Sitting of 9 February 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Turnpike Acts' Consolidation; Stafford Disfranchisement; Registration of Voters; Final Registration of Electors; and Dean Forest.
Petitions presented. By Mr. HUTT, from Hull, for a Revision of the Timber Duties.—By Mr. HALFORD, from Leicestershire, for an Inquiry into Agricultural Distress.— By Captain PECHELL, from Licensed Victuallers at Brighton, praying Relief.

COMMUTATION OF TITHES — ENGLAND.
Lord John Russellrose, with great anxiety for the purpose of moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the Commutation of Tithes in England and Wales. The first source of that anxiety was the very great difficulty of the question, a difficulty which he had shown that he did not underrate when he stated, on the formation of the present Administration, that it was his opinion that it was not possible for it to frame a measure comprehending the various provisions necessary upon this important subject unless the whole question which it involved were previously referred to a Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Tamworth, had stated an opinion of an opposite kind. The right hon. Baronet said, that whatever might be the plan which Government might think best to propose, it would be far better—and, indeed, he thought it the duty of Government—to frame such a plan, and to propose it to the House, than to leave a question of this magnitude open to the consideration of the Committee, without any plan before them, and without any chart or compass to guide them. On reflection and communication with his colleagues, it had appeared to them, that
186
the country had undoubtedly a right to expect that the Government should propose some plan on this subject. Another source of great anxiety to him, in proposing such a plan, was the very great importance of which the settlement of this question would be to the agricultural interest, and likewise to the permanent interests of the Church. Another source of doubt and anxiety was, that various plans had been submitted to Parliament in the course of a very few years. Although none of those plans could be said absolutely to have failed, yet for one reason or another, either from the urgency of other questions, or from the state of the public mind when, they were brought forward, or else from the dissatisfaction expressed from various parts of the country, none of them had been proceeded with to a completion, or fairly discussed within the walls of Parliament. Indeed, there were two Bills on this subject, proposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the other House of Parliament, which had never come to a discussion in that House, at least not to such. a discussion as their importance demanded. There were also two Bills proposed by Lord Althorp, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, and another Bill opened last year by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, which, he believed, had neither been brought in nor printed. One of his difficulties then arose from the circumstance of so many Gentlemen on both sides of the House having proposed different plans, which had never been proceeded with, but which existed at present for the mere purpose of forming objects of comparison with any plan which might hereafter be propounded. But, whatever might be his difficulties, whatever reasons he might entertain for the hesitation under which he laboured, he felt that this was a question on which, at the present moment, it was incumbent upon Parliament to come to some decision. He founded that opinion, not on the abstract objections which existed against tithes, for those objections had been pointed out more than half a century ago by men who had investigated the subject. Tithe was now, as it was then, a discouragement to industry—a penalty on skill, a heavy mulct on those who expended the most capital and displayed the greatest skill in the cultivation of the land. Tithe was now, as it was then, a manner of payment involving very great evils,

187
forcing the clergy to forbearance at the expense of what they deemed to be their Tights, or leading them to enforce those rights at the expense of the influence which they ought to possess with their parishioners, compelling them to lose either their income by their indulgence, or their popularity by, he would not say, the exaction of what the law gave them for the support of themselves and their families. These were not the objections which influenced him, because, as he had already stated, they were as well known half a century ago as they were now. These were not the objections which, in his opinion, made it so necessary for Parliament to come to an immediate decision on this subject. The reasons for that necessity were to be found, he thought, in the growing discontent of the Members of the agricultural interest and of the tithe-payers at this mode of payment, and in the universal disposition of the clergy to say, as they had said in their communications with the Crown, that if any fair mode of commutation could be devised, no set of men would be more glad than they should be to get rid of this objectionable payment. The present state of this country, and he might add of Europe generally, showed that the objections to tithe were felt so strongly, that men were becoming every day more and more unwilling to pay what was legally due, and more and more anxious to see these payments altogether cease. He could not give the House a better proof of this than by informing it, that in Austria—where there was no press, stamped or unstamped, where there was no representative assembly—where there were no popular meetings—the farmers, as he was told, hardly wished for a commutation of tithe, but hoped, by what the hon. and learned Member for Dublin called peaceful agitation, to get rid of tithe altogether. If such were the case in a country like Austria, where there was so little political excitement and dissatisfaction, it was certainly the duty of Government in this country, where meetings were held every day of persons interested in the subject, to endeavour to come to a settlement of it, before it found one side or the other making demands so unreasonable as to render it impossible for Parliament at once to do justice and to give satisfaction. Having made these preliminary remarks, he would proceed to explain what he
188
thought were the principles on which a settlement might be made. There were obviously two parts of the subject —one embraced the principles on which it was proposed to make the commutation; and the other the machinery by which it was intended to carry the commutation into effect. It was evident, that though the principle were the best possible, the machinery might be bad and imperfect, and Jo that case no reasonable man could hope for a beneficial result. On the other hand, if the principle were not sound, the most perfect machinery would not have the effect of making it either better or more capable of producing peace and satisfaction. He would at once state that the machinery which the Government proposed to adopt was the machinery proposed by the right hon. Member for Tarn-worth in his Bill of last year, whereby it was provided that there should be a Central Board of Commissioners, consisting of three persons, for the purpose of arranging the question of commutation, of whom two should be appointed by the Crown, and one by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Government proposed that this Board should have power to appoint Assistant-Commissioners to a certain extent and in certain cases, just as the Poor-law Commissioners had. Adopting the machinery recommended by the right hon. Baronet, he need not enter further into that part of the subject; but would proceed to state the principles which had been laid down as the basis of commutation at different periods, and the objections which had been respectively urged against them. The first principle to which he should advert, was that of taking the amount of the gross value of tithes in every parish, and of giving the owners of land the power of redeeming it from tithes on a scale formed upon the average value of tithe throughout the kingdom. But al-though that plan was simple, he agreed with the right hon. Member for Tamworth in thinking that it was hardly practicable, There were many parts of the country in which tithe was levied in kind—there were some parts in which the composition for tithe was high, and there were also other parts in which it was exceedingly low. In the latter districts, those who paid a low rate of composition would object to any increase in their payments-They would say, that so far from intending to pay an increased, amount, they ex-

189
pected to have a diminution in the payment which they had been accustomed to make; so that if a plan of that kind were adopted, it was quite evident that it would produce dissatisfaction. Government would not be able to carry the Bill satisfactorily through Parliament, and even if it were carried through Parliament, it would throw a germ of dissatisfaction against the tithe-owners in every parish throughout England. There was another principle contained, in the first Tithe Bill of Lord Althorp, to which he would briefly call the attention of the House—that was the principle of taking the payment for tithes universally for the last seven years, and commuting the tithes upon that valuation. There was this objection to that principle, that it gave to those incumbents who had been the most severe in the exaction of their tithes the full amount of what they had received, whilst it would prevent those who had been lenient and indulgent towards the tithe-payers from receiving that augmentation to their income to which they were fully entitled. A gentleman who had paid great attention to this subject had proposed that there should be an account taken of the amount paid for tithe during seven years, that this amount should be spread over the whole country, and that then a general average should be struck for each parish. But he could not help seeing, that if this principle were adopted, it would change the income of every tithe-owner in the country—that it would occasion a great disturbance of interests,—and that, though it might be an equitable arrangement for the future, it would not be becoming in a country like this to produce such a general disturbance. He came now to another principle—he meant that which had been promulgated in Lord Althorp's second Tithe Bill. That principle was, to take the amount of tithe paid in each parish in certain counties, to strike an average for them all, and then to make the amount of tithe bear a fixed proportion to the rent of the land in each pariah, instead of being dependent, as it was at present, upon the produce of the land. He confessed that he was taken with the notion of making tithe bear a fixed proportion to the vent, because, at first sight, it seemed unfair and unequal to calculate tithe upon the produce. But, on considering the propriety, the wisdom, and the justice of making that change at present,
190
he had been struck with one difficulty, which he could not overcome, and that was, that there would be no justice in converting the payment calculated on the proportion to the produce which a man by law was obliged to make, into a payment calculated on the proportion to the rent, which by law he was not obliged to pay, and which he had even not contracted to pay. That had been proposed by a noble Lord in another place, who had fortified his argument by saying, that lands paying the same rent ought all to be put into the same scale. There was, however, an objection to that position, as would be seen by considering the case of two farms paying equal rents, owing to one of them requiring great expense in cultivation, and to the other being, comparatively speaking, non-productive. On these two farms paying the same rent you now had a different amount of tithe payable, for, though the rent was the same, the produce was different, and that farm which produced the larger produce paid in consequence the larger amount of tithe. Now, if you make the tithe dependent on the rent, you are doing an evident injustice to him who is now paying the smaller amount of tithe owing to the smaller amount of his produce. He did not know with what face they could say to that man, "You now pay less, and your neighbour pays more, but we will make an average between you; you shall no longer pay in proportion to your produce, you shall pay in proportion to your rent, although you did not contract to do so, and although the change will throw a heavier burthen upon you." For his own part, he must say, that as such a change could not be reconciled with justice, it ought not to be made unless under the pressure of the most urgent necessity. He recollected that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, last year, after considering the difficulties which surrounded all these various plans, had stated that he was inclined, as the only solution of them, to adopt the principle of a voluntary commutation. He (Lord J. Russell) took the liberty of stating at that time, that he did not consider that principle satisfactory; and his reason for making that statement was his conviction, that in a great number of instances, where the exaction of tithe had been most oppressive, no voluntary commutation, would take place, and thus the old. sores would remain, and be the cause of much ill feel-

191
ing in future. It was open to the House, if they thought that any one of the plans to which he had just been adverting, either that of Lord Althorp OF that of the right hon. Member for Tamworth, was better than that which he was then about to propose,—it was open to the House, he said, to take that plan in preference to his; for he wished that the subject of tithe should undergo a thorough sifting, and that the House should make up its mind to pass the best Bill it could frame on the subject in the course of the present Session. Having now described the plans which had been formerly proposed for the commutation of tithes, and having pointed out the principal objections to them, he should proceed, in the next place to explain the principles on which his own Bill was based. He would say generally, that the object of his Bill was, to produce just as little disturbance as possible in existing interests. His object was not to diminish violently or excessively any income now enjoyed by any tithe-owner; it would nevertheless be his constant endeavour, when this question was arranged, and the different parishes had come to a settlement, to produce, if possible, that similarity in the settlement which would prevent one parish from saying, as was too commonly said in Ireland, that its settlement had been made on premises so different from those taken in the case of its neighbour, that its payment was half as much more as that neighbour's was. His object was, that throughout England and Wales there should be in the mode of calculating and valuing tithe some uniformity. By the present system it was notorious that some parishes paid an. amount of tithe considerably higher than that paid in the adjoining parishes. His object would be to get rid, as far as it was practicable, of the inequalities of the existing system. He proposed, then, having got the machinery, which he had already mentioned, having established a Board of three Commissioners, one of whom was to be the representative of the clergy—he proposed, he said, as the right hon. Member for Tamworth had proposed, that any single owner of land or the tenant, might agree, with the tithe-owner, to commute the tithe, they being all mutually interested in the commutation. He proposed, as Lord Althorp proposed, that the owner of the land having made an agreement with the
192
tithe-owner, should stand to the tenant, not only in the situation of the landlord, but also in that of the tithe-owner. He proposed, further, that it should be competent for the possessor or possessors of one-fourth of the value of the tithes to call a meeting of the owners of land in the parish, at which parties might be represented as they now were in the Poor Law Act. When three-fourths in value of the owners of tithes agreed with three-fourths in value of the owners of land, there would be power given to them to make an agreement binding on the whole parish. If no person, appealed against that agreement within a given period, it would become an agreement binding on the whole parish. If any person appealed against it, it should still be binding upon those who did not appeal. The parties appealing would have to appear before the Assistant-Commissioners, who, on hearing their statements, would make an award, which award, on being ratified by the central Board, would also become binding on the parish. He proposed that if at the end of a certain period—he did not intend to confine the House to time in the Bill he should say six months—no such agreement were made between the tithe-owners and the tithe-payers, it should be competent for any land-owner or any tithe-owner, to ask the Commissioners to make a general award on the tithes of the parish. He proposed that when such a demand was made, an Assistant-Commissioner should be authorized to proceed to the parish, and to examine what had been the amount of tithes, or of the composition for tithes, and what had been the expense of collecting the tithes for the last seven years; that he should then and there declare the amount of tithes so paid for the last seven years, and that that amount should be represented, as he would hereafter explain, by a certain quantity of wheat, barley, and oats. He did not, however, intend to propose that this declaration should be binding conclusively, either on the tithe-owner or on the land-owner. He thought it advisable to avoid that which would produce exorbitancy on the one hand, and a ruinous diminution of the income of the clergyman on the other. He therefore proposed, in case any person should appeal, on the ground that the amount fixed for the tithes, or the composition for tithes, did not fairly represent the value of the

193
tithes, that the Assistant-Commissioner should make an estimate of the value of the tithes for the seven years previous, and that he should ascertain the actual gross value of them for that period. If it should appear that the sum of the tithes taken in any parish during' a period of seven years exceeded seventy-five per cent of the gross value, then it would be competent to the Commissioners to determine that the commutation should amount to seventy-five per cent of the gross value and no more, and they would reduce the sum accordingly; but, if on the contrary, it appeared that the amount taken was less than sixty per cent, of the gross value of the tithe, the commissioners would be authorized to raise the sum to sixty per cent., and to declare that that should be the amount of the future charge. He referred to these numbers of seventy-five and sixty per cent, as a maximum and minimum, not as the sums fixed to be absolutely paid, for the question was open to Parliament to consider and decide, but because they served for the purpose of illustrating the principle on which he proposed to proceed. That principle was, that in no case should the amount of charge for tithe exceed a certain percentage of the gross value of the averages of a certain fixed period, nor fall below a certain percentage. It would occur to every person who was at all conversant with the subject, that many instances would be found on either side of the scale—cases both of excess and cases falling- short. In some cases tithes had been taken to such an extent as ought not to form the basis of a permanent charge, and on the other hand he was well aware there were instances, as had been satisfactorily established by undoubted evidence, of clergymen who did not receive more than forty or fifty per cent, of the amount to which they were entitled. It appeared only fair and just to interfere in those cases, and when they wished to establish a permanent settlement of tithe which was to endure for all future time, he thought it right to fix a sum to be taken hereafter, which should not exceed or fall below a certain amount in proportion to the gross value of the tithe. With respect to the minimum and maximum, which he assumed to be sixty and seventy-five per cent, of the value, if it should appear that the sum hitherto paid was between those two limits, it should be
194
competent to the Commissioners to make such an award as they thought the circumstances and the justice of the case required. He knew it would be said by those who were in the habit of talking of the absolute right of tithe, that no payment less in amount than the absolute value, should be taken as a ground for fixing a permanent commutation, but he did not agree in that doctrine. He thought that tithe was the property of the nation, although participated in by individuals, and that deductions might be made from it in consequence of the very nature of the property. When a clergyman insisted on a sum on account of tithe which had never been previously received, he was immediately at war with the farmers who were his parishioners, and that demand should not in the nature of things be pressed as a foundation for a future permanent commutation or charge. There were certain cases of tithe which might come under a particular rule, and which indeed would require a special regulation to govern them; he referred to tithes on hop-gardens, orchards, and market-gardens, In those particular cases the tithes on extremely valuable crops were high, but they could form no fair average for a general commutation, nor indeed could they be allowed to enter into such an average. He proposed giving the Commissioners the power of taking certain hop districts, in order to ascertain the average tithe of the last seven years, and fix the amount in future. The Commissioners would also have the power of declaring what the tithe of any particular land or property should be, supposing hop cultivation to be abandoned; and it was provided that in cases where land should be brought into hop cultivation anew, it should be subject to an additional payment of 15 s an acre on account of tithe. Those interested in hop cultivation had declared themselves ready to come to some such compromise as he had indicated, but they objected to continue to pay tithe on hops after the cultivation of them should have been abandoned. They naturally considered that such an arrangement would be highly injurious to them. With respect to the case of orchards and gardens, he confessed he had not been able to satisfy his mind as to a particular provision on the subject, although he admitted lands thus cultivated to be particularly circumstanced. However, this might be a subject

