Sitting of 5 May 1837

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. GASKELL and other hon. MEMBERS, from various places, against; and by several other hon. MEMBERS, from various other places, for the Ministerial plan for the abolition of Church-rates.—By Colonel THOMPSON, from Leversedge, in the county of York, against the Poor-law Act—By Mr. DENIS O'CONOR, from Roscommon, in support of his Majesty's Ministers.

CHURCH or SCOTLAND.
On the first Order of the Day being moved,
Sir William Raerose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice in the shape of certain resolutions, relating to the endowment of churches in Scotland. He did not feel, that he was called upon to apologise in any great degree for thus interfering with the business of the Government by moving his resolutions on the first Order of the Day, because this was the first occasion during a long Parliamentary life that he had done so. But the circumstances of the case on the present occasion bore him out, and fully justified the course he had adopted. It was now two months since he first gave notice of his Motion, and no opportunity had been afforded him of bringing it forward sooner, or in any other shape. In the year 1835 he brought forward a Motion on the same subject and for a Committee to inquire into the whole

603
merits of the case, but on that occasion the noble Lord opposite met his Motion by expressing the intention of the Government to issue a commission which the noble Lord said would better accomplish the object in view than a Committee could. To that representation of the noble Lord he had acceded, upon the express understanding that the Commission was to report from time to time, so that the different grounds of complaint might the more easily be considered and a remedy applied. Notwithstanding this condition the Commission had not made any Report for two years, as it was only in the beginning of February last that their first Report was laid before the House. He did expect that as the Report even at so late a period was before the House the Government would have considered it their duty to follow out the recommendations of the Report, and bring the subject under the consideration of the House. This the noble Lord was pledged to do if a case of destitution was made out, for the noble Lord had said, when the subject was last before the House, that in such a case it would be the duty of the Government to apply a remedy, No notice, however, bad been taken by the Government of the Report. He had asked the noble Lord if he intended to bring the subject forward, and the noble Lord's answer was, that the matter was under the consideration of the Government, but he could not pledge himself to propose any measure upon it at present. This answer was not at all satisfactory to him, and he was sure it would not be so to the people of Scotland. He felt under these circumstances, that it was his duty to bring the subject under the consideration of the House. If the Government had come forward in the matter as they were bound to do, the House would not have been troubled with the present discussion, and the public business would not have been interfered with. He did not think, at the same time, that it was too much to claim one night for the business of Scotland, as he was sure that hitherto the business of that part of the empire had not occupied two hours of the time since the commencement of the present Session. This was a subject on which the feelings of the people of Scotland were deeply interested, for it was a question more exciting from one end of that country to the other than any other question that affected
604
their interests. It was not a party question, but one which was influenced by the most laudable and honourable principle and feeling. Let the House look at the meetings that had been held in Scotland on this subject, and they would see that there was as many Whigs attended those meetings as persons of the other side in politics. Of the first great meeting held on the subject, Lord Belhaven, Commissioner of the General Assembly, was chairman, and there was not one at which Gentlemen holding the opinions and adhering to the party of hon. Members opposite did not warmly support the claims of the Church of Scotland to additional endowments from the state. They advocated the cause of those who could not effectually plead for themselves—the poor. It was for the religious instruction of the poor that the people of Scotland had come forward in thousands as petitioners, and all that they asked from the House was the grant of an inconsiderable sum to enable the Church efficiently to supply that instruction. He would venture to say that no petitioners who had ever approached that House occupied a position so strong as that which was held by these Gentlemen. They founded their claims upon a right which was admitted, and which it was impossible to deny—the duty of the state to provide for the support of the established religion of the country. The petitioners said that the state was bound to provide for the people the means of spiritual instruction by an endowed Church, and the noble Lord in his address to the House on a former occasion relating to this subject, had not denied the truth of this principle. But the petitioners did not come forward merely to ask for the enforcement of that right; they offered to the Government a donation unexampled in amount, collected by their own private contributions. The last time he had had the honour of bringing forward this question in the House, he had said that a sum amounting to upwards of 66,000 l. had been subscribed in Scotland to aid the object which he should endeavour to recommend to the attention of Government, and that sixty-four Churches were in progress of erection, the whole of which the subscribers were willing to make over to Government on condition that the state should supply them with the means of maintaining clergymen to occupy the pulpits of these fabrics. This was in

605
1835; and in 1836 he was happy to state twenty-six churches were added to these sixty-four, and the former subscription was augmented by more than 32,000 l. a sum which was still being increased. The subscribers, in fact, offered to the Government upwards of 100 churches, and whatever might remain after being expended on them of a sum of 150,000 l. They tendered this sum to the state to enable it to perform its duty, and he could not better explain the spirit which dictated the sacrifice than by using the words of the parties themselves who made it. "We," they said, "on the part of a willing people, lay 150,000 l. on the altar of Christian charity, as their contribution during the three last years for the highest good of the families of our land, and we turn to our rulers, in the fond expectation that a willing Government will co-operate in this patriotic measure, and that by the contribution of the state in aid of private liberality their object will be attained. He regretted that there should be any hon. Members in the House who deemed the subject of so little importance—the wishes of a great part of the population, and the interests of an important division of the empire, so little worthy consideration, and he trusted that the House would bear with him a little longer. Before calling attention to the Report of the Commissioners, he wished to remark, that former Governments had not refrained from bringing forward this question from inattention to the wants of the Church of Scotland. He said this because he had been taunted on a former occasion by his right hon. Friend opposite (the Lord Advocate) with keeping back the question when he himself held office. Doubtless, he (Sir W. Rae) being an Episcopalian was a dissenter from the Church of Scotland, of which the learned Lord was a Member; but he would not allow any man to say, that during the time he had had the honour of holding the office of. Lord-Advocate he was not actuated by the warmest anxiety for the welfare of that Church, and the sincerest zeal to promote its interests. It appeared to him necessary to proceed gradually to supply the deficiencies under which that Church laboured, and he had taken without loss of time such steps as appeared to him best calculated to give it greater means of doing good, and of spreading the blessings of religion. The most urgent case was
606
that of the large parishes in the highlands in which it was impracticable for the population to attend the parish Church, to meet which he had introduced in 1824, after he became Lord-Advocate, a Bill to provide Churches in those districts; 40,000 l. were granted for this purpose, besides the necessary endowments to support the clergymen. If the learned Lord would look to that Bill he would find that he was not inattentive to the principle which actuated those who were urging this question on Government, for the price of seats was limited to 2s. 6d. a-year, and in no case was a higher rent exacted. This Bill was followed by a vote of 40,000 l. for building churches in the towns of Scotland. A Bill was introduced to apply the sum to that purpose, which was only lost in consequence of an alteration made in it by the House of Lords. He thought, then, he was entitled to say that he had not entirely neglected the interests of the Church of Scotland. He should now, as shortly as possible advert to the contents of the Report. The resolutions which he proposed to submit to the House, embraced, in his opinion, all the material points of the question. The first resolution related merely to a matter of fact, stating that his Majesty had been pleased to issue a Commission to inquire into the means of religious instruction existing in Scotland, with power to report from time to time, in order that Parliament might apply such remedies to any defects which might be proved as the case seemed to require. It did appear to him at the time that the issuing of the Commission was an acknowledgement of the principle that if it should appear by its Reports that a case of destitution was made out, the Government of the country was bound to provide a remedy. The noble Lord, whom he did not now see in his place, had certainly then admitted that it was the duty of Government to maintain and aid the Established Church, and that the question he had to consider was only one of disputed facts—one party alleging that the means of the Church were inadequate to the wishes of the population, and their opponents denying it. It was at that time admitted to be the duty of Government to maintain the Established Church of Scotland, and if a grant should appear needful for the support of that Church, he (Sir W. Rae) concluded that such a grant would have been made as to

607
supply whatever deficiency might be discovered to exist. Another resolution to which he would advert was that by which the commission was bound to report from time to time; now that part of the resolution did away with some objections which he and others had entertained to the commission, who were led to believe that the inquiry would be more speedily concluded than by means of a Committee, and that it would thus sooner be decided, if an endowment were to be granted or not. Amongst others his right hon. Friend near him had strongly urged, that not much good would be derived from a Committee. He was then of a different opinion, and he was now sure that if the Committee had been appointed it could have concluded its labours last year, and the House, instead of voting various sums for temporary assistance, might have had before it a complete statement of the deficiency and have at once applied a sufficient remedy. The noble Lord opposite had said, that the inconvenience of the considerable length of the labours of the commission would be obviated by their reports from time to time being laid before Parliament, and that as soon as Parliament and the Government were enabled to settle the nature of the defects, they would devise the remedy to be applied. His next resolution only stated "That the Commissioners so appointed made a first report on the matters referred to them as applicable to those parishes in the Presbytery of Edinburgh, where the want of the means of religious instruction was alleged to exist, which Report was laid before the House of Commons on the 7th of February, 1837;" from which only one thing could be concluded— that the Commissioners had taken abundance of time in making up their report. But the next resolution involved matter of greater importance, and he felt great satisfaction that he had not now as last year, to deal with facts that rested on his bare assertion; although, knowing the nature of his countrymen, he was then sure that they would not have subscribed 66,000 l. for any unnecessary purprose. The third was, "That it appears froom this Report that the population in the city of Edinburgh and its suburbs amounts to 162,292 of whom after deducting persons belging to religious denominations other than the Established Church, there remains 91,021; and that the total
608
number of sittings in churches belonging to the Establishment amounts to 36,001. It further appears from the Report, that the number of persons capable of attending religious worship who habitually absent themselves from such worship cannot be less than from 40,000 to 50,000." He would not go through the calculations; no one could deny those facts, and if they were denied, he was ready to show the evidence which established them. The question then arose—was there sufficient church accommodation in Edinburgh? Of course he need not say, that seats were not wanted for the whole number of 91,021, as some of those were children. It had been found in country parishes, that the number for whom it was necessary to provide accommodation was forty-four per cent, which calculation excluded all persons under twelve years of age; but he must take exception to young persons under the age of twelve being excluded from the calculations for necessary church accommodation; he thought that accommodation should be provided for all the population above seven years of age: surely every one must acknowledge, that children between the ages of seven and twelve were fit objects for religious instruction, and if so, it would be found, that sixty-six would be a fairer calculation than forty-four per cent. Upon that calculation of sixty-six per cent, it would be found, that at least 25,000 sittings were wanting to provide for the population of Edinburgh. After calling the attention of the House to the deficiency in the number of sittings, his next resolution adverted to the nature and extent of the religious instruction which, according to the Report, the people of Scotland received. It appeared from the Report, that 2,000 was the greatest number of persons that could be properly under the care of one clergyman, while, in fact as many as 2,780 were found to be under the care of one clergyman—a number whose spiritual wants it was quite impossible any clergyman could attend to. Was it not a dismal and melancholy consideration that, in a population of 162,000, not fewer than from 40,000 to 50,000 habitually absented themselves from public worship? The fourth resolution stated, "That the said Report sets forth as the result of the whole evidence, that from whatever cause it proceeds, whether connected with their extent or nature, the

609
opportunities of public religious worship, and the means of religious instruction and pastoral superintendence, at present existing and in operation, are not adequate to the removal of the evils complained of." In the Report of the Commissioners great pains had been taken to explain, that the people of Scotland were in general of a religious inclination; how was it, then, that in the capital so large a number absented themselves from religious instruction? It was a consolatory reflection, that those churches which had been endowed by the subscription raised in Scotland had been all filled, and by persons who were all respectably dressed. He was sure, that if the grant now sought were given, decency of dress and general morality of conduct would soon appear in the class for whose benefit it would be made. It had also been advanced, that the people stayed away because they required some relaxation. He felt persuaded that it was not so, but that the poor of Scotland took pleasure in public worship. The fact was, that money was borrowed to erect the church, and to repay that debt they were obliged to rent the pews as high as possible. The poor of Scotland would not accept a seat in the church for nothing; but if this grant were made by which they would be enabled to have a sitting at a lower rate than at present, they would take it and pay for it. In the unendowed churches the clergy were also dependent on the pew-rents, and as their hearers were bound to provide for the wants of their pastors, the pews were let at so high a rate that the poor could not afford to pay for them. The consequence of that entire dependence of the clergy was, that they sought rather for hearers among the rich than among the poor; and if the Dissenters had not come forward he believed that Scotland would now have been overrun with infidelity. But the debt with which the Churches already built were loaded was the chief point, and that was not a point to which the Commissioners had directed their inquiries. The Commissioners had said, that they did not wish to press any questions relating to the pecuniary affairs of the churches. Many Dissenting places were built on speculation to draw off the attendants of the Established Churches, and that statement was borne out by the returns, which showed that as many as 11,000 sit-
610
tings in Edinburgh alone were unoccupied, which was only caused by the desire of extending a sect by building a large church, and thus burthening the congregations with a heavy debt. But whether they considered churches, chapels of ease, or Dissenting chapels, it was all the same; it could be shown in each case to be impossible to lower the pew-rents so as to admit the poor. He would advert to the evidence of Dr. Chalmers, who said, that two things were necessary for the religious instruction of the poor and the working classes —first, to remove a barrier (if 10 s. 6d. were fixed on as the charge for a sitting, that would be a barrier); and, secondly, that some impulse should be applied to the population, for the removal of the barrier was only negative, and though it would prevent their going backwards would not urge them forwards, and they must not expect any progression unless an impulse were also provided. When the Commissioners asked Dr. Chalmers, what force he would apply, he replied, that the first thing necessary was to bring Christian charity and fellowship home to the poor. Let the ministers visit the homes of the poor in the week, and the poor would return those week-day calls by attendance at the church on the Sabbath. Let missionaries be first sent to collect congregations, the excellence of which plan had been proved to demonstration in a variety of instances in Edinburgh, and still more in Glasgow, where those missionaries had made a congregation first, whom they had addressed in barns and houses, instead of first building an expensive church and then seeking to repay themselves by a high pew-rent. The practical result for which he contended was not to be attained by the voluntary principle. That had been proved by what had actually taken place, both in Edinburgh and in Glasgow. This could not be effected by the voluntary principle. It could not be relied upon. That principle had been put to the trial, both in and out of the Established Church of Scotland—it had been tried in chapels of ease, and it had failed. The combined efforts of the Dissenters had not succeeded in giving it complete success, for even in Edinburgh alone there were 50,000 who had no opportunity of receiving religious instruction. Were matters to remain in this state? Was there any Gentleman on the opposite side

611
of the House who would venture to say, that they ought to remain so? How were these 50,000 to be reclaimed from the deplorable state in which they must be as regarded religious instruction? It was from this class, and from the purlieus of the city of Edinburgh, that the calendars were filled with criminals. Of what consideration was the paltry sum of 10,000 l. or 12,000 l. a-year, to be expended in the endowment of churches, compared to the advantage of reclaiming so many from their evil ways and their present degraded condition? It was to this circumstance—the want of adequate church accommodation—that he imputed the great advance which crime had made within the last thirty years. In the year 1815 the expenditure under the head of prosecution of crime was only 6,000 l., while in 1838 it was 36,000 l., and in the present year would be 34,000 l. What cause could be assigned for this great increase but a gradual decline in the moral and religious habits of the people, arising from a want of sufficient church accommodation? He had stated what the remedy was which the people of Scotland proposed to apply to the state of things he had described. The inhabitants of that country were ready to come forward, and at their own expense to provide all the churches that might be necessary. They were willing to leave the patronage of those churches to the disposal of the Government, and all they asked for was, that the Government should give a small endowment, in order that cheap seats might be furnished to the poor. He had heard it rumoured, that his motion was to be resisted, on the plea that further reports were required. For What purpose, let him ask? The evidence was complete, as far as regarded Edinburgh; and whatever might be found to be the condition of other parts of Scotland, the wants of the metropolis ought, at any rate, to be supplied. He had also heard it stated, that necessity of inquiring respecting Scotch teinds would be urged as a reason for objecting to the motion. He was told that the Commissioners were not ready to report on that subject. Why were they not ready? The Commission had been in existence since 1835, and a great part of the returns respecting Scotch teinds were at the command of the Government, and with respect to the other returns any information respecting them
612
might be obtained in the course of a week. But what object could the Government have in view by instituting an inquiry respecting the teinds held by private proprietors in Scotland? Was the Government prepared to bring forward a tithe measure for Scotland? If they entertained any such intention, it was only right that the landed proprietors of Scotland should be aware of the fact. At the time of the Reformation the Crown seized a great part of the tithes, and conveyed them over to private individuals, who had held them ever since under titles which were irresistible. In 1617 an Act passed the Scotch Parliament to put an end to all doubts respecting the right of those individuals to the teinds; and that Act declared, that their right should be unchangeable now and for ever. It was under such a title that the property was held subject to the payment of a stipend to one clergyman in the parish where the property was situated; and by an Act passed in 1707, no second clergyman could be appointed to the parish Without the consent of three-fourths of the heritors. Now he should like clearly to understand whether the Government intended to take those tithes, and accumulate them into one large fund for the purpose of applying them to the endowment of new livings? He had no hesitation in saying, that such a proceeding would be contrary to law. He trusted that no such pretexts as he had mentioned would be resorted to for the purpose of getting rid of his motion. The noble Lord could not be aware of the strong feeling which prevailed in Scotland on this subject; and if the motion he proposed was postponed, the people of that country, recollecting that six long years had now elapsed since 1830, when the Church made an urgent demand for a grant of money, Would regard the proceeding as a sort of juggle practised to delude them. During the Administration of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, an allusion was made to this subject in the King's speech, and that allusion spread like an electric spark through Scotland, and gave universal satisfaction. How had the present Government followed up that allusion? When they came into office did they show any symptoms of a willingness to act in the matter? The truth was, that he was the first to bring the subject under

613
the consideration of the House, and to propose the appointment of a Committee. The Committee was refused, and a Commission appointed, with the distinct understanding, that the Commissioners should be directed to report from time to time. It was, however, rather a singular circumstance, that that direction was not given to the Commissioners, for all that they were told was, that they were at liberty to report from time to time. The consequence had been, that although the Commission was appointed in 1835, the first Report was not presented until the commencement of the present year. The House would recollect, that at the period of the appointment of the Commission he had complained of the manner in which it was constituted. He now, however, did not regret the way in which the Commission had been composed, for he found those whom he considered his adversaries on this question, could not avoid making out a case, showing the want of spiritual instruction in Scotland. He warned the noble Lord opposite, that if any pretext was seized on for postponing his motion, the people of Scotland would consider, and justly consider, that the Government were not dealing fairly with the question, and that they were pretending to do what they were either unwilling or afraid to do. He should regret such a result more perhaps than the noble Lord who perhaps thought that he made the motion for a party purpose would give him credit for. But he would assure the noble Lord, that the Government could take no step more serviceable to his (Sir W. Rae's) party, than that which he was now deprecating. The people of Scotland were excited with regard to the present question to a degree of which the noble Lord could have no just idea, and if the present motion should be passed by as unworthy of notice on the part of the Government, the noble Lord might depend, that the people of Scotland would look upon the conduct of the Government as an insult directed against themselves. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by proposing the following resolutions by way of amendment upon the Order of the Day.
"1. That an address having been presented to the King by the House of Commons, humbly praying "That his Majesty would be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire into the opportunities of religious worship, and
614
means of religious instruction, and pastoral superintendence, afforded to the people of Scotland, and how far these are of avail for the religious and moral improvement of the poor, and of the working classes, and with this view to obtain information respecting their stated attendance in places of public worship, and their actual connexion with any religious denomination, to inquire what funds are now or may hereafter be available for the purpose of the Established Church of Scotland, and to report from time to time, in order that such remedies may be applied to any existing evils, as Parliament may think fit, His Majesty was pleased on the 20th day of July, 1835, to issue such Commission.
"2. That the Commissioners so appointed made a first report on the matters referred to them as applicable to those parishes in the presbytery of Edinburgh, where the want of the means of religious instruction was alleged to exist, which report was laid before the House of Commons on the seventh of February, 1837.
"3. That it appears from this Report that the population in the city of Edinburgh and its suburbs amounts to 162,292, of whom, after deducting persons belonging to religious denominations other than the Established Church, there remain 91,021; and that the total number of sittings in the churches belonging to that establishment amounts to 36,001. It further appears from the Report that the number of persons capable of attending religious worship, who habitually absent themselves from such worship, 'cannot be less than from 40,000 to 50,000.'
"4. That the said report sets forth 'as the result of the whole evidence, that from what ever cause it proceeds, whether connected with their extent or nature, the opportunities of public religious worship, and the means of religious instruction and pastoral superintendence at present existing and in operation, are not adequate to the removal of the evils complained of.'
"5. That it is the opinion of this House that the said Report should be taken into immediate consideration, with the view of remedying the evils acknowledged to exist within the districts to which it refers, by extending the means of religious instruction and pastoral superintendence furnished by the Established Church of Scotland, and rendering them available to all classes of the community."
Lord John Russellsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward this motion to obstruct and delay the supplies to be granted to his Majesty, and this was the second time that the same course had been taken within the last few nights by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They would not wait to make their motions on the regular days devoted to that purpose, but

615
they brought them forward to the impediment of the business of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the reason why he did this was, that he had no opportunity of bringing forward his motion on the regular notice days, because there was such a small attendance of Members on these days that he would not be able to bring his motion to a satisfactory conclusion. The right hon. Baronet, however, at the same time stated this subject had created greater excitement in Scotland than almost anything that occurred recently. If this were the case, and even it should happen that neither Irish nor English Members attended the discussion, the right hon. Gentleman would be perfectly sure of the presence of the Members for Scotland. But he recollected what was evidently the motive for bringing forward the other motion to which he had adverted—he meant the resolution relative to the affairs of Spain, which was proposed by a right hon. Gentleman opposite. The motive that produced that resolution no doubt was the feeling that was just then produced on the public mind by the reverses sustained by the British legion in Spain. If that feeling had been allowed to subside and pass away, the bringing forward the motion would not have promoted the object in view. He had no doubt that the present motion had just been brought forward because the Assembly of the Church of Scotland was about to meet; and although that assembly would not engage in such bloody battles as those fought in the fields of Navarre, still no doubt theological contests would take place which might be turned to a particular purpose, by bringing forward such a motion as that before the House. No doubt this battle would be made a great triumph to the right hon. Gentleman who brought forward this motion, having for its object the proposing a grant of money for the Church of Scotland, for it would be said if the motion was not granted, that the present government were enemies to the Church of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman might say to this assembly, "The Government would not agree to any motion, and alleged that they wished for further information on the subject, and induced the House of Commons to go with them; therefore you must become adhered to the Tory or Conservative party, for they will grant you a sum of money for the Church
616
of Scotland." He did not think that it was fitting or right that the Government business should be delayed and obstructed by such motions as that of the right hon. Gentleman, and brought forward under such circumstances as he had mentioned. What was the object of the right hon. Gentleman, in bringing forward the question at this particular time, for he told the House that for the last six years he had brought the matter forward; this, be it recollected, was since the period the right hon. Gentleman went first out of office? The right hon. Gentleman also said, that the evil had been rapidly growing and increasing during the thirty years previous, and therefore the deficiency complained of had been experienced for the last thirty-six years. But he begged the House to remember that the right hon. Gentleman was, previously to the last six years, connected with the Government of the country which induced that House to vote away millions upon millions, ay, and hundreds of millions upon hundreds of millions in order to support unnecessary and expensive wars, for he believed that not less than 140,000,000 l. were expended in a single year during the last war. But, the right hon. Gentleman did not think fit to ask for even a small sum for that which must be admitted on all hands to be a paramount object; it never occurred to the right hon. Gentleman during those years of lavish expenditure, that such wants as he had described should be attended to. But what had been the course which the right hon. Gentleman pursued during the last two years? The subject was alluded to in the King's speech at the commencement of 1835, and on the change of Government a Commission was appointed, which was directed to inquire into the whole subject of the Church of Scotland. The Commissioners entered into the inquiry which was of a very laborious and unusual nature; and although they were directed to report from time to time, they did not present any report to the Crown until the beginning of the present year. The report contained the evidence connected with the town of Edinburgh; but he had heard within the last few days that the Commissioners had made inquiries respecting the town of Glasgow, and they had also made various inquiries respecting teinds, and he hoped within a short time to place another report on the table of the House.

