Sitting of 28 May 1840

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Easthope, from Grocers of Leicester, for measures to promote the supply of Free Labour Sugar; and from Congregations of Leicester, Loughborough, and many other places, against Church Rates, and Church Extension by Public Grant.— By Mr. Fleming, from Milton, Hampshire, against any further Grant for Maynooth.—By Mr. Busfeild, from various places in Yorkshire, for the Abolition of Church Rates.—By Mr. Muutz, from Birmingham, for the Equalisation of the Duty on Beer Licences.—By Mr. C. Dundas, from Flint, against Church Rates.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Dewesbury, for more humane treatment of Feargus O'Connor; from J. Thorogood, against Church Extension; and from an Individual of Yeovil, complaining of the Seizure of his Property for Church. Rates.

BONDED CORN.
Mr. Huttsaid, that the subject of which he had given notice, and to which he now wished to call the attention of the House as of great importance to the public interests, was one with which the House was by no means unfamiliar. Since the Grinding Act expired in 1825, various propositions had been submitted to Parliament for allowing corn to be manufactured into flour in bond, for the purpose of exportation. These propositions had been brought forward in the form of bills, and though they had been anxiously promoted by the Gentlemen who introduced them, and supported by the shipping and mercantile interests of the country, they had not, any one of them, bad the good fortune to obtain the sanction of the House of Commons. He did not now propose to introduce a bill upon the subject, for he could have little hope of attaining an object which Gentlemen every way his superior had failed in accomplishing. But, being strongly impressed with the conviction, that the hostility evinced by the House to these measures had been the result of insufficient information and ill-founded alarm, that hon. Members in deciding on them had neither estimated rightly the advantages which these measures would confer on the community, nor the evils which they could by any possibility impose on any particular interest in it, it was with these feelings, and being urged by that class, whose welfare it was his more immediate duty in that House to promote, that he had been led to come forward and to request that the House would grant him a committee to inquire into the question. At least let the subject, with the nature of which few gentlemen could have any practical acquaintance, be fully and fairly investigated. Whatever opinions the House might entertain of the prudence and propriety of permitting corn to be ground in bond, he was sure, that looking to the large and influential classes who had solicited this boon of the Legislature, all parties would agree that it was not a request of that nature, which should be lightly or carelessly denied. The case of the merchants was this, they allege that, under the restrictions of the existing law, extensive markets, in which they might carry on a valuable trade, are closed against them; that, in consequence of the disabilities which their own Legislature has imposed on them, Newfoundland, the West Indies,

663
the Brazils, and other countries, are either exclusively supplied with flour manufactured by foreign nations, and imported in foreign shipping, or if they embark in the trade at all, they must do one of two things, both of which are seriously detrimental to them, as engaged in competition with foreign merchants. They must either purchase in this country flour which has been ground in another—very probably across the Atlantic, and thus, burdened with the charges of importation, with the expense of warehousing, and the loss from deterioration, tranship it into a vessel in a British port, or they must send to some port in the north of Europe a vessel perhaps bound for the coast of America, thus lengthening the voyage by many weeks, and by a distance of several hundred miles, with additional insurances, port charges, and other expenses of navigation, to take in flour for foreign or colonial markets, filling up their cargo invariably with the manufactured productions of rival nations. He found from official papers which the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had permitted him to have access to, that on an average of three years upwards of 18,000 tons of British shipping annually repair to the port of Hamburgh alone, under the adverse circumstances he had described, for the exportation of flour, and that upwards of 15,000 tons of shipping laden with flour annually left the ports of Hamburgh, Copenhagen, and Dantzic, for the single colony of Newfoundland; and that for the supply of this colony with flour and biscuit, upwards of 75,000 l. sterling was annually laid out in the port of Hamburgh alone. From the port of Dantzic our traders carry off 10,000,000lbs. of flour annually, while the exact amount exported from Copenhagen in the years 1837 and 1838, was officially stated as follows:—"1837, wheat flour, 8,864,125lbs.; biscuit, 252,172,000,000 1838, wheat flour, 9,000,000lbs.; biscuit, 274,022,700,000." All of this, under a different system of policy, might have been manufactured at home, and exported in British vessels directly from British ports. Now, were these times when it was wise thus to harass and obstruct, by artificial restrictions, the operations of commercial enterprise? At all events, was such a proceeding so obviously wise and profitable, that the House would refuse to inquire into it at all? What did they gain by this system? Did they suppose, that
664
by preventing the exporting merchant from grinding flour in bond, they compelled him to purchase the flour raised on their own soil? Not a pound of it. For all purposes of exportation the British merchant must go to the foreigner. They could not prevent him if they would; they ought not if it were in their power. Now, mark the consequences of their prohibitory legislation. They had driven from the shores of England a valuable branch of manufacture to establish it on the continent. Gentlemen who had visited Hamburgh, Copenhagen, or Dantzic, would bear witness to the fact, that an enormous amount of foreign capital was there invested in those mills which, but for these prohibitory laws, would have been erected in our own country. Did this seem like the contrivance of sagacious policy? Was the spectacle of foreign mills grinding corn for British consumption almost within sight of their own shores one on which the Legislature could dwell with unhesitating satisfaction? Would they not pause to investigate it? But this was not all. It was not merely a question of commercial enterprise, or of the investment of capital, though in a country where the rate of interest and the profits of trade were so low, that was a question of vast economical importance. Let them think of the employment which this system snatched from the British labourers and transferred to labourers on the continent. Was this quite fair to the working classes? Was it quite prudent towards yourselves? Were they resolved to prevent Chartism, and to put an end to popular discontent? Then in that House, where every other interest was so cautiously considered and protected, do not let them neglect the interests of the working classes. The working classes had no direct representatives in that House, and that was the strongest possible reason why in every act of the House the rights of industry should be scrupulously respected. He did not mean to say, that these claims should be paramount to every other, but so long as they rejected the demand for universal suffrage, they were bound by every obligation of justice and of self-interest to show a special respect for the rights and the well-being of the industrious classes. The system which he proposed to investigate was established in manifest violation of them. Let them look, then, to the price

665
which they paid for this prohibitory system, which they so pertinaciously maintained. Let them consider for one moment what they paid for this prohibitory system. There was the transference of a valuable branch of commerce from England to the stranger—the use of foreign shipping and foreign manufactures when they ought to use their own. There was also the remuneration of a vast employment in milling, the cooperage of casks, the construction of mills and of ships, an employment which rightly belonged to British industry, and which was now abandoned to the industry of other nations. These things, together with the artificial enhancement of the price of food in our colonies, constituted the price which they paid for prohibiting the home manufacture of flour in bond. What did they gain by it? Nothing. He defied any man to point out a single direct advantage which accrued from the prohibition. It was said, he knew, that the permission he contended for would open a door to smuggling, and that thus flour would be surreptitiously introduced into the home market. This objection could only be urged by persons who were completely ignorant of the measures practically resorted to by the customs for the security of bonded goods, and ignorant of the uniform and complete success with which they were applied. Smuggling from the Queen's lock was an offence almost unknown. It was unknown in respect to sugar, which paid a duty of 100 per cent.; it was unknown in regard to brandy, which paid a duty of 500 per cent.; unknown in regard to tobacco, which paid 1,200 per cent. duty. Was then the offence likely to be committed in regard to flour, which paid 25 to 30 per cent.? Was a vague and idle suspicion to be so cautiously respected for the sake of the produces in flour, when all such considerations were set aside in regard to the dealer in sugar and tobacco, both of which were subjected to a high duty, and permitted to undergo a process of manufacture in bond? It had been said that this proposition was an indirect attack on the Corn-laws. He utterly denied it. His hon. Friend, the Member for Wolverhampton, disapproved of this proposition, because it had a tendency to relieve the Corn-laws from a portion of the odium in which they were regarded. He believed that it had a tendency that way. He was
666
sure that injustice on the part of the Legislature was calculated not merely to overturn the Corn-laws, but all the other laws and institutions of the state; that there was nothing so dangerous, so revolutionary, as a public abuse protected by authority, and the strongest possible motive to popular convulsion was a notorious wrong consecrated by the laws. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire under what restrictions it might be expedient to permit flour to be manufactured in bond.
Viscount Sandonwas anxious that this question should have the fullest and most mature consideration. He thought such a measure as the hon. Gentleman had proposed would be highly advantageous to the trade and shipping interest of this country, and he considered that it might be adopted with perfect safety as respected the interests of the home growers of corn. He should have been willing at once to sanction the introduction of a bill to carry out the views of the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward this motion, but, as a majority of the House had so recently decided against going into Committee on the Corn-laws, he was heartily glad, as a bill might not be successful, that this question had been brought forward in such a shape as would enable the House to investigate it fully.
The Earl of Darlingtonsaid, this was not the first time that this question had been under the consideration of the House, though, perhaps, it had never before been brought forward in its present shape. Bills to carry into effect the views of the hon. Gentleman had been introduced on former occasions, and these bills had always been resisted, and chiefly on two grounds. The first of these grounds of objection was, that such a measure as was now proposed had an indirect bearing on the Corn-laws; and the second was, that no sufficient guarantee could be provided against smuggling. The last of those objections was the one which had operated on his mind to induce him to oppose those bills; but if it could be shown that fraud could be effectually prevented, he should not oppose any similar measure. For that reason he should not oppose the appointment of a Committee of inquiry, before which the whole subject could be fully investigated. If, however, the Committee was unfairly composed—if two-

