Sitting of 15 June 1842

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public 2°. Mines and Collieries; Newfoundland; Justices Jurisdiction.
Committed.—Sudbury Disfranchisement; Dean Forest Poor; Dean Forest Ecclesiastical Districts; St. Bravel's Small Debts; Perth Prison; Assessed Taxes.
Reported.—Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) (No. 2).
3°. and passed:—Public Houses.
Private 2°. Duke of Argyll's Estate.
3°. and passed:—Stourbridge Roads; Liverpool Poor.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. W. Ellis, from Leicester; by Mr. Bernard, from London, Wolverhampton, and Morpeth, for an Equality of Civil Rights for Roman Catholics. —By Lord John Russell, from Cape Town, Cape of Good Hope, for assimilating the Government of that colony to the Government of Great Britain.—By Mr. S. Crawford, from Clerkenwell, and Walbrook Ward, for the Redemption of Tolls on the Metropolitan Bridges.—By Mr. B. Denison, from Causeway Head, Yorkshire, Manningham, Calverley, Gomersal, Clayton, Thornton, and Wike, for limiting the Hours of Labour of young Persons in Factories. —By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Electors of Sudbury, against the Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill.—By Mr. W. Ellis, from Saffron Walden, for the Abolition of Church Rates. —From Chawleigh, against the Poor Law Amendment Bill.—From Limerick; for alteration of the Fisheries (Ireland) Bill.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
On the motion that the Church of Scotland Bill be read a second time.
Mr. F. Maulesaid, he understood that some technical objection existed to the mode of proceeding with the bill of his hon. Friend, the Member for Argyleshire, that evening; and must, according to the forms of the House, prevent the further progress of the bill. In consequence of those objections, he begged to give notice that, on Tuesday, the 5th of July, he should move an address to her Majesty on this most important subject. He wished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether he meant to avail himself of those objections,

1585
or whether he would permit the question to be gone into?
Sir R. Peelcould assure the right hon. Gentleman that he had not heard of those objections till an hour before. But taking a precedent which occurred in 1833, those objections were entitled to great weight. He could not give a constructive consent on the subject; the right hon. Gentleman must, therefore, seek some other mode of bringing on the question.
The Speakerhad thought it his duty to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the bill to the objection, as soon as he had become aware of it. The bill certainly did interfere with the patronage of the Crown, and should not have been introduced without the consent of the Crown. Under these circumstances, he thought the House of Commons could not permit the measure to proceed further.
Mr. F. Maulehad certainly no right to object to the course which the right hon. Baronet was taking. The right hon. Baronet was certainly justified in refusing to give the consent of the Crown to a measure of this sort, merely for the purpose of discussion, without any boná fide intention of supporting the proposition.
Mr. Campbellsaid, that he could not complain of the course taken by the right hon. Baronet, at the same time he deeply regretted it. He hoped, however, that he would have an opportunity of bringing the bill before Parliament, previous to the close of the Session, and have it fully discussed.
Bill put off for six months.

THE AMERICAN BOUNDARY.
Mr. D'Israeliwished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet respecting the disputed boundary with America. He had seen it reported, that there was a virtual relinquishment of the territory in dispute, and that the State of Maine required compensation for the territory which was given up. He had also seen that her Majesty's envoy entertained a proposition of this kind, and it was generally supposed, that it would be acceded to by the commissioners of Maine. If such an arrangement were entered into the result would be, that they would be in possession of a much inferior boundary. He wished to know whether there was any truth in this statement; and also whether the right hon. Gentleman had instituted any in-
1586
quiry into the reason why the solemn award of a friendly power for the adjudication of the question had been set aside by her Majesty's Government?
Sir R. Peelthought, the question of the hon. Member altogether premature. It would be most improper to give an answer in the present state of the negotiations. He held in his hand a despatch from Lord Ashburton, which stated, that certain commissioners had been appointed by the state of Maine, but he believed that Lord Ashburton had had no communication with them. The transaction rested altogether between the State of Maine and the general government of the United States. Negotiations of the greatest importance were pending, but he felt it to be wholly inconsistent with his duty to make any statement respecting them to the House.

POOR-LAW.
Lord J. Russellsaid, as there was a rumour prevailing that it was the intention of the Government merely to pass that part of the Poor-law Act which related to the continuance of the Poor-law commission, he begged to ask the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether there was any truth in the statement?
Sir J. Grahamwas much obliged to the the noble Lord for asking the question. A similar report had reached him, and he had no hesitation in assuring the noble Lord that it was the intention of the Government to use their utmost endeavours to pass the bill as they introduced it—entire, subject only to such alterations in its details as might be made in the course of discussion.

