Sitting of 18 May 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Divisions of Counties; Antigua Indemnity; Bankrupts (Ireland).—Read a second time:—Steam Carriages'; Small Debts' (Scotland).
Petition presented. By several HON. MEMBERS, from various Places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.

ENCLOSURE BILLS.
The third reading of the Over, Cambridgeshire, Enclosure Bill having been moved,
Dr. Bowringopposed the motion. The Bill was another encroachment on the few remaining rights and privileges of the poor. He thought it was that of which no well-wisher of the poor could approve. Those who had property in the neighbourhood of these enclosures obtained compensation, but the poor, who had only privileges, procured little, often nothing. It was a very general opinion, and he feared it was too well founded, that these privileges of the poor were, and long had been, too little considered. With respect to the present Bill, he was authorised to say, that the poor and labouring classes in the neighbourhood of the proposed enclosure were unanimously against it; and that it was supported only by a few of the aristocracy of the neighbourhood. He should therefore move as an amendment, that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.
Mr. Hodgesseconded the amendment. He believed that the poor had been most unmercifully used by such Bills as the present. Some small sums had been given for their privileges on commons, &c; and then those invaluable rights were extinguished for ever. After all that had passed, the House ought to look with extreme jealousy on all such measures, especially as the poor had now so few of these privileges remaining, and the more particularly after the passing of the Poor Laws Amendment Act, which threw the poor on their own resources more strictly than ever.
Mr. Hughes Hughesentirely concurred in the propriety of this amendment, and in the correctness of the sentiments of the hon.

1065
Member for Kent. If he thought it could be requisite, he could read to the House a most touching appeal against this Bill, signed by 130 individuals, whose privileges of common would be sacrificed by this measure, and their means of existence materially diminished. He thought the House ought most anxiously to desire, not to deprive the poor of the slender privileges and means that still remained to them, especially after the passing of the Poor Laws Amendment Act.
Mr. Humesaid, that the Bill would deprive the poor of the right of feeding their cattle and sheep. It was a downright robbery.
Mr. Townleydefended the Bill, and said that the explanations made in the Committee had satisfied those who were originally opposed to the measure.
Mr. Richard Pottersaid, that a few rich persons, who originally opposed the Bill, were, it is true, satisfied, and then the attorney employed against the measure threw his poorer clients overboard.
An hon. Member said, that the Bill was now opposed only by a few persons, some of whom were in the workhouse.
The House divided on the original question. Ayes 6l; Noes 64—Majority 3.
On the question as amended—namely, that the Bill be read a third time this day six months being put,
Mr. Goulburnprotested against the decision to which the House had come. There was no objection urged against the Bill which did not apply to all Enclosure Bills. It was not true that the poor were deprived of their rights by the Bill; on the contrary, allotments of land were set apart for them, which would be enclosed for them gratuitously. He believed that few of the Members who had taken part in the division, were acquainted with the merits of the question; and, in order to afford them an opportunity of reading the evidence which was given in the Committee upon the Bill, he would move, as an amendment, "that the Bill be read a third time that day fortnight."
Mr. Hughes Hugheshoped the House would not depart from its usual practice, in a case where the rights of the poor were concerned. The Bill was lost to all intents and purposes.
Mr. Humesaid, that the amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman appeared to him to be quite unprecedented. He hoped that those who before voted in favour of the Bill would now vote against it, in order to maintain the regularity of the proceedings of the House.
Mr. William Milessupported the amendment, and contended that allotments of land under enclosures were much more beneficial to the poor than a common right of pasture. Not one inhabitant in ten of a parish made use of a common for purposes of pasturage; but when allotments were made, every inhabitant participated in the benefit.
Mr. Roebucksaid, that if the amendment should be agreed to, he would then propose, as an amendment, that the Bill should be read a third time that day nine months; and if that should be defeated, other hon. Members would move amendments which would have for their object the getting rid of the Bill.
Mr. Prymesaid, that he had carefully attended to the proceedings in the Committee on the Bill, and he saw no reason whatever for objecting to the measure. Indeed, the only opposition to the measure proceeded from two cattle-jobbers, who were in the habit of turning 200 or 300 cattle on the common at a time, to the injury of the poor inhabitants. Allotments were more valuable to the poor man than common rights.
The House divided. Ayes 88; Noes 84—Majority 4.
Bill put off for six months.
[We give the Lists only of the names on the last division, which includes all those who voted on the first division.]

List of the AYES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Gaskell, D.

Alston, R.

Gordon, R.

Attwood, T.

Guest, J. J.

Baines, E.

Hawes, B.

Barnard, E. G.

Hay, Sir A.

Berkeley, hon. F.

Heathcote, J.

Biddulph, R.

Hector, C. J.

Bish, T.

Heron, Sir R.

Blackburne, J.

Hodges, T. L.

Brady, D. C.

Hughes, W. L.

Bridgeman, H.

Hutt, W. H.

Brocklehurst, J.

Jervis, J.

Brotherton, J.

Langton, W. G.

Browne, R. D.

Leader, J. T.

Brownrigg, S.

Lennox, Lord G.

Buller, C.

Lennox, Lord A.

Chalmers, P.

Lushington, C.

Codrington, Admiral

Lynch, A. H.

Crawford, W. S.

Mangles, J.

Curties, E. B.

Methuen, P.

Dalmeny, Lord

Mosley, Sir O.

Duncombe, T.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Elphinstone, H.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Ewart, W.

O'Brien, W. S.

Fergus, J.

O'Connell, J.

Fergusson, rt. hon. R. C.

O'Connell, M.

Fleetwood, P. H.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

French, F.

O'Loghlen, M.

1067

Parker, J.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Parrott, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Patteson, J.

Thompson, Colonel

Pease, J.

Thornley, T.

Pechell, Captain

Tulk, C. A.

Potter, R.

Villiers, C. P.

Poulter, J. S.

Wakley, T.

Robinson, G. R.

Walter, J.

Roebuck, J. A.

Warburton, II.

Rundle, J.

Ward, H. G.

Ruthven, E.

Williams, W.

Scholefield, J

Williams, Sir J.

Sharpe, General

Young, G. F.

Smith, B.

Stanley, E.

TELLERS.

Steuart, R.

Bowring, Dr.

Talbot, J. H.

Hume, J.

List of the NOES.

Astley, Sir J.

Knight, H. G.

Bagot, hon. W.

Knightley, Sir C.

Balfour, T.

Law, hon. C. E.

Barclay, C.

Lees, J. F.

Baring, H. B.

Lemon, Sir C.

Baring, W. B.

Lygon, hon Colonel

Bateson, Sir R.

Maclean, D.

Beckett, rt. hon. Sir J.

Mahon, Lord

Bell, M.

Miles, W.

Blamire, W.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Bolling, W.

Morpeth, Lord

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Neeld, J.

Canning, rt. hon. Sir S.

North, F.

Chaplin, Colonel

Packe, C. W.

Chapman, A.

Penruddock, J. H.

Clive, Lord

Perceval, Col.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Plumptre, J. P.

Cole, Lord

Praed, J. B.

Conolly, E. M.

Price, R.

Copeland, W. T.

Pryme, G.

Darlington, Earl of

Pusey, P.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Eaton, R. J.

Rooper, J. B.

Egerton, W. T.

Ross, C.

Egerton, Sir P.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Elley, Sir J.

Russell, Lord John

Finch, G.

Sanderson, R.

Fleming, J.

Scarlett, hon. R.

Folkes, Sir W.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Forbes, W.

Sheppard, T.

Forster, C. S.

Somerset, Lord G.

Gaskell, J. M.

Stanley, Lord

Gisborne, T.

Townley, R. G.

Gore, O.

Trevor, hon. A.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Twiss, H.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Wilson, H.

Greisley, Sir R.

Wodehouse, E.

Hale, R. B.

Wrightson, W. B.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Hardinge, rt. hon. Sir H.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Henniker, Lord

Hope, J.

TELLERS.

Johnston, A.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Ker, D.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.
Sir Andrew Agnew Sir Andrew Agnew moved the second reading of the Sabbath Observance Bill. The nu-
1068
merous petitions which had just now been presented, he said, were a proof that a very different feeling existed out of doors with reference to this subject, than seemed generally to prevail within the walls of Parliament. The scene which had just been witnessed in the presentation of petitions was alone sufficient to justify him in the introduction of this Bill. He much feared that the difference of feeling arose from the imperfections of the humble advocate of the measure in the House. Hon. Members said, that this measure attacked the poor by depriving them of their rational enjoyments. He would ask them whether, if their lot had been cast amongst the working classes, and they were obliged to labour for six, nay seven days in the week, would they give an ironical cheer at the introduction of a measure which would prevent their labouring on the seventh day. From what he knew of the opinions of the working classes, he was sure that if he were addressing the same number of mechanics as there were hon. Members opposite, they would, to a man, give him their support. The best way to protect the labourer was to save him from the constraint now put upon him. How could the working classes be debarred from their rational enjoyments by this Bill, when many of them were now obliged to labour seven days in the week all the year round? The principle of restraining men from Sabbath labour was—that the poor man may have the option of going free on the Sabbath-day, and of spending it in that religious worship which was in accordance with his conscience. Those he meant to include under the term poor, were the thousands—hundreds of thousands he might say—who were forced to work on the Sabbath, or who, if they refused, risked the loss of employment on the other days of the week. The object of the Bill was to give protection to every person engaged in trade or business in abstaining from labour on the Sabbath. He held in his hand a petition from the fishmongers and poulterers of London, anxiously praying for protection; and here was a proof that those who contributed to the luxuries of the rich sought for a cessation of labour, and that the protection given to them would, in effect, be an indirect coercion to the rich, who would be deprived of the luxuries they now enjoyed on the Sabbath. Practically, the rich would be restrained, and the poor set free from toil.

