Sitting of 13 May 1836

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Dublin Police.
Petitions presented. By Mr. AINSWORTH and Mr. RICHARD WALKER, from various Places, for Exempting Trust Deeds from Stamp Duties.—By several MEMBERS, from various Places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Mr. INGHAM, from St. Hilda, against the Bishopric of Durham Bill.—By Captain F. BERKELEY, from the Legal Profession of Gloucester, for a Repeal of the Duty on Attorneys' Certificates.—By Mr. NEILD and Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL, from the Guardians of the Poor in East Kent, for an Extension of Time for Repaying Money borrowed to build Workhouses.—By Mr. BANNERMAN, from the Coach Proprietors of Glasgow, for a Repeal of the Duty on Post-Horses and Carriages; and from Aberdeen, for preventing Merchant Vessels from being sent to Sea in an unfit State.—By Mr. PEMBERTON, from Ripon, against Transferring the Business of the Local Courts to London.—By several MEMBERS, from various Places, for Inquiry into Agricultural Distress.—By Sir EDWARD KNATCHBLL, from Canterbury, against the Descents and Heriots' Bill.—By Sir E. KNATCHBULL, from Canterbury, against the Marriages and Registrations of Births' Bill.

CONSTABULARY (IRELAND).
Viscount Morpeth Viscount Morpeth moved, that the amendments of the Lords to the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill be printed.
Sir George Sinclairconsidered the amendments which had been made in this Bill by the House of Lords of the very highest importance. This was one of the many occasions when it became the House well to consider, and the country duly to estimate, the many advantages they derived from the independent legislative character and constitutional working of the House of Lords. They all knew in what state this measure had been sent up to the other House, and the enormous additional expenses it proposed to entail on the country for the maintenance of the constabulary of Ireland; but, under the searching investigation to which the Bill had been subjected, those expenses had greatly been diminished without at all impairing the efficiency of that force. Those amendments had at once been acceded to by Ministers, and he hoped no objection would now be offered to the printing of the schedules in their original shape, showing the different offices proposed to be created, with the salaries as

905
they then stood, in contrasted columns, with the respective offices and salaries as adopted by the House of Lords. The House of Lords had on this occasion done what the hon. Member for Middlesex, if he had not slept at his post, should have proposed. He wondered why that hon. Member had suffered those offices, and the amount of salaries attached to them, so entirely to escape his notice; and he trusted the line of conduct they had adopted on the present occasion would, at length, tend to make him more favourable to that assembly by whom such economical measures had been carried into effect.
Viscount Morpethdid not see how the House could attend to the recommendation of the hon. Baronet. He had moved that the amendments be printed, in order that the House might he more competent than at present to form an opinion as to their precise bearing and character. He did not despair of showing on a future occasion that the alterations which had been made in the Bill did not afford such grounds for commendation as the hon. Baronet had bestowed on them.

CRIMINAL LAWS.
Sir Eardley Wilmotwished to ask a question of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department. Some time ago he had inquired whether it was the intention of the Government to bring in a measure to establish summary tribunals to try offences of a petty description. The noble Lord had said, that the subject was then under the consideration of Government. Since that time a Report on the state of Newgate had appeared, which recommended the very thing which he (Sir E. Wilmot) endeavoured to suggest, viz., that prisoners should be tried at petty sessions by a jury of five or seven. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce a measure on the subject?
Lord John Russellsaid, that Government might bring in a Bill on this subject this Session, but at the same time he would not hold out any great hopes that he would be a be to carry the second reading in the present Session.
Sir Eardley Wilmotwould bring in a measure himself, if the Government would support him—not in all the details, but on the principle of it.

RURAL POLICE.
Sir Oswald Mosleywished to know whether his Majesty's Government had it under consideration to
906
bring in a Bill this Session, or very early in the next, to regulate the rural police? A measure on this subject was very much required, and the country felt very anxious that it should be passed.
Lord John Russellsaid, that a Bill was in preparation on the subject, but he could not say that he should bring it under the consideration of the House this Session. If there was time he would do so, but it would altogether depend upon the state of the public business, and he could not hold out any hopes to the hon. Gentleman.

