Sitting of 3 March 1840

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Sir G. Strickland, Messrs. Macaulay, O'Connell, A. White, Lambton, and Grey, for, and by Messrs. Morgan, and several other Members, from a number of places, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. Grimsditch, Lord Powerscourt, and Mr. Praed, from three places, against any further Grant to Maynooth College.—By Mr. Freshfield, from Persons residing in Coleman-street, for the Release of the Sheriff.—By Lord John Russell, from Maldon, for Upholding the Privileges of Parliament—By Mr. Gibson Craig, and Mr. Macaulay, from several places, against the Intrusion of Ministers into Parishes.—By Lord Powerscourt, and Mr. Protheroe, from three places, for Church Extension, and against the Rating of Workhouses.—By Mr. W. Duncombe, from one place, for Regulating Factories.—By Mr. Hawes, from certain Dissenters, for the Release of John Thorogood, the Abolition of Church Rates, and against the Jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts.

MR. SHERIFF EVANS.
Viscount Mahonbefore the House proceeded to the regular business of the evening felt bound to state to them some circumstances which had come to his knowledge, and admitted of no delay, and which be hoped would receive immediate and attentive consideration. On that morning he received a message from a Mr. Freeman, who, he since understood, was a medical gentleman of the highest character and respectability, residing at No. 21, Spring-gardens. Mr. Freeman stated to him that he was the professional attendant of Mr. Sheriff Evans, and that Mr. Sheriff Evans was suffering under a complaint of the liver. He further stated, that Mr. Sheriff Evans had been used to an active life, and that on undertaking the office of sheriff he could not have foreseen the circumstances in which he had since been placed. Mr. Freeman went on to say, that further confinement would be not merely dangerous to the health but dangerous to the life of Mr. Sheriff Evans; and stated expressly, that he conceived the life of Mr. Sheriff Evans to be in danger from further confinement. Under these circumstances, looking to what the House had determined in the case of Mr. Sheriff Wheelton, he thought that if Mr. Freeman's statement proved to be well-founded, the House must come to a similar determination. He had, therefore, requested Mr. Freeman to be in attendance at the House about five o'clock, for the purpose of being examined; so that if anything which he had now stated to the House were exaggerated or erroneous, it might be set right; and if, on the contrary, his statements were correct, that they might rest on the professional authority of a medical man. Having stated this circumstance, he should leave the case in the hands of the House, fully trusting, as an assembly of British Gentlemen, having commenced whatever measures they meant to pursue for the defence of their privileges, and whatever opinions they might entertain on such measures—that, as an assembly of British Gentlemen, they would never be found unmindful of the claims of sickness or the duties of humanity. If there were no objection, he would move that Mr. Freeman be called in and examined at the Bar.
Mr. Warburtonhoped that the question would not be brought forward that evening; but if the noble Lord intended

851
to call for the evidence of which the noble Lord had spoken, that he would give notice. He thought that on the last occasion the House had been taken by surprise. They all felt exceedingly sorry, as individuals, for the inconvenience to which the sheriffs had been subjected by their confinement; but it was on general principles that they thought it necessary to subject those gentlemen to confinement. Take any oilier case. Suppose the two individuals, confined in Warwick Gaol, in consequence of a riot at Birmingham. It was proved, by correspondence which had been laid before the House, that the health of those two individuals had been most seriously endangered. What was the course pursued by the Government upon the representations which were made? The surgeon of the gaol was the person appointed to investigate and inquire into the health of those individuals. It was only after very long continued representations of the bad health of these individuals that the medical adviser, who had been accustomed to visit them was allowed, as a great indulgence, to have access to the prisoners to examine into their stale of health. He would, therefore, beg of the House to observe the difference between this way of treating prisoners in custody for offences against the laws when their health was endangered, and the summary mode of proceeding which was now proposed. He trusted that the noble Lord would give notice of his motion, that Gentlemen might have an opportunity of knowing that it would come on, and of considering the best mode of proceeding, whether they were disposed to support or oppose the motion. It was not fair that the motion should be brought on without previous notice. The noble Lord had not ventured to say, that there was any immediate danger to be apprehended; and if the life or health of Mr. Sheriff Evans was not in any immediate danger, the noble Lord had made out no case for pressing his motion now.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, had correctly represented the usual course of proceeding with prisoners convicted of crime. If a representation was made of life being in danger, it was referred to the surgeon of the gaol; and upon the statement of the surgeon of the gaol that a prisoner's life was in danger, there was no case in which there was not indulgence granted
852
or a remission of the sentence. The hon. Gentleman was also right in stating that they had not similar evidence here. Certainly there was no one that he knew of as an officer of the House, whom they could employ on a similar occasion. He thought the House should now pursue one of two courses. He was ready to agree with one or the other. They should either pursue the course recommended by the hon. Member for Bridport, and have the medical person examined to-morrow, or, what he thought would be for some reasons preferable, the medical person should be now examined, and that his evidence should be taken down. The noble Lord, the Member for Hertford, having stated that the illness was a liver-complaint, and therefore not like a sudden fit requiring immediate relief, the evidence might be printed and taken into consideration to-morrow. It did not seem that the lapse of twenty-four hours could make any very great difference with regard to the sheriff's health. Of the two courses, he thought it better that Mr. Freeman should be called in now, and his evidence taken.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, it must be recollected that this gentleman could obtain his own liberation at any moment, and it would be no disparagement to him to submit to the authority of the House. He thought that such being the state of the case, putting forward the present plea, in the shape in which it was brought before the House, was ludicrous. A man like Vincent, if he could obtain his liberty in the same way, would not hesitate to do so, by the acknowledgment of his offence; but this gentleman need make no such acknowledgment. Let the House be good enough to recollect that one of the last proceedings of the sheriff's had been a perfectly voluntary one against the privileges of the House. There was an attachment in the hands of the coroner, which was not returnable until the 19th of April. It ordered the sheriffs to pay the money in their hands over to Stock-dale; and notwithstanding that they might have waited till the 19th of April, they volunteered to pay the money to Stockdale at once, apparently to furnish an argument to their advocates in that House, that having paid the money once, they ought not to be asked to do it again. The only way of enforcing the privileges of the House was by imprisonment. If

