Sitting of 6 April 1838

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Sir ROBERT BATSON, from Belfast, by Mr. HARVEY, from Ashton-under-Lyne, and Welshpool, by Mr. BAINES, from Mirfield, and other places in Yorkshire, by Mr. BROTHERTON, from places in Lancashire, by Sir G. STRIOKLAND, from several places in Yorkshire, and by Mr. CAYLEV, and Mr. AGLIONBY, from several places, for the Immediate Abolition of Negro Apprenticeship—By Mr. BAINES, from Congregations in Scotland, against the grant of any additional Endowments to the Scotch Church.—By Sir R. BATESON, from the county of Londonderry, against the Irish Poor-Law.—By Mr. COLOUHOUN, from Kirkaldy, for Endowments to the Scotch Church.—By Mr. TOWNLEY PARKER, from Preston, complaining of Duties on English Goods in France and Belgium.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—MR. POULTER.
Mr. Blackstonefelt it to be his duty, and it was to him a most painful duty, to call the attention of the House to a letter which had been printed in The Morning Chronicle of that morning; and he thought himself, as an individual, and he was sure the House would likewise think, that it was a gross and scandalous breach of the privileges of the House. He felt that this letter was quite indefensible, and it was such a letter that he could hardly believe it to be the production of the gentleman whose name was signed to it. He could not believe, that it was written by Mr. Poulter, the late Member for Shaftesbury. He could assure the House that he could scarcely believe, that a person belonging to the legal pro-
454
fession could have written such a letter; and therefore it was, that he should feel it to be necessary, in the first instance, to call the printer of The Morning Chronicle to the bar, to see whether the gentleman whose name was affixed to the letter had written it or not. Now, when he read this letter he was sure the hon. Members of the Committee would bear him out in the opinion that he expressed, that the statements contained in the letter were unfounded and unjust. He would commence by reading the several paragraphs to which it would be necessary to call the attention of the House. He should, however, first state, that the letter was signed "J. S. Poulter," and purported to have been written on the 4th of April, 1838. It was a letter deliberately written—it was not written under the excitement of the moment; for the Committee had, he believed, come to the resolution of unseating Mr. Poulter on the 31st of March, and even the Sabbath-day intervened between the knowledge of their determination and Mr. Poulter's writing the following letter:—
"To the Electors of the Borough of Shaftesbury—Gentlemen—An unprincipled combination to which I have been for some time exposed has been but too successful. A petition, which under ordinary circumstances and with a fair Committee might probably have been found frivolous and vexatious, has, by the effect of mere chance, been enabled to call to its assistance the services of the most corrupt majority of a Committee that ever degraded the administration of justice and the name of the Commons of England. The consequence has been, that I have ceased to be your representative in Parliament. The printing of the evidence by the order of the House will, I trust, exhibit to you and to the world the full particulars of this most flagrant and wicked case."
The next paragraph related to the revising barrister. That gentleman was attacked, and he now noticed the attack only for the purpose of remarking, that he had given his testimony in the best taste possible; and he was sure he was only expressing the universal and unanimous testimony of the Committee when he said that they all highly approved of the manner in which Mr. Graves had given his testimony:—
"The conduct of a revising barrister of the name of Graves, in neither giving the overseer of Stower Provost an entire day for bringing in his list, nor adjourning (as it was his duty to have done) in such a manner as to prevent

455
even the most trivial and technical objection being raised, was the first cause of the monstrous injustice which has been inflicted upon me, The Committee having decided this point in my favour after an elaborate and unanswerable argument, founded upon reason, principle, and justice, as well as precedent, subsequently, on the application of the petitioner's counsel, re-opened the matter, and ultimately reversed their own solemn decision."

Cheers from Mr. O'Connell.
Now, as he heard the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Dublin, cheer, he must say this, that he could assure the hon. Member her that what was stated did not take place. He could tell the hon. Member for Dublin, who had cheered, what did take place, and he wished to call his attention to the fact. They were called upon to strike off the name of George Mullins. Evidence was given before them; but then it was not sufficient evidence to invalidate the vote, and therefore they struck off the vote of George Mullins. He begged pardon, they retained the vote. The counsel, then, for the petitioners, the next day that they met, then tendered to them further evidence; that was more evidence against the votes than what they had in George Mullin's case. They then examined the revising barrister, and on his evidence they struck off the remaining votes, but they never struck off the vote of George Mullins. He believed that any lawyer would have acted as they had done on the first day; the only evidence they had was the letter of an overseer, which was afterwards contradicted by the writer, the letter went on to say—
"The revising barrister, a man of long standing at the bar, and of the same politics with the majority of the Committee, whose business it was to know the law and to act upon it, had not the grace to inform the Committee, according to the fact, that having departed hastily and before the conclusion of the day, he felt it his duty to return, at the request of the overseer, to perform the ministerial act of revising a list that was totally un-objected to, but declared that he knew nothing and could say nothing of the law, and begged the Committee to instruct him. The majority of the Committee, whose ignorance upon the subject was second only to their corruption, were thus enabled to put their decision upon the shoulders of this gentleman."
Upon one disputed point in the Committee, continued the hon. Member, the division was ten to one, and on another, that of considering the votes under the
456
same class as George Mullins, as seven to four. He then proceeded with the letter:—
"The next main feature was this:—An overseer, a partisan of my adversary, had caused by his sole evidence four votes to be struck off from my poll, on the ground of nonpayment of rates. On the fifth case his oath was contradicted by two receipts produced in his own hand-writing; and I will venture to say that no judge who ever sat in Westminster-hall would have permitted a case to go to the jury for their consideration upon the evidence of a man so exposed and contradicted. My counsel of course applied for the restoration of the four votes: the Committee refused to allow it. In this way my majority was destroyed, and my seat as completely filched from me as ever a purse was stolen from a person on the common highway."
Here, again, he could assure the House that this was a very great misstatement. Counsel had asked them to reverse their decision after they were convinced of the inaccuracy of a witness; and they were unanimously of opinion that they could not go into the case again. They had proofs of the man's inaccuracy, but that was not the time for going into them. He had now to come to the last paragraph, which the House, he was sure, must consider as most unfounded and most untrue:—
"I was unwilling to witness in person these disgraceful scenes; but I am assured that all the proceedings of a section of the Committee were accompanied by such external and convincing signs of partiality to my opponent and prejudice against myself as to excite the disgust of even casual spectators! Do not suppose, that the high-minded men who constitute a large portion of what is called the Tory party can approve of these things. I have reason to know, that they regard such criminal acts with the greatest disapprobation. It does seem to me that I have been made the victim of a degree of iniquity compared with which the irregular acts of all former Committees may fairly claim to stand excused."
The remaining paragraphs he did not mean to trouble the House with, as they did not refer to the matter to which he wished to call its attention. They were, too, only the self-praises of Mr. Poulter himself. He would not now proceed further; but he begged to say that he should feel it to be his duty to call the printer of The Morning Chronicle newspaper to the bar on Monday evening, and also Mr. Poulter. The Gentlemen of the Committee whose conduct had been impugned had acted to the best of their conscientious belief, and what they considered to be the

