Sitting of 20 May 1842

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1°. Bribery at Elections; Tithe Commutation.
Reported.—Colonial Passengers; Roasted Malt; Law of Merchants Act Amendment.
3°. and passed:—Pentonville Prison; Australia and New Zealand; Exeise Duties Compounds.
Private.—2°. Medbourn Inclosure (No. 2); Imperial Insurance Company; Cass's Estate.
Reported.—Gravesend Terrace Pier Slug Road; Cwm, Celyn, and Blaina Iron Company; London and Croydon Railroad (Grange Road Approach), (No. 2); Holywell Roads; Kingstown Mariners Church.
3.°. and passed:—Aberdeenshire Roads; South Metropolitan Gas.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. P. Howard, from Roman Catholics of Carlisle, Richmond (York), Brough, Huddersfield, Darlington, Congleton, and other places, for Equality of Civil Rights.—By Sir H. Douglas, Lord Worsley, Sir John Easthope, and Mr. Fleming, from Ropemakers and Spinners of Leicester, Aberdeen, Warwick, Portsmouth, Falmouth, Gainsborough, and Wolverhampton, against the Reduction of the Duties on Rope and Cordage.—By Mr. Grogan, from Clongish, and Waterford, against the present System of Education (Ireland)—By Mr. M. Phillips, from the President of the Manchester Medical Society, the Guardians of Berwick-upon-Tweed Union, and Launceston Union, for Alteration of the Poor-law Amendment Act.—By Lord Robert Grosvenor, from Chester, for the Extension to the whole of the United Kingdom of the Regulation with regard to the Closing of Public Houses on Sunday Mornings.— From Wilts, and the Wester Row Farmers Society, against the Importation of Cattle and Meat.—From Abergavenny, for the Improvement of the Old Passage Ferry. —From Fishermen of the Rivers Nore, and Barrow, against the use of Salmon Wiers and Stake Nets—From Peckham, against any further Grant to Maynooth College.— From Alverstohe, against the Dissolution of the Gilbert Unions.—From Lainbeg, for providing Coffins for such Destitute Persons as die out of the Workhouses.— From British Merchants, and others at Antwerp, for
560
placing the Postage and Communication of Great Britain with Belgium on the same footing as with France.—From Grimsby, against the Property Tax Bill.—From Upper Eshols, and Manchester, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws. —From Dundee, against the Reduction of the Duty on Whale Oils and Whale Bone.—From Manchester, and Salford, complaining of Recent Outrages in the Province of Ulster.—From Manchester, Altrincham, Hulme, and other places, against the Turnpike Roads Bill.—From R. J. Morrison, for the adoption of Regulations to prevent Accidents on Railways.

FLINT ELECTION.
House informed, that the committee had determined,—
" That Edward Mostyn Lloyd Mostyn, esquire, commonly called the honourable Edward Mostyn Lloyd Mostyn, was not duly elected a knight of the shire to serve in this present Parliament for the county of Flint: —That Sir Stephen Richard Glynne, baronet, was duly elected, and ought to have been returned a knight of the shire to serve in this present Parliament for the county of Flint."
Determinations to be entered in the Journals of this House.
Return amended accordingly.

MR. WARNER'S INVENTION.
Major Vivianwished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet respecting the invention of Mr. Warner, who professed to have discovered a method of destroying the largest fleets and the strongest fortifications. His noble relative had instituted some inquiries upon the subject, and, on a former occasion, the right hon. Baronet had taken much interest in the question, and what be wished now to ascertain was, whether any new experiments had been made to test the value of the discovery.
Sir R. Peelreplied that he had witnessed an experiment upon a small piece of water which had certainly been successful, and it had appeared to him that the experiment was so deserving encouragement that conditions had been proposed to Mr. Warner, under which he was to make a further trial. Two officers had been appointed to conduct any fresh experiments; but Mr. Warner not having accepted the conditions, none had been made.

BRIDPORT ELECTION —MR. WARBURTON.
On the Order of the Day for a committee of supply, Mr. C. Buller begged to put it to the House whether he could not bring on the question relating to the borough of Bridport, and the petition he had presented from Mr. Warburton, as a matter of privilege. It seemed to him, that the case stood precisely on

561
the same ground as others brought forward by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck), for his whole argument would be to show that there was no distinction between them. It seemed to him, therefore, that the same rule of privilege ought to be applied to them.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought no pressing necessity existed, and that the House ought not to give way too easily upon such a point, and treat as matters of privilege questions strictly not of that character, the discussion of which would interfere with the transaction of the ordinary business of the House. The present case was different in this respect— that in the instances referred to the hon. Member for Bath stated in his place that he believed a corrupt compromise had been effected. On that assertion the House had granted the courtesy of privilege, although perhaps it could not strictly have been conceded. The present motion was merely to refer the case of another borough to the committee now sitting.
Mr. C. Butterwas prepared to make the same assertion as that of the hon. Member for Bath, on which the House had consented to treat the motion as a matter of privilege. As to the pressure of the case, he had presented a petition charging Members of the House with bribery and compromise of an improper nature; and in justice to them it seemed proper that the discussion should be brought on immediately.
Sir R. Peelapprehended that great public inconvenience would arise out of a departure from the ordinary rule. In the case of Nottingham there might be reasons which did not apply to the case of Bridport, and if the question regarding the latter were now brought on, it would be in the power of any Member to obstruct the public business. He appealed to the impartial authority of the Chair, whether the question relating to the Bridport petition could be deemed a matter of privilege.
The Speakersaid, that it certainly was not such a matter of privilege as entitled it to precedence. He would remind the House of the relative strictness with which the rule as to privilege was enforced. If a debate on a question of undoubted privilege were adjourned, on its renewal it was not entitled to precedence. He was, therefore, of opinion, that according to the letter
562
and spirit of the rule applied to such cases, the consideration of the petition regarding Bridport was not to be held a matter of privilege. It appeared to him that the House ought not to allow subjects to be intro duced as of privilege, of which notice for a future day could without inconvenience be given.
Mr. Mitchellexpressed his hope, that the question would be brought forward on the earliest opportunity. He wished to go fully into his answer to the several allegations of the petition, and he assured the House, that to a large portion of them he could give an unqualified denial. The hon. Member for Liskeard was anxious that the question should not be delayed, and he heartily joined in the same feeling. He wished to direct attention to one fact. He believed that where a petition charged a Member with anything wrong, the order of the House was, that it should be printed solely for the use of the Members. If that were the case, he begged to inquire how it happened that on Saturday morning, before any Member obtained the petition as printed for his use, it was inserted at length in the Morning Chronicle,
Mr. C. Buttersaid, that he had been no party to the publication of the petition.
Mr. Cochraneobserved, that the petition, to a certain extent, affected his private character, and on this account he wished that it should be discussed in a full House as soon as possible.
Sir R. Peelobserved, that it was his duty to advise the House to proceed to the regular Orders of the Day. His experience was in favour of adhering to the established practice, and if motions of this kind could: be brought on as privilege, there might be no end to the interruption of public business.
Mr. Mitchellwished to be informed when the subject would again be introduced. He and his hon. Colleagues were charged with a high offence, and they had a right to expect an early opportunity of defending themselves.
Mr. C. Bullerwas precisely of the same opinion. He was quite ready to wait until the very end of the night, and then bring the question forward, or to give notice for Thursday next, unless he could prevail upon the House to give him an earlier day. Both hon. Members must be aware, that he was prevented from proceeding by the rules of the House.
Mr. Mitchellcould not consent to have

563
the debate commenced when Members were worn out with attention to other matters. He wished, however, for the earliest opportunity of vindicating his character.
Mr. Cochraneapprehended that Thursday was pre-occupied. The accusation had found its way into every newspaper, and he urged that the opportunity for reply and refutation ought not to be delayed an hour beyond the absolute necessity of the case.
Mr. Mitchellshould not object to Thursday, if Thursday could be secured. He doubted, however, whether other hon. Members who had earlier notices for that day would relinquish their rights; and unless some assurance were given that Thursday should be applied in the first instance to the case of Bridport, he hoped he should be forgiven if he took a method of introducing the question on Tuesday, notwithstanding what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet. He was almost disposed to ask the House to meet at twelve to-morrow, if the subject could not be discussed on Tuesday or Thursday next. It was most unreasonable and unfair, that it should be kept pending during the whole of next week.
Sir R. Peelwas willing to do all in his power, and to undertake that no Government question should interfere with the discussion on Thursday. For individual Members, he could not, of course, answer.
Mr. Cochranesaid, he had good reason for believing, that one hon. Member who had a notice on the paper for Thursday next, would not be disposed to give way in favour of the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard. The consequence, then, would be, that this question, in which he and his hon. Colleague were so interested, could not be brought forward, until a very late hour of the evening. He must again express his deep regret, that he and his hon. Colleague should be obliged to remain so long under the charges which had been brought agsinst them.
Order of the Day read.
On the question, "that the Speaker do leave the Chair,"
Mr. Mitchellsaid, that he had no wish whatever to obstruct the proceedings of the House on supply nights; but he begged to say, that it was his intention on Tuesday next, to inquire whether hon. Gentlemen who had notices of motions on
564
the paper for Thursday, would be likely to occupy the attention of the House for any length of time, and if these hon. Gentlemen who intended to bring forward such motions did not give way to the question in which he and his hon. Colleague were so much interested, and that the consequence, then, would be a postponement of this discussion to the week following, he should consider it his duty to move to have the subject brought before the House on Tuesday next.

THE WELSH CIRCUITS.
Mr. W. O. Stanleyhad seen the following statement in some of the newspapers, and wished to be informed if there were any truth in it: —
" We understand that a bill is about to be introduced by Government, to attach Shropshire to this circuit (North Wales), to merge the six counties of North Wales into three, for assize purposes, by joining two together, and holding the assize alternately in the chief town of each; to transfer Hereford and Monmouthshire to the South Wales circuit, and to send two judges on the Welsh circuits instead of one. Lord Abinger is the proposer of these alterations."
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that he had never heard of any such suggestion, until his attention was called to it by the hon. Member.

