Sitting of 11 February 1842

MINUTES.
New Member. George Arkwright, Esq., for Leominster.
Bill. Considered,—Loan Societies.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Yorke, from Scarborough, and other places, by Mr. Milner Gibson, several, from Manchester, by Mr. Sharman Crawford, several, from Rochdale, by Dr. Bowring, several, from Bolton and its neighbourhood, by Mr. Brotherton, from various Factories in Lancashire, by Mr. O'Connell, from Roman Cathalics of Dublin, and by several other Members, from a great number of places, for the Repeal of the Corn and Provision Laws.—From Winchinhampton, for Supppression of Idolatry (India).—By Mr. O'Connell, from Clontarf, and a number of other places in Ireland, for the Repeal of the Union.—By Mr. J. Young, Colonel Verner, and Mr. Grogan, from Presbyterians of Dublin, and other places, for making valid Marriages between Presbyterians and members of the Church of England.—By Lord John Russell, from Burgesses of Queensborough, for Inquiry into the Acts of that Corporation.—By Mr. Stuart Wortley, from Meltham, and Cheltenham, for a Revision of the Registration of Voters; and from Joseph Hutton, for the Free Importation of Colonial Produce.—By Mr. Metcalfe, from Tynemouth, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.

PROHIBITORY DUTIES ON FOOD.
Mr. Milner Gibsonwished to ask a question of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth. By the existing tariff, the importation of salt meat, fresh meat, live cattle, sheep, and swine, was wholly prohibited. Did her Majesty's Government propose to continue that prohibition.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that on the day when he should open the views of her Majesty's Government with respect to the financial and commercial policy which they were prepared to recommend to the House, he would fully state their intentions with respect to these and other articles in the tariff. He hoped, therefore, that he would not be pressed into any premature discussion; and he trusted that the hon. Gentleman would be content now with the expression of his opinion, that it was not desirable to maintain the system of prohibition which now existed. It appeared to him that a system of absolute prohibition was altogether wrong.

TURKISH COMMERCIAL TREATY.
Dr. Bowringrose to put the question of which he had given notice, and which he had postponed to afford the right hon. Baronet an opportunity of gaining a knowledge of the facts; and it would be necessary for him to make a short statement. By the old commercial conventions with the Ottoman empire a duty of three per cent. was levied on all goods ex-
294
ported from, or imported into, Turkey. In the progress of time a great many abuses and monopolies were introduced into the interior of the country. In order to induce the Turkish government to remove those abuses, which that government contended did not affect the treaties with foreign powers, our government had agreed to allow a further duty of nine per cent. on exports, and two per cent. on imports, as an equivalent for the overthrow of internal taxation and monopoly, making a total of twelve per cent, on exports, and five per cent, on imports. The Turkish government thereupon abolished the internal taxes, and, having so abolished them, Russia and other countries, who were not parties to the treaty of 1838, said," we will stand upon the antient regulation;" and at this moment, while the exports to Great Britain were charged with a duty of 12 per cent., the exports to Russia were only charged with a duty of 3 per cent.; and while the subjects of her Majesty paid a duty of 5 per cent, imports, the subjects of Russia and other countries, not parties to the treaty, only paid a duty of 3 per cent. He would, therefore, ask the right hon. Baronet whether he was cognizant of the fact, and if he were, whether any steps had been taken to make representation to the Turkish government, or to give effect to another clause in the treaty, by which it was stipulated that Great Britain should be placed on the terms of the most favoured nation?
Sir R. Peelbelieved that, with the exception of Russia, and perhaps Naples, every country in Europe had entered into a treaty with Turkey, similar to that entered into by this country in 1838. What the hon. Gentleman had stated was perfectly true, and Russia continued to have the advantage of exporting and importing goods on more favourable terms than other countries. The Russian tariff, however, would, he believed, expire in 1843. The question was, whether Turkey had not entered into incompatible treaties. She had entered into a treaty with Russia, that Russia should send imports and receive exports at certain duties, and with this country into another treaty at higher rates of duty. Whether the other article of the treaty, therefore, by which we were entitled to the position of the most favoured nation, could be enforced, was a matter of grave consideration. The rates of duty in the convention of 1838, were

295
distinctly specified. He should not have the slightest objection to the production of the consular returns when they arrived, for the purpose of showing the effects of the treaty in different parts of Turkey.
Dr. Bowring,after the production of those papers, would call the attention of the House to the effects of these duties in Turkey.

EXCHEQUER BILL FRAUD.
Lord John Russellbegged to inquire of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what course he proposed to take with reference to the motion of which he had given notice, upon the subject of the Exchequer Bill fraud. That notice at present stood for Tuesday. Was it intended that the appointment should be persevered in, to the exclusion of the debate upon the Corn-laws, which, no doubt, would extend over that evening; or would the right hon. Gentleman give way, and bring on his motion on a subsequent evening?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he was entirely in the hands of the House. He was perfectly ready to proceed with the motion on Tuesday; but if it was thought preferable that the debate on the Corn-laws should take precedence of it on that day, he would postpone it until Thursday.
Mr. F. T. Baringsaid, that great anxiety prevailed in the public mind upon the character and result of this motion, and he thought that it was highly desirable that some intimation of what was proposed to be done by the right hon. Gentleman should be given. At present, the notice of the right hon. Gentleman was merely that he should call the attention of the House to the subject.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that there were several reasons which induced him to think that the better course would be, to introduce the whole subject to the House at once, rather than make any statement before hand, which might create excitement in the public mind. He might at once give notice that he would bring forward his motion on Thursday instead of on Tuesday.