853
it was to be got rid of on the allegation of ill-health, by any person who still continued his contempt towards the House, while he knew that his liberation upon submission would be instantaneous, the maintenance of their privileges would be impossible. It was not the House which now detained the sheriff, but his own willfulness. At the present moment he did not even come forward with a petition. There was no application from him. He did not come forward stating any scruple of conscience, and at the time representing his ill-health, and leaving his case in the hands of the House. If he understood the noble Lord, he was not even authorised to make the communication which he had made by Mr. Sheriff Evans. The noble Lord got his information from a third party, who volunteered the statement He respectfully submitted to the House that their power of maintaining their privileges was a mockery if they suffered them to be frittered away in this manner.
Viscount Mahonwas sorry that the plea which he had put forward should appear ludicrous to the hon. and learned Gentleman; but he would venture to say that it would appear so to no other man in the House but himself.
Mr. O'Connellsubmitted that the expression of (he noble Lord was not in order. It was certainly exceedingly uncivil.
Viscount Mahonhad understood the hon. and learned Member to repeat the word ludicrous, and apply it to the proceeding before them. He should now repeat, and the Speaker would correct him if out of order, that he believed such an application would appear ludicrous to no other Member of the House than the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. With respect to the request made by the hon. Member for Bridport, he should only say that he could not consent to any postponement of his motion. He felt that the House should proceed immediately to receive information with regard to the health of the sheriff. With regard to further proceedings, he submitted that they would be in a better state to decide upon the question when they had professional evidence before them. He should, therefore, most certainly persist in his motion.
Mr. O'Connell, in explanation, said the noble Lord had totally mistaken his ap-
854
plication of the word ludicrous. It occurred to him, that the proposal of the noble Lord was ludicrous, inasmuch as it a third person came forward lo make a representation of the sickness of an individual, that individual having it in his power to make that statement himself. He thought the manner was just as ludicrous as the matter, and he was not surprised at it, for it was well known that a more ludicrous individual than the noble Lord was not in that House.
Mr. Warburton Mr. Warburton moved as an amendment, that the further consideration of the question be adjourned till to-morrow.
Sir M. Woodsaid, to his knowledge, Mr. Freeman, Sheriff Evans's medical attendant, had visited him regularly for the last ten days, and he was most anxious that some proposition should be made to the House. He believed that the resolution passed for the relief of the other sheriff was one for which the most substantial grounds existed; that gentleman had since been extremely ill, and been unable to attend to his duties. He knew that Mr. Sheriff Evans was very ill, and for the last few days had been considerably worse. He did not wish to buy his freedom by the payment of 640 l., and he hoped the House did not mean to sell it for that sum. The sheriff thought himself justified in all he had done, and he would not bend to the House. He did not come forward to ask relief, because he did not choose to incur the same charges that were made against the other sheriff. He already told the House that if, in the execution of his duty, he had done anything to offend the House, he deeply deplored it. What did the House want of him more? Did they want him to go down on his knees? He hoped and trusted the sheriff never would do so. Instead of being anxious to pay the money, and oppose the wish of that House, he had retained it as long as he possibly could. The coroner had sent the sheriff notice that he had orders to attach him, but why had he not gone and served the notice himself? Why, because he was afraid to do so—he was afraid of being placed in the same situation. It had been proposed to let this inquiry stand over until to-morrow; why was this delay proposed? The gentleman might be dangerously ill, and he knew the medical man felt great anxiety on the subject. He hoped the House would agree to the noble Lord's motion.
Sir E. Knatchbullregretted that the hon. Baronet, who had just sat down, had followed the unwise course of the hon. Member for Dublin, in going into the merits of the question. The conduct of the sheriff ought not to be mixed up with the question before the House. He more especially rose for the purpose of noticing the expression of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, to which he was almost ashamed to advert—the expression used towards his noble Friend, that he was the most ludicrous person in the House. He thought the hon. and learned Member would not be able to satisfy his own mind of the propriety of having used the expression, and he trusted he would offer the explanation which was due to his noble Friend.
Mr. Humesaid, that the noble Lord had made a charge which affected his hon. and learned Friend's sensibility. No one would refuse to liberate the sheriff if he were in immediate danger; but the question was, whether he ought not to approach the House by petition, or whether he should be liberated on the statement of a Member of the House, who had not seen the sheriff himself, but taken his information from somebody else, and then brought forward the case without notice. He submitted that, after what they had done in the attempt to protect their privileges, and particularly after the observations of his hon. Friend below him (Sir M. Wood), they ought to require a petition from the sheriff.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that they ought to keep perfectly distinct the consideration of the particular grounds on which this proposal was made, from the general question. There might be some Gentlemen who thought that the sheriff had sufficiently expiated his offence to the House, and was entitled to his discharge. Let that question be distinctly brought forward. But nothing could be more discreditable than to seek to get rid of a supposed difficulty, by pretending to release a sheriff on the score of indisposition, unless they were satisfied of the reality, of the plea. He would rather vote for the discharge of the sheriff on the ground of sufficient punishment having been inflicted, than seek to get out of a situation of embarrassment by releasing the sheriff on the ground of indisposition, unless he was satisfied that the indisposition was such as to necessitate the release.
856
But the simple question now was, whether the physician should be examined at once or to-morrow. His noble Friend said, that the medical adviser of the sheriff had reason to believe that not only his health but his life was in danger. That was his noble Friend's statement, and the question being, whether they should examine the medical adviser today or tomorrow, he thought it better to examine him at once. When they heard the evidence they might determine whether to release the sheriffs at once, or postpone the question, or decide that there was no ground for release. If they were prepared to examine the medical adviser at all, he certainly would prefer an immediate examination to the postponement. In saying so, he expressed no opinion whatever of the course it might be advisable to pursue when they heard what the examination was. He did not commit himself in the slightest degree as to the course which he would take after hearing the evidence. He was satisfied that the House would administer justice on this occasion, on the same principles on which it would be administered in any other case in which illness was put forth as a reason for remitting punishment.
Mr. Warburtonwas not prepared to examine a medical man, and he believed that very few persons in the House were qualified to do so. He believed the hon. Member for Finsbury was not present. If that hon. Gentleman was disposed to examine the medical man, he ought to have an opportunity, by postponement of the examination till to-morrow. However, he was not disposed to go against the sense of the House, if it was in favour of immediate examination.
Amendment withdrawn, original motion agreed to.
Mr. Freemancalled in, and examined. He stated in answer to questions, that he was the medical attendant of Mr. Sheriff Evans, and had seen him professionally that morning. His health was very bad.—His life in danger by further confinement.—He was suffering under a liver complaint, and had been for several years.—He had been accustomed to an active life. He (Mr. Freeman) was a surgeon, and had been the medical attendant of Mr. Sheriff Evans for seven or eight years.—He had been more frequently well than ill.—He had attended him professionally about two or three months before.

857
Since he prescribed for him some days had elapsed. He takes physic daily; had been taking it about a week or a fortnight. His disease was a liver complaint, and was growing worse under his confinement. His life would be in danger if his imprisonment were continued. The liver had not been enlarged since his confinement. No other medical man had been called in. There was no active inflammation of the liver, nor did he apprehend any immediate inflammation: he did not think that being allowed air and exercise, and then to return to the House of Commons would answer the purpose, as the sheriff's mind was suffering. The sheriff was allowed to take wine, and he occasionally took a glass of sherry. He had not been confined to his bed at all. Sheriff Evans was not aware of his being summoned there today, and there had been no communication between them on the subject. The witness was induced, from the circumstances themselves, to make his present representation of the matter, without consulting Mr. Sheriff Evans; he did so because he thought that there would be danger to Mr. Evans in the present confinement. Sheriff Evans could take the air by walking in the cloisters, but he did not say that he took advantage of it, on account of the easterly wind. Witness had desired him to take as much air and exercise as he could; and, considering the weather, he took as much exercise as he could.
Witness withdrew.
Viscount Mahon Viscount Mahon moved that the evidence be printed with the votes, and taken into consideration the next day.
Ordered.

