Sitting of 13 July 1836

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord CHARLES RUSSELL, from Leighton Buzzard, for Abolition of Church Rates.— By Lord J. STUART, from Ayr, against the Municipal Corporations' (Scotland) Amendment Bill.

SOUTH METROPOLITAN CEMETERY.
Captain Alsagerbrought up the Report of the South Metropolitan Cemetery Bill, and moved that it be received.
Mr. Potterobjected to the Report being received. The Bill contained some most objectionable clauses, and was calculated to produce and continue differences that ought to be avoided between the Dissenters and the members of the Church of England. One of these clauses to which he adverted provided that there should be a portion of ground which was to be consecrated and set apart for the burial of members of the Church of England; whilst the other portion was to be for the burial of Dissenters. He considered these clauses objectionable from the marked distinction that they made between Dissenters and churchmen. He understood that in some places this distinction was carried to such an extent that a wall was raised between the places of burial of Dissenters and the members of the Church of England.
Dr. Bowringsaid, that throughout the whole Bill there was a marked distinction
162
made between Dissenters and the members of the Church of England. Nothing was more unwise than to make those distinctions. One of these clauses declared that the Dissenters were not to receive Christian burial; yet surely the Dissenters were as much entitled to Christian burial as the members of the Church of England. He hoped that the Bill would be recommitted, for the purpose of having these clauses reconsidered.
Captain Alsagerwished to know in what part of the Bill there was anything to be found to justify the imputation that the promoters of the Bill wished to exclude the Dissenters. No exclusion was intended. The Moravians and Quakers had their own places of burial, in which they were interred according to their own rites. This Bill merely provided that the members of the Church of England should be buried according to their own rites and forms, leaving to the Dissenters and others to adopt theirs.
Mr. Charles Lushingtonsaid, that on the second reading of this Bill he had expressed his satisfaction at the increase of suburban cemeteries. He considered their extension would be extremely beneficial to the inhabitants of towns and cities. He regretted, however, that any distinctions should be made tending to produce dissention and ill-will between any classes of Christians. When the General Cemetery Company was incorporated, in 1824, the Bishop of the diocese would not give his consent to the adoption of the Cemetery unless a wall of demarcation was raised up between the burial-ground of the Dissenters and that of the members of the Church of England. He considered the preservation of such distinctions most disgraceful to the intelligence and enlightenment of the nineteenth century. It was most discreditable, that Dissenters, should not be permitted to be buried in the same ground with members of the Church of England, but that a wall of intolerance should be erected between them. He wad a director of the General Cemetery Company, and when, in the exercise of be functions as such, he had occasionally been called upon to show that ground a strangers he had always felt humiliated when pointing out the burial-place of the members of the Church of England, to be obliged to say, that at the other side of to distinctive bounds lay interred the remain of their Dissenting brethren. He was a fully persuaded of the injurious conse-

