Sitting of 14 December 1847

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Epiphany Quarter Sessions.
Reported.—Public Works (Ireland).
3° and pawed:—Railways.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Frewen, from William Holmes, of Arundel, complaining of the Stoppage of certain Roads leading to the Protestant Church of Arundel by a Roman Catholic Nobleman.—By several hon. Members, from a great number of places, for and against the Removal of Jewish Disabilities.—By the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, from Marylebone, Hackney, and Richmond, against the Roman Catholic Charitable Trusts Bill By Sir R. H. Inglis, from Members of tile Grand Protestant Association of Loyal Orangemen of Maybole, in the County of Ayr, for Inquiry into the Conduct of the Roman Catholic Clergy (Ireland), and against the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.—By Mr. H. Berkeley, from Bristol, and Sir W. Molesworth, from Parish of Christ Church, Surrey, for Inquiry into the Case of the Rajah of Satlara.—By Lord G. Bentinck, from Inhabitants of Trinidad, and the Island of Dominica, for Inquiry into the State of the West India Colonies.—By Mr. Fordyce, from Aberdeen, for Alteration of the Bank of England Charter Act, and Banks of Issue Act.—By Mr. F. O'Connor, from John Dillon, for Inquiry.—By Mr. R. Fox, from Ratepayers of the Longford Poor Law Union, for Relief.—By Mr. J. O'Brien, from Limerick, for Alteration of the Grand Jury Presentments (Ireland) Act.—By Mr. J. O'Connell, from several places in Ireland, for Alteration of Law of Landlord and Tenant (Ireland).—By Mr. Fitzpatrick, from Guardians of the Athy Union (Kildale), for Alteration of Poor Law (Ireland).—By Mr. Labouchere, and other hon. Members, from various places, for a Superannuation Fund for Poor Law Officers.—By Lord Melgund, from the Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock Railway Company, for Alteration of Law regulating Turnpike Roads Roads (Ireland).—By Lord G. Bentinck, from King's Lynn, for Settling Disputes between Nations by Arbitration.

POOR LAW UNIONS (IRELAND).
COLONEL DUNNEasked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he would lay before the House a list of the twenty-two unions in which Her Majesty's Government considered assistance in aid of poor-rates necessary, and whether he would state the reasons that had induced the Government to come to that conclusion? He also asked at what amount of destitution relative to the amount of the rateable value of a district, Government considered that district unable to support the destitution existing in it, and consequently entitled to assistance?
SIR G. GREYsaid, that the twenty-two unions which had been considered by the Government to require special assistance out of the 130 unions existing in Ireland, were situated in the west of Ireland; but he did not wish to state more particularly
1066
what those unions were. With regard to the second question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, it was absolutely impossible to answer it with precision. The Government generally were prepared to afford aid to the local resources which were not sufficient to meet the pressing demands of the indigent poor; but no rule had been laid down as to the relative amount of aid to be afforded in reference to the means of relief possessed by any particular district.

THE CASE OF "BURON v. DENMAN."
MR. URQUHARTbegged to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government defended the actions in the cases of "Buron v. Denman," &c, and if so, what money had been expended, and from what source the money was drawn; and whether there would be any objection to lay on the table the correspondence relative to those actions, or the circumstances out of which they arose, between the Admiralty, the Foreign Office, and the law advisers and officers of the Crown?
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that although the questions had not been put directly to him, yet he felt that it was more particularly his duty to answer them. He begged to inform the hon. Gentleman that he, by the direction of the Government, appeared to defend the action of "Buron v. Denman." In answer to the second question of the hon. Gentleman, he had to observe that it was not the practice of the House to require the Government to give a detailed statement of the expenses incurred in a legal proceeding still pending; and in respect to the third question, the hon. Gentleman must see that it was utterly impossible that the correspondence upon which the Government were defending an action could be produced.

RAILWAYS BILL.
This Bill was read a third time.
On the Motion that the Bill do pass,
MR. WYLDwas anxious to call the attention of the House to the manner in which this Railway Bill was framed. It appeared to him to be like the play of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet left out. It was proposed to postpone the railway works for two years. He trusted that long before then the Railway Committee would be prepared to present a measure to the House that should relieve a large body of railway shareholders from the contracts into which they had, unfortunately, entered. Having

1067
himself been very largely interested in railway matters, he considered himself qualified to give an opinion as a practical man on the subject. If the railway companies, under this Act, should call upon the shareholders to pay up their calls, it would involve nine-tenths of them in bankruptcy and ruin. A very large portion of the subscribers belonged to the middle and mercantile classes, especially in Lancashire and Yorkshire. Circumstances for the last two years had been such that the profits on trade had fallen very considerably; so that those who had entered into these contracts upon the assumption that trade and commerce would have gone on in the usual course, would now be wholly unprepared to meet any calls that might be made upon them. The present Bill proposed to postpone the railway works for two years; but what manufacturer or tradesman would endure having so heavy a responsibility hanging over his head for so long a period? They would prefer seeking relief in the Insolvent or Bankruptcy Court. If the Government, therefore, would bring forward a measure to relieve the companies from the obligation of carrying on their works, they would confer a great been on the community, and relieve many who had now their money locked up in these companies.
Bill passed.

PRIVILEGE—WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE ELECTION.
MR. WAKLEYrose to call the attention of the House to the petition of certain electors of West Gloucester respecting the election which had recently taken place in that division of the county. An hon. and gallant Member, a near relative of the noble Earl, referred to in the petition, said that he had no objection to a full inquiry into the circumstances connected with the election. [Captain BERKELEY had said, if the House thought proper to institute an inquiry, Earl Fitzhardinge would have no objection to it.] That was exactly his impression; and as there was no objection on the part of the noble Earl, they would now see if there was any objection on the part of the House to such an inquiry. The allegations of the petitioners were not loose or ill-defined; they were of a most specific character, and could not be misunderstood. There was no beating about the bush and he would add, that the petitioners were persons of the highest respectability in the county of Gloucester.
1068
One was Mr. Leigh, of Woodchester Park, and the others were of equal respectability. A great number of persons were anxious that the vote by ballot should be established; and when that measure was advocated it was denied that corruption and intimidation was an English practice. They denied that corruption took place at elections, and that bribery and intimidation were resorted to by persons possessing wealth in the country, in order to influence the return of Members. He did not consider it his duty to make any charge against the noble Lord—he had not the honour of his acquaintance, and he had only a very slight acquaintance with any of his relatives. He merely acted as an independent Member, in whose hands a petition had been placed, with a request that it should be brought under the notice of the House. He had done nothing more than discharge his duty; and he would say that if Members of that House looked too fastidiously to the petitions which were placed in their hands, and were to decide on presenting them according to their own individual opinions, that the right of petition would be so infringed upon that it would be of very little value indeed. He had upon this matter no private feeling whatever; but he did consider that the charges were of a very grave and serious nature; and if the House resolved to pass them over lightly, and say that they would not inquire into any charges made against individuals tampering with the freedom of election, they would do great wrong to the people, and should not maintain on their books the Sessional Order that for any Peer to interfere with the election of a Member of that House, is violation of the liberty of election, and a breach of the privileges of that House. It would be an utter mockery to maintain such an order upon the books of the House, if they permitted such a petition to be presented to the House, and allowed it to be passed by unnoticed. He was most sorry that the subject of it was a noble Peer who had a near relative in that House. He regretted that there should be any family strife. He was not one who would widen the breach; but he thought that what had transpired was not very creditable to one of the parties. The position of the individual ought not to deter them from doing their duty to the country. That House would not discharge its duty if it did institute the most rigid, searching, and scrupulous inquiry into the facts of the case. The petition said—

1069
"That shortly before, and also during, the last general election, William Fitzhardinge Berkeley, commonly called Earl Fitzhardinge, a Peer of the realm, and Lord Lieutenant of the county, not only personally but by accredited agents, and by large sums of money, and by intimidation and coercion, did, in open defiance of the law, in violation of his duty, and in utter disregard of the usual Sessional Order of your Honourable House in that behalf, directly, repeatedly, and systematically interfere with the rights and privileges of the electors of the western division of the county of Gloucester."
In another paragraph the petitioners state—
"That a short time previously to the said election the said Earl Fitzhardinge, in anticipation of the said election, and in order to prejudice and interfere with the success of one of the intended candidates, George Charles Grantley Fitzhardinge Berkeley, commonly called the Honourable Grantley Berkeley, did coerce his tenantry to resign their services in the troop of yeomanry commanded by their captain the Hon. Grantley Berkeley."
In another—
"That about the same time, and for similar purposes, the said Earl Fitzhardinge caused to be offered to the Hon. Grantley Berkeley a large pecuniary consideration, as an inducement or bribe to him to retire from his then representation of the said western division, and not to become a candidate for such division at a future time.
"That in thus acting, the said Earl Fitzhardinge endeavoured to deprive your petitioners, and other electors of the said division, of the services of the Hon. Grantley Berkeley as their representative in your Honourable House, and to interfere with their rights and privileges in that behalf.
"That the Hon. Grantley Berkeley refused to accept the said offer of pecuniary consideration, and, at the last general election, became a candidate for the representation of the said division in Parliament; that after the Hon. Grantley Berkeley had become a candidate as last mentioned, and shortly previous to the polling at the said election, a large sum of money, exceeding in value any previous offer, was offered, or caused to be offered to him, by the said Earl Fitzhardinge, to induce his retirement from the approaching contest, and his withdrawal of certain charges against the said Earl Fitzhardinge, and otherwise in relation to the said election, so as to enable one Grenville Berkeley to become a representative of the said electors in the place of the hon. Grantley Berkeley, but which renewed offer he again rejected. That the said Earl Fitzhardinge, having failed in his endeavours to deprive the said electors in manner a fore said of the services of the Hon. Grantley Berkeley, did, By offers of pecuniary assistance and personal influence, instigate and induce the said Grenville Berkeley to become a candidate at the last election for the said division in opposition to the Hon. Grantley Berkeley, and did, from time to time, before, and during, and after the said election, promise and guarantee, and also pay and advance, large sums of money to defray the expenses incurred on behalf of the said Grenville Berkeley as such candidate as aforesaid; and did also use undue in-
1070
fluence with numerous of the said electors to obtain their votes at the said election on behalf of the said Grenville Berkeley. That the said Earl Fitzhardinge, during and about the time of the said election, paid or caused to be paid large sums of money for the purchase of votes, and for treating voters, and for the instigation of violence, by which an extensive and organised system of personal violence, gross immorality, bribery, corruption, and intimidation was carried on at the said election, for the purpose of influencing the progress and result of the Parliamentary return."
And then the
—"petitioners most humbly but earnestly and respectfully pray that your honourable House will be pleased to cause a full and searching investigation to be made into the grievances and matters hereinbefore complained of, particularly with reference to the conduct of the Earl Fitzhardinge, the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Gloucester, in, about, and concerning the said election for the western division of such county, and to adopt such measures as to your honourable House shall seem proper or expedient, for the vindication of the free use of the elective franchise, the protection of the rights and privileges of the electors, and the prevention of the interference of Peers in the return to Parliament of the representatives of the people."
He had to inform the House, that he was also informed that Lord Fitzhardinge had expended large sums in the purchase of votes and in the treating of voters, and that by his orders wine and brandy-and-water were carried about in bucketfuls for the accommodation of the electors, and, in short, that scenes occurred which he trusted, for the purity of elections, were never elsewhere witnessed. Could that House consider that it was discharging its duty, and preserving the high trust committed to its care, if they permitted charges so serious to remain uninvestigated? If they permitted their standing orders to remain a nullity, they became guilty parties to those profligate scenes. They would encourage them, and from one end of the kingdom to the other they would invite wealthy men to interfere with the freedom of election. They would invite men to become candidates for representation, not for the purpose of maintaining the liberties of the country, but for the purpose of securing some sordid interest, in total disregard of the high behests and public grounds which men ought to have in seeking such a distinction. This petition, signed as it was by 150 individuals, was entitled to their serious deliberation; and as the noble Lord offered no objection to inquiry, but, on the contrary, as he appeared anxious to rescue his character from the imputations cast upon it, he trusted that the House would not act so unjustly