1069
When the Anti-Slavery question was under discussion, it was tauntingly said, that had it been necessary for every man to pay down 5s. on signing his name, the signatures would have been much less; as it was, it cost a man nothing to sympathize with the slave. And so in the Factory Question of ten hours' labour, which he had warmly supported, it cost him nothing to sympathize with the poor children. But the petitions of this evening prayed for restrictions upon their own class. Many friends had written to him since the introduction of this Bill, to know how they could assist its progress; and in reply he had explained the difficulty of getting the Members of the House to believe the people's wishes when expressed in petitions signed indiscriminately by persons of all trades. He had suggested, that the example of Chelsea should be followed; from whence have come up ten separate petitions from the members of separate trades, which it was impossible to misunderstand, unless the House were determined to do so. Many such petitions had this night been laid on the Table; he would only mention two examples which had come from the extremes of the kingdom. At Inverness, the several incorporated trades had separately petitioned; and at Bath the coach-proprietors, butchers, bakers, hucksters, and hair-dressers, had within a very few days, followed out the same suggestion. Some coach-proprietors in other places had endeavoured to discontinue their Sunday coaches, and a few had ceased; but some were thought necessary, as the Monday markets of the metropolis occasion the sending up to town of so much more merchandize on the Lord's-day than on any other day of the week. If the House had thought it right to remove the Monday markets to Tuesday, this evil would have been abated. Here, then, was a case in which the protection of the Legislature was required. When hon. Members talked of Sunday travelling, they seemed to take it for granted that the travellers themselves were alone interested. They forgot the coachmen and guards, the inn-keepers and their families, bookkeepers, ostlers, their assistants the horse-keepers, and several others dependent on, or connected with, the vehicles on the road. Let hon. Members consider that for every mile travelled on a Sunday, in a public coach, there were numbers of immortal beings like themselves, so em-
1070
ployed in connexion with that travelling, who were thus, contrary to their wishes, unable to attend Divine worship. It was stated, that for every mile so travelled, about one man and one horse were required. Letters which he had received from all parts of the country, described the degraded condition of the men whose work was continued on the Lord's-day, and they added, that that degradation existed in proportion as the men were obliged to work more or less on the Sabbath, for that the most degraded were those who were the most employed on that day. This fact was stated in evidence three years ago. Hon. Gentlemen might laugh if they pleased, but hundreds of petitioners complained of this grievance. He could not conceive how hon. Members, calling themselves the friends of the people, and professing to bow down before their opinions, could laugh at their petitions, and reject their prayer. As an instance of the good effects which might be expected to result from the cessation of Sunday labour, he might mention the case of the Mersey and Irwell Canal Company, who put a stop to Sunday navigation; and that excellent regulation had been productive of the greatest moral effects upon the men. They were required to work to twelve o'clock on the Saturday night, and to commence work again at twelve on the Sunday night. This was very laborious, but the men had pledged themselves to save their masters from loss. This was one great step towards the desired reform on this subject. These men had expressed, in a petition to this House presented this evening, their great gratitude to the proprietors of the canal for the been thus granted to them. Other canal companies had sought to take advantage of this merciful indulgence to the poor man, and rival establishments had held it out as an inducement to the public to deal with them, that there was no remission of work on the canals on Sundays more than any other days. Thus, other carriers endeavoured to gain advantage, by holding out the inducement to the merchants of superior speed by Sunday travelling on the canals. This was not a question merely with reference to merchandize, but the immortal souls of their fellow-men were disregarded by the avaricious masters, who, for their own paltry gain, refused to listen to the spiritual interests of their poor boatmen

1071
Perhaps the hon. Member for Wigan, who was so well acquainted with Manchester, could explain how the masters, there, reconciled such proceedings to their own feelings? A statement sent from two locks in Hertfordshire showed that a greater amount of tonnage passed on Sundays, by thirty per cent., than on Saturdays and Mondays, and other days. The system of Sabbath desecration was carried on to such an extent at present, that he had little doubt the public voice would, before long, be strongly expressed on the necessity of some legislative enactment to restrain it; and though hon. Members opposite might sneer at the matter now, the time would come when Sabbath legislation would be a popular question, brought forward by some popular Member. Unfortunately, however, those who were most affected by the non-observance of the Sabbath were below the grade of constituents, and seemed to occupy little of the care of hon. Members, however anxious to be considered liberal. It had been frequently argued that the present Sabbath laws were sufficient, but they had been fully put to the test in different parts of the metropolis, and found to be unavailing to stop the Sunday trading, although voluntary associations had been formed, and the magistracy and parish officers had given their best aid; this had been repeatedly tried on the south of the river, and lately in the north of the town the experiment had been tried on a larger scale, where hundreds of promises had been given for closing shops on the Lord's-day. But by the obstinacy and avarice of the few, tempting their neighbours, through fear of competition and the loss of customers, the evil had spread, and all was nearly as bad as it was before. The Attorney-General being consulted as to the validity of some proceedings in Lambeth, confirmed the validity of a warrant of the magistrates of Union Hall, but expressed regret that they had attempted to put into execution a Statute which, he remarked, by no means furthered its object; the attempt to enforce the present law in that district had therefore been given up. His Bill went to protect every man's religious liberty, so that he might follow the dictates of his own conscience in the observance of the Sabbath; but an attempt to regulate the domestic arrangements within the
1072
House of the rich man would only introduce a principle which, when carried down the scale of society, would prove most oppressive to the poor householder himself. The fourth commandment, upon which all our proceedings rest, being addressed especially to the conscience of man, as the head of a family, it was incumbent on him to see that his son and his daughter, his man-servant land his maid-servant, obeyed the Divine law. And it was to set every Christian man free, thus within his family, to worship Almighty God according to his conscience, that this Bill was framed. It was his wish, that an opportunity should be given to every man to attend Divine worship on the Sabbath according to his conscience; at the same time he would not enter into the private house of any man. Any measure that would warrant the Magistrates in going into the house of the rich man would be equally applicable to the house of the poor man. He, therefore, would not propose any regulations which would act upon the domestic concerns of either class. He admitted that the obligation of Sabbath observance should apply equally to all, and he was aware there were many instances in which the conduct of masters interfered with the conscientious feelings of their household servants; but he saw no means of interfering in those instances, without adopting a principle which should bear equally on all classes. "The hon. Baronet moved that the Bill be read a second time."
Mr. Plumptreseconded the motion. Every class of the community had expressed their wish that the House would afford them protection on the Lord's Day, and enable them to rest from their fatiguing labours. But this was the lowest ground on which the principle of the Bill could be defended. In legislating for the West-India slaves they preserved for their use part of Saturday and the whole of Sunday. There were other considerations necessary to be acted on than those involved in the authority of the fourth commandment. Other commandments had additional influence imparted to them by the force of human laws. Legislators did not suffer the murderer to escape unpunished. His hon. Friend had evinced his zeal, his sincerity, and great perseverance in his efforts for the protection of the trading classes, and the public might feel assured that he would bring the subject again and again

1073
before the House till he obtained protection for the people on the Lord's Day.
Mr. Ward Mr. Ward moved, as an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. He did so without the slightest wish to approach the subject with anything like ribaldry, but from the firmest conviction that the measure was most objectionable in point of principle. So far as he could discover any principle on which the measure was founded, the only principle he could discover was, that all classes were bound to abide by every word contained in the fourth commandment, and if that really was the principle on which the hon. Baronet set out, then he must say the hon. Baronet had failed to carry out that principle; for, by the 26th clause, he excepted menial servants from the operation of the Bill. This was contrary to Divine law, which, if legislation was to take place, ought to be adhered to. The hon. Baronet said, that this was a Bill of liberty to the poor man; but what liberty did he leave? Why, the hon. Baronet took away from him the power of locomotion—he confined him within the narrow street of a great metropolis in which his daily work was performed. No omnibus was to run to carry him to fresh air, no steamboat was to ply—and yet the hon. Baronet called this a poor man's Bill. Though, doubtless, the Bill would by its operation subject the rich to some inconvenience, yet he denied that it would work relief to the poor labouring classes—on the contrary, it would press with tenfold hardship on them. The very first clause prevented them from purchasing food on the Sunday morning, though they had not been paid their earnings until a late hour on the preceding night. If the poor man should walk out in order to escape from the confinement to which the hon. Baronet would still hold him, he would find the tea-gardens closed against him, and even the most wholesome beverage denied to him. He would not weary the House by going into details; but he asked the hon. Baronet whether he thought it possible that in a great commercial country like this any Bill could possibly pass, by which all transactions, of whatever description, and under whatever circumstances, would be stopped for one day? The Bill went to the extent of preventing the sailing of ships on Sunday, even though the wind, which might for some time have been adverse, should accidentally be favourable on that day. Did not the hon. Baronet know that Divine Service was always, at least in King's ships, performed on Sun-
1074
day while sailing; and on the other hand, that it was most probable that, while ships were in harbour, the sailors would go on shore on Sundays as well as other days, and enter into every sort of debauchery? He did not know whether it was in the recollection of hon. Members that this subject was once submitted to the House of Assembly in the United States of North America. It was supported by petitions from some most respectable men in that country. Well, in the American Assembly a report was made; and the restriction was proposed to be confined to the mail-coaches, which were not to be allowed to travel on the Sunday. But the opponents of the measure very naturally asked,—"Why confine your prayer to the travelling of the mail? Why not stop all the executive functions on the Sunday? Why not require an Act to prevent ships from sailing, or an army from marching, on that day?" The advocates of the measure seemed to forget that the functions of Government were as necessary on a Sunday as any-other day in the week, and that it was the Government who enabled even the petitioners to worship God in their own manner, in peace. But all this, which the Americans considered to be impracticable and absurd, the hon. Baronet had boldly proposed. He repeated, that in a great commercial country like this the project was impracticable, and on these grounds he moved the amendment which he had already stated to the House. He concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Captain Pechellsaid, that he had presented some petitions praying for the better. observance of the Sabbath, and was anxious to support some legislative measure on the subject. He found it impossible, however, to give his vote in favour of the Bill before the House, because it was quite impossible to modify it so as to make it a tolerable measure. From most of the fishing ports the fishing boats sailed on Sunday afternoon, the fishermen coming in on the Saturday, to enable them to perform their religious duties. The hon. Baronet's Bill would put a stop to the whole of the fisheries of this country.
Colonel Thompsonwould oppose the Bill on a broader ground than any that had been stated yet. He would assert roundly, that there was no basis in the Christian Scriptures for the attempt to enforce the Judaical observance of the Sabbath; and, if Members on the other side thought differently, he challenged them to produce

