Sitting of 13 July 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Lords Justices.—Read a first and second time:—Clerks of the Peace; Documents.

STANDING ORDERS.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonon rising to move the adoption of the new Standing Orders, relative to private Bills prepared and recommended by the Committee which the House had appointed, said he wished it distinctly to be understood, that no material deviation had been made from the orders now in force, except in one point, and to that point he would afterwards call the attention of the House. The new orders had been carefully prepared, and the Committee which the House had appointed had given the subject the most mature consideration. A sub-committee had been appointed by the original Committee, the members of which had devoted a great deal of time to the revision of the old standing orders, and although they had made no alterations in the substance of those orders, they had very materially improved the phraseology, rendering their meaning more plain and perspicuous. The alterations they had made had also
1900
been submitted to those Members best acquainted with the mode of conducting the private business of the House, and to every one competent to give a good opinion on the subject. He stated these particulars, because in asking the House to adopt the recommendations of the Committee, he was aware that the House could only agree to his proposition on some competent authority; and he thought they could have no better authority than the recommendation of the sub-committee which had been appointed, and who had carefully and zealously discharged their duty. He would call the attention of the House to the single point in regard to which any material alteration had been made on the old standing orders. That alteration related to railway bills, and in regard to railway bills it was provided that before parties seeking to obtain such Bills should be allowed to proceed, proof should be afforded that a sum either in money, Exchequer-bills, or other Government securities, to the amount of ten per cent, on the capital required for the completion of the undertaking, shall have been subscribed and deposited in the Bank of England, as a security to the House and to the public against speculation, and to show that the undertaking was bonâ fide to be carried into execution. This alteration had been recommended by the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton), who, as Chairman of the Committee on the Deptford and Dover Railway Subscription List, had strongly impressed on the Standing Orders Committee, the necessity of making such a regulation, in order to guard against fraud. Many hon. Members thought that that was too small a sum; but it had been deemed advisable not to increase it, lest unnecessary obstacles should be thrown in the way of railroad undertakings. Such was the only material alteration which had been made by the Committee in the old standing orders, and from the experience they had had, it could hardly be doubted that such a provision was necessary.
Mr. Hawes Mr. Hawes, having seen the Report for the first time that morning, was hardly prepared to express his opinion upon it, nor did he think that any Member of the House could be in a condition to do so. As far as he could judge from a very imperfect glance of the report, some of the recommendations of the Committee would

1901
involve a very serious alteration of the Standing Orders. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that, with one exception, the alterations proposed were not new; but, in fact, it was now proposed to incorporate in those orders, which hereafter were to be the Standing Orders of the House, matter which last year was merely recommendatory. He thought, therefore, that the report should not be adopted until some further time had been allowed for its consideration. He should beg to move that the further consideration of the report be postponed till the next day.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, if he understood the hon. Member for Lambeth correctly, he proposed not to postpone the further consideration of the report sine die, but only till to-morrow. If the report had only come into the hands of members that morning, it was quite impossible they could have given to it the consideration which its importance demanded. It certainly appeared that some of the proposed alterations were of a very important character, and that portion of the public which had seen them strongly objected to their being adopted by the House without some discussion. He was, therefore, decidedly of opinion that the further consideration of the report ought to be deferred till to-morrow.
Mr. P. Thomsonsaid, that at the present period of the Session it would be impossible if the proposed postponement were to be made, that the standing orders could be considered until another Session of Parliament; so that all the labours of the Committee, which had been sitting for months, would be completely lost And why? His hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. Hawes) said that many important alterations had been made. Now, he (Mr. P. Thomson) begged to inform the hon. Member that the report proposed no substantial alterations whatever of the standing orders, with the single exception which he had mentioned and explained.
Mr. Warburtonhad read the report and approved of it. The labours of the Committee had been directed, not to alter the standing orders, but to re-arrange them, to place them in better order, and to improve their phraseology. The only alteration proposed was that with respect to railway subscription lists—an alteration which the gross abuse of the old orders of the House rendered absolutely necessary.
1902
Nobody would wish to adhere to the old standing orders. No time, then, should be lost in considering the new.
Mr. Freshfieldthought there could be no serious difference of opinion upon the report. As to the subscription list, he thought, if nothing else were done, that that at least ought to be adopted. The only complaint he had to make on it was that it did not go far enough, and he had originally proposed that the deposit should be twenty per cent, upon the amount of the capital instead of ten percent. The proposed regulation would not interfere with any fair or well-founded transaction, but certainly it would interfere with any foul or improper transaction that ought never to have made its appearance before the public; for that reason he should be most anxious to give his support to the proposition.
Amendment withdrawn.
The orders read seriatim and agreed to.