667
thirds of the Members were opposed to the existing Corn-laws, and only one-third in favour of them, he was sure that the recommendations of such a body would not receive the sanction of the House. He, however, thought the proposed inquiry fair and reasonable, and he should not oppose it, provided security was given that the interests of every class would be equally attended to.
Mr. Christopherfelt himself obliged to oppose the motion. If the hon. Member who bad brought it forward, had held out any hope that new facts, in regard to this subject, could have been elicited by a committee of inquiry, then he might have been induced to agree with the noble Lord who had last spoken, and have voted for the motion. But the hon. Mover had held out no such hope. This was a question which had over and over again been discussed in that House, and was one on which repeated decisions had been given against the views of the hon. Mover. He could not therefore see the necessity for again bringing it forward, as it had on former occasions been fully investigated. He considered this motion as an attack, by a side wind, on the Corn-laws, and as Such, he was sure it would be received by the country. The House had only two nights ago refused, by a large majority, to go into committee on the Corn-laws, and under these circumstances he was resolved to resist this motion, and to divide the House upon it, if it was pressed.
Mr. G. Heathcoleconfessed that nothing had fallen from any hon. Member who had spoken on this motion to alter the opinions which he had formerly expressed upon this subject; and if the hon. Member who had last spoken, divided the House, he should certainly vote with him. The measure which was now proposed, Was not a new one. The proposal of the hon. Member who had brought forward the motion, had been tried before, and had been found a failure, as the greatest frauds were constantly committed; flour having been admitted into bond, and chalk having been taken out in return. It not unfrequently happened that ships took flour and bread on board, afterwards using them as ship's stores, and the bonds were not enforced. He would have this, as well as every other portion of the system inquired into. The strongest possible feeling prevailed amongst the agricul-
668
turists and farmers in his district against this measure, in a district, too, which was not so far from Hull. He felt convinced that the table would be loaded with petitions against a bill on the subject if the agriculturists once thought that such a measure were likely to pass.
Sir J. R. Reidhoped that the agriculturists would act liberally towards the shipping interests in this as in all other instances. He trusted that the hon. Member for Lincolnshire would withdraw his opposition, and permit the question to be discussed fairly in the proposed committee.
Mr. Laboucherethought the course pursued by his hon. Friend, the Member for Hull, an exceedingly fair one. In his opinion, this power of converting foreign wheat into flour in bond, would be a very great benefit to the commercial interest, without incurring the smallest danger of infringing the provisions of the Corn-laws. Although he was as strongly opposed as any man to the existing system of corn-laws, yet if he thought that the proposed measure would have a tendency insidiously and indirectly to undermine the operation of the Corn-laws, so long as those laws existed, he would most strenuously oppose it. He had always considered the alarm entertained upon this subject by the country gentlemen to be quite groundless. He was somewhat surprised to hear the speech which had been delivered by the noble Lord, the Member for Shropshire. Four or five years since, great alarm prevailed amongst the landed interest lest the privilege accorded to the Channel Islands, with reference to foreign corn, should lead to an illicit importation of grain into this country. He had had the pleasure of meeting the noble Lord upon that occasion, and they had carefully inquired into the subject. The result of this inquiry was, to produce the conviction in their minds, that the statements which had been made upon the subject, had been greatly exaggerated, and that this valuable boon conferred upon these dependencies of the British Crown was productive of no injury to the landed proprietors of England. He entertained sanguine hopes, that as the result of the proposed committee's labours, a measure would pass the Legislature conferring this important privilege upon the mercantile interests. Our West Indian possessions and Newfoundland took large quantities of flour, no mills existing among

669
them. If this measure were carried, they would be enabled to take this foreign grain from our ports in the shape of flour, which if unground, they could not consume. This would be also a boon to the labouring population, who would be presented with all the advantages which these various branches of industry would generate. By the existing system they made a present of this branch of trade to Hamburgh and other foreign ports.
Mr. A. Whitesaid, as the measure proposed by his hon. Friend would be a very great boon to the shipping and commercial interests of the country, he trusted a majority of that House would not refuse inquiry, so that some safe system might be found out to carry it into effect.
Sir J. Grahamhoped that the motion would not be pressed to a division. He entirely concurred with the view which had been taken by his noble Friend, the Member for Shropshire. He differed wholly from the right hon. Gentleman opposite with respect to the Corn-laws. The right hon. Gentleman opposed them; he strenuously supported them. He supported them, because he was firmly persuaded that the protection of agriculture by agraduated scale of duties—the only mode which he believed would be either effectual or permanent— was essential to the general interests of the community. It was his earnest desire to enforce that protection as little vexatiously as possible. In a former Session, when a bill was introduced upon this subject by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Dartmouth, he had opposed it as tending to encourage fraud. It was only upon this narrow ground that a measure like this could be resisted. Into the proposed inquiry he was prepared to enter; but he did not think the terms of the hon. Member for Hull's motion altogether unobjectionable. He did not think that an inquiry as to the means of carrying on this manufacture should be referred to a committee. The subject referred to them should rather be, whether it was practicable by any means to secure the revenue, and prevent the illicit intrusion of foreign corn. It would then be for the House to consider as to ulterior measures. He would suggest, that these words should be added to the motion—"to consider whether it was possible, without fraud to the revenue, to devise means for the grinding of corn in bond." He trusted that there would be no division.
Mr. Mark Phillipsfelt the importance of the subject so much, that he had placed in the paper a notice of his intention to introduce a bill during the present Session. He did not complain of the hon. Member for Hull having taken up the question, and he would shortly state his reasons for taking so much interest in the question. He thought they ought to give every possible scope to the enterprise of the merchants, but he never wished to do so in contravention of any existing law. Whenever a demand was made for flour the merchants were compelled to go into the ports of the Baltic in order to supply the markets of the United States and the Brazils, and those voyages were attended with considerable expense and loss of time. He recollected hearing Mr. Poulett Thompson state, a few years ago, that owing to the deficiency in the crop in the United States there would have been a very considerable demand for flour from England, if at the time they had been permitted to grind corn in bond. Most of the seaports in America had no means of converting grain into flour, and their supplies always came from the interior in the shape of flour. On that occasion it would have been of great advantage to the Americans, and a great convenience to our merchants, if they had been permitted to supply the demand. He thought an arrangement could be made by which that object might be accomplished, while at the same time security was given that the revenue should not be defrauded. It was a notorious fact that under the new bonding system goods of the most valuable description were allowed to be transferred from London to Liverpool, or to any other part of the country which had the advantage of canal communication, without any loss whatever to the revenue. It had been stated, he believed, before that Committee, that no loss to the revenue had occurred from the abstraction of property in transit; there had occasionally been losses by forfeiture of bonds on account of the insufficiency of the bonds given in the first instance, but there had been no pilfering or abstraction of property during its transit. He could not conceive any great difficulty with respect to security in this case. It had been tried with respect to sugars now refined in bond, and though at first there had been some practical difficulties these had been overcome. With respect to

671
the bran so manufactured, if the duty were to be paid equal to the present 20 per cent, ad valorem, he thought it probable great advantage would be derived by the manufacturing interests. He was informed by a large house that in the making 410,000 printed calicoes they had consumed 250 tons of bran that year. Bran was an article that was always extremely dear in manufacturing districts, and if Gentlemen would compare its price there and in the agricultural districts, he thought they would find it to their interests to introduce larger quantities there. He had no doubt in his own mind that such restrictions might be introduced as would enable these manufactures to be carried on with perfect security; but a Committee of Inquiry was the proper place for this to be fairly and properly settled. There was one other argument he would suggest, as it was important to give every inducement to industry within our reach. It would be found there were other branches of industry that were promoted by it. He had thought at one time exportation might be effected in sacks, but he found he was mistaken, and that barrels must be employed; so that they would form a new branch of trade, namely, the cooperage, which would give employment to a large number of individuals. All this, however, was matter for consideration by the committee, who, he trusted, would agree on such measures as should best give an impulse to industry.
Mr. Eatonwas satisfied that the present motion was an attack upon the Corn-laws by a side blow, and he thought he should be best serving the agricultural interest by opposing it.
Mr. Warburtonhad no objection to the hon. Member for Hull amusing himself with a committee if he liked. He had no doubt but that he might do so without opposition, but when he brought in a bill founded on the evidence taken before that committee, it would fare in the same manner as the bill brought in last year by his hon. Friend below him, the Member for Dartmouth, which was permitted to be read a second time, but when they came to discuss the provisions by which it was proposed to guard against fraud, they were not permitted to enter upon the consideration of them, for on the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair, preparatory to going into com-
672
mittee on the bill, the right hon. Baronet opposite mustered all his forces, and the bill was thrown out. This was, in fact, the farce after the serious drama which had recently been performed in that House. The hon. Member for Lincoln, had said, that no new arguments had been brought forward which had not been brought forward in favour of the former system, which had been found to be attended with fraud in its operation. Now this was not the measure which had been brought forward before. The principle was different. With regard to sugar, when a certain quantity of raw produce was taken into bond, and a certain quantity of manufactured sugar, allowed to be exported, which was assumed to be the product of the raw sugar, frauds took place; the same thing occurred with regard to flour, when it was assumed that a certain quantity of corn could produce a certain quantity of flour, which was to be the quantity exported,—but that was not the principle now proposed. The principle now proposed was, that the whole of the manufactured article produced from the raw material should be exported,— the same principle had been applied to sugar, and had been found to answer. He believed his hon. Friend might amuse himself with a committee if he liked, but that when he brought forward his practical measure he would find he would be defeated.
Colonel Woodsaid, that many hon. Gentlemen who had voted for the second reading of the bill of the hon. Member for Dartmouth, had also voted for the Speaker leaving the chair to go into committee on that bill, because they believed the measure to be harmless as regarded the Corn-laws, while they thought it would conduce to the advantage of the shipping interest, so that the hon. Member for Bridport, was not quite justified in the accusation he had brought forward against all those who had supported the second reading of that bill. He hoped the House would allow an inquiry to be gone into, because he was sure the measure would be found to be perfectly harmless as regarded the landed interest.
Mr. G, Palmerwould not quibble with the motion. It was clear that if the House did consent to a committee, that that committee would be composed of Members who were favourable to the principles of the hon. Mover, and who

673
would make a report favourable to his views of the question. The committee would be no doubt a partial one. It appeared that there were two points in which the motion could be considered; the first was, the consideration of grinding foreign corn without injury to the revenue; the second was, the effect it might have upon the consumption of British grown corn. As to the first point he felt satisfied that there would be a great difficulty in providing against frauds which were always known to take place when grinding corn occurred on account of the various forms which it assumed, and the opportunities it afforded of being mixed with other material. That, however, was a fiscal consideration for the Government, and not for an individual Member, and of secondary importance when compared with the other consideration, namely, the permission to grind foreign corn in bond for the purpose of exportation. The necessary effect of such a law would be to supply with foreign corn the colonies, the ships, the coasting vessels of our shores, and in fact every place without the precincts of the kingdom, to the total exclusion of home grown corn. He, therefore, would oppose the motion.
Mr. Villierswished to make an observation, in consequence of his hon. Friend, the Member for Hull, having revealed a private communication that had taken place between them. His hon. Friend certainly told him that his intention was to constitute the committee entirely of country gentlemen; but he had referred to what had taken place between them, with a view of unduly influencing the judgment of the House at his expense. His hon. Friend had recommended his motion, on the ground that he had said the refusal of the motion would throw odium on the other side. That disclosure was not correct. The only question between him and his hon. Friend was as to the time; and he had recommended the motion of his hon. Friend to be brought on after the House had rejected the motion for a committee on the Corn-laws, which they were sure to do, as it was very unpopular. His hon. Friend then said, "Oh, I am sure to carry it, for Lord this and Lord that, and Sir Charles the other, have promised me their support." All that he had said was, that he did not consider the objection was as to the details, but as to meddling; with the
674
Corn-laws at all; and that, as no opposition was to be offered to the motion, his hon. Friend had better bring in a bill at once. He never begged him to withhold his motion on account of casting odium on the other side. It might do some good, and he did not see how it could prejudice anybody.
Mr. Hutt,after the extraordinary speech of his hon. Friend, the Member for Wolverhampton, must make an observation. It was true this was a private conversation, but his hon. Friend had stated, two years ago, in that House, that his objection to this bill was, that it would remove from the Corn-laws a portion of that odium which he thought they justly deserved. [Mr. Villiers—No.] That was the impression on his mind. If he had misunderstood his hon. Friend, he must return the compliment by saying his hon. Friend had most egregiously misunderstood him. With regard to the motion before the House, he begged to state it was his determination to deal honestly with all parties.
The House divided. Ayes 126; Noes 54;—Majority 72.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T.