1071
by that noble Lord—so cruelly, he would say—as to refuse inquiry. He might be asked the question, supposing they found the noble Peer guilty, what would they do with him? He distinctly said, that he could not tell. There had been cases of this kind on former occasions, but he could not discover that any severe infliction of punishment had been visited on those parties who had violated their orders. What punishment the House would inflict it was impossible for him to state; he did not even know what power the House possessed to punish the offender at all; but this he did know, that public opinion was seldom appealed to in vain. There had been a great violation of the proprieties of morality; and if there were some Peers indifferent to public opinion, there were others who would not be found to fly in its face. He would therefore move—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the allegations contained in the Petition of certain Electors of the Western Division of the County of Gloucester, complaining of the interference of Earl Fitzhardinge, a Peer of the Realm, and Lord Lieutenant of the County of Gloucester, at the late Election of Persons to serve as Members of this House for the Western Division of that County in the present Parliament."
He trusted, in conclusion, that he had not been guilty of any indecorum. He had no feeling upon the matter. His only desire was to discharge his duty as an independent Member.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid: I was anxious to hear what was the opinion of the House upon this subject before I stated to the House the result of the inquiries which I have felt it my duty to make, since an intimation was given that this subject would become matter of discussion. I do not consider that I ought to do more than to point out to the House what will be the result of an inquiry, and what difficulties will arise if they adopt the Motion of the hon. Member. Now, as I understand the Motion, it is founded on what is called a "breach of the privileges" of this House; which privileges are established and confirmed by the Standing or Sessional Orders passed at the commencement of each Session of Parliament. I am not now about to enter into the question of the propriety or expediency of passing these orders in question. It will suffice for me to state what I have found to be the practice of the House in cases of a similar nature. Neither am I prepared to enter into the circumstances on the merits of the case. The first precedent which I
1072
find on the subject occurred in 1780, when a similar petition was presented against the Duke of Chandos for interfering with the election of a Member for the county of Northumberland. The report of the case is to be found in 5th volume of the Journals of the House, page 507. The petition there stated that that nobleman had signed a letter with his own hand to one of the voters, desiring him to act in a certain manner. The Motion which was made on that occasion was not for a Select Committee, but merely to refer the petition to the Committee on Privileges. [Mr. WAKLEY: There is none now sitting.] On that occasion the Motion was made and carried without a division. The Committee took the matter in hand, and in page 557 I find that they reported that each charge had been substantiated, and that the Duke had been guilty of a breach of the orders of the House, and an infringement upon the liberty of election. Well, what did the House do? Let the House remember that the allegations were repotted to be true; and instead of any step being taken, a Motion was made that the further consideration of the report be postponed until that day four months. [Mr. WAKLEY: That was before the reform of Parliament.] I do not intend to be diverted from the observations which I feel it my duty to make by these interruptions; but I shall presently show that there were more substantial reasons then for taking notice of any interference than there are at present. The next case was that of the Duke of Bolton, for interfering in the election in the county of Hereford. The case is reported in page 530 of the same volume. It was referred to a Committee of Privileges, which took no steps at all in the matter. In the same page I find that a Motion was made that it be an instruction to the Committee to report respecting the conduct of a bishop for interfering at the same election; but I also find that that Motion was withdrawn. A more recent case may be in the recollection of the House. I refer to the case which occurred in 1841, when a similar application was made in consequence of the interference of Lord Cawdor in the Carmarthen election, through the agency of his steward. The then Member for Bridport, Mr. Warburton, a great supporter of the privileges of the House, produced many original letters from his Lordship to the steward, giving directions as to what part his tenantry were to take in the election. Co-

1073
lonel Trevor, who was then in the House, showed them the inutility of barking where they could not bite, and the House decided on not taking any notice whatever of the facts. Upon that occasion he found that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham) and the noble Lord at the head of the Government took part in the discussion. Yet, nevertheless, no Motion was made, and the discussion was allowed to drop. I find that there have been since that time many similar cases. On the 4th of April, 1845, a petition was presented against the Duke of Marlborough, on the strength of a petition from Woodstock. A Motion was made, but no notice was taken of the facts. In September, 1835, a petition was presented complaining of the conduct of the Marquess of Salisbury; but no Motion was made. The petition was printed with the Votes, but it led to no result. In 1833 a similar petition was presented from Launceston, and in 1836 another petition was presented complaining of the conduct of the Duke of Marlborough, but no steps were taken by the House. I have endeavoured to show to the House what they have done upon former occasions; but I am not discussing the propriety of the conduct of a Peer interfering with the choice of a candidate at an election. All I will say is, that it does not appear to me that there is any remedy in the hands of this House, if they established the facts alleged against Earl Fitzhardinge. [Mr. WAKLEY: You can dismiss him from the lord lieutenancy of the county.] I shall deal with that portion of the case presently. If the facts in the petition are true, and if they are capable of proof, the ordinary mode of proceeding against any person is by proceeding in the courts of justice; and these facts are equally open to be proved before an Election Committee, or in a court of justice. It is not stated nor is it pretended that the noble Earl was guilty of the conduct complained of in his capacity of lord lieutenant of the county. He had acted merely in his character of landlord. The charge was not made that he had acted in the character of lord lieutenant of the county, which if he had done would certainly be a ground for a recommendation to the Queen for his dismissal; but such a charge was not made. I believe I have now fulfilled my duty. I have shown the House what will be the consequences of a Motion of this kind. I have no personal feeling in the matter, nor any interest to
1074
serve one way or the other. My only desire is to set the House right with regard to the law upon the subject.
CAPTAIN BERKELEYsaid, after what had fallen from the hon. Member for Finsbury, he would beg leave to read the denial of his noble relative of the facts charged against him. The hon. and gallant Member read an extract from the letter of Earl Fitzhardinge, which stated that it was "the foulest falsehood that ever disgraced any set of men," when it was asserted that he had induced any of his tenantry to retire from the corps of which his brother was captain, and that he had not by any means interfered with respect to the election in question. That was a specimen of the manner in which the petition had been got up; and he only trusted that the House would believe with him that the statement of his noble relative was true. The question had become too painful for him, and he therefore begged leave to withdraw. [The hon. Member withdrew.]
MR. GRANTLEY BERKELEYsaid: I am sure the House will not expect me to say much upon this painful subject; yet, nevertheless, I am bound to say a few words as regards the petition now under discussion, and of the allegations contained in it. As regards the statement which we have just now heard, and which touches me more nearly, I feel it only necessary to say that I happen to be the captain of the corps which has been mentioned, and I can assure the House of the truth of the interference. I have in my possession the letters of the tenantry serving in my corps, telling me that they would not have left me had they not been coerced to do so by their landlord. If the Committee is granted, I can produce these letters in support of my assertion. When I returned the muster-roll of my corps to the War Office, I represented the fact under the printed heading for observations, why so many of my best men had suddenly deserted my corps, as I thought it might appear owing to some error in my own conduct; and I then stated that they had left me through the coercion of the Lord Lieutenant of the county. I was not permitted to send that muster-roll to the War Office with those words in it; and, therefore, in obedience to my commanding officer, after having consulted a gallant Officer, a friend of mine, in this House, I erased the words, having first inquired how I was to report the fact why so many men had left my corps. I can assure the House that these men were

1075
compelled to leave it through the interference of their landlord. I shall say no more upon this subject, nor shall I attempt to forestall the decision of the House, no matter what that may be. Had it not been for the remarks which have been just made, I should not have said one word during the course of the debate.
SIR R. H. INGLISsaid, that whether the House adopted the course which the hon. Mover had proposed or not, he was of opinion that they should not resort to other courts for adjudication upon the matter until they had exhausted all the tribunals provided either in or out of that House before which questions of such a nature could be tried. It might be a question how far it was right to maintain an order upon their books to which they were unable to enforce obedience, and the existence of which subjected them, if not to mockery and insult, to something very like ridicule. The question whether a Peer has a right to interfere in an election might be tried. That House had it in its power, in cases where an election was turned by the vote of a Peer, to strike out that vote. He was aware of a Peer who went with six horses to his carriage to register his vote in the same manner as the lowest freeholder. The Duke of Norfolk voted regularly in some half-dozen boroughs in which he possessed property; and, knowing all that, he thought that they would be exercising sound discretion in rescinding the brutum fulmen which they were in the habit of issuing at the commencement of every Session. But, to come to the direct question, he held that nothing had occurred, or was alleged in the petition, which was not a fit subject for an Election Committee, and he was therefore prepared to vote against the Motion.
MR. HUMEsaid, that several years ago he had pressed the House not to agree to these Sessional Orders, as he knew the position in which the House would be placed by their not possessing sufficient power to enforce them. He held that they should not have resort to the courts of law in a question of this kind. The question was, whether a noble Peer had been guilty of a breach of the orders of that House; and he held that they were either obliged to rescind the resolution or to inquire. The question might arise, if the noble Lord was guilty, what the House might afterwards do? That might be matter for future discussion. The House were bound to support its own authority, as well as that of the community
1076
at large, and they were, therefore, bound to inquire. If the question came to a division, he would vote for the Motion.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTconsidered that it was their duty to inquire; and if the Motion were pressed to a division, he should feel himself bound to support it. He considered that the House could not show itself too jealous of any interference with the purity of election. They could not do too much to preserve it. A measure had been devised for preserving voters against undue influence, and that measure was the vote by ballot. Hon. Gentlemen differed in opinion with regard to that measure; but he believed that all were agreed that something ought to be done. They had been told that the proper mode of punishing offences of this kind, was leaving them to public opinion. But how was public opinion to be fixed, unless directed by some such solemn inquiry as that now prayed for? Let a Committee be appointed, and when they presented their report, public opinion would have something to fix upon.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I do not agree with the hon. Member for Montrose, that because there is a certain resolution passed by this House against the interference of Peers in elections, that it should be inferred there from that we are bound on every occasion a petition is presented to the House to institute an inquiry, and that we have no choice in the matter except either to rescind our resolution or to institute such an inquiry as may be prayed for. The House has a right to exercise its own discretion; to apply its resolution, or not to apply it, as may be judged necessary in such separate case. There may be a case of such a nature as to make the House agree to an inquiry. But there may be also a case in which it is advisable not to institute any inquiry; and I confess, Sir, that the hon. Member for Montrose does not hold out a very tempting prospect, when he says, "Go, on, pursue the inquiry, appoint a Committee, collect evidence to show that the allegations are well founded; and then, having done so, let the prudence of the House come in, and, by virtue of that prudence, it is probable that no further step will be taken." Sir, I do not think that such counsel points out an advisable course to pursue. But, Sir, the discretion which we ought to exercise in those cases depends very much upon what the allegations are. Now, there is one allegation to which a Member of this

1077
House has lent the weight of his authority, and it is, that Lord Fitzhardinge induced certain members of a troop of yeomanry to withdraw from that troop because the hon. Gentleman in question was the captain of the troop. Then, however, it was alleged that Earl Fitzhardinge had done so in virtue of his influence as a landlord, not in the exercise of his power as a Lord Lieutenant, or in the intention of interfering with the election. Now, it may be that the act complained of was an exercise of wanton and oppressive power as against the hon. Gentleman who was the captain of the troop; but I do not think it is a matter into which the House can inquire, with a view to the adoption of ultimate proceedings. The next allegation is, that Earl Fitzhardinge did endeavour, by the offer of a sum of money, to induce a candidate who wished to be a Member of this House not to persevere in his intention. Now, I confess I do not know whether, if that charge were proved—that such a sum of money had been offered—that the matter would bear the character of a corrupt transaction, or one which would come under the cognizance of the law. But a further and a grave allegation is made, that Earl Fitzhardinge, caused a large sum of money to be apportioned for the purpose of treating and bribery, and that he attempted, by a system of gross corruption, intimidation, and immorality, to interfere in the election for the county. Now, that is a very grave allegation; but it is an allegation which can be inquired into by the mode which the House by statute has appointed, and which can be resorted to within a certain time, not yet expired, after the meeting of Parliament. A petition has, I believe, been presented against the return of the hon. Gentleman; and, as I conceive, the allegations which we are now discussing may be tried by the Committee appointed to inquire into disputed election returns, more advantageously than before the tribunal now moved for. Therefore, Sir, on the whole matter of the petition I conceive there is hardly room for the appointment of a Special Committee, as the allegations may be gone into before an Election Committee. I repeat, that it does not appear to me necessary that a special tribunal of inquiry should be appointed. It is only if it should appear that there are allegations of gross corruption and intimidation, which cannot be inquired into by the Election Committee, that I should conceive it right to appoint a Special Commit-
1078
tee. I am told that the petition is upon the ground of absence of property qualification. This, certainly, does make a difference in the case. Indeed, if there be no means of inquiry before the Election Committee into the allegations of the petition, that fact may be a ground, whatever be Earl Fitzhardinge's station—that fact, I say, may be a ground for appointing a Select Committee. But at present I am not sufficiently aware whether there exist the means of inquiry before the ordinary tribunals, and I therefore suspend any decided opinion in the matter.
MR. HENRY DRUMMONDexpressed his opinion that danger to the liberties of England and the English people arose not so much from Peers interfering in elections as from that House attempting to enforce its resolutions as if they were the law of the land.
SIR F. THESIGERcould not exactly understand the course Government had adopted on this question. He had collected from the noble Lord's speech that at first he was disposed to resist the Motion; but in consequence of a communication just made to him, in reference to the petition, that he should suspend his opinion until he was fully assured the matter ought not to be sent to a Committee. He agreed with the noble Lord it was right that the Sessional Orders should be passed at the commencement of every Session, and also that the House ought to exercise a discretion in refusing or determining to interfere, and apply those orders as the case might be. As he understood, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said, that if inquiry took place, it would be fruitless. His hon. and learned Friend had with great industry collected a variety of precedents to satisfy the House that it was utterly helpless in this matter—that it had no power to proceed against the Peer who should interfere, or should use his influence in an election. Why, that House declared it in high sounding terms to be an infringement of the privileges of the House for any Peer to interfere at an election. Now, he confessed, if he thought that there would be no result from an inquiry of this kind, he should not be disposed to stifle it. He thought, that where a petition of this description was presented, complaining not merely of interference—such as in the case of the Duke of Beaufort in former years, who was accused of writing a letter to influence an election—but a petition of this kind, complaining of an improper influence

