Sitting of 28 June 1844

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT. — For the City of Limerick, v. Sir David Roche, Bart, ace. Chiltern Hundreds.
BILLS. Public.—2o. Pretection of Purchasers (Ireland). Reported—Joint-Stock Companies Registration and Regulation; Joint-Stock Companies Remedies at Law and in Equity; Bank of England Charter; Education; Charitable Loan Societies (Ireland).
3o. and passed:—Dissenters Chapels.
Private—2o. Ayr Bridge (No. 2).
Reported.—Pendleton, etc. Roads.
3o. and passed:—Swansea Improvement.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By many hon. Members (23 Petitions), against Dissenters Chapels Bill, and 6 in favour of same.—By Mr. Cholmondeley, from Arustley, against Union of St. Asaph and Bangor.—By several hon. Members (18), against Repeal of the Corn Laws.—By Mr. Ferrand, from Manchester, for a Tax on Steam Saw Mills—By Captain Pechell, from James Apted, for Relief.—By Mr. Bramston, from Rochford, and Colonel Rushbrooke, from West Suffolk, against Bank of England Charter Bill.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Bethnal Green, for Mitigation of Sentence on Thomas Cooper.—By Mr. Spry, from Bodmin, in favour of County Courts Bill, and Colonel Verner, from Market Hill, for Extension of same to Ireland.—By Mr. Roebuck, from Rev. D. Dobree, for Inquiry (Guernsey).—By several hon. Members (4), for Alteration of Poor Law.—By Mr. T. Duncombe (6), complaining of Opening Letters at the Post Office.—By Mr. Vesey, from Maryboro', for Alteration of Public Works (Ireland) Act.—By Captain Peehell, from Brighton Railway Company, against Railways Bill.—By Sir D. Norreys, from Cork, for Inquiry into Spirit Trade (Ireland).

JOINT-STOCK BANKS.
Mr. Gladstonemoved, that the Joint-stock Companies Registration and Regulation Bill be committed pro formâ, as there were some amendments of an important character, which he wished to introduce into the Bill. One of those amendments was a modification of the office of registrar, with respect to the use of the joint seal of the Bank. As the Bill stood, it proposed that it should be the duty of the registrar to satisfy himself of the legality of any instrument before he affixed the seal of the company to it. This was a large discretion, and almost amounted to the establishment of a double government of the concern. It was found that the objects which it was desirable so attain, could be accomplished with a relaxation of this provision. There was, likewise, an important qualification proposed of the duties of auditors. As the Bill stood, it would be the duty of one of the auditors to make himself cognizant of every contract previous to its execution. Now, the duties of an auditor were properly corrective and retrospective, and he ought not to be made a party to contracts before, hand, as was thus proposed. It was to meet the objections to which these provisions were liable, that he wished to introduce the amendments he had referred to.
Sir T. Wildesuggested for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman, whether it would not be desirable to make such an alteration in the existing law as to give to a court summary power to pronounce judgment against a second member of a company, where the judgment already
102
delivered against a first was ineffectual, owing to insolvency.
The Bill passed through Committee. Report received.

ZOLLVEREIN—DUTY ON IRON.
Dr. Bowringbegged leave to put the question, of which he had given notice, to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government, respecting the renewed intention of the Zollverein to place a higher duty upon British iron, and particularly on pig iron. He had seen that communications had taken place between the different deputies and the States they represented; and that the concurrence of those States had been obtained to discuss this question. He did not understand that any peremptory instructions had been given to the delegates to insist on the rise of duty, but they were to assemble in September next, when this topic would be again introduced. The question he wished to ask was, whether Her Majesty's Government had taken any measures on the subject, or made any representations to prevent such a disastrous result from taking place?
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that Her Majesty's Government had not received any direct official information with regard to the steps to which the hon. Gentleman referred; but private communications had been received, which led them to believe, that there was a strong desire in Germany to raise the duty on iron. Urgent representations had been made by Her Majesty's Government, appealing to their sense of their own interest; and it was slated to Her Majesty's Government, that there might be an increase of duty for a certain limited period. It would be difficult to answer what might be the result of the assembly which would take place, for they had every reason to think that there would be a strong opposition to the measure.
Dr. Bowringsaid, that the desire of the Zollverein to increase the duty on pig iron had been greatly strengthened by the low prices prevailing in this country at the time. Since then a considerable, advance had taken place, and the arguments used in favour of an increase of duty must have lost a good deal of their weight, because, from that, circumstance there was not so much danger of competition from this country.

COLONEL STODART AND CAPTAIN CONOLLY — DR. WOOLF'S MISSION.
Mr. B. Cochranewished to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he had received any direct account from Dr. Woolf respecting the fate of Colonel Stodart and Captain Conolly; and he also wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government had given their support to Dr. Woolf on his mission to Bokhara, and whether he went into that country with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that Dr. Woolf did not undertake his journey to Bokhara with the direct sanction of Her Majesty's Government, because their means of working on the fears of the governor of that country were very ineffectual; but they told Dr. Woolf that, if he undertook the journey on his own responsibility, he should receive every assistance that Her Majesty's Government could afford; and they had an acknowledgment from Dr. Woolf, thanking Her Majesty's Government for the assistance which he had received in his journey from British agents. Communications had been received from Dr. Woolf, and Colonel Sheil, Her Majesty's representative at Teheran. The letter of Colonel Sheil was dated so recently as the 6th of May; and the letter of Dr. Woolf was dated the 12th of April, at which time he was within three days of Bokhara. Colonel Sheil's letter of the 6th of May, contained the information of a native of Teheran, named Jacoob, who was released from captivity at Khohan, near Khiva, by Captain Conolly, whom he accompanied to Bokhara; and when the two officers were thrown into prison, he shared their fate, being actually imprisoned with them. He remained upwards of a year at Bokhara, and witnessed the execution of a Greek servant of Captain Conolly, named Yousouf. During the time that he remained at Bokhara, no public execution took place, or, at least, he had not heard of any, and he could not have failed, had it taken place. This Jacoob had a strong hope that Colonel Stodart was still alive; but he was not so sanguine as to Captain Conolly, because he was looked upon as a spy. It was right to say that Colonel Sheil did not participate in the hope expressed by this person; and it was remarkable, that two years had now elapsed without the slightest communication from Colonel Stodart, although previously
104
he had always found means of communicating with British authorities. He could not help fearing, that the murder of both these officers was likely to have taken place; but still the most recent accounts confirmed the impression that no public execution had taken place. It was highly probable that the next accounts would give the impressions of Dr. Woolf on the spot; when they arrived, he should be happy to communicate them to the House; but, in the latest account, he was within three days of Bokhara. He feared it was his duty to discourage the expectation that they would contain assurances of the safety of the two officers.
Mr. Cochranesaid, it would be satisfactory to know how far these officers, at the time when they were imprisoned at Bokhara, were employed in the service of the Government.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that Colonel Stodart had been authorised to repair to Bokhara, and was directly employed by the Government to make communications at Bokhara. Captain Conolly had been sent by the Indian government to make communications at Khiva and Khohan. He had no express mission to Bokhara, but an intimation was made to Colonel Stodart, that Captain Conolly was at Khiva, and if he thought he could be useful to him, he had authority to send for him to Khiva. Captain Conolly had not any direct instructions to proceed to Bokhara. He had authority to go to Khiva; but, acting on his own discretion, and doing that which he believed to be for the service of his country, he went there when Colonel Stodart sent for him. Colonel Stodart had direct official instructions, and Captain Conolly did, from a sense of duty, repair to Bokhara.*

IRISH REGISTRATION BILL.
Viscount Howickwished to know, from the right hon. Baronet, what were his intentions with respect to the Irish Registration Bill.
Sir R. Peelreplied, that when this Bill had been brought in, it was intended
* Accounts were received in London on July 27, that both the gallant officers who were the subject of Mr. Cochrane's inquiry, were publicly executed at Bokhara, in the month of June, 1842. Subsequent accounts stated, that the enterprising and humane Dr. Woolf, who went to ascertain their fate, or rescue them if living, was detained by the Khan of Bokhara.

105
to make it applicable to the then next registration; but in the present state of public business, and seeing that it would not be brought into operation at the time that had been intended, he had no hesitation in saying, that there was no probability of passing it in the present year, He did not propose to make any further progress with it than the second reading.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.
[A short discussion provoked by Mr. B. Cochrane inquiring when the Government would proceed with the Poor Law Bill, and complaining of the delay, as to the progress of several measures through the House took place. It terminated by Sir J. Graham saying, that his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government on an early day next week would state those measures which it was the intention of Government to press, and the order in which it was intended to take them. He would also state the names of those which it might be expedient to abandon. Owing to the great length of the debates we find it necessary to omit this discussion, referring the reader who wishes to trace the progress of Bills through Parliament to the minutes which precedes each day's debate.]

