as the time at which the provisions of the Bill should come into operation. That alteration was requisite in consequence of the unnecessary delay to which the Bill had been subjected in their Lordships' House.
Lord Lyndhurstasked, why the noble Viscount did not move that the Standing Orders be now suspended?
The Earl of Shaftesburysaid, it was necessary to give a day's notice when it was intended to move for the suspension of any Standing Order.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, his reason for asking the question was, because he and other noble Lords on that side of the House were anxious to afford every facility for passing the Bill without delay.
The Bill read a first time.

STANNARIES COURT.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved the second reading of the Stannaries Court Bill, which he described as having for its object the alteration and improvement of the jurisdiction of the Stannaries Court.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that this was a measure of very great importance, and would seriously affect immense interests, particularly the interests of adventurers in mines. Many of those who were connected with such interests were opposed to the Bill; and as they would not have time maturely to consider it before the prorogation of Parliament, he hoped that the noble and learned Lord would consent

1095
to postpone the measure to next Session.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, that when his noble and learned Friend spoke of immense interests as being opposed to this Bill, it ought not to be forgotten that there were still more immense interests in favour of its being passed into a law. This he would assert, that immense and very unfair losses would be incurred by suitors if the Bill were not passed in the present Session. With respect to adventurers in mines, they went and took shares with their eyes open, and of course they would not act without proper advice. The rights of the public and of individuals would, he was sure, be taken proper care of in Committee, and therefore he hoped that their Lordships would consent to the second reading.
Lord Lyndhurstwished the Bill to be read a second time.
Bill read a second time.

FREE CONFERENCE.—CHARITABLE TRUSTS.
On the motion of the Earl of Rosslyn, a free Conference desired by the Commons was had, and Peers appointed to manage it.
On the managers returning, the Earl of Ripon reported to the House the reasons of the Commons for dissenting to the Lords' amendments, on the clauses relating to Charitable Trustees, and to the conferring the power of giving a casting vote to the presiding officer of the town council, on questions where there existed an equality of votes.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that in moving their Lordships to adhere to their amendments, he should not trouble them at any length. The questions which they had now to consider were two in number, and he thought the mere statement of their nature in a few words, would be sufficient to satisfy their Lordships that they ought not to depart from the amendments they had made in the Bill. The first which he would state was, that which related to Charitable Trusts. In the last Session of Parliament, when the Municipal Corporation Reform Act was under discussion, it was the opinion of their Lordships, as it was also the opinion of the other House of Parliament, that it would be advisable that a temporary provision should be made in respect to Charitable Trusts, in order to enable both Houses of Parliament to come to a satisfactory and permanent arrangement of the Trusts. With that view, a provision was introduced into the Bill of the last Session, by which
1096
the existing Trustees were continued in the management of the Trusts for one year longer. That time had now elapsed; but, unfortunately, the most desirable object of a final arrangement had not been accomplished. With a view to the accomplishment of that most desirable but difficult matter, it had this year been proposed, that that which was done last Session, should be followed—namely, to make again a temporary arrangement, and to extend the provisions of the former Bill to the end of the next Session of Parliament. That proposition had been made in the spirit and sense of what had taken place last Session. The proposition had been adopted by this House, it was not objected to by the other House, and noble Lords on his side of the House, conceived they were acting up to the spirit of what had been before adopted by both Houses in renewing the proposition again this year. To this, it was now objected that they were continuing in the management of these Charitable Trusts persons, who, it was insinuated, had misconducted themselves in that management. He apprehended, however, that there was not the slightest evidence to support that allegation. They had been selected for the trust in the Bill which passed last year; in that selection the other House of Parliament concurred, and therefore, if they were thought fit and proper persons then to be intrusted, he would ask the House what had occurred since to render them suspicious individuals, and as being unworthy to be trusted? There existed not the slightest evidence of any such misconduct. No complaint had been made against them (though it was open for any one to do so) to his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack. Further than this, it seemed almost impossible, considering the situation in which these Trustees were placed, that they could have misconducted themselves, or even attempted to have done so, even if they had been so disposed, for in every place they had been watched with most vigilant eyes by persons seeking and desirous to find fault with their conduct. If, therefore, these Trustees were thought fit to be intrusted last Session—if it was then with the entire concurrence and approbation of the other House of Parliament, he must beg to ask their Lordships what ground there was now for saying that they were incompetent to discharge the trust for another year, while, during the past year,

