Sitting of 9 March 1841

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Mutiny; and Marine Mutiny.
Petitions presented. By Sir G. Strickland, Mr. L. Hodges, Mr. Grimsditch, Mr. Broadwood, and Mr. C. Hamilton, from Halifax, Kent, Macclesfield, Bridgewater, and other places, against the New Poor-law Bill.—By Mr. T. Parker, from Preston, against Maynooth College, and to prevent Roman Catholic Members of Parliament from Voting on Church matters.—By Mr. S. Barry, from places in the county of Cork, in favour of Lord Morpeth's Registration Bill.—By Mr. Villiers, from Buckinghamshire, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. O. Gore, and other Members, from Chipping Sodbury, Saxemundham, and other places, in favour of Church Extension.—By Mr. Baldwin, from Proprietors of Newspapers in Exeter, against the Publication of Newspaper Stamp Returns.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Liverpool, for the Release of Mr. Hetherington; from Worsburgh, in Yorkshire, for the Release of all persons confined for Political Offences and from Merthyr Tydvil, for the Release of Frost, Williams, and Jones.—By Sir C. B. Vere, and Mr. C. Hamilton, from Sussex, Minchendon and other places, for Church Extension.

SEVERN NAVIGATION.
Mr. Ormsby Gore Mr. Ormsby Gore moved, "That it be an instruction to the Committee of Selection (if they see fit), to refer the Severn Navigation Bill to a Select Committee." The Severn was a large river, navigable for upwards of 200 miles, and therefore the bill affecting its navigation ought not to be referred to a committee selected exclusively from the representatives of those residing on its banks. It was, in fact, a national question, and this very bill had last year been thrown out on the second reading, on the ground that it was too important a measure to be referred to a merely local committee. One portion of the river which was likely to be improved by this measure was in the county of Worcester. Now it would be bard to refer this question to the Worcestershire list, when Gloucester-shire and Montgomeryshire were opposed

73
to it. It might be said, that he might have named a committee representing all the different interests, but that was impossible. The course which he proposed was the more prudent one, and he ap-appealed to the justice of the House to support him.
Mr. Laboucherewas at all times unwilling to depart from the rules laid down for the regulation of private business, as it would lead to a recurrence of the evils from which they had already suffered. If they did, Gentlemen would come down to the House, and carry such measures, from the mere force of local interests. No departure from their rules ought to be suffered, unless a case were fully made out. He should act on the present occasion as he had during the last Session, on the occasion of the Welsh Railway Bills. He should not advise the House to consider the question then, but to devolve that duty upon the committee for private business, where the statements and counter-statements of the opponents and supporters of the bill could be more fully considered than they could be in the House. He could not consent to the appointment of a Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, as an amendment, that all the petitions that had been presented, with reference to the Severn Navigation Bill, be referred to the Select Committee on Private Business. In moving this amendment, the right hon. Gentleman hoped that the committee would not recommend any departure from the regular course, unless a very special case was made out.
Lord G. Somersetagreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that it was proper for the House to adhere to the rules it had laid down, but he thought there were special circumstances in the present case. He considered that the bill ought to be referred to a committee of a more general character than that to which private bills were generally referred.
Mr. Hopethought the bill ought to be referred to a committee, constituted of Members who had no interest in the districts through which the river runs.
Mr. Craven Berkeleysaid, it appeared to him that the object of his hon. Friend was solely to obtain an impartial hearing, and he trusted that the motion would be concurred in by the House.
Mr. Ormsby Gore, in reply, said, that
74
the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, was quite as much a departure from the rules of the House as that which had been proposed by himself. He had selected that Committee, because it must necessarily be impartial.
The House divided on the original question, That it be an instruction to the Committee of Selection, if they see fit, to refer the Severn Navigation Bill to a Select Committee:—Ayes 74; Noes 40—Majority 34.

List of the AYES.

A'Court, Captain

Hodgson, R.

Ainsworth, P.

Hogg, J. W.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Holmes, hon. W. A'Court

Archdall, M.

Attwood, W.

Hope, hon. C.

Attwood, M.

Houstoun, G.

Baillie, H. J.