1075
their proofs. If the Catholic Members in that House were to bring in a Bill, the preamble of which declared, that the sacrifice of the mass was a principal part of the true service of God, it would be considered as an indecent and unjustifiable attempt to force their own religious opinions on those who denied their authenticity. It was equally indecent and unjustifiable for Members on the other side to attempt to force their own opinions upon those who totally denied the existence of any authority for them in the Scripture, from which they were professed to be deduced.
Mr. Aglionby, amidst general cries of "Question," read a letter, which he had received from the Secretary of the Mechanics' Institution at Cockermouth, thanking him for the opposition he offered to the Sunday Bills. He thought that letter was a proof that the statement of the hon. Baronet, that the poorer classes were all in favour of the Bill before the House was not correct.
Mr. Shawwould support the second reading of the Bill, although he could not approve of all its details. He felt, with the many petitions that had addressed the House on the subject, in petitions presented by himself and other Members, that some enactment to enforce the better observance of the Lord's day was imperatively required, and he thought the proper mode of dealing with the measure then before them was to go into Committee upon it, and there to retain what was good, and to strike out what was objectionable in its provisions. He concurred in the statements of the preamble, that it was the bounden duty of Parliament to protect every class of society against being required to sacrifice their comfort and religious privileges on the Sabbath day, and that the laws now in existence were found practically insufficient for that purpose. He should like to see the various and nearly obsolete statutes bearing on the question repealed, and one simple and efficacious enactment substituted for them. Such an act, he thought, ought to provide against hiring, trading, drunkenness, gaming, sporting, and everything which was inconsistent with public decorum—in all these respects, then, he approved of the present Bill—but he did not conceive it possible in a great commercial country, such as this, to retain the clauses against vessels sailing, or matters being transmitted by public conveyances on the Sab-
1076
bath day—neither would he support the 9th and 10th clauses, which he felt would bear unevenly upon the humbler classes in prohibiting them from the use of hired carriages and horses on the Sunday, unless at the same time it were possible to prevent the higher and wealthier classes from using their own. He entirely concurred in the sentiment which had been quoted at the other side of the House, that it was impossible to make man religious by Act of Parliament. He was aware that the Sabbath could only be kept truly holy by means above the reach of human legislation—but still he considered it was the duty of a Christian legislature to promote the outward observances of morality, to suppress everything which offended against the public morals, and to prevent, as far as possible, the desecration of that day which was set apart as well by the law as by religion for sacred purposes. He would, therefore, gladly vote for the second reading of the Bill, believing that in Committee the great object he had in view might be promoted, while in other respects the measure could be rendered more reasonable, due regard being had to the existing circumstances of society.
Lord Arthur Lennoxexpressed his determination to vote in favour of the second reading, for the same reason as that stated by the preceding speaker.
Mr. Prymehad voted for former Bills introduced by the hon. Baronet, in the hope the severity of their enactments might be mitigated in Committee; but perceiving that the present measure went even further than any of the preceding Bills on the same subject, he could not consent to vote for the second reading.
Mr. Cumming Bruce, though he could not acquiesce in all the enactments of the Bill, would vote for the second reading, because he thought it the duty of that House and of every Christian Government to sanction, as far as possible, by human enactments, the due observance of the Lord's day.
Mr. Hughes Hughesrose to remind the hon. Member for Cambridge, who had expressed his intention to vote against the present Bill, that the Bill was the identical measure, word for word, to which that hon. Member had, on former occasions, given his support. He did not mean to follow the example of the hon. Member for Cambridge, and should certainly vote for the second reading of the Bill.
Sir Stratford Canningwas favourable to the principle of the Bill, but he was anxious to guard himself against the supposition that he was ready to go the whole length of its details. Considering that the subject was one of great importance, considering also the number of petitions which had been presented with respect to it, and the different quarters from which they came, he thought it would be more becoming in the House to allow the Bill to go to a Committee, there to be altered, than to throw it out at the present stage.
Lord John Russellshould not feel indisposed to vote for the second reading if he thought it possible that the Bill could be amended in Committee, but the whole Bill was, in his opinion, so defective, that not a single clause could be adopted with advantage. He therefore objected to proceeding any further with the measure, because it was calculated to cast ridicule upon every future attempt at legislation on the subject.
Mr. Andrew Johnstonwas rendered almost wholly inaudible by the impatience of the House to divide. He was understood to express his regret that the noble Lord did not give his sanction to the Bill, and to recommend the hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Agnew), in deference to the feeling of the House, to make his measure less extensive in its operation.
Mr. Charles Barclayhad voted for the first reading of the Bill, because he thought it only right to give the hon. Member an opportunity of introducing his measure. He had since examined the provisions of the Bill, and they were certainly of such a nature that he must oppose them. He thought that those hon. Members who had expressed an intention to vote for the second reading were only practising a delusion on the hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Agnew), because every one of them had expressed a desire to see the Bill totally changed in Committee. It was not his lot to have travelled abroad, but, from all that he had heard, he believed the Sabbath was far better observed in this country than in any other; and he was of opinion, that no legislative enactment that could be devised would compel individuals to lead a more moral or more religious life. He was unwilling to interfere with the amusements of the lower classes. He liked to see the children in his neighbourhood amusing themselves on a Sunday at a game of cricket, or in taking a walk in the after-
1078
noon. He could not bring himself to consent to prevent the lower classes, who were confined at work during six days of the week, from enjoying themselves during a portion of the seventh. For these reasons he should vote against the second reading of the bill.
Mr. Hardysaid, that as his hon. Friend wished for a stringent observance of the Sabbath, others a less stringent observance of it, and another class of persons a very lax observance of it, he thought the only course the House could take was, to permit the Bill to go into Committee, when every Gentleman would have the opportunity of submitting such amendments as appeared to them proper, in order to make the Bill assume the shape of an Act of Parliament.
The House divided on the original question:—Ayes 43; Noes 75; Majority 32.
Bill put off for six months.

List of the AYES.

Bagot, hon. W.

Hale, R. B.

Baines, E.

Hardy, J.

Balfour, T.

Hughes, W. H.

Bateson, Sir R.

Jackson, Sergeant

Becket, rt. hon. Sir J.

Jones, W.

Brocklehurst, J.

Lees, J. F.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Lefroy, A.

Chapman, A.

Lennox, Lord A.

Chichester, A.

Lowther, J. H.

Chisholm, A. W.

Miles, W.

Conolly, E. M.

Pease, J.

Dunbar, G.

Plumptre, J. P.

Dunlop, J.

Plunket, hon. R. E.

Eaton, R. J.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Edwards, J.

Sheppard, T.

Fector, J. M.

Smith, A.

Finch, G.

Thompson, Alderman

Fleetwood, P. H.

Verney, Sir H.

Fleming, J.

Wilson, H.

Forbes, W.

Young, G. F.

Forster, C. S.

Fremantle, Sir T.

TELLERS.

Glynne, Sir S.

Agnew, Sir A.

Green, T.

Johnston, A.

List of the NOES,

Aglionby, H. A.

Clements, Lord

Alston, R.

Codrington, Admiral

Barclay, C.

Crawford, W. S.

Baring, F.

Crawley, S.

Barnard, E. G.

Curties, H. B.

Barry, G. S.

Duncombe, T.

Beauclerk, Major

Ebrington, Lord

Bernal, R.

Elphinstone, H.

Bish, T.

Ewart, W.

Bowes, John

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Bowring, Dr.

Fort, J.

Bridgeman, H.

Hawes, B.

Browne, R. D.

Hawkins, J. H.

Campbell, Sir J.

Hector, C. J.

Churchill, Lord C.

Heneage, E.

Clay, W.

Horseman, E,

1079

Howard, P. H.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Howick, Lord

Rundle, J.

Hume, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Hutt, W.

Ruthven, E.

Jephson, C. D.

Sharpe, General

Jervis, J.

Smith, B.

Langton, W. G.

Strutt, E.

Lennox, Lord G.

Surrey, Earl of

Lushington, Dr.

Talbot, J. H.

M'Leod, R.

Tancred, H. W.

M'Taggart, J.

Thompson, Colonel

Marjoribanks, S.

Thornley, T.

Marsland, H.

Trelawney, Sir W.

Mostyn, hon. E.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Mullins, F. W.

Villiers, C. P.

O'Loghlen, M.

Wakley, T.

Parrott, J.

Wilde, Sergeant

Pechell, Captain

Williams, T. P.

Philips, M.

Williams, W.

Philips, G. R.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Potter, R.

TELLERS.

Roche, D.

Ward, H. G.

Roebuck, J. A.

Pryme, G.

Paired off.

FOR.

AGAINST.

Tooke, W.

Ferguson, Sir R.