195
for future consideration. Whatever might be done with regard to orchards and garden-grounds now existing, he felt considerable difficulty in rendering land that might be converted into orchards or gardens in future liable to increased tithes. Orchards were a precarious and uncertain description of property, and frequently did not bear in certain years; and with respect to garden lands, if the legislature allowed the question to be opened again from time to time, it would give rise to incessant disputes. With respect to future payments, he proposed that the average prices, for seven years, of wheat, barley, and oats should be published at certain periods, by the controller of corn returns— that this publication should take place every year, and that the payment of rent-charge made in lieu of tithe should be varied accordingly. He proposed to take the prices of three different kinds of grain for the purpose of ascertaining the value and amount of the charge, so that if an individual were chargeable with 300 l. for tithe, one third would be estimated by the price of wheat, one third by that of barley, and the remaining third by the price of oats, which would be giving each a fair proportion in the gross amount. Thus the tithe owner would be entitled to receive every year payment according to the fluctuation in the value of grain, which must be taken to represent the fluctuation in the value of money. There was another part of the subject which he did not propose to include in this bill, though it formed an. important part of the general question, and might be fitly introduced in a separate measure,—he meant the question of redemption. He thought it very proper, after means were adopted by which a rent charge should have been established and agreements made between tithe owners and tithe payers, that a measure should be introduced with regard to redemption, and on a future occasion he would lay a Bill on the Table with that view; but considering the difficulties of this part of the subject, he thought it better not to in cumber it with the additional difficulty inseparable from the question of redemption, and therefore he had omitted the matter in the present measure. He was well aware of all the difficulties and objections connected with the subject referred to; he would now only mention a few of them. According to the plan of redemption which he contemplated, taking a cer-
196
tain scale—say twenty-five years' purchase —a person would have the power of freeing himself from the rent charge by a corresponding payment. If the money thus obtained were to be laid out in the funds, and the interest paid to the clergy, many would object to that as by no means an advantageous arrangement. If the clergy had a certain portion of land assigned to them as the proceeds of the redemption fund, each individual clergyman would be converted into a small landowner, and exposed to the distraction of a new avocation, incurring all the risk and inconvenience of a farmer with his farm-buildings out of repair, and other cares and annoyances inseparable from agriculture. If the redemption money were invested in large portions of land, clerical corporations being created in different dioceses for their management, and to distribute the revenues among the clergy, you would introduce a novel and inconvenient, if not dangerous, description of property into the country—property held by the clergy according to certain principles peculiar in their nature and open to much invidious remark. This species of property, peculiarly managed and appropriated, would, in his opinion, expose the clergy to more danger than could be incurred by fixing tithe as a rent charge on the land-owner, whom he thought most likely to pay it with the least reluctance to the clergy. Without, therefore, entering at present on a detail of all the objections to which the principle of redemption might be liable, he contented himself with stating that he would on a future day introduce a Bill on the subject, and lay it on the Table for the consideration of the House. He should rejoice in being able to meet all the difficulties of the case, if that were practicable; for the present, however, he merely proposed that a rent charge should be created in the way he had already explained, which would produce a certain income to the clergy, without those objections that applied to tithes—a plan that, if it did not settle the question to the immediate satisfaction of all parties, would in a few years leave persons at liberty to cultivate their land as they pleased, and apply their skill and capital to its improvement without any apprehension of an augmentation of tithe—placing the clergy in that situation which they ought to occupy, and providing them with a regular and independent income connected with the land

197
and the land-owners of their parish, and free from the present objections to the collection of tithe. The income of the clergy would ultimately flow from the land-owners, and not from each tenant or farmer; and the clergyman would be relieved from an alternative that now often existed, either of making personal enemies by pressing his demand, or injuring himself by abandoning it. He proposed that the rent charges should be liable to the payment of rates, as tithes were at present. Many of the rates were now diminishing', and it would be difficult to make a deduction on account of them. It would be more satisfactory to the several parishes and counties if, under the new arrangement, the clergy were rendered liable to rates, by which means they would have a common interest with their neighbours in diminishing their amount. He had now stated to the House the plan on which Ministers proposed to settle the question of tithes. He had stated at the commencement of his speech that the subject was full of difficulties, and he was far from saying that the present plan was superior to ail that had preceded it; but he did think, if Parliament would steadily turn its attention to the proposition, that it might be worked out in such a shape as to be productive of great benefit, and next after the settlement of the Poor Laws, to contribute, in the most important degree, to the well-being of the country. He was sure the final settlement of the Tithe Question would be of the greatest importance, and confer the highest benefit on the church, as well as upon the country at large.
Sir Robert Peelasked the noble Lord whether his plan applied to lay impropristors as well as to ecclesiastical incumbents? The noble Lord had omitted to state how the rent charge was to be apportioned on the land; was there to be a valuation of land, and was the rent charge to be apportioned according to the value? Lastly, what remedy did the noble Lord propose to give the church in case of non-payment of the rent charge—how were arrears to be recovered?
Lord John Russell: The plan applied to lay impropriations as well as to ecclesiastical tithes. With respect to the second point, which referred to the manner in which the value was to be distributed, of course, in the first instance, the charge would be apportioned in the same manner as tithe was found to be payable for the
198
last seven years; but it would be in the power of any land-owner to demand that any particular part of his estate should be charged with a greater or less proportion of tithe, and that would be settled before the Commissioners. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman's third question, as to what remedy the owner of the rent charge was to have, he replied that his remedy would consist in a distress and entry upon the land, but with this limitation, that the remedy should not apply to arrears of rent charge for a longer period than two years,
Mr. Gisborne—Did the noble Lord apply his Bill to mineral tithe?
Lord John Russell—Yes, to all tithes.
The question having been put,
Sir Robert Ingliscomplained of the plan of the noble Lord, inasmuch as it would at once reduce the incomes of the clergy to seventy-five or sixty per cent, of their present amount. Had the plan of the noble Lord been adopted three centuries ago, the church would not have stood in the position in which it now did. The oldest property in England was not more than eight centuries old, while that of the church was at least fourteen. What could constitute a better title? If this title failed, all others might follow. He could not understand the distinction between private property and church property, which was sought to be drawn by the noble Lord; but, in his opinion, the noble Lord ought not to take from tithe property any proportion of its security or value by a compulsory provision.
Sir Robert Peeldid not rise for the purpose of urging any preliminary objection in point of form to the present proceeding, but he nevertheless thought it important that the law of Parliament should be distinctly defined and adhered to in the course to be pursued with respect to tithes; otherwise there would be a variety of conflicting authorities and precedents on the subject. The authority of Lord Althorp would be quoted for having introduced his Tithe Bill in a Committee of the whole House.
Lord John Russell: Lord Altborp took two courses: he first introduced his Bill, as has been now done, and afterwards moved the House into Committee, and introduced the Bill again.
Sir Robert Peelwas aware a mistake had been committed by the noble Lord, who might therefore be appealed to as an authority on both sides, either for proceeding by Bill or Committee, Gentlemen

199
might quote himself as an authority for proceeding last year by resolution in Committee of the whole House, and that precedent might be met by the authority of the noble Lord, who had proceeded at once by bringing in a Bill. Thus there had been four adverse precedents as to the manner of introducing the tithe subject within two years. It would be of advantage, for the purpose of preserving regularity and uniformity in their proceedings, to determine whether it was right to proceed by way of resolution in Committee of the whole House, or by an original Motion for leave to bring in a Bill. He did not say this by way of objection on the present occasion, but because he thought it of importance that the law and practice of Parliament should be settled, and because he considered it an advantage to the public, where a question of importance like the present was to be introduced, that the Bill should originate in the usual form in a Committee of the whole House, for it was obviously of consequence that prejudices and doubts arising from ignorance of the details of a plan should be met immediately by explanations from the individual proposing it, and this could be most conveniently effected in Committee. He apprehended that the noble Lord had made considerable advances towards an agreement with him on the subject of tithes in some important respects. He did not urge that circumstance as an objection against the noble Lord; so far from it, that he thought the noble Lord perfectly rig-lit in admitting the force of objections which, he found to be insuperable, and adopting another plan which he might hope to find more satisfactory than those which he had previously advocated. The noble Lord felt the objections against the mode of estimating the real value, and taking the averages of seven years, as formerly proposed, and he also now felt the objection to Lord Althorp's plan for establishing a certain proportion between rent and tithe, things quite different in their nature, but in respect to which Gentlemen had been deceived by an apparent but fallacious analogy. Tithe was a payment founded on the basis of actual produce, but rent was not; therefore the two charges were incommensurate; and this being the easy, any attempt to establish a proportion between rent and tithe must necessarily end in failure and disappointment. The nominal rent of two farms might be the
200
same, yet afford no criterion of the actual productive value of the land; for in one case a man might pay for farm buildings and superior personal accommodation, and in the other the amount of rent might depend on the superior fertility of the soil. He quite agreed with the noble Lord, therefore, that it was proper to abandon the attempt to establish a proportion between rent and tithe. The noble Lord had adopted the whole machinery proposed to be introduced into his (Sir R. Peel's) tithe bill of last session—he did not complain of the plagiarism, far from it; he wished sincerely that the noble Lord had adopted the whole Bill, and carried out its principle, as well as the machinery, in his own measure. Even now the noble Lord seemed willing to admit of alterations in his Bill, and rather to invite contributions and suggestions for perfecting it. Encouraged by the tone of the noble Lord, he felt almost inclined, if he could find his own Bill of last year, which had never been presented to the House, to ask leave to bring in a measure by which he proposed to effect a voluntary commutation of tithe. That was the principle of the Bill of last Session, and in the present measure the noble Lord did not exclude it. He would not now enter upon the noble Lord's plan of a minimum and maximum of rent-charge, ranging between sixty and seventy-five percent., of the gross value of tithe, because he thought it infinitely better to abstain from any attempt to decide the question, not on the sight of the noble Lord's Bill, but merely on the statement of its author. It would be better for every gentleman to reserve his opinion on the subject of the plan, till he had enjoyed an opportunity of examining the Bill itself. The difference between the noble Lord's proposition and his own consisted in the principle adopted, not in the machinery by which that principle was to be worked out. He (Sir R. Peel) proposed that a commission should be appointed, consisting of a superintending Board, with functionaries acting under it, and whatever principle Parliament might finally adopt as the basis of commutation—whether a compulsory principle, as now proposed, or one of a voluntary nature, as suggested last year, be doubted exceedingly whether, without the aid of such functionaries, the necessary local inquiries and arrangements could succeed, or a satisfactory settlement be obtained. He believed, however, that the noble Lord

201
had adopted the mode of proceeding, waving the principle, proposed last year —the only mode, as it seemed to him, of acting with effect. That plan consisted, as he had said, in the establishment of a superior Central Board of Commissioners, in correspondence with Sub-Commissioners, using their persuasions on the spot, in order to effect a settlement of tithe, affording information to those who required it, and assisting the parties interested with their advice. The difference between the principle of the measure now proposed by the noble Lord, and that formerly explained to the House by himself was simply this—that he had proposed that for a certain period, the parties interested in the payment and receipt of tithe should be invited by one of the travelling Commissioners to meet him for the purpose of considering the question, and attempting to come to a voluntary agreement for a permanent commutation of tithe, while the noble Lord, though he still proposed to allow for the operation of the voluntary principle a certain period—he had mentioned six months—at the expiration of that time introduced a compulsory commutation, and now stated the principle on which it was to be applied. It was true the noble Lord did not seek to bind himself or the House exactly to the space of six months, though he had mentioned that period as the term to be allowed for voluntary commutation; but neither did he (Sit R. Peel) mean ultimately to exclude the compulsory principle, if he had found its adoption necessary. If a voluntary commutation had failed, it was still open to him to resort to a compulsory provision. Meanwhile, the advantage of his plan over that of the noble Lord consisted in this—that, whereas the noble Lord now proposed, without having any experience of the working of the principle of a voluntary commutation, to prescribe at once, in precise terms, the manner in which his principle of compulsory commutation should be exercised; he proposed not to adopt the compulsory provision till he had tried the voluntary plan. He thought it impossible for the noble Lord at this moment to lay down any such principle precisely with a well-founded assurance, that it could be carried into effect; yet, if Parliament were to pie-scribe principles upon which a commutation was to be effected it wag of importance, that the country should understand
202
that those principles would be strictly adhered to; but this, he repeated, was absolutely impossible in the present instance. The tithe payers and receivers would be utterly at a loss to understand how they were to proceed to a voluntary commutation, unless they felt assured, that the principle now laid down would be firmly adhered to in all cases; but it was impossible to be certain of that, for the noble Lord, though he talked of seventy-five per cent as a maximum, and sixty per cent as a minimum, said very plainly that he would not bind himself to that proportion. [Lord John Russell meant to adhere to a progressive scale between sixty and seventy-five per cent.] He confessed he did not think this a whit more satisfactory than the noble Lord's original statement. Parliament would find it very difficult to determine with exactness what the proper proportion should be in all cases. He was glad to observe, that great progress had been made towards voluntary commutation, on the principles of the plan which he proposed last Session; and his firm conviction was, if the parties were once brought to an approximation, under the guidance of impartial persons, able to answer every question of law, and inquiries as to the effect of the system adopted in other parishes, from the moderation and good sense of both receivers and payers of tithes, there would, no doubt, be evinced throughout the country the strongest inclination to adopt the voluntary system. If Government only said, "We will exempt the instrument by which all this is to be ratified from any pecuniary charge, we will exonerate from stamp duty those who avail themselves of the opportunity thus afforded, but, that opportunity neglected, our indemnification will no longer he available," a sense of direct personal interest would greatly facilitate an immediate voluntary commutation. Considering the peculiar nature of tithes—considering not only the great variety of laws on the subject, but also the various circumstances affecting different parts of the country, — the variety of soil, the various ways in which different parishes were subject to that impost; some to rectorial, others to vicarial tithes, and some in which there were various recipients of tithes to different amounts, he could not help thinking this was precisely the case in which a voluntary agreement was most likely to succeed; and, so