Egerton, W. T.

Aglionby, H. A.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Aglionby, Major

Ellis, W.

Baines, E.

Ewart, W.

Baldwin, C. B.

Fielding, J.

Baring rt. hon. F. T.

Finch, F.

Barnard, E. G.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Barron, H. W.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Bernal, R.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Bewes, T.

Greg, R. H.

Blackburne, I.

Greig, D.

Blake, M. J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Blake, W. J.

Guest, Sir J.

Bowes, J.

Harcourt, G. G.

Briscoe, J. I.

Hawes, B.

Brotherton, J.

Heathcoat, J.

Busfeild, W.

Hector, C. J.

Callaghan, E.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Heron, Sir R.

Childers, J. W.

Hope, hon. C.

Clay, W.

Houstoun, G.

Clements, Lord

Howard, hon. E. G.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Howard, F. J.

Collier, J.

Howard, P. H.

Colquhoun, Sir J. C.

Ingham, R.

Courtenay, P.

Irving, J.

Craig, W. G.

James, Sir W. C.

Currie, R.

Johnson, General

Darlington, Earl of

Jones, J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Duncan, Viscount

Langdale, hon. C.

Duncombe, T. S.

Lascelles, W.

East, J. B.

Lincoln, Earl of

675

Lister, E. C.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Litton, E.

Sheil, right hon. R. L.

Lushington, C.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Stuart, W. V.

Marsland, H.

Stock, Dr.

Melgund, Viscount

Strult, E.

Morris, D.

Sturt, H. C.

Muntz, G. F.

Style, Sir C.

Norreys, Sir D.

Teignmouth, Lord

O'Brien, W. S.

Thompson, Alderman

O'Connell, M. J.

Thornely, T.

O'Conor Don

Tufnell, H.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Verney, Sir H.

Parker, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Parker, R. T.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Patten, J.

Wall, C. B.

Pattison, J.

Warburton, H.

Pease, J.

Ward, H. G.

Pechell, Captain

White, A.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Williams, W.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Williams, W. A.

Philips, M.

Wodehouse, E.

Pigot, D. R.

Wood, G. W.

Power, J.

Wood, Colonel T.

Rawdon, J. D.

Worsley, Lord

Rice, E. R.

Wrightson, W. B.

Roche, W.

Wynn, C. W.

Russell, Lord J.

Yates, J. A.

Salwey, Colonel

Scholefield, J.

TELLERS.

Scrope, G. P.

Hutt, W.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Sandon, Viscount

List of the NOES.

Bagge, W.

Lygon, hon. General

Bailey, J.

Mackenzie, T.

Bell, M.

Macnamara, W.

Benett, J.

Martin, T. B.

Broadley, H.

Maunsell, T. P.

Brownrigg, S.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Neeld, J.

Burr, H.

O'Brien, C.

Codrington, C.

Packe, C. W.

Darby, G.

Palmer, G.

Dunbar, G.

Parker, M.

Duncombe, W.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Duncombe, A,

Plurnptre, J. P.

Du Pre, G.

Pusey, P.

Eaton, R. J.

Richards, R.

Estcourt, T.

Rolleston, L.

Fitzroy, H.

Round, J.

Fleming, J.

Rushbrooke, R.

Freshfield, J. W.

Rushout, G.

Gore, O. W.

Spry, Sir S. T.

Grant, Sir A. C.

Stanley, E.

Hale, R. B.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Handley, H.

Verner, Colonel

Harcourt, G. S.

Waddington, H.

Henniker, Lord

Winnington, H.

Hodges, T. L.

Ingestrie, Lord

TELLERS.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Christopher, R.

Knightley, Sir C.

Heathcote, G. J.

BRIBERY AND TREATING.
Lord J. Russellsaid, there was one question on
676
which, when he last addressed the House, he had not fully made up his mind, but on which he had since fully satisfied himself. It would, therefore, form one of the provisions of the bill which he should now ask leave to introduce. He intended to provide, that if bribery and treating, or if bribery, or if treating, were going on before an election, any one might give notice that such and such a candidate, by himself or his agents, was carrying on bribery and treating, one or both, and if that were proved before an Election Committee, such candidate should be disqualified, as a contractor or any one who had no qualification would be disqualified by an Election Committee. It very frequently occurred, that the one party having begun the practice of bribery in order by gaining a sufficient number of voles to turn the election, the other party immediately resorted to the same means, they bad against each other, every sort of corrupt artifice was used to carry the election, and, whoever might gain the day, both parties felt themselves so committed, that it was impossible for the defeated candidate to proceed against the other. But it sometimes happened, that a person standing on perfectly fair and just grounds, was defeated by means of bribery. He thought, that in such cases the most effectual measure that could be taken would be to say, that the person who so acted, and who was proved guilty either by himself or his agents before an Election Committee, should be disqualified, and that an interest should be given to some party in the borough not implicated in the corrupt practices to proceed before an Election Committee. Too often such practices as he had spoken of were quite notorious; it was known to everybody that an election had been carried by the unsparing use of large bribes, and yet there was no person to complain; nobody said a word against the election, and whichever party gained the day, the representation of the people through that House was sullied and corrupted. He therefore should propose a clause in the bill to the effect he had stated. On a former occasion he had gone with some minuteness into the details of the measure. He would therefore say no more with respect to them at present, as he thought they would be better understood by studying the bill itself. He knew, that this subject had long occupied the attention of the right hon. Gentleman,

677
whom he was glad to see opposite. He believed the right hon. Gentleman, so early as 1810, had introduced a bill on the subject, and had since that time frequently brought it before the House. He trusted, that when the bill was brought in, the right hon. Gentleman would give it his attention, and he should be happy to receive from him any suggestions for its improvement. He begged to move for leave to bring in a bill for the better prevention of bribery and treating at elections of Members of Parliament.
Mr. Williams Wynnsaid, that as to the main provisions of the bill, as announced by the noble Lord, he hoped it was not necessary for him to say, that he should cheerfully support them; but he had great doubts as to the propriety of seating a person, having a minority of voles, who should give notice that the agents of the opposite candidate had been guilty of bribery: such a proceeding would interfere with the rights of the electors, and he thought it might lead to dangerous consequences. The electors could not have the slightest means of ascertaining whether or not the accusation was well founded. In every case where an election was going on, a candidate could try the experiment and give notice against his opponent for the chance of gaining the seat. That would at least alarm the electors, as it would be an intimation that their votes for his opponent would be thrown away. The effect might thus be to deter a great number of the electors from recording their votes. He should be most ready to concur in any provisions which would discourage corrupt practices, but he very much feared, that to adopt the provisions of which he had spoken would be more dangerous than to leave the law as it now stood.
Mr. Warburtonremarked, that unless the bill of the noble lord made provision for setting on foot an investigation into the complaints of electors, independently of the candidates, it would not reach the majority of cases which occurred. [Lord J. Russell: That is included.] He was very glad to hear it, but he feared that so long as open voting was continued, no means for putting down corrupt practices would be effective.
Colonel Sibthorpehoped that the noble Lord's bill would contain a strict definition of bribery, for during the many years he had had the honour of a seat in that.
678
House, he had never known what bribery was. He wished to ask—nay, he had been requested to ask—whether the right, he might say the imperative duty, of exercising hospitality was to come under the denomination of bribery. Suppose, foe instance, a respectable tradesman might wait on him for the purpose of tendering his vote at a distance of seven miles. Was he to be guilty of bribery if he asked that individual under his roof, and invited him to sit down at his humble dinner?
Sir R. Peelobserved, that this subject was one of extreme difficulty to legislate upon. All were desirous of preventing bribery, but while they wished, if possible, to detect and punish the guilty, they ought to see that advantage was not taken of acts which were innocent in themselves. Suppose that an election committee, having adjudicated on the individual claim before it, were to present a special report to the House, that circumstances had appeared which demanded further investigation, as affecting the general character of the body, and perhaps laying the foundation for a measure of disfranchisement, the House might in such a case give power to the committee to continue the investigation on public grounds, and at the public expense. It would be desirable that the committee should retain the same power which it now had for the purpose of conducting the private investigation of examining on oath. He could not help thinking that the disclosure of disgraceful conduct would have a very powerful effect in repressing such practices. As to bribery, he apprehended there could be no doubt that any effectual law framed for the purpose of preventing it should receive the support of the House. It appeared to him that this was a subject of much less difficulty than the law of treating, and if it were possible clearly to define bribery, so that persons might with a perfectly safe conscience take an oath, he should be very much disposed to require the parties to disclaim upon oath any participation in it. He thought this might be adviseable if no other remedy should be found effectual, although he had strong objections to the unnecessary multiplication of oaths. The offence, however, must be clearly specified and defined, otherwise persons who had been guilty of no improper act, but had dispensed their charity liberally in their neighbourhoods, might be deterred from taking; the oath. It was quite possible