INLAND WAREHOUSING BILL.
Mr Goulburn, seeing the President of the Board of Trade in his place, wished to ask him respecting a proceeding which took place at a late hour last night, of which, although the right hon. Gentleman had given some explanation to him in private, he thought it was also due to the House that the explanation should be public. The right hon. Member had carried the second reading of the Inland Warehousing Bill, and he had given notice that he should move for a select committee on the general question, to which the bill should be referred. He remained in the House until 10 o'clock at night, but, understanding that the navy estimates were likely to last, he quitted the
858
House. He found, however, that the motion of which he had given notice was moved, and that the names of the Members of the committee to be appointed under that motion were inserted in the votes. Of all the proceedings of an irregular nature which had ever come under his cognisance, this was by far the most irregular; for he was sure the House would see what great injustice would be done, if Gentlemen on one side were to take up notices given by Gentlemen opposite, and to pass them without any discussion. A committee which, in the ordinary course, would have been moved by him, now seemed to have been moved by another person. The right hon. Gentleman had told him that he did not intend that the names should be inserted. The hon. Gentleman having made that statement, he was bound to give it most entire credit. He however, complained of the other part of the proceeding—viz., that a motion was made in his absence, without the possibility of his interfering in the settlement of a question in which he took the greatest interest, and which, he believed, had it not been for the notice which he had given, the House would not have been called upon to investigate.
Mr. Labouchereobserved that the right hon. Gentleman had made two distinct complaints. The first was, that after he had given notice of the appointment of a select committee on the subject of inland bonding warehouses, and had left the House without making the motion, he had taken the liberty of making it for him. Nothing was further from his intention than to do what was unfair. Could he have entertained the smallest doubt of the right hon. Gentleman's acquiescence, he should not have ventured to do it. He had stated that it was of the greatest importance that on an early day an inquiry into this subject should take place. He appealed to Gentlemen opposite whether he did not say to the right hon. Gentleman's friend, "will you have the goodness to move the committee for your right hon. Friend?" The right hon. Gentleman intimated that he could not do it. That was the reason why he did move it. He now came to the circumstance of having put on the votes the list of the names of the committee. He felt that if he had done that he should have acted contrary to the usual courtesy, and contrary to the express understanding which he had come

859
to with the right hon. Gentleman, and therefore, he was most anxious to explain how that was. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that when he saw the votes this morning he was quite as much surprised as he could have been. This was the simple account of the transaction. Talking to the hon. Member for Cheshire on the subject of the committee, he asked for some names which he thought would be proper. He and his hon. Friend each took a list and wrote down the names as they occurred to one or the other. When he left the House he put one list into his pocket, and it appeared that he inadvertently left the other on the table of the House, and after every one had left the House the clerk found this list on the table, and concluding that it was a list which had been given in, inserted it in the votes. Of course he had meant to discuss the list with the right hon. Gentleman. He hoped that, after this explanation, the right hon. Gentleman would be satisfied that he did not mean to act with discourtesy to him.
Subject dropped.

THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
Mr. Colquhounwished to ask the noble Lord a question relating to a matter which was now exciting the greatest interest,—he meant the collision between the civil and ecclesiastical courts of Scotland, which had already led to consequences which every one deplored. Was it the intention of Government, to introduce a measure for the settlement of that question; and, if it was, at what period was it the noble Lord's intention to state the outline of that measure?
Lord J. Russell: The question is a very important one, and is under the consideration of Government with the view of taking such measures as may be satisfactory.
Mr. Colquhounsaid, that an impression had gone abroad that the noble Lord had stated to a deputation from the church of Scotland that it was the intention of her Majesty's Government, at an early period, to announce to the deputation, not only that they would bring in a measure, but what the outlines of that measure might be. Such an impression had unquestionably been received by the deputation. He was now anxious to ascertain if that impression was erroneous, and if her Majesty's Government, having had the ques-
860
tion under consideration since last May, had not resolved on the outline of any measure.
Lord J. Russellanswered that the impression was certainly a mistaken one. What he stated to the deputation was, that Government was endeavouring to frame a measure upon the subject, but that he would not bring forward a measure if Government was not satisfied it would be an effectual measure. If they had not a satisfactory measure to propose, they would state to the deputation that they did not intend to bring forward any measure.
Sir R. Peelhoped that as soon as the mind of hon. Majesty's Government was made up, whether they would or would not introduce a legislative measure, they would make a communication to the House, that the House might be apprised of it at as early a period as any deputation from Scotland could be apprised; because he had understood, and he had answered a number of letters to that effect, that her Majesty's Government did intend the settlement of this question by means of legislative provision, and that therefore, he would suspend his opinion until he had an opportunity of considering the measure they might propose. He now understood that the noble Lord had given no assurance to bring forward a legislative enactment. Of course he was in error in common with many other persons.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that if he intended to bring forward a measure he should be ready to give notice of it, and he would also give the earliest possible information if such was not his intention.
Subject dropped.

THE FACTORY ACT.—
Lord Ashleysaid, that as it had been notified to him by her Majesty's Ministers, that it was not their intention to oppose the motion of which he had given notice, he would not detain the House by any statements. He had so often obtained the indulgence of the House in bringing forward this question, that he would not unnecessarily trespass on their attention. He therefore moved, "That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the act for the regulation of mills and factories, and to report their opinion thereon to the House."
Mr. Hindleywas happy to concur in this committee, and he hoped that all

861
persons who were members of it would go into it with a sincere desire that some arrangement might be made satisfactory to all parties.
Motion agreed to.

CASE OF JOHN DILLON.
Sir F Burdettrose to move the consideration of the petition of John Dillon, for prize-money, for the capture of a smuggling vessel, which the petitioner alleged, although not actually captured by him, had been taken through his instrumentality. The hon. Baronet referred to the facts of the case,* and contended that justice required particular attention should be paid to the claim of Mr. Dillon. He moved that a select committee be appointed to inquire and report upon the claim of Mr. Dillon.
The Chancellorof the Exchequer thought the claimant might much better employ his time than in repeating his attempts, from year to year, to obtain, under such a pretext, public money from the House of Commons. There were not the least grounds for the claim, only made, be it observed, in the year 1829, though the facts on which he founded his claim took place as far back as the year 1822. An inquiry by the proper authorities had been instituted under different Governments, which negatived the claims; it therefore became his duty, as the guardian of the public purse, to oppose the motion.
Mr. Warburtonthought that the lapse of time between the capture of the vessel and the period when he, on his return from the West Indies, first made his claim, ought not in fairness to be permitted to defeat the justice of his demand.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, the capture of the vessel in question was entirely attributable to Mr. Dillon's attack upon her, and forcing her thereby to take refuge in Kinsale harbour, which ended in the condemnation of the vessel. He should, under the circumstances, conceive it his duty to press his motion to a division.
The House divided;—Ayes 15; Noes 42: Majority 27.

List of the AYES.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Ellis, J.

Broadley, H.

Jones J.

Butler, hon. Col.

Lowther, J. H.

Courtenay, P.

Miles, P. W. S.

* Hansard, Vcl. Xlvii. Third Series, p. 745.

Perceval, Col.

Round, J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Pryme, G.

TELLERS.

Rae, Sir W.

Burdett, Sir F.

Rolleston, L.

Warburton, H.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Admiral

Hobhouse, T. B.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hume, J.

Aglionby, Major

Hutton, R.

Baines, E.

Knight, H. G.

Baring, F. T.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Bewes, T.

Lemon, Sir C.

Brodie, W. B.

Morpeth, Viscl.

Brotherton, J.

Richards, R.

Busfeild, W.

Rickford, W.

Callaghan, D.

Rundle, J.

Clay, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Craig, W. G.

Salwey, Col.

Davies, Col.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Stewart, J.

Finch, F.

Strickland, Sir G.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Verney, Sir H.

Freshfield, J. W.

Vernon, G. H.

Gordon, R.

Vigors, N. A.

Goulburn, H.

Wood, C.

