Sitting of 7 May 1838

PLURALITIES
House in Committee on the Plurality of Benefices Bill.
On Clause 22 (no spiritual person beneficed or performing ecclesiastical duty shall engage in trade, or buy to sell again for profit or gain, excepting in cases of keeping schools, &c., buying and selling anything for the bonâ fide use of the family, or buying and selling cattle, &c., for the use of his own lands, &c.) being read,
Mr. Courtenayrose to propose the amendments of which he had given notice, and said, that the clause as it then stood would inflict great injustice on clergymen. For instance, if a clergyman had lent 100 l. to one of his parishioners, and the latter owing to misfortunes in trade had become bankrupt, possessing no assets except shares in canals, or joint stock banks, an assignee is appointed, who becomes as it were trustee for the clergyman and thus the latter would become indirectly a trader, which might destroy his chance of receiving anything in liquidation of the sum which, in the generosity of his heart, he had advanced to a poor parishioner. The hon. Member, after a few other preliminary remarks, in which he stated, that the clause was full of absurdities, concluded by moving the following amendment:—1st, in lines 16 and 17 to strike out "And that every bargain so made contrary to this act shall be utterly void as to such spiritual person." 2d, at the end of the clause to add the following additional proviso:—" Provided, always, that no prohibition nor restriction on the trading or dealing of any spiritual person, or of any other person for him, or to his use, contained in this act, shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to any trading or dealing by him, or by any other person to his use, in any case where such trading or dealing shall have been or shall be carried on, by or on the behalf of any number of partners exceeding the number of six; nor in any case where any trade or dealing, or any share in any trade or dealing, shall have devolved or shall devolve upon any spiritual person, or upon any other person for him or to his use, under or by virtue of any devise, bequest, inheritance, intestacy, settlement, marriage, bankruptcy, or insolvency."
The Attorney-Generaladmitted, that there was a great deal of point in the remarks of the hon. Member, but as it had been argued by high authorities, that according to the present law if any clergyman should become a shareholder in a joint-stock bank all contracts of that bank would become null and void, consequently it was necessary to put some restraint on the trading of clergymen, and as the amendments proposed would not tend to that purpose, he felt it necessary to oppose the hon. Member's motion.
Sir E. Sugdensaid, that although he agreed in substance with the amendment, still there should be some check, lest clergymen might become individual traders, and, in his opinion, it would be advisable to give the diocesan a power of control over any clergyman who had become a trader. As both sides of the House seemed anxious to modify the clause, he should recommend, that it stand over for a short time, in order to give Members an opportunity of considering its merits.
Mr. Courtenaythought it was necessary that some similar amendment to that proposed by him should be introduced; but if the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) would take the subject in hand, he would withdraw his motion.
Clause postponed.
On the 27th Clause,
Sir R. Inglisrecalled the attention of the House to the petition which he had presented, from the dean, sub-dean, and chapter of the College of Christchurch, at Oxford, praying to be exempted from the operation of the clause. The hon. Baronet observed, that there was this peculiar circumstance about the case of the petitioners, namely, that the chapter of Christchurch was not merely a chapter, but a college. All that they wanted was, as respected themselves, the continuance of the existing law. The hon. Baronet moved an amendment to that effect.
The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 52; Noes 75:—Majority 23.

List of the AYES.

Baker, E.

Duncombe, A.

Boldero, H. G.

East, J. B.

Bramston, T. W.

Egerton, W. T.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Egerton, Sir P.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Ellis, J.

Burr, H.

Estcourt, T.

Canning, Sir S.

Farnham, E. B.

Chandos, Marquess of

Filmer, Sir E.

Compton, H. C.

Fleming, J.

954

Freshfield, J. W.

Moreton, hon. A. H.

Gaskell, Jas. Milnes

Neeld, J.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Neeld, J.

Granby, Marquess of

Norreys, Lord

Grimston, Viscount

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Hale, R. B.

Praed, W. M.

Halford, H.

Price, R.

Hodgson, R.

Rae, Sir W.

Hughes, W. B.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Ingestrie, Viscount

Round, C. G.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Round, J.

Maidstone, Viscount

Sibthorp, Colonel

Marsland, T.

Somerset, Lord G.

Master, T. W. C.

Teignmouth, Lord

Maunsell, T. P.

Villiers, Lord

Meynell, Captain

Miles, W.

TELLERS.

Miles, P. W. S.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Milnes, R. M.

Estcourt. T.

List of the NOES.

Alsager, Captain

O'Brien, W. S.

Anson, hon. Colonel

O'Callaghan, C.

Baines, E.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Barnard, E. G.

Paget, F.

Barrington, Viscount

Parnell, Sir H.

Barry, G. S.

Pusey, P.

Berkely, hon. C.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Bewes, T.

Rich, H.

Blunt, Sir C.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Bowes, J.

Rundle, J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Brotherton, J.

Salwey, Colonel

Bulwer, E. L.

Scholefield, J.

Busfield, W.

Seymour, Lord

Cavendish, G. H.

Sheppard, T.

Chapman, Sir M. L.C.

Slaney, R. A.

Childers, J. W.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Collier, J.

Stewart, James

Divett, E.

Stuart, Lord J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Stuart, V.

Duff, J.

Sturt, H. C.

Dundas, Captain D.

Style, Sir C.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Talbot, J. H.

Fergusson, C.

Turner, E.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Verney, Sir H.

Gordon, R.

Vernon, G. H.

Hastie, A.

Vigors, N. A.

Hawes, B.

Vivian, Sir R. H.

Hayter, W. G.

Warburton H.

Hector, C. J.

White, A.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Williams W.

Hinde, J. H.

Wood, C.

Hume, J.

Wood, T.

Humphrey, J.

Worsley, Lord

Hutt, F.

Wrightson, W. B.

Kemble, H.

Yates, J. A.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

TELLERS.

Knight, H. G.

Stewart, R.

Lushington, C.

Parker, J.

The Marquess of Chandosmoved to extend the exemption contained in the clause for the head masters of colleges, and public schools, to the lower masters.
The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 60; Noes 76; Majority 16.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Boldero, H. G.

Maidstone, Viscount

Bowes, J.

Marsland, T.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Master, T. W. C.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Maunsell, T. P.

Burr, H.

Miles, W.

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Miles, P. W. S.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Cayley, E. S.

Neeld, J.

Cole, Lord

Neeld, J.

Compton, H. C.

Nicholl, J.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Norreys, Lord

East, J. B.

Packe, C. W.

Egerton, W. T.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Egerton, Sir P.

Price, R.

Estcourt, T.

Rae, rt. hn. Sir W.

Farnham, E. B.

Rolleston, L.

Filmer, Sir E.

Round, C. G.

Fleming, J.

Round, J.

Freshfield, J. W.

Sheppard, T.

Gaskell, Jas. Milnes

Sibthorp, Colonel

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Somerset, Lord G.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Stuart, Lord J.

Granby, Marquess of

Teignmouth, Lord

Grimston, Viscount

Villiers, Viscount

Halford, H.

