Sitting of 26 June 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Dublin Police.—Read a second time:—Sugar Duties; Tithes Commutation Act Amendment; Parliamentary Electors; and Limitation of Actions.
Petitions presented. By Mr. HUTT, from the Mayor and Corporation of Hull; and from the Guardian Society of Hull, in favour of Mr. Rowland Hill's system for managing the Post-Office.—By Mr. GALLY KNIGHT, from a parish in Nottinghamshire, against the Irish Tithe Bill.—By Lord JAMES STUART, from the Corporation of Irvine, and of Newtown-upon-Ayr, against certain clauses in the Municipal Borough (Scotland) Act.—By Mr. WILKS, from thirty-three Baptist congregations in Bedfordshire, for the immediate abolition of Church-rates; that the regium donum should be discontinued; and that the surplus revenues of the Irish Church might be applied to the purposes of education.—By Mr. HODGES, from Rochester, for the abolition of Church-rates.—By Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, from St. Luke's, for the repeal of certain clauses in the Poor-law Act.—By Mr. PLUMPTRE, from Derby, against the grant to the College of Maynooth; the Irish Tithe Bill; and the appropriation of Church Funds to any other than Church purposes; also one for the exclusion of Roman Catholics from that House.—By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, from Edinburgh, for the better Observance of the Sabbath.

POLICE MAGISTRATES.
Mr. Hawesbegged to be informed, whether the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had had his attention drawn to the two cases which appeared in The Morning Chronicle on the l6th of the present month, in one of which it was represented that a police magistrate, by some of the papers said to have been in a state of intoxication, had given a gentleman in custody who was subsequently discharged. Being engaged on a Committee appointed to inquire what alterations were necessary to be made in police-offices, he was most anxious on this point. The

1621
other case which appeared in the same paper was, where the chief magistrate of Bow-street had suspended the execution of a warrant in the case of felony, the consequence of which was, that the individual had not been taken into custody, the magistrate himself becoming personally responsible for his appearance. The hon. Member wished to know, whether the noble Lord's attention had been called to these cases, and whether he had thought proper to institute proceedings to protect the public.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that with respect to the first case he had made inquiries upon the subject, but finding that it was probable that an action would be brought, he thought it would be unfair to give any answer to the hon. Member until the case had been investigated in a court of law. With respect to the other case, of defacing a statute, upon inquiry he had found that Sir F. Roe, having no doubt, from the circumstances of the party who had been accused of the transaction, that he would appear and answer the charge, had adopted the course he had pursued in the present instance. He was asked to back the warrant of the local authorities, which he had done, but had not required bail when the party was taken. He believed, that such a course was not uncommon when it was certain that the party would appear.

CHURCH LEASES.
Mr. Goulburnwished to have some reason given by the noble Lord, why he persevered in the nomination of the Church-leases Committee when he had postponed the other public business. Such a course was at variance with the arrangements the noble Lord had made.
Lord John Russellsaid, all he had done was to have the order of the day read for the appointment of the Committee; and all he had to state was, that the House had ordered a Committee to be appointed. This resolution was carried in a very full House by a majority of eighty-three, and he would have proceeded immediately on the next day to have named the Committee if he had not been desirous to have some time, in order to consult hon. Gentlemen whether they would consent to become Members of the Committee. He did try several, among whom were the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, the hon. and learned Member for Exeter, and the hon.
1622
Member for Oxford University, all of whom had declined to have their names attached to that Committee. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge seemed, from what he had just stated, to wish to know why, as the general business of the House was to be postponed, it was advisable they should proceed with the appointment of the Church leases Committee. His answer to that inquiry was, that he thought it would tend, on the whole, to save time with respect to any measure they might hereafter adopt. He could not anticipate, after the vote of so large a majority of that House, and the attention which had been directed to this subject by the public, that some measure would not be ultimately adopted. It did appear to him necessary there should be a Committee appointed at once, so that they might have a course of examination on the subject rather than delay it till the commencement of the new Parliament, because they might then have to wait two or three months for returns, which, if the Committee were appointed, could be ordered at once, and therefore would be ready next Session. He did not wish to have the Committee appointed for the purpose of entering into controverted points, but for that of getting information, and in proposing the Committee, he begged leave to move that Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer be a Member of it.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the surprise with which he had first learned the noble Lord's intention of moving the nomination of this Committee had not been lessened by the observations which the noble Lord had just made. The noble Lord said, he pursued this course, not with a view of adopting any proceedings in this, but in the next Parliament. Now, in the first place, hon. Members who were nominated on this Committee, might not be Members of that House in the next Session of Parliament; and secondly, any decision that this Committee might come to could be overturned by the Committee of next Session, should the House consent then to its revival. Moreover, any orders that the present Committee might issue would be powerless as soon as the present Parliament terminated, and the parties on whom such orders might be served would not be liable to the least censure if they forbore giving the requisite information. Therefore, so far as regarded the acquiring of information for a Committee that might sit hereafter, the proceeding of the noble