COMMUTATION OF TITHES (ENGLAND.)
The House went into Committee on the Tithes Commutation (England) Bill.
On Clause 70 being put,
Mr. Prymerose to move, that this together with the following clause be expunged from the Bill. As the law now stood, the tithe-owner had no remedy against the owner of the land: his remedy was against the occupier, and he asked what consideration there was given in this Bill, which would always give the tithe-owner the full and in many cases more than the full value of his tithe, that justified the putting into his hands the additional remedy, provided by these two clauses, against the owner of the land. He (Mr. Pryme) had taken the trouble of looking into several Enclosure bills for commuting the tithes of different parishes into a corn-rent—Bills passed with the consent of the Incumbent, and he had invariably found that the clause of distress gave the tithe-owner only the right to come upon the occupier for his corn-rent; so that if the occupier became bankrupt he lost his tithe, as the landlord did his rent. He had never known any one of those Bills in which any other remedy was given; and it did appear to him, that throughout this Bill as well as on this particular point, everything was done for the benefit of the tithe-owner, and no care was taken of the interests of the tithe-payer.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, it appeared
1080
to him that the hon. Member for the borough of Cambridge should have made his objection at the 69th Clause, which gave the tithe-owner the remedy of distress against the land, the tenant being then entitled to take credit for the amount against his landlord. The object of the Bill was simply to lay the charge upon the land in the same manner as a corn-rent.
Mr. Prymeobserved, that in all Enclosure Bills to which he had looked, when the remedy was given against the goods of the tenant, there was always a restrictive clause limiting the tithe-owner to such crops, utensils, stock, &c, as he found lying upon the premises.
The Solicitor- Generalsaid, that allowing the tithe owner had a right to his remedy against the goods of the tenant, in respect of which the tenant was afterwards to take credit against the landlord, to restrict him to such goods as he found lying upon the land was in fact, to leave him remediless; it was arguing ad absurdum to propose such a limitation, for in that case the tithe-owner would have no control over his remedy; the tenant having merely to remove his goods off the premises, and set him at defiance. He (Mr. Solicitor General) could not sit down without referring to the remark which the hon. Member for Cambridge had made, and which was often heard from some Gentlemen in the House: namely, that the Bill was in fact calculated to produce a unilateral kind of benefit only to the tithe-owner. The Bill should be looked at not in particular and isolated portions, but as a whole, and the inquiry should be not whether they or that part of it were more beneficial to one party or the other, but whether, taking all its parts together, it provided for a fair and equitable commutation. Taking that view of it he did not think it would be considered unfair to give the owner of the rent-charge the remedy which these clauses provided, ousting as they did all remedy against the person.
Sir Henry Verneyconsidered, that as this Bill would render tithes greatly more valuable than they were at present, the objection of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Town), was one of great importance and well worthy of the noble Lord's attention. The noble Lord (John Russell) would by carrying this Bill confer a benefit on the country only equal in extent to that which he had already conferred upon it by the Reform Bills and the Poor-law Bill; but he (Sir H. Verney) did think, that in giving

1081
the remedy to the tithe-owner which these clauses provided he would be doing injustice.
Lord John Russell: The question in my opinion is' not whether the amount of benefit conferred by this Bill on the tithe-owner or the tithe-payer be the greater. The object of this Bill is, that whatever the amount of the rent-charge which it gives the tithe- owner, whether one-third or a-half, or one-quarter more or less than the present amount of his tithe, the tithe-owner should have a sufficient remedy for its recovery. Now I conceive these clauses to provide no more than the sufficient remedy; however, should the House think otherwise, I shall propose another, which I have now in my hand, giving him the power of bringing an action for his rent charge. Some remedy he must have, or the Bill will be inoperative.
It was formally agreed that the hon. Member for Cambridge should bring forward his objection at a future stage of the Bill and the clauses were postponed.
On the 76th Clause being proposed,
Mr. T. Duncombe Mr. T. Duncombe moved to leave out the following words—"or the tithes of fish, or of fishing, or to the tithes of mills, or any personal tithes, or to any mixed tithes not arising upon land;" and to add these words, by way of proviso, at the end of such section—"that from and after the passing of this Act, all tithes of fish or of fishing, or of personal tithes, shall cease and determine. The hon. Member said, that his reason for proposing this amendment was, that nothing could be more barbarous and cruel than to take tithe from poor fishermen, who were not only risking their little property, but also their lives, in catching the fish upon which the tithe was collected. In illustration of the barbarity of this practice he read an extract from Cobbett's Legacy to Parsons, and to show the hardship of personal tithes he mentioned a case which occurred in the East Riding of Yorkshire in 1833, wherein two clerical magistrates had committed a poor labouring man to prison for three months for non-payment of a tithe of 3s. 4d. upon the amount of his wages.
Lord John Russelladmitted, that there was great hardship in these personal tithes; and said, that for his own part, he should be glad to abolish them. At the same time he must observe, that it did not appear to him to be just to abolish in this way, by a single clause, the established claims of the
1082
clergy. He thought, that the Commissioners of tithes should be instructed to collect all the information they could as to the nature and amount of the species of tithe which the hon. Member for Finsbury proposed to abolish. They ought to be instructed to ascertain the number of cases in which the clergy had a right to this species of tithes, and then it would be for Parliament to determine what compensation the clergy were entitled to receive before this right was abolished. It was a question which, for the sake of the labourers and fishermen of the country, Parliament ought at no very distant day to take into its serious consideration. It ought not, however, to be forgotten that a great friend of the church—he meant the Bishop of Exeter—had declared in his place in Parliament that the church had of late generally abandoned its right to personal tithe. Still there was some clergymen who were disposed to stand upon their strict right. That being the case, he thought the House ought not to abolish the right without inquiry and without compensation, by a proviso introduced into a clause at the end of an Act of Parliament.
The Attorney-Generalobserved, that hon. Gentlemen seemed to have forgotten that this was a Bill for the commutation of tithe. Now, to propose the abolition of tithe under a Bill of which the object was the commutation of tithe, was about as preposterous as to propose to abolish municipal institutions under a Bill of which the object was to amend and reform such institutions. For such a proposition as that made by the hon. Member for Fins-bury he could find no precedent, nor indeed anything analogous, save the proposition to which he had just alluded. Having said thus much, he would only, add, that if the hon. Member would bring in a distinct Bill for the abolition of "all tithe of fish, or of fishing, or of personal tithe," he (the Attorney-General) would pledge himself to support it. But he must oppose any proposition which was likely to clog the present Bill with a clause which was inconsistent both with its title and its spirit.
Lord John Russellsaid, if the House should be of opinion that personal tithes should be abolished, he should be ready to bring in a Bill on the subject, but he did not think it should make part of the present measure.
Mr. Thomas Duncombe: With reference to the observation of the Attorney-General what he proposed with respect to tithes was as preposterous as the project for getting rid altogether of corporations when proposed as an amendment to the Bill for their regulation, expressed a hope that should any such Bill be brought down to that House, that the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman would not be forgotten.
Lord John Russellsaid, though he should be ready to introduce a Bill to abolish personal tithes, he could not include the tithe on fish; but he should propose to submit to the Commissioners that they should make an inquiry into the circumstances as regarded the coasts of Norfolk, Cornwall, and other places, with a view to some measure being framed on the subject.
The Committee divided on the original question: Ayes96; Noes 50—Majority 46.
Clauses to 81 agreed to.
Mr. Gally Knightrose to move an additional clause, but was very indistinctly heard. He was understood to say, that there was not enough of land to bear the amount of tithe with which it was proposed to burden it by those who sought to put an end to tithe on personal labour, and he decidedly objected to money payments, on account of the fluctuations to which the value of money was at all times subject. He therefore would move a clause to the effect, that "it be enacted, that at any time, and from time to time, after the tithes of any lands shall have been commuted under the hands and seals of the Commissioners, it shall be lawful for the owner of the tithes or rent-charge, or apportioned rent in lieu of the tithes of any such lands respectively, to agree with the owner of the same lands for the sale and extinguishment of any such rent-charge or apportioned rent-charge, either in commutation of any messuages, lands, or other hereditaments, of competent value, or of a gross sum or sums of money of competent amount, such value, of land or amount of money to be, by the means hereafter mentioned, ascertained to be a full and proper consideration or price for such purchase, and the title to the messuages, lands or hereditaments proposed as such consideration, being approved of as hereafter is provided." The clause was brought up.
After a short conversation, the clause was withdrawn, the hon. Member intimating
1084
that he would take another opportunity of bringing it before the House.
The House resumed: the Report to be received.

IRISH CONSTABULARY.
Viscount Morpeth Viscount Morpeth moved, that the amendments made by the House of Lords to the Irish Constabulary Bill be further considered. The noble Lord said, that several amendments had been carried in the House of Lords with respect to this Bill, and this was done with a view to the saving of the public expense, or because it was considered wrong to grant an extensive patronage to the Crown. To these amendments the Government had agreed, and were only going to make an alteration (and to which he understood no opposition would be offered elsewhere), in order to make the Bill more efficacious and more conformable to the state of Ireland. Now it could not be expected in this state of things that opposition to the Bill would come from the other side of the House. They were now within two days of the recess, and if the House did not consent to the amendments before the recess, the consequence must be, that all the constabulary in Ireland would be left in a state of suspense. A distinguished officer was now in London, and waiting from day to day until the royal assent should be given to the Bill. Upon that side of the House they were willing to adopt the amendments, and if any had reason to complain of these amendments, it was they who should do so, as the arrangements for the constabulary force were now waiting to be fully completed. He hoped that where the public was so deeply concerned, no further opposition would be offered.
Lord Colesaid, that if the Friendly Brothers were to be excluded from the operation of the Bill, he should offer no further opposition to it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerremarked, that the noble Lord had stated the question contended for by the Opposition correctly. It was this—whether an important measure to the public was to pass, or the wishes of a few individuals attended to?
Mr. Shawthought it would be much better to decline the Lords' amendment in the case of the Freemason Societies, than to retain it and refuse to extend it to the Friendly Brothers Societies.
Lord John Russellwished to call to the recollection of the House, that in many previous Bills an exemption had been made in favour of Freemason Societies, while as yet the Friendly Brothers Societies were comparatively unknown.
Dr. Baldwinobserved, that he was well acquainted with the majority of the members of the City of Cork Friendly Brother Societies, and could, without hesitation, state that they were almost to a man persons of Orange politics. There was not a Catholic among them. He therefore hoped the Government would continue to resist the proposition.
Lord Colesaid, he would try to meet the difficulty by adopting the suggestion of the learned Recorder for Dublin, and move that the Lords' amendment to Clause 16 be not agreed to, or in other words, that the exemption in favour of Freemason Societies be withdrawn from the clause.
The motion negatived.
Lord Cole then moved that the Friendly Brothers Societies be included in the exemption.
The House divided. Ayes 12; Noes 30; —Majority 12.
The Lords' amendments agreed to.

