Sitting of 6 May 1841

MINUTES.
Bill. Head a second time:—Exchequer Bills.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Gillon, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Brotherton, and other hon. Members, from Aberdeen, Cumberland, Norfolk, and various other places, for a Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Sir W. R. Clayton, from several places, against a Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. Muntz, Mr. Alston, Mr. R. Currie, Mr. Busfeild, and other hon. Members, from Birmingham, Hertfordshire, Northampton, and other places, for the Abolition of Church Rates, and the Release of Mr. Balm's.—By Mr. Fox Maule, Mr. Blennerhasset, Sir R. Bateson, and others, from Antrim, and various other places, for the Abolition of Church Patronage in Scotland.—By Sir C. Staunton, from Portsmouth, against Working Dogs—By Mr. Wodehouse, from the Guardians of a Poor-law Union in Norfolk, against any Alteration in the Appointment of Officers of Unions.—By Sir R. Bateson, from the county of Down, against Railroad Travelling on the Lord's Day, and for a Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Mr. C. Round, from thirteen Parishes in Essex, for Church Extension; and from the Board of Guardians of the Saffron Waldon Union, for a more effectual remedy against the Fathers of Illegitimate Children.—By Mr. P. Miles, from West-India Merchants of Bristol, against any Alteration in the Sugar Duties.—By Sir G. Grey, for facilities to admit Dissenting Clergymen into Workhouses.—By Mr. Litton, from Officers of Law Courts of Ireland, for Compensation; and from certain Clergy of Ireland, for the Restoration of the Suppressed Irish Bishopries.

TAXATION—SUGAR DUTIES.
Lord J. Russellgave notice, that, to-morrow evening, on the motion that the House go into a Committee on Ways and Means being
put, he would move the following resolution:—
That it is the opinion of this House, that it is practicable to supply the present inadequacy of the revenue by judicious alterations of the protective and differential duties, without any material increase of the public burdens, and that such course will at the same time promote the interest of trade, and afford relief to the industrious classes, and that this House considers that such course is best calculated to provide for the maintenance of the public safety and the general welfare of the country."
Viscount Howickwished to know in what manner the amendment was to be moved?
Lord J. Russellsaid, that the amendment would be moved as he stated yesterday.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that, he supposed the Chancellor of the Exchequer would move that the Speaker do leave the Chair, and upon that question his noble Friend (Lord Sandon) would move his amendment. The question would then be, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question. In case that proposition were affirmed, the House would then go into committee; in case it were negatived, the noble Lord would then move his amendment.
Viscount Howicksaid, it seemed to him that that was an extremely inconvenient course, as it would lead to two debates and two divisions. If it was meant to take the sense of the House upon which of the two resolutions should be adopted, it appeared to him that, instead of his noble Friend moving the ways and means, the noble Member for Liverpool should be allowed precedence, and upon that motion that his noble Friend could move his resolution, upon which the sense of the House could be taken.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that, of course, the noble Lord would first bring forward the general question, which would enable his (Sir R. Peel's) noble Friend to take the sense of the House on the sugar duties. If the noble Lord were to withdraw his motion, his noble Friend would not have an opportunity of submitting his resolution, as many might object to vote for his noble Friend, if his proposition were merely volunteered and not introduced, in consequence of the course adopted by the Government. He was sure the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) would adhere to the announcement which he had already made as to his plan of financial policy,—Subject at an end.

POOR-LAWS.
Mr. Wallerwished to ask the noble Lord if it was his intention to persevere with the bill for the amendment of the Poor-laws.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that it was his intention to persevere with the bill, and that he should bring it on, on the 17th of May.
Mr. Walterwould give notice, that on that day he should submit a motion to the House, the object of which would be to arrest the further progress of that measure.

CHINA—RECALL OF CAPTAIN ELLIOT.
Sir R. Peelwished to know whether there had been any recent arrivals from China which would enable the noble Lord to give the House any information as to the present state of our relations with that country?
Lord J. Russellcould not say whether there had been any arrivals yesterday, but the previous arrivals had not enabled him to furnish any additional information.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that information brought by recent arrivals, had appeared in the papers of that day.
Sir R. Peelreferred to the Gazette accounts, and wished to know if the Government had ratified the treaty which had been said to have been entered into between the Plenipotentiaries of the two countries?
Lord J. Russellsaid, that the Government had received information of certain preliminary arrangements which had been entered into by the Plenipotentiaries of the two Powers. Those preliminary arrangements, however, did not appear to have been ratified by the Emperor of China—indeed it did not appear that they had been finally settled between Captain Elliot and the Plenipotentiary appointed by the Chinese government. That arrangement was generally disapproved of by her Majesty's Government, but no further steps could be taken until they received further accounts, stating more particularly what that treaty contained.
Sir R. Peelwas desirous of knowing, considering the distance of the scene of operations, whether hostilities had already been discontinued?
Lord J. Russellsaid, a truce had been entered into, and by the last accounts, that truce had not been put an end to, but he could not say, that hostile operations might not be recommenced.
Mr. Humesaid, he wished to know whether a report that had been circulated was correct, namely, that the Government had recalled Captain Elliot, and appointed Sir
1492
Henry Pottinger in his stead? The public were anxious to know whether such were the case.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that it was true that Sir H. Pottinger had received the appointment of Plenipotentiary to China, and was about to depart immediately for that country, Captain Elliot having beeen recalled.

EGYPT.
Mr. Humewished to know if there were any despatches from Egypt to the effect that matters were adjusted between the Pacha and the Porte, according to the plan to which England was pledged.
Lord J. Russellcould not, while negotiations were in progress, enter into any account of what had been done recently.

CONVICTS AT WOOLWICH.
Viscount Mahonwished to put a question to the Under-secretary of State for the Home Department. He had seen in the public papers accounts of the increased mortality in the hulks, and that great numbers of convicts had died; and it was stated, that the governor had attributed the cause of the disease to the accumulation and crowding together of the convicts by the direction of the noble Lord. He wished to know whether the Government had received any official information regarding this? He also wished to know whether any evidence could be given of the former coroner's inquests which had been ordered to be given to that House two months ago?
Mr. F. Maulesaid, it was true, that there had been a considerable increase of disease amongst the convicts; but he had been given to understand, that that had occurred not only at the hulks, but also amongst the military. He could assure the noble Lord and the House, that there was no place in which greater attention was given, or where there was greater capability of attending to the convicts when overtaken with sickness, than in the hulks. It was impossible to prevent epidemics at times coming amongst those unfortunate people. He should be quite ready to furnish the noble Lord and the House with any information which they might desire on this or any other point. With reference to the evidence taken by coroners, the noble Lord must be aware, that that rested entirely on their discretion, and that their notes were private. He believed, that there was no authority which could compel a judge to give up his private notes; so there was no authority to compel a coroner

1493
to surrender his private notes. There was no doubt whatever but that the coroner would be most happy to furnish a copy of his notes.

