Sitting of 3 July 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Canal Police; Episcopal Church (Scotland).—Read a third time:—Isle of Man; Entailed Estates (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. Goulburn, from the Dean and Chapter of Ely, to be exempted from the provisions of the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill in the same way as Christchurch, Oxford.—By Sir T. Acland, from the Archdeacon and Clergy of Barnstaple, and Winchester, against the Bill.

SPANISH TARIFF.
Mr. Wallacewished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, whether any account of the new Tariff which had been reported to have been issued by the Spanish Government, and which was said to be of a nature most injurious to our manufacturing interests, had reached the Government?
Mr. Laboucheresaid, there had been received at the Board of Trade, within the last very few days, a report from a commission that had been appointed by the Spanish Government for investigating the character of the existing tariff, but from its having been so recently received, he was unable to give the full particulars of
420
it to the House. It was true, that if the recommendation of that commission were carried into effect, it would be most hostile to our commerce; but it had not yet been adopted, and he hoped the Spanish Government would not proceed to act on it. If, however, they did so, it would then be for her Majesty's Government to consider what steps should be taken on the subject.
Subject dropped.

ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES AND REVENUES.
House in Committee on the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill.
On Clause 7,
Lord J. Russell moved to add the word "Ely," so as to include that amongst the cathedrals of which two canonries were to be suppressed.
Mr. Goulburnobjected to the amendment. He could perceive no great difference between the circumstances of Christ Church and those of the cathedral of Ely, and he, therefore, thought, that, as the noble Lord proposed by the bill to give eight prebendal stalls to Christ Church, he had a right to claim that the same number should be given to Ely. If this bill passed it would deprive the canons of Ely of the means they now had for instructing youth, because they would be unable to absent themselves for a sufficient length of time to attend to their duties in the University. The question might naturally be asked, what was the connection between the University of Cambridge and the cathedral of Ely? His answer was, that that connexion was very close, and had existed very long—a bishop of Ely having founded two of the colleges, Jesus and Peters, and made them partakers to a large extent in his patronage by conferring prebends on the masters of the university, over which he presided. From the earliest times there had been only three deans of Ely, who were not masters in the University of Cambridge. The cathedral of Ely had rendered great assistance to the university by providing in this way for professors, and therefore he must entreat the noble Lord to take the case of this cathedral into his consideration, and to place it on the same footing as Christ Church. There was one other point to which he must advert, and that was the inadequate emoluments of the Norrisian professor of divinity. Now, this was a most important affair, because

421
the certificate of the party holding it was necessary before any one could enter into holy orders. The gentleman who held this office was bound to give fifty lectures on the important subject of divinity gratis every year, and what did the Committee think was the salary attached to the situation? Why, it was only 94 l. 10 s., and, consequently, if it were separated from the cathedral it would be absurd to suppose that any gentleman who possessed either the talents or acquirements essential to the proper discharge of the duties could be got to undertake them. He next came to the regius professor of Hebrew. A stipend of 40 l. a year was assigned to him by Henry 8th, but as this amount was subject to certain deductions, the salary, in fact, was only 38 l, 10 s. It was time that Parliament voted an additional 100 l. a year; but was this, he asked, sufficient remuneration for a distinguished scholar in a language which, though generally so uninviting, was most important, to constitute the character of a good divine? The Greek professor was on the same footing as the professor of Hebrew, but he thought he had stated enough to show that the claims of Ely were quite as strong as those of Christ Church.
Lord John Russellsaid: I certainly never heard of this proposition until the former requisition of the University of Cambridge had been complied with. We have consented that two of the canonries of Ely shall be allowed to hold professorships, and I can only say, that iris somewhat unreasonable that the first consequence of our acquiescence should be a further demand. The case of Christ Church was peculiar, and it had been shown that it had been endowed for a particular purpose, and had a right to be placed on the same footing as Trinity College, Cambridge, as both were founded for the benefit of learning. This is the reason why we have given eight prebends to Christ Church. There is no analogy, therefore, between Christ Church and Ely; but still we propose to give to Ely six prebends, two canonries, and four professorships. Seeing the considerable endowments which the University of Cambridge possesses, we think them amply sufficient for the objects of that university; but if any thing could be done to benefit the university I should be glad to consider the matter with a view to that end. However, my impression at present is, that
422
the right hon. Gentleman is pushing his demands too far.
Sir R. Inglisthought, that, on public principles, his right hon. Friend had a right to make the demand which he had advanced. The point to be considered was, not whether, because a small concession had been made, further demands were not to be pressed, but it was in reality whether his right hon. Friend had not established a case to justify that which he now claimed. He could only say that his right hon. Friend should have his support.
Viscount Dungannoncontended, that a strong case for the cathedral of Ely had been made out; and, for his own part, he could not see how these funds could be better applied than in advancing the cause of learning.
The Committee divided on the question that "Ely" be inserted. Ayes 30; Noes 18—Majority 12.

List of the AYES.

Barnard, E. G.

Morpeth, Viscount

Bewes, T.

Parker, J.

Bowes, J.

Rundle, J.

Briscoe, J. I.

Russell, Lord J.

Brotherton, J.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Busfeild, W.

Stansfield, W. R.

Clay, W.

Stewart, J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Stuart, W. V.

Ellis, W.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Finch, F.

Verney, Sir H.

Gordon, R.

Vigors, N. A.

Hawkins, J. H.

Williams, W. A.

Hector, C. J.

Wyse, T.

Kemble, H.

Lambton, H.

TELLERS.

Lister, E. C.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Mildmay, P. St. John

Dalmeny, Lord

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Lincoln, Earl of

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Mackenzie, T.

Compton, H. C.

Monypenny, T. G.

Estcourt, T.