1623
Lord would prove altogether abortive. He could not suppose it to be the object of the noble Lord to bring before the Committee specific evidence which might be already prepared, with a view of letting it go forth to the country; because, if he understood the object of the Committee, it was, that there should be a fair inquiry into facts essential to be known in order to form a proper judgment upon the scheme proposed by Government. But if this Committee were to be now appointed for the purpose of receiving evidence already prepared, of giving ex parte statements to the public with the view of making an impression during the interval that would take place between the present and the new Parliament—if, he said, that were the principle on which it was proposed that the Committee should now meet, he was certain it was one—whatever might be the opinion of the House as to the appointment of that Committee—which no fair or candid man was prepared to sanction. It would be only laying before the public a one-sided view of the question, which he was sure was not intended should be done by the majority of those who voted for the Committee. He must, therefore, solemnly protest against a course which was quite unnecessary for the purposes of any future inquiry, and which could have but one object, that of producing a partial investigation in order to create an impression which ought not to be created upon any subject, and least of all upon one which affected so large a mass of private property as this. He had no objection to the names, but he could not forbear entering his protest against a proceeding of so partial a nature, and so contrary to the principle laid down on a recent occasion by the noble Lord.
The Committee was nominated.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
The House in a Committee of Supply, on the Miscellaneous Estimates.
Mr. Goulburntook the opportunity of calling attention to the fact of all the large trees at the Bayswater side of Kensington-gardens having been cut down. These gardens were a place of recreation to the inhabitants of London, and although the young trees which had been substituted might appear very pleasing in the eyes of a planter, they did not at all so in those of the public. He had been told they were old—old they were, no doubt, but they were not decayed. Unless some restraint were put upon those who had the
1624
management of these gardens all the large and majestic trees which remained might be cut down for the same reason, namely, that they were old.
Mr. Methuensaid, that before these trees had been cut down last year, out of about 100, there was not, he believed, one which, if not absolutely dead, was not in a dying state. Some of them, too, had been blown down by the wind.
Mr. Hobhouseobserved, that when he was at the head of the Woods and Forests, he was assured by the gentleman who had the charge of these gardens, that it was essentially necessary that the greater part of these trees should be removed.
Several votes were agreed to.
On the question that a grant of 100,389 l. to defray the charge of the salaries of her Majesty's consuls-general, consuls, and vice-consuls, and of the superintendents of trade at Canton; also of the contingent expenses connected with their public duties, be made to her Majesty.
Mr. Humeobjected to that part of the grant apportioned to defray a moiety of the expenses for chaplains and chapels for British subjects abroad.
Sir R. H. Inglisheld, that it was the duty of the Queen to provide for the means of religious instruction for all her subjects, into whatever part of her dominions they were sent on the public service.
Lord Sandonwished to call the attention of her Majesty's Ministers to the manner in which the consuls abroad attended to their duties. He wished also that they would take means to put the navigation and commerce of the country on a better footing than it now stood with regard to Spain, where such high duties were levied, that they amounted almost to a prohibition of our trade with that country.
Mr. Poulett Thomson, in reference to the first topic, replied, that the matter was under consideration. With regard to the second question, there had long existed just grounds of complaint, and he had hoped that our navigation and commerce would have been relieved from the difficulties referred to by the noble Lord long before this. It was in that hope that the Government of this country had hitherto refrained from having recourse to any retaliatory measures. He could only say now, what had been stated before by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Foreign Department, that negotiations were going on, which, he believed, would lead to a satisfactory result.
Mr. G. F. Youngcomplained, that this question, which was one of vital importance to British trade, had remained unsettled so long. Three or four years had elapsed since he brought it under the attention of the House, and things remained in the same state still. It was then said, that the political state of the country was so distracted, that nothing could be done. Her Majesty's Ministers might go on in that way till doomsday. He thought it would be better for them to name some definite period, say two or three months, and if, at the end of that time, their negotiations had not the desired effect, then let them have recourse to measures of retaliation. Such a declaration would materially quicken the disposition of the Spanish Government to fulfil the hopes entertained by the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade. The high discriminating duties imposed by the Spanish Government had almost destroyed the British trade to that country.
Vote agreed to.
A grant of 9,953 l. for the charges of the salaries, &c., of the inspectors and superintendents of factories, appointed under the Act of 3d and 4th William 4th.
A grant of 5,800 l. to defray the salaries and expenses of the inspectors of prisons, appointed under the Act of 5th and 6th William 4th, cap. 38.
Some conversation arose on the report of the inspectors.
Mr. Hawessaid, the alterations which had been made in Newgate were not considered by the inspectors to be improvements.
Lord John Russellsaid, the most gratifying part of the report was that which stated that an alteration was proposed to be made, so that all untried prisoners could be kept in separate cells. He feared, however, that it could not be carried into effect, unless the present building were pulled down, and a new one erected.
Mr. Alderman Wooddefended the conduct of the city authorities. He thought they had done every thing that could be done; and he expressed his surprise that the hon. Member for Lambeth, who was himself a citizen and the son of a citizen, should be continually attacking the government of Newgate, while he never ventured to say anything of Horsemonger-lane gaol, with which he was more immediately connected. He recommended his hon. Friend to turn his attention to that quarter.
The following votes were then agreed to:—
A grant of 51,840 l. to defray the expenditure for the several branches of the Mint.
A grant of 79,334 l. for allowances or compensations to persons formerly employed in the public offices or departments, or in the public provisions of the Acts.
The following votes were agreed to without observation:—
10,000 l. for relief to Toulonese and Corsican emigrants, Dutch naval officers, St. Domingo sufferers, American loyalists, and others, who have hitherto received allowances for services performed or losses sustained in the British service.
1,850 l. to defray the expense of the national vaccine establishment.
3,000 l. in aid of the Refuge for the Destitute.
3,073 l. for confining and maintaining criminal lunatics in the buildings attached to Bethlehem hospital, for the year 1837.
On 4,600 l. being proposed to pay the usual allowance to the Protestant Dissenting ministers in England, poor French refugee clergy, &c.,
Mr. Bainesobjected to that part of the grant which applied to the Dissenting clergy, upon the ground that it was not acceptable to the persons who received it. Many of the petitions sent up to that House praying for the abolition of Church-rates, had prayed at the same time that this grant might be discontinued, though the parties petitioning were Protestant Dissenters themselves. The Dissenters objected to the vote, upon the ground that if they deemed it unreasonable, that they should be called upon to pay Church-rates, because those Church-rates were applied to the support of an establishment of which they did not altogether approve, it was not very consistent that they themselves should be receiving the benefit of a grant which came in a great degree from the members of the Church. Upon that ground, he believed, it would be more acceptable to the Protestant Dissenters generally, if the grant were wholly discontinued. It was true, that Dr. Pye Smith, an eminent Dissenting divine, approved of the grant, and desired to see it continued; but he did so, because it came originally out of the privy purse of George 1st. Now it came out of the Consolidated Fund. Therefore, if the grant were put to the vote, he should oppose it, not from any distrust of the persons in whose hands it was placed, and by whom it had always been admirably