POOR-LAW AMENDMENT ACT.
Mr.Ferrandbegged to make an inquiry of
296
the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with regard to the Poor-law Amendment Act. The right hon. Baronet had, on a former evening, stated that it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to bring forward a measure for the continuance of that act, and of the powers of the commissioners, but that that measure would not be introduced until after Easter. In March the election of guardians took place, and by the existing act it was enacted, that the votes of the rate-payers should be taken, and returned as the Poor-law commissioners should direct and order. Officers had been hitherto appointed who had been paid, and it was believed that through some of the northern districts of England there had been foul play, guardians being returned who were favourable to the new Poor-law, while those opposed to it, but to whom the electors bad, in truth, given a majority, were declared to be not elected. He had to ask the right hon. Baronet to use his influence in Somerset-house, and he hoped it was considerable, to induce the Poor-law commissioners to issue an order, that during the ensuing election, no paid officer should interfere with the voting.
Sir James Grahamwas somewhat at a loss to understand the import of the question of his hon. Friend, the Member for Knaresborough, for it partook more of the character of advice than inquiry; but he would state, that with respect to the approaching elections of guardians, he conceived, that it would be exceedingly inconvenient, at the present time, to make any alteration in the arrangements for electing them. The Poor-law commissioners, by an order directed to most of the unions, recommended, that the clerks should be the returning officers at these elections, and the reasons for that recommendation were stated in the circular of the Poor-law commissioners, and fully justified the adoption of the course which the commissioners proposed. They were aware of the importance of their acquaintance with the forms of election, their necessary knowledge of the local interests of the officers, and the impossibility of their becoming candidates for the office of guardian. If the hon. Gentleman wished to know what his (Sir James Graham's) opinion was upon the subject, he would confess, that he could not take the hon.

297
Gentleman's advice, because those reasons to which he had referred were, in his mind, satisfactory, as showing the propriety of the steps which had been already taken, and for the appointment of the clerks to the unions as the returning officers. If his hon. Friend, however, wished to bring forward any case against any of the returning officers, who were clerks, and might be punished by the commissioners for misconduct, he could assure him, on the part of the commissioners, that for past or future delinquencies, any such persons should be visited with condign punishment, and every facility should be given to bring such cases to a satisfactory conclusion.

GRAND JURY LAWS IN IRELAND.
Mr. W. S. O'Brienbegged to ask the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, whether there were any intention on the part of her Majesty's Government, to bring forward any measure with reference to the Grand Jury Laws in Ireland.
Lord Eliotwould have been glad if the hon. Member had given him notice of his intention to put this question to him, as he could not but think, that upon all such subjects of inquiry it was highly desirable that notice should be given. A commission, the hon. Member was aware, had been sitting upon the subject of the Grand Jury Laws in Ireland, and he believed that they had agreed upon their report, though it was not yet drawn up, or placed in his hands. He did not imagine that there would be any difficulty in laying it on the Table of the House when it was completed; but any measure to be proposed by the Government must in a great degree depend on the recommendations to be made in the report.
Mr. Young, a member of the Commission said, that the greater portion of the recommendations to be made by the commissioners had been agreed upon, but all the final details had not yet been adopted. He thought, that the report might be laid before the House at the end of about a fortnight.

MORTALITY—NORTH DUBLIN WORKHOUSE.
Mr. Shawbegged to ask a question of the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with regard to the mode in which the Poor-law had been carried out in Ireland. Considerable excitement had been produced in Dublin by an un-
298
usual mortality among infant children in the workhouse of the North Dublin Union. He requested to be informed whether the right hon. Baronet had directed any inquiry to be made into the circumstances attending this melancholy occurrence, and whether he had any objection to lay the report elicited by any such inquiry, before the House.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that the moment he had seen the accounts of the great mortality in the union workhouse referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, he had directed an immediate inquiry to be instituted. In consequence of that inquiry a special report had been made, to the production of which he had not the least objection.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
Mr. Roebuckbegged to ask the hon. and learned Attorney-general, when he thought it likely that the bill, of his intention to introduce which he had given notice, relative to the amendment of the Municipal Corporations Act, would be printed? Great anxiety existed in reference to this subject, which he thought it would be desirable to calm.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that he proposed to bring in the bill on Monday next. He begged to be allowed to state, that there was some difficulty in reference to the terms of its provisions, as to the protection to be given to proceedings already in progress. He had received various communications from different parts of the kingdom upon the subject, to which, and to the suggestions contained therein, he was anxious to give his consideration.