SOUTHAMPTON ELECTION.
Mr. Flemingsaid, that the two gentlemen whose petitions he had presented on a former evening, contradicting the allegations of John Wren, were in attendance, and ready to appear at the Bar. But if a select committee were appointed to inquire into the election, he would not move, as he had given notice, that they should be called and examined.
Mr. W. O. Stanleysaid, it would be in the recollection of the House that he had moved for a select committee to inquire into the bribery and other corrupt practices which took place at the last election. He withdrew that motion at the request of the right hon. Baronet opposite, (Sir

1587
R. Peel) who stated that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) was about to bring in a bill on the general subject, which might, perhaps, contain provisions to reach this case. The noble Lord had brought forward that measure, and he was, nevertheless, still of opinion that further inquiry was necessary into the transactions that took place at the last Southampton election. The petitions which the hon. Gentlemen opposite had presented, confirmed him in that opinion. The best thing that he could do was to renew his motion, and move at once, if the House would allow him, that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the cases of bribery and corruption which took place at the last election for the borough of Southampton.
Mr. Mackinnoncomplained that the hon. Member had endeavoured to stop his motion for issuing the writ, under the plea of obtaining a committee of inquiry. Now he would be glad to know why any individual should interfere in the appointment or nomination of a committee, except the party who had moved for it. In consequence of the bill introduced by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) for the amendment of the law of elections, he (Mr. Mackinnon) had consented to postpone his motion for issuing the writ till the present day. He had hoped that in the meantime the hon. Gentleman would have taken the opportunity to investigate the question fully. Instead of that, he had lain by, and on that night he had asked the leader of the House of Commons to name the committee for him. He did not think it was the business of the right hon. Baronet or any other Member to do so. If the hon. Gentleman really meant to come to some conclusion upon the matter, he (Mr. Mackinnon) had no objection to postpone his motion for a week or a fortnight; but before he did so, he was anxious to know what the hon. Gentleman meant to do. Did he mean to examine witnesses at the Bar? Certainly not. An investigation where there was no power to examine witnesses on oath would be a most unsatisfactory one. What, then, did he mean to do? The hon. Gentleman was himself a member of the Southampton election committee, and he now sought to nullify the report and proceeding of that committee by the appointment of another. The hon. Member had induced him to postpone the motion for issuing the writ for nearly a month; and, in the hope that he would
1588
be prepared to state what course he meant to pursue, he would now move that the motion be postponed to that day fortnight.
Sir R. Peelthought it was a great advantage that where cases were taken tip, they should be so by the chairman or some member of the committee. It was at his request that the delay in the present instance had taken place. If there was blame to be attached to any one on account of the delay, it rested with him, at whose request the postponement took place, till the noble Lord Would have an opportunity of being in the House. He thought the best course would be to proceed at once to the appointment of the committee. An inquiry at the Bar, besides being an impediment to public business, was not the best mode as regarded impartiality, and for judicial purposes. He must observe, too, that they were too prone to part with the inherent powers of that House. He should be sorry to sanction the doctrine that it was in all cases necesary to have the aid of the House of Lords in the conduct of these inquiries; and he also cautioned hon. Members against the doctrine that it was not possible to conduct these inquiries without a bill of indemnity. Let them first see whether there was likely to be an obstruction to public justice without it. He would recommend the hon. Member to proceed at once to constitute his committee with perfect impartiality. Gentlemen should be appointed upon it who did not bring previous prejudices with them.
Mr. T. Duncombethought, the inquiry could be conducted without a bill of indemnity. It must be clear to any one who had read the petitions of Wren, Abrahams, and Mackey, that an enormous falsehood lay between them; and when the matter should be investigated, he trusted the House would visit the guilty party with its displeasure.
Sir R. Peelsuggested that the best course would be, first, to move that the report of the Southampton committee be laid on the Table. Then with reference to the subject of the petition presented in the case, to move that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the allegations contained in that petition.
Mr. W. O. Stanleythought, it would be better to move for a select committee to-morrow, to inquire into the bribery and treating at the last election for Southampton.
Motion withdrawn, to be renewed the next day.