617
Therefore, he said, it was better to wait until they had the other reports before them before any further steps were taken on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman said that 10,000 l. would be sufficient for the object in view. He, however, had not taken any steps to show on what information he had formed his calculation, and he did not state how much of this sum would be required by the town of Edinburgh alone. With respect to the resolutions of the right hon. Gentleman, he must observe that they did not give a fair interpretation of the facts, and this was particularly the case with respect to the third resolution. The Report on the table did not point out any specific evil, nor did it recommend the adoption of any particular remedy. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the opinion of Dr. Chalmers on the subject of church accommodation. He would read an opinion of that rev. Gentleman, on the same subject from the same page of the evidence:—"Do you think that the evil of Church destitution could be remedied entirely, or in part, by the multiplication of missionaries to a great extent?—This forms a very good initial operation, and I would much rather that it was never dispensed with. If we were to run up a number of churches, at this moment, we would be exposed to the mortifying view of empty benches. The first point should be a parochial missionary to cultivate the district; the process should begin there, but not end there. After he had done the work to a certain extent, and filled his station, he should be translated into a higher status; and the circumstance of becoming an ordained minister, and able to dispense ordinances, would give him a tenfold greater ascendancy over his district." From this opinion of Dr. Chalmers it was quite clear that he did not think that the mere fact of building a church or opening a chapel was sufficient to secure a congregation. He concurred in the opinion of Dr. Chalmers, that it would be desirable that with respect to those parishes in which there was a want of religious instruction it was almost indispensable, that in the first instance, they should resort to the labours of the missionaries. Dr. Chalmers maintained, that after the missionaries had been engaged for a certain period, they should become regular ministers of the Church, whereas the Dissenters contended, on the
618
other hand, that missionaries should continue in that office, and that Dissenters should be appointed as well as ministers of the Church, and that they should be remunerated by voluntary contributions. He had been informed, that when the labours of the Commissioners had commenced, the number of missionaries had been increased, and several persons influenced by their own zeal, and others supported by the contributions of religious persons, were then exerting themselves to spread religion throughout the country. With respect to the Crown teinds and the bishop's teinds, which had been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, he would only observe that it was a question which he had referred to the consideration of the Commissioners. It was to be considered what means were or might become available to supply that want of religious instruction in Scotland which had been so eloquently described: the right hon. Baronet had appeared, throughout his speech, particularly careful to guard the landed proprietors of Scotland against any call being made on them to contribute more than was strictly due from them under former laws. The right hon. Baronet should consider that not Scotland only, but England, too, was interested in the promotion of the means of religious instruction. When the right hon. Gentleman was in office two years ago, he had very properly annexed a prebend of Westminster to the rectory of the parish in which the house stood; and it was made part of the arrangement that the parish should contain two places of worship, besides the parish church. It became necessary that an Act of Parliament should be passed for the purpose, but the pressure of public business had been such that hitherto be had not been able to carry this object into effect. All these subjects ought to be taken in their course: and it was most objectionable that hon. Gentlemen should delay the progress of public business for the sake of increasing excitement in Scotland or any place else. These subjects should be considered in due course, one after another, in order that a full consideration of each might produce some mature and regular proposition, instead of delusive resolutions such as these. He could assure the House, that when this subject had been maturely investigated, he should come forward with a distinct proposition, if neces-

619
sary, or, at any rate, fully state the views of Government on the question.
Sir G. Clerkregretted the speech which the noble Lord had just made. The noble Lord charged his right hon. Friend with bringing forward this motion for the purpose of obstructing public business. Now, what was the fact? His right hon. Friend had given notice two months ago of his determination to bring this question forward, if the Government did not anticipate him. When he gave that notice he had not been able to find an opportunity of bringing it forward. Two Gentlemen, supporters of the noble Lord, had given notice that on a certain evening they would bring forward their motion touching the Septennial Act. The noble Lord requested them to postpone it to another day; he offered them another day; and what day? Friday, the 5th of May. His right hon. Friend, however, then interposed, and adverting to the notice he had given, expressed his determination not to give way. What day was then selected? next Monday, which was also a supply day; but on which he did not think the noble Lord would repeat the objection he had that night made to his right hon. Friend. There never was a question agitated in Scotland which was so little of a party one as this which the noble Lord appeared to think it was. [Lord J. Russell: I alluded to the time.] He should come to the question of time shortly; but so far from its being a party question, there was a great desire that many of the Whig party should come forward and second these resolutions, and to them a preference had been given. As to time; had not sufficient time elapsed since the issuing of the Commission in 1885? The Commission had been sitting two years; it had cost 17,000 l.; and it had merely produced this report on Edinburgh. If it continued to proceed with equal slowness, there was but little prospect of relief for those evils which the noble Lord admitted to exist. The noble Lord seemed to insinuate that nothing had been done by former Governments. This question had not escaped the attention of fanner Governments. It was very well to talk of the expense of the war, and the outlay Of 140,000,000 l. in one year. Whatever the noble Lord might think of that war, the country had felt the deepest interest in the fortunate issue of it, and, while contributing to the expenses of
620
waging it, had been unable to expend much for domestic purposes. But soon after the peace, the matter had been attended to. A million had been first, and then 500,000 l. applied to this very purpose in England; 100,000 l. had been voted, and then 50,000 l. for Scotland; some alterations were made in the Scotch Bills elsewhere, and they were not passed; but one measure did pass, that for building churches in the highlands and western isles of Scotland. It did pass, and forty churches were built. Did the noble Lord think so lightly of the Establishment as to refuse a grant for extending its means of accommodation, on the ground that Dissenters had sittings unoccupied, or had built new churches? Why, most of the new churches built in Edinburgh were intended for the use of Roman Catholics; and surely the noble Lord could not mean that the Presbyterians of the establishment were not to have accommodation in the churches of the establishment, because they might go and hear mass in Catholic chapels. The noble Lord had said, that he could quote passages in the report against what had been advanced by his right hon. Friend; but the Report was full of controversial evidence, and the Commissioners had undertaken to give a fair extract from the testimony of both sides. It might sound well to speak against the landed proprietors, but they, more than any other class, bore the burthens of the establishment; and if there were no petitions against Church-rates from Scotland, it was because the landed proprietors defrayed the charges of building and repairing churches and parsonages. He objected to the calculations of the noble Lord; it was not for forty per cent, of the population, but for fifty per cent, of it, that accommodation was required; and in Glasgow, the report on which had been concluded twelve months ago, the amount was sixty per cent. He could not comprehend why that report had been held back. But in Edinburgh it appeared that out of 91,000 persons, there was not accommodation for more than 36,000; so that there were from 40,000 to 50,000 persons who did not habitually attend a place of worship? What was the comment of the Dissenters on this? Why, they admitted that there were from 25,000 to 30,000 persons who never attended. Where there was then such an amount of practical heathenism, ought

621
any Christian Government refuse to interfere? The noble Lord had admitted, by ordering the Commissioners to report, from time to time, that the Government ought at once to interfere, when the evil in any particular place was ascertained. The rate at which seats were let was so high, the dislike to free or cheap sittings, which were generally in obscure corners, was such, that the churches were inaccessible to the poor. The Dissenters knew this well, and distributed their free or cheap seats throughout the church. Now, what was the case with regard to the seats? Out of 14,000, as it appeared in p. 308 of the Report, there were only 2,600 which were let at so low a rate as 5s. This, however, was a great deal too much for a labouring man earning from 10 s. to 12 s. a-week. Were the sum even to be 2s., that would exceed the powers of a poor man wishing to provide seats for his family. So that instead of there being accommodation for forty-four per cent., it might be safely said there was not enough for twenty-two per cent. The noble Lord had quoted a sentence of Dr. Chalmers, not perceiving that Dr. Chalmers was carrying out a former answer; and was insisting that the mere building of churches would not be enough; but that missionaries were necessary. The noble Lord seemed not to know, however, that these missionaries were not all churchmen, but that many were laymen, The members of the church of Scotland had built many churches during the last fifteen years, and what they wanted was, to have such a sum allowed as would enable them to procure stipend's for the maintenance of the clergymen without charging the poor too high far their seats. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had made it a part of his plan to raise funds from the rent of pews; but he acknowledged that it was the duty of the Government to find seats for the poor. This was the demand of Scotland: it asked, that its clergy should be endowed, in order that its poor might be provided with accommodation in the churches. The noble Lord had said, that a special remedy for these evils was recommended by the Commission. He thought that the House and the country had great reason to complain of this. For what was the Commission appointed? He feared that the report, proving the existence of these evils, bad been reluctantly wrong from the
622
members of that Commission, and that to that Cause was to be attributed the excessive lateness of the period at which the report had been presented, and the confusion which appeared in the drawing up of that report. There was a series of details given; the Commissioners did not add them up; there were rib totals, and the Commissioners themselves said, that the details did not afford the means of coming to any satisfactory conclusions, and they had not come forward to propose any remedy for the evils which they acknowledged to exist. He called on the Government, theft, to provide the remedy. The people of Scotland did not ask to have churches built on speculation, and as no profit would be received by those who contributed to the erection of the fabric, it could hardly be supposed that the Scottish people would be so ready to part with their money as to build churches where they were not absolutely required. He thought that it ought to be made a condition precedent to a grant from the Government that the seat rents should be fixed at the lowest possible sum. That would be more agreeable to the people of Scotland than to provide an increased number of free sittings. They had a great objection to free sittings. One of their great objects in going to church was to be able to go to the same seat; and he was also proud to say, that a strong national feeling of personal independence, which had contributed, perhaps, more than any other cause to keep Scotland without Poor-laws, had a great share in producing this feeling. He repeated, that there was a great unwillingness on the part of the people of Scotland to receive any assistance that was purely gratuitous, and that even in the education of their children they preferred to have the stipend fixed at a low sum; so that, by making a pecuniary exertion, they might be enabled to pay something out of their own pockets for that purpose. The noble Lord had said, that there were other inquiries going on which were not yet terminated. There was an inquiry going on into the unappropriated tithes in parishes. But let the House consider where these were. The greatest part of these parishes were in the city of Edinburgh itself, and the clergy of the city were not paid out of tithes, but by a house-tax levied for that purpose. The noble Lord might easily have got all the information he required on this sub-

623
ject from the King's office in Edinburgh. He ventured to say, that 50 l. for copying clerks would have been quite sufficient, but the noble Lord refused a grant of 50 l. for such a return, and a Commission would be sitting another year at Edinburgh at an expense of 7,000 l., for the purpose of acquiring information which might be obtained in a week at a cost of 50 l. And this was what his Majesty's Government called economy. Now, with regard to the church property, which he admitted was available for the purpose of giving increased church accommodation, he contended that it was of no consequence whatever to the House whether the amount of that property was sufficient for that purpose or not. If that amount proved to be large, the people of Scotland would have a right to demand the accommodation. That property having passed into the hands of the Commissioners of land revenue, it now formed part of the consolidated fund, and therefore the country ought to provide for the remedy. If, on the other hand, there was no such fund, then he asserted that it was the bounden duty of the Government, this great destitution having been proved, to provide the remedy. Then, with regard to the inquiry respecting bishop's teinds, and other church lands which were now the property of the Crown, he considered that it formed a still stronger argument for the present motion. He knew that a return on the subject existed in the Treasury, and he believed that 7,000 l. or 8,000 l. of these bishop's rents was still unappropriated. If, then, as his Majesty's Government contended, when there was a surplus of church property, it ought to be applied to public purposes, surely when there was a deficiency of church property, by a similarity of reasoning, it ought to be supplied out of the public funds. There were also other church funds derived from lands let out on lease, which were under the control of the Commissioners of Land Revenue, and it was their bounden duty, whenever an opportunity offered, to take care that the interests of the Crown were attended to, and not to renew the leases except upon equitable terms. He maintained, however, that they were not to wait till these returns were produced. There were from 25,000 to 30,000 persons in the city of Edinburgh alone who wished for a seat in church, but could not obtain that accom-
624
modation, and he called, therefore, on the House, not indeed descending from the high ground of the obligation to provide for the immortal welfare of so many souls, but on the ground of policy also; and he called on the noble Lord, as he wished the peace of the country to be preserved, to make such a grant as was necessary, and he was sure that the money granted would be saved ten times over in the course of a few years, by reclaiming these persons from ignorance, and teaching them habits of industry and providence. Dr. Chalmers had observed that the dwellings of those persons who were of a religious turn, though with no greater means than their neighbours, had always an appearance of greater comfort and neatness than those of their neighbours who were not so religiously disposed. The increased habits of industry that would follow upon increased church accommodation would, he contended, amply repay the State for any pecuniary grant. The noble Lord would also save in the amount of the estimates of the expenses of public prosecutions which the learned Lord Advocate would have to lay on the table of the House, which expenses had increased so much during the last few years; and he would also find a reduction in crime, which he was sorry to say had increased twenty-fold, and then the Under-Secretary for the Home Department would not be obliged to introduce a Bill for building those large penitentiaries for the confinement of persons in Scotland. He did hope, however, that the House would consider this question upon much higher grounds, and that they would agree with him in thinking that it was the bounden duty of the Government to provide the means of religious instruction for all classes of the people.
Mr. Hope Johnstone,who was most imperfectly heard throughout his address, was understood to say, that, as a Member of the Commission, he thought that every exertion had been made to prepare the Report as early as possible. There was a great variety of objects of inquiry; they had to circulate questions through all the parishes in Scotland, which were upwards of 1,000, and wait for the answers; and he must say, that no men could have devoted themselves more assiduously to the objects of the Commission than those gentlemen did. Some of the parishes were in Orkney, and Shetland, and the Hebrides, and

625
were perfectly inaccessible, except daring the summer months. With regard to the charge brought against them of not pointing out a specific remedy for the evils which they had reported to exist, he thought that it was better to make a statement of facts, than to recommend a remedy which, constituted as the Commission was, would only come from a section of the board, and would therefore have the appearance of an ex-parte statement. With regard to the question immediately before the House, he should despise himself, looking at it as he did as one of the highest and most sacred import, if he could regard it as a party measure; and therefore he assured the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) that if he did not find himself compelled by a sense of duty to vote for these resolutions, he would at once say so. There was no less a number than 40,000 persons, and in his conscience he believed that the number was much greater, who, in the city of Edinburgh, habitually absented themselves from public worship, and of these there were about 14,000 persons who professed not to belong to any Christian sect. It was quite clear that such a state of things as this could not be suffered to exist, unless some strong reasons compelled it. At present it arose partly from an actual want of seat room, and partly from the high rate of seat rents. But it appeared that there was another reason. It was the reluctance of the people to sit in free seats. Dr. Chalmers remarked, that the people of Scotland did not like to be pilloried for poverty, any more than for crime, and they would not place themselves as paupers among the congregation. He considered that every inducement ought to be held out to the ministers to make a more frequent practice of household visitation than they did. We ought not to permit persons to grow up in the state of utter ignorance in which these people were, leading lives of the grossest profligacy, of which it was shocking to hear, without one cheering hope to sustain their sinking spirits. Increased church accommodation was required, and he could not see that anything precluded the Government from taking that course, and he hoped he should have a distinct assurance that they would apply that remedy to those evils. As to the manner in which that remedy was to be applied, he did not gay that any particular plan was best.
626
The subject was intricate, and required much consideration, which, indeed, he thought it ought to receive. He supported those resolutions, because they had the merit of leaving open the question as to the means and funds out of which aid was to be derived. He thought it was the duty of the Government, as it certainly was good policy, to come forward with some measure to remedy the evils complained of, and to extend wider the means of religious instruction of the people of Scotland.
Lord John Russellbegged to offer a few words in explanation, as he was afraid he had been supposed to bring any charge against the Commissioners. He certainly had not meant to bring any charge against the Commissioners, and had only said, that they had suggested no definite remedy for the evils which they had stated to exist. Not having suggested a remedy, it was the more necessary for the Government to use the utmost care in the formation of a plan, and he was afraid he could not at present go further than to say, that it was a case demanding the utmost consideration. He did not deny the existence of the evil, but in respect to the remedy to be applied, a great difference of opinion might exist. It was not clear from the Report, whether the evil arose from want of church accommodation, or from want of instruction; and the Government wished to take all these circumstances into their consideration before they brought forward their measure.
Mr. Gillonthought that the right hon. Gentleman from whom the resolutions had emanated might have postponed the question, and spared the House its discussion at the present time at least. They were called upon to decide with respect to matters upon which a report had not yet been made. If doubt existed upon the mind of any individual as to the propriety of the step adopted by his Majesty's Government two years ago, when they appointed a Commission upon this subject—if any one had upon this point entertained a doubt before, that doubt must now be certainly removed. He begged to say, in opposition to the statements that had been made upon the other side of the House, that, looking to the Report made by the Commissioners, it would be found that the complaints the hon. Gentlemen opposite had made had broken down, and, so far as they went to apply to church-accommodation,

627
it was manifest that they had no ground for demanding a grant for building additional churches. It was his duty to refer to one or two statements made by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Before he did that, however, he wished to refer to the constitution of the Commission, to which this very important inquiry was confided. It would be recollected that in the year 1834, and in the beginning of 1835, petitions in great numbers were presented to Parliament, making demands for a grant for church accommodation. In consequence of these petitions, counter statements were made, which emanated principally from Dissenters in Scotland. He should be ashamed of himself, whatever obloquy such a course might expose him to, if he did not defend, as he felt it to be his duty, that valuable, meritorious, and influential class of men. Now, when a Commission such as that which had been appointed was about to be nominated, it was naturally to be expected that it would be composed of persons of both persuasions. The constitution of the Commission would justly have been objected to, if it had been composed entirely of Dissenters. How was the Commission composed? There were twelve Commissioners, and he did not know how many assistant Commissioners, and of all these there was only one individual connected with that respectable body to whom he had before referred. Two years ago he had protested against the appointment of a Commission so composed. His hon. Friend near him would bear him out in recollecting the objection that he had at that time made against the constitution of a Commission composed entirely of churchmen with but one exception. In this opinion he was joined with several ethers. He could not but look with some degree of jealousy on a Commission the members of which were naturally biassed to one set of opinions. But let them, then, took to what took place on the appointment of the Commission. Because that Commission was not composed of men who had made up their minds upon one point—because those persons were not all prejudiced in one particular way, the Church-extensionists assailed his Majesty's Government in the most extravagant language; and more political virulence was exhibited by them than was at alt consistent with that decorum and gravity which was to be expected upon a Church question. This course was pur-
628
sued by the Church-extensionists—it was they and not the Dissenters who raised an objection to the Commissioners. Then, with regard to the statements made on the other side respecting Edinburgh, he did not know what was the opinion entertained by his Majesty's Government; but, in his judgment, there was no ground for the demand made for additional church accommodation. The gross population of the united district of Edinburgh was 162,193 persons. The church accommodation for such a number, according to the legal rules laid down in their courts of law, and which the right hon. Baronet had attempted to show was too small, was 72,132 seats. In the churches connected with the parishes there were 36,001 seats, and the Dissenters provided 42,705 seats, making in all 78,706 seats, thus showing an excess of 6,574 seats beyond the demand contemplated by the courts of the country for the whole population of Edinburgh. Now, the right hon. Baronet said that this was not sufficient. From his statement a person would suppose that the churches were overcrowded, when the fact was, that at the very time this demand for additional churches was made, there were not less than 21,154 seats, both of the Established Church and the Dissenting congregations, unoccupied. Another way of calculating the matter was this, the Church-extensionists claimed the whole of the population in 1834 as belonging to the establishment. As then the seats in the Church Establishment were not sufficient for the population, an apparent deficiency was created. He knew that in one of the boroughs with which he was acquainted, the Committee of the General Assembly stated, that there was a deficiency of 4,200 seats, whereas, when they had taken into calculation the accommodation provided by the Dissenters, there was not a deficiency of above 1,000 seats. It was stated in the Report that there was a deficiency, not of 6,000, but of 4,348 seats; but, by looking to pages 4 and 23 of the Report, it would be found that those deficiencies had been completely supplied. Since then, four additional churches had been built, providing seats that more than supplied the deficiency. What was Ms reply to the statements on the other side? He found that in the churches connected with the establishment there were absolutely 3,617 seats, at 5s. per seat, unoccupied; 248 seats, at 2s. per seat, unac-

629
cupied; 786 unoccupied, rating from 2s. to 3s. per seat. There were 3,301 seats that cost less than. 5s. each unoccupied. When this case could be made, how came it to be stated that there was a great deficiency of Church accommodation? The right hon. Baronet had very truly stated that there was a great aversion on the part of the Scotch people to receive anything gratuitously; and then the right hon. Baronet did not himself propose to give to the poor seats gratis. There were now 3,301 seats that could be acquired for a less sum than 5s. a-year, and 1,000 seats that could be acquired for a less sum than 3s. He did not see how the right hon. Baronet proposed to give seats cheaper than this; he did not see how he was, in this respect, to remedy the case of destitution he had laid before the House. But it was said by the Church extensionists that this was the great benefit they would derive from a grant—that it would enable them to complete the parochial system. He begged of hon. Members to attend to this. It was proposed to divide the country into small districts, and to put into each of them a Church with a minister, and to confine the people to the ministration of that particular minister. They were to alter the parochial system. That was the course which they proposed to pursue, and the Report showed how inapplicable was such a system to the country. A striking instance of it occurred within his own knowledge. He was in-farmed by a popular preacher in Edinburgh, that during a residence of six years in a particular parish, out of every parishioner in it, there were only two families, consisting of seven individuals, who regularly attended his Church. What an enormous expense would be incurred in having the parochial system established, A statement bad been made, in the Report, to the effect, that there were between 40,000 and 50,000 persons in. Edinburgh who were not in the habit of attending places of religious worship. How the Commissioners arrived at that conclusion was not made out. The proper number of attendances was 72,132; the seats that were let, free, and allocated were 56,504, They were to deduct the free seats that were not occupied, those that were not let, and yet might he filled by those who were in the habit of attending the churches, and the residuum would be 15,628 not in the habit of attending places of religious worship. This,
630
unfortunately, was an appalling picture; it was not so bad, however, as it had been painted; but still the number of non-attendances on religious worship was such as every well-wisher to the good of society must deplore. But then they came to the means proposed to remedy the evil. What was the most efficient as suggested by the promoter of the resolutions? He had already shown that there were seats enough in the churches in Edinburgh. Oh! but then they must have new churches! Why? He could not understand it, unless it were conjectured that there was some virtue in the walls, from which strange benefits were to be derived. They were told they ought to have additional churches, and forty ministers officiating in the churches; hut then as the new churches were filled, the seats in the other churches would become deserted. And it was thus that they were to go on! Then, by what means were they to provide religious instruction for the 15,000 or 16,000 who, as he had shown, were not in the habit of attending places of religious worship? In the 31st page of the Report, the most satisfactory proof was given of the beneficial labours of the ministry of the missionaries. More of these missionaries belonged to the Dissenters than to the Established Church, and he was afraid that if they endowed ministers and built churches for them, they would be, instead of increasing their zeal, doing that which was materially calculated to diminish it. What was proposed by the Church-extensionists if the money that they asked for was granted to them? They would with that money endow the existing chapels—they would take from wealthy individuals that burthen which, from the most praiseworthy motives, they imposed upon themselves, and which they now willingly bore. This was the way in which that money would be applied which was now said by the light hon. Baronet to be intended for the benefit of the poorer classes. The very first use that would be made of it would be to relieve persons in the higher and middle classes. But he begged hon. Members to reflect how far the grant might be extended? The other day, when his Majesty's Ministers proposed the question of Church-rates, they were told that, notwithstanding the wealth of the dignitaries of that church, there was not a smaller number than two millions of the population of England destitute of religious

