Sitting of 12 February 1840

MINUTES
Bill. Read a second time:—Vagrants Removal.
Petitions presented. By Sir James Graham, Sir R. H. Inglis, Sir T. Freemantle, General Lygon, Mr. Planta, and Sir E. Wilmot, from a number of places, for Church Extension.—By Sir E. Knatchbull, and Mr. Packe, from Derby, and other places, against any further Grant to Maynooth College.—By Messrs. Oswald, Eliot, Villiers, and Sir James Graham, from a number of places, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. D'Israeli, from Maidstone, for the Release of the Sheriffs By Sir G. Strickland, Mr. Ewart, and Mr. Ward, for the Release of John Thorogood, and for the Abolition of Church Rates.—By Mr. Bannerman, from Aberdeen, against the Present system of Church Patronage.—By Sir James Graham, and Captain Gordon, from several places in Scotland, against the Intrusion of Ministers into Parishes without the consent of the Householders.—By Mr. Litton, from Millers in Ireland, against the Introduction of Foreign Flour into that Country.—By Sir James Graham, from Dalston, near Carlisle, for the Repeal of the Duty on Raw Cotton.

LITHOGRAPHED PETITIONS.
The Speakerwished to call the attention of the House to the fact, that a petition which had been presented was lithographed. Now it was against the orders of the House, that any printed petitions should be presented, and he wished to draw the attention of the House to this circumstance, as he understood, that of late, several lithographed petitions had been presented.
Mr. Freshfieldsaid, the committee on petitions would be glad to receive some authority from the House, as to the manner in which they were to deal with these petitions. They were frequently referred to the committee, and they could not make any objections to them there, unless the House would be pleased to give some directions on the subject. He would suggest, that the House should direct the committee not to report on lithographed petitions.
The Speakerthought it would be better, that it should be henceforth distinctly understood, that the House would con-

159
sider lithographed petitions to be printed petitions.

TITHE COMMUTATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Sir E. Knatchbull Sir E. Knatchbull moved the second reading of the Tithe Commutation Acts Amendment Bill. In this Bill, there were two or three claims which might be modified in the committee. He meant especially those relating to hops and market grounds. He wished to do everything to forward the intentions which the Legislature had in passing the Tithes Commutation Act. And one of his principal objects in the present measure was to prevent tithe from being taken in kind, when the rent charge was fixed, that was to say, between the apportionment and the commutation.
Mr. Divettwas decidedly opposed to the Bill. It would be impossible to dovetail an Act of seventy-four distinct clauses into the several different Acts which had been passed upon this subject, without producing the greatest doubt and confusion. The first Tithe Act was the 6th William 4th, and then there was the Act of the 1st Victoria, which had been followed by others on the same subject. The hon. Baronet said, that his object was to prevent the taking of tithe in kind, between the apportionment and the commutation. Now that might be a very good object, but it would not be attained under the proposed Bill, without great expense and inconvenience, and it would materially stand in the way of the justice of the apportionment. He found, that the expenses of the present Tithe Commission amounted to 60,000 l. a year, and he believed, that the present measure would tend considerably to increase that. The right hon. Baronet, in introducing his Bill, had talked of the inconveniences of the present system, and of the great difficulty of collecting tithes. He believed, however, that those difficulties existed only in a very few instances, and that there was a general disposition in the country to enter into voluntary agreements on subjects of the kind. The Tithe Commissioners said they had reason to express their satisfaction at the working of the Bill, and there was therefore no reason to come to the House for its alteration when appeals were of rare occurence, and acquiescence was the general rule. If that was the opinion of the Tithe Commissioners, why allow a Bill of
160
this sort to pass, which would materially alter the Act, and make that which was already extremely difficult to understand, a great deal more difficult. He contended, it was not sufficient for any Member to say the Tithe Commissioners concurred in the Bill. If this were the case, the Bill ought to be introduced under their auspices, and they should have taken upon themselves the responsibility of any changes they thought might be required. One clause only in their report could justify this supposition, though in another place they said, "the hardship of collecting tithe in kind had been strongly pressed upon them." He had no doubt of it; but the time of the House should not be taken up in legislating on individual cases of grievance. He contended, that the intention of the framers of the Bill had been fully carried out, and that there was no occasion for the House again interfering. And having stated what were his objections to the Bill, and knowing that vast alterations must be made in committee, he thought it had better be stopped at the second reading, than allowed to go into Committee, where it would probably pass in a state that would be prejudicial to the interests it affected. He therefore, moved, that the Bill be read that day six months.
Mr. Fox Maulecould assure his hon. Friend, that this Bill had been introduced with the full concurrence of the Tithe Commissioners. When this measure was first proposed to the House, he had referred to the Tithe Commissioners on the subject, and he had this day gone through the Bill with one of those gentlemen, who had told him, speaking not only for himself, but his colleagues—when he said, that the Bill had their entire concurrence, as calculated to relieve them from a great portion of their labours, and to make the operation of the Act much less expensive. The object of this, was to effect a commutation of tithes into a rent-charge, as speedily as possible. It was quite true, that in most cases this had been done on the voluntary principle, but still there were many cases in which the old custom of taking tithes in kind still remained; and unless some measure were taken to remedy this inconvenience, the power conferred by this custom might be exercised most vexatiously. It was quite true, that the clause had been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and he