203
far as they could call in voluntary agreement, as a substitute for law, no doubt a great advantage would be gained. If the future payers of tithes in any particular parish knew that the arrangement made had been come to by voluntary agreement of both parties, under the superintendence of an impartial man, and that it had not been ratified till the superintending Board in London had given their consent to it, he could not help thinking there would be a greater prospect of satisfaction with their award, than if a Commissioner, according to the plan of the noble Lord, in case voluntary commutation failed, should go down with his proposition of sixty or seventy-five per cent. The experience acquired by voluntary commutation would afford the best indication of what, should be the best principle hereafter to be adopted. There might be some cases in which difficulties would present themselves to a voluntary commutation; but from an ample review of all those in which it had taken place, it would be easy to extract a much more satisfactory principle to regulate compulsory commutation than could well be devised in total ignorance of the subject after only six months being allowed for voluntary commutation. The noble Lord said, he wished every parish to be placed on the same footing; and that hereafter one should not be able to say it was placed on a different footing from its neighbours; but that would by no means be the case. One parish would have to pay only 60 1., while another, perhaps the immediately contiguous one, was paying 75 1. per cent, not with respect to the actual value of the tithes, but founded on the payments for the last seven years, and dependent in a great degree on the forbearance of the clergy. The object of the noble Lord being; to secure uniformity as far as possible, equality of payments, on account of tithe in every place where voluntary commutation was not effected, his own Bill would defeat that intention, and present in parishes in immediate juxtaposition a different amount of payment on account of tithe. Whatever plan was to be adopted on this subject, which was so extremely complicated, would be best recommended by simplicity. There were many points connected with the noble Lord's plan, which, he feared, had not been sufficiently explained to make it perfectly intelligible to the House; and probably it could not
204
be well understood until the Bill itself were presented; but, if on seeing that Bill, there should appear great practical difficulty in the way of the adoption of a compulsory principle, or if there should appear to the House good reason to believe, that the experience of an attempt at voluntary commutation would supply much most valuable information how the compulsory principle might be best applied, he hoped he might be permitted to bring in his Bill, so that if, after proceeding a certain way, difficulties were found to present themselves in the noble Lord's plan, the House, without reference to party distinctions, would not feel indisposed to make this Session a fair experiment on the principle of voluntary commutation.
Mr. Harveydoubted whether any history presented an instance of a more rapid conversion than that which the Bill of the noble Lord was calculated to make. He would convert a very permanent body of political opponents into a very ready body of admiring adherents, for there was something in his Bill well calculated to secure the applause of the landed interest, inasmuch as the measure itself proposed at one blow, and by one concession, in all cases to give up twenty-five percent., and in many cases forty per cent, of the property which he had always contended was the property of the public. There was enough in this Bill secretly and silently to secure the support of a great number of Members, but he could not understand on what ground a positive benefit was to be par-chased at so high a rate, because it was admitted on all hands that to commute the tithe, as it was now collected, into a permanent money payment would be to the cultivator of the soil a great and lasting advantage. But why make a concession to those who were to derive this benefit? He knew it would be said why should objections proceed from a party entertaining the sentiments that this was public property? The public would derive no benefit whatever from this concession. The augmentation of tithes was now converted into a fixed and permanent money payment; beyond that where would be the advantage to the tenant of the land? Although it was not to be expected that the noble Lord had developed all the minutiae of the case, yet he did not gather in what way the lessees were to receive the benefit of concessions, of which the land-

205
lords were to be immediately the partakers. If so large a concession was to be made of public property—if the property of the Church belonged exclusively to the Church, on what principle was it that we were transferring from twenty-five to forty per cent, to lay hands, and to that extent denuding the Church. This calculation of the value of tithe was to be made retrospectively for the last seven years, embracing the present year, and the year preceding; two periods in which agricultural produce had been without example as to its lowness. This was' to be the test of the permanent estimate of the value of tithe, twenty-five per cent, was to be taken in most cases, and forty per cent, in many cases of income rendered essentially low by reverting to the average which was to be the standard of calculation. At no distant time you would find that in many of the livings the receipts of the working clergy were reduced to so low an amount that you would be obliged to look to some quarter for augmentation. Where would it be found? Would the landlords of England, the owners of the soil, disgorge the twenty-five per cent.? Would a proposition be made to call on the people for a large money grant to make up the deficiency? It was important that an arrangement so fraught with advantage to the landlords should not be prejudicial to the great body of the people. Last night there was a discussion on the corn laws. If they were seeking to devise some equivalent for the undeniable consequences which any alteration in the corn laws would cast on the landlords of England, he might see some justification in this concession; but that not being the case, how, he again asked, would this abandonment of tithe in favour of the owners of the soil operate to the benefit of the occupier or the people in general? The measure should, of course, be analyzed in all its bearings, but at present he entered his protest against so large a concession of public property unconnected with any corresponding advantage to the people or the occupier of the land.
Mr. Hume, while he admitted that tithes were public property, subject to be appropriated by Parliament, and that it was the duty of Parliament to make such an appropriation of them as might be most advantageous to the public, was still of opinion that the present subject was one
206
which could not be settled without concessions from all parties. He thought it the wisest plan on the part of his Majesty's Government, to settle it at once; and they had a right, having that object in view, to call for the assistance of all parties. Some few years ago—in 1S2I and 1822—he was one of the few who then wished for a final settlement of the tithe question, especially with reference to Ireland. Looking at the results of the delay which had occurred on that point, he hoped his Majesty's Government, with the advantage of experience, would not pause until the object in view was accomplished. It must be recollected that the subject was not one on which a uniformity of opinion existed. One-half of the inhabitants of the country reaped advantage from the tithe, but the other half did not. He took it to be the wisest course, therefore, for Ministers to come forward and make a fair offer of an understanding. Would the clergyman object to the present proposition? He thought not. Would the country gentlemen? A few might but, looking at the contending interests, he did not think there would be any great objection to it. The right hon. Member for Tamworth proposed to substitute, in the present session, voluntary arrangement for the noble Lord's Bill. This he (Mr. Hume) thought would be dangerous. In his opinion, six months would be sufficient to consider the matter, and to fix the amount of the commutation. He confessed, however, that he saw one difficulty in treating the subject. If the produce of the land were subject to the same laws as other produce, if it produced only its just value in the market, if it were out of the reach of monopoly, it would be another thing. But the consequence of the corn laws was that the corn trade had never been free; that it had always been kept in a state of artificial excitement. And yet he believed that at the present moment, corn was at a lower price in consequence of the corn laws than it would have been if those laws had never been passed. He would give his humble support to the measure, knowing the evils that would be risked by leaving the question in its present stale. The hon. Member for Southwark had asked what the public would gain by it? Could any one put that question, seeing the existing inconveniences? Nothing could be more clear than that the public were at present losing to a considerable ex-

207
tent every way. After the passing of the Poor-law Amendment Act, it became of the utmost importance that the largest possible amount of capital should be set free for the employment of the poor. This rendered it the more necessary that no time should be lost in proposing an Act for the permanent settlement of tithes. Many forebodings of coming evils and of diminished manufacturing prosperity had of late been made; and although he did not participate in the fears which were entertained by others on that point, he was still anxious, in the event of capital being thrown out of employment in manufactures, that an opening should be made for its investment in the interests of agriculture, such as would occur on the passing of the present Bill. It was well, he thought, to provide against the possibility of a disadvantageous change in the manufacturing interests, which a commercial country like England, depending much upon foreign demand, most always be liable to, by opening another source for the employment of capital, which could not fail of being highly beneficial to the nation at large. Looking at the Poor-law Amendment Act as one of the most important measures which had been carried through the Legislature during his experience as a public man, he was anxious that every means should be taken of carrying it fairly out. He thought that a measure for the commutation of tithes would contribute much to that end; and by increasing the quantity of capital employed in agricultural affairs, would go far to improve the condition of the agricultural poor. There was, however, one part of the noble Lord's plan to which he feared it would be impossible for him to give his concurrence. He conceived it to be contrary to the general principle of the measure, and on that account, upon further consideration, he hoped the noble Lord would see the propriety of striking it out. He alluded to that part of the plan which related to hop grounds, and to gardens and orchards. His view of the subject might perhaps be regarded as singular; but, upon reflection, he was sure every one would see it was correct. He could not help looking at hop grounds, and at gardens, and orchards, in the same light as manufactures; and for this reason, they were comparatively small portions of ground upon which a very large amount of capital was necessarily expended to make them productive.
208
That being the case, it appeared to him to be highly injurious, as well as extremely unjust, that the produce of such lands— produce obtained by the expenditure of so great an amount of capital—should be subject to a tax in the shape of tithe. For instance, where 300 l. had been expended in the construction of a pinery, or where 30 l. or 40 l. an acre had been expended to bring land into cultivation for hops, was it not extremely hard, and was it not directly contrary to the principle upon which this Bill professed to proceed, that the produce obtained at so great a cost should be subject to the payment of tithe in the same proportion as the produce of lands cultivated at a much less expense. He trusted that the noble Lord would see the necessity of reconsidering this part of the Bill. The only difficulty that stood in the noble Lord's way was the dealing with present incumbents. He certainly did not think it would be fair to pass any law taking from present incumbents the income they enjoyed; but he saw no difficulty in passing a law by which all future incumbents should receive from hop-grounds, gardens, and orchards, only such an amount of tithe as should be equal to what the fair average value of the produce of the soil would be without the expenditure of so great an amount of capital. He trusted, that if the noble Lord did not embody some arrangement of that kind in the Bill, that means would be found of doing so when they went into Committee. In all other respects he thought the Bill well calculated to remove existing difficulties, and to give general satisfaction to the country.
Lord John Russell: the hon. Member for Middlesex had mistaken what he stated with respect to hop-grounds. It was proposed that the assessment in all existing hop-grounds should be made on an average of the value of seven years; and that all new lands intended to be brought into cultivation for hops, should pay an additional and fixed sum of 15 s. per acre. The hon. Member for Middlesex would at once perceive the distinction which was thus made in favour of the employment of capital. With respect to the point raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth as to the most proper mode of introducing a measure of this description into the House of Commons, he would merely observe, that if the Bill contained any project for imposing a tax, it would no doubt be necessary that it should be

209
founded upon a Resolution originally agreed to by a Committee of the whole House, but in a matter relating only to the commutation of a certain payment between individuals, he conceived such a course was not necessary. He had, therefore, preferred the simpler and easier mode of moving for Leave to bring in a Bill. With respect to the plan which the right hon. Baronet proposed last year, and which he said he might perhaps put into the shape of a Bill again in the present Session, he (Lord John Russell) must say that he was still strongly of opinion that it would be better to adopt a compulsory rather than a voluntary measure for the settlement of tithes. He thought that a voluntary commutation would only be very partially adopted, and in all probability that at the end of a five years' trial it would be found much more difficult to effect a satisfactory settlement of the question than it was at present. The House, of course, would adopt whichever course it thought most beneficial; but he was decidedly of opinion that the compulsory system would be found to operate most beneficially,
Sir Edward Knatckbullwas as anxious as the noble Lord, or any other Member of the House, for a satisfactory settlement of the Question of Tithes, and he could assure the noble Lord that some measure upon the subject was most earnestly looked for by the agricultural interest throughout the whole kingdom. He had attended very closely to the statement made by the noble Lord that evening, and although he could not entirely concur in the whole of it, he was most anxious to give the plan proposed a fair hearing, and with that view he should defer urging any objection until he saw the Bill in a more advanced stage. He would only say that with regard to the assessment of hop-grounds, in which he of course was very deeply interested, he much doubted whether the noble Lord's plan would be found to operate impartially.
An Hon. Memberwished to know whether the reduction which it was proposed to make was to be made upon the gross amount of the produce of the land, or upon the amount of tithe actually taken in kind? If the former were the intention, how would it be possible to ascertain what the gross produce of the land had been during the last seven years? He could further assure the noble Lord, that if the
210
reduction were to be made upon the gross produce of the land, it would be considered as no very great boon. He mentioned this with no unfriendly feeling towards Ministers; he merely threw it out for their consideration.
Lord John Russellthought he had sufficiently explained that the reduction was to be on the gross amount of tithe taken in kind. He conceived that there would be no difficulty in ascertaining what the gross amount had been; because the Commissioners would have before them the actual receipts of the last seven years. Besides, the assessment would be made by persons accustomed to surveying for the purpose of ascertaining the value of tithe. With respect to any objection which the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Kent (Sir Edward Knatchbull) might feel in regard to that part of the plan which related to hops, he could only say that he should be most happy to listen to any suggestion which the right hon. Baronet might please to make upon that subject.
Leave given to bring in the Bill.