1627
administered, but because it was not consistent with the principles generally maintained by those in whose behalf it was continued.
Sir Robert Ingliscontended, that there was no connexion whatever between the question of Church-rates and the vote now under consideration. The hon. Member for Leeds wanted a little gentle violence to be applied by some hon. Member on that side of the House proposing to negative this vote; but they understood his tactics too well to be likely to assist him in that manner. He did not think there was any reluctance in the Protestant Dissenting ministers, or in the body generally receiving this grant, and he, for one, was in favour of its continuance.
Mr. Bainesassured the hon. Baronet that he was mistaken; the ministers of the three denominations did not approve of it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerbelieved, that the Dissenters were very much divided in opinion upon the subject. He certainly did not see why it should be discontinued as long as it was found to afford a substantial and welcome relief to many aged and respectable men. If there were any conscientious objection to the grant, the remedy lay with the Dissenters themselves, since it was not compulsory upon any man to receive a fraction of the bounty, unless he were fully disposed to do so.
Mr. Hindleythought that the vote rested upon a wrong principle, and ought, therefore, to be discontinued. If the Dissenting clergy needed relief, the Dissenting body were rich enough to support them.
Sir Edward Knatchbullsupported the vote. He did not think that the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) was authorised in stating that the grant was objected to by the majority of the Dissenting body. In the part of the country with which he was connected, he knew that it was gratefully received by many most excellent and respectable men.
Mr. Samuel O'Brienonly wished that the feeling which prompted this vote were extended to Ireland, and that something of the same kind might be done for the poor clergy of the Roman Catholic church in that country.
Vote agreed to.
On a vote of 8,928 l. for the Roman Catholic College being proposed,
Colonel Percevalprotested against such a perversion of the public funds, and de-
1628
nounced the grant as a premium upon sedition and agitation.
Sir Robert Batesonprotested against the grant, and attributed the disorders of Ireland for the most part to the fatal system of education which prevailed in Maynooth. Constituted as that college was at present, such a grant would be worse than a waste of the public money.
Mr. S. O'Brienconsidered that the principal objection to the grant was, that it was so small. It was disgraceful that so miserable a pittance should be doled out to the Catholic priesthood, and he thought that the Catholics, as free subjects of this empire, had an equal right with their Protestant brethren to the support and protection of the state for their clergy.
Viscount Sandonconcurred with the last speaker in thinking some general provision for the Roman Catholic clergy advisable, but the question at present was this particular grant. It was admitted on all hands that the system pursued at Maynooth was extremely bad. However, though he objected to the system, he did not think that under present circumstances we ought to abandon the grant, and he should therefore, not oppose the Motion. He could not, however, but feel astonished at seeing no opposition to this vote upon the other side of the House. He should have expected to see whole benches of hon. Members starting up and declaring that they could not think of wounding Protestant consciences, by subjecting them to a payment for Catholic priests, inasmuch as they loudly protested, on the part of the Catholics, against being burthened with any payments for the support of a Protestant clergy. He repeated, that he was surprised at the torpor which seemed to have overpowered hon. Members opposite upon this occasion. If their senses had not been steeped in forgetfulness, he felt confident that they would have rushed forward to protest with one voice against such an invasion of the rights of conscience.
Mr. Humeexpressed his wish that the vote should be withdrawn, as it had met with so much opposition from the members of the Church of Scotland.
Dr. Bowringexpressed his opinion that the House should not contaminate itself with any grants for religious purposes.
Lord Clementssaid, that if claims were founded on antiquity, those of the Roman Catholics would be the most valid. He did not mean to say that the Roman Catholics of Ireland would refuse the as-