DISSENTERS CHAPELS BILL.
On the Motion for reading of the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Dissenters Chapels Bill,
Mr. Colquhoun: There was one remarkable circumstance respecting this Bill, and that was that while all the weight of authority and argument within the House was in its favour, out of the House the feeling of the country was quite in an opposite direction. This was to be gathered from the great number of Petitions that had been presented. The great body of Dissenters in England had no hostility to the Unitarians, they had fought for a long time beside them, more particularly during the past year in the struggle on the education question. He therefore repudiated, on the part of the Church and the great body of Dissenters, the charge of hostility against the Unitarians. As far as the present Bill went to place the Unitarians on a footing with the great body of Dissenters he had no objection to the Bill, but he did not wish it to go further. If the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had issued a
106
commission to examine into the grievances complained of, and the circumstances of the several chapels, he should cordially have approved of such a step; but the present Bill went greatly beyond the alleged grievances. The Dissenters and the Church admitted that there were grievances which might call for legislation. They admitted that, where chapels originally Trinitarian had been rebuilt by Unitarians, or where widows received annuities, that then, although it might be strictly legal, it would not be equitable to interfere with such arrangements. But the remedy for such grievances would have been found by a commission such as that of which he had spoken. The Bill as it now stood would touch a great many cases where interference was not necessary, and in many cases its provisions would be extremely unjust. Now, as to the necessity for this Bill, his hon. and learned Friend had stated at the commencement of the discussion, that but for this Bill there might be litigation in the cases of three hundred chapels, but his answer to that was, that it was impossible. In the great majority of the chapels there were no endowments, and thus the expense of a law-suit would be more than the whole value of the chapel. He thus disposed of that class of cases at once. He admitted, that in cases where endowments were attached to chapels litigation might ensue, but it should be remembered that the hon. and learned Attorney General had stated, in answer to the hon. Member for the West Riding that cases similar to that of Lady Hewley's charity would not come within the scope of the Bill. Now, the same evidence was procurable as to the intention of the founders of chapels, as of the intentions in Lady Hewley's case, and he asked then how in reason or justice, how one case could be excluded and the other preserved? He would call attention to the case of a parish in Halifax There a chapel was founded in the middle of the last century, not by deed or instrument, but the general evidence wen tha it was founded for the service of the Church of England. In 1833 a majority of the congregation became independents, and wished to change the form of worship, but the minority insisted that it should continue as it was, at its original foundation. The majority acted as honest men, and left the chapel in the hands of the minority. The case of the chapel of Wolverhampton

107
formed a strong contrast to the case. In 1781 the majority of the congregation wished for Trinitarian worship, but the trustees held a deed, under which they excluded the majority and the minister. The minister and the majority were poor, they had no means of applying to the Courts, and had, therefore, to submit to the force employed against them. Now, under this Bill, the case in which the people acted honestly would be unprotected, while the other, in which the majority were ejected by force, the persons using the force would be confirmed in their possession. A great deal had been said of the case of the Presbyterians of Ireland, and it had been quoted as a reason for the passing this Bill. Now he thought that case showed that the Bill would inflict a great amount of wrong. The Synod of Antrim seceded from that of Ulster in the last century, and were protected from litigation by the difficulty of getting up evidence respecting the chapels to satisfy a Court of Justice. The secession of 1829 would not be protected by the Bill, which required a possession of twenty-five years. Of the five hundred Presbyterian chapels in Ireland, not one would be protected by the Bill—there was not one in which litigation might not arise, because there was not one in which it might not be alleged that within twenty-five years Trinitarian doctrines according to the tenets of the Synod of Ulster, had been preached. How was it possible to prove that the same class of doctrines had been preached continuously for twenty-five years in any chapel. He would mention a case in which this Bill would inflict a great hardship. A gentleman in Scotland had expended 30,000 l. in building chapels, his intention being to go to India and there spend a great portion of his life. Now, he asked, suppoposing this gentleman to return after an absence of twenty-five or thirty years, would it not be hard to have been excluded by the prescription mentioned in the Bill, from insisting that the doctrines in furtherance of which he had founded the chapels should be preached there. The statute of limitations was wisely applied in cases where private interest was concerned, but the case of foundations for public purposes was different. These must be confided to trustees, who might be unfaithful, and therefore no time should run against them. That was the
108
law at present, but a deviation was made, for the first time, in the present Bill. Last year, when the right hon. Member for Devonport proposed a Bill for the regulation of charitable trusts, he was met by the assertion that they were sufficiently protected by the courts of law. He (Mr. Colquhoun) thought the courts of law could meet the present case and remedy all tangible grievances, and he should therefore move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.
Sir R. Inglis, in seconding the Motion, said, that although the Bill had been somewhat altered since he had last opposed it, it was still the same in all its objectionable features. To the first Clause he did not object; but to the second, which went to establish the prescriptive right, he had a decided objection. The third Clause was not only at variance with the law as it stood, but also with the Bill as it appeared on its first introduction. He had not treated the question as a religious question, nor did he mean to do so now, but would merely state that, under all the circumstances, he felt bound to second the Amendment.
Lord Eliotsaid, that before the question was finally disposed of, he wished to say a few words as regarded the Irish Presbyterians. He could assure the House that when first made acquainted with the case of the non-subscribing Presbyterians, he had no prepossessions in their favour. He was, therefore, an unbiassed witness. He had had various communications both with non-subscribing Presbyterians, and with a deputation of the Synod of Ulster—that deputation headed by gentlemen for whose character, opinions, and talents, he had the highest respect. He had been anxious to effect an amicable settlement of differences; but, unfortunately, his endeavours altogether failed, and he was bound to say, after giving the most calm and attentive consideration to the subject, that legislation was actually necessary to prevent the infliction of a grievous wrong on the non-subscribing Presbyterians of Ireland. He felt that an attempt to revive an obsolete law which, during its existence, had never been put in force in this country—certainly not in Ireland—ought to be resisted. It was very clear that in most cases to which reference had been made, that if it had not been for the previous state of the law between the passing of the Act of

109
Uniformity in Ireland and the repeal of that Act, it would be impossible for the Synod of Ulster to establish their case against the non-subscribing Presbyterians. At the time of the repeal of the Act of Uniformity there was a sort of general agreement in both Houses of Parliament, and the only trace of a discussion which he was able to find was in a few words which had dropped from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Chester, who said that they rose not with the least intention of opposing the measure, but simply to say that it was not called for by any attempt to impose penalties, or to impede the worship of the Unitarians, or to withhold from them that universal toleration which was the peculiar glory of the Church of England. Had they been aware that the Act would be understood as it now, by some parties, appeared to be, they would not have said this. He thought it necessary that Parliament should now give the protection which was really intended to be given by the repeal of the Act of Conformity. In a great majority of cases, the Unitarians dissenting had built houses, chapels, &c., and created the value of the property, and it was impossible to distinguish between such cases and cases where the foundation was said to be for purely Trinitarian purposes. No private interests were affected by this Bill. The Unitarians were not even members of these congregations; and, if they succeeded in dispossessing those who now administered the funds, it was impossible to say on whom they would devolve. He believed by leaving the law in its present state they would only leave a door open to litigation, and he, therefore, felt no hesitation in recommending the Bill to the House. The Bill did not in the least affect any case in which specific mention was made of the trusts or objects for which property was set apart for religious purposes. His hon. Friend said it was not expedient, that because a wrong became general it should be considered as a right. But he did not think there was a wrong. The question was not that of a part of a congregation separating from another part on a question of opinion, but whether where the congregation was unanimous and the founder had not specified his intentions, lapse of time should not be taken as the evidence of those intentions. Looking to all the circumstances of the case, he had come to the conclusion that in
110
agreeing to this Bill the House would simply perform an act of justice.
Sir T. Wildesaid, that this Bill had occupied a considerable portion of his attention, and he admitted that he had originally entertained an opinion adverse to it. At an early stage of its progress, he received a deputation from members of his constituency, consisting of Wesleyan Methodists and other bodies of Dissenters, who required him to give the Bill his opposition. At that time his own opinion was adverse to the Bill, though he differed from the Gentlemen who composed the deputation in many points. Subsequently to that occasion he conversed with many persons, and amongst whom were several to whose judgment he paid deference, and who urged very strong opinions in favour of the Bill. Eventually he (Sir T. Wilde), upon mature consideration of the subject, became convinced that the Bill was a good one, and so far from being one of injustice, would have the effect to prevent the confiscation of property and the misapprehension of the intentions of the founders of religious trusts. This Bill could not extend, as seemed to be apprehended, to afford protection to trustees who should abstract the property of which they were trustees, and apply it to their own uses; or in any other way contrary to the purposes of the trust; but to afford relief and protection, after lapse of time, against vexatious and expensive inquiries as to who were the precise parties for whom he ought to consider himself trustee. The Bill would avoid much expensive litigation—so expensive, that in the one case of Lady Hewley's charities, which had been several years in progress, it was said that as much as 30,000 l. had been spent. He believed, however, that this was an exaggeration, though the costs of this suit had certainly exceeded 10,000 l.; and yet so far was the case from being settled, that they were even upon the threshold of a fresh inquiry. It was a well-known maxim of the English law, that a title became stronger as it became older; and it was so upon this principle, that in lapse of time the evidence of title might become lost or impaired. Now, the present Bill did nothing more than apply this principle to the case of trust properties for religious endowments, the specific intentions of which it might be difficult, perhaps impossible, to prove, in order to prevent much ruinous and useless litigation. The

111
Crown and the Church had given up their claim of prescription, that no time should run against them; and why should not the same principle be applied to parties and individuals, particularly when the settlement of their claims, by the very nature of the case, must be involved in hopeless obscurity and difficulty? In Lady Hewley's case it had been found that neither the Church nor the Unitarians were entitled to the property; but it was not ascertained who were. The consequence was, that fresh litigation was about to be commenced by a new set of claimants. The case of Lady Hewley, therefore, had settled nothing to guide them in the decision of similar cases; in every case the same long expensive inquiries would have to be gone into to ascertain what were the intentions of the founders. He thought, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government had done quite right in stepping forward to pass this measure, in order to prevent the wholesale destruction which threatened property of this description—the costs of litigation, which must often far exceed the whole value of the fund. He did not think that any injustice would be done to founders by fixing a limitation of twenty-five years within which suits to enquire into the original trusts could be instituted, because the natural consequence of this enactment would be, that founders would take precaution to define the purposes to which they intended their endowment to be applied, and would thus prevent the possibility of any misapplication of the funds. Before he sat down, there was a point affecting his (Sir T. Wilde's) conduct in regard to this measure, upon which he felt bound to say a few words. An hon. Gentleman had stated the other day, and that without any previous communication with him, that certain persons had been prejudiced in their opposition to this Bill on its second reading, in consequence of his not having fulfilled the expectations which he had held out of taking their cause in hand; and that it was only very suddenly, previous to the day fixed for the second reading, that these parties became aware of his intention not to carry out their views. Now, he begged to say that this charge was wholly unfounded. The hon. Gentleman he alluded to said that he had undertaken to lead the Opposition against this Bill in this House. He never did anything of the kind. The facts were simply these:—He met the parties,
112
discussed the question with them, when, as he stated before, his opinion was adverse to the Bill; but that opinion, in consequence of subsequent conversation and inquiry with other parties, he saw reason to change. The hon. Member who brought this charge said that he (Sir T. Wilde) had the papers of the parties, containing the grounds and materials of their opposition, in his hands. Now, the fact was, he had received no other papers but such as were generally distributed amongst Members of Parliament and others, against this Bill. He had asked the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), to delay the second reading, in order to give time to those parties who were opposed to the Bill to be heard, with which request the right hon. Baronet had, in the most obliging and courteous manner, complied. From that moment he had no communication whatever with those gentlemen, until, to his great surprise, he saw it announced, that he was to take an active part in opposition to the measure. It was true he had intimated that his first impressions were adverse to the Bill; but as to his having been asked by anybody out of the House to take the lead, or any active part against the measure, or that he had received any other papers than those which were commonly distributed, there was not the least foundation for the statement. This was the state of the case down to the day previous to the second reading, when he received in court a note from the committee in Palace-yard, to which he returned an answer within half an hour stating that his impressions with regard to the measure were altered, and that he proposed to state in his place in the House the reasons which had induced that alteration. So far from his having undertaken to oppose the second reading, he had never understood that any objection was to be made to the principle of the measure, but merely to certain of its details: in fact, the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) himself, assented to one clause of the Bill. He must repeat, he could not understand how his intentions with respect to the measure should have been so far mistaken, inasmuch as long previous to the second reading, he communicated to every person who spoke to him on the subject, that he did intend to support the Bill, believing it, on full consideration, to be a useful and a good measure.
Mr. Shawassured the hon and learned