Hughes, W. B.

Baker, E.

James, Sir W. C.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Kelly, F.

Bethell, R.

Lennox, Lord A.

Bolling, W.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Botfield, B.

Lowther, J. H.

Broadley, H.

Mackenzie, T.

Broadwood, H.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Bruce, Lord E.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Campbell, Sir H.

McTaggart, J.

Cholmondeley, hon. H.

Marsland, H.

Chute, W. L. W.

Neeld, J.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Packe, C. W.

Corry, hon. H.

Parker, M.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Perceval, Colonel

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Philips M.

Duncombe, T.

Pigot, R.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Pollock, Sir F.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Round, C. G.

East, J. B.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Eaton, R. J.

Scrope, G. P.

Eliot, Lord

Sotheron, T. E.

Fitzalan, Lord

Stanley, E.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Tennent, J. E.

Forester, hon. G.

Thornely, T.

Gaskell, J. M.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Gore, O. J. R.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Grimsditch, T.

Vivian, J. H.

Hale, R. B.

Walsh, Sir J.

Halford, H.

Yates, J. A.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

TELLERS.

Harcourt, G. S.

Gore, O. W.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Hope, H. T.

List of the NOES.

Alston, R.

Ellice, E.

Barnard, E. G.

Estcourt, T.

Barry, G. S.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Bewes, T.

Freshfield, J. W.

Brotherton, J.

Hall, Sir B.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Hawes, B.

Craig, W. G.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Davies, Colonel

Hindley, C.

Easthope, J.

Hodges, T. L.

75

Hoskins, K.

Stewart, J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Strickland, Sir G.

James, W.

Strutt, E

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Style, Sir C.

Mahon, Viscount

Turner, E.

Morgan, O.

Warburton, H.

O'Connell, D.

White, A.

Patten, J. W.

Williams, W.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Philips, G. R.

TELLERS.

Somerset, Lord G.

Grey Sir G.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Sanford, E. A.

Instruction agreed to.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE—BARRISTERS.
Mr. Greene Mr. Greene moved for leave of absence for Mr. Ingram to go the circuit.
Mr. Pattisondid not see why leave of absence to barristers going circuit should pass as matters of course. He did not recognize any particular right of barristers to be exempted from their attendance at that House more than other hon. Members, who were obliged to give up their private business for that purpose. There were election committees to be ballotted for; why should legal Gentlemen be exempted from attendance more than others.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that from the earliest period the House had recognized the advantage of allowing banisters to enter as Members and to go out on circuit. He thought the precedent ought to be followed.
Mr. Mildmaywould not assent to the principle of allowing barristers to be exempt from the business of the House in this way. If they had any valid claim, let them be exempt altogether.
Mr. Greenesaid, that no objection had been made to the motion for leave of absence for Lord Clements.
Mr. Wrightsonsaid, that Lord Clements was not a lawyer, but was going to attend his county as a grand juror.
An hon. Memberobserved, that when the bill regulating election committees was in progress it was clearly understood that barristers were not to be exempted.
Mr. Goulburnadmitted that fact, but at the same time no objection was made to their being allowed to go circuit.
Mr. Kellyobserved, that the very first motion for leave of absence for a barrister after the new bill passed was for his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-general.
Sir G. Greysaid, that that was a par
76
ticular case, where his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-general had to attend a trial at York, and the leave given was only for such time as was necessary for that attendance.
Sir R. Peelthought, that if lawyers found their duties as Members of that House onerous, they were not obliged to retain their seats. If there was a pressure of business in the House requiring the attendance of Members, he did not see why lawyers should be exempted more than others, for in such cases they ought to take their fair share of the duties of Members. In former times lawyers scarcely ever attended election ballots. They did not answer to their names, and the matter passed over because a sufficient number of other Members was easily found. If lawyers were allowed to go circuit in the early part of the Session, there was no reason why they might not attend at another time. In the present Session leave had been given to some barristers, arid, that being the case, he thought it would be invidious to refuse the leave in this instance. However, in the beginning of a new Session, when there might be a press of election business, he thought that barristers might be called on to take their fair share of duty.
Motion agreed to.
Colonel Paget Colonel Paget moved, that Mr. W. O. Stanley have leave of absence till after Easter, on urgent private business.
Lord Howickthought that the nature of the "urgent private business" should be stated before the House assented to the motion.
Mr. Pringlewas of the same opinion, and would not consent to the motion if such statement were not made.
Lord Stanleysaid, that he happened to be in the same panel as the hon. Member, and it certainly would be very convenient to him to have his attendance put off from the 25th, but though he should have to go down to the country, it was his intention to be back in time for attending at the call of the panel on which his name stood. As the hon. Member's (Mr. W. O. Stanley's) name was in the panel which stood for so early a day, he thought that the nature of the urgent private business should be stated to the House by the hon. Member who made the motion, for urgent private business might be anything or nothing. The hon. Member ought to state in his place that he knew the business