THE MEDICAL PROFESSION.
Mr. Hawesbegged to inquire of the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, whether there was any intention, on the part of the Government, to bring forward in the course of the present Session any measure upon the subject of the medical profession?
Sir James Grahamsaid, if the hon. Gentleman meant to ask him whether he would pledge himself to lay a bill on the Table of the House during the present Session, his reply was, that he could give no such pledge. On the other hand, he begged to state, that considering the question of great importance, he had directed his attention to it during the recess, and

299
was endeavouring to frame a measure upon the subject. He did not despair yet of laying it on the Table of the House.

SYRIA.
Sir Charles Napierrose, in pursuance of notice, to ask the right hon. Baronet, whether he had any objection to lay before the House a copy of the instructions given by Sir Robert Stopford to General Mitchell, General Jochmus, and Captain Stewart, after the submission of Mehemet Ali; also the instructions given by Lord Ponsonby to General Jochmus and Mr. Wood; likewise, if any correspondence had taken place between the British and Turkish governments, relative to the amelioration of the inhabitants of Lebanon, as was promised by the Allied Powers? The hon. and gallant officer said, he had been induced to ask the last question in consequence of his having received from very high authority a statement that the condition of the inhabitants of Lebanon was one of increased distress, and that they were now worse off than when we had first landed there. Quarrels had arisen, too, it appeared, between certain classes, and a great loss of life had taken place; but although the Turkish government had been applied to, the Pacha had refused to send any assistance.
Sir Robert Peelwould answer the questions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the order in which they stood in the notice of motion which he had given. First, he asked whether there was any objection to lay before the House a copy of the instructions given by Sir Robert Stopford to General Mitchell, General Jochmus, and Captain Stewart, after the submission of Mehemet Ali. In answer to this question, he had to state that he had been unable to find in the public departments to which he had access any record of these papers. Search had been made in the Admiralty and Foreign-office, but no trace could be found of such instructions. Reference was indeed found to be made to such instructions, but they themselves were not forthcoming. The second question was, whether there was any objection to produce the instructions given by Lord Ponsonby to General Jochmus and Mr. Wood? His answer to this must be similar to what which he had given to the first question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that the instructions could not
300
be found, and he was unable, therefore, to state whether there was any objection to their production or not. Thirdly, as to whether any correspondence had taken place between the British and Turkish governments relative to the amelioration of the inhabitants of Lebanon, as was promised by the Allied Powers? He had to state that frequent correspondence had taken place, and the Porte had been urged in the strongest manner to comply with the assurance which had been given. Since Sir Stratford Canning had left this country as ambassador to the Ottoman court, instruction had been given him to urge upon the Porte the necessity of complying with its assurances of making every effort to prevent disorder in Syria, and ameliorate the condition of its subjects in Lebanon. He did not think it would promote the object the hon. and gallant Gentleman had in view, if the correspondence applied for were produced, and he should therefore be permitted to exercise his discretion in withholding it. However, he would state, that application had been made to the Porte to fulfil the engagements it had entered into, both by the present and the late Government, in the most urgent manner. He might take this opportunity of referring to an erroneous impression which commonly existed, that this country had declared itself the special protector of some portion of the population of Syria. The Druses supposed themselves to have a particular claim upon Great Britain. What we had to do was to procure the amelioration of all the subjects of the Porte in Syria generally, without reference to religious principles. He would assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that every effort on the part of the present Government would be made to cause the Porte to fulfil its engagements with respect to the amelioration of the condition of its subjects, but at present he could not accede to the motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
Sir C. Napiersaid that it was very much to be lamented that the despatches to which he had alluded were not to be found, because it would appear, from statements which had been published in the Malta Correspondent, that after Admiral Stopford had, in the most humane manner, as it was believed in accordance with the instructions which he had received from home, suffered Ibrahim Pacha to retreat without opposition, and had even assisted

301
him in that retreat, General Jochmus, in obedience to instructions which he had received from Lord Ponsonby, proceeded to take measures for the destruction of his troops, and had boasted that he had destroyed between 20,000 and 30,000 human beings after Mehemet Ali had submitted, and after that submission had been accepted by the Porte.

LORD ASHBURTON.
Mr. Mark Philipssaid, that when he had yesterday given notice of his intention to move for a copy of the letter from Mr. Amory to Lord Palmerston, dated August 28, 1841, together with its accompanying papers, and of the correspondence which followed thereon between Lord Aberdeen, Lord Canning, Mr. Amory, and Mr. Kinder, he was not aware of the absence of the noble Lord to whom the motion referred; and as he was the last person who would wish to take any unfair advantage, it appeared to him that it would be better, and more consistent with propriety, if he did not now press for the production of those papers. He hoped the House would allow him to state, in justification of his conduct, the reason which had induced him to bring forward the motion. He had seen in the "Circular to Bankers" (a paper most widely circulated) certain statements calculated, as he thought, to prejudice Mr. Kinder. That gentleman was a friend of his late colleague, and, in company with his colleague, he had last year waited on the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, to lay a statement of the case before him, because he thought that Mr. Kinder had received treatment in Mexico of which he had a right to complain. As he conceived this gentleman to be suffering under the loss of property, and as statements calculated to injure him in the public estimation were made, he had thought it right to call for the production of these papers. He would now withdraw his motion, and he begged to assure the friends of the noble Lord, that he would not renew it without giving them ample notice of his intention.

