Sitting of 29 June 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Canal Police; Episcopal Church (Scotland).—Read a second time:—Poor-law Commission; Goods on Canals; Insane Prisoners.—Read a third time:—Arms (Ireland); Sugar Duties; Chimney Sweepers.

WEAVER CHURCHES.
The Order of the Day having been read for resuming the adjourned debate on the question that the House do agree with the Committee, that the costs of opposing the bill be paid out of the new funds, on bringing up the report of the Weaver Churches' Bill,
Mr. G. Wilbrahamsaid, he felt bound to oppose this bill in every way that the rules of the House permitted. It was a bill that had for its object a most unjustifiable diversion of the funds of the county of Chester. The surplus revenue derived from the tolls of the Weaver navigation had for many years relieved the county of Chester from the payment of rates, and he considered it most unjust, that this revenue should now, without any reason whatever, be diverted to a totally different object.
Sir R. Ingliswas surprised at the opposition given to the bill, though he was opposed to the clause.
The House divided. Ayes 58; Noes 70:—Majority 12.
Mr. Wilbrahamthen moved as an amendment, that the minutes of the evidence taken before the committee be laid before the House. There never was an occasion in which such a measure as this now before the House was less called for. The great body of the population for whose accommodation the churches in question were intended, were Dissenters, extremely attached to their peculiar mode of worship and to their own ministers. As far as there was any want of accommodation for religious worship and instruction according to the Church of England, it could be adequately supplied by voluntary contribution.
Sir C. Lemonsaid a great deal of spiritual destitution and ignorance prevailed in the district, and there were two fanatical women who were followed by large numbers of the ignorant and uneducated classes. The question was whether they would endow these women, or was the Established Church to be endowed?
Sir P. Egertonbelieved the amendment had merely been moved for the sake of delay, and therefore he should oppose it.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, that the House ought to have the evidence before them. He had carefully attended to that evidence, and the result was, that he did not consider there was any want of spiritual accommo-
194
dation in this district. This was a case of great importance, and the House ought to have before it every possible means of forming a correct judgment.
Lord R. Grosvenorwas also of opinion, that the evidence ought to be laid before the House.
The House divided. Ayes 136; Noes 166:—Majority 30.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Eastnor, Viscount

Acland, T. D.

Eaton, R. J.

Ainswort, P.

Eliot, Lord

Alsager, Captain

Ellis, J.

Arduthnott, hon. H.

Estcourt, T.

Ashley, Lord

Fielden, W.

Attwood, W.

Fellowes, E.

Bagge, W.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Bagot, hon. W.

Follet, Sir W.

Baillie, Col.

Forester, hon. G.

Baillie, H. J.

Freshfield, J. W.

Baldwin, C. B.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Baring, H. B.

Gladstone, W. E.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Barrington, Viscount

Gore, O. J. R.

Bell M.

Gore, O. W.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Goring, H. D.

Bethell, R.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Blackburne, I.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Blair, J.

Granby, Marquess of

Bolfield, B.

Grant, Sir A. C.

Bradshaw, James

Greene, T.

Bramston, T. W.

Grimston, Viscount

Broadwood, H.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Bruce, Lord E.

Hawkes, T.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Herbert, hon. S.

Burrell, Sir C.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Burroughes, H. N.

Hodgson, R.

Calcraft, J. H.

Hogg, J. W.

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Holmes, W.

Cantilupe, Viscount

Hope, hon. C.

Cartwright, W.R.

Hope, G. W.

Cholmondeley, hn. H.

Hotham, Lord

Christopher, R. A.

Houston, G.

Chute, W. L. W.

Hughes, W. B.

Clerk, Sir G.

Hurt, F.

Cochrane, Sir T. J.

Ingestre, Viscount

Codrington, C. W.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Irton, S.

Compton, H. C.

Jackson, Mr. Sergeant

Conolly, E.

Jenkins, Sir R.

Courtenay, P.

Jones, Captain

Cresswell, C.

Kelly, F.

Darby, G.

Kemble, H.

Darlington, Earl of

Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.

D'Israeli, B.

Dottin, A. R.

Knight, H. G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Lemon, Sir C.

Dowdeswell, W.

Lefroy, right hon. T.

Drummond, H. H.

Lincoln, Earl of

Duffield, T.

Litton, E.

Dugdale, W. S.

Lockhart, A. M.

Du Pre, G.

Long, W.

East, J. B.

Lowther, hon. Colonel

195

Lowther, J. H.

Richards, R.

Lygon, hon. General

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Mackenzie, T.

Sandon, Viscount

Mackenzie, W. F.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Maclean, D,

Shaw, right hon. F.

Mahon, Viscount

Sheppard, T.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Shirley, E. J.

Marsland, T.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Marton, G.

Smyth, Sir G. H.

Maunsell, T. P.

Sotheron, T. E.

Miles, P. W. S.

Stanley, E.

Miller, W. H.

Stanley, Lord

Milnes, R. M.

Sturt, H. C.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Teignmouth, Lord

Neeld, J.

Thesiger, F.

Norreys, Lord

Thornhill, G.

Northland, Lord

Tollemache, F. J.

O'Neill, hon. J. B. R.

Tomline, G.

Palmer, R.

Tyrrell, Sir J. T.

Palmer, G.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Parker, M.

Vivian, J. E.

Patten, J. W.

Williams, R.

Perceval, Colonel

Williams, T. P.

Pigot, R.

Wodehouse, E.

Polhill, F.

Wood, Colonel T.

Pollen, Sir J. W.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Powerscourt Viscount

Young, J.

Pringle, A.

TELLERS.

Pusey, P.

Egerton, Sir P.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Egerton, T.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Admiral

Dundas, Sir R.

Alston, R.

Dungannon, Viscount

Archbold, R.

Ellice, right hon. E.

Baines, E.

Ellice, E.

Barron, H. W.

Ellis, W.

Barry, G. S

Evans, G.

Basset, J.

Evans, W.

Bewes, T.

Ewart, W.

Blake, W. J.

Fielden, J.

Bodkin, J. J.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Bowes, J.

Ferguson, R.

Bridgeman, H.

Finch, F.

Brocklehurst, J.

Fort, J.

Brodie, W. B.

Gillon, W. D.

Brotherton, J.

Gordon, R.

Bryan, G.

Grattan, H.

Buller, C.

Guest, Sir J.

Buller, E.

Hastie, A.

Busfield, W.

Hawes, B.

Callaghan, D.

Hector, C. J.

Cave, R. O.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Clay, W.

Hindley, C.

Clements, Viscount

Hobhouse, T. B.

Clive, E. B.

Hodges, T. L.

Collier, J.

Horsman, E.

Craig, W. G.

Hoskins, K.

Brompton, Sir S.

Howard, P. H.

Denison, W. J.

Hume, J.

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

Hutt, W.

Hutton, R.

Divett, E.

James, W.

Duff, J.

Jervis, J.

Duncombe, T.

Jervis, S.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Langdale, hon. C.

Dundas, hon. J.

Langton, W. G.

196

Leader, J. T.

Steuart, R.

Lister, E. C.

Stuart, Lord J.

Lushington, C.

Stock, Dr.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Strickland, Sir G.

M'Taggart, J.

Strutt, E.

Maher, J.

Style, Sir C.

Marsland, H.

Tancred, H. W.

Maule, hon. F.

Thornely, T.

Melgund, Viscount

Trench, Sir F.

Morris, D.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Muntz, G. F.

Tufnell, H.

Murray, A.

Turner, W.

Muskett, G. A.

Vigors, N. A.

O'Connell, J.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

O'Connell, M.

Vivian, right hon. Sir R. H.

Ord, W.

Oswald, J.

Wakley, T.

Parker, J.

Walker, R.

Pattison, J.

Wall, C. B.

Pechell, Captain

Warburton, H.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Westenra, hon. J. C.

Philips, G. R.

White, A.

Power, J.

White, H.

Rawdon, Col. J. D.

Williams, W. A.

Redington, T. N.

Wilshere, W.

Roche, E. B.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Roche, W.

Wood, G. W.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Wood, B.

Sandford, E. A.

Worsley, Lord

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Wrightson, W. B.

Shelborne, Earl of

Wyse, T.

Smith, B.

Yates, J. A.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Stanley, hon. E.

TELLERS.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Wilbraham, G.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Report received, bill to be engrossed.

SUGAR DUTIES.
On the motion for the third reading of the Sugar Duties Bill,
Mr. Humesaid, that in the last stage of the bill it would be recollected the House refused to reduce the duty on foreign sugar, and on the preceding evening the House refused to permit the passage of free labourers from Bengal and other parts of the East Indies to the Mauritius; since that time the price of sugar had risen very considerably, and it was likely to rise higher still, in consequence of the deficient supply. What he wished, therefore, to know was, whether it was the intention of the noble Lord to take any steps to insure a supply of free labour in those colonies, on which the supply of sugar depended?
Lord John Russellsaid, that the proposition made to the House was the admission of free labour from the East Indies to the Mauritius. The House decided against that proposition, but, as he understood, on the ground that they had not sufficient

197
information, and not on the ground that it ought to be denied at once and forever. As he understood that to be the wish of the House, he certainly should not think himself justified in allowing the importation of free labour into the Mauritius, until that further information was received. When that was received it would be for Parliament to say whether it would sanction such a plan. He did not think Government would be justified in advising the Crown to adopt it, until the question had been brought before the House. He was anxious by every legitimate means to increase free labour in our colonies, being convinced it was only by reason of a considerable increase of free labour that we could at all compete or make any successful rivalry with slave labour.
Bill read a third time and passed.

ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES AND REVENUES.
On the question that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill,
Mr. Puseysaid, it was with diffidence he rose to move an amendment to the motion. He was bound to acknowledge the authority of the bill, recommended as it was by a commission appointed by one Government and continued by another. Nevertheless, the numerous representations that had been made against the measure were at least entitled to attention and respect. The chapters had almost unanimously protested against the bill, not from interested motives, for they had offered to give up a part of their revenues, but from objections they conscientiously entertained. They objected to the accumulation of the funds of the different chapters into one fund, and it should be remembered, that those chapters were in fact corporations, under the existing law, as much as any municipal corporation. Another objection was, that they conceived the dignities ought to be retained, even if the revenues were taken away. The practice of every profession showed the necessity for honorary distinction. It was also objected to the bill, that it contained nothing as to the duties of these chapters. Now, as ancient institutions, they ought either to be let alone altogether, or, if dealt with at all, substantial duties should be given to their new existence. The chapters had lately exerted themselves very much to meet the growing desire for Church instruction, and schools
198
for the middle classes had been established at Lichfield and other places. He would urge upon the House at least the delay of a year in deference to what he would say was the almost unanimous desire of the clergy of England. The hon. Member concluded by moving,
"That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, representing that this House, before proceeding to pass any bill for the regulation of cathedral establishments, desires to receive further information as to the duties and general purposes, which are contemplated by the statutes of the respective foundations, and which the capitular clergy, in conformity therewith, may beneficially discharge; and humbly praying, that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to authorise and direct the visitors of the cathedral and collegiate churches respectively, and the bishops of the dioceses wherein they are situate, after consultation with the members of their several chapters, to lay before her Majesty such plans as may in their judgments be best calculated to render each of those churches, ' most conducive to the efficiency of the Established Church,' and to 'providing for the cure of souls.'"
Lord John Russell: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has throught proper to make this proposition to the House, as it is one which might be expected to emanate from a Member less sincere upon the subject than the hon. Member himself. I cannot imagine that any other object is sought by the motion than delay, and there does not appear to me to be any reason assigned why the House should not proceed with this bill. The commission appointed to consider this subject was appointed by the advice of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel) in 1835. That commission comprised the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, with other eminent prelates, together with persons holding the highest official dignity, all of them fully qualified for the task, to which they devoted much time and attention. The commissioners made their report on the 24th June, 1836, now little more than four years ago, which report was immediately laid upon the table of the House, and I brought in a bill founded upon that report. In the course of last year, some grave and some lively and facetious pamphlets were written upon the subject, and a committee of persons connected with the different cathedrals having sat during the last Session, it was the opinion of certain members of the church commission, that if that committee had more

199
time for consideration, they would make some proposal in accordance with the opinion of the church commission. The church commission, in the mean time, went on perfecting the former opinions. The committee of chapters, after prolonged consideration, proposed a plan which did not meet with the concurrence of the chapters throughout the country. For instance, the chapter of Durham dissented from the plan. The committee of chapters then amended, changed, and altered their plan; and then, when altered, amended, and changed, it did not meet with the consent of the chapters, as it diminished the revenue of the chapters, and as it did not answer the purposes of general instruction according to the principles of the Church of England, which the commissioners recommended. The Dean of Ely stated a proposal they wished to make, and that in a form partly logical, partly mathematical, so as to bring the question fairly before the consideration of those who paid attention to it. Yet I do not think that these propositions have met with general assent, and I believe that those who object to the church commissioners' recommendation, that the chapters should be made to contribute to the religion, education, and instruction of the country, disapproved of the proposition made by the committee of chapters, who addressed to one of the commissioners a memorial, which has been laid before the House, I think, for two years—at least it is a year since the memorial has been laid upon the table of the House. There has been given ample opportunity to lay individuals, and to those belonging to the Church, as well as to the chapters themselves, to state their views upon the subject. Though the plan recommended by the church commissioners, supported as it is by eminent dignitaries of the highest rank in the Church of England, and by men of different parties who take a lead in political affairs—though the plan so recommended and so supported should be found to be wrong—yet there is no excuse for saying, that the House has not had the fullest information upon the subject. No circumstance has been omitted which could contribute to supply that information, and so ample has it been, that every person may feel satisfied that they need not look for any additional information. I trust, then, that the hon. Gentleman will not persevere in his motion. The hon. Gen-
200
tleman has alluded to a difference of opinion entertained by some of the bishops upon this subject. In my opinion, we should not delay the measure on that account, for the object of my motion is to enable the bishops who have seats in the House of Lords to express their own opinions with respect to this bill. Every information having been given, and the matter having been fully investigated, I shall feel it my duty to oppose the motion of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Aclandthought that there certainly was room for further inquiry; thirteen visitors of cathedrals had protested petitions against the bill, and though the Primate and the. Bishop of London had declared in its favour, yet there was reason to believe that two-thirds of the other Bishops were opposed to its provisions. If episcopal authority were quoted on the one side, laymen might on the other side shelter themselves under the authority of thirteen visitors of cathedrals. In addition to this, the two universities had protested against it, and it was well known that they were extremely cautious in taking a step of that nature; moreover, there were numerous petitions in every year since the subject had been introduced. No one who had paid the least attention to the subject could, for a moment, doubt that it was one which had never yet been fully or fairly brought under the consideration of Parliament. The noble Lord opposite had quoted the authority of the hon. Member for Tamworth, but the measure was in no degree his; the right hon. Gentleman had done nothing more than appoint a commission. It was not to be denied that the purpose of that commission was to increase provision for the cure of souls, but the fact that several of the chapters were the owners of impropriate tithes formed no reason why the funds for increasing that provision should be derived from them, for the Bishops received as great an amount of impropriate tithes as the chapter. He would not say, let the chapters be maintained as they are now, without any change; but, let them not be suppressed for the sake of obtaining the revenues they possessed. The chapters were bound to augment the livings that were connected with them, and were responsible for providing spiritual instruction for all persons who were within the limits of their spiritual authority; for were they unwilling to admit that respon-