ECCLESIASTICAL APPOINTMENTS.
Lord John Russellgave notice that he should to-morrow move that the Amendments introduced by the Lords into this Bill be taken into consideration. He could at once state that he intended to move that the House disagree with a clause introduced by their Lordships into the Bill respecting those Gentlemen who had been Speakers of the House of Commons. This clause involved a matter peculiarly belonging to that House, and it was quite impossible for that House to allow that it had committed an injustice which might be implied by the adoption of the clause, and it was also impossible that the House of Lords should be permitted to interfere with the proceedings of that House, and be enabled to say how it should carry into effect its own wishes and intentions. On these grounds he should move that that House disagree with this Amendment of the Lords. The Bill itself only suspended the appointment to ecclesiastical sinecure situations for a-year, by the expiration of which time he hoped that the general measure would pass on the subject. He wished also to add, that as it was too late during the present Session, he should be happy on a future occasion to enter upon the consideration and discussion as to any equitable claims that these reverend gentlemen might have.
Sir Robert Inglisdenied that the House of Lords had interfered with any of the

1903
privileges of that House in adopting this clause. The suggestion involved in the clause was now a matter of history for three preceding Houses of Commons had severally addressed the Crown in favour of their three chaplains, and praying that they should be appointed to offices of dignity in the Church. He should endeavour to show to-morrow that the faith of that House of Parliament and the honour of the Crown were pledged to these individuals, independently of any claims they might have from their services and qualifications to such appointments. The object of the clause was not to compel such appointments, but to enable the Crown, if it should think fit, to appoint these gentlemen.
Notice given.

TRADE WITH FRANCE.
Mr. Heathcotestated, that he wished to put a question to the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade with respect to the state of our trade with France. He had been requested by a number of his constituents to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government intended to take any steps to procure an alteration as regarded the trade in wool between the two countries. It appeared that French wool could be introduced into our markets without the payment of any duty, whereas, English wool could not be introduced into France, without the payment of an ad valorem duty of twenty-two per cent. This was a manifest injustice to the producers of English wool, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman had some information to communicate to the House on the subject.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonreplied, that he had not ceased to press on the French Government the advantage that they would derive from the reduction of the duty on English wool, as well as other duties; but his exertions had not hitherto been attended with the success he could wish. The hon. Gentleman was under a mistake in supposing that there was no duty on the importation of French wool into this country—there was a small duty on that article. The proceeding of this country, however, only showed how much wiser we were than the French, as it enabled us to manufacture woollens at a much cheaper rate than the French. He would only add, that he would continue to exert himself to instruct the French
1904
government on this point, so as to induce them to adopt a wiser system of commercial policy.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS(ENGLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
A conference with the Lords on the subject of the amendments made by the Lords on the amendments of the Commons on the amendments of the Lords in the Corporation Act Amendment Bill was held, when the Lords gave their reasons for maintaining the Bill as re-amended by their Lordships'.

MINUTES.
Bills Read a third time:—Burglary; Punishment of Death; Militia Pay; Militia Ballot Suspension; Slave Treaties; Exchequer; Public Works; Bank of Ireland; Clerks of the Peace; Property (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Earl STANHOPE (44), from persons engaged in Factories, for a Ten Hours Bill; and from occupiers of Lands in various place, against the New Poor-law Acts.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS.
Viscount Duncannonmoved the second reading of the Parliamentary Electors Bill. The object of the Bill was to enable those who were entitled to exercise the franchise under the Reform Bill an opportunity of doing so without paying the rates up to a later period than within six months of the time at which they claimed to vote, the law at present obliging them, as their Lordships were aware, to pay up to the time at which they voted.
Lord Redesdaleopposed the Bill. They had been told that it was not the intention of Government to bring forward any measure this Session upon which a difference of opinion was likely to arise, and that they would proceed only with such measures then in progress as were required for the public service; and yet their Lordships were now, on the eve of a dissolution of Parliament, called upon to pass a Bill which created a very considerable change in the elective franchise as established by the Reform Bill. He had originally opposed the Reform Bill; but as it was now the law of the land, he would uphold its provisions as far as he could, while he should at the same time most decidedly object to any innovation upon, or change in its principles. He should therefore