Pemberton, T.

Gladstone, W. E.

Pusey, P.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Sugden, rt. hon. Sir E.

Jackson, Sergeant

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Knatchbull, rt. hon. Sir E.

TELLERS.

Dungannon, Viscount

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Vernon, G. H.

On the clause being again put,
Mr. Williams Wynnexpressed a wish that additional services should be performed in the several cathedrals of the kingdom. Nothing would grieve him more than to behold those magnificent edifices erected by the piety of our forefathers, desecrated from the high and holy purposes to which they were originally

423
dedicated, and converted into mere places of exhibition of sculpture and works of art. On the other hand, he had no desire to see those noble buildings crowded with curtained and carpetted pews. Still he would suggest that they might be rendered conducive in the highest degree to the purposes of moral and religious instruction among the people. Why should there not be additional services performed, for instance, in Westminster Abbey? Why should not the practice that prevailed almost throughout the continent be adopted here, and a moveable and moveable seats be placed in the aisles of the cathedrals where prayers could be read and sermons preached, as well as in the choir? His belief was, that if there were three services in Westminster Abbey on the Sunday, two in the morning and one in the evening, they would be most fully attended. Of course for this additional service some increase of endowment should be reserved. It was impossible to expect the clergy would perform such additional duties, without some additional compensation. He wished to press this upon the attention of the noble Lord.
Sir R. Inglishoped the observations of his right hon. Friend would meet with the noble Lord's attention. To those who were of opinion that an increased Chinch accommodation was required, the suggestion of his right hon. Friend would appear to be one very obvious, and a very just mode of affording that increase. It was well known that in former times prayers were said and sermons preached in the aisles of the cathedrals. He, however, differed from his right hon. Friend in one particular. There might be moveable pews in the cathedrals in the north of France, but he could speak from his own knowledge, that in the south of France the pews in the cathedrals were as fixed and immoveable as they were in England.
Mr. Briscoewas not aware how far her Majesty's Government possessed the means of carrying into effect the suggestion offered by the right hon. Gentleman; but he felt very strongly that Westminster Abbey might be most usefully and beneficially applied to affording religious instruction to the people. At present free access to the Abbey was not afforded to the public; many persons were constantly refused admittance during the hours of divine service.
Sir Edward Knatchbullexpressed the
424
great satisfaction he felt on hearing the observations made by his right hon. Friend. It was essentially necessary, not only that the services should be repeated in the cathedrals, but that there should be double services in all the parishes of the kingdom where the population exceeded a certain amount. When the Pluralities Bill went up from this House last Session, it contained a clause to that effect; but in the House of Lords the clause was altered, and made the double service depend upon the will of the bishop of the diocese. Whether that power had been satisfactorily exercised by the bishops he knew not, but he thought it was important to urge the necessity of double service being performed in all populous parishes.
Lord John Russellagreed in very many of the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montgomeryshire; but when the right hon. Gentleman proposed that he should make some provision in this bill for the purposes the right hon. Gentleman had suggested, certainly a doubt occurred to him whether he could state any thing to the House that would be satisfactory, or whether he could enter into any engagement upon the subject. It appeared to him to be a matter more dependent upon the ecclesiastical authorities—the dean and chapter in the first instance, and the bishop of the diocese in the second—than upon any provision that could be made by Parliament for the purpose. His own belief was, that were divine service to be performed in the aisles, and especially were sermons to be from time to time preached with power and eloquence to the people there, it might be the means of doing very great good. That was his opinion; but he could only state it as his opinion. There might be objections made to the proposal. He was not aware himself of any; still he certainly felt that he was not in a situation to give any thing like a pledge upon the subject.
Mr. Williams Wynnpaid, that at the time he had the honour of serving as one of the Members of the first Ecclesiastical Commission, he, at a meeting of the commissioners, threw out the same suggestion, and it appeared to him to have Been received with approbation; but it had not since been acted upon. He was aware that it must be a subject of arrangement, and the question to be considered was,

425
whether a certain sum might not be specifically set apart for that duty. The necessity of providing good preachers, having the requisite qualities of eloquence and a full and impressive delivery, must of course be felt. He was perfectly certain—if he might speak of such an inducement when there were far higher ones—that these magnificent buildings would attract the best and ablest preachers, as well as the largest and most respectable congregations.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 11,
The Earl of Lincoln, in the absence of his hon. colleague, Colonel Rolleston, moved "That, in the collegiate church of Southwell, the canonries, as vacancies occur, except the canonry. held by the Archdeacon of Nottingham, shall be suppressed, until only four remain and that such canons shall be Residentiaries." Almost all the collegiate churches had been converted into cathedrals; Southwell was one of the few collegiate churches that remained, but he could not see why all the canonries should be entirely suppressed.
Lord John Russellwas about to propose an amendment, directly opposite to that of the noble Lord, since he did not think it necessary with respect to Southwell to keep up any establishment. Its position was altogether anomalous, having no other duties annexed than the duty of the parish of Southwell, and what he would propose was, to suppress the single canonry, which by the bill as it stood was intended to be left, and annexing the living of Southwell to the archdeaconry of Nottingham, to leave it in the same situation as any other single benefice.
Mr. Vernon Harcourtfelt great reluctance in differing from his noble Friend; looking at the sustainment of the beautiful building of the church of Southwell, but referring to the principle of the bill which he had supported, he felt bound to vote for the bill as it stood. The rule acted upon by the Archbishop of York, whilst the county of Nottingham was under his jurisdiction, was, to annex these canonries to the livings of meritorious clergymen. Yet Southwell, however respectable it might be, did not occupy the same situation as cathedrals, and there was nothing in the service which might not be performed by a single clergyman, as in any Other beautiful church, and he must
426
oppose the amendment of his noble Friend.
Sir E. Sugdenalso felt obliged to oppose the amendment of his noble Friend.
Sir R. H. Ingliswould have felt more pleasure in voting for the motion of his noble Friend, if he had gone the full length of proposing that the whole of the establishment should be left as it was. Holding, as he did, that it was the duty of the State to provide for the Church, he held that this ought to be done without depriving any portion of the Church of the funds originally intended, and by the law applied to other purposes. Looking at the way in which the Church was interwoven with the State, he thought that they would injure the hold of the Church upon the people, if they did anything to prevent persons of all classes of the community from entering into its ministration. It was most desirable that they should keep in the Church persons from every class, the highest as well as the lowest, by giving to them that distinction and those emoluments, which the piety of our ancestors had afforded for that purpose. And if his principle were correct, it applied as well to the case of Southwell as to any other.
Mr. Vernonbelieved that the hon. Baronet's observations did not apply to Southwell, for if it were desirable to keep prizes for a lottery in the church, this could not be the case with the 16 l. prizes of Southwell, where if a man put in and gained the prize he gained a loss.
Mr. Goulburndid not see why the church of Southwell should be deprived of the benefit of the one canon which the commissioners in their last report had recommended.
The Committee divided on the original motion—Ayes 54; Noes 14—Majority, 40.

