Sitting of 21 March 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Wills; Bankrupts Estates; Bankruptcy and Sheriff's Courts (Scotland).

WESTERN RAILWAY.—PADDINGTON ESTATE.
Sir T. Fremantlepresented a petition against the Great Western Railway Bill. Nothing could be more dangerous than where two railways crossed each other, as fatal consequences might ensue from two trains, proceeding with great rapidity, coming in contact. It was against this that the petition particularly prayed.
Mr. Hallbegged to ask the hon. Member opposite, whether the sums of 23,000 l. and 7,000 l., which were to be paid to the Bishop of London, were intended as compensation for the land to be occupied by the railway, and which he understood to be public property?
Mr. Tookewas in a situation to state, that the bishop was only a joint occupier in the land, and had only a one-third interest. He could assure the House, that the bishop had not received one shilling as fine or compensation—all the benefit he had derived was in common with the others, and merely as an increased rent.
Mr. Thomas Duncombecould not consider, that he was discharging his duty if he did not call the attention of the House to a circumstance which had taken place in the Committee on this Bill. In the observations he was about to make he begged the House distinctly to understand, that he had no connexion, either directly or indirectly, with the Company. On the contrary, he thought, that the extension of the line of this railway would be productive of great public good, and he hoped it would be attended with a proportionate advantage to the Company. The facts of what occurred before the Committee were, that four miles being proposed to be added to the Great Western Railway, coining up to Paddington, it would have to go through the Paddington estate belonging to the see of

679
London. To complete these four miles of railway several little cottages, besides those which had already been pulled down, would have to be removed, and on those cottages which held leases under the Bishop of London coming before the Committee for compensation, Mr. Harrison, on behalf of the Bishop, resisted their claim. He thought the petitioners ought to be heard. A discussion took place in the Committee upon the subject, and it was ultimately decided, that the petitioners should be heard, and that Mr. Austin should defend their claims to compensation. Upon this the promoters of the Bill and the Bishop of London instantly turned round, and said there was no necessity for the case of the petitioners being advocated, as the Bishop of London had a sufficient sum of money to give them adequate compensation. Upon this Mr. Austin withdrew his opposition. The engineer was then called, and asked what amount it would require to complete the line of four miles? He answered, about 250,000 l., and that 175,000 l. of that would have to be appropriated for the purchase of land. He was then asked, what proportion of that amount the Bishop of London would receive in order to enable him to give adequate compensation to the cottagers? The learned counsel for the Bishop of London refused to answer that question, declaring that it was one that ought not to be put, for the agreement related to private property. Now, the question was, whether Church property was to be considered private or public property. Before the Committee he maintained, that the land in question was public property, and that therefore it did not come within the rule which had been stated by the counsel. An hon. Gentleman then jumped up and said, "I dispute your premises. Church property is not public property, and therefore you have no right to put the question to the Bishop." He then divided the Committee; they were six to two against him, and the question was not put. He now, therefore, contended, that the investigation before the Committee was crippled in a manner it ought not to have been. There was a sum of money to be paid to the Bishop for the land, to the great prejudice of the public; and he thought the conduct that had been pursued on the part of a great public functionary like the Bishop of London would have a very bad appearance with the
680
House and the public. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that the Bill be re-committed, with an instruction to the Committee to inquire into the grounds on which the Bishop of London had agreed to dispose of the land to the Great Western Railway.
Mr. Wasonseconded the motion.
Mr. Hawesimagined there never was such a reason given for opposing a private Bill as that which had been assigned by the hon. Member for Finsbury, and, to come to a decision on this question, the House would have to decide whether Church property was public property or not. The Bill was to be re-committed, in order that the hon. Member for Finsbury might put one single question. He (Mr. Hawes) begged to put in his disclaimer as to any interest, directly or indirectly, in this or any other railway, but he thought he should be able to show from the enacting clauses of the Bill itself that there was not the slightest foundation for opposing its further progress. It was provided that the 30,000 l. should be appropriated in sums of 23,000 l. and 7,000 l. to the Bishop and trustees, and it was made lawful for the Bishop and trustees to receive the same only for discharging the mortgages or other liabilities affecting the land. He was as decided an advocate for the cottagers as the hon. Member for Finsbury, but it was admitted on all hands that they had no legal claim to compensation, and therefore, he thought it better for them to raise up some equitable question, in order to procure for them some remuneration. The question of compensation, however, had nothing to do with the case; and he trusted the House would not stop the further progress of a measure which the hon. Gentleman who brought forward the motion for the re-commitment of the Bill, admitted to be of great public importance.
Mr. Harveysaid, that his attention had been called to this subject, and the question was, would this House interfere to protect poor people who had not the means of protecting themselves?—It appeared by the deed which referred to the property in question, that the Bishop of London demised certain lands to the parties alluded to for a period of seven years, and it further appeared that the lessors were to give three months' notice to the lessees should they at any time require the land for building purposes. Now, laying aside

681
the question whether Church property was public property, the question which the House had to consider was, is a railroad a house? The parties in question had consented to the three months' notice to leave their premises, if the land were required for building purposes. This was a voluntary contract, and they must be bound by it; but the land was now required for a railway, a circumstance which could not have been anticipated by any party, when the contract had been entered into. This being the case, the parties in question felt that they had a beneficial interest which ought to be protected, and that they ought not to be swept away without compensation. It was said that the sum of 7,000 l. had been deposited with the Bishop of London wherewith to pay all just demands; but the petitioners were simple men, who entertained the vulgar notion that the Church grasped its possessions with peculiar tenacity, and that it might be no easy thing to get it out of the hands of a Bishop into their own pockets. They had heard of the word tithe, and they dreaded its application to themselves. It was idle to argue against these homely notions, and they ought to be respected. Indeed it was due to the rev. Father, to ease him of the burthen and trouble of the distribution, for it must be most painful to have his mind diverted from higher concerns.
Sir Samuel Whalleysaid, the parties were some of his constituents, and he hoped their rights would be protected, and that the House would express some decided opinion upon the subject.
Mr. Peasesaid, he had heard nothing to induce him to vote for the re-commitment of this Bill. It was well known that the value of a railroad would be considerably lessened if it were to be crossed by several other lines.
Motion negatived.