201
sibility, but were ready to contribute to a general fund for the purpose of supplying the spiritual wants of the people. It was well known that this country was mainly converted to Christianity by the establishment of bodies very much like the present chapters, in their constitution, as well as in their tenure of property and statuary declarations. He was willing too to admit that the chapters, in the first instance, were not founded for the promotion of learning by holding out prizes to young men, inducing them to give up the law and other professions to go into the Church, but for the education of the clergy. In the early times of Christianity in this country, the Abbey Church of Westminster was founded as a seminary of learning; while St. Paul's Church was founded more for the sake of preaching and divine service. It might be said, perhaps, that it was beneath the dignity of the canons of the chapters to undertake the duty of inspectors of normal schools, but he knew the contrary to be the case, and that persons of the highest talents were willing to devote themselves to that service. He knew, at least, one instance of a person, whose name, if he were permitted to mention it, would command their respect, who was most willing to serve his Church, and he might say his God, by devoting himself in what might be called the crisis of this great question, to the almost gratuitous service of the Church. It was well known, too, that Archbishop Cranmer had drawn up a plan for employing the cathedrals as seminaries of learning. The number of small endowments which were now rising up in the country had so much diminished the prospects of the Church, that although every thing like Bible clerkships and exhibitions were eagerly caught up at Oxford, yet many deserving young men were prevented from going into the Church, because their families found it necessary to contribute to their maintenance for a long time after they had entered the profession. He had heard, too, that since this bill had been laid before Parliament there had been a considerable change at the University of Cambridge, and that practically this bill, concurrently with the numerous appointments that had been created for barristers of five years standing, had much diminished the number of young men who went into the Church. If the difficulty could be got rid of, which arose from the eminent
202
persons who formed part of the commission being in some measure pledged to the provisions of the measure, he had no doubt but that another measure might be devised which would conciliate all parties. He had no wish to maintain cathedral preferments as sinecures; he knew that as sinecures they had their advantages, and he cast no blame on those who now filled these situations for continuing the system, which they found in operation, and to the introduction of which they had not been parties. He did not advocate the continuance of these dignities as sinecures; such was not originally intended to be their character, and although he admitted that, when held as sinecures, they had produced many good effects, he could not recommend that they should continue to be so held, looking at the spirit of the times in which we lived. He thought that out of our cathedral establishments theological schools might be formed, from which great benefit would arise to the Church. At the time when the dioceses had been altered, it had been seriously taken into consideration, whether the number of Bishops ought not to be increased; that proposition was, however, rejected, and instead of having some small dioceses, and others of enormous extent, as was the case previously to the alteration, we had now twenty-four dioceses, so large that the strength of ordinary men was inadequate to discharge the episcopal functions, unless the Bishops became men of business, and devoted no time to their spiritual duties. Great advantage might, therefore, be derived by the Bishops from the assistance which the chapter would be able to afford them. He did not, however, mean to contend that the distribution of cathedral property must of necessity remain exactly as it stood at present, nor that the members of existing chapters were always to remain the same; but each case ought to be considered when any alienation of property took place. It should, in the first place, be considered what would be required to raise to an adequate amount the impropriate vicarages which had an absolute claim upon each chapter. The impropriations of deans and chapters alone, without taking into consideration separate endowments, would require an annual sum of not less than 60 l. 3s. to raise those to the value of 300 l. a-year. In many instances, after setting apart the requisite sum for this purpose,

203
there would remain a very small surplus, quite inadequate for the purpose of relieving the spiritual destitution existing within the diocese itself. This would be the case in the dioceses of Exeter, Peterborough, Rochester, Worcester, York, London, and Winchester. In other instances, such as Bristol, Gloucester, Ely, Hereford, Lich-field, Norwich, and Lincoln, there would be no surplus whatever, the sums taken by the bill being insufficient to raise the impropriations of the cathedrals themselves to the moderate amount which he had stated. In every diocese except three, there was an amount of spiritual destitution which he could not help thinking had a prior claim on the funds of the chapters. Each case deserved to be looked into; but he did not think the best scheme which could be devised had been adopted in this bill. He believed it had been supposed by the commissioners that those who opposed this scheme objected to any general fund; such, however, was by no means the fact. The feeling, however, was, that a fund should be derived, having regard to the original institution as well as to the bonâ fide spiritual efficiency of the chapters. The bill had been postponed last year for the purpose of enabling the chapters to prepare with that view some equivalent plan consistent with their oaths and constitutions? but when they proposed one which in its ultimate pecuniary results would be precisely equivalent, and in a great degree conformable with the report of the commissioners, the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, only two days after those parties had thus abandoned the high vantage ground of standing by their oaths and property, came down to the House and declared, that the bill must go on as originally introduced. He wished to know, whether last Session it had been pre-determined to push this bill through at all hazards? He asked hon. Members, who were nurtured in the noble institutions of Oxford and Cambridge, upon what principle they could defend the maintenance of the endowments of those institutions, if they now cut down the cathedral chapters to the amount of those actually in residence, and able to perform the daily duties?
Mr. Goulburn, after acknowledging the learning and ability displayed by his hon. Friend, said he could not vote for the proposed resolution, because he saw no advantage likely to result from delaying dis-
204
cussion on the conflicting plans which had been broached. It would not be for the convenience of the country or the safety of the cathedral establishments themselves, if Parliament went on year after year suspending, by temporary bills, the discharge of the duties which cathedrals were bound to perform, and not placing them on that permanent footing, on which it was intended to maintain them. He did not come to the present discussion entirely prepared to concur in all the details of the present bill. He thought another arrangement might have been made, more advantageous for the object in view, and more calculated to command the public approval. He had concurred in the appointment of the Church commission, because he had long felt, that there existed an extensive spiritual constitution, which called for some effort on the part of the public and the Church to remedy; and he thought it became the Church in an exigency of this kind to review its establishment, for the purpose of seeing what assistance it could give towards this object, for then it might call with double force on the public afterwards to fulfil their part of the duty. The first step which the commission took was to consider the episcopal income; and they made alterations in the mode of its supply by releasing the cathedrals from the obligation of contributing towards it. The cathedrals being thus benefitted, the commission next inquired how far they might be made to afford a partial relief of the destitution which prevailed throughout the country. He agreed that the amount of money to be applied to parochial ministration should be the same as that proposed to be given by the commission; but with their proposal, some of the clauses of the bill were at variance, and would indeed effect a greater diminution of the income of the cathedrals. He, also, was of opinion, that there should be a general discretion allowed for the application of the funds in whatever quarter they might be required; and this he contended was no abandonment of the principle of cathedral appropriation. Indeed, since the diversion of cathedral income had been spoken of, he must observe that nothing had been more common than to nominate a bishop whose episcopal income was limited, to a prebend in a diocese with which he had no connexion. If they went back to history, and to the time when

205
Queen Anne's Bounty was instituted, and applied to the augmentation of small livings, and considered the effect which that fund produced in the country, let any man contemplate what would have been the effect if 100,000 l. a-year had been regularly and constantly applied to meet the evil they were called upon to deal with? If an effort had then been made, we should not now have to complain of the destitution they saw around them. He thought the bill would be found to involve difficulties, and that the reduction of cathedral establishments with a few exceptions, to an uniform number, to be in the greatest degree objectionable, and that it would lead to the most inconvenient results. He knew from the inquiries he had had occasion to make, that the difficulties would be extreme, and that they would involve the greatest inconveniences. He thought that with a reduction in the number of the cathedral establishments, they could not be sufficient to discharge the duty as it ought to be done, and this would raise against them a degree of popular feeling. For the reasons he had stated, although he concurred with many of the views of the hon. Gentleman who had preceded him, he must give his vote against the motion of his hon. Friend.
Mr. Gladstonewould state at the outset, that he, for one, gave the noble Lord credit for having approached this subject with an earnest desire to arrive at a satisfactory settlement of this question, and a sincere wish for the welfare of the Church. He entertained the same opinion with respect to the noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House, with whom he had the misfortune in some degree to differ. For the individuals comprising the commission, he felt the highest respect, but when he was pressed with the authority of the commissioners, he asked by what authority their recommendations were supported? If he was told, that as a churchman, he ought to defer to them, he assented, but in a question of this kind he thought he was bound to look to the Bishops of the Church. He believed, that he was correct in stating, that the Primate of England and the Bishop of London were the two individuals most responsible for the provisions of this bill. There were five Bishops in the commission, but of them it was pretty well understood that three (either with reference to the abstract prin-
206
ciple of the recommendations or to some other point) were not disposed to consent to the recommendations; and, as to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, their recommendations had been somewhat diminished by circumstances. He should like to know whether the opinions expressed in those recommendations had or had not been maintained by them all their lives, or whether they had been suddenly adopted, It had been stated in print, and in a publication of considerable celebrity, that the Primate of England, up to the moment of the discussion of the question in the ecclesiastical commission, had been opposed to such a project, and with respect to the Bishop of London, they were not left to inference of any kind, for the Bishop of London, in a charge delivered within a few months before the ecclesiastical commission, expressed himself in a manner fatal to the very principle of the bill, and in the spirit of the hon. Member for Berks. The Bishop of London said, he did not think a measure of this kind expedient in itself, or that it could be carried into effect with safety to the Church, except by an inquiry into the circumstances of any diocese and the wants of the inhabitants, and that a mode of supplying their wants could be devised, "without breaking up the ancient frame-work of our polity." So far, then, as the authority they were called upon to look up to—the heads of the Church—that authority was not with, but against the measure. It was understood that a greater number of Bishops were against the measure; that nineteen out of twenty-six, that is all except seven, had expressed their disapprobation of the bill. Whatever might be the value of their authority with some, with him they had a great weight, and were sufficient to justify him against the charge of acting with disrespect to authority. Now, one word with respect to tithes. The noble Lord had said, that if the motion had not come from the hon. Member for Berks, he should have treated it as an evasion of the question. With respect to tithes, he was most desirous to avoid a general discussion of that subject in the House, for they were not a body well adapted to enter into the details of ecclesiastical questions. The great majority were disposed to settle the question amicably, but they had not the information necessary to settle it properly. He must say, that a bill

207
recommended by such high names, ought to receive the attention of the House; but there had been no loss of time attributable to the hon. Member for Berks; his address had been proposed as soon as possible; but did the noble Lord think that a question which involved twelve millions of money, if it should go up to the House of Lords, would become a law in the present Session? The real object in bringing on the discussion of this question, was, that the public mind might be disabused on the subject of cathedral establishments which had been instituted with a view to a higher form than the debased and degraded form to which improper patronage had reduced them. He had not any exception to make to the composition of the ecclesiastical commission. He objected to the bill because it gave a shock to property; secondly, because it would not remedy the abuses of cathedrals; and thirdly, because it would frustrate the very object for which it was introduced. Men had been allowed to bequeath their property for these purposes, and their bequests ought not to be interfered with on the mere pretence of general improvement. He thought they had no right to violate the wills of founders of cathedrals. He believed that the object of the noble Lord might be carried into effect consistently with the wills of founders of cathedrals, and it was contrary to all reason, and to the rule of law respecting bequests to violate the wills of founders when we could gain the object by respecting them. He was aware of the inconveniences attending an individual who proposed a counter measure against a measure recommended by such high authority; but, in fact, no appeal had been made to the parties who were entitled to be heard. The three gentlemen in Suffolk-street, were gentlemen of observation and of acuteness, and were disposed to do the best they could; but they were limited and confined to the object of extracting a certain amount of pecuniary contribution. But they would not be put in a way to arrive at a just result without an appeal to these, the bishops and visiters, who were entitled to be heard, and to propose plans for the improvement of these great establishments. The words in which the founders of cathedrals have defined the purposes which they had in view were so large, that there was hardly any religious object which might not be included in them. The charter of Henry
208
8th to Durham Cathedral, mentioned amongst the objects of the institution, the maintenance of discipline and good habits in youth, and that pious works of every kind might glow abundantly for guide fur the glory of Almighty God and the general welfare of mankind. What object of benefit to the church in the neighbourhood might not be fairly included in such terms? Admitting that there had been abuses in cathedrals, the bill would not remedy them. It might, perhaps, limit their extent, but it contained no general provision for effecting its professed object. It would not put an end to the abuses which were acknowledged to exist, but it would carry them into another class of society. It might no longer be worth the while of rich men to job in ill-paid sinecures as it was when the sinecures were well-paid; but so long as sinecures were to be obtained, there must be jobbing. Now the remedy which he proposed was to fix the duties of the capitular bodies, and to take security for their performance. It should be recollected that the chapter took a part in the election of the bishop, and although the part taken was only a formal one, it was important that the chapter should not be reduced to a state of inefficiency, because an occasion might arise when it would become the duty of the chapter to interpose its voice and prevent any gross abuse of the power of the Crown. The chapter were also the council of the bishop, and from all history it was perfectly clear that cathedral chapters were intended to act in that capacity. The only argument against this part of the case was that put forward by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, when he said that since the death of Bishop Burnet, about 120 years ago, no such thing had ever happened as a chapter acting as the council of the bishop Admitting that, however, to be the fact, yet, if the constitution of the church recognized their exercise of those functions, were we to be bound by, he would not call it the practice of the Church, but the abeyance into which its functions had fallen, instead of restoring such of its institutions as had fallen into decay? In matters, civil and military, England had done much during the last century, but he was sure that any man, looking back to the last hundred years in order to ascertain what ought to be the practice of the Church of England would