OFFICIAL AND DECLARED VALVE.
Mr. G. Palmerwished to learn from the right hon. Gentleman why the present mode of ascertaining the Value of Exports and Imports was preserved, and what was the difference between the Official and the Declared Value.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that with regard to the manner of making out the official value in the Customs, as calculated in the returns, he believed, that the data on which they were calculated had been the same for the last 150 years. Those data did not represent actual value, but quantities. With regard to the declared value, it was stated on the declaration of the exporting merchant, or broker on oath.

DESTRUCTION OF THE CAROLINE
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume moved for a Copy of the Correspondence between the Legation of the United States in London and the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department in relation to the Destruction of the Steamboat Caroline; also a copy of the correspondence between Mr. Fox, the British Minister at Washington, and the Secretary of the United States, in relation to the destruction of the steam-boat Caroline, also a copy of the correspondence between the Lieutenant-governors of Upper Canada and the Governor-general of the Canadas, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in relation to the destruction of the steamboat Caroline. He would not enter into the merits of the question, but he certainly was of opinion, that the correspondence which had been publicly laid before Congress, ought to be likewise before that House, and that if it had been produced at an earlier period it would have tended to prevent much of the excitement which prevailed on both sides of the Atlantic.
Lord J, Russellsaid, that motions relating to matters still in course of negotiation with foreign governments were so entirely unusual, and so much inconvenience to the public service would attend the production of the correspondence now moved for, that he was sure the House would not support the hon. Member for Kilkenny, who, in fact, required the production of the most confidential portion of the correspondence between the Governors of Upper and Lower Canada and the
1494
Secretary of State. He did not think the hon. Member was precisely aware how the matter stood. The Government of the United States had made a complaint of the conduct of certain individuals and officers belonging to Upper Canada, who were said to have taken a part in the destruction of the steam-boat Caroline. The result of that complaint was the transmission of a great quantity of correspondence, and various statements made by the Governor of Upper Canada and several individuals who were concerned in the transaction. The American government sent counter-statements, but they did not persist in asking for a final answer to their demand; the effect of which was, that the acts of the British Government ceased to be matter of discussion between the two Governments. It was not for the British Government to follow up these negotiations by saying to the American. Government, that they must desist from their former demands; or for the United States to say, that they had been in the wrong in making such demand. All that could be expected was, that the United States Government should have allowed the subject to drop; and he was convinced, that it would have dropped, and no longer have been discussed between the two Governments, had it not been for the unfortunate arrest of Mr. M'Leod, which completely revived it, and the discussions regarding it. With regard to the correspondence now moved for, he could only say, that the production of it would be inconvenient to the public service—would tend to embarrass the negotiations which were now going on between the countries in a most amicable spirit, and might have the effect of weakening the friendly relations of two mighty and intelligent nations.
Mr. Humesaid, that if the papers he moved for were laid upon the Table they would prove the reverse of what the noble Lord the Secretary for the Foreign Department had stated. That noble Lord had asserted, that the American government, had not persisted in demanding an answer to their communication of the 22nd of May, 1838, whereas, Mr. Forsyth distinctly stated, in the correspondence which was before the world, that Mr. Stevenson would not be instructed to press for an answer, because Mr. Fox had told him, that he expected an answer direct from this country in a few days. What he wanted was, to have on the Table of the House those papers which would convince

1495
the House that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who on a former occasion stated, that he had transmitted an answer to the American government, never had transmitted any answer up to that hour. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth stated, some time ago, that there must be a limit to the patience of the House regarding the refusal of public documents; and, in his opinion, that time had now arrived. Had the documents connected with the affairs of Syria been produced, when he had moved for them he was convinced that the affairs of the East would have been settled much sooner, and much of the loss which the country had since sustained would have been avoided. He only wanted, in the present case, the printed correspondence; he wanted no secrets, and he hoped the House would support him in endeavouring to compel the noble Lord to produce it. Had he been furnished with it sooner, the question would have been forced upon the attention of the Government, and might before this have been completely settled.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the production of the correspondence in question would not enable the hon. Gentleman to attain the object he had in view. The American government had asked for redress for the burning of the Caroline, and to that demand her Majesty's Government had deliberately, and not through any neglect, thought it proper not to give a formal and final answer. But his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had since informed the American Minister at the Court of London, that the British Government had justified the destruction of the Caroline; upon which the American Minister made a communication to his government, which communication had not yet transpired. His noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) was therefore perfectly justified in the statement he had made on a former occasion.
Mr. Humesaid, that since the 22nd of May, 1838, when the American Government sent a communication to Lord Palmerston, requesting satisfaction up to the present, or, at least, up to the period at which he (Mr. Hume) last introduced the question to the notice of the House, no answer had been given, verbally or by letter, to that communication; so that the House had been entirely misled and abused by the allegation of the noble Lord, that in answer had been given.
Sir Robert Peelunderstood the noble
1496
Lord the Secretary for the Colonies to meet the motion of the hon. Member by declaring, that negotiations connected with the subject were now pending, that they were conducted on both sides in an amicable spirit, and that the production of the correspondence moved for would be prejudicial to the public service. Now, he confessed that a statement of that kind, coming from the Minister of the Crown, was, with him (Sir Robert Peel), conclusive. Without offering any opinion upon the unfortunate state of ignorance they were in at present respecting our foreign relations; he must say, that it would be most unwise to attempt to force a Minister of the Crown to produce a correspondence after such a declaration as the noble Lord had made. He wished to ask the noble Lord what position Mr. M'Leod himself was in at present. He understood that the British Government had avowed the destruction of the Caroline as a public act, and had called on the Government of the United States to release Mr. M'Leod. In what position did the matter now stand? Would he be released, or would the law be allowed to take its course?
Lord John Russellsaid, that the statement made in answer to Mr. Fox was, that the attorney-general of the United States government had proceeded to the place at which the trial of Mr. M'Leod was expected to take place, and would there act according to certain instructions he had received from the American government, which he (Lord John Russell) did not deem it necessary to state to the House; that the Attorney-general had not himself taken any steps in the matter; but that the counsel for M'Leod having stated, that one of his defences was, that the act had been authorised by the British Government, applied to have the case removed to a federal court, and that that application was granted. He trusted that the American government would, when in a federal court, do that which he was told they could only do in a federal court.
Mr. W. S. O'Brienhoped the noble Lord would not refuse those documents which had already appeared in the American papers. Surely no inconvenience would arise from their production.
Sir Robert Peelhoped the noble Lord would refuse them, as he thought that the application for or granting of just so much information as another country published would be very derogatory to the British Parliament. The statements already pub-