ALIEN ACT AMENDMENT.
Lord John. Russellrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the Registration of Aliens. He proposed to abolish the present Alien-office altogether, and to provide a branch of the Home-office, at which Foreigners, instead of undergoing all the unpleasantries arising from the provisions of the present Alien Act, should simply be called upon to declare their names and where they came from. In fact, instead of imposing any restriction upon foreigners, he merely wished to adopt such a regulation as should enable Government to ascertain with precision, how many foreigners might be in the kingdom at any one time.
Mr. Roebuckbegged to ask whether the noble Lord had ever considered what the effect would be of our having no Alien Act at all. There was a country much larger than England, and in which, therefore, it was much more difficult to detect the presence of foreigners, but in which there was no Alien Act; he meant the United States of America. An alien might traverse the United States from end to end and never be asked his name or condition. And what inconvenience had been found to arise from this perfect liberty accorded to foreigners? None whatever. And what inconvenience, what difficulty or what danger would arise if a similar

211
freedom were allowed in England? It must be notorious to the noble Lord that no passport, no restriction which the ingenuity of man could suggest, was found sufficient in practice to prevent a foreigner from going through a country if he were determined on doing so. Instances were constantly occurring of individuals passing through countries where the system of passports was kept up in the strictest and most rigid manner. There was an instance only a short time since of an individual passing through France and getting into Spain in spite of the vigilance and quickness of the French police. Of what possible use, then, could it be to have even a register of names of the foreigners who might choose to visit England? He recollected that when he was in France, no long time ago, wishing to create as much confusion as possible amongst the authorities who looked to the passports, he took it into his head to tell them that he was Don Carlos. His passport, it was true, described him by a different name, but how were the authorities to know which was right. He merely mentioned this to show how useless a thing a passport was. In fact it was a mere farce. It did no good in the way of protection; it was nothing more nor less than a troublesome, useless, stupid instrument, created by ignorance and continued by absurdity.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the Bill was not intended to impose restrictions upon aliens, but to relieve them from all restrictions of which they could complain. All that was proposed under the Bill was a simple registration of names. He was aware that under the old Alien Act there were many just grounds of complaint, but he would venture to say that there was nothing of which foreigners had ever complained which would not be completely and effectually met and remedied by the present Bill. All the rubbish, all the nonsense, all the injustice, and he might say all the atrocity of the old law would be effectually swept away by the present measure. As his noble Friend had stated, the sole object of the register was to enable Government, at any time, to know the number and quality of the foreigners who might be resident in this country. As to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Bath, he would only say that other persons might pass for Don Carlos as well as he; and if aliens chose to give in false names, he knew not what
212
remedy there was against it. But after all, that was nothing more than a fraud upon the register, and there was no law that could be made upon the subject which would not be open to the same objection. After the passing of this Act, the alien in England would find nothing in our statute, book restricting in any degree his action, his selection of a place of residence, or his power of locomotion; in short, he would find nothing of which he would have a right to complain.
Mr. Warburtonadmitted that the present Bill would remove many vexatious restrictions to which the foreigner in England was at present liable; but when he found the Government inclined to go so far, he only regretted that they would not go one step farther, and remove, every restriction of every kind whatever. Supposing the present measure to pass, how was it to be enforced? The complaint against the old Act was, that it imposed regulations with which the honest would comply, but which the dishonest could always avoid; and that, in the case of the latter, there was no remedy. What remedy was there here? It was provided that every foreigner, on landing in England, should give his name at the Customs, and that the name so given should be forwarded to the Home Office to be registered. Suppose the right name were not given, what remedy was there? And let it be remembered that the very persons against whom it was necessary to have some sort of protection—the very persons who came over here with bad intentions—were the very parties with respect to whom this measure would be inoperative, because they were the very persons who would not give their right names. Was it intended to impose heavy penalties in cases of wrong names being given? or what course was to be taken to make the law operative to any good or useful end? He thought the flimsy regulations imposed by this Bill were wholly unnecessary.
Dr. Bowringbore his testimony to the inutility of any attempt to prevent the ingress or egress of foreigners, when they were determined to enter or retire from any country, however jealously its frontiers or shores might be watched. A very distinguished person connected with the police in France had told him (Dr. Bow-ring) that the passport system afforded no sort of security whatever, as it was constantly open to abuse. He thought that

213
the time had arrived when England should set an example to the rest of Europe upon this point, and should leave her shores open to every body to come or go as they pleased.
Mr. Humewas of the same opinion. When he went abroad, and had reason to complain of the operation of the alien law in other countries, he wished to have the opportunity of pointing to the state of the law upon the same subject in England, and bidding the other nations of Europe to follow our example.
Mr. O'Connellthought that everything which had been said went to prove that the Bill proposed by the noble Lord might be brought in, because it was on all hands admitted that it would abrogate a bad law, and substitute a better one in. its place. What the details of the Bill should be, would be matter of consideration for the Committee. According to the alien law in Ireland, any Protestant, from any part of the world, was immediately naturalized on his arrival there. No Protestant, therefore, could be treated as an alien in Ireland. He had no objection to the continuance of such a law, provided the naturalization were extended to all other persons.
Lord John Russellhad brought in a Bill to do away with all that seemed to him to be vexations under the present law; but he must say, be had been received as if he were a person endeavouring to impose ungrateful restrictions on aliens, and were disposed to keep up the remnants of a system of tyranny and despotism that formerly prevailed. Certainly it was not his intention, when proposing the regulations embraced by his Bill, to render the situation of aliens in this country in any degree painful or irksome to them. His purpose was quite different. But when we were constantly taking the census of the British population, he did not think that aliens should be especially free from all regulation by which their numbers could be ascertained. It seemed to him that it was far less vexatious to require a man entering this country to say where he came from, and where he was going to, than to be knocking at a person's door, and taking a census of his whole family.
Lord Dudley Stuartconcurred with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, that the Bill ought to be referred to a Committee. As it appeared to be the general feeling among hon. Members that aliens
214
should be relieved from any regulation whatsoever with regard to their coming to and going from this country, he hoped his noble Friend, between this and the time for discussing his Bill, would consider whether it would not be better to afford aliens that relief, in as much as whatever regulations might be established must, more or less, occasion to them annoyance. He begged to call the attention of the House to this point, that when the Government asked what harm this Bill could do, it might with equal force be asked, what good could it do? If the Bill should be proceeded with, then, for the sake of consistency, it ought to be enacted, that every Englishman, either going out of or coming into this country, should be bound to present himself before some public officer. But his noble Friend knew very well that such a law could not be enacted, because Englishmen would not submit to it; he therefore thought that, in justice, they ought to relieve foreigners from the oppressiveness of a similar regulation.
Captain Pechellsaid that the present Jaw regarding aliens was very oppressive in. one respect, namely, the expensive mode by which the rights of naturalization and denization were to be acquired. He knew many officers who had been for twenty or thirty years in his Majesty's army and navy, who were prevented from acquiring the rights of property by the heavy charges to which they would be exposed in obtaining Bills of naturalization. Leave given.

FEES TO OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Humerose to move that all payments made by Members for the delivery of Sessional papers from the Vote-office, and all gratuities paid to doorkeepers, messengers, and superintendent of the Members' waiting-room should cease. The salaries of the Speaker, and of the Sergeant-at-arms were already regulated by Act of Parliament, as recommended by a Committee of the House, and it became necessary that the remaining officers should be remunerated in a similar manner. At present they were paid by fees, without any system whatever; some being paid to the housekeeper, some to the doorkeepers, and so on, by which much extra trouble was created, so that it became obvious to all that some new regulation should be adopted. With that view, the Committee recommended a consolidation of the different duties, that the fees received by the different

215
individuals should cease, and that Members of Parliament should not be put to any unnecessary expense for obtaining papers that were necessary to enable them to do their duty. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory than to have an establishment paid in half a dozen different ways, and if hon. Members would look to the items composing the income of the different individuals of the House, they would see the necessity of some alteration being made. The fees for the delivery of the Sessional orders were proposed to be abolished. In 1832, the late Mr. Mitchell, the deliverer of votes, received 4,719 l. from the House in support of that office, which was composed of the following items:— salary, 1,400 l.; fees from Members for delivering papers, 1,957 l.; produce of the sale of 100 sets of papers, 1,250 l. He (Mr. Hume) considered the selling of papers to be a bad practice. Papers which had cost the country 2,748 l. were sold by Mr. Mitchell for 1250 l. By the plan proposed to be adopted, a saving would be effected to the amount of 2,819 l. The Committee, in the life-time of Mr. Mitchell, fixed the salary of his successor at 800 l. The present holder of that office, therefore, came in without any claim for allowance on account of any change that Parliament might think proper to adopt. The Committee also came to a resolution, that the allowance for three clerks should be 600 l. a-year, and for messengers and supernumerary clerks 500 l, a-year, making together 1,900 l. instead of 4,719 l., which was before paid for the discharge of the same duties. The next officers whose situations were considered by the Committee were the two doorkeepers of the House of Commons. They received salaries vary ing from 600 l. to 990 l. a-year, according to the liberality of hon. Members in making their gratuities. He was sure no individual would say that such a state of things ought to continue. It was contrary to all principle, that Members should be called upon to pay for attending their Parliamentary duties. The Committee, therefore, recommended that every servant of the House of Commons, having specific and limited duties, should receive fixed salaries; and that whatever loss the pre sent holders of these situations might sustain, should be fairly allowed for by the Treasury. He had seen the Secretary o the Treasury on the subject, and be was enabled to state that that hon. Gentleman
216
was perfectly ready to act justly towards those individuals whose situations would be affected by any new regulation adopted by the House. He, therefore, could not see any objection to the Resolution he was about to propose. If it should be agreed to, the result would be a better and more efficient discharge of the business of the House, without injustice to any body. He was not prepared to state the exact incomes of the different individuals who would be affected by the order; but he understood that there were only two—Mr. Stevens and Mr. Gifford—who had purchased their situations, all the rest had obtained theirs by appointment. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving a resolution to the effect stated in his speech.
Major Beauclerkhad no objection to the principle of the resolution, but he thought the House would do well to consider the proposition before they changed the salaries of individuals who might have vested rights in their situations. That those individuals would throw themselves on the bounty of the House, he had no doubt; but when the very satisfactory manner in which they discharged their duties to the House was considered, he thought it became hon. Members carefully to watch their interests. He therefore hoped he should not be doing anything improper in proposing that the present salaries of those individuals should be continued during the time they might hold their situations.
Mr. Poulternever saw persons who so uniformly and respectfully performed their duties to the House, as those officers did who were constantly attending at the door of the House. They always paid to every hon. Member the most uniform attention and respect. But the House ought to look to more important considerations than that. He thanked the hon. Member for Middlesex for bringing forward the whole measure, in order to its final settlement. Anything more disgraceful than the practice which now prevailed could not be conceived, by which appeals were made to Hon. Members for fees or gratuities, not recognised by the House, but as matter of private emolument; thus raising a conflict in the minds of hon. Members, whether they should yield to the suggestions of their private feelings, or act upon their sense of public duty. He had for a long time submitted to pay these fees, but in the last Session, he told the parties he

217
must postpone doing so. He could assure the House it was from no desire to save his money; but he thought it his duty not to continue any longer a most exceptionable practice. "Why, Sir, exclaimed the hon. Member, you are making this House a mere opera-house. Do we come here for our own private purposes, or do we come here upon public grounds? We come here for the performance of a high public duty, and yet we are made to pay for taking our seats, as if we were in a theatre. I say it is a most scandalous system, and altogether unbecoming a deliberative assembly to sanction." The Sessional papers were delivered to them for public purposes, and their delivery ought to be at the public expense. If he were not correct, let the House declare that it was the duty of Members to pay those fees, and he should most willingly pay them; but at present he thought it matter of high principle to refuse such demands.
Sir Robert Inglishoped that the House would not be led to believe, by the eloquence of hon. Members, that the question was one of public economy. Hon. Members were called on by the Resolution to save their own pockets alone, and nothing more. It might be right or it might be wrong, but that was not the question. In the first place, respecting the delivery of the Sessional papers, he was bound to state that no charge was made to any hon. Member who applied for them personally at the Vote-office, in the exercise of his Parliamentary functions. If hon. Members wished to have them at their own houses, residing, as many of them did, in the extreme west end of the town, why should they not be called on to pay for the accommodation? With respect to the second branch of the resolution—gratuities to officers of the House—he would only say, that it was perfectly optional to hon. Members to give or withhold them. When they were inclined to give them, no order of the House could prevent spontaneous liberality. When they were not, there was nothing to compel them. The fact was the Resolution, divested of all its accompaniments, would only have the effect o saving the pockets of individuals, but no of benefiting the public in the slightes degree.
Mr. Kearsleysaid, that as soon as the hon. Member for Shaftesbury(Mr. Poulter) had paid up his arrears, he should be
218
prepared to give his support to this resoution.
Mr. Fraticis Baringsaid, that he looked at the Resolution as a part of the new plan recommended in the Report of the Committee, which had far its object the entire revision of the system by which the officers of the House were remunerated. He did not regard it, as the right hon. Baronet had stated, as a mere vote for the purpose of saving their own pockets. No one who had read the Report could say that he present system did not deserve the attention of the House. Other parties were looking with some sort of jealousy at the mode in which their public servants were paid. Those who were doing their best in. aid of the public service, and who saw their own salaries year after year reduced, could not be indifferent to the fact, that the salaries of the officers of the House of Commons remained untouched. He admitted that the duties of the House were well discharged, and that the persons now in possession of office ought to be considered with great tenderness, and he should be perfectly ready to agree to a y amount of salary the House might consider the present holders entitled to receive. If it were true, that one of the door-keepers received above 1,100 l. a-year, and another 600 l., he would ask whether, referring to the salaries allowed to other public servants, the House was justified in continuing such large payments? Was it to be said that the House of Commons, acting as a check upon the expenditure of every other public department, shrunk from looking at the salaries of their own servants? But they could not reduce those salaries, unless they abolished the fees. If, however, hon. Members were careless as to putting the money into their own pockets, let the fees still be paid, and applied to a general fund, out of which the salaries might be paid. The right hon. -Baronet said, a charge would be transferred from individuals to the public; but if the whole of the recommendations of the Committee were adopted, no charge on the public would take place. He did not think the charge made against the hon. Member for Middlesex, of wishing to save his own pocket was decent or proper, after a Committee had recommended the adoption of his resolution. For the reason he had stated, he should support the Motion, looking upon it not as a single vote, but as the first step towards the

219
adoption of the plan recommended by the Committee, which deserved the attention of the House.
Mr. Goulburnthought that it was not a question that came strictly within the legislation of the House. It was rather one of personal accommodation of individual Members. The doorkeepers were in the habit of undertaking various duties not incumbent on them, and taking trouble and attention in a variety of matters which hon. Members ought to attend to themselves. They separated papers and kept them distinct for hon. Members, who, if they did not like the trouble of keeping their own papers in order, ought to have no objection to give proper compensation to those who did. They were already, it was true, paid by salary; but it was in the contemplation of the House to compel them to undertake the other duties which they now discharged for the convenience of individual Members. He thought the precedents alluded to were not in point, for clerks in public offices had now their regularly defined duties and salaries, with retiring allowances on which they could depend; but these individuals were differently circumstanced, and hon. Members ought to be allowed to pay them as they pleased for facilitating their business. He knew something of the feelings of clerks in public offices; he knew that they were a class of men not less devoted to the interests of the public than those two individuals who officiated at the door of that House, and he thought himself warranted in assuring hon. Members that those individuals would not as a class feel hurt in any respect at any gratuities which the door keepers of that House might be permitted to receive for their extra endeavours to accommodate Members of Parliament in the despatch of their business. For himself, he would say, that he did not object to any regulations which the hon. Member might introduce for the better regulation of the offices of the House of Commons, but he did object to the specific proposition which would prevent him giving a gratuity to any officer if he pleased, when he thought he deserved it by attentions independent of his duty.
Mr. Robinsonwas surprised at the tone in which the proposition of the hon. Member for Middlesex had been received. It was most unfair in the right hon. Baronet to put so illiberal an interpretation on that hon. Gentleman's motives. He (Mr. Ro-
220
binson) was a member of the committee on whose recommendation the present motion was founded. He agreed to that recommendation, because he thought the present mode of paying their officers was objectionable and ought to be substituted by some other and better system. He agreed with the hon. Member for Middlesex in thinking that the Members of that House should be discharged of any expense whatever consequent upon their attention to their public duties. He hoped that the hon. Member's proposition would receive the sanction of the House; that a system disagreeable alike to its Members and its officers would be abolished, and that a more eligible and. satisfactory one to all parties would be adopted.
Mr. O'Connellthought the House should be very cautious in carrying the principle sought to be laid down by the hon. Member for Middlesex to the extreme either of taxing the public for their own convenience, or of diminishing the income which these persons had received for a number of years, and in consideration and expectation of which they had devoted their lives to the discharge of the duties intrusted to them. What was meant by a fair and adequate compensation? Was' it a compensation to the full amount of what they received at present? If so, it was fair and reasonable, and to those terms he assented; but so far as the present officers were concerned, it was not fair or reasonable that any individual feeling of delicacy relative to the payment of this money should be suffered to affect them. That such a delicacy did exist he could not doubt, after what he had heard from the hon.- Member for Shaftesbury; but he must maintain that it ought not to be allowed to operate against those persons who had families to support, who could not resort to any other profession so late in life, and who could only continue to be door-keepers, and nothing else. Well then, admitting that these persons should receive some compensation, the only remaining question was out of what fund that compensation should come. He confessed he did not like the idea of making it a charge upon the public. If the proposed arrangement would make a sufficient saving in one department to compensate the officers in another, that was a good argument in favour of the alteration, but if this were not the case, he certainly did not feel disposed to increase the public burdens for