679
that a man might be open to no imputation of corruption, who might have recommended himself to a borough by virtuous actions, and by the good offices which his station enabled him to dispense. Such a person might have great difficulty in taking an oath to the effect supposed if it were not carefully framed. He agreed with his right hon. Friend near him in thinking that the noble lord's provision of making it competent to a party, by giving notice to the electors, to disqualify the candidate who should have the majority of votes, and get himself returned by a majority, would require great consideration. Supposing that the bribery was going on boldly, perhaps there might be no objection, but it would lead to evasions and frauds of all kinds. He was afraid that the accusation of bribery by one candidate against another would be almost universal, and this would inevitably lead to retaliation from his opponent. It would not be wise to encourage such vague allegations. If it were possible to attach a penalty to a perfectly frivolous accusation, they might check the practice, but it would be difficult to make such a regulation. It was quite obvious that it was the interest of all the Members of that House to have some definite law. As the law now stood no man was safe. Treating often took place without a dishonest intention, and it was by no means uncommon for two candidates to come to an agreement mutually to permit it. Any third person, however, might give notice against this agreement, and render it of no avail. If the noble lord aimed at too much, the law could not be executed. But it was a matter which seemed to him to be worthy of consideration, whether the noble lord could not say that within a certain period before and after the election, there should be no treating, except in cases where the voter came from some distance, say six or seven miles, when a certain allowance, just sufficient for his sustenance, might be made to him, and if that were exceeded, then the voter should be disqualified. For his own part, within that specified period, provided the bill did not lay traps and snares for honourable men, who were not to be prevented from exercising innocent hospitality, he thought the effect of the measure would be beneficial. He therefore should give his most cordial approbation to the object at which the noble lord aimed. He thought it impossible not
680
to feel that bribery or corruption was most disgraceful, bringing discredit not only on those who sanctioned, but also on the whole British House of Commons, and lowering its character, not only in this country, but in every other. He did not wish to give occasion to any discussion on the ballot, but he must say, that he did not see how bribery could be prevented by the ballot: however, he would not provoke discussion on that point. He approved of the object of the noble lord, although he thought that the subject was full of difficulty, and in conclusion he would express his earnest hope that all parties in the House, feeling that their own character was concerned, would exert their utmost endeavours to remove from the electoral system the stigma of bribery and corruption.
Colonel Woodsaid, that if the provisions of the bill were applied to counties, one halt of the electors would be disfranchised. A different measure, therefore, should be introduced for counties. Some electors, working men, came ten or fifteen miles to poll, and it was absurd to say that they should not have refreshment. If that were prohibited, the electors would decline to register, he had no doubt. He trusted, therefore, that some mode of legalizing reasonable refreshment would be adopted for counties. If no other was propounded, he would take the liberty of suggesting to the noble Lord, that the sheriffs should have the power of ordering refreshments for the voters and charging it to the candidate. If something of that kind were not done, the consequences in counties would be deeply injurious.
Mr. E. Turnersaid, that the elector ought not to have the franchise if he did not choose to exercise it without the hope of favour or reward. It was otherwise derogatory to him, and disgraceful as well as injurious. Members of Parliament incurred great expense in attending to their duties, and he did not see why the electors should be rewarded for exercising their rights. He could not, therefore, agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down, that there should be any distinction drawn as regarded treating between borough and county electors.
Sir C. Knightleysaid, the case of a poor man going to an election was well worth taking into consideration. He might have to walk fourteen or fifteen

681
miles, and lose his day's work. It was material, that the poor electors should receive some kind of refreshment, because they could not afford to make sacrifices, as county Members could, for the service of their country.
Mr. Bainesthought that the best way of preventing bribery and treating was to limit the time of election to one day. The great mischief occurred during the fatal night between the two days. He feared that no modification of treating could consistently be permitted or enjoined in favour of the poor, as proposed by the right hon. Baronet. His noble Friend, the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, had 28,000 constituents, many of whom came a distance to vote for him, and it would be a heavy drain on his purse if he gave a dinner to one-half of them.
Leave given.

GENERAL FORM OF AFFIRMATION.
Mr. Hawesthen presented two petitions from certain Dissenters in favour of the bill which he was now about to introduce, "to provide a general form of affidavit for all persons believing the taking of any oath to be forbidden by the law of God." The Quakers had long been permitted to substitute their affirmation for an oath. The Moravians and the Separatists had also since received similar indulgences; nay, all who had, at any time, been Quakers, and who still professed to have conscientious scruples, were exempted from oaths. He did not, therefore, apprehend any danger from the extension of toleration in this respect. He would now propose, that all persons should be relieved from the necessity of taking an oath who should three months previously have gone before a magistrate and have solemnly declared their conscientious objection to that Act; thereby removing the danger or likelihood of setting up a false pretence in the matter, as the declaration would be made before the necessity could be foreseen. As he anticipated no serious objection to the principle he advocated, he would, to save the time of the House, at present only move for leave to bring in the bill.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that he had stated his opinion on this subject already, and did not now intend to offer any opposition to the introduction of the bill; however, he begged that it would not be understood
682
that he assented to the principle of the measure.
Leave given.

BRITISH TRADE WITH JAVA.
Mr. Colquhounrose to call the attention of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the state of the question as to the replacement of the trade with Java on a proper footing, and for the better understanding of which he would, in conclusion, move, that all the papers connected therewith should be laid before the House. Previous to 1824, the Dutch government had been in the habit of laying on heavy ad valorem duties on all British goods imported into Java; but in the treaty framed in that year, by Mr. Canning, it was arranged that whatever British goods were imported they should only be charged double the duty laid upon similar Dutch goods; and that where Dutch goods were admitted duty free, British goods were only to be charged six per cent. Further it was agreed, that goods imported into Java were not to be charged according to their origin, but according to the vessels that brought them; so that if British goods were imported in Dutch bottoms, they were only to pay the Dutch rate of duty. Complaints were made by British merchants to Mr. Canning, in 1824 and 1825, that this treaty had been violated by the Dutch authorities in Java, and Mr. Canning (without referring the case to anybody) declared at once that it had been violated, and that redress should be obtained. After the death of Mr. Canning, the succeeding Administration had too short a tenure of office to carry his good intentions into effect. In 1832, the East-India Association of London made very strong remonstrances on the subject to the noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs, at a time the most favourable to the amicable settlement of the matter, when Holland had lost her Belgian territory, and was no longer particularly interested in preserving a market for the manufactures of that country in Java, and, therefore, not likely to raise any objection lo the just fulfilment of the treaty. The noble Lord had replied to these remonstrances that he had at the moment matters under his consideration of greater importance to Holland, and that this point should not escape him in the settlement he had undertaken. However, nothing whatever was done during the

683
next four years by the noble Lord. In 1836 the East India Association again appealed to the noble Lord. They stated that the treaty had been violated by the Dutch unchecked for twelve years, and urged its speedy vindication. His Lordship replied, that there was a difficult point of law in the case, on which he must in the first place take the opinion of the Crown counsel, and to their consideration it was accordingly referred. On the 8th of June, 1836, the East India Association applied to his Lordship to learn what that opinion was, and on the 9th of June his Lordship promptly informed them that it was unfavourable to their views and their claims for redress. The East India Association then applied to Parliament, through Mr. Stewart, Member for Lancaster, who, in August, 1836, laid the case of the British merchants before that House, and moved an address to his Majesty on the subject, on which case the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs declared that it could not be denied, that the Dutch Government had violated the treaty of 1824—that her Majesty's Government had made serious representations on the subject, and would continue to press the Dutch Government until it had settled the affair in a just and satisfactory manner. It would, however, be very inconvenient for the House to interfere in the matter, and only serve to embarrass the exertions of the Ministry, but if the Dutch authorities would not attend to their representations, then they would be prepared to come to the House and ask their aid in furtherance of more effective measures. However, nothing was effected by the noble Lord despite all his promises. But, in September, 1837, the Dutch rectified their tariff, and so far confessed their error, on which the East India Association asked the noble Lord if there were to be any restitution of the duties levied on them in excess? They were answered that the noble Lord would attend to that along with the entire question of the trade of Holland and Belgium, which was then under consideration. The East India Association having waited for some time after ths declaration, applied again to his Lordship and were officially informed, that his Lordship had no further information to give. On the 14th of February, 1838, the East Indian Association again applied to the noble Secretary, and threatened, if still neglected, to bring the whole subject
684
before Parliament. His Lordship then stated, for the first time, that there was a counter-claim on the part of the Dutch; that the East India Company had, by its regulations established in the Bengal custom-house, also violated the treaty of 1824; and that it would be impossible to get restitution for the English merchants unless the East India Company repaid the Dutch merchants. That act of the East India Company, was, however, nothing new. They had changed their tariff in 1834, and the noble Lord gave them no notice of any objection taken to it till 1838. Would the noble Lord maintain the propriety of thus satisfying the claims of British merchants, who hail lost 600,000 l. by a set-off of from 20,000 l. to 40,000 l. owing by the East India Company to Dutch merchants? The importance of the trade to Java was very considerable, but under the management of the noble I Lord the British interests had suffered exceedingly. The amount of cottons alone imported into Java in 1834, was 115,000 l. We had then seven-eights of the whole trade, while in 1838 we only possessed about one third of it, although it had increased to 796,000 l. Out of 160,000 tons of shipping employed, only 30,000 were British. But the treaty had been violated: in other things as well as in the point paralleled by the Bengal customs regulations, and would the noble Lord take no notice of them? Thus where the duty on coffee was two florins to the Dutch, the English were charged five. Again, woollens, hardware, and other articles which formerly were allowed to enter Java duty free, were now charged twenty-five per cent. Me had been assured by the head of a respectable house in Glasgow, that, in consequence, he must give up the trade altogether. But there were further cases of injustice to be complained of. It had been agreed between the English and; Dutch that neither should in any treaty; with the native princes in Sumatra and the eastern archipelago stipulate for the imposition of any rate of duty by which the goods of the other should be excluded. Let the House look at the effect of these proceedings in the island of Sumatra, which was of importance not only from its size and the extent of its population, but from; its trade in pepper, coffee, and other productions. Now, the Dutch in the Island: of Sumatra had advanced from one point to another, and had made a treaty with