631
instruction. This, too, occurred notwithstanding the overgrown revenues of the dignitaries of that church. Where were the funds to be procured for this object? If all the grants that were asked were conceded, a sum amounting to not less than 20,000,000 l. would be required to meet such demands. He should not regret, if the funds could be spared, to devote them to such an object—none could be more praiseworthy; but then he did object that the Dissenters in England and Scotland, of whom he begged to assert, that it was to their exertions the poor owed that religious instruction which they now enjoyed, considering, too, all the benefits of morality which they had conferred, and and that they, by their own resources, had built churches and sustained their own ministers—he did, on their part, object to their being compelled to bear any portion of the burthen which was now sought to be placed upon the country. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman might have waited until the Report had been concluded. He might have waited until the Commissioners had reported what ecclesiastical funds could be made applicable to the demands of the Church on this point. He did not consider it extraordinary that it was declared that the inquiry would be useless. He believed there were many Tory landlords who would be sorry to find the unappropriated teinds called for. This might account for the extravagant zeal now manifested. For his own part, he must say, that he considered the present motion originated more for the purpose of serving a political purpose than to be the emanation of religious zeal. The right hon. Baronet had told them that strong feelings had been excited in connexion with this subject. It was quite true, that from the moment the Church-extensionists had commenced their labours, sectarian feelings and religious animosities had been excited—from that period to the present, the most pernicious efforts had been made to arouse bad feelings amongst the population, and it was with great regret that he had seen lately ministers of the Kirk degrade their office to political purposes, and use their pulpits as an arena for sectarian animosities and partisan enmities. It was painful even to have to recite such facts; but he was convinced, that as long as such demands as they had before them that night were made, so long would such unhappy scenes continue.
632
He wished, by the statement he had made, to counteract the effect of the resolutions that were proposed by the right hon. Baronet. He wished, too, to put upon record that of which he was convinced in his own mind, that on that Report no ground was laid for calling for their adoption. As the forms of the House did not permit him to adopt this course, he would content himself with giving the proposition his most decided opposition.
Sir Robert Peelwould be sorry to allow this subject to come to a conclusion without some Member unconnected with Scotland taking part in the discussion. He should be particularly sorry if it should be inferred from such a circumstance that there was not as warm an interest felt for the welfare of Scotland, and for the spiritual concerns of its people, as for any part of the United Kingdom, among the Members of that House who were not connected by birth with that country. In the few observations which he meant to make on this subject he would confine himself to considerations of a public nature, and would not attempt to follow the example of the noble Lord opposite. Supposing that in former administrations large sums of money had been voted for the purpose of carrying on a war which the noble Lord might think unnecessary, but which the people of this country thought essential for the maintenance of the honour of the country, and for the protection of their vital interests—supposing the fact to be true, he would not say that they were therefore discharged from the necessity of attending to the spiritual wants of the country. The noble Lord told the House that 140,000,000 l. had been expended in one year, he believed it was in 1815; and, he believed, also that it was necessary, to support the mighty contest that was brought to its final termination by the glorious battle of Waterloo. It seemed to him that the House of Commons had expressed its decided concurrence in the policy of maintaining that war; and unless he was much mistaken, when the matter was brought to a vote the noble Lord did not dissent from the address then agreed to. He thought that the noble Lord might find also amongst his bosom Colleagues many of the most distinguished and cordial supporters of that policy. It now seemed that the noble Lord was inclined to blame that war, which terminated, as he had already said, with the ever glorious battle of Waterloo. But the matter for present consideration was, whether there was

633
conclusive proof in the evidence on the table that the state of religious instruction in Scotland called for the interference of that House? The noble Lord objected, he said, to a partial consideration of this question. He apprehended that when the Commission was appointed the noble Lord himself recommended that they should make periodical reports for the purpose of taking them into separate consideration. They had now before them the Report on the state of Edinburgh, and there was no reason why they should not apply themselves to the consideration, not of the general principle on which hereafter they might extend aid for religious purposes, but that they might take into consideration the state of the metropolis, and that they should, if they approved of the principle of such a grant, make one which would be sufficient for remedying the crying evils that existed there. The reason so large a portion of the population as 50,000 were in the habit of neglecting divine worship was given in the Report. The reason, or rather the principal reason, was stated to be this, and all parties concurred in "thinking so, namely, the disposition of the people themselves. This partly arose from their extreme poverty, and partly from the circumstance that their attention had never been called to the subject of religion, and they were totally ignorant of the duties it imposed. Many of them, according to Dr. Lee, did not know the first truths of religion, a large portion of them was sunk in habitual debauchery and vice, and were insensible to all the feelings of religion and morality. This being the state of forty or fifty thousand persons, he asked the House whether or not they thought that the advantage of applying, to a limited extent, some legislative remedy to these evils did not far counterbalance any speculative objections that could be made to it. There were some documents published at Glasgow which he considered to be of the utmost importance. They stated this very striking fact, with respect to the proportion that existed between the commission of crime and the habit of attending divine worship. He begged the attention of the House to the simple statement of this most material fact. The right hon. Baronet referred to the document to show that in several parishes in Glasgow the number of the people who possessed church accommodation was in the proportion of two, four, five, and eight in the hundred, and upon further inquiry it was stated, upon the authority of police
634
magistrates, and of the governor and chaplain of the bridewell, that nearly all the criminals who were tried or immured within the gaol came from these places. Where, on the contrary, the number which possesed church accommodation was in the proportion of fifty, sixty, seventy, or eighty to the whole population, the police had no duties to perform, and the bridewell received no inmates. If, therefore, he considered this question in a purely economical point of view, he thought that by giving the means of religious instruction and attendance at divine worship, a saving might be effected in the expense of maintaining the peace, which would far outweigh any advance that they might be called upon to make. The hon. Member for Falkirk asked what limits there were to be to this interference. Now, he thought they might establish very wise limits; he thought that his hon. Friend proposed wise limits. The principle might be applied in the first instance to Edinburgh, and afterwards they might carry the principle to its full extent throughout the whole of Scotland. The principle he would propose was this, that if the people themselves provided edifices, if by their own voluntary subscription they provided churches, then the State was to be at the expense of the endowment. They would thus establish limits, and narrow limits, to the extent to which they could be called upon for Parliamentary aid, and they would have this conclusive evidence of its necessity, that before they granted Parliamentary aid there must be a voluntary subscription on the part of those who had the best means of acquiring local information, and who were most chiefly interested in the local welfare of the place. He would not say, that it should be necessarily limited to this extent, because he could conceive cases of moral destitution in places where there were no rich proprietors who could afford to subscribe a sufficient sum for the erection of a church, and in these some further assistance would be required. But if they established the principle that Parliamentary aid should only be granted as a permanent endowment where the chapels were raised by voluntary subscription, he did not believe that the sum they would be called upon to advance would be more than 20,000 l., a-year. When he compared the inestimable advantages that would arise from the greater spread of religious instruction in a moral point of view, and even in a pecuniary point of view, from the advance

635
of this Sum, he could not hesitate as to the course that he felt called upon to adopt. Some thirty or forty years ago Scotland exhibited a most beautiful example. The people were better educated, they had a juster sense of religion, there was less actual crime and more of religion, speaking generally, than was to be found in any other part of the United Kingdom. He was afraid it could not be denied, that the character of Scotland had not maintained itself in this respect. It had increased in wealth, and in many of the elements of prosperity, but its people had not preserved that character of which they formerly exhibited so distinguished an example. He apprehended that the simple truth was, that the population had outgrown the means of instruction. Whilst the country was increasing in prosperity, and obtaining all the luxuries of life, the Legislature had neglected to provide increased moral and religious instruction. A great influx of population had taken place into the towns, and in the towns they found at present the greatest instances of religious destitution, and the fewest means in proportion to the population of attending religious worship. He apprehended that the cause was easily to be ascertained. In towns, the shame of neglecting divine worship did not operate to the same extent as in the country. The landed proprietor, occupying a permanent position in his parish, had the chief interest in maintaining the moral character of the population; but these motives did not operate on the vast manufacturer who resided in a large town, and who had not the same motive for attending to the religious education of the working classes such as existed in country parishes. He thought that the Legislature ought to provide Some means by which religious instruction should be provided for these persons. An objection had been made to legislative interference, which appeared to him to have no force. It was stated, that there must be always in the great towns a large population, who, in spite of every care, could not be brought to attend divine worship. Now this he conceived was the strongest argument that could be used in favour of legislative interference, inasmuch as it was their duty, where there were such persons, to attempt to reclaim them. It was these very classes. so deprived of moral and religious instruction, that brought discredit on the coun-
636
try, and endangered the peace of society. He admitted, that the mere building of churches would be of no avail. He admitted that the providing free seats, and those too, of a respectable character, would do but little to remedy that irreligion which habitually existed; but Dr. Chalmers had not limited his plan to the mere extension of churches, he said, that at the time they extended church accommodation they must remove the barriers which prevented the people from availing themselves of the ministration of the gospel — they must add an impelling motive to induce these persons to attend divine worship. He therefore did not propose merely church extension, not merely endowments for those churches that had been already built, but they must circumscribe the exertions of the parochial ministers, they must give them a responsibility for the moral condition of the people under their charge, they must not compel them to confine their attention to their congregational flock, but they must give them a direct interest in the improvement of those who were attached to the church, and not only remove all barriers, but supply an impelling motive to their exertions. It appeared upon all sides that no such existed in Edinburgh. They need not commit themselves to the principle with respect to Glasgow, or any other place respecting which they had no evidence; but if they had a population of 50,000 persons in the metropolis who habitually neglected divine worship, and who had no means of religious instruction, was there any reason why they should not at once proceed to the consideration of that question, and supply those wants? If the principle were established, he should be glad of it. He would establish it to this extent, that where be found among the landed proprietors of Scotland so deep a conviction that evil had arisen from the want of church accommodation, that they were ready from their own means to raise a large sum of money for the construction of edifices, then he would say, let the State step in and provide endowments for these churches. The effect of this principle, carried to its full extent, would not cost the country much, but it would give a stimulus to subscriptions amongst all the inhabitants of Scotland. When the people were unable to raise a sufficient subscription, he contended that it was not only incumbent on the State, but its bounden

637
duty, to provide endowments and also to construct edifices for public worship. On these grounds he believed that the principle limited to that extent was advantageous. He believed that its benefits would far outweigh the speculative objections that might be made to it—that it Was the interest of the Dissenters as well as of members of the establishment—indeed, of all—that a moral and religious population should exist in Scotland—that it was their interest to see the ancient name of Scotland again conspicuous— and that that country should take the lead she was used to take among the nations of Europe. He should not only most cordially bear his share of the contributions which he should be called upon to make, not only should he not feel it a violation of conscience, but he should think it consistent with the soundest policy, consistent with the truest economy, and consistent with everything calculated to promote the honour, the peace, and the welfare of the country.
Mi. Horsmansaid, as my name is appended to that Report I feel it my duty, although with some personal inconvenience, to be present on this occasion; but I had still hoped that I need not have been called on to address the House, least of all did I hope to be called in consequence of any more of those attacks which the hon. Member for Edinburghshire has so long been in the habit of making on the Commissioners. I had hoped he would have followed the same course he did last time the subject was before the House, for he then admitted that the Commissioners were ably and impartially discharging their duties, although on their appointment he had accused them of gross incapacity and great political bias. But he has thought proper now to fall foul of their report, and say that it is mystified, confused, and unwillingly wrung from the Commissioners. Now, having listened attentively to all that fell from him, I must say, that all the mystification and confusion we have had an example of this evening was in his own speech. I wish I could add, that it also was unwillingly wrung from him; but that certainly has not been the case; that speech was Intended to produce much effect, and had certainly cost much preparation, for with all my willingness to give full credit to his ability in that line, I do not think he could have given vent to such a long train of ignorance and
638
inconsistencies without a very great deal of preparation indeed. That report watt made by the Commissioners after an inquiry instituted under every difficulty—under difficulties arising partly from the conduct of the Members for Bute and Edinburgh, who excited much feeling against them, and also from the opposition of the church, who for their reasons were dissatisfied with the constitution of the Commission, as well as from the hostility of the dissenters, who had also their reasons for disaffection. But what has been the result? That inquiry has been completed—the Report has been published for weeks—the church find no fault—the Dissenters show little dissatisfaction, and in this House it has passed without a single criticism, except the Member for Edinburgh's vague declaration that it is mystified and confused. I shall not vote for the resolutions of the Member for Bute, and for this among other reasons, that I feel them to be brought forward solely from party views. They are nominally for the interests of the church; they are in reality to promote the cause of Conservatism in Scotland. I object to this attempt to convert the scotish church into a political engine—to degrade it, as the churches of England and Ireland have been degraded, into an instrument of party Warfare. It is certainly competent for Gentlemen to bring forward this question in any way they like; but if they are pleased to be so lavish of their censures on the Government for its omissions, at least it would be more decent in them to begin by a penitent acknowledgment of their own. When they left office in 1830 their party had had an extraordinary lease of power; and with such majorities as they possessed they could have carried any measure for the strengthening of the church; yet up to that time the church had been treated with an indifference bordering on contempt. Not only was no one act of grace ever accorded it to show that the Government had its existence in remembrance, but its wants were unfeelingly disregarded and its interests heedlessly overlooked. But the very magnitude of the evil brought with it one cure, and one by no means favourable to the establishment. The people, for whom the hon. Baronets did not think it worth while to make provision (for they had no votes in those days, and they were not prophets enough to foresee that the church-in-dan-

639
ger cry might one day be as useful to them in that country as it had ever proved in this)—that people, who could get no provision from the Government, set about to seek for it elsewhere; they had wished to learn, but the Government would give them no teachers, they had asked for worship but the Government would afford them no room; they resolved to furnish it for themselves; they were a pious and energetic race; they were poor—the poorest of the people; but they were not deterred by that; the labourer brought a portion of his daily earnings, and the widow contributed her mite, and conventicles arose, and more ministers were ordained, and the gospel became once more accessible to all, and the efforts of the Dissenters were blessed in their effects, for an intelligent people they preserved from ignorance, and a religious people they rescued from infidelity. The state of matters may be judged of by one fact: the very first parish the Commissioners had inquired into had a population of 80,000. When the right hon. Baronet left office it had only one parish church. Now many churches of other denominations had sprung up in it—nineteen. The whole population of Edinburgh is 162,000, of this less than a half belonged to the establishment. Thus, therefore, the House and the public will see, that whatever may be the demerits of others, at least the services of our opponents to the church have not been much to boast of; and if a comparison between the two parties is to be entered on, at least they are foolish to provoke it. The present Government, from the faults of its now assailants, are in this unfortunate position, that they have neither the opportunity to do all the good their predecessors might have done, nor can they hope to remedy all the mischiefs that their predecessors have brought about. On the present condition and character of the Scotch Church establishment I have recently had great opportunities of forming an opinion, and perhaps from personal observation I might venture to put myself in competition even with so high an authority as the right hon. Gentleman. I do not, then, hesitate to say, that the Church of Scotland is by far the most perfect establishment that we possess or know of. It presents none of those anomalies by which our churches in England and Ireland are disgraced; it has no wealth arising from the wants of a suf-
640
fering and slaughtered peasantry to support the doctrines of a majority of the nation and the priesthood of an alien faith. It has no rich prizes by which to spur the piety of its prelates— no desirable translations by which to ensure their independence—and it presents you with none of the features of an overgrown establishment with a long catalogue of irregularities and abuses, and a retinue of deans, and pluralists, and prebends. No; the Church of Scotland happily, is cumbered by none of those monstrosities, and therefore the Church of Scotland has been an useful and a popular Church—popular from its simple and unpretending character, and useful from the character of its ministry. Its clergy instead of being scions of aristocracy, and too often an example of indolence and immorality to their flock, are invariably taken from the people, and with incomes varying from 150 l. to 300 l. a-year, never below the former, and very rarely exceeding the latter sum, they maintain a life of respectability and usefulness, and present to you the picture of the most exemplary, the most laborious, and the most efficient ministry under any establishment you possess. Such was their character previous to their being admitted to political privileges under the Reform Bill. Whether that character is to continue, our opponents are now making a matter of experiment. Previous to 1832 the "Church-in-danger" cry had never been heard in Scotland. But on the passing of the Reform Bill a change came over the dream of the hon. Members for Edingburgh and Bute. The church that had hitherto been disregarded as a means of instruction for the people was now capable of being made a mighty engine of power for the advancement of a party. The practised eye of those experienced Gentlemen saw the advantage to be derived from a good move. Accordingly in that long-lived and prosperous administration which the right hon. Baronet formed, the church was put up to auction, and the first bid for its favours was made by a paragraph in the King's Speech. That speech has been called a series of claptraps; but the greatest claptrap it contained was that about the Scotch Church. It was, however, a skilful move and answered a double purpose. It contained a very safe promise, because the Tory tenure of office was certain to be too short to allow it to be performed; but in the second place it furnished a capital handle of agitation against their successors.

641
Is it not in accordance with a pledge given at a public dinner that the right hon. Baronet brings forward this motion tonight? In reply to a speech then delivered by a clergyman, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Bute got up—complimented the eloquence of the speaker—praised the speech—drew a pathetic picture of the wants of the Church and the enmity of the Government—showed that he who had, when in office, seen one million at one time voted to the English Church, and 500,000 l. at another, without getting one sixpence for the Church of Scotland, was ready to become a martyr, and pledged himself to bring the matter before Parliament and obtain justice for Scotland. The right hon. Member has redeemed his pledge. The Member for Selkirk was also there—he also gave a pledge—he has not yet redeemed it—but he also made a speech, almost as eloquent as the one he is going to make tonight, and showed that if the Church of Scotland was to be once more watered with the blood of martyrs, the Members for Bute and Edinburgh should not engross all the honour, for if they died for their religion, the Member for Selkirk was prepared to die for it too. But this was not all—the Peel banquet took place soon after, and it was well known and diligently published that there also the Church of Scotland would be brought prominently forward, and the clergy were everywhere invited to attend. Forty-five of them did attend,, and they exhibited a political gathering of the Scotch Church such as had never been seen before. But if the presence of those Gentlemen at that dinner, headed as they were by the moderator of the General Assembly, and all sorts of dignitaries and principals, was injudicious, the sentiments that were uttered by them were still more so. Sir, the best lovers of the Church of Scotland viewed with sorrow and alarm the exhibition that was made by a portion of their clergy on that occasion—they knew that the Tory papers, which blazoned with those names and speeches triumphantly and vauntingly as they did, aimed a heavier blow at their Church establishment than could have been inflicted by a whole army of Dissenters. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth approves of clergymen being politicians. He told us lately in this House that when they ceased to be politicians they would soon become drones and hypocrites. Now, the people of Scotland think differently; and they tell the
642
right hon. Baronet that if he had looked to Scotland, or been as well acquainted with it as he pretended, he would have seen a Church in which, since the Reformation, there have been no politicians; and yet there have been fewer drones and hypocrites than in any Church in existence. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman from my own experience that a political divine is seldom a religious one; that the man who courts notoriety out of the sphere of his duties, is seldom the one whose labours are the most profitable within it The thunderer at a political gathering on a week day is not the one whose sermon is most attentively listened to on the Sabbath. I say that I now do, by the encouragement I have received in communications from churchmen of all parties, the greater majority of them, however, of politics opposed to the Government, condemn the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman in bringing on this question now. They are all apprehensive of the effects of the headlong blindness with which some of their body have rushed into the toils of a party whose blandishments are only lavished to mislead, and who were quite indifferent for the souls of the people till it became necessary to propitiate their votes. They know that nothing can be so injurious to the Church as the right hon. Baronet's political protection. The great majority of the people are at present in favour of that Church, but to that same majority the political creed of the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends is particularly distasteful, and nothing could injure the interests of the church so much as making it identical with his. But now, then, that they think, as I do, that his political patronage is insulting, they want it not, they want not the officious patronage of any party; they feel that the clergy have higher duties to perform than to devote their lives to so hopeless a task as replacing the Members for Bute and Edinburgh on the Treasury bench. They spurn, therefore, the alliance that is offered them, or, rather, the political subserviency, and they beheld with horror and dismay the attempt that was made at Glasgow to tack their church as an appendage to the political skirts of the right hon. Member for Tamworth. They know that if such attempts should unhappily be successful—if their ministers, instead of being religious teachers, become political aspirants—if they once prostitute themselves as the tools of selfish politicians,

643
and allow their church to be degraded into the stalking-horse of party ambition, then indeed will it be in danger: with its purity impaired, its usefulness extinguished, and its ministers degraded, detested, and despised, it will fall, as it will deserve to fall, the victim of its own misconduct.
Major Cumming Brucebegged to congratulate the House and the hon. Member who had just addressed them on his restoration to health. Indeed, he was happy to see the hon. Member in the perfect enjoyment of that health, the loss of which they had so much reason to deplore when it compelled him to be absent from his duties on an Election Committee. He rejoiced to find, both from the length and eloquence of the address which the House had just heard, that the health of the hon. Member was not so seriously affected as his friends had apprehended. The hon. Member for Cockermouth had commenced his speech by an attack on his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburghshire, and lectured him on the unpopularity of prepared speeches. The hon. Member seemed to think, that to consider the subject in respect to which a notice had been given, was a course which ought not to be pursued. However, he would not attempt to say that the hon. Member himself was entirely free from the imputation which he had endeavoured to cast upon his hon. Friend. He was sure, that no one who heard him would gainsay that the hon. Member, after the address which he had delivered, was not liable to such an imputation. He would not waste the time of the House by attempting to follow the hon. Member throughout his speech, for he had touched on every subject but the subject at issue. But he could not allow to pass, unnoticed, the imputations that he had cast upon an individual of whom the country had every reason to be proud—the illustrious Dr. Chalmers. He could not allow any imputation affecting that illustrious and distinguished individual to pass unnoticed; and he felt bound to say, that the statements which the hon. Member had made, must have been from a total misunderstanding and misrepresentation made to him. There was a gentleman at present in London who was present at the meeting in respect to which it had been stated, that Dr. Chalmers had objected to Lord Moncrief. So far from Dr. Chalmers having had any connexion with this transaction, he was all the time ill in bed. Now, he would say, let the House judge
644
from this statement of all else that had been advanced by the hon. Gentleman. He would say, ex uno disce omnes. What dependence could be placed on the accuracy of statements which might have been forced on the credulity of the hon. Member, when he, had been led into such a mistake with reference to this fact? The hon. Member had accused hon. Members at his side of the House, with making the Church of Scotland a party question. He did not think it necessary to repel that accusation. But did the speech of the hon. Member show a total freedom from party spirit—a complete and perfect avoidance of party asperity? He would leave those who had heard the hon. Member, to form their own conclusions. The hon. Member's speech showed, that on a question which ought to be sacred from political excitement, he was unable to keep himself free from the intermixture of party and political opinions. The newspapers, unfortunately, had not been in the habit of paying much attention to what occurred respecting subjects connected with Scotland in the debates of that House. He regretted, that he could not compare the spirit of the speech of the hon. Member with that of the hon. Member for Dumfries, which he (Major C. Bruce) had listened to with great pleasure and great instruction, and with a considerable modification of his previous opinions on the subject. However, there was one part of that hon. Gentleman's speech which he could not go along with—where he said, that the zeal of the Dissenters for religious institutions, was greater than that of the members of the Established Church. In answer to that, he would only say, that the voluntary subscriptions of the members of the Established Church for the promotion of religious instruction in Scotland, amounted to 150,000 l. and he thought that was sufficient to show the zeal of the members of the Established Church. The hon. Member opposite, had made it a charge against the clergy of the Church of Scotland, that forty-five of their members had attended at a public banquet at Glasgow—at the Peel banquet. But when the hon. Member took upon himself to state, that the clergy of Scotland took no part in politics until the franchise was forced upon them, he would please to remember that the clergy of Scotland were indebted to those who sat at the same side of the House with the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth, for having the franchise forced