161
did not think, that this measure could have come more effectually before the House if the Tithe Commissioners brought it forward on their own authority. On the contrary, the Tithe Commissioners had said, that they would take advantage of this Bill to introduce certain necessary amendments. His hon. Friend had complained of the great number of amended Bills on this subject; it would be a matter of surprise if such had not been the case, because it would be a wonder if in a great measure, such as that of the Tithe Commutation, they should have been enabled to have introduced a perfect Bill at once. Reserving, therefore, to himself the right of entering into a full explanation of this Bill, clause by clause, in committee, he should vote for its second reading.
Mr. Goulburndoubted if this bill would effect what the hon. Gentleman expected. It appeared to him that the clauses in question would affect merely a small number of cases. By the proposed arrangement, when a parish made an agreement substituting a rent charge for tithes, any landholder might render himself security for the payment of the charge on the whole parish. If the landlord were the proprietor of the whole parish, it might be worth his while to do so, but if he were not, it was improbable that he would take the chance of recovering the amount from the other landholders. The delay now existing in carrying forward the operation of the act, arose between the agreement and the apportionment, and the apportionment was delayed from petty squabbles among the landholder as to little expenses, and the only way in which these squabbles could be terminated, was by the pressure upon the parties of the inconveniences of the present system. He much feared little good would result from giving facilities for further delay. There were other clauses of great importance, which he had not had time fully to consider—one giving power to the Commissioners to fix boundaries. On the whole, if the amendment were pressed, he feared he must vote for it; but he would rather not vote against the bill till some future stage.
Sir R. Inglisdeprecated proceeding with the second reading of the bill, considering that it had only been printed six days. He was of opinion that time ought to be allowed for considering the bill, but
162
as that was refused, he should vote, if called upon, with the hon. Member for Exeter, that the bill should be read a second time that day six months.
Sir Edward Sugdenobjected to the powers that had been added to the bill by the Tithe Commissioners. What he would therefore propose was, that the bill should be referred to a committee upstairs, where the whole subject could be considered with more deliberation than in that House. If that were agreed to, probably the hon Member for Exeter would withdraw his motion.
Sir E. Knatchbullwas quite ready to accede to the proposition of a Select Committee. He hoped the hon. Member for Exeter would allow the bill to be read a second time, in order that it might be sent to a Committee up-stairs.
Mr. Divettwould persevere in his amendment.
The House divided on the original question:—Ayes 77; Noes 21: Majority 56.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hughes, W. B.

Baines, E.

Johnstone, H.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Kirk, P.

Barnard, E. G.

Litton, E.

Blackburne, I.

Lockhart, A. M.

Blake, M. J.

Lowther, J. H.

Bodkin, J. J.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Boldero, H. G.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T.B.

Bolling, W.

Mackenzie, T.

Bowes, J.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Broadley, H.

Miles, W.

Clerk, Sir G.

O'Brien, W. S.

Cochrane, Sir T. J.

Packe, C. W.

Darby, G.

Pakington, J. S.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Palmer, G.

Egerton, W. T.

Parker, R. T.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Perceval, Colonel

Fort, J.

Pigot, D. R.

Gillon, W. D.

Polhill, F.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Pringle, A.

Gore, O. J. R.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Round, J.

Grant, hon. Colonel

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Grant, hon. F. W.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Greene, T.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Sheppard, T.

Grimsditch, T.

Steuart, R.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Style, Sir C.

Hardinge,rt.hn.Sir H.

Sugden, rt. hn. Sir E.

Hastie, A.

Sutton.hn.J.H.T.M.

Heneage, G. W.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Verney, Sir H.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R.H.

Hodgson, R.

Waddington, H. S.

Holmes, W.

Walker, R.

Hope, hon. C.

White, A.

Hope, G. W.

Williams, W. A.

163

TELLERS.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Knatchbull, rt. hon.

Winnington, H. J.

Sir E.

Young, Sir W.

Maule, hon. F.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, Major

Lushington, C.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

M'Leod, R.

Bagge, W.

Martin, J.

Bellew, R. M.

Pechell, Captain

Bewes, T.

Salwey, Colonel

Blair, J.

Thornley, T.

Brotherton, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Dennistoun, J.

Warburton, H.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Yates, J. A.