THE UNITED STATES' BOUNDARY QUESTION.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that the House would probably recollect, that in 1839, a commission was sent out to explore the line of boundary claimed by the British Government as the frontier of our North American colonies, and to ascertain whether that line of boundary was consistent with the general features of the country, and in conformity with the treaty. A report was made by these commissioners in 1840, and it had been laid before the House. It was then thought expedient to ascertain whether the line claimed by the government of the United States was consistent with the general features of the country, and reconcileable with the words of the treaty; if it were found otherwise, of course, it would materially strengthen the claim of Great Britain, or at all events place her claim on a better footing. Early last year, therefore, he had sent two commissioners to explore the line, and he understood that they had recently returned to this country. He wished to be informed when it was likely,

565
that their report would be in a fit state to be laid before Parliament, as a continuation of that of 1840?
Sir R. Peelapprehended, that there had been an intermediate report not laid upon the Table by the noble Lord while he was in office; he meant a report made, if his memory served him, in December, 1840,pursuant to instructions from the noble Lord. The commissioners referred to, had lately returned to England, and he had seen their report within the last few days. There were certain annexes to it, consisting of scientific observations and plans, which were not yet completed; and as soon as they were finished, which would only occupy a short time, the whole would be laid upon the Table.

OUTRAGES IN TIPPERARY.
Mr. S. O'Brienbegged to inquire of the noble Lord whether it were true, that serious disturbances had recently taken place in Tipperary, and what were the measures which had been in consequence adopted by Government.
Lord Eliotsaid, that it was unhappily true that serious outrages had beer, committed in the north riding of the county of Tipperary, but he apprehended that some of the accounts in circulation were exaggerated. The hon. Member had given him notice of his intention to ask the question, and he had prepared a comparative statement of outrages in the first four months of 1841,and in the first four months of 1842. In 1841 there were 305 outrages. In 1842 there were 327 outrages, showing a small increase; but in the higher class of crimes, such as homicide and wrong to the person, the number had decreased from nine to four, and from twelve to five. In the districts of Nenagh and Borrisokane, the numbers, in the first four months of 1841 and 1842, had been the following:— In 1841 there were 118 outrages; in 1842, 108 outrages, showing an actual diminution of ten. The House would not under stand that he was anxious to establish that the disturbed district was not in an unsatisfactory state; on the contrary, it unquestionably required the prompt attention of the Irish government; but that attention had been given, and he would mention the present amount of police force. There were no fewer than 800 constables already in Tipperary and an additional reinforcement of 100 men had also been dispatched to that county.
566
There were seven stipendiary magistrates, and four others had been stationed on the borders of the adjacent counties. The whole force was under the orders of Captain Hastie, an able and distinguished officer who had hitherto been provincial inspector in Connaught. No more competent person could well have been selected, and if further reinforcements were required, they would be immediately sent to the spot. He trusted that enough had been done to restore and preserve tranquillity, and that it would not be necessary for Government to apply to Parliament for any powers beyond those which the law at present afforded. He might be allowed to add his belief that the more atrocious crimes were to be traced to the facility of procuring and using fire-arms. It had been represented to him that the law upon this subject as it stood was sufficient, but if any alteration should be required, it would be in this respect. He meant to pronounce no opinion, but merely to state that it might hereafter be found necessary to legislate upon this point. Perhaps, before he sat down, he might be permitted to bear testimony to the praiseworthy conduct of the Roman Catholic clergy. They had denounced the outrages in the strongest manner, as well as all illegal associations out of which they arose, and they had zealously exhorted their flocks to abstain from violence, to respect the law, and to aid in bringing criminals to justice. He trusted that their continued exertions would be attended with the success they deserved, and that the disturbed districts of Tipperary would no longer furnish a painful contrast to the peaceful state of the rest of Ireland.

ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.
The Speaker left the Chair. House in committee of supply.
Captain Bolderorose for the purpose of bringing forward the Ordnance Estimates. He assured the committee, that every item had been most minutely examined to ascertain how far practical economy could be carried without lessening efficiency. The consequence was that he was enabled to lay upon the Table estimates amounting to 59,000 l. less than last year: it was right, however, to add that the calculations had been made with reference to the force sanctioned by the House to be maintained both for the army and navy. The Ordnance Department, as store-keepers,

567
was responsible for an adequate supply of warlike stores, both to vessels of war and to the army, and the expenses must necessarily depend upon the amount of force maintained. The national warehouses must at all times be furnished with stores of all kinds, and for all emergencies, so that if an adversary took a step, this country might at once be prepared to take a step beyond him. If such were not the case, a heavy imputation would justly lie against the Ordnance Department. It was his duty to call attention to the unfortunate, melancholy, and disastrous intelligence from India; a great additional expenditure had thus been thrown upon the department to which he was attached, and it would be his unthankful task before the conclusion of the Session to ask for a grant to cover charges rendered necessary by the exigencies of the case. The reduction this year was, as he had said, 59,000 l., and but for particular circumstances, over which the department had no control, it would have been considerably more. One of these circumstances was the unfortunate catastrophe, the conflagration at the Tower, which had rendered a demand for a heavy vote imperatively necessary. Last year it had been decided by Government and sanctioned by the House, that the muskets of the army should be changed from flint to percussion, and a vote was taken by the Master-General of the Ordnance for a larger sum than had ever been required since the year 1815, viz., 130,000 l. Large as that sum was, it had not been found sufficient, and this year 50,000 l. more would be required for the same purpose. He would take this opportunity of disabusing the public mind, and of removing an erroneous impression as to the amount of loss by the late fire. He had seen the loss stated at sums between half a million and 250,000 l., but it was with some satisfaction he informed the House that the real loss would scarcely exceed half the smaller amount he had mentioned: 128,000 l. was all that would be required to repair the damage which had been so unfortunately caused. It might be interesting to the committee to know the number of small arms consumed, and the whole amount of the loss sustained by the public. The number of small arms in the Tower on the night of the fire was 94,500 stand, but of these there were 12,000 stand which had been condemned as unserviceable, and there were saved about 4,000, which would reduce the whole loss to 78,500 stand of
568
arms. The entire value of the collection to the public was 168,000 l.; there were saved a little more than 20,000 l. worth, and there was lost in the shape of trophies and other articles which could not be replaced 20,000 l., leaving the whole loss therefore to be provided for 128,000 l. [Viscount Palmerslon: Does that include the building?] As to the value of the building different opinions had been taken. From the state in which it was previously to the fire, it would have been neither prudent nor sound policy to have it repaired; the large number of arms in the upper story had caused the walls to bulge out from a perpendicular. But the upper story had been relieved by the noble Lord, who had kindly sent 168,000 stand of arms away for the use of the Queen of Spain; the necessity for using that story was then taken away, and the basement could have been used for four or five years more, so that the value of the building was very small. By the unforeseen circumstance, however, of its destructiou, an addition of 50,000 l. had been thrown on the estimates to make up for the loss occasioned by the fire. If they looked to the amount of the army extraordinaries transferred to the Ordnance Department by the Treasury minute of January 21, 1840, they would find that a sum of 64,000 l. was asked when the whole amount taken last year was 32,000 l. There was not the shadow of blame resting on the late board that the vote was not equal to the expenditure; the commissariat department had since made certain returns, in consequence of which the amount then granted had fallen short 16,000 l.; to remedy that he this year proposed to take a double vote. There was another item which was not in the late estimates, and which he thought he ought particularly to mention. It amounted to 7,000 l., and arose from the birth of an heir to the Throne of these realms, in consequence of which her most gracious Majesty had been pleased to command a brevet in the army and navy to commemorate an event so joyful to the nation. The present vote was calculated on an expenditure of seventeen months, so that next year the vote would be only 5,000 l. When his two hon. Friends near him had introduced the army estimates and the navy estimates, they had taken a brief but explicit view of each particular vote, and had explained the cause of the increase or diminution under each particular head. He would, therefore, imitate

569
their example, and briefly detail the different heads of increase and diminution. The present estimates were divided into ten votes, and the whole increase was not more than 3,000 l. and it took place in three only of those votes. The first vote which he would allude to stood on the list No. 1, the vote for the civil establishments at the Tower and Pall-mall, for the departments at Woolwich, for the out-stations in the United Kingdom, and for foreign stations. For the civil services in all these departments there was an increase of 2,196 l., but that increase arose chiefly from the sum of 1,325 l. in the salaries on foreign stations, not hitherto borne by the estimate, so that the whole increase of the estimate was about 800 l., caused by the increase in the salaries for the services of the civil servants, arising from length of service. On the fourth vote, for the barrack establishment, there was an increase only of 86 l., the difference of 1,315 l., being caused by the salaries to the barrack masters and sergeants in the colonial barracks of Jamaica, which had not hitherto been borne by the Ordnance estimates, and which would cause no actual expenditure by the Government, the colony being credited for the whole amount. The next vote on which there was an increase was the 9th, the superannuated vote, and that arose from the extra 7,000 l. to which he had alluded, owing to the brevet. Those were the only three votes on which there was any increase. The diminution, he was happy to say, covered all the increase, and left 58,998 l. to spare. In the vote No. 2, for the royal engineers, and the sappers and miners, there was a small diminution of 411 l., arising from the promotion of officers by the late brevet, which caused a less sum to be granted for length of service. The next decrease was in the third vote for the Royal Artillery. The effective force of this corps was the same as last year, but there was a diminution of 3,706 l., which arose in consequence of a different arrangement that he (Captain Boldero) had introduced respecting the clothing and pay of the gentlemen cadets. He found that the expense of the academy at Woolwich had been voted in four votes, under different heads, so that even to the most practised the expense was not very clear, and he had thought it better to place under one view the whole of the expenditure for the academy. If they turned to appendix D, they would find the whole
570
expense of the military academy and of the gentlemen cadets to be 16,081 l., of which there was received as contributions from the friends of the gentlemen cadets 14,485 l., and stoppages for clothing, &c., 100 l., together 14,585 l.; leaving the only sum to be voted by the public 1,496 l.; and when they looked at the sum voted last year, which amounted to 3,756 l., it would be found that the vote which he asked was less by 2,260 l. than the vote of last year. In the vote No. 5, also for Ordnance works, barrack-masters' and store-keepers' expenditure, there was a considerable diminution, viz., 7,616 l.; and that would be increased to 17,116 l.; for in the vote he had taken credit, 4,500 l. for barracks in Jamaica, and 5,000 l. for barracks in the Mauritius—services not hitherto borne upon the Ordnance estimates, for the repair of barracks in those two colonies —as the vote stood, however, even with this addition, it was 7,616 l. less than last year. In the sixth vote, also for military and civil contingencies, there was a diminution of 16,714 l. that vote had undergone great consideration and great alteration, but the diminution arose chiefly from the circumstance that the survey of Ireland being nearly completed, a less sum was required for that duty. The seventh vote, for stores, was less by 184 l. that sum was in itself trivial, but there was no vote that had undergone more consideration. Notwithstanding the increase of 50,000 l. for small arms, there had been a diminution in the stores required for the surveys, of 8,000 l.; in the supply of iron ordnance, shot, shells, &c, for the navy of 34,000 l.; for bedding, furniture, &c, of 8,000 l. The vote No. 8, was, what was termed the unprovided services. The whole amount now required was 2,788 l., for the expenses caused in Syria; and by comparing this sum with the vote of last year, there would appear a diminution of 2,791 l. The last vote to which he would allude was No. 10, for commissariat supplies for the United Kingdom, on which there was a diminution of 29,481 l., and it arose from the contract rate of meat, fuel, forage, and straw, being less this year, and from the application of stores purchased for Canada, which had not been sent out. Having thus gone over all the votes, he would turn to Appendix A. The committee would there find a list of the important works now in progress in the engineering department. All these works had been before the House; they had been sanctioned by the House.