List of the AYES.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Harcourt, G. G.

Blake, W. J.

Harland, W. C.

Bowes, J.

Hawkins, J. H.

Briscoe, J. I.

Hector, C, J.

Brotherton, J.

Henniker, Lord

Busfield, W.

Hinde, J.H.

Childers, J. W.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Dalmeny, Lord.

Hodges, T. L.

Evans, W.

Hodgson, R.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

James, W.

Fort, J.

Kemble, H.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Lambton, H.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Lemon, Sir C.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

427

Marshall, W.

Teignmouth, Lord.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Tollemach, F. J.

Morpeth, Viscount

Turner, E.

Muntz, G. F.

Verney, Sir H.

Nicholl, J.

Vernon, G. H.

Rice, E. R.

Vigors, N. A.

Russell, Lord J.

White, A.

Russell, Lord C.

Williams, W. A.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Wilshere, W.

Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Wyse, T.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Stewart, J.

TELLERS.

Stuart, W. V.

Clay, W.

Tancred, H. W.

Gordon, R.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Law hon. C. E.

Acland, T. D.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Bell, M.

Monypenny, T. G.

Clerk, Sir G.

Polhill, F.

Compton, H.C.

Pusey, P.

Estcourt, T.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Inglis, Sir R. H.

TELLERS.

Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.

Gladstone, W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Clause agreed to.
On Clause 13,
Mr. Aclandsaid, that many of the ecclesiastical officers would have their efficiency impaired by the great reductions in their stipends effected by this clause. His (Mr. Acland's) object would be to preserve on the old foundations certain offices in cathedrals which at present exist, with a view to append them as dignities to the rural deans, and for that purpose he should move the omission from the clause of the words "nor to any prebend, dignity, or officer, not residentiary in any cathedral church in England or Wales."
Lord J. Russellsaid, the proposal of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Acland) was inconsistent with the general scope of the bill. Its object was, that the officers of cathedrals should have certain functions and duties to perform, and that was incompatible with the present proposition. He must therefore oppose the amendment.
Mr. Gladstoneregretted the proposal of his hon. Friend had not a more favourable reception from the noble Lord, inasmuch as by the retention of the offices proposed, economical means would be afforded of rewarding with dignities meritorious clergymen.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, the stipends of the majority of the officers mentioned were so small, that they would not be any reward to those preferred to them.
428
On the grounds that the offices were originally founded on the basis of actual residence, he should feel it his duty to oppose the amendment.
Mr. Estcourtsaid, that as it seemed to him these offices might be given as dignities to the rural deans, who would be brought in constant communication with the diocesan, essentially useful offices would be created.
Sir R. H. Inglisobjected to making all the officers of the Church purely stipendiary. Many of these establishments were originally created without any fixed emoluments to the officers, but with merely a common fund from which they were to be provided with daily sustentation. He was strongly opposed to depriving the Church of those offices which were regarded as sources of dignity, and as inducements to the young and enterprising to enter its service; and if, therefore, the House should take away all those estates from which those officers derived their emoluments, they should, at least, leave it those honorary distinctions. If the amendment should not be adopted, he would propose that words to this effect should be introduced into the clause: —" That no appointment shall be made which may confer any title to any estate or emoluments, but that such appointment may be made, provided it does not confer any such title." If they deprive the Church of this internal support, they ought to leave it what on former occasions had been described as objects of such just and legitimate interests to its different members.
The Committee divided on the original question—Ayes 86; Noes 16: Majority 70.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Arcbbold, R.

Erle, W.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Euston, Earl of

Blake, W. J.

Evans, W.

Bowes, J.

Finch, F.

Briscoe, J. I.

Gordon, R.

Broadley, H.

Gore, O. W.

Brotherton, J.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Greene, T.

Burroughes, H. N.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Busfield, W.

Harland, W. C.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Hawkins, J. H.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Hector, C. J.

Clay, W.

Henniker, Lord

Clerk, Sir G.

Hinde, J. H.

Dashwood, G. H.

Hobhouse, T. B.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C.T.

Hodges, T. L.

429

Horsman, E.

Rice, E. R.

Hurt, F.

Rundle, J.

James, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Jervis, J.

Russell, Lord C.

Knight, H. G.

Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.

Lambton, H.

Salwey, Colonel

Lemon, Sir C.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Lushington, C.

Smith, J. A.

Lushington, rt. hon. S.

Smith, R.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Stuart, W. V.

