Sitting of 14 July 1837

Minutes.
Petition presented. By Sir W. MOLESWORTH, from Cambridge, for University Reform.—By Sir Robert INGLIS, from certain Clergymen, for the repeal of the Catholic Emancipation Act.

ECCLESIASTICAL APPOINTMENTS— LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
The Order of the Day having been read for the consideration of the Lords' amendments to the Ecclesiastical Appointments Suspension Bill,
Lord John Russellsaid, he could only

1909
repeat what he had stated yesterday, —namely, that he disagreed with the clause which had been inserted by the Lords, in regard to the provision of certain appointments for the chaplains of the House, simply on the ground that he thought a provision for the officers was a matter exclusively for the consideration of the Commons, and one with which the House of Lords had no right to interfere. The clause which had been inserted, took the matter entirely out of the hands of the Commons, and implied that the House had been guilty of injustice in not conferring some mark of favour on the three chaplains to which the clause had reference. That was an interference with the privileges of the House which he considered highly improper, and to which he would not submit. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford said, "Accept the clause, and leave the Crown to act upon it or not, as might be deemed proper;" but he did not think that was a fair mode of dealing with the question, and he preferred at once disagreeing with the amendment. With respect to the general question, whether the three rev. Gentlemen ought or ought not to have certain appointments conferred upon them, he should not at present discuss that point; but as the Bill was only suspensory for one year, he would, when the matter was again brought before the House, re-consider his opinion, and give their claims every attention in his power. He did not object to the clause, but only to its insertion by the Lords. The noble Lord concluded by moving, "That the House disagree with this amendment of the Lords."
Sir R. Inglisagreed with the amendment, as he thought the honour of the House, as well as the honour of the Crown, were pledged to what the noble Lord (John Russell) called a favour, but what he considered an act of justice. In 1832, an Address had been sent from that House to his late Majesty, praying that his Majesty would be pleased to confer on the three Rev. Gentlemen some preferments in the Church as a recompense for their services as chaplains of that House. To that Address, Lord Althorp had brought down a message from the Crown, stating that his Majesty would comply with the prayer of the Commons; but since that time no ecclesiastical appointment had been conferred on either of
1910
the rev. Gentlemen. These, then, were the grounds on which he would support the clause. The House had requested the Crown to confer on their chaplains appointments in the Church, the Crown had consented to comply with their solicitation, and further, he was sure that there was not one Member in the House at the time when that compliance was communicated, who would have considered himself justified in opposing any plan for compensating these officers of the House. The only point, however, was, whether the motion for compensation ought to have originated with that House or with the House of Lords? Now, in his opinion the insertion of the clause could not be considered as an improper interference or the part of the House of Lords; for their Lordships had only enabled her Majesty to do what the Commons had solicited and what the Crown had consented to perform; and he would not, therefore, on the authority of any one he saw opposite deem that the Lords had, in this matter interfered improperly with the privilege! of the Commons. It was no compromise of their dignity to do an act of justice and the present could only be considered as a matter of right, and not of favour.
Mr. Humewas surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, considering the manner in which he generally stood forward in defence of the privileges of the House. In his opinion, the House would do wrong to agree to the amendments of the Lords; but he allowed, that the rev. Gentlemen had a claim to some preferment, and he should be glad to see the House take the matter into its consideration.
Mr. Estcourtfully agreed with what had fallen from his hon. Colleague (Sir R. Inglis), as he considered the claim of the rev. Gentlemen upon the House and upon the Crown, to be of so strong a nature, as to amount almost to the force of a vested right. It should be remembered, that if the clause were rejected, the Crown would be prevented from doing what more than one House of Commons had requested to be done; and, under these circumstances, he should vote for the retention of the clause.
The House divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 11: Majority 36.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Alston, R.

Attwood, T.

1911

Bannerman, A.

Lynch, A. H.

Barclay, D.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Bowes, J.

Ord, W.

Brotherton, J.

Pechell, Captain

Campbell, Sir J.

Philips, M.

Chalmers, P.

Roche, W.