209
choose a period the most infelicitous that could be selected. That century, which had given way to one which he hoped would be the beginning of a very different era, had been distinguished by a declension in doctrine, in discipline, and in practice. Now, formerly the chapter assisted the bishop, as his council, in conferring ordination, and also in giving effect to a sentence of deprivation; and they were bound by the canons of the Church to aid him in the exercise of those important functions. He was quite sure that the isolated position of the bishops worked most unfavourably for the Church and the people, and that it still formed one of the main causes which kept the Anglican Church separate from their Protestant brethren from whom it was so unfortunately divided. It might in this particular take a lesson from those who had long known how to guide their Church policy. The Church of Rome in England, as he had been informed, though a poor church, and a voluntary church, was about to reorganise those institutions which it was the object of this bill to reform by cutting down. The influence of the bishops of the Church of England was too small, because their power was too large, and that power was alien to the spirit of the present time, as well as to the practice of the primitive church. He thought, therefore, that it might be worth while to consider whether it would not be important to restore to the chapters those functions which they had formerly exercised as council to the bishop. One objection to this was, that the members of the chapters were neither inclined, nor adequate to discharge those duties. But that was no answer to his argument, for the present members of chapters, if disinclined or inadequate to the discharge of those duties, must have been appointed by a vicious exercise of patronage, which was not to be looked for in future. Again, there was one general object of capitular institutions, which he was sure that no man in this country would estimate lightly, although he might consider it secondary to the object of relieving spiritual destitution, and that object was the maintenance of theological learning. He must say, that, if the acquisition of theological learning was at any time important, it was particularly so at the present period; partly because of the medium position which the church held between the Church of Rome and the
210
Dissenters, and partly on account of the character of the studies of the time, which, although embracing a wider range than formerly, were much more superficial. But, further, it was the specific design, the still narrower object of these institutions, to advance knowledge and learning, not only by affording a retreat for learned men, but by actual tuition. At the time of the Reformation, one great argument used for the suppression of the monasteries was, that they had become unfit for the diffusion of knowledge, and, therefore, it was necessary to apply their revenues to the advancement of learning in some other way. There was abundant evidence to show, that it was the design of the church that these capitular bodies should be seminaries of instruction. The whole of this subject had been treated by Dr. Pusey, in a work written before this question was agitated, in a manner which must carry conviction to the mind of any Member who would give an hour to its perusal. The designs of Cranmer, however, were disappointed, for he had projected, that in every cathedral, provision should be made for readers in divinity, and Greek, and Hebrew, and that the bishop should thus have a college of clergymen under his eye, who would be promoted according to their deserts. These establishments would promote theological learning, and subserve the purposes of general education. Now, if there was one want felt by the church more than another, it was the want of that zeal, piety, and talent which was to be found among the lower class of the population. If we had, as he hoped we soon should have, training schools belonging to our cathedral establishments, and these again connected with our national schools and village schools, this want would be fully supplied. It would be a matter of reward to be taken out of a village school, and sent to a training school connected with a cathedral, and if the statutes regarding cathedrals were carried into effect, young persons might be sent from these training schools to the university, where an exhibition would be found for them, and then, returning from the university to the cathedral, they would receive a clerical education, and might be sent out to labour in the vineyard of the church. He called, then, upon those who complained that the church was at present too aristocratic to assist in this attempt to bring the poorer classes of the population

211
into the ministry, and thus to enable the church to strike its roots deeper and deeper into the hearts and affections of the people. Now, as to the remedy proposed by the bill, he was ready to contend that there was a way in which the maintenance of cathedral establishments would give more effectual aid to parochial institutions than they would if the bill were carried out. The ancient doctrine, he believed, was, that the cathedral was the parish church of the whole diocese, and it was considered that a man attended his parish church if he attended divine service in the cathedral. That doctrine then would go to the extent of justifying the Legislature in imposing upon the cathedrals, not merely the care of providing for destitute districts, but the general charge and responsibility of the whole diocese where they possessed patronage and appropriations. A living organ seemed to be wanted in every diocese to watch over the spiritual condition of the population, and to take cognizance of its wants. Not that the whole burthen should be thrown upon the cathedrals; but there would be a great advantage in having an organized body to make known the wants of the population to the State, and if the State refused to do its duty, to private individual And he solemnly believed, that by maintaining the cathedrals, more would be done to maintain an ecclesiastical spirit in the land, and to excite the members of the Church at large to support it, than by any other means whatever independent of the State. The Church of England had wanted for several hundred years a code of ecclesiastical laws; but the code of King Edward 6th, which had never received a final sanction, did distinctly contemplate the duty of the members of cathedral bodies to be to teach, to preach, and to relieve the churches. The original idea was an institution of chapters for the assistance of the Bishops; and connecting that idea with the will of the founders, in its spirit as well as in its letter, he was most firmly persuaded that it would not be difficult for those in possession of the requisite knowledge and information, to form a measure which should at once preserve those institutions in their spirit and effect for the purposes of learning, and of assisting the Bishops, and of strengthening their hands in the government of their dioceses, and, at the same time, of enabling them to obtain a larger amount of contributions
212
for parochial worship than could possibly be obtained under the noble Lord's bill. The founders of these institutions had a great deal more wisdom than some persons were disposed to give them credit for. They did not contemplate immutable institutions; on the contrary, they distinctly provided for making such alterations in their statutes as might be deemed necessary. But, then, if alterations were made they should be made in the spirit of the founders. It was contrary to sound principle, and dangerous in practice, to interfere with sacred bequests, where the purposes of those bequests had not been proved to be mischievous or useless. But he contended, further, that the most proper and useful course was, to act in accordance with the original design of the foundations, to charge them upon the diocesan responsibility, and not to divide their benefits with the kingdom at large. Some hon. Gentlemen would say, "Will you neglect Chester and the West Riding of York? How cruel it is to pass these by, and to direct all your attention to cases of slight destitution compared with them." That was a very plausible argument. But, on looking into the circumstances of each case, it would be found, that no diocese had more resources in this way than were required for its own wants. This had been proved to be the case in respect to Durham, and if of Durham, à fortiori of every other diocese. Suppose a parish in Chester contained 20,000 people, and one in Durham 2,000, and both were admitted to be in a state of great destitution. Suppose the cathedral of Durham yielded about 200 l., and the question was, to which the money should be applied, he would not hesitate to say, that it ought to be applied to the parish in Durham of 2,000 rather than to the parish of Chester of 20,000. He would explain that by a reference to the authority of Dr. Chalmers, a man whose opinion upon territorial Church establishments was of great value, and who when four years ago a scheme for building churches was set on foot in London, recommended, that, attempts should not be made to cover extensive districts with slight means, but that little divisions should be made, and that these should be first effectually and sufficiently provided for. Thus men's consciences would be operated upon, they would see the necessity there was for greater exertion to meet

213
the amount of spiritual destitution around them. By the other course the consciences of men would be lulled to sleep, for they would be inclined to think that the provision was greater than it really was, and equal to the destitution, because a few churches were scattered over a great deal of ground. There were indications of a disposition to set about this great work in reality. Efforts were made in various parts of the country to relieve the spiritual destitution which prevailed, and the chapters themselves had established collegiate and scholastic institutions to promote religious instruction amongst the people. These exertions might have been much more vigorous and extensive had it not been for this bill, the effect of which was, to suspend ecclesiastical movements and improvements. The petition which he had that night presented to the House from the dean and chapter of Chichester, prayed that even if part of the revenues were sacrificed, still all the stalls, residentiary or non-residentiary, and all the existing dignitaries, might be retained, though without emolument or revenue, so that the duties of those offices might be discharged for the benefit and advantage of the Church. He joined in praying the noble Lord, if he proceeded with his bill, to retain those dignitaries. But from whom did that petition come? From persons who were often spoken of as men who sought nothing else than emoluments and revenues. That petition was signed by the archdeacon and sixty-three clergymen of the archdeaconry of Chichester. Already in that diocese means were taken to render the Church still more efficient, and the supply of religious instruction more abundant. Rural deans had been appointed, and an organisation was going on which would be frustrated if this bill were passed in its present shape. He did not deprecate this bill so much on account of the mischief it would do as on account of the positive good it would intercept. From the architectural beauty and magnificent splendour of the cathedrals might be inferred some idea of the noble spirit of generosity which animated the founders of those institutions, while the chapters were maintained, while even the fabric was preserved, there was some proof that we were not disposed to sacrifice everything to a spirit of false economy. Would it be worthy of a great and wealthy nation like this to destroy those foundations for
214
the purpose of relieving that destitution which it could easily supply from its own resources? The present generation were called upon to carry into effect the designs of those wise and good men who founded these institutions, and it would be a sad thing for the country, as well as for the character of the present generation, if they could not secure the fulfilment of their benevolent and pious wishes.
Lord J. Russell: I must ask for the indulgence of the House for a few moments. The hon. Member who made the motion which we are now discussing, having made but a few remarks, I will merely allude to that part of them which bears on the amount of information which has been laid before the House. As so many eloquent speeches have been made, and as the hon. Member for Somersetshire and the hon. Member for Newark have unfolded plans which had not been before explained, I trust that the House will allow me to trouble them with a few observations. Both those hon. Gentlemen have expressed the same objection to my plan, and that was, that it would be an interference with the rights of property, and a diversion of that property from the purposes for which it was originally intended. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down would permit of the appropriation of cathedral funds according to a plan of his own. Let it be remembered that, with respect to the original intentions of the founders, the doctrines they intended to promote are not our doctrines. We must therefore construe their intentions in the large sense of a desire to promote generally the religious instruction and education of the people. If, therefore, we are to deviate from the original intention which the hon. Gentleman himself admits, let that deviation be with due reference to the changed circumstances in which we are placed, and let us apply these funds, as nearly as we can, in the enlarged spirit of the founders, to provide for the necessities which this change has created. Having disposed of this, which would be an objection, in limine, to any deviation, I now come to the consideration of the plan which the hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to substitute for that of the present bill; and I must say that I do not think it an improvement on the one before the House, and which has the high sanction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primate of England, and think that

215
by adopting the plan of the hon. Gentleman we should be forfeiting a real and substantial benefit for a visionary and doubtful good. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last dwelt on the original constitution of the chapters. Doubtless, on their first foundation, they acted as a council to the Bishops, and that missionaries were sent out from them 1o convert the inhabitants of the neighbouring country to Christianity; but, as soon as they had succeeded in this—as soon as a parochial clergy, endowed by the feudal lords of former days, was established—from that moment these functions ceased. This was the natural course of events, and it would be a weakness merely for the sake of the antiquity of the foundation to endeavour to revive an institution which would be wholly inapplicable to existing circumstances. The hon. Gentleman quoted Lord Bacon to prove, that the chapters acted as a council to the Bishops, but the quotation which he made proved, that the custom had long before fallen into desuetude, for Lord Bacon speaks of it, not as an existing custom, but as one that it might be well to revive. And, were we to attempt to revive such a custom, I am persuaded it would lead to great inconvenience. It is well known that most Bishops now take a decided view of affairs for themselves, and to tie them down to take the counsel of persons, many of whom might not have been appointed by themselves, and in whose judgment they might not have much confidence, would lead to great practical inconvenience. Again, the hon. Gentleman says that these chapters might be made schools of theology; but to establish in every separate cathedral town a school of theology would, I fear, lead to theological and polemical disputes and dissensions highly injurious to the religious interests of the country at large. We have lately seen what polemical discussions have arisen out of our present schools, and we know that a Bishop a few years since refused to ordain a clergyman until he had answered eighty-seven questions; and if he had replied in the way to which he would have been expected to reply in a neighbouring diocese, the bishop would have refused to ordain him. The suggestions of both hon. Gentlemen were innovations; they did not accuse this bill of destroying anything that already existed. The only question before the House,
216
therefore is, as all parties declare some innovation to be necessary, which of the two plans will be most effectual in promoting the object which all have in view? The hon. Gentleman laid some stress on the authority of Archbishop Cranmer; but as the plans of that eminent person, notwithstanding the high influence of his great name and character, had failed, I put it to the hon. Gentleman whether it be not probable that there was something in their very nature which ensured failure. I doubt whether there is sufficient energy in the constitution of the chapters to accomplish any such objects. 1 now come to the question of that spiritual destitution which both the hon. Gentlemen have adverted to. Now, the constitution of these chapters is various; some of them amount to ten, some twelve, some eight, some six, some four. There is nothing, therefore, in their constitution which points out any particular number as necessary to the service of the cathedral. Such being the circumstances of the old cathedrals, what are the new circumstances in which we are placed? That, by the increase of commerce and manufacture, large towns filled with a dense population, have grown up, to which the Church of England has not sufficiently applied its own organised institutions. That being the real fact, and the Church having means not applied to any very useful purpose, the question is, shall we not take advantage of these funds and apply them to the religious instruction of these masses of population, who, notwithstanding the voluntary exertions of the Church of England and the Dissenters, are still in a state of lamentable spiritual destitution? Now, the hon. Gentleman's proposition was, that the clergy should be sent out from the cathedrals to these large towns. But why should this be the case? What was wanted in such a town as Birmingham, a far more important town now than Lichfield and Worcester, was, a body of parochial clergy, whose time should be fully occupied with their ministration there. Why were such men to be linked with the chapter of either cathedral town? Neither did the chapters in general consider it their duty to attend to the general wants of the diocese, and, indeed, their proposal was, that these funds should be applied in the first place to the augmentation of livings in their own gift, before bestowing any of them in aid of the spiritual wants of those large populous