Greg, R H.

Heathcoat, J.

TELLERS.

Hector, C. J.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Hindley, C.

Parker, J.

FIRST FRUITS AND TENTHS.
Mr. Bainessaid, he rose to renew his motion for a Committee of the whole House on the subject of the first fruits and tenths, for the purpose of making those payments more conducive than they had hitherto been to the augmentation of the livings of the poor clergy. Having on a former occasion shown that, from the first institution of these imposts, the payments were made according to their full amount—having shown that this practice prevailed at the time of the Reformation, and that it was enforced by a strict valuation made by order of King Henry VIII—having further shown that in the time of Queen Anne these payments were conferred upon the Church for the benefit of the poor clergy; and having; shown that the sanguine expectations that were cherished of the vast advantages that would flow to these laborious ministers had been entirely frustrated, he should not again go over the ground he had already traversed, but state, as he was empowered to do, upon high legal authority, that the attempt to make the valuation of the livings upon which the first fruits and tenths were paid fixed and invariable, was inconsistent with the letter and the spirit of the

863
Act of Queen Anne. Without occupying the attention of the House by detailed statements of legal opinions, he might say, that the balance of authority, as far as he could collect it, was decidedly in favour of the claims of those whom it was the intention of the Queen to serve, and that the amount of the increased value of the funds ought to have been applied by the governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to the relief of the poor clergy, whose interests, as faithful guardians, it was their duty to watch over. This was an opinion not entertained by lawyers only, but by the poor clergy, one of whom had sent to him a selected list of the rich livings in various parts of the kingdom, merely as a specimen of others, and from which it appeared that there were thirty-four livings returned by the ecclesiastical commissioners in the year 1835 as of the present value of 64,775 l. a-year, but which were valued in the Liber Regis, on which the first fruits and tenths were paid, at 1,014 l. only. Without detaining the attention of the House to go through the list, he would satisfy himself with selecting three of the smallest and three of the largest of these livings, in order to show what was their value at the time of the Reformation; what was their real value at the present time; the sum paid as tenths by the rich clergy to the poor clergy, and the real-tenths which would be due and payable upon the real value o each:—

Name of Living.

Valued at

Real Value.

Sum paid as Tenths.

Real Tenths.

£

£

£

s.

£

Bibury, Gloucestershire

13

1023

1

6

102

All Cannings, Wilts

31

1100

3

2

110

Chelsea, Middlesex

13

1003

1

6

160

Winwick, Lancashire

102

3616

10

4

361

Stanhope, Durham

67

4842

6

14

484

Doddington, Cambridgesh

22

7306

1

4

730

But it was not only the benefices, but the ecclesiastical sees, of the payments on which he had to complain; and he should proceed to make a selection, showing the full annual value of four of the bishoprics at the present time, the sum paid as first fruits by each of those bishoprics, and the difference which was withheld from the poor clergy:—
864

BISHOP.

Full Annual Value.

Paid as First Fruits.

Difference withheld from the Poor Clergy.

£

£

£

Bishop of London

13,929

901

13,029

Bishop of Winchester

11,151

2,873

8,278

Bishop of Exeter

2,713

450

2,263

Bishop of Worcester

6,569

929

5,640

The injustice that had been done to the poor clergy was felt, not only by the lawyers and divines, but by statesmen also. He should quote the sentiments of a noble Lord, which he was sure would receive due respect from every Gentleman in that House, but particularly from those on the opposite benches. The speech to which he alluded was delivered to his constituents by the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, at the last general election, when his Lordship, with his usual energy, declared, that—
"He (Lord Stanley) thought that the pluralities should be reformed, and that the wealth of the Church ought to be appropriated to raise the livings of the poor clergy, instead of being devoted to purposes comparatively useless. He shared this opinion in common with those of every class in society, and one of the first acts of Sir Robert Peel's administration was to issue a commission for the purpose of ascertaining whether, by deducting from the wealth of the large livings and adding to the poorer, the Church would not be placed in a position to be more available for the instruction of the poorer classes of the community."
But though all men agreed, as his Lordship had observed, that pluralities ought to be reformed, that the wealth of the Church ought to be applied to raise the livings of the poor clergy, and that a portion of the income of the rich livings should be added to the poor ones, yet, what was done in this way in the long reign of George 3rd, and during the reign of George 4th? Nothing; absolutely nothing. In confirmation of the assertion of the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, he might produce the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, presented to Parliament in 1835, from which it appeared that there were nearly 2,000 livings under the value of 100 l. a-year; and yet the persons holding these benefices were required to sustain the rank of gentlemen. The report stood thus:—
"There are in the Established Church of

865
England and Wales, according to the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—

11

livings under the value of £10 a-year.

19

from

£10 to

£20

a-year.

32

20 to

30

a-year.

63

30 to

40

a-year.

172

40 to

50

a-year.

Making 297

livings under the value of £50 a-year.

There are 305

livings from

£50 to

£60

a-year.

317

60 to

70

do.

254

70 to

80

a-year.

353

80 to

90

a-year.

400

100

Making 1629

livings under

£100

a-year.

There are 1602

from £100 to £150 a-year.

And 1354

100 to 200 a-year.

So that 4882

livings are under

£200

a-year.

Besides these, there are 5,230 curacies varying from 40 l. to 160 l., and averaging 81 l. per annum each. From the same authority, it appeared that there were, at the time of the presentation of that report, 5,728 bishoprics, dignities and benefices, varying in value from 200 l. to 20,000 l. a year. The scheme which he should submit to the House for the removal of these most glaring irregularities was this:—First, to abolish the first fruits. Second, to exempt all livings under the value of 300 l. a year from the payment, not only of first-fruits, but also of tenths, after the next avoidance. And third, to render all spiritual dignities and benefices in England and Wales, of the clear value of 300 l. a year and upwards, liable to the payment of the tenth part of the clear yearly value, after the next avoidance of such spiritual dignity or benefice. The plan recommended by the Select Committee, which sat in the year 1837, of which his hon. Friend the Member for Nottinghamshire, (Mr. Gally Knight) was chairman, and of which he (Mr. Baines) was a member, recommended that all benefices above the annual value of 300 l. should make a yearly payment for the benefit of the poor clergy, upon the principle of the Irish Church Temporalities Bill, which advanced by a graduated scale from two-and-a-half to fifteen percent. But he (Mr. Baines) preferred the payment of tenths, partly because it had the sanction of law, and partly because it was of high antiquity, and in its name carried its amount and proportion.
866
His noble Friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, in his Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill, proposed to apply 130,000 l. a year on the next avoidance, from the dignities of the deans and chapters to the augmentation of the livings of the poor clergy. But as the operation of this fund would be very gradual, and would carry on the work of augmentation slowly, both the plan of the payment of the tenths, and that of the noble Lord would be necessary to produce the effect that he contemplated; and for this purpose he (Mr. Baines) had entered into calculations to ascertain the sum that would be requisite in order to increase the small livings to 200L a year, and the following was the result of that calculation:—

297

livings, from 10 l. to

50 l., will require

£48,315

1629

livings, from 50 to

100

201,365

1602

livings, from 100 to

150

120,150

1354

livings, from 150 to

200

33,850

£403,680

Deduct sum proposed for augmentation by Lord John Russell's Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill

130,000

Leaving a deficiency of

£273,680

From which it would appear, that the sum of 273,680 l. a year will be necessary to augment the small livings to the amount of 200 l. a year each; and for this sum he (Mr. Baines) provided by appropriating the tenth part of the livings from 300 l, a year and upwards.