COMMUTATION OF TITHES (ENGLAND).
On the motion of Lord John Russell, the House went into Committee on the Tithes Commutation England Bill.
Mr. Finchrose to move, as an amendment to clause 34, p. 13, line 9, the words 75 l. be substituted for 60 l. In doing so the hon. Member said, that upon consideration he should waive his amendment, and direct his observations chiefly to the clause. The reason why he moved that in the place of 60 l. 75 l. should be inserted was a conviction that, if a balance was struck between the tithe payers and owners, 75 l.. would he the proper amount. There was a variety of opinions upon the subject, and it was, therefore, difficult to say what was the proper amount, and what was not. He could not give his sanction to any Bill that did not proceed upon the principle of equity. The only principle with which the people ought to be satisfied and would be satisfied was the principle of strict and substantial justice. It had been said that the public were interested in this Bill, but he contended that the Bill did not affect the rights or property of the people at all; it went merely to arrange matters between the tithe-owner and the landed proprietor. He was sure the landed proprietors of England—he was sure the landed aristocracy of England, desired not to take one sixpence from the clergy of the Established Church. If they passed this Bill how could they resist the principle of appropriation involved in the Irish Church Bill? He should, therefore, feel it is duty to give the clause his decided opposition.
Mr. Estcourtconcurred in the observations of the hon. Member who had last spoken. He believed the noble Lord would shortly find, that, instead of attempting a maximum and minimum, he should have adopted the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cumberland, and have had recourse to a valuation.
Mr. Parrottconceived, that such a proposition would produce confusion throughout the entire country, and create enormous expense. He had hoped, that the minimum would have been fifty instead of sixty per cent. In his opinion, tithes were not worth more than they would produce in money, after deducting the expense of collection. He would reserve to himself the power of objecting to the entire clause hereafter.
Mr. Goulburndid not see why a special provision should be made for those cases in which the collection exceeded the maximum, while no special provision was made for those cases where the collection was less than the minimum. There was no reciprocity in this instance.
Mr. Estcourtsaid there were many cases where the collection did not amount to 10 per cent. There was no provision for such a case.
Mr. Charles Bullerwould support the amendment, for he did not think that the minimum and maximum would do justice either to. the tithe-owner or the tithe-payer.
Sir Robert Peelunderstood, that the 33rd and 34th clauses involved the main principles of the Bill—that the compulsory principle should be enforced, and that the maximum and minimum should be fixed. He would suggest, that the discussion upon these points should be postponed, and he hoped the noble Lord would not conceive that in making any suggestion of this sort there was any concession on the part of himself or those who acted with him. It appeared to him that no answer had been given to the objections urged as to the maximum and minimum of the last seven years. According to the plan now proposed the amount of commutation would depend in many cases on the past lenity and forbearance of the clergyman, and it would be unfair that his forbearance should tend to his disadvantage. He thought in the arrangement the voluntary principle should be included. There were two objections to the clause, and the mode of fixing the maximum and minimum it proposed. The first was, that parishes might be taxed so as to have a practical operation of inequality. He would suppose a case in point of two contiguous parishes; one with a lenient pastor who took only 57 per cent., the other with a pastor who exacted the full 75 per cent. Now by the mode proposed in the clause the parish paying the lesser sum would be equalised with that paying the greater, and thus an injustice would be done it. The income of one would be
908
diminished while the other would receive the full value. The second was this, a man might expend his capital on bad land, so as to make it productive, while another, having little or no capital, was unable to make productive land pay its expenses. The mode of taking the maximum or minimum in regard to these was evidently a defective one. He should suggest that, in place of Commissioners, valuers should be appointed, as under the Enclosure Act, to determine matters in dispute, and when the valuers could not agree he would call in some man of weight and character as umpire between the parishes and the incumbent or appropriator.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that he considered the basis on which the clause was founded! a fair one, as it was calculated to produce so little disturbance. To the principle of that basis he felt himself bound to adhere.
Mr. Blamiresaid, he was anxious, before the discussion upon the clause terminated, to address a few words to the House upon it. He thought the plan of the noble Lord for establishing a maximum and a minimum was, at any rate, a most questionable policy. Considerable expense was incurred in settling these matters, and there were very few cases in which you could fix the exact sum that ought to be paid. If it was to be fixed by the Assistant-Commissioner, he would have a most dangerous power in- trusted to him, since he was not obliged to give publicity to his calculations, and that discretionary power ought to be checked by a local Board. He conceived, that the voluntary part of this Bill would be gladly acceded to by the country; and with respect to the compulsory part of it, time ought to be given to deal with the more difficult cases. He recommended the House to puss no law which would press hardly on individuals, but to wait and see the results of this measure, and then they could come back to Parliament and amend this Bill, if necessary. The Commissioners would have acquired a more intimate knowledge of the intricate cases that would arise, and the House would be better prepared to legislate on the subject. At any rate, he should be glad to see the plan of the noble Lord with respect to a minimum and maximum abandoned.
Mr. Finch'samendment was withdrawn.
An amendment proposed by Lord Ebrington, to the effect that the Assistant-Commissioners should hear the parties and decide,, subject to an appeal, so that no less