ELECTORS' REMOVAL BILL;
Mr. M. Gibsonmoved the second reading of the Electors' Removal Bill.
Mr. Hodgsonopposed the motion. The bill opened the door to non-resident electors, who had been found a source of expense and corruption. He moved, that the bill be read a second time in three months.
Mr. M. Gibsonthought, the best course to pursue on that occasion would be to read the bill a second time, and in committee, the hon. Gentleman could introduce any alteration in the bill he thought proper. It was highly desirable that this bill should pass that House. In Manchester, out of 10,000 votes, no less than 2,000 were disqualified, in consequence of removal. He believed that all parties were interested in getting rid of that disqualification. In Ipswich, 124 voters were disqualified during the late election, and more than half of those were Conservatives.
Mr. Hodgsonmeant to persevere, and divide the House on the question.
Sir G. Greysaid, he hoped the House would not divide upon the question, without clearly understanding the true state of the case. He admitted the force of the objection; but he thought it might be obviated. The only question was, whether the voter resided within the limits fixed by the Reform Act? If a clause were introduced to meet the objection, he hoped the House would agree to pass the measure.
Mr. Escottsaid, that the point upon which he disagreed with his right hon. Friend was, that the residing within the limits of the borough should constitute the qualification. The Reform Bill established a 10 l. qualification, and a voter ought not to exercise the franchise unless he could show he was in possession of that qualification.
Mr. Brothertonhoped that the House would allow the bill to be read a second time. He believed that it would tend to prevent fraud. In consequence of the disqualification by removal personation had increased, it being the removers who were personated.
Sir J. Grahamagreed that this bill ought not to be dealt with on party considerations. He was bound to say that, in
1590
many cases, the question did operate with very considerable hardship, and tended to defeat the original object of the Reform Bill, as a person occupying a 10 l. house might remove into one of greater value, and property being the qualification, he was even better qualified to hold the franchise than before. He thought that the object of the Reform Bill was not only to have a test of the value, but to have a security for the respectability of the occupant. The question of the 10 l. value had then been very carefully considered before the measure was submitted to Parliament. The check upon (he voter, arising from houses, was very carefully considered. The two subjects had been taken conjointly with the 10 l. qualification and the change of residence, and it was with reference to this that the third question was proposed. The question of the 10 l. value was of course very carefully considered before the Reform Bill was submitted to Parliament. It was taken conjointly with the question of the 10 l, qualification in reference to change of residence. In large cities that class of persons who most frequently change their residences from considerations of failure in the payment of rent or rates comprised, generally speaking, voters who were most open to temptation, and who were most to be guarded against. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devon port, differing from the hon. Member for Winchester, thought it desirable that a tenant moving from a 10 l. tenement to one of inferior value, should have the right of voting. Those who introduced the Reform Bill had thought otherwise, and the third question was introduced, for the purpose of preventing that class of persons from exercising the privilege of the franchise. The remedy proposed by the hon. Gentleman would cause much inconvenience. It would be impossible to enter into the question of value at the poll; an assessor, too, should be appointed. The duration of the poll would be prolonged, and the expenses greatly increased. On the whole, having given his best reflection to the subject, and with reference to maintaining the principle of the Reform Bill, he should give his vote against the second reading of this bill.
Lord J. Russellremarked, that at the time the Reform Bill had been introduced, it was quite true that this question had been very much considered, whether the voting should be final for the year, and