List of the AYES.

Balfour, T.

Lowther, J. H.

Beckett, rt. hon. Sir J.

Plunket, hon. R. E.

Bramston, T. W.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Estcourt, T.

Ferguson Sir R.

TELLERS.

Jones, T.

Cole, Lord

Lefroy, A.

Jackson, Sergeant

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hawkins, J. H.

Baines, E.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Baldwin, Dr.

Howard, P. H.

Baring, F. T.

Jervis, J.

Bernal, R.

Lee, J. L.

Blamire, W.

Lefevre, C. S.

Bowring, Dr.

Lemon, Sir C.

Bridgeman, H.

Loch, J.

Brotherton, J.

Marjoribanks, S.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Morpeth, Lord

Cayley, E. S.

Murray, rt. hon. J A.

Chalmers, P.

O'Brien, W. S.

Churchill, Lord C.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Crawford, W. S.

O'Loghlen, M.

Ebrington, Lord

Palmerston, Lord

French, F.

Parrott, J.

Gordon. R.

Pease, J.

Grey, Sir G.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Hawes, B.

Price, Sir R.

1086

Pryme, G.

Walker, C. A.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Warburton, H.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Williams, W. A.

Russell, Lord J.

Wilson, H.

Ruthven, E.

Wood, C.

Talbot, J. H.

Wrightson. W. B.

Thomson, rt. hon. C P.

TELLERS.

Thompson, Colonel

Stanley, E. J.

Thornley, T.

Troubridge, Sir T.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By several Noble Lords, from various Places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
The order of the day for the third reading of the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill having been read,
The Marquess of Lansdownespoke to the following effect:—My Lords, I rise to move the third reading of the altered Bill, which now stands entitled—"A Bill for the regulation of Municipal Affairs in Ireland and for the abolition of Municipal
1044
Corporations therein." In rising to move this third reading, it certainly will be necessary for me to occupy but a very short portion of your Lordships' attention, and I shall be glad if my comparative brevity upon, this occasion shall in some degree mitigate the inconvenience to which I am sensible I may have put some of your Lordships, by requiring as a favour your attendance here on this usually vacant evening. That the subject to which I am about to direct attention is one of paramount importance I am but too well aware; but, nevertheless, it certainly would be unpardonable in me were I to occupy any considerable portion of your Lordships' time, when I feel it impossible to ask you to give a third reading to this Bill on any other argument than the one I shall presently have to state. The position in which your Lordships stand in connection with this measure is simply this:—The Commons' House of Parliament having sent up to us a Bill, the object of which was the substitution for self-elected and irresponsible Corporations in Ireland, Corporations that should be responsible, and should be fairly elected by the people of that country, it has seemed fit to the majority of your Lordships materially to alter that measure, and carefully to take out of the Bill all those portions of it which gave life and existence to new Corporations, while you have been pleased to retain all that distinguished life in all existing Corporations whatever. The effect, therefore, of the Bill as it now stands adopted by your Lordships, is, that the corporate system is for ever annihilated in Ireland, and that the title of the Bill—for the preliminary words are somewhat unnecessary—should be, instead of being "A Bill for the regulation of Municipal Affairs in Ireland, and for the abolition of Municipal Corporations therein," be "a Bill for abolishing the corporations of Ireland, and making the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland for the time being sole corporate thereof." My Lords, I have sometimes heard persons out of this House less learned than your Lordships, who expressed some difficulty in knowing what was the meaning of the legal term "corporation sole." My Lords, if this Bill shall pass into a law, you will be able to boast of 'having given to the world an opportunity of witnessing in my noble Friend near me, the present Lieutenant of Ireland, a living specimen of that legal character, exercising, in the vulgar as well as legal sense of a corporation sole, all the rights, privileges, and immunities of the

1045
existing corporate bodies of that country. This, my Lords, it is needless for me to assure you, was far from the view of those who introduced this Bill in the other House of Parliament—it was far from the view of the majority of that other House of Parliament who adopted this Bill on its being so introduced to them. They contemplated no such unheard-of concentration of powers in the hands of any single man. They did, undoubtedly, contemplate that measure to which your Lordships have been pleased to assent—and the full value of that assent I undoubtedly feel—they did, certainly, propose to extinguish all that was proved to be corrupt and mischievous, and all that was liable to become corrupt and mischievous, in the existing Corporations of Ireland, but they did not propose by their measure to pass sentence upon the character and institutions of that country, and to record its people as unfit and incapable of sustaining anything like those functions which for centuries have been exercised, fairly exercised, by their fellow-subjects in the Corporations, great and small, of Great Britain and Scotland. I have said, that I feel the full value of the assent given by your Lordships to the first principle of this Bill. I mean that which relates to the extinction of all the existing Corporations in Ireland in their objectionable and exclusive form. I feel, that in so doing your Lordships have given the strongest Parliamentary sanction on the part of this House that you could give to the wisdom of that policy which instituted an inquiry exhibiting the defective and corrupt state of those institutions. I feel you have recorded your approbation of that policy, and, therefore, I conceive a great object to be attained even by the Bill as it stands in its present state. But, great as I think that object is, I do also think that object great which you have declined assisting the other House of Parliament in attaining. I allude to the construction of a more wholesome corporate system than that destroyed, by the infusion of a due proportion of popular control, and by an amendment in the forms of election. In the attainment of that object your Lordships have refused co-operating, and I, therefore, think it is but right and fitting that the other House of Parliament should be apprised of the way in which your Lordships have dealt with their pleasure; and apprised of the reasons and motives which guided your Lordships in your decision respecting this measure, I fear, that neither the other House of Parliament nor the
1046
public, are ever likely to be satisfied with that statement; and I am sure it would not be for me to undertake the difficult task of explaining them; and as the only course by which they can be duly made acquainted with the state of events on this great question of legislation, no noble Lord having moved for a conference with the other House of Parliament, will be to put them regularly in possession of the Bill in its amended—I should say in its altered— form, I have come forward for the purpose of requesting your Lordships to pass the Bill through its remaining stages. My Lords, I desire it may be distinctly understood that it is on these grounds alone I beg of you to give the Bill a third reading. I thought it my duty the other evening to tender to those who made this Bill their own the opportunity of putting it through its latter stages, but, as your Lordships are aware, that offer those to whom I allude thought proper to decline. I make use, my Lords, of the words "made this Bill their own," because, according to a memorandum which I have now before me, I find that the state of the Bill, as it passed the other House, is entirely different from what it is at present. The preamble has been amended, sixty-six of the clauses have been altered so as scarcely to be recognised, of new clauses twenty-seven have been added, and of the clauses sent up by the other House of Parliament only eight have been preserved. I think therefore I am justified in stating that the noble and learned Lord, and those who acted with him, have made this Bill their own; and further, that I was justified in proposing to the noble and learned Lord to conduct to its termination the Bill which he had so made his own. But, when the noble and learned Lord declined the task, I undoubtedly felt it to be my duty to offer to your Lordships to conduct this Bill to the final stage, by which would be insured its regular transmission to the other House of Parliament. If on this occasion I could have hoped to alter your Lordships' determination, I should undoubtedly have thought it my duty once more to ask your Lordships, as a question of policy and as a question of wisdom, to consider whether it became the House—the depository of many of the most valuable privileges that are maintained by law in this country, and the guardian by profession of many other privileges, which, although not attached to it, are protected and supported by its existence—I say, my Lords, I should have ventured to suggest