113
Gentleman (Sir T. Wilde) that he had been misinformed as to the observations which he had thought it right to make with respect to the course taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman, in reference to the second reading of the Bill. His right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) and the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), from the other side of the House, had both remarked that, in the debate on the second reading, the balance of speaking and argument had been largely in favour of the Bill—to which he replied that the opposition to the Bill had laboured under great disadvantage from the loss of the hon. and learned Gentleman's support, which had been fully expected on the part of the opponents of the measure up to the night before the second reading—that he (Sir T. Wilde) had to that period given them advice, been perfectly prepared with their facts, and led them to count upon his powerful advocacy of their claims in that House—and that then, and not till then, he suddenly informed them that he had changed his opinion and would, as he afterwards did, vote for the second reading of the Bill. He never cast any doubt upon the sincerity of the hon. and learned Gentleman's change of mind; but he had said, as every one must feel, that it had caused a serious loss to that side of the question, which the hon. and learned Gentleman had been expected to support, and afterwards, in fact, opposed. Before he stated which he would do in a few words — the reasons why he had voted against the second, and then would vote against the third reading of the Bill, he begged the House to grant a few minute's attention to an explanation of some observations which he had made the last night that question was before the House, respecting a rev. gentleman of great eminence connected with the Remonstrant Synod of Ulster—he meant the Rev. Dr. Montgomery. He had been informed by some Gentlemen then in town, and forming part of the deputation from the General Synod of Ulster, that Dr. Montgomery and other ministers of the Remonstrant Synod had, on their original ordination, subscribed a Trinitarian confession of faith, and upon their authority, he (Mr. Shaw) made that statement to the House. He had not done so for the purpose of throwing the least censure on those ministers who had so changed their opinions, but merely with the view of
114
pointing out the liability there was to such a change of opinion, and the necessity of taking precaution against it. He had not named Dr. Montgomery; but, as he certainly had meant to include him amongst the number to whom he referred, he felt it due to Dr. Montgomery to read to the House an extract from a letter he (Mr. Shaw) had received from that gentleman on the subject. The part which bore upon that point was as follows:—
"I was licensed by one non-subscribing Presbytery, and ordained by another; and, consequently, I was never called upon to subscribe, nor would I have subscribed, being then, as now, an Arian. Almost the whole of my brethren were similarly circumstanced."
He would be very sorry in any degree to misrepresent the rev. gentleman's sentiments. He had on a former occasion mentioned to the House his authority for making the statement, and was then happy in having the opportunity of reading to the House the rev. gentleman's own explanation. It remained for him to state to the House—and he would do it in the briefest possible manner — the grounds upon which he should vote for the amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Colquhoun). He, with every respect for the House, verily believed, that one in ten of those who had supported the Bill by their votes were not aware of its real principle. He was persuaded that the great majority of them thought that the Bill only placed the Unitarian Dissenters upon the same footing as the other dissenting communities of the country. That he denied. The first Clause of the Bill did that; it gave the full benefit of the Act of Toleration to the Unitarian body and their possessions, and placed them exactly in the same condition in respect of every property they enjoyed by gift, endowment, or of their own creation, as all other classes of religionists. To that Clause few objected; and he would willingly have supported a Bill containing that Clause, and also securing to the Unitarians all additions they might have made to property originally Trinitarian—that is what were technically termed Unitarian accretions—and that those should be wholly reserved to the Unitarians, but the objectionable principle of the Bill—the stress of it, as it had been emphatically called by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) — lay in the second Clause: that was indisputably

115
and avowedly for continuing and confirming in one class of Dissenters property which they were wrongfully in possession of, and which the law of the land declared rightfully belonged to another. He admitted that it was a principle, and a just one known to our law, that long possession should quiet title—and to a fair extension of that principle to the present Bill—to the few and excepted cases where there was an obscurity in the original foundation on the one hand, and long possession On the other—he would have consented—but against the second Clause in its present form he protested as a gross misapplication of that principle. It, indeed, allowed the declarations in deeds of endowment to prevail against the short usage it established; but in the vast number of cases where there were no such deeds, and frequently no endowments by founders, it shut out documentary evidence as clear as any deeds could contain, such as that upon which he had in the Committee dwelt, in the instance of that great body of Irish Presbyterians comprised in the Synod of Ulster—where the ministers of every congregation had, in fact, subscribed a Trinitarian confession of faith; the proof of which was preserved in the authentic records of the body, and the Bill permitted the chance and doubtful usage of the short period of twenty-five years, which might occur twice over in the life of a single minister, to prevail against the most positive and incontrovertible written testimony. This he pronounced absolute injustice towards the great mass of the dissenting religious communities of the United Kingdom. Instead of quieting possession, and settling the minds of those congregations, he thought it would render them unquiet and unsettle their religious feelings, and excite jealousies and suspicion in the minds of the congregations against their ministers. So far from stopping litigation, it would force it upon all prudent dissenting bodies which had not deeds of trust, lest otherwise the lapse of time should operate against them. Moreover, without attributing any such object to the Government who introduced the Bill or without meaning offence to any class of Dissenters he must be permitted to observe, that the obvious tendency of the measure would be to encourage and favour one small body of the Dissenters—namely the Unitarians, who alone desired the Bill; while the
116
great, overwhelming majority of the Dissenting community of all parts of the kingdom warmly opposed it as injurious to their just rights of property, and offensive to their conscientious principles in religion.
The House divided on the question that the word "now" stand part of the question, Ayes 201; Noes 81: Majority 120.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Duncombe, hon. A. E.

Acland, T. D.

Easthope, Sir J.

A'Court, Capt.

Egerton, W. T.

Ainsworth, P.

Egerton, Lord F.

Aldam, W.

Eliot, Lord

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Ellice, right hon. E.

Archbold, R.

Entwisle, W.

Arkwright, G.

Escott, B.

Bagot, hon. W.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Baird, W.

Ewart, W.

Bannerman, A.

Fielden, J.

Barclay, D.

Ferguson, Col.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Flower, Sir J.

Barnard, E. G.

Forman, T. S.

Barrington, Visct.

Forster, M.

Bellew, R. M.

Gardner, J. D.

Bernal, R.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Boldero, H. G.

Gibson, T. M.

Bowes, J.

Gisborne, T.

Bowles, Adm.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Bramston, T. W.

Gladstone, Capt.

Brotherton, J.

Godson, R.

Browne, hon. W.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Bruce, Lord E.

Gore, hon. R.

Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Buller, E.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Byng, G.

Granby, Marq. of

Campbell, J. H.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Christie, W. D.

Harcourt, G. G.

Clerk, Sir G.

Hawes, B.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Herbert, hon. S.

Cobden, R.

Hervey, Lord A.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Hill, Lord M.

Colborne, hn. W. N. R.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Hodgson, F.

Collett, J.

Hodgson, R.

Collins, W.

Hogg, J. W.

Courtenay, Lord

Hollond, R.

Craig, W. G.

Hope, hon. C.

Curteis, H. B.

Hope, G. W.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Horsman, E.

Damer, hon. Col.

Hoskins, K.

Denison, W. J.

Howard, hn. E. G. G.

Denison, E. B.

Howard, P. H.

Dennistoun, J.

Howard, hon. Hen.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C.

Hutt, W.

Dodd, G.

Ingestre, Visct.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

James, W.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Jermyn, Earl

Drummond, H. H.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Duncan, Visct.

Knight, H. G.

Duncan, G.

Langston, J. H.

Duncombe, T.

Langton, W. G.

117

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Rawdon, Col.

Leader, J. T.

Repton, G. W. J.

Lennox, Lord A.

Roebuck, J. A.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Ross, D. R.

Lindsay, H. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Loch, J.

Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Shelburne, Earl of

Mackenzie, W. F.

Shirley, E. J.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Smith, B.

Macnamara, M.

Smith, J. A.

McNeill, D.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Mainwaring, T.

Somerset, Lord G.

Marshall, W.

Stanley, Lord

Marsland, H.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Martin, C. W.

Stuart, Lord J.

Mildmay, H. St. J.

Stuart, W. V.

Milnes, R. M.

Stock, Mr. Serj.

Mitchell, T. A.

Strickland, Sir G.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Strutt, E.

Morris, D.

Sturt, H. C.

Muntz, G. F.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Murphy, F. S.

Tancred, H. W.

Neville, R.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Thornely, T.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Towneley, J.

O'Brien, J.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

O'Connell, M. J.

Tufnell, H.

O'Connor Don

Vane, Lord H.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Vernon, G. H.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Villiers, hon. C.

