Sitting of 28 July 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Municipal Districts (Ireland); Insolvent Debtors (India); Church Temporalities (Ireland); Stock in Trade; Pilots; Toll on Lime; Court Houses (Ireland).—Read a third time:— Friendly Societies; West India Relief; Caledonian Canal; Poor-law Commission.
Petitions presented. By Lord Redesdale, from Hacklestown, and other places in Ireland, against National Education not founded on Scripture, and in favour of Church Extension.—By the Bishop of Winchester, from the Clergy of his Diocese, against the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill.—By the Bishop of London, from Barley, against any Alteration of the Corn-laws; and from the Churchwardens and others of St. James's, Westminster, against Sunday Trading.—By the Bishop of Exeter, from several Societies in Ireland, against the system of National Education.

COLONIAL LABOURERS.
Lord Broughampresented a petition from the emancipated slaves of the island of Barbadoes, complaining of the present constitution of that island. Their chief objection was precisely the same as that which was made by some of their white brethren in this country, and related to the qualification that was required to entitle an individual to vote for members of the House of Assembly. The qualification was a freehold house of 30 l. a year, colonial currency, or four or five acres of land, probably worth 1,200 l. a year, colonial currency. Both these qualifications were so high, that, as the petitioner stated, the right of voting for members of the House of Assembly was restricted to a very small number of persons; insomuch, that out of 130,000 persons, of all colours and descriptions, who constituted the population of the island, only 1,200 enjoyed the elective franchise, and of those not more than about 200 were persons of colour. The petitioners further complained, that they were not allowed to carry their labour to Guiana, where they could earn four bits a day, instead of two or two and a half, which they received in Barbadoes. They were, it appeared, prevented under the risk of incurring severe penalties, from emigrating, unless duly authorized by specific licence from the governor. The real object of this provision, the petitioners observed, was to prevent the rise of wages from two or two and a half bits to four. Now, he was not friendly to any check being placed on the free circulation of labour, if it were conducted on just principles; but here he conceived that some superintending control was necessary to prevent the labourer from falling
1068
a victim to the crimping system. If that control were placed in the hands of persons responsible to such a Parliament as that which existed in this country, he should not have the least objection to grant the necessary authority, and permitting those people, their interests being thus guarded, from employing their labour where they could do so most advantageously. But he confessed, that he had not the same confidence in the colonial authorities. The proper course therefore would be, with respect to this matter, that persons properly responsible should be appointed to see, that justice was done to the labourer who was about to emigrate.

ROYAL CHAPLAINS IN SCOTLAND.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, he wished to put a question to the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government, in consequence of a conversation that had occurred not long ago in another place. From what came out in that conversation, it appeared, that the rev. Dr. M'Gill, who a few years since had been presented with the situation of King's Chaplain in Scotland, bad not received the usual salary or fee of 50 l. a year, which was attached to that office. In consequence, a question was put to the proper authority in the House of Commons, and the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to the effect, that this gentleman had not received, and should not receive, the usual salary, because, in the course of some former discussion, an understanding was come to that no salary should be paid hereafter to any clerical appointment in Scotland to which no duties were attached. He wished to know, whether it were the intention of her Majesty's Government to discontinue this salary of 50 l. a year to all the royal chaplains in Scotland? Of these chaplains there were ten in Scotland, and he would ask whether, in the first place, it was intended to keep back this trifling sum of 50 l. a year from Dr. M'Gill; and next, whether the usual salary was to be continued or discontinued to her Majesty's other chaplains in Scotland?
Viscount Melbournewas understood to say, that it was determined not to grant the 50 l. a year to Dr. M'Gill, or to the other royal chaplains in Scotland.
The Earl of Haddingtonregretted that her Majesty's Government meant to discontinue this miserable pittance of 50 l.

1069
a year to the ten royal chaplains in Scotland. He could not help expressing his very great regret, as well as surprise, at this determination of her Majesty's Government, which appeared to be founded on nothing more than some incidental expression of opinion in the course of a debate. Considering the way in which the Scotch clergy were provided for, he was astonished that the Church of Scotland could boast of so many men of learning and talent. The sum of 50 l. a year was certainly a very small gratuity; but when they considered the trifling provision which was made for the Scotch clergy, and the jealousy with which that Church guarded against pluralities, it became a matter of some importance. In an economical point of view, it was almost a disgrace to mention such a paltry saving. In his opinion, the withdrawing this miserable sum of 500 l. a year was unwise as a matter of economy, and, as a matter of policy, he thought that it was extremely shabby.