221
the sole purpose of relieving the Members of that House from a payment which they had been in the habit of making. If such a system as the existing one were now proposed for the first time, he should certainly vote against it; but he must take the case as he found it, and treat it accordingly. Every hon. Gentleman who had spoken had borne testimony to the able and efficient manner in which these officers had discharged their duties. Let not the House then, in pursuance of any abstract theory, diminish the amount of the emoluments they received at present. H protested against any such diminution; in the propriety of effecting any prospective diminution he perfectly acquiesced; and he trusted that some fund from which the compensation could be derived would be discovered, without entailing any fresh charge upon the public.
Colonel Conollywas surprised to hear the hon. Member for Middlesex—the great advocate of economy—attempting to fasten upon the public a charge which, on a fair estimate, would amount to 6,000 l. a year, more especially when every hon. Gentleman in the House was disposed to give some reasonable compensation in return for the attention he received and the civility he uniformly met with. If such a resolution as the present were proposed to him as a saving at the expense of the door-keepers, he would spurn it as an offensive proposition. If it were proposed as a saving at the expense of the public, it was even more dishonourable and more offensive.
Mr. Warburtonwas inclined to believe that a great majority of the Members of that House paid fees to the door-keepers, not because they received attention and civility, for which they considered themselves bound to make such a return, but because it was the custom. Some hon. Gentlemen paid the door-keepers nothing at all; others paid them one guinea, others paid them two; and out of the whole number he believed that few, in making the present, were actuated so much by a feeling on behalf of the individual, as by the fear that they would be considered shabby if they departed from the ordinary course. The ground on which he supported the Resolution was this: would not the public out of doors very naturally consider it a scandalous job, that the door-keeper of that House should receive a salary of 1,100 l a year? It was represented that
222
the door-keepers performed their duties properly—granted. What was there in the duties themselves which entitled them to 1,100 l. a year? Compare the salaries of these officers with the remuneration of other functionaries, and the absurdity was manifest. Lords of the Admiralty and Commissioners were only in the receipt of l,000 l. a year, and independently of the great distinction between the appearance to be supported by the one class of officers and the other, there was this further difference, that the Commissioners' duties lasted the whole year through, while those of the door-keepers only extended to one half of it.
Mr. Richardsthought the effect of the gratuities in question was to make the door-keepers, to a certain extent, the servants of individual Members, and to entitle them to a proportionate degree of respect and attention. Why did Gentlemen give fees to post-boys and waiters at taverns? In order that they might receive a greater degree of personal attention. If waiters were wholly paid by the keepers of taverns the visitors could not expect to see that degree of personal attention, and solicitude for their comfort which was so pleasant and gratifying.
Mr. Ewart Gladstonesaid, that the House should first decide out of what fund the compensation should be paid, and then apportion it to the full amount of the salary which each officer at present received. As the charge was confessedly to remain in existence during the tenure of these offices by the persons at present holding them, he did not see why the Members of the House should not continue to pay their fees without seeking to throw them on the public.
Mr. Humereplied, if there were any difference of opinion as to the amount of the gratuities, let an estimate be laid on the Table of the House, and the question would be set at rest; it must not be forgotten, however, that if two sessions occurred in the course of a year, the doorkeepers received two sets of fees. With regard to compensation, if the question were referred to a Committee, it would rest with them to fix a just and equitable amount, as had been already done in a variety of other cases. Why should they adopt as to that House, a principle which was not acted upon in. any other public establishment? Servants were not allowed to take money front individuals in

223
clubs. [Oh!] Oh! Were they? Were they in the Conservative Club? There were several hon. Gentlemen opposite who could answer the question. He was astonished at the objections which had been urged to his Resolution, and at the spirit in which it had been met. He was never disposed to commit an act of injustice towards any individual. He was always for cutting down the salaries attached to sinecure offices, but in cases where there were real duties to perform, he felt he might be accused of being too liberal. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the first Resolution; and at the request of Mr. Sergeant Goulburn, read the second Resolution of which he had given notice relative to the compensation.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodbegged leave to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give his word that the officers of the House should obtain justice from the Treasury in this reference, and he should be satisfied. He knew from experience the difference which existed in the result where justice was to be procured for small fry and for large fish. In 1796 the Chief Justices of the King's Bench and of the Common Pleas had their salaries raised from 3,000 l. per annum in gold money— mind, gold money—to 8,000 l. in paper money. ["No, no"] Well 7,000 l. ["No, no."] Oh, 7,000 l. at least. In the year 1796 he was sure the salary was 3,000 l. a year. He would now say a few words about that hon. and excellent man the Member for Middlesex. He did not think it right in that hon. Member to cast his net so as to let the large fish escape, while he caught the little ones. The expenses to which Members of that House were now subject were enormous, and such as no man who had not a large fortune was able to bear. No man could be a Member of that House without incurring an expense of at least 1,000 l. a-year over and above his ordinary expenses. This ought not to be borne. The industrious classes could never be properly represented in that House, until men who understood their interests should be enabled to sit there without ruining themselves by the expense. If the hon. Member for Middlesex brought forward a Motion to pay the Representatives of the people—say three guineas a day,—he would support it. He insisted that they ought to be paid, as the Representatives of the people of England, their proper wages by the people
224
of England. The present matter which the hon. Member for Middlesex had brought forward was so very small that he could not endure to see the time of the House occupied with it. It was more suited to the discussions of a parish vestry than a great legislative body like the Commons of England. It was wrong thus to waste the valuable time of the House. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to say that he we undertake to protect the vested interest of the parties concerned in these Resolutions he would support them; but otherwise he should certainly vote against them. Those parties had embarked their lives—he would say they had obtained their situations for life, and they ought to receive ample compensation. Unless therefore he had the assurance he required from the Chancellor of the Exchequer he should vote against the Motion.
Colonel Sibthorp: Whether the hon. Member for Middlesex gave him leave or not, he would take leave to remunerate any one of these officers, even if the Resolution were passed.
The House divided—Ayes 171; Noes 93; Majority 78.

List of the NOES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Fergusson, C.

Alsager Captain

Ferguson, G.

Angerstein, J.

Fielden, J.

Archdall, M.

Fleming, J.

Attwood, T.

French, F.

Bailey, J.

Freshfield, J. W.

Baillie, Col. H.

Geary, Sir W. R. P

Balfour, T.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Bannerman, A.

Goulburn, Rt. Hn. H

Baring, T.

Grimston, Viscount

Blackstone, W. S.

Gully, J.

Borthwick, P.

Halford, H.

Bowes, J.

Hanmer, H.

Brownrigg, J. S.

Hardy, J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Hawkes, T.

Burrell, Sir C.

Hindley, C.

Buxton, T. F.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Campbell, W. F.

Hogg, J. W.

Chisholm, A. W.

Hope, J.

Cole, Lord

Hotham, Lord

Compton, H. C.

Hoy, J. B.

Conolly Colonel

Humphery, J.

Darlington, Lord

Hutt, W.

D'Eyncourt, Right

Irton, S.

Hon. C.

Johnstone, A.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Johnstone, H.

Dottin, A. R.

Kearsley, J. H.

Dowdeswell, W.

Knatchbull, Sir E

Eaton, R. J.

Knight, G.

Elley, Sir J,

Knightly, Sir C.

Elwes, J. P.

Lawson, A.

Fancourt, Major

Lees, J. F.

225

Lefroy, J.

Richards, J.

Lincoln, Earl

Rickford, W.

Lucas, E.

Russell, Lord J.

Maunsell, T. P.

Rushbrooke., R.

M'Lean, D.

Ryle, J.

Mordaunt, Sir J,

Sheldon, E. R. C.

O'Connor, D.

Sibthorp, Colonel

O'Ferrall, M.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Parker, M.

Teunent, E.

Pechell, Captain

Thomas, Colonel H.

Peel, E.

Tyrell, Sir J.

Perceval, Colonel

Vere, Sir C. B.

Pollock, Sir F.

Welby, G. E.

Praed, M.

Whitmore, T. C.

Price, G.

Yorke, E.

COUNSEL FOR PRISONERS.
Mr. Ewartmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to enable all prisoners to make a full defence by Counsel.
Sir Eardley Wilmotasked if the present Bill was intended to be the same as that one which was rejected by the House of Lords last year?
Mr. Ewartsaid, that the present Bill he intended should be in every respect the same as the Bill which passed that House last year.
Sir Eardley Wilmotbelieved the Bill of last year was carried by a majority of one in that House, But what had Lord Denman and Lord Brougham said of it? He did not mean to oppose the bringing in of the Bill, for there were many Clauses of it to which he should give his support; but he could not agree to the principle of allowing four speeches to Counsel in defence of a prisoner, and thus unnecessarily occupying so much of the time of the Court.
Mr. Ewartdenied that the Bill of last Session gave the privilege of four speeches to Counsel: the utmost that would be necessary in most cases for Counsel would be to make two speeches; and even that would depend upon the course pursued by the prosecuting Counsel. He denied, also, that the Bill was only carried by a majority of one. The fact was, that the Bill was carried by a large majority, and it was only one Clause of it to which the majority of one applied. As the Bill had passed that House in the last Session, and in the Session before, it surely could not be said that he had not now a locus standi. The hon. Baronet was greatly out of order in alluding to any Opinion given in another place by the two eminent persons he had named; but as that allusion had been made, he would take the opportunity of saving that he had yesterday-spoken on
226
the subject to one of those distinguished authorities, and that the opinion of that Judge was completely the contrary of what the hon. Baronet would seem to convey, and anything but opposed to the Bill. The other House of Parliament had never given any decision on the Bill, and how, therefore, could that House be quoted as an argument against it? It should be recollected, too, that the Bill had passed the House of Commons, notwithstanding the opposition of the Attorney-General.
Mr. O'Connellsupposed it was not the intention of the hon. Baronet to divide the House in opposition to the bringing in of the Bill. He did not think the time occupied by Counsel in defending a prisoner should be at all considered. The old principle, that "wretches hung that Jurymen might dine," he hoped was long since exploded.
Leave given.

POOR LAWS (IRELAND.)
Sir Richard Musgraverose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the Relief of the Poor of Ireland in certain cases. A measure similar to that which he meant now to propose was brought under the consideration of the House last Session. He understood that there was no objection to it on the part of Government. Allusion was made in the Speech from the Throne to the state of the Irish Poor, and he believed that hon. Members had every possible desire to ameliorate their condition. The Commissioners for inquiring into the state of the Irish Poor had made a Report, in which it was stated that numbers perished daily in Ireland from destitution and want. Such being the case, he did not mean, not with standing the intimation given by Government upon the subject, to give up his intention of proposing some measure to the House. The Bill which he would ask leave to bring in was drawn up by a gentleman of great legal knowledge and experience. There could be no harm in introducing this Bill to the notice of the House, whatever might be the intentions of Ministers. When he introduced this subject last Session, Gentlemen were not generally so well acquainted with it as they were at present. The Report of the Irish Poor Commissioners was now before the House, and no document that was ever laid upon their table showed a greater amount of suffering, misery, and destitution. He would not detain, the

227
House by reading any extracts from it. The medical part of the Report was, perhaps, the most important, because medical men had the best opportunities of witnessing, in the discharge of their professional duties, (he extent and nature of the distresses and sufferings of the poor. The seenes they described were most melancholy and appalling. Indeed the wretched state of the poor could not be unknown to any person residing in Ireland. He himself lived in an atmosphere of misery, and being compelled to witness it daily, he was determined to pursue the subject to see whether any and what relief could be procured from Parliament. Suppose the whole population of Middlesex, of Kent, and Sussex were at one instant to be deprived of parochial relief, and turned out upon the highways to die, by hundreds, of starvation, that House would not hesitate a moment to adopt, not merely such a measure as he meant now to propose, but a much more effectual one. The poor of Ireland should not merely receive present relief, but means should be taken to secure future employment for able-bodied labourers. There were very ample means of affording employment there, by instituting a steady and vigorous course of improvement. The Report of the English Poor-law Commissioners was highly honourable to their judgment and industry, and the measure founded on it no less honorable to Ministers, but doubts were entertained whether a similar system of Poor-laws to that now acted upon in England could be beneficially extended to Ireland. A Poor-law here was of long standing; its operation, whether for good or evil, was well known; but it would not be so in Ireland. No person would propose for that country a system similar in ail respects to that of England. The establishment of workhouses in Ireland would not be a benefit to that country, for great numbers of the Irish poor were drawn over here from the fear of absolute starvation. Some means should also be devised to give employment to able-bodied workmen. It appeared from the evidence on the state of the poor, that these persons were actually driven from home by starvation. If these distressed persons were offered admittance into a workhouse, they would accept this or any other mode of obtaining food. Before the experiment of workhouses was tried in Ireland, let the mode of carrying on public works be im-
228
proved, and let other means be adopted in order to extend employment for the able-bodied. Last Session he ventured to introduce a Bill, by which public works would be extended, and this Session he had given notice for renewing that measure. The best practical engineers asserted that ample employment might be afforded by a proper extension of such works. Let something also be done to improve the distribution of landed property of Ireland. It was a fact that the occupiers of the soil, those who were to be considered as the people of Ireland, were prevented by the nature of their tenures from effecting permanent improvements. And this, after all, was the greatest evil of Ireland. In this respect Ireland differed from every country where the people were in a state of comfort and happiness. By the Bill before the House it was intended to provide relief for the helpless unable to work—and, on extraordinary occasions, for other classes also, by levying a rate in aid of subscriptions on such occasions. By the first Clause, the duty of executing the act was primarily to devolve on a Committee, who would have power, at discretion, to afford relief. This Committee was to consist of rate-payers, possessing a certain qualification described in the Bill. It had been thought necessary to attach a qualification, because, if all rate-payers were allowed to vote, many of the poorest class would have to decide on cases of their own relations who applied for relief. Seven Committee-men were required to constitute a Committee. At their first meeting, the Committee would have to divide the parish into sections, and was to appoint a sub-committee of management, assigning to each sub-committee-man the superintendence of one or more sections. In the appointment of the sub-committee a continued rotation was to be observed. One of the sub-committee was to be guardian, and another to be deputy-guardian of the poor, filling the office of Chairman at each meeting of the subcommittee. As he had mentioned, on a former occasion, the appointment of a superintendent for each section of a parish was found to answer admirably at Glasgow, as described by Dr. Chalmers in his evidence. This regulation was also successfully adopted in Ireland during the prevalence of the cholera. The subcommittee would have to draw up a list of the helpless poor, confining the list under