BATTLES IN SPAIN.
Mr. Macleanrose to ask those questions relative to Spain of which he had given notice on the previous evening, but not seeing the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his place, who, he was afraid, was absent from indisposition, he would take the liberty of putting them to his hon. Friend, the Secretary to the Admiralty. He wished to know if there was any truth in the accounts which had recently
682
reached this country of a very sanguinary engagement having taken place on the northern coast of Spain, between the troops commanded by General Evans and those of Don Carlos. Those accounts proceeded to state that, after an engagement of considerable duration, General Evans, and the troops under his command, had retreated into the fortress of St. Sebastian, amidst considerable disorder, and with a considerable loss of life. The accounts went further, and stated—a point in which he, and in which he was sure, too, his hon. Friend felt deeply interested—that the retreat was covered by his Majesty's marines, and that Lord John Hay, and some captains of his Majesty's navy, had been present during the whole of the engagement. He (Mr. Maclean) was, therefore, anxious to know whether these accounts which had gained much credit both at home and abroad, were true or not. If true, he should like further to know if his Majesty's artillery and marine forces had suffered any, and what loss. If any accounts had reached his Majesty's Government, he hoped his hon. Friend would not object to state what they were.
Mr. C. Woodsaid, he was not aware the hon. Gentleman had given notice of these questions; however, he (Mr. Wood) could state that no accounts of any description had reached the Admiralty and he had no means whatever of judging whether the accounts alluded to by his hon. Friend were true or not.
Mr. Grove Pricebegged to know whether any body of British marines were employed in the field upon that occasion, whether they had fought under the British flag, and under the supreme command of General Evans?
Mr. Woodsaid, he had only the same answer to give to the hon. Member's question as he had already given, whatever might be the accounts of the newspapers.
Mr. Macleanobserved, that perhaps his hon. Friend might have supposed he had asked him if any account had been received from General Evans, and he would now ask whether any had been received by telegraph from Paris.
Mr. Woodsaid, he was not aware that either the Admiralty or the Government had any telegraphic communication with Paris. As far as he knew, the last infor-

683
mation which the Government had had was from a private-officer, who left Bayonne on the 8th.
Subject dropped.

MANUFACTURE OF FOREIGN CORN.
Mr. Robinsonrose to move the Resolution of which he had given notice—namely, "that the laws which prohibit the manufacture of foreign grain, flour, and meal, in bond, for exportation, are injurious to the interests of British commerce and navigation, and unjust in restraining the free employment of capital and labour in the United Kingdom, whilst they afford direct encouragement and undue advantage to the foreigner in a valuable branch of trade, not only with other states, but with our own colonies, and that it is expedient to alter and amend the same." He would ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of the Board of Trade, upon what grounds he could oppose this resolution, for he (Mr. Robinson) was prepared to show that the right hon. Gentleman, in opposing it, would be acting directly at variance with the opinions he had ever professed. He believed that the opposition of the Government to his resolution arose from the same pressure which had prevented them from acceding to any alteration in the present Corn-laws—the pressure of the agricultural interests; but he contended, that whilst the farmers and landed proprietors of the country would suffer nothing by the adoption of his resolution, the trade and commerce, and shipping interests, would derive most important advantages from it. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would oppose his motion upon distinct, tangible, and specific grounds, and not put him off as he had done last Session, by mere evasion. The right hon. Gentleman had asked him the other day why he did not bring in a Bill on the subject. Now, it was evident that he, a Member unconnected with either of the three parties, might as well abandon the subject altogether, as hope to pass a Bill through that House. By the law, as it at present stood, they might have warehouses full of bonded corn and flour, gradually deteriorating in condition, whilst there was an enormous demand for it in a manufactured state in the Brazils, the West Indies, British North America, and other of our colonies. By the present law, they were not to manufacture these articles in bond, and by that restriction it
684
might be supposed that they were obliged to buy from their agricultural friends. Not at all; they did not buy a single pound of flour from them. This, then, was the complaint, and if the Government did not remove it, he conceived they would be guilty of a great dereliction of duty. If a merchant here had occasion to send a cargo of flour to Brazil, the West Indies, or any of our western colonies, he would be obliged first to send a vessel 300 or 400 miles eastward to Hamburg, Copenhagen, or Dantzic, to have it manufactured by foreigners, and pay agents in one of those places for doing what he himself might do at home if the present law did not exist. He was thus not only compelled to go some hundreds of miles out of his way, but put to considerable expense. He had himself at this moment several vessels endeavouring to make their way against an easterly wind into the Baltic, and which, had they set sail for America, when they left London for that sea, might now perhaps be on their way back. Let the Government moreover look to the quantity of labour, of business, to coopers for instance, and others, which, by the policy of the present law, was thrown into the hands of foreigners. It was by no means a trifling matter in point of amount. Owing to the failure of the crops in America last year, the additional trade in flour and meal to this country, were it not for the existing law, would have amounted to at least 1,000,000 l., besides the increase it would have given to various other branches of business. The case was so gross and so clear, that he could not think it necessary further to argue it. The proposition he made was most reasonable, and was not in his judgment calculated to injure the agriculturists; if so, however, it was competent for the House to provide means for the protection of that class of the community. The hon. Member concluded by moving the resolution as stated at the commencement of his speech.
Mr. Humeseconded the resolution with great satisfaction, because he felt that the restrictions of the present laws were injurious to all classes of people. He could not conceive why the Government did not itself come forward with a measure of the character and principle embodied in the resolution of his hon. Friend, the Member for Worcester.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, that on con-