457
justice of the case; and he was sure that the hon. Member who under his own conscientious convictions had differed from them, would at least give them credit for being influenced by the same pure Motives from which he himself had acted. He concluded by handing in the letter containing the passages objected to.
The letter having been read at the table,
Mr. Blackstonemoved, that John Layer Poulter, Esq., of the Temple, the writer of the letter, and Martin Smith Metcalf, of 3, Savoy-street, Strand, the printer of The Morning Chronicle newspaper, do attend at the bar of this House on Monday next, the 9th of April.
Mr. Elliot, as a member of the Shaftesbury Committee, felt bound to say a few words on the occasion, and he felt that he was the more particularly bound to do so, as he considered he was so distinctly alluded to by the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House. He had then no hesitation in saying, that, however much he might have differed from other Members of the Committee upon many material points, it never had entered into his mind, nor indeed did he think, that any Gentleman could suppose, that the hon. Members from whom he differed were influenced by corrupt motives. He said this although he had differed from those hon. Members upon almost every point—he did so honestly and openly. He gave them credit for doing the same. There appeared to him to be good feeling on either side, although it was his opinion that, on the part of a majority of the Committee, there was a perversion of justice. What he meant to say, was an honest perversion of justice. In his judgment there was a perversion of justice; in their judgment there was not. He did not presume to say whether he or they were in error. The hon. Member for Wallingford had alluded to the vote of George Mullins, and the vote which the Committee had come to respecting it. He did not think, that the hon. Member had properly explained that matter—he was sure the mistake fallen into was not intentional; but the fact was, that the counsel who opened the case informed the Committee that a single vote would be put before them for the purpose of deciding thirty-one votes. Then the thirty-one votes were to be decided upon the case of George Mullins. That was the understanding of the counsel upon both sides, and then they took the vote of
458
George Mullins into consideration. They decided, then, that that vote was to be held good. During the discussion upon this subject the counsel of the petitioners were taxed with not having brought before the Committee, the revising barrister. It was said, that he was the only person who could give proper evidence in this case. To this the answer of the opposite counsel was, that it was not usual to summon a judge to give evidence upon a case which he had decided in his own court. It was out of courtesy, they declared, that they had refused to summon the revising barrister, and the counsel actually treated it as a thing which was quite out of the question. It was said it would be improper and indelicate to summon him after he had decided upon the vote. On their then deciding on the vote of George Mullins on the first evening, the counsel for the sitting Member said, that he supposed it was to be concluded that they had then disposed of that whole class of voters. The answer to which was, that they must not do that then, because they had other objections to offer. Now, his opinion certainly at the time was, that they were deciding and determining upon the thirty-one votes. The petitioners' counsel the next morning proposed to call the revising barrister, in order that lie might hear testimony to the thirty votes, respecting which upon the night before he considered they had decided, and to which votes George Mullins was the key. He was of the opinion of a portion of the Committee, that they had disposed of thirty-one votes—it was the opinion of another portion that they had not. He was sure that this was an honest opinion, and he was satisfied that hon. Gentlemen gave this opinion, because they felt that the petitioner was fully entitled to the opinion of the revising barrister. He was accordingly called in, and the decision came to on the vote of George Mullins was not held to be a right decision, because the evidence of the revising barrister went to overset the evidence on which the first decision was founded. He felt doubt himself whether they ought, after having disposed of thirty-one votes, to have opened thirty of them for fresh revision. That was the ground on which he raised an objection. With regard to the revising barrister's evidence, he must say, from observation that he considered it to have been fairly and honestly given. He considered that no imputation attached to

459
that evidence; and whatever party that gentleman might be of, for he did not know, he considered that he gave honest and true evidence, and he regretted, that it had been called in question. With regard to the evidence of Bennett, whose credit was shaken, the circumstances were these. He declared, that a certain person had not paid his rates till after the election. He was questioned in every style possible with regard to the payment, and still declared that the rates had not been paid. A receipt was then handed in, which he admitted to be in his own handwriting, and which was for the July rates. The witness admitted the receipt, but said he had made a mistake in putting July instead of May. He was asked if he was sure that this was the case, and he said he felt sure it was. After asserting this pretty roundly, another receipt was handed in for the May rate, in the handwriting of the witness. The Committee retained the vote. There was another circumstance which came before the Committee—he meant the treating; but he was not sure whether the letter alluded to it or not. It appeared that there was treating in Shaftesbury, both before and after the election. It was proved, also, that the petitioner had sent money down to Shaftesbury, which was placed in the bank of Brodie and Co. A person of the name of Buckland, who was proved to be an agent of the petitioner drew out 450 l. of this money, by paying it in checks in favour of the publicans where treating had taken place. There was quite sufficient proof that treating had taken place, and on that ground he did express a strong opinion. But he thought he ought to state the grounds on which the other Members of the Committee held a different opinion. It was first of all sworn by all the publicans that they received no orders to open their houses from the petitioner or his agents. They had opened them on speculation, but acknowledged that they expected to be paid by the petitioner, for in all former elections they had been paid by the person in whose favour they had opened their houses, and they expected the same on that occasion. It was, however, proved, that they had received no orders from the petitioner. There was, however, this peculiarity with regard to this letter, that they were all taxed and reduced by the agent of the petitioner. These reductions amounted in some bills to one-half, in others to a fourth, and in others to ten per cent, and
460
so on, but no rule seemed to regulate the reduction. It was suggested by the counsel for the petitioner, that, probably, these reductions were made in consequence of the expenses incurred after the testing of the writ, such expenses being illegal. This suggestion was received by the members of the Committee as probable, but lie acknowledged that, in this opinion, he did not concur. He would state the reason; the treating had been carried on for twenty-five days—namely, five days beyond the testing of the writ. The deduction, therefore, in every bill ought to be the expense of the five days, or one-fifth. But this was not the case. Some deductions were as much as one-half of the bill; and, besides, the publicans themselves all swore that the reason why the deductions were made was, that they had charged too much; that the Committee of the petitioners had taxed the bills, and thought them too high. He (Mr. Elliot.) was of opinion, that treating was proved, but the majority of the Committee was of a contrary opinion. It appeared to him, that the Committee had decided contrary to justice and to the evidence, for so strong, in his opinion, was the evidence, that even in a case of murder he would hang a man upon it. He would add one other word. The witnesses called to prove the treating were very unwilling witnesses. They had been all employed in treating on the part of the petitioner, and, of course, they would all give as little evidence as they could; and, indeed, every member of the Committee was of that opinion. In proof of these facts, he could state one instance. There was one book of accounts which the Committee particularly required. The person to whom it belonged, notwithstanding he received orders to bring up the book, left it behind, and when, at length, it was produced, the leaves containing the particular account were torn out. Under these circumstances, he certainly did form a very strong opinion. With regard to the letter which had appeared, he must say, differing in opinion as he did from the majority of the Committee, he would be the last person in the world to attribute to them any but the most proper and honest motives. He was ready to bear his testimony that they were solely actuated by feelings of this description, however much he differed from them in opinion.
Captain Mathewsaid, that in the very peculiar position in which he was placed he should be naturally expected to say a few

461
words. The hon. Member who last spoke had not confined himself to the points referred to by the chairman of the Committee, but had entered into other matters which had occurred before the Committee. It had been said, that his being in that House was the result of a combination. He begged to deny this in the most explicit terms. If, indeed, by a combination it was intended to express the union of the greater number of those who had possessions in Shaftesbury, and also of the free and independent tradesmen there, he would acknowledge that he was in the House in consequence of such combination. The hon. Member for Roxburghshire had alluded to the subject of treating. He must admit that at the last election, as on all former elections, there had been exhibited in Shaftesbury scenes of drunkenness on both sides. He believed, that the hon. Gentleman who was opposed to him did not sanction such proceedings any more than he (Captain Mathew) did, for be could truly state that this treating was not only without his orders, but against his positive official notice. He had attended in the Committee room during the proceedings, but he called upon the hon. Member for Roxburghshire to state whether, during the time he was in the room, he had not sat close to that hon. Member, and removed from those who might be called his friends, and with whom he agreed in politics, but with whom he had never had any communication of any sort or kind, unless on going out of the Committee-room interchanging words of salutation. It had been stated, that the witnesses to prove treating had been unwilling witnesses. But they had heard that many of them were discontented at being paid only one-half of their claims, and one of them was proved in evidence to have become insolvent since the election owing to the expense he had gone to, and yet the same party had deposed that he had no claim against him for payment. He must say, therefore, that he thought he was justified in stating that these men were anything but unwilling witnesses; and when the House recollected what this description of witnesses was, and what scenes generally were exhibited at Shaftesbury during the time of an election, he was sure they would not consider, that this class of witnesses would object to anew election. Having stated thus much, he begged to express his deep regret at the matter before the House, and perhaps he might add his
462
sincere wish that some means would be taken to put an end to it fairly and freely on both sides. He was perfectly aware that his opponent was most amiable and gentlemanly in his character, while he was of an anxious and excitable disposition. He knew that during the election he (Mr. Poulter) had suffered that degree of illness that obliged him to be confined to his room, so that he was unable to attend his canvass. He was aware that this arose from physical illness. Ho could not for a moment doubt that this letter had been written under those feelings; and though he might justly complain of having been put to the expense of a petition, and of having been for a time kept out of that House by illegal votes, still he would not do so, and he would only say that he was sure that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Poulter) had written this letter perfectly believing that it was true, however much he was mistaken. He hoped that the House would be of opinion that what had already occurred was quite sufficient without carrying the matter further.
Lord Worsleysaid, that this was rather an inconvenient way of settling this matter. As the hon. Member for Wallingford (Mr. Blackstone) had given notice that he would move, that the evidence taken before the Committee be printed, he (Lord Worsley) would suggest the propriety of post-poning this motion until after the evidence was printed. He thought that they would then be better able to come to a right decision, when every member of the House, by reading the evidence, would be able to judge of the statements made on either side.
Mr. Blackstonesaid, that it was with great pain he had taken the present course; but as this was a breach of privilege, he could not consent to postpone it. He did not think, that it would be becoming the dignity of the House to postpone the motion.
Mr. R. Palmersaid, that the question before the House did not in any way depend on the evidence taken before the Committee. The question was, whether they were prepared to let this subject drop. The gentleman who wrote the letter complained of, had been for some time a Member of that House, and must have known that if he presumed to use expressions in that House reflecting on the Committees, the Speaker would have called him directly to order. Not long ago the House had thought it its duty to take under considera-