909
than 50 l. nor more than 60 l. should be awarded, was postponed.
Mr. Parrottproposed a proviso to the Clause, enacting that in fixing the permanent tithe-composition a reduction of 10 l. per cent. should be made from the average value ascertained by the Commissioners.
The Committee divided on the amendment:—Ayes 38; Noes 73—Majority 35.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. R.

Hindley, C.

Alston, R.

Hodges, T. L.

Baines, C.

Lennard, T. B.

Barnard, E. G.

Marsland, H.

Bewes, T.

Mullins, F. W.

Blamire, W.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Bowring, Dr.

O'Brien, C.

Bridgeman, H.

Potter, R.

Brotherton, J.

Power, T.

Cayley, E. S.

Pryme, G.

Collier, T.

Richards, T.

Crawford, W. S.

Stuart, V.

Curteis, E. B.

Talbot, J. H.

Curteis, H. B.

Thornely, T.

Duncombe, T. S.

Verney, Sir H.

Elphinstone, H.

Warburton, H.

Gillon, W. D.

Williams, W.

Grote, G.

Williams, W. A.

Hawes, B.

TELLER.

Heathcoat, T.

Parrott, J.

On the question that the clause stand part of the Bill,
Mr. Wrightson Mr. Wrightson moved, that it be omitted. He was extremely unwilling to interpose any obstacle in the way of a measure of so much importance, for the introduction of which so much credit was due to his Majesty's Government; but he felt so satisfied that the clause could never come into operation in a useful or satisfactory manner, that he was bound to oppose it. The 33rd clause contained within itself all the material principles involved in the present one; and he considered it quite unnecessary to introduce a second principle, applicable to the same point, the only effect of which would be, to commit a very gross injustice against a large class of persons, by disturbing the existing compositions, on the faith of which land had been let tithe-free on the one hand, and taken on the other. The principle he wished to substitute had been adopted again and again in former commutations of tithe. To show the injustice of that proposed by his Majesty's Ministers, he need only refer to the evidence of one witness, examined before the Committee on agriculture, the amount of whose composition for tithe was at present 3s. an acre, who stated, that if his tithe were taken in kind it would amount to more than his rent—to no less, perhaps,
910
than 40 s. an acre. He would only add, that in those parts of the country in which this clause was understood, there was a very strong feeling against it. They had not, however, petitioned upon the subject, preferring to leave the matter to the wisdom and justice of Parliament, in which they placed a confidence, which he hoped would not be disappointed. There could be no necessity whatever for the present clause. The tithe-owners at present enjoyed a greater sum than they had ever enjoyed before; and they would hereafter enjoy a larger sum than they could have possessed under the existing law, or ever hoped to possess. The hon. Member concluded by moving the omission of the clause.
Mr. Gally Knightstated, that if Clause 34 was agreed to, it would defeat the object of the clauses already adopted. If this part of the measure was adopted it would not give that satisfaction to the country which should be the result of a Bill on this subject. He would support the amendment.
Mr. Cayleyhad no hesitation in telling the noble Lord, that if he did not modify this clause he would destroy the principle of the Bill, which, no doubt, he was most anxious to carry. If he persisted on this part of the Bill, he (Mr. Cayley) would tell the noble Lord that he would lose the support of those who were most anxious that the principle of commutation should be carried into effect. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were anxious to keep up those parts of the Bill which appeared most favourable to the Church; but would this satisfy those prepared to carry out a satisfactory measure? He thought this was a point on which hon. Members should make a stand.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, that as the question had been so often discussed under one form or another, he should only offer one observation as to the ground on which he-continued to prefer Clause 34, as it stood in the Bill, to any of the amendments which had been proposed. He entirely agreed with his hon. Friend, the Member for Northallerton (Mr. Wrightson), that the same principle was to be found in the 33rd Clause. He thought that they ought to seek to do justice to the tithe-owners, on the principle on which their rights were founded, and not on any imaginary suggestions which might be thrown out. He objected to the proposition of his hon. Friend, because it did not attempt to provide for those cases in which the standard

911
of commutation might be fixed at too high a rate. It might be said that extreme cases should be left to the decision of the Commission, but he could not consent to this proposal, which would open a door for unbounded litigation, inasmuch as no general principle was laid down to regulate their award.
Mr. William Milesopposed the clause. He would suggest, that in all cases where the amount of tithe under the commutation was below the minimum, it should be left to the decision of the Commissioners, with the right of appeal to a superior tribunal, and that the costs should be borne by the losing party.
The Committee divided on the question that the clause as amended stand part of the Bill:—Ayes 7S; Noes 70—Majority 8.
The House resumed—The Committee to sit again.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Alien Registration.
Petitions presented. By several NOBLE LORDS, from various Places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath By the Earl of ABINGDON, from Wantage, for an Extension of the Time to pay off the Money for building Workhouses.—By the Marquess of WESTMINSTER, from the Prisoners of Chester Castle, for the Abolition of Debt, except in Cases of Fraud; and from Kingston-upon-Hull, in favour of Municipal Corporations' (Ireland) Bill.