Marshall, W.

Style, Sir C.

Maule, hon. F.

Teignmouth, Lord

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Morris, D.

Verney, Sir H.

Morrison, J.

Vernon, G. H.

Muntz, G. F.

Vigors, N. A.

O'Brien, C.

White, A.

Owen, Sir J.

Williams, W.

Palmerston, Viscount

Williams, W. A.

Parker, R. T.

Wilshere, W.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Wilmington, Sir T. E.

Philips, M.

Wood, G. W.

Philips, G. R.

Wyse, T.

Pigot, D. R.

TELLERS.

Pryme, G.

Parker, J.

Redington, T. N.

Tuffnell, H.

List of the NOES.

Bell, M.

Mackenzie, T.

Christopher, R. A.

Monypenny, T. G.

Compton, H. C.

Patten, J. W.

Craig, W. G.

Pusey, P.

Dungannon, Viscount

Shirley, E. J.

East, J. B.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Estcourt, T.

Gladstone, W. E.

TELLERS.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Acland, T. D.

Lincoln, Earl of

Acland, Sir T. D.

On the clause being again put,
Sir R. H. Inglisstating, that the proposition which he was about to make, was not intended to disturb the decision to which the Committee had just come, and which would not deprive the general fund of a single shilling, but would preserve the institutions themselves; since, by the previous decision of the Committee, the House had declared that the Church should not have the establishment with money, let them have the establishment without it. He moved, that with respect to the offices comprised in the amendment of his hon. Friend, no future appointment should be made which should confer a title to any estate or emolument, but that such appointments might still be made without conferring any such title.
Amendment negatived.
Clause to stand part of the bill.
On Clause 15,
Sir R. H. Inglisremarked, that this
430
was the clause by which the deanery of Exeter was to be vested in the Crown. Now, he thought, that this was not a measure which ought to be passed through the House without any discussion. The right to the deanery of Exeter had been litigated down to the present time, and it had at last been ruled by the unanimous decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, that the appointment was vested in the Cathedral church of Exeter.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that the proposal to vest the appointment in the Crown, was made by the church commissioners long before the decision pronounced in the Court of Queen's Bench. The Crown had given up by this bill patronage to the extent of 50,000 l. a year, and he thought, that the Crown was certainly entitled to the patronage of the deaneries.
The Clause agreed to.
On Clause 18,
Sir R. Inglissaid, the object of the clause was to prevent any person receiving the appointment of canon until he had been six years in priest's orders, and he proposed to introduce an amendment to the effect of excepting in the case of canonries annexed to any professorship or headship, or other office, not being an archdeaconry.
Lord J. Russellsuggested, that this point might be left for discussion in the other House. The clause had been recommended by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
Sir. R. Peelwas disposed to support the general recommendations of the commissioners. At the same time, if there were any matters of detail which were not supported by sound arguments, he thought it not at all improper to disagree with these recommendations. He hoped the Bishops and officers of the Church would make personal merit and qualification the chief grounds upon which to appoint individuals to ecclesiastical duties. He believed the Church of England would owe more security to that principle of selection than to any other measure that could be adopted. He thought the House should not deal with more subordinate points, which could afford no additional security to the Church, but which, on the contrary, would actually diminish it. The restriction would have the effect of excluding many distinguished men; Dr. Pusey, for instance, would be excluded by it.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, the object of this

431
clause was to secure the appointment of men of experience, and not of men of brilliant talents merely. It would induce men to take orders at an early period of life.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On Clause 21, concerning the average income of deans and chapters,
Mr. Goulburnobjected to the latter part of the clause, which had not been recommended by the commissioners. He could not approve of fixing a money payment to be made to the canons and other dignitaries of the Church. He wished to see them allowed to retain the management of their property. He objected, also, to equalizing the incomes of the canons, and fixing them at so low a sum as 1,000 l. He should move to omit all the words after 3,000 l.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that at present the incomes of the canons were very unequal, some of them extremely small, and others exorbitant, varying from under 200 l. to more than 3,000 l. He thought it would be a far more fair and satisfactory arrangement to bring them nearer to equality, and could not view 1,000 l. as by any means an inadequate sum. The general working of the bill would be such that they would receive a great deal more; a canon of Durham would have 2,000 l. Of all the professions in the country, he should say, that the Church was that in which the largest rewards were to be obtained.
Mr. Goulburnobserved, that the clergy were 15,000 in number, and that his proposition went only the length of giving 2,000 l. a-year to nine below the rank of Bishop.
Sir H. Verneysaid, that on his side of the House they were for giving adequate remuneration to the more meritorious portion of the clergy.
Sir R. H. Ingliswished to remind the Committee, that they were not dealing With the public revenue, but with the estates of individuals.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the general feeling of the clergy, as set forth in the petitions which they presented to the House, was decidedly in favour of the principle upon which his amendment was founded.
The Committee divided on the original question:—Ayes 53; Noes 25: Majority 28.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Pemberton, T.

Baring, rt. hon. F.T.

Philips, G. R.

Bowes, J.

Pryme, G.

Brotherton, J.

Redington, T. N.

Clay, W.

Rice, E. R.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. T.

Rundle, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Salwey, Colonel

Euston, Earl of

Slaney, R.A.

Finch, F.

Smith, R. V.

Gordon, R.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Steuart, R.

Harland, W. C.

Stuart, Lord J.

Heathcote, Gilb. J.

Strickland, Sir G

Heneage, E.

Thornely, T.

Hinde, J. H.

Verney, Sir H.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Vigors, N. A.

Hodges, T. L.

Vivian, J. H.

Horsman, E.

White, A.

Howard, hn. E. G. G.

Williams, W.

Jervis, J.

Williams, W. A.