463
tion the conduct of a Member for speaking of the Committees in the aggregate, and the Speaker was called upon to perform a painful duty on that occasion. In the present case there was a letter reflecting improperly upon the conduct of a particular Committee, and he felt it impossible that such a proceeding could pass unnoticed by the House. He thought it exceedingly probable, that when the Gentleman who signed the letter came to the bar, he would express his contrition for using such improper expressions. Until this was done he could not see the propriety of postponing the matter.
Mr. O'Connellwould ask the House whether it were necessary to bring the printer to the bar of the House? He submitted to the House that Mr. Poulter was a gentleman of that high standing and respectability in society that he would not have allowed his name to have appeared from the morning to the present time if he had not written the letter, without informing the parties interested that it was a forgery. They had every reason to be quite convinced that Mr. Poulter had signed the letter, and until Mr. Poulter denied it he could not see why the unfortunate printer should be brought to the bar of the House. He would submit, therefore, that as far as that part of the motion went, it had better be omitted. He would not have spoken at all if the hon. Member for Berkshire had not alluded to his case. Now, what had that precedent to do with the present case? A bad precedent was not to be followed. He thought it most important that they should have the evidence taken before the Committee before them, and particularly after the statement that had been made on both sides, and the remarks that had been made upon the facts given in evidence. The hon. Member had not read that part of the letter that referred to treating. He thought this was a most important feature in the case. If the statements that had been made were proved in the evidence, he did not know how any man in his senses could have arrived at the conclusion which the majority of the Committee had arrived at. This was not the first time that Committees of that House had been charged with deciding from party bias, and he thought it absolutely imperative upon the House to set itself right with the public on this point. [Cheers from the Opposition benches.] Did that cheer mean approbation of the present system. [No,
464
no!] Then it meant condemnation. As the system was condemned, why take an isolated instance and make a victim because he chose to express an opinion? They were going about a monstrous proceeding. It had been said, that Mr. Poulter, when he appeared at the bar, would make an apology for what he had said. If Mr. Poulter was in his senses, and made an apology, he did not think that lie would stand in a very enviable situation, after deliberately publishing the letter in question. That, however, was for Mr. Poulter himself, but he must protest against the printer being called to the bar at all. He must also protest against inflicting any censure upon Mr. Poulter until the evidence was printed, and all the facts were before the House. If it were necessary for that purpose, he should move, that the proceedings against Mr. Poulter, if he avowed the publication, should be suspended till the whole of the evidence was before the House, in order that they might judge whether there was any case to justify the publication of the letter.
Mr. Blackstonehad no objection to have that part of the letter read which referred to treating, but he did not think it was at all necessary.
Mr. O'Connellmoved, that the clerk at the table read the passage.
The clerk then read the following passage—
"We then proved a case of treating so extensive and decisive, that if any one should desire to state the sort of evidence by which such an allegation should be sustained, he might be content to take as an example what was substantiated before the Committee. Ample opportunity was afforded for establishing this part of the case, by the notorious fact that unlimited treating was the only mode an entire stranger could adopt of standing against one who did, and does at this moment, possess the affections and opinions of a large majority of your constituency. This proof was also treated with the same contempt as the rest of my just and righteous cause."
Sir T. Fremantlesaid, he had no wish to put the printer to unnecessary inconvenience, but, consistently with the forms of the House, he thought that the printer's attendance must be required. If Mr. Poulter avowed the letter, the printer would not be called to the bar, and he did not think it was any great hardship in directing the printer to come down to the House. It might turn out that the letter was a fabrication, and he should be happy

465
to find it so. Some individual, in the hope of attracting more attention to the subject, might have forged the letter, and in that case the attendance of the printer would be necessary.
Lord John Russellsaid, that before the question was put, he wished to address a few remarks to the House. The House seemed, on a former occasion, to have come to a decision that cases of this kind ought to have precedence. He must say again, that he entertained a very contrary opinion, and he was convinced, and more convinced every day, that in cases of this kind the most prudent course that the House could adopt would be to allow the matter to pass unnoticed. With respect to the merits of the Shaftesbury Election Committee, he must say, as he did on all others, that he would never enter into the merits of any question that was decided before the Election Committees. These Committees were the regular tribunals to decide those cases. He supposed, that they decided according to conscience and according to evidence, and he would never make any remark as to whether they had decided right or wrong. With respect to the general question, he might have occasion again to detail to the House the line which he thought it most eligible for the House to adopt; but he would only say now with regard to Mr. Poulter, that he had no doubt himself that the letter was a genuine document, and was signed by Mr. Poulter. That gentleman, no doubt, was, as had been stated, of an anxious temper, and he conceived that there could be no doubt but that the expressions made use of had arisen from that anxious temper of mind; but he must say, seeing every day the anonymous charges made against Election Committees, accusing them, whether the majority of the Committee was composed of Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, or of the other side, of most corrupt, most nefarious, and most perjured conduct in their decisions, that his respect and regard for Mr. Poulter were increased and not diminished from his having had the courage to add his name to his letter instead of publishing it anonymously.
Motion agreed to.

SLAVERY ABOLITION ACT.
The order of the day having been read for going into Committee on the Slavery Abolition Act Amendment Bill,
Mr. James Stewartrose to move as an
466
instruction to the Committee a clause, that negro apprenticeship, as established by the 3d and 4th William 4th., cap. 73, should cease in the island of Jamaica on the 1st of August, 1838. The planters, said the hon. Member, had been guilty of a gross and shameful violation of all the conditions which they had undertaken to perform in consideration of the Parliamentary grant. Every thing which this country had promised was fulfilled to the letter, while the planters, upon their part, had failed to make good any one engagement into which they had entered. The first and most important particular in which they had failed to perform their engagements was their entirely omitting to pass a law for the classification of slaves whether prædial or non-prædial. The correspondence which passed between Sir Lionel Smith, the Governor, and Lord Glenelg clearly established the fact, that up to the present moment the Legislature of Jamaica had not passed any Act to regulate the classification of apprentices in that island. The second breach of good faith of which they had been guilty was the neglect to pass any law, or at least any sufficient law, for the establishment of a police force. Some regulations, it is true, were made, but being considered insufficient, were disallowed by Lord Glenelg. The third particular was their omitting to pass a law to preserve the customary allowances to the apprentices. The fourth respect in which they had violated the conditions was the mode in which they regulated the hours of work and labour. In the fifth place they had wholly neglected to pass a proper system of valuation, so as to allow the apprentice to purchase his freedom at a fair price. The report of the Commissioners of 1836 proved the defective constitution of the tribunal appointed for those who were desirous of purchasing their freedom. That Committee made several recommendations, all of which had been totally disregarded by the colonial legislature. Sixthly, they had omitted to pass a law to protect the special magistrates against vexatious prosecutions, and to secure their independence. He ventured to assert, without fear of contradiction, that the ordinary local tribunals were effectually closed against the negro population, and were worse than useless. It was only to the special magistrates that the poor negroes could look for justice and protection. One great object of the Abolition Act was to provide a tribunal which should not be dependent on the planters, but de-