1097
they had conducted themselves honestly, faithfully, and honourably? The question for the consideration of their Lordships was now this—would they disgrace these Trustees, or would they again allow them to act? When it was remembered, that if not allowed to continue in the discharge of the functions, now vested in them, the duty of appointing new Trustees in their stead, would devolve upon his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, and the expense of that mode of proceeding, would be considerable, he thought another argument was furnished in favour of this amendment, and by it of the continuance in office of these individuals for another year. He would not weaken the able argument advanced by his noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor, on a former occasion, in which his noble and learned Friend described the difficulties which would arise, if the appointment of new Trustees being vested in him, by any language of his own. The House would remember that his noble and learned Friend had said, before he could appoint, it would be necessary for every one of the charities to present to him a petition—that being done, he must then consider the matter and prayer of the petition—it would then be referred to the Master to appoint new Trustees—for that purpose the Master must be attended by parties interested—evidence must be heard—after a long litigation the Master would make his report—that report would come under the consideration of his noble and learned Friend, before whom it might be again discussed, and an opposition sent back to the Master to review; and thus, after all this waste of time, after all this expensive litigation, his noble and learned Friend might at last be in a condition to make his order. Thus it was manifest, that for the mere purpose of appointing trustees much time would elapse and great expense would be incurred. Of that expense the greater part would necessarily come out of the charitable funds, many of which were so small (as every one who had read the report of the Commissioners must know) that the expenses of such controversies as he had described, would wholly exhaust them. If it were inconvenient, as suggested by the other House, that the present trustees should be continued for another year, how much more inconvenient was the alternative, namely, that the trusts should be administered by his noble and learned Friend, attended as that administration would be
1098
attended, by all the circumstances to which he had adverted? Dismissing this first question, he would trouble the House very shortly on the other point now under consideration. By the Municipal Corporation Bill the election of the mayor and aldermen was vested, in the first instance, in the council, and if the council should be equally divided in their choice, no proceeding or appointment could take place. The other House of Parliament did not object, in such a case, to the appointment of a presiding officer over the council. They did not object to that appointment being made by lot, but they said, that a person so elected ought not, in case of an equality of votes, on any question in the council, to have a casting vote. To contend for this objection was to argue for an anomaly upon the Municipal Corporation Bill itself, which actually gave a casting vote to the mayor—if no mayor, to the senior alderman—and if no alderman, to the presiding officer chosen by the council itself from its own body. He, therefore, must pause to inquire whether the amendments of this House were not in strict conformity with the principle of the Act of last Session—the principle being, that a person appointed in a manner to which the Commons did not object should have a casting vote. It was said, in opposition to their Lordships' amendment, that when parties were equally divided, by giving a casting vote to the chairman or presiding officer, he or one party would command the election or decision in the council. Why, the objection applied equally to every election in which, by the Municipal Corporation Act, a casting vote was given to the mayor. And what was the substitute proposed in lieu of the amendment made and sanctioned by this House? Why, it was proposed, where the council was divided, to vest the election of mayor and aldermen in the burgesses. Now, when the Municipal Corporation Act was under consideration last year, this House was of opinion that the election of those officers ought to be vested in the council; and having acted on that opinion, he did not suppose they would now depart from the principle they had sanctioned and adopted. He thought he had pointed out quite sufficient on this point to induce the House to think they ought to adhere to the spirit of the former Act, and give the casting vote as had been proposed. He believed that on all these grounds their Lordships

1099
would join him in thinking they ought to insist on the amendments sent up by them to the other House of Parliament. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving that this House do insist on the amendments made by it in the Municipal Corporation Act Amendment Bill.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that as he gathered from the report which had just now been made by the managers appointed to conduct the free conference on behalf of their Lordships, he understood that none of the arguments advanced by the noble and learned Lord were urged to the managers on behalf of the other House of Parliament. Now, considering that this had been a free conference—a conference in which the case of this House was to be sustained, he did not understand why the argument urged by the managers on behalf of the Commons had not been met by the managers for this House—he did not understand why the dignity of this House had been abandoned, its character lowered, and its interests deserted, by the arguments just uttered not having been urged in that place where they were naturally expected. In his opinion, the arguments stated by the noble and learned Lord were totally insufficient in order to maintain the course he advocated. The clause, in reference to the charitable trustees, was adopted in the Municipal Bill of last year on the eve of the termination of the session, on the understanding that it was to be thought a mere temporary arrangement until Parliament could legislate more fully and completely in the matter; and this House would please to bear in mind that since that period, a bill entirely providing for the whole matter—a bill making full and entire provision for those contingencies which it had been intended to meet, had been sent up from the other house, and that that bill, on its second reading, without a consideration of its provisions, without going into Committee, their Lordships had thought proper to reject. Such being the case, he must say that their Lordships were not in a condition to require the House of Commons to yield to them on this question. It seemed to him to be a most unfair proceeding towards the House of Commons. This House having in this Bill secured the continuance in office of the trustees for another year, had treated the measure of the Commons, which went to establish a final and permanent arrangement, with perfect con-
1100
tempt, and had accompanied its rejection by expressions towards the other House of a most insulting, exasperating and contumelious nature. [Lord Lyndhurst: where have those expressions been used?] He contended, that every species of motive and intention had been attributed to the Commons—they had been charged with seeking to secure designs of their own, and to promote the interests of their own party, and he submitted that it was not fair or right to expect that the Commons would agree to continue the charitable trusts in the hands of those who now held them, after this House had itself rejected the means which had been provided by the Commons for supplying the deficiency. He wished to take this opportunity, on behalf of a noble and learned Friend of his, who had been absent from illness during the whole of the present Session, of setting right a misapprehension on this subject which had prevailed, and which had given his noble and learned Friend much uneasiness. His noble and learned Friend had desired him to state, that it was not on his (Lord Brougham's) motion that the clause in the Municipal Reform Act, intrusting for another year the existing trustees, was introduced, but, on the contrary it was introduced by another noble Lord, also not now in his place, (the Earl of Radnor) and had been assented to by the House. His noble and learned Friend begged him further to state, that not only did he undertake to introduce a Bill on the subject of Charitable Trusts, but that he did actually introduce a Bill for that purpose, and that it was only on being pressed by both sides of the House that he last year gave up the measure. His noble and learned Friend in addition stated, that his absence from his place this Session could not be a reason for not legislating on the subject, inasmuch as the House was in possession of his views on the matter. He therefore submitted to their Lordships, that the not legislating on it was not to be attributed either to neglect of duty on his part, or to the indisposition by which his noble Friend's absence had been occasioned. The delay might be chargeable on the Government, or on the House generally, but certainly it was not chargeable upon his noble and learned Friend. The noble and learned Lord opposite had well stated the inconveniences which would arise from the situation in which matters will stand if