Knight, H. G.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Lambton, H.

Wood, B.

Lushington, rt. hon. S.

Worsley, Lord

Maule, hon. Fox

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS.

Morris, D.

Tufnell, H.

Patten, J. W.

Parker, J.

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Holmes, W.

Bell, M.

Hughes, W. B.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Burroughes, H. N.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Christopher, R. A.

Nicholl, J.

Compton, H. C.

Parker, R T.

Darby, G.

Pusey, P.

Dungannon, Viscount

Rushbrooke, Colonel

East, J. B.

Shirley, E. J.

Estcourt, T.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Teignmouth, Lord

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

TELLERS.

Greene, T.

Clerk, Sir G.

Hodgson, R.

Gladstone, W. E.

House resumed, Committee to sit again.

TRAFALGAR SQUARE.
Mr. G. Knight Mr. G. Knight moved, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the plan sanctioned by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests for laying out the vacant space in front of the National Gallery.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not so much object to the appointment of a Committee, but he could never be a party to advising the Crown to break a pledge given to the subscribers to the Nelson monument; and he must say, that with reference to that part of the alterations in front of the National Gallery, it was too late to prevent it,
Sir J. Grahamobserved, that the matter was of some interest, not merely as regarded the Nelson monument, but National Gallery also, which building remained an eternal monument of the taste of the House of Commons.
Motion agreed to.

MINUTES.
Bills. Received the Royal Assent:—Sugar Duties; Timber Duties; Glass Duties; Tobacco Regulations; Poor Clergy Maintenance; Prisons; Frivolous Suits; Colonial Passengers; Rated Inhabitants Evidence; and Vagrants Removal.—Read a first time:—Caledonian Canal.—Read a third time: —Masters in Chancery.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
The Earl of Roseberyhad to present to their Lordships a petition from the parishioners of Marnock, approving of the conduct of the General Assembly in the case of the suspension of the seven ministers of the Presbytery of Strathbogie. The petition, went much into detail, he would content himself with stating the substance of it. The petitioners disapproved of the conduct of the seven ministers of Strathbogie in not obeying the directions of the commission of the General Assembly, their ecclesiastical superiors; and they applauded the conduct of the General Assembly in supporting the jurisdiction and the liberties of the Church against the intrusion of objectionable ministers. They earnestly trusted and hoped that the Church of Scotland would not suffer from the attempts of any of her own office-bearers to set at defiance her just authority, and overbear the religious privileges and conscientious feelings of her people, and they prayed that their Lordships would adopt such measures as may seem best for reconciling the differences which have occurred between the civil and the ecclesias-
408
tical courts, and enabling the Church to give effect to the principles of her constitution relative to the settlement of ministers.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that the prayer of this petition called upon their Lordships to adopt some measure to reconcile the differences between the civil and ecclesiastical courts; but the petition itself was manifestly directed against the solemnly delivered judgment of their Lordships' House. The noble Earl had given no opinion on that judgment, and, as he had said nothing against it, he was warranted in concluding that the noble Earl coincided in its justice. It was very proper that the petitioners should pray, that an end should be put to the present state of things with respect to this question; but he must observe, that neither this year nor last year had any petitions been received on the subject from the General Assembly. No: the petition then before their Lordships stated, "That the Church was engaged in a negotiation for the settlement of the whole matter in dispute." In the course of that negotiation, it might be attempted to impose terms which could not be acceded to. The Assembly did not come before their Lordships as they ought to do, but they came before their Lordships as a party negociating with the Legislature for a satisfactory settlement of this question. The only complaint made against the seven ministers mentioned in the petition was, that they had obeyed the law. No human wisdom or ingenuity could devise any other charge against them. A decree was pronounced by a competent tribunal, to which they were obliged to yield obedience, otherwise they would have been liable to an action for damages. Their obedience to that decree was the whole matter of complaint urged by the petitioners against these ministers who, if they had disobeyed the law, would have been exposed to a legal proceeding.
Petition laid on the table.

POLITICAL PRISONERS.
Lord Broughamhad to present a petition to which he wished to call the particular attention of the noble Secretary for the Home Department, as it contained a very serous complaint of ill-usage in one of her Majesty's prisons. The noble and learned Lord read an extract from the petition which stated that:—
"Joseph Crabtree, late of Barnsley, in the

409
West Riding of the county of York, and now a prisoner in Wakefield House of Correction, was tried at the Yorkshire Lent Assizes, 1840, and convicted of attending an illegal meeting, which was held at Barnsley on the 16th of July, 1839, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment in Wakefield House of Correction, subject to the most severe discipline; that your petitioner is a man of very bad health; he has been afflicted with a disease of the liver more than six years, and is at present very ill, not only of that complaint, but is likewise labouring under a pulmonary affection, which he feels assured must prove fatal if some change be not made in his treatment. He is locked up in his sleeping cell at six o'clock at night, a room about eight feet by six, where he must not walk about, or make the least noise whatever, but remain in perfect silence, till he is let out at six o'clock in the morning, at which hour he is taken into the day-room, and placed among the convicted misdemeanants, and he must there sit on a form with his face in one particular direction, in order that the officers may see the whole of the face; he must sit there until nearly seven o'clock in the evening, when he is again locked up in the sleeping cell. It is entirely close confinement; he cannot walk out into a yard, unless when sick, and then an officer is appointed to take a number of sick prisoners, and move them round a small yard about twenty minutes; this may be allowed twice or three times a week. On pain of being placed in dark solitary confinement for three days, to be allowed no more than half a pound of bread and cold water per day: he must not hang down his head so that his face cannot be clearly seen by the officers; he must not speak under any circumstances to any other prisoner; he must not stoop down to take any thing from the ground; he must not turn his head any way; he must not stand up; he must not laugh or smile, or make a motion with his lips or his hands to another prisoner; he must not look a prisoner in the face. If he want to attend the call of nature, he must put his cap on, and wait till called by one of the officers, which will sometimes lie an hour and a half, there are so many in the room." The petitioner prayed, that their Lordships would be pleased to make intercession for mercy to be extended to him, "in order that he may be saved from certain death."
This petition had been sent to him by a very respectable individual, and, though he could scarcely believe the statements, yet he felt it to be his duty to present the petition.
The Marquess of Normanbywould immediately make inquiries into the truth of the statements, but he was of opinion that they were greatly exaggerated.
Petition laid on the table.