Chetwynd, Captain

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Colborne, N. W. R.

Russell, Lord John

Dennistoun, J.

Scholefield, J.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Seymour, Lord

Ellice, right hon. E.

Smith, B.

Fergus, John

Stanley, E. J.

Harvey, D. W.

Strutt, E.

Hastie, A.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Hawes, B.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

Hawkins, J. H.

Thompson, Colonel

Hay, Sir And. Leith

Wakley, T.

Hector, C. J.

Warburton, H.

Hoskins, K.

Wilks, J.

Howick, Viscount

Young, G. F.

Hume, J.

TELLERS.

Lambton, Hedworth

Wood, Charles

Lushington, C.

Labouchere, H.

List of the NOES.

Alsager, Captain

Gladstone, W. E.

Bonham, R. F.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Borthwick, Peter

Patten, J. W,

Callaghan, D.

Williams, R.

Duncombe, T.

TELLERS.

Egerton, Sir P.

Inglis, Sir R.

Elley, Sir J.

Estcourt, T.

The other amendments of the Lords were agreed to.

RUSSIA.
Mr. T. Attwoodrose to put some questions to her Majesty's Government respecting the conduct of Russia towards this Government. He wished the noble Lord who was at the head of the Foreign Department had been present; but, as he was not, he trusted that the noble Home Secretary, or some other Member of her Majesty's Government, would answer his questions, which were: —1. Is it the final determination of her Majesty's Government to submit to the violations of the treaty of Vienna by Russia, in respect of Poland and of Cracow? 2. Is it their determination to allow Russia to receive Circassia as a gift from Turkey, under the treaty of Adrianople, Russia having previously contracted with England to receive "no separate advantage" from Turkey, in the war which terminated in that treaty? 3. Is it their determination to allow Russia to hold possession of the Delta of the Danube, in defiance of the above contract with England? Supposing the above contract on the part of Russia to be waived, is it their determination to allow Russia to receive a gift from Turkey, which Turkey had no
1912
right to give, Turkey never having possessed acknowledged dominion over Circassia? [Laughter.] He could not see what it was that hon. Gentlemen were laughing at. The fifth question was, "Is it their determination to allow Russia to conquer, or possibly exterminate, the Circassians, and thus to get possession of a country which would give her unlimited influence and ultimate dominion over Turkey and Persia, and all the countries of the east? Is it their final determination to submit to the gross and insufferable arrogance of Russia in the affair of the Vixen? Is it their final determination to submit to the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, which in case of war between England and Russia, closes the Dardanelles at the mandate of Russia, and thus, on the one hand, prevents England from attacking Russia on her weak point; and, on the other, delivers up the allies and friends of England, an unresisting prey, to consolidate and increase the power of the barbarians of the north?" [Laughter.] There was nothing in the question to be laughed at. The eighth question was, "Is it true that the Russians have now upwards of twenty line of battle ships nearly ready for sea at Cronstadt, within a fortnight's sail of the mouth of the Thames? Is it true that England cannot now produce, within a fortnight, twenty line of battle ships ready for sea at the mouth of the Thames?" He should not trouble the House with many remarks. [Cries of "Put your questions."] He wished to say only a few words.
The Speakersaid, he had already told the hon. Member what was the rule of the House, and it was now entirely with the House to decide whether they would hear the hon. Member or not.
Mr. T. Attwoodthought the House, by their smiles and their cheers, had given him their gentle permission to go on. If the noble Lord wished to pass through the country with flying colours, let him give a full and explicit answer to all these questions. Let the House be told what was to be done with Russia.
Lord J. Russellreally thought that these were questions, if asked at all, might have been asked at an earlier period of the Session. One of them, that relating to the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, might have been asked two or three years ago. Upon particular points or questions relating to the general policy of the country,

1913
the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was always ready to give an explanation; but he did not think it possible to answer these questions then in a regular form, because they were questions not relating to facts merely, but leading to arguments. His noble Friend, the Foreign Secretary, would be in his place to-morrow, to answer any questions that might be put.
Mr. T. Attwoodhoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would answer the question respecting the Russian fleet in the Baltic.
Mr. C. Woodsaid, he believed that Russia had a considerable force in the Baltic, and, generally speaking, they were ready to be put to sea. It was not usual to answer questions as to the disposition of the naval force of this country; but this he would say, that whenever and by whatever power this country might be attacked, there was always a sufficient force in England to resist the attack where so ever and when so ever that attack might be made.
Subject dropped.