1101
this Bill, with its amendments, was not allowed to pass into a law; but the noble and learned Lord had been silent upon the inconveniences which would arise from the Joss of other provisions of the Bill to which the amendments have no reference. He (Viscount Melbourne) would not trouble the House with a detail of them, for they were manifest to every noble Lord; but he would say, that these inconveniences, and that loss would lie, not at the door of the Government, not at the door of the House of Commons, but at their Lordships' door, who had refused the opportunity afforded them of legislating generally on the subject. Such was his opinion upon the first point raised by the noble and learned Lord opposite. With respect to the other point, he would say, that it was to give a man, chosen merely by lot, the power of carrying into effect, where there was an equality of feelings, a decision which ought to be that of the great body of the council. On these grounds, he should move, as an amendment, that the word "not" be inserted in the motion of the noble and learned Lord—in other words, that this House do not insist on their amendments in this Bill.
The Earl of Ripon, in consequence of what had fallen from his noble Friend who had just sat down, felt obliged to trespass on the attention of the House for a very few moments. His noble Friend had complained of the course pursued by the managers on behalf of their Lordships as having been derogatory to the dignity of the House.
Viscount Melbourne: I spoke of it as having lowered the character of the House.
The Earl of Ripon: His noble Friend had also said it was derogatory to its dignity. Now, having taken the duty of managing the conference on behalf of this House, he felt called upon to vindicate the managers from the reproach thus cast upon them by his noble Friend. He was convinced that reproach arose from his noble Friend not knowing the course which had been taken by the managers on behalf of the Commons—a course most certainly consistent with their rights and privileges, but one which made it impossible for their Lordships' managers to enter into any verbal discussion with a view to enforce the opinions to which the House had arrived. In point of fact, the representations made to the managers were not made viva voce, but were read, from a
1102
written paper, which he really believed was verbally the same as that sent up on a former conference. It certainly appeared to him, that nothing was more natural and proper than that the managers on behalf of the Lords, not having been invited to enter into any discussion, should pursue the same course as that followed by the managers for the Commons, and to tender them in writing the reasons the Lords had to offer in support of the opinions they had formed. He apprehended, therefore, that they had not done anything that was at all derogatory to the character and dignity of this House. With respect to the clauses themselves, he trusted their Lordships would adhere to their original decision. The noble Viscount seemed to think that there was something very unreasonable in giving the casting vote to a person who was to be chosen by lot. For his own part, he could not see in what the unreasonableness consisted. By one clause of the Bill as it passed last Session, in the election of councillors, in case of an equality of votes the power was given to the mayor and assessors to decide who were elected into the council. But the next clause went still further; for with respect to the first election, it was provided that the mayor alone—independent of the assessors—the mayor of the old corporation, which it was the object of the Bill to destroy, should be the person who was to possess the casting vote. Upon what, then, could the noble Viscount found a charge of unreasonableness against the principle which was maintained in that amendment, to which the House of Commons had objected? With regard to the future, the present clause would in no way apply, for that was provided for by the Bill of last year. It was settled, that whenever a question came before the council, it was to be determined by a majority of votes; but if upon any subject there should be an equal division, the case was then to be submitted for decision to the mayor or to the senior alderman, or if he were not, then to any other of the aldermen, or if there should be none of them, then a commissioner, to be elected by the council, was to have the casting vote. The Bill, therefore, as passed last Session, did allow a casting vote. [Lord Melbourne: No election by lot.] He (the Earl of Ripon) admitted that the cases to which he had referred were not questions of lot; but the House of Commons had itself admitted

1103
the principle of proceeding by lot. It appeared to him, then, that the noble Viscount had stated no such strong objections against their amendment as would then induce the House to entertain an opinion of its unreasonableness; for who was the person after all that was to be elected by those to whom the election was intrusted? Was he a person wholly unconnected with the corporation? No such thing. He was a person whose character had been already before his fellow-citizens—whose conduct had been known by them, and in whom, so far as could be shown by their previous election of him, they had placed considerable confidence. Therefore he thought that the noble Viscount had pushed the argument to an extravagant length, because he had proceeded upon the assumption that the persons entitled to be elected might be totally unconnected with the particular corporation. With respect to the administration of the Charitable Trusts, the noble Viscount had complained that they had treated the House of Commons in a "contumelious"—he believed that was the word—and offensive manner; but that observation could at least have no reference to the Act of the House, whatever application it might have to the conduct of individual Members; but the House, at any rate was not responsible for anything which any individual might be supposed to have said or done upon the subject. When, however, the noble Viscount threw upon that House all the blame of any inconvenience or difficulty which might arise, he could not but think that that noble Lord forgot the circumstances under which the Corporations Act Amendment Bill came up to that House. Their Lordships would remember that it was early in the Session when the Bill was brought up. Upon the second reading various objections were stated to it; and it was agreed to, entirely, as he thought, with the consent of his Majesty's Government, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, for the purpose of considering how those deficiencies might be removed, and the measure be made most applicable to the purposes for which it was framed; and he would confidently assert that there was nothing in the conduct of that Committee which showed any disposition to do that which was unfair or unreasonable. He might appeal to the recollection of the noble Lord as to two or three occasions,
1104
whether questions were not discussed in that Committee with a total absence of party feeling; it was impossible that there could have been a more fair investigation than that which there took place. It must also be remembered that at the time that they were called upon to consider the particular clause which was then the subject of discussion, no Bill had been introduced into either House of Parliament for the settlement of the general question. How could they possibly know that it was the intention of Government on the 7th of June—that Bill having been sent down in the month of May—to introduce on the 7th of June a measure upon that subject? At the time that they had to consider the question all they knew was that it was deemed expedient that there should be some general measure; but they had not the slightest hint given them as to the nature or the character of the provision intended. The Committee were aware of the expediency of some steps being taken in the matter. They saw no measure forthcoming; and therefore they did apply to the case the expedient of leaving it in its existing position until the 1st of August next year. Well, then, he did say upon that statement of the circumstances that they were not chargeable with any blame whatever. Undoubtedly if that line of argument was to prevail, and their Lordships were not to be permitted to exercise any judgment, they might just as well never debate at all. The Bill itself was most deficient in many of its provisions, and contained very dangerous clauses. Their Lordships had thought fit to defer the matter till another Session; and then, because, on the 4th of August, they found it impossible to deal in detail with a measure of great importance and delicacy, they were to be made answerable for all the difficulties and inconveniences arising from such a delay. The cause of the difficulty, he maintained, was the time when the Bill was brought forward. He did not intend to attach blame to the noble Lord on the Woolsack for not having at an earlier period introduced the measure, which belonged to his proper functions—he did not blame the Government; but he had a right, which he was bound to exercise, to exculpate the Committee from all blame whatever as being the cause of any inconveniences which might arise in reference to that subject.
Lord Hollandsaid, that he rose merely for the purpose of saying a few words