467
rive its powers from the Colonial-office. That object, however, had been wholly frustrated by the conduct of the planters. Every single undertaking which they had entered into had been violated, and their conduct could be best described by saying, that "they had done what they ought not to have done, and had eft undone what they ought to have done" From all which he had heard or read, the substance of which he had stated to the House, he came to this conclusion, that if the colonial Legislature had neglected those things which they were bound to do, and had done those acts which the Act intended should not be done, they had violated their contract, and Parliament had a right in the very next Session after the Act had passed to bring a Bill to abolish negro apprenticeship at once. The condition of the negroes had become worse since the Abolition Act came into operation, and they did not receive that protection which the Legislature had intended in the appointment of the special magistrates. Those magistrates were becoming day by day more and more under the dominion of the planters. Government was bound to take measures either to compel the colonial Legislatures to do justice to the negroes or to do it itself. The House had now a precedent for dealing with refractory colonial Legislatures in the dictator whom they were sending out to Canada; and after such a precedent he was not without the hope that, before the end of the Session, he should find some such Act passed for Jamaica as would compel the planters to do justice to the negroes. The Parliament owed it to the negroes, and to a proper sense of its own dignity to adopt the principle of the clause which he was about to move. If the negro had a good master, his condition had been gradually improved, and he was fit for instant emancipation; if he had a bad master, that was too a still stronger reason for releasing him from the planter's power. The longer this act of justice was delayed by this country, the less would be its moral power. Why should England remain behind some minor states in passing such an act of justice? Bolivia had given complete emancipation to its slaves, so had; Hayti had done so long ago, and it was only since she had done so that she had taken her station amongst nations. He hoped, though the reign of Queen Victoria might not be signalized by the trophies of war, it might go down to posterity with the still greater glory of having been that in
468
which the negroes in our colonies were made completely free. The hon. Gentleman brought up his amendment.
The Speakersaid, that as the present Bill was entitled an Act for the Amendment of an Act relating to the Abolition of Slavery, and as the present motion related to the duration of the apprenticeship, there was no reason why it should not be discussed in Committee.
Motion withdrawn.
On the question that the Speaker leave the Chair,
Sir E. Sugdensaid, that he should only detain the House for a few minutes, whilst he stated the reasons which induced him to withdraw all opposition to this bill. It appeared to him that the provisions which he meant to introduce were necessary for the safety of the apprenticed labourer; and as her Majesty's Government had adopted them, all his objections to the Bill were removed. The first provision was, that no apprenticed labourer should be subjected to whipping or beating in any prison, workhouse, or other place, except with the approbation, and in the presence of a special magistrate. The other clause was still more important, and the whole correspondence which had taken place showed the want of such a power. It was this, that the Governor in Council in each colony should, if he deemed them expedient, make such new and other regulations in the prison, workhouse, or hospital, as to him might seem fit. This clause would give a power of controlling the Colonial Legislatures and doing justice to the apprentices. The last alteration was, that the apprenticeship should altogether cease in the year 1840. So that there should be no restricting tie left on the labourer under the Act of 1833. The hon. Member for Knaresborough proposed, that this clause should include free children. So far from objecting to this, he thought that her Majesty's Government ought not to lose an instant in turning their attention to the condition of the free children of the colonies. He was glad that the frankness with which the Government had adopted his amendment released him from the necessity of further opposing the Bill.
Mr. Baineswas anxious to introduce into this Bill a clause with regard to the marriages of the labourers. There was at present a defect in the state of the marriage ceremony in the West Indian colonies, which, as it had been admitted by the Government two years back, he

469
was surprised had not been removed. At present the children of the negroes were left in a situation that it was impossible to say whether they were legitimate or not. It was not a single case, but a thousand which were left in this dubious state without fixing any criterion by which this important question could be regulated. He had only to beg his hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey) to explain what the intention of the Government was on this subject, in order that he might either introduce some substantive measure, or move an amendment in the progress of this Bill as it passed through Committee to meet a contingency which he was sure was of an urgent kind, and deserved immediate and strict attention.
Sir G. Greyreminded his hon. Friend that a circular had been sent to the respective Colonial Governors some years back, requesting them to submit to the local Legislatures the expediency of passing such a law as would enable the various missionaries to solemnize the ceremony of marriage. He felt happy in stating, that a prospective law was passed to effect that object, but very great difficulty was found in legislating for past marriages, and defining accurately the criterion by which they should be determined. The Wesleyan Missionary Society had the subject under their consideration, and had promised to furnish such lists as they deemed requisite. If the Colonial Legislatures were not found to adopt the views of the Home Government, he hoped with the assistance of his hon. Friend, and the valuable aid of his hon. and learned Friend (Dr. Lushington), to introduce such a plan as would be unobjectionable.
Sir F. Trenchfelt the extreme importance of the amendments which had been introduced by his right hon. Friend Sir E. Sugden; but while he did so, he should take every opportunity of impressing upon the Legislature the necessity of the immediate abolition of the apprenticeship system, and of making the negroes entirely free. His constituents took an immense interest in this question, and so did he. He was induced to rise, because it had been imputed to members at his and the other side of the House that they had acted in the manner which they felt it their duty to do, in order to conciliate the opinion of their constituents. He should look upon himself as very weak and foolish, if such a fear induced him to act contrary to his conscience. When he heard the
470
declaration of the Marquess of Sligo, coming from a proprietor and a Governor—when he considered the prosperous state of Antigua, with its 30,000 emancipated negroes, he felt bound to declare that the only concession which he was willing to make, was to postpone the period of emancipation from August to December in the present year, to allow time for those preparatory measures which he did not understand, but which were considered necessary by the Government to come into operation.
House went into Committee.
Clauses, with several amendments and additions, were agreed to.
Mr. JamesStewart moved the insertion of a clause foe the total abolition of negro apprenticeship, as established by the act of 3rd and 4th of William 4th c. 73, in the island of Jamaica, on the 1st of January, 1839.
Clause brought up and read.
On the motion that it be read a second time,
Mr. Wardsupported the motion, and said, that he could not do so without adverting to the great question of negro apprenticeship, upon which the House had recently come to a division. He confessed, for his own part, he never came to a vote with more doubt and uncertainty than upon that occasion; nor ever voted with less reliance on the accuracy of his own judgment. He felt bound to make this statement in the face of the House, because of the partial publication of a letter which he wrote on the morning after the division, all the expressions contained in it relating to the doubts which prevailed on his mind having been studiously omitted. The advocates of total abolition, and the antislavery delegates had, in their meetings, passed a severe censure on him and those hon. Gentlemen who took a like course. That letter, as published, seemed to attack all those Gentlemen who had arrived at a different conclusion from himself on the subject. Nothing would have been more unfair or more unjustifiable on his part than to have intended to have expressed himself in any such manner; and nothing, he could assure the House, was further from his wish than to do so. He had stated distinctly, that one of the reasons why he did not reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Newark, was the utter impossibility he felt of reconciling the facts and statements which had been communicated to him, with regard to the popu-

471
lation of Guiana, with the statements contained in the speech of that hon. Gentleman, who vouched his authority for the accuracy of those statements. [Mr. W. Gladstone had not pledged his own authority for their accuracy.] No; but the authority arising from the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of what was passing on the estates belonging to his family in that colony. He claimed for the British Legislature the right to shorten the term of negro apprenticeship, and he must affirm, from the evidence already before them, that there was a determination, from first to last, on the part of the colonial legislatures, and of juries, magistrates, and all other persons in any sort of authority in the colonies, to resist or evade the Imperial Act of Abolition. But whatever doubts might exist as to the other colonies, there could be no doubt, that as regarded the island of Jamaica, not one condition of that great act had been complied with by the Assembly. The British Legislature was therefore perfectly entitled to provide for the immediate abolition of the apprenticeship system, if it should be considered proper his hon. Friend should press his motion to a division, he should certainly vote with him.
Sir G. Greysaid, that having a few nights ago so fully entered into the question, and the House having then, when it was more than usually full, decided upon the proposition brought before them, after that proposition had been argued almost exclusively with reference to the colonies, of which Jamaica was one only, he felt he should be improperly intruding upon the House, if he were now to state at length, the grounds upon which he opposed the present motion. The debate to which he had referred, lasted two nights, during which the fullest opportunity was given for the amplest discussion, and the division took place without any intimation being expressed on the part of any hon. Member of a wish to add anything further to that debate. After the solemn and deliberate decision to which the House arrived on that occasion, and more especially after the notice which had been given that the general question would be again brought forward after the expiration of the Easter holidays, he did not believe that the House would consent to revive that discussion now. He fully concurred with the hon. Gentleman in the wish to accomplish all the objects contemplated by the Legislature on passing the Abolition Act; but he
472
was of opinion that the greatest obstacle that could be raised to arriving at a beneficial result in their efforts on this subject, was the bringing the question so repeatedly under discussion. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press his motion, if his hon. Friend did, it would become his duty to oppose it.
Mr. O'Connellprotested against one argument which had been used by the hon. Baronet; namely, that this question had been decided already. One of the great arguments used against the proposition before the House the other night, was, although Jamaica might be very faulty, vet, inasmuch as all the other colonies were included in the proposition, it was incumbent on the House to resist the motion altogether. So that Jamaica was protected because the other colonies were connected with it in the terms of the proposition. As to putting an end to the agitation now going on upon this subject, that could only be done by the total abolition of the apprenticeship system.
Mr. Yatesopposed the clause, and said, that he considered our legislation had done more mischief to the cause of humanity, in the colonies, than anything besides. He had full confidence in the wisdom of the colonists themselves, who he had no doubt would adopt whatever measures the general interest required.
Mr. Luke Whitehoped that his hon. Friend would not withdraw his motion. It was well known that the planters of Jamaica and the Assembly there had opposed the Abolition Act in the most disgraceful, cruel, and inhuman manner.
Mr. P. Howardthought, it would be a breach of promise on the part of the British Legislature with the colonists, to adopt the clause of his hon. Friend.
The Committee divided.
Ayes 61; Noes 115: Majority 54.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Duke, Sir J.

Archbold, R.

Dungannon, Viscount

Attwood, T.

Easthope, J.

Baines, E.

Eaton, R. J.

Barnard, E. G.

Evans, W.

Blennerhassett, A.

Forester, hon. G.

Blunt, Sir C.

Gibson, T.

Briscoe, J. I.