229
that denomination, to aged persons above sixty, orphans under fourteen, the maimed, sick, blind, deaf, and dumb, lunatics and idiots. And in this roll were to be mentioned the age, birth-place, and other particulars relating to each person named therein, together with the' amount of allowance required in each case. This statement and the roll of the poor was to be laid before the General Committee for their decision. The statement of the determination of the General Committee would then go before the Grand Jury of the county, by whom it might be altered on appeal. When a valuation had taken place, every party having paid rates, directly or indirectly, might, out of the rent next payable by him, make a deduction not exceeding three-fourths of the poundage on the annual rate thus payable as shall have been used for ascertaining the rates. If the Treasurer of the county stated in his warrant that a poundage of 1s. was to be levied, asrates, on the annual value—the occupier paying 1s. per pound, might deduct from his landlord's rent 9d. per pound of rent. This Clause was so drawn as to make every person having an interest in the land pay according to the amount of that interest. On occasions of extraordinary distress, such as prevailed last year in Mayo, he proposed to levy a rate equal to the amount of private subscriptions raised for the relief of the able-bodied. By another Clause power was also given to the General Committee to assistmendicity institutions, by levying rates on the parish. The Bill also proposed to give the Lord-lieutenant authority to unite parishes, on memorials being presented to him for that purpose. He had thus briefly explained to the House the principal Clauses of the Bill. Many Members might wish to proceed further, and to extend relief to other classes, by a compulsory law. He begged hon. Members to consider that the investigation which must take place under this Bill would prove beneficial not only to the helpless poor, but also to the other distressed persons. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that leave be given to bring in "a Bill to authorise the Relief of the Poor of Ireland in certain cases."
Mr. Smith O'Brienhaving paid a great deal of attention to the subject, was anxious to say a few words on that occasion. He had always felt that it was the duty of Government to take up this ques-
230
tion, in order that it should be carried out to a satisfactory result; but from the nature of it he thought they should be ready to receive and consider suggestions with reference to it from all quarters. He was not prepared to offer anything that was probably new, but as be had prepared a Bill on the subject as well as his hon. Friend, he trusted the House would allow him to introduce it on a future occasion that it might be printed. He was gratified to hear the announcement in the King's Speech that his Majesty's Ministers had taken up the subject, and he trusted that they would prepare a measure that would afford adequate relief to the country.
Mr. Shawsaid, that he felt all the importance and difficulty of the subject. He thought, however, as the Government had referred to it in the King's Speech, they should be prepared to state generally the course they meant to pursue. He did not mean that they should prematurely commit themselves to any specific plan, or go into any details; but they surely might inform the House whether they intended to introduce any measure at all during the present Session, and if so, upon what principle? For his own part, he did not desire to precipitate their decision upon a question involving the most serious consequences to Ireland. He could not see his way to the application of any system of Poor-laws to the peculiar condition and circumstances of that country, but he thought, as the Government had thrown upon themselves the great responsibility of dealing with the question, that individual Members should leave it in their. hands.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerfelt that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was most extraordinary. It was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to bring forward a measure on the subject, as they had already stated as strongly as possible, and in the most authoritative manner. Their views had been expressed as fully as they could be at present; but they could not enter into details. Indeed it would require more ingenuity than the right hon. Gentleman possessed to say how the Government could explain the nature of a measure to be founded on the Report of the Commissioners of Poor-laws, which Report had not yet been, prepared.
Mr. Young(Cavan) hoped it was distinctly understood on all hands, that when

231
the proposed bills were laid on the Table, neither the hon. Baronet nor the Member for Ennis, would attempt to press them on through any further stages, until such times as the Government measure was also laid before the House, and opportunity given for considering all the proposals on this important subject together. It certainly was full time for the Legislature to take the subject in hand, and, if possible, alleviate the sufferings which prevailed to such a dreadful extent in Ireland; but this step must be taken guardedly, and strict limits adopted, lest that which was intended for relief should only aggravate the evil.
Mr. O'Connellthought that his Majesty's Ministers had said all that could be required of them at present. He was satisfied that the period had at length come when some system of Poor-laws must be introduced into Ireland. There had, for some time, been a gradual and steady amelioration in the condition of the farmers of the agricultural districts of the West and South of Ireland; and this improvement had, to some extent, descended to the labouring classes. He therefore thought that it was the proper time to bring forward some measures. The system now beginning to be acted upon in this country worked well, and some plan of the kind might be devised to work well in Ireland; but the utmost care must be exercised that the management of it was such that local prejudices and abuses could be efficiently checked. A measure to afford relief to the destitute ought probably to be accompanied with some means to prevent the absorption of the bulk of the labouring part of the population into the pauper class. He would also make another suggestion, namely, that the Poor-law Commissioners should be allowed to allocate lands to labourers with families who were, of course, not so well prepared to emigrate. At the commencement some assistance must be afforded. By these means, however, he felt that they might so regulate the population of the country with reference to the employment of labour, that they need not consider it a frightful prospect to pass a measure for affording relief to the destitute poor of Ireland. He looked forward with anxious and sanguine hopes to the measures, for one would not be sufficient, likely to be introduced by the Government, and he had no doubt that every care would be
232
taken to prevent any interference with wages, and also that such an extent of relief should not be given that the stimulus to exertion should be lessened.
Mr. Scarlettwas surprised that his Majesty's Ministers were not prepared to state their opinions on the subject, when they had announced in the King's Speech that they intended to bring forward some measure. They ought not to have said anything on the subject until they were prepared to state what measures they meant to propose; did they mean to encourage or assist emigration? Was assistance to be afforded to remove a portion of unemployed labour from one district where there was not sufficient employment for it, to one where there was an adequate demand? A surplus quantity of labour in any spot would, of course, prevent any great improvement. He therefore would recommend the encouragement of the emigration of able-bodied labourers; but, as it was, the prospect of such an essential change as the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland, without their nature being explained, was calculated to produce great excitement in that country. Great caution must be used in a country like Ireland, where every thing was so essentially different from what obtained in this country. He could not help feeling that the object in view in introducing such a measure was to injure the landlords; this might not be the case; but still he was not satisfied that it was not. He was ready to support any measure for the relief of the distress of the Irish poor; but he doubted whether this could be done advantageously by means of a system of Poor-laws, when he considered the anomalous state of the country.
Mr. French Mr. French, although strongly opposed both to the principle and detail of this measure, did not mean to oppose the introduction of the Bill by his hon. Friend the Member for Waterford, understanding his object to be confined to the laying his views on this important subject before the House, and that this Bill would not be proceeded with further until the measure, whatever it might be, of his Majesty's Ministers, which had been alluded to in the King's Speech, should have been brought forward. He was, he acknowledged, hostile to the introduction of a system of compulsory relief into Ireland, believing it would prove prejudicial to the interests of all classes, from the highest to

233
the lowest. They had already in that country adopted that portion of the English Poor-laws system, which appeared to them beneficial. Fever hospitals, infirmaries, lunatic asylums, dispensaries, schools, &c, had been established at the public expense, and was supported out of the county votes. Several voluntary associations, such as the mendicity, had been entered into; and every thing further which ought, on dispassionate inquiry, be deemed likely to ameliorate the condition of the working classes, he was confident the landed proprietors would willingly subject themselves to: he felt, however, that this was a subject of too much importance to be hastily legislated on—too complicated in all its relations to be understood by an individual Member; a false step here could not be recalled—its fatal effects would not be confined to the present, but would extend to the future: any measure introduced on a subject such as this, one which must exercise a powerful and permanent influence on the welfare of the country for good or for evil, ought not to be introduced save on the responsibility of the government of the country—a measure founded on the Report of the Poor-law Commissioners, the advantages of which would be apparent, neither embracing doubtful expedients, or experimental trials; after its introduction a sufficient time should be afforded for its consideration —let it be referred to a Committee of County Members without reference to their political views—let it be shown to them how the absence of machinery to carry its provisions into effect could be provided for; it was not, and he trusted it would not, be made a party question. The only object of all parties ought to be, should it be deemed advisable to legislate on this subject, to produce a measure, if possible, beneficial to a class hitherto much neglected, but certainly the most important in the community—the peasantry of Ireland.
Motion agreed to.

DISFRANCHISEMENT OF STAFFORD.
Mr. Divettmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to disfranchise the borough of Stafford. He did not feel himself called upon to detain the House, as the delinquencies of this borough had occupied so much of their time in previous Sessions. The Bill had originally been introduced at the recommendation of a Select Committee,
234
that had been appointed to inquire into the subject, and it had on three separate occasions passed through the House; but in consequence of the state of business in the other House it had not, on any occasion, been proceeded with.
Captain Chetwyndsaid, that after the almost unanimous expression of assent which the House had formerly given to the similar motion of his hon. Friend, ha should not offer any arguments against it, but should avail himself of the practice of the House, in order, on the occasion of the second reading, to offer to the Bill his most strenuous opposition. He should at that time, in recapitulation of what he had offered to the House on a former occasion, renew his inquiry into the facts stated in the evidence, and bring forward arguments for the purpose of proving that there was not such a necessity for this Bill as some hon. Members supposed. But he should certainly take the sense of the House on the Motion for the second reading of the Bill.
Motion agreed to.
The issue of the writ for the Borough of Stafford to be suspended till the 21st of April.

THE NEW HOUSES of PARLIAMENT.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose in pursuance of the notice which he had given, for the purpose of moving the renewal of the Committee, which had been appointed last year, to consider the question of rebuilding the Houses of Parliament. The House would remember, that in consequence of an Address agreed to by that and the other House of Parliament, Commissioners had been appointed to consider of certain plans which were invited to be sent in by public competition. That was a mode which he thought had been wisely recommended by the Committee. In consequence of their recommendation it was the duty of the Commissioners to select out of a stated number of plans, amounting to nearly 100, ninety-seven, he believed, was the exact amount, a certain number, not less than two, nor more than five, as being those which, in their minds, were best adapted and fitted for the purpose in view. They had selected, he believed, four plans. The object of renewing the Committee was for the purpose of the Commissioners laying the plans before them, with a view to their coming to some decision upon them. The

235
Report would then be finally laid before the House, in order that it might approve of the decision which had been made. His hon. Friend behind him had given a notice of a motion for an instruction to the Committee to reconsider the removal of the site of the Houses of Parliament. This, however, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should feel it his duty to oppose, as that subject fell not within the province of the Committee. As to the composition of the Committee, he thought it better to renew it as it had been originally proposed by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tarn worth. It had been well attended, and he thought the House would have a better chance of a satisfactory result if the inquiry were followed up by the same Gentlemen who had been engaged in the previous consideration of the subject. One Member of that Committee alone was no longer a Member of that House, having been removed to the House of Peers, and he proposed to substitute for his name that of the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Bernal. The right hon. Gentleman accordingly moved to re-appoint the Select Committee, to consider and report upon such plan as should be most convenient for the accommodation of the two Houses of Parliament.
Mr. Humewas anxious to take the opinion of the House upon a point which appeared to him of considerable importance. The first question he had started as a Member of the Committee was, that they ought first to consider what the situation of the Houses should be. He was free to confess that on that occasion he was in a very small minority, but small minorities did not always deter him, and as a proof that they should not be considered as decisive of a question, he might mention he was in the very same minority on a proposition that there should be no competition for plans, and yet the Committee afterwards agreed unanimously to a competition,. This was an encouragement to him in his present object. The only point he blamed himself for was his not taking the sense of the House upon the question when the Report was brought up. He was bound to say that he was not in his place at the moment when that occurred, although it was not often he was absent. Since that period the subject had engaged the attention of many persons in the country, who had never thought of it
236
before, and he found that a large proportion of individuals, as capable of forming a judgment as any Gentleman in that House, thought the Select Committee had made a bad choice—that the situation was low, and was attended with many inconveniences, and that, in fixing a place for Parliament to assemble in for ages to come, regard ought to be had to all the peculiar circumstances applying to the case. One thing particularly struck him, that situated as we were in a climate not always the clearest, with an atmosphere dark and murky on many occasions, the Houses of Parliament would require a free and open space. In the neighbourhood of that large building, Westminster Abbey, they lost an hour or an hour and a half of daylight in comparison with what they would gain if they were at the west end of the Abbey. The vicinity of Westminster Hall, too, greatly interfered with the light and air. He did not go so far as to say that the neighbourhood of the Law Courts was bad, but he was free to 'confess that he would rather be at a distance from them. He knew it was held by many that the situation was convenient for those lawyers who had to attend the House; but looking at the small number of those Gentlemen compared with the other Members of the House, he did not think that their convenience ought to weigh much if there we re other circumstances to counterbalance it. He might be accused of wishing for a radical change in this respect, because he would remove the Courts of Law from their present inconvenient situation. He would propose to build proper Courts in the centre of, Lincoln's-Inn-Fields, in the vicinity of all the lawyers. Let them be all together. This would be much more convenient for the public and the lawyers themselves. He had scarcely ever seen such inadequate accommodation as the present Courts furnished; and although a great deal of money had been expended in fitting them up, he did hot think that any loss would be sustained; but that, on the contrary, great public convenience would be obtained by getting rid of them altogether. Gentlemen would see from this that he reckoned the vicinity of Westminster Hall as very little in favour of the present House. They were not the least allied to each other. Judges and lawyers were very proper persons to carry into effect the Acts of the legislature; but they had no necessary connection with the daily pro-