1079
exercised by means of gross and systematic bribery, he did think it would be idle for that House to pass this Standing Order, which they had done only a fortnight ago, and then when this petition was presented, to say to the petitioners, "We cannot inquire into the allegations of the petition," and tell them the House had no power in such matters. These Orders were passed Session after Session; but it would appear, from the argument which had been raised by his hon. and learned Friend, that they were, after all, mere idle threats! That the House would not interfere in the strongest cases! Now, his hon. and learned Friend, as he had before observed, had exercised considerable industry in collecting precedents; but he had not, unfortunately, carried his research, far enough back, because if he had, he would have found a precedent, and that precedent he (Sir F. Thesiger) would introduce to the House before he concluded his observations. The House would observe, that they had to deal not merely with a Peer, but with a Peer holding the high and responsible office of Lord Lieutenant of a county, against whose interference there was a specific Standing Order. Now the Attorney General said, "Why, you cannot do anything with the Earl Fitzhardinge in this matter; because, though he may have coerced gentlemen to leave the yeomanry troop commanded by an hon. Member of this House, yet he did not then act as Lord Lieutenant; but he only acted being Lord Lieutenant; and, therefore, being Lord Lieutenant, and not acting as Lord Lieutenant, you cannot bring your Standing Order at all to bear against him." But he was satisfied if the Standing Order was available against a Peer, and if he found he also held the office of Lord Lieutenant of a county (by which they would have to deal with something tangible), whether acting as Lord Lieutenant, or being Lord Lieutenant—he was satisfied that the Standing Order, if violated, ought to be brought into operation against that Peer so offending. He had mentioned that his hon. and learned Friend, in quoting various precedents, had not searched deeply enough; if he had done so, he would have found there was in 1701 a precedent in point in regard to the Bishop of Worcester, he being the almoner to the Queen, who had interfered at an election, not as the Queen's almoner, but being the Queen's almoner. Sir John Pakington petitioned the House, complaining of the interference of the Bishop of
1080
Worcester at an election; the House instituted an inquiry into the interference of the Bishop of Worcester, and it was resolved that Sir John Pakington had fully made out his charge against the Lord Bishop of Worcester, and also against the Bishop of Worcester's son. And it was then—
"Resolved, that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to remove the Lord Bishop of Worcester from the office of Almoner to Her Majesty. It was further resolved, that the said Address should be presented to Her Majesty by such of the Members as were Members of the Privy Council."
Accordingly, the Address of the House was presented to Her Majesty; and this very pithy answer was communicated to the House:—
"I am very sorry for the occasion of this Address; I shall remove the Bishop of Worcester, and direct that he no longer fill the place of my Almoner; and I will put another in his room for that office."
The House would observe that he did not enter into the merits of this petition; he did not mean to consider at that moment whether the allegations contained in that petition were established or not. That petition certainly conveyed charges of a very serious character against Earl Fitzhardinge; and it appeared to him it would be trifling with the Standing Orders if, under the circumstances, this matter were allowed to pass by without a serious inquiry. Another observation made by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, which was echoed by the noble Lord, was this: he said that the reason why they could not prosecute this petition further, was because, said the noble Lord, though there are serious charges of gross and systematic bribery, yet that was a matter which might be left to the ordinary tribunals of the law; there might be a proceeding by indictment, as the Attorney General had said. The noble Lord thought there might be an inquiry in the case of the witnesses against the return of the hon. Member for West Gloucester; but the Attorney General said, that the acts of bribery, if established, might be prosecuted at law. He begged to thank the Attorney General for showing him another way by which they could reach the offences which were imputed to Lord Fitzhardinge, and that they might have the power to punish them; because the House was aware that, in an inquiry before Committees of that House, where an individual had been guilty

1081
of bribery, the House had directed the Attorney General to prosecute the offender. And it appeared to him (without assuming the truth of the allegations contained in the petition referred to, but assuming them to be established on satisfactory evidence) that making this Standing Order available against persons infringing on the privileges of the House of Commons, if it should be proved that Lord Fitzhardinge had interfered as alleged, and had been guilty of bribery, and had endeavoured to influence improperly these elections, then, he said, it was the duty of the House, and it was still more their important duty in consequence of the high station which the party implicated filled, to pursue that course which was provided for, and which was pursued against the humblest individual, in order to show the abhorrence of the House of acts of bribery; and he trusted the House would direct the Attorney General to prosecute, if sufficient proofs were laid before the House. He submitted to the House that they had the means to pursue this case; and, lastly, he declared it would be trifling with themselves if they did not consent to the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury.
SIR G. GREYwas not prepared to deny that some inquiry ought to take place into the specific allegations against Earl Fitzhardinge; but the House ought to be very cautious in adopting the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. He regretted that he had not read the petition before he came down to the House; but from what he had heard and read since, he felt it to be his duty to impress upon the House the necessity of caution. The petition did not state that the parties signing it had a right to vote—[Mr. WAKLEY: I beg your pardon, the petition is from 150 electors.] Admitting that it was so, it was not stated in the petition that the parties had entered into recognisances. He thought that the petition presented against the hon. Gentleman's return had alleged the general charges of bribery and corruption. In that case, it was quite competent for parties having a right to vote to present a petition to have those charges investigated. It turned out, however, that the petition did not allege bribery, but merely want of qualification. The House must remember that, by the 5th and 6th of Victoria, chap. 102, provision was made for a satisfactory investigation of charges of the nature of those in question, when they could not be investigated before an Election Committee.
1082
The 4th Clause of that Act referred to cases in which general bribery was said to have prevailed; and he put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, whether he was prepared to deny that the allegations of extensive bribery did not constitute a case provided for by the clause, and whether it would not be better than adopting any other plan, to follow the course prescribed by the statute in such cases. However, what he would suggest was, that if any doubts prevailed, the House ought not to attempt hastily to decide the matter. Let the question in that case be adjourned for a day or two, at the end of which time that course could be adopted which was most likely to elicit the truth. The House could not with prudence adopt the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. But he would remind them that the Committee of Privileges had been appointed, but not nominated; and if the hon. Gentleman did not wish to proceed under the statute which he had pointed out, then the best course would, perhaps, be, to nominate the Committee of Privileges, and refer the matter to it. In the meantime, he moved that the debate be adjourned.
SIR R. PEELsaid, that, knowing the disposition of the House in cases of this kind would be for the institution of immediate inquiry, still he would impress upon them that such inquiries ought not to be instituted without being fully possessed of the circumstances of the case, and without exercising great caution. They had appointed under a statute a separate tribunal for the trial of election offences; they had given to that tribunal powers which, except they were held by statute, the House had not power to confer. They had given to it the power of examining witnesses upon oath. They required the persons making complaint to comply with certain restrictions, to place themselves under recognisances, and, finally, no inquiry could be gone into until an officer appointed by the House had certified that these recognisances were satisfactory. Now if they proceeded on too light grounds to institute inquiries, without the power of examining witnesses upon oath—without the necessity of the complainers putting in recognisances—they would be going far to break down the efficiency of the original tribunal which they had constituted. He did not mean to say that if there were no other power of inquiry than that furnished by a Special Committee, that these allegations ought to be passed over by the House;

1083
but the subject was of so much importance, there might be such a tendency to present petitions of the same nature, that he thought that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had given them good advice when, admitting that it might be necessary to institute a special inquiry upon the subject, he told them that they would be acting wisely, with reference to preserving the efficiency of the tribunal to which he had adverted, to take two or three days, or even twenty-four hours, to consider what, under the circumstances of the case, was the best course which ought to be adopted. For his own part, he should consent to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman for adjournment.
Debate adjourned till Friday.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS.
MR. HORSMAN, pursuant to notice, rose to move the following resolutions:—
"1. That the Act 6 and 7 Will. IV., c. 77, contained among others the following enactments:—'That in order to provide for the augmentation of the incomes of the smaller Bishoprics, such fixed annual sums be paid to the Commissioners out of the revenues of the larger Sees respectively as shall upon due inquiry and consideration be determined on, so as to leave as an average annual income to the Archbishop of Canterbury 15,000 l., to the Archbishop of York 10,000 l. to the Bishop of London 10,000 l., to the Bishop of Durham, 8,000 l., to the Bishop of Winchester, 7,000 l., to the Bishop of Ely, 5,500 l., to the Bishop of St. Asaph and Bangor, 5,200 l., and to the Bishops of Worcester, and Bath and Wells, respectively, 5,000 l. And that out of the fund thus accruing, fixed annual payments be made by the Commissioners in such instances and to such amount as shall be in like manner determined on, so that the average annual incomes of the other Bishops respectively be not less than 4,000 l., nor more than 5,000 l. And that, at- the expiration of every seven years, reckoning from the 1st day of January, 1837, a new return of the revenues of all the Bishoprics be made to the Commissioners; and that thereupon the scale of Episcopal payments and receipts be revised, so as to preserve, as nearly as may be, to each Bishop an amount of income equivalent to that which shall have been determined in the first instance to be suitable to the circumstances of his Bishopric; and that such revised scale take effect, as to each See respectively, upon the then next avoidance thereof.'
"2. That on the 1st day of January, 1845, a new Return of the revenues of all the Bishoprics, as ordered, from the 1st day of January, 1837, to the 31st day of December, 1843, was presented to Parliament, and subsequently on the 6th day of February, 1846, and the 16th day of June, 1846, respectively, were presented the First and Second general Reports of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, showing how the provisions of the above-named Act had been carried out.
"3. That, from these Reports, furnished by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves, it ap-
1084
pears to this House, that the provisions of the Act 6 and 7 Will. IV., c. 77, so far as relates to episcopal incomes, have not been carried out according to the intentions of Parliament."
The whole case lay in a very small compass, for it was contained in the resolutions which he had read; and the facts on which those resolutions were founded were introduced in the clauses of the Bill, which set forth the intention of the Legislature; and the evidence with respect to them was furnished in the reports of the Commissioners themselves. The Commissioners were appointed to carry into effect the Bill of 1836—their duty was to determine the amount to be paid by the richer sees to those that were poorer, in order to raise them to the amount presented by the statute, and to reduce those rich sees within the same regulations, with this restriction, that their recommendations were only to be carried into effect on the next avoidance of the see. This Act was accepted by many hon. Members, among whom were several Gentlemen now high in office, under a sort of protest, not as complete in itself, but as the commencement of that series of measures for the improvement of the ecclesiastical establishment which they thought absolutely necessary for the stability of the Church. Disappointed as those who took that view had been, they had refrained nevertheless from any attempt to disturb the settlement which was then agreed upon. The Commissioners were the persons who last year had thought fit to derange and disturb that settlement, and who had ventured to repeal the Act of 1836. Some of those right rev. Prelates in the other House had not hesitated to state, they thought the Act went a great deal too far, and that their assent to it had been obtained under the influence of apprehension and panic. This announcement on the part of the Commissioners had reopened the whole question, so that any one was at liberty to enter upon it. But passing over the subject of the settlement, he would just remark that he had always believed that the changes recommended by the Commissioners, and enacted in 1836, to come into operation on the next avoidance of the various sees, was a most unwise and inexpedient measure. He was of opinion that this restriction had a most unfavourable effect, from the light in which it must necessarily strike the public. For example, they would see the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was at the head of the Commission, stating it to be his opinion,