Vivian, Major C.

Harcourt, G. S.

Vivian, J. E.

Hodgson, R.

Worsley, Lord

Hughes, W. B.

TELLERS.

Ingestrie, Viscount

Chandos, Marquess of

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Praed, W. M.

List of the NOES.

Alsager, Captain

Lister, E. C.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Lushington, C.

Baines, E.

Mactaggart, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Milnes, R. M.

Barrington, Viscount

Milton, Viscount

Barry, G. S.

Murray, rt. hn. J. A.

Berkeley, hon. C.

O'Brien, W. S.

Bewes, T.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Blackett, C.

Parker, J.

Bramston, T. W.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Brotherton, J.

Protheroe, E.

Busfield, W.

Pryme, G.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Pusey, P.

Chapman, Sir M. L. C.

Rich, H.

Childers, J. W.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Collier, J.

Rundle, J.

Divett, E.

Russell, Lord J.

Duff, J.

Salwey, Colonel

Dundas, Captain D.

Sandon, Viscount

Evans, W.

Scholefield, J.

Fazakerly, J. N.

Seymour, Lord

Fergusson, rt. hon. R. C.

Slaney, R. A.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Spiers, A.

Hastie, A.

Stanley, E. J.

Hawes, B.

Stanley, Lord

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Hume, J.

Stewart, J.

Hutnphery, J.

Stuart, V.

Kemble, H.

Sturt, H. C.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Style, Sir C.

Knight, H. G.

Surrey, Earl of

Leveson, Lord

Talbot, J. H.

956

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

White, A.

Turner, E.

Wood, C.

Verney, Sir H.

Wood, T.

Vernon, G. H.

Wrightson, W. B.

Vigors, N. A.

Yates, J. A.

Vivian, right hon. Sir R. H.

TELLERS.

Steuart, R.

Warburton, H.

Gordon, R.

Mr. Hawesmoved to add a proviso limiting the value of any benefice to which the clause applied to 500 l.
The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 45; Noes 68: Majority 23.

List of the AYES.

Alsager, Captain

O'Brien, W. S.

Attwood, T.

Pinney, W.

Bewes, T.

Protheroe, E.

Brocklehurst, J.

Pryme, G.

Brotherton, J.

Roche, W.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Rundle, J.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Salwey, Colonel

Childers, J. W.

Scholefield, J.

Collier, J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Curry, W.

Stuart, V.

Easthope, J.

Style, Sir C.

Ebrington, Viscount

Talbot, J. H.

Evans, W.

Verney, Sir H.

Fazakerly, J. N.

Vigors, N. A.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Warburton, H.

Kemble, H.

Wood, Sir M.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Worsley, Lord

Lister, E. C.

Yates, J. A.

Lushington, C.

TELLERS.

Melgund, Viscount

Hawes, B.

O'Brien, C.

Hume, J.

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Harcourt, G. S.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Hodgson, R.

Baker, E.

Hoskins, K.

Barnard, E. G.

Hughes, W. B.

Barrington, Viscount

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Blackburne, I.

Knight, H. G.

Blackett, C.

Leveson, Lord

Boldero, H. G.

Lockhart, A. M.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Marsland, T.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Milnes, R. M.

Burr, H.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Busfield, W.

Murrray, rt. hn. J. A.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Neeld, J.

Cole, Viscount

Neeld, J.

Compton, H. C.

Nicholl, J.

Courtenay, P.

Parker, J.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Dundas, Captain D.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

East, J. B.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Estcourt, T.

Praed, W. M.

Fergusson, rt. hn, C.

Pusey, P.

Filmer, Sir E.

Rae, right hon. Sir W.

Freshfield, J. W.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Gaskell, Jas. Milnes

Round, C. G.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Round, J.

Halford, H.

Russell, Lord John

957

Sandon, Viscount

Turner, E.

Seymour, Lord

Vernon, G. H.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Vivian, right hon. Sir R. H.

Stanley, E. J.

Stanley, Lord

Wood, C.

Sturt, H. C.

Wrightson, W. B.

Sugden, rt. hn. Sir E.

Surrey, Earl of

TELLERS.

Teignmouth, Lord

Steuart, R.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Gordon, R.

Mr. Humesaid, that as the clause stood the deans of all cathedrals and the head masters of Winchester, Westminster, and Eton, schools, and the head warden of Durham University, could hold livings to any amount, and at any distance from their residences; he therefore should move, that the clause be omitted altogether.
The Committee divided on the question, that the clause as amended stand part of the bill:—Ayes 69; Noes 34: Majority 35.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Marsland, T.

Alsager, Captain

Milnes, R. M.

Baker, E.

Mordaunt, Sir James

Barnard, E. G.

Murray, J, A.

Boldero, H. G.

Neeld, J.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Neeld, J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Nicholl, J.

Burr, H.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Busfield, W.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Perceval, G. J.

Cavendish, hn. G. H.

Praed, W. M.

Cole, hon. A. H.

Pusey, P.

Compton, H. C.

Rae, Sir W.

Courtenay, P.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Dundas, Captain D.

Round, C. G.

East, J. B.

Round, J.

Estcourt, T.

Russell, Lord John

Fazakerly, J. N.

Sandon, Viscount

Fergusson, right hon. R. C.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Stanley, E. J.

Filmer, Sir E.

Stanley, Lord

Freshfield, J. W.

Steuart, R.

Gaskell, Jas. Milnes

Stewart, James

Gordon, R.

Stuart, V.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Sturt, H. C.

Halford, H.

Sugden, Sir E.

Hodgson, K.

Surrey, Earl of

Hoskins, R.

Teignmouth, Lord

Hughes, W. B.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Inglis, Sir R. A.

Turner, E.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Vernon, G. H.

Kemble, H.

Wood, C.

Knight, H. G.

Wrightson, W. B.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

TELLERS.

Lockhart, A. M.

Seymour, Lord

Mackenzie, W. F.

Parker, J.

List of the NOES.

Brocklehurst, J.

Brotherton, J.

958

Bryan, G.

Protheroe, E.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Pryme, G.

Childers, J. W.

Roche, D.

Collier, J.

Rundle, J.

Curry, W.

Salwey, Colonel

Davies, Colonel

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Duke, Sir J.

Style, Sir C.

Duncombe, A.

Talbot, J. H.

Easthope, J.

Verney, Sir H.

Evans, W.

Vigors, N. A.

Fitzroy, Lord

Warburton, H.

Kinnaird, A. F.

Williams, W. A.

Lister, E. C.

Wood, Sir M.

Lushington, C.

Worsley, Lord

Marsland, H.

Melgund, Viscount

TELLERS.

O'Brien, C.

Hawes, B.

O'Brien, W. S.

Hume, J.