POOR-LAWS (IRELAND).
The Duke of Leinsterpresented a Petition from the inhabitants of Dublin, praying that a system of Poor-laws might be applied to that country, based upon the 43rd of Elizabeth. The petition was most respectably signed, having amongst the names of other most respectable inhabitants of Dublin annexed to it, those of the mayor and sheriffs of that city. He hoped that some system of Poor-laws would be adopted for Ireland, although he did not go the length of concurring in the prayer of the petitioners.
The Earl of Malmesburyhad expressed his intention of putting a question to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Melbourne) on the subject of this petition, and that he had been told by the noble Lord that he might put the question whenever he pleased. He had not as yet acted on this suggestion, nor did he mean to do so on the present occasion, further than to say, that it would be most satisfactory if the noble Lord who represented the Government in that House, were to intimate what course they meant to pursue on this important question. Some declaration of this description would be most acceptable, not only to the people of Ireland, but to the people of this country, who felt a strong desire, from the fact that the result of the wretched condition of the people of Ireland tended to overstock the English market, to know whether the Government were prepared to bring forward any measure this Session, not for the maintenance of the idle, but for the support of the aged and infirm. No one could read the Report of the Commissioners without feeling that the present state of the poor of Ireland constituted an evil of so crying a nature that he could scarcely make up his mind to approve of all redress being postponed till next Session of Parliament.
The Marquess of Downshire, whilst he admitted the existence of the evil which had been so justly complained of, still felt hound to acknowledge, that to deal with it properly and effectually was a most difficult task. He was as desirous as any noble Lord could be to see the people of Ireland really and permanently comfortable; but the great obstacle to any efforts to bring about so desirable a result was the unfortunate but unquestionable difference which existed between the inhabitants of the north and the south of Ireland, and the consequent necessity which was imposed of legislating in such a manner as to meet the exigencies of both cases. With respect to a provision for the aged and infirm poor, he imagined that no difference of opinion existed, but it
900
was with regard to the employment of the people and the administration of the money to be paid by the public that all the difficulties which encompassed the settlement of this question were presented in their true light. He felt inclined to support any measure which was fairly and properly brought before Parliament on this question, though he must say, that he should prefer waiting for a short time to see how that important measure (the Poor-law Amendment Act) operated in England before any measure of a like description was proposed for adoption with regard to Ireland.
Lord Fitzgerald and Vescihad been requested by some of the inhabitants of Dublin to support the prayer of this petition. In doing so he begged to say, that, in his opinion, there was no doubt of the importance and necessity of taking some steps towards the adjustment of this question. The noble Marquess who had just sat down anticipated what he was about to express with reference to it—namely, that however anxious he was for the settlement of this question, on public grounds and the grounds of necessity—however desirous he was that the wants of the poor of Ireland should be provided for, he did not wish to press the Government unnecessarily and prematurely to adopt any measure which would not be permanent and beneficial in its effects. It was impossible to read the evidence taken before the Commissioners, or the summary which they had submitted to the House—and which, he was bound to say, displayed admirable industry, discretion, and ability in the discharge of a public duty—without being persuaded not only of the necessity of applying some relief to the distresses of the poor of Ireland, but also of the expediency of not acting rashly and precipitately on this subject. He begged further to say, that whilst he approved of the general objects of a measure for the relief of the poor, by which employment would be afforded, and the means for that employment supplied, he did not approve of the prayer of the petitioners for the extension of the Act of Elizabeth to Ireland, because such a general enactment would, in his opinion, aggravate the evils which at present existed. Whilst he expressed that opinion he begged to be understood as being one of the strenuous advocates for a measure of extensive, permanent, and effectual relief to the poor of Ireland, which might have the effect of putting a stop to the present distress, as well as extinguishing the propensity to outrage and violence, which now unhappily