77
on which he founded his motion was of an urgent nature.
Colonel Pagetsaid, that as there seemed an objection on the part of the House, he would not persevere in his motion.
Mr. E. J. Stanleyhoped that his hon. Friend would not withdraw his motion, Of course, the House would act on the same principle in all other cases.
Lord Eliotwished that the objection had been stated earlier in the Session.
Leave given.

DARTMOUTH HARBOUR.
Mr. Fresh-fieldasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, since the commencement of the present session, any Government agent had been employed to make arrangements at Dartmouth, with a view to the conduct I of the West India mail service in that port, and whether it was intended that the expense consequent upon the adaptation of that port to the service in question, or to be incurred in the conduct of the service, should be borne by the Royal Mail Steam Company or by the public?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that on the 15th of January a Treasury minute had been passed deciding the point which had been so long pending, and the authorities of the Post-office had been directed to state what measures would be necessary to carry that decision into effect. On the 4th of February the Post-office recommended that an officer should be sent down into Cornwall to make the necessary inquiries. On the 5th their recommendation was approved of by the Treasury, and an officer was sent down accordingly. As to the payment, that part of the expense which was defrayed by the Government at Falmouth would be defrayed in future by the Government at Dartmouth.

CASE OF MR. T. REEVES.
Mr. Kelly, in moving to refer the petition of Thomas Reeves (presented on the 4th February) to a Select Committee said, that in the year 1835 Mr. Reeves had retired after twenty-two years' service as a surveyor of taxes, and it was a matter of importance to know what pension he was entitled to. He would state, and he had no doubt he would be corroborated by the gentlemen connected with the Treasury, that there was nothing against the character of Mr. Reeves to disqualify him for the allowance he was entitled to under any Act of Par-
78
liament, On the contrary, he had performed certain services which, at the least, entitled him to the most favourable consideration of the Government. Mr. Reeves, at the time of his retirement, possessed a salary of something under 100 l. a year. He was also in the receipt of various emoluments, consisting principally of a per centage upon surcharges, which were made when any deficiency or error was made apparent in the assessment of any party to the taxes he was justly entitled to pay. When those surcharges were made the Government generally received much more than the first assessment, and frequently more—sometimes even double the amount, and the Surveyor was entitled, even by Act of Parliament, to a certain per centage upon such surcharges. By that means Mr. Reeves for many years before his retirement had greatly added to his income. The year before his retirement, the per centage amounted to somewhere near two hundred pounds, thus making his income about 300 l. per annum. The Government admitted that Mr. Reeves was entitled to a pension, but they claimed the right to make certain deductions in the amount. He would say a few words as to those deductions. With respect to the amount of salary, nearly 90 l. odd, the Government admitted his claim to six-twelfths, or one-half of the salary, but the deductions which they made reduced the sum from 45 l. to 24 l., and that was all the allowance that was made to him. The reason given for the deduction was this: it was said that Mr. Reeves had, by contributing to a certain fund, called a Saperanuation Fund, entitled himself to a very considerable amount of retiring pension, and that it was the custom of the Treasury, when a party had contributed money for such a purpose, although he did so out of his own earnings, to hold him disentitled to the full amount to which he would otherwise have been entitled under the Act of Parliament: on this ground the pension was reduced to 24 l. Considering that for a great number of years, certain extra duties had been imposed upon Mr. Reeves, which, though he might fairly and legally have refused to perform them, he had discharged with the greatest diligence, he thought he might, have been fairly held entitled, under another clause of the Act of Parliament, to some additional allowance; at all events, his retiring income should not