Grote, G.

Brownrigg, S.

Harland, W. C.

Bryan, G.

Hawes, B.

Cayley, E. S.

Hodges, T. L.

Dashwood, G. H.

Jervis, J.

Denison, W. J.

Jervis, S.

Dennistoun, J.

Jones, J.

473

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Scholefield, J.

Langdale, hon. C.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Lennox, Lord G.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Long, W.

Style, Sir C.

Lushington, Dr.

Thorneley, T.

Martin, J.

Turner, E.

Mathew, G. B.

Vigors, N. A.

Monypenny, T. G.

Villiers, C. P.

Morris, D.

Wakley, T.

Muskett, G. A.

Warburton, H.

O'Brien, W. S.

Welby, G. E.

O'Connell, D.

White, A.

O'Connell, J.

Wilde, Sergeant

Pattison, J.

Williams, W.

Redington, T. N.

Winnington, T. E.

Rice, E. R

TELLERS.

Salwey, Colonel

Stuart, J.

Sanford, E. A.

Ward, H. G.

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Hobhouse, right hon. Sir J.

Adam, Sir C.

Ainsworth, P.

Hodgson, R.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Holmes, W.

Ashley, Lord

Howard, F. J.

Baillie, Colonel

Howard, P. H.

Bannerman, A.

Howard, R.

Baring, F. T.

Howick, Viscount

Barron, H. W.

Hurt, F.

Benett, J.

Hutton, R.

Blackburne, I.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Blair, J.

Kemble, H.

Blake, W. J.

Kirk, P.

Bramston, T. W.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Broadley, H.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Buller, E.

Lefevre, C. S.

Callaghan, D.

Lynch, A. H.

Campbell, Sir J.

Mackenzie, T.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Macleod, R.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Maule, hon. F.

Clements, Viscount

Morpeth, Viscount

Clive, hon. R. H.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Conolly, E.

Northland, Viscount

Dalmeney, Lord

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Dundas, F.

Ord, W.

Dundas, hon. T.

Paget, Lord A.

East, J. B.

Pakington, J.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Palmerston, Viscount

Ellice, Captain A.

Parker, J.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Patten, J. W.

Fellowes, E.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Fergusson, right hon. R. C.

Philipps, M.

Plumptre, J. P.

Filmer, Sir E.

Power, J.

Fitzgibbon, hon. Col.

Price, Sir R.

Fitzsimon, N.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Gladstone, W. E.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Gordon, R.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Gordon, hon. Captain

Round, C. G.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Graham, right hon. Sir J.

Sandon, Viscount

Seymour, Lord

Grattan, J.

Sharpe, General

Greene, T.

Sheppard, T.

Hawkins, J. H.

Smith, A.

Hayter, W. G.

Smith, R. V.

474

Somerset, Lord G.

Walker, R.

Spencer, hon. F.

Wall, C. B.

Stanley, Lord

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Stewart, J.

White, S.

Stuart, Lord J.

Wilbraham, G.

Strutt, E.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Wodehouse, E.

Tancred, H. W.

Wood, C.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Wrightson, W. B.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Yates, J. A.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Verney, Sir H.

TELLERS.

Vivian, Major C.

Grey, Sir G.

Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R.

Steuart, R.

The House resumed, the report to be received.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of CLEVELAND, from parishes in the county of Durham, by Lord KENYON, from places in Yorkshire, by Earl FITZWILLIAM, from Rumsay (Somersetshire), Holywell, and other places in Yorkshire, Portsmouth, Halstead (Essex), and from Leek and other places in Staffordshire, by the Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND, the Marquess of SLIGO, the Duke of RICHMOND, from Boston (Lincolnshire), and by Lord LYNDHURST, from the Females of the following places—Lowmore, Bingley, Stayland, Somerby, Greekiand, and Rippendale, for the abolition of Negro Apprenticeship.—By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from Stirling, and another place in Scotland, against further Endowment to the Church of Scotland—By Earl FITZWILLIAM, from the Operatives of two manufacturing towns in the West Riding of Yorkshire, for better regulations respecting Factories.

NEW POOR LAW.
The Earl of Winchilseagave notice, that after the recess he would bring forward a motion having for its object some improvements in the New Poor-law; giving, in the
436
first instance, a power to the board of guardians to regulate the dietary without the control of the Commissioners; and proposing, in the next, a declaratory clause respecting out-door relief. He would also propose a prohibitory clause; for, although he was a decided friend to labour in the workhouses, and would be the last person to offer opposition to anything in the way of labour, yet, as abuses had crept into some of the workhouses, more especially one in the county of Kent—namely, that belonging to the Bridge Union, he should feel it his duty to call their Lordships' attention to the subject, with a view to some fresh enactment respecting it. He had received a letter from a gentleman who bore the highest character for humanity, from which it appeared that in that Union relief was only afforded in connexion with punishment. It stated, that persons applying for lodging and provisions for one night, were compelled to carry a bag of sand 561bs. in weight for one hour, in order, as it were, to qualify themselves for the required relief; and, further, that if they remained in the workhouse during the next day, they were obliged to carry this bag of sand (of which he had a sample in his possession that had been sent to him) for two hours. Now, this he considered to be a perfect breach of the act. He drew the attention of their Lordships to the circumstance now for the purpose of giving it publicity, so that the Commissioners might make the necessary inquiry to ascertain whether the statement was true or not. The letter in his possession mentioned the case of an individual upon the writer's own property. It was the letter of Sir Henry Hoskins; and that gentleman stated, that a man with a wife and three children, who had sustained himself and family for a month during illness, went at the request of his wife to the Bridge Union, and while in the workhouse was compelled to carry one of these bags of sand, in consequence of which the man died from overwork. He, therefore, felt that some decided enactment should take place to prevent a recurrence or continuance of such a state of things. Although he was a decided friend to the New Poor-law Act, he thought that there were some things connected with its working which might be beneficially amended.
Earl Fitzwilliamthought, it impossible that the question should not suggest itself to the mind of every noble Lord who had attended to the statement of his noble

437
Friend, whether any representation had been made to the Board of Commissioners with reference to the conduct of this Bridge Union. Against the board it was clear that no charge could be substantiated, unless it could be proved that such representation had been made without meeting with the due degree of attention. His noble Friend appeared to be desirous that additional powers should be given to the local boards, and that they should be placed less under the supervision of the Board of Commissioners, though the very gravamen of his noble Friend's complaint was, that the local board had misconducted itself. All that he was anxious for was, that the system, as it now exists, should not be unnecessarily interfered with. He was satisfied that system would still continue to produce, as it had already produced, very beneficial effects; and he, therefore, felt anxious that no incautious attempt at amendment should be made.
Subject dropped.

THE IRISH CHURCH.
The Earl of Ripon, in rising to move for certain accounts connected with the receipts and expenditure of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland, said, that he was one of those who, in 1833, had concurred in recommending to Parliament a measure which was generally known by the name of the Irish Church Temporalities Bill. He had always felt a great interest in the working of that law, not merely for the sake of consistency, as he had shared in recommending its introduction, but because of his being actuated by a strong feeling that the good working of that measure was, in a great degree, essential to the maintenance of the Church in Ireland, and that no measure had yet been proposed, or could be brought forward, for the Settlement of the Irish Church question, which did not bear a direct and intimate connexion with the principles and provisions of the law to which he referred. The bill of 1833 originated in advice given to his Majesty by the Administration of that period; and the recommendation which his Majesty gave to Parliament in consequence, at the commencement of the Session, was in these words—"That in your deliberations upon this important subject, it cannot be necessary to impress on you the duty of carefully attending to the security of the Church, as established by law in these realms, and to the true interests of religion;"—words in which was
438
unequivocally announced the principle upon which it was expected that Parliament should proceed to carry the recommendation into effect. It was perfectly true, that in the following paragraph notice was taken of the peculiar circumstances in which the Irish Church was placed. But when he read the paragraph their Lordships would perceive that there was nothing in it which tended, in the slightest degree, to separate the Church of Ireland from the general principle laid down in the previous paragraph. The paragraph to which he referred was as follows:ߞIn the further reforms which may be found necessary, you will probably find, that although the Established Church of Ireland is by law permanently connected with the Church of England, the peculiarity of its circumstances will require a separate consideration." Why, this very paragraph reiterated in the strongest terms the permanent union by law of the two Churches of England and Ireland. In clear conformity with these principles was the language used by the Ministers of the Crown in explaining the views with which they introduced this measure. The then First Lord of the Treasury (Earl Grey) observed, that "any apprehension which might be entertained by the friends of the Church was guarded against by the very construction of the King's Speech; and assured the House of his desire to provide for the Church of Ireland on truly Conservative principles." Such were the sentiments entertained by the Government of that day; and it was this language which induced him, in common with many others, to become a party to the sweeping change effected by the Bill. The law itself was embodied in terms expressive of this Conservative principle. He did not mean to say, that there were no objections made to its progress in Parliament. What he meant to convey to their Lordships was his conviction, that, considering the nature of the measure—considering that it swept away no fewer than ten bishoprics, and dealt, with an unsparing hand, with various ecclesiastical corporations in Ireland, it was not likely that such a measure would have been permitted to pass, unless the language of the Government and the wording of the provisions of the Bill were such as to give to the friends of the Church a security that the rights of the Church would be preserved inviolate. The sentiments of the noble Earl were repeated emphatically by the other Members of his Government,