645
upon them against their will. He had opposed the extension of that franchise to the clergy at the time when the Scotch Reform Bill was before the House, and several of the clergy had thanked him for having so done. But this franchise having been conferred upon the clergy, how were they to act? When the Legislature had forced civil duties upon the clergy of the Church of Scotland, would it have become them to shrink from discharging those duties? He knew they would discharge those duties conscientiously, whether they voted for Whig, Radical, or Conservative. But would any one say, that these were grounds on which hon. and conscientious men were to be judged? The hon. Member had so mystified his speech, that he was sure even the hon. Member for Middlesex was not able to make up his mind, how he should vote upon this motion. Some few years ago, the right hon. Member for Bute had moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the entire subject. That motion had been met with an amendment by the Secretary for the Home Department, to the effect of issuing a commission to inquire into the entire subject. His hon. Friend, who thought at the time it would be advantageous to his purpose to have the Government with him, assented to the proposition of the Home Secretary, and consented to withdraw his motion. He was the only Member at the time who had refused his assent to that amendment. He expressed his decided reluctance to agree to it. His right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, who rose after him, took a different view of the subject; and on account of the advanced period of the Session (it was then July) spoke in favour of the amendment. He, on that account, was willing to yield to an authority which he had always felt disposed to respect, and withdrew his opposition. The motion for the issuing of a commission was, consequently, unanimously carried. The reason why he felt disposed to place no confidence in a commission was, because he distrusted the intentions and disposition of the Government with respect to the Church of Scotland. It was that feeling, that had induced him to dissent from that proposal. As he had then, however, availed himself of the opportunity of stating the reasons for his distrust, he would not now trouble the House by repeating them; but he would say this much, that his objections were principally founded upon a speech delivered by the Lord Advo-
646
cate of Scotland, in which that learned Lord expressed sentiments so inimical to the Church of Scotland, and the principles on which it was founded, that he (Major C. Bruce) found himself compelled to distrust any Government in which the enunciator of such sentiments and opinions, so far as Scotland was concerned, bore so important a part and exercised so important an influence? Now, why was that commission issued? The Secretary for the Home Department was aware of the sensation which that speech had created, even amongst the Members from Scotland who were the supporters of the Government; and it appeared to him, that his concession at the time was more intended to allay the tempest, than from any sincere desire towards the Church of Scotland. It was a disposition suddenly to calm the troubled waters, and to leave other circumstances to be disposed of at a future time. It reminded him of a similar disposition, though perhaps a more effectual one, to assuage the troubled waters—Hos ego!—sed motos prœstat componere fluctus. On the occasion to which he referred, the noble Lord said, in reply to opinions that had been expressed, that "the labours of the commission might prove interminable unless they were rendered precise and determinate; that it might have been urged as an objection that the Commissioners might protract their labours to an indefinite period, but that their labour would be lessened from time to time by making report to the House (as we understood the hon. Member); and that when, after sufficient inquiry, they had decided on the remedy that ought to be applied, the House and the Government would immediately proceed to act upon it." Now, he would ask the House, had not the objection to this commission been borne out by the result. He would ask the noble Lord, had any of these objections been obviated by the course to which he had pledged the Government? The noble Lord, on the occasion referred to, expressed his regard for the Church of Scotland; but he always had accustomed himself to place more confidence in action, however small or limited, than in professions, however large or high-sounding. The Church of Scotland asked for bread, and the noble Lord gave it a stone. They asked for a grant, and the noble Lord gave them what?—a commission. The Church of Scotland, however, did not sue in forma pauperis. She asked a grant to enable her to extend necessary religious instruc-

647
tion. Well, a commission was granted, and, after two years' labour, what had the Commissioners accomplished? They had produced a report, which, in some respects, was perfectly unintelligible. When the noble Lord was asked the meaning of the report, he said that he did not understand its language. He supposed it was in an unknown tongue. He did not know what satisfaction to the people of Scotland could arise out of the proceedings of this com- mission. He supposed, that the results of this commission would be felt in Scotland about the same time that the good results of the appropriation principle would be understood in Ireland. By the way, he would take that occasion to ask the noble Lord what had become of the appropriation clause, about which so much had been said and contended last year? Had it vanished into thin air? Was the House to see no more of it? Did the noble Lord intend to advert to any better substitute which might be suggested by the noble Secretary for Ireland, or by the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He could warn the noble Lord, that the course he was pursuing would produce no satisfaction in Scotland. The Church of Scotland was aware, that it had nothing to hope from the Government of the noble Lord. He would ask the noble Lord, whether he thought the course he was pursuing, likely to increase or confirm the apprehensions entertained by the friends of the Established Church. The people of Scotland had no expectations from the present Government. He entreated the noble Lord to pause in his course, and not to be insensible to what was passing around him. A great re-action had already taken place in Scotland, of which the noble Lord must be aware. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, had received at the hands of the youth of Scotland, the highest compliment which it was in their power to bestow. A distinguished and eminent noble and learned Lord had also received a high compliment and a gratifying honour from the University of Aberdeen. They had another instance of reaction in the rejection of the Ministerial candidate for Ross-shire. The noble Lord ought not to close his eyes to the re-action that was going on. The noble Lord might increase commissions, he might add job to job, but he never could persuade the moral, religious, and conscientious people of Scotland to violate their consciences. When he looked at the course pursued, with re-
648
spect to the Established Churches of these countries, he could not see any reason to expect that the people of Scotland could view, with confidence, any act of the present Government towards their Church. If the noble Lord considered these assertions unjust, he would have an opportunity of vindicating himself. The noble Lord incurred a fearful responsibility by delay, for he had a far higher than man's frail tribunal to account to. He would, therefore, entreat the noble Lord, in the spirit of a true and exalted courage, not to shrink from the duty he had to perform, but to do it fearlessly. The hon. Member concluded, by apologising to the House, and expressing his determination to support the resolutions.
Mr. CutlarFergusson rose only in consequence of the opinions which the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Buteshire, had referred to as having been delivered by him on a former occasion. He would not now depart from those opinions, and he would not give the vote he intended to give that night, if he thought it had any tendency to check the extension of the principles, or in any way against the interests, of the Established Church of Scotland; more particularly as he considered that establishment entitled to ask for relief at the hands of the Legislature. On the present occasion, however, he could not concur in the resolutions of the right hon. Baronet, as he had already agreed to an inquiry which was not yet terminated, and he could not consent to act on a partial investigation. It was particularly to be considered that there was one part of the inquiry that had not yet been touched upon—he referred to those funds which the Church of Scotland itself possessed. It was to be observed, that the money was not to be drawn from churchmen of Scotland, but from the Dissenters of England, of Ireland, and of Scotland; and he thought the grant could not properly be made until the Church of Scotland had shown that it had exhausted its own means —it must show a case of absolute necessity, and this it had not yet shown. Another view in which he regarded the matter was this, that the case should apply to the whole of Scotland, for how did they know that in relieving Edinburgh they should have enough to supply the proportionate wants of the other parts of Scotland; the Highlands for instance, they had a right to know the amount of funds that could be applied to

649
the relief of the Scotch Church. He did not think that any great delay would take place if they waited until the whole subject was before them. The Commissioners had worked day and night, and there had been no delay on their parts in completing the inquiry, nor was there any on the part of Government. He must say, that until he knew what the wants of the people of Scotland really were, he was not prepared to deal with the subject, though he should be most ready to meet it when the whole case was before the House; and he did not think that it would be long, as the inquiry was then far advanced, before the Commissioners made a general report. In that opinion, and thinking that nothing but disappointment could ensue from pushing the House to a decision before the facts were before it, he should vote against the resolutions of the right hon. Baronet.
Mr. Humehad listened with great plea-to the speech which the hon. Member for Cockermouth had delivered, to the great satisfaction of the House. Whether the hon. Member for Inverness was to be classed with the drones or the hypocrites he could not say. ["Order," "Chair."]
The Speakersaid, that the hon. Member for Middlesex owed the House an explanation of the words he had used.
Mr. Humewas not aware that he had said any thing contrary to the rules of the House. When he saw hon. Members in that House, or in any other assembly, claiming for themselves alone any regard to religion, and pronouncing his Majesty's Ministers to be insensible to it, and denouncing him and them, and all who agreed with them, he must say, that such persons arrogated to themselves a purity of character they did not deserve. He must judge of them by their acts, as well as by their words, and when he looked at the sway they had formerly exercised in that House, he conceived them to be the last persons who should complain of the destitution of the Scotch Church, when they might so easily have given it whatever assistance that House could afford. The present motion was, in fact, only a party effort to annoy his Majesty's Ministers, and to stop the progress of reform. He was surprised at the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, who always objected to proceed in any matter until full inquiry had been made concerning it. He agreed with the right hon. Member for
650
Tamworth, that a moral change had taken place in the condition of the people of Scotland, which he attributed to the altered character of the clergy, who did not, as formerly, attend to their clerical duties, and the education of their neighbourhood had declined in proportion. It appeared to him, that instead of calling for endowments, they ought rather to propose some remedy which would apply to all, and nothing but a good system of education would restore them to the station they had formerly held, when they were, as the right hon. Baronet had said, an example to the rest of Europe. He had heard with great regret the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had preceded him, who had said that he was willing to add to the endowments of the church. He would entreat the House not to lend itself to such a proceeding as a demand for funds' without making out a previous case of necessity.
Mr. Andrew Johnstonfelt both surprised and grieved at the speech of the hon. Member for Cockermouth, for it was anything but calculated to give pleasure to the Scottish Members. Entirely unconnected as he was with the right hon. Baronet who brought forward these resolutions, he could freely and fairly say, that in his opinion the Church of Scotland was deeply indebted to him. And when it was considered that that right hon. Member had for ten years been the first law officer of the Crown in Scotland, he was also of opinion, that to no hands could the case of the Church of that country be more safely or more properly intrusted. He did not think the Church of Scotland fairly treated on this occasion. When the Committee of the General Assembly made certain proposals to the noble Lord—that they would build a large number of churches if he would endow them—he thought it argued no great zeal in the cause of religion, for the Government to decline the offer. The noble Lord on a former occasion had said, that it would be the duty of the Commissioners to report on the paramount cases of necessity first; the noble Lord was now satisfied. They had reported the case of Edinburgh, and showed that in that city there were 20,000 persons destitute of the means of religious instruction. What more did he want? But it was aid the case was incomplete. All the right hon. Baronet's resolutions asked was, that it should be taken into consideration.

651
Was that too much? If the noble Lord acceded to that reasonable request all would be made plain and clear in a few days. The hon. Member for Cocker-mouth had charged the clergy of the Church of Scotland with a political bias. Now he was not there to defend them— they did not need his defence. He would let their own characters speak for them, and point merely to what they had done for the people of Scotland as the best refutation of that charge. He hoped that the House would adopt the resolutions.
Mr. Dunlopsaid, that Scotland owed a large debt of gratitude to his Majesty's Ministers for their conduct on the question at issue. The Dissenters of that country felt the greatest reluctance to give any grant to the Church of Scotland, and the result of the resolution of the right hon. Baronet would be the production of bad feeling between the Dissenters and the members of the Church of Scotland. If, however, the whole case of the Church were fully stated, and the destitution complained of satisfactorily proved, he did not believe that the Dissenters would offer any opposition to whatever amount of grant might be deemed necessary to relieve it. But while the whole claim put forward was for the capital of the country alone, he thought his Majesty's Ministers would be very ill-advised indeed to admit it. He could understand why hon. Members opposite wished to cause a rupture between the Dissenters and the Church of Scotland; it was to further their own political purposes. The only question at issue, in point of fact, was, whether the people of Scotland should be called on to contribute to the necessities of the Church before all its wants were made apparent. He should oppose the resolutions.
Mr. Walter Campbellexpressed his grief that the question should be made a party one at all, or treated in any way as a political question. No man felt more warmly for the interests of the Church of Scotland than he did; but he could not, notwithstanding, support the resolutions of the right hon. Baronet. It was true enough, that there was a population of 55,000 destitute souls in Edinburgh, without the means of religious instruction; but the same destitution existed elsewhere as well as in Edinburgh. In his (Mr. Campbell's) county there were two parishes, measuring sixty miles long by
652
eighteen broad, and yet they had only one church and one clergyman between them. Under these circumstances, he was of opinion, that the whole state of the country, rather than that of an isolated portion of it, should be taken into the calculation before any relief were administered. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would withdraw his motion, and not press it to a division; because, if he did, he would do more injury to the Established Church in Scotland than all the efforts of her enemies could accomplish. He (Mr. Campbell) should not support the resolutions of the right hon. Baronet; but if the whole case of Scotland were made out, and all the funds of the Kirk were proved to be exhausted, he should then have no hesitation to vote anything necessary.
The House divided on the original motion to read the first Order of the Day:—Ayes 217; Noes 176:—Majority 41.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Byng, G.

Aglionby, H. A

Byng, G. S.

Ainsworth, P.

Callaghan, D.

Angerstein, J.

Campbell, Sir J.

Anson, Colonel

Campbell, W. F.

Anson, Sir G.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Bagshaw, J.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Chalmers, P.

Baines, E.

Chapman, M. L.

Bannerman, A.

Chetwynd, Captain

Barclay, D.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Baring, F. T.

Clay, W.

Barnard, E. G.

Clements, Viscount

Barron, H.

Clive, E. B.

Barry, G. S.

Collier, J.

Belfast, Earl of

Collins, W.

Bellew, R. M.

Crawford, W. S,

Bentinck, Lord W;

Crawley, S

Berkeley, hon. F.

Curteis, H. B.

Bernal, R.

Dalmeny, Lord

Bewes, T.

Denison, J.

Biddulph, R.

Denistoun, A.

Blake, M. J.

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Blunt, Sir C.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Bodkin, J.

Donkin, Sir R.

Bowring, Dr.

Dundas, hon. J. C.

Brady, D. C.

Dundas, hon. T.

Bridgman, H.

Dundas, J. D.

Brocklehurst, J.

Dunlop, J.

Brotherton, J.

Elphinstone, H.

Browne, R. D.

Evans, G.

Buller, C.

Ewart, W.

Buller, E.

Fielden, J.

Bulwer, H. L.

Fenton, J.

Bulwer, E. L.

Fergus, J.

Burdon, W.

Ferguson, R.

Burton, H.

Fergusson, R. C.

Butler, hon. P.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

653

Fitzsimon, C.

Oliphant, L.

Fleetwood, P. H.

Ord, W. H.

Folkes, Sir W.

Palmerston, Viscount

Fort, J.

Parker, J.

Gillon, W. D.

Parnell, Sir H.

Gordon, R,

Parrott, J.

Goring, H. D.

Parry, Sir L. P.

Grattan, J.

Pattison, J.

Grattan, H.

Pease, J.

Grey, Sir G., bart.

Pechell, Captain R.

Grote, G.

Pendarves, E. W.

Guest, J.

Philips, M.

Hastie, A.

Pinney, W.

Hawes, B.

Ponsouby, J.

Hawkins, J. H.

Power, J.

Hay, Sir A. L., bart

Poyntz, W. S.

Heathcoat, J.

Price, Sir R.

Hector, C. J.

Pryme, G.

Heneage, B.

Pryse, P.

Hindley, C.

Ramsbottom, J.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Rice, tight hon. T. S.

Hodges, T. L.

Rippon, C.

Holland, E.

Robinson, G. R.

Hoskins, K.

Roche, D

Howard, P. H.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Howick, Viscount

Rooper, J. B.

Hume, J.

Rundle, J.

Hutt, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Russell, Lord C.

Jervis, J.

Ruthven, E.

King, Edward B.

Scott, J. W.

Labouchere, H.

Seymour, Lord

Lee, J. L.

Smith, J. A.

Lefevre, C. S.

Smith, R. V.

Lemon, Sir C.

Stanley, W. O.

Lennox, Lord G.

Stewart, P. M.

Lennox, Lord A.

Stuart, Lord J.

Leveson, Lord

Stuart, V.

Loch, J.

Strutt, E.

Lushington, Dr.

Surrey, Earl of

Lushington, C.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Lynch, A. H.

Talbot J. H.

Macleod, R.

Talfourd, Serjeant

Macnamara, Major

Tancred, W. H.

Mactaggart, J.

Thomson, C. P.

Maher, J.

Thompson, P. B.

Mangles, J.

Thompson, Colonel

Marshall, W.

Thornley, T.

Marsland, H.

Tooke, W.

Martin, T.

Townley, R. G.

Maule, hon. F.

Trelawney, Sir W. L.

Milton, Viscount

Tulk, C. A.

Morpeth, Viscount

Turner, W.

Morrison, J.

Villiers, C. P.

Mullins, F. W.

Vivian, J. H.

Murray, J. A.

Wakley, T.

Musgrave, Sir R., bt.

Walker, R.

Nagle, Sir R.

Wallace, R.

North, P.

Warburton, H.

O'Brien, C

Ward, H. G.

O'Brien, W. S.

Wemyss, Captain

O'Connell, D.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

O'Connell, J.

Whalley, Sir S.

O'Connell, M. J.

White, S.

O'Connell, M.

Wigney, I. N.

O'Conor, Don

Wibraham, G.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Wilks, J.

654

Williams, W.

Wyse, T.

Williamson, Sir H.

Young, G. F.

Wood, Ald.

TELLERS.

Worsley, Lord

Steuart, R.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Stanley, E. J.

List of the NOES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Forbes, W.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Forster, C. S.

Ashley, Viscount

Fox, Lieut Colonel

Bagot, hon. W.

Fremantle, Sir T. W.

Bailey, J.

Gaskell, James Milnes

Balfour, T.

Geary, Sir W.

Barclay, C.

Gladstone, T.

Baring, F.

Gladstone, W. E.

Baring, W. B.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Baring, T.

Goodricke, Sir F.

Bateson, Sir R.

Gordon, hon. W.

Beckett, Sir J.

Goulburn, H.

Bell, M.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Bentinck, Lord G.

Graham, Sir J,

Blackburne, J. I.

Grant, hon. Colonel

Blackstone, W. S.

Grimston, Viscount

Boldero, Capt. H. G.

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Bolling, W.

Halford, H.

Bonham, R. F,

Hamilton, G. A.

Borthwick, P.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Bramston, T. W.

Hanmer, H.

Bruen, Colonel

Hanmer, Sir J.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Harcourt, G. S.

Campbell, Sir H.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Hardy, J.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hawkes, T.

Chandos, Marquess

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Chaplin, Colonel

Hillsborough, Earl of

Chichester, A.

Hogg, J. W.

Chisholm, A.

Hope, hon. J.

Clive, Viscount

Hotham, Lord

Codrington, C. W.

Houston, G.

Cole, A. H.

Ingham, R.

Cole, Viscount

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Compton, H. C.

Irton, S.

Conolly, E. M.

Jackson, Sergeant

Copeland, W. T.

Jermyn, Earl

Corbett, T.

Johnstone, J. J. H.

Corry, H.

Johnston, A.

Crewe, Sir G.

Jones, T.

Dalbiac, Sir C.

Kirk, P.

Darlington, Earl of

Knight, H. G.

Dick, Q.

Knightley, Sir C.

Dowdeswell, W.

Law, hon. C. E.

Duffield, T.

Lefroy, A.

Dunbar, G.

Lefroy, T.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Lincoln, Earl of

East, J. B.

Longfield, R.

Eastnor, Viscount

Lowther, Col. H. C.

Eaton, R. J.

Lucas, E.

Egerton, Sir P.

Lygon, hon. General

Elley, Sir J.

Mackenzie, T.

Elwes, J.

Maclean, D.

Fector, J. M.

Mahon, Viscount

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Manners, Lord C.

Ferguson, G.

Maunsel T. P.

Finch, G.

Maxwell, H

Fitzroy, H.

Miles, W.

Foley, E.T.

Miller, W. H.

Follett, Sir W.

Morlaunt, Sir J., bt.

655

Neeld, J.

Shirley, E. J.

O'Neil, Gen.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Ossulston, Lord

Smith, A.

Packe, C. W.

Smith, T. A.

Palmer, G.

Somerset, Lord G.

Patten, J. W.

Stanley, E.

Peel, right hon. Sir R.

Stanley, Lord

Peel, Colonel, J.

Stewart, J.

Peel, W. Y.

Sturt, H. C.

Pemberton, T.

Thomas, Col.

Perceval, Colonel

Thompson, Ald.

Pigot, R.

Trevor, hon. A.

Plumptre, J. P.

Twiss, H.

Polhill, F.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Pollen, Sir J., bart.

Verner, Colonel

Pollock, Sir F.

Vesey, hon. T.

Praed, W. M.

Walpole, Lord

Price, S. G.

Walter, J.

Pringle, A.

Welby, G. E.

Rae, Sir W. bart.

West, J. B.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Whitmore, T. C.

Richards, J.

Williams, T. P.

Richards, R.

Wodehouse, E.

Rickford, W.

Wortley, J. S.

Ross, C.

Young, J.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Young, Sir W.

Ryle, J.

Sandon, Viscount

TELLERS.

Shaw, F.

Bruce, C.

Sheppard, T.

Clerk, Sir G.

SUPPLY.
The House went into a Committee of Supply,
It was proposed to grant to his Majesty a sum not exceeding 24,617,000 l. for the payment of outstanding Exchequer bills.
Mr. Humethought the Committee ought to adjourn the consideration of this motion until the 9th of June. When the other House stopped the progress of reform, when they unnecessarily impeded legislation with that view, he submitted to that House whether it was right in them to part with a single shilling of the public money? When it was considered that it was past midnight, and especially after what had occurred elsewhere, he thought he should only be acting consistently —for there was nothing like the two Houses of Parliament agreeing —if he moved, as an amendment, that the debate on the grant be adjourned to the 9th of June.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the vote did not go to incur any new charge, but merely to enable Government to effect the ordinary exchange of Exchequer bills; and if the hon. Member's proposition was agreed to, such an exchange could not take place; and the effect would be very greatly to embarrass the public business.
Vote agreed to, House resumed.

TITHES (IRELAND.)
On the motion
656
that the report on the tithe resolution be taken into consideration,
Mr. Sharman Crawfordintimated his intention to move that the consideration of the report be postponed till the 10th of June.
Lord John Russelltrusted, that the House would, not sanction such a course. If the hon. Gentleman, desired it, he had no doubt that his noble Friend would consent to postpone the second reading of the Bill till the 9th of June.
Mr. Sharman Crawfordwould oppose proceeding with the report that evening.
Mr. C. Hindleymoved, that the House do adjourn.
The House divided: Ayes 12; Noes 128: —Majority 116.
Question again put.
Mr. Sharman Crawfordmeant to divide the House in opposition to the motion of the noble Lord.
The House divided on the original motion: Ayes 126; Noes 7:—Majority 119.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Fitzroy, Lord

Aglionby, H. A.

Fleetwood, P.

Agnew, Sir A.

Forbes, W m.

Angerstein, J.

Forster, C. S.

Baines, E.

Fremantle, T.

Bannerman, A.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Baring, W. B.

Gladstone, W. E.

Barnard, E. G.

Gordon, R.

Bateson, Sir R.

Goulburn, H.

Bellew, R. M.

Graham, Sir J.

Bellew, Sir P.

Grote, G.

Bentinck, Lord W.

Halford, H.

Bernal, R.

Hamilton, G. A.

Blackburne, J.

Hawes, B.

Bowring, Dr.

Heathcote, J.

Brotherton, J.

Hector, C. J.

Bulwer, H. L.

Herries, J. C.

Bulwer, E. L.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Canning, Sir S.

Hodges, T. L.

Chalmers, P.

Hoskins, K.

Chaplin, Col.

Hume, J.

Chichester, A.

Jackson, Sergeant

Chisholm, A. W.

Ingham, R.

Clerk, Sir G.

Irton, Samuel

Clive, E. B.

Knight, H. G.

Cole, Viscount

Knightley, Sir C.

Collins, W.

Labouchere, H.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Law, hon. C. E.

Dalmeny, Lord

Lemon, Sir C.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hon.

Lennox, Lord G.

C. T.

Lennox, Lord A.

Dunbar, G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Dundas, J.

Loch, J.

Egerton, Sir P.

Maclean, D.

Elphinstone, H.

Maher, John

Etwall, R.

Maule, hon. F.

Ewart, W.

Maxwell, H.

Ferguson, R. A.

Morpeth, Viscount

Finch, G.

Mullins, F. W.

657

Murray, hon. J. A.

Sheppard, T.

O'Brien, W. S.

Sinclair, Sir G.

O'Connell, J.

Stanley, Lord

O'Connell, M. J.

Stanley, W. O.

O'Connell, M.

Steuart, R.

O'Conor Don

Thomson, C. P.

Oliphant, Lawrence

Thompson, Colonel

Packe, C. W.

Thornley, T.

Palmerston, Visct.

Tulk, C. A.

Parrott, J.

Vesey, hon. Thomas

Parry, Sir L. P. J.

Wakley, T.

Pease, J.

Wallace, R.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Walter, J.

Perceval, Colonel

West, J. B.

Pinney, W.

Westenra, H. R.

Plumptre, J. P.

White, Samuel

Power, James

Wilbraham, G.

Pryme, G.

Williams, W.

Pryse, Pryse

Wodehouse, E.

Rae, Sir W.

Worsley, Lord

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Wortley, J. S.

Ross, Charles

Woulfe, Sergeant

Rushbrooke, R.

Young, J.

Russell, Lord John

TELLERS.

Sandon, Viscount

Seymour, Lord

Shaw, F.

Baring, F.

List of the NOES.

Blake, Martin J.

Hindley, C.

Bodkin, J.

Trevor, hon. A.

Brady, D. C.

TELLERS.

Butler, hon. P.

Crawford, W. S.

Fector, J. M.

Ruthven, E.

Resolution agreed to. Bill to be brought in.