Ord, W.

Vivian, J. H.

Paget, Lord W.

Vivian, hon. Capt.

Paget, Lord A.

Wakley, T.

Paget Col.

Walker, R.

Palmerston, Visct.

Wall, C. B.

Pattison, J.

Wallace, R.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Warburton, H.

Peel, J.

Wemyss, Capt.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

White, H.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Whitmore, T. C.

Philips, G. R.

Wilde, Sir T.

Philips, M.

Wilshere, W.

Plumridge, Capt.

Wodehouse, E.

Ponsonby, hn. C. F.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Powell, Col.

Yorke, H. R.

Power, J.

Pringle, A.

TELLERS.

Pulsford, R.

Young, J.

Pusey, P.

Baring, H.

List of the NOES.

Adderley, C. B.

Clayton, R. R.

Antrobus, E.

Cresswell, B.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Darby, G.

Ashley, Lord

Dashwood, G. H.

Bagge, W.

Dawnay, hon. W. H.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Dickinson, F. H.

Bateson, T.

Douglas, Sir H.

Beresford, Major

Egerton, Sir P.

Blackburne, J. I.

Etwall, R.

Blackstone, W. S.

Farnham, E. B.

Broadley, H.

Fielden, W.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Fellowes, E.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Fitzmaurice, hon. W.

Buck, L. W.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Fox, S. L.

Cholmondeley, hn. H.

Fuller, A. E.

118

Goring, C.

Palmer, R.

Granger, T. C.

Plumptre, J. P.

Gregory, W. H.

Polhill, F.

Grogan, E.

Pollington, Visct

Hamilton, J. H.

Richards, R.

Hardy, J.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Russell, J. D. W.

Henley, J. W.

Seal, Sir J. H.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Hussey, A.

Sibthorp, Col.

Hussey, T.

Smyth, Sir H.

James, Sir W. C.

Smollett, A.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Stewart, P. M.

Jones, Capt.

Taylor, E.

Kemble, H.

Thompson, Ald.

Lawson, A.

Tollemache, J.

Lefroy, A.

Trollope, Sir J.

Lopes, Sir R.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Verner, Col.

McGeachy, F. A.

Vesey, hon. T.

McTaggart, Sir J.

Vivian, J. E.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Wawn, J. T.

Masterman, J.

Welby, G. E.

Mundy, E. M.

TELLERS.

Newport, Visct.

Colquhoun, J. C.

O'Brien, A. S.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bill read a third time, and passed.

BANK CHARTER—THE CURRENCY.
On the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, House in Committee on the Bank Charter Currency Bill.
On Clause eleven,
Colonel Sibthorpconsidered it of the utmost importance that the accommodation which had been usually extended in agricultural districts, should be continued under this Bill; and he doubted whether, by taking the average circulation for the last three months as the basis, that effect would be produced in many cases.
Sir Robert Peelsaid it was perhaps impossible, in taking an average, to take in every case. In the first instance the average of the last two years had been taken as the maximum of issues; but under that provision it was found that many cases of hardship would arise which it would be necessary to provide against by special clauses. The point was consequently reconsidered; and as it was found that by taking the average on the circulation of the twelve weeks previous to the announcement of the Bill, would give an increased circulation, and conform to the wishes of the joint-stock and country banks, and more especially that it involved less risk of disturbing existing interests, it was thought desirable to institute the twelve weeks for the two years. It was found that the further they went back for the averages, the greater would

119
be the number of special clauses required to prevent cases of hardship.
Mr. P. M. Stewartproposed the omission of the last paragraph of the Clause before the Committee, which contained certain restrictions as to issues by joint-stock banks, and as to the lawful number of partners. His proposition went to give security to those sources of issue recognized as lawful in the Bill before the Committee.
Sir Robert Peelobjected to the Amendment, as giving facilities to joint-stock banks to multiply their branches, and swallow up private country banking establishments. He did not wish to meddle with the privileges already enjoyed by joint-stock banks, but he did not wish to allow them to hawk about those privileges for sale in the public market. He, therefore, declined, adopting the suggestion, and hoped that the country bankers would approve of his conduct in doing so.
Mr. M. Phillipsdid not think that joint-stock banks failed in giving security to depositors, and the failures which had taken place among them might frequently be traced to the directors not having early been accustomed to banking business. The tendency of the measure was to teach the mercantile community to look to "coming events," and direct their attention to the fluctuations of foreign exchanges. As such it would be beneficial.
Mr. P. M. Stewartsaid, that those hon. Gentlemen who had made a fortune and retired from business, supported the Government measure cordially, as its tendency was to make money valuable, while those who were still struggling on in commerce, opposed it on account of its restrictive tendencies. He would not press his Amendment either upon that Clause, or that of which he had given notice on the next Clause.
Amendment withdrawn. Clause agreed to.
Bill went through Committee. House resumed. Bill reported.
House adjourned at a quarter to ten o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS, Public.—1a. Sugar Duties.
2a. Bishop of London's Estate; Harris's Estate; Marriages (Ireland); Parishes (Scotland); District Courts and Prisons; County Rates, etc.
Private.—1a. Swansea Improvement.
2a. London and South Western Railway.
Reported. — Ramsden's Estate; Delabole and Rock Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Renfrew, againss the Parishes (Scotland) Bill.—From Newry, and several other places, against the Dissenters Chapels Bill.—From Great Chart, and numerous other places, for Protection to Agriculture.

POST OFFICE—OPENING LETTERS.
The Earl of Radnorrose to present a petition from Mr. Mazzini, complaining that his letters had been for a considerable period regularly opened in the Post Office He stated in his petition that he had been residing in England for seven years, and that his occupation was that of a literary man, and he (the Earl of Radnor) had

75
been given to understand that as a literary man his reputation and merits were of the highest order. The petitioner further stated, that he had never in any manner infringed the laws of England or connected himself with any political party, nor had he ever entered into any seditious or treasonable correspondence. Nevertheless, his letters had been regularly opened for a period of four months; that they had during that period been regularly detained in the Post Office, the seals broken, the contents examined, and after such examination resealed with a counterfeit seal, and the post mark and all the marks of their having been opened obliterated; after which they were forwarded to him without any notification of their having been so examined. He complained of that as a great grievance by which he had been seriously injured, and he prayed their Lordships to take the subject into their consideration, and grant him such redress as they might in their wisdom think fitting and just. Their Lordships were now well acquainted with these proceedings, which had been so much spoken of throughout the country, which had produced such a general feeling of shame and displeasure—a feeling in which he (the Earl of Radnor) most fully participated. He should not detain their Lordships on that occasion by going into a minute detail of all the circumstances connected with this opening of the letters of Mr. Mazzini, for he should have a full opportunity of doing so at length on a future occasion, as he was about to give notice of a Motion on the subject for a subsequent day; but he wished before doing so to ask whether a warrant had been given for opening all those letters by the Secretary of State for the Home Department?
The Lord Chancellor: Have you given notice of the question?
The Earl of Radnor: No.
The Lord Chancellor: Then you cannot require an answer now.
The Duke of Wellington: I do not know the name of the petitioner, nor did I receive any notice from the noble Earl of his intention to put the question.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, the individual from whom the petition came was Mr. Mazzini, whose name had been recently so much before the public, in consequence of his letters having been opened at the Post Office. That individual complained that great injury had been done him by the opening of his letters, and he prayed that their Lordships should take the subject
76
into consideration, in order that they might grant the petitioner redress. He (the Earl of Radnor) therefore gave notice that on Thursday next he should move—
"For the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the practice of opening letters at the Post-office, and particularly into the circumstances connected with the opening of the letters of Mr. Mazzini, and other foreigners residing in England, whose letters had been opened at the Post-office."
Lord Broughamsaid, he wished to correct an erroneous impression into which he had been a party to misleading their Lordships, namely, that the practice of opening-letters by the authority of any of the Secretaries of State originated in the reign of Queen Anne. It was, in fact, one of the numerous legacies left us by the Commonwealth, but it was not by any means one of the best of those legacies. The Ordinance having reference to this authority originated with Cromwell in the time of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, and was given in Scobell's Collection of Acts of Parliament; and curious to say, that Ordinance stated that the very main object of the establishment of the Post Office, or at least one of its main objects, was to enable the Government to prevent wicked and treasonable practices by opening the letters of parties who were at the necessity of communicating their designs to each other in writing. That Ordinance gave no power to the Secretary of State to use such an authority, but it rather took for granted that as soon as the Post Office was established, the Government would exercise such a power. Many admirable legacies had been left by Cromwell, but certainly that was not one of them.
The Earl of Radnoragreed that the power had existed before the Statute of Anne, which limited the practice to the opening of letters by warrant from the Secretary of State for every letter so opened.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not think that a special warrant is required for opening every letter.
Lord Campbellsaid he had that morning read in Scobell the Ordinance referred to by his noble Friend, but he did not put the same interpretation upon it. It was passed in 1656, and one of the principal causes assigned in the preamble for establishing the Post Office was to put down treason, and detect and put an end to treasonable correspondence. When the Act recognised the authority of the Secretary of State to