237
ceedings of the Houses of Parliament. They were altogether distinct. He thought it would be better to remove the Houses of Parliament to St. James's Park, to some elevated situation, where, having a southern aspect, they might occupy the position of Marlborough House, or of St. James's Palace. Let Gentlemen contrast the present buildings on an area of about 4,000 feet in length, and some 340 in depth, with the Abbey and the Hall overlooking them. Let them contrast this with a handsome building on the site of St. James's Palace, or on the two or three acres of Marlborough House and gardens. They would be there as quiet as in the present situation; with the advantages of better air and more light. The position would also be more convenient to five-sixths of the Members as well as to the public. At present the Houses were out of every one's way. There was another situation which had been pointed out, and which, he confessed, would have been a better situation, if the building of the National Gallery had not been begun; but at the back of that building they might have twice the room they now had if they removed the barracks, which had so long been complained of, and took in some ground, which could be had at a little or no expense. That would certainly be a better and more convenient situation than the present. Here, then, were two situations better than the present site; but his favourite spot was St. James's Palace, and he would state why. We had just finished the palace at Buckingham-gate, and if St. James's were not used in the way he proposed, it would still be used as a palace. He thought, therefore they could not do better, for the sake of economy, as well as for good air and the situation of the ground, than to occupy it. The ground required was not so very large. He had seen plans which required for the whole buildings of the Houses and their offices a very small compass indeed. He should be happy to hear the opinion of the House, and to have it decided whether they should not take this point into consideration before they proceeded to consider the other parts of the subject. He might be told that they had already gone to a great deal of trouble and expense. As to the trouble, with the experience of the architects, he considered that very little; and for the expense he believed 3,000 l would cover it.
238
He was anxious that all further expense should be stopped until this question was decided, and one advantage would arise— namely, that time would be afforded to those architects who wished to come forward with plans. He knew of no valid objection to his proposal, except two. One was on the ground of the old associations connected with the place in which the Parliament had so long sat. He believed, however, that the fire had destroyed a great deal of those associations, so that that objection was not good for much; and with regard to the vicinity of the Courts of Law, he hoped he had said enough to show that that ought not to interfere from the comparatively small number of those who were interested in it. He knew that many others took the same view of the subject as he did, and he was unwilling to detain the House longer than by moving that it be an instruction to the Committee to reconsider the removal of the site of both Houses of Parliament.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose, as he had already said he should, for the purpose of entreating the House to resist the proposition of his hon. Friend. He wished in a few words, to lay the actual facts of the case before the House. His hon. Friend had stated that a Committee had been appointed for the purpose of considering the whole question. That Committee certainly was not to be objected to either for the names of which it was composed or for the ability or the means they possessed of discussing the subject. When it was before them they negatived this proposition after a full consideration of it. But his hon. Friend said, that, having been in a minority, be regretted not having taken the opinion of the House on the point. Why, in fact, the opinion of the House was taken, and that in a manner more authoritative than the mere reception of a Report, because as soon as the Report was laid on the Table, and when they came to the estimates, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was pressed most earnestly to lose no time in carrying into effect the recommendations of the Committee with reference to the situation of the two Houses before any plans were received, or other steps taken. Since then Gentlemen on all sides of the House had entreated him to take a vote in a Committee of Supply, in order to carry on the necessary arrangements, and he was entitled to presume that his hon. Friend was

239
present on those occasions, because they were occasions upon which he was never absent. He was, as he had stated, entreated to take a vote, for the express purpose of enabling him to take all the preliminary steps with reference to the subject. He accordingly prepared an estimate. The money was voted—Houses were taken down, and the work of clearing away was commenced. His hon. Friend was a consenting party to that proposition, which it was now proposed to negative; because when there was a proposition for the purchase of land in Abingdon-street, and when he proposed to take as much as would be necessary, his hon. Friend assented and said, take as much as will enable you to purchase the ground in Abingdon-street. You must not let money stop you in this case." So that after the site had been decided upon, and his hon. Friend had supported a proposition for rebuilding the Houses on the old site, he now wished to depart from it. Perhaps the reason of this inconsistency was simply that the hon. Member wished to claim the privilege of his northern brethren — a second site—but this would not have any magical effect upon the House. The case did not rest simply upon a vote of the Commons, but it was a combined movement of both Houses. The Resolution of the Lords had been communicated to that House, and their Resolution had been communicated to the Lords, and both had adopted the same plan with respect to the situation. The whole of the plans had been called for with reference to the present site. His hon. Friend said, very candidly, that all that had been done would be so much money thrown away with reference to building the Houses of Parliament, if his present proposition were agreed to; but he said that it would be attended with other advantages—that it would be an encouragement to architects, He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought the selection of a proper position for the Houses of Parliament a point infinitely more important than any such encouragement to architects. His hon. Friend had very large plans, and he had opened them all before the House. They embraced not only the quitting that spot, but also building the Law Courts in the centre of Lincoln's Inn-Fields, and building the Houses of Parliament in the Mews, where he thought his hon. Friend would
240
be puzzled to find freer air and freer access than they had at present. He therefore, trusted that the House would not be induced to depart from the Resolutions of the Committee.
Sir Frederick Pollockwould not have troubled the House on the subject before it, had not reference been made by the hon. Member for Middlesex to the circumstance of consulting the convenience of the members of the profession to which he (Sir Frederick Pollock) had the honour to belong. He could say for himself, and he thought also for the other members of the bar who had seats in that House, that it was a matter of perfect indifference to them whether the new Houses of Parliament were built in the neighbourhood of Westminster Hall or where St, James's Palace now stands. Quite sure he was that the members of the bar would be the last persons to go against the general feeling of the House. It would be no sacrifice to him if the site were changed, but a matter of absolute indifference. It must also be recollected, when it was used as an argument that the consulting of the convenience of the members of the learned profession was one of the reasons for determining on rebuilding on the old site, that the sittings of the Courts at Westminster Hall were not continuous during the whole period of the Session, but only during Term. The different Courts of Equity during the other portions of the year held their sittings in the neighbourhood of Lincoln's Inn; and the Court in which his practice laid held a great part of its sittings at the other end of the town, in the immediate neighbourhood of the Guildhall of the City of London. Having said thus much as regarded the members of the bar, he would refer to another class of professional persons—namely, attorneys, to whom he believed the proximity of the Courts of Law to the Houses of Parliament was a matter of great importance. When the House of Lords was sitting; in its judicial capacity, and when Committees of both Houses were also sitting, it was a matter of great importance to the members of the profession to which he referred, that the places where their business required them to be present, should not be severed. As to professional men, Members of the House, he need hardly remark, that none of them could practise before Committees of the House.
Mr. Kearsleysaid, that after what had

241
fallen from the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to the hon. Member for Middlesex, it must be evident to every one that the observations of the hon. Member were nothing but humbug— sheer humbug. With the pretensions of that hon. Member, on all occasions, to a peculiar desire for economy, he must say that when the hon. Member talked about the loss of 3,000 l. being a matter of no importance he certainly was not acting an honest part. ["Oh! oh. !" "Chair!" and laughter]
The Speakersaid, that the hon. Member must be aware that it was not right for him to apply to any other hon. Member the terms of which he had just made use.
Mr. Kearsley—I cannot speak differently from what I think.
The Speaker—The language made use of by the hon. Member is not such as ought to be heard within the walls of this House. I feel that it is my duty to interpose, and submit it to the judgment of the House, whether or not such language should be allowed. The hon. Member has imputed dishonesty to another hon. Member, and that certainly is not a term fit to be used here.
Mr. Kearsley—I trust I shall be permitted to say, that I think that if I had acted as the hon. Member for Middlesex has done, I should not have been acting an honest part. [Cries of Chair! chair!]
The Speaker—Am I to understand that the hon. Member means to retract the expression of which he has made use?
Mr. Kearsley—"I cannot say what I don't think." [Loud calls of Chair!]
Mr. Thomas Attwoodobserved, that if the hon. Member had used unparliamentary language, he was quite sure that the hon. Member had meant nothing towards the hon. Member for Middlesex personally, although the word "unfair" might have been used as applied to the course of conduct pursued without any infringement on the rules of Parliamentary procedure. The phrase used by the hon. Member was certainly one not fit for the society of Gentlemen, and he hoped that an explanation would be afforded.
Mr. Kearsley—My remark was intended to apply to the argument of the hon. Member, and not to himself. I know very well the point I wanted to come at, and did not want the Birmingham bridge to carry me safe over.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodwas very happy
242
that the discussion had passed off in this pleasant and convivial manner. With respect to the subject under discussion, he (Mr. Attwood) said that he was opposed to the motion of the hon. Member for Middlesex, because he thought that the historical associations of six hundred years ought not to be disregarded in the choice of a situation for the new Houses of Parliament, nor that any unnecessary departure should be made from a spot so intimately connected with the liberties of the people of England as the present. The Houses of Parliament had stood on their present site for nearly six hundred years, and he hoped they would stand on it for six hundred years to come.
Lord Robert Grosvenoragreed with the hon. Member for Middlesex, that the present site of the Houses of Parliament was extremely inconvenient, and he thought great advantage would be derived from the erection of the new Houses in one of the situations pointed out by the hon. Member. Looking at the list of hon. Members' residences, it was perfectly clear that the present position of the Houses was, to nineteen Members out of twenty, altogether out of the way and inconvenient. The free circulation of air was a matter of the utmost importance in a city like this, and nothing could offer greater obstruction to the circulation of air than erecting a lofty building on the banks of a river such as the Thames, in a neighbourhood so choked up with houses as that part of Westminster was. The original intention was that Westminster Abbey should open to the River; and for his part he should prefer seeing that done, with the removal of St. Margaret's Church, which was almost an eye-sore, and the restoration of St. Stephen's Chapel, to having the new Houses of Parliament erected on the present site. Another situation might easily be chosen for the purpose, which would not be liable to the same objection, and he must say that they should not be deterred from placing a building intended for national purposes in a position which would be free from all defects, merely because of the trifling additional outlay of money which it might entail.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that unless some satisfactory and conclusive reason could be given for adopting the proposal of the hon. Member for Middlesex, it would be of importance to adhere to the decision which the House had already come to. Only

243
last Session this matter had been referred to a competent tribunal, who had considered this particular point, and by a majority of seventeen had determined to adhere to the existing site. In consequence of that decision, all the architects of this country had been invited in free competition to send in plans: of those sent in four had been selected, and the artists had received the rewards proposed. Having taken this course, it did appear that unless some cogent reason were given for departing from their decision, it ought to be adhered to. The plans sent in might be of little or no value if the site were changed, for they were all drawn in reference to the existing site. No cogent reason having, in his opinion, been adduced, the House should adhere to their former resolutions. It was not much his habit to cheer the hon. Member for Birmingham, but on this occasion he very cordially applauded the sentiment which had induced him to advocate the retention of a site with which were associated many of our most glorious historical associations. It was not a mere difference of prejudices, but he thought it would always be a satisfaction to the feelings of the English people to know the site of the ancient Palace of Westminster, and where the British Parliament had for so long a time sat. Let them just consider the weight of the argument of the hon. Member for Middlesex. The hon. Gentleman said, that by erecting a large building in the present situation they would intercept the air, and lose an hour's light every evening; but what was the hon. Member's proposition? Why, that the new Houses of Parliament should be placed in the rear of the National Gallery, with that building to the south- The hon. Gentleman proposed to benefit them in point of air; bat he must be permitted to doubt whether placing them in the mews, behind the National Gallery, would be any improvement. But the hon. Gentleman complained that the present situation was unhealthy. Had it ever been found so? He did not think it had; and what was more, he did not believe that the history of the plague, the cholera, or any other of those contagious diseases which had visited this metropolis, furnished any authority for supposing that the banks of the river were unhealthy. It was said that the currents of the air induced by the tide were healthy, and if so, why should not Members of Parlia-
244
ment have the advantage of it? Another objection was, that the Houses of Parliament were too remote from the residences of the Members; but, instead of regarding that as an objection, he considered it as an advantage, inasmuch as it not only insured them exercise, but the House an attendance, which, in all probability, could not be obtained if their residences were at hand. It was also said, that the House was too far removed from what Dr. Johnson called that "great confluence of human existence," Charing-cross; but he much doubted whether there was not an advantage in being removed a little from so great a channel. They were not far out of the way; and he thought it better, perhaps, to be situated where they were than to be nearer. It appeared to him that if in other respects, the advantages were nearly balanced, some consideration was due to the habits of the people with reference to the present site, and also to the property invested in the immediate vicinity. If, as a consequence of adopting the recommendation of the hon. Member for Middlesex, they were to pull down St, Margaret's church, and to build new courts in Lincoln's Inn-fields, unless some particular advantage were thus to be secured, considerations of economy would rather induce them to maintain things as they were. He thought it one important recommendation of the present situation, that it enabled the election Committees, which were appointed after a general election, to obtain the assistance of the most eminent members of the legal profession.
Mr. Haweswas rather averse to having the site altered. It appeared to him that all the plans laid before the Committee ought to be submitted to public inspection, and that his Majesty's Government ought to afford facilities for such an exhibition. The artists whose plans had not been adopted were, he believed, desirous of an opportunity of exhibiting their works, but he thought the public should be allowed to inspect also the plans which had been selected. The estimated cost to the artists of the ninety-seven plans sent in, was not less than 25,000 l.
Mr. Roebucksupported the Amendment. The right hon. Baronet had remarked that one hon. Gentleman complained of the present site as low and; unhealthy, while another had urged that from the river there was a current of fresh air, which,

245
instead of being obstructed by high buildings, as at present, ought to be allowed to circulate through the town. There was, however, no inconsistency in their arguments. When a site was below a certain level, a current of air might blow over it, and be exceedingly beneficial to more remote parts of the town, while the site itself remained very unhealthy. A reference had been made to history, but he thought there was not much in the historical recollections connected with this site to endear it to the people of England.
Mr. Ewartsaid, the question was, which was the best situation? He should say that the present was not the best, because the whole neighbourhood was choked up with houses. St. James's being free from this objection, he thought it the more eligible position. He was of opinion that they ought not to hesitate to reconsider the subject merely because the plans had been sent in.
The House divided—on the original motion Ayes 141; Noes 42; Majority 99.

List of the NOES.

Acheson, Lord

O'Brien, C.

Aglionby, H. A.

Oliphant, L.

Baldwin, Dr.

Pattison, J.

Bateson, Sir R.

Pease, J.

Bish, T.

Patter, R.

Bowring, Dr.

Pryse, P.

Brocklehurst, J.

Roche, D.

Brotherton, J.

Roebuck, J, A.

Buckingham, J. S.

Scholefield, J.

Dillwyn, L.

Strutt, E.

Fector, J.

Thompson, T. P.

Gillon, W. D.

Thompson, B.

Glynne, Sir S.

Tulk, C. A.

Grosvenor, L. R.

Verney, Sir H.

Grote, G.

Wakley, T.

Handley, H.