1895
move that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.
The Marquis of Westminsterdefended the Bill. He had been always of opinion that the Reform Bill, in requiring the taxes to be paid up to the period of voting, was so far objectionable. The present Bill would remedy that evil; and if he did it alone, he would divide the House on the motion of his noble Friend.
Lord Broughamthought their Lordships ought to pass the Bill. Experience had proved that a vast number of persons, whom it was intended by the Reform Bill to vest with the elective franchise, were deprived of that advantage by the rate-paying clauses—not from any unwillingness on their part to pay up those taxes, but from a temporary inability to do so, It was not intended by this Bill to break through the principle of the rate-paying clauses of the Reform Bill, but merely to mitigate their severity, and thereby extend the elective franchise.
The Earl of Harrowbyconsidered this a main alteration in the Reform Bill. which had been declared by those who had introduced it a final measure, particularly as regarded the franchise. Now this Bill, according to the noble and learned Lord, was for giving an extension of the franchise. The ready payment of taxes was considered as a test by which it might be judged whether persons claiming a right to vote did or did not possess that degree of respectability which persons ought to have who were to be intrusted with the franchise; while this Bill, according to what had been stated by the noble and learned Lord, would confer the franchise on persons who could not stand that test, and were not therefore fully qualified to enjoy the franchise.
Lord Brougham: When he spoke of the extension of the elective franchise, it was not in the ordinary sense in which that phrase was used: he had not used it in reference to a class of persons differently qualified. The noble Lord had said the Reform Bill had been introduced as a final measure. There was no such thing. No work of man, legislative or otherwise, was final; and no one would be so absurd, much less those who had introduced that measure, as to say that when passed it was so perfect and absolute in all its parts as to be above the test of all future legislation.
Viscount Duncannonbegged to observe
1896
that this Bill applied only to those who had been once on the registry.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that the noble and learned Lord had observed that there was no work of man, legislative or otherwise, which could be looked upon as absolutely final; and it would, no doubt, be the height of presumption in that or the other House of Parliament to affirm anything to the contrary; but, subject to that necessary observation and restriction, he was sure their Lordships had heard those who had introduced the Reform Bill say, at least a dozen times, that it was to be a final measure. It had been admitted that by that Bill the franchise was pushed to its greatest extent in order to render the measure final, particularly as regarded that portion of it, and he would therefore oppose any proposition which was at variance with the principles upon which the elective franchise had been so established.
The House divided on the second reading of the Bill:—Contents 55; Not-con-tents 66: Majority 11.
Bill put off for three months.

NEW POOR-LAW.
The Bishop of Exeterrose to present petitions from places in Devonshire against the Poor-law Act, and one also from the township of Hull, in Lancashire. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships, that he had on a former occasion adverted to the grievance so generally complained against, that the inmates of the workhouses were not allowed to enjoy the advantage of attending divine worship. He understood that in all cases where there was in the workhouse a sufficiently good room to admit of their assembling in it on Sundays, they were denied the privilege of going out of the house to church. He had received a letter in the early part of the last month from a clergyman resident in one of the midland counties, which, with the permission of the House, he would read. It was as follows:—
"In reply to your Lordship's inquiries on the subject of the spiritual destitution of the inmates of the union workhouse at this place, it is my painful duty to state, that the information you have received is substantially correct. The workhouse has been occupied nine months, no chaplain has been appointed, nor have its inmates been permitted to attend divine service at the parish church, distant about a quarter of a mile. Five or six weeks ago a chaplain was advertised for in the papers,