1085
that the revenues of the see of Canterbury were a great deal too large, and recommending therefore that they should be restricted to 15,000 l. a year; but so far from the most rev. Prelate proceeding to say he would give effect to this statement by recommending that this reduction should instantly take effect, he appeared before the public exclaiming, "I have a great deal more than I require; but I only state the fact on the condition that the rule shall not be applied to myself, and that I shall be permitted to retain every farthing of these enormous revenues for my lifetime." In the same way the Bishop of London came before them protesting he had a great deal too much money, but declaring at the same time his intention to keep it all to himself. However pure might have been the motives of the right rev. Prelates, their conduct certainly had had the effect of securing to each of them the possession for his lifetime of great and superfluous wealth. The Commissioners proceeded to the discharge of their duty, taking as the basis of their operations the return of the Commission of Inquiry in 1831, which laid before them the detail of episcopal incomes, in two columns, the first of which gave the average income of the bishops, stated by themselves, on an average of three years ending 1831; the next, their opinions and predictions as to the future incomes of their sees, as they could look into futurity. The result of their prophecies had proved their Lordships to be very shortsighted indeed; and on looking over and comparing them with their supposed fulfilment, the effect was so ludicrous, that were it not for the gravity of the matter, it would afford great ground for amusement. These returns had been made by the right rev. body to assist the Legislature in its proceedings; but he must say, that if this had emanated from any persons less elevated above suspicion than the occupants of the episcopal bench, the amount of income was so understated, and the returns themselves appeared so little capable of explanation, that an idea might have been entertained that it was their intention to keep the public in the dark as to the exact state of their revenues. The first on the list was the Archbishop of Canterbury. He stated his gross income to be 22,216 l., his net income to be 19,182 l. in 1831. Thus at the very outset they were met by the remarkable fact that, when a discussion took place in 1830 respecting the revenues of this see, on a Bill which had been brought in to en-
1086
able the Archbishop to borrow money for building purposes, Dr. Lushington, defending his Grace, declared it had been proved before the House that his income did not amount to more than 32,000 l. per annum, whereas it appeared to have fallen off 10,000 l. by the very year following. In giving that return, the Archbishop stated his future income was not to be estimated at so large an amount, because there was a prospect of diminution which would probably reduce it to 17,060 l., and at this sum the Commissioners accordingly wrote down his revenues. But on looking to the returns on the average of seven years ending 1843, they would see that, instead of falling, as had been anticipated, the gross income of the see had risen to 28,005 l., and the net income to 21,196 l. The next return was from the Archbishop of York, who stated his income thus:—Gross, 13,798; net, 12,629 l.; but added that there would be at least a reduction of 20 per cent on this sum, and the Commissioners accordingly set it down at 10,600 l.; but the calculation made on the average of seven years, as before, showed that the income had, so far from falling, risen to 14,552 l., or in other words exhibited an increase of 40 per cent. Next came the case of the Bishop of London, which was really most remarkable, and well deserved the attention of the House. The right rev. Prelate set down his net income at 13,929 l., but stated that there would be a decrease of 1,725 l. a year from fines, and a further decrease on account of augmentations, and told the Commissioners to put down his future income at 12,204 l. But, on looking to the last returns, they would see that it had risen to 14,552 l. This was not all; he begged the attention of the House to the marginal note accompanying the return—"a decrease of 1,725 l. a year from fines, &c., and a further decrease on account of augmentations." The whole prospect of the see was one of loss and diminution. There was scarcely a Member in the House who could not but know something of the property of the Bishop of London in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, and the immediate vicinity of Hyde-park, flanked by the Edgware-road on one side, to the Uxbridge-road on the other, running in an immense angle up to Hyde-park, Kensail New Town, to the terminus of the Great Western Railway, and Oxford and Cambridge-squares, and covered by an immense mass of buildings which had risen up within the last few years. Was it possible for any of them to believe, that when

1087
this return was made in 1831, every prospect of the right rev. Prelate was of loss and diminution of revenue, and that there never flitted across his imaginings the least idea of an enormous increase of wealth? If they could entertain that notion, it would be dispelled by the fact that only five years before, an Act had been obtained for the express purpose of promoting and advancing these very buildings of the Bishop of London. The preamble of the Bill ran thus:—
"Whereas, from the disposition of the public to make improvements by building, it would tend to the improvement of the metropolis, and to the great advantage of the Bishop of London and of his successors, that the power of leasing and granting contracts for leasing should be extended, be it enacted, &c."
So that at the very time the House was told every prospect of the see was of decrease and loss, an Act was obtained to promote those buildings which had led to such a great increase in the revenue. All this seemed to have escaped the memory of those who made the returns; and it might be said that those houses were built in 1831, whereas the Act was not passed till 1836; but it happened that in the twelfth report of the Commissioners, in March, 1835, they repeated the statement with respect to the prospects of the see. Now, in point of fact, not only were a vast number of those houses built in that year, but many of them were inhabited; and not only had leases been made and contracts signed, but the source of that enormous wealth secured, respecting the amount of which he would not venture to make any calculation, but which competent persons declared must eventually amount to 100,000 l. a year. The right rev. Prelate told the House in 1835 that he considered himself an ill-doing man, and that he was rather going down in the world than otherwise; but it appeared that all this time his revenues were augmenting enormously. The whole subject of his Lordship's Paddington estate was so extraordinary, as to fill any one who considered it with surprise. But the House must be prepared for a still greater wonder respecting it. It was strange enough there should not have been sufficient foresight te enable the Bishop to look to an increase of his revenue from this source; but what would they say to the fact, that after it had actually taken place—after houses had been built and leases given, the see was not in the least richer than before, and that in the next return, made in 1843, on the average of the seven preceding years, they
1088
would find the return was absolutely less than it had been in 1831? The net income in 1831 was 13,929 l.; in 1843 it was 12,400 l., showing a decrease of 1,445 l., almost 1,500 l. a year. He really wished to have some explanation of this curious circumstance, and to be told how it was that after 400 acres had been covered with houses, and 200 leases had been given—not on fines, but on steady, permanent rents—this estate had become less valuable than before, and how it happened that episcopal property, totally different from property of every other description, had decreased in rental as the amount of rents increased. It was of course impossible to doubt the accuracy of an episcopal return; and he could only say the fact gave a pretty idea of episcopal management. The see of Durham came next; the return gave the income, gross 21,991 l. net 19,066 l. As to the alterations to be expected, "no accurate judgment could be formed as to the profits depending on mines; but augmentations to the amount of 1,170 l. had been granted, which would decrease the future revenue," and the future income was set down at 17,8902., while, by the returns in 1843, it appeared to be gross 26,401 l., net 22,992 l. The Bishop of Winchester came next; but the return made by his Lordship was perfectly accurate. The income of the see of St. Asaph was returned as gross 7,408 l., net 6,301 l., and it was stated that a gradual decline was expected, which induced the Commissioners to put down the future revenue at 5,280 l.; but instead of falling so low, it rose up in 1843 to 6,948 l. net, 8,393 l. gross. The see of Bangor was returned at 6,580 l. gross, 4,464 l. net. The Commissioners set it down at 3,814 l., "as there was no prospect of increase, tithes falling rapidly;" but the good bishop was, it appeared, more frightened than hurt, for the tithes and other sources of revenue, so far from decreasing so rapidly as he dreaded, rose to 7,832 l. gross, 5,643 l. net. In the sees of Carlisle and Chester there was nothing remarkable in the returns, and no circumstance to call for comment. Then came Chichester, which was returned, gross 4,375 l., net 4,229 l., with the statement that there should be a reduction of 400 l. or 500 l. per annum, so that the Commissioners set down the revenue at 3,800 l.; but the return of 1843 in the same way showed that it had risen to 5,200 l. St. David's and Ely called for no comment. Then came the see of Hereford, the net income of

1089
which was returned at 2,516 l., "with no expected decrease or increase. Notwithstanding this, the next return showed it rose to 3,194 l. From Lichfield there were no returns, the agent, as it appeared, having run away, and taken with him both money and accounts. The see of Lincoln was reckoned at 4,913 l. gross, 4,542 net, with the assurance that "this estimate exceeded the average by 680 l., and intended augmentations of dependent vicarages, which would cause a further considerable reduction." The future income was set down at 4,200 l., but it turned out to be 5,223 l. net. The see of Llandaff gave a return of 924 l., "an increase expected." This was the only return to which such a remark was affixed; but he regretted to say it was not justified by the result, and that in this see alone no increase had taken place, the net revenue having fallen to 900 l. by the next returns. The returns from the remaining see were as follows:—Norwich, gross 5,696 l., net 5,395 l., estimated income 4,700 l., actual net income 5,187 l. Oxford, gross 3,106 l., net 2,648 l., "a decrease to be expected;" the net yearly value will amount to 1,658 l. At that sum it was set down by the Commissioners; but the return showed a net value of 2,359 l. Salisbury gave, gross 4,145 l., net 3,939 l., with the statement that if the calculations were taken on a larger average, the result would establish a net income communibus annis of not less than between 5,000 l. and 6,000 l. The Commissioners placed it at the former of these sums; but the returns of 1843 gave, gross 7,878 l., net 7,842 l. Worcester, gross 6,916 l., net 6,569 l. It was modestly added, "there was no reason to expect a decrease." The Commissioners acting on this, calculated the future income at 6,500 l.; but the returns stood as follow:—Gross 8,166 l., net 7,122 l. From these returns, which were so much understated in nearly every case, the Commissioners had made their calculations as to the future revenues of the sees. How it had happened these returns were so erroneous, it was not for him to say. If he were to hazard any conjecture, he might commit as great an error as the Commissioners themselves. The Commissioners had then to arrange the future payments to be made by the incumbents of the sees, and he thought he could show that even where it was a simple question of figures, with arithmetic to guide them, the Commissioners had not abided by the provisions of
1090
the Act, favourable as these had been to them; that where the payments were to be made by rich sees the proportion was small, and where by poor sees it was exorbitantly large. He would establish this by figures taken from the report of the Commissioners themselves, showing the amount of payments made. They had arranged the sums to be paid on the next dioceses falling vacant, as well as on those where vacancies had already occurred. He would now request the attention of the House to the following calculations on the bishops' returns of income for seven years, from 1837 to 1843, showing that in the cases of the sees which do or are hereafter to contribute to the Episcopal Fund, the payments fixed by the Commissioners still leave the bishops a surplus above the incomes as settled for each of them by Parliament:—

CANTERBURY.

The annual payment for the mortgage

£3,000

Gross income

£28,005

Mortgage money

3,000

Intended payment exclusive of the above

6,000

9,000

Revenue

19,005

Intended revenue

15,000

Surplus

4,005

YORK.

Gross.

Net.

Present income

14,687

13,610

Intended payment

2,500

2,500

Leaving

12,187

11,110

Intended income

10,000

10,000

Surplus

2,187

1,110

DURHAM.

Gross income

26,401

Payment now made

11,200

Income

15,200

Intended income

8,000

Surplus

7,201

But out of this sum is to be paid the cost of managing the estates, which amounts in this case to a heavy sum, therefore take the net income

11,792

Intended income

8,000

Surplus

3,792

ST. ASAPH.

Gross income

8,393

Payment

1,800

Receipt

6,593

Intended income

4,200

Surplus

£2,393

1091

BATH AND WELLS.

Gross income

£7,354

Payment

800

Receipt

6,544

Intended income

5,000

Surplus

1,554

ELY.

Gross income

9,620

Payment to Commissioners, commenced

3,500

Receipt

6,120

Intended income

5,500

Surplus

£620

But the net income of seven years is stated to be 6,772 l. after payment to the Commissioners, which would leave 1,272 l. payable. It is probable, however, that in certain years of the average the payment of 3,500 l. by the bishop was not made, which would explain the apparent inconsistency.

WORCESTER.

Gross income

…

£8,166

Present payment

…

2,300

Receipt

…

6,866

Intended income

…

5,000

Surplus

…

1,866

SALISBURY.