571
The House was aware of each and every item, except of one 18,000 l. for permanent barracks at Newcastle in Jamaica, caused by the loss of our soldiers in the old bar racks in that colony. Under the head of contemplated works, there was an extra vote for a sum of 3,952 l. for barracks for the Royal Artillery at Kingston, in Canada, the troops not being able to reside in their present unhealthy situation. The only new work was a new practice range at Woolwich; this was the only work for which, as a whole, the present Government was responsible; and this had been rendered essential by later circumstances, although the old range never was adequate. The greatest extent of the old range was only 1,250 yards between the battery and the mark, and when they recollected that they had mortars and howitzers capable of projecting shots and shells for three miles, whilst their range was only 1,250 yards, it was clear that it was impossible to test their powers. With 1,250 yards range, they met with the river, and although their shot and shell could be carried three miles they could not so carry them because of the impediments in the river. This had always been an impediment, but formerly there were intervals of more than an hour, it was now more crowded in consequence of the use of steam. By a return he had prepared, it appeared that in the course of twelve or thirteen hours there were upwards of 400 boats and vessels passing, which so obstructed the progress of the experiments, that it was absolutely necessary to have a new ground provided. Last year the artillery had marched their nine pounders down eighteen times, and had had to go back without firing a shot, and it was not uncommon to go five or six times without practice. All those facts rested on the authority of Lord Bloomfield himself. It was a great evil, that the artillery often left Woolwich for other places without having seen a shot fired. They had heard of sixty-eight pounders, of fifty-six pounders, and of ten-inch howitzers; they knew by theory how to fire them, but in practice they had never seen a shot fired. The names of the officers for service were kept on a roster, and when officers were required they were selected out of the roster from those who had been at Deal, and had there had an opportunity of witnessing what they could not see at Woolwich. The officers who had been fortunate enough to have seen this practice were selected out of their turn
572
for service. This could not but create discontent—it struck at the root of all discipline, and disgusted officers with the service; and all these evils were caused by the Government not providing a proper range for artillery practise. He had dwelt at some length on this subject, because, after a service of twenty years in the Ordnance, he knew its importance and he thought that, in endeavouring to obviate the impediments to which he had alluded, the Government were justified in incurring some expense, and that the House would deem the course they took perfectly justifiable. The Government asked for 2,000/. for building new batteries, and 400/. a-year for the hire of ground for two or three days in the week for the purposes of the practice. He believed that this measure would tend to advance the science of gunnery, and to render still more efficient a branch of the service which now excited the admiration—and he might say the envy—of all foreigners who witnessed its evolutions. He concluded by moving,
" That 121,827 l. be granted for the service of her Majesty, for defraying the salaries at the Tower and in Pall-mall, the expenses of the establishments at Woolwich, on out-stations, and on foreign stations."
Mr. W. Williamswould have been satisfied with the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he had added what was the additional amount likely to be required in an extraordinary estimate in consequence of the disastrous news from India. There was one item, however, in the vote now proposed to which he wished to call the attention of the committee—it related to the expenditure of the barrack department. He thought that a great reduction might be effected in the vast expenditure for store-keepers. There were eighty-seven store-keepers in charge of seventy barracks, and of these seventeen were deputy store-keepers. He was quite at a loss to discover the utility of deputy store-keepers where store-keepers were employed. These seventeen deputies cost the country 6,290 l. a-year in salaries alone; and he could not conceive that any necessity could exist for them. For instance there appeared to be a store-keeper at Hobart Town with a salary of 430 l., and a deputy with a salary of 280 l.; and there were only four clerks with these two superior officers. The same remark applied to Barbadoes and other places. He found that in one half of the establishments the

573
store-keeper combined with his duties the duties of barrack-master, and, unless he were informed to the contrary, he did not see why all barrack-masters should not perform the duties of store-keepers. He believed that a considerable saving might be effected under this head without any, detriment to the public service, or any insecurity to the stores. The cost of barracks in the colonies appeared most extraordinary. He found by a return lately made to the House, that from the year 1826 to the present year, 1,528,000 l. had been expended for barracks in the colonies, or, in fifteen or sixteen years, the sum thus expended had averaged 100,000 l. a-year; and that was independent of the large sum expended for barrack-masters, i which, by the present estimate, was 30,000 l. and independent also of a large expenditure for fortifications and other public works connected with the colonies. When, therefore, he took the annual sums thus paid for the defence of the colonies, and the amount paid for the monopolies in the shape of differential duties, made to favour the colonies, he doubted whether this country would be a loser if it made a present to the colonies of all the merchandise they purchased in the course of a year. He believed that the whole colonial expenditure required serious attention. The government of the United States was said to be the cheapest to the inhabitants in the world, but the Government of Canada was cheaper still to the population, because they saddled the expences of the colony upon this country. He asked why the colonies should not maintain themselves? With respect to the West-India colonies especially, who enjoyed a monopoly here, he said they should be called upon to contribute at least a part of their expenditure, and to relieve the people of this country from being taxed for their government. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had referred to Appendix A. He would be glad of some explanation of the 62,000 l., embraced in two grants, for the new barracks in the central and Manchester districts; he could not find any estimate of the probable expenditure.
Captain Bolderosaid, that the hon. Gentleman had alluded to several votes not then under discussion, but he would confine his observations to the present vote. The hon. Gentleman objected to the employment of deputy storekeepers, and he would explain the circumstances of their
574
appointments. There were seventeen deputies, three of whom were in the home service, and fourteen in the colonies. In the year 1821, at the various Stations where there were now deputy storekeepers there were two individuals doing duty who bore the appellation of clerk of survey and clerk of check, and it was proposed to abolish both offices. The clerk of check had to attend the muster of the men at the works, to superintend them when at work, and to look carefully over the tools, to see that they were not improperly lost or spoiled. The clerk of survey's duty was to look to all the stores brought in. These two gentlemen caused an expenditure to the public of 7,560 l.; but, by the alteration effected, there had been a saving of 2,560 l., which would have been considerably increased, had it not been necessary to make an extra expenditure of 1,000 l. at Sydney, Hobart Town, and Sierra Leone. The hon. Gentlemen had also asked whether he could form any idea of the extra expenditure, owing to the disastrous accounts from India; he believed he could not show what that extra expenditure would be. The demands of the Horse Guards were severe and pressing; they must be provided for. He did not yet know the amount, or whether it would be necessary to make a supplementary estimate.
Lord A. Lennoxdid not rise to object to these estimates; they were, in his opinion, framed with judicious care, not only with a view to economy, but also to that which was of more consequence—general efficiency; but he wished to call the attention of his hon. and gallant Friend, and of the gallant General who presided over this department with so much credit to himself, and with so much advantage to the army, to one point. His hon. and gallant Friend was of course aware, that the officers of the army were allowed a certain proportion of fuel, of coals, and of candles, in barracks; but that if they were married men, out of barracks, they did not receive these rations; he did not see why the principle of the rations should not be extended to both. He wished further to be informed whether any or what steps were being taken with reference to the formation of libraries, fives courts, and cricket grounds.
Captain Bolderosaid, that his noble Friend must be aware, that the Board of Ordnance was not responsible in any way for the issuing of the orders by which the fuel was supplied to the army. The warrant by which this done, was signed by her