685
sideration, he was sure the House would feel that the resolution proposed by the hon. Member for Worcester could not be passed with any advantage, but, on the contrary, would be productive of disadvantage to the country. His hon. Friend, the Member for Worcester, had certainly misled the House on many points, though he was the party who had most right to complain, because he was ready to do all that his hon. Friend wished, but he could not get anybody to support his views. He was very glad, however, to find that his hon. Friend stood forward as the advocate of the doctrines of free trade, especially after the abuse which had been lavished upon him, and after the charge that he had truckled to the agricultural interests. With regard, however, to the resolution proposed, he must say, in the first place, that it would be perfectly useless for the object which the hon. Member himself had in view. The resolution stated "that the laws which prohibit the manufacture of foreign grain, flour, and meal in bond, are injurious to the interests of British commerce and navigation." Now, there were no laws which so operated, save and except the Corn-laws; and the object of the hon. Member would be answered, not by the repeal of old laws, but by the introduction of a new law. The proposition was calculated to go beyond the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view, and yet not to effect that object. It would have the effect of repealing the Corn-laws, yet that would not necessarily allow the exportation of all foreign grain. The motion was a mischievous one, and there were many persons favourable to the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view, yet who would not consent to a repeal of the Corn-laws. The hon. Gentleman, as an excuse for not bringing in a Bill upon the subject, said he, as an individual Member, could not hope to do so with success, and that no Bill could hope to pass through the House which was not promoted by Government. The hon. Gentleman was bound, however, to show how the point he had in view was to be reached. He was not bound to bring in a Bill for the purpose of giving effect to the hon. Member's resolution—an effect which was unattainable. Two plans had been proposed last year for the purpose of effecting the object of the resolution, but those plans depended upon equivalents and calculations of exchanges which it
686
would be utterly impossible to attempt to carry out without opening the door to serious frauds and inconveniences. When the subject was mooted last year, he proposed that a Bill founded on the principle of the Sugar-refining Duties Act, should be brought forward, and he pledged himself to give it—he would most willingly give it—his support. That proposition, however, had been refused, and yet the House had heard of the complaints made with respect to restrictions against the employment of capital after the means were rejected, by which alone capital could be employed in the manner proposed by the resolution. The proposition which he had made last Session was a fair one, and it was to be apprehended that those who were dissatisfied with that, wanted to obtain more than they would have it at first appear. If great results were to be expected from allowing foreign corn in bond to be ground for exportation, the way to get at them was, not to adopt the resolution of the hon. Gentleman, but to adopt a measure founded on the Bill to which he had before alluded. The House he was sure would not support a resolution which would not have the effect of producing the result intended, and yet might go far beyond, more especially when Government was ready to yield all which, with propriety, could be granted to effect the purpose.
Mr. Bingham Baringthought, that the agricultural ought to make every concession it could to the commercial interest of the country, provided it did not go to the extent of a repeal of the Corn-laws. In his opinion, however, the adoption of the principle which governed the Sugar Refining Act, would be more difficult in practice than the plan of averages and calculations to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite objected. The process in sugar refining was more nice, and therefore more open to fraud. Averages and calculations were not so difficult, as was found by a late trial in France, and to show that they would be generally alike, it was only necessary to state that the French average of seventy-eight per cent. for flour, and twenty-two per cent. for refuse, was about the same calculation which would be made in our corn market. The resolution before the House, if agreed to, would do no more than sanction the principle, and if the thing could be effected without fraud, there was no doubt that it would