79
have been reduced from 45 l. to 24 l. It appeared by the petition of Mr. Reeves that he claimed a retiring pension of 6–12ths under the Act of Parliament, not merely in relation to his salary but in relation to the emoluments of his office, amounting to twice the amount of his salary. The Treasury rejected the claim altogether, on the ground that the per centages were not emoluments within the legal meaning of the Act of Parliament which regulated those pensions. If the Government were right in that opinion, he admitted Mr. Reeves had no claim. But if it should appear, as he would venture to say he should be able to make it appear, that the letter had been written without consulting the law officers of the Crown, and that if they had been consulted they must have given a different opinion, he thought he should not appeal in vain when he asserted that the case must undergo reconsideration, and be submitted either to a committee or the Law officers of the Crown. The Act of Parliament which regulated the superannuation allowances was the 4th and 5th of William the 4th, chap. 24, and the case of Mr. Reeves came within the provisions of the 9th section of that Act. He would read to the House the answer Mr. Reeves had received, after some correspondence with the Government, and many applications, and, as Mr. Reeves hoped, after much serious consideration of his case by the Government. The letter was dated June 16, 1837, from the Board of Stamps and Taxes, and set forth fully the grounds on which the pension was granted and limited. It appeared to him that the simple question was, whether the board was right in saying that the per centage came under the head of emoluments or not. It appeared to him clear, that the board had proceeded upon an erroneous view of the case. The Government taxed him upon his commission, not for his salary only, but for his salary and emoluments. So also under the income tax, he was charged not for his salary alone, but also for his emoluments. Now, he would defy any lawyer to say, that a strict construction was to be put upon an Act of Parliament when against a party, and otherwise when in his favour. He would say but one word more with regard to the law of the case. He could assure hon. Gentlemen he would not have brought it under the notice of the House, if he did
80
not feel that the case was that of a very deserving man, of whom he begged to state he had no personal knowledge whatever, nor did he come from that part of the country, which he (Mr. Kelly) was acquainted with; he had been merely recommended to him by a Gentleman who knew of the hardship of his case. The hon. and learned Gentleman here proceeded to read the opinion of Sir William Follett, which had been given in favour of Mr. Reeve's case, and concluded by saying, if the question were referred to a Select Committee, he could prove every statement which was made in the petition.
Mr. John Parkersaid, that the Government acted in this case according to what had invariably been the practice of the Treasury; and, in support of this statement, read extracts from a correspondence which took place between the Board of Taxes and the Treasury in July, 1812. In that correspondence the Board of Taxes stated, that a surveyor's salary amounted to 90 l. a year; to which there was an additional salary of 20 l. also yearly; and the Board wished to know from the Lords of the Treasury whether the superannuation pension should be extended to the latter portion of the salary. It appeared from the Treasury minutes, that the Lords of the Treasury were of opinion, that the superannuation pension ought to be extended to the salary of 90 l., but that the smaller salary should be exluded. That correspondence showed that the point had before arisen; and that the superannuation allowance was settled on the permanent salary of 90 l., and that it did not include those sums of poundage and per centage which his hon. Friend sought to have admitted into the present allowance. Since that period the practice had uniformly been to allow the pension on the permanent salary only. Mr. Reeves entered the public service in 1813 or 1814, and he could not therefore say that he was injured by a rule which had been subsequently introduced. The practice of the Treasury was now as he found it when he entered upon the office; and he had no right therefore to complain. In denying the claims of Mr. Reeves, he begged it to be understood, that the Government cast no imputations upon him, he might have suffered a grievance; but he had only been subject to that which every other public servant was, In the course