On Clause 28,
Sir Robert Inglismoved to extend the exemptions contained in the clause to the proctor, public orator, librarian, or registrar, of the Universities, on the ground that the salary was insufficient, and that it was, therefore, desirable that he should be allowed to hold church preferment.
The Solicitor-Generalobjected to the exemption, as it was necessary that the orator should be constantly resident during the terms, although his duties might only occupy him for a short time each day. If it were intended to exempt him, he ought to have been included in the 27th section, which contained the general exemption.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that Gentlemen on that side of the House, had not so included them because they were anxious to reduce as much as possible the number included in the general exemption.
The Committee divided on Sir Robert Inglis's motion:—Ayes 30;—Noes 52: Majority 22.

List of the AYES

Acland, T. D.

Lockart, A. M.

Burr, H.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Chute, W. L. W.

Marsland, T.

Cole, Viscount

Monypenny, T. G.

Compton, H. C.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Courtenay, P.

Nicholl, J.

East, J. B.

Parker, M.

Estcourt, T.

Praed, W. M.

Freshfield, J. W.

Price, R.

Gaskell, Jas. Milnes

Pryme, G.

Goring, H. D.

Round, J.

Grimsditch, T.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Halford, H.

Teignmouth, Lord

Harcourt, G. S.

Heathcote, Sir W.

TELLERS.

Hodgson, R.

Goulburn, H.

Hughes, W. B.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

959

List of the NOES.

Adam, Admiral

Morpeth, Visct.

Alsager, Captain

O'Brien, C.

Barnard E. G.

Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.

Brocklehurst, J.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Brotherton, J.

Protheroe, E.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Pusey, P.

Bryan, G.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Busfield, W.

Round, C. G.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Rundle, J.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Childers, J. W.

Salwey, Colonel

Curry, W.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Dalmeny, Lord

Surrey, Earl of

Davies, Colonel

Talbot, J. H.

Duke, Sir J.

Tancred, H. W.

Dundas, Captain D.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Ebrington, Viscount

Turner, E.

Evans, W.

Vigors, N. A.

Fergusson, rt. hon. R. C.

Williams, W. A.

Gordon, R.

Wood, Sir M.

Hawes, B.

Wood, G. W.

Heathcote, J.

Worsley, Lord

Hoskins, K.

Wrightson, W. B.

Hume, J.

Yates, J. A.

Kemble, H.

Lister, E. C.

TELLERS.

Lushington, C.

Wood, C.

Marsland, H.

Parker, J.

Mr. Prymethen moved an addition to the clause to the effect of exempting from residence on their benefices, spiritual persons holding professorships and wholly resident within the precincts of the Universities, and annually lecturing therein. There were many professors, such as those of chemistry and experimental philosophy, whose time was engrossed out of term in making experiments on which to found their lectures, and under such circumstances he submitted their residence for such an object in the Universities, ought to be held as equivalent to residence on their benefices.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that he could not concur in the amendment proposed by his hon. and learned Friend. The bill as drawn, had made a distinction between permanent and temporary exemptions, and that distinction the hon. and learned Gentleman by his proposition would do away with altogether. The parties whom the hon. and learned Gentleman sought to relieve, had undertaken two duties—viz., professorships at Universities, and a cure of souls. Now this bill provided, that while the individual who held both these duties should, while engaged, giving lectures at the University, be reckoned as resident on his benefice, yet that when not so engaged, his presence at his cure should
960
be required, with the exception of three months in each year, when he would be exempted altogether. Now, he could not think, that this was at all an unfair or severe regulation, and being unwilling to carry exemptions from residence on benefices any further, he should give his negative to the present proposition.
Mr. Prymewould not press his amendment.
Mr. Humemoved the addition of a proviso to the effect that a clergyman, on leaving his benefice to perform other duties, should give notice thereof, and of the grounds of his absence, in writing to the churchwardens of the parish, who should affix the same in some conspicuous place within the walls of the church.
Lord John Russellopposed the amendment as unnecessary. In the schedule of the bill, certain questions as to absence, and the cause of absence, were required to be put annually by the bishop to each incumbent, and those questions, so answered, could, without great difficulty, be returned to Parliament.
Mr. Goulburnobjected to the amendment. The parishioners, if they attended church, would not see their pastor in the pulpit, and could easily ascertain the cause, and if such absence was too long, they would by the law created by this bill have a remedy. Surely, the hon. Member would not require a rector to stick up handbills, announcing that he was going out of the parish.
Mr. Humecontended, that the regulation he proposed was necessary, in order to enable parishioners to ascertain whether or not he was neglecting his duty. It appeared from a return, that no less than 1,016 clergymen' had been absent from their livings, and that even their bishops were ignorant of the causes of their absence.
The Committee divided on the question of adding the proviso:—Ayes 21;—Noes 76: Majority 55.

List of the NOES.

Brocklehurst, J.

Lister, E. C.

Brotherton, Joseph

Marsland, T.

Bryan, G.

Monypenny, T. G.

Butler, hon. Col.

O'Brien, C.

Curry, W.

Protheroe, E.

Evans, G.

Rundle, J.

Heathcote, J.

Salwey, Colonel

James, W.

Talbot, J. H.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Turner, E.

961

Turner, W.

TELLERS.

Vigors, N. A.

Hume, J.

Wood, Sir M.

Lushington, C.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Tho. D.

Lockhart, A. M.

Adam, Admiral

Mackenzie, W. F.

Alsager, Captain

Marshall, W.

Bailey, J.

Marsland, H.

Bailey, J., jun.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Barnard, E. G.

Morpeth, Visct.

Barry, G. S.

Nicholl, J.

Broadley, H.

Noel, W. M.

Bruges, W. H. L.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Busfield, W.

Parker, J.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Parker, M.

Childers, J. W.

Parker, T. A. W.

Chute, W. L. W.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Cole, Visct.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Compton, H. C.

Price, R.

Courtenay, P.

Pryme, G.

Davies, Colonel

Rice, E. R.

Duke, Sir J.

Roche, D.

Dundas, Captain D.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

East, J. B.

Round, C. G.

Ebrington, Visct.

Round, J.

Estcourt, T.

Russell, Lord J.

Evans, W.

Shirley, E. J.

Fergusson, rt. hon. R. C.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Freshfield, J. W.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Gaskell, Jas. Milnes

Surrey, Earl of

Gordon, R.

Tancred, H. W.

Goring, H. D.

Teignmouth, Lord

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Grimsditch, T.

Verney, H.

Guest, J. J.

Wilkins, W.

Harcourt, G. S.

Williams, W. A.

Hawes, B.

Wood, T.

Hawkins, J. H.

Worsley, Lord

Heathcote, Sir W.

Wrightson, W. B.

Hodgson, K.

Yates, J. A.

Hoskins, K.

Hughes, W. B.

TELLERS.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Sibthorp, Col.

Kemble, H.

Wood, C.