163
quences of preserving such distinctions that, unless he saw some prospect of having the Bill amended, he should feel it his duty to move, that the report be received on that day six months.
Mr. Potterthought that these clauses were of so objectionable a nature that if the hon. Member did not, he should feel it his duty to move that the report be received on that day six months.
Dr. Bowringthought that this would be too harsh a proceeding towards the promoters of the Bill. He thought it would be better that the Bill should be recommitted, in order to give an opportunity of amending it, and rendering it conformable with the general opinion.
Viscount Sandonunderstood that the objection to these clauses was, that they declared burial in one part of the ground to be Christian burial, and in the other not. He certainly could not concur in anything that was calculated to offend the feelings of any class of Christians. However, he did not see that the Dissenters had any reason to be dissatisfied, and he was sure that there was no intention on the part of the promoters of the Bill to give them offence. The noble Lord was understood to say, in conclusion, that if there were any parts of this Bill considered so objectionable as to require amendment, he would concur in its recommittal.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that the institution of public cemeteries in the neighbourhood of such a great metropolis as this was, in a sanatory point of view, of the greatest importance. Nothing was more useful than the establishment of cemeteries in the neighbourhood of large cities. However, he considered the present Bill as nothing less than an insult to the House, and so derogatory to the character of the English people at this period of intelligence and toleration, that the House would best consult its own dignity by rejecting it altogether. He trusted that the House would reject the proposition with scorn. He was himself a member of the Church of England. He had been bred up in that Church, and respected it as much as any one; but he considered that the present measure was an insult to Dissenters, and as such he should vote against it.
Mr. Bainesconcurred in what had been said of the advantage of having establishments of this kind in the neighbourhood of large cities. He believed that they were highly conducive to the health of the pub-
164
lic, and a measure of this description ought not, on slight grounds, to be rejected. If there were any passages in the Bill which ought to be omitted, the best way would be to give an opportunity for amending the Bill. He hoped that the hon. Member for Wigan would so shape his amendment, that the Bill might be re-committed. He did not think that the Dissenters felt it a stigma not to be buried in consecrated ground; on the contrary, he considered it quite as good to be buried in ground that was not consecrated. He trusted, then, that the amendment would be so shaped as that the Bill would again come under consideration, as he was sure that there was a disposition on the part of the House to promote a measure that, if rendered unobjectionable, would be a great public benefit.
Captain Alsagerdefended the clauses. There could have been no intention on the part of the promoters of the Bill to offend the Dissenters by the introduction of the words "Christian burial." Surely, the Dissenters were Christians as well as the members of the Church of England. The members of the Church of England were buried in consecrated ground, according to the rites of their church; the other part was set apart for the Dissenters, because they did not choose to be buried in consecrated ground, or think it necessary. He was sorry that a Bill, which was intended to conciliate all parties, should be received as a bone of contention. As to any insult to any class, none was intended. The Bill was drawn up with the concurrence of the prelates of the Church, and in the true spirit of Christian charity.
Mr. Wilkswas anxious for the recommittal of the Bill, in order that an opportunity should be afforded for removing any phraseology that was objectionable. He contended that it was insulting to the Dissenters that, while it provided that the I members of the Church of England should be buried according to the rites of Christian burial, it provided that the Dissenters should be at liberty to use what forms they pleased, provided they were conducted in a decent and solemn manner. As Protestant Dissenters, it was offensive to them to have it declared; that legislative interference was necessary to procure the decent performance of their burial rites. The clauses in question went to perpetuate an odious distinction, which it was not good policy to keep up, and he therefore hoped the Bill would be recommitted.
Captain Alsagerhad no objection to the recommittal of the Bill, and he hoped hon. Members would favour him with their suggestions, so as to make it acceptable.
Bill to be recommitted.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS.
Mr. Wakleypresented a Petition from the Surgeons at Andover, complaining of an individual in that town who had obtained the diploma of the College of Surgeons through fraudulent means. The hon. Member read extracts from the petition, in which it was set forth, that the Royal College of Surgeons obtained their Charter in the year 1800, and among other matters they had bye-laws drawn up for the regulation of candidates for admission. In the year 1833, it was required by the regulations, that a party looking for a diploma should be of the full age of twenty-two years, and that he should be engaged in practice of six years, and have attended certain courses of lectures to qualify him for becoming a member. The individual complained of entered in a medical establishment at Andover in the year 1829, and remained until October, 1833, when he left and proceeded to London for a period of three months, and then returned with the necessary certificates and diplomas, and commenced practising. The surgeons of that town made a complaint to the College, and sent forward affidavits, alleging that for the short time the individual was absent, he could not have qualified to entitle him to practice; and calling on them to institute an inquiry into his pretensions. The College accordingly-cited him to appear before them, but he declined doing so, and from that time they have taken no step to enforce their regulations, and he continues practising. It could not be denied that by the bye-laws the College have the power to reject a candidate, and also to have a mandamus issued to show cause why he practised. The hon. Member quoted the case of the King v. Richardson and other cases, to show that the College had the power of dismissal, and the enforcement of the regulations. As the government of the College was vested in the Council, he maintained that in justice to the other practitioners, who went through a regular professional course of studies, that they ought to call the party before the Court of King's Bench, to prove that his certificates had not been fraudulently obtained.
Sir Frederick Pollockknew something of this case, and though he was anxious that the petition might have the best attention, he felt bound to say, that the hon. Member for Finsbury was not quite correct in his law. He was right, however, if the allegations in the petition were true, in declaring that the College had the power of declaring the appointment null and void; but the allegations were not true, as would be found had they been studied. It was stated in the petition that the College had not taken the proper steps to compel the attendance of the party, but they did take proper steps and consulted counsel, first taking the precaution to lay all the documents and certificates before him, and counsel's opinion was, that it would be highly improper to take any further proceedings in the business than what they had already done. It was not contended in the first place that the Gentleman was not perfectly competent for the discharge of the duties he had undertaken, for the complaint was more against the extent of his practice than against the validity of his diploma. What was the case? The Gentleman appeared before the College and presented his papers, and after standing the usual examination, to the entire satisfaction of the Court of Examiners, he was granted his diploma, and the usual documents to entitle him to practise surgery. Some time after, doubts were entertained that, from the short time he was absent from Andover, he could not have been properly qualified; but there was no doubt of the certificate being genuine. Then it was that certain affidavits were presented to the College to expel him. He (Sir Frederick Pollock) was then consulted, and after the most anxious deliberation, and giving his best attention to the subject, he was decidedly of opinion that the College could not expel him, and so he communicated to them. Had the College expelled him, he would be at liberty to apply for a mandamus, and then they would have to prove that his credentials were not genuine, consequently no jury under such circumstances would be prepared to give a verdict against him, nor could any lawyer be found to anticipate that verdict would be in favour of the College. Had the College been made acquainted with the state of the case before the admission of the party, it might be necessary to institute an inquiry; but having obtained the right, it would not