THE WEAVER CHURCHES BILL.
The Bishop of Londonin moving the third reading of this bill, said it might be expedient for him to state the objects of this measure. Their Lordships were perhaps not aware of the real circumstances of the case, and he would therefore inform them, that it arose from the extremely nourishing condition of the river Weaver navigation, in consequence of the faithful discharge of their duty by the trustees of the river. A certain Act of Parliament which had been passed, empowered them to expend such portion of the tolls as they might think fit in maintaining the good order and use of the navigation, and they held it to be roost important for that purpose, that the labourers employed on that river should be honest and trustworthy persons. But it was impossible to expect that, unless they were religious, and there was no possibility of their being so unless they received religious instruction. The trustees had already passed a bye-law preventing the labourers from working on the Sabbath-day, but the consequence of that was, that a numerous body of persons assembled on the banks of the river on Sunday, having little opportunity of attending any place of divine worship, or obtaining religious instruction; for of the churches at the three principal points of the river, two afforded very insufficient accommodation for religious worship, and
1070
the third no accommodation at all. The trustees therefore proposed to devote the sum of 6,000 l., part of their accumulated funds, to the building of three churches on the banks of the river. He did not hesitate to say, notwithstanding what had been alleged to the contrary, that the middling classes of the county of Chester, to say nothing of the higher classes, whose feeling was evident from the almost unanimous vote of the magistrates at quarter sessions, were decidedly in favour of this bill. He himself considered it a measure that would produce very beneficial results, and he therefore should move, that it be now read a third time.
The Marquess of Westminsterrose for the purpose of moving as an amendment, that the bill be read a third time this day six months. It was a measure that would lead to very important results in regard to the public rates and trusts of the country. He admitted it had a very great advantage in being supported by the right rev. Prelate who had just sat down; but, grieved as he was at that right rev. Prelate being a promoter of it, he had the satisfaction of knowing that another right rev. Prelate, who was to have the patronage created by it, was opposed to the measure. When their Lordships recollected that the right rev. Prelate had not attempted to make a single statement on the subject, he thought they would pause before they gave their sanction to a measure, in itself so objectionable. It was a bill in direct violation of a trust and an act of Parliament; and if it were passed, it would be a dangerous precedent in future for interfering with all trust funds and public rates. It was said, that there was a certain number of workmen on the banks of this river in a state of religious destitution; but that they denied: they said they did not want this offer, they were perfectly satisfied to remain as they were. From the petitions which had been presented, he might say, that the feeling of the county was directly against the bill—most notoriously, decidedly, and strongly against it. And yet the right rev. Prelate seemed to think, because the workmen were satisfied with their present condition, that was the very reason why the bill should be forced upon them. It was true they had been prevented from working on the Sabbath-day, and they were no doubt thankful for it, as they wanted a day of rest; but they wanted nothing more.
Lord Lurgansaid, that he never had had to do with so serious a question as that of the Weaver Churches in any committee on a private bill. He had given it all the attention in his power, and he must say, it did appear to him that a very serious responsibility lay at the door of the trustees of the River Weaver Fund. The population of that district were left destitute of religious instruction and of pastoral aid. He never thought it possible that any part of this country, whatever might be the case with regard to Ireland, could be in a state of such deplorable destitution as the evidence before the committee showed that that district was. In addition to the other facts proved before them, this distinctly appeared, that there was upon the river a floating population of upwards of 1,000 persons, and they were left to idleness and vice throughout the whole of the Sunday. The only question for the House was this—were they entitled to take the Weaver Fund for the purpose of building and endowing churches? It was strictly a Parliamentary trust fund; there was nothing in it of private bounty. It was a fund applicable in the first instance to the improvement of the navigation of the river; applicable in the second place to the aid of the public works of the county of Chester. When those objects were accomplished, but not until then, Parliament acquired a right to deal with the fund, not judicially, but acting as the Legislature of the country. A sum of 300,000 l. had been paid to the county of Chester, all that was necessary for the navigation of the river had been effected, yet a large surplus remained, and those who had the management of that surplus came to Parliament and asked permission to apply it to the purposes which the bill now before them had been introduced to effect. The object of the present measure was to apply the funds in question to the relief of spiritual destitution, and he believed that few in that House would be found to say that no churches ought to be built, and that no stipends for clergy ought to be created.
Lord Stanley (of Alderley)observed, that the present was not by any means a doubtful question. Was the House prepared to interfere with rights of the trustees—rights created under an act of Parliament? Their Lordships could not pass this bill without violating certain trusts It might be contended that the same
1072
power which established those trusts could alter them. But if an act of Parliament was not a good foundation for property to rest upon, he wished to know what security there was for the property of the Church, or even for the estates of their Lordships and of the gentry of this country? It was not to be denied that there was a great want of churches in some parts of the country, and that mischiefs resulted from that want; but that was no excuse for diverting property from its original design. If such a thing could be done, hereafter there would be no security or force in an Act of Parliament. He feared that too many of their Lordships had already made up their minds to agree to the passing of this bill, but it should be recollected that this was the first time that it had been fairly discussed. Did their Lordships come to the consideration of the question now before them unbiassed and unprejudiced? No; but after the subject had been stated in a favourable manner by those who supported the measure; and after it had been agitated, and not only agitated, but settled in not a very full House, when those who were opposed to it were forbidden to speak upon it, they were persuaded to suffer the bill to go into committee, and when it got into committee there were only five or six clauses in the bill, and it was speedily hurried through that stage. But, without dwelling upon that, he would call upon their Lordships to consider with how much danger this bill was fraught. It went to overturn certain rights vested in certain persons. A surplus portion of the river had been appended to the county of Chester under an Act of Parliament, for the sake of obtaining certain tolls in aid of the county-rate. What right had their Lordships to take away that property? They might just as well take away the acres belonging to those gentlemen. Their Lordships might have a good object in view, but was a good object to be gained by an act of spoliation? If churches were wanted, why not supply them by other means? A sum of money had recently been voted in the other House of Parliament for the building of new churches. Why was not that fund applied to this purpose, or a similar vote sought for? No, their Lordships would not adopt such means, which would be more legitimate, but, in spite of all the power of an Act of Parliament already in existence, and of

1073
all that the rate-payers could say to the contrary, they would take away the money raised under that act, and apply it to a different purpose than that for which it was originally intended. By the same rule that this sum of 20,000 l. was taken away, any sum of money the Church chose to call for might be diverted from its proper channel to be spent in the building of churches.
Bill read a third time, and passed.