The Clause to stand part of the bill.
On Clause 29,
Sir obert Inglismoved to substitute for the word "five," in line 22, the word "six," in order to give persons who held cathedral preferment, together with a benefice, the same privilege as to leave of absence as was enjoyed by clergymen not having that kind of preferment, but holding two benefices.
Lord J. Russellobjected to the motion on the ground that a party holding two benefices was supposed to reside in one of them during the whole of nine months, the other parish which he held in plurality being at so very short a distance from his first preferment. If he agreed to the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and allowed of three months' absence in the case of a clergyman holding
962
cathedral preferment, the result would be, that only half a year could in any way be given to his benefice, as he would be obliged to reside for three months on his prebend.
Mr. Eastsupported the Amendment, as he thought that clergymen holding cathedral preferment, ought to be put upon a par with others.
The Committee divided on the question that the blank be filled up with the word five.—Ayes 70: Noes 28; Majority 42.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Marsland, Henry

Alsager, Capt.

Money penny, T. G.

Attwood, T.

Morpeth, Viscount

Bailey, J.

Nicholl, J.

Bailey, J., jun.

Noel, W. M.

Bewes, T.

O'Brien, Cornelius

Broadley, H.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Brocklehurst, J.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Pendarves, E. W.

Bryan, G.

Protheroe, E.

Bulwer, E. L.

Pusey, P.

Busfield, W.

Rice, E. R.

Chute, W. L. W.

Roche, D.

Compton, H. C.

Rundle, John

Dalmeney, Lord

Russell, Lord J.

Duke, Sir J.

Salwey, Colonel

Dundas, Capt. D.

Seymour, Lord

Ebrington, Visct.

Tancred, H. W.

Evans, G.

Townley, R. G.

Fellowes, E.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Fergusson, right hon. R. C.

Turner, E.

Turner, William

Goring, H. D.

Verney, Sir H. Bart.

Grey, Sir C. E.

Vernon, G. H.

Guest, J. J.

Vigors, N. A.

Halford, H.

Wall, C. B.

Hawkins, J. H.

White, Samuel

Heathcoat, John

Wilde, Mr. Sergeant

Hume, J.

Wilkins, W.

James, William

Williams, W. A.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Winnington, H. J.

Johnstone, Hope

Wood, Alderman

Kemble, H.

Wood, G. W.

Lister, E. C.

Yates, J. A.

Lushington, Charles

TELLERS.

Macleod, R.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Marshall, William

Wood, C.

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Burroughes, H. N.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Cole, Visct.

Hodgson, R.

Courtenay, p.

Hughes, W. B.

Estcourt, T.

Knight, H. G.

Freshfield, J. W.

Lockhart, A. M.

Gaskell, Jas. Milnes

Mackenzie, W. F.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Marsland, T.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Grimsditch, T.

Parker, M.

Harcourt, G. S.

Parker, T. A. W.

963

Praed, W. M.

Teignmouth, Lord

Round, C. G.

Round, J.

TELLERS.

Shirley, E. J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Sibthorp, Col.

East, J. B.

Clause agreed to.
Clause 42 (by which incumbents are required to answer questions put by the bishop) was next read.
Sir R. Inglisthought this clause inquisitorial. Who were to send those questions? The clause gave too much power to the advisers of the Crown, and he would object to it.
Mr. Goulburnthought, that the whole power of putting those questions was left to the council. The bishop had nothing to do but to submit and put them. He also objected to the clause as it stood.
Sir R. Inglisproposed to omit the words beginning in line nine, "together with such other questions as may from time to time be directed by her Majesty in Council."
Lord J. Russellthought, that there was an unseasonable jealousy about the use of these words. The bill, as it was printed, had received the sanction of the Archbishop of Canterbury. It was an absurd suspicion to think, that any questions would be put which ought not to be put. The Crown had already a greater power by law than would be given by this clause. However, if the Committee thought, that the words should be left out, he should not object to their omission. The words ordered to be struck out.
On the question that the clause stand part of the Bill,
Mr. Hawesobjected, that the clause as it now stood did not contain any penalty on the clergyman for refusing to answer the questions put in the schedule. Those questions were put to enable the bishop to make certain returns which the bill directed him to make, and for the omission to make which he was liable to an indictment. If the clergyman could, with impunity, refuse to answer the questions put to him, the bishop could not discharge the duty which the bill imposed upon him. If a clergyman were refractory, and refused to answer all questions, what could the bishop do as the bill now stood?
Mr. Humewould move, that in case of any clergyman refusing to answer the questions put to him by the schedule, he
964
should be fined four per cent. on the value of his living.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, that the Committee, in coming at a result that might be considered expedient, ought not to establish a bad precedent and a dangerous principle. The great objection to the Court of Star-Chamber was, that it fined a man for refusing to answer any questions put to him, and that it also assumed the power of fining him for any admission against himself. Such a precedent as the hon. Member's Amendment would be a dangerous and unconstitutional precedent, for it was a principle of British law that no man was bound to answer a question which might tend to criminate himself.
Mr. Hume: Then what was the use of having a schedule of questions which were to be put to the clergy if they were not bound to answer? It was quite nonsense.
Sir H. Verneythought there was no greater hardship on the clergy to answer questions put to them than there would be in putting questions to officers of the army or navy, which they were bound to answer when they related to their duties.
Lord Ebringtonthought, that if the Legislature had power to direct the questions, there should be the means of enforcing their answers.
The Committee divided on the Amendment, Ayes 33; Noes 110: Majority 77.

List of the AYES.

Baines, E.

Russell, Lord C.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Salwey, Colonel

Bulwer, E. L.

Scholefield, J.

Busfield, W.

Stanley, W. O.

Clay, W.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C.

Turner, W.

Duke, Sir J.

Verney, Sir H.

Dundas, Capt. C. W. D.

Vigors, N. A.

Ebrington, Viscount

White, A.

Evans, Sir De L.

White, S.

Evans, G.

Wilbraham, G.

Hindley, C.

Wilde, Sergeant

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Williams, W.

Lister, E. C.

Wood, G. W.

Marshall, W.

Worsley, Lord

Marsland, H.

TELLERS.

Protheroe, E.

Hume, J.

Rundle, J.

Hawes, B.

List of the NOES.

Abercromby, hn. G. R.

Bailey, J.

Acland, T. D.

Bailey, J. jun.

Adam, Admiral

Baring, hon. W. B.

Ainsworth, P.

Bewes, T.

Alsager, Captain

Blair, J.

965

Blunt, Sir C.

Lockhart, A. M.

Broadley, H.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Brocklehurst, J.

Macleod, R.

Brotherton, J.

Marsland, H.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Maunsell, T. P.

Burroughes, H. N.

Monypenny, T. G.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Childers, J. W.

Morpeth, Viscount

Codrington, C. W.

Morris, D.

Cole, hon. A. H.

Murray, rt. hn. J. A.

Cole, Viscount

Nicholl, J.

Compton, H. G.

Noel, W. M.

Courtenay, P.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Dalmeny, Lord

Pakington, J. S.

Dundas, Captain D.

Parker, J.

East, J. B.

Parker, M.

Eastnor, Viscount

Parker, T. A. W.

Eaton, R. J.

Praed, W. M.

Egerton, W. T.

Prime, G.

Egerton, Sir P.

Pusey, P.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Rice, E. R.