1047
the policy of re-considering whether it is wise and prudent in that House which is the first privileged body in the country, to make itself the instrument of stripping all the corporate bodies in Ireland of their privileges, and to use the prerogative vested in it by the laws in infringing the liberties and rights of the people. This course I certainly should have ventured once more to suggest to your Lordships' consideration, if I could have hoped to shake the determination you have come to; but entertaining the feeling that such a hope is now altogether futile, it is not my intention to-night to give your Lordships the trouble of a debate, for the purpose of restoring the Bill to its former state. I shall, for the reasons I have given, now move that the Bill be read a third time, but I do so with a decided protest against the supposition that such a motion involves, on my part, any approval of its contents; or at least of that portion of its contents which effects the perpetual destruction of all corporate bodies in what once was the sister kingdom of England. Having made that protest in a manner which I think will be understood in this House and in the country, I can have no hesitation, on the grounds I have stated, and on those grounds alone, in asking your Lordships at once to give to this Bill a third reading.
The Marquess of Clanricardeobjected to this measure, as injurious to the people of Ireland, and insulting to the other House of Parliament. He considered it as a Bill of the most mischievous description, and he for one would never agree to it. When he considered the speeches and arguments that had been addressed to their Lordships in proposing the alterations in different clauses, he felt that it would have been infinitely less injurious and less dangerous if it had been simply presented to the people of Ireland as it stood, in its altered state, unaccompanied by such comments. After the decision of last year, with reference to the corporations of England and Scotland, it would be felt by the people of Ireland that they were not deemed capable of advantageously receiving the same measure of reform. What had been said by his noble Friend (Lord Fitzgerald, we believe), and by the noble Earl (Haddington) on the floor, whose character and experience gave weight to everything that fell from them, aggravated the insult that had been offered to the people of Ireland. The noble Earl had said, in answer, he believed, to some observations which he bad
1048
made with reference to the proposition of the noble Duke (Richmond) on the cross benches, that corporations should be allowed to some of the great towus—the noble Earl had observed that the large towns were precisely those which he was most afraid of, because the people were apt to congregate for the purpose of discussion.— [The Earl of Haddington: I made use of no such expression.] Why, the noble Earl said, that, above all other places, he dreaded Dublin! He expressly mentioned Dublin. And what was the reason? Because there the people were in the habit of meeting. The noble Earl said, he was not afraid of the small towns, but he was of the large ones, and the reason was, because in the latter the people came into play. Could this be doubted? Again, what must the feelings of the people of Ireland be, when the noble and learned Lord opposite called them alien to Englishmen—alien to the habits of Englishmen—alien to the religion of Englishmen—anxious to disunite themselves from this country, and to expel Englishmen from their soil? Was not that an attack that ought not to be made on them as British subjects? The noble and learned Lord spoke of the necessity of encouraging loyalty, and of keeping up the connexion with Great Britain; and at the same time he asserted, that the people of Ireland were inclined to throw aside the British connexion. Now, he did not think that there was any great degree of political sagacity manifested in propounding such a proposition. But let their Lordships look at the Bill on the table. Was it calculated to strengthen and extend the principle of loyalty? No person had a higher respect than he had for loyalty. It was a noble sentiment; and in this country, he thanked God, it was a patriotic sentiment. It was a glorious sentiment; because a reasonable one, among freemen. But, when freedom did not exist, it might degenerate into servility and sycophancy. The Union, as he understood it, between the two countries, which they were all so anxious to preserve, was founded on a large, and comprehensive, and wide, and politic basis. It was founded on a community of interests, on an identification of feelings. If it were not so, then it was no union, but a cheat with respect to one party, a disgrace with reference to the other, and nothing better than a mischief to both. Then he would say, that if they did not grant similar institutions to the people of the two countries, and they were refused by this Bill, they might call

1049
the Union a union of subjugation—they might call it a union of conquest—they might call it a union of injustice, but it could not be fairly viewed as a legislative bond of Union. This, therefore, he contended, was a most dangerous Bill to send to the people of Ireland. He believed, however, that the Bill would never pass into a law; and, when he said so, he was sure he spoke the sentiments of the British people, who never would suffer such wrong to be done to Ireland. And what, he asked, would the other House of Parliament say to their Lordships' proceedings? They surely could not receive such a measure. It was most unjust to treat Ireland in this manner, because he would contend that the Irish people had shown themselves fit to appreciate free institutions as they ought to be appreciated. They had shown a willingness to identify themselves with the feelings as well as the institutions of the British people. There was an identity of interests between the two countries, and it was not because a portion of the Irish people were obnoxious to the party of the noble Lord opposite that a slur should be thrown upon them, and that they should be subjected to a degradation which, under other circumstances, they dared not offer. These facts, they might depend upon it, were well marked and noted out of doors. If noble Lords opposite did not take another course—if they did not do the same justice to Ireland that had been done to England and Scotland, they would strike a severe blow at the Union. That blow, however, would be vain; it would pass away harmlessly, because he was convinced that the good feeling of the British people would atone for the error, and would render that Union firm and lasting. Because there were riots at parliamentary elections in Ireland, they were called upon not to give to that country popular municipal institutions. But the advantages that flowed from a free and liberal system greatly out weighed the minor inconveniences that attended it. If they refused to Ireland that which had been granted to England and Scotland, he thought they went somewhat nigh to teach the people of Ireland that their obedience to an united legislature was not beneficial to them, and the consequences of raising such a feeling might be most dangerous. He, however, placed his confidence in the House of Commons, and was impressed with the belief that this Bill would never pass into a law.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that if he had not been personally alluded to by the noble Marquess, he should not have deviated from his original intention of remaining silent. If any stranger came within those walls in the course of the speech of the noble Marquess, (and the same remark would apply to many other speeches which had been delivered by noble Lords on this subject,) he would be led to suppose that their Lordships were going to deprive the people of Ireland of long-enjoyed and much-valued privileges. Instead of which, the plain fact was, that they had merely sanctioned the abolition of Corporations, to which measure, so far as they knew, the feelings and wishes of the people of Ireland were favourable. Those Corporations had long been complained of as a nuisance that ought to be abated. They had, it was admitted, been for a long period the engines of persecution, and the great means of carrying on an exclusive system throughout that country. What their Lordships refused to do was, to recreate on the ruins of that system so abolished, another system, still more exclusive. It was not for him to go into the details of the subject. He could not do so without restating arguments which had been reiterated over and over again. He should therefore mainly adhere to the purpose for which he rose, to point out and correct the very great misrepresentations which the noble Marquess had made with respect to what fell from him on a former evening. The noble Marquess had certainly most completely misrepresented the whole scope and tenor of what fell from him on that occasion. The noble Marquess had represented him as offering insult to the people of Ireland—as stating that he was unwilling to see the amendment which involved the existence of the great Corporations of Ireland carried into effect, because he distrusted the people of Ireland; at the same time, that he was willing to see such a principle carried into effect, where towns were small, and had but few inhabitants. Now that was not what he said. [The Marquess of Clanricarde: I must deny the correctness of the noble Lord's remark] I understood the noble Marquess to say that I asserted that I saw no great danger in allowing Corporations in small towns, because there were few people in them; but that great towns ought not to be intrusted with such privileges, on account of the large number of

1051
people they contained. That, however, was not my statement. What I stated was, that there was more danger to be apprehended in giving those privileges to large towns than to small ones. But, mark the ground which I took on that occasion. We object to the continuance of those Corporations generally on account of the spirit of agitation which would be likely to pervade them; and I cannot conceive that that spirit would be half so dangerous to the security of the country, when it rages in a town of limited extent, as when it is used to excite the population of a larger and more numerous community. That is the utmost extent to which any distrust goes. My distrust is not to the people, but to those who agitate the people and influence the government. Such is my distrust. If any insult has been given, it is offered to the agitators, and not to the people of Ireland, whom I wish to protect from that baneful influence which is so dangerous to the interests of this empire. I pointed out the city of Dublin as a proper criterion by which to judge, and I repeat it. If Dublin were to be left with a Corporation, and placed under the influence of a priesthood that joins in agitation, and open to the arts of lay agitators, why then we might as well pass the whole Bill as it was sent up from the other House of Parliament; because, by adopting such a principle, we should be legalising a perpetual Catholic Association. The noble Earl proceeded to say, that was the reason why he objected to the proposition of the noble Duke on the cross-benches, and not because he wished to insult the people of Ireland. It was because he valued the peace and repose of Dublin — it was because he wished a government to be established in that country powerful enough to command respect—that he was anxious not to take any step the effect of which would be to legalize a permanently-standing Catholic Association. He never stated, that he saw no inconvenience from a system of agitation in the smaller towns. It was purely a matter of comparison. But very many reasons induced him to prefer the Bill as it now stood, rather than to take it with the alterations proposed by the noble Duke on the cross-benches. He thought that the greatest danger would result if they adopted the amendments of the noble Duke. In point of fact, he looked upon the Bill, as originally framed,
1052
as presenting a minor danger compared with that to which such an alteration would inevitably lead; and he trusted that their Lordships would adhere to that, which he conceived not to be a hardship to the people of Ireland, but a measure that would save them from the arts of agitators, and secure to them the best chance of equal justice. The noble Marquess (Lansdowne) had represented the amendments or alterations (he did not object to the noble Marquess's words, for the Bill was altered, as well as amended, very extensively) as precluding the people of Ireland for ever from all the benefit of Corporations. The noble Marquess did not explain to the House how that appeared. The gist of the argument applied to the present state of Ireland; it was upon that view that the measure was founded. But if a happier day arrived for Ireland what was to prevent the Government or Legislature of this country, if the people made application for Corporations, from consenting to form them? No man would be more happy than he at the arrival of a day of peace and tranquillity, when they might entertain such a proposition with propriety, if it were made by the people of Ireland. But he believed that if such an unexpected day did arrive, the Government would receive no application of the kind. He had trespassed further on their time than he had intended, but he was obliged to rise for the purpose of correcting the misrepresentations of the noble Marquess, which were opposed to every feeling of his mind. When he formerly addressed their Lordships he thought he had so expressed himself as to render it impossible that any such interpretation could have been put on what he stated, for he was the last man that would think of saying any thing unkind of, or insulting to, the people of Ireland.
Viscount Gortexpressed his regret that the city of Limerick should be deprived of privileges which had been handed down to the Corporation from a very early period. An inquisition, almost unparalleled in the history of this country, had been sent forth to inquire into the state of the Irish Corporations, and, in his opinion, those who constituted that Commission had no just reason for visiting the Corporation of Limerick with the severity which they had done. The noble Viscount was proceeding to animadvert on what had been said in the House of Commons by an hon. Mem-