575
Majesty, and all that the Board of Ordnance had to do was to obey orders. The object of not extending the operation of the warrant undoubtedly was, that the officers should live near the barracks, and therefore near their men, an object which was deemed to be very desirable to be attained. He would beg to answer the question of the noble Lord, also, by another question, and he begged to ask by what right, or upon what principle of justice, could they refuse that to the soldier which they granted to the officer. Besides, where were they to stop, and to what articles must they limit the issue which was suggested? The subject had been over and over again brought under the consideration of the military authorities of the country, who had invariably declined to deviate from the usual course, on the ground of the great mischief which would be created by doing so. Upon the other point upon which the noble Lord had put a question, he begged to assure the committee, that the Government had not been remiss, but that they availed themselves of every opportunity of providing additional accommodation for the comfort and improvement of the soldiers in every respect.
Sir C. Napierwould not suffer this vote to pass without once more raising his voice upon a subject to which he had before alluded. He believed that it was impossible that the gunnery department of the navy could be properly conducted unless a naval officer was introduced into the Board of Ordnance, and he begged to point out to the right hon. Baronet opposite, that this was a subject in reference to which the public service ought not to suffer, and on this point the right hon. Baronet, ought not to give way to either private or political friendship.
Major Vivianentirely agreed in the observation of his gallant Friend with regard to the importance of the introduction of a naval man in the Board of Ordnance.
Vote agreed to.
On the proposition of the vote of 533,177 l. for Ordnance works and repairs, for store-keepers' expenses, and for building barracks.
Major Vivianrose and said, that he bad intended to offer some observations to the House upon a subject which had been before under discussion, in relation to something which had fallen from the noble Lord, the Member for Sunderland, but that he learned that this vote was to be
576
postponed in consequence of the absence of that noble Lord. The same cause prevented his entering into the explanation to which he had referred, and he could not help saying, that although the right hon. Baronet had, no doubt, acted with great courtesy in endeavouring to meet the wishes of the noble Lord, he had not shown the same anxiety for his convenience. He was exceedingly anxious to leave town, which now he should for a time be prevented from doing.
Sir R. Peelwas exceedingly sorry that in acceding to the wishes of the noble Lord he had put the hon. and gallant Member to inconvenience. It had been agreed that the vote should be postponed upon the request of the noble Lord; but if he had had the slightest notion that such an arrangement would have produced inconvenience to the hon. and gallant Member, it should have come on in its ordinary course: for he felt that he was bound to consult his convenience, rather than that of the noble Lord. He should be most willing to make any arrangement to meet the wishes of the hon. Gentleman.
Major Viviandid not attach the slightest blame to the right hon. Baronet, but thought that the noble Lord ought to have made him acquainted with the course he intended to take. He should be prepared on Friday next to enter into an explanation, if the matter could then come on.
Vote postponed.
Upon the vote of 208,743 l. to defray the expenses of the Ordnance Survey and Civil and Military Contingencies,
Captain Pechellsaid, that he thought that it was right that the House should have a candid statement of the present position of the question of the adoption of the invention of Captain Warner. That was an invention which had attracted a great degree of attention, from the extraordinary results said to be capable of being produced through its agency, and much blame had been attached to the late Government for not adopting it. He wished to know what steps the present Government had taken. The invention, as hon. Members were aware, was of a new species of combustible, by which forts and outworks, whole fleets, nay, even the Rock of Gibraltar, it was said, might be destroyed. It was stated that the right hon. Baronet had been present at an experiment which had been tried with it some time

577
ago, when a boat had been blown to atoms at one explosion. What he wished to know was whether any authorised experiments had been made, and if so, whether any report would be made to this House, or whether any information would be afforded so as to show that Captain Warner had been treated in a manner due to his invention? He would take this opportunity of saying that he thought that it was not the most politic course for the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite to accompany the introduction of these estimates to the House with a taunt upon the late Ministry. The observation to which he alluded was that in which the hon. Gentleman had spoken of the interference of the noble Lord in the affairs of Spain, and the sending out a great number of muskets from the Tower. The question of the policy of the late Government with regard to Spain had been long since determined upon by the House, and ought not to form the subject of comment at the present time.
Sir R. Peelcould only repeat the answer which he had given before upon the subject of Captain Warner's invention. It was true, as the hon. Member had stated, that he had been present at an experiment made by Captain Warner, which, so far as it went, had been entirely successful; after which he had had a communication with the late Master-General of the Ordnance, who adopted a course precisely similar to that which he had thought it his duty to take upon his coming into office. That course was to refer the subject to two public responsible officers, who were prepared to conduct the experiments under the direction of Captain Warner, at the public expense. That course had been proposed to Captain Warner upon his coming into office, the officers being respectively of the naval and military service. Captain Warner had declined to accept this offer, unless clogged with a condition to which the Government could not accede. That condition was in reference to the compensation which he was to receive, should his experiments prove successful, and the sum demanded was so enormous, that it was felt impossible to accede to it. That was the present state of the case. As to any charges which might have been made, he knew nothing of them whatever.
Captain Bolderocould not but take this opportunity of saying that in the ob-
578
servations which he had made upon the subject of the affairs of Spain, he had not intended to offer the slightest offence to the noble Lord the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs. In speaking of the sum of money required on account of the late disaster at the Tower, the noble Lord had asked at what value he placed the building which was destroyed, and he said that it was valueless, because the walls had become bulged by reason of the heavy weight placed on the first floor. He had, however, added that the noble Lord had saved the building from falling by sending away the muskets to Spain, and he had not intended to use this expression in a manner in the smallest degree offensive.
Viscount Palmerstonwould only point I out, upon the hon. Gentleman's statement, how very economical the course was which he had taken, for it appeared that his sending away the muskets had saved the building from falling.
Sir Denham Norreysbegged to ask what progress had been made in the Ordnance survey in Ireland?
Captain Bolderosaid, that the gallant Officer to whom this survey had been in trusted had applied for an extension of time for the publication of the result of his exertions. This application had been granted, and the gallant Officer was now engaged with another, who had been sent to assist him, in arranging his materials. He had no hesitation in saying that the work, when published, would reflect the highest credit on its author, and would be most useful to the public.
Viscount Ingestresaid, that as his name had been connected with the case of Captain Warner, he wished to say a few words on the subject. He had accidentally become acquainted with Captain Warner's invention; he had looked into it, and had thought at the time it would be of incalculable advantage to the country. He was still of the same opinion, though by some he might be ridiculed, and called credulous. His firm opinion was, that the invention was of the utmost importance to this country, and that any Government that allowed it to leave this country would incur a heavy responsibility, of which, some day or other, it would feel the effects. He had communicated the fact of the invention to the noble Lord at the head of the late Government, desiring him to see the matter

579
looked into—to this he never received any decisive answer, but had been referred from one person to another without any practical result whatever. When the present Government came into office, he had waited upon his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, and called his attention to the case. His right hon. Friend then said he would look into it, and his right hon. Friend had just now stated to the committee the result of the course it had been thought proper to pursue. He was free to admit the course followed—that of submitting the matter to the heads of the departments most affected by the discovery and invention— was the fitting and becoming course. He understood a commission composed of highly distinguished officers had been appointed to inquire into and examine the invention, but he thought some degree of injustice had been practised towards Captain Warner in the appointment on the commission of a gallant Officer who could not have had sufficient time fully to go into the merits, inasmuch as he was also appointed to the command in the Mediterranean, and was expected to sail in a very short time. Now, he understood the state of the case at present to be this:—Captain Warner declared that he had made several experiments before Sir Richard Keates and Sir Thomas Hardy, which were by them reported to be successful. Captain Warner stated further, that he could by his invention produce results which certainly appeared to be most extraordinary. He added that he had been a long time endeavouring to get a fair hearing—that his anxious wish was, to secure to his native country an invention which, if it got into the possession of any other power, would be productive of sinister and most disastrous results. He said, "What I wish to have before I proceed with my experiments is a guarantee from the Government or from Parliament, that if I succeed in what at present appear improbable results, my discoveries may not be thrown aside, or that I may be told, ' You have shown us how to do it, and we can now manage for ourselves.'" He did not stipulate for any precise or particular sum; but desired, if he satisfied the commissioners, to be appointed by the Government, as to the results he said he could perform (and which appeared certainly to be supernatural), that he should be guaranteed that the Government would not turn
580
round and make it a matter of bargain and sale as to what he was, and what he was not, to have.
Major Viviansaid, that the course pursued by the present Government was the same as that which had been followed by the late Administration. He knew that Lord Melbourne, immediately on learning from the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Ingestre) that such an invention had been made, referred the matter to the Boards of Admiralty and of Ordnance, and his noble relative then at the head of the Ordnance suggested the appointment of three scientific officers of artillery and engineers, who should examine the invention under a pledge of secresy. Now, he could not think that any officer of proper spirit, and with a love of country, who had made such a discovery as this was said to be, would ever make it a subject matter of barter for pounds, shillings, and pence. If the noble Lord opposite had looked over the invention, he possessed a great advantage over the Government and the House. It was true that Captain Warner had stated he could perform what almost appeared miracles; that, for instance, he could by his invention destroy the Rock of Gibraltar; and hence it was that his noble relative thought it desirable, that an inquiry should take place—but Captain Warner refused offers of the fairest nature, and for that reason, and that reason alone, the investigation was put a stop to. Let Captain Warner meet such an inquiry on fair terms, and then throw himself upon the generosity of his country for his reward.
Viscount Ingestreobserved, that when the hon. and gallant Member talked of Captain Warner throwing himself on the generosity of the country, he must remind the hon. and gallant Member that Captain Warner had spent his fortune and a considerable portion of his life in making this invention. He had never, in the long run, objected to show the composition of his invention, but he said, and said justly, "If I let out before any board of commissioners the composition of the material by which I can accomplish the results stated, knowing how boards are composed, I am well aware that, give them but an indication of the secret, and they well know what is to follow." This was not fair to the individual.
Colonel Foxinquired if the noble Lord could state the terms on which Captain

581
Warner would show his invention, and the sum he wanted for it if he produced the effects stated.
Viscount Ingestrereplied, that he was not authorized to say anything on that subject. He had studiously avoided having anything to say to Captain Warner as to the price he asked for his invention, conceiving that to be a matter entirely between that gentleman and the Government.
Colonel Peelsaid, he had read ail that had passed on the subject, and knew all that the late Board of Ordnance had done, with that he entirely concurred, and at the present period it was impossible to come to any other conclusion.
Captain Pechellsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Staffordshire had taken an honest and consistent part in saying he considered that the present Government was quite as blameable as the last. He thought it was quite clear that her Majesty's present Ministers had done no more in the matter than their predecessors, and therefore those opposite who had brought charges against Lord Melbourne and the late Board of Ordnance must now admit that those authorities had taken a right and proper course.
Mr. Brothertonthought both the late and the present Government had used a wise discretion in declining to reward this gentleman for his infernal invention. It appeared to him perfectly horrible for any Government to pay a reward for an invention which was capable, it was said, of destroying a whole nation at once. He hoped the British Parliament would not consent to give any sum of money whatever for such a purpose.
Viscount Ingestrein explanation, said, he had not admitted that the present and late Government were equally blameable. What he had said was, that after his communication to Lord Melbourne, fifteen or sixteen months elapsed before anything was done in the matter, and that when he called upon his right hon. Friend at the head of the present Administration the matter was taken up at once.
Mr. Williamssaid, in the present vote he saw a sum of 18,126 l. for the purchase of lands in Bermuda. He begged to inquire for what purpose the purchase was made?
Captain Bolderoreplied, that the purchase was the act of the late Government, and had been made in order to erect de-
582
fensive barracks at a short distance from the shore.
Vote agreed to with other votes for the service of the ordnance and the navy.
29,375 l. to defray the charges of medicine and medical stores.
44,325 l. for the naval miscellaneous service.
497,957 l. for military pensions and allowances.
226,100 l. for freight of ships and transports and other charges.
95,794 l. for expenses of conveying convicts to New South Wales and Van Die-men's Land.
407,549 l to defray the charges of the packet service. Resolutions to be reported — House resumed.