The total clear annual revenue of the Church, as appeared from the report of the ecclesiastical commissioners was

£. 3,439,767

Deduct for livings under 300 l. a year, not chargeable

1,036,844

2,402,923

The tenths on which amount to £. 240,292

to be augmented by the excess of tithe commutations over the amounts returned by the ecclesiastical commissioners, which was very considerable, and swelled the revenue of the Church, represented at 3,439,000 l. to 5,000,000 l. Having laid these statements before the House, he should, for the present, satisfy himself with moving the following resolution, which he confidently hoped would receive the sanction of the House.
"That this House do now resolve itself into

867
committee of the whole House, to take info consideration the propriety of abolishing the first fruits of the revenues of the Church, and rendering the tenths conducive to the more efficient augmentation of the maintenance of the poor clergy."
Mr. G. Knightsaid, that in rising to second this motion, he trusted it was superfluous to state, that he was not actuated by any feelings hostile to the Church, but, on the contrary, by an earnest wish for her welfare. He desired to see an alteration take place, for two reasons—the condition of the poor livings, and the injustice, he had almost said the absurdity, of the distribution of the present impost. As a proof of the necessities of the poor livings, he would only state, that to augment the small livings with the population of 300 and upwards, so that their incomes shall range from 150 l. to 400 l. a-year, according to the number of inhabitants, would require an additional sum of 276,691 l. a-year, whilst to augment all the small livings to 300 l. a-year (no extravagant allowance for a man who had to live respectably, and bring up a family) would take a much larger sum. From this it was evident that no plan which was already before the House, would provide a remedy. But it was not on this ground alone that he advocated the present inquiry. He advocated it fully as much on the ground of the capricious distribution of the existing impost. With respect to the existing state of the law on this subject, he must say, that it appeared to him to favour the inquiry, for according to the last statute passed on this subject, the 1st of Geo. 1st c. 10, bishops were directed to inform themselves, from time to time, of the true, clear, improved annual value of every benefice in their respective dioceses, and to certify the same to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, with a view to the more speedy augmentation of the poor livings. But even admitting that, as the law now stood, first fruits and tenths were only to be exacted in such proportions and from such parties as at present it would not be disputed that Parliament bad the right to interfere, and the rather, because Parliament had, more than once, interfered on this subject already, la the reign of Henry 8th, in that of Anne, in that of Geo. 1st, and after the lapse of a century, it could scarcely be said, that it was too early a period to review the subject again, or that
868
revisions at such a distance of time need excite a just apprehension of frequent and vexatious exactions. Nor let it be said, that we had any innovation in view. Let it not be said, for it could not be said with truth, that we were seeking, for the first time, to tax the clergy. The tax already existed—the clergy were taxed already—but they were taxed unequally. The tax, in its present shape, possessed the worst defects by which a tax could be accompanied—it was unequal, and it was unproductive. By the Act of Anne, all livings of, or under, the value of 50 l. a-year, were exempted from the payment of tenths, and livings above that value were to continue to pay first fruits and tenths, according to the valuation taken in the time of Henry 8th. He need not detain the House by pointing out the immense difference between the value of livings in the time of Henry 8th, and their actual value, or the consequent little proportions which the tenths bore to the real value of the tenths. But the House would do well to consider how infinitely above the mark of exemption most of the 50 l. livings of Queen Anne's time were now; and also in what different degrees the circumstances of different livings had been effected. The 50 l. livings of Queen Anne varied at this time from 300 l. a-year to 800 l., and even 1,000 l.; none of these paid tenths: but all livings had not been affected alike, and thus it might happen, that livings of inferior value paid, whilst many of high value were exempt. Altogether, out of 10,498 benefices, with or without cure of souls, only 4,808 remained liable to the payments of tenths, and that, as he had said before, according to their value in the time of Henry 8th. The consequence was, that the fund which was devoted by Queen Anne to the augmentation of small livings did not exceed 14,000 l. a-year; and nothing could more fully demonstrate how inadequate this fund was to its object, and how slowly it advanced that object, than the present state of the livings it was meant to improve. After the lapse of a century, notwithstanding the additional aid of large Parliamentary grants and private benefactions, the fund arising from tenths, though it had done much good, had not been able to effect nearly as much as they all desired. He frankly owned that he had two objects greatly at heart—1st, to augment the small livings so as to secure a resident

869
clergy; 2nd, to provide a permanent fund for the erection of new churches. It was no part of his scheme to pull down the large livings for the sake of producing an equality, which, for many reasons, he thought undesirable. There were various modes by which the payment of tenths could be more equitably arranged. The strict interpretation of the letter would exact from each living the tenth of its actual value. But he had nothing of so stringent a nature in view. A more equitable distribution of the impost was his chief aim. He entirely concurred with the hon. Member for Leeds in the propriety of altogether abolishing first fruits, which were always severely felt. The moment of entering upon a living was not the moment when an extraordinary payment should be demanded. They equally proposed that no change should take place during the lives of the present incumbents. They equally proposed that all benefices of or below the value of 300 l. a-year should be exempt from the payment of first fruits and tenths. They equally proposed that all benefices above the value of 300 l. a-year should, on the next avoidance, become liable to the payment of tenths, and not according to their value in the King's books, but according to the valuation taken in 1831. The amount of the tax was the next question, whether it should be uniform or graduated. The principle adopted in the case of the Irish livings was a graduated scale, beginning at 2l. 10 s. per cent, on livings of 300 l. a-year, and gradually augmenting to 12 l. 12 s. per cent on livings of 1,000 l. a-year and upwards. Another proposal was, that livings above 300 l. a-year and under 500 l. should pay five per cent.; above 500 l. and under 800 l., seven per cent.; above 800 1. and under 1,200 l., ten per cent.; and above 1,200 l., fifteen percent. Both these propositions appeared to him to be too severe. He repeated, he had no wish to interfere with the principle of inequality in the incomes of the clergy. He thought it better that there should be different degrees in the Church, as in other professions. He thought it was useful that there should be attractive prizes in the ecclesiastical lottery. If all paid, he should be satisfied if all paid alike; and he should wish the payment to be so moderate as neither to be oppressive to the smaller livings nor to the larger. Upon the whole, therefore, he would be satisfied
870
if three per cent. were exacted from all benefices above 300 l. a-year, according to the valuation taken in 1831. Moderate as this tax would be, it would still produce a considerable sum, infinitely more than was raised at present. First fruits and tenths now produced only 1,400 l. a-year; three per cent, on all benefices above 300 l. a-year, would produce rather more than 65,000 l. a-year, which would at least augment the poor livings in a much more rapid ratio. He should commit the distribution of this sum to the board of Queen Anne's Bounty. They would be just as equal to the distribution of the larger as of the smaller sum. He had every reason to believe that the board worked well, and by continuing the trust in the same honourable hands, they would avoid the expense of salaried commissioners. It might be objected, that, by this new arrangement of the tax, they would interfere with the value of property, by augmenting the value of benefices below 300 l. a-year, and diminishing, in some degree, the value of those above that mark. It could not be denied that this would be the case. But where the spiritual instruction of the people was concerned, he looked upon this objection as a secondary consideration. Advowsons, above all things, partook of the nature of a trust, and might be justly submitted to such regulations as would best carry the object of so sacred a trust into effect. He had now, he thought, left nothing unexplained that he wished to propose. He thanked the House for their indulgence, and he earnestly hoped that the House would consent to go into committee on the subject. The object of the committee would be inquiry: in committee any plan might be adopted which the House in its wisdom preferred; but the inquiry should be entertained to meet the general and reasonable wish for a resident clergy, and, in some measure, to supply the deficiency of spiritual instruction to the people.
Mr. Goulburnwould not detain the House with many observations on a subject which had so frequently been discussed, and on which so many much more able to form a correct opinion had pronounced against the scheme of the hon. Member for Leeds. The first fruits were really a Popish imposition, and the Pope, like the hon. Gentleman, finding the income very small, and desiring to make it much more productive, attempted to raise

