Sitting of 28 June 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Metropolis Police Officers.—Read a second time:—Copyright; Court of Exchequer Scotland.—Read a first time;—Church Building Acts in continuation; Masters and Workmen Arbitration; Church appointments suspension.

BONDED CORN.
Mr. Robinson moved that the Bonded Corn Manufacture Bill be committed.
The Marquess of Chandos moved as an

1677
amendment that the Bill be committed that day three months.
Sir E. Knatchbullfelt bound to give his most decided opposition to this Bill, especially at this period of the Session. It had been understood that no measure calculated to lead to a diversity of opinion would be proceeded with in the present Session, and he was surprised that a measure which he could not but regard as a step towards the repeal of the Corn laws should be thus persisted in.
Sir J. Wrottesleythought the House would do well to go into Committee. It was a measure upon which he was sure his agricultural friends had been much deceived; all frauds might be prevented, and a great boon conferred on the industrious classes and the shipping interests.
Mr. Benettwas surprised the Government had thought fit to carry on this measure at the present moment, when they had stopped several other most important Bills. He thought it would have been advisable to have stopped this, for it was a question of very serious importance to the agricultural interests and one which made a deep impression on the minds of farmers, which hon. Gentlemen would very soon find out to be the case when they went down to their constituents. He had no attachment for the Corn laws, but considered they were necessary, in consequence of the situation in which the country had been placed by the existence of a national debt. He opposed the Bill, not because he was an enemy to free trade, but because he thought other things would have to be done before a system of free trade could be approached in the manner proposed by this Bill.
Mr. Robinsonregretted the opposition that was given to this Bill. The noble Marquess had called it a Bill to facilitate the smuggling of foreign corn, but that was not the fact. His only object was to allow foreign corn to be ground under certain circumstances, and he thought it would be just as reasonable to impose restrictions on any other branch of trade as to continue the prohibition which was intended to be got rid of by this Bill. This was the only measure for the benefit of free trade which had been brought in during the present Session, and he must complain of the unfairness of the attempt now made on the part of Gentlemen connected with agriculture to strangle it under the unfounded pretence that it would lead to smuggling. He never had been an
1678
opponent of the Corn Taws but certainly such conduct as this was calculated to promote the repeal of them.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonfelt called on to say a few words on the subject before the House, in consequence of what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Member for Kent. This was not a Government measure, and ought not to be regarded in any such light. It was a Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Worcester, over which the Government had no more control than any Member of that House. He had expressed his intention to support it, and the hon. Gentleman opposite had taken advantage of that circumstance. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Kent said, that they were bound to oppose the measure because the effect of it would be to get rid of the Corn laws by a side wind. Now, he would be no party to any measure having such an object in view. His opinion on the subject was well known. He would never consent to do away with the Corn-laws except by a direct vote, and therefore it was most unlikely that he would support any measure which would by indirect means accomplish such an object. It was on this principle that he had opposed the Bill on the same subject formerly introduced by the hon. Member for Worcester. He thought that measure would affect the interest of the corn growers of the country, and therefore he declined to give it his support. He, however, approved of the principle of the present Bill, and should support the motion for going into Committee on it, but with a view to propose certain alterations in its provisions for giving all the security which might be deemed necessary.
The House divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 82: Majority 25.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Crawley, S.

Ainsworth, P.

Dennistoun, J.

Bannerman, Alex.

Divett, E.

Baring, F. T.

Dobbin, L.

Barnard, E. G.

Donkin, Sir R.

Bernal, R.

Dundas, J. C.

Bewes, T.

Ellice, right hon. E.

Blake, M. J.

Ellice, E.

Blunt, Sir C.

Elphinstone, H.

Brady, D. C.

Fenton, J.

Bridgman, H.

Fergus, J.

Brotherton J.

Ferguson, R.

Byng, G. S.

Gaskell, D.

Chapman, L.

Grey, Sir G.

Codrington, Admiral

Harvey, D. W.

Collier, John

Howard, Philip H.

Crawford, W. S.

Hume, J.

1679

Hutt, William

Stanley, E. J.

Lushington, Dr.