217
places. If, therefore, the disposal of these funds were to be left to the chapters, the principal deficiency would be wholly un-provided for. Why either should the cathedral of Chester have to provide for Liverpool and Manchester, or that of Peterborough for the town of Leicester? However important these cathedral towns might have been formerly, other towns had grown up to greater importance; and when the hon. Gentleman spoke of the wisdom of those who founded these cathedrals, he forgot that the most material thing on which they exhibited their wisdom was in fixing upon those places in which at that time their exertions would be most available. Instead, therefore, of imagining that we are following our ancestors by endeavouring to keep up some curious piece of antiquity, we shall more effectually follow it by imitating their practical wisdom, and by providing for the pressing wants of the present day, instead of losing the substance in seizing at the shadow. There are two circumstances which I wish to mention before going into Committee. First, in relation to Wales; the peculiarities of the Church in that country are such that I have been induced to exclude from this bill all the clauses relating to Wales, and make them the subject of a separate bill; and next, with relation to a subject which has been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulburn), I have made a representation to her Majesty, who has graciously expressed her intention of founding, from the funds of Ely, the two professorships which had been so much desired. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in saying that this plan has only the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London. It was carefully attended to and examined by the whole board; and, in my opinion, they have taken a wise course in the proposed application of their revenue to the spiritual wants of the large masses. By so doing they will achieve another great object. By promoting religious education and instruction they will strengthen the bond of all social relations—they will strengthen the attachment of the subject to the Sovereign—and strengthen the attachment of fellow-subjects to each other. By so doing, I believe, you will subserve a great political purpose—not the purpose of any party—but that of maintaining the harmony of the constitution, and enabling the people
218
of this realm to look at political subjects with correct views and calm religious tempers, the greatest security we can obtain or desire. I therefore do think that you cannot do better than devote those funds to the furtherance of religious education according to the plan developed in this bill.
Sir T. D. Aclandthought the noble Lord had misconceived the object of his hon. Friend. The cathedral revenues were incompetent to provide for the spiritual destitution existing amongst the dense mass of the population, whereas they might be competent to supply the deficiency amongst that population more immediately connected with the cathedrals; but it would not do more, let the Church do all it could. He was glad that the Church should set the example, but, that having been done, let the country supply the deficiency. The difference between those on his side of the House and the noble Lord was only as to the mode of doing what was required. The means which the noble Lord adopted, however, would alter the character of the ecclesiastical institutions of the country, and tend to lower those establishments in the eyes of those for whose direction they were especially constituted.
Mr. G. Palmerthought it would be impossible to carry this bill into effect without literally seizing upon the whole of the property of the Church, and, if this was consented to, it was impossible to say how soon they might be called upon to give up their own properties.
The House divided on the original motion—Ayes 117; Noes 48: Majority 69.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Burroughes, H. N.

Aglionby, H. A.

Busfeild, W.

Archbold, R.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Bailey, J.

Clay, W.

Bailey, J. jun.

Clements, Viscount

Baines, E.

Collier, J.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

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

Baring, hon. W. B.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Barnard, E. G.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Basset, J.

Dundas, Sir R.

Bernal, R.

Dundas, D.

Bewes, T.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Blackett, C.

Evans, W.

Blake, W. J.

Fielden, J.

Bowes, J.

Finch, F.

Bridgeman, H.

Fort, J.

Brocldehurst, J.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Brotherton, J.

Gordon, R.

Buller, C.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

219

Greene, T.

Patten, J. W.

Greenaway, C.

Pechell, Captain

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Harcourt, G. C.

Philips, G. R.

Harland, W. C.

Pigot, D. R.

Hawkins, J. H.

Protheroe, E.

Heathcoat, J.

Rawdon, Col. J. D.

Hector, C. J.

Rundle, J.

Hindley, C.

Russell, Lord J.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Hodges, T. L.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Hodgson, R.

Slaney, R. A.

Hollond, R.

Smith, B.

Hoskins, K.

Smith, R. V.

Howard, hn. E. G. G.

Stanley, E.

Hughes, W. B.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Hurt, F.

Stock, Dr.

Hutt, W.

Talbot, C. R. M.

James, W.

Tancred, H. W.

Kemble, H.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.

Thornely, T.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Knight, H. G.

Tufnell, H.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Turner, W.

Lambton, H.

Verner, Colonel

Lemon, Sir C.

Verney, Sir H.

Lister, E.C.

Vigors, N. A.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Wakley, T.

Marshall, W.

White, A.

Marsland, T.

Wilbraham, G.

Maule, hon. F.

Williams, W.

Melgund, Viscount

Wilshere, W.

Morpeth, Viscount

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Morris, D.

Wood, G. W.

Morrison, J.

Wood, Colonel T.

Muntz, G. F.

Wood, B.

Murray, A.

Worsley, Lord

Muskett, G. A.

O'Brien, C.

TELLERS.

O'Brien, W. S.

Stanley, E. J.

Palmerston, Viscount

Parker, J.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Bell, M.

Hope, G. W.

Bruges, W. H. L

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Buck, L. W.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Long, W.

Burrell, Sir C.

Lowther, J. H.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Lygon, hon. General

Compton, H. C.

Mackenzie, T.

Courtenay, P.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Maunsell, T. P.

Darby, G.

Milnes, R. M.

Dottin, A. R.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Duffield, T.

Palmer, R.

Dungannon, Viscount

Palmer, G.

East, J. B.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Egerton, W. T.

Richards, R.

Eliot, Lord

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Estcourt, T.

Sheppard, T.

Feilden, W.

Shirley, E. J.

Fellowes, E.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Follett, Sir W.

Smith, A.

Freshfield, J. W.

Sotheron, T. E.

Gladstone, W. E.

Teignmouth, Lord

220

TELLERS.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Pusey, P.

Williams, W.

Acland, Sir T. D.

House in Committee.
On the 4th clause being put,
Mr. Liddellproposed that five canonries should be allowed to the cathedral of Durham instead of four, for the purpose of providing for the archdeaconry of Northumberland, which had no provision.
Mr. Lambtonsaid the great object was to apply as much of those funds as possible to the spiritual instruction of the people. He trusted the noble Lord below him (Lord John Russell) would not agree to the proposition of the hon. Member opposite.
Viscount Dungannonwas in favour of the amendment of the hon. Member.
The Committee divided on the original question—Ayes 83; Noes 40: Majority 3.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lemon, Sir C.

Archbold, R.

Lister, E. C.

Baines, E.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Marshall, W.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Maule, hon. F.

Basset, J.

Melgund, Viscount

Berkeley, hon. C.

Morpeth, Viscount

Blake, W. J.

Morris, D.

Bowes, J.

Muskett, G. A.

Bridgeman, H.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Brotherton, J.

O'Brien, C.

Buller, C.

O'Brien, W. S.

Busfeild, W.

Parker, J.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Pechell, Captain

Clay, W.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Clements, Viscount

Philips, G. R.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Pigot, D. R.

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

Rawdon, Col. J. D.

Dundas, Sir R.

Redington, T. N.

Dundas, D.

Rundle, J.

Evans, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Fort, J.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Gordon, R.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Greene, T.

Smith, R. V.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Harland, W. C.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Heathcoat, J.

Stock, Dr.

Hindley, C.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Teignmouth, Lord

Hodges, T. L.

Thornely, T.

Hoskins, K.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Howard, hn. E. G. G.

Turner, W.

Hughes, W. B.

Verney, Sir H.

James, W.

Vigors, N. A.

Jervis, J.

Vivian, J. H.

Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.

Wakley, T.

White, A.

Knight, H. G.

Williams, W.

221

Wilshere, W.

Wood, G. W.

TELLERS.

Wood, B.

Lambton H.

Worsley, Lord

Tuffnell, H.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Acland, T. D.

Herbert, bon, S.

Bell, M.

Hodgson, R.

Blackburne, I.

Holmes, W.

Blackett, C.

Hope, hon. C.

Blackstone, W. S.

Hurt, F.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Jackson, Mr. Sergeant

Buck, L. W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Lowther, J. H.

Burrell, Sir C.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Compton, H. C.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Courtenay, P.

Palmer, R.

Darby, G.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Duffield, T.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

East, J. B.

Shirley, E. J.

Eaton, R. J.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Egerton, W. T.

Sotheron, T. E.

Eliot Lord,

Estcourt, T.

TELLERS.

Follett, Sir W.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Freshfield, J. W.

Dungannon, Viscount

Clause agreed to.
On Clause five,
Lord J. Russellstated that he intended to introduce a separate clause respecting Winchester, as it was his desire to annex an archdeaconry of Surrey to a stall at Winchester.
Viscount Dungannonthen moved as an amendment, that six canonries should be given to Canterbury instead of four, as provided by the clause.
The Committee divided on the original question—Ayes 75; Noes 27: Majority 48.
On the 6th Clause
Sir W. Follett Sir W. Follett moved that Exeter be omitted from the bill.
Sir C. Lemontrusted that his noble Friend would accede to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Exeter.
The Committee divided on the question that the clause stand part of the bill—Ayes 57; Noes 34: Majority 23.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Clements, Viscount

Aglionby, H. A.

Dundas, Sir R.

Baines, E.

Dundas, D.

Baring, right hon. F.

Evans, W.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Finch, F.

Bowes, J.

Gordon, R.

Brotherton, J.

Greene, T.

Busfeild, W.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Harland, W. C.

Clay, W.

Hobhouse, T. B.

222

Hodges, T. L.

Rundle, J.

Hoskins, K.

Russell, Lord J.

Howard, hn. E. G.G.

Smith, R. V.

Hutt, W.

Stansfield, W. R.

James, W.

Stock, Dr.

Jervis, J.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Knight, H. G.

Thornely, T.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Tuffnell, H.

Lambton, H.

Vigors, N. A.

Lister, E. C.

Vivian, J. H.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Wakley, T.

Marshall, W.

Warburton, H.

Maule, hon. F.

Williams, W.

Morpeth, Viscount

Wilshere, W.

Morris, D.

Wood, G. W.

Muskett, G. A.

Wood, B.

O'Brien, C.

Worsley, Lord

Parker, J.

TELLERS.

Pechell, Captain

Stanley, E. J.

Redington, T. N.

Verney, Sir H.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Hope, G. W.

Basset, J.

Hughes, W. B.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Hurt, F.

Bruges, W. H.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Buck, L. W.

Jackson, Mr. Sergeant

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Lemon, Sir C.

Compton, H. C.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Courtenay, P.

Lincoln, Earl of

Darby, G.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Dungannon, Viscount

Palmer, R.

East, J. B.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Egerton, W. T.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Eliot, Lord

Sibthorp, Colonel

Estcourt, T.

Sotheron, T. E.

Freshfield, J. W.

Teignmouth, Lord

Glynn, Sir S. R.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

TELLERS.

Herbert, hon. S.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Hodgson, R.

Follett, Sir W.

House resumed.—Committee to sit again.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Sugar Duties; Chimney Sweepers; Glass Duties.—Read a third time: —Colonial Passengers: Protestant Episcopal Church (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of Normanby, from various places, against the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill.—By Lord Lyndhurst, from Waterford, for Amendments in the Irish Municipal Bill.—By the Marquess of Downshire, from Belfast, against certain Clauses in the Irish Corporations Bill.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND—NON-INTRUSION.
The Marquess of Breadalbane, in presenting several petitions in favour of non-intrusion, said, that the number of signatures attached to petitions in favour of non-intrusion amounted to 166,734, while those to petitions in favour of intrusion amounted only to 4,161: from this their Lordships might gather what was the general feeling in Scotland on the subject.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that on this, as well as on several previous occasions, the noble Marquess had referred to the number of petitions and to the signatures which were affixed to them that had been presented in favour of what was called the principle of non-intrusion, and the noble Marquess had pointed to these petitions as a proof that the principle was universally adopted in Scotland. Now, he would endeavour to show the very fallacious testimony on which the noble Marquess
160
founded his opinion. It appeared to him that amongst the great improvements in manufactures by which late years was distinguished, no manufacture was more improved than the manufacture of petitions. And a most signal example of the perfection to which that manufacture was carried was to be found in one of the petitions to which the noble Marquess had referred. That petition, which was from Edinburgh, and of which he had heard some account, was described as being most numerously and respectably signed. On this matter, one or two gentlemen had written to him, but he would not trouble their Lordships with much that they said. It would appear, that in consequence of the improvement of the times, petitions were now carried about by the ladies—the younger and handsomer, he supposed, the better. The writer of the letter to which he alluded stated, "that the petition was brought to his house by two ladies. The parties inquired, was his wife at home? They were told that she was not. They then sent the petition up to the nursery, accompanied with a message that all in the house belonging to the Established Church were to sign it. It was accordingly signed by one servant and two children, without their knowing more about what they signed than what they had learned from the message of the ladies. The elder of the children was twelve years of age, the other ten." He had received other letters of a similar character. He did not object to the petitions of the people being fairly and fully laid before their Lordships; but he confessed, that he thought the unsophisticated article was rather better than the manufactured article which he had described. As to the assumption, that all those who petitioned in favour of non-intrusion were, therefore, to be set down as favourable to the monstrous pretensions set up by the Assembly, it was no such thing. There were various shades of difference amongst the non-intrusionists.
The Marquess of Breadalbanesaid, that notwithstanding the statement of the noble Earl as to the manufacture of petitions, he could assure their Lordships there was one general feeling throughout Scotland in favour of non-intrusion; and the very announcement of the noble Earl that these petitions were to be found in nurseries, and that ladies were engaged in procuring signatures, showed that that feeling existed in the inmost recesses of every domestic