Estcourt, T.

Richards, R.

Evans, W.

Rolleston, L.

Ferguson, rt. hn. C.

Round, C. G.

Filmer, Sir E.

Round, J.

Freshfield, J. W.

Russell, Lord J.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Gordon, R.

Seymour, Lord

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Grey, Sir G.

Sheppard, T.

Grimsditch, T.

Shirley, J.

Guest, J. J.

Sibthorpe, Colonel

Halford, H.

Stanley, E. J.

Harcourt, G. S.

Steuart, R.

Hawkes, T.

Sturt, H. C.

Hawkins, J. H.

Talbot, J. H.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Hobhouse, right hon. Sir J.

Townley, R. G.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hodgson, R.

Verner, Colonel

Hope, G. W.

Vernon, G. H.

Hoskins, K.

Villiers, Viscount

Hughes, W. B.

Vivian, rt. hn. Sir H.

Hurt, F.

Wallace, R.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

White, L.

Johnstone, H.

Wilkins, W. A.

Jones, J.

Williams, W. A.

Kemble, H.

Winnington, H. J.

Knight, H. G.

Wood, T.

Knightley, Sir C.

TELLERS.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Solicitor-General

Lefevre, C. S.

Wood, C.

Clause agreed to.
Clauses to the 46th agreed to.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of STRADBROKE, from Stockport, by the Duke of CLEVELAND, from Dunbar, for the reduction of Postage.—By Earl GREY, from Sunderland, and Newcastle, by the Earl of WICKLOW, from Ballyshannon, by the Marquess of SLIGO, from Wellington, Thornton, Croydon, Lisburn, South Shields, Isle of Orkney, and other places, and by Lord DENMAN, from the Primitive Methodists of Manchester, and from North Shields, praying for the Immediate Abolition of Negro Apprenticeship.—By the Earl of ROSEBERRY, from a place in Scotland, against additional Endowment for the Scotch Church.—By the Bishop of DERRY, from Raphoe, against parts of the system of National Education (Ireland).

NATIONAL EDUCATION.
The Bishop of Durhamon rising to present a petition from Manchester, spoke to the following effect*: My Lords, I am not in the habit of intruding frequently upon your time: and 1 can assure you, that it is my wish not to detain you unnecessarily at present. But the great importance of the subject to which I call your attention, and the number and respectability of the petitioners, whom on this occasion I represent, compel me to trespass upon your patience, while I enter upon some details connected with the state of education in this country; the causes which may impede the adoption of a general system; and also the manner, in which the cause has been taken up by foreign nations.
My Lords, the petition which I am about to present to you, is signed, I understand, by 24,000 persons. I consider it, my Lords, honourable to the national character, but especially honourable to the Gentlemen with whom this petition originates; that they have bestowed so much pains upon the investigation of a subject so important as the education of the people. A set of Gentlemen at Manchester, to whom time must be peculiarly valuable, employed as they are in commercial pursuits of vast magnitude; yet have not hesitated to devote that time to inquiries into the evils by which many of their poorer brethren are oppressed, and into the best means of remedying them. They have found a deplorable want of
*From a report published by Ridgeway.
938
education prevailing; and their prayer is that you will direct your attention to the great and interesting subject of national education.
By this term, my Lords, I do not apprehend that the petitioners restrict their wishes to a system of education, actually comprehending all the children of the country, as is the case in Prussia for instance. They would be glad; no doubt, if it were practicable, to have a really national system of instruction for all. But I understand them to urge the adoption of such modes of improving and extending the present means of education, as shall be at once effectual and practicable. For, I find that, at a meeting of the friends of the society for promoting National Education, a resolution was conceived in the following terms:—
"That this Society shall endeavour, by petitions, and other constitutional means, to obtain from Parliament a legislative provision, securing to all classes of the community an improved and a permanent system of Education."
Now to this resolution I entirely subscribe; and in this sense I advocate the prayer of this petition.
When I proposed to touch upon some of the details, belonging to this very interesting subject, it was far from my intention to enter upon them at much length; still less to anticipate any discussion, which may be expected to take place upon a Bill laid before you by a noble and learned Friend; whose efforts to enlarge and improve the general stock of knowledge have been so unwearied and so praise-worthy. But it appears to me desirable to allude to some topics, connected with the matter of the petition; if it were only to prepare your Lordships for a more full consideration of the whole subject at some future time.
Among the questions, then, about which the friends of national education have been more or less divided, are,—1st. Whether it should be compulsory or not? 2nd. Whether boys and girls are to be educated together or separate? I find this to be a subject, about which the Glasgow Educational Society have formed a strong opinion. They consider it to be highly desirable that both sexes shall be trained together, both in school and in the play-grounds; but all under the inspection of their teachers.
Another question, upon which different opinions are entertained in this and in other countries, is, whether simultaneous,

939
or mutual, instruction is to be preferred? It is well known, that the plan of mutual instruction was matured some thirty years ago under the auspices of Joseph Lancaster and Dr. Bell. The system has been generally adopted in this country. But foreigners appear disposed to regard it, as tending to make but a superficial impression:
Again, it is asked, at what age it be desirable, that the business of education should commence; and to what extent it should be gratuitous?
But the great difficulty of all—that which, I fear, is at present almost insurmountable, as to the success of any scheme of education strictly national, is, in what manner religious instruction is to be conveyed? It is admitted, I believe by all, who in this country take an interest in the subject of education, that it should be founded upon religion as its only proper basis: and that the bible shall be taught. But then, each particular denomination of Christians is anxious to have their own peculiar views of doctrine entertained and upheld. And amidst such a diversity of opinions, as prevails in this country, by what means are we to select any one plan that will satisfy all? My Lords, the petitioners do not attempt to prescribe any particular plan, but they venture respectfully to suggest, what appears to them the best calculated to obviate the difficulty which I am describing:—
"They desire to express their conviction that the course pursued by the British and Foreign School Society of prescribing bible classes in every school, and placing the entire volume of the holy scriptures, without note or comment, in the hands of every child (excepting from this rule Catholics and Jews only), is the best system hitherto devised for meeting the difficulties arising out of the varieties of religious sects in this country."
My Lords! I heartily wish that some plan could be devised, which would so reconcile existing differences, as to allow of one common course of religious instruction at school; while the catechism, or peculiar doctrines of each denomination, might be reserved for the appropriate instruction of the sabbath-day. But I have no ground, upon which to rest a hope, that such a plan is likely, at the present, either to be devised or adopted.
Nevertheless, my Lords, the amount of evil, arising either from the total want or the partial defects of education, is so great, that every practicable effort should be made
940
to lessen it; and surely no time should be lost, in taking some steps—in making at least a beginning—with a view to remedy it.
As a specimen of the deficiency of means of education in Scotland, I beg leave to lay before your Lordships a statement by Mr. Stow, a director of the model schools, Glasgow.
"Our readers will bear in mind, (he says) that a sixth of the whole population (independent of infants from two to six) ought to be at school:
"There are of children in attendance at school, out of the population of Old Aberdeen, only one child out of every twenty-five; Paisley, Abbey parish, one out of eighteen; Dundee, one out of fourteen; in large districts in Glasgow, one out of fifteen or sixteen; smaller districts in Glasgow, one out of twenty-four. In 132 parishes, in the counties of Aberdeen, Elgin and Banff, in 1832, there was only one in every eleven.
"By a survey lately made over the whole town of Paisley, it appeared that, independent of a vast number of adults, nearly 3,000 children above six or seven years of age were unable to read; and that much of the education received was merely a smattering at evening schools, after being fatigued with the day's work."
As to a very populous and important part of England;
"Estimating the population of Liverpool at 230,000, it was found, that 12,000 children, of all ages, were receiving, at the cost of the parents, an education of a very low order; 13,000—partly at the expense of the parents, partly from charity—a more effective education; 3,700 some little instruction in Sunday schools; 4,000 of the upper and middle classes, educated in superior private schools; leaving not less than 30,000 children, between the ages of five and fifteen, receiving no education either really or nominally."
The report then proceeds:—
"Taking this as a fair measure of the quantity and quality of the education received by the children of the working classes in this country, and comparing it with what may be done, and what, in other civilized countries, has been done, for the education of the same class; the result is one which cannot be dwelt upon, without some feeling of pain and humiliation."
Now, let us see what this state of Education is, compared with that in other countries:—
"In Nassau, the population were educated in the proportion of one in six; in Saxony, one in six; in the State of New York, one in four; in Protestant Switzerland, one in five; in Eng-