JUDICIAL RESIGNATIONS — SCOTLAND.
Mr. Fox Maulemoved
"That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a return of the number of jury cases in the first division of the Court of Session, from the 1st day of January 1839, till the 31st day
302
of July 1841; specifying those in which the late Lord President of the Court of Session presided, and those in which any other and what judge presided."
With reference to the debate of last night, he begged to say that, if he had fallen into any error in the statements which he had made with respect to the learned individual above alluded to, he was most ready to offer every compensation in his power. These returns, however, to which he hoped there would be no objection, would put the public in possession of the real merits of the case, and of the truth or falsehood of his assertions.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that it was not his wish to revive the debate of last night, but he understood this motion to have been induced by a difference on a matter of fact, which had arisen between the right hon. Gentleman who had sat down, and the learned Lord Advocate (Sir W. Rae), and for the purpose of showing whether the right hon. Gentleman had, through misapprehension, made an erroneous statement upon a subject upon which, undoubtedly, he had expressed a very strong belief. No one who knew the right hon. Gentleman, he was persuaded, could suppose, that he would make a statement which he did not believe to be true, but he must say, on that side of the House, that it was impossible to accede to the motion which had now been made. The motion of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), it appeared to him, had implied an attack upon the learned Lord President of the Court of Session; but this appeared to him to import even a more direct attack. As he had said before, it was not his wish to revive the discussion of the subject. On the motion of the noble Lord, the House had expressed its opinion most unequivocally, and he had no doubt, that if the right hon. Gentleman pressed the present motion to a division, the House would confirm their decision of the previous night, for he should feel it to be his duty to oppose the motion, even if the House were called on to divide.
Mr. Fox Maulesaid, that after the refusal of the right hon. Baronet to produce the return for which he had moved, he should decline to press the question to a division; but at the same time he must take the opportunity of saying, that his purpose had been equally answered, so far as he was concerned, whether his motion was acceded to or not, because it appeared

303
to him, that the refusal of the right hon. Baronet was a ready admission, that he was not wrong in the statement which he had made. Although he was not desirous of renewing the discussion, he must say, that the right hon. Baronet had not taken the course which he considered the most prudent for his own purpose. He did not think, that the returns would at all affect the character of any person, but they would merely state what was the fact, upon which a difference existed—a matter of fact upon which he conceived the public had a right to be informed.
Mr. Wakleyregretted, that the right hon. Gentleman should be content to withdraw his motion.
Mr. F. Maule:I do not withdraw it; I only said I would not press it to a division.
Mr. Wakleysaid, at all events, he could not but express his astonishment and deep regret, that a motion of this kind should be opposed by the Government. The adoption of such a course by the dominant faction, in his mind, foretold the most awful danger to the institutions of this country. The party opposite were a most powerful party, and maintained a large array in that House: they were supported by the aristocracy of England; the people of England paid the judges, and was it to be understood, that the party now in power threw a shield over the judges, and would not allow their conduct to be investigated by that House? In the present case an allegation of the most serious character had been made as to the conduct of a judge in the discharge of his duties. It was said also, that he had held office for a political purpose, while in a state of mind which rendered him incapable of discharging the duties imposed upon him, and which the community were entitled to demand of him. On the other side, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate declared those statements to be wholly and entirely unfounded. This was a question in which the issue was not only between the parties in that House, but between one of those parties and the people of England. He insisted on the right of the people of England to know the truth or falsehood of this allegation; and he declared, that he was at a loss to understand the principle of the policy of the Government which had induced them not to accede to this motion. What was the return moved for? It was a return of the
304
number of jury cases in the first division of the Court of Session, from the 1st of January, 1839, to the 31st of July, 1841; specifying those in which the late Lord President of the Court of Session presided, and those in which any other and what judge presided. Was there anything unfair in that motion? or could there have been any motion of a more candid or of a more honest nature? It related simply to a matter of fact, and not to a matter of inference; and was that House to be told, that the executive Government refused to comply with such a motion? What might the judges infer from such a course? That it was no consequence how much they might neglect their duties—that they might attend or not to the execution of those functions which were properly demandable of them, and that, of whatever neglect they might be guilty—there was no fear of investigation or reprehension from that House. The right hon. Gentleman near him (Mr. Fox Maule) had said, that his duties had been neglected by the judge, and performed by others. The hon. and learned Lord Advocate had contended, that that judge had not been absent on one occasion. He reiterated that statement, and he made that allegation upon his honour, as a gentleman and as a Member of Parliament. If under these circumstances the Government refused to comply with the terms of the motion, only one impression could exist in the public mind, and that would be, of the entire truth of what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth. He did hope and trust, that the right hon. Baronet would see the propriety of altering his decision, and would see at once, that there could be no objection to the terms of the motion being complied with.
Mr. Roebuckhaving, in reality no feeling upon this matter, either as regarded one party or the other, would beg to suggest to the right hon. Baronet the peculiar position in which that House stood with reference to the administration of justice. The judges could not be removed by the Crown, but on an Address of the two Houses of Parliament, who were therefore the supervisors of their conduct, and of their mode of discharging their functions. It should be a matter of course that this motion should be complied with. He put it as a constitutional point of law, that when one of the Func-