81
the Treasury had pursued in this case, they were only following what had been adopted for the last twelve years.
Lord Teignmouthsupported the motion. The ground that had been taken by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, was quite different to that taken by his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, last year. The present surveyors of taxes had been placed upon the same footing that they wished Mr. Reeves to be placed upon; and he trusted, therefore, that his right hon. Friend would reconsider the case, and accede to the motion.
Mr. A. Stanfordfelt bound in justice to this gentleman, who was personally known to him, from his having performed the duties of surveyor of taxes in the neighbourhood with which he was more particularly connected, to say that he thought he had not been quite fairly dealt with. He could vouch for the respectability of his character, and, from the arduous nature of the duties which he had performed, he thought that he was entitled to some further consideration.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad three times given the same explanation which had now been afforded by his hon. Friend (Mr. Parker). No doubt he might have construed the case differently if he had chosen, but the Treasury had the power to lay down general rules and to act upon them, without any distinct reference to what might be deemed the strict legal position of the case, and although certain emoluments of office were given, it was not therefore, that they were not to pursue that course which they deemed fit upon consideration of the nature of those emoluments. No deduction had been made from the salary of these officers with a view to the granting of pensions, and therefore no pensions had in any case been given.
Mr. Humesaid, that he had some years since strongly condemned the vexatious system of emoluments, by which the officers were enabled to raise their salaries from 100 l. to 200 l. or 300 l. a-year. He represented it to the House as an oppressive system, and he believed it was partly in consequence of that, that the system was pat an end to. It clearly appeared from the precedents which had been cited, that there was not the least necessity for any further inquiry.
Mr. Kellywould detain the Mouse for
82
a single moment, to correct an error into which the hon. Gentleman had fallen. This question had been treated as if under the terms of the Act of Parliament the Government had the discretion either to grant an allowance or to withhold it. He denied that any such discretion was vested in the Government under the Act of Parliament. There was a discretion as to the sum, but none as to whether an allowance should be granted. The individual was just as much entitled to an allowance as any hon. Gentleman was entitled to the rents of his own estate. He had heard that statement with the greatest astonishment, and he trusted that the House would not be induced to sanction it.
The House divided on the question that the Petition of Thomas Reeves be referred to a Select Committee:—Ayes 27; Noes 38:—Majority 11.

List of the AYES.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Neeld, J.

Farnham. E. B.

Pringle, A.

Freshfield, J.W.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Grimston, Viscount

Richards, R.

Halford, H.

Round, C. G.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Hodgson, R.

Sanford, E. A.

Hughes, W. B.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Trotter, J.

Jones, J.

Turner, E.

Lockhart, A.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Mackenzie, T.

Vivian, J. E.

Mackenzie, W. F.

TELLER.

Miles, W.

Kelly, F.

Morgan, O.

Teignmouth, Lord

List of the NOES.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Howard, P. H.

Barnard, E. G.

Howard, hn. C. W. G.

Beamish, F. B.

Hume, J.

Blake, W. J.

Humphery, J.

Broadley, H.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Brocklehurst, J.

Maule, hon. F.

Brotherton, J.

Muskett, G. A.

Busfeild, W.

Pinney, W.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Seymour, Lord

Childers, J. W.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Clay, W.

Thornely, T.

Dalmeny, Lord

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Duke, Sir J.

Williams, W.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Wood, B.

Ferguson, Colonel

Worsley, Lord

Gordon, R.

Wyse, T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Yates, J. A.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Heathcoat, J.

TELLERS.

Hector, C. J.

Parker, J.

Hodges, T. L.

Tufnell, H.

PUTATIVE FATHERS.
Mr. Milesrose

83
to move for leave to bring in a Bill to give summary power to justices of the peace, in special sessions assembled, in certain cases of loss of service, or breach of promise of marriage, to impose and enforce penalties against Putative Fathers. The principle of the bill was the same as that of the measure which he had brought in last Session; but some portion of its phraseology was altered in obedience to the wish of the House.
Motion agreed to.
Adjourned.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord Kenyon, from the Rural Deanery of Balcombe, and two other places, against the Grant to Maynooth; from the Rural Deanery of Balcombe, for the Repeal of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill; and from the county of Denbigh, complaining of the Consolidation of two Bishoprics in North Wales.—By Earl Mount Edgecumbe, from Bodmin, for Medical Reform.

THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
The Earl of Aberdeenrose to call the attention of the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's government to certain circumstances which he confessed had filled him with astonishment, and which he was willing to hope had produced no less an effect on the noble Viscount himself. Not many days ago he had occasion to remind the noble viscount of the declaration which he had made in that House, at the opening of the Session, in regard to the distracted state in which the affairs of the Church of Scotland had been, and still continued to be. The noble Viscount then said, that her Majesty's Government had maturely considered the subject, and that they had come to the determination that no alteration in the state of the law ought to be proposed—that it would be executed against those persons violating it, and that those who obeyed it would be protected. The noble Viscount must admit that he had not treated such a declaration in a captious manner, for, however much he lamented the course which Government had thought proper to pursue last year, in regard to the bill which he had introduced, be thought that it would be unwise to throw away any chance of terminating the difficulties which now existed. He held the noble Viscount and his colleagues responsible for the peace and good order of society in Scotland, and it was in consequence of the difficulties in which Government were placed, that he had expressed a disposition to acquiesce in the determination which had been come to
66
by Government; but he told the noble Viscount that, before the declaration which he had made could be either intelligible or useful, it must be honest and sincere. He told the noble Viscount that it was indispensably necessary to bring the subordinate officers of his Government into harmony with himself—that he ought not to permit; the declaration which he had made in that House to be contradicted and counteracted by a member of his Government in another place. As the noble Viscount had not dissented from anything which he had said on that occasion, he would now state the circumstances which had occasioned him so much surprise, and to which he wished to call the attention of their Lordships. A few years ago, the commission appointed to inquire into the state of the Scotch universities recommended in their report, that a professorship of biblical criticism should be established in the University of Edinburgh a recommendation against which he had nothing to say, having had the honour to belong to the commission, and having concurred in the report. The establishment of such a professorship, he conceived, would be highly useful; but what he objected to at the present time was, that he believed it had been conferred on a person who had been forward in resisting the law [The Marquess of Normanby—No.] He was happy to think that there were doubts on the subject; but it had been announced in every quarter of Scotland—in all the organs of the party to which the Gentleman whose name he was about to mention (the Rev. Mr. Candlish) belonged—that the new professorship was to be conferred on that individual. This fact was trumpeted forth as a proof that the Government had espoused the opinions of that party in regard to the abolition of patronage; and if such was the case, he knew not how to reconcile it with the declaration made by the noble Viscount. To the proposed professorship one of the deaneries of the Chapel Royal was to be attached; and if it had been conferred on the rev. Mr. Candlish, they had given the chair to one of the most active and persevering of those agitators who had taken part in the dissensions of the last three years—a gentleman who, in his own person, had frequently Violated the law, and who, times oat of number, in his speeches, had stigmatized the sentence of the Court of Session, and of their Lordships' House, as being unholy, un-Christain, and unjust in every point of view. He admitted that he thought the establishment