77
issue his warrant, authorising the opening of a letter in which it was suspected treasonable correspondence was contained, he doubted whether it was contemplated by the Act of Parliament that letters should be opened secretly, and afterwards resealed and sent to the person to whom they were addressed, as if no such examination of them had taken place—as if they had never been inspected. He doubted whether such a system of espionage as that had ever been contemplated by the framers of the Act. He was rather of opinion that the intention was, that in a case of suspected treasonable correspondence, the Secretary of State might open a letter containing such correspondence suo periculo, and bring it forward against any person so concerned in any treasonable plot. The statesmen who flourished at that period were men who, with great faults, combined very great virtues, and this country was indebted to them for great improvements in its institutions; and he very much doubted that they ever contemplated the practice which was afterwards adopted. Indeed, it would appear, that the object of the Act of Anne was to prevent a practice which was calculated to be very pernicious and dishonourable to the country. The words in the Act 9 of Anne, c. 10, s. 40, were very distinct, and would undoubtedly go to prevent the exercise of such a general warrant as would authorise the opening of all letters addressed to any individual; for it recited that "whereas many abuses may be committed by wilfully opening, delaying, or detaining letters, to the great discouragement of trade and commerce, and correspondence," and it went on to make, not a misdemeanor but subject to penalties, the opening, destroying or detaining any letter in a post-office: then came this exception, "unless by an express warrant in writing, under the hand of one of the Principal Secretaries of State, for even such opening, detention, or delay"; toties quoties, there must be a warrant for opening every letter. It was quite clear that it was not intended by this Act to grant such an unconstitutional power as the issue of general warrants, for it required an express warrant for each letter. No one could throw the blame upon the present Government for following the form of warrant which they found had been before adopted. However, under the Act of Anne, an express warrant was required, and the noble Earl, who was not then in his place (the Earl of Tankerville), and who had
78
the other night stated that he had seen general warrants for opening letters, had seen warrants which were not justified by the words of that Act.
The Lord Chancellordid not concur with his noble and learned Friend in his views and construction of the Act. Undoubtedly they could not open letters without an express warrant, but he did not believe that an express warrant was required for every letter which was opened, but that a warrant directed to the Postmaster to open the letters of A B within a certain period of time would be, in the sense of the Act, an "express warrant for every such opening." It was quite evident that if that were not the case, any power to issue a warrant for the detection of treasonable correspondence would be rendered altogether nugatory in effect. It struck him as a little singular that his noble and learned Friend should object so strongly that one warrant would not be sufficient to justify the opening of several letters, insisting that there must be a specific warrant for the opening of each letter, when the Act of Victoria was passed under the inspection of his noble and learned Friend himself, when Attorney-General, and yet had not those very words, on which his own construction now depended. But this was not all—in preparing this Act, his noble and learned Friend had introduced an alteration, omitting the very words on the meaning of which he now commented. He did not believe that the power was created by the original ordinance of Cromwell. He believed that the ordinance of Cromwell rather recognised an assumed power in the Secretary of State to issue the warrants. The ordinance did not grant any power to the Secretary of State to issue the warrant, but it assumed that such a power existed in the Secretary of State, and that he could use it. The Act of Anne in like manner gave no power to the Secretary of State, but assumed the power to exist in the same manner as the former Act. Assuming, then, that the power existed in the Secretary of State to issue those warrants to open the letters of persons suspected, could it be said that the power could be practically useful if there were a special warrant required for opening every letter? He would not go at present into full details as, in consequence of the Motion of the noble Earl (Earl Radnor), there would be a future occasion on which they might go at greater length into the Acts of Parliament and the ordinance of

79
Cromwell. He should now, however, again say, that the power of the Secretary of State to issue these warrants to open the letters of persons suspected of mischievous designs against the State, was assumed by the Act, but not granted.
Lord Campbellwished to explain. He did not complain of the law as it now stood, but of the manner in which it had been acted upon. He was complaining of the issuing of general warrants.
Lord Broughamsaid, that the Acts contained in Scobell's collection did not grant the power, but they assumed that the common law power existed in the Secretary of State to issue the warrant. With respect to the re-sealing of the letters and sending them forward, he could not concur in thinking that it was the greatest evil. If they were opened and read, and their contents copied, and they were afterwards sent to their destination, it was so much the better, for the real grievance was, not sending the letters on, but opening them.
Lord Denmansaid, that the ordinance in Scobel recited the great convenience to trade and commerce of sending letters through the Post Office, and the advantage of a power to prevent, through that agency, treasonable designs against the Commonwealth of England; but if by implication it may be thought to allow this authority, it did not say one word about Foreign Powers. The first Act, constituting a public Post Office, was passed after the Restoration, the 12th of Charles II., and there was not in that one word about opening letters, or the means afforded of detecting conspiracies, or the Secretary of State's warrant. The 9th of Anne did not create, but it recognised the power, at the same time, however, distinctly requiring that there should be a warrant for every such opening. Language which certainly appeared to him to found a strong argument that every particular letter should be delivered safe, unless it were directed to be opened by an express warrant from the Secretary of State. If it did not mean that, if a special and express warrant were not necessary to authorise every such opening, then the warrant of the Secretary of State might require the Postmaster to single out all the letters directed to any particular individual during a year, or seven years, or during his entire tenure of office. If the later Act was more loosely worded, still this consequence appeared so monstrous as to condemn the construction which would admit it. On the whole matter
80
he could not doubt that, now that the subject was before the House of Lords, or rather before the Cabinet, they would perceive it to be not a question of antiquarian investigation, or of the history of Acts and Ordinances, or even of their true verbal interpretation, but rather a question what ought to be the law and practice at the present moment as regarded all the great states of the world, and particularly as regarded the people of England. He was satisfied that the noble Duke himself—if it were not from reluctance to giving up a Colleague, placed under a serious imputation would have felt the propriety of bringing down a measure modifying or defining the absolute power which now seemed to exist. That power, however, was not conferred by an Act of Parliament; it was assumed; it was taken for granted, and was supposed to have arisen from that state necessity which had set aside the wholesome law of the land in other particulars, which had made the habeas corpus Act so essential for the personal liberty of the subject, and which was brought into question in another form, when general warrants were supposed to be sanctioned by law, as well as practice. But no sooner were those warrants brought before the judges than they one and all condemned them, and showed by clear reasoning to be as illegal, as they were inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution. Amongst these judges were Lords Mansfield and Camden, the latter of whom admitted the practice, but observed, matus usus abolendus; and all the judges declared that the power was one which ought never to have been practiced, and was of no force when submitted to the proper tribunal. This assumed power in regard to the opening of letters was the assumption of that state necessity, and of which, in fact, it was at the present moment the only relic.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that as his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) had commented on the first Act, he wished he would read the Clause in his own Act—the existing law.
Lord Campbellsaid, that those words were by way of proviso, instead of exception, and he thought if they came judicially before his noble and learned Friend (Lord Denman, who had, by the declaration he had just made, rendered himself more dear to the people of England, if that were possible), that he would be of opinion that they were exactly the same. The 1st of Victoria, c. 36, after making it a misdemeanour

81
to open, detain, or delay a post letter, went on by way of proviso to say—
"That nothing herein contained shall extend to the opening, or detaining, or delaying of a post letter returned for want of a true direction, or of a post letter returned by reason that the person to whom the same shall be directed is dead or cannot be found, or shall have refused the same, or shall have refused or neglected to pay the postage thereof; nor to the opening, or detaining, or delaying of a post letter in obedience to an express warrant in writing under the hand, in Great Britain, of one of the principal Secretaries of State, and in Ireland under the hand and seal of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland."
This he took to mean precisely the same thing as the language of the Statute of Anne, namely, that there should be an express warrant for every letter.
Lord Broughamsaid, that nothing would make his noble and learned Friend who had just sat down more dear to him than his being kind enough to answer him this question. How was it possible for the Secretary of State, who did not know what letters Mr. Mazzini or any other given individual might receive to-morrow morning, to make out a warrant for any one of those letters? If he was to make out a warrant for each letter how was he to know the number of them? and if he was to describe each letter, he must know the postmark, the kind, shape, or something whereby to describe it. Nothing but the construction of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack could be the rational or sensible construction of the existing law. The construction put on it by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) was rank nonsense. If there must be an individual warrant for each individual letter, how could Sir J. Graham know anything about the letter, so as to be able to point it out?
The Lord Chancellorsaid that the only way in which it was possible that it could be done was, that the Secretary of State should go to the Post Office and put his finger on a particular letter, and then issue his warrant for opening it.
Lord Denmansaid that would not be necessary, for under a system of espionage the spy could write to the Secretary of State and say that such a particular letter might be expected to reach Portsmouth on a certain day, and in a particular handwriting. There were, in fact, various ways in which it might be done. Perhaps the Secretary of State might not find the express warrant as convenient as a general
82
warrant, but it would answer his purpose to a certain extent. With respect to the Act which was carried into effect when his noble and learned Friend was in office, he could only remark that neither his noble Friend nor himself could be expected to make an Act all wise; but if that Act were difficult to be carried into execution, perhaps so much the better. Indeed, he was not sure whether the Secretary of State who exercised that power, might not under the circumstance of the several Acts of Parliament on the subject, find himself in a difficult situation. Considering the circumstances of the case, he thought it was imperative on the Government to introduce some measure which would place the subject on some safe and intelligible principle.
Lord Broughamagreed that they were not bound to make sense of every insensible Act of Parliament; but for the last 150 years the same form of expression had been used and acted on by all Governments, from Sir R. Walpole to Mr. Fox. He must say that the way pointed out by his noble and learned Friend behind him was, with great respect, one of the most impossible that could be thought of. He assumed that there must be a spy who knew there were letters coming, and who knew the handwriting of the party writing them, and by whose description of the letter the Secretary of State was to find it on a particular day. That would reduce the Act of Parliament to utter insignificance. The power had been exercised for years on the opposite construction, on the practical construction put upon it by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, namely, that a general warrant for all openings justified each individual opening.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the statute of Anne referred to the "opening of any letter or letters except by an express warrant," plainly signifying that the warrant embraced the plural as well as the singular number of letters. [Cries of "Read."] The noble Lord then read the oath prescribed (in the 9th Anne, chap. 10, sec. 41) to be taken by the Postmaster and other officers:—
"I, A B, do swear, that I will not wittingly, willingly, or knowingly open, detain, or delay, or cause, procure, permit, or suffer to be opened, detained or delayed, any letter or letters, packet or packets, which shall come into my hands, power or custody, by reason of my employment in or relating to the Post Office; except by the consent of the person or persons to whom the same is or shall be directed,