305
tionaries of the land did not properly discharge his duty, or was supposed not to discharge his duty properly, it was a matter of course that the House should have all requisite information upon the subject. Cæsar's wife was above suspicion; the judges should also be above suspicion. But he asked the right hon. Baronet whether it were possible, that under the existing circumstances the learned judge, whose character had been attacked, could be above suspicion if the present motion was rejected.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the possibility or propriety of acceding to any particular motion could not be decided upon with reference to the mere form of that motion, but the object and the spirit of it must be taken into consideration. The ground on which he had opposed the motion of the noble Lord last night was, not that in itself there could be any especial objection to its being granted, though there was a departure from the usual course in producing the terms in which a judge resigned, but in reference to which it might be observed that a judge, in making stipulations, need never commit them to paper, but might couch his official letter of resignation in the commonest and plainest terms; but the ground on which he had opposed that motion was, that he had thought that it conveyed a reflection, an unjust reflection, against two judges, whose conduct was perfectly above reproach, and free from suspicion. The right hon. Gentleman, who had brought forward the present motion, had made a statement which had been contradicted on that side of the House, and upon this point a difference of opinion prevailed.
Mr. Fox Maulebegged to explain. He had stated that during a certain time a retired judge had not sat, where he ought to have sat, in a particular court. The learned Lord Advocate had stated that this assertion was totally without foundation.
Sir Robert Peel:The right hon. Gentleman had brought forward a motion tonight which was implied in that of the noble Lord; but he felt that the course of the debate last night had been so completely against him, that he had now declined going to a division. In point of fact, the debate of last night had been entirely unfavourable to hon. Gentlemen opposite; but the right hon. Gentleman was so alarmed by the course which he had taken, that he was now doing all he
306
could to resume the discussion which had been already once terminated. The motion now made was, in point of fact, tantamount to that which had been made last night; it was founded on the same principle, and he must say, that if the Government had consented to the production of these returns, after what had occurred last night, he believed that it would be thought that they acquiesced in the reflections attempted to be cast upon the late learned Lord President. The Lord President had retired from office, and no longer held any public situation; and though he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Bath that that House did exercise, and ought to exercise, a control over the conduct of the judges, yet he was certain that if they chose on every occasion to call for returns with respect to any particular judge, and to execute the power which they no doubt possessed, the effect of it would be to prejudice the administration of justice. He took this motion in connexion with that of last night, and he must say that he thought an acquiescence in it would be implying a reflection on the judge, to which he felt satisfied that he was not open.
Mr. O'Connellwould say one word only upon this subject. He thought that as the fact upon which a difference of opinion existed was one upon which authentic information could be given, it ought to be secured. Her Majesty's Government could authenticate the statement which had been advanced, and why did they not do it? Because they were afraid of the result. The practice of removing a judge from one court to make him chief of another court was objectionable, but it was still worse to make the appointment of judges anything like hereditary, and that a father should be succeeded by a son. [No, no.] He had understood this was the case. At any rate, as a judge was paid by the public, had it not a right to know whether he had earned his salary by his attendance in court? It was a great evil that the motion was to be set aside, not on its merits, but on some technical ground. All that he required was, that the facts of the case should be obtained and laid before the House. When excuses were made for non-attendance in court, it should be known whether this arose from habitual or accidental ill health.
Mr. Hope Johnstonewas understood to say, that the impression on his mind was,

307
that the statement of the right hon. Member for Perth was greatly exaggerated. His own belief was, that the President was prevented from attending in court from an accidental attack of illness which any man was liable to, and not from any continued infirmity. He confessed that he did not feel any objection to the production of the return, and should, therefore, not vote against it. He could not help expressing his regret that the right hon. Baronet should feel himself called upon by circumstances to resist the motion.
Sir R. Peelwished it to be distinctly understood that he did not resist the motion from any fear of the result.
Mr. Hope Johnstonedid not imagine that the opposition of the right hon. Baronet to the motion arose from anything of a personal feeling, but from some matter of general policy.
The House divided—Ayes 113; Noes 139: Majority 26.

List of the AYES.

Armstrong, H. A.

Granger, T. C.

Aldam, H. A.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Barclay, D.

Guest, Sir J.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Hall, Sir B.

Barnard, E. G.

Harris, J. Q.

Bell, J.

Hastie, A.

Bernal, R.

Hatton, V.

Blake, Sir V.

Hawes, B.

Bowes, J.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Bowring, Dr.

Heathcoat, J.

Brodie, W. B.

Heneage, E.

Brotherton, J.

Hill, Lord M.

Browne, hon. W.

Hindley, C.

Bryan, G.

Holdswortb, J.

Buller, C.

Howard, hn. C. W. G.

Busfield, W.

Howard, hon. H.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Hutt, W.

Childers, J. W.

Jardine, W.

Clay, Sir W.

Johnson, Gen.

Colborne,hn.W.N.R.

Johnstone, A.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Larpent, Sir G. de H.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Layard, Capt.

Denistoun, J.

Leader, J. T.

Duncan, G.

Mangles, R. D.

Duncomhe, T.

Marshall, W.

Dundas, D.

Martin, J.

Easthope, Sir J.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Ebrington, Viscount

Mitchell, T. A.

Elphinstone, H.