161
establishment. In almost all petitions some legal remedy had been asked for, and yet the noble Earl took credit to himself that his bill made no alteration in the existing law.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND.)
On the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill, having been read,
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, he rose to state his sentiments on this measure.
Lord Lyndhurst: Does the noble Marquess mean to oppose going into Committee on the bill?
The Marquess of Londonderrycertainly did. After the unanswered and unanswerable speech which they had heard from counsel at the bar against this bill, he could not reconcile himself to consent to the further progress of the measure under any circumstances. He admitted the abilities, the zeal, the perspicacity, of his noble and learned Friend who intended to propose amendments in this bill; but, in his opinion, nothing which his noble and learned Friend could propose could so alter the bill as to justify their Lordships in passing it. When they found petitions pouring in from every part of Ireland against the measure, he trusted that their Lordships would not sanction it. What would be the effect of the bill? It would take power out of the hands of those who were properly intrusted with it, because they had always used it wisely, and would throw it into the hands of a party who were adverse to the British connexion. He had expected when the bill was brought forward to hear from the noble Viscount opposite some answer to the statements contained in those most able and eloquent speeches that were made at their Lordships' Bar against the measure. But what was the sort of argument that the noble Viscount urged on the House? All they heard from the noble Viscount was, that their Lordships had already passed two such bills for regulating, or rather for subverting, municipal corporations in Ireland, and therefore that they ought also to entertain the present measure. He could not consider that to be any proper ground for agreeing to this bill. The argument, if argument it could be called, amounted merely to this—that because they had in two sessions sent
162
down to the Commons a similar bill, ergo, it was their duty to send down this. Before they passed such a measure, let them look to the effect which had been produced by measures that had already been enacted with reference to Ireland. Let them well consider the power which those measures had unfortunately thrown into the hands of one individual, who actually wished to overturn the connection between the two countries. That person had disseminated his proposals for a repeal of the union, and for the course which should be pursued afterwards through all the towns and cities of Ireland. His object evidently was, to place the Roman Catholics in full possession of the whole power of the country. When he saw such projects disseminated far and wide, he felt it to be his duty to raise his Irish voice against such proceedings, and to give the utmost opposition to every measure that was calculated in the smallest degree to foster them. Had the noble Viscount taken any measures for urging the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland to put the law in force against such proceedings as he had described, and which in his opinion were decidedly illegal? When the individual to whom he alluded told the people of Ireland that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was formerly favourable to the Repeal of the Union, and that probably he held the same opinion still—when he declared, that unless he attained all that he demanded, he would, by every means that he could command, endeavour to effect a Repeal of the Union, it was time that an end should be put to such proceedings; and, above all, their Lordships ought to take care not to tolerate any measure that would throw additional power into such hands. On this point there was a passage so true and so strong in the speech delivered at their Lordships' Bar by a learned Gentleman (Mr. Butt) a short time since, that he begged leave to read it. The noble Marquess read an extract from the speech of Mr. Butt, in which the learned Gntleman, after alluding to the conspiracy which was proved before a Committee of their Lordships' House to exist in Ireland, emphatically called on their Lordships to say, "whether they would intrust the peace of the towns of Ireland to men who were notoriously connected with that conspiracy?" There were other parts of that speech, one particularly, that referred to taxation in Dublin, that were no less wor-

163
thy of their Lordships' serious consideration. He knew that many of their Lordships regretted the Act of Emancipation after what had followed it; he had heard many of their Lordships declare, that if they could have foreseen to what extent the Catholics would attempt to domineer over the Protestants, they would not have been induced to assent to it. Partial amendments, such as those of his noble Friends near him, to exclude Dublin and Belfast from the operation of this measure, would never undo the mischief that would be done by passing this bill. He had never seen any measure whose effects would be so radically mischievous and fatal to the interests of Ireland, and particularly to the interests of the- property of that country.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that from the complicated nature of this bill, he thought it would be convenient that he should pursue the course he had taken on former occasions, which was, to refer successively to the amendments, that it was his intention to move in Committee, and without the adoption of which he was persuaded their Lordships would never consent to pass this bill into law. He assured their Lordships that he should occupy as small a portion of their time as was consistent with the necessary statement of the facts to which he was about to refer. It was not his intention to say a single word with respect to the principle of this bill, with respect to the effect it was likely to produce in Ireland on the Protestant Church, and the general interests of the country, or with respect to the feeling which the bill had created in Ireland, and the growing distaste to the measure, according to his view, in this country. He should pass over all those topics, however fruitful they might be, because he did not think them suitable to the present occasion, and he should confine himself simply to the details of the clauses, and the amendments which it was his intention to propose. He must be allowed to say, that there were some circumstances connected with this bill which would strike their Lordships as a little singular. They had had a measure of this kind in 1836, another in 1837, a third in 1838, and a fourth in 1839. All those bills had come up from the other House of Parliament, drawn in the same form and upon the same model, so that it was easy for their Lordships to see the alterations which had been made in them, and
164
the amendments which it might be necessary to introduce. In the present case a new plan had been followed, and the whole bill had been remodelled, with what object it was difficult to conceive, unless for the purpose of concealing some alterations, minute indeed in appearance, but which, if passed over without detection, would have been productive of consequences most mischievous to the interests of Ireland. Those alterations in the form of the bill had led to some very extraordinary blunders, one or two of which he should mention by way of sample. In the 68th clause, their Lordships would find, that the churchwardens were liable to be indicted for a misdemeanour if they did not perform the duties, or supposed duties, imposed on them by this bill. Now, he had looked through its clauses, and did not find a single duty imposed on those officers by any one clause. So much for the alterations which had been made in the frame and texture of the bill, and the consequences that would result from them. In the 46th clause he found that it was the duty of the town-clerks to copy and print certain lists made out by the churchwardens, and if they neglected to do so they were made subject to certain penalties. He had looked through every clause of the bill, and did not find that the churchwardens were bound to prepare any lists whatever, or that they had any authority to interfere in any manner with the subject. So much for the accuracy with which the bill had been framed. With regard to the amendments which it was his intention to propose, some of them were already familiar to their Lordships. The first he meant to propose related to the right of freemen voting for Members of Parliament. This bill professedly did not interfere with that right; it would remain precisely where it now stood. He should therefore direct their Lordships' attention to this subject; and first, he should say a few words as to the history of the clause. In 1838 the clause was amended by their Lordships, and went down to the other House of Parliament. The amendment was discussed there, its adoption was opposed, and along speech was made by a noble Lord who led the Government party in that House. Notwithstanding all the arguments used by that noble Lord against the amendment, it was afterwards assented to by him; so that in 1838, after a discussion and division in

165
their Lordships' House, and a discussion without a division in the other House, both Houses of Parliament came to an agreement with respect to this clause. It was natural to suppose that under such circumstances, in the following year, the clause so agreed to by both Houses would have kept its place in the bill when it came before their Lordships. No such thing; the clause was abandoned. The subject was again discussed before their Lordships at great length, and with great ability, by his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, and the amendment was adopted by a very large majority. It was his intention then to move, by way of amendment, that the clause agreed to in 1838 be restored to the bill. That was the effect of the amendment he meant to propose with respect to the freemen's clause. The noble Viscount on a former night, feeling himself pressed by the agreement of both Houses on this point, told their Lordships that the clause was not understood in the other House, not even by the noble Lord to whom he had referred. That was certainly a singular compliment to pay to the noble Lord, supported as he was by Irish law officers, English law officers, and all those persons who formed the "following," he would not use a more offensive word, of the individual who had taken such an active part in the discussion of the measure. But the noble Viscount's supposition was not correct. If the noble Viscount would have the goodness to refer to the speech of the noble Lord, who entered into every part of the discussion relating to the clause, he would find, that it was perfectly understood. Therefore the observation which the noble Viscount had made, for the purpose of impairing the force of the assent which the noble Lord had given to the amendment, was not well founded, But the noble Viscount said, that the clause was not understood, not Only by Members of the House, but by those of their Lordships who had proposed the amendment. The noble Viscount insinuated that it had been suggested by some one behind the curtain, and that their Lordships were carrying into effect designs and projects of which they did not perceive the full extent. He could assure the noble Viscount that there was as little foundation for this statement as for the other, for he knew of his own knowledge that the clause was amended by a lawyer
166
of great eminence, not a Member of either House of Parliament, and unconnected with any political party, in order to secure to the freemen the rights of voting which they now enjoyed, and which they would continue to enjoy if this bill did not pass into a law. He would now say a word with respect to the clause as it at present stood, for the purpose of showing the necessity of the amendment he should propose. All parties admitted the principle that this bill should not in the slightest degree affect the right of voting for Members of Parliament. It provided, however, that any person who had obtained his freedom after the 31st of March, 1831, should have no right to transmit it by birth or marriage to another individual. That was a direct infraction of the Parliamentary Reform Bill. If this were not agreed to, those individuals would have the right of transmitting the right of voting and of their freedom to other persona by birth or marriage. But there was an exception to this regulation. Every person who should have obtained his freedom after the 31st of March, 1831, by servitude, was allowed to transmit the right to other individuals. What was the reason, of this modification? Their Lordships would see at once the spirit in which this clause was drawn. Transmission by birth or marriage would give the freedom generally to Protestants, but by servitude a lower class of freemen was introduced, the greater portion of whom would be Catholics. Therefore the exception was made in favour of Catholics, while the exclusion was rendered absolute when the freedom was transmitted by birth or marriage. He would ask their Lordships whether, if the constituencies were to remain as they were, it did not become absolutely necessary that this clause should be amended. There was a large class of freemen of different guilds of Dublin (it was remarkable that this Dill was drawn more with reference to Dublin than any other part of Ireland) who by birth, marriage, or servitude, had an inchoate right to be freemen of that corporation. It happened now and then, to be sure, that the parties who had the right of judging whether or not they should be admitted excluded them, but that was a most rare occurrence; their admission was regarded as a matter of course, and upon their admission they became entitled to vote at elections for Members of Parliament, All those classes

167
of persons were absolutely excluded by this bill, and the object of his amendments would be, to restore them to their rights. So much for this part of the case. The next clause to which he should call their Lordships' attention was the 22nd, which was usually called the boundary clause. Their Lordships were aware that in counties of cities and towns, there was, besides the city or town, a large rural district, forming a part of the county of the city or town. In the county of the city of Cork the rural district contained seventy square miles, while the town itself had only four square miles. The boundaries fixed by the bill of last year excluded the whole, or nearly the whole, of the rural districts from the towns, in order to obviate what was clearly a grievance of some magnitude, that those districts should be taxed for town purposes, in which they had no interest. It was provided by the bill of last year that those districts should, for the purpose of grand jury presentments, be annexed to the counties at large. That was done upon a principle of justice, their Lordships assented to it, and upon that point both Houses agreed. In the present bill the whole of that arrangement was reversed. The amendment was entirely got rid of, and the rural districts, instead of being annexed to the adjoining counties, were annexed to the towns for the purpose of grand jury presentment, so that the evil so much complained of would be restored by the alterations made in this clause. On what principle, he would ask, should their Lordships reverse the arrangement which had been made by the former bill? The present enactment would be directly at variance with the recommendation of the boundary commissioners. He would read to their Lordships an extract from the report of those commissioners, and then their Lordships would see if great injustice would not be done by the course which was now proposed:—
"The result of this system," said the commissioners, "is, that the poor agriculturists are taxed enormously to supply things which they never enjoy; the rich citizens are taxed lightly to supply things that they always enjoy; the poor countryman pays more than six times the rate of the tax paid by the rich citizen on a fair relative comparison, to support city taxes, city corporations, and general city establishments."
That was the report of the commis-
168
sioners appointed by Government, and upon that report, and for the purpose of obviating this grievance, the clause was drawn and prepared last year in the manner he had stated. Although the Government in the House of Commons admitted the injustice and impropriety of their boundary clauses, yet in this Session of Parliament they had inserted a clause to reverse the proceeding to which they had formerly agreed, and to restore the bill to the form in which it had come up to their Lordships last Session. This was a most singular proceeding. Their Lordships might be desirous of getting rid of this injustice, but they had no power of doing so, because the House of Commons thought proper to insert in the bill clauses which their Lordships could not alter. What course was he then to pursue? If he attempted to amend the clause, he should be told, that he was interfering with the privileges of the House of Commons. He would not knowingly and advisedly recommend an amendment contrary to the privileges of that House, and therefore he would leave the clause as it at present stood, open to the injustice he had stated, and he would then appeal to Ministers to provide a remedy. If they would not do so, it would be for their Lordships to say whether, with a grievance of such magnitude perpetuated by this bill, which they bad no right to alter, they would pass this bill. He would not amend this clause, because any Member of the other House might at once say to the Speaker, "Is this not an infringement of our privileges?" The answer would be in the affirmative, and the amendments would be rejected, not on their merits, but on a point of form, as was the course pursued last Session. The next point was that of the qualification, which their Lordships had always insisted should be fixed at 10 l. Much embarrassment bad been created on former occasions by the question, in what manner this value should be ascertained. The other House had adopted the criterion selected by their Lordships for that purpose, as far as the boroughs in schedule A were concerned, but they proposed to reduce the qualification in the boroughs in schedule B to 8l. He was sure their Lordships would not assent to this reduction. There was no variety in the qualification either in England or Scotland, and the 10 l. franchise corresponded exactly to that of the