83
or by an express warrant in writing under the hand of one of the principal Secretaries of State for that purpose."
This, he conceived, showed that the warrant was intended to apply to "letters" as well as to a single "letter." [A noble Lord observed that that was an enacting clause.] But were they not to take all the clauses of an Act together for the purpose of finding out its meaning? The word in the statute of Anne, upon which his noble and learned Friend now relied, had been omitted purposely and designedly, not by a Tory, but a Whig Government, from the Consolidating Act.
Lord Campbellhad before declared that the Act had been introduced when he was Attorney General, and he was responsible for the words of it. As to what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend of the impossibility of defining beforehand what letters should be opened, there were sufficient instances in history to the contrary, showing, that where the information to justify opening any letter at all exists, it may very well point out the particular letter which is the object of suspicion, so that on its arrival it may be stopped and examined by a special warrant, specially indicating the special letter. Indeed when the Ordinance referred to was passed, it was said that Cromwell had received information in this way, that on a certain day a certain letter from the King to the Queen would arrive in London, at the sign of the Blue Boar, in the saddle of a particularly indicated messenger. The messenger was arrested on his arrival at the Blue Boar; the saddle was ripped up, and there was the letter, wherein the writer, among other things, intimated that Cromwell, instead of a blue ribband, at which he had aimed, ought to have a halter.
The Lord Chancellorcalled attention to the particular Clause in the 9th of Anne, c. 10, s. 40, which enacted that
"No person or persons shall presume wittingly, willingly or knowingly, to open, detain, or delay, or cause, procure, permit, or suffer to be opened, detained, or delayed, any letter or letters, packet or packets, after the same is or shall be delivered into the General or other Post Office, or into the hands of any person or persons employed for the receiving or carrying post letters, and before delivery to the persons to whom they are directed, or for their use, except by an express warrant in writing under the hand of one of the principal Secretaries of State."
[Cries of "Go on."] The noble Lord continued to read—
84
"For every such opening, detaining, or delaying."
Everybody knew these words were in the Act; but the whole question turned upon the question of "opening, detaining, or delaying any letter or letters except by an express warrant."
The Marquess of Clanricardewould submit to their Lordships, that the very terms of the Clause just read by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack made it clear that, for "every such opening" there must be a special and particular warrant, and that therefore the idea of one warrant applying to a man's whole correspondence was altogether incorrect. One thing was, at all events, clear, that after what had taken place, the matter could not be allowed to stop here. Doctrines had been propounded which no right-minded Englishman could submit to have received in this country. It was said that it was impossible for the Secretary of State to describe beforehand what letters should be opened, and that therefore, as a matter of common sense, and absolute necessity, the whole of a man's correspondence must be opened. Now, on what ground was a Secretary of State to issue a warrant? It must be on information—on sound, clear information—otherwise the Secretary of State would be committing an act of despotic tyranny, to suit his own caprice and pleasure, and for some other even more unworthy motive; if such information were furnished, it could hardly be a matter of much difficulty to ascertain to what particular correspondence the attention of the Government ought to be directed. But it would seem, according to the new doctrine, that no information was necessary. That was part of the question against the Government, because it was stated in a petition before their Lordships' House that a gentleman's letters had been opened in the Post Office unjustifiably. That accusation was brought against a great public department, and it would be necessary for the Government to let their Lordships know upon what grounds that accusation rested. On the other hand, if it could be denied on authority that this gentleman's letters were opened, then might they reject the prayer of the petition; but if not, having received that petition, and seeing that the statement in it was publicly made, he conceived it to be utterly impossible that they could allow the matter to rest until they were informed of the nature of the warrant under which, the Post Office acted, and whether the

85
Secretary of State had had good reasons for issuing such warrant. Issuing a warrant to open letters in the Post Office, without the fullest justification, was an act of despotic power which the country would never submit to.
Lord Broughammust really say a word as to the gross misapprehension which the noble Lord had formed, and the gross misstatement, founded on that gross misapprehension, which he had given, of what had fallen from him. The noble Marquess imputed to him the doctrine that the Secretary of State had a right to open letters at the Post Office, without any information on which to proceed. Now, this was a most extraordinary misconception on the part of the noble Marquess. There was, he (Lord Brougham) was sure, no other Member of the House who had understood what had fallen from him in that way. What he had said was this. General information, every body knew the Secretary of State must have; he must suspect somebody ere he opens his letters, and he can only do this on information; he is not to open letters because he has had a dream that somebody deserves to be suspected and watched; he must have information that the party is engaged in unlawful transactions—transactions injurious to the tranquillity of the realm at home, or, he would add, for he had some regard for other countries as well as for his own, to the tranquillity of realms abroad; nor did he say that any foreign Minister was to be at liberty to come to the Secretary and say, "I suspect A. B., and therefore you must open his letters for me." God forbid! But, then, if a British Minister has information that a particular person is engaged in dangerous and unlawful practices, which require that he should be watched, the Minister has a right to issue his warrant to the Post Office to detain and examine the letters of that person; as to the proposition that he is to specify what particular letter is to be opened, that was a mere ahsurdity—it was requiring what in 999 cases out of a 1,000 was a physical impossibility. Mr. Fox was certainly a man filled with the highest devotion to the constitutional liberties of the subject—to the freedom of the people in every respect; yet he did not think it necessary to issue separate warrants. He had seen and carefully read the document ordering the Postmaster General to detain and open all the letters to the foreign Ministers, and all letters from the foreign Ministers, without further authority or specification whatever,
86
and also any other letters to or from any other individuals, "of which letters I shall give you notice." That was in 1782. Did not Mr. Fox mean by that he had a right to open by general warrant, not only the letters of all the foreign Ministers living under the peculiar and special protection of the laws of this country, but the letters of any other person? Was the notice to give a description of the particular letter? The impossibility was manifest and glaring to the eye. To issue a warrant for each letter would imply that he knew what letter each individual was to write, what letter each individual was to receive, and also the number of letters; and if two letters were sent on the same day, there must be a warrant for each. The Postmaster General might say, "I have got a warrant from the Secretary of State to open; a letter, but here are two, which am I to open?" Then he must have recourse to chance. But the Act of Parliament did not say it was to be done by lot. He was really ashamed of troubling their Lordships any longer with arguing on so untenable a proposition. The provision was that no letter or letters should be opened without a warrant for every such opening. What was the last antecedent? The opening of such letter or letters. The word letters in the plural included each letter. Suppose a warrant to be issued for the apprehension of three persons, naming them, would not that be a warrant for the taking of each? [The Lord Chancellor: It was an express warrant.] It was, and a warrant to take the letters of A. B. would be a warrant to take each of the letters of A. B. That was the logical construction.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that the question in this case was not whether one or two letters had been opened, but whether the gentleman now complaining, had not been seriously injured and wronged by Slaving all his correspondence regularly opened for a period of several months; and this was the question on which it was his (the Earl of Radnor's) intention to move for a Committee to inquire into the whole matter. The most extraordinary feature was, the five Members of the Government seated in a row on opposite benches and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack were all of them profoundly ignorant about the matter. Here had this transaction been the subject of general remark out of doors for a full fortnight past, and in the same period been discussed three or four times in the House of Commons; and twice in their

87
Lordships' House, yet had not the Cabinet Ministers in that House considered it their duty to inquire of their brother Cabinet Minister, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether or no it was the case that Mr. Mazzini, a gentleman highly respected, esteemed, and beloved by all who knew him, had been subjected to the odious proceedings complained of. In order to sift the matter thoroughly, he should, on Thursday next, move that a secret Committee be appointed, to whom the whole affair should be referred.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that as the noble Earl proposed to bring forward the question regularly on Thursday, it might more fitly be further debated then. All he could say was, what he had said before, that the warrant issued by his right hon. Friend was in strict conformity with all the precedents, and that he had done no more than had been done by all the Secretaries of State from the reign of Queen Anne to the present time.
Lord Kinnairdasked whether there was any Secret Board at the Post Office to whom these letters when detained were referred?
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that it could not be supposed that he knew anything about the administration of the Post Office.
The subject dropped.

NATIONAL GRANARIES.
The Earl of Winchilsea, after presenting some petitions in favour of protection to agriculture, said he would throw himself upon the indulgence of their Lordships for a short time, while he endeavoured to show, pursuant to the notice he had given, the expediency and sound policy of establishing National Granaries in this country, under the authority and control of the Government. In doing so, he should studiously refrain from offering any observations on the Corn Laws; because, however widely the three parties—those who advocated the present system of a sliding-scale, those who were for a fixed duty, and those who were opposed to all protection to agriculture, differed upon the question of the Corn Laws, he believed they must all agree that the establishment of National Granaries would be a great public benefit. Their Lordships were doubtless aware that the Corn Trade of this country was in the hands of a very small body of wealthy individuals; he believed he might fairly state that there was a larger amount of floating
88
capital engaged in that branch of trade than in any other. It was a notorious fact, that from about the middle of March, when the corn was out of the hands of the grower, up to the harvest, the wheat market was under the sole control of this body, who, by a combination, and by arrangements amongst themselves, could effect a great rise in the price of wheat between those two periods, gaining thereby not only considerable profit individually, but also obtaining still further advantages by immediately employing their capital in refreshing their granaries with foreign corn at a low rate of duty. If their Lordships could secure a fixed price of corn, a fixed low price, they would secure an immense benefit to the country; and he thought the establishment of National Granaries would go far to secure that benefit. It was not good policy, but the worst policy of all, for the Government of any country, more particularly of this country, where such an artificial state of things existed, to have an enormous population, engaged in great and extensive manufactures throughout the land, dependant for their supply of food, in any degree, or for however short a period, upon a few individuals. He had often reflected with horror upon the consequences of a total failure of the harvest. What man was there either in that House or out of it, who would deny that such an event was possible? who could say whether an approaching harvest would be productive or whether we might not be wholly deprived of so great a blessing! For the produce of the land was from the Lord, and the seasons were entirely in His hands! And might not the same event happen with respect to other countries to which we looked for supplies? The results of such a state of things in this country were too frightful to contemplate. The plan which he would suggest—for he could only throw it out as a suggestion, for he had not the power, however strong might be his inclination, to propose it in form—that could only be effectually done by Her Majesty's Government—the plan which he submitted to the consideration of their Lordships and of the country, and which he had entertained in his own mind for the last five or six years, but had never before publicly propounded, because of the diffidence he felt with regard to his own judgment and power—the plan was this, to establish National Granaries, five or six in different parts of the country, say Manchester, Hull, Liverpool, Bristol, and London, to contain