POST-OFFICE.
The House went into Committee on the Post-office Bills.
Mr. Aglionbyproposed a clause to the effect, that marks made in newspapers for the sole purpose of directing attention to any particular paragraph, shall not subject the paper to the duties of postage, nor the sender or deliverer to any penalty.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed the motion.
The Committee divided on the clause: Ayes 12; Noes 28:—Majority 16.

List of the AYES.

Forbes, W.

Sibthorp, Col.

Gaskell, Jas. Milues

Thompson, Colonel

Hawes, B.

Trevor, hon. A.

Hume, J.

Wakley, T.

Ingham, R.

O'Brien, W. S.

TELLERS.

Pease, J.

Aglionby, H. A.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Wallace, Robert

List of the NOES.

Adam, Sir C.

Brotherton, J.

Agnew, Sir A.

Cole, Viscount

Angerstein, J.

Egerton, Sir P.

Bannerman, A.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Blake, M. J.

Finch, G.

658

Forster, C. S.

Pryme, George

Gordon, R.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Hoskins, K.

Ruthven, E.

Knight, H. G.

Seymour, Lord

Labouchere, hon. H.

Steuart, R.

Loch, J.

Warburton, H.

Morpeth, Viscount

Woulfe, Sergeant

Murray, hon. J. A.

O Conor Don

TELLERS.

Palmerston, Visct.

Baring, —

Power, James

Maule, hon. F.

Bill went through Committee. The House resumed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Sunday Church Notices.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of BROWNLOW, from Grantham, in favour of Local Courts.—By several noble LORDS, from various places, for the abolition of Church-rates.— By the Bishop of HEREFORD, from Nutwick, Hereford, against the abolition of Church-rates—By Lord GORT and the Earl of RODEN, from various places in Ireland, against Municipal Corporations (Ireland).—By the Marquess of BUTE, from places in Scotland, for the better observance of the Sabbath.

ABOLITION OF OATHS.
The Duke of Richmondrose, pursuant to notice, to move, "that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency of substituting declarations in lieu of oaths in certain cases. In 1834 and 1835, measures were adopted by their Lordships which sanctioned the principle that he wished to see carried fully into effect. In consequence of what was then done, a great number of
548
useless oaths were abolished. The object which he sought to attain by his present motion was to ascertain how far the experiment which the legislature had tried had ultimately answered. If it had answered, as he certainly believed it had, to reduce the number of oaths without injuring the revenue, then he conceived that they ought to proceed further in the same course. His great object was, to do away with oaths in all instances where proper information could be otherwise procured. He did not wish to interfere with the Courts of Law, but he was anxious to adopt such a system as would cause the people to regard oaths with greater respect and reverence than they did at present. By the Act of 1835, any person making a false declaration was punishable as for a misdemeanour; but in Scotland there was not, in law, any such thing as a misdemeanour; and therefore the law was ineffectual there. In Ireland the taking of voluntary affidavits was very common. It was here held to be a misdemeanour; and the persons taking such oaths, as well as the persons administering them, were liable to punishment. It appeared to him that the magistrates of Ireland should, in like manner be prevented from administering oaths of this nature. The noble Earl concluded by moving for a Select Committee.
The Marquess of Westmeathobserved, that the custom of taking voluntary oaths had of late years very much decreased in Ireland.
Motion agreed to.

PENITENTIARY (MILLBANK).
Viscount Duncannon Viscount Duncannon moved the third reading of the above Bill.
The Duke of Richmondwas anxious that the noble Viscount should postpone the third reading of the Bill for a few days. He wished to know whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had enforced, as was recommended, one uniform system of discipline in different gaols. It was only consistent with justice that this course should be adopted. An Act of Parliament had been recently passed, with the most benevolent intentions, he was perfectly convinced, but it had not been acted upon in the spirit in which it was conceived. That Act repealed the law-which declared that murderers should be executed in forty-eight hours after their conviction. This was done to give the malefactor time to consider the awful situation in which

549
he was placed. But, if he could credit the publications of the day, it appeared, that in a case of this kind which occurred within the last fortnight, the individual condemned was visited by several persons, and was allowed to read the newspapers. It assuredly never was the intention of those gentlemen who introduced this Bill elsewhere, nor of their Lordships when they sanctioned it, that the time of this unfortunate criminal should be passed in reading the newspapers of the day. The measure was enacted to give him, and others situated like him, time to look into their own hearts, and to seek for consolation through the medium of contrition and repentance. He conceived that an individual thus circumstanced should be left in solitude. After a man was sentenced and ordered for execution, he ought not to be allowed to communicate with any, except his own friends, and his legal and spiritual advisers. A contrary practice prevailed in the instance to which he had alluded, and the consequence was, that it created delusive hopes, induced the individual to act the part of a hypocrite, and never to remain fixed to one story. While he was on his legs, he would ask whether his Majesty's Government had received any communication with reference to a most disgraceful exhibition which was reported to have taken place a few days ago in the city of Glocester? It was said, that there the executioner, in a state of gross and beastly intoxication, by way of making the awful scene a laughing stock to the people, slapped the criminal whom he had just hanged, on the face, and turned him round, saying, that he wished to see how the unfortunate wretch would spin. He hoped that this would be inquired into, and that measures would be taken to prevent any similar exhibition, which, if the report were true, must be viewed as most scandalous and disgraceful to a civilised country.
Viscount Duncannonhad no objection to comply with the proposition of the noble Duke. With respect to uniformity of prison discipline, the noble Secretary of State was only waiting for the reports of the prison inspectors to adopt regulations for the purpose of effecting that object. He concurred entirely in the observations which the noble Duke had made with reference to certain prison transactions that had occurred last week. The conduct pursued towards the individual alluded to was very wrong, considering the awful situation in which he was placed. As to the other
550
transaction, which was said to have taken place at Glocester, a communication had been made to the sheriff as to what had occurred, and calling on him to inquire into the truth of the statement. No answer had yet been received.
Third reading of the Bill postponed.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
Viscount Melbourne Viscount Melbourne moved the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee on the Municipal Corporation Bill (Ireland).
The Duke of Wellingtoncould perfectly understand the motive which induced the noble Viscount on the present occasion to do no more than merely move that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill. Ten days ago an opportunity for discussing this measure had been given to their Lordships, and he, as well as other noble Lords had then delivered their sentiments with reference to it; and certainly he should be very happy, looking to the circumstances in which he found himself placed, at the present moment, if he could consistently with his sense of duty follow the example of the noble Viscount and remain silent. But he felt that it was necessary for him to explain to their Lordships the course which he meant to propose for the adoption of the House, the reasons why he recommended that course, and the grounds upon which he himself meant to give his vote on this measure. He had stated, on former occasions, his fixed and formal opinion of this Bill. The strong opinion he then entertained was, that their Lordships ought not to adopt the principle of the measure, as it had been introduced to them; and the more he thought upon the subject, the more convinced he was, that it was impossible for their Lordships to give their consent to this Bill in its present shape. He should now state some of the reasons which induced him to entertain that opinion: for, although he had declared them more than once to their Lordships, he deemed it necessary to advert to them again. It was, he believed, perfectly true, that it was the general opinion of the Members of their Lordships' House, that it was proper and expedient to put an end to these Corporations. He knew that some noble Lords did not participate in that sentiment, but he was confident that a large majority of their Lordships did concur in it. He had stated on a former occasion, that those Corporations existed in their present state, and were brought to

551
their present state, principally with a view to the support and protection of the religion of the Church of England established in Ireland. That, he believed, was the object of the establishment of those Corporations in their existing state. Whatever might be done with respect to those Corporations for the future, in his opinion that object ought never to be lost sight of. It might be doubted, from what had lately occurred in this country, whether that opinion was so unanimously adopted as it had been in former years; but he might venture to say the support of the Church of England in Ireland was still the policy of this country —the policy which his Majesty was sworn to maintain—the policy which that House was called by writs of summons to uphold —the policy which every Member of Parliament in either branch of the Legislature was sworn to maintain by the oaths which he had voluntarily taken. Under those circumstances, he thought he might safely say, that according to the ancient constitution, according to the modern constitution, according to the uniform policy of this country for the last 300 years, the maintenance of the Church of England in Ireland formed a prominent and important point of Legislative concern. Looking to this Bill now under consideration, in relation principally to that policy, it went undoubtedly to establish a very large number of Corporations in Ireland, the mode of their formation being, to give votes to the very lowest class of the population of the towns in which those Corporations were to be formed. This was to be done, not upon evidence of their possessing property—not, as in England, upon residence, upon the payment of rates, or the evidence of their possessing anything in the nature of property; but simply on the condition that the parties possessed a 51. or 10 1. qualification, made up of all kinds and descriptions of property put together; and this without any proof whatever excepting the oath of the parties themselves, of their possessing that qualification. It was well known to their Lordships that a system of perjury extensively prevailed in all parts of Ireland with a view to establish franchises of this description, He had recently seen accounts of inquiries before Select Committees into certain Parliamentary elections, which had taken place in that country, and it was impossible to glance at them without being impressed with the conviction that if any description of franchise depended solely on
552
the oaths of the holders, every species of inquiry would be nugatory, and it would be just as wise to let in at once universal suffrage as to establish a system of franchise in such a manner. Those Corporations thus formed by persons holding a franchise of that description acquired solely by their own swearing, and without any evidence whatsoever of their possessing any property except their own oaths established a system upon which no reliance could be placed, and on which no establishment whatever could safely depend. If they wanted any proof of the danger to the Church of Ireland by the establishment of Corporations of this description, he would refer their Lordships to the declarations, he would not say of those who were the declared enemies, but he must say the strongest opponents of the Church, and who were found on every occasion making the greatest possible exertions against the Church in Ireland. Those persons were heard declaring publicly and repeatedly almost under the very view of the Government, "Give us but this Corporation Bill and all the rest will follow." If there were any doubt about it, he begged to say he should not be disposed to listen to the threats of any man; but, when his own senses convinced him that such must be the result— he meant danger to the establishment— he did say it was his duty to attend to warnings of that description to which he had adverted. They heard a great deal at different times of the absolute necessity of establishing a system of Municipal Government in Ireland, because such a system had been established in England and Scotland; but he begged leave, once for all, to say, that the analogy did not at all hold. The circumstances of the countries themselves were totally different. But, assuming that it were otherwise, if it were necessary to follow the example in England and Scotland, he wanted to know why they did not establish Corporations in Ireland upon the same footing as in England and Scotland? Let their Lordships just advert for a moment to the difference which existed between the system which had been adopted in England and Scotland, and that which was proposed to be followed in Ireland. In England, it was very true, the Corporate franchise was extended very far indeed; but the principle, the foundation of the whole system in England, was the possession of property, the proof of the possession of property by residence, by the payment of

553
rates—every evidence, in short, of the possession of property which could be required of a man in the middling and lower ranks of society. Such was the system established in England. In Scotland it was the same, with this difference, that in England the qualification arose out of the possession of one tenement of the yearly value of 10 l., whereas in Scotland it was founded on the possession of tenements of the value of 10 l.; it was the same franchise as for Parliamentary elections; and it was required that the person should have resided a year before he could acquire the franchise, and also that he should pay the assessed taxes. But in Ireland there was to be no proof whatever of the possession of property, except the party's own oath, and he was not required to pay a single shilling of taxation. There was another circumstance with respect to Scotland, in itself exceedingly curious, and which showed how very little attention noble Lords opposite had paid to the details of their own measure which they had introduced, when they now came forward and contended, that in this Bill the same principles should be followed in the case of Ireland which had been adopted with respect to England and Scotland. When he had addressed their Lordships on a former evening upon this subject, he had instanced, as one of the objections he entertained to the Bill now under consideration, the power of taxation to be possessed, and the mode in which it was to be exercised by these Corporations, for the purpose of forming a borough fund. He requested their Lordships to advert to the manner in which the same powers were exercised in Scotland. In Ireland the Corporations would have the power of raising a rate to form a borough fund, on the principle of the taxation under the 9th George 4th,—that was a graduated scale of taxation, rising to an enormous amount upon the increase of property. How did the matter stand with respect to Scotland? In the first place, Corporations had no power of taxation at all. There was an Act of Parliament which enabled every burgh in Scotland to provide for what was called corporate expenses, such as paving, lighting, watching, scavengering, supplying with water, and other expenses of that description; but what did that Act of Parliament provide? Why, that the persons who were to adopt that system under the act should have the power of voting for it in a particular assembly, to be called for that purpose;
554
that this assembly should be composed of persons having 10 l. houses, those having houses of a certain value having the power of naming a person to give a second vote for such houses, and the adoption or non-adoption of the system under that act in each particular burgh depending on the votes of three-fourths of the inhabitants. If that system were not adopted by three-fourths of the inhabitants, it could not be carried into execution. He begged their Lordships to compare that system as prevailing in the Scotch Corporations as formed by noble Lords opposite with that which they now proposed with respect to Ireland, according to which all those having no property were to elect the Corporations to lay on taxation on a graduated scale, rising in proportion to the amount of property, and against the wishes of the proprietors. Now, in forming Corporations for Ireland, the greatest possible care should be taken, first of all, that no injury should be done to the Church, that no establishment should be formed that could prove injurious to the Church; and in the next place, that by every means in their power they should take care nothing they did should give an influence, a paramount influence, to those in the lower classes of society, who were most likely to be under the dictation of those who were" opposed to the Protestant religion in Ireland. If noble Lords opposite had only taken the pains of looking into the Scotch system, they might have found an act much more acceptable to that House and the friends of the Church than the measure which they had now brought forward. He had already stated the absolute necessity under which he thought the Legislature lay of taking care that nothing should be done in measures of this kind which might prove injurious to the Church; and certainly he, for one, never could consent to this Bill, or to any one founded on the same principles. He voted last year for the instruction proposed by a noble Friend, of his (Lord Fitzgerald), and carried into execution in the Committee by his noble and Learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst), now unfortunately absent; but he certainly was unwilling to propose any amendment of the same description to this measure, because he found that it was objected to in another place on two occasions last year, and that the same measure had now been sent up to that House a third time. In the last communication which their Lordships had on this subject with the

555
other House of Parliament, in the course of last Session, they declared their hope that means might be found on some future occasion to enable the two Houses to cooperate in establishing some system of local government in Ireland. Their attention had been again called to the subject, at the commencement of this Session, by his Majesty's most gracious Speech from the Throne, when they returned an answer in conformity with his Majesty's desire. Accordingly, he observed, that two Bills in connexion with this subject had been presented to Parliament, besides that now immediately under consideration, one relative to the Irish Church, and the other having for its object to make a legal provision for the poor in Ireland. He could not pretend, it would be quite irregular, to enter into any general discussion upon the measure which related to the Irish Church which had lately been presented to the other House of Parliament. But from the general description of that measure, and the discussion which had taken place in reference to it, he could form some judgment as to its object. He saw nothing in it but a departure, if he might so call it, from a resolution which his Majesty's Government had adopted on a former occasion, but attended by provisions which appeared to him rather more harsh than the resolution itself, and probably more likely to be injurious to the Church. The measure, as before proposed, went to dispose of a surplus which never existed, and never was likely to exist—in that respect there was now an alteration; the measure, as now proposed, went to establish a fund for a surplus, and deprive the successors of those that held benefices hereafter of one-seventh of their income, to be applied to what was called education in Ireland. He certainly could not see a great improvement in the measure. The original measure had been changed, and so far there was some foundation to hope that the second measure would be changed also. He observed that this measure was founded on the construction of an Act of Parliament, and upon a quotation from the public records; which construction, in his opinion, was not the accurate one which ought to have been given. That being the case, he should hope that his Majesty's Government, finding that they had made an erroneous calculation in this matter, and seeing the hardship of calling on those who were already sufficiently degraded and distressed, to make a further sacrifice of
556
fourteen or fifteen percent. of their income, would be disposed to give way upon those particular clauses of the Irish Tithe Bill. He would not, therefore, lose all hopes that the result of discussions on the measure in that and the other House of Parliament might at last produce what for years past they had been most desirous of obtaining—a just and satisfactory adjustment of the tithe question, which would relieve the Church of Ireland from that state of great distress in which it had been involved for the last seven years. In the hope that such might be the case, he was anxious to consider of some means for car- vying that measure into execution. Besides, that with respect to tithes now under the consideration of the other House of Parliament, there was another measure having for its object the establishment of a legal provision for the poor in Ireland. He was perfectly aware of the great difficulty of that question; but if it were adopted at all, if it were in any shape carried into effect, it was obvious it might afford the best and most satisfactory means of testing the qualification with respect to possession of property by the claimants of the franchise in the middle and lower classes of society, and establish a safe resting- place with respect to the franchise in Corporations or otherwise. In the hope that those measures would have this effect, he was anxious to postpone the consideration of this Bill till some future period, in order that the House might see whether those other Bills would answer the purpose of giving security to the Church of Ireland, in the first place, upon that important point of the adjustment of tithes, and whether the other would give that security to the Church and to society in Ireland, by confining the franchise to the bona fide possessors of property who ought to exercise it, and thus the House would have the opportunity of carrying into execution that pledge which they had given on a former occasion of co-operating with the House of Commons in adopting a system of local government for Ireland. With that view he called upon their Lordships to adjourn the consideration of this measure till some further opportunity. The time he proposed was sufficient to enable their Lordships to take the other two measures into consideration, and therefore he should conclude by proposing to substitute for the word "now," "the 9th of June."
Viscount Melbournepresumed that some

557
internal policy of party, or some reason which remained within himself, with which he was not acquainted, had induced the noble Duke not to give some information of the intention which he had declared in the conclusion of his speech; because he really considered, from the course which the noble Duke had pursued, that the proposition made, and the proceeding altogether, were of a nature quite novel in Parliamentary history, and in itself. Knowing that there were considerations of great moment with respect to, and involved in, the measure before the House, and knowing, too, that there were considerations of still greater weight to be borne in mind with respect to another House of Parliament, he thought it would have been (setting aside all feeling of courtesy), it would have been well if some time had been given to the consideration of the subject, which was one of great importance; and the proceeding of the noble Duke was one, which, as far as his experience and recollection reached, was entirely new and unprecedented. The proposition of the noble Duke went to this, that until their Lordships should see how the House of Commons would deal with the other questions which their Lordships knew to be before it, and under its consideration, they should postpone the discussion of this Bill. Their Lordships were bound to consider what were the motives which could induce them to pursue this course. He had already stated to their Lordships, that though these three measures were alluded to in the Speech from the Throne, he did not consider them to be connected or united together, or in any degree dependent upon one another. In the first place, what was it that the noble Duke offered as an argument to induce their Lordships to agree to this proposition? Supposing that they agreed to the proposition, what had they to hope for the future in respect to the measure itself? The noble Duke objected to going into Committee. He had urged no objections to the measure, except upon such points as were matters for consideration in Committee. He had taken an objection, as before, to the second reading, because the franchise was not sufficiently guarded. The noble Duke overstated the fact, when he said that the constituencies would consist of the lowest of the population. He objected, too, to the right of taxation founded upon the Act of 9 George 4th, c. 82, though that was the very Act, which the noble Duke desired to extend to
558
all the towns in Ireland. He did not object to the scale of taxation, and the persons by whom it was proposed the parties should be elected. The present Bill proceeded upon the principle that persons rated by the vestry upon the property of the value of 5l. should be entitled to vote. To this an objection had been raised; but this, and others raised by the noble Duke, were precisely those which might be considered in Committee, and, therefore, it was not necessary, on the present occasion, to enter into them. But, after all, these points were entirely to be overridden and set aside by a distinct declaration which the noble Duke had made against the principle of the Bill. He said he was against the principle of the Bill, and that he never could accede to it, nor to any other founded on a similar principle. How was it possible to accede to the proposition made, when, from what the noble Duke himself said, even if they were to put off the measure, it could only be done in order to have it ultimately rejected or changed, or altered to such a degree as to render it impossible to accept it, or to make it worthless? And what did he say more? Why, the noble Duke said that the Irish Church Bill was in the highest degree objectionable, but that it held out a hope to him by the abandonment in the present measure of the resolution on which it was originally founded. But that resolution (though he felt it was not necessary to enter into that subject now) he (Viscount Melbourne) begged to say was not abandoned in substance, and its principle was fully maintained and supported. He said, then, what hope had they, with respect to the Bill, if they should concede to the proposition for which the noble Duke pressed on this occasion? With respect to the Bill for making a legal provision for the poor in Ireland, that Bill was one of the greatest importance—perhaps of the greatest importance of any measure that ever was brought before Parliament. It was admitted to be a Bill surrounded with great difficulties, and their Lordships knew the intense anxiety which was felt on the subject in this country and in Ireland; but he could not concur in the opinion which had been expressed by a noble Earl opposite, and by a noble and learned Friend near him. They had been pressed on all sides to bring forward that measure. He denied that they were under any moral compulsion to pass the Irish Poor-law Bill. He trusted that it would be found practicable to frame

559
an efficient measure for the relief of the poor in Ireland, but if it should appear that the proposed measure was not suitable to the country for which it was intended, or if it should still further appear that it was calculated to aggravate the evils which it was intended to diminish, they were not in such a situation as would prevent them from postponing the measure, and in the propriety of such a postponement under such circumstances he was persuaded the country would fully acquiesce. At the same time he repeated his anxious hope and his confidence that the Bill at present under consideration in the House of Commons would be found to be a practicable measure, and completely adequate to the purpose for which it had been framed. But it certainly did not appear to him to be wise or prudent on the part of their Lordships—it did not appear to him that they would be doing their duty as a House of Parliament to postpone a measure the advantages of which were certain, and which was required by the country, in order to wait for another measure on the exact nature and on the efficacy of which there must of necessity hang a certain degree of ambiguity and doubt. The noble Duke said, that the Bill for the relief of the poor in Ireland would afford a criterion for judging the property of the middle and lower classes, and of thereby fixing the rate in the Municipal Bill. But nothing could be more easy than in the Bill under their Lordships' consideration to add the qualification which the Poor-law Bill might contain. Nothing would be more advantageous than the facilities to secure a proper qualification which would be afforded, should that Bill be sent to them in a mature and perfect state. As to the noble Duke's proposition, he could see no reason whatever for acceding to it. The subject had been considered in two sessions of Parliament, and their Lordships were perfect masters of it. The noble Duke said that it was their duty to protect the Church of England established in Ireland from injury; and contended that the proposed Corporations would be injurious to that Church. That was begging the question. The noble Duke had not shown a single point in which the new Corporations could be injurious to the Church of England established in Ireland, except as they might affect the constitution of the House of Commons, which was to make laws for Ireland. The course which the noble Duke called on their Lordships to
560
pursue upon the present occasion was entirely novel. They ought always to be cautious of adopting a new course; especially with reference to the proceedings of Parliament. He begged also to suggest to their Lordships the expediency of considering what might be the effect of such a course upon the feelings and conduct of the other House of Parliament. He begged to suggest to them that the consequence of adopting such a course might be to create a struggle and contest between the two Houses. If their Lordships deferred a measure which was sent up to them by the other House of Parliament until they saw what that House did with other measures that were before them, the other House of Parliament might defer measures until they saw how their Lordships might think proper to deal with other measures before them. And he begged to remind their Lordships that such a postponement on the part of the other House of Parliament might be attended with much more awkward circumstances than any postponement on the part of their Lordships. He would not press that point any further, but as he saw no reason for postponing the consideration of the Bill before their Lordships, and as he saw no natural connexion between that Bill and the other Bills which were in progress in the other House of Parliament, he should most distinctly say, "Not content" to the noble Duke's motion.
The Duke of Wellington The Duke of Wellington, in explanation, observed, that although he objected to much of the principle of the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill, he was not adverse to the establishment under certain circumstances of local jurisdictions in Ireland.
Lord Fitzgerald and Vesciwas unwilling to trespass upon their Lordships' attention; but considering the part which he had felt it to be his duty to take on this subject in the last Session, when he had submitted to their Lordships certain resolutions which were agreed to, he felt that he in some degree owed it to himself, that he owed it to the interests of that country with which his noble Friend and himself were so intimately connected, that he even owed it to their Lordships, to state the grounds on which he supported the noble Duke's motion. If the proposition involved in the Irish Municipal Bill were now for the first time offered to the adoption of their Lordships —if they could be again placed in the exact situation in which they