871
what he called the whole value of the first fruits. The Parliament of this country protested against that proposition, even in Roman Catholic times. He contended that the proposition of the hon. Member for Leeds was not in accordance with the law of the land; and it was also objectionable in principle, as it would fix a tax on a particular class of individuals exclusively. He certainly did not wish to see established that perfect equality in the incomes of the members of the Church which the hon. Member for Leeds desired. Such an equality would be inconsistent with the general circumstances of the country, and might operate upon young men, when choosing their profession, as a reason for avoiding that of the Church.
Lord J. Russellwould state shortly his reasons for not agreeing to the motion of the hon. Member for Leeds. He concurred with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in his statement that the value of the first fruits was a fixed and certain sum; and, therefore, if any alteration was now to be made, it must be in the shape of a new tax on the income of the clergy. He did not, however, go along with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that it would be either unjust or impolitic to tax the richer living for the benefit of the poorer clergy, provided the enforced payment was not exorbitant or oppressive. But as it would be in fact a new tax, which on principle was objectionable to many, and unpalatable, as he understood, not merely to the holders of rich livings, but to the general body of the clergy, he did not think it advisable to enter on the subject in the manner proposed by the hon. Member for Leeds. He thought such a proposition, if made at all, should be brought forward by the Government, after fair notice had been given to the general body of the clergy, so that they might be prepared to state their reasons either for supporting or opposing it. Under these circumstances, he could not give his consent to the present motion, which he thought it was the more inexpedient now to discuss, as other measures would be taken into consideration by Parliament for augmenting small livings by deductions from the larger, and for the increase of spiritual aid in places where at present there existed a spiritual want.
Mr. Harcourt Vernonbegged to say a few words in consequence of an expression which had fallen from the hon.
872
Member for Leeds, The hon. Member had stated that the Bishops and High Dignitaries of the Church had violated their duties in not attending to the poor in the administration of Queen Ann's bounty. He would tell that hon. Member that the Bishops, as Governors of Queen Anne's bounty, had no more power of assigning a shilling to the poor than the hon. Gentleman himself, and the mistake into which the hon. Member had fallen could only be attributed to his incapability of understanding a plain Act of Parliament. The object of the whole speech of the hon. Member appeared only to be to throw obloquy on the clergy. The question had been so often discussed that he would not trouble the House further.
Mr. Horsmanmust protest against the doctrine that it was necessary to maintain an inequality of livings in order to induce educated gentlemen to enter into the Church—thus making a mere speculation of the holy ministry. In Scotland the clergy performed their duties in a most exemplary manner, without any of those prizes to look forward to. He thought the doctrine laid down was a most dangerous one, for if men only could be goaded on to the performance of their duty by the hope of gaining these prizes when they attained to those places, where increased attention was necessary, having no more prizes to look for, their zeal of course cooled. It was an unfortunate doctrine, and one that would be well used in the mouths of the worst enemies of the Church.
Mr. A. Whitecould not agree with the doctrine laid down by the right hon. the Member for the University of Cambridge. The gross inequalities now existing in the livings of the Church must lead to the degradation of the Church in the eyes of the people. The curates were disgracefully paid, many of them not receiving so much as a gentleman's butler, although they must be educated men. He would cordially give his support to the Motion of the hon. Member for Leeds, who, he thought, deserved the thanks of the country for his perseverance upon this important question.
Mr. Bainesreplied. He could assure the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, or any other hon. Member, that he would perform his duty fearlessly in that House, notwithstanding the sneers he might be met with

873
as to his being a Dissenter. Whether Dissenter or Churchman, all were equal in that House; and he would pursue his course unmindful of all such insinuations. He would not be restrained from the free exercise of his judgment upon any matter before the House. His noble Friend and the hon. Member opposite argued on the law of the question, but there were high authorities against them. Lord Eldon was against them, so also was Mr. Agar, Queen's Counsel, and Sir John Newport. Lord Plunket is against us, so also was Lord Grey; but it was evident that he spoke without information upon the subject, for he said that there was an Act of Parliament which prevented the re-valuation of the benefices. He was quite sure the noble Lord had been misled, for there really was no such act. The Statute of Anne provided that all doubts should be construed in favour of the poor clergy, but had that ever been done? His objects had been misconceived—he wished that no minister should have less than 200 l., but he never for a moment proposed to bring down the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to an equality.
The House divided—Ayes 38; Noes 17: Majority 21.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Muskett, G. A.

Aglionby, Major

O'Connell, D.

Barnard, E. G.

Pryme, G.

Bewes, T.

Rickford, W.

Busfield, W.

Rundle, J.

Butler, Colonel

Salwey, Col.

Collier, J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Currey, Mr. Sergeant

Stuart, J.

Davies, Colonel

Strickland, Sir G.

Finch, F.

Thornely, T.

Greg, R. H.

Vigors, N. A.

Hawes, B.

Wakley, T.

Heathcoat, J.

Wallace, R.

Hector, C. J.

Warburton, H.

Hindley, C.

White, A.

Horsman, E.

Williams, W.

Hume, J.

Wood, B.

Humphrey, J.

James, W.

TELLERS.

Lushington, C.

Baines, E.

Marshall, W.

Knight, Gally

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Perceval, Col.

Bell, M.

Pigot, D. R.

Brodie, W. B.

Plumptre, J. P.

Goulburn, H.

Pusey, P.

Hodgson, R.

Russell, Lord J.

Macaulay, T. B.

Sibthorp, Col.

Morpeth, Vise.

Sutton, J. H.

874

Vere, Sir C. B.

TELLERS.

Vernon, G. H.

Gordon, R.

Wood, Col. T.

Freshfield, J.