1591
give the voter the right for that year, whatever circumstances might take place. Another course was, whether such check should not be proposed. That course had been adopted by the Government when they introduced the Reform Bill. If they looked to what had taken place since the Reform Bill, they would find that neither course had been carried into effect. They found that some persons, if they removed from one house to another, thought they had a right to vote, while others, under the same circumstances, did not think they had a right to vote. This was unjust to the one party or the other. In the Scotch Reform Act they had proposed a remedy, giving an appeal to the sheriff. They could not adopt this in an English amended act; for when the revising barrister left the borough, the investigation closed. They had to choose between the two opposite courses. He admitted that he did not see his way clear out of the difficulty; but having to choose between the two evils, the balance was in favour of seeking to remove the existing uncertainty; and he meant to vote with the hon. Gentleman, in the hope that in committee some clause might be provided which would meet the difficulty.
Mr. C. Bullerthought the House could hardly appreciate the difficulties attending the third question, of merely considering the question as it regarded voters who had changed their residence. If a person, occupying a house at a rent of 200 l., gave up any part of it—if he let out a single room, he was disqualified. At the Devonshire election, in 1835, where the noble Lord had been beaten, a farmer had applied to him for his opinion as to his right to vote under the following circumstances. Re was registered as occupying a farm of 200 acres—he had since let out one field; and he had given it as his opinion, that the man was disqualified, inasmuch as he could not return a satisfactory answer to the third question, and in that opinion he was borne out by high legal authority. There was no particular virtue in a 10 l. occupancy; it was merely a method by which to form an estimate of the intelligence and social position of a man; and if his intelligence and social position were such as to entitle him to vote in one October, there could not be much harm in permitting him to retain that right for a year. Then let the House Calculate the enormous expense incurred
1592
in investigating these questions, which acted as a discouragement to the presentation of petitions. For these reasons he should support the bill.
Mr. Haweswas sorry that the right hon. Baronet came to the conclusion to oppose the second reading of the bill. He had been sitting for six weeks on committees, and he believed that five out of the six were occupied with inquiries into the description of the cases that had been alluded to. He, therefore, did not think it too much to ask that time may be allowed to consider whether they could not introduce a clause into the bill which would remedy the present evils, and keep clear of the objections that had been made to certain parts of the present bill.
Mr. Crippshad served for six days on an election committee. Three days, or three days and a half were occupied with cases of removal. This was a very great grievance; but then he entertained the greatest objection to this method of meeting the difficulties of the Reform Act by a separate bill, and as the Government had given notice of their intention to introduce a measure on the subject, he thought they should seek to remedy the evil in question by means of that measure.
The House divided on the question that the word now stand part of the question; —Ayes 102; Noes 120:—Majority 18.
Question as amended put, that the bill be read a second time in three months.
Mr. Hume:After the division that has now taken place, I wish to know when it is the intention of the right hon. Baronet to bring in a bill on this subject.
Lord John Russell:One hon. Gentleman who divided against this bill said, there could not be any doubt that what his bill sought to cure must be universally admitted as a grievance, and one for which there ought to be a remedy. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman opposite would say whether in his bill for general registration he has proposed any remedy.
Sir James Graham:In answer to the noble Lord I have to say that I mean to state the provisions of the bill when introducing it, and not before. That is the most prudent course, and it is one in which I follow the example of the noble Lord.
Mr. Hume:I move, Sir, that this House do now adjourn. I have received no answer from the right hon. Baronet.
Sir Robert Peel: There was so much