439
and by none in terms more distinct than by the noble Marquess who was then, and is now also, President of the Council. The Bill, although strenuously opposed, was finally carried. The preamble of the bill detailed the objects for which the bill sought to provide, and recited that means could be secured by an improved management of the funds of the Church itself, out of which it proposed to provide the necessary expenses for the administration of divine service, for the annual repair of the churches now in existence, the erection of new churches and glebe-houses in places where they might be required, for the formation of small livings, "and other objects, which were essential to the efficiency, permanence, and stability of the union between the Churches of England and Ireland." The preamble, therefore, stated first, that it was essential to the permanence and stability of the Church: and, secondly, that it was the duty of Parliament to give effect to this principle. In short, a distinct pledge was given for the attainment of these objects. How came these words into the preamble of the bill? It could not be by accident. It was not surely for delusion. It was not merely to secure the passing of the bill without caring one straw for its effects. The character of the noble Lord who was then Secretary for Ireland—the character, in short, of all the parties concerned, forbade so injurious a supposition. The words must have been advisedly introduced. It was impossible to look at this Act without feeling that it did establish a Parliamentary pledge that its objects should be attained. According to the terms of the Act, the Church could not acquire the character of security or permanence until those objects were secured. The Act created a Commission, to which it gave great powers—powers which many persons were disposed to dispute the propriety of conceding. The Commissioners were, however, placed by Parliament in the situation of guardians and protectors of that Church; and the circumstances which had since occurred had increased tenfold, nay, a hundredfold, the importance and responsibility of their duties. Was not the Church of Ireland now assailed in a manner unheard of before? Did not the, language held by her opponents now consist, not merely of complaints of the inconvenience resulting from the collection of tithes—not merely of a general and vague dislike—but had it not swelled into positive denunciation? Had
440
not the Church of Ireland been stated to be a positive grievance, and so stated, too, in a high quarter? Were not the friends of the Church, therefore, naturally most jealous with regard to any encroachment on her rights? The Church of Ireland was affected, he believed, very injuriously by the resolution which passed the House of Commons in 1835—a resolution which, if (consistently with his respect for the other House of Parliament) he could express fully what he thought of it, he would say, was the most absurd, the most impracticable, and the most mischievous resolution to which a Legislative Assembly had ever come. That resolution was hailed with triumph by the enemies of the Church, but was received with alarm by her friends. By that resolution his Majesty's Government were bound hand and foot, and year after year they had vainly introduced measures with the view to carry that impracticable resolution into effect. And, for his part, he could see nothing in those measures but that the vain imagination that a surplus existed induced them to endeavour to create a surplus by first creating a deficiency. Successive schemes were tried, each exceeding the other in absurdity; and as the question as to the necessity of coming to arrangement, upon which all parties were agreed—that of tithes—was left unsettled, because the principle of that impracticable resolution was still thrust forward. To return to the commission, which was appointed in 1833, it was required that they should make an annual report in the month of August to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, which the Commissioners accordingly made year after year. These reports, which he held in his hand, contained at the end a balance-sheet of each year's receipts and expenditure. It might be interesting to their Lordships to hear the details of this subject. In the first year the receipts from various funds provided by the Act were rather more than 20,000 l. In the following year they were something more than 32,000 l. in the third year, 37,000 l.; and, during the last year (1837), they amounted to nearly 38,000 l., excluding, of course, all money borrowed from any public fund; and also excluding all that portion of their receipts which were derived from the sale of perpetuities. He alluded now to the bishops' lands, the perpetuity of which the Board was empowered to sell out to the tenants. According, however, to the mode in which the Commissioners were directed to deal

441
with the monies which came into their hands, the produce of the sale of the perpetuities was not to be applied to the current expenses of the Commission, but was to be invested in some security bearing interest and there was to be applied the current expenses merely the interest of the capital sum produced by the sale of those perpetuities. If, therefore, the Commissioners had been obliged to pay to the Government any sums borrowed by them for the purposes of the Commission, it was clear that they had been living on their capital. The income then of the Commissioners under the Church Temporalities Act amounted, as he had said, to rather more than 131,000 l. in four years. Now, then, for the expenses of the Commission. Of course in the expenses he included all disbursements made in repayment of debts which had been incurred. A sum of 100,000 l. had certainly been paid to the Government, but the funds at the disposal of the Commissioners were not in a much better state on that account, for he believed that a second 100,000 l. was borrowed, merely for the purpose of paying off the first. But with regard to the expenses incurred, it would appear, that in the first year, the income, rejecting hundreds, being rather more than 20,000 l., the expenditure amounted to 31,000 l. In the second year, the income amounting to 32,000 l., the expenses were 74,000 l. In the third year the expenditure swelled up to 108,000 l,. while the income at the disposal of the Commissioners was but 37,000 l.; and in the fourth and last year, the income received being 38,000 l., the expenses incurred amounted to 123,000 l. being for the whole four years 357,000 l. If, then, their Lordships would deduct the receipts from the expenditure, they would find that the expenditure exceeded the income by no less a sum than 229,000 l. Now, that was not a very flourishing condition for persons to be in who were charged with the completion of objects of so much importance as the efficiency, security, and stability of the Established Church in Ireland. Their Lordships would, therefore, not be surprised to hear, that so far from these objects having been completed, nothing had been begun. Nothing had been done towards the building of new churches, the building of glebe-houses, or the improvement of small livings. Now, let them look at these three objects. There was, in the first place, the building of glebe-houses. It appeared from the report of another Set of Com-
442
missioners, who called themselves by the coxcombical title of Commissioners of Public Instruction, no such name being given to them by the instrument of their appointment, that in 534 benefices in Ireland there were no glebe-houses at all. Now, let their Lordships recollect what benefices were in Ireland. A living did not consist of merely one parish, but of unions of parishes in many cases; and if these 534 benefices were divided, as they ought to be, into parishes, and these absurd unions were broken up, there would be a necessity for a great increase of glebe-houses, and it would be necessary to build such glebe-houses in at least a thousand parishes. From the statement which was returned of the number of applications made to the Commissioners to build glebe-houses, of the number of applications granted and the number refused, it appeared that the Commissioners inherited from the Board of First Fruits forty-seven applications, which were under consideration when the Board merged in the Commission, and that since that period there had been forty-three new applications, and, therefore, in all there had been ninety applications for assistance of this nature. Upon this statement the Commissioners made this very satisfactory remark—"All these applications have been deferred, as by the provisions of the Church Temporalities Act all building of glebe-houses is to be deferred, till there is a surplus income." But with the statement which he had laid before their Lordships of the relative amount of income and expenditure, would any man tell him the time when it would be possible to do it? Who would venture to fix the period when a surplus would accrue? He was sure that none of their Lordships then present, would live to see it done. Then, again, with respect to the building of churches, it appeared from the same report which he had before quoted, that 210 benefices in Ireland had no church at all, and looking, as he had before recommended their Lordships, at the number of parishes instead of the number of benefices, they would find that the number of new churches wanted would be greatly increased. He would add, while speaking of the deficiency of churches, that it was not the mere want of churches in benefices or parishes which the Church of Ireland had to lament. In many of the churches now built there was not room enough for the Protestant inhabitants of the parish, who, as appeared by the report of the Commissioners themselves, were most