Morris, D.

Ferguson, Col.

Muntz, G. F.

Fitzalan, Lord

Napier, Sir C.

Forster, M.

O'Brien, W. Smith

Fox, C. R.

O'Connell, Dan.

French, F.

O'Connell M. J.

Gibson, T. M.

O'Connell, J.

Gill, T.

O'Connor, Don

Gordon, Lord F.

Ogle S.C. H.

308

Palmerston, Visct.

Strickland, Sir G.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Strutt, E.

Philips, M.

Thorneley, T.

Pinney, W.

Towneley, J.

Plumridge, Capt.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Ponsonby, hon. J. G.

Tufnell, H.

Powell, C.

Tuite, H. M.

Rawdon, Col.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Reade, W. M.

Wall, C. B.

Redington, T. N.

Ward, H. G.

Ricardo, J. L.

Wawn, J. T.

Rundle, J.

White, L.

Russell, Lord J.

White, H.

Scholefield, J.

Wilson, M.

Scott, R.

Wood, G. W.

Smith, rt. hn. R. V.

Yorke, H. R.

Sombre, D. O. Dyce

TELLERS.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Roebuck,

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Wakley, T.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Drummond, H H.

Acland, T. D.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Ackers, J.

Egerton, W. T.

Adare, Visct.

Eliot, Lord

Alexander, N.

Emlyn, Viscount

Allix, J. P.

Escott, B.

Antrobus, E.

Feilden, W.

Arkwright, G.

Ferrand, W. B.

Ashley, Lord

Fitzroy, Capt.

Astell, W.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Baillie, Col.

Forbes, W.

Baillie, H. J.

Fuller, A. E.

Baird, W.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Balfour, J. M.

Gladstone, rt. hn.W.E.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Beckett, W.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Bell, M.

Grant, Sir A. C.

Beresford, Major

Greenall, P.

Blakemore, R.

Greene, T.

Boldero, H. G.

Grimsditch, T.

Borthwick, P.

Grogan, E.

Botfield, B.

Halford, H.

Broadley, H.

Hamilton, W. J.

Broadwood, H.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Bruce, Lord E.

Hawkes, T.

Buck, L. W.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Buckley, E.

Herbert, hon. S.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Hodgson, R.

Campbell, A.

Holmes, hn. W. A'Ct.

Chelsea, Viscount

Hope, A.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Hope, G. W.

Christmas, W.

Hughes, W. B.

Christopher, R. A.

Jermyn, Earl

Clerk, Sir G.

Johnson, W. G.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Kemble, H.

Collett, W. R.

Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.

Colvile, C. R.

Conolly, Col.

Law, hon. C. E.

Corry, right hon. H.

Leicester, Earl of

Cresswell, B.

Lincoln, Earl of

Cripps, W.

Litton, E.

Crosse, T. B.

Lockhart, W.

Damer, hon. Col.

Lopes, Sir R.

Denison, E. B.

Lyall, G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Lygon, hon, Gen.

Mackenzie, T.

Sheppard, T.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Shirley, E. J.

Mahon, Viscount

Shirley, E. P.

Mainwaring, T.

Smith, A.

Manners, Lord J.

Somerset, Lord G.

March, Earl of

Stanley, Lord

Marsham, Viscount

Stanley, E.

Martin, C. W.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Marton, G.

Taylor, T. E.

Milnes, R. M.

Tennent, J. E.

Morgan, O.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

Munday, E. M.

Tollemache, J.

Neville, R.

Trollope, Sir J.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Trotter, J.

Northland, Viscount

Verner, Col.

O'Brien, A. S.

Waddington H, S.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Pollock, Sir F.

Whitmore, T. C.

Praed, W. T.

Wodehouse, E.

Pringle, A.

Wood, Col. T.

Rae, rt. hn. Sir W.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Rashleigh, W.

Young, J.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Rous, hon. Capt.

TELLERS.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Sandon, Viscount

Baring, H.

COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE AT CHURCH.
Mr. Monckton Milnessaid, it might be in the recollection of some Members of that House, that towards the end of the last Session, he gave notice of his intention to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the repeal of so much of certain acts of Elizabeth and James 1st, as inflicted penalties for the non-attendance on divine worship. The reason why he had abandoned that course and pursued that which he intended to follow on the present occasion, he would presently state to the House. The circumstances to which his motion applied, would be found stated in the sixth report of the Inspectors of Prisons, published last year; the case had attracted great attention, and the vigilant eye of the press, to which public justice owed so much, had been directed to it in such a manner as to render it impossible that the case should not come before Parliament in one way or other. He thought, therefore, that it was better that the case should be brought under the notice of the House by one who, as far as he is known at all, is known as a humble and attached member of the Church of England rather than by any one indifferent or even hostile to that sacred institution. The cases to which he particularly wished to advert, were stated in page 79 of the report, and are described by the inspector as follows:—
"Among other complaints made to me by prisoners, J. C. came forward, and stated, that he was placed in the Ecclesiastical Court,
310
and sentenced to pay a fine of 1s., and 14 s. costs; that he had been in prison ten weeks, and had no means of paying, and hoped that a representation might be made of his case, or he must remain a prisoner for ever. Upon referring to this man's commitment, I find that he was summarily convicted before two magistrates, that on the of June, being the Lord's-day, called Sunday, in the township of—, did neglect to attend a church, or at some other place of religious worship, on the said day, he not having any reasonable excuse to be absent, and adjudged to forfeit and pay 1s., together with 14 s. costs, and, in default, to be kept in prison until the said sums shall he paid. It appeared that the following number of persons had been committed for a similar offence, and been discharged upon payment of the fine and costs:—

Name.