941
land, the nominal education was only one in eight; but, in many large towns, any real education was only given to one in seventeen."
But it will be said that, in order to correct this sad state of things, a considerable expense must be incurred. In Scotland alone, it has been calculated that, in order to put matters on a right footing as respects education, no less an outlay would be required than 362,580 1.; of which about 50,000 l. might be considered an annual charge.
As to England, I have no materials upon which to build any safe calculation. But I was lately present at a meeting of the National Society, (which society, I am happy to say, is about to make great efforts in order to improve and extend its operations), where it was calculated that 15,000 additional schoolmasters would be wanted. These masters must be better trained than heretofore; so that, whether the calculation be correct or not, there can be no doubt but in England, as well as Scotland, very great expense must be incurred before an improvement, such as the petition calls for, can be made upon our present systems of education. But then, it must not be forgotten, that the effects, anticipated from better and more comprehensive modes of instruction, are to encourage habits of industry, and to diminish every species of vice and crime. You may, therefore, confidently look for a decrease of that expenditure which is now occasioned by police; by your prisons, and prosecutions. Here again, I gladly avail myself of the research and intelligence of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury.
"What was the increase of cost arising from crime, the fruits of ignorance? Look at the county rates. In 1792, jails 92,000 1.; in 1832, 177,000 1>.; prisoners' maintenance, in 1792, 45,700 1.; in 1832, 127,000 1.; prosecutions, in 1792, 34,000 1.; in 1832, 157,000 1.; constables, in 1792, 659 1.; in 1832, 26,000 1.; total, in 1792, 172,359 1.; in 1832, 487,000 l. Thus, the expenses directly from crime, trebled in forty years, whilst population is only increased sixty per cent. The metropolitan police alone cost 210,000 l. per annum, to restrain crimes, which a good education might have much prevented, or diminished."
My Lords, I cannot indulge a hope that, in the present financial state of the country, her Majesty's Ministers would feel themselves warranted in incurring expenses to the amount that I have mentioned; even if the various difficulties to which I have adverted, could be satisfactorily removed.
942
I am quite satisfied that they are aware of the importance of the subject; and would gladly make an effort to supply the lamentable deficiency which has been shown to exist in the means of education; if they could feel it consistent with their duty, as guardians of the public revenue. And I trust, they will be able to make some arrangements, by which a commencement at least may be made in forwarding this truly national object.
It is very evident, my Lords, that one of the first steps to be taken must be to establish Normal schools for the training of schoolmasters. Upon this point, the opinion expressed by the Statistical Society of Manchester, as the result of their inquiries into the state of the borough of Salford, is at once clear and and judicious:—
"That in the establishment of Normal schools, the funds devoted to educational purposes would be more usefully employed than in any other manner; for they consider it hopeless to expect an extensive improvement in the conduct of schools until the teachers have first been qualified for the task of education."
Here then a commencement may be made in this vitally important work; a commencement at once safe and effective. I must, then, before I conclude, respectfully impress upon her Majesty's Government the necessity of making such a beginning. I trust they will be enabled, without inconvenience, to make some advance to the National Society, and to the British and Foreign School Society, in order to assist the exertions they are making towards the formation of Normal schools. I would also suggest, that some grant should be made to the Educational Society at Glasgow, who are at this time employing themselves with much success in improving the system of education in that part of Great Britain. By thus extending aid, so greatly wanted and so loudly called for, her Majesty's Ministers will show their anxiety to wipe off this reproach from our national character and institutions. You, my Lords, will, I trust, zealously support them in any efforts they are disposed to make in such a cause; for, as you regard the religious and moral welfare of your countrymen, as you prefer innocence to crime, comfort to misery, peace and good order to turbulence and licentiousness, you must be disposed to give the most favourable consideration to the prayer of this petition.
Petition laid on the table.

POOR-LAWS (IRELAND).
The Earl of Wicklow, on presenting a petition from places in the county of Wicklow, disapproving of the bill before the House for the relief of the poor in Ireland, would take the opportunity to ask the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government, a question connected with this subject. He had been informed that Mr. Nicholls, the Poor-law Commissioner, had been recently on a visit to Belgium and Holland, by order of her Majesty's Government, in order to ascertain how the regulations with respect to the poor in those countries worked. The report upon this subject being closely connected by analogy with the bill now before their Lordships' House, would be of great value, and he should be glad to hear from the noble Viscount whether any steps had been taken for its production?
Earl Fitzwilliamwould take the occasion to suggest also to the noble Viscount that he and many of their Lordships felt extremely anxious to know the grounds upon which Mr. Nicholls had founded the report which he had last year presented. Mr. Nicholls had given them two reports of his six weeks' tour in the north of Ireland in 1836, and of his six weeks' tour in the south of Ireland in 1837, but he had never stated the grounds upon which he had arrived at the conclusions which he therein submitted to Parliament. It would be desirable, in his opinion, before this most important subject was disposed of, affecting as it did the whole state of society in that large portion of the empire, that their Lordships should know the grounds upon which Mr. Nicholls had, if he might use the expression, thrown overboard all the reports and labours of a most industrious Commission, which was engaged for several years on this subject, and advised Parliament to legislate in a manner directly contrary to that recommended by the latter. He trusted, that his noble Friend would give as satisfactory an answer on this subject as to the question of the noble Earl opposite.
Viscount Melbournebelieved it was true that Mr. Nicholls was now travelling in Belgium and Holland, and he believed also that he was paying close attention to the establishments relating to the poor in those countries. He was not aware, however, that that gentleman had been sent out by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department; on the contrary, he believed not, and that Mr. Nicholls
944
had not promised any report to Government on the subject. With respect to the observations of his noble Friend on his right, he must confess he did not clearly understand what he wished to have.
Earl Fitzwilliamwanted to know the grounds on which Mr. Nicholls had arrived at his conclusions.
Petition laid on the table.