Stuart, R.

Maclean, Dr.

Strickland, Sir G.

Murray, J. A.

Strutt, E.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Thomson, C. P.

O'Connell, D.

Wakley, T.

O'Connell, J.

Wallace, R.

O'Connell, M. J.

Ward, H. G.

Parker, J.

Williams, W.

Parnell, Sir H.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Pinney, William

TELLERS.

Schofield, J.

Robinson, G.

Seale, Colonel

Young, G. F.

List of the NOES.

Alford, Viscount

Hodges, T. L.

Alsager, Capt.

Hogg, J. W.

Alston, Rowland

Jones, T.

Angerstein, John

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Bagot, hon. W.

Knight, H. G.

Baillie, H. D.

Lennard, T. B.

Barclay, C.

Lennox, Lord G.

Bell, M.

Lennox, Lord A.

Benett, J.

Lowther, J. H.

Blackburn, I.

Lygon, Gen.

Branston, T. W.

Mackenzie, T.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Burrell, Sir C.

Morgan, C. M.

Burton, H.

Palmer, R.

Chaplin, Col.

Palmer, G.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Perceval, Cul.

Colborne, N. W. R.

Pigot, R.

Compton, H. C.

Pollen, Sir J. W.

Corry, right hon. H.

Poulter, J. S.

Crewe, Sir G.

Powell, Col.

Curteis, H. B.

Power, J.

Darlington, Earl of

Pusey, P.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Richards, R.

Dugdale, W. S.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Eastnor, Viscount

Sanderson, R.

Eaton, R. J.

Sanford, E. A.

Elley, Sir J.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Elwes, J. P.

Shirley, E. J.

Estcourt, T.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Estcourt, T.

Smith, A.

Ferguson, G.

Smyth, Sir H.

Follet, Sir W.

Stanley, Lord

Fox, C.

Townley, R. G.

Gaskell, James Milnes

Trevor, G. R.

Gore, O.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Goring, H. D.

Verner, Col.

Graham, Sir J.

Wilbraham, B.

Greisley, Sir R.

Winnington, H. J.

Halse, J.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Harcourt, G. S.

TELLERS.

Henniker, Lord

Chandos, Marquess

Hinde, J. H.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

FINAL REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS.
Mr. Elphinstone moved the second reading of the Final Registration of Electors Bill.
Mr. Williams Wynnopposed the motion. He thought it was unjust to send up such ill-considered measures to the other House at this period of Parliament.
Sir E. Knatchbullthought the Bill ought not to be proceeded with in the present state of the Session. He would agree to the second reading with a view of going into Committee to render the Bill perfect, in order to present it to the next Parliament, but not to pass it this Session.
The House divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 6: Majority 43.

List of the AYES.

Baines, E.

Macleod, R.

Bannerman,

Musgrave, Sir R.

Barnard, E. G.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Bernal, R.

Parker, J.

Bewes, T.

Pechell, Captain

Blake, M. J.

Potter, R.

Brotherton, J.

Poulter, J. S.

Callaghan, D.

Seale, Colonel

Cavendish, C.

Seymour, Lord

Codrington, Admiral

Stanley, E. J.

Collier, J.

Steuart, R.

Crawford, W. S.

Strickland, Sir G.

Curteis, H. B.

Thomson, C. P.

Dennistoun, J.

Thornley, T.

Dillywn, L. W.

Tooke, W.

Ebrington, Viscount

Villiers, C. P.

Ellice, E.

Wakley, T.

Fenton, J.

Whalley, Sir S.

Gordon, R.

Williams, W.

Grey, Sir G.

Winnington, H. J.

Hindley, C.

Woulfe, Serg.

Hodges, T. L.

Young, G. F.

Hume, J.

Jervis, J.

TELLERS.

Lennox, Lord G.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lennox, Lord A.

Elphinstone, H.

List of the NOES.

Dugdale, W. S.

Wynn, C. W.

Forster, C. S.

Gaskell, James Milnes

TELLERS.

Hinde, J. H.