685
one of the Rajahs, in consequence of which he had prohibited certain British manufactures. Similar conduct had been pursued with regard to other Rajahs, and the Dutch authorities had threatened one on the north-east of Sumatra, with whom the principal pepper trade was carried on; in consequence of which the Rajah said, that unless some steps were taken by the British Government he must fall under the coercion system of the Dutch. The effect of these proceedings on the British trade had been, that whereas in 1829 our exports were about four millions and a half, they were in 1838 only about three millions and a half. Thus they had lost large portions of a trade with Sumatra, and thus was the trade restricted throughout the eastern archipelago. He knew not what hopes the noble Lord might hold out to British merchants on this subject, but he trusted that those hopes might be more completely realised than those which the noble Lord had held out in 1836 and repeated in 1838, but which now appeared to be as far from their accomplishment as when they were made. The hon. Member concluded by moving,
"That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to direct that there be laid before tins House copies of all communications from British merchants, addressed to the Board of Control, or the Foreign Office, on the subject of the British trade with Java, with the answers to them, from the year 1832 to the year 1839 inclusive. Copies of any communications on the same subject from the Foreign Office to the Board of Control, and from the Board of Control to the directors of the East India Company, with the answers during the same period. Copies of any communications from British merchants, or from the authorities in Singapore, or elsewhere, addressed to the Foreign Office, on the subject of any interference with British or native trade to the island of Sumatra, or throughout the Eastern Archipelago."
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that he would first state, that he did not intend to oppose this motion. He did not think it necessary to suggest, that the motion should be framed for copies or "extracts," because the communications required were those which had taken place between the Government and British merchants, and not between the Government and their own agents. However, he should wish it to be understood, that if amongst the papers required, any communications of the latter sort should be found, extracts
686
of the important parts only should be given. As he made no opposition to the motion, it was not necessary for him to follow the hon. Gentleman opposite through his long detail, in some parts of which he did not appear completely to understand what had occurred upon the subject. As a general remark, however, he would call the attention of the House to the course pursued on those subjects by Gentlemen of the political party to which the hon. Member belonged. At one time they raised a loud outcry against the apathy and indolence of the Government in not enforcing by arms the claims put into their hands for redress on account of wrongs which were stated to have been inflicted by the Government of different countries, and yet, when at last the Government, having exhausted all the exercise of remonstrance and expostulation, felt it their duty to take strong measures, those very persons were the most vehement and determined in censuring them for such conduct. They were ready to condemn them for acting out of the very same mouths with which a short time before they had condemned them for not acting at all. The hon. Gentleman had not kept sufficiently distinct the two grounds on which objections were made to the conduct of the Dutch. The first was, that they had not adhered to the treaty of 1824, by which duties to be paid by the subjects and ships of the two nations should be in regard to the ships and subjects of the foreign nation double that to be paid by the subjects of the nation to which the ship belonged. The Dutch had not observed those proper proportions, but after considerable discussion, an amended tariff was adopted as to the island of Java. The hon. Gentleman said what he believed was true, that that change had not turned out to the advantage of the merchants, and that, in some instances, it had increased the duties on our commodities; but it was to be remembered at the same time, that the duties were also increased on commodities from Holland. They could not, therefore, complain if they were not borne out in the construction of the treaty upon the second point. Now, the British Government had construed that treaty as requiring, that the duties should depend on the origin of the goods, and not the nationality of the ship. That certainly was a matter of construction, and not by any

687
means so clear as the other part of the treaty which fixed the double duties. Still he had thought, and he had been borne out in that opinion by authorities whom he had consulted, that they could insist upon that interpretation of the treaty. But when the Dutch Government said, that so far from that being the fair construction, the Indian Government, in regulating their tariff, had placed upon that treaty the same interpretation as that adopted by the Dutch—when he found, that the Dutch and Indian Governments concurred in interpreting the treaty as regulating the duties according to the nationality of the ship, and not according to the origin of the goods, he then felt himself prevented in fairness and justice from pressing further upon the Dutch his own construction. That was the state of the case. The papers when produced would speak for themselves. With regard to the encroachments which were said to have been made by the Dutch in the Indian seas, he was not aware, that any of the cases had been brought under his attention. The point chiefly pressed upon him was, that the Dutch Government in the island of Java had been extending their conquests in those parts, and that that extension was a violation of their treaty; but this treaty only stipulated, that the authorities of neither party should make any encroachments without the sanction and consent of their own Government, and in this case, upon application to the Government at the Hague, it appeared, that the proceedings of the authorities in the island of Java had received the sanction of their Government. There was, therefore, on that account, no reason for any representation being made as to the violation of that treaty. He would not then enter further into the subject, as he had no objection to produce the papers, and when they were produced, he had no doubt that he should be able to give every explanation which could be required.
Motion agreed to.

MARRIAGE ACT.
Mr. Langdale Mr. Langdale moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the Marriage Act. By the existing law a party was obliged to be married in the district for which he obtained a certificate of residence; but it often happened that there was no place of worship in the locality, and he meant to propose that no registrar should give a certificate of marriage out of
688
his district, but that he should have the power, if a party proved that there was no place of religious worship in his district, to permit the marriage in the nearest place in which there was.
Mr. Goulburndid not wish to oppose the motion, but he warned the House that they should be careful in tampering with existing law.
Mr. Shawthought there was some danger by the proposed legislation of throwing a doubt on the validity of past marriages.
Dr. Lushingtonassured the right hon. Gentleman there was not the least ground for any such alarm.
Lord John Russellsaid, that after what had fallen from his right hon. Friend, there could be no doubt upon the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The words of the act were to the effect that after a marriage had been solemnized, it should not be necessary to give proof of residence. With respect to the bill proposed to be introduced by the hon. Member, he conceived there could be no objections at the present stage. He believed the case to be as the hon. Gentleman had stated, and that for some time after the act had passed, it was supposed that the law was actually as the hon. Gentleman now proposed to make it. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in what he had said with respect to the validity of marriages, and trusted that the hon. Gentleman would consider well the definition of the word "near," whether it might not be taken to mean places within a certain distance. It appeared necessary that some limits should be fixed.
Leave given.

QUALIFICATION OF ELECTORS.—(IRELAND).
Mr. Pigotrose to move for leave to bring in a bill to remove doubts with respect to the qualification of voters in Ireland for the election of Members to serve in Parliament, and to create a tribunal of appeal. The objects of the bill were; first, to ascertain and settle the law as to tenements to which the Irish Reform Act had annexed the franchise; and next, to assimilate it to a considerable extent to the law of this country. Doubts had arisen very soon after the passing of the Reform Act, which rendered it indispensable that the law should be settled. Differences of opinion had arisen among the originators of the law, and among those whose duty it was to carry that par-

689
ticular provision of the law into effect. Those differences continued to exist. That the construction which some had put upon the act, was against the intention of many of those who had taken a part in framing it, all that had passed in the recent debates abundantly proved—that the intention of the framers of the act had been frustrated, no one who had studied the act or attended to what had transpired in both Houses, could entertain a doubt. Indeed, the phraseology of the act itself suggested the impossibility of reconciling the construction which some had put upon it with the manner in which the act was framed. The act followed almost in terms the act which passed in 1829 for the relief of Roman Catholics. In that statute there were two distinct sections—the first describing what the claimants were to do, and the second describing what the judge was to do in examining the claims that came before him. The value of the property was to be tested by what a responsible tenant would pay over and above what was paid by the tenant. In the schedule to that act, there was the oath which it was incumbent upon the claimant to swear, and after swearing that he was possessed of the property in the manner required in point of possession, and that he was possessed of it in the manner required in point of occupation, there were these distinct words—"That a solvent tenant could afford to pay over and above," &c. Then in another part, there was the form of oath to be taken by the jury who were to try the value of the property, and that form was, that they should well and truly try whether he had value in the property in respect of which he claimed to the amount of 10 l. 20 l. or 50 l. (according to the amount of the franchise), over and above the rent paid by the claimant. The Reform Act pursued in nearly the same terms the two sections of the act of 1829, and going through the very same expressions with respect to proving the claim, instead of directing that the claimant was to establish the value that a good solvent and responsible tenant could afford to pay over and above the rent actually paid, it was directed that the claimant should establish that he had a beneficial interest in the property according to that (the Reform) Act. And what was that beneficial interest? 10 l. per annum. The act also retained the terms of the former claimant's oath with the exception of the passage he alluded to. In the act of 1829, the juror's oath was in distinct terms. In
690
the Reform Act it was expunged, and no form was prescribed by which the question was to be tried by the jurors. When the law of franchise was submitted to a purely technical tribunal, it was impossible to tell the result, and that a constituency sending 105 Members to that House, should be left in a complete state of doubt and uncertainty with respect to the law, was a dishonour to the country, The bill ho proposed to introduce, adopted a definition that had passed the House on two occasions. In 1835, it passed in the shape of a bill, which was not sent to the other House, and in 1836 it passed in a bill which was sent to the House of Lords, but which did not pass into a law. Now, by the bill recently introduced for England, a tribunal of appeal was proposed to be created of three barristers out of the fifteen selected by the judges. That was an experiment entirely new, and some doubts existed whether there should be a tribunal of a similar kind for Ireland. The laws of the two countries were almost identical, especially with respect to real property, out of which the franchise arose. He therefore proposed, for the consideration of the House, that two barristers be appointed who should sit in Dublin, and who should have the assistance of one of the three judges of appeal for this country, with a numerical majority controlling the decision of the court below. These were the chief points of the bill, which he trusted would meet with the approbation of the House.
Mr. Littonsaid, that the tribunal which the hon. and learned Gentleman propose to constitute appeared to be subject to all the objections that existed to the present tribunal of assistant barristers, and he would say, that the settled law of the land would be violated by the measure. The bill was an insult to the administration of justice. The title of the bill was to remove doubts with respect to the qualification of voters in Ireland, for the election of Members to serve in Parliament, and those doubts had been explained by the hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite to mean doubts as to what was the interest in the franchise which entitled men to be registered, and whether or not that interest was what was called a beneficial interest—that was what any man in his own fancy might imagine it to be worth, or whether it was such an interest as a solvent tenant would give 10 l. more than the tenant was bound to pay. When he said the bill was an insult to the administration of justice, he heard some