When received in Prison.

Fine.

Costs.

Period of Confinement.

185).

s.

d.

l

s

d

J. B.

February 12

1

0

0

10

6

63 days.

J. S.

February 12

1

0

0

10

6

61 days.

W. W.

April 15

1

0

0

19

0

16 days.

J. S.

April 22

1

0

0

13

0

12 days.

G. B.

August 5

1

0

1

4

0

17 days.

J. K.

August 6

1

0

0

11

0

2 days.

A. G.

November 4

1

0

0

17

6

16 days.

B. K.

November 6

1

0

1

7

0

26 days.

P. F.

December 13

1

0

0

12

6

3 days.

T. R.

December 23

1

0

0

16

0

27 days.

1840.

T. S.

May 10

1

0

0

12

0

3 days.

The poverty of the prisoner J. C. appearing to be such as to leave no hope of his being able to pay the fine and costs, I decided on making a representation of his case to the Secretary of State, who was pleased to recommend him forthwith as a fitting object for her Majesty's pardon, and he was discharged in consequence."
He believed, that in all those cases the parties proceeded against were simple labouring men, who would have been totally incapable of paying the fines inflicted upon them, if the case had not attracted the attention of her Majesty's Ministers; and it may be remarked, that in the first case the man was kept in prison during the whole hay-time and harvest, and was thus presented from earning the means of his winter sustenance. He knew that there was a strong and natural feeling, above all with young Members of that House when such a case as this occurred, to apply an immediate remedy, and to endeavour to attach their names to some measure for amending the Criminal Law. But he could not conceal from himself the evils of dilettante legislation. Short experience and imperfect knowledge, actuated by motives, however honourable, can never make efficient and stable laws. He therefore felt that it would be unbecoming in a Member

311
of so little weight to put himself forward in a case where he was sure that it was only necessary to mention the evil to induce the application of a remedy by the hand of those on whom that duty legitimately devolved, and he felt this the more strongly at a time when a government was in power in which he had so sincere a confidence. He trusted, that the House would not impute to him a feeling of presumption for bringing the case forward, or of weakness in transferring it from his own hands to the stronger ones of the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department. In a question of abuse of this nature, it was but natural that they should inquire what was the conduct of the magistrates. He had communicated with one of these magistrates, a gentleman who had addressed letters on the subject of this case to the editors of the Manchester Guardian and the Morning Chronicle. This gentleman was a most respectable and temperate man, and expressed his earnest desire that the case should be fully investigated. In one of these letters from Mr. Ashworth, dated September 16, 1841, he says:—
"A man is brought before the magistrates charged with drunkenness in its most offensive form on the Sabbath, and with neglecting church. On inquiry it is found that this is his habitual practice, and that his conduct, in this state, renders him a pest to the neighbourhood. Perhaps even you will admit that such a character deserves punishment, and that he ought to be fined for drunkenness. Well, fine him. He refuses to pay, and has no goods on which to distrain. What then is to be done? Put him in the stocks, the law says; but we have no stocks, and the vagabond escapes scot free. To prevent this result and in respect to such characters only, recourse has been had to the statute enabling magistrates to fine for non-attendance at public worship, under which committals follow in case of non-payment. For pursuing this course you pronounce me unfit to remain on the bench, and you will, doubtless, think me still more unfit when I tell you, that though I exceedingly dislike the course, I am not prepared to relinquish it entirely, being determined to avail myself of the law, even in its defective state, and thereby punish such infamous characters as I have described."
Mr. Ashworththus declared, that the law wanted amendment, and stated that the practice was general among the justices of peace. In a private communication which that gentleman made to him (Mr. Milnes), he stated, that on his appointment to the bench he found these fines regularly
312
imposed by the magistrates for offences of this nature, and that he disapproved of the custom; but, finding the law so defective, and being asked whether he thought it right to allow offenders to escape, and being most anxious to ensure an orderly observance of the Sabbath, he was induced to acquiesce in the proceeding. He added, that he did not know as a magistrate how he could refuse to inflict the penalty when the case was clearly proved, and concluded with stating, that he should be glad of the success of any motion on the subject which would lead to an alteration of the law. He (Mr. Milnes) considered that this letter was honourable to the gentleman who who wrote it. He was sure the House also, now that it was made acquainted with the nature of these cases, would cordially join with him in calling for some alteration of the law. He believed that all he has now to do was to state very briefly the present anomalous condition of the law. The penalty for non-attendance on religious worship was imposed in the clause of the act of Elizabeth, called the Act of Uniformity, which says:—
"Whosoever, having no lawful or reasonable excuse to be absent, shall forbear to resort to his parish church or chapel accustomed, or upon reasonable let thereof to some usual place where common prayer and such service of God shall be used in such time of let upon every Sunday and other days ordained and used to be kept as holy days, and then and there abide orderly and soberly during the time of the common prayer, preaching, or other service, shall incur the penalties of a Popish recusant."
And I need not tell the House how terrible a nature those penalties were. Any person leaving a church during the administration of divine service was equally liable with one who had absented himself altogether. But the summary conviction in these cases was under a clause of the Act of James 1st, which states the penalty for the first offence to be forfeiture of 12 d leviable by the churchwardens of the parish where the offence is committed by way of distress, and the penalty may be levied by the warrant of one justice of the peace, and in default of goods to destrain on, the same justice may commit the offender to prison till payment of the forfeiture. By the Acts of Toleration passed in the reigns of William and Mary and Anne, the provisions of this Act are extended to all places of religious worship. He need not say how far the Uniformity Act was