1497
lished were of an ex parte character, and might give a most unfavourable view of the case as regarded this country. So that by agreeing to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, they might be giving their sanction to these unfavourable and perhaps unjust statements.
Sir D. L. Evanscould not understand the object of pressing for papers which hon. Gentlemen had already read, after the declaration of the noble Lord.
Mr. P. Howardthought, that at a time when this country, as well as the United States, were deploring the loss of the able chief magistrate of that country, it was highly indelicate to press such a motion us this just as the new governor was under-taking the management of the United States. He believed that there was a strong feeling on both sides of the Atlantic for the preservation of the amicable relations between the two countries. The great commercial body was particularly anxious on the subject, and was particularly desirous that the greatest deliberation should attend the conducting of those negotiations. He trusted the motion would not be pressed.
Mr. T. Duncombeobserved, that according to the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, this country should not possess the same information as was possessed by other countries. They only asked for the papers relating to the arrest of Mr. M'Leod, and why the British Parliament should not have them as well as the Congress of the United States, he was at a loss to conceive. Whether that information were withheld or not, he wished to know if the Government intended to allow the trial of Mr. M'Leod to be proceeded with; because the feeling throughout the country was this—that our national honour was compromised by the detention in prison of Mr. M'Leod. The guilt or innocence of Mr. M'Leod had nothing to do with the question, as it was notorious that the Government would escape from the dilemma by the proof of Mr. M'Leod's not having been present at the destruction of the Caroline. But Mr. M'Leod had been arrested and detained in prison, and if they had a right to detain him, they had a right to try him, and if to try him, to execute him, should he be found guilty. What he wanted to know, therefore, was, whether, in the event of such a verdict, the Government intended to allow Mr. M'Leod to be executed? Because, if not, they should have stopped the matter in limine, and not al-
1498
lowed him to be thrown into prison. Suppose Captain Drew was travelling in the United States, was arrested, tried, and found guilty, would it be borne, that an English officer was so to be treated by a foreign country for obeying the orders of his own Government? He asked, therefore, did the Government mean to allow Mr. M'Leod's trial to proceed? He had been already imprisoned for six months, and the people of England had a right to know why.
Sir R. Peelobserved, that the question was; not whether Mr. M'Leod—respecting whose arrest and imprisonment he (Sir R. Peel) would give no opinion whatever—ought to be released or not, but whether these papers, the production of which the noble Lord had told them, would be prejudicial to the negotiations which were now being carried on in an amicable spirit between the two countries, should lie laid upon the Table of the House.
Motion negatived.

MR. VIZARD'S APPOINTMENT.
Colonel Sibthorprose to call the attention of the House to the appointment of Mr. William Vizard as Solicitor to the Home department. He had intended to bring the matter forward on the proposal of the miscellaneous estimates, but when he found the vacillating conduct of the Government with respect to the time of moving those estimates, he felt it his duty to the country to introduce this as a substantive motion, and he was supported strongly in taking the sense of the House on this appointment by the correspondence laid on the Table. First, he must remark on the period selected by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home department for making the application to the Treasury for this appointment. That application was made on the 6th of August, 1840—Parliament was prorogued on the 11th, and the answer was not given till the 13th, two days after that prorogation This of itself did seem extraordinary. No doubt the secret appointment of this individual had taken place before, but it was kept from the public till Parliament was up. The next thing was, that the noble Lord thought the best way of paying i this gentleman was by professional bills; why the noble Lord should fix on this method of payment, would probably never come before the House; but the Treasury thought this mode of proceeding would not be satisfactory to the public, and they,

1499
not the noble Lord, fixed the payment of 1,500 l. a-year as salary. Again, there was no formal warrant for the appointment; and he might have his suspicions as to the cause of withholding that formal appointment. Upon what grounds did the appointment take place? The noble Lord said, for the more convenient despatch of the legal business of this department, which had considerably increased of late years, and which ought to be conducted by a gentleman whose exclusive services might be secured. From the Government of the Duke of Portland in 1798, during forty-three years, with eighteen changes, down to 1840, including the period of the Manchester riots under Lord Castlereagh, the state of excitement of the trial of Queen Caroline, and the Newport riots, he found that the duties of the Home-office were carried on satisfactorily to the public, without imputation as to the manner in which those duties were performed, and there had been no exclusive solicitor to the Home-office. There was nothing extraordinary in the circumstances of 1840 that required a change, except, indeed, the conduct of the Chartists, arising from a want of caution and firmness on the part of the Government. They had heard a great deal of the improvement of the people, and yet last year was the first time for the creation of this new office. Then it was said that this gentleman was to hold no other office, and yet this very gentleman, against whom he (Colonel Sibthorp) would say nothing, as he was personally unknown, had held for eleven years, and did still hold, the office of secretary of bankrupts under the Lord Chancellor. By one of the returns, too, it appeared that a Mr. Vizard was deputy-registrar of bankrupts but he was informed that it was a Mr. John Vizard, and whether he was a son or brother he did not know. He had inquired into the emoluments of Mr. W. Vizard, and he found that, as secretary of bankrupts, he received since 1835, a salary of 1,200 l. a year, and he also received the 1,500 l. a year from his present appointment. He had received, since his appointment as secretary of bankrupts, during a period of eleven years, no less than 18,141 l.17 s.9d for fees and salary. The gentleman, therefore, was pretty well paid without any further appointment; yet he was to have an additional 1,500 l. a year from the period of his first appointment, when there was no knowledge of the appointment. As a guardian of the public purse, no necessity for
1500
the office being shown, he(Colonel Sibthorp) must pursue the straight-forward course of objecting to the appointment. The noble Lord ought to have come down to the House, and asked its sanction to the creation of this new office. It had been promised that Mr. Vizard would resign his former appointment in the Bankruptcy Court, but he (Colonel Sibthorp) was prepared to assert, that that Gentleman had no intention of doing anything of the kind. He should conclude by moving, that it is the opinion of the House that the creation of a new office, as Solicitor to the Home Department, is unnecessary, and that no sufficient reason has been shewn to the House for the appointment of Mr. W. Vizard to that office. He should certainly take the sense of the House upon this resolution, and if he were defeated upon it, he should reserve to himself the opportunity of again opposing this appointment on the salary being voted in the estimates.
Mr. F. Maulesaid, that in meeting the motion of the hon. and gallant Member with a direct negative, he should occupy the attention of the House for as short a time as possible, whilst he stated the grounds upon which he considered the appointment of Mr. Vizard, as Solicitor to the Home Department, was justified. For some time past a great increase of business had fallen to the share of the Home Department, arising out of a great number of new acts of Parliament Which had been passed of late years, as, for instance, the Municipal Corporations Act. For the convenience of the. public applications and questions relative to the construction of these enactments had been submitted to that department, and the points involved in those applications were such, that although it was not considered necessary to refer them to the law officers of the Crown, still it was considered absolutely necessary that they should be referred to some one competent to give a legal opinion upon them. For some time the Home Department availed itself of the services of the Solicitor to the Treasury, but at length it was represented to his noble Friend, that such matters did not properly fall within the duties contracted for by that Gentleman; and that he could not, consistently with the due discharge of his regular duties, undertake them in addition. It was then found that almost every other department of Government had a solicitor of its own to conduct its