Gross.

Net.

Income

…

£7,878

£7,482

Intended payment

…

1,850

1,850

Receipts

…

6,028

5,683

Intended receipt

…

5,000

5,000

Surplus

…

£1,028

£683

These were the prospective payments; but the actual payments commenced would appear from the following calculations on the bishops' returns for seven years showing that in the cases of sees to which the Commissioners contribute the payments out of the Episcopal Fund, give the bishops a surplus above the incomes as settled for each of them by Parliament.

CHICHESTRE.

Gross.

Net.

Income

£5,380

£5,217

Payment by Commissioners

650

650

Receipts without Commissioners payment

4,730

4,567

Income as settled

4,200

4,200

Surplus without Commissioners' payment

£530

£367

And yet the Commissioners still propose to pay 150 l. to the Bishop after the next avoidance.
1092

HEREFORD.

Net income, including 1,400 l. from Commissioners

£4,594

Intended income

4,200

Surplus

£394

And yet the Commissioners propose to pay 1,000 l. a year to the Bishop after the next avoidance.

OXFORD.

Net income

…

…

…

£2,359

Present payment

…

…

…

3,500

Revenue

…

…

…

5,859

Intended revenue

…

…

…

5,000

Surplus

…

…

…

£859

Still to be continued on next avoidance.

LINCOLN.

Net income

…

…

…

£5,223

Intended income

…

…

…

5,000

Present surplus

…

…

…

£223

And yet the Commissioners propose to pay 500 s. a year to the Bishop after the next avoidance. There was, lastly, the case of the Bishop of Rochester, which was a somewhat strong one. In the other cases the rule had been laid down that the changes were only to come into operation on the next appointment to the see; the Commissioners laid down, in the first instance, the rule that the income was not to be increased till next vacancy. So lately as June, 1845, they had fixed the payment in this case at 3,700 l. a year, to commence on the next vacancy. Only two months later, in August, the payment actually did commence, no vacancy having occurred in the interim; and the Bishop was at this moment in the receipt of 3,750 l. a year from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The result of this system was, that the payments made by the richer sees were less than ought to be paid under the provisions of the Act by no smaller a sum than 20,000 l. a year; whilst the payments of the poorer sees were more than ought to be made by no less a sum than 6,000 l. a year; so that at this moment the richest bishops were receiving over and above their due, under the provisions of the Act of Parliament which they were called upon to administer, a sum of no less than 27,600 l. a year. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) had on a former occasion made a reference to the difference between the gross and net returns; and he confessed that the enormous discrepancy between these, in the tabular statement made of

1093
the seven years' average income of bishops, was to him perfectly unintelligible. It amounted to a sum of no less than 50,000 l. a year. This could not proceed from anything like fixed payments; at least beyond a small part of that amount, since these varied so much from year to year. The difference between gross and net income was in the case of—

Durham

1837

…

£14,000

1840

…

15,000

1841

…

16,000

St. Asaph

1837

…

1,300

1843

…

2,300

Ely

1837

…

1,800

1839

…

2,300

1840

…

3,000

Lincoln

1837

…

400

1838

…

700

Back in

1839

…

400

1840

…

900

1841

…

2,200

Norwich

1837

…

300

1843

…

1,200

Exeter by the original return in

1831

…

2,734;

but the difference between gross and net in 1843, 751 l, or 300 per cent. It would be satisfactory if they knew exactly what the Commissioners admitted as legitimate deductions from the gross income. Taking the last case he had mentioned, for example, what deductions could be mentioned that would make a difference of 300 per cent between the gross and the net income? He remembered an anecdote which might perhaps illustrate this point. A gentleman, who was known to have two livings of the value of 1,500 l. a year, returned them as of the gross value of 150 l.; and on being examined by the Tithe Commissioners, the account he gave was, that his two parishes were at some distance from each other, so that he was obliged to deduct the expense of the horses which conveyed him between them; that his wife was not in very good health, so that she was obliged to ride to church, which obliged him to deduct the expenses of the carriage; that a man in his station could not but send his children to a fashionable school, so that when every necessary expense was deducted, the net income remained at 150 l. a year. Suppose a bishop were very litigious, and had, in consequence, many lawsuits with his clergy; suppose that he was rather eminent as a literary character, and composed a great many pamphlets, which were distributed through his diocese, or that he wrote long letters in the Times, addressed to the Prime Minister—would the Commissioners admit that all the ex-
1094
penses of these things, which were not included in his official functions, were proper and legitimate charges to be deducted from his gross income? He could account on no other grounds for the difference between the gross and net incomes that appeared on the face of the returns. Another thing was remarkable in the management of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—their immense variations. No bishop knew from one year to another what his income was to be. That, he believed, was felt as a very great hardship; and he could not conceive anything more inconvenient, vexatious, and insulting. Take the case of Durham; he was told that the income of that diocese being calculated at 19,000 l. a year, the Bishop had the choice given him by the Commissioners, whether he would make to them a payment of 11,000 l. a year, taking his chance of 8,000 l., or whether they should make him an annual payment of 8,000 l. and keep the remainder. As far as his information went, the Bishop preferred the gambling transaction, and certainly he appeared to have made a very good thing of it. His income was intended to be 8,000 l. a year, yet it averaged 16,000 l. a year, whilst the net income, according to the returns, was more than 12,000 l. The excuse, or plea, assigned by the Commissioners for this management of the income was, that by allowing the Bishop to make the payment, instead of themselves giving it to him, he had a great interest in the improvement of his property. He thought this a false principle; it was refusing to give effect to the provisions of the Act of Parliament; and they all knew that when a man had an estate of 30,000 l. a year to manage, that was of itself sufficient to occupy his whole time and energy. The first diocese in which this rule was laid down was Durham. The property of that see was mineral. They stimulated the Bishop to work it out to the utmost; and, accordingly, no less than 60,000 l. over the sum fixed by Parliament had been received by the Bishop of Durham since his appointment to that see. The revenue was constantly increasing; and it was stated as quite notorious, that at this moment the income of the Bishop of Durham was greater than any ever enjoyed by a bishop of that see before. And this the Bishop had been receiving in spite of the Act of Parliament fixing that income. He now came to a case in which the Commissioners had taken upon themselves to postpone the operation of that Act—that of

1095
Salisbury. The Act received the Royal Assent on the 13th August, 1836; it was to take effect retrospectively from the 4th March, a day fixed upon because the Bishop of Durham was gazetted upon that day, and Parliament was so determined to bring the Act immediately into operation, that though the Act was not passed till the month of August, it took effect from the 4th March in order to catch the Bishop of Durham, who was not yet in possession of his see. The Bishop of Salisbury was not gazetted till the 14th March, 1837, more than a year after the Bishop of Durham; his future income was expressly fixed at 5,000 l. a year; and yet that provision had been entirely disregarded. The average income of that Prelate was nearly 3,000 l. a year over that fixed by Parliament; in 1843, the last year for which they had returns, he was receiving a net income, by his own statement, of 12,142 l.; and in 1841, he actually received 17,000 l. That was a case on which he thought it unnecessary to make any comment. He could not help noticing, that whilst there was this superabundance of bishops and opulence of their revenues, every episcopal charge delivered dwelt on the spiritual destitution of the country. The laity were appealed to for their subscriptions; and nobly and generously had they responded to that appeal. In one single diocese, they were told by the Bishop of Ripon in his last charge, that during the last ten years no less a sum than 28,000 l. had been annually subscribed for churches alone. Churches had been built in every direction by the exertions of generous and munificent persons, upon the express engagement of the Commissioners themselves that they would endow them after being built. Those engagements had been in many instances broken. They had heard the announcement made by the Commissioners in 1844, stating their inability to give any further assistance because the Commission was bankrupt; and yet at the very time that it was bankrupt the Commissioners were dividing among themselves, according to their own showing, no less a sum than 26,000 l. a year, but he believed it to be much nearer 40,000 l. a year, out of those ecclesiastical revenues which they had been appointed as trustees to administer for ecclesiastical purposes. And at what a time was this occurring? When their own statement assured us that there were 2,000,000 of our population who, from want of teachers, never heard the word of
1096
God; and when there were no less than 2,000 beneficed clergymen of the Church of England with incomes lower than 100 l. a year, many of them running down to 50 l., 40 l., 20 l., 10 l., and 5l., and even to 3l. a year. This was the state of the Church at the time these things were going on; and let the House think of the hardships and privations endured by the inferior clergy thus miserably paid. Why, the sufferings of the poor clergymen were something never before heard of in a rich and civilised country. He could communicate instances of poverty, privation, and suffering, on the part of these men, of which they had no conception. It had been made a reproach to us that we knew little of the condition of our working population. He believed we knew much less of the condition of the poorer portion of the working clergy. Think of the sufferings known to have been endured by these poor men during the severe season of the last winter, the largest portion of it without food for their families, without clothes, obliged even to casual charity for the cloak in which to go out and die by the wayside. It was sympathy with these men, and with the flocks under their care, which had induced him to bring forward this statement. It was not that he wished to assail the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He had been honoured by the friendship of some of those distinguished men, and valued it too much to risk it lightly; he wished to give the honour due to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the dignitaries of the Church; but he must say his most earnest feelings, his warmest sympathies, were with the congregations of that Church, and the meritorious pastors to whom they looked as their esteemed and venerated guides. He looked on them as labourers not less worthy of their hire, because, not living in palaces, the sphere of their labours was often among those whom both society and Christianity had regarded as outcasts—
"His the hard duty to reclaim
Those reckless sons of sin and shame.
Contemned—repulsed from door to door,
His heavenly message press'd the more
At last prevails; in him they see
A sympathising poverty.
Like them, by worldliness forgot,
Neglect and penury his lot.
Their wants, their woes to him are known—
Alas! too often they're his own;
He feels their sorrows, owns their cares.
And all, except their crimes, he shares."
There were, he believed, many of these men among our poor working clergy: these

1097
were the persons whom he should employ and cherish. Be it remarked that every shilling of superfluity you gave to the wealthy was so much abstracted from the working clergy, so much of their sustenance, and so much of religious instruction denied to the poor. It was for the poor that our Established Church existed. The revenues of that Church were the heritage of the poor; they in that House were their guardians and protectors; and they were bound to see those revenues were justly and righteously administered. It was for that purpose he called upon the House to vindicate its own Act of 1836, and so pave the way for placing the administration of those revenues, he would not say in more faithful, but certainly in more competent and careful hands. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his resolutions.
MR. PLUMPTREseconded the Motion. It was a subject of considerable difficulty and delicacy in his estimation; but those who shut their eyes to the errors and abuses found in the working of our system, were in his opinion its worst enemies. Feeling that the subject was one of great importance, he was prepared to go with the hon. Member for Cockermouth, because he believed the hon. Member wished to touch it with a friendly hand. He thought from the statements made by the hon. Gentleman, that the working of the Commission could not be satisfactory to those who considered the subject in all its bearings. He believed that it was not the intention of the hon. Member to make any personal reflections on the right rev. prelates he had adverted to; it was the system the hon. Member objected to, and which had led to his able and diligent examination of its results. If the Act 6 and 7 William IV. had not been properly framed, or if there had been any diversion or perversion of the fund intended to be applied to the purposes of the Act, this ought to be amended. He believed those who honestly and faithfully endeavoured to root out error where it appeared, and set their faces against abuses, were the true and real friends of the religious Establishment of this country, whose limits he wished to see extended, and its utility increased on every side. He believed he should be supporting its best interests by voting for the Motion before the House, and should therefore give it his hearty support.
SIR.G. GREYsaid, although the first only of this series of resolutions had been read from the Chair, which merely recited
1098
an Act of Parliament, the second and third were those with which the House would have more immediately to deal, and he might assume that they were all to be discussed together. He concurred fully with what had fallen from the Mover and Seconder of these resolutions, that the ecclesiastical property of the kingdom ought properly to be applied to meet the spiritual destitution which existed. He questioned, however, whether the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion had read the resolutions with attention; for even if the House thought proper to agree to a vote of censure on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, that would not effect the object which the Mover had in view. His hon. Friend who had introduced the Motion, devoted a good deal of his speech to matter that was not entirely relevant. He had alluded to transactions which took place before the formation of the Commission; and he confounded two separate Commissions. He assumed that the Commissioners had acted on returns of the value of episcopal incomes made in the year 1831. What was the history of the appointment of the Ecclesiastical Commission? The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel), in the beginning of the year 1835, had appointed a Commission of Inquiry into the ecclesiastical revenues, with the view of promoting the object which he believed his hon. Friend had in his present Motion; that Commission had made its report in March, 1836, and had come to certain resolutions, in which they recommended, amongst other things, an equalisation of the episcopal duties and revenues in the different sees. The resolutions were afterwards embodied in the Act of Parliament to which his hon. Friend referred as fixing the amount each bishop was to receive. But in point of fact that Act did not absolutely fix the amount of incomes. The Commissioners of Inquiry recommended—
"That, in order to provide for the augmentation of the incomes of the smaller bishoprics, such fixed annual sums be paid to the Commissioners out of the revenues of the larger sees respectively as shall, on due inquiry and consideration, be determined on so as to leave as an annual average income to the Archbishop of Canterbury, 15,000 l.; the Archbishop of York, 10,000 l.; the Bishop of London, 10,000 l.; the Bishop of Durham, 8,000 l.; the Bishop of Winchester, 7,000 l.; the Bishop of Ely, 5,500 l.; the Bishop of St. Asaph and Bangor, 5,200 l.; and the Bishops of Worcester, Bath, and Wells, respectively, 5,000 l."
They also recommended that out of the