313
adhered to in the present day, nor what would be its operation if generally enforced. If it were carried out to its full extent by the churchwardens of the parish of St. George's, Hanover-square, and St. James's, Piccadilly, by their visiting the club houses during the times of divine worship, and enforcing the law against those they found there, perhaps there might be a great deal more to be said on the subject than in the case of these poor men. It was useless now to debate on the absurdity of such a law in the present day; although much, perhaps, might be said in defence of it at the period when it was enacted, as then the attendance on divine worship in the church might be regarded as a test of political opinion, and as a proof of loyalty and good citizenship. Those times, however, were gone by, and the enforcing such a law as that acted upon by the Rochdale magistrates could only be regarded as a remnant of persecution. He also submitted that this was not the time to put magistrates like Mr. Ashworth in such a situation as they had been by their interpretation of the law. The outcry against the great unpaid had indeed ceased, but it was not right to expose them to unnecessary unpopularity. He did not think it necessary to attack the principle of the Act of Uniformity, as he did not think that it necessarily bore the interpretation which had been attached to it. He thought that in its free interpretation every man should be considered a member of the Church of England unti he committed some act or deed which proved the contrary. He trusted that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department would devise some means of getting rid of the present evil without touching the spirit of that important act. We should be chary of repealing laws merely because we held them to be obsolete. He need not tell the House that this was not the time nor the age to enforce religious belief by the means of penal enactments. If one truth was written on the page of history in more striking characters than another, it was, that when a church or a religious body endeavoured to enforce a belief in its opinions by persecution, it created a totally contrary feeling. Whether to oppress or to uphold religion violence is equally impotent. All the energetic rigours of the Inquisition have not saved the church of Spain from the oppressions and confiscations of an Espartero, all the terrorism of the penal laws has not shaken Romanism
314
in Ireland. He believed that the Church of England was strong by the toleration which she had manifested, and was convinced that such acts as these only brought the Church into disrepute; he therefore called upon the right hon. Baronet, whose executive talents had been admitted by both parties in that House, not to shrink from legislative exertion in this matter, but as speedily as possible to bring forward some measures to get rid of a state of things as obnoxious to the principles of British freedom as injurious to the best interests of the Church of England. He should conclude with moving an Address for
"Copy of the warrant on which J. C——, or J. Carlton, was committed, at Rochdale, on the 29th day of June, 1840, by Clement Royds and William Chadwick, esquires, for neglecting to attend divine worship at Butterworth, in the county of Lancaster."
Sir J. Grahamwas sure that the House would give every credit to the motives of his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, who had so ably brought this case before the House. According to the facts of the case the parties imprisoned had had a very severe and unjust punishment inflicted upon them. It appeared that these poor men had been brought before the magistrates for one offence, and had been punished for another. He could not too strongly condemn the practice that should proceed to search and find a statute, fallen almost into desuetude, for the purpose of inflicting punishments on parties not brought before them for the offence for which they were punished. Such a practice he considered to be unjust, nor did he think that the infliction of such penalties was, in any degree, applicable to the time and age in which we lived. He did not believe that the infliction of temporal penalties was at all applicable to the non-performance of a personal religious duty—nor did he think that it conduced to the maintenance of the Established Church nor religious worship. His hon. Friend had called attention to the Act of Uniformity, and had alluded to the extension to Dissenters, in proof that the oaths of supremacy and allegiance had been taken, which it was not at all times possible for them to show. All parties, however, were liable to penalties if these oaths had not been taken; and he believed that a very large portion of the Members of the House would have been liable to the penalties, through the non-attendance on religious worship on Wednesday last, if informa-

315
tions had been laid against them. He did not say that the state of the law was such as should be allowed to continue, but when they had to deal with such important acts as those of Uniformity and Toleration, great caution should be used. He would not hastily pronounce how a remedy could be applied to this grievance, it was sufficient for him to admit that an evil of great magnitude existed, and it was the duty of the executive to find a remedy and apply it. He should not oppose the motion.
Motion agreed to.
Adjourned.

MINUTES.
Bills. Reported,—Buildings Regulation; Boroughs Improvement; Appropriation Acts Amendment.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of Normanby, from Scarborough, by Viscount Melbourne, from North Berwick, and other places, and by Lord Brougham, from Bathgate, and other places, for the Repeal of the Corn and Provision Laws.
Adjourned.