687
considerably add to the trade of the country. A saving would be made to our colonial consumers at the same time that the commerce of the country would be increased. He hoped the opposition to this resolution was not for the purpose of increasing the hostility against the Corn-laws, and making them appear in a more odious light by holding them up as an obstacle to the commercial interests of the country.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that he thought all technical difficulties on this question would be surmounted by the amendment which he should now propose, and that amendment was, that "the House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, for the purpose of taking into consideration the laws relating to the importation of foreign grain, with a view to the manufacture of the same in bond for exportation."
Mr. G. F. Youngseconded the amendment with great pleasure, because he thought it a happy expedient for uniting the House in support of the principle advocated by the hon. Member for Worcester, to which he had not heard any valid objection started by the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Robinsondid not wish the discussion to proceed upon his motion, being ready to take the sense of the House upon the amendment at once.
Mr. Claywas understood to say, that the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, had not denied the fact, that considerable disadvantages arose out of the practice of not allowing foreign corn to be ground when in bond. The right hon. Gentleman had gone further, and acknowledged that an alteration might take place with great advantage to the country, but he coupled that admission with a declaration that the parties most interested did not wish for the change.
Mr. P. Thomsonbegged to explain. What he had said was, that he had made a proposition to the parties, which they declared would be of no advantage to them.
Mr. Clayhad understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, that nobody had asked him to interfere for the purpose of granting permission to grind corn in bond; but in his (Mr. Clay's) opinion, that was not a sufficient reason for a Minister of the Crown determining not to act in a manner which would be beneficial to the general
688
trade of the country. He might have been accounted an enemy of his Majesty's Ministers for bringing forward his motion the other night for the modification of the Corn-laws. He was not their enemy, but if he had been their bitterest enemy, nothing would have given him greater delight than their opposition to his motion, because it evinced such a determination on their part not to permit the slightest encroachment upon even the margin of a great monopoly that had too long existed. That an alteration in the present system would be productive of immense advantage to the commerce of this country was evident from the fact that we sent out thousands of ships yearly across the Atlantic to bring back the produce of the new world, and those ships went out empty, when in fact they might as well be allowed to take out manufactured flour, and flour could be manufactured at so cheap a rate in this country, that we should then be able to compete with, and even undersell the Americans. He should support the amendment of the hon. Member for Bridport.
Viscount Sandonhad always voted for the maintenance of protection to the landed interests of this country, but he could not offer any opposition to the motion before the House. Even if there was a slight difference between the averages of flour and corn, he should be ashamed, as an agriculturist, to oppose a motion of this kind, seeing that it might be productive of great benefit to the general commerce of the country.
Mr. Mark Philipsthought the hon. Member for Bridport had now put the question into such a tangible shape that the House could not but embrace the opportunity it afforded for enabling them to come to some final arrangement of this important subject.
Sir Edward Codringtonmerely wished to remind the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, that last year he presented a petition to the House from a Mr. Surrey, who expressed himself ready to put all his mills under bond, if he could be allowed to grind his own corn into flour and to export the whole. So, then, there was one individual ready to meet the right hon. Gentleman on that ground.
Sir C. B. Verethought, the plan proposed by the hon. Member for Worcester might be beneficial if it were applied to corn now in bond, but not if it was in-

689
tended to be prospective, because it would become an inducement to make large importations of foreign corn. As to the feeling of the agriculturists in reference to the commercial interests of the country, he could say with regard to the county of Suffolk that no feeling in the least degree inimical to the prosperity of trade, manufacture, and commerce in general existed in that county.
Mr. Haweswas of opinion, that any measure on this subject ought to originate with the Board of Trade itself.
Mr. P. Thomsonsaid, whoever heard the observations he had addressed to the House before, must know that it was impossible for him to resist the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Bridport, because he had expressed himself not only favourable to the introduction of a measure for the purpose of allowing corn in bond to be ground and exported, but that it was his anxious desire to assist in the introduction of a measure having that object in view, provided it could be effected in a manner that would be safe to the public revenues, and at the same time occasion no danger to that protection which was afforded to the landed interest by the corn-laws. He had no objection to allow the House to go into Committee, for then every hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity of bringing forward his plan, and he himself would also be able to submit his views in a more regular and detailed form to their consideration. He had no plan, however, which he could bring forward, but that which he had already stated to the House.
Sir Edward Knatchbullcomplained of the unfair and difficult position in which the representatives of the agricultural interest were placed in reference to the present question. He very much doubted whether any precautions could be adopted that in practice would be found efficient to prevent fraud. If fraud were not prevented, the result would be highly prejudicial to the landed interests. He feared that one of the objects in going into committee upon the subject was to level another attack against the interests of the agriculturists. Feeling, however, that he was not then in a position to resist the motion, he would consent to go into committee, protesting, at the same time, against any attack being made against the interest to which he was attached, and which he did not think very fairly treated.
Mr. Robinson, in withdrawing his motion, suggested that the House should now go into committee pro formâ a future day might then be fixed for discussing the proposition. With reference to the observations which had been thrown out by hon. Members immediately connected with the agricultural interest, he pledged himself in committee to show that the measure could be carried into effect without the slightest injury either to the revenue or the landed interest. If not, he should at once abandon it.
Lord J. Russellwas willing to admit that the proposition made by the hon. Gentleman had met with very general support, but it was in a very thin House, while from the aspect which the question now assumed they were undoubtedly placed in a very awkward situation. It was admitted by the hon. Gentleman himself, who introduced the subject, and by the hon. Member for Bridport, whose amendment he had expressed his readiness to adopt, that they were not now prepared to submit any substantive proposition or to enter into the discussion in committee. The hon. Member proposed to go into committee to consider the laws regulating the importation of foreign corn with a view to allow the manufacture of the same in bond for exportation, having no proposition to submit to the committee. In his view of the matter, it would be much more wise, and certainly a much more regular and usual mode of proceeding, to postpone the committee until they were ready to make a definite proposition to that effect. Instead, therefore, of going at once into committee, and postponing the proposition, he should move that the debate be adjourned till that day three weeks.
The House divided on the question that the debate be adjourned:—Ayes 39; Noes 28: Majority 11.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Estcourt, Thos.

Alsager, Captain

Gordon, hon. W

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Harcourt, G. S.

Balfour, T.

Hinde, J. H.

Baring, Francis,

Hogg, J W

Brodie, William B.

Howard, P. H.

Campbell, Sir J.

Howick, Lord

Chandos, Marq. of

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Copeland, W. T.

Lawson, Andrew

Dalmeny, Lord

Lennard, Thomas B.

Dick, Q.

Lennox, Lord G.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Macleod, R.

Elley, Sir J.

Murray, J. A.

691

Palmer, George

Thomson, C. P.

Polhill, Frederick

Trevor, hon. G.

Richards, J.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Rickford, W.

Vivian, J. E.

Rolfe, Sir R.

Weyland, Major

Rushbrooke, Col.

TELLERS.

Russell, Lord J.

Pease, J.

Stanley, Edward

Troubridge, Sir T.