1105
upon the criticisms which his noble Friend opposite seemed to feel so severely. A man most remarkable for his talents, Mr. Oliver Goldsmith, said,—"With respect to arguments, I always find myself to have the advantage of my antagonist when I am alone; but when I come into the presence of my adversary that fancied advantage is quickly gone." Now, noble Lords opposite seemed to be acting in the spirit of that observation, for the noble and learned Lord (Lyndhurst) had made a speech to their Lordships that night of considerable power, and which appeared to produce a great effect upon the House, conveying the reasons for insisting upon the amendments of that House, but which reasons he had not delivered in the free conference. Now, what was the meaning of a free conference? Their Lordships well knew that upon differences existing between the two Houses, conferences took place, and the reasons of each House were tendered in writing; but, by the interchange of these reasons, neither party having been convinced, the next step according to the rules of Parliament, was the holding of a free conference. But he would ask, where was the reason in such a course of proceeding as had been adopted upon this occasion? If Members of that House were sent to a free conference, and did not debate at all—he would not go to the extent of saying that such a course would lower the dignity of the House, but it at least led clearly to an inference that the reasons alleged by the other House were so convincing that they did not know how to answer them. Their Lordships had sent their managers, not merely for the purpose of insisting upon their amendments, but of battling and debating the question on behalf of the House; and why, he would ask, did the House select the noble Baron opposite? Because it thought he would be an able advocate of the opinion which the House had previously adopted—because it thought he would be able—and sufficient proof of his ability, the noble Lord had since afforded that night—to use convincing and eloquent arguments in favour of the view which the House had adopted. But it now appeared, when the question came to be urged with their adversaries, the manager had advanced no reasons whatever; but they waited till they came home—he would not use a more invidious expression, which might be misconstrued—
1106
till they came home to their own House, and then, in their own House even boasted of the reasons upon which they recommended their Lordships to adhere to their amendments. He certainly must confess that he was surprised that the counsel whom they had employed, having abandoned their case, should have come to their Lordships, and again press those arguments which they were afraid of maintaining before their antagonists. He thought the amendments originally wrong. If they adopted those amendments, they would entail upon the poor people the kind of catastrophe which the noble Lord had described, and the rejection of the Bill would produce nearly the same effect. The House of Commons had told them what they required. They said in all propriety and courtesy, "You insist upon your amendments; we dissent from them; but be so good as to tell us your reasons." The matter however, had, all been dumb show. ["They did not ask," from Lord Lyndhurst.] I deny it, said the noble Lord, they did; for the noble and learned Lord could know little of Parliamentary language if he was not aware that they did ask for reasons by demanding a free conference. If it did not mean that, it meant nothing. He denied that the managers for the Commons had tendered their reasons in writing; they had read their speech which was, of course, previously prepared. He supposed the noble and learned Lord had done the same—had read his speech. [Lord Lyndhurst: No! I spoke it.] Then he could only say, that since the Revolution, during which ten or twelve free conferences had taken place, it would be impossible to find a single one at which such a course of proceeding as the present had been adopted. In some instances there had been long debates; in all some reasons had been stated. It had been said, that this proceeding was calculated to lower the dignity of that House; but he would venture to say that it was lowering and degrading to Parliament itself, if they considered the nature and character of those conferences. A free conference was the last resort—it was that stage of the transaction at which they were driven to their reasons. What else could it mean? Was it, then, to be left to the judgment of the Members appointed upon that conference to come back to the House and say, "We have heard the reasons of the Commons; but