1897
at a salary of 25 l. per annum, and Tuesday last was the day appointed for considering any applications that might be made; none, however, were received, and I understand that a proposition was then agreed to, that the paupers should be allowed to go to the parish church, under the surveillance of the master. The church service and a sermon have been read each Sunday morning and afternoon by the master, but I know that neither has ever been heard within the walls from the mouth of an authorised minister of the church of England. As servants of that Jesus who went about doing good, we might, indeed, take shame to ourselves, if, as your informant states, 'the paupers had been entirely without religious instruction and consolation.' No, my Lord, this has not been the case; my coadjutor and myself (curates of the parish) have attended upon the sick and dying, and I have made a point of visiting the house at short intervals, and conversing on religious subjects with its occupants."
He had every reason to know that the case mentioned in that letter was far from a solitary instance; he hoped, however, that enough had been said to prevent the guardians of the poor from continuing the practice.
The Earl of Radnorexpressed a hope that the right rev. Prelate would put the House in possession of the whole of the letter.
The Bishop of Exeterexpressed his perfect readiness to do so. The right rev. Prelate proceeded to read the remainder of the letter, to the effect that the workhouse was occasionally visited by the clergyman, the writer of the letter, for the purpose of administering religious consolation to the inmates; and that those inmates never exceeded sixty in number, of whom half were children under ten years of age, two-thirds of the adults being either idiots, or bedridden. The right rev. Prelate was proceeding, when
The Earl of Radnorobserved, that the right rev. Prelate need not trouble himself to read any more. He (Lord Radnor) thought the House would think that they had heard quite enough. In his original statement the right rev. Prelate had laid great stress on the circumstance that divine service had been read to the paupers on Sunday only by the master of the workhouse, but had omitted to say anything of the permission given to clergymen to visit the paupers, and to administer religious consolation to them. Nor had the right rev. Prelate said anything of the number of the inmates of the workhouse.
1898
It now appeared that they never exceeded sixty in number; half of whom were children, and that of the remaining thirty, two-thirds were either idiots, or bedridden. It should also be remembered that the right rev. Prelate had not produced this letter until the 12th of July, when there was not sufficient time to obtain satisfactory explanation on the subject.
The Bishop of Exeterhad no reason whatever for not reading the whole of the letter, except that he did not wish to trespass upon their Lordships' time.
The Earl of Radnordisclaimed any intention of throwing out an insinuation against the right rev. Prelate's fairness.
The Duke of Richmondobserved, that when a noble Lord produced such a letter as that which had been produced by the right rev. Prelate, it was better that he should read the whole of it. At the same time he wholly acquitted the right rev. Prelate of the slightest intention of making an unfair statement. The facts, however, were important. The accusation was, that no clergyman was allowed to attend on the inmates of the workhouse. It now appeared that they had the benefit of religious consolation. For his part he (the Duke of Richmond) was one of those who hoped that every union in the kingdom would have a paid chaplain competent to perform the duty of that union: Nothing could be more desirable. Most unions had such a chaplain. But what had been the practice under the old system? There had been no chaplains; and that the clergymen of the parishes in which the workhouses were situated had refused to visit any of the inmates, except those which belonged to their own parish. He repeated, that in most of the unions there was provision for a chaplain; and that where there was not, the paupers were generally allowed to go out on Sundays. Undoubtedly he should much prefer having a chaplain in the house, and not allowing the paupers to go out, for it appeared to him to be exceedingly important, that to the clergyman who administered religious consolation to the paupers on every other clay in the week, they should look up for spiritual instruction on Sunday. The right rev. Prelate had alluded to an assertion of his (the Duke of Richmond's), that if the paupers were allowed to go out of the workhouses on Sundays, instead of going to the churches they would go to the beer-shops.

1899
But the right rev. Prelate should have stated all that he had said on the subject. He had allowed that some of the able-bodied would go to church, and return to the house; but in many parish churches there was hardly room for even the usual congregation; and some of the parish churches were seven or eight miles distant from the workhouse. How could infirm paupers be expected to go there? With respect to the number of the inmates in the workhouse alluded to by the right rev. Prelate, even of the ten adults left, after the deduction of the idiots and bedridden, who could say how many might not be Dissenters? The fact was, therefore, that it was only an assumption that this was a hard case. He regretted to hear a noble Earl so fond of calling these workhouses by the name of gaols. What would the noble Earl say if his servants were to petition that House, complaining of being hardly dealt with by being transported to Germany for two years at a time? Would not the noble Earl say, that their coming into or remaining in his service was their voluntary act?
Petition laid on the table.