561
were last Session, to deal with a bill which established certain Corporations in Ireland, in lieu of Corporations to be abolished, he should not shrink from recommending to their Lordships the course which he had recommended on that occasion. But that was not the case. When he looked at the purpose for which the Corporations in Ireland had been originally established, and the object which those Corporations had in view, he was quite prepared to maintain with his noble Friend, that they were intended for the support and maintenance of Protestant institutions in Ireland. At least it could not be denied that such was the case with respect to the great majority of them established in the reign of James 1st. Considering that the Corporations in Ireland were of an exclusive character, and considering that that was not desirable under recent circumstances, he unhesitatingly concurred in the abolition of those Corporations. The noble Viscount, in the last Session, did not found the measure of abolition on any imputed delinquency on the part of the Corporations, What he then maintained was, that their exclusive character operated injuriously on the administration of justice in Ireland, as well as in other respects. He concurred with the noble Viscount in the expediency of abolishing those Corporations; and when their Lordships refused to go further, when they refused to confirm the exclusive character of the Corporations which it was proposed to create in the stead of the abolished Corporations, that refusal was founded on the same reason as the abolition; namely, the danger of giving predominant power to any party in Ireland. None of their Lordships discussed at any length the details of the Bill of last Session. Now, while he vindicated the course which he had taken last Session, if he were asked why he acquiesced in a proposition so different from that course as the present motion of his noble Friend, he would answer—not that he did not still think that the proceedings of late years had not produced an anomalous state of society in Ireland, which they could hardly hope in their days entirely to get rid of; not that he did not still think that the course which he recommended to their Lordships last year was the best course that could be pursued for securing the just administration of the law and public tranquillity in Ireland; but that he saw no ground for hoping that the measure would be accepted by the other House of Parlia-
562
ment which their Lordships had deemed it right to offer. That being the case, he thought it would be merely delusive and that it would excite unjust expectations, if he were to repeat his course of last Session. It could not be expected after the course which had been taken by the House of Commons, after the elaborate reasons which that House had given for taking that course, but that if their Lordships reiterated their proposition agreed to by a large majority last year, so far from conciliating, it would have the effect of widening the breach between the two Houses—an occurrence which it was their Lordships' duly, not to the constitution alone, but to their own constitutional independence, to take every proper means of averting. Such was his chief and influential motive for concurring in his noble Friend's proposition; and on no other ground should he think himself justified in abandoning the course of last Session. He could assure the noble Viscount that he shared in no councils which had for their object the defeat of the Bill or the destruction of its main objects: for he certainly did find in the manner in which the deliberations of that House last Session had been received in Ireland an additional and urgent reason for inducing them, if they could do so consistently with their duty, for departing from their course of last year, and for adopting another course which was likely to be better received. He entirely disclaimed for himself, and for his noble Friends around him, entertaining any opinion that the people of Ireland were unworthy to govern themselves. And so far was he in the last Session from placing his opposition to the Bill on the ground of the danger of Catholic ascendancy in Ireland, he well remembered, and their Lordships, perhaps, remembered, that while he admitted the existence of that danger, he contended that it must be looked boldly in the face; and that he should object to making the Corporations of Ireland of an exclusive character, whether Orange or Catholic. His objection to the Bill was, that it rendered the principle of exclusion perpetual. On these grounds he thought the course now proposed perfectly justifiable, without attributing to it any of the motives which it had pleased the noble Viscount to suspect. The reasons assigned by the House of Commons rendered it imperative on their Lordships to endeavour to adopt a proceeding which might prevent a further separation on the

563
subject between the two Houses. If their Lordships honestly deprecated that further separation, they could not reiterate the course of last year. What then remained for them to do? The noble Viscount said, "adopt the Bill." Now, their Lordships' objection to do so was net founded on an objection to the principle of establishing Corporations in Ireland. It would be no honest concession on the part of their Lordships if they were not prepared to admit the expediency of establishing Corporations in Ireland. But they wished to be careful as to the mode in which the principle of establishing Corporations in Ireland was to be carried into effect. The noble Viscount said, that the proceeding proposed by his noble Friend was novel, and that its adoption might be attended with injurious consequences in future. He would remind the noble Viscount of a proceeding of a similar nature, not, it was true, where one House of Parliament waited for the proceedings of the other, but still it was similar. When the Catholic Relief Bill was conceded neither House would proceed with it unless it proceeded pari passu with a Bill for putting down the Catholic Association. This showed that it was not a new thing on the part of the Legislature to postpone the completion of one Bill until they ascertained whether or not some preliminary measure made any concession in that Bill a safe and proper one. But the noble Viscount spoke of the delicacy which ought to be observed towards the feelings of the other House of Parliament, and of the dangers which might result from delay. He should quite concur with the noble Viscount if that delay were intended to defeat the Bill; but his noble Friend's object was confined to this, namely, that it would be advantageous for their Lordships to postpone the completion of the measure now in the House until other measures should be before them which might better enable them to judge of the course which they ought to pursue. The noble, Viscount asked what connexion there was between the Bill under their Lordships' consideration, and the Bills supposed to be in progress in the House of Commons, or at least which his Majesty's Government had expressed their solicitude to pass. Those Bills were the Irish Tithe Bill and the Bill for the Maintenance of the poor in Ireland. "But" said the noble Viscount, "there is no connexion between the Irish Tithe
564
Bill and the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill." He (Lord Fitzgerald and Vesci) thought he could show that there was such a connexion between them as would make their Lordships hesitate before they placed the Church of Ireland in the power of those who, by the Bill before them, must inevitably acquire a great preponderance in the State. It should be recollected how every thing relating to the Church of Ireland had been unsettled. By the Act of Union, Parliament had entered into a solemn compact to maintain the Church of England established in Ireland. It was one of the main grounds for adopting the Catholic Relief Bill, that it would give additional security to the Protestant establishment in Ireland. Not only had that been always asserted by the warmest supporters of emancipation— among others, by that eminent man, Mr. Grattan, than whom no man had ever shown more zeal in the cause; but, in the preamble of the Bill itself, drawn up by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, it was stated that, whereas it was necessary to provide security for the Protestant Established Church in Ireland, it was thereby enacted that relief from civil disabilities should be afforded to Catholics, The Act of Union had settled the Protestant Church Establishment in Ireland; the Catholic Relief Bill had settled the Protestant Church Establishment in Ireland; the Catholic Oaths Bill had settled the Protestant Church Establishment in Ireland. But by whom had it been unsettled? By that Parliament which seeing the law by which the Protestant Clergy in Ireland were to be secured in the enjoyment of their rights evaded or set at defiance, commenced the deduction of a large portion of the revenue of the Protestant Church, for the purpose of securing the remainder. Was he (Lord Fitzgerald and Vesci) complaining of that? No; necessity required it. But did not that same overpowering necessity (a necessity which must have been most painfully felt by their Lordships) to deduct so large a portion of the revenues of the clergy, render it imperative on them to look carefully to the means by which the remainder was to be secured? Under such circumstances was it too much to say, that a measure which gave to a large predominant party in Ireland—who professed that an alteration in the Church of that country was their object—more power over the Protestant Establishment, was not unconnected with the Irish Tithe

565
Bill? Without meaning to impute improper motives to any class of men, was it too much to say that a measure which was to create a new body—whose object it would evidently be to unsettle the Protestant Establishment in Ireland, who avowed their plans of confiscation, who declared their attachment to the voluntary principle—was it too much to say, that such a measure was not unconnected with a measure the object of which was not to expose the Church of Ireland to such an attack, until Parliament had conceded to them a fair settlement of their claims? The next point which the noble Viscount had disputed was, his noble Friend's having coupled the Bill under their Lordships' consideration with the Bill which had been introduced into the House of Commons for the relief of the poor in Ireland. He did not mean to say, that the Irish Poor-law Bill was so much connected with the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill as the Irish Church Bill was. But he contended that there could be no other measure except the Bill before their Lordships, so auxiliary to the effectual operation of the Irish Church Bill as the Bill for the relief of the poor in Ireland, if well considered. Nay, he would go further; he would postpone any proceeding with the Irish Municipal Bill until the receipt of. the Irish Poor Relief Bill, were it only in consideration of the former; for it was impossible to know what change in the qualifications introduced into the Irish Municipal Bill the provisions of the Irish Poor Relief Bill might render necessary. He would ask the noble Viscount if he did not really think that the Irish Poor Relief Bill, by giving a rating which should offer to the Legislature a fair test of the proper qualification to be introduced into the Irish Municipal Bill, and thereby furnishing for the Corporations a better constituency, might not be productive of a benefit well worth waiting for? He spoke it with no party feeling; but was it unfair on his part, and on the part of the noble Lords who thought with him, to urge the expediency of postponing the proceeding with the present measure until the Church establishment in Ireland was first secured; and until they should be able to avail themselves of the qualification for the Municipal Bill that might be suggested by the Poor Relief Bill? His noble Friend had most clearly stated the view which ought to be taken of the question, But the noble Viscount asserted
566
that his noble Friend's objections were to the details rather than to the principle of the Bill, and therefore that they could be considered with more advantage in the Committee. The question was, however, how far the power which was comprehended in the details of the Bill could be conferred with safety to the Church of Ireland. The details of the Bill, therefore, became its principle. There were two propositions submitted to their Lordships by the Bill of last year; the first getting rid of vicious Corporations, the second substituting other Corporations for them. To the first proposition their Lordships then agreed; to the first proposition their Lordships would, no doubt, now agree: but he trusted that before they agreed to the second proposition they would wait until they saw that such qualifications were introduced into the Bill as would render it a safe measure with reference to the Church establishment. He hoped that he might at least claim for himself and for his noble Friends the merit of sincerity on this subject. The question of tithes in Ireland was a most important one. Not only was its settlement important as securing the due interests of the Protestant establishment in that country—not only was it important as fulfilling the pledge given upon the subject at the union— but, in his opinion, it was important as it might afford a ground for settling other disputed matters. He was not blind— (who that at all attended to the subject could be so?)—to the anomalous situation of Ireland in many respects, and to the dangers which grew out of that situation. He was well aware of the perils attendant on having an established religion which was not the religion of the majority of the people; and on having that religion which was the religion of the majority of the people unconnected with the State. But the insecure way in which the Church of England in Ireland had been left was most unjust; and that injustice occasioned evils not only to the Church, but to other and very important interests. He would not disguise the apprehensions which he felt when he contemplated the present state of Ireland. But, if the Church of England in Ireland were placed on a stable foundation; if the tithes were no longer taken from the occupying tenant, and collision were thereby prevented; and if some other questions were satisfactorily settled, he should not despair of his country, seeing that under such circumstances the

567
great arrangements necessary for national education might be accomplished by the parties who were now divided. If the course recommended by his noble Friend were adopted; if their Lordships were induced to wait the accomplishment of the measures now in progress in the House of Commons before they proceeded with that before them, he could not but think that the delay would be attended with the happiest consequences; and there would not be found in the other House of Parliament among the Members connected with Ireland any obstinate determination to send up to the House of Lords Bills which they must know the House of Lords would not sanction. In that hope, departing from the course which he had last year pursued, and concurring with his noble Friend, he should certainly give his vote for his noble Friend's motion.
The Earl of Wicklowfelt gratified at this question being now put in such a shape as would enable him most freely to support the proposition of the noble Duke. Had any proposition been advanced having for its object the total abolition of the Corporations of Ireland, he should have felt it his duty to oppose it. But the course which was marked out in the present instance was such, that he should not consider himself warranted in now entering at large on the great question of the propriety or impropriety of conceding corporate privileges. The proposition of the noble Duke was simply to the effect that their Lordships should do that which they had certainly been in the habit of doing at other periods, and which was nothing more than simply postponing a Bill for a limited time in one of its stages. Their Lordships must be aware that it had been a frequent occurrence to postpone a measure for weeks or days for their Lordships' own convenience. In the proposition of the noble Duke, he could see no danger whatever. It was a proposition which could by no means eventually lead to the prejudice of this measure, much less to its total loss. If, indeed, he could believe that any such intention were seriously entertained—a belief of which he disclaimed with the utmost sincerity even the most remote suspicion, feeling thoroughly assured that the noble Duke could not intend anything which he would not openly and candidly avow—if such an intention were really entertained, he (the Earl of Wicklow) was one of those who would give to the proceeding his most decided opposition For his part,
568
however, he apprehended no such consequences; they were not yet advanced far enough in the Session to endanger the question by its postponement, and would yet have abundance of time, before its termination, to consider the measure, in conjunction with those other circumstances, the consideration of which was judged to be essential. His noble Friend had quoted some cases to prove that there was nothing unprecedented in the course which was now proposed. There was a case which appeared to him (the Earl of Wicklow) strongly analogous, in which a similar postponement had taken place, until the result should be ascertained with reference to a measure which was pending before the other House. When the Catholic Emancipation Bill was introduced into their Lordships' House it was accompanied by another measure in the other House of Parliament, and the noble Duke had then said that he would not advance a single step until he should see the other measure advancing. That measure was one for the abolition of the 40 s. freeholders—a measure peculiarly affecting the privileges of the other House of Parliament. And yet the noble Duke considered it to be a question of such importance that he thought himself justified in declining to proceed with the Catholic Relief Bill until he should see the other measure proceeding with it pari passu. He would thus answer the noble Lord opposite, who had said that there was no precedent for the course which was now proposed. He would candidly admit that while he thought the proposition of the noble Duke perfectly reasonable—a proposition, indeed, which, in his estimation, their Lordships could not with propriety refuse, he was not influenced in arriving at this conclusion by the reasons which the noble Duke had advanced. He did not see that there was any danger likely to arise to the Established Church in Ireland from the passing of this Bill. Although during the last Session he had not taken any part in the discussion of this question, actuated by the natural desire not to separate himself on any occasion from those with whom he usually acted in their Lordships' House, he admitted that it was with difficulty he had reconciled it to himself that he was justified in taking such a course; for he did not consider it proper in any Member of Parliament, more especially in one who was connected, as he was, with the country whose political relations were then under discussion, to shrink from the performance

569
of his duty. Yet, although he had not during the last Session taken part in the debate upon this question, he was always known to have been anxious for the success of the Municipal Bill. He could not have expressed such an anxiety had he thought there was any danger to the Established Church. He was not an idle spectato of events passing in this country; and he now stated his positive conviction that the passing of this Bill, would be rather favourable than otherwise to the established Church in Ireland. When he said this Bill, he meant the Bill considered with reference to its principle. But he certainly did not think that an important measure of this description could pass through their Lordships' House without considerable amendments. It was, however, not to be considered that this was a question of granting Corporations to Ireland. Corporations had existed in that country for centuries, and the present question was not to be considered as if it were a new concession. It had been said by many noble Lords that these were Protestant Corporations. This was to a certain extent true; but there were many of the Irish Corporations included in this Bill of as ancient a date as any of the Municipal institutions of England. Many of the Irish Municipalities were instituted in the reign of Henry 2nd and John, and others (those especially in the north of Ireland) of James 1st, for purposes the propriety of which he was not at all disposed to dispute. The question was, whether they would apply a remedy to the abuses existing in those institutions —abuses which were upon all hands admitted —by extending to that country the same Reform which they had already conceded to England and Scotland. It had been said, that in exhibiting a disposition to withhold these Municipal privileges from Ireland they had been influenced by motives of a certain description. He did not think there was an individual in their Lordships' House who could justly fall under the sarcasm of the noble Viscount opposite, or of whom it could justly be affirmed that he was influenced by unworthy or party motives with reference to this question. He, for one, disclaimed being influenced by any such motives. To such a procedure he would not be a party. He believed the noble Duke to be influenced by a desire to adopt a new course upon this question, in conformity with the wishes and feelings of the other House of Parliament; and for his part, he believed that there was little
570
danger arising from the course which was now proposed, of the principle of the Bill being established. Though, for his part, he could see no danger with which the established Church in Ireland was threatened by this measure, still he could not be blind to the fact that a great portion of the most influential individuals in the country, and of the most able Statesmen in the other House, had declared that they saw that danger; a large majority, too, of their Lordships' House had declared themselves to be of the same opinion. The noble Duke was actuated by a consideration of the danger which was thus so generally apprehended. And when it was further considered by how small a majority this Bill had been passed in the other House of Parliament, and how large a majority had voted against it in their Lordships' House on a former occasion, in his opinion, if the noble Viscount opposite was really serious in pressing this measure—if he believed that it was a measure calculated to confer much benefit upon Ireland, he would certainly adopt those means which were best calculated to carry it into effect, and avoid a precipitation of the measure, the rather that he had been assured by the noble Duke that he was determined at the fitting time to give to it the most patient consideration. With reference to an observation which had been made by the noble Viscount opposite, upon a portion of the noble Duke's speech, he would observe, that it was quite manifest, from the tenour of the noble Duke's statement, that it was not to the principle of granting Corporations to Ireland that he was opposed, but to some of the details of this Bill. The noble Viscount had adverted to what he conceived might be the possible effect produced in the other House of Parliament by the fact being made known that their Lordships were waiting for the result of certain measures pending before that House before they would consent to the passing of this Bill. He spoke with some apprehension of the probable consequences as affecting their Lordships. Now, if there was anything likely to produce the effect which the noble Viscount deplored, it was the course which he himself proposed to pursue. If the proposition for a reasonable postponement were made in good faith —if they fairly and candidly avowed that they saw nothing which they could really look upon as objectionable in the course to which the general feeling of their Lordships' House appeared to be favourable, it was impossible that any hostility to their Lordships could

571
be excited in the public mind. He considered it, indeed, to be quite unintelligible, under the circumstances, that the noble Lord should refuse to accede to the very reasonable course which had been proposed to him for his adoption: and even if, at a subsequent period of the Session a disposition should he manifested not to concede this measure, the noble Lord could surely then, as well as now, bring forward the measure, when for his part, he should feel bound to support it. He should certainly be desirous to see the Bill in many respects amended; but the principle he would support in its perfect integrity. The Corporations of Ireland might, without any great damage, remain for another year in their present state; and in conclusion, he would sincerely request of the noble Viscount, not as a political enemy, but as a friend, to give his sanction to the proposition of the noble Duke.
The Marquess of Lansdown,before he stated his opinions on the question before their Lordships, wished to express the great satisfaction he felt with what he had heard from the noble Earl, and, he would add, the satisfaction with which he had heard the noble Baron who preceded him, and still more to the spirit of the remarks which he made on commenting on the speech of the noble Duke —not, he would say, with a view to remove the objections to the course proposed by the noble Duke, but to remove the objections to the arguments which had induced the noble Duke to adopt the plan which he had proposed. The noble Baron and the noble Duke last Sessions, he understood, had, in an unqualified sense, made a declaration of hostility to the principles of the Bill. The noble Duke had, however, explained that his hostility consisted not in objections to the principle, but to certain great details. He understood the noble Duke and the noble Baron to give without qualification their consent to the principle of the Bill. He did not advert to the details because these were matters of minor importance, but to what he called the invaluable principle of the Bill; and he trusted, after what had passed that night, that the noble Duke would now give his adhesion to the measure. He hoped before the debate should close to be distinctly informed what was the real objection which certain noble Lords had to a Bill, the object of which was good local Government carried on by effective and respectably constituted bodies. That was the great principle of the Bill— that was the principle which
572
was rejected last year— rejected, he considered, very injudiciously, and the object and intention of which were to allow the people of Ireland the administration of their own local affairs, and place them on the same footing with other subjects in the United Kingdom. If that were the intention of the noble Duke he must say it gave him unbounded satisfaction. If the principle were really admitted, and if the noble Duke showed a disposition to see it usefully applied, he confessed his satisfaction was greatly diminished when the noble Duke and the noble Baron declined to go on with the plan, and take the necessary steps for carrying it into effect. He did not blame the noble Duke and the noble Baron for not taking the Bill as it stood; but what he blamed them for was, for not going into Committee to consider the details, with a view to confer on the people of Ireland those inestimable privileges which were enjoyed by the inhabitants of Great Britain. He wished to call the attention of their Lordships to the extraordinary novelty of the course pursued on the present occasion. A noble Lord had referred to a former proceeding to prove that there was no novelty in the case, though he confessed the argument of the noble Lord had failed to convince him, because the case referred to by the noble Lord had not the remotest analogy to the proposition of the noble Duke. The case quoted was that which happened when the Bill for emancipating the Catholics was introduced, and when another Bill was to accompany it, namely, a Bill for disfanchising the 40 s. freeholders. Now that was proposed by the same Government and at the same time. Was that a question between the two Houses of Parliament, or one in which one House sought to control the decision of the other House till that Bill was passed? The cases were totally different— the Bills were introduced by the Government in that House— they were to go on pari passu, and their influence with Parliament was such as to enable them to carry both measures as one, or as directly bearing on one another. But did that measure bear on the proposition of the noble Duke? It certainly did not. But he had an argument still stronger, and on that point he would appeal to the noble Duke, and he was glad that on the occasion he had the benefit not only of the noble Duke's spoken, but the benefit of his recorded, opinion. The present Session was the first in which the

573
three great measures to which the noble Duke alluded had been placed in juxtaposition. Last Session, when the noble Duke moved an amendment to the address in answer to the King's Speech, the noble Duke did not intimate that there was the slightest connexion between the three measures alluded to in the Speech— namely, Municipal Corporation Reform for Ireland, the Tithe question, and the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland. After the address had been moved, the noble Duke, exercising that influence belonging to his high authority and station to which he was so well entitled, proposed to alter, and he was successful in doing so, part of the words, and substitute other words on the subject in question. And what were the words inserted in the amended address? his Majesty in his Speech from the Throne adverted to the expediency of inquiring into the state of the municipal Corporations of Ireland, and in the address the noble Duke proposed to add the following sentence: — "Being in possession of the report of the commission appointed to inquire into the state of the Municipal Corporations in Ireland, we will proceed, without delay, to the consideration of any defects and evils which may have been shown to exist in those institutions, for the purpose of applying Such remedies as may obviate just causes of complaint, and insure the impartial administration of justice." Did that amendment refer to any other Bills? Did it advert to the administration of justice, or to any other of the topics now considered by noble Lords opposite so intimately connected with the subject under discussion? Not in the least. Now, what was the cause alleged for the proposed course of proceeding? When noble Lords talked of their intention to delay the consideration of the Bill for a month, he did not suppose that their object was to defeat the measure by delay, for he was bound to take the assurances made that night, but when they talked of delay, and said time was of little consequence, he would ask noble Lords to call to mind what they had said of the gross corruption and the incalculable mischief which attended these institutions in Ireland, and then ask if they were prepared, admitting all that confusion and all that corruption, to hang the present measure on two others never connected with it before, and to one of which there were, on the part of some, insuperable objections? But the real cause of the objection to the Municipal Bill was said to be the way in
574
which it would affect the safety and permanency of the Established Church. He admitted that there had arisen some connexion between these two subjects; but his cause of apprehension was directly the contrary of that entertained by the noble Duke, because if there was danger to the solidity of the Established Church in Ireland he thought the very mode proposed, instead of diminishing that danger, would greatly increase it, and that the hostility to that Church would become more active than ever if the Church was connected with the refusal to the people of Ireland to manage their own concerns. He believed the greatest danger was to be apprehended on that account, and he hoped and wished that the noble Duke had abstained from mixing them up together. The Church of Ireland, all knew, was in an anomalous condition; and if they were to tell the people of Ireland that on account of their Church they were to be debarred of their privileges — that they were to be deprived of the rights and privileges enjoyed by Englishmen — of the municipal rights, too, which they had long enjoyed before—did noble Lords think that would increase the security of the Church? He wished noble Lords would descend to particulars and point out how the present Bill would endanger the Church; for notwithstanding discussions year after year— after discussions in that House and in the other House, no one had pointed out an act of hostility, or shown how the danger was to arise. If the Municipal Bill was granted, and the people of Ireland were placed on the same footing with the people of England, they might not exercise those privileges in the best way for themselves, or exert themselves as much in managing the town concerns; but it did not follow from that, because they did not regulate their municipal affaire in the best way, they were to direct their batteries charged with the ammunition with which that Bill would supply them against the sacred fabric of the Church. He contended that no power to injure the Church would be given to them by the passing of the present measure. But noble Lords said, though the power ought not to be given, still the exercise of municipal rights would give rise to a spirit of restlessness which might be directed against the Church, or any of the Protestant institutions of the country, and that it was therefore the duty of the Legislature to deprive them of the power of inflicting any act of hostility. He saw no such danger. The noble Duke