1501
business, and it was determined that the Home Department should, in like manner, appoint a solicitor of its own. With respect to the expenses of such appointment, he would only state two important items which the solicitor appointed would have to undertake, and the amount of which alone would nearly pay the salary allotted to that appointment, namely, the drawing of contracts, amounting in the last five years to an average of 300 l, and expenses connected with the police commissions, amounting to about 800 l a-year. Now, with respect to the charge made by the hon. and gallant Member, that this appointment was hurried to completion immediately after the close of the last Session of Parliament, lie would only state, that the subject had been for a long time under discussion, and that the appointment only bore date the 1st of January. The appointment was such, that the whole of the time of Mr. Vizard, was at the disposal of the Home Department. With respect to Mr. Vizard's holding at the same time another office under the Crown, he would observe, that it was no new practice for a person holding the office of Secretary to the Bankruptcy Court to hold another appointment under the Crown. When, however, Mr. Vizard received the appointment of Solicitor to the Home-office, it was put to him that he should give up his office as Secretary to the Court of Bankruptcy; and it was only on account of the unsettled state of the whole of the question relating to the affairs of the Court of Bankruptcy, that Mr. Vizard had not yet made his election between the two offices. A bill, however, was about to be brought in very soon by the Lord Chancellor, which would regulate the whole of the business of the Bankruptcy Court. By that means, the office of Secretary to the Court would be altogether abolished, and it was only for the convenience of the public that Mr. Vizard held the office in the interim. He thought he had now said sufficient to establish the expediency of the appointment of Mr. Vizard as Solicitor to the Home-office, and was content to leave the question entirely in the hands of the House.
Mr. Hume, before the House came to
1502
a division, wished to ask the Attorney-general, whom he saw in his place, whether he had. correctly understood the fact from the hon. Member, the Under Secretary of the Home Department, that a bill to regulate the Court of Bankruptcy was about to be brought forward by her Majesty's Government.
The Attorney Generalsaid, he believed it was true, that the Lord Chancellor would, in the course of the present Session, bring forward a bill to regulate the proceedings of the Court of Bankruptcy, and he hoped when it was before the House, it would be such as to meet with general approbation. With regard to the appointment of Mr. Vizard as Solicitor to the Home-office, he (the Attorney-General) had taken no part, directly or indirectly, in that appointment, but, at the same time, he felt bound to say, that he knew of no person who could more efficiently perform the duties of that office than that person, who was a gentleman of the highest honour and integrity.
Mr. Goulburnsuggested to his hon. and gallant Friend, that the question could be more conveniently brought forward when the time came for voting the money to be paid to the officer of whose appointment he complained. Without intending to say anything in the slightest degree disparaging to Mr. Vizard, he did not consider that sufficient grounds had been made out for the appointment by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he (Mr. Goulburn) would rather have the opinion of the Attorney-general on important points relating to the municipal law and other matters of a like nature, than the opinion of any solicitor whatever. He would, however, advise his hon. and gallant Friend not to press his motion for the present, but reserve it until the estimates were brought forward, though, if his hon. and gallant Friend did divide, he should vote with him.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that at the present hour, when hon. Members were all so anxious to get home to dinner—he should not trouble the House by a division, but comply with the suggestion of his right hon. Friend.
Motion negatived.—Adjourned.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Church Patronage (Scotland).—Read a second time:—Lease and Release; Entails Scotland Act Amendment.
Petitions presented. By Lord Poltimore, from various places, for the Extinction of Church Rates.—By Lord Wharncliffe, from Attorneys and Solicitors of Taunton, and other places, against the Prohibition of Marriages within certain degrees of Affinity.—By Lord Redesdale, and the Karl of Winchilsea, from two places in Oxfordshire, Ashford, New Romney, and other places, against any Alteration in the Corn-laws; and from the Inhabitants of Charlotte-street, Fitzroy-square, and from Inhabitants of Middlesex, for the Abolition of Tolls on South-wark, Waterloo, and Vauxhall Bridges.—By the Earls of Wicklow, and Charleville, from a Congregation in Donegal, and Knniskillen, against Church Patronage (Scotland).—By the Earl of Wilton, from Southwark, for the Abolition of the Tolls on the Metropolitan Bridges.—By the Bishop of Winchester, from Clergyman in his Diocese, for an Alteration of the Law for Rating Tithes.—By Earl Fitzwilliam, from Barnstaple, for the Extinction of Church Rates; and from Arbroath, Binglev, and Saddle-worth, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.

CORN LAWS.
Earl Fitzwilliamgave notice that he would, to-morrow, present a petition from Leeds, in favour of the repeal of the Corn Laws.
Lord Ashburtonwas desirous of knowing whether the noble Earl intended to go into the question generally on the presentation of the petition of which he had given notice. If he did so intend he ought to state the circumstance to their Lordships. Nothing was more inconvenient than that a question of such deep importance, and in which such vital interests were concerned, should he brought forward on the occasional presentation of petitions. But if the noble Earl was desirous of having the question fully and fairly entered into—let notice be given of it, and they would discuss the question on its general principles. If it were the intention of the noble Earl to do so to-morrow he should be most happy to take that opportunity of explaining what were his views on the subject.
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, that according to the state in which the matter at present stood, the proper course would be, to wait till the proceedings relating to this subject in the other House of Parliament (which was the proper quarter whence any proposition with reference to it should emanate) were regularly brought under their Lordships' view. When the question was thus introduced, he should be prepared to discuss it fully. If he should present the petition from Leeds to-morrow, he certainly should do so without any intention of entering into a long discussion on the corn-laws; but when the proper time arrived he should state what his intentions were, in order to