HEALTH OF TOWNS—(SCOTLAND).
The Earl of Haddingtonwished to put a question to the noble Marquess opposite. He understood, from the public newspapers, that the Poor-law Commissioners had sent forth instructions for an inquiry, similar to that which had been set on foot in this country, as to the cause of fevers and contagious disorders amongst the poorer classes in Scotland, and the best mode of prevention. There could be-but one opinion on the mind of every man of humanity as to the propriety of instituting inquiries of this kind. He did not, however, think the Poor-law Commissioners the proper parties to whom such an inquiry should be intrusted. Besides, he was apprehensive that the appointment of inspectors, by the Poor-law Commissioners, would lead the people to fear that an attempt was about to be made to tamper with the system which at present prevailed in Scotland with reference to the care of the poor. The inspectors were instructed to inquire into the rents paid by the poorer clashes, the amount of wages they received, the ratio of expenditure, the capability of maintenance, &c. Now, he thought it would be better for those persons to confine their inquiries simply to the prevalence of disease, and the causes from which it was supposed to arise. He believed, if such questions were demanded, very few persons, clergymen or others, would be found willing to answer them. He should, therefore, ask whether such instructions as he referred to had been sent out? If so, what those instructions specifically were? and whether the commissioners had any power to inquire into the working of the Scotch Poor-law system? If instructions had been given, he wished to know whether the noble Marquess had any objection to lay them on the Table, together with a copy of the circular by which they were accompanied.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, an inquiry into the cause of infectious disease having been set on foot in one district in England, had afterwards been extended throughout the country. In consequence, the town-council of Edinburgh, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons there, requested that a similar course should be adopted with respect to Scotland, and subsequently a petition to the same effect had been sent from Glasgow. Upon these representations, he was induced to believe

411
that a strong desire existed that this inquiry should be pursued in Scotland, and, thus solicited, he had agreed that it should be so extended. On one point he could readily dispel the apprehensions of his noble Friend. It was not intended that the inquiry should be at all connected with the Poor-law system in Scotland. There would be no difficulty in laying on the Table a copy of the instructions.

POOR-LAW (IRELAND).
The Marquess of Westmeathrose for the purpose of moving for a select committee to inquire into certain elections of Poor-law guardians and other matters relating to the Poor-law Act in Ireland. He admitted that the recent Poor-law Act was a matter of vast importance to Ireland. He had opposed the introduction of it both in that House and elsewhere, and in so doing had exposed himself to the reproach of seeking his own interest as a landed proprietor. Such a view had never entered his mind. He held documents at that moment in his hand, which proved beyond all possibility of doubt that he had been but too true a prophet of the results of this measure. He believed that it had been brought in with the best intentions by her Majesty's Ministers, but unfortunately it had been converted by a certain party in Ireland into a mere political scheme. The evils of it had been immediate and disastrous. One of its leading objects had been to secure a proper provision of guardians. This was to be accomplished by votes taken in manuscript, which were to be returned to certain officers named in the bill, who were to declare on whom the majority of suffrages had fallen. In most parts of Ireland—and he held in his hand the returns from nineteen counties—these elections had been accompanied by the most violent interference on the part of the Roman Catholic priests. The main characteristic which marked all the elections, arid particularly in the western parts of Ireland, was the combined efforts of the Roman Catholic priests to get their own partisans chosen into these offices, and thereby to put down the landed interest. Mobs had gone about to intimidate electors; armed parties had been employed in the night to take away from others their polling papers; individuals had gone about in the day-time either to get the voting papers from the parishioners, or to
412
get them filled up according to their own wishes. In some places there had been fraudulent nominations of guardians, in others attempts at forgeries had been detected. In several cases individuals had been punished for these offences, but in no instance had they been brought home to the leaders in these transactions, owing to the influence of the Roman Catholic priests. In the county of Cork the Government had instituted a long and protracted investigation into these transactions, but there a Roman Catholic priest had acted a most prominent part in endeavouring to screen the policeman who had been guilty of the forgeries. On one occasion a priest, in defending a forgery, had let out his knowledge of it by exclaiming, "I wonder how they found it out." In the city of Dublin there had been sixty-eight well-established cases of forgery, and it had therefore become necessary to proceed to a new election: In Longford extreme violence had been displayed in open court, and in consequence the commissioner, Mr. Hancock, proposed to the Roman Catholic priests that each party should nominate two parties only, in order to avoid excitement and expense. That was the only place where this arrangement had taken place. The priests were discontented with it, and boldly avowed their determination to exercise the power which they had. A confederation to carry these elections in favour of the Roman Catholic party was general throughout the country. The lowest partisans were the great objects of the partiality of the priests, and in most instances had been elected guardians. Publicans keeping houses of the worst description, mere slews of vice, had been preferred to men of character and of landed property. But this was not all. Strange manŒuvres had been tried upon the rating and valuation of tenements, particularly in the city of Dublin. In that city 314 houses had been originally rated at 10 l.; and yet on those houses the rating had been altered the most Radical manner. Mr. Vaughan, a respectable valuator, had given every reason why the original rating should not be disturbed; and yet, notwithstanding his reasons, the valuation was completely altered. Mr. O'Connell, the returning-officer for the union of Ennistimon, in the county of Cavan, had publicly advised the electors to elect those persons whom their priests recommended,