167
become them to reverse the decision. He had showed the hon. Gentleman opposite his opinion at length, and permitted him to read it. The College took every step to ascertain the justice of the case; but it was too much to say that a man was to be put on trial on mere suspicion, and there must be a reasonable prospect of coming to a proper decision. All he would say was, that the College were ready to do their duty. He would not object to the petition lying on the table.
Mr. Wakleydiffered from that part of the law laid down by the hon. and learned Member where he stated that a man was not to be put on his trial on mere suspicion. He thought it was usual to put a man on trial because of the suspicions against him. There was much more than ground for suspicion in this case, but unfortunately it involved other parties who were in the council; for if it were proved that he had not obtained the certificates by his own fraud, it must appear that they were improperly given to him. The case, however, could not remain in its then state, but must ultimately terminate in a court of law.
Petition to lie on the table.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Sir Charles Burrellwas sorry to be under the necessity of intruding on the House for a short time, but he was induced to do so as a matter of self-defence, from the circumstance of Mr. Cundy, who had been engaged in projecting a railway between London and Brighton, having taken the liberty of making use of his (Sir C. Burrell's) name in a most reprehensible manner. This individual had stated, that the reason which induced him (Sir C. Burrell) to give his vote in favour of Stephenson's line was, that a sum of 15,000 l. was award -ed to him for land through which it was to run. Now, this was totally untrue. The imputation was made to the hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Benett,) who had proceeded on urgent business to the Assizes, but who left two letters for him, accounting for the necessity of his absence, which he would take the liberty of reading to the House. One was dated House of Commons, July 8, to the effect "I have no hesitation in stating in the House of Commons, that Mr. Cundy, in the course of a communication, said that Stephenson's line was carried in Committee by unfair means. He repeated that you were not
168
at first in favour of Stephenson's line (not true), and that your support was obtained for 15,000 l.; and he charged two other members of the Committee with having received, one 12,000 l, and another, 8,000 l. which made them also in favour of it." He would avail himself of the opportunity to declare most distinctly that the assertion made was most untrue. It was not for him to say what the House might think it necessary to do under the circumstances, as he was perfectly satisfied in having made the statement, and given the charge a most decided negative. He would only remark that if he were capable of such improper conduct, he would not be deserving a seat in that House or a place in any society whatever.
Captain Pechellhoped he might be permitted to express himself quite surprised at the nature of the charge brought under the consideration of the House. He did not think it was such a one as called for interposition on their part. He was a member of the Committee on the Brighton railway, and heard it reported—he could not take upon himself to state the fact— but it had been stated, that some of the members on that Committee had been tampered with. He never should have thought that such a trumpery matter would have been brought before the House. Certainly, reports had gone abroad that some of the members of the Committee had been tampered with, and that others had sold their land for more than it was worth. Whether the charge were true or false, he did not think it worth investigation.
Mr. Williams Wynnwas sorry that a single Member would be found capable of saying that a charge which imputed foul corruption to a Member was a trumpery matter. Reports of the kind, it was asserted, had prevailed; but the hon. Member did not know whether they were true or false. If true, they ought to be brought forward; if false, the parties circulating them ought to be punished; and nothing could be more important than the duty of vindicating the purity of the House. If it were to continue to hold any station in public opinion, it could not devote time to a more valuable purpose than sifting such accusations to the bottom, and for that purpose he should move that Mr. Nicholas Wilcox Cundy attend at the bar on Monday next when the hon. Member for Wilts could be present.
Lord A. Lennoxseconded the motion. He did not believe that a single Member of the Committee had been influenced by any but the purest motives, and it was impossible that the hon. Baronet should have done anything so derogatory to the character of a gentleman.
Mr. Haweswished to give his hon. and gallant Friend an opportunity of repeating or retracting an assertion he had understood him to make: in reference to the general imputations against the Committee, he believed that the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Pechell) had stated that in his opinion some Members of the Committee had been tampered with.
Captain Pechelldenied, that he had stated or intended to state any such opinion. He merely meant to say that the report ought to be treated with contempt, and that it was not worth while to investigate it. Personally he was interested in Stephenson's line, as it would benefit his property, but he had opposed it on behalf of his constituents.
Motion agreed to.