67
of such a professorship highly proper, but he thought he could show that it was not necessary to select this person to fill it. Whatever that Gentleman's qualifications might be for the platform, nobody would ever pretend that he was particularly celebrated for his acquirements as a scholar; whereas Principal Lee was unquestionably the most learned man in the Church of Scotland, and had, moreover, undertaken to deliver a course of lectures on biblical criticism. It was not, therefore, for want of a person sufficiently qualified to expound that branch of knowledge that they had selected Mr. Candlish for the professorship. In his opinion, Government ought to have adopted the same course in the Edinburgh University that had been pursued by a more northern one, and attached the appointment to the Principalship, for he was convinced, considering the acquirements of Dr. Lee, that he was the person best qualified to fill the chair. He had informed their Lordships of the qualifications possessed by Dr. Lee. He would now state his objections to the appointment being conferred on the Rev. Mr. Candlish: that Gentleman had very recently—within, he believed, the last fortnight or three weeks—committed a flagrant violation of the law, and this appointment could not be viewed by the people of Scotland in any other light, except as a reward for his having done so. Their Lordships were well aware of the situation in which the unfortunate presbytery of Strathbogie was placed. They had fallen under the censure of the church courts for yielding obedience to the sentence of the Court of Session, and for following out the judgment pronounced by their Lordships. The clergymen who had been suspended by the church courts had submitted patiently, for many months, to all the inconveniencies arising from their perplexed situation. A deputation from these gentlemen had waited upon the noble Viscount, who had received them with his usual kindness and courtesy. He sympathized with their condition, and admitted the hardship of their case; but he told them that they had the law on their side, that he could do nothing for them, beyond enforcing the due course of law, and that until the law was found to be unavailing, he thought Parliament ought not to interfere. The deputation had also waited on him; and although he told them, that he was quite ready to present their petition and to state their case, he yet advised them not to have recourse to the strong arm of
68
the law, but to wait, as he felt certain that justice would at last be done to them by Parliament. He told them, that if they proceeded to punish those individuals who had disregarded the interdicts of the Court of Session, they would only create a greater sympathy for them on the part of the public, who entertained the same views, and who would be too apt to forget the justice in their contemplation of the nature of the punishment. On that advice these gentlemen had acted for many months, and would have continued to act in the same spirit of submission, had not a case occurred in which one of the gentlemen had thought proper to claim the protection of the law. It seemed, that a new church had been recently built in the parish of Huntly, within a few hundred yards of the parish church. He understood, that for this purpose a gross misappropriation of the funds collected for the purpose of church extension had taken place, and had been turned away from districts in which spiritual destitution did really prevail. Be that as it might, this Mr. Candlish had advertised, fourteen days beforehand, that he would on a particular day attend at Huntly, and open the new church. At the same time, he requested all those parents who had children to be baptised, to bring them to him for that purpose. He wished that the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond), who generally took his seat on the cross benches, had been present, because he would have borne testimony to the high character and exemplary life of the present minister of Huntly. This gentleman had thought it necessary to prevent an invasion of his parish, and had had accordingly served an interdict on Mr. Candlish before he left Edinburgh, prohibiting his intrusion in the parish of Huntly; that interdict had been treated with the utmost contempt. Mr. Candlish went to Huntly; he preached at the opening of the new church or conventicle; he baptised several children, and took upon himself all the functions which by law belonged to the established minister of the parish. Notwithstanding this illegal interference with his lawful authority, the present minister of Huntly, he believed, retained extensively the affections of his congregation; but it was impossible to deny, that a considerable part of the population had been led to side with those agitating incendiaries, and had been more or less detached from their established minister. Violent animosities and dissensions