413
and no one else. An investigation into that case had been ordered, and the minutes of it were then on their Lordships' Table. And yet all that the commissioners had said to that gentleman Was, that if he acted thus again, he should be removed from his situation. The Poor-law Commissioner appointed in the county of Westmeath was a Dr. Phelan, who had been a member of the National Association. Of this the Government was perfectly aware at the period of his appointment. A meeting had been held in Mullingar for the purpose of dividing the county into unions, where Dr. Phelan attended, and made some statements as to the population of certain parishes which he had formed into unions, which had since turned out to be utterly false. Another very gross case had occurred at Cashel, where the object was, to exclude the landed proprietors from those elections. The election at Cashel took place at such an hour (contrary to the notification contained in the advertisement), that it was concluded entirely behind the backs of the landed gentry, and a noble Friend of his (Lord Hawarden) had made a complaint to the Poor-law commissioners on the subject. All these circumstances tended to show that a system prevailed throughout Ireland, which rendered it necessary for Parliament to interfere immediately with the view of providing some strong remedy. The existing power of appeal he held to be of no substantial advantage whatever. He submitted, therefore, that he had made out a case for a committee of inquiry into the working of the Poor-law in Ireland, according to the terms of his motion, which he concluded by submitting to their Lordships.
The Marquess of Normanbythought that the noble Marquess had selected his cases somewhat capriciously. He had commenced by stating with perfect candour that he had been originally an opponent of the Poor-law, both in their Lordships' House and elsewhere. The noble Marquess had proceeded to observe that the working of this system in Ireland had assumed an entirely political aspect. He was ready to admit, that in some parts of Ireland there had been partial instances of political bias; but he thought that this had been also observable in the case of the election of the ex-officio guardians. He appealed to their Lordships whether
414
the noble Marquess had given them any grounds whatever for desponding as to the successful operation of that law which they had lately passed. No obstacle had been thrown in the noble Marquess's way in making out his case; all the papers which he had moved for were given without difficulty. He certainly thought that the noble Marquess must have been imposed on by some person, who furnished him with these details, and that they would eventually turn out to be unfounded. His information was completely at variance with that of the noble Marquess on this subject. He thought that the noble Marquess had selected for his statement every case in which an appeal had been made. There were in Ireland 104 unions established, and there had been thirty-four re-elections. As far as they could judge from the papers on their Lordships' table, there were only fourteen complaints. It should be understood that many of these unions contained several electoral divisions; and that of the complaints several were not from unions, but merely from electoral divisions. It was really surprising how very small a portion of the noble Marquess's statement was confirmed by the papers on their Lordships' table. It was true that forgery had been brought home to two policemen in the North Dublin Union. The Poor-law commissioners forwarded the particulars to the Government, one policeman was dismissed, while the other was forced to resign. Another complaint had been made in the Mallow Union against a policeman for similar misconduct. An investigation had taken place, and was conducted by the assistant Poor-law commissioner. Three magistrates superintended, and he would take a speedy opportunity of submitting to their Lordships these magistrates' opinion. He would, however, admit that this was a part of the subject well worthy of the consideration of the Poor-law commissioners. It might be beneficial to inquire whether any additional guards could be established on the transmission of those voting papers, and the commissioners had for some time back had the matter under their consideration, and he trusted that that investigation would be productive of much good. The noble Marquess had alluded to Leitrim, and had mentioned cases of abuse which had occurred in that part of the country. But it was impossible for their Lordships to know anything of those cases, and it would

415
have been desirable that the noble Marquess should have moved in the first place for the production of papers relative to those outrages, and the proceedings of those armed parties to which he had alluded. At present there were no means of ascertaining whether those outrages were of a character to call for inquiry from their Lordships. He had been informed, however, by a Member of the other House of Parliament, that the noble Marquess was entirely mistaken as to Leitrim, and that nothing of the kind which he had stated had taken place there. This showed the necessity of having on the table papers in regard to those transactions on which their Lordships could rely, and how little dependence was to be placed on communications made by interested parties. He was perfectly ready to meet the noble Marquess on the cases contained in the papers upon the table of the House, but it was impossible to answer at once every complaint brought forward where no notice was given. The noble Marquess had stated that only persons of the lowest class found favour with the priests, and were appointed guardians. Now, he was informed on authority on which he placed perfect confidence, that it was by no means persons of this description who were elected guardians. On the contrary, respectable farmers had generally been elected, who were well qualified for the office, and who had been found to perform their duty in a satisfactory manner. When, therefore, the noble Marquess was misinformed as to the character of the persons elected, and as to what had taken place in Leitrim, was it not possible that he was also misinformed as to the other cases which had been brought before their Lordships? At all events when the statements were of such a conflicting nature their Lordships would see the necessity which existed for having official papers on the Table of the House before deciding whether there was sufficient ground for the appointment of a committee. With regard to the South Dublin union, there again the noble Marquess was misinformed. He had received a communication from the Poor-law Commissioner, from which he found that the valuator alluded to had admitted his error, but another person had been appointed in his place. In the case of Mr. O'Connell, the commissioner stated that it was impossible to dismiss him at the
416
time of the election, because such a step would have the effect of stopping all the proceedings. When the election was over, however, the commissioners communicated their opinion on the subject to Mr. O'Connell, and no repetition of the offence had since taken place. As to what the noble Marquess had stated with respect to Westmeath, it was impossible for their Lordships, he conceived, to appoint a committee for the purpose of inquiring whether certain portions of an estate adjoined each other or not. The noble Marquess had candidly acknowledged that he had been misinformed as to the subject of the correspondence on their Lordships' table, and if the noble Marquess was so egregiously mistaken in 1839, it was for their Lordships to consider whether they would grant a committee upon statements which the noble Marquess might three weeks hence acknowledge to be completely wrong. As to the case of New Ross, he did not think that the noble Marquess had opened it sufficiently to induce him to trouble their Lordships with any remarks with respect to it. He was persuaded that the origin of all these things began with the ex-officio guardians, who were anxious to exclude, not only Roman Catholics, but all persons differing from them in political opinion. In New Ross there had been a direct exclusion of all the liberal party from the bench, save one. That such things had taken place was deeply to be regretted. There were faults on both sides; but practically speaking, the bill was working well, and he was sure their Lordships would hesitate before, by consenting to this motion, they added another to the many difficulties which the commissioners experienced in carrying the bill into effect. He would put it to their Lordships whether it was possible to consent to a motion of this kind upon such grounds as had been laid by the noble Marquess. There were many parts of the papers upon the table which he wished to explain, but considering the state of the House, and the period of the evening, he should refrain from doing so, and would confidently leave the fate of the motion in their Lordships' hands.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, when this bill was under discussion in their Lordships' House, it was obvious that the execution of its provisions would be a matter of considerable difficulty, and he