1099
funds thus accruing fixed annual payments should be made by the Commissioners—
"in such instances and to such amount as shall be in like manner determined on, so that the average annual income of the other bishops, respectively, be not less than 4,000 l., nor more than 5,000 l."
The next recommendation was, that at the expiration of every seven years, reckoning from the 1st of January, 1837, a new return of the revenues of all the bishoprics should be made to the Commissioners, and—
"that thereupon the scale of episcopal payments and receipts be revised, so as to preserve as nearly as may be to each bishop an amount of income equivalent to that which shall have been determined, in the first instance, to be suitable to the circumstances of his bishopric."
And he begged particularly to call the attention of his hon. Friend to the following words of the recommendation, because these very words were employed in the Act of Parliament—
"that such revised scale take effect as to each see respectively, upon the then next avoidance thereof."
Now, the Act of Parliament embodied and gave the force of the law to these several recommendations; and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners being constituted by Parliament the body to carry the Act into effect, had no power to depart from its provisions. The Act prescribed the precise mode by which the object of an equalisation of episcopal incomes was to be aimed at. He was not contending that the whole of this arrangement was not open to objection, or that it was not capable of amendment; but he contended that the proceedings of the Commissioners, which the hon. Gentleman had censured, were in conformity with the Act of Parliament which they were bound to adhere to, and the Commissioners had merely carried out the law. It was, therefore, impossible to say that the Commissioners had failed in the discharge of their duty: if any failure had occurred, it was in the Act of Parliament, which the Commissioners were bound to enforce. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners had only acted in strict conformity with the provisions of the Act. [Mr. HORSMAN: Not at all.] His hon. Friend said, "Not at all." But he believed that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had strictly carried out the provisions of the Act of Parliament. His hon. Friend had stated that the returns of incomes made by the bishops in the year 1831 were grossly incorrect. Now he had
1100
not lately looked at those returns, and he could not decide whether or not they were grossly incorrect. If they were, he could only say that the bishops at that time had taken rather a desponding view of the value of the property they possessed, and must have supposed that their incomes had a tendency rather to diminish than to increase. But his hon. Friend had said that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had fixed the incomes of the bishops on these incorrect returns. But when his hon. Friend made that statement, he must have forgotten that the Commissioners had fixed in the year 1837 the annual payments of the bishops, not on the returns of the year 1831, but on the subsequent and more correct returns, which showed the incomes to be much greater than the returns of 1831. The Act of Parliament provided that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should ascertain the average incomes of the possessors of the wealthier sees during a certain period, and should charge those incomes with the payment of certain fixed sums, being the difference between the average income and the intended future annual income. Had the Commissioners done that? His hon. Friend said that they had not; but he said that they had. He held in his hand the first report of the Commissioners, which the hon. Gentleman seemed to have entirely overlooked; and in that report he found it stated that after having obtained the best information as to the revenues of the bishops, they had proceeded to carry out the Act by which payments were to be made out of the larger bishoprics in aid of the smaller sees. The information in question had not, he repeated, been derived from the returns of 1831, but from subsequent and more correct returns. He would take the case of the see of Canterbury in illustration of the error into which his hon. Friend had fallen. His hon. Friend had said that the Commissioners had written down Canterbury from the return of 1831 at 17,300 l. a year. But the fact was that they had written down the income of the see of Canterbury at 22,000 l. a year, charging the future possessor of that see with the payment of the sum of 7,000 l., thus reducing the income of the see, according to that calculation, to 15,000 l. a year. He would next pass to the case of the see of Durham. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners had ascertained the average income of that see for the seven years preceding the appointment of

1101
the present Bishop to be 19,200 l. a year, and they had consequently charged the Bishop with the payment of 11,200 l. a year in order to reduce the income to 8,000 l. a year. [Mr. HORSMAN: Has not that Prelate been receiving 12,000 l.?] He did not know what that Prelate had been receiving. But was it the fault of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners if he had been receiving more than 8,000 l. a year? Was it not rather the fault of the Act of Parliament, which it was the duty of the Commissioners to carry into effect? The present Bishop of Durham had not been allowed to take possession of the see until a return had been made of the average amount of the i-come attached to it during the seven preceding years; that income had been returned at 19,200 l. a year; and from that amount the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had deducted 11,200 l. a year; so that the Bishop of Durham was receiving an income derivable from the see after the deduction of that sum. The Bishop of Durham might be in the receipt of more than 8,000 l. a year; but the Act of Parliament provided that no change could be made in the income attached to the possession of that see until the next avoidance thereof. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners had no power to call on the Bishop of Durham to subject himself to any charge beyond the deduction of the 11,200 l. a year. He did not want to enter on that occasion into any extraneous questions, or to lessen in any way the force of the appeal of his hon. Friend to the wealthier bishops, to contribute largely towards the removal of the spiritual destitution of the people. He might observe, however, that the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishops of London and Durham, had all contributed liberally to that object. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners had no power to call on any prelate to pay to them a larger amount than the fixed sum which in strict accordance with the Act of Parliament had been charged on the see; and he, therefore, hoped the House would not visit on those Commissioners sins which they had never committed. The Commissioners could not disregard vested interests, but were bound to carry out the provisions of the Act of Parliament. His hon. Friend had said that the Bishop of Durham had been left by the Commissioners the option of either paying over to them a given sum, or of receiving from them a fixed allowance of 8,000 l. a year, paying the whole pro-
1102
ceeds of the see into their hands, and that that right rev. Prelate had preferred the gambling transaction. Now, that was a serious charge to bring against any man, still more against a venerable Prelate. He did not know the authority upon which his hon. Friend had made it; but he knew that the Commissioners could not have made such a proposal, because the Act of Parliament gave them no power to call on the Bishop of Durham to pay the whole receipts of his see into their hands. The Act of Parliament prescribed the only mode in which the Commissioners could call on the Bishop of Durham to contribute towards the fund out of which the incomes of the less wealthy sees were to be augmented, and that mode they had adopted. Upon that point, he should, therefore, say that his hon. Friend must have been grossly imposed upon by the parties from whom he had derived his information. He wished, in the next place, to allude to the statement of his hon. Friend with respect to the see of Salisbury. It had been distinctly recommended in the report of the Commissioners of Inquiry, subsequently sanctioned by Parliament, that where it appeared that the revenues of a see did not fall short of 4,500 l. a year, and did not exceed 5,500 l. a year, the Bishop should not be called upon to pay anything over to the Commissioners, and should not be entitled to receive anything from them. Now the see of Salisbury had come within that category. The income of that see had, during the seven years preceding the year 1835, amounted about to 5,000 l. a year; so that the Bishop had been exempt from the operation of the Act. But the Bishop of Salisbury having since been called upon to make a return of his income, it turned out that he had received 1,850 l. a year beyond the maximum laid down in the Act; and if that see were at present to become vacant, the sum of 1,850 l. a year would, under the Act, be payable from the next bishop to the Commissioners. But in that case, also, the present bishop was protected not by the Commissioners, but by the Act which provided that the Commissioners could make no deduction from the revenues of the holder of the see until it should again become vacant. He would not go into other charges made against the Commissioners, who, he had shown, were not open to the censure of the hon. Gentle-

1103
man. The Ecclesiastical Commission had only been constituted in 1836, and the returns of 1831 had nothing, therefore, to do with the conduct of the Commissioners. Parliament had placed certain powers in their hands to exercise for certain objects contemplated in the Act; and Parliament knew from time to time what was done, and could at any time have interfered and changed the law. The hon. Member had known what their conduct had been; and he thought it was rather shabby now to say, that whilst the Commissioners had acted in accordance with the provisions of the Act which they were appointed to carry into effect, they should be visited with censure because they had not violated an Act of Parliament. He believed that the whole subject was well deserving of the consideration of Parliament. It appeared to him that the arrangement entered into for fixing the income of the bishops was not the best that might have been adopted. The Commissioners stated in their report, that they considered the arrangement imperfect; and they had themselves suggested the expediency of altering the law, owing to the practical inconvenience which had resulted from it. He did not know that he need trouble the House with any further observations on the subject. With respect to the two first resolutions of his hon. Friend, which merely stated matters of fact, he should be prepared to move the previous question; and with respect to the third resolution, which he thought was founded on a misapprehension of the facts of the case, and the adoption of which would be a great injustice, he should be prepared to meet that resolution with a direct negative.
MR. HUMEsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth had shown that there had been a violation of the Act of Parliament, and it was the duty of the Secretary of State and of the Government to look after the execution of the Act. The gross amount received by the Commissioners since 1843 had been 197,000 l., and the net amount 150,000 l., and this had not been appropriated according to the intention of the Act. If power was given by the Act to misapply the funds, the remedy was not by resolutions of that House, but by a Bill to alter the law; and he suggested to the right hon. Baronet that the hon. Member might withdraw his resolutions upon a pledge from the Government that they would bring in a Bill to remedy
1104
the evil. It turned out that no less than 20,000 l. or 30,000 l. a year had been appropriated in a manner different from that in which it ought to have been appropriated according to the intention of the House. He had a petition from St. Stephen, Devonport, complaining bitterly of the want of spiritual instruction there, and it was the same in many other parts of the country; and when they had a fund to the amount of 150,000 l., he put it to the Government whether they ought to allow it to be appropriated to the bishops, when there was so much spiritual destitution? It turned out that about 30,000 l. a year had been applied to the building of bishops' palaces, and other similar objects, instead of being applied, as it ought to have been, according to the report, and the intention of the House. There had been great negligence on the part of the Government, if the Bill were defective, in allowing this to go on. He thought that no bishops ought to be allowed to be in the Commission; whereas the constant attendance of the Episcopal Members gave them a preponderance. The evidence of the Bishop of London stated that, in his opinion, not one shilling of the money ought to go to any other purpose than to support the bishops. After the statement of the hon. Member for Cockermouth, it was impossible to allow such things to be; they tended to foster dissent, and to increase the enemies of the Church. He did not intend to raise the question, how far bishops ought to be suffered to roll about in their carriages with large incomes, which made them above associating with the inferior clergy. No bishop should have more than 2,000 l. or 3,000 l. a year; they would then be more upon a level with the other clergy. He was further of opinion that the Church might do without bishops. He did not mean to say that the people of his country were more moral and religious than those of England; but they were quite as much so, and Lord Brougham had said, "You might wander from one end of Scotland to the other, and travel from the Tweed to John o'Groat's house, without seeing a bishop." There were no minor canons, nor even a rural deal to be seen there, Lord Brougham added; that poor benighted country knew nothing even of tithes; and yet, notwithstanding all this cruel neglect, the Scotch were the most moral and religious people in the world. He advised the Government to give a pledge that they would bring in a Bill to alter the Act,