1053
ber with respect to the noble Lord's influence with the corporation of Limerick, when
The Earl of Devonrose to order. The noble Viscount was applying himself almost personally to what had passed in the other House of Parliament, a course never permitted on ordinary occasions.
Viscount Gortsaid, he had over and over again heard allusions made to speeches delivered elsewhere; but he should obey the wish of the House, and abstain from going further into the subject. Neither he nor the Corporation had the power of appointing the officer connected with the city of Limerick, who was mentioned in the Report of the Commissioners. Under the regulations of Charles 2nd, they could only recommend an individual who must be approved of by the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council. If this Bill would give peace to Ireland, no man would be more interested in agreeing to it than he should; but instead of giving peace, it would only add to the feuds and animosities which existed in that country, and would be followed up by demands still more unreasonable, which would never cease to be made till the Protestant religion was trampled under foot.
Lord Alvanleywas aware of the natural impatience of their Lordships to get rid of this discussion, but he wished to make a few observations in consequence of what had fallen on a former occasion from his noble Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, imputing to him that he had, in supporting this measure in its present shape, thrown overboard his opinions respecting the principle of centralization. In answer to that charge he had to say, that his objections to that principle were not shaken by his acceding to the necessity of this measure, which was one great exception to prove the general rule. His vote upon this occasion would be given on this very strong reason for supporting the Bill in its present state that Ireland was not in a situation to receive Corporations. His vote was founded upon the evidence which he had read with very great attention, collected in the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the state of the Irish poor, and upon the state of elections generally in that country, and he would say, that greater riot, intimidation, and agitation could not be conceived than was practised there, accustomed as we were in this country to see these matters go quietly off. Under these
1054
circumstances, he should be sorry if he voted for increasing popular election in any one single instance. He was clearly of opinion that Ireland was not at present fit for Corporations, not but that she might receive the where after, if the state of the country would admit of it. The House was bound to legislate for the present, not for the future or for the past, and every noble Lord who wished to see tranquillity re-established in that distracted country would not consent to give it Corporations in its present situation. Much had been said of the efforts that had been made to tranquillize Ireland, but what was the nature of the measures which had been brought before the House for the last two years in reference to that country?—There was the Constabulary Bill, the Tithe Bill, and the present measure, and as soon as any one of these measures was mooted anywhere, a strong party in the country, and among the public press, had opened the batteries of attack upon their Lordships; loud lamentations were raised, and it was said these measures had very little chance of succeeding. Their Lordships were assailed as the friends of corruptions and abuses of every kind, too bigoted to do their country good, and as incapable to govern it in their hereditary legislative capacity, as hereditary tailors would be to cut out clothes for the half-naked inhabitants of Ireland. In fact, however, the only result of these measures would be to increase the power of those who were already powerful, and add to the wealth of those who were already rich. By the Tithe Bill no less than thirty per cent. would, in three years' time, find its way into the pockets of the Irish landlords, for he supposed that the Irish clergy would not get it, nor would the other measures give one meal of victuals, or a day's work, to any man in Ireland who now wanted it. These measures, therefore, were no measures of relief, though there were measures which would give Ireland relief, and why were they not brought forward? Their Lordships might not have observed it, but a very curious circumstance occurred the very day that this Bill was read a second time. On that day notice was given in another place that no measure would be brought forward by the Government this Session, founded on the Report of the Commissioners of Poor-laws in Ireland. He did not say that the Government was to blame in wishing to take lime to consider before they brought forward this very important

1055
measure, but their Lordships would not forget that there was a party in the country who arrogated to themselves the exclusive merit of originating every measure that was calculated to protect the interests of the people of Ireland. How was it, then, that this measure had not been introduced before? He was convinced that unless a measure of this kind was brought forward, it would be impossible to tranquillize Ireland, and such a measure must be brought forward by others. Till that measure was introduced—till they had made up their minds to pay the Roman Catholic clergy, and to prevent them by legislative enactment, from receiving payment of dues from their flocks, and till they had reformed or done away with the great College of Maynooth, which was the real Normal school of agitation in Ireland, they would have done nothing.
A Noble Lordwished to correct a misstatement of the noble Baron, with respect to the effect of the Tithe Bill. It did not put more than fifteen per cent, instead of thirty per cent., into the pockets of the landlord, at least he would not get more for taking the payment to the clergy upon himself.
Lord Alvanley:— I said it would in three years.
Bill read a third time.
On the question that it do pass,
The Duke of Richmondsaid; after what has already taken place, and the observations which I addressed to your Lordships when the amendment which I am now about to submit was proposed by me in Committee, I do not feel that there is any necessity for trespassing upon your attention at any length. I shall only remind your Lordships that the main argument used against leaving the Corporations in seven great towns in Ireland is, that the elections in those places would be placed in the hands of one individual. My Lords, must I then bring myself to think that you are legislating solely with reference to one individual. Is it fitting that the House of Lords of England should shape their course of legislation in a different way from what justice would direct, because one individual happens to possess influence over his fellow-countrymen. My Lords, if you wish to take the power which he possesses from that individual, show the people of Ireland that you are willing to render them full, fair, and impartial justice. Do not permit that individual to go into the great towns to
1056
which my motion refers, and to say, "You, the inhabitants of Dublin, Belfast, or Cork, —you, 10 l. householders, are considered by the Legislature that governs you, unfit for the exercise of corporate privileges, whilst the poor fishermen of some of the small out ports of England and Scotland, are looked upon as entitled to the right of managing their own municipal concerns." I object, then, to the system which you seem disposed to adopt, my Lords, because acting upon it, you put weapons into the hands of agitators. It appears to me, that those who argue against providing Corporations for the great towns in Ireland, seem to think that the people who are to take part in the elections are to be persons who pay no taxes, and who have no stake or property in these places. But what is the fact? Why, it is proposed that they should be the 10 l. householders. Now, take the city of Dublin with reference to the principles of qualification which I wish to see established. Is it quite certain, that the 10 l. householders of that city have proved their willingness to elect even that individual whose influence is so much dreaded? Are your Lordships not aware that in the last election, that individual had not a majority of1 the 10 l. householders. I firmly and conscientiously believe, that if your Lordships agree to the amendments I propose, you will satisfy the great body of the fair people of Ireland, and I believe you will take away a great deal of the power from those individuals, whoever they may be, who wish to excite the people of that country. My noble Friend (Lord Alvanley) has stated, that whenever measures are brought forward for the relief of the people of Ireland, batteries are immediately opened upon your Lordships' House. My Lords, I know, and most of your Lordships know, that the existence of this House is absolutely necessary for the protection of the rights and liberties of the people, and I shall ever be ready to stand up in defence of our privileges. But, my Lords, I am too old a soldier not to know, that when a battery is opened upon a party, the proper step to be taken is to take up a strong position, by which that attack can be successfully insisted. When a serious battery has been commenced, the way to meet it is not, I think, to open the gates to the opposing party: but I am desirous that we should entrench ourselves, if possible, in a still stronger position than that which we have hitherto oc-

1057
cupied. Now, my Lords, it is not because I am of opinion that there is any great body of the people opposed to this House, but because attempts have been made to excite the people to an opposition to it, that I think you ought to be more careful than ever in your proceedings; and under this impression, I have brought forward the present amendment, without any particular party or political views, for I stand in this House unconnected with any party whatever. Therefore I may, perhaps, urge a peculiar claim to make the proposition which I mean to submit on these grounds,—because I think it is just, because I cannot see the slightest danger from acceding to it, and because, more than all, you will, by sanctioning it, take that course which I have ever warmly advocated—you will reform and correct existing abuses, without destroying the institution to which they are incident—you will repair and reinstate these Municipal Corporations, and not utterly abolish them. I object to the Bill which has been read a third time, because it destroys these Corporations altogether, for I do not believe that there is a single man in Ireland who can bring himself to believe that there is any probability of these corporate bodies being restored after they have once been abolished. I feel that the people of these large towns in Ireland are entitled to have Corporations; I feel that they have a right to have them, if they can be given by your Lordships, without any fear that danger would result from the concession; and I appeal to you whether, the voters being 10 l. householders, there is any ground for such a fear. My Lords, I shall not detain you by saying anything more; but I am most desirous to record my opinion on the Journals of this House, by moving that schedule A, in the first clause, be left out, and another schedule, including the towns of Belfast, &c, be substituted.
Lord Lyndhursthad so frequently troubled their Lordships, that it was not his intention to trespass now upon their attention by any general observations on the subject of the motion which the noble Duke had made, more particularly as he had pronounced an opinion upon it when it was brought forward on a former occasion; but he rose for the purpose of suggesting to the noble Duke that it was impossible to engraft his amendment on the Bill in its present shape. It would be
1058
necessary to reinsert thirty or forty clauses which had been excluded, as well as to alter and amend every one of them. Now, unless their Lordships were prepared to do that, the Bill would be inconsistent on the very face of it; and there was no mode, consistently with retaining these clauses, by which the object of the noble Duke could be carried into effect. He merely suggested to the noble Duke the difficulty, in point of form, with which he had to contend.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that the objection of the noble and learned Lord seemed to him to be one of form, and did not affect the principle of his amendment. As for himself, he should be perfectly willing to devote even to-morrow to obviating the objection of the noble and learned Lord, when, by doing so, he thought he was forwarding a great national object.
The Marquess of Clanricarde: Can anything afford a stronger illustration of the manner in which the affairs of Ireland are legislated upon, than that the noble and learned Lord should get up in his place, and seriously object to the amendment of the noble Duke, because it would delay the progress of this measure for a day, a week, or even a month? Is it to be urged as a serious objection to a measure involving objects of the highest importance, that a point of form, which might cause the delay of a day, was to be got over before it could be passed?
Lord Lyndhurst: The noble Marquess has misapprehended what I said. I merely suggested, that in order to carry the object of the noble Duke into effect, it would be necessary to alter a great number of the clauses of this Bill. I made no objection whatever to the amendment of the noble Duke, except that I stated that I have, upon a former occasion, expressed my sentiments with respect to it.
The Marquess of Clanricarde: The only objection the noble and learned Lord took to the amendment of the noble Duke was one of form. Is he now prepared to say that he will agree to it in principle? What quibbling to urge a mere formal objection to an amendment of this nature, and, when charged with having done so, not to admit either that no other could be preferred to it, or not to oppose it on principle. It certainly is somewhat unusual to rely on a formal objection to a measure