List of the NOES.

Barclay, David

Pattison, J.

Baring, T.

Pechell, Capt.

Blake, M. J.

Philips, Mark

Brotherton, J.

Read, Sir John Rae

Chalmers, P.

Ruthven, E.

Chapman, A.

Smith B.

Clay, W.

Tancred, H. W.

Codrington, Sir E.

Thompson, Colonel

Elphinstone, H.

Tulk, C. A.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Vivian, J. H.

Forster, Charles S.

Whalley, Sir S.

Guest, J. J.

Young, G. F.

Hawes, B.

Hume, J.

TELLERS.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Robinson, G. R.

Leader, J. T.

Warburton, H.

Debate adjourned.

SURVEY OF CHURCH LANDS.
Mr. Humethen moved for the production of "copies of all the Parliamentary surveys of church lands preserved in the library of manuscripts at Lambeth, and which were made under an ordinance of Parliament in 1646."
The Attorney-Generalsaid, he should be very well pleased if the surveys in question could be produced. They were made in the time of the Commonwealth, and embraced, no doubt, a vast quantity of most important and interesting information with respect to ecclesiastical property in the country; but, consisting as they did of no less than forty folio volumes, he did not see how they could be transcribed and printed without incurring an amount of expense which would really be most enormous. How were they to order an officer to go into the Archbishop's library and transcribe them? And if they could, who was to pay for the transcription? If they were to be printed, it should be under the charge of the Record Commission, and those only should have copies who were willing to purchase them.
Mr. Humecontended, the surveys he had moved was were a Parliamentary document, and it for the archbishop to satisfy the House w he got possession of it. That House as not bound to stand up as the protector of stolen goods, Here was a
692
public document, and it ought to remain among their other records in their own library.
Sir M. Rolfesaid, the hon. Member now shifted his ground; his motion was "for copies of all the surveys;" he now wanted the original only.
Mr. Humewould then leave out the words "copies of," and move that the original surveys themselves should be brought into the library.
The Attorney-Generalcould not believe the hon. Member serious. His motion was quite unexampled. There was no precedent for it whatever. If it were produced at all, why should the library of the House of Commons, any more than that of the House of Lords, be fixed on as its place of custody? He had great respect for the privileges of the House of Commons, but he greatly doubted whether they had the power of ordering these surveys of ecclesiastical property to be produced.
The Speaker: Does the hon. Member mean to divide?
Mr. Humesaid, undoubtedly there was some difficulty in the way of proceeding. He thought, however, the best plan would be to appoint a Committee to ascertain how the Archbishop obtained possession, and what right he had to the custody of these Parliamentary documents. The fact was, this was not his motion; it belonged to the hon. Member for Finsbury and, under all the circumstances, perhaps, it would be better to postpone its further consideration till the second Tuesday after the recess.
Motion withdrawn

MEN-OF-WAR WRECKED.
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume moved for "a return of the number of men-of-war that had been run on shore or lost at sea since 1830, with the names of their commanders or captains, the dates when those commanding-officers entered the naval service, the number of years they served as midshipmen, lieutenants, and commanders, their age at the time of promotion as lieutenant, commander, and captain; also, the expense incurred in repairing the vessels run on shore, and the value of those lost at sea."
Admiral Adamsthought the return altogether unnecessary, and extremely objectionable. In all cases of accident to any of his Majesty's ships care was taken, according to the Articles of War, that a

693
strict investigation took place, when those who were guilty of negligence or carelessness were duly punished. The officers were always put on their trial before regular courts-martial, and a proper adjudication had upon the merits of each case. Was it, therefore, reasonable that those officers, after appearing before the regular tribunal, should be dragged before that House in order to undergo a fresh investigation?
Mr. Aaron Chapmanopposed the motion. It would establish a very dangerous precedent, and cast a slur on the character of many gallant officers who had met with misfortune without any blame attaching to them in the slightest degree.
Sir T. Troubridgeappealed to the House and to the nation whether it would not be most unjust, after officers had been tried by regular courts-martial according to the Articles of War, to require them to encounter before an inadequate tribunal, as he maintained that House was, a second trial on the same charges?
Mr. Humecould see no injustice whatever in his motion. He did not see how it could be refused unless Government wished to screen abuses. If the House rejected it, the country would say that they were anxious to protect every species of mismanagement.
Captain Pechelldid not think anything invidious was intended by this motion to the navy, or he should be the last in that House to support it.
Sir T. Troubridgedenied that there was any intention or disposition on the part of the Admiralty to screen any individual whatever. But the course proposed by the hon. Member for Middlesex was at once improper, incorrect, and unjust, and therefore he should oppose it by every means in his power.
Mr. Humesaid, that if the information for which he asked were granted him, he could show the loss of life and property occasioned to the country to be immense. Unless he were allowed the means of making out a case, it would be impossible for him to bring the subject forward in such a manner as to be worthy the attention of the House.
Lord J. Russellobserved, that the information was asked for in what he must consider a partial form. It was impossible to determine whether blame could be attached to the commander of a ship on account of its loss, unless the House
694
were in possession of the fullest information respecting all the circumstances; and that could only be procured by going into the inquiry again, with the same minuteness as was done by courts-martial. He rather supposed that the hon. Member wished to draw the inference that the officers concerned in such accidents were connected with the nobility, and had been rapidly promoted. If it were attempted to decide on the culpability of any party without a lengthened observation, censure might be passed on officers who had acted though out with the utmost skill and ability. On these grounds he should oppose the motion.
Sir if. Inglisobjected to the return, because the information it would furnish would be much too limited to enable them to arrive at any conclusion with certainly. Besides, the hon. Member for Middlesex should recollect that his Majesty appointed the commanders of his own ships, and that the House of Commons could have no pretensions to interfere with the management of the navy. Neither should it be forgotten, that the law which passed sentence on an officer who had been found wanting in his duty, did not authorise the publication of the sentence and its circulation over the whole empire. The return moved for by the hon. Member would virtually be a list of new convictions, or a new bill of indictment against the parties whom it concerned, without giving them the opportunity of defending themselves.
The House divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 45: Majority 32.