1105
and it would then be unnecessary to press the resolutions, which, if they were pressed, he hoped a majority of the House would agree to.
MR. DEERINGbegged to observe, in reply to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Montrose, that the Bishop of Oxford was acquainted with every clergyman in his diocese.
SIR R. H. INGLISfully admitted the perfect consistency and constancy of the testimony which the hon. Member for Montrose had borne to what he regarded as the corruptions of the Church Establishment of England—corruptions evidenced by nothing more, in the judgment of the hon. Member, than its riches. If this were the test, the hon. Member himself must be very corrupt indeed; for if, as he (Sir R. Inglis) hoped, report were true, he was said to be possessed of great wealth. The whole of the debate, with hardly an exception—certainly not on the part of either the hon. Mover or Seconder—had proceeded upon the principle that the Church, as such, had no property, and that the House had as good a right to deal with its revenue as they had with the Consolidated Fund. He was not surprised at the dissatisfaction of the hon. Member who had last spoken with the episcopal allowances, nor at his desire to allow the bishops no more than 2,000 l. or 3,000 l. a year; all he regretted was that others should have adopted the same proposition. The hon. Member, he knew, regarded the clergy, from the highest to the lowest, as pensioners of the State, and, as such, entitled to receive more or less according to the will of the majority of that House. He, with equal constancy, had always maintained, on the other hand, that the Church was as much entitled to the enjoyment of its property as the corporation of Durham. Well did he remember putting this question to his noble Friend at the head of the Government—what if this property arose from donations in the last year, and not 600 years ago? Was the rule different? Was there a lawyer who would tell him that there was any difference in the right to the property in the two cases? It was said that the bishops indulged in all the vanities and luxuries of this world. He was not aware of any such cases; but he was aware of instances of splendid liberality on the part of the prelates. He knew bishops who had done honour to themselves and the Church by displays of liberality. He need only refer for an instance to the case of the Bishop
1106
of London, which had already been alluded to, and to the very blue book which the hon. Member for Montrose was now holding in his hand. In this book he found it stated, amongst other things, that the Bishop of London had raised every vicarage in his diocese to 200 l. a year; and it was difficult to say why the hon. Member had not quoted it, unless it was because it did not suit his purpose. At least it might be allowed that we should be cautious how we attacked others as selfish and grasping, when we really did not know what they did with their money. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) had been hearing with very great regret statements respecting the bishops generally, unsupported, as he believed, by fact, but certainly inconsistent with any very strong regard—he would not say for their persons, or even for their offices, but he might almost say for the Church of which they were the chief ministers. The hon. Member who had moved the resolutions expressed a hope that he had said nothing which could give offence to any one, and that he meant nothing as an insinuation or as an attack. If such were his wish, he was singularly unfortunate in his mode of expression and scope of argument; for certainly he had never heard anything which, to his apprehension, more resembled insinuation. For instance, the hon. Member observed, "These are the statements of bishops. If they were statements made by anybody else, one might be disposed to think them inaccurate." "The Bishop of Durham having the choice of two alternatives, preferred the gambling transaction." Were these the expressions of a friend of the Church? It was very possible that some alteration might be expedient in the mode of management of episcopal revenues; but what he wished to urge on the House was this, that the property of the bishops in 1836, and of every branch of the Church Establishment in this country, was as much and as absolutely the property of that establishment as the property of any lay corporation in the kingdom. For the sake of relieving spiritual distress and the ignorance of the people, it was thought necessary that some great effort should be made. It was not thought expedient to apply to the State in aid of such an endeavour; but the bishops, as part of the great establishment of this country, were to contribute from their own property, but were not to become the salaried servants of the hon. Member for Montrose and the majority of that House. Thank

1107
God, they were not so. He was thankful that the Church Establishment of this country did not yet depend on an annual vote of Parliament, moved by the hon. Member for Montrose, or even by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Church stood upon its own foundation, as the first body in the State. There was no period in the history of this country, except the melancholy interval in the middle of the 17th century—a state of things to which he hoped the hon. Member for Montrose was not desirous of bringing them back—there was no period in which the hierarchy of England had not maintained its position as the first body in the State. Resting in their position, constitutional as to rank, and legal as to property; urged by their own sense of the exigencies of their fellow-creatures with respect to spiritual destitution, they, as the first estate in the realm, consented to contribute largely out of their own property, not as pensioners of that they received, but as donors of that which they had—free and willing donors. It was not for him to defend in detail all the acts of all the bishops at all times. It would be extravagant enough if he were to take upon himself such a task in reference to the bishops even of the present time. It was enough for him to maintain that, as a body, they had constituted a large portion of the strength and glory of the Church of England. With respect to their claims to the support of that House, he urged them not merely upon the Act of Parliament, which guaranteed their rights, but as the claims of a body of great proprietors exercising over their property a control as fair, and certainly as beneficial to all who had dealings with them or held under them, as any one rank of lay proprietors in the kingdom. The analysis of the returns by the hon. Member (Mr. Horsman) was thickset with insinuations of this sort—"if it had not been from a bishop, one could not have supposed it;" their mistakes in their calculations were stated to be all one way; but what conceivable motive could any bishop have to deceive any one? The Paddington estate had been mentioned; the Bishop of London had as much right to the whole profits of the Paddington estate, and the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Lambeth estate, as the Marquess of Westminster or Lord Portman had to their estates. He therefore could not regard the bishops as supplicants who were to come on bended knee, with cap in hand, to the
1108
hon. Mover, or to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to ask for their annual dole. They held their estates as their own; and if an Act of Parliament should require them to contribute a given sum, that given sum they would willingly, he hoped, but at all events obediently, pay; but till an Act should pass, denuding them of their property, he would not willingly sit in that House and not oppose the doctrine that they were pensioners and not proprietors. This was the whole point in dispute—it was for this that he had contended now for about twenty years, and no one would ever accuse him, he believed, of having relaxed or relented in the proposition which he had all along endeavoured to maintain—namely, that though you might, by Act of Parliament, deal with the property of the Bishop of Durham, you had no more right to deal with it than with the property of the corporation of Durham. If they would admit that, he would not contest the point further, because he had always made a great distinction between the property of the Church and the property of indiduals, but no distinction between the property of one corporation and another. The Church had not received its present income from the State—the bishop had not received his property from the State, nor had the corporation of Durham; and until it could be shown that they had received their revenues from that source, he maintained that the State had no right to deal with them. Reference had been made to the case of the Bishop of Rochester, whose revenues were no more than 3,200 l. a year; who, suddenly, and in a single year, was transformed into the recipient of 5,200 l. a year. What was the fact? The fact was, that, in the interval, the Bishop of Rochester had, from the most conscientious motives, and in the same time by an arrangement most satisfactory to the Government, resigned the deanery of Worcester; and, therefore, the difference he received was merely an equivalent to the amount which he had previously held in respect of the deanery. With respect to the Bishop of Exeter, he believed very few men were better able to defend themselves than that right rev. Prelate. But a very grievous case of spiritual destitution in his diocese had been read from a printed paper, and somewhat sarcastically commented on. This much he would say, that the Bishop of Exeter entered his diocese one of the least popular men that ever set his foot there. He was speaking in the hearing of

1109
those who knew better than himself the state of the diocese; but he believed he was quite correct ill stating that his unpopularity did not last two years. The nest object of attack was the Bishop of Durham, who was charged with being in the receipt of a larger income than his predecessors. He apprehended, however, that the evidence of a few years preceding 1803 would show that the bishop was poor compared with the occupant of the see in those days. He could go farther into details of the same kind, but that he was conscious that they did not affect the great question at issue, which was, whether the bishops were to be considered as proprietors or as stipendiaries. If as proprietors they were to make over a certain sum to the ecclesiastical fund, and it appeared that they had failed to do so, he admitted a case had been made out; but if they had been stipendiaries from the beginning, then that revolution in the Church which he earnestly deprecated was not only contemplated but achieved. He held, however that the case was as he had argued it; and with that full conviction he rejoiced that Her Majesty's Government had determined to move the previous question to the two first resolutions, and a direct negative to the third.
MR. WOODbelieved, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was perfectly correct in his interpretation of the Act of Parliament. The arrangement was not that the returns should be made from seven years to seven years, and that then such an amount of payment should be fixed as would leave an average annual income to the parties. The fact was that the amount of income could only be altered with regard to the new incumbencies. He thought the House was indebted to the hon. Member for Cockermouth, who had brought forward these resolutions, for showing that there was a sum of 26,000 l. per annum which should be applied to other than these purposes. It appeared to him that, after the statements of the hon. Member, the House could entertain no doubt that the Act of Parliament ought to undergo revision. The hon. Member had said nothing to lay him open to the imputation that he meant to apply Church property to other than Church purposes. If he had heard anything to that effect, he should most certainly oppose his resolutions from beginning to end. There was no doubt that a great deal of spiritual destitution
1110
prevailed in the country. There were, it was true, bishops in Scotland who received a very small stipend, and who yet discharged their duty most conscientiously and ably. But there was no question before the House as to the amount of revenue that ought to attach to the episcopal dignity. It was not for him to say whether it was wise or unwise to make it a condition that bishops should have a seat in the Legislature; but no one would say that they had a redundancy of bishops in England, when it was a fact that one see extended from Jersey to the mouth of the River, and that another reached from the Humber to the Thames. Under such circumstances, it was impossible that the bishops could be intimately acquainted with the spiritual wants of the people under their charge. He did not think it necessary, although they should decide upon increasing the number of bishops, that those additional bishops should have a seat in the House of Lords. He believed there was also a great want of working clergy; and in the very parishes of St. Margaret and St. John, in which they were then sitting, there were, it was well known, 40,000 persons who attended no place of worship whatever. It was the same way with regard to schools, there being no less than 12,000 children between the ages of six and twelve years who attended no school whatever. Under these circumstances, it was gratifying to find that there was a sum of 26,000 l. per annum which might be applied for the promotion of schools and the increase of parochial clergy. It would be a valuable addition to the exertions which were making by the clergy and laity themselves; and in the two parishes to which he had referred he understood that no less than 18,000 l. had been collected by private subscription for the endowment of additional clergy. To that fund the Bishop of London had contributed 1,000 l., and he believed on no occasion had that right rev. Prelate been deficient in supporting all subscriptions of a similar nature. A rev. gentleman, a friend of his own, had, in the district and town in which he resided, collected in the last ten years no less a sum than 100,000 l.; and the same clergyman, the Vicar of Leeds, had brought forward an Act of Parliament to deprive himself of half the income derived from his incumbency in order to increase the incomes of the working clergy; and yet he had met with much opposition, and had been threatened with an action for doing so. These difficulties would

1111
show the necessity that existed for having the whole subject reviewed, as well for the purpose of revising the powers of the Commissioners, as with respect to a new appropriation of the Church revenues. He could not vote for the resolutions, more particularly the third one, in its present form; but he did not think the time that had been occupied in the discussion was altogether lost, as it had elicited the almost unanimous feeling of the House that immediate consideration should be bestowed upon a revision of the existing system.
LORD J. RUSSELL: I have heard with great pleasure the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I have heard it with more pleasure because I think it is calculated to induce the House to come to a decision, and thereby shorten this debate. The hon. Gentleman has said that he does not consider the hon. Member who has moved these resolutions is well founded in the supposition that the Act of Parliament has not been complied with. He thinks that, although the Act may be defective, yet there is no reason to suppose that those who have had to carry it into execution have not earnestly applied themselves to that task; and therefore he is of opinion that the censure which the hon. Mover would cast upon them is not well founded; and, being of this opinion, the hon. Gentleman says, that he cannot vote for the resolutions that have been proposed. Now, whatever view we may take of the Act of Parliament itself, I am of opinion that the hon. Gentleman has come to a right and sound decision; and that no one who has attentively perused the Act can come to any other decision. Undoubtedly the question as to the framing of that Act of Parliament, and as to the mode in which the incomes of the bishops are to be settled, is a question of very great difficulty. Although it may be easy to perceive defects in the present mode, yet it is well known that other modes which were suggested were subject to very great objections; objections sufficiently strong to induce the Commissioners of Inquiry to recommend the mode which is at present adopted. For instance, if you say that bishops shall at all events pay into the hands of certain Commissioners all the revenues derived from their estates beyond a certain sum—8,000 l. or 5,000 l., as it may be—which you agree to allow them for their income, it is evident that you thereby deprive them of all motive for taking due care of the
1112
estates which are submitted to their superintendence; while on the other hand, if you say that there shall be one common fund out of which a certain amount shall be paid to each bishop as his stated income, then that will be liable to the objection that the bishops would be mere stipendiaries; that the character which the bishops of the Church of England had hitherto borne would be entirely changed; and that they would be holding their incomes upon a very different tenure from what they have hitherto done, and would be receiving salaries in that very manner to which my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford has so much objected. It being the fact, then, that there are such objections to those different modes I have mentioned, I will not, on the other hand, deny that there have been some grave objections to the mode which has been actually adopted. I say that it is impossible to say that it is agreeable to the intention of the Act of Parliament, or in accordance with its spirit, that a bishop to whom a certain amount of income has been allotted, should receive a sum greatly exceeding the sum so assigned to him. So, on the other hand, great difficulties must arise when you say that a bishop shall pay over a certain sum to Commissioners out of his estates beyond the amount of his allotted income, although it may be that those estates do not yield any such surplus revenue. And the difficulty is greatly increased if you subject the bishop to an action at law to compel him to pay over that sum, in order that the Act of Parliament might be complied with. The hon. Gentleman who introduced this Motion said that the Bishop of Durham should have 8,000 l. a year, and not take the chance of an increase in the value of his property, which in some years might amount to as much as 16,000 l. I was in the Commission when the bishopric of Durham fell vacant, and the present Bishop of Durham left the matter entirely to the Commissioners. I remember that the gentleman who had been the agent of the former Bishop of Durham came before the Commissioners, and was told what was the sum which the Commissioners proposed should be paid by the new bishop. That gentleman thought it would be imposing a great difficulty on the bishop, and he was not prepared to consent the bishop should pay over that sum. However, the Commissioners decided that that sum should be paid over, and the new Bishop of Durham