169
Scottish Municipal Bill. If the qualification were to vary according to the population of the towns, he should insist, that instead of one of 10 l. in the city of Dublin, there should be one of 15 l. or 20 l. The whole question, which was a very important one, would be opened by the change which he had mentioned. That was not the only alteration; this qualification was to exist for three years, and at the end of that time to be entirely changed. The qualification at the end of that time was no longer to depend on value, but upon the payment of rates and taxes within a certain period. When the time arrived their Lordships would be able to see what the right of qualification then was. But he was certain, that their Lordships would never assume that the state of things three years hence in Ireland would be such as any individual might think fit to anticipate at present. He therefore intended to propose as an amendment, that in all boroughs included in schedule A, and also in all boroughs included in schedule B, the qualification should amount to 10 l., in other words, he intended to propose, that the qualification should correspond to the qualification in the Scotch Municipal Reform Bill. The next point, and it was a material one, to which he wished to call the attention of their Lordships, was the appointment of sheriffs. In the year 1836, when the bill was introduced into the other House of Parliament, the appointment of sheriffs was vested in the Crown out of certain parties elected by the town-council. But in the discussion which took place upon it in that House, it was suggested, that these offices were connected with the administration of justice in Ireland, and it was then conceded, that the appointments to them should be vested absolutely in the Lord-lieutenant. The bill, so amended, was sent up to their Lordships. Now, by the present bill it was provided, that the Lord-lieutenant should not have the absolute appointment of the sheriffs, but that the town-council should nominate three persons, that out of the three persons so nominated the Lord-lieutenant should appoint one, that if he were of opinion that none of the three were fit persons to be appointed, the town-council should nominate other three persons, and that in case he did not approve of any one of the three then nominated, then, and then only, he should have the abso-
170
lute appointment of the sheriffs. Any person who knew how this clause would operate practically, must see that it vested the appointment of the sheriffs in the town-council. These corporation jurisdictions were counties, they were counties of cities it was true, but in point of law they were the same as counties at large. He intended to propose, that the appointment of sheriffs in these towns should be placed on the same footing as the appointment of sheriffs in counties at large. He was sure, that their Lordships would see the propriety of this amendment, and that they would in consequence accede to it. It was acceded to by their Lordships last Session after a division, and it was also acceded to in the Session of 1838 by a majority of voices. The noble Viscount in the Session of 1836 had expressed himself in strong terms as to the propriety of these appointments being vested in the Lord-lieutenant, and he therefore trusted that the noble Viscount, armed with his own authority upon the subject, would not hesitate to declare his acquiescence once more in this amendment. He should not detain their Lordships many minutes longer, but there was an amendment, which, in a former Session, had been proposed by a noble Duke, and which he still conceived to be of vast importance—he meant the amendment by which the auditors of public accounts were vested with authority to investigate into the accounts of these corporations. They had to deal with large sums of money. The corporation of Dublin had an annual revenue of 30,000 l. or 40,000 l., and by this bill it would be enabled to raise by a rate as much more. It was, therefore, important that there should be an audit appointed to prevent the existence of any abuse in the management of such large funds. When the noble Duke moved the clauses which were necessary to carry this amendment into effect, they were assented to by their Lordships; and also, when they went down to the other House, by the House of Commons. He did suppose, that, as a matter of course, he should have found the same clauses introduced into this bill. For some unknown, or at least for some unexplained, cause, they were now omitted. He understood, that Government had said something in the other House of Parliament about the propriety of introducing them; but the bill had nevertheless been read a third time with-

171
out any proposition having been made to introduce them. He was sure that their Lordships would see the propriety of restoring these clauses to the bill. In the course of last Session, a noble Friend of his, not then in his place, had presented a petition from the town of Galway, signed by every rate-payer and respectable inhabitant in that town, praying that it might be taken out of Schedule A, and inserted in Schedule B. His noble Friend rested his claim for that exception, not only on the numbers and respectability of those who had signed the petition, but also upon the facts of the case. The petitioners averred that they had a private Act of Parliament under which everything that could be done under a corporation was now done without one. They, therefore, protested against being placed under a corporation, and against being exposed to a system of agitation which had not hitherto been introduced into their town. Their statement made an impression upon the noble Lords opposite, and his noble Friend was, in consequence, allowed to introduce his clause. He believed, that he was not quite correct in his last position—the clause was rather carried upon a division. The bill went down to the House of Commons containing this amendment. This exception, then, having been once adopted by their Lordships, he felt himself entitled, on the request of his noble Friend, to introduce it again; and he trusted that their Lordships would re-insert this clause, or rather the several clauses, which were necessary to carry it into effect without difficulty. These were the principal amendments which he intended to propose. He considered them to be of great importance. The other amendments which he had to propose were mere matters of detail, which could not be made clear without their Lordships having the clauses before them. The amendments, however, which he had already explained, contained principles so important to the bill itself, that unless their Lordships adopted them, he could not submit to allow this bill to be read a third time. His Lordship concluded by moving, that their Lordships now resolve themselves into a Committee on the bill.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he could not help thinking that the amendments which his noble and learned Friend proposed making, would have been much better discussed when they came to the clauses
172
themselves in Committee, than by a preliminary debate before going into Committee; but, at the same time, there were one or two remarks made by his noble and learned Friend in the course of his speech which he could not allow to pass unnoticed. With regard to the first clause upon which his noble and learned Friend proposed to make an amendment—namely, the freemen's clause—he was very glad to observe, from what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend, that the House would be saved a good deal of trouble on this point. On a former occasion, he had explained to their Lordships what he considered would be the effect of this clause, as it was then amended; and if he remembered rightly, a noble Earl, who sat on the Opposition side of the House, expressed his doubts whether he had correctly described it, but said, that if he thought he had correctly described it, he should be very much inclined to vote against such an amendment. Now, it happened that his noble and learned Friend had, this evening, entirely admitted what he had, on that occasion, said on this subject. He maintained that the effect and object of the proposed amendment would be, not to retain the Parliamentary franchise as settled by the Reform Act, but to alter it very materially, giving rights which never existed under it. He was prepared to examine the clause by the test of maintaining the Parliamentary franchise unaltered, and he had no doubt, upon that ground, of being able to prove to their Lordships, that they ought not to agree to this amendment. This bill, as it came from the Commons, provided for all these interests. The object of the bill was to place the freemen in the same situation that they were before in as to the Parliamentary franchise. It was, therefore, that the only right recognizable by this bill was that which could be enforced by law. The right should be one that could be enforced by mandamus. But, in the Dublin case, it had been decided that the men claiming the freedom of the corporation had no such right. It had been so decided in 1826. The object, however, in the noble and learned Lord's amendment on this clause, was to introduce a right, a legal right, which has never before existed under the pretence of preserving the Parliamentary franchise. There was another part of this case on which the observations of his noble and learned Friend had greatly

173
surprised him. He meant the observations of his noble and learned Friend with regard to the liberties, or precincts, of the counties of cities, or towns. His noble and learned Friend had seemed to say, that there was something improper in the course adopted upon the present occasion, as if there was here something which their Lordships could not alter. Now, his noble and learned Friend had not informed them of that, which it was his duty to inform them, and the accuracy of which their Lordships could ascertain in one minute. This part of the bill, as it now came up from the House of Commons, was precisely the same as that which their Lordships had assented to in 1838. In a question of this kind, when there was great difficulty in bringing the two houses to coincide in opinion upon the same point, he thought that where there was that agreement of opinion discovered, it at least was a part of the case on which it was not necessary to raise a discussion. When the proposition was made as to the towns in which corporations should be established, it happened that no notice was taken of those districts which were attached to the town. Their Lordships thought that was objectionable, and they therefore limited the corporations to certain bounds prescribed in the bill; but they did not interfere with those portions which belonged to the cities and towns. Thus in the bill of 1838 they left the corporations within the narrow limits of the towns; but the counties remained as they were before. There was the county cess and the grand jury cess, unaffected by the municipal corporations, so that the provisions of the bill referred to by his noble Friend did not deal with the same fund. The corporations bad only to deal with the corporation funds, while the grand jury provided for all the expenses necessary for the counties. Their Lordships had so amended the bill of 1838, and what was then done was precisely what was done by his bill. The Commons had assented to that amendment in 1838, and if there were not other difficulties in the case, Ireland would since then have had the benefit of corporations, with this very provision embodied in the bill, that gave them to that country. In 1839 the House of Commons sent up to their Lordships another scheme. There was an obvious inconvenience in this respect, which the House of Commons was desirous of rectifying, They proposed to
174
take the county districts from the towns and convey them to the neighbouring barony, or half barony, and throw them into the county at large. This left the towns within the municipal boundaries, as prescribed in the act. It took the county jurisdiction over them from the county grand juries, and transferred it to the town council. When that bill came up to their Lordships they adopted that part of it by which the districts adjoining to the boroughs were thrown into the county at large, and they at the same time took away the protection from the towns, which it was proposed they should have. That was a proposition which the House of Commons was not likely to agree to, because it was unjust in the highest degree. It was a-half measure, taking away one thing without giving another. It was taking from the towns that which was the only compensation that they would have. In consequence of what had passed last session, it was thought necessary to divide the bill into two. If both bills passed, that would be accomplished which was proposed by the bill of 1839. Their Lordships had thrown out one of the bills, and of that bill he would say nothing, except in so far as it affected the present bill. Their Lordships, then, had here a bill which thus far they had accepted in 1838, and yet this was now made a matter of complaint. When their Lordships had altered the former bill, the House of Commons had assented to it, and the merit of this bill was, that it made no alteration in this respect. This was made a matter of reproach. He was astonished that his noble and learned Friend should have objected to that which not only the House of Commons had sanctioned, but which their Lordships had agreed to in 1838. He was glad, however, to find that there was no proposition now made to alter that part of the bill. He admitted, that it might be improved had the other bill been permitted; but he should not now pursue the case further. He was only sorry to have occupied their Lordships' time; but he was sure that their Lordships would not now desire to alter that which formerly they had approved, and the House of Commons had sanctioned.
Lord Lyndhurstwished to make a few observations with respect to the last point which had been alluded to by the noble and learned Lord, because on going into Committee, he would not have an oppor-

175
tunity of replying as to that point. He would confine himself to the 22nd., or boundary clause. He differed entirely from his noble and learned Friend as to what had taken place in 1838. Their Lordships had introduced a clause by way of amendment, annexing the rural districts to the counties at large. He had had some share in preparing the clause; and he could say that its object was, that the grand jury of the county at large should present with respect to those districts so annexed. He admitted that there was some ambiguity in the terms in which the clause was worded; but that this was the object of the clause he could take it on himself to aver. It was impossible to read it and not to see that the intention was to annex them to the counties at large, for the purposes of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and also of grand jury presentment. In 1838 that clause had been assented to by the other House of Parliament. The House of Commons in the following year, retained these very words, but the terms which they employed was still clearer as to those districts being annexed to the counties for the grand jury presentments, and also for civil and criminal jurisdiction. Their Lordships had every reason to suppose that that clause would have formed part of the present bill. Why did it not form a part. The ground of annexing the rural districts to the counties at large was to preserve them from the liability of contributing to the expenses of the towns. This was the acknowledged object. But it was stated that the House of Commons did not mean to do this, unless their Lordships assented to something else. To do what? To do that to which he never would consent—namely, to transfer from the grand jury to the council the right of making presentments. Their Lordships had expressed themselves of opinion that it would be injurious to intrust this power to the town-council. When his noble and learned Friend asked in whom did the vested right exist to dispose of these funds, he replied, "Let them be intrusted to the same authority which disposes of the county funds." Which was the more suitable body to preside in Ireland over the distribution of funds of this description, whether their amount was limited or extended—the grand jury, with all those guards and guarantees to which he had alluded on a former evening, or the town-
176
council without any? Because their Lordships would not consent to vest the undivided control over these funds in the town-councils, they were answered by a declaration that the rural districts would not be relieved from the taxation of the towns. He apprehended that this was a complete answer. In 1838 the two Houses agreed to a principle which was afterwards more clearly asserted by the Commons, and assented to by the Lords in 1839. With respect to the rest of the case, a great part of what he (Lord Lyndhurst) had said had been left unanswered. First, as to that part of the case which had reference to the admission of freemen, he (Lord Lyndhurst) had adverted to the circumstance that, after 1831, freemen could not be promoted by birth or marriage, but that they could by servitude; and to that the noble and learned Lord had made no answer whatever. The noble and learned Lord said, that the Members of the guilds had no right by law to be admitted to the freedom, unless through birth, marriage, or servitude. This was stated by Mr. Justice Burton to be "inchoate freedom." And what did they do? They abolished the power to complete this right; and then they said, that they made no alteration in the constituency. This inchoate right enabled these persons to apply to the corporation to be admitted; and practically this amounted to admission; for no instance, he believed, had ever occurred in which the application had been refused. Noble Lords on the opposite side would deprive the constituencies of this right, and yet they asserted that they did not at all touch them. In point of fact, they did interfere by this bill with existing rights, and to a much larger extent than was generally supposed.
The Lord Chancellorreferred to the bill of 1838 for the purpose of showing that there was no ambiguity in the clause which threw the liberties of towns into the counties. If his noble and learned Friend were right in his interpretation, they must have in all those places two grand juries and two assizes.
Lord Lyndhurst: The clause in this bill is liable to the same objection.
Lord Broughamnot having the honour of being present at the second reading of this bill, only rose for the purpose of saying that he adhered to the principle of the bill, and continued his opposition to all the amendments proposed by his noble