1107
we have also arguments of our own; we have not addressed one of them to the jury; but we are all against the verdict." Was it to be permitted to the counsel to come back to his client and say, "I advise you strongly to persist, though I have not one single word to say for you? "
The Duke of Wellingtonobserved, that after what had been stated by his noble Friend, he was surprised that the noble Baron should have expected that a debate should take place on the subject between the managers of the two Houses. The fact was, there was no room for a debate, and he was particularly surprised that the noble Viscount, and the noble Baron, should both have found fault with the managers for not debating the question, after the reasons they had heard so eloquently stated by his noble and learned Friend, although they had disapproved of every one of those reasons. But their Lordships would remember that the reasons which the managers had to deliver, were the reasons of the House, and not their own, and yet the two noble Lords came down here and disapproved of the conduct of his noble Friend, in not entering into a debate of the question. But this was not the only remarkable circumstance in the conduct of those two noble Lords. It appeared that they not only disapproved of the conduct of the managers of the free conference, but of the conduct of the House itself, on those two very questions, which were now under their Lordships' consideration. Now it so happened, that he had been in attendance on the Committee up stairs, to whom this very Bill was referred, and he had the happiness to be associated both with the noble Viscount, and the noble Baron in that committee. He would not impeach the accuracy of the noble Viscount's own statement of his belief, but he would remind him that these two very questions passed unanimously in the Committee up stairs, and through the House, as well as the committee, with the same unanimity. He was himself the person who moved that very clause respecting the existing vote, and not one word was said against that motion by any single member of that committee. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack himself, corrected some verbal mistake in that very clause. The report of that Committee passed the Committee unanimously; it was brought down to the House, and both the report and the
1108
third reading of the Bill, were agreed to without an expression of dissent. He did not mean to say, that he entertained no feeling of objection to some of the proceedings in that Committee. He certainly had felt such objections, and there were many of his noble Friends in that House, who felt the strongest objections to parts of the measure. But at the same time, he, considering that he had come to a compromise, in agreeing to that Committee, thought himself bound to go on with that compromise, and to persevere to the last; and he called on their Lordships—he called on the noble Viscount—he called on the noble Baron, now to support the Bill, to which they agreed on that occasion, after a consideration of three months—a measure, too, which they thought the best that could be adopted for the public interests at that time. After the statement which had been made by his noble Friend to the House—a statement of which he defied the noble Viscount to contradict one word—he was surprised to hear the noble Viscount, and the noble Baron, disapprove of the conduct of his noble and learned Friend, and of the conduct of the House, in persevering in their amendments. The noble Viscount had been pleased to state, that since that time, their Lordships had treated the House of Commons with insult and contumely, because they did not agree to the Bill which was sent up to the other House in the month of August, for regulating the management of charitable funds in corporate towns. Now, he was himself the person who moved, that the second reading of that Bill should be postponed to that day three months, and he made this motion upon these plain grounds—he recommended their Lordships to take that course, because one particular part of the Bill would subject the administration of those charities to this danger, that it tended to place them at the disposition, and under the government, of a party in the corporation, and the very appearance of election seemed to indicate that that plan was proposed with the intention of keeping those funds in the hands of that one party. Indeed, as the mayor was to preside over those who were to conduct these affairs, the management of them must have fallen into party hands. On that principle he objected to the arrangement proposed, but he offered no insult, he cast no contumely on the House of Commons for the course which they

1109
had thought proper to pursue. He stated his own opinion freely, as he had a right to do, on that measure, but it was far from his intention to say one word that could, by any possibility, be considered disrespectful to the other House of Parliament, and he was quite sure that he never could have said one syllable that could come within the meaning of the terms, "contumely and insult," which the noble Viscount had been pleased to use. The noble Viscount had blamed noble Lords on that (the opposition) side of the House, and had protested against the inconveniences that would result in the administration of charities, from their Lordships insisting on their amendments. All that their Lordships proposed by those amendments was, to continue in the hands of those persons, who now administered the Charitable Trusts in corporations, the same powers till the 1st of August next year. The noble Viscount said, that if their Lordships persisted in that amendment, the Bill would certainly be lost. But if the Bill were lost, that was not the fault of their Lordships. On the contrary, he would ask them, if they did not take the only course that could be adopted, by continuing the Trusts in the hands in which they were now placed till next year? If they withdrew that clause, the charities would be exposed to the ill effects of administration by a party; and if, on the other hand, the House of Commons insisted on their own amendments, and consequently in rejecting the Bill, the responsibility for the consequences ought not to attach to the Lords, but to the House of Commons. If indeed, they withdrew their amendments, and the charities should suffer from their doing so, then their Lordships would be responsible for the consequences that might ensue, and for the opposition which they had made to the Charitable Trustees Bill, in order to secure the reception, it would be said, of this very clause. This, then, was a course which he could not recommend their Lordships to pursue. With respect to appointing the Charitable Trustees, who administered the funds up to the 1st of August in this year, it was so clear that there was no other mode in which the matter could be arranged, except by a departure from the constitution of the corporation, that it was absolutely unnecessary to argue it.
Lord Ellenboroughremarked, that after what had already been said by the noble
1110
Lords who had preceded him, he should detain their Lordships with a very few words. He rose chiefly for the purpose of observing on two points on which the noble Viscount had touched, of which one related to a matter with which their Lordships, in that discussion, had nothing whatever to do, and which the managers of the Commons very properly abstained from referring to, in the conference between the two Houses—he meant the rejection of the Charitable Trustees Bill by that House. Their Lordships had nothing to do, at present, with the conduct of the House in rejecting that Bill. They had to choose between placing the charitable trusts, until the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, under the control of the present trustees, by which both Houses of Parliament concurred in directing that they should be administered, and the control of the Lord Chancellor; and he thought that the noble and learned Lord behind him had fully satisfied their Lordships, that it would be much less in. convenient to allow those funds to continue under the management of the present trustees, than to leave them to the control of the Lord Chancellor. There was no noble Lord in that House who was more thoroughly acquainted with the practice of Parliament than the noble Baron (Holland) who sat on the other side, but he believed that there was no period to which any man, who was zealous for the honour of Parliament, could look back with less pleasure, than to the period at which these discussions between the managers of the two Houses had taken place. He was satisfied that if they looked back, they would find nothing that was less creditable to both Houses than what had passed at the free conferences to which the noble Baron had referred. Nearly 100 years had elapsed since the last free conference was held; and he thought that the managers of the House of Commons must have felt—he was sure that such a feeling existed on the part of those whom their Lordships had appointed to manage the conference on their behalf—that after such an intermission of such a mode of communication between the two Houses, they had not merely to consider what precedents they were to follow, but what precedents they were to establish. He thought that both the managers of the House of Commons, and of the House of Lords, were entitled to this commendation,