69
among many families had been produced by the agitation of these persons, a state of things for which, as he had before stated, the noble Viscount and his colleagues were responsible. The minister of Huntly having served the interdict on Mr. Candlish wag now prepared to follow it up by petition to the Court of Session, praying for punishment on the individual who had infringed the injunction; and if the court granted the prayer of the petition, the rev. Mr. Candlish would inevitably be sent to prison, where he would have leisure to compose the syllabus of his lectures for that professorship which it was said the noble Viscount intended to bestow on him. What were the people of Scotland to think? What meaning were they to attach to the declaration of the noble Viscount? Of course it could not mean that the law, while it remained as at present, was not to be duly executed for the protection of those who obeyed it. It could not mean that those who violated the law were to be rewarded. If the report which prevailed in Scotland of Mr. Candlish's appointment were true, how was it possible to reconcile an act so inconsistent with the statement of the noble Viscount? How could any credit be given, either by their Lordships or any other persons, to the declaration made by the noble Viscount, if acts so incompatible with such a declaration were done by the Government? If his intention had been to stultify the country, the noble Viscount, could pot have acted differently. He acquitted him of any such intention. He believed, that the noble Viscount meant honestly; but he would ask him if what had taken place was at all consistent with such a declaration? He had heard the noble Viscount accused of yielding unduly to the influence of an hon. and learned Gentleman in the other House, who was supposed to control the better judgment of the noble Viscount. Whether this were true or not, he would not stop to inguire: but this he would say, that he did not know any accusation which could more affect the character and capacity of the noble Viscount. With regard to the present case, be confessed he was unable to explain the inconsistency of the acts of the noble Viscount with the declaration which he bad made, and he therefore wished to ask the noble Viscount whether he was aware of the circumstances which he had Staged. [Viscount Melbourne: What circumstances?] Whether the professorship alluded to had been conferred on Mr.
70
Candlish—a person who had violated the interdict of the Court of Session by exercising the ministerial functions in a parish from which he had been prohibited by the law of the land.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that perhaps he was not able to answer the noble Earl in so satisfactory a manner as the noble Marquess near him, who would have saved the noble Earl the trouble of making a long speech if he had been permitted to answer the noble Earl yesterday, when the noble Earl gave notice of his motion. The noble Earl had certainly stated accurately enough the substance of the declaration made by him at the opening of the Session. He did state that he did not think it prudent or expedient for the Government to introduce any new enactment under the present circumstances, and that the law of the land would be allowed to take its course against those who had violated it.
The Earl of Aberdeenasked whether Government meant to protect those who had been exposed to inconvenience and injury from obeying the law?
Viscount Melbournesaid, such a question was quite superfluous when addressed to any government, more particularly when addressed to a government like the present. The question, he thought, answered itself. He would not enter into an argument whether, supposing the appointment alluded to by the noble Earl had been made, there would have been in that case any violation of the declaration which he had made. Reference had been made to his having promoted persons to political situations in Ireland who had held opinions opposed to his own. Undoubtedly this might be true; but he could not see how it affected the present case, because no such appointment as that alluded to by the noble Earl had been made. It had been notified to the town council of Edinburgh that it was intended to follow out the recommendations contained in the report, and to establish in the University of that city a professorship of biblical criticism, but no appointment to the chair had as yet taken place.
The Earl of Aberdeenobserved, that there was a great difference between bestowing the patronage of government on persons who had taken part in the agitation of Irish affairs, and on persons in the situation of Mr. Candlish. The Irish agitators had not violated the law; however much he might disapprove of the agitation for the repeal of the Union, he did

71
not think there was anything illegal in it; but the clerical agitators in Scotland acted in opposition to the law of the land, and set at defiance the sentence of the supreme court. He trusted that, if the noble Viscount's observations meant anything, they meant that those persons who violated the law should not be rewarded.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, if the noble Earl had not taken the unusual course of Refusing to receive the information that was offered to him on the preceding evening, the present discussion would have been unnecessary. The information which he had received with respect to the merits of Mr. Candlish was very different from that which had been supplied to the noble Earl. As to the professorship, the fact was, that although on the recommendation of the commissioners, her Majesty's Government had agreed upon founding a Professorship of Biblical Criticism, the office had not yet been established, and, of course, no professor had been installed. In consequence of many recommendations in favour of Mr. Candlish, her Majesty's Government had been disposed to give him the appointment, but no communication had as yet been made to him of such intention; and the moment they heard that he had placed himself in opposition to the law, they at once put an end to all further proceedings upon the subject. There was no difference of opinion among the Members of her Majesty's Government as to supporting those who obeyed the laws, and discouraging those who violated them. The noble Earl had taken a most unusual course on this occasion. He not only declared who ought not to be professor, but he also suggested who should fill that situation. So far, however, were Ministers from passing over the merits of Dr. Lee, that they had determined upon giving him one of the vacant deaneries of the Chapel Royal of Edinburgh, in connexion with his situation as principal of the university. It was unnecessary for him to defend the intention which existed to create the professorship, for his noble Friend opposite had been on the commission, and had signed the recommendation that it should be established. He (the Marquess of Normanby) would gladly confer one of the deaneries of the Chapel Royal in Scotland, which had formerly been sinecures, upon the individual who might be appointed to the new professorship. The case, however, at the present moment stood thus—the professorship had not yet been created, though
72
an intention to establish it had been notified; claim of this gentleman had with others been under consideration, and of his fitness for the office he had heard so much that he should have thought him a proper individual to be appointed, not on account of his non-intrusion principles, but because he thought there should be no absolute exclusion on account of feelings and opinions, so long as those opinions came within the law. An objection, however, had been taken, that Mr. Candlish had violated the law, that objection had been taken into consideration, and the result had been that no appointment had been made.
Adjourned.