901
characterised the people of that country.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that a great portion of the people of this country felt dissatisfied, and he thought justly, that the grievances under which the Irish people laboured, and which were so well depicted in the Report of the Commissioners, did not appear to be likely to be speedily redressed. It was because he thought Poor-laws for Ireland the best means of getting rid of those who ought to remain at home that he had ever been the advocate of them. It was because he thought that those who found themselves under the necessity of constantly leaving their homes in search of employment were never so well satisfied and contented as those who could fairly entertain the hope of procuring general employment at their own place of abode, that he had always supported a system of Poor-laws for Ireland. He hoped that, before long, his Majesty's Government would introduce a measure on this question. If they did not do so shortly, their Lordships would not be able to give that immediate consideration to the subject which it imperatively required.
The Earl of Wicklowhighly approved of the able and statesmanlike Report of the Commissioners. He did not think that any blame could be attached to his Majesty's Government if they were not prepared with a bill on this most difficult subject in the course of the present Session. If the noble Duke (Richmond) had assured the House that the people of this country required that some system of Poor-laws should be adopted with respect to Ireland, he must express his hope that the attention of Government would not be directed to this question on the ground which the noble Duke had stated. He hoped they would legislate only with reference to the circumstances of the country to which their attention was directed. There appeared to him to be a palpable contradiction in the statement of the noble Earl (Malmesbury); for, in the first place, he called for a system of Poor-laws for Ireland in consequence of the influx of Irish labourers into this country; whilst, in the next place, he admitted that the only measure which ought to be applied was one for the relief of the aged, infirm, and impotent. If the people of England had a right to complain at all, was it on account of the influx of the impotent, the blind, the helpless, and the aged? No! If complaint was justified at all it was in consequence of the intrusion of the
902
able bodied. He trusted that relief would be given to the poor of the country; but he feared that no system of Poor-laws, such at least as that which seemed generally contemplated, would prevent the able-bodied labourers from emigrating.
The Marquess of Westmeathwas of opinion, in accordance with the views of the landlords in the west of Ireland, that if the people of that part of the country remained at home and attended to their natural callings, instead of to politics, there would be no necessity either for the noble Duke (Richmond) or the noble Earl (Malmesbury) to complain of the influx of the Irish labourers into this country.
The Earl of Malmesburywished to say, in explanation, that the complaint of the agriculturists of this country was, that the land here had to bear the burdens of the poor rate, the assessed taxes, and land tax, whilst the produce of Ireland, as well as those who ought to be the consumers of it, was transferred to this country. He did not wish to press the Government to act prematurely; but he thought that if the Ministers were to say whether or not they would introduce a measure for the relief of the aged and infirm, it would be most satisfactory to the people of this country.