COLONIAL PASSENGERS
Lord Stanley moved the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the report on the Colonial Passengers' Bill,
Mr. Hawesexpressed a hope that a measure of so much importance would not be pressed in a House so thinly attended.
Lord Stanleysaid, the objection to this measure was confined to one particular clause, on which it would be equally competent for the hon. Member to raise a discussion when the bill was passing through a future stage. As he had given notice last Friday that this measure would be proceeded with to-night immediately after the estimates were disposed of, he could not think of again deferring it.
Mr. Haweswould in that case give notice of his intention to move, "that the objectionable clause be struck out "on the third reading.
Mr. Wakleymust enter a complaint regarding the order in which the business of the evening was taken. No one had any opportunity of knowing what bill was to be dealt with next, and really, when so many important questions were to be considered, it was quite necessary that some little notice should be given. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had promised to obviate this evil, but he had done nothing towards the fulfilment of his pledge. The last Government had regularly laid a paper on the Table containing a list of the bills in the order in which they were to be taken, and the practice had been found to be most convenient. With respect to the measure before the House, he hoped that as the bill otherwise met with approbation, the

583
noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies would withdraw the objectionable clause respecting the Hill Coolies. If a measure such as that embodied in the clause was to be introduced at all, it ought not to be embodied in a bill of this sort, but should be made a matter of separate legislation.
Lord Stanleysaid, the importance of the clause in question appeared to be overrated. It gave no new powers whatever. Its object was simply to give the Governor-general, by an act of British legislation, an authority which he already possessed by an act of colonial legislation, and of consequence to make that which was even now an offence against Indian law an offence against the law of Great Britain.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that with respect to the observations of the hon. Member for Finsbury, he had every wish to give full notice of the order in which business would be proceeded with. He thought, however, it had been well understood that to-night the ordnance and navy estimates would be first taken, and that the Colonial Passengers' Bill would be dealt with immediately after. Having fixed these three measures he thought he had cut out enough Work for one night's legislation, especially as his experience of late had shown that they were not usually so rapid in bringing their discussions to a close. He had, however, been agreeably disappointed to-night, and in future he would take care that they should have more orders provided for their consideration, in the hope that they would follow up so good a beginning.
Report reconsidered and agreed to with amendments. Bill to be read a third time.

PENTONVILLE PRISON.
Sir J. Graham,in moving the third reading of the Pentonville Prison Bill, remarked, that the prison was now completed, and that her Majesty's Government thought it desirable to bring it into operation on the 1st of July next. It would be necessary in the miscellaneous estimates to move a vote providing for the payment of the salaries to the officers attached to the establishment, and as he understood the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck) wished to express some opinion on the separate system, he would suggest that it would be convenient if any discussion on that point were taken on that occasion.
Mr. Roebucksaid, that as far as he was concerned, he could see no objection to the right hon. Baronet's proposal. He certainly wished to express some opinions which he entertained on secondary punishments generally, and as an opportunity for that purpose would be afforded, he should offer no impediment to making progress with the Bill.
Bill read a third time and passed.

ECCLESIASTICAL CORPORATIONS LEASING BILL.
Sir James Grahamstaled that in proposing they should proceed in committee with the Ecclesiastical Corporations Leasing Bill, he had postponed the consideration of it, at the request of the hon. Member for the county of Durham, and also at the request of the hon. Member for Northampton. It had been intimated to him by the hon. Member for the county of Durham, that all doubts as to the nature of the bill had been removed from his mind; and he had also received a similar intimation from the hon. Member for Northampton. He wished to state to the House that this measure was an important one; for it proposed to give to ecclesiastical corporations, aggregate and sole, a power of granting leases for a longer period than hitherto they had been permitted by law. It would enable them to grant leases for ninety-nine years for corporation purposes, and in order that they might increase the value of the property. He thought it Tight thus frankly and at once to state the purport of this measure; because he was aware that it involved considerations that had been already much agitated in that House. Some years ago it had been proposed to deal with this very property, which it was now intended to make the subject of legislation. It had been the proposition of the late Government that they should take advantage of the increased value that might be derived from a more suitable management of this property, to apply the surplus that might I arise from the improvement of the property to a particular purpose—the payment of Church-rates. It was then proposed to apply the sums thus raised in liquidation of that demand on the public. That proposition had been negatived in the last Parliament, although, by the measure then proposed, it was conceived that there must be a considerable increase to the value of Church property. When property was held by a corporation aggre-

585
gate, there had been an appropriation made by Parliament. With respect to the property of deans and chapters, whenever there was a surplus in their funds, there was to be an appropriation of that surplus to the augmentation of small livings. Prospectively there had been an appropriation by Parliament of that surplus, and the present measure so appropriated it. Whatever increase might arise to the funds of a corporation aggregate, the Members of that corporation aggregate would, as individuals, not derive any benefit from it. The measure was not the same as to corporations sole. It gave them the power of leasing also for ninety-nine years, but then it was not proposed to deprive them of their individual interest in that increase, as it would be generally found that they went to the augmentation of small vicarages and insufficient livings in large towns. He thought it to be his duty thus shortly to state the nature of the measure he was about to propose. He did not think, that any objection would be taken as to the details, and if hon. Members objected to the principle, they would have two further stages on which they might contest it—both upon the report, and on the third reading. If any Gentleman did not think, that they should go into a bill of such importance, in so thin a House, he would not press the motion. He concluded his speech, which could be but very indistinctly heard in the gallery, by moving that the House resolve itself into a committee.
House in committee.
On the first clause,
Mr. Hawesmust say, that this bill had taken him very much by surprise. It was nothing more nor less than raising the appropriation principle in another shape. The late Government had proposed to grant the power of leasing Church property, and thereby of increasing the value of that property, for the purpose of relieving the people from the payment of Church-rates. All that was done in that respect was following the example that had been given in the Irish Church Temporalities Act, brought in by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies. As well as he recollected, it would be found that by that act power was given of converting short leases into leases of perpetuity, and the surplus went to the consolidated fund, to be applied to certain purposes. The increased value derived front the Church
586
property was, in the Irish Act, applied to the liquidation of the church cess. If he understood this measure aright, the right hon. Baronet would give an increased value to Church property; he proposed that where there was now only power to give short leases, there should be a power to give long leases, and that the surplus should be applied to the augmentation of small livings. It was, then, to be understood, that any expectations that might have been entertained of there being a fund which might have aided in relieving the people from the payment of Church-rates, that the right hon. Baronet would put an end to such expectations—that the right hon. Baronet would extinguish all such hopes—that there was to be no advantage derived from this large fund, which the late Government intended to apply to the diminution of Church-rates. The right hon. Baronet determined to apply this fund to no such purpose--he only asked for it, in order that it might he the means of augmenting the small livings. In the present state of the House it would be idle in him to oppose the proposition of the Government, if they were determined to persevere in it. Indeed, he might say the same of his opposition to the measure in any state of the House; but this he must say, that he was quite sure that what was now about to be done by the Government would excite a very great sensation out of doors. A right hon. Baronet, who was not then present, bad given notice of his intention to move for a grant of public money to extend church accommodation in this country. Thus then there was at the same time the probability of a large grant of the public money for Church purposes, but there was to be also this larger sum of money, now about to be created by the dealing with Church property, to he applied to the same object. It had been laid down by the noble Lord opposite that the increased value of such property created by act of Parliament was a thing with which the Sate might deal. Let them, he said, distinctly understand that the increased value of Church property which they had created was not to be so treated that it was to be applied solely to Church purposes, even while there might be called for an additional grant of public money for Church Extension. The right hon. Baronet might conceive it wise, proper, and consistent with Conservative principles so to act with regard to the Church;