1629
sistance which the House was about to offer them; but he would say, that it was indeed a pity that a sum so trivial should appear for such a purpose on the estimates of the House—a sum which, in his opinion, amounted to no more than a mock liberality.
Sir George Sinclairremarked, that it was in consequence of the enormities which had been perpetrated in Scotland by the adherents of the Popish faith that that country had been induced to consider the prevalence of that creed its curse and bane; and he hoped that the voice of the country would always be raised against such a system of religious belief.
Mr. Callaghanstated, that the clergy of the Church of Ireland were as sincere in their love of their country as any hon. Gentlemen opposite. Let hon. Gentlemen bring forward the subject on a broad basis, and then they would see if the exclusive system was or was not supported in Ireland.
Mr. Borthwickobserved, that he knew nothing of the opinions entertained by the clergy of Ireland but through the newspapers. He would, however, affirm, that the conduct of the clergy of England in political matters was quite irreproachable.
Mr. Plumptredeclared, that he could not reconcile himself to the voting away of public money, for the support of religion the principles of which he believed to be erroneous; he should therefore divide on the Question.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 12: Majority 40.

List of the AYES.

Baines, E.

Jackson, Serg.

Bernal, R.

Lambton, H.

Bowes, W.

Lemon, Sir C.

Bowring, Dr.

Macleod, R.

Brabazon, Sir. W.

Morpeth, Visct.

Brotherton, J.

Murray, J. A.

Callaghan, D.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Chalmers, P.

O'Brien, W. S.

Chichester, J. P.

Ord, W.

Clements, Visc.

Parker, J.

Colborne, N. W.

Pechell, Capt.

Dennistoun, J.

Pinney, W.

Ebrington, Visct.

Ponsonby, J.

Elphinstone, H.

Potter, R.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Power, J.