Mr. Baines Mr. Baines moved, that it is expedient to make provision for the abolition of the first fruits and tenths, as at present enforced in England and Wales, after the next accordance, and to levy an annual one-tenth of the clear annual value upon all archbishoprics, bishoprics, and upon all dignities benefices and other spiritual promotions above the clear yearly value of 300 l. to be applied in the first instance to the augmentation of the maintenance of the poor clergy, and afterwards to building, and rebuilding of churches, and such other purposes as may be conducive to the interests of religion.
Mr. Goulburnmight make a long speech against the motion, but as he could not hope to reduce the number from-thirty-eight, he would defer it till another opportunity.
Mr. Alderman Humphreyhoped the sum would be fixed at 500 l., he thought 300 l. too low.—Motion agreed to
Chairman directed to move the House that leave be given to bring in a bill pursuant to the same resolution.—House resumed.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
—The Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill was recommitted.
Colonel Perceval Colonel Perceval moved, as an amendment on the 101st clause, the omission of the words "no other officer,' other than such as, has usually been appointed," for the purpose of preventing the wasteful expenditure of money in boroughs, by preserving a controlling power in the hands of the Lord-lieutenant.
Viscount Morpethopposed the motion, as tending to throw suspicion, on the motives and characters of the individuals to be elected by the new corporation. He considered that the bill as it now stood; provided a sufficient check against an extravagant appropriation of the corporate funds, and he objected to the amendment therefore, on the ground that it was as unnecessary as it was offensive
Mr. Goulburncould not see that the amendment of his hon. Friend threw any greater light of suspicion upon the officer's to be elected, than the clause itself, which provided various checks; and he agreed in the propriety of giving the Government a control over any extrava-

875
gant application of the public money. The liberality of people in Ireland was such, that they were always more disposed to err on the side of extravagance, than on that of economy.
Colonel Percevalsaid, that his only object was to place the salaries appropriated under the new bill, under the control of the Lord-lieutenant.
Mr. Pigotsaid, that the effect of this amendment was to prevent the new corporations from re-appointing any of the old officers, or appropriating their salaries without the approval of the Lord-lieutenant; so that the appointment of every officer who had been appointed from the granting of the charter to the present time, would have to be brought under the consideration of the Lord-lieutenant and the Council. In his opinion, the amendment was not merely unnecessary and offensive, but it was calculated to do away with all the benefit of the measure.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. O'Connell Mr. O'Connell moved, the introduction of a clause after the 207th clause. The principle of compensation was admitted by the bill, which gave the new corporations the power of removing any officer they thought fit; but, in case of such removal, required them to give compensation to the party removed. But another course might be pursued; the new corporations might harass and annoy parties who now held corporate offices to a great extent, for the existing officers of corporations were those who had been the strongest supporters of one party, and had in proportion irritated the other party. He proposed, therefore, to give those officers the power of resigning within three months after the first election of councillors; and that, if they chose to resign within that period, they should not go without compensation. The hon. and learned Member then moved such a clause.
Colonel Vernerhoped, that this clause would receive the sanction of the Government. It was quite certain that the effect of this bill would be to transfer the corporation of Dublin from the hands of one party to those of another. One individual had held an office in that corporation for fifty years, and it would be a great hardship if he were not permitted to retire and receive compensation.
Colonel Percevalsupported the clause. It proved the truth of what he had
876
stated, that this bill would transfer the Irish corporations from one party to another.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the transfer would, be from a limited number to the citizens at large.
Lord John Russellsaid, it seems that there is a much better understanding between the hon. and learned Gentleman, and the hon. Gentlemen opposite upon the subject of this amendment, than there is between him and the Government, for I feel great difficulty about the clause. In the first place, it seems to take for granted that there will be in most cases such an entire difference between the parties holding offices in the new corporations and the existing officers; but be sides that, in the next place, the clause appears to be calculated to lead to some agreement or bargain between the different parties in the corporations, by which large compensation will be given to particular persons, in order to obtain the appointment to the offices which they hold; so that a great additional expense will be imposed upon the inhabitants. I think the clause is liable to that interpretation, and that it will necessarily lead to the introduction of other clauses, and I therefore am not prepared to agree to it.
Clause negatived.
Mr. O'Connellhoped, that the Government would not resist the next clause. They had admitted the claims of Mr. Dickinson and of the Sword Bearer and Marshal of Dublin to compensation, and the four junior aldermen of that city, had precisely the same claim. The Lord Mayor was allowed a compensation for his expectancy of the office of president of the Court of Conscience; and each of the four junior aldermen would in rotation become Lord Mayor, as certainly as the present Lord Mayor would become president of the Court of Conscience, if this bill were not to pass. The office of alderman, too, was one of considerable dignity; and that was taken from them by this bill. The compensation would come out of the funds of the corporation, so that the public would lose nothing, and this clause proposed what was only an act of justice to those individuals. He begged to move a compensation clause.
Colonel Vernerconsidered it useless to press the amendment. The Government appeared determined to resist every amendment; and it was because he felt

877
sure that they would do so, that he had opposed the second reading.
Colonel Percevalsaid, the argument of the noble Lord on the last clause, did not apply to this. Men underwent considerable expense in order to arrive at the station which he had now, for the first time, heard the hon. and learned Member for Dublin describe as an honourable situation. They must have served the office of sheriff, or paid a fine of 400 l. or 500 l.
Mr. Pigotsaid, that the claim now put forward, admitted of considerations quite different from those which affected the other cases to which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had alluded, and in which it clearly appeared that the parties had an insurable interest in the offices which they held. The Government, after much consideration, had determined to accede to the clause under certain limitations. He proposed to amend the clause by providing that it should be lawful for the town council to grant such sum by way of compensation to the four junior aldermen of the city of Dublin as to the town council or to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury should seem fit; but with this further limitation, that in case they should have received or acquired a title to any sum or benefit which ought justly to be taken into account in estimating such compensation, then such sum or benefit should be considered as extinguishing their claim or diminishing its amount.
Mr. O'Connellwished to know, whether it was intended by that clause to give the aldermen an appeal to the commissioners of the Treasury? [Mr. Pigot: "Yes."] If that were so, he did not know that he could quarrel with that limitation; but he was afraid of the generality of the terms in the latter proviso—was it confined to pecuniary benefit?
Mr. Huttonconceived, that the aldermen had no claim whatever, and therefore he should oppose the motion, however amended, and divide the committee.
The Committee divided: Ayes 30; Noes 10: Majority 20.

List of the AYES.

Archbold, R.

Gordon, R.

Barnard, E. G.

Hodgson, R.

Blandford, Marq. of

Hollond, R.

Brodie, W. B.

Howard, Sir R.

Browne, R. D.

Hume, J.

Busfield, W.

Lushington, C.

Dunbar, G.

Morpeth, Viscount

878

O'Connell, D.

Turner, W.

O'Connell, J.

Verner, Colonel

O'Connell, M. J.

Wallace, R.

Perceval, Colonel

Wood, Sir M.

Plumptre, J. P.

Wood, B.

Russell, Lord J.

Wyse, T.

Somers, J. P.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

TELLERS.

Stock, Doctor

Pigot, D. R.

Sutton, hon. J. H. T. M.

Curry, Sergeant

List of the NOES.

Ellis, W.

Vigors, N. A.

Hawes, B.

Wakley, T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wood, G. W.

James, W.

Marshall, W.

TELLERS.

Scholefield, J.

Hutton, R.

Thornely, T.

Strutt, E.