587
but he ventured to tell the right hon. Baronet that it would create very great discontent out of doors. The right hon. Baronet Sad stated very frankly what were his objects. But for the right hon. Baronet doing so, they might not so soon have known what this was done for; and now, if the House did not think fit to esist the proposition, it certainly was not the fault of the right hon. Baronet, for he had plainly stated his intentions. The public now, however, must be fairly and fully informed on the matter. He, on behalf of a very large class of persons—on behalf of those who differed from the Church, protested altogether against this mode of legislation. The dignity of the Church did not consist in its riches, nor was its usefulness increased by the augmentation of its wealth. The Church had enough of wealth at present, nor could the present proceeding procure for it more support, nor greater respect. On behalf of the dissenting body he protested against this appropriation of Church property. It could not be, he was sure, conducive to the interests of the Church, nor tend to promote peace and harmony in the country. He felt it to be his duty to protest against the principle contained in this bill.
Sir James Grahamobserved that the details of the measure could not he objected to. There could be no question that the property ought to be so managed as to be rendered as available as possible. This principle being agreed upon, then the question was narrowed as to wheather there might not be a better appropriation of the additional sum raised from the extended powers of leasing proposed to be given. He did not feel that they could be sanctioned in the appropriation of that sum to any other than ecclesiastical purposes. Stating this as the principle by which he was prepared to abide, he did not at that moment wish to follow the hon. Gentleman into the question of Church-rates in Ireland, which, he conceived, stood on a perfectly distinct footing from Church-rates in England.
Mr. Wakleywas sure that the public would not object to an increase in the value of Church property. The public regarded Church property as their own property; but then they did not approve of the manner in which it was appropriated. He thought that the right Bon. Baronet had explained that the individual mem-
588
bers of a corporation aggregate were to derive no benefit from the increase in the value of the property; but then, when the right hon. Baronet came to speak of corporations sole, he stopped short in his explanation. Was the incumbent in the latter case to obtain the full benefit arising from the increased value? [Sir J. Graham: Yes.] Why then, was there a different principle adopted in treating corporations aggregate and corporations sole?
Sir J. Grahamreplied that, with respect to the corporations aggregate, there had been an appropriation prospectively. The amount to be derived by each individual was limited, and any surplus of the fund, after answering these demands, was to be applied to certain uses— the augmentation of small livings. With respect to corporations sole, then, no prospective appropriation had taken place. It was provided, whoever should be the life incumbent, the augmentation should be for the value of that incumbent, and for his exclusive benefit. The bill did not make any alteration in the condition of the incumbent. As the corporation aggregate was to have the power of making leases for ninety-nine years, the same power was to he given to the corporation soles; but then the leases must be made with the consent of the patron and the ordinary.
Mr. Hawes:It appeared then that if a beneficed clergyman held more livings than one, he was to have the power of granting leases, which would increase the benefit of the living for himself. [Sir J. Graham: And for his successor.] But then the dean and chapter were to have the power of leasing property, and when they increased its value, the surplus was required to be paid over to the ecclesiastical commissioners. Why, he asked, should these incumbents, many of whom were pluralists, and had a very considerable interest in the livings they possessed—not have to pay over the surplus to the ecclesiastical commissioners? Why should they not do this in all cases where the value of the incumbency exceeded 500 l. a year? He protested altogether against this appropriation of the surplus. It ought to go in a totally different direction. He did not see why they were to depart from the principle laid down by the noble Lord opposite—that if a new and increased value were given to the property, it should go to the State, and not to the Church. The increased value of the property being

589
formed by the Legislature, it belonged to the public, and the Legislature ought to regulate its application to public purposes. He should be glad to hear the noble Lord opposite on this point. Why, he asked, was a pluralist, with 2,000 l. a year, when his property was greatly augmented by this measure, not to pay over this surplus for the augmentation of small livings? Why were individual pluralists with large I incomes not to do this, when it was required of corporations aggregate? Why was the distinction drawn?
Sir J. Grahamstated, that from the best information lie had been able to obtain, he believed that the property would be found in large towns, and the property was that of vicars, generally ill-endowed, and the incomes attached to them were small. This he believed to be the case; and not that of rich pluralists, which he believed was contrary to the fact. The principle on which he acted was, that these benefices were the property of the incumbents. He denied that there was any principle in the law of England by which there was any maximum fixed beyond which property might be enjoyed. Any such maximum would be a novelty in the law of England. It was a novelty to the introduction of which he should most decidedly object. The surplus was to be applied to church uses strictly. Here, it, would be found that the augmentation would go to those who were inadequately endowed in large cities. As to an appropriation by the State from any increase in the value of Church property derived from new and good leasing, would be, in his opinion, an appropriation that would be unjust and highly inexpedient.
Mr. Roebuckdid not think that the right hon. Baronet went straight to the point in both cases. The corporation aggregate was composed of various persons. There then was a general property to be dealt with by the bill. Then where a surplus was contemplated by the act of Parliament, that surplus was dealt with by the State. By the act of Parliament it was to be applied to a worthy purpose, He did not quarrel now with that, but rather with the argument of the right hon. Baronet. Having then thus dealt with the corporation aggregate, how did they deal with the corporation sole? They made the three or four persons contribute; but then when it was one person,
590
that had a certain benefice or property, the Parliament dealt with that property. They increased the value of that property. And here was the divergency in the argument of the right hon. Baronet, who said that he did not admit the principle that the State had a right to interfere with those beneficed clergymen, for though it might increase the value, yet it could not divert the present benefices from the clergymen. How, then, did it do so with the corporations aggregate? In the one case it was said to be sacred property— that it could not be diverted from the purpose for which it was originally given; and then, in another case, it was said that there might be a diversion from the original purpose. He did not understand the argument thus used. He was prepared to deal himself with this in a very off-hand manner; but he was not now called upon to do so. All he had now to do with was the argument. It laid down one principle when dealing with corporations aggregate, and it laid down another principle when dealing with corporations sole. Let it be supposed that there was a piece of ground belonging to an incumbent in a large town, which, by leasing for ninety-nine years, he might increase in value so much, that it would be worth 2,000 l. a year or 5,000 l. a year. Was, he asked, the right hon. Baronet prepared to stand by his principle boldly, that he would not take care that the surplus should be given for the purpose of a better religious education, for the purpose of more fully accomplishing that for which the estate had been originally given? Was that property not to be appropriated for the benefit of the Church—for the advantage of the persons inhabiting the parish? Was it to be that when the income of the incumbent was above a certain sum, that then the State was not prepared to take the property and apply it (if they would only to ecclesiastical purposes)? and were they to enhance its value without increasing the spiritual benefits that might he derived from it, and for which it had been originally given?
Sir J. Grahamconsidered that nothing could be more fair or candid than the manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman placed his objections. He was not now discussing the propriety of the application of the surplus under that bill. That had been disposed of by Parliament; but lie conceived that it would be

591
contrary to polity and justice, in dealing with ecclesiastical property, if they applied it to any other than ecclesiastical purposes. The bill did not introduce any new appropriation of property belonging to corporations aggregate, or with respect to the property of corporations sole. Now, referring to all the circumstances of that property, he did not think that any new application was expedient. He believed the fact to be, that the property held by the vicars in towns was small in amount. These benefices were generally ill-endowed, and now any increase to the value was one that was required; and nothing, he believed, could be more just than such an augmentation. He did not deny the right to deal with these matters for the benefit of individual members of the Church; but it was not just nor expedient that they should appropriate the income to other than ecclesiastical purposes.
Lord J. Mannerswas of opinion that in many cases the grounds on which Church property was held inviolable were of a far higher character than those which affected lay property. He did not wish to enter into the discussion of the principle of the measure, but he must say, that he thought that that principle was just and correct.
Mr. Hawessaid, that with reference to what he had stated as to the arguments brought forward, and the principles maintained upon the subject of ecclesiastical property by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, he would refer to the debates which took place upon the Irish Church Temporalities Bill, when it would be found that the doctrine which he had stated was that maintained by the noble Lord.
Mr. Wynn Ellisthought it rather extraordinary that a different principle should be proposed to be applied to the property of corporations aggregate, from that to be applied to the property of corporations sole. If the measure before the House should pass into a law, corporations aggregate would be very ill-used; for it was proposed to take from them the fruits of any improvements in the value of their property, but to leave the fruits of Duch improvements in the hands of corporations sole. He thought that the measure would produce an injurious effect.
Mr. Brothertonwas sure that the object of the bill would excite much discontent through the country. It seemed to propose, by a general measure, to effect what
592
had hitherto been accomplished by local and partial measures. But there was a wide distinction between corporations aggregate and corporations sole in this respect. With respect to the former there might be good security, that increased value of Church property would be property appropriated, but he was not so sure that the security was so perfect with reference to corporations sole, that an increase in the value of their property would be applied for the benefit of the Church. There had been many instances in which special acts of Parliament, enabling individuals to grant leases, had been turned to the advantage of themselves and their families, for the benefit, not of the Church, but of those out of it; and the bill at present before the House would, he believed, have the effect of enabling persons to alienate Church property to their own private advantage. He thought that if an act was passed, enabling these individuals to grant long leases, that the House should take care that good security should be given that the benefit to emerge should be for the Church, and not for individuals not connected with it.
Mr. Shawsaid, that with reference to the statements of the hon. Member for Lambeth as to the principles held upon the subject by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, white he admitted that such principles had been once held by the noble Lord, he also maintained the noble Lord had abandoned the argument, and the clause affected by it had been struck out of the Irish Church Temporalities Bill with the consent of the noble Lord. It was not under such circumstances fair to quote the conduct of the noble Lord as a precedent.
Mr. Haweswas astonished at the defects in the recollection of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, because he had been in the House at the time when the clause in question had been discussed, and he had used very strong language with reference to it, terming it a "spoliation" of the Church. Now he would beg leave to correct the hon. Gentleman. The noble Lord did not voluntarily give up the clause. The bill went up to the House of Lords, and the clause was there struck out; it then came down to this House, and the noble Lord vindicated the principle of the clause. He believed that he was not mistaken in that statement—at any rate, he was sure that the noble Lord would not