417
which had taken place in the two Parliamentary boroughs of the county Tippe-amendments had not been introduced to localize as much as was possible the expenditure, and to throw it upon the proprietors for the support of the paupers on their estates and town lands, so as to give them an additional interest in the welfare of the people, and to induce them to take care of those unfortunate persons, not from motives of humanity alone, but also from motives of economy. It would have been impossible, considering the state of Ireland, to execute this measure, if strong powers had not been established in the Poor-law commissioners, and accordingly very strong powers indeed had been confided to them as to the election, the appointment, and the duties, of the guardians. The commissioners had the power to dismiss the guardians and appoint others in their place, as well as to do every other thing which it was necessary to do in order to enable them to carry the measure into effect as the law intended. In order that Parliament, and the public, and the Government, might know what was passing, the commissioners were required to keep a record of all their correspondence, and it was in the power of their Lordships, of the public, and of the proprietors of Ireland, to make complaints to the commissioners and to place on record all that passed, so as to enable that House or the Government to see whether further inquiry was necessary. That, however, had not been done. The intentions of Parliament had not been carried into effect. The grossest abuse had certainly taken place at some of the elections of guardians; but then the poor-law commissioners had not done their duty in bringing the circumstances connected with those elections under their cognizance, and properly recording them. In point of fact, therefore, their Lordships could not take cognizance of them. Besides, it was absolutely impossible, as stated by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Normanby), to enter, at this late period of the Session, into such an inquiry, as the noble Marquess behind him demanded, with the hope of adopting any ulterior measures this Session, or indeed, without injuring the operation of the Poor law in Ireland. Their Lordships had not materials, as far as he could see, to be brought under their consideration, and could, therefore, come to no decision during the present Session. He recom-
418
firmly believed, that the measure never would have passed that House if certain benefit of the recess in order to set the matter right, and to have the law properly administered throughout Ireland. With regard to the valuations that had taken place, there was no doubt that political considerations had been mixed up with them, because they went to establish a certain degree of political power. If the valuations were too low, however, the abuse of the law was as great as if it were too high. As far as the execution of the Poor-law was concerned, the higher the valuation the better; but that did not suit some parties. It was, of course, objected to, and then came disputes upon the subject. There was no way of deciding this question, except by strict inquiry on the part of the Poor-law commissioners, the result of which should be put upon record, and produced at any time, it might be considered advisable, in order to show what had passed. He hoped the noble Marquess would consent to withdraw his motion, in order that their Lordships might know next Session—should it be deemed necessary to revive this discussion—what the grounds were upon which they stood, whether an inquiry was necessary, and whether, upon inquiry, it should be advisable to amend the present law, or enact a new one.
The Earl of Glengallthought, that the noble Marquess had passed rather lightly over several of the charges which had been brought forward in support of this motion, and that one in particular which related to the South Dublin Union. It appeared, that in that union 314 houses had been valued at a certain rate by the valuators in which rate an alteration had been made for reasons best known to those who made it. The value of those 314 houses had been raised from various sums to 10 l., and as he understood in this manner. A gentleman named Seaton, who attended at the registry session for the Radical interest, was one of a party appointed by the Poor-law guardians to go round and inspect the valuation, and having represented that those houses had been valued too low, induced the Poor-law guardians to raise them to 10 l., for the purpose, evidently, of conferring upon them the Parliamentary franchise. In St. Catherine's parish, the value of twenty-seven houses was raised in the same way. He had also to complain of the valuation

419
mended the noble Marquess not to press his motion at present. Let them have the rary, being two Poor-law unions, namely, Clonmel and Cashel. The reason of all this might, he thought, be traced to the returning officers, who were not men of sufficient respectability, and who were vested with too much power. He would suggest, that an alteration should be made in that part of the bill. He thought, that the most proper persons who could be elected returning officers were the high constables of the districts. They were gentlemen of the highest respectability; they were elected by the grand juries, and they were required to give security to the amount of 2.000 l. or 3,000 l. for the collection of the county cess. The bill allowed any individual to be a returning officer; and the consequence of which was, that generally speaking, they were persons who kept dram shops. If fair and proper elections of Poor-law guardians could be had (and there was no doubt they could, if the returning officers were respectable), then he thought, the whole operation of the law would go on well, and give satisfaction both to the people at large, and the gentry of the country. Motion withdrawn.