MINUTES.
Bills. Road a third time:—Cruelty to Animals (Ireland); Masters and Workmen! Beet-root Sugar; East India Postage; Letters Patent; Municipal Rates; Central Criminal Court; Bills of Exchange.

FORM OF PETITIONS.
The Duke of Sussexrose to present a petition from the members of the Society of Friends in Ireland praying the Legislature to withdraw from the criminal code of this country the punishment of death. The petition contained a variety of observations in furtherance of the removal of that stigma from the statute-book, and the petitioners relied particularly upon the good effects which had been already seen, and which experience had witnessed in other countries where the punishment of death had been abolished, as affording strong grounds for the adoption of the same policy in this country. He ought to observe that the petition was not addressed in the usual words, but he believed that petitions from the Quakers, who entertained conscientious scruples on certain points, had been received similarly drawn up. The petition was addressed to the Peers of the United Kingdom, instead of to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal; and instead of the word "humbly" the word "respectfully" was adopted in the prayer of the petition. He trusted that the petition of this numerous, influential, and respectable body would not be rejected on this point of form; and so important did he conceive its contents to be, that he should move that the petition be read at length.
The Earl of Shaftesburywas extremely sorry to raise any objection to the reception of the petition just presented by the illustrious Duke, and especially as it ema-

1905
nated from so respectable a portion of the community, but he was bound to say, that in point of form, it could not be received.
The Duke of Sussexsaid, he should certainly withdraw the petition and bow to the decision of the noble Earl opposite, who was so much better acquainted with the forms of the House than himself. He had, however, understood that petitions omitting the words "Lords spiritual and temporal" had before been received.
Lord Broughamwas extremely sorry that the petition was open to objection, and the more so, because it amounted to neither more nor less than that their Lordships never could receive the petitions of that amiable, and, as it was admitted, respectable body of the community, known as the Society of Friends. The language of [their petitions was not adopted from any want of respect to their Lordships' House, but was to be attributed to their conscientious principles, which restrained them from the use of such expressions as the forms of the House required. He (Lord Brougham) put it to the House, whether for the purpose of opening the doors to the petitions of the Quakers, the words "Peers of the United Kingdom" ought not to be considered to include the Lords temporal and spiritual.
Viscount Beresfordbegged to remind the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Brougham), and he thought it ought to be publicly known, that by the adoption of the words "Lords of Parliament," instead of "Peers of the United Kingdom," the respectable body who entertained conscientious scruples, as suggested, would not be prevented from approaching this House by petition.
Lord Broughamadmitted the propriety of the suggestion, and if any doubt existed, he would, when an occasion presented itself, divide the House upon it. The words "Lords of Parliament" were amply sufficient to include Peers, spiritual and temporal.
Petition withdrawn, and conversation dropped.