Ewart, W.

TELLERS.

Hector, C. J.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Divelt, E.

Bill read a second time.

SPIRIT LICENCES (SCOTLAND).
Mr. Gillon Mr. Gillon moved the second reading of the Spirit Licences (Scotland) Bill. The object of it was to take out of the hands of magistrates the power of granting licences, and to transfer that power to the Excise.
Mr. Pringleopposed the second reading of the bill. It would do away with certificates of character, which were now required once a-year; and no one he thought should wish to do away with that necessity. He moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. R. Steuartsaid, that the bill did not interfere unjustly with the power of magistrates, but went merely to alleviate some of the inconveniences arising to persons in the spirit trade in Scotland. The principle of the bill was, that a man whose character was unimpeached, and against whom no complaint had been made to the magistrates, should not be compelled to travel a considerable distance to a county town to have his certificate renewed from the Excise Office. There was no desire on the part of those who introduced the bill, to lessen the power of the magistrates in withholding licences from persons whose characters were not unobjectionable. The object was merely to relieve the honest and upright dealer from unnecessary and irksome trouble.
Sir George Clerkobjected to the bill, because it interfered with the assimilation of the law of Scotland with the law in England upon the same subject. The law in both countries with respect to the renewal of licences by spirit-dealers was the same, and the bill in question interfered to
164
set aside that equality. He would recommend that no sums for spirits under 20 s. should be recoverable by action in Scotland, which would have a powerful influence upon the morals of the people, because it would prevent persons engaged in the sale of spirits from giving credit. He would recommend the hon. Member for Falkirk to leave the matter in the hands of the Government; but to the bill, in its present state, he would give his opposition, as interfering with the wholesome policy of the control of the magistrates.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the advocates in the House for magisterial control, would admit, that that control ought to be exercised with the least inconvenience to the individuals over whom that control was to be exercised. The Government had had memorials, and numerous complaints had been made by persons who had experienced the inconvenience arising from the present system of licensing in Scotland. The object of the bill, in its present form, was, not to deprive the magistrates of any power they then possessed; and for that reason, and for the well-grounded reasons assigned by those who had made complaints to the Government, he would vote for the second reading of the bill. His object was, that persons of fair character engaged in the spirit trade should not, by any technical objection, be deprived of their licence, or be subject to the inconvenience of having their stock-in-trade lying on their hands, by reason of not applying upon a particular day to the bench for a certificate.
Mr. Herrieswould oppose the bill, as he believed, that it would afford satisfaction neither to the magistrates, nor to the individuals for whose benefit it was said to be introduced.
The House divided on the original motion:—Ayes 42; Noes 60: Majority 18.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Aglionby, Major

Fort, J.

Baines, E.

Hastie, A.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Howard, P. H.

Barnard, E. G.

Lushington, S.

Blake, M. J.

Macaulay, rt.hn.T.B.

Bowes, J.

Macleod, R.

Bulwer, Sir L.

Maule, F.

Corbally, M. E.

Miles, W.

Craig, W. G.

Morpeth, Viscount

Dennistoun, J.

Morris, D.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

O'Brien, W. S.

165

Pechell, Captain

Wallace, R.

Pigot, D. R.

Warburton, H.

Pryme, G.

White, A.

Rutherfurd, A.

Williams, W.

Salwey, Colonel

Winnington, Sir T.E.

Smith, J. A.

Wyse, T.

Style, Sir C.

Yates, J. A.

Thornley, T.

TELLERS.

Turner, E.

Steuart, R.

Vigors, N. A.

Gillon, Mr.

List of the NOES.

Arbuthnolt, hon. H.

Hughes, W. B.

Blackstone, W. S.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Blair, J.

Johnstone, H.

Boldero, H. G.

Kirk, P.

Bolling, W.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Bramston, T. W.

Knox, hon. T.

Broadley, H.

Lowther, J. H.

Brotherton, J.

Mackenzie, T.

Clerk, Sir G.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Cochrane, Sir T. J.

Packe, C. W.

Corry, hon. H.

Pakington, J. S.

Darby, G.

Palmer, G.

Douglas, Sir C.

Parker, R. T.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Polhill, F.

Eaton, R.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Fector, J. M.

Round, J.

Filmer, Sir E.

Rushout, G.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Sharpe, General

Gore, O. J. R.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Sheppard, T.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Somerset, Lord G.

Grant, hon. Colonel

Sugden, rt. hon. Sir E.

Grant, F. W.

Sutton, hon. J. H. T.

Grimsditch, T.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Hector, C. J.

Verner, Colonel

Heneage, G. W.

Waddington, H. S.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Young, J.

Herries, rt. hn. J. C.

Young, Sir W.

Hodgson, R.

Holmes, W.

TELLERS.