575
and others spoke as if the Bill would give exclusive rights to the Roman Catholics, or something amounting to that. Now he contended that they were not justified in bringing such a charge against a whole population. The noble Baron could not say that the people of Ireland would abuse these privileges— he would not say they would abuse them, and he was not therefore prepared to prefer a Bill of indictment against a whole population, and say that they would act in opposition to their own interests and the proper management of their own concerns. He could not for a moment conceive that a whole population would act so inconsistently and so absurdly; and experience confirmed his arguments and views on the subject. He had some anxiety to ascertain the grounds on which noble Lords came to such a conclusion, and he had in consequence exerted himself to find out how the affairs in certain towns in Ireland were conducted under the management of the inhabitants, and he found that so far from there being any reason for casting such imputations on the people of Ireland, they were more free from blame on that head than he could possibly have expected. He would give a few instances, and he trusted noble Lords more intimately acquainted with the country than he was would correct him if wrong. He would take four towns, more completely Catholic than any others, and where the Catholics predominated, in order to show how they managed their municipal affairs. He would take Wexford, Cork, Limerick, and most Catholic Galway. He selected these towns because the peculiar bodies which managed their affairs were analogous to those which would be created by the Bill under their Lordships' consideration. He would begin with Wexford. From accidental circumstances the old Corporation, which had long enjoyed the ascendancy, had been deprived of their exclusive privileges and forced to admit Catholics into the corporate body. That had taken place some ten years ago, and while the Roman Catholics predominated in the town, and could have returned all the members of council of that creed, out of the nine mayors who had been elected since the change, only three had been Roman Catholics. That certainly was a proof that even if the majority of the inhabitants were Catholics, they would not elect Catholics to the most important situationins the towns and boroughs. Noble Lords probably were aware that by an Act passed some years ago,
576
the new town of Limerick had the power of electing commissioners for paving, lighting, and watching the town. A large portion of these commissioners were generally Protestants, and on a late occasion a Roman Catholic banker of great respectability was proposed as a candidate, but he was not elected; and a Mr. Watson, a Protestant gentleman was preferred to the Roman Catholic. He would quote a similar instance as regarded Cork. In the Chamber of Commerce in that town there were a great many not only Protestants, but Protestant Dissenters. He would come next to Galway, and though he was not much acquainted with that town, he believed there were more Catholics in that town than in any town in Ireland of the same population. By the 9th of Geo. 4th. twenty-one commissioners were elected by the householders for managing the affairs of the town, and it was rather singular that among the first acts of the elective body — that body which the noble Duke seemed to consider so hostile to the Church Establishment —was the election not only of a Tory, or a Conservative, as some preferred the term, but a Protestant clergyman as one of the commissioners. In a few months after the death of a Roman Catholic commissioner, his place was filled by Mr. Mansell, a respectable Protestant clergyman, which proved that so far from the Church exciting hostility in the minds of the people of Galway, Roman Catholics of that town elected a member and a clergyman of that Church to administer and assist in managing their local affairs. What reason, then, was there for supposing that the people would abuse the trust, and apply the power which they would acquire by the Bill in battering down the Church? He said, then, that their Lordships ought to pause before they refused a great act of justice to a people who had so conducted themselves. It was said they ought to take a large and general view of the question, and wait till they saw what the measures were which had been introduced into the other House. If they took a large view, and wished to go on successfully and peaceably in their career of legislation, he begged of them to consider how the Roman Catholics had been excluded by the old system; he begged them to consider the condition of the Roman Catholics; he begged them to consider their pride and their strength; be begged them to consider their present position and their

577
ancient rights; but above all, he begged their Lordships to consider their former measures, in order to see what advantages they had gained by delay. He would ask what they had done in 1790 and 1791, and with what grace they yielded and gave up to the Catholics what they had long denied them. He asked them to look back at the exclusive system which had prevailed almost since the Reformation, the system which excluded Catholics from the army and navy—and consider with what grace they came to that House and admitted their Roman Catholic fellow citizens to enter the two services, after they had declared by their votes in that House and elsewhere their firm decision and their determination to keep them out. And they were kept out till justice and good policy overcame all obstacles. He therefore asked what advantage there was in delay and why their Lordships connected two measures which were entirely distinct? He was certain that if the Legislature passed the measure without any conditions it would be more satisfactory to the people; and if they performed that act of justice — be would not call it generosity —in the proper time, and grant those privileges to which the Irish people were entitled, they would be saved from much of the difficulty in which the delay now involved the country. If there were any defects, they could be corrected in Committee. He therefore trusted his noble Friend would persevere in pressing his motion for going into Committee, not with a view of carrying the measure in its present exact form, but with a view to do away with the exclusion of Roman Catholics, and adopt the principles of justice and safety which no honest man could impede, and which could alone lead to a permanent settlement of the question.
The Earl of Riponhad voted with the noble Duke on this question last year; because, taking into account the existing state of Ireland, and believing that the Bill introduced by his Majesty's Ministers would prove deceptive in its practical application, he had conceived that the most prudent course for them to adopt would be, to extinguish the Irish Corporations altogether. He did not think, however, that there was anything in the nature of Irishmen themselves that made it unreasonable or impossible to confer upon them the power of regulating their own concerns in a manner safe and consistent with the genera] interests of the country; for, in point of fact, they did at present exercise
578
those functions. They might in every instance, if they thought it advisable to do so, without the intervention of any Corporation, avail themselves of the general Act of the 9th of George 4th, for the purpose of performing those various functions which this Bill proposed to have performed by Corporations. It was also true, that many of those corporate duties were at present performed by persons freely elected under local Acts of Parliament, and which were, in fact, founded upon the principle of representation. He would therefore say, that what was wanted with regard to the power of managing their own affairs, appeared to be nothing more nor less than that those different bodies did not bear the name of Corporations. He fully concurred in some of the remarks that had been made in the course of the discussion respecting the exaggerated state of feeling which had been excited with respect to the probable effects of this Bill, but he did not think that the individuals who had been accused of indulging in those exaggerated feelings were justly chargeable with them. The great mistake had, he thought, originated in the statement that this measure was founded on the eternal principles of justice, and that it was demanded by one portion of the population for the purpose of weighing down the other. When a party, therefore, was told that this Bill would confer upon their avowed enemies the power of completing their degradation, was it wonderful that that party should feel the greatest degree of jealousy and suspicion as to the objects with which the Bill had been framed, and the effects it was likely to produce? He did not mean to deny, that the dangers to be apprehended from it might have been overrated; but if he had not thought they had, he could assure their Lordships he would not be prepared to go the length he now was, or indeed to say he would consent to the total extinction of the existing Corporations. It was not wonderful, that the party to which he alluded should have felt very strongly on the subject; for they had been told, not certainly by the Government, but by others, that the object of this Bill was to bring them down to a miserable and degraded level, in which their influence and station in the country would be entirely lost. If they felt that this measure was likely to produce such consequences, it was no reproach to them that they should have expressed their unwillingness to agree to its adoption. It was the condition in which

579
they were placed that constituted a connexion between this measure and that of tithes, the propriety of which the noble Marquess had refused to admit; and it was on account of the difficulties connected with the state of parties in Ireland, that it behoved them to legislate with the utmost caution and prudence, and not deal with any one question of this description, without taking into consideration the bearings it would necessarily have, first singly, and then in conjunction with other measures, upon the condition of the country, and above all, whether the Established Church was likely to be affected by one or all of them. He did not think the noble Viscount should oppose the course that had been suggested. No one who knew the noble Duke could, for a moment, suppose that he had proposed that course with any sinister object, or with the view of defeating the measure now before the House. Indeed, noble Lords opposite had expressed their gratification at the anticipated settlement of this question held out by the noble Duke; and if the proposed delay should, as it was hoped it would, facilitate that final arrangement, what a consummation would be effected by so slight a sacrifice. His noble Friend who had spoken last, had referred to two or three cases which he conceived proved that the objections which had been made to some portions of the Bill, were extravagant and unfounded. In alluding to the local government of the new town or parish of St. Michans, in Limerick, he said, that it would be impossible for any system to be more analogous to another than it was to that which this Bill proposed to establish. [The Marquess of Lansdown: It had worked well.] The noble Marquess, then, stated, that the mode of managing their local affairs in that town, had worked well. That might be; he did not dispute it; but the noble Lord should recollect, that the working well of this measure depended entirely upon the nature of the qualification and the construction of the Corporation. It did not at all follow, that this measure would work well, because a system essentially different, though similar so far as continuing the elective principle, had done so. In this parish there were, as stated, twenty-one commissioners; but then they were not like the mayor and town-council, which were to be created by this Bill; fourteen of those commissioners were elected for life, seven were removable at the end of every three years, and elected triennially by all the inhabitants of the parish paying taxes,
580
in amount —what? Not by persons keeping houses to the value of 5l. or 10 l., but by those who paid taxes to the amount of 4l. Irish currency. The noble Lord was therefore wrong in his conclusion, that a Corporation put together under the provisions of this Bill, would give the same satisfaction or work as well as a body of commissioners thus elected. Under these circumstances, he should support the amendment of his noble Friend.
Lord Broughamsaid, that he should, with the greatest possible reluctance, give his vote against the proposition of the noble Duke, if he had taken the same view of the consequences and obvious tendency of that proposition, as his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdown); but it was because he differed entirely from his noble Friend in his view of the consequences and necessary tendency of that proposition, that he was prepared to vote against the proposed delay. He now understood, what he had not so well comprehended a few nights ago, the reason why the noble Duke had declined to answer the question which he had taken the liberty, not unwarrantably he hoped, of putting to the noble Duke, when he had asked the noble Duke to be kind enough to give in his amendments to the Bill, that they might be printed for matter of consideration before they should go into Committee. The noble Duke had refused, in a manner which had certainly led him at the time, though a good deal in the dark as to the precise reason for that refusal, to suspect that the noble Duke had not just then finally made up his mind as to the course he meant to pursue; but that, at all events, he had not made up his mind as to the amendments he intended to propose, he had felt confident from the tone of the noble Duke's reply, but he had not altogether anticipated the result which had taken place in the proposal for delay. He could not but think, that it would have been better had the noble Duke made that proposal, either when the Bill had come up from the Commons, on which occasion the noble Duke, in a few sentences, had taken distinctly the same view of the connexion between that Bill and other measures now in the House of Commons, or when the second reading of the Bill was moved. He thought, that instead of agreeing to the second reading and committal of the Bill to this day, it would have been a more obvious and better course for the noble Duke to have adopted, had he then pro-

581
posed that it be deferred until the 9th of June. But the question, after all, was, what was the meaning of this proposition? He wished to bring their Lordships to that point, the more so because it was his misfortune to differ from the expressed opinion of his noble Friend near him. However disposed he might have been to participate in that great feeling of satisfaction which so predominated in the speech of his noble Friend, the President of the Council, at what had fallen from the noble Earl and the noble Baron, he certainly was unable to screw his personal courage sufficiently firm to be satisfied, as was his noble Friend, with what had fallen from the noble Duke; unless, indeed, he was to understand, that in this case the author had adopted the interpretation of the commentator, and was prepared to say, "I did not mean what I said, but what my commentator has said for me." Unless this was clearly understood, the observations of the commentator must be taken as his own, and not those of his author; and then he would ask, had the noble Duke throughout the whole of his speech, from the beginning to the close of it, held out anything in the shape or nature of an intimation of his intention, he would not say of supporting, but of not opposing this Bill, or any ground upon which to rest a supposition that the noble Duke, and the noble Lord who acted with him, were not as hostile as they ever were, to the fundamental principle of this Bill. The noble Duke said, that the principle of local government, by means of local corporations, was the sum and substance of this measure; and that all the rest was only matter of detail. The qualification principle was certainly a matter of rather larger detail than the others; but still, in the noble Duke's estimation, it had nothing to do with the principle of the Bill. Now, if all this were true, it appeared to him, that if noble Lords had taken up higher ground, and had insisted upon perpetuating the present Corporations, they would have equally adopted what the noble Duke called the principle of this measure. The fact was, there was local government in Ireland already, perhaps not of a very satisfactory kind, local government connected with a variety of qualifications; and, therefore, it appeared to him, that unless they had the Bill before them, and considered the whole subject, they could actually do nothing in the matter. The noble Duke said the other night, that he was opposed to the principle of the Bill; but that he would
582
allow it to go to a second reading, in the hope of being able to get rid, in Committee, of what appeared to him and to his noble Friends, objectionable parts of it. All the noble Lords who had spoken on the subject, with the exception of the noble Earl opposite, who had always been the friend of this measure, followed in the same course, and stated a variety of objections, which proved that they still viewed the whole measure with unmitigated hostility. But what was the ground for delay? This was the question upon which he yet stood in need of explanation. He must say, that it struck him there was something extremely vague and general in this proposition, under which he could not help thinking that something lurked, he would not say of sinister motive—he would not say that, because the noble Duke himself had fully avowed what his intentions were, and he must have been blind and utterly stultified, if he could not have comprehended at one glance what he meant to convey—for no man ever spoke out more plainly on all occasions than the noble Duke—no man expressed himself in less vague and general expressions upon all matters in which he was engaged —no man was less capable of taking up a course which he feared to avow, than the noble Duke. The noble Duke might be wrong in many things — he often lamented the errors of his course; but of one thing he had never accused him, and that was, of not on all occasions openly and manfully stating what his intentions were on any subjects before him. The noble Duke had acted with his usual candour in the present instance: he had declared, that he was still opposed to this measure. But, at the same time, whilst he admitted that this candid avowal had been made on the part of the noble Duke, he could not understand why, after that avowal, the noble Duke should wish to go on after all with this Bill; why he did not proceed to throw it out altogether, and bring in a better one of his own, if he was prepared to legislate on the subject. Why had not the noble Duke moved the postponement of the Committee for six months, instead of five weeks? The noble Duke objected to the Bill, because it was bad; and then he said, "Let us wait for five weeks, in order to see certain other measures which are as yet in another place, before we proceed to see what can be done with this one." One of these measures referred to, which were as yet in the other House of Parliament, was on the subject

583
connected with the Church of Ireland. Now, he wished to inquire how the state in which that measure might eventually pass through the other House, could properly influence their proceedings in respect to the measure now before them. It appeared to him, that one of these three positions, and one only, must be true. Either the Bill now in the other House would be such as to increase the power and stability of the Irish Church, or it would diminish its power and stability, or, lastly, it would not affect it either one way or the other, but leave the Church just in the same position where it was at present. Now, that the Bill he referred to would tend to increase the stability of the Irish Church, the noble Duke had not the shadow of a hope. [An expression of dissent was here understood to fall from the Duke of Wellington.] Well, he was very glad to hear that the noble Duke, after all, had some latent hope on the subject. Now, if the Bill should turn out to realise his expectations on the subject, and at the same time not to disappoint the very slight expectations of the noble Duke —if it should turn out to tend to improve the condition of the Irish Church —then, as he thought, that would be a consideration upon which their Lordships should be induced to pass the Bill now before them; and if it were to pass at all, what reason he would ask, was there that tinder such a supposed state of circumstances it should not be passed now? In the second view which he would take of the case, namely, if the House foresaw that the Bill in the other place would eventually leave the Church precisely in its present condition, then he thought that all their Lordships would admit that this would be no reason for refusing to pass the present Bill, and, if not a reason for refusing to pass it, still less one for merely delaying it. He was now driven to his last hypothesis; and he would suppose that, unfortunately, the Irish Tithe Bill, when it came up from the other House, would be such a Bill as to make the noble Duke apprehend that it would lessen the security and power of the Irish Church. Now, he would beseech their Lordships to consider calmly of this position: he put it to the discretion and discernment of the noble Duke to consider whether, if they knew that the rejection of this Bill in their Lordships' House would have such an effect as to insure the sending up to them from the House of Commons a Bill which, in their Lordships' opinion, would tend to diminish instead of
584
increasing the stability of the Irish Church—he put it to the noble Duke and noble Lords opposite, whether, if they believed this, it could be considered by them as a reason for refusing to pass the Bill now before their Lordships. If noble Lords formed this opinion of the Bill on the subject of the Irish tithes, it would be a most logical argument for refusing to pass that Bill when it came before them, or for altering it so as to remove the objections which they entertained against it. But was there any reason why, because they should eventually reject the Irish Tithe Bill, they should now refuse to give the Irish the right to manage their own Corporations? But the fact was, they could not put off the consideration of this Bill to await the reception of the other Bill from the House of Commons under the implied understanding which appeared to be given by the noble Duke and noble Lords opposite, that if that Bill when it came up should be such as to please them, they would then pass the present Bill as it now was. ["No, no!" from the Opposition.] He was sure that he should hear that! He made the remark on purpose. He was convinced that he should hear from a very considerable number of noble Lords opposite an indignant repudiation of the bare notion of the possibility of their passing any thing in the shape of this Bill, or of the measures adopted by the other House having the slightest influence upon them towards altering their hostility to every principle, every feature, and every tittle of this measure. If, then, the nature of the Bill to come up to them from the House of Commons would have no effect whatever upon their intentions towards this Bill, if upon no terms they would be induced to mitigate their feelings of hostility to this measure, then he came back to his former position, that let the Bill on the subject of Irish tithes be framed as it might —let the discussions upon the subject in the other House produce what effect they might — altering, amending, or modifying its supposed provisions—in whatever form, in fact, it eventually were to come before their Lordships —such a consideration would not have the effect of winning any substantial support in favour of this measure. He would not say it might not affect one or two wavering crotchetty votes; but certainly that it would not tend to mitigate the general hostility which unfortunately prevailed in their Lordships' minds against this measure. This being the case, the

585
two Bills, as it appeared to him, were altogether as distinct and unconnected as any private bill, any railroad or other bill of such a nature, could be with the Bill now before the House. Did not this demonstrate —he spoke it with no disrespect — the absurdity of the proposition of the noble Duke to postpone the further consideration of this Bill until they saw what was done with other measures now before the House of Commons? The noble Duke's objections were well known, and avowed to be directed not at the period when this measure was propounded—not at the details of which it consisted—not at the mode and manner in which its great, and, as he considered, its invaluable principle was proposed to be worked out —he objected to the very principle itself upon which the measure rested. He objected to the whole measure. Like a great conqueror, his predecessor in history, who was said to have been a steady opponent of reform, and, moreover (in which he could not justly liken him to the noble Duke), that he had never suffered any thing in favour of liberty —of this conqueror it was said, as he now said of the noble Duke, that he was "the enemy, the irreconcilable enemy, of the whole measure— of the whole of its details —of every thing comprised within its four corners, and of the very grounds upon which it was constituted." He would say, therefore, why talk of putting off the measure for five weeks, in order to see other measures upon which its fate did actually not at all depend? Why put off the going into Committee on this Bill, in order that they might see how they could nibble a bit away at one corner, and take out one clause, and thrust in another, and make this and that amendment, in order to render it palatable to the noble Duke and his noble Friends on the opposite side? Such a proposition, so totally uncalled for —so totally unjustifiable —so totally useless, served but too clearly to show the lengths to which men might be pushed by the exigencies of political necessity, when, having taken up one ground of opposition to a measure, they found it no longer safe to occupy that position, and that the troops who were to have acted with them in it were no longer united in views and opinions. He came now to consider the next measure upon the strength of which it was proposed to delay the further proceedings in this Bill, namely, the Poor-law Bill for Ireland. The only way in which this measure could bear upon the question before the House, as the noble
586
Duke himself had most clearly shown, for most clearly had the noble Duke put forward his arguments, and therefore the more unfortunately, for by reason of its clearness it stood in its simple nakedness, with nothing to protect it from destructive scrutiny —most clearly had the noble Duke shown that the only reason for delaying this Bill until they had the Irish Poor-law Bill before them was, that this measure comprised a matter involving the consideration of a rating, and therefore that the provisions on the subject in the Poor-law Bill would give them an opportunity of finding a proper system of qualification. Now, he could not exactly devise a qualification founded upon a rating, because none existed, but he believed that he could find a mode of valuing a 5l. house, and in Committee they might turn their attention to devising a proper test of that nature, just as well before as after the passing of the Poor-law Bill, with its rate-paying clause. But why was it that he did not think that rating clause requisite as to the foundation of such a matter of legislation? It was because he recollected the Act of 9 Geo. 4th, passed in the year 1828 or 1829 by the noble Duke opposite, which was applicable to all Ireland, and by which any one town, corporate or incorporate, might manage its own local affairs of lighting and so forth, and yet there was no qualification, no rating upon which to found a qualification. [The Duke of Wellington: An assessment existed in Ireland in 1828, which has since been repealed.] Oh, the assessment had been since repealed; but had the 9th Geo. 4th been since repealed also? He believed that in many towns in Ireland that Act was still enforced, and that by virtue of it the inhabitants proceeded every three years to elect their commissioners of lighting and paving, offices to which considerable patronage was necessarily attached, although there was no test of qualification established amongst them by which they could ascertain a 5l. value. There was another Bill also of some little importance in the affairs not only of Ireland but of the State in general, which brought a considerable extent of power into the hands of certain individuals, and from the dread of which power, in fact, arose much of the hostility manifested to the measure now before the House —a measure affecting infinitely more potently the political state of Ireland than the most sanguine anticipations of the friends or the most direful anticipations of the enemies of

587
the present Bill would bring themselves to imagine it could bring about: he meant nothing more nor less, in fact, than the Irish Parliamentary Reform Bill, which went upon the principle of a 5l. qualification, although there was no rating upon which to estimate such a qualification. [A noble Lord: The Irish Parliamentary Reform Bill contained a 10 l. qualification.] Well, the argument was the same. If they could trust one set of voters without a test, why might they not do so with others? At all events, as he said before, if a qualification were required, this was a point to which they could direct their attention in Committee. It was certainly a most notable absurdity to say, that they could not proceed with this measure because they had not before them a certain clause in a certain other measure now in the House of Commons. No man could pretend to say that the rejection or passing of this Bill depended upon the rating clause in the Irish Poor-law Bill; but, at the same time, if it was imagined that the rate clause in that Bill would afford a convenient test to modify some of the clauses in this Bill, a clause might be inserted in this Bill providing, that if a Bill were to be passed on the subject of the relief of the poor in Ireland with a rating clause, then that clause should be adopted as a test of qualification for the purposes of this Bill. He should not be dealing fairly with the House if he did not state that he should not advocate the introduction of such a clause into this Bill. The rate-paying clause was that part in the Reform Act which worked the worst, which operated to the disfranchisement of the constituency, and gave rise to the greatest discontent, and, as he thought, discontent justly founded; and he hoped to live to see the time when, if it were not altogether repealed, it would be most essentially mitigated. He could regard it as nothing but an evil, and he was rejoiced to see, from something which had taken place in the other House of Parliament, that, although the preponderance of feeling was not perhaps against the rate-paying clause altogether, there was certainly an immense majority in favour of a considerable alteration in it. For the question now before the House, however, he thought they had only one of two courses to pursue—either to proceed at once with the Bill, or to throw it out at once; as, from what he had heard on former occasions and to-night, he had no doubt noble Lords opposite, with very few exceptions, were resolved to do
588
in the end. By whatever means or routes they might each think proper to proceed, he believed that they all looked to aiming at the same desired point of rejection. They might in the mean time fritter away one part of the Bill, insert a rate-paying clause, dock out this schedule, insert another, and, in fact, concoct so entirely new a Bill that the man who drew the original would not recognise his work, but the result would be the same in the end, and whether the Bills on the Irish Church and the Irish Poor-laws passed or not, the Bill was doomed to rejection. He would therefore earnestly suggest the decorum of not losing any more time in the difficult and inconsistent course which they had taken up, but at once throw out the Bill by the usual postponement for six months, or at once proceed in Committee to strangle it and smother it with their amendments. One thing or the other he would implore them to do, in order that themselves and the country might be able to understand what they were about —in order that when they were asked by others what they had been about, they might be able to give a plain and straightforward answer. Were they so overburthened with legislation, having arrived at the fourth month of the Session, when they had done precisely nothing — were they so fatigued and worn out with their labour that they could not screw their courage up for one night's legislation in Committee? Why should they be afraid of one night's business. He would guarantee them against more than one night. This was the course which their Lordships hould pursue whilst by the course which they had taken up, and which by too many reasons which he saw before him he was aware they were about to persist in, they would not be doing that which he thought was due to the country, to their own dignity and character, to what they owed to the opinion of the public, nor consistently with the respect and good feeling which should exist between the two Houses of the Legislature. Would they, upon grounds such as had been to-night stated, persist in pursuing the course which they had done last year, and which had then led, if not to conflict, to conference with the other House —conference ending in every man retaining just his own opinions on the subject, only very much strengthened by all the arguments which he had heard from the other side. Would their Lordships be prepared to take this occasion to adopt so new a mode of proceeding, putting off proceeding with this