List of the AYES.

Elphinstone, H.

Smith, B.

Ewart, W.

Thompson, Col.

Hindley, C.

Warburton, H.

Leader, J. T.

Williams, W.

Lennard, T. B.

Pattison, James

TELLERS.

Pechell, Captain R.

Philips, M.

Hume, J.

Ruthven, E.

Wason, R.

List of the NOES.

Balfour, T.

Copeland, W. T.

Baring, F. T.

Curteis, H. B.

Bateson, Sir R.

Dick, Quintin

Berkeley, hon. F.

Estcourt, T.

Blake, M. J.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Brodie, W. B.

Forster, C. S.

Buller, Sir J. B. Yarde

Harcourt, G. S.

Campbell, Sir J.

Hinde, J. H.

Chandos, Marq.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Chapman, Aaron

Howard, Philip Henry

Chetwynd, Capt.

Howick, Viscount

695

Ingham, R.

Robinson, G. R.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Lawson, Andrew

Russell, Lord John

Lennox, Lord G.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Macleod, R.

Stanley, E.

Murray, rt. hon. J.

Tancred, H. W.

Ossulston, Lord

Troubridge, Sir T.

Palmer, George

Vere, Sir C. B.

Parker, John

Vyvyan, Sir C. R.

Richards, John

TELLERS.

Richards, R.

Adam, Sir C.

Rickford, William

Dalmeny, Lord

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
The Attorney-General moved that the Imprisonment for Debt Bill be re-committed.
The House in Committee.
On Clause 1 being proposed,
Mr. Richardssaid, that no Bill ever submitted to that House, was more carelessly and inconsiderately framed than the present. It professed to be a Bill for the abolition of imprisonment for debt, except in cases of fraud; and yet there was not one of its provisions which made it fraudulent to contract a debt in any case, or which imposed any punishment for doing so. It was, in his opinion, a crude and ill-digested measure, and would be infinitely more mischievous in its effects than the law as it now stood. It appeared to him to offer direct encouragement to debtors to give undue preference to creditors; and greater facility would be given than at present for committing fraud in this respect. If imprisonment for debt were an unjust and unnecessary evil, why did not the hon. and learned Gentleman content himself with proposing to retain the goods of the debtor, without reserving the power of imprisonment to the Crown? This was, in fact, contradictory to the principles on which the measure was founded. He strongly objected to the Bill, on the ground that it would give extended power for the recovery of debts only to individuals suing in the superior courts. As regarded the great mass of creditors, it would curtail rather than extend the remedy against debtors. To persons who claimed an amount not extending to 100 l., the remedy would be much more troublesome, expensive, and dilatory, than at present. In fact, the Bill would shut up almost every local court for the recovery of debts in the country.
Mr. G. F. Youngsaid, that the enactments of the Bill by no means bore out that which assumed to be its principle, and that it was viewed by the trading in-
696
terests and the country at large with universal distrust. There was among all classes a growing dislike to the practice of imprisonment, and he thought it would be better to trust to that than to take away the power to which public opinion was sufficiently opposed as to prevent the improper use of it. If material alterations were not introduced in the measure in its progress through the Committee, he hoped the opportunity of objecting to the Bill and dividing against it on the third reading would be afforded.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that in due time he hoped to be able to convince the hon. Gentleman and the present opposers of the measure that it was calculated to benefit creditors. He thought the practice of discussing the principle of a Bill in Committee an inconvenient one. The third reading would afford an opportunity for that full discussion, without which he should much lament that the measure should pass.
Mr. Mark Philipssaid, he was not opposed to proceeding with the Bill on factious grounds; he only wished for some delay that would afford him the opportunity of communicating with his constituents, whose interests were deeply involved.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 12 being read,
Mr. Wason Mr. Wason moved the omission of the words recognizing the exception of Members of the House of Commons from the full operation of the clause.
The Attorney-Generalthought it inexpedient to re-agitate a question which had been already decided on in a previous Committee.
Colonel Thompsonsaid, he had heard it alleged as a reason for the introduction of those words into the clause which exempted Members of Parliament from arrest in cases where, according to this Bill, other persons would be liable to it, was because the Bill would not pass another place without them. Now he thought that this House, if such were the case, would, by consenting to this clause without the proposed amendment, be doing a very unhandsome office for that other place.
Mr. Finchwas sure that for one Member of the other House, who desired the exemption in the clause, before the Committee, there were twenty Members of that House who were anxious to enjoy it. He would vote for the Amendment.
Mr. Mark Philipswas of opinion, that a question affecting the character of that House ought not to be settled in so thin a House, and advised a postponement of the amendment.
The Attorney-Generalhad introduced the words into the clause exempting Members of Parliament from its full operation, not with reference to any opinion that might be entertained of the measure itself by that or any other House, but because he believed the introduction of such words to be just and proper. The clause gave a remedy against the person of a debtor after neglecting to comply with the certain requisite forms and orders of court, &c. But he had considered that a Member of Parliament ought to be protected from all arrest, in order that he might attend to the proper discharge of his duties as a Member. If he were not so, false debts might be sworn to against him, and he might be kept away from the House by a malicious creditor when it was absolutely necessary for the interests of his constituents that he should be there. In such a case he might lose the pleasure of listening to the eloquence of the hon. Member for Knaresborough. By the present Bill the creditors of a Member of Parliament would be placed in a much better situation than they were in before, inasmuch as while, by the present system, all the property and even the servants of Members of Parliament were privileged, they would by the present measure have a remedy against all their property, whether landed, personal, or funded; in short, of every description whatsoever. They would gain a great deal and lose nothing. Under such circumstances why should hon. Members wish to alter the division which had already taken place upon the matter in a House much fuller than the present?
Mr. Richardssaid, he should be sorry to contribute towards doing anything which might prevent hon. Members listening to the Attorney-General's learned exposition of the laws in that House. He was only answering the sarcasm of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He would, however, maintain his objection to the whole Bill, as altogether impracticable and impertinent, and he hoped the hon. Member for Ipswich would persist in dividing the House, in which case he would certainly give him his vote.
Mr. George F. Youngmight be induced to support the principle advocated by hon.
698
Gentlemen opposite if it were presented in the shape of a substantive measure; but he objected to this attempt to carry it by a side wind. The privilege belonged rather to their constituents than to hon. Members themselves; and he, therefore, should support the hon. and learned Attorney-General.
Mr. Aglionbydid not think that the proposal of the hon. Member for Ipswich would interfere with the proper discharge of their Parliamentary duties by hon. Members; the more especially as, by a fair statement to the Commissioners, gentlemen would be released from personal restraint. He therefore should support the motion of the hon. Member.
Mr. Humeobserved, that no portion of the privileges of Members of Parliament was so much objected to out of doors as that which the Attorney-General wished to perpetuate. He therefore hoped that if the hon. Member for Ipswich failed now, he would renew his exertions on a very fit opportunity.
The Solicitor-Generalhad not expected that this matter would have been again discussed that evening and the whole case re-opened. It was not fair to absent Members, nor was it even fair to those present. He could not say that his mind was made up on the subject; but he certainly should, at present, support his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General.
Mr. Scarlettstated, that in his judgment this was a question of the privileges of the people, who had a right to elect even a fraudulent representative if they pleased, and also to give him the protection which under the present law he enjoyed. On the abstract question he had not made up his mind.
Sir J. Hobhouseagreed with the Solicitor-General. He had not made up his mind fully on the subject, and thought that an improper moment to decide on it. If the privilege, which the Attorney-General proposed not to alter were invidious, it was in proportion to its invidiousness that the House should discuss it fairly.
The Attorney-Generalremarked that he was not personally interested in the matter, because, representing the city of Edinburgh, he did not want a qualification, and he was on principle opposed to the exaction of qualifications from Members of Parliament. But if the proposal of the hon. Member for Ipswich, to strike