House resumed. Bill as amended, reported.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—Vagrant's Removal.—Read a first time:—Horse Racing.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of Richmond, and the Earl of Aberdeen, from a number of places in Scotland, against the Intrusion of Ministers into Parishes without the Consent of the Parishioners.—By the Duke of Richmond, from Wroxford, against the Rating of Union. Workhouses

CORN LAWS.
The Duke of Richmondstated that he had sixteen petitions to present from parishes in Sussex, praying that their Lordships would not sanction any measure for the repeal or alteration of the Corn-laws. He need not say that is

845
cordially agreed in the prayer of the petition; and he hoped that the farmers of this country would lose no time in forwarding to both Houses of Parliament petitions embracing the same opinions on the subject; for they must be aware that persons were going through the country lecturing on this question, and getting persons to sign petitions who in reality knew very little about what they were signing. He trusted, therefore, that the farmers would immediately do as they had done last Session—humbly petition both Houses of Parliament not to accede to the wishes of those who were desirous of repealing the Corn-laws. That was the wise and proper course for them to pursue, and he was confident that if they adopted it, their efforts would produce the same result which had attended them last year.
Petition laid on the Table.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.
The Earl of Gallowaypresented a petition from the Protestant Association of Edinburgh, and as it was very short, and the subject was of importance, he begged leave to read it. The noble Earl read the petition, which prayed for an enquiry into the nature and tendency of the books used as class-books at Maynooth College; and setting forth that if those books were such as they had been described to be, it was inconsistent with the duty of a Christian Government any longer to supply funds for the support of that college. The noble Earl proceeded to say, that in laying this petition before their Lordships he did not pretend to be acquainted with the books in use at the College of Maynooth; but he had no hesitation in asserting, that if the books were of such a nature as was stated in this petition, it was a subject that ought at once to be dealt with by Parliament. In presenting this petition he begged it to be observed that he entertained no hostile feelings towards the Roman Catholic body. Indeed, he was one of those who, from the very first, entertained a conscientious opinion in their favour, and in the other House he had voted in favour of what was called Catholic Emancipation, and he was sorry that that measure had not produced those happy results that were anticipated from it by the many Protestants who had supported it. Of this, however, he had no doubt, that a Roman Catholic college, established for purely Roman Catholic purposes, was incon-
846
sistent with the security and safety of a Protestant state. Such a college it appeared by the petition, was now receiving, aid and assistance from the country. Against the noble Lords opposite he made no accusation on that account; but he conceived that if, after duly considering the subject, it was found that such van establishment was inconsistent with the public safety, the grant for its support ought to be rescinded. At an influential meeting which was held some time ago, extracts from the books in use at Maynooth were read, and they were found to agree with the allegations contained' in the petition. It was therefore a proper subject for serious inquiry. About a month ago a right rev. Prelate bad moved—
"That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to command that inquiries be made into the diffusion of blasphemous and immoral publications, and especially into the tenets and proceedings of a society under the name of Socialists, which has been represented in petitions to this House to be a society the object of which is, by the dissemination of doctrines subversive of morality and religion, to destroy the existing laws and institutions of this realm."
To that address her Majesty was pleased to return the following most gracious answer:—
"I will give directions that inquiry be made into the important matters which form the subject of your address; and you may rely upon my determination to discourage all doctrines and practices dangerous to morality and religion."
Now, he founded his appeal for inquiry in this case on the address which he had read, and the gracious answer in reply to it. He hoped that an inquiry would be instituted on this subject, in order that no further public grant should be continued for the support of this college, if, as had been described, and as he believed to be the fact, books were used in it which promulgated doctrines dangerous to morality and the welfare of society.
Petition laid on the Table.

KEW BOTANIC GARDENS.
The Earl of Aberdeenwished to ask a question relative to a subject which was in some degree, if not directly, connected with the situation which the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Duncannon) held. He alluded to the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew.

847
He had heard many reports, with respect to the intention of the Government to abandon and destroy that fine establishment. He should have given little or no credit to those reports, if he had not been informed that an offer had been made to the Horticultural Society of this city to give up to them the plants in the gardens on certain conditions. That society was very well known to be anxious to forward horticultural pursuits; but they nevertheless, declined the offer. They refused to become parties to a transaction which had for its object the destruction of those gardens. He considered the Botanic Gardens at Kew to constitute a part of the state and dignity of the Crown, which ought by no means to be alienated from it. He knew not what expense this establishment might entail on the civil list; but he should be happy to see assistance given by the country, if it were necessary, in support of an object of this description. So far from desiring to destroy this establishment, he should think that her Majesty could not favour a better object than the protection, encouragement, and cultivation of that delightful science with which those gardens were connected. He now asked the noble Viscount who was at the head of the department of Woods and Forests, whether any such intention as that to which be bad alluded, at present existed? or whether the tacit reproof administered by the Horticultural Society, to whom the offer was made, had induced the Government to forego their original intention?
Viscount Duncannonsaid, that the Botanic Gardens of Kew were not under the control of his department. But he could assure the noble Earl, that there was not only not the least intention now to break up those gardens, but there never had been any such intention. Indeed, the would have been next to impossible; for a great many of the plants could not be removed without insuring their destruction.
The Earl of Aberdeenhad no wish to allege anything against the noble Viscount's department, which he believed to be the best managed under the Government; though, perhaps, that was not saying a great deal in its favour. The noble Viscount had informed them that these gardens did not come within the range of his department. It therefore might be supposed, that the noble Viscount was not aware of all the circum-
848
stances of the case. Now, he could assure the noble Viscount, that an offer of the plants was made to the Horticultural Society of London, that society had refused the offer so made, thinking it would be injurious to the public interests that the establishment should be so broken up. The noble Viscount thought that the plants could not be removed without great danger. That might be so; but there could not be a doubt that the offer of the plants was made to the London Horticultural Society on certain conditions—Such, for instance, as that the public were to be admitted freely to the society's gardens one day hr the week, or something of that sort. He was, however, most happy to find, that the project was abandoned.
Viscount Duncannonsaid, though the care of the gardens was not in his department, he had the authority of the Lord Steward for stating, that no intention of breaking up the gardens now existed.

DESTRUCTION OF EXCHEQUER RECORDS.
Lord Redesdalecomplained of the enormous destruction of records connected with the Exchequer, and begged as ask by whose orders the records had been destroyed.
Lord Monteaglesaid, the documents which had been lately destroyed, were, for the most part, duplicates of documents connected with ancient proceedings in the Exchequer. They had not been destroyed until there had been a full inquiry and due deliberation upon the subject. Two gentlemen, competent to the task, were appointed to make the inquiry. They had reported on the subject; and if the House required it there would be no objection to furnishing the report.
Subject dropped.

HORSE RACING.
The Duke of Richmondrequested their Lordships to permit the first reading of a bill which had been rendered necessary by certain late transactions of a vexatious character. An act had been passed in 1740, which prohibited any person from running more than one horse in a race, or from running any horse otherwise than his own name. That act, up to the present time, had never been carried into effect. Neither, indeed, could it; because, if a person bought a horse under an engagement, it must run under that engagement, as a

849
matter of course. Yet, according to that statute, the horse was forfeited, and the owner become liable to a penalty, The act was hardly known, indeed, until some very clever solicitor lately ferretted it out, and served notice of action upon six gentlemen under its provisions. Now, according to that law, the Member for a borough or county subscribing 10 l. or 20 l. to the races held there, was liable to a penalty, or any number of gentlemen entering for a sweepstakes. His late Majesty, who kept race-horses for the purpose of encouraging an amusement which all could enjoy, and of maintaining the breed of horses, frequently ran three horses in one race, and that in the name of the Master of the Horse. His Majesty, by doing so, was liable, under this act, to one of the penalties, and the forfeiture of the horses, and the Earl of Albermarle to another penalty. The act had clearly fallen into desuetude, and therefore he called on their Lordships to repeal it, since it could only be made use of to extort money from persons who were perfectly ignorant of its existence. The bill would go to repeal that part of the 13th of George II. which contained the enactments to which he had referred. He had adopted the precedents afforded by a bill brought into Parliament by Sir W. Follett some time ago, and another introduced last year by the Attorney-General, the one relating to pluralities, the other concerning newspapers, so that in the case of actions already instituted, the party might get his costs, but not recover the penalties.
Bill read a first time.