HACKNEY CARRIAGES BILL.
Mr. Alderman Wood Mr. Alderman Wood moved the order of the day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Hackney Carriages (Metropolis) Bill.
Mr. Warburtonremarked, that as this Bill was framed very much after the fashion of the hon. Alderman's other Bills, he should move, that it be committed on this day six months.
Mr. Alderman Woodcomplained, that after the Bill had been altered to suit the wishes of the hon. Member, by the omission of clauses, he still resisted the reference of it to a Committee, where it might be made still less objectionable. The truth seemed to be, that the hon. Member for Bridport, (Mr. Warburton) had got a crotchet in his head, and nothing could make him believe that anybody was capable of doing well and wisely, but himself. Only a little while ago, the hon. Member was sitting in single state in one of the Committee-rooms up stairs, surrounded by all the surgeons, sextons, and parish clerks in Lon-don, but without any beneficial result, and; that ought to have taught him, that at least all his crotchets were not invaluable. He believed that the Police Act would expire next year. He did not know whether Ministers intended to renew it; but if they did not, it rendered such a measure
170
as that before the House doubly necessary.
Mr. Angersteinsaid, that many of his constituents were opposed to the Bill.
Mr. Hawescomplained, that there was a great deal of needless legislation in the Bill. All that was wanted might be accomplished by an efficient police; when the Police Act was renewed, this subject might fitly be taken into consideration. He hoped that the hon. Alderman would consent to defer the Committee.
Mr. Wilkscalled on the hon. Alderman to persevere, adverting to the evils and dangers arising at present for want of due regulations.
Mr. Fox Maulewas of opinion, that the hon. Alderman deserved the thanks of the public for his labours, and recommended, that whatever savoured of unnecessary legislation should be expunged in the Committee.
The House divided on the original motion: Ayes 118; Noes 2—Majority 116.

List of the AYES.

Alsager, Captain

Fergusson, rt. hon. C.

Angerstein, J.

Fitzgibbon, hon. B.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Forster, C. S.

Ashley, Lord

Gladstone, W. E.

Baillie, H. D.

Gordon, W.

Baines, E.

Goulburn, hon. H.

Bannerman, A.

Grey, Sir G., bart.

Barclay, D.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Barclay, C.

Hardy, J.

Baring, W.

Hawkins, J. H.

Barnard, E. G.

Hay, Sir J., bart.

Beckett, Sir J.

Heathcote, C. J.

Bewes, T.

Henniker, Lord

Blackburne, I.

Hogg, J. W.

Blake, M. J.

Howick, Lord

Blamire, W.

Hoy, J. B.

Boldero, H. G.

Jervis, J.

Brady, D. C.

Inglis, Sir R. H., bart.

Brotherton, J.

Knight, H. G.

Brownrig, J. S.

Labouchere, H.

Burrell, Sir C. M., bt.

Langton, W. G.

Campbell, Sir J.

Lefevre, C. S.

Canning, Sir S.

Lennox, Lord A.

Chalmers, P.

Lincoln, Earl of

Clerk, Sir G., bart.

Lygon, hn. Col. H. B.

Codrington, Sir E.

Lynch, A. H. S.

Colborne, N. W. R.

Mackenzie, J. A. S.

Cole, hon. A. H.

Maclean, D.

Denison, J.

Macnamara, Major

Dick, Q.

M'Taggart, J.

Donkin, Sir R.

Mahon, Lord

Dunbar, G.

Mangles, J.

Duncombe, T. S.

Maule, hon. F.

Elley, Sir J.

Miles, W.

Elphinstone, H.

Nagle, Sir R.

Euston, Lord

Neeld, J.

Feilden, W.

O'Loghlen, M.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Oswald, J.

171

Parker, W.

Somerset, Lord G.

Pechell, Captain R.

Stanley, E. J.

Pendarves, E. W.

Steuart, R.

Penruddock, J. H.

Stuart, Lord J.

Perceval, Col.

Surrey, Earl of

Plumptre, J. P.

Talbot, J. H.

Potter, R.

Thomas, Colonel

Poulter, J. S.

Thompson, Colonel

Powell, Colonel

Townley, R. G.

Praed, W. M.

Trench, Sir F.

Price, R.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Pringle, A.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Walker, R.

Robinson, G.

Wallace, R.

Ross, C.

Walter, J.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Wilmot, Sir E.

Russell, Lord John

Wrightson, W.

Sandon, Lord

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Scholefield J.

Sharpe, General

TELLERS.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Wilks, J.

Smith, R. V.

Wood, Ald.

List of the NOES.

TELLERS.

Ewart, W.

Warburton, H.

Wakley, T.

Hawes, B.

The House went into Committee, and after several Amendments were proposed, and two divisions were had on them, got as far as the 20th Clause of the Bill, when the House was counted out.

Preamble
MINUTES.] Bills. Read a first time:—Duchy of Cornwall Revenues.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of ABERDEEN, from King's College, Aberdeen, against Universities' (Scotland) Bill.— By Lord ELLENBOROUGH, from Dignitaries of the Church of England, against Church Discipline Bill.—By the Archbishop of CANTERBURY from several Places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.