1111
that if they had departed from the more ancient and established precedents on this occasion, they had done so only after the recommencement of a method of communication which, in the judgment of their predecessors, had tended to impede the public business, and had anything but forwarded the public advantage. The managers of the Lords had adopted the course which they thought was the most respectful to the House of Commons, and having communicated to the managers of the Commons the substance of the reasons which the managers were guided by, in insisting upon the amendments of their Lordships, they thought it proper that those reasons should be communicated to the House in extenso: and then, if their Lordships still adhered to their amendments, those reasons might be communicated in the same manner, and at the same length, to the Commons in another conference. In that case, the course would be to request a further conference with the Commons, at which these reasons might be communicated. If, then, their Lordships agreed to the motion of his noble and learned Friend, the next motion that would be necessary would be, to desire a further free conference, at which the reasons of their Lordships for insisting on their own amendments would be explained by the managers.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that after the personal attack which the noble Viscount, in great anger, or at least apparently under its influence, had made against him, he felt he could not do otherwise than reply to the observations which the noble Viscount had thought proper to make upon the argument which, in all humility, he had felt it his duty to submit to their Lordships. The noble Viscount's conduct on this occasion, appeared to him the more extraordinary, since the arguments which he had used were employed in support of a measure to which the noble Viscount himself was a party. He (Lord Lyndhurst) was a member of the Committee to which the Bill was referred, and he was instrumental in naming the persons of whom it was composed. Every member of his Majesty's Government was a member of that Committee—the noble Baron (Holland), the noble Viscount (Melbourne), the noble Marquess(Lansdowne), and his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, were all members of it; and with respect to that very question which their Lordships
1112
were then considering, as to charitable trusts, there was not the slightest difference of opinion among the members of the Committee. The only thing which occasioned anything like a dispute in their discussions, related to the additional power that it was thought proper to give to those who exercised the corporate franchise. That was the only point on which a difference of opinion arose; and though that discussion was conducted on the most amicable footing, it occupied three or four days, but ended, he was happy to say, to the entire satisfaction of every member of the Committee. Then, what grounds were there for the attack which the noble Viscount had made, alleging that the object of this amendment was the encouragement of a party? Then the noble Viscount told their Lordships something about the Bill respecting the administration of charitable trusts, proposed by his noble and learned Friend, who had been obliged to absent himself from the House that Session. That Bill was indeed introduced by his noble and learned Friend, and it was read a first and second time, and ordered to be printed, but it was never subjected to a discussion, and it was admitted, considering how little was known of the provisions of the Bill, that it had better stand over till the present Session of Parliament. The noble Viscount seemed to think that he (Lord Lyndhurst) was to blame for not carrying this measure of his noble and learned Friend's into effect; but this was a measure which was not introduced at his instance, and surely it was the duty of the Government, if it was incumbent upon any one, certainly it was not the duty of any individual on that side of the House, to take up a measure which was propounded to Parliament in the last Session. He hoped their Lordships would be of opinion, that he was not to blame for not taking up this Bill, and leaving the noble Viscount to bring it in. With respect to the Bill now under consideration, these amendments were adopted long before the other Bill came up from the other House of Parliament, and it was considered of the utmost importance, that the present trustees should be continued in office for a limited period, in the event of no bill being sent up for the regulation of these matters. It was considered as a measure of precaution. Afterwards, it was true, another bill came up, having as its professed object the regulation of these

1113
funds; but it did not follow as a matter of course, that their Lordships were under the necessity of adopting it. The noble Viscount had stated, that in the discussion which this measure received, he had used language insulting to the character and derogatory to the dignity of the other House of Parliament. If he had done so, it was the duty of the noble Viscount to call the attention of their Lordships to it at the time. He was not aware, that he had ever spoken of the House of Commons in any terms but of the highest respect. But was it not competent for him to express his opinion upon a Bill which had received their sanction? The noble Marquess (Lansdowne) had made an active assault upon him on that occasion; but the noble Marquess dealt with his arguments, and did not accuse him of treating the House of Commons with disrespect. He wished to know what was the foundation for the charge which the noble Viscount had preferred against him; and he now gave him the opportunity of naming the expressions he had used, tending in the slightest degree to throw insult or contumely on the House of Commons. He had treated the subject as it ought to be treated; he looked upon the measure as a party measure, and he satisfied their Lordships, that he was right in entertaining that opinion. He argued the question on another principle also; he showed, that by the express terms of the grants a great proportion of the charitable trust funds were intended to be exclusively appropriated to members of the Established Church; and he contended that these funds ought not to be administered by Dissenters, which, if this Bill passed, in a great number of instances they would be, and therefore he objected to the principle of the Bill. The noble Viscount attempted to answer that argument. However, he left that for the noble Marquess to do. That Bill was, however, very properly rejected, and no other provision had been made for the regulation of charitable trusts than what had been introduced by their Lordships, and to which the noble Viscount was a party, but which he now came down to oppose. He asked their Lordships, therefore, whether the course they had pursued was not a straightforward and correct one; and he took the opportunity of asking the noble Viscount, if he would condescend
1114
to give him an answer, what were the expressions which he (Lord Lyndhurst) had used insulting and contumelious to the House of Commons?
Viscount Melbourneobserved, that the noble and learned Lord had mistaken the effect of what he had said with respect to the Bill of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham). He stated, that no argument ought to have been drawn by the noble and learned Lord from the absence of his noble and learned Friend, as a reason for not proceeding with the measure introduced by his noble and learned Friend, because the House was already in possession of the subject; and so far was he from charging the noble and learned Lord with a fault in not bringing forward the Bill, that he only mentioned the subject to vindicate his noble and learned Friend from any imputation of lâches or negligence, or from a suspicion that the measure was not proceeded with owing to his indisposition, as his noble and learned Friend was most anxious that he should not be represented to the country as in any way instrumental in delaying a measure of this kind. With respect to that part of the Bill that related to an equality in the town-council, and the appointment of a chairman by lot, he begged to say, that he most distinctly stated, that the Commons would not press their amendments on this point, provided their Lordships would give way on the question of charitable trustees. That he gave them most clearly to understand. That objection was considered of far less importance than the other, and if their Lordships would yield upon that, there would be little difficulty in accommodating the matter. The noble Duke had said, that he (Lord Melbourne) had agreed to the clauses now under discussion when the Bill was in Committee. He did so, but he distinctly stated at the time, that they were to be no bar to future legislation on the subject. He did not mean to say, that anything of unfairness had been exhibited in this particular; but if there were any political advantage to be gained by the funds remaining in the hands of the present trustees, the course to attain that object would be exactly that which was taken. They brought in a clause leaving the trust funds where they were; and, having done that, they threw out the Bill for the general regulation of corporate trust property. If he were to speak his