1593
confusion in the House at the time the J hon. Member put his question, that I hardly heard it.
Mr. Hume:Then, Sir, I mean to repeat the question. The hon. Member for Manchester brought in a bill to remove an admitted grievance connected with registration. This grievance, it has been declared, ought to be remedied. I think it ought to be a part of the general bill, which it is said will be prepared by the Government. Perhaps the Government, as they have agreed to such a bill, will say, or the right hon. Baronet, as he must know something of such a bill, whether it be his intention to introduce an amendment at all of the character that has now been rejected?
Sir R. Peel:The question is of a very unusual nature? There are many grievances which are tolerated, because persons prefer to submit rather than expose themselves to others, which they may regard as more intolerable. The inconveniences of the present state of the law are only relative—they may be admitted as inconveniences, and yet endured rather than have a worse evil. After the division that has taken place, I do not conceive that I should be pressed to make any further observation. My right hon. Friend has given notice of bringing in a general Registration Bill. He will explain its provisions when he introduces it. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman may propose to do; but I do not think, until the proper period arrives, that I should be called upon to give any other statement.
Mr. Hume:In her Majesty's speech, the attention of this House was particularly directed to this subject. [Sir R. Peel: To what subject?] On the registration of electors; and this is a part of the grievance. I understand that her Majesty in her speech directed attention to this very subject. As it was the speech of the right hon. Baronet, surely he ought not to say, that he was not prepared with an answer on this subject, nor to go on with it.
Sir R. Peel:I conceive the observation is quite uncalled for. Let me ask, how has this House been occupied since the commencement of the Session? You have had before you three great subjects — the Corn-law, the Income-tax, and the tariff. But then it is said, there has been no Registration Bill. A Registration Bill has been prepared, but there has not as
1594
yet been the opportunity of calling attention practically to it. If the bill, when proposed, should not meet with the approbation of the hon. Gentleman, it will be quite open to him to move any amendment he pleases with respect to it. It is, however, quite unusual to ask for the provisions of a bill that is not under consideration.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, that what they were most desirous of knowing was, whether the Registration Bill of the right hon. Baronet would be in conformity with the Queen's speech. They were told early in the Session, by the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, before Easter, that the bill was quite ready; and we had now arrived nearly at the conclusion of the Session, and had not yet seen the promised bill. We want to know, said the hon. Gentleman, what are the intentions of the Government on this question—we want to know what are their reform views—we want to know whether they are going to give us a reform registration. We know how much they found fault with the existing state of registration, and particularly as it affects Ireland. Last year, we heard of nothing but grievances on that one point alone, and this year we hear of no grievances. Then we were told of perjury; and now we know that there is perjury—very great perjury—proved to have been committed on the very point which the bill that has been rejected proposed to avoid. This has been proved before your committees. I myself sat for fourteen days on the Weymouth election committee, and out of 500 votes, there were fifty votes affected, I think, on each side of the question, by removal. Now, what we want to know is, whether, in a bill for the registration of voters, you touch upon this subject, lam delighted the House has come to the conclusion it has just adopted, because it will convince the people of this country that, as far as the cause of Reform is concerned, this House is worse than the last. During the last Parliament this bill passed through its different stages. It went to the House of Lords, and then was heard no more of. That was the fate of the bill in the last Parliament, while this House has, on the second reading, thought proper to reject it. The country will believe that this House is more opposed than the last one, to the free exercise by the people of the elective franchise.
Lord Clementsinquired, if the right hon. Baronet opposite intended to introduce any measure for the registration of voters in Ireland. If any measure of the kind was to be introduced with respect to England, a similar one should be brought forward as regarded Ireland.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had already stated, at an early period of the evening, that he would state in due time the intentions of her Majesty's Government, with respect to a Registration Bill for England.
Mr. F. Maulesaid, that after the answer which had just been given, he would move, that the bill be read this day week, instead of this day three months. They would then have heard of the determination of Government with respect to a registration measure, and whether provisions similar to those in the measure before the House, would be introduced into it. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, that the bill be read a second time this day week.
Mr. Hodgsonsaid, that the bill had nothing at all to do with the registration of electors. If a bill for the latter purpose were to be brought in to-morrow, the subject before them would be improperly introduced into it.
Mr. Redingtonsaid, that if such was the case, it was the more necessary, that they should legislate without waiting for a Registration Bill.
The House divided on the question, that the words "three months" stand part of the amendment;—Ayes 101: Noes 79; —Majority 22.
[The following are the Lists of the first division, which includes the second. It would be no use printing both.]

List of the AYES.

Ainsworth, P.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Bannerman, A.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Barnard, E. G.

Craig, W. G.

Bellew, R. M.

Crawford, W. S.

Bernal, R.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Bodkin, J. J.

Dennistoun, J.

Bowring, Dr.

Dickinson, F. H.

Brocklehurst, J.

Divett, E.

Brotherton, J.

Duncombe, T.

Browne, hon. W.

Dundas, D.

Buller, C.

Easthope, Sir J.

Busfield, W.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Childers, J. W.

Ellice, E.

Christie, W. D.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Clements, Visct.

Ewart, W.

Clive, E. B.

Ferguson, Col.

1596

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Forster, M.

Philips, G. R.

Gill, T.

Philips, M.

Gordon, Lord, F.

Plumridge, Capt.

Granger, T. C.

Protheroe, E.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Redington, T. N.

Hardy, J.

Ricardo, J. L.

Hastie, A.

Russell, Lord

Hay, Sir A. L.

Russell, Lord E.

Heathcoat, J.

Scholefield, J.

Hindley, G.

Scott, R.

Howard, hon. J. K.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Howard, hon. H.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Hume, J.

Sheppard, T.

Hutt, W.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

James, W.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Johnson, Gen.

Stanton, W. H.

Johnston, A.

Strickland, Sir G.

Lambton, H.

Strutt, E.

Langston, J. H.

Thornely, T.

Layard, Capt.

Tufnell, H.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Tuite, H. M.

Main waring, T.

Vivian, J. H.

Martin, J.

Wall, C. B.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Wallace, R.

Mitcalfe, H.

Wawn, J. T.

Mitchell, T. A.

Wemyss, Capt.

Morris, D.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Morison, Gen.

Williams, W.

Morrison, J.

Wood, C.

Murphy, F. S.

Wood, Col. T.

O'Brien, J.

Wrightson, W. B.

O'Connell, D.

Wyse, T.

O'Conor, Don

Ogle, S. C. H.

TELLERS.

Oswald, J.

Gibson, J. M.

Parker, J.

Hawes, B.

List of the NOES.

Allix, J. P.

Compton, H. C.

Antrobus, E.