1059
of this description, by which these Corporations are suppressed, and their property transferred to the Crown—a measure, I maintain, which involves considerations more important than any measure has supplied since the time of Henry 8th. Now, as to the great difficulty which was said to exist in appointing those Corporations, which it is the object of the noble Duke's amendment to have established, I do not see why a clause could not be inserted in the Bill, enabling the Crown to grant Corporations to those particular towns. At all events, if the measure be passed in its present shape, it will fill the minds of the people of England with indignation—I believe that the people of this country take a lively interest in the welfare of the Irish people—as it will, in my opinion, be attended with the worst consequences, and will endanger, if it do not prove fatal, to the union between the countries.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that if there were no difficulty in the course which the noble Marquess suggested, he ought himself to have come prepared with a clause to attain the object he had in view.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: Before the House proceeds to a division, I wish to make a few remarks, carefully avoiding, however, to go into any general topics which have been introduced. I must, in the first place, confirm the statement of the noble Duke, that his proposition was not the result of any previous communication between myself and the noble Duke. At the same time I must state what I wish to be distinctly understood, that his Majesty's Ministers, in bringing forward this measure, did not wish to preclude a fair inquiry into, and consideration of, what were the corporate towns to which it might be expedient to extend these new municipalities. They thought that a matter for fair consideration. What they most anxiously wished to maintain was, the preservation of the corporate principle. If that corporate principle is to be preserved in Ireland, I do not say that it must in the first instance be extended to all the towns in Ireland, but if any preference be given, it ought to be to the large towns, where the interests were larger and the property concerned was of greater value. If the corporate principle he good at all, it is impossible that it should not prove beneficial in proportion to the amount of property to be preserved, and the interest
1060
taken in it by large and influential bodies of people. If it were good for anything to establish intermediate bodies between the Government and the people, through which local affairs are to be administered, and public opinion elicited, it must be most desirable to establish that principle in the large towns; and in proportion to the number of inhabitants, and the complexity and amount of interest existing in such places, will be the certain policy and certain ad-vantage of creating Corporations, or rather reforming and preserving them in the large cities. Such establishments have been found, by the experience of all times in England at least, attended with great advantages (and I have no doubt they will hereafter be attended in Ireland) with the most beneficial and salutary effect even in restraining that very spirit of agitation which is the bugbear upon which the necessity of these institutions is opposed, and which arises solely from the fears and apprehensions of those who urge it, for they cannot rest their assertions on any specific grounds, inasmuch as there has not been any experience of the particular forms of election in Ireland. My Lords, I do then most sincerely express my hope—though a feeble hope I confess it is—that even at this hour you will adopt the motion of my noble Friend on the cross-benches. The noble and learned Lord has stated, that this amendment interfered with the object which I ventured to state I had in view—namely, that the Bill should go down to the House of Commons, with the exhibition of all the alterations which have been made in it, on as early a day as possible. That hope I expressed through a fear that you would not re-consider your former determination, or adopt any amendment so important as that which the noble Duke has proposed. But, so far from regretting any delay that might take place were the noble Duke's amendment carried, I should think every hour, every day, and week well employed, which was- necessary for carrying the spirit of that amendment through all the provisions of the Bill. I feel persuaded that it would be time usefully devoted to the public service, and well employed in reconciling the House of Commons to the adoption of the alterations which your Lordships have made in the Bill, and raising the character and reputation of this House. If your Lordships assent to my views you will show an anxiety to maintain in Ireland ancient institutions, framed and based upon that principle which in England you have declared

1061
to be essential to their existence. Having said thus much, I shall not detain the House by referring to the topics introduced by the noble Baron (Alvanley), as to the general system of legislation pursued regarding Ireland, and the character of those measures, which I at once admit are founded on the obvious policy, and indeed, necessity of meeting the popular demands by those salutary reforms which I am prepared to defend, though not undoubtedly excluding the admission that there are other measures of a character of permanent and important legislation which it is also necessary to adopt. Hereafter I shall be glad to call the attention of the House to the observations which the noble Baron has made, and to examine the whole question to which they refer. Following the example which has been set me by other noble Lords, I shall not detain the House by any lengthened observations, but merely express an earnest hope that your Lordships will adopt it.
Their Lordships divided—Contents, present 45; Proxies 37, 82. Not-contents, present 80, Proxies 6l, 141. Majority 59.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Oxford

Grafton

Litchfield

Argyll

Richmond

VISCOUNT.

Norfolk

Falkland

Leinster

BARONS.

MARQUESSES.

Lord Chancellor

Lansdowne

Holland

Conyngham

Glenelg

Tavistock

Hatherton

Clanricarde

Langdale

Breadalbane

Strafford

Headfort

Segrave

EARLS.

Templemore

Sefton

Gardner

Mulgrave

Foley

Ilchester

Lynedoch

Charlemont

Uxbridge

Leitrim

Denman

Minto

King

Stradbroke

Lilford

Burlington

Dacre

Cork

Dinorben

Scarborough

BISHOPS.

Thanet

Hereford

Carlisle

Bristol

Proxies 37.

DUKES.

EARLS.

Sussex

Granville

Brandon

Fingal

Devonshire

Huntingdon

Marlborough

Ranfurley

MARQUESSES.

Essex

Wellesley

Spencer

Winchester

Ferrers

1062

Ludlow

Dorchester

Granard

Audley

Gosford

Chaworth

Derby

Plunket

Shrewsbury

Vernon

Grey

Barham

BARONS.

Sherborne

Auckland

Cloncurry

Arundel of Wardour

Dormer

Stourton

Mostyn

Brougham and Vaux

Erskine

Littleton

BISHOP.

Carleton

Norwich

Paired off.

FOR.

AGAINST.

Earl Radnor

Earl Brownlow

Duke of Cleveland

Viscount St. Vincent

Earl of Craven

Earl Verulam

Lord Saye and Seale

Lord Reay

Lord Dunally

Marquess Camden

Lord Poltimore

Lord Boston

Lord Dundas

Lord Farnborough

Lord Byron

Earl Talbot

Marquess of Anglesea

Earl Beverley

Lord Teynham

Earl of Aberdeen

Earl Scarborough

Lord Stuart de Rothsay

Earl Rosebery

Marquess of Ely

Earl of Suffield

Earl of Chesterfield

The Duke of Richmondhad next to propose an amendment on Clause 64, to leave out the words, "The recorder for the county of the city of any town shall not be disqualified from sitting in Parliament." The object was to prevent persons holding the office of recorder from sitting in Parliament at all. It appeared from all that had been stated of affairs in Ireland that there was something in the present constitution of society in that country which rendered it inexpedient that the same laws should be extended to Ireland as to England. Now, if those causes of excitement really existed in that country he thought it most expedient, for the sake of the due administration of public justice, not only that recorders should not be political partisans but should not be suspected by the public of being so. A circumstance had occurred, even in England, within the last four years, which showed the importance of adhering to this rule. It had happened, as their Lordships must recollect, that a learned person, of whom he could not speak but in terms of the highest respect, who filled the office of recorder for the city of Bristol, and who also held a seat in Parliament, had thought it incumbent upon him to take an active part, as a Member of Parliament, in opposing the Reform Bill; after doing so the learned Gentleman in question went down to Bristol in his judicial

1063
capacity, when his appearance there led to disturbances which ended in the destruction of a very large portion of that city. It appeared from this event that there were times, even in England., when it would be expedient that recorders should not be Members of Parliament. But there was another important consideration in support of his position. It appeared to him that if recorders, being Members of Parliament came over from Ireland to attend to their Parliamentary duties, it would be impossible for them adequately to discharge those of their judicial station, at the usual period of the sessions. Now he was one who thought that the sessions should be even more frequent than they were at present: but even putting aside the notion of intermediate sessions, to which he certainly was attached, he did not think that, even under the present arrangement, the double duty of Member of Parliament, and recorder could be properly and fairly discharged. His principal object as he had at first stated in moving this amendment was, that the recorders of Ireland should be free from all suspicion of political influence. This principle itself seemed to be in part acknowledged by the Bill as it stood, where it was expressly provided that a person being a recorder should not serve as a Member of Parliament for the town in which he was recorder. He thought that the restriction should be enforced more generally, and that a person holding the office of recorder in Ireland, should not be allowed to sit in Parliament as representative for any town whatever.
Lord Lyndhurstobserved, that the clause, as it stood, was in the respect referred to precisely the same as it came from the other House. He objected to the taking the discussion upon such a question as that mooted by the Noble Duke in the present advanced stage of the Bill. He thought, if the question were to be touched at all, that it ought to be by a Bill for that purpose, applicable not only to the office of recorder but to all judicial situations whatever.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, he would not press his amendment to a division, though it was not his fault that he had not proposed it before; he was quite prepared to have introduced it in Committee, but in order to consult what he understood to be the convenience of the House, had deferred the discussion of it till the present occasion.
Amendment negatived.
Lord Templemoreproposed to introduce a clause for the purpose of constituting the
1064
town of Belfast a county of a city for all purposes of this Bill.
Lord Lyndhurstopposed the clause, on the ground that it would place the town of Belfast upon an entirely different footing to that which it had hitherto enjoyed.
Lord Templemoresaid, he could see no reason why the town of Belfast should not be upon the same footing as Kilkenny or Cork.
Clause was negatived. The Bill passed.