593
say, that at the time in question he did voluntarily give up the clause, because no one more stoutly defended its principle, and that principle was, to give to the Irish Church power to grant leases to perpetuity, instead of for lives, thereby increasing the value of Church property, which increased value was to be paid into the consolidated fund, and would therefore be under the control of Parliament.
Lord Stanleyhad not before thought it worth while to enter into a discussion upon events which had taken place eight or nine years ago, but, according to his recollection, the following was what passed upon the occasion alluded to. He would not be quite positive as to whether the withdrawal of the clause took place in the House of Lords or Commons, but he believed that the hon. Member for Lambeth was mistaken in supposing that the bill had passed through the House of Commons in the shape in which he maintained that it had so passed, but he would admit, that on the second reading of the bill, he had contended that increased value given to livings was property with which the State should be allowed to deal. The clause in question was opposed by some hon. Members, on the ground that its effect would be the alienation of Church property from Church purposes; and it was supported by other hon. Members who generally differed from him, because they believed it to be the first step towards the appropriation of ecclesiastical property. Finding, therefore, that the construction put upon the clause by hon. Members on both sides of the House was, that its effect would be to alienate from Church purposes Church property, although that was a construction which he himself could not admit, he stated that he was ready to withdraw the clause, and he would do so rather than it should be thought that he for a moment should have sanctioned the doctrine, that Church property should be applied to other than Church purposes. It was, as he believed, on going into committee, that he had thus bowed to the sense of the House.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that although the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, had stated, that with reference to corporations aggregate, Parliament had laid down a precedent, and had dealt with their property, yet with regard to corporations sole nothing of the kind had ever taken place. The right hon. Baronet had said, that his measure contem-
594
plated no new principle. Now, this was a mistake. It was proposed to appropriate to the sole incumbent all the benefits all the advantages, all the value of improvement in Church property. That was a new principle. The right hon. Baronet had also stated, that he believed that the increase in the value of property would be applied chiefly to augment the incomes of vicars in large towns, who were often badly paid. Now that was all very well. Certainly, pay these gentlemen according to their labours—according to their station in society—pay them equal to their deserts; but he believed that in many of these cases the property would be applied to individual, and not, as it should be, to public purposes. Such was a principle which the House ought never to sanction. The House should have the interests of congregations, rather than of individuals, for its object. He trusted that the House would not proceed with the bill that night; they should have another discussion in a fuller House, for he believed that the measure would be productive of great injustice, and would occasion general dissatisfaction.
Sir James Grahamhad not conceived that the bill would have experienced such opposition, especially as it was necessary for the interests of the public that as much land as possible should be let for building. He could have no doubt but that the land in question should be let; and if so let, the lessor must be either the corporation aggregate or sole as the case might be. In the present instance the case narrowed itself to a corporation sole, and he conceived that any fresh proposition in the case was unnecessary. Those who thought otherwise would have the opportunity of introducing such a proposition, putting corporations aggregate and sole on the same footing, at a subsequent stage of the proceedings. He hoped that at present the House would allow the bill to pass through committee.
Bill went through committee.
House resumed. Report to be received.

MERCHANT AND FACTOR.
On the Order of the Day, for the House going into Committee upon the Merchants and Factors Bill,
Mr. Gladstonerose to state the object of the measure. It was a bill not now, so far as regarded its substance, introduced for the first time. It had been introduced in the House of Lords in the course of last Session, and had only been

595
prevented from passing into a law then by the abrupt termination of the Session. The bill was founded upon the representations of all the principal mercantile men in every great branch of our foreign trade and commerce in London and in Liverpool; and it had, as he believed, the universal assent of the commercial world. Its purpose was to give full effect to a series of changes which had been already introduced into the law, with the object of meeting the growing wants of our commerce. The groundwork of this bill was the position, that it was highly expedient, for the extension of commerce, to give every facility and security to the system of advances on goods, which now attended almost every step in mercantile transactions, and which might be said to form the instrument for carrying on the trade and business of the country. This bill, therefore, proposed, that all parties dealing with agents having the possession of goods shall be enabled to deal with them as if they were principals, and that with regard to bonâ fide transactions affecting those goods they shall be protected against the principals. This principle had been already partly affirmed in the 6th George 4th, making good the sales, and (under certain circumstances) the pledges by agents of goods as against the principals. There were, however, some limitations under that act to the principle which it laid down; the first was, that as regarded pledges, it did not apply in cases, where the party dealing with the agent ! knew, or had sufficient ground for knowing, that he was only an agent. That was an important limitation, and it was proposed to remove it. It was a very doubtful point, and gave rise to great difficulties whether the party advancing the money, had or had not notice of the agency, and it was exceedingly desirable to get rid of what gave rise to much litigation. Owing to this limitation, and the other provisions of the existing law, the party making an advance to an agent really obtained no sustainable lien on the goods beyond what the agent himself might happen to have as against his principal. It was deemed exceedingly desirable to alter the law in this respect, because the whole security of the lender was made dependent on a matter of which there was hardly a possibility he could be cognisant. This rule proceeded on the supposition, that the lender was acquainted with what respected solely the relations which obtained between agent and principal, and depending on matters of
596
account, and the balance-sheet which might be struck from time to time; so that the whole law was thrown into uncertainty when such a restriction was preserved. Well, then, lastly, the present law does not allow an advance to be made on the fact of possession of the goods, but only on possession of the documents relating to them. When the bills of lading are in the hands of an agent, it is in the power of the agent to take an advance on those bills, and the party so making it, has his remedy against the principal; but the same facility was not given when the bare possession of the goods by the agent was the ground of the proceeding. It was now proposed, therefore, that the agent's possession of the goods should be attended with the same incidents as the agent's possession of the documents. He believed, that in what he was proposing, he was asking them to assimilate our law to that which prevailed in every other country, and, furthermore, that they would be only doing what was reasonable and just, in saying that the party applied to for au advance on certain goods should be protected, if he made that advance bonâ fide to persons who had the possession of them. It was obvious, that the general effect of this bill would be to throw on the owner of the goods the whole responsibility with respect to the choice of agents; and he should certainly contend, that it was more just to make the owner responsible for the choice of his agent and for his acts, than those who came into contact with that agent in the open market, in the course of his commercial dealings. He could not foresee any objection to the changes he proposed, except, perhaps, that they might be unfavourable to the foreign consignor of goods, as making him dependent on the honesty of his agent in this country. He did not think, that objection was well founded. He was persuaded, on the contrary, that this bill would prove exceedingly favourable to the foreign consignor, because, in point of fact, nothing was so conducive to his interest as to give the utmost possible extension consistent with prudence and equity, to the system of advances on goods; for it was by means of these, that he got a quick return for his goods, and that his goods could be kept back when the price was low, and the market happened to be glutted.
Mr. Wynn Ellis:As this bill threw a serious responsibility on the consignor, be ought, in his opinion, to have this security—that the advance made on goods to the

597
agent should be a payment in money, and not an acceptance which might never be honoured when at maturity.
Mr. Gladstonethought, that quite a different question, not touched by this bill.
Mr. Roebuck,with every respect for the right hon. Gentleman, thought that a bill strictly legal should not be introduced in the absence of the law officers. He agreed with the right lion. Gentleman, however, that this bill did not touch the question raised by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ellis).
Bill went through committee and was reported.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Mr. Roebuckmoved the first reading of a bill which had come down from the House of Lords. It was entitled,
" An act for further inquiry into bribery at elections of Members to serve in Parliament. "
In moving that it be read a first time, he should take that opportunity of saying that he had two strings to his bow, and should go on with the bill of which he himself had given notice, although its object might, he had little doubt, be attained by adding one or two words to the bill then before the House.
Bill read a first time.

COMMUTATION OF TITHES.
Sir James Graham,in moving for leave to bring in a bill on this subject, of which he had given notice, said his object was to continue the commission for the adjustment of tithes, and to make certain alterations in the present law. The committee was in this position, that not more than one-half of their labour was accomplished. There still remained more than half of the parishes of England to be brought within the provisions of the act. He proposed, then, that the commission be continued for five years longer. He meant to propose no alteration of the principles of the present law respecting owners or payers. The alterations he meant to introduce were not very material. They related to the concurrent jurisdiction exercised by the courts of equity, and some conflicting authorities as to costs. The remedy he proposed was embodied in the report of the commissioners, to whose suggestions it was his object to give effect.
Leave given.
Bill brought in and read a first time.

SPIRITS (IRELAND).
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved for a committee to inquire into the effect upon the
598
trade in spirits in Ireland of the repeal of the malt duty drawback in that part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Redingtonsaid it was most extraordinary that the Government should make a proposition regarding Irish spirits part of their budget, and then refer it to a select committee.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Private 1a. Duke of Cleveland's Estate; Earl of Devon's Estate; Viscount Fitzwilliam's (or Herbert's) Estate; Forth and Clyde Navigation; Liverpool Health of Town and Buildings Regulation; Guarantee Society; South Metropolitan Gas; Drogheda Harbour; Aberdeenshire Roads; Ashton's Divorce.
2a. Dundee and Arbroath Railway.
Reported.—Gain's Naturalization; Southwark Improvement (No. 2, specially); Greenock Harbours (specially).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Canwys, and Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, from Catholics of York, Congleton, Stourbridge, Richmond (Yorkshire), Huddersfield, Southport, Darlington, and other places, for better Religious Instruction for the Catholics in the Array and Navy.—By Lord Lorton, from. Clongish, for the Encouragement of Schools in connexion with the Church Education Society (Ireland)—By Lord Sondes, from Gressen-hall, for Inquiry into the course of Instruction pursued at Maynooth College.—By Lord Redesdale, from Goudhurst, for the Limitation of the number of Hours of Attendance of Children in the Factories.—From the Literary and Scientific Institution of Lewes, that such Institution may be Exempted from the Payment of Assessed and other Taxes and Rates.—From the Council of the Borough of Plymouth, against the Criminal Jurisdiction (Quarter Sessions) Bill.