Connolly, Col.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Bagge, W.

Cresswell, B.

Bagot, hon. W.

Cripps, W.

Baring, H. B.

Darby, G.

Barrington, Visct.

Denison, E. B.

Beckett, W.

Desart, Earl of

Bell, M.

Douglas, Sir H.

Beresford, Major

Dugdale, W. S.

Bernard, Visct.

Du Pre, C. G.

Blackstone, W. S.

East, J. B.

Bodkin, W. H.

Eliot, Lord

Botfield, B.

Escott, B.

Buck, L. W.

Ferrand, W. B.

Buckley, E.

Fitzroy, Capt.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Fleming, J. W.

Burroughes, H. N.

Forbes, W.

Campbell, A.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Carnegie, hon. Capt.

Fuller, A. E.

Charteris, hon. F.

Gaskell, J. M.

Christopher, R. A.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Clayton, R. R.

Gladstone, T.

Clerk, Sir G.

Godson, R.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Gore, M.

Collett, W. R.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Colvile, C. R.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

1597

Grimsditch, T.

Peel, J.

Grimston, Visct.

Philipps, Sir R. B. P.

Hamilton, W. J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Hampden, R.

Price, R.

Hayes, Sir E.

Pringle, A.

Henley, J. W.

Rae, rt. hn. Sir W.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Herbert, hon. S.

Richards, R.

Hervey, Lord A.

Rolleston, Col.

Holmes, hn. W. A'C.

Rose, rt. hn. Sir G.

Hope, hon. C.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Hope, A.

Scott, hon. F.

Hughes, W. B.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Hussey, T.

Somerset, Lord G.

Ingestre, Visct.

Somerton, Visct.

Irton, S.

Stanley, Lord

Jermyn, Earl

Stanley, E.

Lincoln, Earl of

Sturt, H. C.

Lindsay, H. H.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Lockhart, W.

Taylor, T. E.

Long, W.

Thornhill, G.

Lowther, J. H.

Trevor, hon, G. R.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Trotter, J.

Mackenzie, T.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Verner, Col.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Vernon, G. H.

Mc Geachy, F. A.

Waddington, U.S.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Whitmore, T. C.

Martin, C. W.

Wilbraham, hn. R. B.

Miles, W.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Morgan, O.

Packe, C. W.

TELLERS.

Pakington, J. S.

Hodgson, R.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Bill put off for three months.

CUSTOMS ACTS—THE TARIFF.
The report on the Customs Acts Bill was brought up, and on the motion of Mr. Gladstone was re-committed. On the item relative to the importation of foreign books,
Mr. Humewished, that the duty on this item should be as light as possible,
Mr. Gladstonesaid, that it would be found as low as practicable. The question, however, was connected with the law of international copyright, and as long as our own copyright law was in a state of uncertainty, it would be impossible to meddle with international copyright.
The House resumed—Resolution to be reported.

DEAN FOREST—ECCLESIASTICAL DISTRICTS.
Lord Lincolnmoved, that the House resove itself into a committee, with a view of proposing a resolution, that provision be made for the addition of the incomes of clergymen in this district, out of the Crown lands.
Mr. Humewas of opinion, that any money which was necessary for this purpose.
1598
should be taken out of the surplus funds in the hands of the Church commissioners.
Lord Lincolnsaid, there was really a great necessity for increased endowments in this district. There were 11,000 persons there, almost all dependent on then-daily labour. For this large number, there were three clergymen, at the extravagant salaries of 78 l., 92 l., and 113 l. a-year. He thought it hardly fair, that as the Crown derived the benefit of the labour of the large number of persons whom he had alluded to, that they should not receive some addition to their stipends.
Mr. Humesaid, it was a mistake to suppose, that the funds out of which these clergymen were to have their salaries increased, were the property of the Crown. They were as much the property of the public, as was the excise. He did not object to any clergyman receiving 150 l. No clergyman should, in his opinion, receive less. But he must insist, that these additional payments should be made out of the property of the Church.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeragreed, that the incumbent took the place for his life, of the public, with regard to these funds, but though the property changed hands, it was still attended with the usual duties of property; and if the hon. Gentleman himself held an estate, on which there was no sufficient accommodation for religious instruction, he ventured to say, that he would take some active steps for the purpose.
Committee deferred.
House adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.

Preamble
MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.—1ª. Sugar Duties; Tithe Commutation; Double Costs.
Private.—2ª. Vere's Divorce.
3ª. and passed:—Coward's Divorce.