443
anxious to attend. Upon this head there was a circumstance worth adverting to, which was to be collected, or rather extracted, from the report of the Commissioners of Public Instruction. One of the matters on which they were ordered to report was, whether in each of the parishes the members of each church in Ireland were increasing, stationary, or diminishing. Now, there were about 2,400 parishes in Ireland, and out of these there were 1,200 in which, comparing the number of Protestants in these parishes in 1834 with those living at the time of the census in 1831, the number of Protestants was stated to be increasing. Why, then, if the Protestants were increasing, it followed as a necessary consequence, that increased Church accommodation would be required. If, then, what he had stated with respect to the funds at the disposal of the Commissioners was correct, their Lordships would see that they could provide no funds for building new churches, and that although they had applied much money towards the repairs of old Churches, they would not be able to give anything for the rebuilding of old churches which had gone too far for repair, or for building new churches in parishes where there was no church at all. And, their Lordships would observe, this was not from any want of applications—quite the contrary. Repeated applications had been made to the Commissioners on the subject, stating that the applicants were ready to bear a part of the expense, but the Commissioners could only say, "We are very sorry for you, but we can give you nothing." Then with respect to the improvement of small livings. It was stated in the speech from the throne at the time, that it was desirable to effect an improvement in the small livings, and the more equal distribution of the revenues of the Church. From that recommendation it was to be inferred that it was intended that the larger livings should be reduced, and the smaller ones augmented. Now how stood the nature of the demand in that respect? Out of 1,485 benefices in Ireland, no less than 465 varied from 30 l. to 200 l. a.-year. The act authorised an augmentation to the extent of 200 l.—that was to say, that all livings below that scale should be augmented by the Commissioners. But besides these livings, varying between 30 l. and 200 l., there were 118 benefices, of which the income varied from 200 l. to 250 l. Now, their Lordships would not have forgotten that part of one
444
plan for the settlement of tithes, which had been submitted to Parliament for its consideration, was to diminish the tithe composition by three-tenths. They would see in a moment, therefore, that this principle, when applied to this latter class of livings, would bring them all down below 200 l., and that the maximum of income derived from such a living would be about 175 l., Then again, if all livings were to be reduced in the same proportion they would have a minimum income of about 20 l., and a maximum of 175 l. Now, he believed, that if it was intended to raise all these livings to 200 l., there would be required for that purpose alone an annual income of 60,000 l., and there was not a farthing available. He did not mean to say that he felt called on to suggest any mode of increasing the revenues thus placed at the disposal of the Commissioners; it was not his business to do so, but he did say that whenever, and by whomsoever, their Lordships might be called upon to deal with the tithe question, they would be bound to keep in view the destitute condition in which he had demonstrated the Church of Ireland to be placed. They would recollect that, by way of substitution for the first-fruits and tenths, a charge was laid on benefices, by a gradual scale of taxation, varying from 1 per cent. at the lowest to 15 per cent. at the highest. The produce of that tax was estimated at the time the act was introduced at 40,000 l. a-year but it turned out that that was found to be an erroneous, calculation, and it appeared that the Commissioners estimated it at 22,000 l. Now, out of this sum 9,000 l. was raised by a percentage on bishoprics, therefore the amount of 13,000 l. was produced by the tax laid on benefices. While, however, a tax of three-tenths of the tithe composition was laid on the smaller benefices, the revenue was diminished out of which the augmentation of small livings was to be effected. He did not pretend to suggest, as he had said before, any mode by which this deficiency could be made up. It was no part of his business to do so; but he would say, that if Parliament could not assist the clergy, he thought they might expect, and he did not say that they would not receive, something of kindness and favour from the Government, and a bold declaration of their determination to support the Church. That would, he admitted, not build churches, or glebe-houses, or augment the income of the man who was reduced to a pittance of 20 l. a

445
year; but it would give the clergy heart and spirit, and, with God's help, it would perhaps enable them to surmount the dangers to which the Church of Ireland was exposed. The noble Earl concluded by submitting his motion for certain accounts connected with the receipts and expenditure of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in Ireland.
Viscount Melbournesaid, there could be no objection to the production of the papers for which his noble Friend had moved, and certainly there was no necessity for giving notice of a motion for these returns. His noble Friend had made a number of observations on the act of 1833, to which measure, however, his noble Friend was a party, and, therefore, he did not feel called upon to reply to his noble Friend's observations. He could not help feeling, however, that the observations in reply to his noble Friend would fall more appropriately from other noble Lords opposite, who opposed that measure, and who said that it would prove dangerous to the Church, and injurious to its best interests. For his own part, he adopted entirely the view that his noble Friend took of the subject, namely, that the bill was calculated to uphold the Church, and had had that; and he also agreed with him that as far as that bill afforded the means it was the duty of her Majesty's Ministers to carry out the principles of it, and to give stability to the Church establishment. He did not, however, think that it was the duty of the Government to take those steps relative to the tithe question that had been advised by his noble Friend. It must be in the recollection of their Lordships that the contests relative to the tithe question existed long before this measure was brought forward, and that it was supposed that this bill would put a stop to them. He thought that it would not be denied that the tithe contests had rather diminished than increased since the period when that measure was passed. With respect to what his noble Friend had said in relation to the Commissioners, he did not understand his noble Friend to censure the mode in which they discharged their duties, but only regretted that the amount of funds at the disposal of the Commissioners was not so great as it had been anticipated would be the case when the measure received the sanction of the Legislature. It could not be denied that in this respect the bill had something of
446
a speculative character, and that it was often the case in railway bills and others of the same description, that the amount of money to be supplied from the probable resource was found to be greatly below the amount that the framers of the measure supposed. It appeared, however, that the probable amount of increase had been greatly exaggerated, and if the statement of his noble Friend was correct, there had been a lamentable falling off indeed in the calculation. When the bill was before Parliament some noble Lords opposite stated that there would not be any income derivable under this bill, and he recollected that in particular one noble Lord (Lord Ellenborough) stated that the funds under this bill would be found altogether insufficient for the purposes to which they were proposed to be applied. His noble Friend, however, showed that this view of the subject was also exaggerated, and he stated the case as it really was, and had also pointed out, what had exhausted all the funds that the Commissioners had obtained. His noble Friend said, that the present state of the Irish Church was very sad, and added, that it was not possible for him to suggest a remedy. For his own part he was ready to confess that he did not know how the present evils were to be remedied, but he was not willing to fall into such a despondency as his noble Friend. He thought, that, in the course of time, some means would be found to remedy these evils, and that no better step could be taken, in the first instance, than the settlement of the tithe question. His noble Friend had animadverted with great severity on the resolution of the House of Commons relative to the Irish tithe question, and on the measures that had been founded on that resolution. He would ask his noble Friend whether he did not recollect the measure of 1834, which did not embody that principle which was so objectionable to his noble Friend and the other noble Lords opposite, and still that measure had been rejected by that House on grounds which he confessed he did not understand. That measure, he repeated, had been rejected in that House on grounds which he had ever thought to be insufficient and unwise, and he must observe, that the opportunity was lost of settling the tithe question—which opportunity if it had been seized, would have led to more auspicious results than existed or than could be anticipated at the present moment. Admitting, however, the general correctness

447
of the statement of the noble Lord, he did not take so desponding a view of the subject as his noble Friend had done, but he admitted, that it was the duty of the Government to turn their minds to the promotion of those objects which his noble Friend had truly stated to be so highly desirable. His noble Friend had also given a great deal of advice to her Majesty's Ministers as to the nature of the measures that they should bring forward and as to the language they should adopt. This appeared to him to be a new course taken by noble Lords who were generally supposed to be opposed to the policy pursued by the Government, and they had lately received a great deal of such advice as his noble Friend had that night favoured them with. For instance, a few nights ago a noble Friend of his, who was not then present, he meant Lord Haddington, favoured them with certain advice, and also another noble Earl (Aberdeen), who was then present, followed his example and gave them advice as to the course they should pursue with respect to the Church of Scotland. The noble Duke had also on that and other measures followed their example, and given her Majesty's Ministers advice, no doubt of such a nature as they believed was calculated to promote the stability of the Government in that and the other House of Parliament, and generally in the country. He believed, that the noble Duke, and other noble Lords, had given their advice in an open and candid spirit, and with the views and intentions stated. He believed that those noble Lords would be glad to see the Government strong, and would be gratified to see them bring forward such measures as they approved of, and which they believed would meet with the approbation of the country; but he would ask, how many of those who generally acted with those noble Lords agreed with them in their views—how many would they carry along with them in this advice? They must recollect that they were not alone, and they should also recollect what their advice was, and what would be considered its real meaning. Many of the supporters of the noble Lords would say to them, do not think that the people of this country will support you in this course of proceeding. Get rid of the present Government altogether, and do all you can to displace it. Was it likely that they should take the advice of those who were doing all they could to injure the Government, and to get rid of it? Was it the advice which the
448
noble Duke himself was likely to follow under the circumstances of the case? But it might be said that nothing more had been done that night than following out the advice that had been given on many former occasions but he should reply that it was the determination of the Government to bring forward and support such measures as they thought right, not merely with the view of obtaining the support of this party or of that, but because they thought it was the right, and with the view of maintaining the Church Establishment as well as all the other institutions of the country. The noble Duke, a few nights ago, stated that a great change of policy had recently taken place in the Government with respect to the Church; and the noble Duke also said that they did not, in consequence of what had occurred in another place, encourage the Church of England, they did not encourage the Church of England in Ireland, they refused to adopt measures to encourage the Church of Scotland, and they also withheld support and encouragement from the Established Church in the colonies. The noble Duke said, that the Government did not encourage the Church. Now he did not think that the word encourage was the right word to use on such an occasion. Encouragement might be very proper for a nascent establishment, the stability of which was not known or ascertained; but in language which might be properly applied, it was the duty of the Government, as it was the intention of himself and colleagues, to support the Protestant Church as it was established at the Reformation, and the Church of Scotland as it was established by law. If the noble Lord desired that they should devote to Ecclesiastical purposes a much larger income than they possessed at present, he doubted whether it would prove real encouragement, or whether it were consistent with sound policy that they should pursue such a course; but he was sure that there never existed a Government more determined than her Majesty's Ministers to promote such measures as were calculated to support the establishments of the country, lay and Ecclesiastical
The Duke of Wellingtonwas surprised the noble Viscount opposite had not made the speech he had just concluded three or four evenings ago, when as the noble Viscount had said, he had charged on the noble Viscount (and he confessed he did not feel inclined to withdraw from the