THE TOWNSHEND PEERAGE.
Lord Sydneysaid, he had to present a petition from a noble relation of his, to which he was anxious to call the particular attention of their Lordships, not only as it had reference to the interests of the petitioner, but also from the novelty of the case, and likewise from the fact that it was a matter which might affect their Lordships' privileges. The petition was that of Charles Vere Ferrars Townshend, Esq., (commonly called the right hon. Lord Charles Vere Ferrars Townshend), only brother and heir presumptive of the most hon. George Ferrars, Marquess Townshend, Earl of Leicester, &c The petitioner stated, that on the 12th of May, 1807, petitioner's brother, the said George Ferrars, Marquess Townshend (then commonly called Lord Chartley), was married to Sarah Gardner Dunn Gardner, the only child of William Dunn Gardner, of Chatteris, in the Isle of Ely. Soon after the marriage, the husband and wife separated, and in November in the same year, the Marchioness Townshend instituted a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court, in order to have the marriage annulled on the ground of the impotency of her husband, the Marquess. While this suit was still pending,
554
Sarah Gardner, Marchioness Townshend, in the month of May, 1809, eloped from her father's house, with John Margetts, who then carried on the business of a brewer at St. Ive's, in the county of Huntingdon, to whom she was married at Gretna-green on the 24th of October, 1809. On the 17th of January, 1810, Sarah Gardner, the said Marchioness Townshend, was delivered of a son, who, it is supposed, died a few months after his birth, and whom the Marchioness, in answer to a bill in Chancery, in 1834, styled the right hon. George Townshend, commonly called the Earl of Leicester. In the same month of November, 1810, the Marchioness, accompanied by John Mar getts, removed to the house of her father, in Lower Grosvenorstreet, and while there called themselves, and were called by others, Mr. and Mrs. Margetts. They afterwards went to reside in Hunter-street, in the parish of St. George, Bloomsbury, on or about February, 1811, and continued to reside there uutil the end of 1840, always passing as man and wife, and (until about the month of December, 1823) using and being known by no other names than Mr. and Mrs. Margetts. In July, 1811, the Marchioness gave birth to a son, who received the name of John, and was known by no other name than that of '* John Margetts," until about the month of December, 1823, when he assumed the title of Lord John Towshend. There were several other children, three sons and two daughters, of John Margetts by the Marchioness Townshend; and, on the 26th of December, 1823, those children,—namely, John Margetts, William Margetts, Rosa Jane Margetts, Frederick Thomas Mar getts, and Lavinia Charlotte Sarah Mar getts, were all baptised at the parish church of St. George, Bloomsbury, by the name of Townshend, and entered in the register of that parish as the children of the most noble George Ferrars, Marquess Townshend, and the most noble Sarah Dunn Gardner, Marchioness Towns hend, whose place of abode was stated to be Hunter-street, St. George, Bloomsbury. It could be shown, that since the month of May, 1808, the Marquess Townshend had not lived or cohabited with his wife Sarah; that the children up to the period of the baptism just mentioned, lived with the Marchioness and Mr. Margetts, whom they always called father and mother, as Mr. and Mrs. Margetts. These facts were but an outline of the case which the

555
petitioner was prepared to prove their Lordships, and he was sure it would not be deemed unreasonable that the petitioner and other members of his family should be desirous of doing so, seeing as they did that the Member for Bodmin had assumed the title of Earl of Leicester, the second title of their family. This assumption was unfounded in any rightful claim, and was calculated to impose on the House of Commons, and might hereafter affect the privileges of their Lordships, if the case should not now be gone into, by taking a seat in their House to which he was not entitled. He would read the recapitulation of the heads of the petition, which were as follow: —
" That the said Sarah Gardner, Marchioness Townshend, many years after the baptism of her said children, and after the assumption by them of the status of children of her marriage, on being interrogated by the Court of Chancery, whether the said children were actually the issue of her husband, evaded the question, and plainly showed that she dared not assert that they were so. When exceptions were taken to her answer on that very point, and when pressed by interrogatories which admitted neither of evasion nor equivocation, her conduct was widely different from that of an innocent woman, eager to seize so favourable an opportunity for clearing her own fame, and for vindicating the right of her children to the rank, title, and station which had been claimed for them. The exceptions having been allowed, she had no other alternative than to declare the truth, or to risk the penalties of wilful perjury; and an arrangement was therefore made, by which the necessity of any further answer was avoided. While every act on the part of the said Sarah Gardner, Marchioness Townshend, and of her family, during a series of thirty-three years, shows that her children were the issue of the adulterer, the conduct of the said George Ferrars, Marquess Townshend, and of the members of his family, proves that both he and they have uniformly, decidedly, and consistently repudiated the said children.
" That your petitioner is fully prepared to establish each and all the facts which he has stated, by evidence of the most conclusive character, consisting partly of letters, and other documents, and partly of the testimony of living witnesses.
"That your petitioner is advised that there are no means whatever by which he can dispute the legitimacy of the said John Margetts, the younger (calling himself 'Earl of Leicester') in a court of law; that some of the witnesses, by whom only many of the most important facts can be proved, are now far advanced in life, and in uncertain health and there are other persons whose testimony is material, but who refuse to make any disclosures unless com-
556
pelled by a court of justice; but if any of these persons should happen to die in the lifetime of the said George Ferrars, Marquess Townshend, it may be impossible to prevent an individual notoriously begotten and born in adultery from succeeding to the honours of your petitioner's family; that in consequence of there not being any property involved in the succession of your petitioner as heir to his said brother George Ferrars, Marquess Townshend, your petitioner is advised that he cannot file a bill in the Court of Chancery to perpetuate the testimony of the witnesses alluded to; and he respectfully submits, that it would be not merely an anomaly, but an injustice to the families of the Peers, if, while the law has provided means for securing the rights of inheritance of the humblest person in the kingdom to every kind of property, however small (by enabling the party interested to perpetuate the evidence of witnesses in case of their death), no such means should exist with respect to the highest and most important right of inheritance known to the constitution (except the Crown itself),—namely, the dignity of a Peer of the realm.
"That your petitioner, at the same time that he is naturally anxious to secure to himself and his family the enjoyment of his and their legal rights, and to prevent the same from being lost by the success of an imposition so audacious as to be absolutely without precedent, nevertheless feels that your Lordships have at least an equal interest in the question. By the loss of the testimony upon which your petitioner now relies, it may happen that your petitioner and his family will be deprived for ever of the honours conferred upon their ancestors; but in that case, the spurious issue of an adulterer will, against all moral conviction, become entitled to a seat in your Lordships' House.
" Your petitioner, having thus brought before your Lordships the facts of a case in which the right of succession to several peerages is actually involved, and having stated his anxious desire, as heir presumptive to those dignities, to establish before a competent tribunal all that he has herein alleged, humbly submits the difficulties and impediments under which he labours, and the injustice which may arise, as well to your Lordships and the Peerage, as to himself and his family, to the consideration of your Lordships, and humbly prays your Lord ships to provide such remedy, or adopt such proceedings as in your Lordships' wisdom may seem meet."
He fully concurred in the prayer of the petition, and he trusted their Lordships would not permit this audacious attempt to impose on them and the other House of Parliament by the assumption of a title to which the party who had assumed it had no claim. He did not press this subject on their Lordships' attention, solely on the ground that it affected the interests of the petitioner. There were other and

557
most important interests,—namely, those of their Lordships, which might also be affected by the assumption to which the petition referred, inasmuch as a proper investigation now might prevent an unjust claim to a seat in their Lordships' House. He would again assert, that the petitioner could prove most satisfactorily that the as sumption of the title of Earl of Leicester by the Member for Bodmin, was an imposition on the other House of Parliament, which ought to be exposed and treated as it deserved. He would now move, that this petition do lie on the Table.
Ordered.
Lord Broughamwished to ask what course his noble Friend (Lord Sydney) meant to pursue with respect to the petition? From the extraordinary nature of that petition, and the extreme importance of the facts which it set forth, it was obvious that it could not be allowed to remain on the Table without having some motion founded upon it. Having been brought under the consideration of their Lordships, it was clear that it could not remain without some further notice, and this, not only in justice to the interests of the petitioner, and for the sake of the privileges of that House, which it might affect, but also in justice to those parties against whom its allegations were directed. He would venture to suggest to his noble Friend that he should move for a committee to search for precedents, because the case at present appeared at least unprecedented. There was no case within his knowledge which could be considered a precedent for this, but there might be cases found, the principles, or the mode of proceeding in which, might be applicable to it, and with that view he had suggested the appointment of a committee.
Lord Sydneyfully concurred in the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend. He had waited, without taking any step beyond that of moving that the petition do He on the Table, in order to hear the opinions of others as to the course which it would be desirable to pursue. He concurred in the opinion of his noble and learned Friend, and would now move that a committee be appointed to search for precedents in the case of the petition.
Motion agreed to.
While the noble Lord was nominating the committee,
The Earl of Mintosaid, that it would be more consistent with the practice of the House to have given notice of the intention
558
of the noble Lord to move for a committee.
Lord Brougham:Notice was given before the holidays that this petition would be presented to-day.
The Lord Chancellor:The motion for the appointment of a committee has been put and agreed to. If the noble Earl wishes, he may move that the naming of the noble Lords who are to constitute the committee should be deferred to another day.
Lord Campbellsaid, that he could not help feeling some regret that more deliberation had not taken place. He agreed with the noble and learned Lord near him, that the case was quite unprecedented. He thought that it was as clear as anything could be, that without a reference from the Crown their Lordships had no jurisdiction in such a question. If that were so, where was the necessity of a committee to search for precedents. With one exception, the case of the Banbury peerage in Queen Anne's time, he believed no precedents could be found for proceeding in such a case, without any reference from the Crown. In that case the House proceeded without any such reference; but what were the consequences? The Court of Queen's-bench held the decision of the House of Lords as void, and all the proceedings as coram non judice. Lord Holt said, that the House had no more jurisdiction than any twelve porters assembled in any public-house in Westminster. Why then, he would ask, should they search for precedents, when even if any such were found nothing could be done with them? He acknowledged the great hardship complained of by the petitioner; but be thought they ought to consider whether there ought not to be some new legislation on the subject, some general or particular law to remedy the grievance of the petitioner. He would suggest to the noble Lord who presented the petition, whether it would not be better for him at once to move, or give notice of his intention to move, for leave to bring in a general bill, or a bill applicable to this particular case. He saw no use in a committee to search for precedents, and he wished to ask his hon. and learned Friend whether the House could take any steps in such a case as this without a reference from the Crown.
Lord Broughamsaid, that the difficulty was, that the case was as unprecedented as the argument of his noble and learned Friend, which unfortunately came after

559
the House had consented to the appointment of a committee. It was true his noble and learned Friend might move to have that motion rescinded, though the committee had been appointed on good grounds; for their Lordships would not take for granted that any particular course should be adopted as the result of their inquiry. There were some precedents—for instance the well known case of Savage, in which a precedent had been laid down which he should not wish to see followed. However, the inquiry was, he thought, the first step which ought to be taken.
Lord Sydneysaid, that he had thought it better to have the matter referred to a committee in the first instance, and before any legislative measure should be introduced. If no precedents could be found which could guide their Lordships, it would then be time to consider whether some general or special measure might not be required.
Committee named.
House adjourned.