Wallace, R.

Hindley, C.

Wigney, I.

King, E.

Williams, W.

Lennox, Lord A.

Williams, Sir T.

Lennox, Lord, G.

Tellers.

Marshall, W.

Hume, J.

North, F.

Ewart, W.

O'Brien, W. S:

PROMULGATION OF THE STATUTES.
Mr. Humeand others from the Commons requested, on behalf of the Commons, a conference on the subject of providing more effectual means for promulgating the Statutes of the Realm.

Their Lordships concurred.

Upon the return of the managers,

The Duke of Cleveland informed the

177
House, that the managers for the House of Commons, had communicated to their Lordships the following resolutions:—
"1. That the Resolution of the House of the 7th May, 1801, be rescinded; and that a new scheme, founded on the principles recommended by the Committee, be adopted.
"2. That the whole number of copies of the Statutes for promulgation be printed of one uniform size.
"3, That the Statutes for promulgation be of the royal octavo size, continuously printed.
"4. That to secure the publicity and preservation of the Statutes for the use of the courts and offices, such copies shall be stamped, 'Promulgated for public use,' and be accompanied by a distinct notice on each volume, that they belong to the said courts and offices, and are to be solely appropriated for public use."
Resolutions to be printed.

APPOINTMENT OF MAGISTRATES.
The Marquess of Salisbury roseto call the attention of their Lordships to a subject upon which it would not be necessary for him to trouble them with many observations; yet it was one of the most important subjects that could possibly come under their consideration. Their Lordships were aware that for many years the manner of appointing Magistrates to the Commission of the Peace in counties had been exclusively through the recommendation of the Lord-lieutenants for such counties respectively. He had taken some pains to ascertain whether any instance could be found of such a proceeding being adopted as to insert the names of any gentlemen in the Commission without reference first to the Lord-lieutenant, or without his concurrence. He believed the Lord Chancellor, or the Commissioners holding the Great Seal, had always made it a rule never to appoint a magistrate without the full consent and concurrence of the Lord-lieutenant. In 1829, a case occurred in which a name that had been in a former list was omitted, and on the restoration of that name it was thought necessary that the Lord Chancellor should explain why he had replaced it in the Commission. The explanation was, that the name of the gentleman appointed had been inserted in a former list, as recommended by the Lord-lieutenant, and that it was not expedient, without reason assigned, to exclude it from the new list. He mentioned this case solely for the purpose of showing with what jealousy the right of the Lord-lieutenants in this respect was guarded—
178
so much so, that upon a departure from, the practice in a single instance, it was deemed prudent to make a public explanation of the motives. He had made diligent search to ascertain whether, during the time of the last three Lord Chancellors, the practice had been maintained uniformly, with the exception he had named, and he bad found that it had been so maintained. Having thus explained, or rather reminded their Lordships of the almost invariable practice, he would now call their attention to a signal and dangerous departure from that practice in the course of last year. During that time the Great Seal was in the hands of Commissioners. He was not aware whether any Lord-lieutenant had thought it advisable to recommend any gentleman for the Commission of the Peace; but that of which he complained was, that the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in concert, no doubt, with his colleagues, had recommended many Gentlemen to be put into the Commission of the Peace without the concurrence of the Lord-lieutenants, and which had been accordingly inserted by the authority of the Great Seal. He need not point out how much this proceeding was at variance with the established practice, and how much it bore on the face of it the appearance of a party manœuvre for the purpose of placing political partisans in the Commission of the Peace. He did not mean to bring so heavy a charge against the noble Secretary of State for the Home Department; but it was the duty of that House to look at such proceedings with jealousy, and without respect to persons; and it was impossible not to understand that if the practice once became established as a precedent, Secretaries of State might be hereafter found ready to sacrifice their sense of duty to the love of place or of party. As he understood that the motion would not be resisted by the noble Viscount at the head of his Majesty's Government, he would not enter into further details at present. If it should appear that the power thus assumed had been exercised to any great extent, or that any undue appointments had been made, then it would become a question how far it might not be the duty of that House to proceed further in the matter. Every person would admit the danger of taking away the responsibility of appointing the Magistrates from the Lord-lieuten-

179
ants of counties, and placing it in the hands of individuals who had not the means of knowing the characters of the persons to be appointed. The Secretary of State for the time being could not have that local knowledge which was necessary to direct his choice properly. He should conclude by moving for a return of the names and residences of the gentlemen who had been appointed to the Commission of the Peace in the different counties of England and Wales, on the recommendation of the Secretaries of State, and without the application of the custos rotu-lorum, from the 1st of January, 1835, down to the latest period.
The Marquess of Westminster had but a few observations to make upon the Motion of his noble Friend. His noble Friend had laid as a foundation for his Motion, the possibility, indeed the more than possibility, of a Secretary of State being influenced by party motives in the recommendation of a gentleman for the Commission of the Peace. Now, he only wished to put it to his noble Friend's candour and judgment to say, whether it was not also just as possible, that Lord-lieutenants might in some cases be influenced by party motives. He wished to know, whether his noble Friend considered that those functionaries were entirely removed from every suspicion of possible bias, and that Secretaries of State were the only persons liable to the imputation?
Viscount Melbournedid not mean to object to the Motion of his noble Friend, who had very correctly stated the course that had been pursued by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, excepting in one respect. His noble Friend had led the House to suppose, that persons had been recommended to the Great Seal for insertion in the Commission of the Peace, without application to the Lord-lieutenant of the particular county for which such application had been made. This was not the case. His noble Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department had always first submitted the names to the Lord-lieutenant in order to ascertain his reasons for opposing or objecting; and in some cases only where the Lord-lieutenant had declined giving his recommendation, his noble Friend not concurring in the reasons given, had recommended the individual to the Commissioners of the Great Seal, who had acted upon such recommendation. Whether
180
that course was or was not a wise and prudent one, under the circumstances, was a question for the consideration of their Lordships; and whether the persons so appointed were fit or unfit for the station to which in his discretion his noble Friend had advised their advancement, it would be for their Lordships to determine when the names came before them. For his own part, he could not be accused of inconsistency in upholding the conduct of his noble Friend; for' he had always publicly contended that the practice of leaving the appointments of Magistrates in the hands of Lord-lieutenants was a practice subject to great abuse. This had always been his opinion, and he had never concealed it. He did not affirm that the mode adopted by his noble Friend was the best remedy that could be devised; but some remedy he was convinced was necessary. His noble Friend had exercised his imagination in supposing the case that a Secretary of State might use his power in the recommendation of Magistrates for party purposes, he would draw upon the same poetical faculty for the picture of a Lord-lieutenant deeply involved in party politics, deeply engaged in election contests, and, perhaps, anxious to befriend one of the candidates for the representation of the county, naturally, under such circumstances, anxious to secure partisans of local weight and influence; and he would ask his noble Friend whether such a Lord-lieutenant would not be just as liable to a bias in the appointment of persons to the Commission of the Peace as any gentleman in the situation of his Majesty's Secretary of State. He had no objection to the production of the Return moved for by his noble Friend, with the names of the Gentlemen recommended to the Commissioners of the Great Seal during the last year.
The Lord Chancellor—I do not rise, my Lords, to oppose the Motion of the noble Marquess, but to make a few observations, that my silence may not be mistaken for acquiescence in the doctrines which the noble Marquess has promulgated. The noble Marquess says that the responsibility of the appointment of Magistrates is in the Lord-lieutenants of counties. ["The Marquess of Salisbury: No."] I so understood the noble Marquess. Now, my Lords, by the constitution of this country, this responsibility rests with the Great Seal. It is undoubt-

181
edly the duty of the Great Seal, in the discharge of this portion of the functions annexed to it, to seek information wherever information is to be obtained. It is therefore its duty to listen to the Lord-lieutenants of counties in making appointments, because of their local knowledge and general good information. But it is not the duty of the holder of the Great Seal to listen exclusively to those functionaries; and I have been more and more satisfied, from the experience I have had since my connection with the Great Seal, that if information should be drawn from such sources exclusively, without seeking elsewhere, great injury would be done to the public service. It may not be known that in some counties there are rules for the exclusion of particular classes and descriptions of persons from the Commission of the Peace, which rules do not obtain in other counties. Thus, were there not a discretion in the Great Seal, sometimes exercised in opposition to the recommendation of the Lord-lieutenant, there would be no uniformity of practice in the kingdom. So long as I have been connected with the Great Seal, I have exercised the right of appointment without submitting myself to the exclusive direction of the Lord-lieutenants; but, at the same time, in no instance without having communicated with them and heard their reasons and if, after hearing the grounds of objection, I still entertained the opinion that the individual was calculated to discharge the functions of a Magistrate efficiently, I should have departed from my duty if I had not inserted his name in the Commission of the Peace. This discretion, I am quite ready to admit, should be used delicately and sparingly, but it should not be surrendered. With respect to the appointments of last year, I believe that in no case was an appointment made by the Commissioners of the Great Seal without the attention of the Lord-lieutenant being first called to such appointment. There may have been instances in which appointments were made against the recommendation of the Lord-lieutenant, but none in which his opinion was not sought.
Lord Wharncliffeobserved that the question was not whether the Great Seal had the discretion claimed for it by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, but whether the Secretary of State was the fit channel for the recommendation of Magistrates to the Great Seal,
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that the Secretary of State for the Home Department had not taken upon himself the power of appointing Magistrates. He had only taken upon himself, as any other person might, to recommend gentlemen of whose competency to discharge the magisterial functions he was enabled by his station to obtain an accurate knowledge. Upon the recommendation founded upon such knowledge, the Great Seal was left to judge for itself. The Secretary of State for the Home Department possessed, as their Lordships must well know, peculiar sources of information, not attainable by any other functionary. Their Lordships had heard that different rules obtained in different counties as to the persons eligible to the Commission of the Peace. This was particularly illustrated by the supposed expediency or inexpediency of appointing clergymen, according to the county. In some counties it was absolutely necessary to appoint clergymen on account of the scarcity of persons qualified for the magisterial station. But where the means existed of carrying on those functions without calling the clergy in aid, it was deemed advisable to exclude them. Now this was precisely the information that would fall under the notice of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who would be able to determine where the rule of exclusion was a good one and where not. Undoubtedly, it had been the custom for Lord-lieutenants to nominate persons for the Commission of the Peace, and it was generally considered as their exclusive right. The responsibility, however, did not rest with them alone, but with the Great Seal; and it was open to the Secretary of State for the Home Department from time to time to make such observations and recommendations as he should think proper.
The Duke of Clevelandstated, that within his recollection, the custos rotu-lorum of the county of Durham omitted the names of two gentlemen, from the list sent by him to the Lord Chancellor, without giving any public reason for the omission. The gentlemen felt themselves aggrieved by the proceeding, and applied to the magistrates and gentry of the county to know what steps they should pursue. What course they took he did not know; but, upon a representation made to the Lord Chancellor, the two gentlemen were reinstated in the Com-

183
mission of the Peace. This was done, notwithstanding the omission of their names by the custos rotulorum, and it was done by Lord Eldon.
Lord Plunkettobserved that the practice in Ireland was in the first instance to apply to the Lord-lieutenant of the county, but he (Lord Plunkett) had on some occasions felt it his duty to put into the Commission of the Peace gentlemen who had been objected to by the Lord-lieutenants; and in other cases not to act upon the recommendation of that functionary. Had he been exclusively guided by the Lord-lieutenants, so as in all cases to have adopted their recommendations, he should have been guilty of a violation of his sworn duty. He admitted, however, that he had generally found the Lord-lieutenants of counties in Ireland actuated by the most praiseworthy motives in their recommendations of individuals. Although he had not in all cases concurred in their judgment, he did not mean to cast any imputation upon them.
The Marquess of Salisburyremarked, that in the case of the two Gentlemen of the county of Durham, there was a great distinction between omitting names from. a list, and at once naming persons for appointment. He had been exceedingly unfortunate if he had been understood to have questioned in the smallest degree the right or responsibility of the Lord Chancellor in the appointments to the Commission of the Peace. What he had complained of was, that the Secretary of State should usurp the power of the Lord Chancellor, and carry those powers to a greater extent than they had ever been carried by any Lord Chancellor, and that at a moment when there was no individual upon whom to fix the responsibility of the Great Seal.
Motion agreed to.

THE NEW POOR LAW.
Lord Ashburtonpresented a Petition from a Union of Parishes in Wiltshire, under the Poor-law Amendment Act, relative to the expense of building a Workhouse for the Union. The introduction of that measure he believed had been very generally beneficial throughout the country. In some parishes there had been a reduction to the extent of a third or a-half in the rates. In others, the condition of the labouring poor had been much improved by the regulations under the Act; but the rates
184
had not been sensibly reduced. The hardship complained of by the petitioners seemed to him one which called for the interference of the Legislature, It was prescribed by the Act, that in those districts where new poor-houses were erected, the cost of building them should be paid off by the tenantry in ten years. The petitioners represented that many of them had but short terms of their possessions, and that they would thus be called upon to pay for advantages which would be left to others who would pay nothing for the building erected at the expense of the present race of occupiers to enjoy. When it was considered that the class upon whom this burden would fall were the farming tenantry of the country, already in a condition sufficiently distressed, the House, he was sure, would feel that the representations of the petitioners were entitled to attention. In the union to which the petitioners referred, the-poor-house had cost 6,000 l. an amount equal to one rate of the whole union. He certainly was disposed to think that the landlord ought to bear a portion of this charge. The petitioners also complained upon another point. It was provided by the Act that the interest upon the Exchequer Bills advanced to defray the present cost of such erections should be at the rate of five per cent. Now, when interest of money in the country generally was between two and three per cent., why the farmers should be charged five per cent, he could not understand. Five per cent. was a rate of interest now wholly unknown in every part of the country.
Viscount Melbournesaid, it gave him great satisfaction to hear from such a source testimony of the beneficial working-of the New Poor-law Act. That Act formed, in the history of legislation of late years, one bright spot, unsullied by the recollection of party feeling. It was introduced into Parliament without any admixture of party-feeling; received, discussed, and passed in the same spirit; the appointments under it were made with, the same feeling; and, finally, its provisions were carried into execution throughout the country by persons imbued with adverse sentiments upon politics, but acting harmoniously together for the purpose of giving full and beneficial effect to the principles of that measure. Unquestionably both the points adverted to by the noble Lord were entitled to the most

185
serious consideration. The first was certainly in no respect entirely new: it had often been stated before, and it appeared to him (Viscount Melbourne), although he was not immediately prepared with all the reasonings on the subject, to be questionable whether some relief ought not to be afforded in either one or other of the manners proposed by the noble Lord. With regard to the second point it certainly did appear to him strange how so very high a rate of interest should have been appointed. This was a point which his noble Friend might depend should receive the anxious consideration of Government.
Petition laid on the Table.