Gordon, R.

Rice, T. S.

Grey, Sir G.

Russell, Lord J.

Harland, W. C.

Seymour, Lord

Hawes, B.

Smith, R. V.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Stanley, E. J.

Howick, Visct.

Stuart, R.

Hume, J.

Thomson, C. P.

1630

Thompson, Col.

Wood, Ald.

Thornley, T.

Young, G. F.

Tooke, W.

Willbraham, G.

TELLERS.

Williams, W.

Baring, F. T.

Williams, W. A.

Woulfe, Serg.

List of the NOES.

Bateson, Sir R.

Perceval, Col.

Bell, M.

Rushbrooke, R.

Egerton, Sir P.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Gladstone, W.

Tyrrell, Sir J.

Hamilton, G.

Hinde, J.

TELLERS.

Inglis, Sir R.

Plumptre, J.

Mackenzie, T.

Borthwick, P.

The other items were agreed to. House resumed,
Report to be received.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—The Shire Halls; Pillory Punishment Abolition.—Read a second time:— Mistakes Act.—Read a first time:—Foreign Officers.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of BURLINGTON, from Yorkshire, for the abolition of Church-rates, and for the better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Earl of HADDINGTON, from Glasgow, against railway travelling on the Sabbath in Scotland.

ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
The Duke of Argyll, Lord High Steward, read the answer of her Majesty to their Lordships Address of Thursday last, as follows:—
"VICTORIA, R.—I have received, with lively satisfaction, your dutiful and affectionate Address.
"The sorrow which you express at the death of the late King, and the testimony which you bear to his virtues, entirely accord with my own feelings.
"I return you my thanks for the expression of your loyal attachment to my person; and I fervently join in your prayer to Almighty God, that he may strengthen and direct my councils."

EDUCATION AND CHARITIES BILL.
Lord Lyndhurstwas desirous to put a question to his noble and learned Friend opposite with reference to the Bill introduced by him on the subject of Education and Charities. His noble and learned Friend must, he thought, perceive that it was utterly impossible that such a measure could receive due consideration in the other House of Parliament, looking to the late period of the Session, and the business which was still to be got through there. He, therefore, wished to know whether it was the intention of his noble and learned

1619
Friend to persevere in bringing forward his Bill or not?
Lord Broughamwas not insensible to the justice of the observation made by his noble and learned Friend. He believed, that in the present state of the Session, and seeing that, in consequence of the situation in which they were placed, many matters of much importance had been postponed till next Session, and others connected with the public service were to be hastened forward as speedily as possible, any Bill which was likely to create such opposition as would detain it long in their Lordships' House would have very little chance of being sent down to the other House in time to be passed. Therefore, if he thought that his Bill would create so much discussion as would render it too late to be passed in the other House, he should be willing to abandon it. But this Bill consisted of two parts, one of which he conceived was not likely to give rise to much discussion. He ought, perhaps, to state distinctly to their Lordships that the Bill consisted of two branches—first, the creation of a new department in the State, a department which, he believed, it was admitted on all hands was greatly wanted. He meant a department of Public Instruction, as it was denominated in France, and which in Ireland was called a Board of Education. That department it was proposed to invest with such powers as would enable it to extend education throughout the country, to plant schools, to bestow properly those funds which might from time to time be afforded by Parliament in aid of this most important object, and to superintend the distribution of such other funds as might be raised by local taxation for this purpose. There was also a second branch to this measure, which he believed would give rise to more discussion than he would fain hope the first part was likely to create. That branch related to the jurisdiction which was to be confided to the same board over the charity funds already in existence. Though little opposition might be offered to the first and fundamental part of this measure, he was much afraid that such would not be the case with respect to the second portion of it, to which he admitted, great consideration ought to be given. Now, if he could flatter himself that the first part of the Bill would receive the concurrence of their Lordships in good time, he would
1620
postpone the rest of the measure till next Session. It would gratify him if their Lordships consented to pass one of the most important measures—as was admitted by all parties—that was ever introduced to Parliament. They had stopped one very important measure which had come up to them from the other House of Parliament; and they would, in some degree, redeem their character, if they passed at least one important measure, although they had not been enabled to do more.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that the portion of the Bill which the noble Lord wished to proceed with would require, in his opinion, a great deal of discussion. To several clauses he felt serious objections; at the same time he did not mean to oppose the measure altogether.
Second Reading postponed.