THE CORONATION—MARSHAL SOULT.
The Marquess of Londonderryhad a question to put to the noble Viscount connected with the Coronation. He did this the more readily, because he was convinced that he would receive a much more satisfactory answer than he had lately received on this subject, and one which would be more agreeable to that House and the public at large. It appeared from the public journals that her Majesty's name had been brought into discussion in a most indecorous manner with respect to the appointment of the individual who was to represent the French government upon the occasion of her Majesty's coronation; and it further appeared that the appointment of the individual, to whom it was originally intimated that the appointment would be given, had at the request of her Majesty, been cancelled, and an illustrious marshal appointed in his place. He could conceive nothing more improper than mixing up the name of our most Gracious Sovereign with the intrigues of the French court, and he hoped the noble Viscount would favour the House with a distinct declaration that her Majesty's Government had no share whatever in recommending the appointment.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that he certainly could give the answer which the noble Marquess seemed to anticipate and expect, namely, that her Majesty's Government had taken no share whatsoever in the appointment.

YEOMANRY.
The Earl of Winchilsea rosepursuant to notice to move for copies of any correspondence which had taken place between the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Lord-lieutenant of the county of Hertford, relative to the reduction of the yeomanry corps in that county. He would trespass but a very few moments on the attention of the House in putting them in possession of the motives which induced him to move for a return of that correspondence. In looking at the printed returns on the table he

945
found that the reduction of the yeomanry corps in England and Scotland had been characterised by one uniform rule, which was this—that in those counties in which separate troops existed these troops had been reduced; and the only exception was afforded in the case of the county of Hertford. He had been led to understand that, in the first communication to the Lord-lieutenant of that county it had been intimated that a separate troop was to be disbanded; but subsequently, on account of something which had passed between the Lord-lieutenant and the Government, the reduction of that corps was abandoned, and two regiments in another part of the county were then reduced. Now, he expected to find in the correspondence some satisfactory statement or ground upon which that first order was cancelled, and whether there was any ground for the opinion very generally established in the county that the separate troop had been continued on account of feelings of a party character, for he was bound to state, that this troop was commanded by a constant and strenuous supporter of her Majesty's Government. He had another object in moving for these returns, because he expected that it might place upon some intelligible principle, the conduct of the Government, and the motives by which they had been actuated in recommending her Majesty to reduce that highly constitutional and useful force. It had been stated, by the noble Viscount, and his colleagues elsewhere, that one ground for the reduction was that of economy. Now that was likely to be a very popular reason, especially at a time when, as he believed, they had not a stiver at their command—but that would not avail them in this case, for it was necessary for him to state, that the single troops were not a twentieth part of the expense of the regiments, with which all the expenses of the staff were connected. In looking at the papers, he found, that in the county of Hants, there were eight separate troops, fifty-four men a troop, whereas a regiment had been retained in which there were 129 men to a troop. He found, further, that a regiment had been retained, which could have been spared better than any one of the single troops; for it was situated between four military stations, Portsmouth, Windsor, Winchester, and Hounslow. In Somersetshire, a body of yeomanry had been retained, exceeding 1,000 in number, larger than that of almost any other county
946
except Yorkshire; and he had learnt that the two gentlemen commanding those two very strong regiments, were strenuous supporters of the Government. In Surrey, he found, that the Government had thought proper to reduce the corps of a gentleman, a highly-distinguished officer in her Majesty's service, and they had kept three troops confined to one district of the country. With regard to Berkshire, he begged to state that, on behalf of a gentleman who was his (the Earl of Winchilsea's) personal friend, that he had been much hurt at the observations which had been made by a noble Lord in another place; and, for himself, he would say, that whatever animadversions the noble Lord might be pleased to pass upon his conduct, he should be perfectly prepared to meet any odium which could be thrown upon him. He was perfectly prepared to stand upon that letter which he had written, and he did contend, that if this Government intended to keep up that force, their conduct had been calculated to give great offence. So far from agreeing in the observations of the noble Lord, he firmly believed, that, in a civil point of view, in case of any local disturbance, the yeomanry was a most useful, lenient, and effective force. In such cases, they were assembled on the spot, and it frequently happened that in consequence of many of the corps being known to the leaders, as well as to the misled peasantry, great mischief was prevented—loss of life as well as property. Then, again, the moral influence arising from the characters of members of these corps, was highly beneficial, for he had heard of instances in which words dropped from one of the yeomanry corps, had prevented the destruction of property, and even the effusion of blood. Upon these grounds, and for these reasons, he had thought proper to move for the returns which he had mentioned.
Viscount Melbournehad no objection to the production of the papers. He believed that the facts of the case would be stated in those papers; but what principle or motives might there be given, he did not know; nor was he at all aware how far the general principle upon which the Government had proceeded might be explained; but if the noble Lord expected, that that would be fully discussed, he believed he would be considerably disappointed. The facts stated by the noble Earl with respect to the county of Hertford, were undoubtedly true; in the first instance, the Government had directed the separate corps