177
and learned Friend. He earnestly hoped that, in which a great majority of their Lordships agreed, some measure on this subject would be passed. He feared in entertaining that hope he should be disappointed from one thing that had been said by his noble and learned Friend, and he trusted he had misunderstood his noble and learned Friend, because if not, he apprehended that all their labour would be vain; and that whether they agreed to or rejected the amendment, this bill would finally be rejected at the instance of his noble and learned Friend. His noble and learned Friend had said, that unless they adopted his amendments he would vote against the bill at some other stage, and in that case, he believed his noble and learned Friend would have the power to prevail on their Lordships to reject the bill. But he had no apprehension upon that ground; because he was afraid that their Lordships would adopt the amendments of his noble and learned Friend. It was not from that quarter he had any apprehension, but it was from another part of the speech, and he hoped he had misunderstood his noble and learned Friend, and that if his noble and learned Friend could comfort him by saying so, he hoped he would tell him that he had misunderstood his noble and learned Friend. He understood his noble and learned Friend to say, after the course that had been adopted with the Grand Jury Cess Bill, that he totally disapproved of the councils of the corporations having taxing powers, and yet he did not intend to move an amendment in that part of the bill, as it would run counter to the admitted privileges of the Commons, and make it imperative upon them to throw out this bill; but then it was said by his noble and learned Friend, that if some other measure were not introduced by the Government, in the only place where it could be introduced, namely, in the other House, and unless that measure were adopted in that House, then, as he understood his noble and learned Friend, he would reject the present bill. He wished to know if he had misunderstood his noble and learned Friend? [Lord Lyndhurst nodded assent.] Then if he so understood his noble and learned Friend, he must say that, coupling the statement of to-night with the question which his noble and learned Friend had put a few nights since, as to the introducing of an-
178
other bill into the other House, and remembering the negative answer of his noble Friend (Viscount Melbourne), that it was not the intention of her Majesty's Government to introduce such a measure, perhaps doubting that they would carry it in the other House—then he feared that the shorter and the more convenient course that his noble and learned Friend could have taken, would be not to put them to the trouble of going through the Committee, but at once tell them to reject the bill. They must know, that that would be the inevitable consequence of putting the bill upon the issue, either that the Government did not intend to introduce such a bill, or if they did, that they would not be able to carry it. If he rightly understood that question and answer, he had little hope that even then, on the fourth or fifth occasion that this bill was before them—and although they thought it absolutely necessary for the peace of Ireland, or at all events highly expedient in every view which could be taken of it—that even then the bill would pass the two branches of the Legislature. With respect to the other matters dwelt upon by his noble and learned Friend, there would be time enough in Committee, if they did go into Committee, to discuss them. He would only add, that he still retained the opinion which he had ever held on the most important part of the subject—the qualification of the franchise. He differed from his noble Friend near him, who approved of the qualification in the bill. For his part, so far from thinking it too low, he thought it too high. He would have no qualification in Ireland different from the qualification in England. The household qualification gave the franchise in England in all the municipal corporations. It had been found to work well. In all the objections that had been urged against the Municipal Bill he never yet heard one whisper against the qualification, and therefore, as at present advised—and it was for the second and third time discussed—he saw no one earthly reason for making one qualification for one part of the empire—he meant England—and another for Ireland. Trust men, and they would show themselves to be trustworthy; show that you distrusted them, and they uniformly earned the title to be distrusted.
The Earl of Wicklowhoped that his noble and learned Friend would explain the

179
statement to which the noble and learned Lord opposite had alluded. It was not his intention to discuss the proposed amendments then, as a more convenient opportunity for doing so would be afforded when their Lordships got into Committee; but he wished to say a few words in regard to the boundary question. His noble and learned Friend and the noble and learned Lord upon the woolsack were at variance on this question, and he thought it was therefore desirable that their Lordships should come to some understanding in respect to boundaries before going into Committee. There were large districts not connected with the towns, and nothing could be more unjust than that the towns should have the power of taxing those districts. There ought to be but one system of taxation in the towns, while at present there were two, viz., that under the municipal corporations, and that under the grand jury. He was anxious to call the attention of the Government to this subject, in order that they might, if they saw necessary, introduce a bill for settling the difficulty which existed.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid that he never meant to say positively that if the Government did not bring in a bill for the purpose of rectifying what he considered unjust, he would not give his assent to the present bill. What he intended to say, and what he thought he did say was, that he would not amend this bill in such a way as to infringe with his eyes open upon the privileges of the House of Commons; therefore that he would pass over the clauses connected with the point, leaving it for the Government or her Majesty's Ministers to pursue such a course as they might think it expedient and prudent to pursue with respect to it, leaving to himself afterwards, upon due consideration of what the Government might do or omit to do, to pursue such a course as under all the circumstances they might think it prudent and wise to adopt.
Lord Broughamwas exceedingly relieved by what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend. He would have been more entirely relieved if there had been less of doubt and postponement in the tone of his noble and learned Friend. However, he felt that there was much less gloom in his (Lord Brougham's) prospects, and he could not avoid fairly stating that his noble and learned Friend had very considerably relieved him.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that the noble and learned Lord opposite objected to the power of taxation being given to the municipal bodies, because it was not accompanied by sufficient guards, by such guards as existed in the case of grand juries to prevent abuse. He was ready to state, if the noble and learned Lord would consent to give the power upon condition of having such guards, that there would be no objection on the part of the Government to proposing them. But he must take that opportunity of expressing his hostility to one of the noble Lord's amendments, which appeared to him subversive of the principle on which the bill was founded, namely, responsibility. He was astonished to find this amendment introduced, though certainly not introduced into the speech of the noble and learned Lord. He was astonished to find when their Lordships were engaged upon a bill with the important object of creating throughout Ireland responsible government, and responsible administration, that the noble and learned Lord should select that opportunity for attempting to create by Act of Parliament a corporate body responsible to no one; to provide for its perpetuity, by making the Members elect each other, and by excluding the public from every protection against the abuse of the public funds entrusted to that corporation. The amendment to which he adverted was that referring to the Blue-coat Hospital. [Lord Lyndhurst: It was in the bill of last year, and of the year before.] It was; and it was then objected to by him. He had objected to it before, and he would object to it on every occasion on which the noble and learned Lord might bring it forward, or attempt to set up irresponsible government; he would not say for the purpose, but certainly with the effect of perpetuating abuse. What was the case of the Blue-coat Hospital? The noble and learned Lord said that it originated in a charter of Charles 2nd, which granted land for the maintenance and education of children, and for the relief of the poor and impotent; the administration of that property was placed in the hands of the mayor and common council of Dublin, changeable from time to time, and amenable of course for the consequences of abuse to the corporation at large. How did the noble and learned Lord deal with the Blue-coat Corporation. He excepted it from the

181
bill, and from the power which the bill gave to the Lord Chancellor to appoint trustees. For the conduct of this charity, the noble and learned Lord determines that the persons actually forming the body should continue to form it, and ad minister the funds of the charity, supplying vacancies by self-election, and utterly unaccountable to any human being. Nay, this corporation was to be exempted from the operation of clause 215, which required accounts to be referred to the commissioners of public accounts, and which applied to all the new corporations. The noble and learned Lord did not think it necessary that the persons forming this corporation should be accountable at all. He did not seem to think there could be any delinquencies, except in the new corporations. Everything old in Ireland seemed to have established such a character for itself in the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, that he thought those who administered it might be left to their own guidance. It was important it was said, to retain this body in existence, because it was for Protestant purposes. But let them be honest Protestant purposes. So far they were provided for by the bill as it stood, which directed the Lord Chancellor to name trustees. There was certainly nothing in the charter to confirm the application of the funds to Protestant purposes. But even admitting the limited sense of Christian charity which had grown up within the walls of Dublin, still it did not follow that what was intended for the poor of Dublin should be restricted to a portion of the Protestant population. Assuming the expediency of continuing the body, there was no reason why its benefits should be confined to the freemen of the late corporation—for it would be the late corporation when this bill passed. Nor did the funds appear very beneficially placed in the hands of managers who could not keep children for less than 26 l. per annum each, and who made that an excuse for reducing the number of children in the institution. He did not think this proved much fitness for administering the funds without responsibility. There was another point in the noble and learned Lord's amendment, which was inconsistent with his propositions of last year—as great an inconsistency as any which he charged on the Government. The noble and learned Lord had introduced words which would
182
produce a year's delay before the bill came into operation. In reference to the poor-rate, the noble and learned Lord required that the party should be assessed ten months before the enjoyment of the right to vote. Then there was a clause giving power to the Lord-lieutenant such as had never been given to a public officer. It gave power to the Lord-lieutenant to tax the municipalities at his pleasure. He might select one officer of the corporation, and might say he should have thrice the amount of salary of his predecessor in the office by virtue of the act, and this without any permission from the people on whom the money was levied. Was such a power ever given to a Lord-lieutenant? Would her Majesty's Ministers ever ask for such a power while professing the utmost jealousy and distrust of the new bodies—which, as his noble and learned Friend had said, it was not extremely wise to show at the moment when they said they were compelled to call these bodies into existence, and to give them a certain degree of power—but while exhibiting this distrust, they proposed in addition to give to one man the power of taxing every municipality without limit. Their Lordships would find, that he had not overstated the necessary results of the clause by which the Lord-lieutenant might determine to increase and then diminish, and then to increase and diminish again at pleasure, the salaries of public officers without control. The noble and learned Lord talked of the jealousy of the House of Commons in matters connected with the franchise. How could he expect the House of Commons to assent to a proposition for granting one man the power of taxing the people of the country? He had thought it right to state these objections at the outset, and he should certainly take the sense of the House upon the clause giving such extraordinary powers to a public officer.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that he had not professed, in his opening statement, to enter into every clause in the bill. It never struck him that it was necessary to refer to a clause such as that relating to the Blue-coat Hospital, which, on two successive occasions, had been sanctioned by a majority of their Lordships. The noble Marquess was quite mistaken in supposing that the managers of that charity would be irresponsible. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack could

183
tell him that the Court of Chancery had power to make such parties perform their duties.
The Marquess of Lansdowneunderstood the noble and learned Lord to say, that if a poor Protestant of Dublin found his child unjustly excluded from the Blue-coat School, he had the very satisfactory remedy of instituting a suit in Chancery. That was the kind of remedy which the noble and learned Lord would have for abuses in the municipal corporations.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that the conduct or misconduct of persons in a public situation could only be determined by a judicial inquiry. Nothing of the kind had taken place with respect to the managers of this charity, and he could attach no value to assertions of their misconduct.
The Marquess of Lansdownehad said nothing of the management of the charity, which was not founded on the report of the commissioners, a document which the noble and learned Lord himself frequently quoted.
House in Committee.
On Clause 6,
Lord Lyndhurstproposed, as an amendment, to leave out the following words in the said clause:—
"Provided, that nothing herein contained shall prejudice, confirm, effect, or alter any right of voting of any such person who shall have been admitted a freeman of any such borough at any time before this act shall come into operation in that borough; and that every person who shall then have, or who, if this Act had not been passed, thereafter would have had a right, by reason of birth, marriage, or service, or of any statute so in force, to be admitted a freeman of any such borough, to be placed on the roll of freemen of such borough, and to acquire as such freemen the right of voting in the election of a member or members to serve in Parliament for such borough, shall be entitled to be admitted and enrolled as a freeman of such borough, on the previous roll, according to the provisions hereinafter contained, and to acquire and enjoy as such freemen such right of voting, subject to the conditions in such recited act contained, as fully as if this act had not been passed, and as if he had been actually admitted a freeman of such borough, provided he shall be enrolled in the freemen's roll of such borough, according to the provisions hereinafter contained."
For the purpose of substituting the following:—
"That all persona now entitled to vote at
184
the election of a member or members to serve in Parliament for any borough named in either of the said schedules (A and B), shall continue to enjoy such right as fully as if this act had not been passed; and that every person who, if this Act had not been passed, would have had a right to be admitted a freeman or burgess, or to be placed on the roll of freemen or burgesses of any such borough as aforesaid, in order to be registered, and to vote in the election of a member or members to serve in Parliament, or might hereafter have been entitled to acquire, in respect of birth, or marriage, or servitude, or of any statute then in force, as a freeman or burgess, the right of voting in the election of a member or members to serve in Parliament for such borough, shall be entitled, if such borough be one of the boroughs named in the said schedule A, or one of the boroughs to which a charter of incorporation shall have been granted, as hereinafter is mentioned, to be admitted a freeman or burgess, or placed on the freemen's roll of such borough, and to acquire and enjoy such right of voting as fully as if this Act had not been passed; and if such borough be one of the boroughs named in the said schedule B, to which no such charter of incorporation as aforesaid shall have been granted, to acquire and enjoy without having been admitted a freeman or burgess, such right of voting as fully as if this act had not been passed, provided he shall be enrolled on the freemen's roll of such borough according to the provisions hereinafter contained."
The Marquess of Clanricardeopposed the amendment. The Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin had decided on a writ of mandamus, that these persons had not the right described by the noble and learned Lord. The effect of the noble Lord's amendment was, that person's possessing certain opinions should have the franchise, which he should withhold from every other person in the same station of life who did not hold those opinions.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that both noble Lords proposed to continue the existing rights of Parliamentary voters, but the question was, whether the bill, as it existed, would continue them. Being desirous to pass the bill if it were possible, but not to deprive any individual of his municipal rights, if any plan could be suggested by which the difficulties would be removed, he would go to a division; but as at present advised, he had come to a resolution not to divide at all.
The Lord Chancellorasked, why, if these persons were included, because they had the capacity of being elected, all other persons were not also included? The noble Lord wished to give to these

185
persons that which the Legislature refused to honorary freemen. It was contrary to the English Reform Act.
Lord Lyndhurstreferred to the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin, as expressed by Mr. Justice Burton, and said, that if their Lordships did not admit this amendment, but retained the clause in the bill as originally intended, there would be certain persons who had advanced a certain point to a station, and when they acquired their right of freedom you deprived them of the advantage of the position in which they were placed by abolishing the tribunal whose duty it was to decide, and said they should have no right at all.
The Marquess of Clanricardediffered from the noble Lord. Their Lordships ought to give these persons the right by enlarging the operation of this bill, so as to include the citizens of Dublin, and not restrict it, so that it was almost a farce to say you were giving it to the freemen. He hoped that their Lordships would give no exclusive right to persons because they had certain opinions, and deny those rights to all other fellow-citizens of the same class.
The Marquess of Normanbyreferred to the evidence of Alderman Nugent, in p. 10, where he said, "that of 4,000 freemen not one was a Catholic. In point of fact, the corporation was not open to Roman Catholics. Six or seven highly respectable Roman Catholics were admitted to the merchants' guild many years ago, but they were not admitted to the freedom of the city."
Their Lordships divided on the original question:—Contents 60; Not-contents -104;—Majority 44.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Craven

Bedford

Effingham

Leicester

Errol

Roxburgh

Gosford

Somerset.