691
hon. Member exclaim "No." He, however, would say, that it was an insult, when the law of the land had been settled, for any hon. and learned Member of that House or for any government to bring in a bill the title of which characterised the law as doubtful. He would reassert, as a lawyer and Member of Parliament, that the law on the subject had been definitively and finally settled by the decision of ten judges to two; that the judge, when trying an appeal on a question of the value of a franchise under the Reform Act, was right in directing the jury to find whether a solvent and responsible tenant could afford to pay for the holding, fairly and without collusion, an additional sum to that which he sought to register for—namely, 10 l. He was prepared to say that that was the case. He had the book, and the hon. Member for Dublin had mis-stated the case. The case was determined after two days' argument by counsel. It was true that Mr. Baron Richards and Mr. Justice Perrin chose to act on their own opinions upon the circuit, in opposition to the decision of the majority of the judges, and had rather brought censure on themselves than thrown doubts on the law. He must add that he disapproved of those assistant-barristers who had followed the same course. He did not rest merely on the opinion of the Irish judges; for Lord Chief Justice Bushe had written to Lord Denman, with a view of ascertaining what was the practice in England in respect of the minority of the judges being bound in their subsequent decisions by the opinion of the majority, and Lord Denman had returned a reply, which he would read to the House. [Lord John Russell: Read the letter of Lord Chief Justice Bushe.] The hon. Member read the letter accordingly, which, after stating what was the practice in Ireland with respect to reserved points in cases arising in the Crown courts on the circuit from the decisions of assistant-barristers, inquired whether it was understood in England that a judge would consider himself at liberty to rule on the circuit in opposition to the decision of the majority, and according to his original opinion. The hon. and learned Member then proceeded to read Lord Denman's answer, which was to the effect that each judge held himself bound by the opinion of the majority. Lord Chief Justice Bushe then called a meeting of the judges in Easter Term 1838, and it was resolved, by a majority of ten to two, that the
692
learned judges in the minority were hound to adopt the opinion of the majority. Did hon. Members forget the recent case of Frost, where the same point arose, and where Lord Chief Justice Tindal, Mr. Baron Park, and Mr. Justice Williams certified to Lord Normanby that the decision of the minority was to be bound by the opinion of the majority, and that the point relied upon in the memorial that had been presented, that two of the judges named in the special commission were in the minority, made no difference whatever. Now, the question in the present case was, whether or not, the judges having decided the question, their decision was not the law of the land, and binding upon all inferior tribunals. Under these circumstances, although he would not divide the House against the motion for leave to bring in the bill, he thought it right to raise his humble voice against it, and to give notice that upon the fair and open grounds he had just staled he should feel it to be his duty to give a decided opposition, in all subsequent stages, to any measure containing such provisions as had been stated by his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Clonmel. He maintained that the franchise in Ireland was at present clearly defined and settled—that no doubt or difficulty existed with respect to it, and that no Gentleman of that House—at all events, no constitutional lawyer, would be justified in bringing in a bill to declare that there was a doubt upon that which was the fixed and settled law of the land.
Sir Denham Norreysregretted to find that the qualification for voting was still to be left depending on opinion and not on fact. Whichever form of oath the Solicitor-general adopted, still the vexatious proceedings consequent on the proof would be left unremedied. Proof on oath of value would still be given—still to be met by proof on oath of the contrary. Landlords would still be arrayed against their tenantry, and the tenantry against their landlords. Why not, now that the country has been placed under the Poor-law Act, adopt some standard of qualification which should be a fact not capable of contradiction? It would be a boon to the country, which he hoped might originate with his hon. Friend, the Solicitor-General, if some measure were introduced, which should make the amount at which every man was rated, or the valuation of his property under the Poor-law Act, the standard of qualification, instead of the

693
present uncertain and most vexatious system.
Mr. Lucasentirely concurred in the observation of his hon. Friend, the Member for Mallow, (Sir D. Norreys). He believed that the mode of testing the qualification by the beneficial interest of the tenant, as proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Pigot), was a mode which that hon. and learned Gentleman himself would hereafter have the greatest possible reason to regret. In point of fact, it would permanently fix upon the constituency all the evils and mischiefs of which so many complaints were now made. He believed it would not be possible to make any definition of the qualification based upon the words "beneficial interest" capable of enforcing uniformity of decision. To remove this difficulty be begged to suggest that it would be better to take the ordnance valuation, the Poor-law valuation, or even a valuation by surveyors. If the bill were introduced in the shape described by the hon. and learned Member for Clonmel, he ventured to predict that when it came fairly before the House, the good sense and experience of the English Members would prevent it from passing into a law.
Lord John Russellhad asked the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Litton), who spoke immediately after his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Pigot), to read the questions which had been put by Chief Justice Bushe to Chief Justice Denman, because he wished to know exactly what it was to which Lord Denman had replied. He gathered from the letter read by the hon. and learned Gentleman that Chief Justice Bushe asked Chief Justice Denman two questions—first, what was the course of the judges in England with respect to points reserved in Crown cases and criminal matters upon circuit? and secondly, what was the course in cases of appeal from the assistant-barristers? Now, with regard to the first of these questions, Lord Denman having consulted the judges, gave a very positive answer, which accorded with one lately given by Chief Justice Tindal. But with regard to the question of appeal, he could not conceive that Lord Denman gave any answer whatever to that part of Chief Justice Bushe's letter. Lord Denman left that point of the letter wholly unnoticed. That branch of the law which more immediately concerned the House of Commons never was brought by Lord Denman before the judges in any way whatever. Therefore he conceived that the hon. and learned
694
Gentleman was hardly justified in attributing the weight that he did to the letter of Lord Denman upon the subject. He here must also repeat again his difference of opinion from the hon. and learned Gentleman, who seemed to think that the whole of these questions were to be decided by a majority of the judges in England and Ireland, whose decision was to be binding upon the rest, and that then there should be no appeal. He could not assent to that doctrine without asking the House to rescind several resolutions which it had come to at various times, asserting that it was proper to leave to the House itself the final decision of questions relating to votes given at elections. He apprehended that the intention of Parliament upon the subject was to be gathered from the interpretation placed upon the provisions of the Reform Act by those who concurred in recommending that measure to Parliament. He had already stated that the Duke of Richmond and the Marquess of Lansdowne had both of them distinctly declared in the other House of Parliament, that in altering the act of 1829 they wished to get rid of that provision by which a voter was obliged to swear that a solvent tenant would give him 10 l. over and above the sum which he himself paid. But there was another authority. Soon after the Reform Act passed, there was a select committee of that House, who tried, upon their oaths, this question of the franchise. He alluded to the committee which met to try the merits of the petition complaining of the election for Longford county. Before that committee there were members of both sides of the House, but the majority was composed of those who generally sat upon the Opposition benches. They heard some very able arguments upon the question, and the end of their deliberations was, that the vote of Lawrence Farrall was a good vote, thereby placing on the poll the vote of a person whom the judges of Ireland would not allow to be properly qualified. They not only committed this insult, (to adopt the phraseology of the hon. and learned Gentleman) upon the judges of Ireland, but they proceeded to resolve that the property, whether freehold or leasehold, in respect of which a claim was made to vote, should be of the clear annual value of 10 l. That was their general resolution upon the subject, entirely omitting the question of what a solvent tenant could pay. He considered that these omissions of the Reform Act, and

695
this decision of the Longford committee, afforded quite sufficient ground for the House to say, that doubts existed upon the subject which it was absolutely essential should be determined one way or the other. He could not see, therefore, why the House was to be less ready to declare what should be the Parliamentary decision upon the subject—the question of the Parliamentary franchise being in the first place one of the utmost importance for the House to consider; and, in the next place, the power of resolving any doubts with respect to the value of any particular vote coining within those rights which the House of Commons had reserved to itself by the constitution of Parliament and the law of the land. With respect to the mode of resolving any doubt that might arise in relation to the right to vote, he apprehended that the only proper way of doing it was to introduce a measure based upon a principle that should be in conformity with what was intended by the Reform Act as the principle upon which the franchise should he determined. He thought that they stood upon good ground when they said that such and such was the original intention of the Reform Act—that many persons who were engaged in framing the measure declared that such and such was the intention of the Reform Act— that different opinions and decisions had since been given—and that, therefore, it was necessary by a new measure to reestablish that which was the original intention of the Legislature. If he could see that Parliament would be disposed, without reference to party, to establish the franchise upon a fair ground—a ground that would not diminish or take away, or in any manner abridge those franchises which it was the intention of the framers of the Reform Act to grant, he should be ready to lend his aid in framing such a measure and carrying it through Parliament. He could not say, however, that he had at present such an expectation upon the subject as would induce him to recommend his hon. and learned Friend to go further than he proposed to do. If, in the course of the discussion, it should appear that any such interpretation would meet with support, then the Government would be bound to bring it forward and to ask the House to adopt it. But he did not think it advisable to raise a question of the kind, unless there was some prospect of agreement upon the subject.
Mr. Shawcould not help protesting against some of the doctrines which had
696
been put forth by the noble Lord who had just sat down. The noble Lord had spoken as if the intentions which the framers of a law had expressed before it passed were to be regarded in the construction put upon it by courts of justice; and the noble Lord seemed also to think that judicial tribunals were not to be bound by the decision of a majority of the judges. Such propositions surprised him, coming as they did from one so well versed in the constitution of this country as the noble Lord, and if they could be maintained, there would be no security whatever for uniformity or certainty of decision. He agreed with the hon. Member for Coleraine, that no doubt existed upon the question now before the House; he would not weaken the case by referring to Lord Denman's letter, but would rest his opinion upon the decision of the majority of the judges of Ireland. He had had some experience as a judge in an inferior court, and he would almost as soon decide in the teeth of an Act of Parliament as in opposition to a case decided in one of the superior courts of law. He could not agree with what the
noble Lord had represented to be the intention of the Legislature with respect to the "beneficial interest" required by the Reform Act; but, however that might be, he contended that, Parliament having once passed a bill, and committed it to the legal tribunals of the country, it was not competent for them afterwards to say that the construction which had been put on it was inconsistent with the original intention of its framers. If the intention was not carried out, they might introduce another bill to alter it: but the construction put on it was certainly for the time being the law of the land. He had the greatest possible objection to this bill, as well as to the time and manner in which it had been introduced. Nothing could be more unfair, and, under all the circumstances of the case, more uncandid, than the mode in which two questions, wholly distinct and separate, had been connected together by the hon. and learned Gentleman. What was the leading objection taken the other night both by the noble Secretary for the Colonies, and the hon. and learned Solicitor-general for Ireland, to the bill of his noble Friend? It was, that his noble Friend had not introduced into his bill any definition of the beneficial interest. But the hon. and learned Gentleman, in introducing his own measure on the subject of registration, also omitted all reference to that subject; and