89
from 300,000 to 500,000 quarters of wheat each, which would amount to about 3,000,000 in the aggregate. The Legislature could then say to the agricultural interest of England—"If you can supply the market with wheat at such a price, say from 50 s. to 55 s. per quarter, you may do so." He would propose then, that the Government should have the power to open granaries, and pour into the market that quantity of wheat which would be sufficient to keep it at that price at which it was always desirous the country should have it. He could assure their Lordships that in making this suggestion he was not influenced by any interested feeling, but by two reasons — first, that it was the sound policy of every state to give encouragement to home industry; and, secondly, that upon an average of years the country would produce wheat cheaper than if it was dependent upon foreign countries for supplies. In 1835 the very best brown wheat was sold in England at 35 s. He did not say that those granaries should be solely supplied with home-grown corn, but that the Government should take the opportunity of obtaining wheat at as cheap a rate as they could get it. But it might be said that if we had seven successive good harvests, where would be the use of hoarding it up?—it would not keep so long. The fact was, that wheat when kept long would ferment and form a crust on the outer surface of the heap which preserved it, and by good management it could be kept for fifty years, and be sound and good at the end. A friend of his had told him that he had seen heaps of corn in that condition. The object he contemplated was, to give to the labouring classes of this country wheat at the lowest possible price at which it could be grown in this country. Our manufacturing population was increasing every year, and he was anxious to see them so supplied with wheat. But not the manufacturing population alone would benefit by the plan. No interest suffered so much from fluctuations in the price of wheat as the agricultural interest. That arose from the influx of corn in the beginning of the year, when the agriculturists were compelled to send it to market, not getting, however, those high prices which the speculators did from March down to the following harvest again, during which interval they used all their wisdom, ingenuity, and talent in withholding and managing the supply. The plan would be a great benefit to agriculture, then, because it
90
would establish fixity of price, and it would affect wages in an equal degree, and therefore be a benefit to the labouring population. The price of labour depended much upon the price of wheat, and varied along with it. In 1835, for instance, when the price of wheat was so low, wages sank from 16 s. to 10 s. or 9s., but the men did not complain. Another great advantage which would arise would be the putting an end to the present agitation upon the Corn Laws, which was so ruinous to all interests, that agitation which arrayed one great interest against another, to their mutual detriment; that agitation which represented the gentry and aristocracy of this country as wishing to live for themselves alone without caring anything for the mass of the people, and which, therefore, must produce bad effects upon the minds of the population. The plan would also increase the means of employment, and cause the land to be made more productive. He left these observations for the consideration of their Lordships, and hoped that some day he should see the plan he advocated, carried into effect.
Lord Monteaglewished to say a few words with respect to the very important speech which they had just heard from the noble Earl. In many of the statements made by the noble Earl, he agreed, and above all, as to the inconveniences and evils which resulted to the whole community from the present state of the law, and he especially agreed that these evils were more especially experienced by the agriculturists. The noble Earl said, that the present mode of carrying on the corn-trade, might be productive of great evil to the agriculturists. He (Lord Monteagle) agreed in this, and also that the corn-trade was thrown into comparatively few hands. The noble Earl said, these persons were generally great capitalists; no doubt they sometimes were so, but at other times operations of the utmost importance in the corn-market, were carried on by persons who had no capital of their own, but traded on speculation with capital of other persons. The noble Earl, on the part of the public, complained of the fluctuations which took place in the price of corn, and also said, that the agriculturists suffered more than any other class from this. He also stated that this great rise of price chiefly took place between the month of March and the ensuing harvest, and a rise of price at that

91
time was of no advantage to the produce of corn in the country. But why was it that the corn-trade had fallen into the hands of so few persons? There was no monopoly in connection with it; there was nothing in the trade to prevent any person embarking in it. The reason, however, of this was, that by our legislation in connection with it, the trade in corn had become of such an extremely speculative character, that it drove from it men who were of sober minds, and who did not wish to embark in such uncertain matters, and therefore the trade was left in the hands of persons of a different character. The truth was, that the present state of the law, held out an inducement to get a rise of price by withholding com from the market, when the public most required it. The state of the land also at the periods which he alluded to, not only led to this fall in prices, but it also led to such a diminution of the duty, that immense quantities of corn were taken out of bond at the lowest duty, and thrown upon the markets, thus producing the greatest fluctuations in prices. If, however, the authority of the noble Earl was to be taken—and it was notorious that he was a great practical agriculturist—it appeared that in the average number of years in this country wheat could be produced as cheap or cheaper than in other countries. Now, if this was the case, it took away the great argument which was urged by the majority of those who were opposed to a repeal of the Corn Laws. He now came to the remedy which was suggested by the noble Earl. He thought that the noble Earl had acted logically in making his proposition, for he did not think that any improvement could take place as long as the House supported such an extravagant system as the sliding-scale. Under a free state of trade, or with a small fixed duty for revenue on corn, no such evils could be produced as were alluded to by the noble Earl. He should therefore say, that although the noble Earl was logically right, he would be practically wrong. The noble Earl must be aware that, not only in ancient but in modern times, the erection of public granaries, to guard against seasons of scarcity had been much discussed. This question had been most ably handled by one of the most distinguished political writers that this or any other country ever produced: he alluded to
92
Mr. Burke, who, in his pamphlet on Scarcity, which it was generally understood had been prepared at the request of Mr. Pitt, distinctly pointed out many of the evils which would result from such establishments, and showed that so far from tending to obviate or prevent the evils complained of, that they would tend to increase and aggravate them. The following was the passage to which he referred:—
"A report has gone abroad, that intentions are entertained of erecting public granaries. I hear that such a measure has been proposed—that is, for Government to set up a granary in every market town at the expense of the State, in order to extinguish the dealer, and to subject the farmer to the consumer, by securing to the latter corn at a certain and steady price. If such a scheme be adopted, I should not like to answer for the safety of the granary, of the agents, or of the town itself. The foul storm of popular phrenzy, would fall on that granary. In an economical light I must observe, that the construction of such granaries would be an expense beyond all calculation. The keeping them up would be at an immense charge. The management and attendance would require an army of agents, store-keepers, clerks, and servants. The capital required would be enormous. The waste would be a dreadful drawback on the whole dealing. The moment the Government appears in the market, all the principles of market will be subverted. I do not know whether the farmers will suffer from it as long as there is a tolerable market of competition; but I am sure that in the first place a trading Government will speedily become bankrupt, and the consumer in the end will suffer."
And subsequently he said:—
"There is no way of preventing this evil (fluctuations produced by errors of legislation) which goes to the destruction of all our agriculture, and of that part of our internal commerce which touches our agriculture the most nearly, as well as the safety, and very being of our Government, but successfully to resist the very first idea, speculative or practical, that it is within the competence of Government, or even of the rich, as rich, to supply to the poor those necessaries which it has pleased the Divine Providence to withhold from them for a while. We, the people, ought to be made sensible that it is not in breaking the laws of commerce, which are the laws of nature, and consequently the laws of God, that we are to place our hope for softening the divine displeasure to remove any calamity under which we suffer, or which hangs over us."
He conceived that the statement of the noble Earl was the strongest possible argument against the sliding-scale.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that he did not agree with his noble Friend in thinking that any advantages would arise from the establishment of public granaries. One speech this week, in the other House, had done more good than would follow from the erection of a hundred granaries—for backed as that speech was by such an increasing majority, it would tend, more than any thing else, to produce something like certainty with respect to agricultural pursuits, and thus ultimately produce cheapness and certainty of price. The noble Lord had alluded to the fluctuations in the corn-trade, He denied that the present law produced these great fluctuations in price, for that was attributable to quite a different cause, namely, the seasons. He denied that there was the prospect of a bad harvest this year. He thought that his noble Friend who spoke last was led away merely by feelings of enthusiasm, when he spoke so strongly of the alleged evils of the sliding-scale, the best way to prevent a scarcity, was to continue to get majorities of 204 against alterations in the Corn Laws in another place.
The Earl of Winchilseaagreed with his noble Friend who spoke last, as to the importance of producing something like a feeling of certainty in the minds of those engaged in agricultural pursuits. For his own part, he would rather see no duty at all than a fixed duty. He confessed that he was surprised at hearing such observations as he had quoted from Mr. Burke, respecting public granaries. With the opinions of that eminent man he could not agree, although he entertained the highest respect for him.
Subject dropped.

CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND) BILL.
House in Committee.
Clauses 1 to 10 agreed to.
On Clause 11 being read,
Lord Hathertonexpressed his regret that the Government had not adopted the straightforward course of admitting the claims of the Roman Catholic clergy, and had not acted upon the principle put forward in the Bill which had been introduced into the other House of Parliament by Mr. O'Connell with respect to the management of the trusts—namely, making the clergymen of the Roman Catholic Church Corporations sole for the management
94
of the funds left for the advancement of their religion by charitable persons. It was, however, his intention not to do more than to record his individual opinion on the point, as he would not press his objection to a division. He had a second objection to the Clause, which was, that the archbishops and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church were excluded by it from the benefits which the Act was intended to confer. The charity was to be held in trust for the Roman Catholic minister, for the time being, of any district in Ireland for which the charity had been given, and he could not conceive if it were considered politic that such endowments should be encouraged, why the Act was not to extend to the archbishops and bishops as well as to the inferior ministers of the Roman Catholic Church, The Roman Catholic Clergy were already recognized by the law as parochial ministers. The Act of 1781, which admitted them to the exercise of their functions, and repealed the penal statutes regarding them, directed that they should register their names and places of abode, and the names of their parishes if they had any. It therefore recognized them as parochial ministers, and he was not aware of the existence of any Act which treated them in a different light. Without trespassing farther on the attention of their Lordships, he would beg leave to propose as an amendment that the two words "Archbishops and Bishops" be inserted instead of the words "Roman Catholic ministers," in the Clause.
Lord Beaumontsaid, he hoped the noble Lord who had just sat down would not think him guilty of taking any ungracious part towards him when he declared that he entirely disagreed with him in the amendment which he had proposed. He was aware that the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland wished the thing to be done in the way which the noble Lord suggested, and that Mr. O'Connell had but spoken their wishes in the Bill which had been introduced by him in the other House of Parliament, But he (Lord Beaumont) had since then had communications on the subject with parties that he considered higher authority on the matter than even the Catholic Clergy of Ireland themselves; and he could say distinctly that, with the present relations between this country and Rome, it was not the desire of any higher parties that anything should be done tending

95
to establish the Catholic Clergy of Ireland as corporations, having power of controlling funds left for religious purposes and of regulating them as corporations, without any control over them either by state or by the foreign power by which they were influenced—namely, the Papal See. He hoped that in all measures like the present some controlling body, such as the Commissioners proposed to be appointed under that act, would be nominated, having the power of controlling the charities, so as to enable parties to put funds in trust for the support of the Catholic religion who might be disposed to do so. He had felt it to be his duly to make these remarks, because he had undertaken and promised that if the measure of Mr. O'Connell should have reached that House he would oppose it; and he therefore trusted the noble Lord who had preceded him would not think he had taken an ungracious part in opposing his amendment, and in expressing his opinion that charities left for the support of the Roman Catholic religion should be held by Commissioners in trust for the purposes for which they had been bequeathed.
Lord Monteaglesaid, there were two propositions involved in the objections that had been taken to the Bill by his noble Friend behind him (Lord Hatherton). One was that the provisions of the Bill ought not to be confined to the clergy, but should be extended to the higher dignitaries in the Roman Catholic Church—to the archbishops and bishops. In that he entirely and decidedly agreed with his noble Friend; but with respect to the second objection, he had the misfortune to differ from his noble Friend in the view which he had taken. Whether they were dealing with the clergy of their own (the Established) church or with the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church, he considered that there would be an essential convenience in placing charitable trusts under the care of trustees. No doubt, the beneficial use of such trust-property would be for the parochial minister; but still there would be an advantage in having trustees, which would become apparent when they considered the various changes that took place among the Roman Catholic priesthood, and that they were governed by laws of which they (the House of Lords) knew nothing. Priests might, for instance, be suspended
96
or put under Ecclesiastical censure, and yet have still the enjoyment of the charities left under their control. He agreed with his noble Friend that difficulties were got into by the Government not having boldly faced the real practical remedy, and he was convinced that the measure, from the manner in which it had been brought forward, would lead to many great inconveniences, and act in some instances diametrically opposite to the intentions of the Government. For example, they were all aware that in the Roman Catholic Church there were regular as well as secular clergy, and though the Government evidently intended in bringing forward the present measure that the endowments to which it referred should be for the secular or parochial clergy of the country, still they would, in consequence of their fears to do that full justice that they ought to act upon, open the door for endowments not merely to the parish priests but to every friar and to every establishment of friars that might be found in the country. It might be that those friars, of whom he wished to speak with great respect, were not bound by the same local ties that were attached to the secular clergy, and yet the Act would prove equally beneficial to them, unless there might be some subsequent Clauses intended to exclude them. In endeavouring to avoid a verbal danger the Government were injuring their own objects and exposing themselves to a practical danger which it would be their obvious wish to avoid.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, he thought the words of the Act "Roman Catholic ministers for such district duly appointed thereto according to the law and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church," were sufficiently explicit, as applying to the parish priest of the district. With regard to the other point referred to by his noble Friend opposite, he entirely concurred with him, that the benefit of the Act ought to be extended to the Archbishops and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church; and he accordingly intended to introduce an interpretation Clause which he had then beside him, and which was in substance to the following effect:—
"And be it enacted that the words 'Roman Catholic minister' shall include all persons in holy orders, having authority within the district, and that the word 'district' shall mean any Ecclesiastical division recognised as such

97
according to the laws and constitution of the Roman Catholic Church."
The words "Roman Catholic Minister" would thus include the Archbishops and Bishops, and the word "district" would apply to dioceses as well as to parishes.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, since the Bill had been last before the House he had looked over it with great attention, and was convinced that the greatest possible difficulties would exist in the way of carrying its objects into practical effect. He did not, for instance, understand from the Bill who were the persons that were to judge or decide who was the "minister of the district according to the laws, discipline, and institutions of the Roman Catholic Church," or, in other words, who was the Bishop of a diocese or the priest of a parish. He did not see how the trustees were to decide that point under the Bill; for their Lordships were aware that there were to be found in Ireland such persons as degraded priests, who remained sometimes in possession of their parish contumaciously and in opposition to the will of their Bishop. In the Bill which had been brought in by Mr. O'Connell, it was provided that the persons to decide on such points were to be the Roman Catholic visitors of the College of Maynooth; and without saying whether that was the most advisable and best course that could have been taken, this much he would state—that it gave a clear and bonâ fide definition of the persons to whom parties were to apply to know who were de facto the Roman Catholic Bishops or clergymen of particular districts. He thought as the Bill then stood very few persons would be found to take advantage of it for the purpose of endowing charities for the support of the Roman Catholic religion. It was perfectly impossible that the Board, as proposed to be constituted by that Bill, would be a proper Board of Trustees for such charities. The persons whom they named as the standing members of the Board, were, by the provisions of the Act of 1829, a Protestant Board, and yet they were selected in preference to the fair and obvious course of making the Bishops and clergy corporations sole as proposed by Mr. "O'Connell's Bill. Their Lordships ought to recollect the purposes for which charities in the Catholic Church would be bequeathed. In almost every case an
98
essential condition in the endowment of a church would be that masses should be offered up for the repose of the soul of the granter, and it would be difficult for Protestant trustees to ascertain how that condition of duty was fulfilled. As long as the Government persevered in the child's play of refusing to acknowledge formally the existence of a body whom they were constantly obliged virtually to admit occupied the position of the clergy of the great majority of the Irish people, those difficulties to winch he alluded would be found to continue. The noble Lord near him who opposed the Amendment, told them that he had higher authority on a question concerning the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland than even the Catholic clergy of Ireland themselves. His noble Friend must evidently mean that his authority proceeds from Rome, but how ridiculous was it for them to be acting on such vague statements as that, while the proper remedy so clearly presented itself before them.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, he had not by any means intended to convey that the Commissioners were to be entirely Protestants, There were only two of them named, and they were the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, but the other Commissioners would be persons in whom the Roman Catholic population of Ireland would have confidence.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the trustees would not be able to exercise any material discretion on the charity, and therefore the objection against some of them being Protestants could not be of much weight.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, his argument was this: Suppose that a person should have an endowment to a parish priest to have mass said for the benefit of his soul at particular times, and that the legacy came under the control of those trustees, would they not be bound to see that the priest did enjoy the property, and might they not also have a right to ascertain whether the conditions on which it had been bequeathed were fulfilled.
Lord Campbellsaid, his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, ought to have recollected when giving his support to the Bill, that the practice in his own Court was invariably that the trustees of all religious charities should be of the same religious

99
opinions as the persons for whose benefit the trust fund had been endowed.
Clause agreed to.
The other clauses of the Bill agreed to without opposition.
House resumed.

PARISHES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Lord Wharncliffemoved the second reading of the Parishes of Scotland Bill.
Lord Campbellwas sorry to be obliged to detain their Lordships at that hour of the evening; but, having presented a petition against the Bill, it was his duty to urge some objections which appeared to him to be of a very serious nature. No one could doubt the object of the Bill to be very laudable, namely, the promotion of religion in Scotland; but the question was, whether the means taken were expedient and just. The main enactments in the Bill to which he wished to draw attention were those which related to the division of parishes and the endowments of the new parishes. He should have thought at this time there could be no pressing necessity for multiplying parishes in Scotland. In almost every populous parish in Scotland there was now a new church called the free church. One of the objections to the proposed division was the mode in which it would operate on titheowners, because three-fourths of the heritors had it in their power to appropriate any unappropriated tithes to that division of the parish, and there might not be among them a single person who was a tithe owner. It ought to be made a general burthen, and not fall on any class of proprietors. But there was also another objection which arose out of the 10th section, and he begged particularly to call the attention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to it, because he would be bound to say that such a provision was never introduced into any Bill before.
The Lord Chancellor: You need not call my attention to it. It has been already called to it.
Lord Campbell: It has passed through the House of Commons with the objectionable clause—
The Lord Chancellor: I can't help that.
Lord Campbellproceeded to say, that in the section referred to, the Clause he complained of enabled any trustee or tutor of a minor to give away property of which he was trustee for the site of a church or
100
a manse or glebe, so that it did not exceed four acres, without any compensation whatever. It seemed to him, that this was an interference with the rights of property which could not be justified. A similar power was also given to tenants in tail, and this was obviously an extension of the injustice. Upon these grounds he must object to the Clause.
The Earl of Mintocould not say, that the Bill was altogether uncalled for, considering the present state of the Church of Scotland, nor would he oppose it; but there were some provisions to which he pointed out objections, and he also thought it highly desirable, that the clergy should be required to know Gaelic.
The Earl of Dunmoresaid, that there were only four clergymen for 16,000 people in the Islands' districts with which he was connected, and not 100 of them could speak English.
The Earl of Haddingtonsupported the Bill, as important to the Church of Scotland. He did not see how any better provision could be made for the religious worship off the Highlanders in the lowland districts than that provided by the Bill. He believed that if the Bill passed, it would heal a great many sores.
The Duke of Richmondapproved of that part of the Bill which looked at the size of districts as well as population as the criterion for further church accommodation; but he did not see how the funds were to be provided without interfering with private rights.
The Duke of Buccleughsaid, that the Bill gave a greater facility to the payment of teinds, which were subject to the full extent fixed in the time of Charles I., to be applied to the supply of the spiritual wants of the parish, and as they had been purchased subject to liability to this full application, there was no interference with the rights of private property.
Bill read a second time.
House adjourned.