1475
attain that great object, which he, in common with Her Majesty's Government, had in view. But, with reference to the great town of Leeds (about the fifth manufacturing town in the kingdom), it was just that he should state, that the most wealthy and influential persons there, had thought it advisable, in the most decisive and authoritative manner they could think of, to come to certain resolutions with respect to this question, in order that their Lordships might be fully acquainted with their sentiments. That was the reason why he had not acted, with reference to this petition, in the ordinary manner, by merely laying it on the table; and he did not think he acted improperly in thus making known to their Lordships what were the opinions of great masses of people in relation to this question, many of them being men well and extensively informed on the subject.
Lord Ashburtonthought, that if they were to wait until the bill founded upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer's new project for obtaining money without taxes came before their Lordships, they would never be called upon to discuss this question at all. He did not here allude to the Corn Laws alone. He referred to the whole scheme for new modelling, as it was called, our financial system, to the grand project by which they were to raise revenue without taxation. He did not understand the hocus pocus by which this was to be accomplished—and the people who approved so highly of it never thought it necessary to look into the machinery and see how it was to be effected. Seriously, he was bound to say, that this was the most entire delusion and the most absurd bubble that was ever brought to the notice of an intelligent community.
Earl Fitzwilliam: The noble Lord had said, that this was an attempt to remodel the entire condition of the law. But, let it never be forgotten that these were new laws, which he (Earl Fitzwilliam) was ashamed to say, he, as a very young man, had supported. He could not, like the noble Lord, look back with the glorious satisfaction of thinking on the firm, wise, and powerful opposition which he gave to those laws, night after night, when the noble Lord stood alone against 500 united Members of the House of Commons. The noble Lord at that time declared those laws to be inconsistent with true commercial wisdom. He well recollected the noble Lord, in a very small minority, coming down to the House of Commons and de-
1476
nouncing the corn law measures on which they were then engaged as erroneous and uncommercial—He recollected the noble Lord—he was then a very young man—backed by the merchants, bankers, and traders of the city of London, raising his voice against what he very properly called a monstrous proposition, for monstrous it was, and monstrous it would still be called by every man who had a particle of commercial blood in his veins. But he was afraid that every drop of commercial blood had oozed from the noble Lord, since he had changed his character from that of a merchant and a liberal politician to that of a great landowner and an aristocrat. Notwithstanding the majorities which had voted against a revision and relaxation of the corn laws in that House, on the motions he had submitted on former occasions, he did not despair of such a measure being finally successful. Those majorities were gradually diminishing. When he first brought the question forward, knowing that the minority would be extremely small, he did not divide the House. The following year twenty-four noble Lords voted with him; and last year he had the satisfaction to receive the support of forty-two of their Lordships; and he believed that at the present moment there were between fifty and sixty noble Lords ready to record, by their votes, their disapprobation of this system. The noble Lord asked, why he had given notice of his intention to present a petition from the great town of Leeds, and had further inquired whether there were not other parties to be heard? That question was not quite so consistent with the historical memory of the noble Lord as they had a right to expect. Did he not recollect the petitions presented by the noble Duke (Buckingham) on a former day, from other parties, on this question, and did he not remember the speeches that were then made by noble Lords opposite? He was sorry that this discussion had been so inconveniently introduced, but it had not been introduced by him.
Lord Ashburtonwould say a few words in reply to the remarks which had been made relating personally to himself. It had been said, that his opinions were different now from what they had been twenty five years ago. Now, to a certain extent, he admitted this; but if it were entirely so, he thought that it was not a charge of a very serious nature. But the question on which his opinion had been formerly expressed was a very different one from that which at

1477
present engaged the public mind—and in reality he had not materially changed his views on the general subject. The question in which he had taken an active part. was in 1815, when a proposal was made, at the end of a long and expensive war, was to increase the protection from 65 s. or 66 s. up to 80 s. Now this was a very different matter. No person could then any, after the long war in which we had been engaged, how the interests of the country would settle down—in what position and in what relative footing commerce and agriculture would stand—and so, under such circumstances, he had thought it imprudent to do that for which the noble Earl now reproached himself with having done, namely, to increase, without duly considering and watching the condition in which the country would be placed after a few years of peace, the extent of protection. In 1828, the sole question was as to the amount of protection, and he certainly did not at that time approve of the sweeping measure proposed. He thought that the protection then asked for was excessive, and granting to the cultivators of the land more than that fair protection to which their position entitled them, and which their wants demanded. He did not then, nor could he now, approve of excessive protection. He did not then approve of a sweeping measure in their favour—he did not now approve of a more sweeping measure against them. His opinions—by the increased information and experience of twenty-five years—might have slightly varied—and whose had not? But in most respects and on general principles, they were materially the same.
Subject at an end.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
Lord Ellenboroughwished to put a question to the noble and learned Lord upon the woolsack. It would be in the recollection of the House that a measure had been some time since under their consideration, the object of which was to facilitate the administration of justice in the Court of Chancery, for which purpose it empowered the Lord Chancellor to form new rules for regulating the proceedings of that court. Now, he wished to know from the noble and learned Lord, whether any such rules had yet been prepared? It was the more necessary that attention should be called to the subject, as the law provided, that all such rules should remain on the Table of the House for at least thirty-six days of actual sitting. Sup-
1478
posing that the Session of Parliament were in the present year to he prolonged to the usual period, there would remain only three weeks time within which there could arise any practical advantage from the presentation of any draught of those proposed rules to the House.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the House was of course aware that there must be no ordinary difficulty in making new arrangements of the nature to which the noble Baron's question referred. He assured their Lordships that his attention had been earnestly and seriously directed to the subject; he had called in the assistance of the other judges of the Court, and the preparation of the rules had been to a great extent already matured, but yet not sufficiently so to admit of their being laid before Parliament. He admitted, that it was of great importance to complete the preparation of these rules as speedily as possible, but he was sure that the House would agree with him that to render them useful and efficient was a matter of still greater importance.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
The Duke of Argyllsaid, that in pursuance of a notice which he gave on Friday last, he now rose to present a bill for the better regulation of Church patronage in Scotland. Their Lordships were perfectly aware, that in the early part of the history of the Church of Scotland, as soon indeed as it became a regularly organised body, it was one of the fundamental laws of that Church, that no Minister should be forced upon any parish or body of the people, for the purpose of taking spiritual charge of them, or of discharging among them the sacred functions of the ministry, who was in any manner objectionable to them, either on account of grave and serious faults, or upon the less easily defined ground of want of congeniality with them in religious feeling; and no attempt was ever made in any of those Acts of Parliament, which adopted the Church of Scotland as the national church, and conferred endowments on her to fetter the exercise of this principle. It was repeatedly confirmed by different Acts of Assembly, and enforced whenever the Church, being at any time free from persecution, had it in her power to act without restraint in ecclesiastical affairs. This was the state of the Church government for twenty years previous to the Act of Parliament of the 11th of Queen Anne, which restored to patrons their former powers, of which they had been deprived