697
engrafted what was strictly a registration regulation upon his franchise bill. Nothing could be more inconvenient. Again, the noble Lord put appeal into his registration bill, while the hon. and learned Gentleman kept appeal out of his registration, and put it into his franchise bill. This convinced him the more of what there could not be the shadow of a doubt, that neither of these bills were brought forward for their own sake, but simply with a view to impede the progress of the measure which had been introduced upon the same subject by his noble Friend, the Member for North Lancashire. The noble Lord might, perhaps, suspect that the franchise bill was not very likely to pass. Why, then, had the appeal, which was admitted to be necessary, been coupled with another measure to ensure its rejection? The appeal then would be left as at present, one-sided and unjust, an appeal against registration, but none against improper admissions on the register. To the proposition itself he had the greatest objection, because the assistant barristers were dependent on a vote of that House. In his opinion, the barristers should decide in the first instance, but an appeal to the judges was necessary, in order to give uniformity and fixity to the franchise.
Mr. M. J. O'Connelldoubted whether the hon. Member for Coleraine had read the evidence given before the fictitious votes' committee; for questions were there put by Mr. Sergeant Curry, which showed how easy the net value, after payment of the tenant's expenses, could be ascertained. For himself, he should be glad if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mallow were adopted, and some certain test of value established.
Mr. Wakleyhoped the noble Lord would reconsider the question, with a view to adopt the recommendation of the hon. Member for Mallow, and that they would no longer hear it said, that Members obtained seats in that House by fraud or perjury. Was it consistent with the high bearing of the noble Lord, that he should come forward and say that he did not propose what was right, because it might not be adopted elsewhere? Let the right measure be brought forward, and then let those who raised the objection to such a proposition bear all the odium. He trusted that leave would be given to bring in the bill that night, but that it would not be introduced till clauses had been framed to meet the suggestion that had been made. If the franchise were to depend upon pro-
698
perty of a certain value, it was right that the value should be clearly ascertained; it ought to be an admitted fact, and not founded upon the fanciful view of any party claiming the right, and as they now had a valuation in Ireland, made by parties who could have no object in giving a fraudulent or fictitious value, this was the time to adopt a definite valuation for the franchise. There seemed to be no objection to the proposal in any part of the House; they all seemed to agree, that if there was to be a property qualification it should be something that was seen, not only such a value as a person having the property might fix, but such as any indifferent person would acknowledge, and if that were the general feeling, surely the hon. Gentleman would adopt the proposal. The hon. Member for Coleraine had said, that when he looked at the title of the bill, he considered it an insult to the judges in Ireland, and from the serious tone in which the hon. Member had argued, he really seemed to consider that it was an insult to those learned persons; of course no one could prevent the hon. Member from putting his own construction on the language, but anything further from insult he could not conceive. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, also, that he believed there were no doubts about the qualification; and, at the same time, he told them that two judges pertinaciously adhered to their own opinions; that they would not be governed by the other ten, and that these two again and again decided contrary to the opinions of the others. Why, if this were so, it was clear that although no others entertained a doubt, at least these two judges had doubts, and the hon. and learned Gentleman knew perfectly well that those two judges had a perfect right so to act. The allusion which had been made to Lord Denman upon this point reminded him of what had lately passed in that Assembly. The House had decided judicially upon their own privileges, that same decision had been confirmed again and again, the question had been most ably argued, and the Members of the House had constantly decided judicially what was the law in the same terms. What did the minority of the judges sitting in that House do?—did they acquiesce in the decision of the majority? [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman laughed, because he, being a lawyer, held that the House did not know how to decide what was the law, and like other paid barristers, who were paid for distorting the law, and

699
turning truth into falsehood, and falsehood into truth, denied that hon. Members, whose duty it was to make the law, after making the law were capable of expounding it. After the Members, as judges, had decided again and again what was the law, did Lord Denman yield obedience to the decision? No. He still entertained doubts; and, therefore, he could not admit that Lord Denman was a good authority upon the question submitted to him, because he himself did not acquiesce in what had been judicially decided by a majority of the House. The learned Gentleman said, also, that the point of value had been argued by counsel for two days before the judges, and the hon. and learned Member laid great stress upon the two days; but he was astonished that the judges, after two days' argument by counsel, should understand anything about the question. It was known that the judges differed in opinion, that the decisions come to by the majority were not always continued without change; those on the bench at the time of one decision might give way to others who might think with the present minority; and that the decisions were not unfrequently reversed. If, therefore, there was doubt, it was the duty and the business of the Ministers of the Crown to come down to Parliament and introduce a bill by which the law should be made clear; if there was a doubt it ought to be explained, and the law made so plain that a child that could run might read it. That was the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he thanked him for proposing this bill. But, then, the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin objected to the bill, because it was brought forward at an improper time. Let him just apply the doctrine of the learned Gentleman to his own case in a matter of physic. The learned Gentleman would say, "I have had a variety of doctors in whom I have had the greatest confidence. I find that I have been treated improperly by them;" but on being told that he could be cured easily by another remedy lie would say, "Aye, that may be—but, dear me, no; I cannot permit myself to be cured; the remedy does not come in proper time — I would rather continue to suffer the pains I endure—I would rather have the pains in the head and the stomach, than receive a remedy that comes at an improper time." He was glad that the Government had taken up the subject, and he hoped that they would adopt the recommendations
700
that had been made, for he thought that the franchise ought to be clear and defined.
Mr. Pigotremarked that the hon. and learned Member had asserted, with great confidence, that there was no doubt about the law, but the very case to which he had referred afforded the most remarkable illustration of the doubt and difficulties of the law that it was possible to conceive. It occurred thus: a person appealed against a decision to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice refused to put the oath which the Reform Act permitted to be put to the jury on the appeal, but directed the jury to act as if the oath had been put. Subsequently another judge in another case put the oath. The matter came subsequently before the Court of Queen's Bench. The Chief Justice was pressed with his own opinion on one side, and the practice of his fellows on the other; what was the decision that was come to? not the decision of ten to two, as to the solvent tenant? It was no such question. The question was whether the oath ought to be put. The four judges of the Court of Queen's Bench were unanimous, and one of the judges of the Court of Exchequer agreed with them, and the consequence was, that there was a division of five to seven to settle that one question; but on the next—whether the Chief Justice was right in directing the jury to act as if the oath had been put— three of the very judges who had given their opinion that the oath ought not to have been put on the second question, joined in deciding that the jury ought to act as if the oath had been put. Could he possibly point out a greater instance of the doubt and difficulty of the law? If three of the judges, who had declared with the minority on the one point, and with the majority on the other, surely two judges, of as high character as any on the bench, might be allowed to maintain their own opinions of what was the law. Reference had been made to the practice of reserving points of law in Crown cases in England; far be it from him 1o dispute a practice which time had sanctioned in England; but he would appeal to the learned Gentleman to state any authority for a similar reference to the judges in Ireland upon questions of the franchise. The Reform Act made a single judge the party by whom the appeal was to be decided, and he would be glad if the learned Gentleman would tell him where the Reform Act gave any authority for a reference to the twelve

701
judges. He did not say that there was anything that did not warrant, by way of analogy, one judge, for his own satisfaction, taking the opinion of the others; but there was nothing in the act to sanction it, or to oblige the minority to submit to the decision; yet the hon. and learned Member for Coleraine had animadverted in strong terms on the conduct of those judges who did not think it right —any more than did Chief Justice Holt in the case of Ashby v. White — to conform to a majority of the judges sitting in a tribunal formed as a matter of convenience to the judges themselves, and for which there was no obligation either by the statute or at common law. Equally unjust and unseemly in the extreme were the learned Gentleman's expressions against the assistant barristers in Ireland. Against that attack, he would not condescend to defend them; their unimpeachable characters were their best shield, but it would have been rather better if the learned Gentleman, from his position in the profession and in that House, had abstained from making reflections upon those Gentlemen, which were entirely undeserved.
Leave given.

CANADA CLERGY RESERVES.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that in bringing before the House the question of the Clergy Reserves of Canada, he did not think it necessary to explain the various evils which had been produced in that place, owing to the unsettled state of the colony, or to the neglect which had been exhibited with regard to the lands reserved under the act of 1791, or the disputes which had arisen owing to the state of affairs in the colony. These circumstances were familiar to the House, owing to the discussions which had arisen in the course of the last Session of Parliament, and the correspondence which had been laid before the House. The only explanation, which he thought it would be necessary for him to give, was with regard to the present state of the question, in relation to the bill which he now proposed to introduce. The Governor-general of Canada, following the general instruction which he had received, thought it most desirable that a bill should be passed by the Legislature of Upper Canada, in reference to this subject, before the Legislature of the United Kingdom should consider it. It was found that while the strongest objections were entertained by one party to anything which did not give these funds to the purposes of education generally, on
702
the other side there was a strong party who insisted that the revenues should be appropriated exclusively to the clergy. The Governor-general, however, proposed a scheme by which a division of the funds was made among the various denominations of Christians, in order to reconcile their contending interests, and to meet the views of the two parties in the Legislative Council. This measure was at once acceded to by that body, and it was one great reason for consenting to the proposition which he was about to mute, that it had already obtained the assent of the Canadian legislative body. When the question came to be discussed whether the Royal Assent should be given to the Canadian Bill, doubts were stated by the Governor-general himself, when he wrote home, with regard to a portion of its provisions; and in reference to that part which bore some allusions to the statute of the 7th and 8th Geo. 4th, the House of Lords determined to put a question to the learned judges, whether the Colonial Legislature had not exceeded its authority? To that question an answer was returned that they had exceeded their authority, and it therefore became necessary to introduce a bill into Parliament, for the purpose of disposing of those questions, which it was desirable should be finally determined by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was most desirable to follow, as far as possible, the provisions of the act passed by the Colonial Legislature; but he thought, that in some respects some alterations must be made, although it was quite possible that the Assembly of Canada would not have agreed to the measure, if it had not contained those provisions which he proposed should be expunged. The general principle of the bill was, that the whole of the clergy reserves should be sold—that the proceeds should be vested in the Colonial Secretary—that one-fourth should be paid to the Church of England, one-fourth to the Church of Scotland, to be divided according to the census of the members of each Church, and the remainder to be given to the different denominations of Christians recognised by the constitution and by law. The learned judges were asked other questions, as to the original matter, and their answer went to declare, in the first place, that the term "Protestant clergy" did not apply solely to the members of the Church of England. These were very precise in the following terms:—
"In answer to the first question, we are all of opinion that the words 'a Protestant clergy'