699
out the words which he (the Attorney-General) had inserted, were complied with, then qualifications for Members of Parliament must be abolished. The fictitious qualifications which had been the means of insuring seats in that House to some of its best Members for numbers of years, would not stand the test of an examination by a Commissioner. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had always advocated the continuance of qualifications, and therefore ought, he thought, to support him.
Mr. Harveythought, that the hon. and learned Attorney-General had made an appeal very likely to defeat its own object. He called on hon. Gentlemen opposite to support the clause, otherwise it would lead to the abolition of all qualification. In plain terms, he said, you Conservative Gentlemen are known to be beggars—men of straw, sitting by virtue of paper qualifications, and if you suffer this protection to be abrogated, you will expose yourselves to an examination which will at once detect your property and your fraud. Could any suggestion be more monstrous and insulting! Then it was said the Bill, without this clause, would be lost in another place. For his part he would be deterred by no such apprehension. Let the disgrace attach to the proper parties, and we ought not to protect ourselves by imputing intentional misconduct to others. If the Bill should return to this House with the obnoxious clause restored, we must meet the exigency when it arises. It might so happen, that it would be better to accept the Bill so prejudiced, but at all events, let it go forth to the world by whom the dirty deed was done.—What was the evil apprehended? That a Member of Parliament might have to confess himself a bagger, and moreover, that he had committed perjury. And was that the man to protect! He (Mr. Harvey) was against a compulsory qualification, but so long as the law required it, so long ought it to be palpable and tangible,
Mr. George F. Young Mr. George F. Young moved, that the Chairman do then report progress and ask leave to sit again.
The Committee divided on Mr. Young's motion; Ayes 27; Noes 39: Majority 12.

List of the AYES.

Angerstein, John

Bridgman, H.

Baring, Francis T.

Brodie, W, B.

700

Campbell, Sir J.

Murry, J. A.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Price, Sir Robert

Curteis, H. B.

Scarlett, hon. R.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Stanley, E. J.

Fitzroy Lord C.

Tancred, H. W.

Fleetwood, Peter H.

Troubridge, Sir T.

Gordon, Robert

Verney, Sir H., Bart.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Warburton, H.

Howard, P. H.

Wrightson, W.

Ingham, R.

Young, G. F.

Johnstone, Sir J.

TELLERS.

Knight, Henry Gaily

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Marjoribanks, S.

Parker, John

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lawson, Andrew

Alsager, Captain

Leader, J. T.

Bowes, John

Lennox, Lord G.

Brotherton, J.

Martin, J.

Buller, Sir J.

North, F.

Clay, William

O'Connell, M. J.

Copeland, W. T.

Pease, J.

Elphinstone, H.

Philips, Mark

Estcourt, Thos.