1479
by the acts of 1649 and 1690. During the period that elapsed between the acts of 1690 (by which all the laws and privileges of the Church of Scotland were confirmed) and the subsequent act of 1712, restoring patronages to the former lay patrons, the right of nomination and presentation to vacant benefices had been exercised by the heritors and Kirk Session, subject always to the approval, or disapproval of the congregations, thus effectually preserving the principle of non-intrusion of Ministers upon reclaiming, that is to say, refusing parishes; and although the act of 1690 sufficiently secured all the rights and privileges of the Scottish Church, they were still further and more solemnly confirmed to her by the Act of Union between Scotland and England in 1707, without which confirmation of her rights the Church of Scotland then, as now, a most powerful and influential body, would never have given her consent to the union, and by her refusal must have thrown much difficulty and delay in the way of that wise and salutary measure. Unhappily, however, a Ministry was appointed by Queen Anne, who sought to forward their views for the restoration of the Stewarts, by oppressing the Scottish Church, whose known attachment to the Protestant succession in the house of Hanover would have proved a formidable impediment to their ulterior views; and they, therefore, moved the British Parliament and the Crown to pass an act for the restoration of patronages to the former patrons, without any reservation of the rights of the congregation to give their approval or dissent from the appointment of any presentees that might be offered to them by their patrons. Now, had the act of 1712 reserved that fundamental law of the Church, that no minister should be forced upon a reclaiming parish, there would have been little cause to regret an act that restored the right of presenting to vacant parishes to its ancient possessors; for in the opinion of many, and it was decidedly his own, the former patrons were as likely to present fit and proper persons to vacant parishes as the heritors and Kirk Session, between whom many inconvenient disputes and delays might arise; and, if bound and restricted by the free exercise of the non-intrusion principle on the part of the people, this restoration might have proved an advantage and a blessing to the Church of Scotland. Upon that principle he had ventured to submit the bill which he held in his hand for their consideration; and
1480
to prove that he had not done so upon rash and inconsisderate grounds, he should now proceed to read some letters from the most celebrated and influential leaders of the dominant party in the Church, showing that they were far from thinking the total abolition of patronage, as by law established, the only, or even the best way of settling the unhappy differences at present existing in the Church of Scotland, and of preventing the recurrence of those disputes between patrons and congregations of which they had seen of late too many examples. His Grace rend the following document:—
"MINUTE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY NON-INTRUSION COMMITTEE.
"Edinburgh, March 5, 1841.
"Dr. Gordon laid before the meeting a letter which he had received from the Duke of Argyll, dated the 3rd instant, together with a copy of the answer which he had returned to his Grace, dated the 5th instant. These letters were in the following terms, viz.:—
"HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF ARCYLL. TO THE REV. DR. GORDON, EDINBURGH.
"Dear Sir,—I am very sorry that, owing to the illness of ray son, I was not in my place in the House of Lords last night, when some statements were made by two noble Lords which appear to me to be likely to make an erroneous impression upon the House, so far as relates to a supposed wish upon the part of all non-intrusionists for the total abolition of patronage in the Church of Scotland.
"Now, Sir, I think myself authorised, from what fell from yourself and Mr. Candlish at the meeting which I had the pleasure of having with you a few days since in Edinburgh, to contradict upon your part and that of those who appointed you their committee, any wish of the kind; and I presume that I may also state that you are of opinion a measure founded upon the principles which we discussed at that time would be perfectly satisfactory to the Church.
"I think myself perfectly correct in my recollection of what passed at the time of our meeting; but it would be very desirable if you would favour me with your instructions in writing upon the subject, that no mistake may be made in any assertion I may think it necessary to make in the House of Peers.
"I have not yet seen any of the members of the deputation here, nor do I know their address, but shall endeavour to find them out to-morrow.—I remain, &c.
(Signed) "ARGYLL.
"London, March 3."
THE REV. DR. GORDON TO HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF ARGYLL.
"My Lord Duke,—I beg to acknowledge the letter which your Grace did me the honour to address to me on the 3rd.

1481
"In reference to the subject of conversation at the interview with which your Grace so kindly honoured my friend and myself in Edinburgh, I beg to say that we had no instructions from our constituents, the General Assembly's non-intrusion committee, even lo propose the abolition of patronage as one way of settling the present question regarding the appointment of ministers to the Church of Scotland, far less to press it as the only way of putting an end to the present unhappy collision between the civil and ecclesiastical courts. There is, indeed, a section of the Church, comprehending able and excellent men, who have always advocated anti-patronage principles; and in consequence of the late decisions in the civil courts, great numbers, perhaps a majority, of the Church of Scotland have united with them in petitioning for the abolition of patronage, on the ground that they see no other probable way of obtaining a measure that would secure the two great principles of non-intrusion and the spiritual independence of the Church. But I have no hesitation in saying, that the Church never has proposed, and does not now propose, the abolition of patronage as the only mode of settling the present most distressing question; and, that this assertion may not rest upon my individual opinion, I beg to enclose for your Grace's perusal a document, published by the authority of the General Assembly's non-intrusion committee, containing drafts of two bills, in either of which they would acquiesce. I take the liberty of especially requesting your Grace's attention to No. 1 of these drafts, and to the note appended to it, which I think proceeds on the very principle which had occurred to your Grace as a satisfactory mode of adjusting present differences. Neither the General Assembly nor its non-intrusion committee has ever taken any step inconsistent with the adherence of the Church to the inclosed measures; and I feel warranted to say, that in either the one or the other the Church will concur. Her great object, which she cannot abandon is to prevent the intrusion of ministers on reclaiming congregations, and the interference of the civil courts in matters spiritual.
"I have to request your grace's indulgence for this lenghtened letter, and I have the honour to be &c.,
(Signed) "ROBERT GORDON.
"Edinburgh, March 5, 1841."
The committee having considered the documents referred to, unanimously resolve as follows:—
"1. They approve of the above letter, ad dressed by Dr. Gordon to the Duke of Argyll and adopt that letter, in all its parts, as containing a correct representation of the views and sentiments entertained by this committee, and by the Church of Scotland, which this committee represents, in reference to the mailers which are treated in the said letter.
1482
"2. They renew an expression of their approbation of the above two drafts of bills, and record their conviction that an Act of Parliament passed in conformity with either of them would be acceptable to the Church, and would prove the means of averting the fatal calamities which now so imminently threaten the Church and country.
"Extracted from the minutes of the committee by
(Signed) "J. HAMILTON, Secretary."
"My Lord Duke—I very much regretted that I was not able to wait on your Grace when you passed through Edinburgh, being at that time confined to my room by an indisposition from which I have not yet wholly recovered, and am therefore obliged to write by an amanuensis.
"I have just read Dr. Gordon's letter to your Grace, and beg to state, that I entirely concur in the views which he has submitted to you. I feel it unnecessary to outer on the grounds of this concurrence, after the very able exposition which has been given of them by Mr. Hamilton in his last letter to the Duke of Wellington, printed some days ago, and which embodies not only a roost effective reply to a recent adverse article in the Quarterly Review, but which, apart from the controversy altogether, contains a full and impartial, and temperate exposition both of the present state of our Church question, and of the likeliest measure for its pacific and satisfactory settlement.
"The appearance of ibis pamphlet I reckon to be in the highest degree seasonable; as, within the compass of little more than an hour's reading; it has presented us much as will rectify many misconceptions, and give the reader a very distinct view both of our difficulties and our claims.
"I cannot conclude this letter without expressing the very grateful sense which I and many others entertain of your Grace's interest in the Church of Scotland.
"I have the honour to be, your Grace's most obliged and most obedient, servant.
"(Signed)
"THOMAS CHALMERS."
"Edinburgh, March, 1841.
From these letters, it must be evident, to their Lordships, that such a measure as now proposed for their consideration would meet with the approbation and concurrence of a very large portion of the Scottish clergy, and, he might safely add, with that of the majority of the Scotch nation at large. It was true, that he had heard it whispered, that the approbation of the Church might not be considered any recommendation of his measure, but he could not believe, that a prejudice at once so injurious to the character of that venerable Church and her clergy, and