703
in the statute 31st Geo. 3rd, c. 31, are large enough to include, and that they do include, other clergy than those of the Church of England, and Protestant bishops, priests, and deacons, who have received episcopal ordination. For those words, which are first to be met with in the statute 14th Geo. 3rd, c. 83 (recited in the act now under consideration), appear to us, both in their natural force and meaning, and still more from the context of the clauses in which they are found, to be there used to designate and intend a clergy opposed in doctrine and discipline to the clergy of the Church of Rome, and rather to aim at the encouragement of the Protestant religion in opposition to the Romish Church, than to point exclusively to the clergy of the Church of England. And although the Legislature, in passing the statute 31st Geo. 3rd, appears to have had in its view the establishment of the Church of England, primarily, and in a more especial manner, as is evident from this, that the only detailed provisions for carrying the object of the act into effect are confined to the erection and endowment of parsonages and rectories according to the establishment of the Church of England, the presenting thereto incumbents or ministers of the Church of England, duly ordained according to the rites of the said Church, and the subjecting of them to all spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction and authority, according to the laws and canons of the Church of England, which are lawfully made and received in England (sections 38, 39, 40, of the above act); yet does it appear to us that the Legislature, by employing the more general and comprehensive term, 'Protestant clergy,' in the same statute in which they also use the expression 'incumbents, or ministers of the Church of England,' must be intended to have included within the former and larger expression, other clergy besides those who are comprised within the limits of the latter. And when your Lordships desire the judges to state if any other clergy are included, what other? We answer, that it appears to us that the clergy of the established Church of Scotland do constitue one instance of such other Protestant clergy. And although in answering your Lordships' question we specify no other Church than the Protestant Church of Scotland, we do not thereby intend that besides that Church, the ministers of other churches may not be included under the term Protestant clergy. * * * At the same time as we do not find on the statute book the acknowledgment by the Legislature of any other clergy answering that description, and as we are not furnished by your Lordships with any information as to the doctrine or discipline of any other denomination of Protestants to which the statute of the 31st Geo. 3rd can by possibility apply, we are unable to specify any other to your Lordships as falling within the statute."
He thought that that was as much as
704
they possibly could say, it not being a matter within their jurisdiction to point out any ministers of religious denominations, who were not specified in the questions which were put, and which they had not before them at the time. So, it was clear, that their opinion was, that according to the spirit of the act, it might be applied, first, to the clergy of the Church of England, next to the clergy of the Church of Scotland, and next to those of other religious denominations, which they left to other authorities to define. Therefore, so far as the bill went, which had been passed in Upper Canada, providing for the clergy of the Church of England and of Scotland, and the other religious denominations of the Protestant faith, it might be said to conform to the spirit of the act of 1791, but it went beyond these denominations, and applied to the Roman Catholics as well, who, according to the opinion of the judges, were expressly intended to be excluded. The grounds which had existed for including the Roman Catholics in this bill, were those generally of reason and policy, and they were suggested by the fact, that the Roman Catholic clergy did not partake of the settled provision in Upper Canada, by virtue of the ancient laws of the French government. That was the first reason which had prevented their exclusion from the bill, and it was one which the Governor informed him generally prevailed in Canada, and he thought that, considering that the Roman Catholic clergy had always exhibited the greatest attachment to the Crown of England, and had shewn themselves to be exceedingly loyal, it would be an invidious and unjust distinction to draw, to exclude them from any new law which might be made. These reasons appeared to have prevailed in the province, and he did not know why they ought not to receive the consideration of Parliament. In making the proposition which he had laid before the House, he must say, that there were some very inconvenient clauses in the act passed in Upper Canada. That to which he had alluded first was a clause by which there was to be a commission appointed, by which a new census was to be taken from time to time; first, of the members of the Churches of England and Scotland, and next every four years of other religious denominations. It appeared to him, that if they wished to settle this question, it had better be settled once for all by some enactment which would include the whole subject matter;

705
but he thought, that the taking of this census would be likely to produce great excitement, and to create great rivalry also between the various denominations as to their respective numbers of followers, as well as its being rendered extremely inconvenient to ascertain to which denomination certain persons belonged. There were some other parts of the law which were rather objectionable on account of the doubt which must arise on their interpretation. He meant those which referred to the distribution of the amount produced from the sale of the reserved lands. It appeared to him to be much better, that with regard to the Church of England, there should be somebody into whose hands the money should be paid. In the Church of Scotland, there was a well known body by which it might be received, and with regard to the other denominations of Protestants, he proposed, that the Governor and the Executive Council should make the distribution. First, then, he proposed to confer the same power which Lord Ripon had before suggested, upon the Governor, which was, to sell and convey in fee simple any or all the lands called the clergy reserves in Upper Canada. Next, that the whole of these lands, or any funds derived from them should be chargeable with the payments which were now made, and which rested on the faith of the Crown, to the ministers of different religious denominations. By far the largest amount of these sums, amounting to 7,000 l. was paid to the Church of England, although others were paid to those of different religious denominations. As far as the faith of the Crown went, the payments would extend only so long as the lives of the parties lasted, and when they ceased, he proposed that one-fourth should be paid to the Church of England, and the amount having been received by the receiver-general under a warrant of the Governor-general, it should be paid by him to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts—a body having at its head the Archbishop of Canterbury, and being for this purpose perfectly competent and fit for the duties proposed to be cast upon it. The next fourth he proposed should be given to the Presbyterian synod representing the Church of Scotland and the other bodies of Presbyterians. With regard to the remainder, he proposed that it should be distributed to any denominations of Christians who had hitherto received any support or payment out of the revenues of the colony, or out of the casual or terri-
706
torial revenues of the Crown, and generally for the purposes of religious worship, and the maintenance of buildings for that purpose. In the provisions of the bill, it would be almost impossible to define all the various religious denominations in existence. In the act passed by the Legislative Council, they were described as those religious denominations recognised by the constitution and the laws of the colony. As to the constitution, it appeared that the Churches of England and Scotland were only recognised, while as to the laws, it seemed that none were mentioned, except to enable persons of certain creeds to make an affirmation instead of an oath, or to exempt others from serving in the militia; because they had some scruples which prevented their taking up arms. He thought that these references, however, hardly furnished sufficient ground for payments being ordered to be made to any of the particular sects, and seeing the impossibility of obtaining any exact definition of them, and the Methodists and some others never having been defined or recognised in any act, he conceived, that it would be better to have this portion of the fund distributed by the Governor and the Executive Council. Of course, if these propositions should be adopted, the whole matter might be considered as finally settled. In proposing this arrangement, he wished it to be understood, that it was out of the question that they should invest either the Church of England or Scotland with any superiority over other sects. That would be totally contrary to the general feelings of the province, and the only question to be considered was as to the mode of distributing the funds. He believed, that the best way of doing that was to adopt the measure he suggested, which would avoid raising any new cause of discontent. The noble Lord concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill to provide for the sale of the clergy reserves in the province of Upper Canada, and for the distribution of the proceeds thereof.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that it would be of course useless to attempt to enter into a general discussion of the measure of the noble Lord now. He wished, however, to be informed whether the noble Lord intended the Roman Catholic clergy to be included in its provisions?
Lord John Russellanswered in the affirmative. One-fourth of the amount was to go to the Church of England, one-fourth to the Church of Scotland, and the remainder to those denominations which had

707
received any allowance before, which would include the Roman Catholic clergy.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the Roman Catholics had been held not to be included in the terms of the act of 1791. He begged to ask how it was, that the noble Lord proposed that they should form no exception to the provisions of his bill?
Lord John Russellstated, that the Crown would not have been advised to give the royal assent to the act, as the judges had given their opinion that the Legislature of Upper Canada had exceeded their authority. They did not now propose to explain the act of 1791; but were proposing new enactments as to the disposal of the clergy reserves. As to the question which the right hon. Gentleman asked, he begged to say that a proposition had been made as to regulating the sums to be appropriated to Roman Catholics, with others, that a census should be taken of the different numbers of religious denominations. To that he thought there was very great objection. It could not be supposed, that the Wesleyan Methodists were more numerous than the Roman Catholics; but all that was now proposed was, that the Roman Catholics should not be excluded.
Mr. Goulburndid not object to the Roman Catholic pastors being paid; but if a sum were assigned by an act of Parliament, he had a very great objection that any portion of that fund should be applied to a purpose for which it never was intended, and from the enjoyment of which, by the construction of the statute by the judges, the Roman Catholics were expressly excluded. He did not enter upon the discussion, but this was a matter of very great importance.
Mr. Plumptrehoped, that payment to the Roman Catholic clergy would be made out of some other fund than the clergy reserves.
Lord John Russellremarked, that there could be no doubt, that this fund was not intended for the Roman Catholic clergy, but this was not like a fund which had been regularly appropriated, for a great portion of this land was wild, and not useful for any purpose whatever. It was acting differently from the intention of the act of 1791. That act had not been successful, although, no doubt, it had been passed with a good and pious intention. But it was as competent for the House at this day to make the alteration proposed, as it would have been for the Legislature then to alter their own act.
Mr. Goulburnobserved, that if they ad-
708
mitted this principle, it would apply to other lands in the colonies, that were not cultivated.
Mr. Labouchereremarked, that the line of argument used was calculated to excite an unfounded prejudice on this subject. Although the Act of Parliament did confine the proceeds of the clergy reserves to a particular purpose, yet in that act the e was introduced the almost unexampled provision, that the Legislature of Upper Canada should have power to alter this provision.
Mr. Pakingtonthought it so desirable, that this question should beset at rest, that he had no intention of opposing the bill at that stage of the proceeding. He did not, however, wish it to be understood, that he consented to the arrangement proposed by the noble Lord. He thought there was abundant means in the possession of the Roman Catholics of Lower Canada, to provide for the Catholics both in the upper and lower province.
Motion agreed to.