Sandon, Viscount

Richards, R.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Dublin Police. Petitions presented. By the Duke of BUCCLEUGH, from Edinburgh, for the Recovery of Small Debts Scotland Bill.

HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
The Duke of Argyllbrought down and read the answer of the Queen, to their Lordships address as follows:—
"VICTORIA R.
I receive with great satisfaction your loyal and dutiful Address. It is gratifying to me to learn that the House of Lords will apply itself without delay to forward such measures as will not admit of postponement without injury to the public interest, and to make such provision for the public service as may be requisite for the welfare of the United Kingdom."

MARRIAGE AND REGISTRATION ACTS.
The Lord Chancellor moved the third reading of the Marriages and Registration Act Amendment Bill.
The Bishop of Herefordwas understood to say, that the clergy of the Church of England intended to continue marrying by publication of bans, as heretofore. He thought there was some ambiguity in the 18th Clause of the original Bill, and added that there was no necessity for interfering with the Dissenters, but he would contend that the Church of England ought not either to be interfered with. He was not then prepared to suggest a remedy, but he

1675
objected to further restraints upon the members of the Church.
The Earl of Shrewsburyexpressed a hope that the House would consent to retain the 33d Clause, which had been struck out in conformity with the motion of a right hon. Prelate yesterday, during his (Lord Shrewsbury's) absence. In the Act of last year the words "separate buildings" had been introduced, the effect of which had been entirely to exclude the Roman Catholics from its operation, inasmuch as there were very few chapels belonging to that persuasion which did not form a part of some school, college, or mansion. The clause which he desired to retain would remedy this defect, and he should therefore move its re-introduction.
The Earl of Malmesburysuggested, that as points of objection were raised up, which had not been urged before, it would be better to adjourn the debate till to-morrow, in order to give time for the consideration of those objections. It would be hard that the Roman Catholics should be excluded from the benefits of the Act, which was intended for the relief of all who dissented from the Established Church.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the delay suggested by the noble Earl might have the effect of defeating the Bill altogether, for it was necessary that the Bill should become a law on the 1st of July.
Lord Ellenboroughhad no objection whatever to the Roman Catholics partaking of that relief which the Bill intended for them, as well as for other parties dissenting from the Established Church, for he was sure that they would make no improper use of the houses which might adjoin their places of worship. His only difficulty was, that the amendment suggested by the noble Earl would make a distinction between Catholics and other Dissenters, which, he believed, had not hitherto been made by Parliament.
The Earl of Malmesburysaid, that the difficulties in which the House was placed with respect to this Bill arose from the very late period at which it had been sent up to their Lordships from the other House, from which it was received only on the 19th of the present month. Their Lorships had not had time for its due consideration, and they were now told that if they did delay to consider some important parts of the Bill, they would endanger its not passing within the time fixed for its becoming a law.
The Bishop of Herefordsaid, that his
1676
objection to the discussion of the suggested amendment at present was, the absence of the most rev. Prelate who had objected to the clause, and who would no doubt have attended if he had thought that any further discussion on the measure was expected. With respect to the proposed amendment, he could assure the noble Earl that he had not the smallest possible objection to it; on the contrary, he would cordially support any clause which would enable Roman Catholics to marry in their own chapels according to their own religious rites, for their Lordships had a general assurance in the great strictness of the Roman Catholics in the observance of their religious rites, that no improper use whatever would be made of any building adjoining to their places of worship. It appeared to him, however, that the suggested amendment would make a general rule for Dissenting as well as Roman Catholic places of worship, and to such general rule he could not consent.
The Earl of Fingallthought, that the difficulty might be got over by the insertion of the words "or buildings appointed to Catholic worship." Unless some such words were introduced, the Catholics would be deprived of the benefits which the Bill intended to give them, for their Lordships were well aware that the Chapels of the Roman Catholic nobility and gentry and many public places of Catholic worship were attached to private residences or other buildings.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that the present Bill afforded another illustration of the manner in which Bills were sent up from the other House. This Bill had been brought into the other House on the 21st of April, and was sent up to their Lordships on the 19th of June. The other House had had two months for its consideration, and yet their Lordships were expected to get it through in six or seven days.
Debate adjourned.