1483
so unworthy of their Lordships, would be for a moment, allowed to influence the decision to which their Lordships would come on this important subject. He could not and would not believe, that with regard to a measure of which the benefit of the Church and people of Scotland were the sole objects, the opinions and wishes of that Church and people would be wholly disregarded, much less could he believe, that their Lordships would be prejudiced against any measure in favour of which they may be expressed. The object of the bill which he held in his hand was to give effect to the great principle of non-intrusion, which he had already endeavoured to explain as the fundamental law of the Church of Scotland. The bill was now on their Lordships' Table, and he must entreat for it their most serious, earnest; and patient consideration. To all those noble Lords in any way connected with Scotland, and, therefore, more fully aware of the intense excitement which there prevailed on this subject, he should say nothing to secure from them that earnest and patient attention which the subject so much demanded. But to those who were not so intimately connected with that part of the empire, he felt himself called upon to address a few words. He would endeavour to impress on their Lordships' mind the imperative necessity of conceding to the Church the free exercise of the principles for which she was now contending. Their Lordships might not, perhaps, be aware, that the act which restored to patrons their former powers, and made no provision for giving the people a voice in the appointment of their ministers, inflicted a heavy blow on the Established Church by securing the secession of a large body of her clergy and people, who felt, that they could not conscientiously remain in her communion while subjected to the operation of such a law. Under present circumstances, when there was not only no provision for consulting the will of the people in the settlement of their ministers, but when the highest judicial authority in the country had declared it incompetent in the church courts to take their will in any degree into consideration. Under these circumstances, he need scarcely say, that should an enactment to this effect be withheld, there was every reason to believe that a still larger number of members of the Established Church would separate from it, and the mischiefs which must ensue from such a division in the Church were too evident to require, that he should do
1484
more than allude to them. The want of some enactment to secure the non-intrusion principle, had been, in a great measure, the cause of the anti-patronage agitation which at various times had prevailed in Scotland. Much causeless alarm had been entertained that were the Church's demand for a legislative enactment to secure the non-intrusion principle to be listened to, it would only serve to encourage and foster that agitation by giving reason to hope for its ultimate success. He (the Duke of Argyll) had good grounds for believing, that were any measure similar to the one he had the honour to propose passed into a law, it would do more to allay the very strong feeling against patronage which now exists than anything else. This feeling had gained ground, it was gaining ground, and it was evident that it must continue to gain ground every day and every hour, that the matter was allowed to remain in its present state; and not until the Church had obtained the consent of the Legislature for some provisions to obviate the practical evils of patronage, could it be expected to diminish. That there always will exist, as there always had existed, a party in the Church who look upon patronage in any form as an evil, he had no wish to deny; but the very men who entertain these opinions, were well aware that were the proposed restriction of patronage carried into effect, they would have comparatively but few followers, as it was not easy to excite popular feeling upon a merely theoretical objection. In proof of this he would read a passage from a letter from Mr. Candlish, who is well known to entertain anti-patronage views:—
"My dear Duke—Those of us who hold anti-patronage opinions on principles, independent of the present struggle, see clearly that the passing of a sufficient measure of non-intrusion might, and necessarily would, supersede the agitation against patronage and diminish the probability of its abolition. But we prefer the security and peace of the church to any peculiar views of our own, and any plan effectually securing the fundamental principles which the church is pledged to maintain, will meet with our hearty support. Accordingly we fully concur in approving of either of the two measures sanctioned by the General Assembly's committee. But I may refer your grace to a much fuller and more able exposition of our case in the recent publication of John Hamilton, Esq. In that pamphlet justice is done to the views of the anti-patronage party, and the real bearing of these views on the present conflict is most satisfactorily explained. In the mode of settling the question