947
to be reduced; and had subsequently thought proper to retain it upon grounds which, if he were to state them, might draw upon him, as it had upon his noble Friend, the censure of noble Lords, for insulting those gentlemen who might command the troops in question. It was not a particularly gracious thing to particularize the comparative merits of different troops; but he would say, that one ground of the determination of the Government in this particular case, proceeded upon representations as to the state of that part of the county in which that single troop was situated, and accordingly they had thought proper to effect the reduction in the other troops of the county. Could anything be more proper, or more conducive to the peace of the county? And if, in other parts of the county, similar representations had been made with respect to the service of the troops, he had no doubt that his noble Friend would have paid the same attention to them. But the noble Earl opposite said that this was done for party purposes—that it was all done to favour political friends. If that were the case, the Government were very unlucky—very unfortunate; for they had been very generally taxed with a fault of a contrary description: they had been much complained of for reducing, in many cases, troops which were commanded by persons—(he did not mean to charge them with acting from any political motives)—but persons who were supposed to follow the Administration. He did not expect the noble Lord would have entered upon a consideration of the dislocation of all the yeomanry corps throughout the country, and he was consequently not prepared to meet him. But the noble Earl had not gone at all into the case of a county with which he was intimately connected—the county of Northampton; and there, at least, he supposed the reduction had not fallen on troops which were commanded by officers of his political opinions. If he had been aware that it was necessary to make himself master of the subject for the present occasion, he would have been prepared to show good reasons for the reduction of each particular troop. It had been remarked, that what his noble Friend had said in the House of Commons was extremely offensive and insulting; but if the opinion of the noble Secretary of State, that this force was not, in all cases, suitable to the suppression of civil discord, was to be considered in that light, how could there be any free dis-
948
cussion? Or how could any one venture to express an opinion on any subject? Could they be told, that the mere expression of an opinion, which might be erroneous, was an insult to those gentlemen throughout the country, and to those persons whose care it was to provide for the maintenance of the public tranquillity, as to justify them in acting in the manner in which they had acted? The sensibility of those persons was perfectly absurd. It was the right of every Minister of the Crown, or Member of Parliament, to pronounce such an opinion—to declare the reasons upon which it was founded—and why he acted upon it. He had no objection to the introduction of the papers; and if the noble Earl should wish to have the question brought forward, he should have no objection to inquire into, and investigate the facts, and to defend more at length, and in detail, the course adopted by the Government.
The Earl of Malmesburythought it was incumbent upon Government, before reducing the yeomanry corps, at least to have consulted the lords-lieutenant of counties on the subject. In that part of the country with which he was more immediately connected the reduction had been particularly inopportune, and might be attended with considerable inconvenience. He regarded the yeomanry as a peculiarly constitutional force, eminently calculated in most cases to repress disturbances; but when he recollected that there were no cavalry or infantry barrack, and no yeomanry force between Dorchester and Portsmouth, a part of the country which unfortunately had not been altogether free from outrage, there was not only ground of complaint, but a heavy responsibility rested on those who had disbanded the yeomanry. The determination of Government to withdraw the yeomanry from that part of the country was particularly unfortunate at the present moment, when the Dorchester labourers had just returned, and he hoped it was not yet too late to beg the noble Viscount, who, he thought, did not altogether agree with his noble Colleague in another place on this subject,—he hoped it was not yet too late to induce the noble Viscount to reconsider the matter.
Lord Portmansaid, that the Dorchester labourers had been already paraded through their own part of the country, and with quite as little notice as in London, probably because they were better known. He must say, that he agreed very much with

949
the noble Earl (Earl of Winchilsea) as to the extreme impolicy of the mode adopted for the reduction of the yeomanry. He certainly thought that the measure had been taken not in the most cautious or the most advisable manner. He thought that the measure required something like careful inquiry, and he deeply regretted that it had taken place. He could never forget the services rendered by the yeomanry in 1830 in the suppression of disturbance and riot. The noble Earl who moved for this return stated that in Somersetshire a regiment had been retained on account of the politics of its commander. Now, he could inform the noble Earl that a most active, and zealous, and powerful supporter of the Government in that county was the representative of the western division, and the troop which this gentleman commanded had been disbanded, whereas the regiment that had been retained was commanded by Colonel Tynte, who was no longer a Member of Parliament. There was one point to which he was anxious to call the attention of their Lordships, he meant the acceptance of volunteer yeomanry without pay. He doubted very much, in a constitutional view of the subject, whether it was right to have any force in this country which was not under the full control of Government, by receiving its pay. He happened to know that the services of a troop in Somersetshire had been accepted, which had been recommended by a Gentleman of opposite politics, and it therefore did not arise from party feeling. He thought that great care and discretion was required in accepting the volunteer services of any.
Lord Sondessaid, that as his conduct had been adverted to, in consequence of a letter which he had written on this subject, he begged to assure the noble Viscount and the Government that it was not his intention in writing that letter to attempt in any way to insult them. He had done all he could to render the yeomanry of the county with which he was connected as efficient as possible, but amongst the supporters of the Government he had found so many obstacles thrown in his way that he had come to the conclusion that it was useless for him to go on. He had been accused of issuing political manifestoes to armed bodies; and he, therefore, had been judged unfit any longer to command them. He had no intention of carrying arms or commanding armed bodies, unless her Majesty should call on him to do it; but he might appeal to the Lord Lieuten-
950
ant of the county of Norfolk whether he would be unwilling to trust him with such a command.
Lord Wharncliffecould not understand if, as had been said by the noble Secretary for the Home Department in the House of Commons, they were not proper troops for quelling disturbance, why they were maintained at all; but the Government did not know the use or advantage of the yeomanry corps. He had known instances in which, if there had been only the regular troops, riots, especially in manufacturing towns, would have proceeded to a very alarming extent. In Sheffield, on one occasion, the soldiers had been called out, and had fired upon the people, many of whom were killed; but if the yeomanry had not been able to protect them the most disastrous consequences must have ensued, and many more persons have been killed. The yeomanry were further said to be an improper body, because they were generally known to those against whom they had to act; but if that were the case what became of the old constitutional bodies of posse commitatus and special constables and magistrates? It had astonished him to hear that the Home Secretary of State should have taken the opportunity of stating in the House of Commons, first, that this was not a proper force to employ on occasions of civil disturbances; and next, to insinuate that their continuance would only be temporary, until another force could be found.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that after the many instances the House had had of inconvenience arising from the practice of discussing, even under disguise, the proceedings of another place, the noble Baron opposite, throwing away that disguise, and speaking distinctly of the House of Commons, had produced the strongest instance of that inconvenience, inasmuch as he had referred to the proceedings of that place in a way the most unsatisfactory: for the noble Baron stated that which was perfectly absurd, if the expression had been used to which the noble Baron, if he referred at all, should have referred with considerable accuracy. He rose, therefore, for the purpose of expressing his decided belief that the terms put into the mouth of his noble Friend were not, and could not be, the terms which he had employed; for these terms neither expressed his opinions or those of his colleagues, for his noble Friend was made to say this—"that it was inexpedient

951
for a Government professing economy to keep up a force which they did not think it expedient to employ." It was not unlikely that his noble Friend might point out particular instances of service in which he might not think this force appropriate; and although he was fully prepared to bear testimony to the general utility of the force in the county of which he was Lord Lieutenant still he could subscribe to that opinion.
The Earl of Harewood boretestimony to the efficiency of the yeomanry. He must say, that the impression produced on his mind was, that the yeomanry were to be summarily dealt with.
The Duke of Clevelandsaid, that at Manchester there was more blood shed by the yeomanry, than there would have been by the regular troops, or by the militia. He protested against the yeomanry cavalry being considered the most constitutional force that could be employed. He preferred the employment of the militia.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that although many noble Lords doubted that the yeomanry were the most eligible force for putting down disturbances, yet he was inclined to a contrary opinion. The first consideration was, in every case to put down any disturbance that might arise with as little delay as circumstances permitted. He should always be for putting down disturbance with the least possible loss of life. He therefore thought, that whatever force partook most of a preventive character must be considered the most eligible. He believed, that the yeomanry best answered to that description, and it was to be remembered, that when troops were present, or supposed to be near the spot, it rarely happened that disturbances arose. This he considered to be a strong argument in favour of the employment of the yeomanry. He further thought, that if troops were to be called, cavalry were to be preferred to infantry.
The Earl of Winchilseareplied, he should not then go into the question of the loss of life, but limit himself to this observation, that if the case of Bristol were compared with others, it would be found a comparison greatly in favour of the yeomanry.
Motion agreed to.