589
Bill with the intention of holding their decision upon it in terror over certain measures now in progress in another place; for if the motion of the noble Duke meant this he could understand it; if not, he was utterly at a loss to imagine the ground upon which it was made? He would beg to remind their Lordships that the other House held out no threats of this kind against them; it had adopted no course calculated to be derogatory to themselves or disgraceful to their Lordships; but, if their Lordships were to set a precedent that one House should hold out in its course of proceeding an evidently implied threat over the other, under an apparently indifferent motion for a five weeks' delay—if they took upon themselves to set such an example to the other House of Parliament, he would entreat their Lordships to bear in mind that they themselves were to blame in commencing a system, and that if the House of Commons were to follow up that system, it was barely possible that they might find this imitation of their conduct somewhat less convenient than to have calmly and wisely abstained from setting so very doubtful an example.
The Earl of Haddingtonbegged to be allowed to say a few words to set himself and the noble Lords with whom he acted right in the sight of the House as to the reasons for the course which they were about to pursue. The noble and learned Baron had concluded his speech with a menace, warning their Lordships in a most marked manner how they set up a precedent which they might afterwards find it convenient to have avoided. The noble and learned Lord also stated, that the House of Commons had never dealt in menace. Did the noble and learned Lord not recollect an occasion when there was a threat of stopping the Supplies held out, and with whom did this threat originate, but from one of the first Ministers of the Crown? The noble and learned Lord spoke as if he imagined that their Lordships had entered upon this debate in a spirit of the greatest hostility against the other House. So far from this being the fact, the motion was in itself a very element to induce them to act in a conciliatory manner. It would be recollected that amongst the reasons given by their Lordships for dissenting from certain provisions in this Bill at the conference last year, this House expressed an earnest hope that the period was not far distant when the two Houses, acting on a good understanding, might be able to give a system
590
of local Government to Ireland. That sentiment he, amongst others, still entertained. The noble and learned Lord had advanced a position which he certainly was astonished to hear from a man of his known acuteness and observation, namely, that this measure had no more connexion with the Irish Tithe Bill than with any railway, or canal, or other private bill that had ever come before their Lordships' House. Did this question bear upon the Irish Church question? All he could say was, that all the friends of the Irish Church conceived it did. He asked again, did this question bear upon the Irish Church question? All he could say was, that all the enemies of the Irish Church declared it did. Was it not said by many persons connected with Ireland, and who now associated themselves with the party called "Voluntaries," in this country, that the only mode of giving happiness and doing justice to the people of Ireland was to abolish tithes in toto, and to enact that no person should pay one farthing towards the support of the Established Church, who was not a member of that Church? "That," said those persons, "is a substitute with which we will be content; if we can gain it we will cease to agitate repeal; till we gain it we will never cease to agitate repeal." Instalment after instalment towards the accomplishment of that end they were prepared to take, provided each of these instalments was based upon the obnoxious principle which struck at the root of the establishment in Ireland. Had they not said, too, in connexion with their ulterior views and objects in reference to the Established Church, "Give us this measure of Municipal Reform, and then we shall see whether we cannot at once achieve our ends and objects?" It was obvious that the opinions of these persons were different from that of the noble Marquess, the Lord President of the Council, who said, "I cannot conceive how these Corporations, according to the principle contained in this Bill, can ever be the means of putting a weapon in the hands of the agitators and disturbers of the peace in Ireland." The language used by these agitators and disturbers themselves, showed that they at least took a very different view of the matter; and who could fail to see that their view was correct, when the qualification proposed in the Bill was considered, and the vast influence it would give to persons of the Roman Catholic persuasion remembered? He maintained, then, that this Bill had a most direct bearing upon the

591
security of the Established Church, and that it would operate most dangerously as long as the Church question remained unsettled. With that feeling strongly impressed upon their minds they on that side of the House said, "We will not pass this Bill; we will not depart from the high ground we took in the last Session as long as the Irish Church question remains unsettled." But they did hope that the question might be settled—they hoped that the Bill now before the House of Commons might leave that House in such a shape as to enable their Lordships, without further loss of time, to settle the question of the Church in Ireland. Let the Tithe Bill be brought before them in that House. They should be ready so to consider it in connexion with the Bill now before them as to render the application of both safe. It was impossible for them to deal with the question of Municipal Reform until they knew what were to be the provisions of the Bill that related to the Church. When the Church question came before them, they should be prepared so to consider it, and if necessary so to amend it, as to render it safe to apply the principle contained in the present Bill to the local Government of the cities and towns in Ireland; but if unfortunately they should find it impracticable to come to an agreement on the Church Bill, unquestionably they would not depart from the ground they had already taken on the measure of Municipal Reform. This was what he was chiefly anxious to state, because the noble and learned Lord had endeavoured by his specious statements and subtle arguments so to dazzle their Lordships' eyes and understandings as to prevent their comprehending what they were about. He had already stated, that the course taken on the present occasion was really and truly with the view, and for the purpose, of bringing the question to a conciliatory conclusion: and he could not help feeling that if the course pursued should, notwithstanding all the objections and all the ridicule heaped upon it by the noble and learned Lord and others, have the effect of settling this question, the unsettled state of which was the cause of so many misfortunes and so much unhappiness, their Lordships would deserve the gratitude of the empire, and more especially of that part of it to which they would indeed, by the settlement of this question, have done justice.
The Earl of Rodenconsidered this bill as a measure which struck at the roots of Protestantism in Ireland, by destroying
592
the Protestant Corporations of that country, and establishing Roman Catholic Corporations in their stead. The noble Marquess opposite had denied, that this Corporation Bill would produce any influence upon the Protestant Church of Ireland, and had challenged their Lordships to show how any influence of that kind could exist under it. Was it nothing, he would ask, to erect in different parts of Ireland, normal schools of agitation for any purposes proclaimed by those who were acting under the charter of the King, and who had vowed the destruction of that Church which they had declared a nuisance? He contended that the noble Duke was justified in saying, that he would not give the powers of this bill to the Municipal Corporations of Ireland until he saw that they could be given with perfect security to the interests of the Protestant Church. The noble Marquess had referred to certain papers, for the purpose of showing how favourable the election of officers under the 9th of George 4th had been to the Protestant party in various towns and boroughs in Ireland. He did not know on what authority the noble Marquess made that assertion, but he had no doubt that the noble Marquess deemed it correct. He (the Earl of Roden) could, however, state, that a very different result had taken place in some towns with which he was acquainted, and in which the election of commissioners had been made according to the provisions of the 9th of George 4th. He would call the attention of their Lordships to what had occurred at the town of Clonmel, in Tipperary. In the year 1828, previously to the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, out of twenty commissioners for lighting and watching that town, fifteen were Protestants and. five were Roman Catholics. In the year 1836, there was not a single Protestant in the whole number of commissioners. It happened, however, by some accident or other, that the mayor was a Protestant. It was suggested to him by a Protestant inhabitant of the town, that as there were a great many rate-payers who were Protestants, some of the commissioners should be Protestants also. The mayor laid this communication before the electors, when he was informed that the Protestants had held power for a long time exclusively, and that the Catholics had now got it into their hands and were determined to do the same. He believed that, if inquiry were made, it would be discovered that this was the practical operation of the 9th of George 4th in

593
nearly all the towns in Ireland. If such were the case under the 9th of George 4th, he would ask noble Lords to consider what would be the result under the more extensive powers given to those towns under this Bill. The noble Viscount had, he complained, cast a variety of imputations on the Protestant Corporations of Ireland—imputations which, in his conscience, he believed were perfectly undeserved. He would say frankly, that it was his opinion that the noble Viscount could not make out any ground for those imputations. The noble and learned Lord, who had followed some time afterwards on the same side with the noble Viscount, had adopted those imputations, and had stated, in unmeasured language, that the Irish Corporations were nests of abuse and sinks of corruption. He should like to know from what sources of information the noble and learned Lord had formed his opinion upon that subject. He admitted, that some of those Corporations had committed errors; but he affirmed that none of them had done anything to deserve the strong epithets which the noble and learned Lord had applied to them. The noble Viscount had also, in a side way, thrown out a threat against their Lordships in case they did not agree in the view taken of it by the other House of Parliament. If he understood the noble Viscount rightly, he had talked of a stoppage of Supplies by the House of Commons. [Viscount Melbourne "No, no."] He begged pardon, but he understood the noble Viscount to have used these words, "There were means by which the other House of Parliament could affect that House, and indeed the country at large." [Viscount Melbourne had said no such thing.] If the noble Viscount disclaims any such words, I am satisfied. Whatever the House of Commons may do, you, my Lords, have but one course to pursue. However inconvenient a difference between this House and the House of Commons may be — however anxious you may be that such a difference should cease, still it is impossible for you, when a question of duty arises, to retrace, on the shallow ground of expediency any steps which you may have deliberately and conscientiously taken. Recollect how your proceedings in the last Session of Parliament have exalted your character in the estimation of the country. That point is rendered clear to all the world by the change of opinion which has already been produced all over the country and especially in Scotland, where the alarm which
594
has been spread lest Protestantism should be put down in Ireland, has already caused men to think of what they are doing, and will, at the next election, alter in a great degree the representation of that country. I concur with the noble Duke in putting off the Committee on this bill to the 9th of June. Whether I shall then consent to it will depend upon the measure to be proposed on the Irish Church, for I will not, I declare it frankly, vote for any measure which endangers, in the slightest degree, the Protestant Church in Ireland; for on that depend the liberty, the comfort, the happiness, and the improvement of all classes of people in Ireland.
Lord Brougham,in reply to the challenge thrown out to him by the noble Earl who had just sat down, begged to state, that he founded his condemnation of the existing Corporations of Ireland upon the authority of the commissioners appointed to inquire into them, and also upon the opinion of a high legal and political authority connected with that House, but not with that side of it from which he (Lord Brougham) spoke. The Report of the Commissioners said, that the Corporations had used their privileges—their corporate functions—without scruple, not as trustees for the benefit of the community, but for the purpose of obtaining an exclusive dominion over the inhabitants, and a political influence for themselves in the elections for Members to serve in Parliament. That was the Report of the Commissioners. Then the high legal authority to whom he had alluded, spoke of them as excluding men on account of their politics, administering justice by a party, and mal-administering the funds intrusted to their care. When he found the Corporations of Ireland spoken of in such terms by such authorities, he left it to their Lordships to determine whether he was not fully justified in the epithets he had applied to them.
The Earl of Falmouthhad only a single observation to offer, and that was in consequence of what had just fallen from the noble and learned Lord. He had before stated, that he never would hear the Reports of the Corporation Commissioners, either in Ireland or England, quoted as if those Reports convicted the parties against whom they were levelled of misdemeanour, much less of those abuses and that maladministration which were laid to their charge. He never would admit, that the Reports of Commissioners, the legality of whose appointment was exceedingly ques-

595
tionable, formed a constitutional mode of trial and conviction of any parties whatever in that country. It was not his intention at that late hour to address their Lordships at any length upon the subject, but he had before pledged himself never to hear the Reports of these Commissioners, quoted in the manner they had been by the noble and learned Lord, without getting up and denying any party could be considered as tried and convicted by them.
The Duke of Richmondwould ask the noble Earl who had just sat down, when he said that these Corporations had not been legally tried and convicted, whether the decision of that House in the last Session of Parliament, whether the recommendation of a large majority of that House that these Corporations should cease to exist, would ever have been carried unless there existed a strong opinion that they had not acted so correctly as they ought to have done. He had reason, however, to say, that he was one of those who sincerely believed that his noble Friend, the noble Duke (Wellington) was only actuated by a sincere desire to conciliate, when he proposed to delay the committal of this bill to the 9th of June. He well knew the noble Duke's character, and he felt quite satisfied that the noble Duke believed that, by adopting this course, the House would be best enabled to bring the question to a satisfactory termination. And although he was one of those who protested against the junction of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, and the Forty-shilling Freehold Bill— though, in their Lordships' journals he had then recorded the reasons which induced him to object to that sort of bartering legislation, yet, if he felt that the putting off this question would enable their Lordships to come to a satisfactory settlement of this and other questions relating to Ireland, he should feel bound to give his vote for the amendment proposed by the noble Duke. But he submitted, that the House of Commons, after the debate of that evening, would not be in a situation to judge very correctly what it was that their Lordships intended to do. What he would suggest, therefore, was this: that they should go into the Committee without delay, alter the bill in such a manner as they deemed most proper, and thus enable the Commons at once to see and understand the extent to which they were prepared to go. If he wanted to enter into a compromise with any man, he invariably said, without hesitation or concealment, "So far will I go,
596
and no further: will you accept my proposition?" He thought it would be well for their Lordships to pursue the same course. There was one part of the subject which appeared to him to be particularly worthy of their Lordships' attention. He had humbly submitted, in the last Session of Parliament, that Municipal Corporations ought not to be given to every small town in Ireland. To the large commercial and manufacturing towns, and to towns containing a great population, he was prepared and disposed to give Corporations; but he objected to Corporations in small towns, even in England, If he had the power, he would only give Corporations to those towns which, from their size and importance, required them; but he would do equal justice to Ireland. The towns in Ireland to which he had last year recommended their Lordships to give Corporations, were placed in a particular schedule of the Bill, which made the qualification to vote for members of the town-councils, the same as the qualification to vote for Members to serve in Parliament—it was the 10 l. qualification. Now, if their Lordships were prepared to agree with him, and to give Corporations to those large towns, it would not be necessary for them to wait until the Irish Poor-law Bill was brought before them, because the 10 l. qualification had already been fully inquired into, settled, and registered by the revising barristers in Ireland. The voters were all registered—all known; their claims had been sifted to the uttermost, and the Legislature would, therefore, know to whom they were granting the privilege of voting for the return of municipal officers. Under these circumstances, it was not necessary, in his view of the subject, to wait for the bringing up of the Irish Poor-law Bill. With respect to tithes in Ireland, their Lordships were aware, that upon that question, he entertained the strongest opinion. He never could give his sanction to an appropriation clause, but even though the chance were slight, that the House of Commons would abandon that clause, he would, nevertheless, entreat their Lordships to go into the consideration of the present Bill. He would entreat their Lordships to define to the utmost extent what they were prepared to do with the Corporations of Ireland; but he would not ultimately vote in favour of the Municipal Reform Bill, if he thought it would endanger the Established Church in that country. As at present informed, he did not know by what means it could possibly

597
do so, and he objected to his noble Friend's argument, though he knew his motives in using it were the best. He objected to tell the people of this country that it was necessary, not only to sanction, but to maintain abuses in Ireland, for the purpose of protecting the Established Church in that country. He maintained, that neither the English nor the Irish Church had anything to do with the question of Municipal Reform. He maintained further, that the more abuses were destroyed in both countries, the greater would be the security of the Established Church in each. Under these circumstances, he would only conclude by repeating his conviction of the perfect sincerity of the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington), but, in his own opinion, instead of going into Committee on the 9th of June next, it would be better to go into Committee on Monday next, and so at once to show the House of Commons what compromise they were disposed to offer.
Lord Wharncliffediffered from the noble Duke who had just sat down. He objected to the 10 l. qualification, not only because it was one of the most uncertain ever established, but because in many places, and especially in Ireland, it had led to so much perjury. Only that day, a petition had been presented from Longford, praying for an alteration of the 10 l. franchise, and pointing out the evils that resulted from it. The 10 l. qualification, therefore, instead of inducing him to hasten the progress of this measure, constituted one of the very reasons why he wished first to have the Poor-law before them, in order that it might be seen whether a different and better qualification could not be adopted. The evidence taken before the Longford Election Committee showed that perjury had been carried to a very great extent as regarded the qualification. He should be anxious to guard against this in the introduction of the principle of popular election into the Corporations of Ireland. Notwithstanding what had fallen from the noble Viscount, he was not afraid to go before the country upon this question. They, on that side of the House, proposed to delay the further progress of the Bill, until they saw a better or final settlement could not be made of all the questions at present at issue between that House and the House of Commons. They asked no compromise— they desired no compromise. Let the other measures be brought before them, and they would deal with them; and if those other measures appeared calculated to lead to a settlement
598
of the tithe question in Ireland, they would then enter into the consideration of this Bill, and discuss it upon the principle upon which it proceeded—the principle of popular election for municipal offices.
The Duke of Wellingtonobserved, that that noble and learned Lord had called upon him, on a former night, to lay upon the table a copy of the amendments, which he intended to propose, as the noble and learned Lord was anxious to consider them. He had then told the noble and learned Lord, that he had no amendments to propose, and with that answer the noble and learned Lord appeared satisfied. The noble Viscount had also complained that he had not informed him of the course which be intended to pursue, in postponing the Committee on this Bill till the other two Bills were before the House. He thought that he had given the noble Viscount a very palpable hint as to the course which he intended to pursue, for he had, if he recollected right, read the paragraph in the King's Speech, in which those three Bills were mentioned together, and the answer which their Lordships had given thereto. There was one point to which he wished to call the attention of their Lordships, as both the noble President of the Council, and the noble and learned Lord had laboured much to prove the want of connexion between this Bill of Municipal Reform, and the Irish Church Bill. The difficulty under which the Irish Church laboured at present, was the state of the tithe question, owing to the measures of Parliament. This state of the tithe question, which had reduced the clergy of the Church of Ireland almost to starvation, was kept up in Ireland by the excitement occasioned by agitation all over the country. He was anxious to avoid additional agitation, and especially authoritative agitation, by the members of town-councils acting under the influence and authority of agitators elected to their situations by the lowest class of the people —a people, too, acting under the direction of the violent opponents of the Protestant Church in Ireland. He must also notice another objection he had to this Bill. It gave to the town-councils great influence and power in their immediate neighbourhoods, not for one mile, but for a circuit of seven miles. It gave them great influence also, not only in the county in which their corporate town was situate, but also in any neighbouring county or counties which were within seven miles of their town. Some of these town-councils would have

599
jurisdiction over three or four different counties. Was that, he would ask, desirable with a view to the agitation of the question of Irish tithes? He put that question distinctly to the noble Viscount, and he begged that the noble Viscount would answer it. Under these circumstances, he asked whether those who had a sincere regard for the welfare of the Established Church in Ireland, ought not to pause over this Bill until they saw how the Irish tithes question was settled. He freely confessed, that the preservation of the Protestant Church of Ireland was the object which he had in view—it was a principle to which they had sworn their Sovereign, to which they had sworn themselves, and to which the other House of Parliament had also sworn its Members. If that principle were changed, if it were no longer the policy of the country, their Lordships ought to be informed of it before they took any further measure for the preservation of the Irish Church, and more particularly before they were threatened with a collision with the other branch of the Legislature. In conclusion, he repeated that, unless a satisfactory settlement were made of the Church question, he should not consent to the committal of this Bill.
Their Lordships divided on the Amendment:—Content 192; Not-content 115: Majority 77.

Content.

ARCHBISHOPS.

Carnarvon

Canterbury

Dartmouth

York

Devon

DUKES.

Digby

Beaufort

Doncaster (Buccleuch)

Cumberland

Falmouth

Newcastle

Glengall

Rutland

Graham (Montrose)

Wellington

Hardwicke

MARQUESSES.

Harewood

Abercorn

Harrington

Bute

Harrowby

Cholmondeley

Hillsborough (Down shire)

Hertford

Salisbury

Home

Thomond

Jersey

Tweeddale

Leven

Westmeath

Limerick

EARLS.

Mansfield

Abingdon

Mayo

Airlie

Morton

Amherst

Mountcashel

Bandon

Orkney

Beauchamp

Plymouth

Bradford

Ripon

Brownlow

Rosse

Caledon

Rosslyn

600

Sandwich

Clanbrassil (Roden)

Selkirk

Clanwilliam

Shaftesbury

Clinton

Stamford

Colchester

Talbot

Cowley

Tankerville

De Saumarez

Verulam

De Tabley

Wicklow

Dunmore

Wilton

Dynevor

VISCOUNTS

Ellenborough

Arburthnot

Fitzgerald

Beresford

Fitzgibbon (Clare)

Canning

Forrester

Canterbury

Gage

Combermere

Hay (Kinnoul)

Exmouth

Heytesbury

Gordon (Aberdeen)

Kenyon

Gort

Kerr (Lothian)

Hawarden

Manners

Hood

Meldrum (Huntley)

Hutchinson (Donoughmore)

Melros (Haddington)

Monson

Maynard

Montagu

St. Vincent

Penshurst (Strangford)

Sydney

Prudhoe

BISHOPS.

Rayleigh

Bangor

Reay

Carlisle

Redesdale

Exeter

Rodney

Glocester

Rolle

Lincoln

Saltersford (Coustoun)

London

Saltoun

Winchester

Sandys

LORDS.

Sinclair

Abinger

Sondes

Ashburton

Southampton

Bayning

St. John

Bexley

Stewart of Garlies (Earl of Galloway)

Bolton

Boston

Tenterden

Braybroke

Wallace

Camden (Brecknock)

Wharncliffe

Carteret

Willoughby de Broke

Churchill

Wynford

Proxies.

DUKES.

Macclesfield

Buckingham

Malmesbury

Dorset

Mount Edgecumbe

Leeds

O'Neill

Manchester

Orford

Northumberland

Pembroke

MARQUESSES.

Poulett

Ailesbury

Powis

Bristol

Somers

EARLS.

VISCOUNTS.

Aylesford

Hereford

Bathurst

Lorton

Beverly

Melville

Buckinghamshire

Sidmouth

Cardigan

Strathallan

Clancarty

BISHOP.

De La Warr

Bath and Wells

Eldon

LORDS.

Elgin

Arden

Guilford

Ardrossan (Eglinton)

Lindsay

Bagot

601

Carbery

Lyndhurst

Carrington

Oriel (Visct. Ferrard)

Colville

Ormond

Delamere

Rivers

Douglas

St. Helen's

Downes

Stuart de Rothesay

Dunsany

Thurlow

Farnborough

Tyrone (Waterford)

Faversham

Walsingham

Forbes

Wigan (Earl of Balcarres)

Grantley

Gray

Wodehouse

Harris

Not-Content.

DUKES.

BARONS.

Argyle

Cleveland

Arundel

Devonshire

Bateman

Grafton

Brougham

Norfolk

Byron

Richmond

Cloncurry

Sutherland

Cottenham

MARQUESSES.

Dacre

Clanricarde

Denman

Headfort

Foley

Lansdowne

Gardner

Northampton

Glenelg

Queensberry

Godolphin

Tavistock

Hatherton

EARLS.

Holland

Albemarle

Howden

Burlington

King

Camperdown

Kinnaird

Cork

Lilford

Craven

Longdale

Ducie

Lovat

Errol

Lynedoch

Fingall

Mostyn

Fitzwilliam

Montford

Howard of Effingham

Poltimore

Ilchester

Say and Sele

Leitrim

Seaford

Lichfield

Segrave

Minto

Stourton

Morley

Strafford

Oxford

Suffield

Radnor

Templemore

Rosebery

Teynham

Scarborough

Vernon

Sefton

Stradbroke

BISHOPS.

Thanet

Chichester

Uxbridge

Durham

Yarborough

Ely

VISCOUNTS.

Hereford

Duncannon

Killaloe

Melbourne

Ripon

Torrington

Salisbury

Proxies.

DUKES.

MARQUESSES,

Bedford

Breadalbane

Brandon

Westminster

Leinster

Winchester

Marlborough

EARLS.

Sussex

Besborough

602

Charlemont

VISCOUNTS.

Durham

Bolingbroke

Essex

Dorchester

Ferrers

BARONS.

Gosford

Auckland

Granville

Dormer

Huntingdon

Dunally

Ludlow

Erskine

Meath

Howard de Walden

Mulgrave

Plunkett

Roxburgh

Ponsonby

Sherborne

Western

Shrewsbury

BISHOP.

Suffolk

Lichfield

Paired Off.

Lord Belhaven

Earl of Eglinton

Lord Barham

Lord Forbes

Earl of Derby

Bishop of St. Asaph

Lord Dormer

Earl of Warwick

Lord Portman

Lord Sheffield

Marquess of Anglesey

Earl de Grey

Earl Carlisle

Lord Ravensworth

Duke of Somerset

Marquess Camden

Lord Dundas

Lord Alvanley

Lord Sligo

Bishop of Rochester

Lord King

Lord Marlborough

Lord Petre

Lord Lonsdale