Hope, hon. C.

Pringle, T.

Hope, G. W.

Lockhart, W.

Bill put off for six months.

TRANSFER OF AIDS.
On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the House resolved itself into Committee on the Transfer of Aids.
Mr. Herrieswould avail himself of that opportunity of making some observations suggested by the account of ways and means remaining of 1839, to be transferred by this bill to the service of 1840, in connexion with an assertion made some nights ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the unfunded debt was reduced to 20,000,000 l. It appeared by the account that 1,000,000 l. of Exchequer-bills remained to be issued: the right hon. Gentleman had stated that 20,000,000 l. were actually outstanding: when the issue was completed, the whole amount would, there-
166
fore, be 21,000,000 l. And he thought this must really be the true amount of the unfunded debt, because he found on looking back to the "accounts, that the reductions which had been effected from the amount of 29,000,000 l. at which it stood two years ago, were 4,000,000 l. by transfer to savings banks, and 4,000,000 l. by funding: in all 8,000,000 l., leaving therefore 21,000,000 l, as the now unprovided-for unfunded-debt, and not as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated 20,000,000 l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerstated, that the first question of the right hon. Gentleman was, whether it was proposed to issue the one million of Exchequer bills which was granted last year? His answer to this question was in the affirmative. Again, with respect to the second question, which referred to the four millions in addition which had been spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman, he could only reply that it never was in the contemplation of the Government to issue, under the act of last year, any amount of Exchequer bills beyond the one million to which he had just alluded, and which they were authorised by Parliament to issue. The right hon. Gentleman had, therefore, conjectured right when he assumed that the Government did not intend to do so. With respect to the statement of the amount of Exchequer bills, he had given it accurately on the former occasion—namely, that on the 5th of January, 1839, it was 29,957,000 l., and on the 8th of June, this year, the amount was 20,180.000 l.; but he did not include in this statement the one million to be issued. This added will increase the statement of the unfunded debt from 20,000,000 l. to 21,000,000 l.
Mr. Herriesdesired it to be clearly-understood, that the whole amount of 25,000,000 l. of Exchequer bills voted last year in ways and means ought not now to be issued. The sum of 4,000,000 l. of the former bills which they were granted to discharge having been funded, the actual issue must be confined to 21,000,000 l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerstated the grounds on a former night, on which the House was called upon to make the vote which it did; and it might have the appearance of overlapping to a certain extent. He was not aware of any serious inconvenience that might occur from it. He would only add that, under the circumstances, it was impossible to take any other course.
Mr. Herriesobserved, that if the right

167
hon. Gentleman looked back to the accounts of the unfunded debt on former occasions, he would find that care was taken in this respect when Exchequer bills had been funded to make a corresponding deduction from the vote of new bills in the committee of ways and means. If the right hon. Gentleman looked to former transactions, he would readily understand what he adverted to. This, however, was not a mere objection of form, although it now might be easily rectified, but still it was desirable that there should not be a recurrence of it. If they allowed the statement to continue to appear as it did, the account of the last year would not be correctly balanced, and would hardly be intelligible. It was the usual practice to make the vote in ways and means and in supply to correspond within a comparatively small sum—such as 100,000 l. by which the former exceeded the latter: but in the present case, the apparent difference of 4,000,000 l. owing to the irregular mode of conducting the finance business of the last year, was inexcusable.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the appearance on the face of the amount might be such as the right hon. Gentleman bad described, but it would be set perfectly right in the general accounts, and no inconvenience could result from it. There were some overdue Exchequer bills not paid, and there were some sums required under the appropriation act. For his own part, he did not see any very serious objection to this alleged discrepancy.
Mr. Goulburncontended that it was not merely an objection in form, but in substance. Here the House gave authority to the Treasury to issue 25,000,000 l. of Exchequer bills, and it turned out that only 21,000,000 l. were required.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer: It was believed that more would have been required.
Mr. Goulburn: They were wanted, then, to make up any deficiency in the revenue that might have occurred. On this ground, then, were they to issue 4,000,000 l. of Exchequer bills? Owing to circumstances such as these, they might go on increasing the amount of Exchequer bills, which they would be obliged to meet subsequently by a loan. If the revenue had proved much shorter than it did, they must then have issued the whole amount of Exchequer bills that they asked for. He thought that it was extremely
168
objectionable that, in the appropriation act they should get an amount of 25,000,000 l of Exchequer bills voted, when a much less amount would have answered the purpose. This, he repeated, he thought was an objection in substance, and not merely in form.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that no doubt the amount of Exchequer bills voted in committee of ways and means was greater than was ever supposed was required, but the reduction might not have been such as had really occurred.
Mr. Goulburnentertained great objections to the proceeding, and must repeat his dissent from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Several clauses of the bill agreed to.
The House resumed.