1485
proposed by Mr. Hamilton, we would all most cordially concur.
"My Lord Duke,
"Your Grace's most obedient servant,
(Signed) "ROBERT CANDLISH."
Edinburgh, March, 1841.
He had endeavoured shortly to lay before their Lordships the reasons which had induced him to adopt his present opinions on that subject, and such were the reasons which he ventured to hope would induce their Lordships to consider favourably the measure which he had laid on the Table. In conclusion, he felt it his duty to state his conviction that should that or some similar measure be ultimately refused by the legislature, the most lamentable consequences must ensue to Scotland, and he therefore once more entreated their Lordships, by every motive of religion, justice, and good policy, to pause and consider well ere they rejected the only apparent remedy for evils so great, and hitherto so much neglected. The noble Duke then moved that, the bill be read a first time, and stated that it was not his intention to move its second reading until after the meeting of the General Assembly.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that the bill of the noble Duke was nothing more nor less than un attempt to legalise what was called the veto, and to legalise it under circumstances more objectionable and more odious than its original language. He objected to the recognition of the principle of "the call" by the Legislature. The noble Duke's bill provided that if a majority of the male heads of families in a parish, communicants of the Church, should go before the Presbytery and state its dissent from the call, and after the Presbytery had failed to reduce the number to less than a majority, the Presbytery should be compelled to reject the presentee, though no reason should be assigned by the parties. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) had no objection to give full weight to the feelings and wishes of the people in these transactions; and in any mode by which that could be done so as to secure the real, genuine, and honest feelings of the people of Scotland he was at once disposed to concur. He thought that he had sufficiently provided for that in the bill which he introduced last year. He could mention one or two instances to show the ill effects and inconveniences which would result from the noble Duke's measure. A presentee was appointed to a parish, and the heads of fami-
1486
lies objected to him merely because he had been presented. The Presbytery failed to reduce the numbers more than one-half, and therefore they rejected him. Would the Legislature permit the law standing in the statute-book to be defeated by such a regulation as this? Again, a presentee might be objected to merely because he was compelled to take the oath of allegiance, and still the Presbytery would be bound to respect him. Was it to be tolerated that anything so monstrous should be sanctioned by Parliament? He could not, therefore, give any support whatever to a measure which would lead to such results. Even if their Lordships consented to make the mischievous concessions contained in the noble Duke's measure, what proof had they that such a concession would be either final or satisfactory? The manner in which the agitation had been carried on was not such as to entitle those parties to any such favour; and what their Lordships would not grant to reason he was sure they would never yield to fear.
The Earl of Roseberysuggested that there was great inconvenience in attempting to discuss a measure before it was printed, and it was scarcely a fair mode of treating a bill of that importance. There existed the most urgent necessity, in his opinion, of adopting some wise and comprehensive measure, since, if they did not, the difficulty of avoiding the abolition of patronage would increase and grow upon them year after year.
Lord Dunfermlinesaid, that there was an urgent necessity to put an end to the agitation on this subject which prevailed throughout Scotland; but the question was, would this measure have that effect? In his opinion, it would not; on the contrary, it contained within it, he thought, the seeds of future agitation. It was impossible that any State Church could co-exist with an entire abolition of patronage. If they were to give the patronage to the mule heads of families in communion with the Established Church, it would lead to contests and animosities throughout the country, which would not always be tempered with a regard for sacred things, or for the real interest of the Church. He was aware that an opinion prevailed to the effect that those who were opposed to the principle of the measure under discussion were by that means opposing popular right. He had all his life been the advocate of liberal measures based on constitutional principles, and in resisting this bill he

1487
conceived he was adopting a course which, more than any other, would tend to secure practical toleration, religious peace, and civil and religious liberty.
The Marquess of Breadalbanethought that if their Lordships did not pass some measure similar to that which had been laid on the Table, the destruction of lay patronage would be the inevitable consequence. He would remind their Lordships that the Church of Scotland was not merely an ecclesiastical corporation, as the laity had a full and fair portion of its authority. It had been asserted that the agitation in Scotland was merely a clerical agitation, but he was quite convinced that the people generally fully participated in the dislike to the present system. Neither was it of late date, for he could assure their Lordships that he had been a candidate for a seat in Parliament immediately after the Reform Bill, and that he was on that occasion pressed on all hands on the subject of Church patronage. He would entreat their Lordships to approach the question in a spirit of Christian benevolence, and to act up to the advice given by the Duke of Wellington in a letter to his noble Friend the noble Duke who had introduced the bill. It enlarged on the advantage of a State connexion, preserving the spiritual powers of the Church intact, and expressed a hope that such a settlement would be arrived at as would at once preserve existing rights and satisfy the reasonable wishes of the people. If they wish to come to a fair decision on the question they should consider it on Presbyterian grounds, and with a careful recollection of the feelings of the people. The Scottish people were strongly attached to their religion; they had made great sacrifices for it, and they would look with great suspicion on any attempt at tampering with its rules. The noble Marquess concluded by expressing his intention to express himself more fully on the merits of the bill when it should come on for a second reading.
The Earl of Haddingtonadmitted the agitation which existed on this subject in Scotland, but contended that it was more of a clerical character than otherwise. It was an agitation not springing from the people, but from a party. It was natural enough that if the people were told no man ought to be intruded on them against their will, they should agree in the sentiment; but the agitation which had been thus excited had not, he contended, been either general or spontaneous, and instead
1488
of increasing it was at present on the decline. It was true, that giving power to the Church in Scotland was at the same time, to a great extent, granting power to the laity; but he apprehended that the power proposed to be given would be given in an improper way. In short, it would be nothing more nor less than the old veto.
The Earl of Rodenobserved, that though this was, as the noble Marquess called it, an exclusively Scotch question, he could not refrain from taking a deep interest in it, owing to the grateful recollection which he had of the service which the clergy and people of Scotland had rendered to him on a question which he had deeply at heart—he meant the question of national education. He would not express any opinion on this bill that night; but would reserve himself for a future occasion, when it should be again under discussion. That some measure was necessary on this subject was now admitted on all hands. He trusted that, whatever measure their Lordships might ultimately pass, it would be one calculated to tranquillize the people of Scotland, and to enable the clergy of the Church of that country to carry on the administration of its affairs in that manner which had hitherto proved so eminently useful.
The Marquess of Normanbyobserved, that it was contrary to the usages of their Lordships' House, and was likely to prove practically inconvenient, to bring on a discussion without notice on the first reading of a bill. He merely rose to say, that neither he nor any other noble Lord must be considered as pledged either to the principles or to the details of this bill, because they did not upon this occasion offer any objection to them.
The Earl of Aberdeenobserved, that it was doubtless contrary to the usages of the House to raise a discussion on the first reading of a bill. The usual, indeed he might say the invariable, practice was to lay a bill on the Table, and have it read a first time without remark. The explanation of, and the discussion on, the bill took place on the second reading. But, as the noble Duke had made a speech on the first reading of this bill, and had then deferred the second reading of it till after the meeting of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, he had thought it necessary to offer a few observations to their Lordships in behalf of the view which he had formerly taken on this subject.
Bill read a first time,

EXPLANATION OF FELONY.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that their Lordships were aware that in former times there existed a custom called benefit of clergy, by which persons who could claim benefit of clergy were exempted from the operation of the law. In the time of Edward 6th an act was passed giving to Members of that House the same benefit. An act was passed in 1828, by which benefit of clergy was abolished, but no provision was made with regard to benefit of peerage, and doubts were entertained, he did not say that he entertained doubts, as to whether, notwithstanding the act of 1828, the benefit of the act of Edward 6th remained in force with regard to the Members of that House. He had no hesitation in saying that there was not a Member of that House who would wish any doubt to remain on this subject, and it was to put an end to any doubt that might exist that he introduced the present measure, for the purpose of distinctly and explicitly declaring that benefit of peerage should be abolished. The noble and learned Lord moved the first reading of the bill.
Bill read a first time.
Adjourned.