1115
own candid opinion, it was an act of political jockeyship. With regard to the remarks he had made upon the insult offered to the House of Commons, he was convinced of the accuracy of his observations from his general recollection of the tone and character of the debates that took place in their Lordships' House on that Bill. He did not know, that he could apply any particular expressions used by the noble and learned Lord, nor could he certainly at that moment state what he said; and if he were to attempt to quote from memory he might commit some error; but undoubtedly it was and still continued to be his impression, that during the whole course of these debates the greatest jealousy was expressed with respect to the House of Commons, and he remembered well it was distinctly stated, that there was a revolutionary party in that House who projected these and similar measures. He was stating what was in his recollection; if he were wrong, he should be very glad to hear noble Lords disavow those sentiments and those feelings. But he did not rely on particular expressions; he regarded the tone, the temper, the character, the colour of the debate. There was an observation made something like this—"Here you see the character of this scheme, and the temper in which it was framed." [Lord Wharncliffe. Hear, hear.] The noble Lord, avows it; I knew he would have the manliness to do so. I cannot say, that the noble Duke has used such language, but I cannot say the same for others. I repeat again that I entertained, and still entertain, that impression. I cannot, if I am called upon, state the precise words, but after all it is the import—it is the meaning—it is the animus—the spirit which dictates that sort of tone, and runs all through it that I looked to; and I say that jealousy and suspicion of the House of Commons, and of all popular feeling throughout the country, pervaded and characterised that debate. With respect to the question at present before the House, whatever may be the inconveniences which may ensue from the loss of the Bill in consequence of the charities coming under the supervision of the Court of Chancery, I believe that the House of Commons will not allow the present trustees to retain their power for six months, nor for six hours—no, nor for six minutes, and I believe they are in the right.
Lord Abinger: My Lords, I must deny the justice of the noble Viscount's impressions; but I ask your Lordships whether in reproving the members of this House, it becomes the leader of the House and a Minister of the Crown to do so in the manner and in the tone in which the noble Viscount has expressed himself. Does he suppose that because we have the misfortune not to agree with him, that we have no sensibility to the mode, manner, and language in which he habitually addresses the majority of this House? What does he mean by saying that we repudiate every thing popular in feeling throughout the country? I beg leave to protest against the truth of that supposition; for my own part, I deny the charge altogether. I do not believe that any other noble Lord is liable to such an imputation, and if I did not think that the noble Viscount sincerely believed what he said, I should look upon his observations as nothing more than a rhetorical artifice.
Lord Wharncliffeadmitted, that he had used language not much unlike what the noble Viscount had supposed, but was he to be told that he must shut his eyes and ears, and believe that there were not any persons in the House of Commons who were decrying their Lordships' House, and decrying the situation which their Lordships filled in the constitution? He must be blind and deaf, indeed, if he did not perceive that there were many persons in the House of Commons who entertained these views and expressed these sentiments. He believed, and he was quite ready to admit that it was his opinion, that cases did arise in which measures were brought forward for party purposes, and he must say that a large party in the other House of Parliament had in the instance of a great number of other Bills made an attempt to place their Lordships in an inconvenient and embarrassing position, by sending them up for their concurrence, though they well knew that they would not be carried.
The Lord Chancellorwould not have said one word upon this question, had it not been for what had fallen from the noble Duke and the noble and learned Lord, in adverting to the assent which the Government had given to the clauses now under consideration when the Bill was discussed in Committee up stairs. It was perfectly true that no opposition was then offered to them; but the argument was accompanied by a distinct representation that

1117
they were not to interfere with any future legislation. On this understanding, he had consented to the clauses. But he never supposed that when the Charitable Trustees Bill came up from the other House their Lordships would have refused even to look at the measure, for he did say that they might at least have entertained the principle of the Bill, and dealt with the details in Committee.
Lord Lyndhurstobserved, referring to what had been said by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, that if this measure had not been passed by their Lordships, he never would have assented to the Bill sent up by the other House of Parliament.
The House divided on the question, that their Lordships do persist in their amendments—Contents 40; Not Contents 29: Majority 11.

List of the NOT CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor

Duncannon

DUKES.

Falkland

Argyll

LORDS.

Leinster

Templemore

MARQUESSES.

Foley

Queensberry

Strafford

Headfort

Holland

Lansdowne

Ducie

EARLS.

Mostyn

Scarborough

Saye and Sele

Albemarle

Hatherton

Minto

Glenelg

Sefton

Gardner

Leitrim

Langdale

Thanet

Byron

Ilchester.

BISHOP.

VISCOUNTS.

Bristol.

Melbourne

Resolution ordered to be communicated at another free conference, and message to be sent requesting such conference.
Conference agreed to.