Ilchester

MARQUESSES.

Kingston

Clanricarde

Leitrim

Head fort

Lismore

Lansdowne

Lovelace,

Northampton

Minto

Normanby

Morley

Westminster.

Scarborough.

EARLS.

Albemarle

VISCOUNTS.

Camperdown

Bolingbroke

Charlemont

Duncannon.

Clarendon

Melbourne.

186

BISHOPS.

Kinnard

Chichester

Leigh

Durham

Lurgan

Ely

Lyttleton

Lichfield.

Methuen

LORDS.

Monteagle

Barham

Poltimore

Brougham

Portman

Byron

Saye and Sele

Colborne

Stafford

Cottenham

Stanley of Alderley

De Freyne

Stuart de Decies

Denman

Sudeley

Dunally

Torrington

Foley

Vaux

Hatherton

Wenlock.

Holland

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

DUKES.

De Grey

Beaufort

Eldon

Marlborough

Munster

Rutland

Ripon

Dorset

Brecknock.

Newcastle

VISCOUNTS.

Wellington

Hereford

Buckingham.

Strathallan

MARQUESSES.

Sydney

Winchester

Hood

Abercorn

Strangford

Downshire

Gage

Ailesbury

Hawarden

Westmeath.

St. Vincent

EARLS.

Exmouth

Devon

Beresford

Cardigan

Combermere

Shaftesbury

Canterbury.

Abingdon

BISHOPS.

Moray

Bangor

Haddington

Gloucester

Kinnoul

Exeter

Selkirk

Cork.

Aberdeen

LORDS.

Orkney

De Ros

Hopetoun

Clinton

Dartmouth

Willoughby de Broke

Tankerville

St. John

Aylesford

Saltoun

Harrington

Colville

Warwick

Reay

Hardwicke

Sondes

Delawarr

Boston

Bathurst

Walsingham

Clanwilliam

Montagu

Enniskillen

Braybrooke

Lucan

Douglas

Bandon

Rolle

Romney

Bayning

Wilton

Bolton

Limerick

Wodehouse

Powis

Carbery

Charleville

Crofton

Orford

Redesdale

Harewood

Rivers

Verulam

Ellenborough

Beauchamp

Sandys

Glengall

Colchester

187

Maryborough

Feversham

Ravensworth

Lyndhurst

Delamere

Stuart de Rothesay

Forester

Wynford

Downes

Abinger

Bexley

De L'Isle.

W'harncliffe

Ashburton.

Paired off.

NOT-CONTENTS.

CONTENTS.

Duke of Buccleuch

Lord Strafford

Duke of Argyll

Lord Berners

Duke of Montrose

Earl of Yarborough

Marquess of Tweeddale

Earl of Kintore

Marquess of Lothian

Lord Petre

Marquess of Salisbury

Lord Dacre

Marquess of Bute

Lord Clifford

Marquess of Thomond

Earl of Cork

Marquess of Exeter

Marquess of Sligo

Marquess of Cholmondely

Duke of Leeds

Marquess of Ormond

Lord Stourton

Earl of Sandwich

Earl of Uxbridge

Earl of Jersey

Lord Godolphin

Earl of Morton

Earl of Zetland

Earl of Eglintoun

Lord Belhaven

Earl of Galloway

Lord Lynedoch

Earl of Dalhousie

Marquess of Breadalbane

Earl of Airlie

Earl of Radnor

Earl Talbot

Lord Sherborne

Earl of Digby

Earl of Carlisle

Earl of Beverley

Lord Seaford

Earl of Carnarvon

Earl of Suffolk

Earl of Liverpool

Earl of Rosebery

Earl of Malmesbury

Lord Arundell

Earl of Roden

Marquess of Conyngham

Earl of Mountcashel

Lord Lovat

Earl of Longford

Marquess of Anglesey

Earl of Clare

Duke of Sutherland

Earl of Rosslyn

Earl of Sefton

Earl Manvers

Lord Howden

Earl of Lonsdale

Earl of Shrewsbury

Earl of Bradford

Earl of Oxford

Earl of Sheffield

Lord Talbot de Malahide

Earl of Falmouth

Lord Montford

Earl Howe

Lord Western

Earl of Stradbroke

Earl Bruce

Earl of Dunraven

Lord Wrottesley

Viscount Maynard

Duke of Norfolk

Viscount De Vesci

Bishop of Ripon

Viscount Doneraile

Lord Carew

Viscount Ferrard

Lord Plunket

Viscount Canning

Earl Cowper

Bishop of Winchester

Bishop of Norwich

Bishop of Rochester

Bishop of Salisbury

Bishop of Carlisle

Bishop of Hereford

Lord Sinclair

Lord Dunfermlin

Lord Monson

Duke of Sussex

Lord Southampton

Lord Seagrave

Lord Kenyon

Lord Langdale

Lord Dunsany

Lord Cloncurry

Lord Farnham

Earl of Meath

Lord Clonbrock

Earl Spencer

188

Lord Churchill

Lord Camoys

Lord Prudhoe

Lord Lilford

Lord Rayleigh

Duke of Cleveland

Lord Tenterden

Lord Dinorben

Lord Cowley

Lord Bateman

Lord Haytesbury.

Earl of Fingal

Clause as amended to stand part of the bill.
On Clause 7,
The Lord Chancellorobserving, that under the Reform Act no honorary freeman admitted since the 31st of March, 1831, could vote in the election of Members of Parliament; but, in Ireland, though such persons were not entitled to exercise the Parliamentary franchise, they served to transmit to their children the privilege of being freemen of right; and there had been consequently a large manufacture of honorary freemen, not for the purpose of voting, but of transmitting the right to others. The object of this clause was to assimilate the law in Ireland to what it was in England, and to provide that no man should have a right to the freedom, who did not derive through some one who was a freeman previously to the 31st of March, 1831, or through some person who, since that time, should have become, or should hereafter become, a freeman in respect of servitude.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, the clause in the hill applied not only to honorary freemen, but to all freemen, whether admitted by birth or marriage, since 1831. His noble and learned Friend proposed this clause on the statement, that he understood a great number of honorary freemen had been made in late years, for the purpose of out-voting the bonâ fide electors; but the fact was the reverse, and there were fewer honorary freemen made since March, 1831, than in any similar preceding period. By allowing the clause in the bill to stand, they would be altering the Reform Act, as they would be thereby cutting off from the franchise, those persons who under that act were entitled to it.
The Lord Chancelloradmitted, that they were attempting to correct an abuse, which existed under that act, by excluding from the freedom those who derived their title through honorary freemen admitted since the 31st of March, 1831.
Lord Lyndhurst: It applies, not to those only, but to all honorary freemen.
The Earl of Wicklowobjected to the clause. By the proposed amendment they would do nothing with the Reform Act. His objection to the last clause was, that it

189
interfered with the Reform Bill. The noble and learned Lord said, there was a mistake in the Reform Act. If so, let the Government bring in a bill to amend it. Surely they could not object to do that, as they were in the habit of bringing in bills each Session, to amend some act of theirs in a preceding Session.
Clause struck out.
On Clause 13,
Lord Lyndhurst Lord Lyndhurst moved an amendment to except the town of Gal way from the operation of the bill.
The Earl of Wicklowobjected to this amendment. He saw no reason why one of the largest towns in Ireland should be excluded from municipal rights. When this amendment was proposed last year he should have voted against it if her Majesty's Ministers had gone to a division on it.
The Marquis of Clanricardesupported the amendment. Galway was peculiarly situated. It so happened that, for a very long time, a constant struggle had been carried on between the corporation and the inhabitants, who had at length succeeded in perfectly reforming all the abuses which formerly existed, and it was now in the very state to which they wish to bring all the towns of Ireland. They had the lighting, paving, and other business of the town managed by commissioners under local acts. He should prefer having Galway placed in Schedule B.
The Marquess of Downshirehad presented a petition from the town of Belfast, and he thought that if the town of Galway was to be excepted, that of Belfast should be excepted also.
The Earl of Wicklowcongratulated her Majesty's Ministers on the support of the noble Marquess opposite, who, though a great advocate for municipal reform, was anxious to have his own town of Galway exempted from the operations of this bill.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid the noble Earl had mistaken what he had stated. He had only said there were local acts applying to Galway so late, he believed, as 1836, which had given it the reformed corporation which it had at present. That reform being so late, and effectual, and consonant with the wishes of the inhabitants, he did not see any necessity for their Lordships now interfering.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid it appeared that in Galway the people had
190
obtained sufficient economy in the management of their public funds without any reform. Seeing that the object could be thus attained, he should, therefore, object to applying this bill to any town in Ireland.
The Marquess of Normanbyobserved, that the proposition of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Wynford) was to leave Dublin out of the operation of the bill, which was, in point of fact, to continue all the abuses which at present existed there, while his noble Friend merely recommended that the town of Galway should be transferred from schedule A to schedule B. He would not trouble the Committee to divide on the proposition now made by the noble and learned Lord.
Amendment agreed to.
On Clause 14,
The Earl of Wicklowsaid he thought that this clause was the most dangerous in the bill, as affording a fruitful source of agitation amongst a poor population, who would be liable to be influenced to petition for a charter of incorporation. The clause was exceedingly objectionable, inasmuch as it gave such a power to so small a body of inhabitants in any place as 3,000 to form such a corporation which might be turned to dangerous political purposes by designing men, especially when it might happen that there would not be more than three or four persons of property amounting to 10 l. in the entire. The whole arrangement was so different from that which was provided for the formation of English corporations, that he should, on the bringing up the report, move the rejection of the clause.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 34,
Lord Lyndhurstobjected to the qualification laid down by this clause, and meant to propose instead of it the qualification which was passed in the bill of 1838—the qualification, in fact, of the Scottish Municipal Reform Bill—the occupation of a house of 10 l. value for the twelve months preceding, and payment of all rates up to within three months of the particular date fixed. As the clause originally stood, it was enacted, that after three years the qualification should cease, and that every householder rated for the poor during that period should be entitled to vote. To this provision he objected, and should, therefore, press his amendment.
Lord Stuart de Deciesopposed the amendment, which, he contended, originated in an anti-Irish feeling at the other side of the House. He declared that the Roman Catholics were generally richer in towns than their Protestant fellow-citizens, and that the three years contemplated would not make any difference in their comparative conditions similar to what appeared to be expected by the noble and learned Lord. The sole object of the clause, which the noble and learned Lord wished to set aside, was to place the people of both countries on a level, while the opposition to it was grounded upon the mischievous principle of ecclesiastical ascendancy in civil affairs.
The Earl of Wicklowdenied the justness of the imputation that their Lordships at his side of the House were animated by anti-Irish feelings. Never was a speech so inapplicable, and never was a speech so unfounded. The object of the amendment was most consistent-—to provide that the qualification should, in all cases, be 10 l., and permanently adjusted according to the rating under the Poor-law.
Their Lordships' House divided on Lord Lyndhurst's amendment,—contents 92; not-contents 50: majority 42.
On the clause relating to the sheriffs of town-counties, (152),
Lord Lyndhurstremarked, that in a former bill of this description, proposed in the year before last, the appointment of the sheriffs had been proposed to be vested in the corporations in the first instance, by their appointing or selecting three burgesses or members of the corporation, in order that the Lord-lieutenant should elect one of them to be sheriff of such place, and should he object to all three, the corporators should have a right again to name three more, and submit to the Lord-lieutenant those candidates for election. If he should again decline to select one of them to the office, then and not till then, the appointment was absolutely to vest in the Lord-lieutenant. That bill had been amended in their Lordships' House, with the assent of the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, and he saw the same reasons for proposing an amendment similar to that which had before received the assent of their Lordships, of which reasons he conceived the strongest to be, that as the sheriff's duty was magisterial and connected with the highest department of the administration of justice within
192
the law, that office ought not to be subjected to the mere choice of the persons composing the corporation, but ought to be vested in the first magistrate of the country. He was not prepared to find that this clause of the bill should, after the discussion which had taken place on the occasion alluded to, be restored to its original state. He should now move as an amendment that the clause be altered, so that the appointment of the sheriff of corporations in the cities, boroughs, and towns of counties in Ireland, should be vested, as was now the practice with respect to the sheriffs of counties throughout Ireland, in the Lord-lieutenant.
Amendment agreed to.
On Clause 167,
Lord Lyndhurstproposed the omission of the words directing the Recorder of Dublin to hold his court at such times, besides those which he should appoint, "as the Lord-lieutenant should from time to time think fit to direct." He was sure that no person could, in the discharge of his duties, exceed the present Recorder of Dublin.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that the higher the opinion which he entertained of the recorder, the more anxious was he for his attendance. Could the noble Lord state that the Recorder of Dublin held sessions more frequently than the Recorder of Cork? Was he aware that six weeks often passed without a gaol delivery?
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that on more than one occasion had the judges impressed upon the Lord Mayor of Dublin, on ins presentation to them for their approbation, the necessity of endeavouring to obtain a more frequent gaol delivery.
Lord Lyndhurst withdrew his amendment—clause agreed to.
All the clauses of the bill were passed through, some were struck out, and several were amended.
Schedules postponed. The House resumed.—Committee to sit again.