Rickford, W.

Ewart, W.

Ruthven, E.

Finch, George

Scourfield, W. H.

Forster, C. S.

Sheppard, T.

Greene, Thomas

Sibthorp, Col.

Guest, J.

Sinclair, Sir George

Harvey, D. W.

Thompson Ald.

Hastie, A.

Thompson, Col.

Hawes, B.

Townley, R. G.

Hinde, J. H.

Williams, W.

Hindley, C.

TELLERS.

Hughes, Hughes

Wason, R.

Hume, J.

Richards, John

Some verbal amendments were made. The House resumed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Transfer of Aids.—Read a second time:—Royal Mint.
Petitions presented. By the Marquesses of BUTE, DOWN-SHIRE, the Earls of SHAFTESBURY, FALMOUTH, HARDWICKE, Lords WHARNCLIFFE, REDESDALE, the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, the Bishops of LONDON, BANGOR, EXETER, and RIPON, from Cardiff, Newport, Monmouth, and various other places, against the Abolition of Church-rates.—By Lord DACRE, Viscount MELBOURNE, and the Marquess of LANSDOWNE, from various places, for the Abolition of Church-rates.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from Wheatley, Oxfordshire, in which the Petitioners express their indignation at the means resorted to by persons opposed to the Abolition of Church-rates, to procure signatures.—By the Marquess of DOWNSHIRE, from Cumber, Down, stating particulars as to the ruinous, dilapidated, and dangerous state of the Church, and praying that it may be rebuilt—By the Bishop of CHICHESTER, from Chichester, against granting any further power to the Poor-law Commissioners.

CHURCH-RATES.
The Bishop of Llandaff, in presenting petitions in favour of Church-rates, begged to repeat what he had stated on a former occasion, namely: that when petitions came before their
676
Lordships for the redress of grievances, the lower those petitioners were in society, the humbler and the more helpless they were, the greater claim had they on their Lordships' attention. The petitions which he had to present were signed exclusively by ratepayers. This he regretted for the reason he had just slated; he wished that the poor inhabitants had been allowed to join with the rate-payers in signing these petitions. There was, however, a great distinction to be drawn between the petitions of rate-payers who prayed for the continuance of Church-rates, and the petitions of persons not rate-payers, who prayed for the abolition of Church-rates. It was a remarkable circumstance, that petitions against the abolition of Church-rates were pouring in daily from the rural parishes. In that district with which he was more intimately connected, he knew one county from every rural parish of which a petition had been sent in favour of the continuance of Church-rates, and in every other county of the same district, the rural parishes, with few exceptions, had drawn up similar petitions. He begged to remark, in answer to some observations that had been made in that House on a former evening, that great weight ought to be attached to these petitions from the rural parishes, not so much from the fact that they contained any great number of signatures, but that the whole number of the rate-payers of the parish had joined in the petition. Where there were only nineteen or twenty rate-payers in a parish, it followed that the proportion of the rate which each individual rate-payer would have to pay, would be much greater than where the rate-payers were much more numerous. The fewer was the number of the ratepayers, the greater was their interest to abolish the rate; so that when all the ratepayers of a parish petitioned the Legislature not to agree to any measure which would relieve them from the payment of the rate, he thought that a much greater degree of weight ought to be attached to the prayer of such petitions. A great deal had been said upon the subject of the presentation of a petition by a noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham), signed by 19,000 of the inhabitants of Birmingham, and praying for the abolition of Church-rates. Now, the more this grievance, as the petitioners called it, was diffused, the less would each individual have to pay, and consequently he was not disposed to attribute great

677
importance to the circumstance of any great number of persons signing such a petition. If, therefore, the petition which had been presented by the noble and learned Lord, had been signed by 90,000 persons instead of 19,000, he should not have been inclined to attach more weight to it, inasmuch as, from the extensive diffusion of the rate, each individual was much less interested in its abolition. He did not consider that the number of signatures added much to the importance of such petitions.
Lord Broughamsaid, that the right rev. Prelate seemed to have entirely mistaken what he stated the other night, in reference to uneducated persons being less fit to give opinions upon abstract questions of state policy than educated persons. He (Lord Brougham) had never said one word on the subject; but in answer to an observation from the right rev. Prelate, that uneducated persons were not the fittest persons to give opinions upon such questions, he had said that the very last petition which he had looked at, presented on the right rev. Prelate's side of the question, did not appear to have been signed by very educated persons, inasmuch as they had not been able to write their own names, but signed their names as marksmen. What the right rev. Prelate contended for, therefore, was, that the signatures of 90,000 persons were less valuable than the signatures of 19,000. If a certain given sum were to be paid, and if it were to be spread over 90,000, of course each individual would feel it less than if it were confined to 19,000; but if the sum to be paid increased in proportion to the numbers by whom it was to be paid, then the amount of rates to be paid by each individual was the same in a large as in a small place.
The Bishop of Llandaffsaid, that the Church did not increase in that ratio. The Church did not grow, and he would contend that a distinction should be made between the petitioners on his side and those on the other. The opinions of those who paid rates were more valuable than those of non-payers, but it was only fair to establish the distinction, that the ratepayers who petitioned for the abolition of the rates were biassed by a pecuniary interest, and, therefore, this interest, pro tanto, detracted from the weight of their opinion, whilst the rate-payers who petitioned for the continuance of the rate,
678
gave weight to their opinion by the fact, that, notwithstanding the weight of the burthen, they were willing to bear it.
Lord Broughamsaid, that, pro tanto, this of course had weight, but not more than it was worth.
Petitions laid on the Table.