449
statement to-night) a departure from that ancient policy of this country, which for the last 200 years had been to protect, maintain, and encourage, the Church establishments in England and in Ireland, and for the last 150 years in Scotland. That he had charged upon the noble Viscount, and though he did not now propose to enter again into the discussion of the other night with reference to the condition of the Church of Scotland, still the more he reflected upon that question, the more he was convinced that the noble Viscount had not done his duty by the Church of Scotland, in neglecting to adopt some measure for the support and maintenance of religion in the large towns of that country. With respect to the question now before the House, the noble Viscount said, that he (the Duke of Wellington) had not supported the bill to which the noble Viscount had alluded; now, he had supported the bill, though he had objected to some of its details; but whether he and some of his noble Friends had supported the bill or not, still they were entitled to claim for the Church of Ireland all the benefits of the; and he agreed with his noble Friend near him (the Earl of Ripon) that the Church of Ireland did not receive the benefits of the enactments of that measure, nor of the promises held out to the friends of the Church in that country. His noble Friend had stated most clearly to their Lordships, that according to the system of taxation which Church livings in Ireland were to undergo, even according to the best plan ever proposed in either House of Parliament, a great part of the resources of the Church under that bill would be lost to the Commissioners, and the resources for the augmentation of small livings would be entirely done away with. That was a fact, and the noble Viscount opposite had replied, "Oh yes, but the reason is, that you on your side of the House, would not adopt the plan proposed in the year 1834." But the noble Viscount forgot, that the greater part of that measure was intended for a settlement by redemption, and that the redemption clauses had been struck out in the other House of Parliament, and the plan came to the House, shorn of all those benefits that were expected to result from the measure by its framers and introducers. Of that fact the noble Viscount had lost sight altogether. It had been a portion of that plan now suggested elsewhere, that the Church was to part with its property, and it was to go into the
450
hands of the Government, and the ministers of the Church were to be placed on the consolidated fund. To that plan, as far as he was himself concerned, he would at once say, he should object; he had always said so, and he never would adopt such a measure. But the noble Viscount said, there was a desire in Parliament to see art arrangement, not only of this, but of every other question which for years past, had occupied the attention of both Houses regarding Ireland; and he was sure those questions would receive from their Lordships due consideration, in order to put au end to them and to strengthen the Government in Ireland on all those questions. The noble Viscount had said, that their Lordships, who were opposed to the noble Viscount, took a view contrary to the views of the people. Now, he (the Duke of Wellington) believed, that the noble Viscount was mistaken: he believed, that a very large number of persons in this country entertained the same views on these subjects as these noble Lords; and he assured the noble Viscount he wished to see those questions settled for the benefit of the Government, taking it in the largest sense of the word, and not caring one pin in whose hands the Government was placed.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that as he was the only person sitting on that (the Opposition) side of the House who had supported the bill which had been alluded to, he certainly felt no small degree of anxiety for the well working of that measure. He had supported the bill under the conviction that under all the circumstances of the case, it would be a beneficial measure to the country, and in consequence of that support so given by him, he felt the greater surprise and disgust at the attempts subsequently made to interfere with the most wholesome provisions of that bill. He alluded to the measure proposed elsewhere, by which a direct interference with that bill had been established—he meant the resolutions which had been adopted by the other House, and to which his noble Friend (the Earl of Ripon) had alluded. His own opinion of those resolutions was, that however injurious they were to the working of the Benefices Pluralities Act, and however discouraging to the friends of the Church in Ireland, still his belief was, that those resolutions had only been introduced as the means for obtaining certain political ends for those who had proposed them—that they were

451
not propounded with reference to the Church, but for the party-motive of placing the present Government in the position they now held. The noble Viscount had said, that those resolutions were matter of great embarrassment to her Majesty's Government. He believed no such thing; on the contrary, he believed the Government cared very little for the consequence of those resolutions now, and that they were ready to throw them over when it suited their convenience. In the resolutions which had since been proposed elsewhere, and communicated to the House, he saw nothing of the same kind; but he did see propositions contained in them which convinced him that they would never meet the approbation of their Lordships; on the contrary, he firmly believed, that the House of Commons itself, as now constituted, would never pass them into a law. He was perfectly satisfied that the House of Commons would never sanction any measure by which the revenues of the Church should be transferred from the Church, and that the clergy should be made pensioners on the consolidated fund. The noble Viscount had appealed to his (the Earl of Wicklow's) side of the House, and had called upon them to put their shoulders to the wheel to promote the great object of a settlement of these important questions. He would assert (whether the noble Viscount believed him or not) that he desired to see those great measures now in progress to promote the welfare of Ireland carried into effect, and he assured the noble Viscount that for the attainment of those objects no party feeling should interfere. He said this because he did believe, that at the present moment there was a better mode and opportunity of settling those questions than had ever presented themselves or existed before. He knew not whether any suggestions he could offer would have weight with the noble Viscount, but he would suggest, that there was one mode by which now these matters could be satisfactorily adjusted. There was a most important measure now before the other House, and which would shortly come under their Lordships' consideration—he meant the Irish Poor-law Bill—a bill which he confidently trusted would be discussed here with a total absence of anything like party spirit. By that measure an increased taxation was imposed upon the landed proprietors of Ireland, and it did happen, according to the cal-
452
culations of the father and framer of that measure, Mr. Nicholls, that taxation so imposed, would come to about 1s. in the pound on the rental. That rental had been calculated by the Poor-law Commissioners to be about 10,000,000 l., so that the taxation which Mr. Nicholls calculated upon that for the Poor-laws would give 500,000 l. per annum. Now it also happened that the amount of tithe corn position in Ireland was 650,000 l., from which making a deduction of twenty-five per cent. for payment on the landlords, the amount of tithe composition would be just equivalent to the sum calculated by Mr. Nicholls for taxation under the New Poor-law Bill. Under these circumstances, he (the Earl of Wicklow) must say, it appeared to hint that, if a measure was carried, throwing the whole of the tithe composition upon the landlords, and the whole of the taxation under the New Poor-laws upon the occupying tenants, both questions would be much more satisfactorily settled than by any other means. He was perfectly convinced, that there could be no hope of insuring the well-working of the Poor-law Bill unless the taxation under it was placed upon those who would have the management of it—viz., the occupying tenants, who would thus have an interest in the Act, which would insure that attention to its operation which such a measure necessarily required; and, indeed, otherwise it would be almost impossible to find persons who would execute the office of guardians. Then he would cast upon the landlord the whole amount of tithe-composition, and thus both those questions would be set at rest, and the landlords would get an equivalent for that burthen by being relieved from the weight of the taxation under the New Poor-law Bill. For his own part, he would say, as a landlord he should be willing to see a measure of that nature carried into effect; and he was convinced, that it would be likely to be satisfactory both to the landlords and the occupying tenants of Ireland. Again, such an arrangement, as fixing the Poor-law taxation upon the latter class, would establish a groundwork for carrying the Municipal Corporation Bill into operation, for it would establish a qualification for voters under that bill. He was anxious to see all those three great and important measures carried, as otherwise it would be impossible to free either House of Parliament from repeated discussions on Irish affairs. Having thrown

453
out these suggestions, he had shown a readiness to put his shoulder to the wheel, and to exert himself to the utmost of his power to render those bills acceptable in that country.
The Bishop of Derrywas understood to defend the conduct of the Commissioners, though he had frequently had the misfortune, as one of the body, to differ from many of them. He trusted that an opportunity would be afforded for an investigation of their conduct, from which they would not shrink, and on a fitting occasion, perhaps on the tithe discussion, he should enter on the subject. He could not but express his regret, that the measure which had been introduced by his noble Friend and relative (Earl Grey), when at the head of the Government, had met with the discountenance it had received. He had thought it his duty to say thus much in the absence of the most reverend Prelate at the head of the Church in Ireland.
Motion agreed to.