The Marquess of Clanricardeagreed with those who thought the question of the employment of the able-bodied labourers was perfectly distinct from some provision for the starving poor of Ireland. He disagreed with those who thought that the influx of Irish labourers tended to impoverish this country; for the fact was, that the most comfortable and able-bodied of the Irish—the cream, in fact, of the men of that country—came over to the agricultural districts of this country; and when they were unable to procure employment there, repaired to the manufacturing towns, where they contributed their share to that skill and industry by which this country was raised to its present state of greatness.
The Duke of Richmond, in explanation, begged to say, that the chief ground on which he advocated a legal provision for the poor of Ireland was that of humanity.
The Marquess of Lansdownedid not wish, in the absence of his noble Friend (Lord Melbourne), to protract this discussion. The noble Lords opposite, however, were not to suppose that because the Government did not hastily bring forward any measure on this subject that it had

903
escaped their attention, or that their attention would not be bestowed upon it with all the anxiety which was demanded by its important bearings on the moral and political character of the whole population of Ireland, which was involved in the question. The House would feel that it would be extremely improper in him—not being prepared to bring forward any measure on the subject, and not being prepared, he must admit, to state at what particular time such a measure would be brought forward—to go into a discussion of the topics which had been introduced in the course of the debate. As he had said, this question, in its general bearings, not only engaged the attention of Government, but they looked at it with the view of detaching any part of the question from the whole, upon which it might be considered advisable to legislate instantaneously. He would say, that it was impossible to propose any measure on the subject in the course of the present session, without considering its bearings on every part of the question, particularly when it was recollected that one false step with regard to a measure which involved the interest of the population of Ireland might be the means of increasing the difficulties which Parliament would have ultimately to contend with. It was also most important, that before any measure was adopted the suggestions which had been made in the valuable Report of the Commissioners should be extensively circulated for the purpose of obtaining every species of practical information with respect to it.
The Earl of Winchilseawould not press the Government to any hasty measure on this question. He would not take any other ground in advocating a system of Poor-laws for Ireland than the sole one of humanity. It was obvious that want, distress, misery and starvation, existed to an unparalleled degree in that country, and it was equally obvious that had there been a provision for the poor, such would not now be the condition of the people. With regard to the Irish labourers who came over here, he could not concur in the opinion, that it was injurious to England. On the contrary, it was in many instances of great advantage to this country. On one occasion, in Lincolnshire, when the labourers did not arrive at the expected time, great apprehensions were entertained for the safety of the crops, lest they could not be got in, and many calculations were made as to whether the weather was favourable
904
for their arrival. Had they not arrived in time to assist in the harvest the crops would have been lost. He hoped, however, that none of their Lordships would advocate a Poor-rate for Ireland on any such narrow ground as this; but at the same time he would express as fervent a hope, that no honest English labourer should ever suffer from an overstocked labour market.
Petition laid on the Table.