ECCLESIASTICAL APPOINTMENTS SUSPENSION.
The Lords held a conference with the Commons on the subject of the amendments to the Ecclesiastical Appointments Suspension Bill, and it was reported, that the Commons persisted in disagreeing from clause A of the Amendments of
1906
their Lordships, and with the reasons had returned the Bill.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that he apprehended the only difference of opinion arose upon the clause introduced on the third reading of the Bill by the noble Viscount Opposite (Viscount Canterbury), which went to suspend its provisions as to certain clergymen who had served as Chaplains to the House of Commons and in whose favour addresses had been presented to the Crown, and which enabled the Crown to confer upon them dignities in the Church. When the clause objected to now by the Commons was moved by that noble Viscount, he (Viscount Melbourne) had stated the grounds on which he opposed it—namely, that it was a subject with which the Commons ought themselves to have dealt, and he should now, therefore, move that their Lordships do not persist in their amendment, for the reasons stated by the Commons.
Viscount Canterburysaid, that after the statement made by the noble Viscount on this subject on a former evening, he did not anticipate any success would attend the amendment he had moved, and which the House of Commons had rejected. The strong inducement to move the amendment grew out of the circumstance of his having been Speaker of the House of Commons at the time the services of those gentlemen had been afforded, and when the Addresses in their favour had been agreed to, and the answers from the Sovereign returned. He had therefore, felt himself bound to bring the matter under the consideration of their Lordships; and his only object now was to correct any supposition that he had interfered with the strict province of the House of Commons. All he had felt was, that in the Bill sent up, without any desire to delay or interfere with the intentions of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, it was but justice to reserve to her Majesty the right, under the advice of the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, to confer the dignities promised by the late Sovereign. Having made this explanation, he trusted he had exonerated himself from any improper interference with the rights and privileges of the House of Commons; and he begged to state, that he should now be the last man in the world to obstruct the further passage of this Bill.
The Commons amendments agreed, to.

REFORM OF THE CRIMINAL LAW.
On the motion of Lord Denman, the Forgery Bill, the Robbery and Stealing from the person Bill, Offences against the Person Bill, Burglary Bill, Burning and Destroying Bill, Transportation for Life Bill, and Piracy Bill were read a third time with amendments.
Lord Broughamsaid, that before these Bills left their Lordships' House, he wished once more to remind their Lordships that it was only in consideration of the advanced period of the Session that it had been thought expedient to allow partial measures, such as these were, to pass at present, instead of waiting until the whole change which it was so desirable to make in the Criminal Law of the country could be conveniently made. It was under that circumstance only, that he could have brought his mind to agree to such restricted measures for the improvement of the Criminal Law as those that had just passed their Lordships' House. He had on a former occasion stated his desire to see the principle of these Bills extended to all offences, with the exception of murder, entertaining doubts whether capital punishment ought to be retained even for that. Nothing had given him greater satisfaction than to find that his noble and learned Friend on the opposite bench had come to nearly a similar conclusion, and he therefore entertained the hope that this salutary change in the Criminal Law would take place before long. Important alterations had been made in the details, though none in the principle, of these Bills. The extreme hurry with which they had been passed was greatly to be regretted, as certain oversights had occurred in consequence; but it was to be hoped, after the great pains that had been bestowed upon these Bills by several noble Lords, that such oversights would be few and immaterial. He would add, that he did not conceive there was any blame whatever to be attached to the framers of these Bills on the ground of the inconsistency which had been pointed out almost irresistibly a few evenings ago by his noble and learned Friend. There were inconsistencies, no doubt, between them and the existing law, but amongst themselves, taken singly or as a whole, they did not contain any discrepancy which could be said to be discreditable to those who had framed them.
Lord Lyndhurstbegged to state, that
1908
when he made the observation alluded to, he was not aware of the correspondence which had passed between the Commissioners and the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department, from which it appeared that the Commissioners had at that time pointed out the inconsistencies to which he had adverted.
Lord Denmanexpressed his gratification at the pains that had been taken with these Bills by several noble Lords, and the manner in which they had been received generally. The difficulty, as regarded the time for their consideration, would, however, have been less, had not his noble and learned Friend (Lyndhurst) been anxious to extend them further than in the first instance, it was thought right to do. There might be inconsistencies between them and the law as it existed at present, but it was nothing as compared with the monstrous incongruity of the present law, under which were convicted of capital offences twenty times the number of persons it was intended should suffer capital punishment. He had, however, to thank the noble and learned Lord opposite and his noble Friend near him for the present improved condition of these Bills.
Lord Lyndhurstobserved, that they were now, since they had been stripped of the inconsistencies and anomalies which he had pointed out, extremely valuable measures.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the Government had been placed in the dilemma of being obliged to pursue one of two courses—either to allow the law to remain as it was, or to pass Bills which should of necessity contain, to a certain degree, incongruities, and of which he was fully aware when the Bills came before their Lordships' House.
Bills passed.