SECOND FREE CONFERENCE.
Lord Hollandsaid, as the noble Baron opposite had moved for a new free Conference, he wished to know from him whether he intended to offer to the Commons any fresh reasons or adopt any new mode of proceeding?
Lord Ellenboroughconsidered, that the noble Baron opposite was not justified in putting to him, an individual, a question as to what the opinions of the whole body of the managers might be, or what they might think it expedient to do.
Lord Hollandsaid, the noble Baron was right in one part of his observations, but as he had been heard to express what was understood to be the sentiments of the mana-
1118
gers, it was thought he might be expected to state now what they, including the noble Baron himself, thought on the subject, or intended to do.
Lord Ellenboroughreplied, that when he spoke in that House he merely expressed his own individual sentiments. When he acted as a manager his duty was, to be guided by the instructions of the House.
The Managers for the Lords, who were the same as before, left the House to confer with the Commons.
The Managers of the Conference, on the part of their Lordships, having returned, after an absence of two hours,
The Earl of Riponsaid, he had to read to their Lordship's House the Report of the Managers appointed on behalf of their Lordships to conduct the free Conference with the Managers on the part of the House of Commons, which was conducted by Lord John Russell and others, Members of the other House. The noble Earl read as follows:—
"The Managers of the House of Lords stated to the Managers for the Commons that the Lords were determined to adhere to the Amendments made in pr. 5, 1. 25 of the Act, because the Municipal Corporations Act not having provided that a fresh election should take place, in the event of an equality of votes, the Lords considered it would be more in accordance with the principle of that Act to meet the difficulty which might arise from the cause in the manner in which it was proposed to be met by your Lordships, namely, by giving a casting vote to the person presiding at the election. That the Lords likewise adhere to the insertion of Clause (L), because they are of opinion that the inconvenience which would arise from placing the charitable trusts under the management of the Lord Chancellor would be much greater than might arise by allowing them to remain until the next Session, or until Parliament should otherwise provide, in the hands of those persons, in whom both Houses of Parliament concurred in continuing them by the Act of last year. The Lords observed, that it does not appear that any practical injury had arisen from allowing those trusts to remain under the management of those under whose direction both Houses of Parliament concurred in placing them last Session. The Lords were, nevertheless, anxiously desirous that the management of these charitable funds should be placed on a permanent and satisfactory footing; whereby the administration of these trusts, which were intended for the benefit of the poor, might, as far as possible be divested of all party interest. The Managers for the Commons stated, that they were not instructed to yield with respect to the two clauses in question. With respect to the first, that which relates to giving the castin vote to a

1119
person chosen by lot, they considered it inconsistent with the spirit of the Act, but they were willing to have that point referred to the present House of Commons. With respect to the provision in Clause (L), by which the charitable trustees were to be continued in power, they hoped that it would not be considered necessary to introduce into this Bill this provision, as the conduct of those persons was unsatisfactory to their constituents; and they could not consent to have the power vested in the present trustees continued in them on any terms. That the provisions made last year showed that Parliament was not of opinion that any serious inconvenience would arise from having the power over these trusts placed in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. That the Commons were apprehensive that, if they conceded this point now, they might be asked on similar grounds to acquiesce in placing the trusts in the hands of those to whom they were now confided at a future period. The Commons thought that the Bill was a valuable Bill, and that the Lords should recollect, that all that was valuable in its provisions would be lost by your Lordships' adherence to the amendments which they had made in it. Your Managers replied, that your Lordships were always desirous of maintaining a good understanding with the House of Commons, and were willing to defer to their opinion on any point which could be conceded consistently with your view of the public interest. Your Managers then detailed the manifold mischiefs which must arise from placing the control over the administration of those trusts in the Lord Chancellor: that it had not come to your knowledge that any abuses had taken place since the Act of last year in the management of these trusts, nor was it at all probable that persons so observed, as those who had had the management of these funds have been, would venture to abuse or betray the trust reposed in them. The Managers for your Lordships suggested that still it was competent for the House of Commons to introduce clauses for the auditing and superintending of these trusts; and, finally, they, the Managers of the Lords, having enlarged upon the reasons already detailed, and no agreement having been come to, left the Bill with the Managers of the Commons."
Viscount Melbournesaid, it appeared to him that this was a very odd way of proceeding. From the report just read of the Managers who had conducted the Conference, and from the period of time they had been absent, it was evident that a considerable length of debate had taken place on this subject. When they first met, their hands were free, and yet it appeared that they had not entered into any debate or urged any argument whatever in support of their amendments, although the whole matter was then open; but now, after having come to a vote on the subject—after the
1120
whole matter had been decided—after the House had determined to insist upon their Amendments, and with their hands thus tied, the Managers, it appeared, had entered into a very long course of argument and debate, and had had a complete discussion of the whole subject. Now, he thought it would have been more consonant with their duty, as well as with reason, to have entered into those arguments at the first Conference, while the matter was yet open, than when it had been concluded by a vote of that House. It appeared to him to be a very strange mode of conducting a conference between the two Houses, and not at all consistent with the practice of former times.
Lord Wharncliffewas understood to observe, that in the first Conference the Commons did not enter into any debate, and the Lords had merely followed their example, and that in the second Conference the Commons had originated the debate which had taken place.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that they had now recommenced a practice after a lapse of nearly 100 years. The discussion, however, which the doing so had given rise to did not appear to have been a very advantageous one, though certain it was it had been a very long one. To him it did not appear to have produced a very good effect. The noble Viscount opposite had expressed his disapprobation of it, and in reference to which he (the Duke of Wellington) had only to say, that he hoped the noble Viscount would be so kind as to exercise that influence which he undoubtedly possessed over his colleagues in another place to induce them not to propose to their Lordships' House the adoption of any such proceeding in future.