1113
agreed to pay it, and never raised a question as to any other arrangement being made. I recollect a proposition being made to the Commissioners by the late Bishop of Ely, and it was one which showed that the arrangements sometimes made were disadvantageous to the bishops. It was believed that the income of the see of the Bishop of Ely amounted to 7,500 l. The sum assigned to that bishopric by the Act of Parliament was 5,000 l., and it was therefore arranged that the Bishop of Ely should pay over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners 2,500 l. The Bishop paid this sum for two or three years; but finding that his income did not afford him the means of paying so large a sum as 2,500 l., he said to the Commissioners, "I should be much obliged to you if you will take the whole property into your own hands and pay over 5,000 l. to me, rather than require me to pay you 2,500 l., which I have not the means of doing." It is possible that the hon. Gentleman who has moved these resolutions may have heard some story of this kind, and have confounded it with the case of the Bishop of Durham. With regard to the proposition of the Bishop of Ely, it must be obvious that the Commissioners would have been precluded by the Act from acceding to it. It is, however, a proof that there are inconveniences on both sides. As it is evidently impossible that the hon. Gentleman can get the House to agree to his resolutions, I hope he will be induced to withdraw them. Although the provisions of the Act may not have been carried out according to the intention of Parliament, yet all those who have read the Act must agree that its provisions have been carried into effect so far as the Commissioners are concerned; and I can only say that I will not pledge myself to bring in any Bill to change the present mode of distribution of the funds under the control of those Commissioners. I should be very glad if any mode could be devised which, upon the whole, would be better than the present; but as I do not know of any, I will not take any step to alter the present method until I see my way clearly. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that whether the surplus fund be 16,000 l. a year, or 26,000 l. a year, the money might be most usefully applied for the benefit of the Church. I agree with him, as I did last year with the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), when speaking on this subject, that there was not sufficient episcopal superintendence for
1114
the increasing population of this country; and I agree likewise with both those hon. Gentlemen that with regard to the working clergy, the great mass of the population are very deficiently supplied with the spiritual aid of a working clergy. This I say without entering into any question with regard to Church property. I agree with those hon. Gentlemen that, whatever may be the surplus, there are quite enough demands for its appropriation for maintaining a zealous working clergy. But it will be for Parliament to consider at a future time whether any alteration or improvement can be made in the arrangements laid down in the Act of Parliament for the distribution of these funds.
LORD R. GROSVENORsaid, that having listened attentively to the debate, he did not think the third resolution was either sound in law or correct in fact; and, upon the whole, he could wish his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion. If his hon. Friend were to go to a division, he would not be supported in such a manner as the importance of the subject deserved, and his cause would rather be injured than advanced.
MR. AGLIONBYdid not think that the true spirit and meaning of the Act of Parliament had been carried out by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He agreed in the resolutions of his hon. Colleague, which alleged that the intention of the Legislature was to give a fixed and known income to the bishops, and that the Commissioners had failed in carrying out that intention. He had always considered that the property of the Church was held in trust for the benefit of the State; but now it seemed the opinion prevailed that it was the private property of the bishops and those belonging to the Church. There had been an appropriation clause applied to one part of the kingdom—Ireland; and by this very Act the same principle was applied to this part of the kingdom—England; why, therefore, should his hon. Colleague withdraw his Motion? He had made out a perfectly plain case, that a great abuse existed, and that it ought to be remedied. Was the noble Lord prepared to bring in a Bill to alter the Commission? The Commission consisted of forty-eight Members, and was therefore perfectly unworkable. There were twenty-six ecclesiastics and twenty-two laymen; that threw a great preponderance into the hands of the bishops. What was the attendance of the members of that Commis-

1115
sion? The attendance of the ecclesiastical members preponderated in the proportion of three to one over the attendance of the lay members, The bishops had attended 1,500 times, while the lay members had only attended 500 times. As a proof that even twenty-six ecclesiastics were an unworkable body, he would refer the House to the evidence of the Bishop of London, where they would find a remarkable instance of the ignorance of that right rev. Prelate of what was going on before the Commission of which he was a member. The whole business, in fact, appeared to be transacted by the Secretary, Mr. John Meadows White, attorney, who, he believed, was a man of station, integrity, and honour; but who, of course, naturally entertained his own views of the subjects that came before him as Secretary of the Board. As another proof that the Commission required to be reconstructed, the hon. Member stated, that many of the Commissioners declared their ignorance of the difference between a tabular and a marketable value when required to place an estimate on leasehold property with which they had to deal; and yet it was shown that these very Commissioners sold by one table and bought by another; in short, they sold dear and bought cheap. His hon. Friend had succeeded in calling the attention of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves to abuses of which they were ignorant. In conclusion he must observe, that if the Government, instead of being the first to remedy any evils which were known to exist, left them to be exposed by independent Members of Parliament, it would diminish the respect in which he hoped the Church would always be held in this country.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, that the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department had entered so fully and so ably into what was the real subject under discussion, that it was unnecessary for him to trouble the House with many observations; but when hon. Members complained of abuses, he must observe, that those persons were the most likely to prevent the correction of abuses who endeavoured to create an impression that all the substantial reforms which had been effected were utterly inefficient. The hon. Member who had just addressed the House was an acute lawyer, as he had shown by the analysis of the papers in his hand, as well as by the questions which he had proposed in the Committee upstairs; but he had not exhibited
1116
any of the judicial character which ought to be the attribute of a learned Gentleman. The Motion before the House was a direct censure upon the members of the Ecclesiastical Commission for not having fulfilled what the hon. Member supposed to be the intentions of an Act of Parliament; and the hon. Member said that he was prepared to support that vote of censure upon him (Mr. Goulburn) and his Colleagues in the Commission, because the noble Lord at the head of the Government would not promise to introduce some Bill which the hon. Member had recommended him to bring forward. For no other reason than that, the hon. Gentleman thought he was justified in passing a vote of censure upon a Commission which had literally and strictly fulfilled the provisions of an Act of Parliament. The hon. Member set himself up as a judge of what was the intention of the Act of Parliament; but that was beside the question. The Commissioners were called upon simply to fulfil the directions of the Act; but there were in that Commission persons as cognizant of the law, and as capable of construing an Act of Parliament, as the hon. Member; and, acting upon their advice, the Commission had given effect to the law. The question raised was not, whether the constitution of the Commission ought to be altered; but a direct attack was made upon the character of Commissioners who had applied themselves assiduously to the discharge of their duties without reward or remuneration, except that which was to be found in the satisfaction which was to be derived from carrying into effect the provisions of an Act of Parliament, passed for the benefit of the ministration of the Established Church in this country. After what had been stated by the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, it would be idle to attempt to follow the hon. Member who had introduced the Motion. The hon. Member possessed on this, as he did on a former occasion, a great advantage. If an hon. Member chose in private to go through the labour of analysing voluminous and complicated accounts extending from 1831 to 1837, and again to 1843, with the view of drawing inferences from them prejudicial to the character of individuals, he defied any man, however ingenious, to overthrow the array of figures and facts thus presented, with no other opportunity for examining them than was afforded during the current debate. If, however, he might

1117
judge of the hon. Member's accuracy by that which he exhibited last Session, when he applied figures to another subject, he could not form a high estimate of it, for upon that occasion the hon. Member fell into gross inaccuracies with respect to figures, and seriously misunderstood the documents to which he referred, and which were, in some respects, the same as those to which he had that night directed his attention. The hon. Gentleman had especially attacked the ecclesiastical portion of the Commission; and he (Mr. Goulburn) must say that, if ever there was an unjust attack made upon an individual, it was that which the hon. Member had directed against the Archbishop of Canterbury for his conduct on the original Commission of Inquiry. The hon. Member distinctly stated to the House that, when it was proposed to reduce the incomes of the bishops and archbishops, the Archbishop of Canterbury proposed that the reduction of the income of his see should not take place during his lifetime. Now, he could inform the hon. Member that the majority of the Commission came to the decision that with the see of Canterbury the reduction of income should be prospective, instead of immediate—a course which reformers on the hon. Member's side of the House always maintained was the proper one to be taken, particularly with respect to the Church. The hon. Member also stated that the Bishop of Rochester received 3,700 l a year, in violation of the law. The hon. Member's statement was no better founded with respect to the Bishop of Rochester than it was with respect to the Primate. The object of the Commission was that the smaller bishopries should no longer hold large preferments in commendam, as had heretofore been the practice, in order to augment the incomes of those sees. It was notorious the Bishop of Rochester was in possession of two preferments, namely, the deanery of Woodford, and the rectory of Bromley, which he surrendered in order to be placed on the same footing, as regarded income, as that on which his successor would stand. The question was, whether the Commissioners ought to be censured on account of defects in an Act of Parliament? The hon. Member who spoke last was of opinion that they ought; but he was sure the House would take a different view of the case, and would not visit with censure men who had faithfully discharged their duty, because they had not fulfilled all the expectations which some hon. Gen-
1118
tlemen entertained, not of what the Act of Parliament would effect, but of what it might be made to effect hereafter. As to the larger question of the origin and title of church property, the present was not the time to enter upon it. It was enough for him now to deprecate the course which the hon. Member had taken in attacking the character of the Commissioners, and to throw himself and the other Members of the Commission upon the justice of the House, conscious that they had faithfully discharged their duty, and fulfilled the provisions of the Act of Parliament.
MR. HEYWOODsuggested, that the difficulty felt by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge might be obviated, if the hon. Member for Cockermouth would consent to a modification of the concluding part of his last resolution. He believed that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had fully and fairly done their duty according to what they considered to be the construction of the Act. Many hon. Members would be enabled to support the resolutions if they were modified. Instead of the words, "That the provisions of the Act 6 and 7 William IV., c. 77, so far as relates to episcopal incomes, have not been carried out according to the intentions of Parliament," he would suggest the substitution of these words: "That the provisions of the Statute 6 and 7 William IV., c. 77, require the serious consideration and revision of Parliament." If the hon. Member would consent to this alteration, he should be happy to vote for his resolutions.
MR. HORSMANbelieved the authority upon which he had made the statement respecting the Bishop of Rochester could be relied on; but after what had passed he had not the slightest doubt that he had been misinformed; he therefore begged to retract the expression which he had applied to the right rev. Prelate's supposed conduct, and to express his sorrow for having used it. He felt strongly on this question, because he was impressed with the importance of having the ecclesiastical funds administered for religious purposes; and when he saw those funds squandered, as he maintained they had been by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he would not be deterred from denouncing the abuse by the imputation of being an enemy to the Church. The statement and Motion which he had made, appeared to have been much misunderstood. It was difficult to make a statement which consisted almost entirely

1119
of figures interesting, and it was impossible to render it interesting; and, on the other hand, it was very easy for any person possessing a fiftieth part of the ability of the Home Secretary to mystify and confuse such a statement. The right hon. Baronet had very ingeniously placed the Motion in a false light; and the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House, as well as the hon. Member for Oxford, had adopted the construction which the right hon. Baronet had put upon it. He had not cast any reflection on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for not doing what the Act of Parliament would not permit them to do, but for having done wrong in making payment in excess in the eight different cases which he had mentioned in his opening speech. The returns to which he had referred were made by the Commissioners themselves to themselves, and therefore it was hard to blame him for using them. He must confess, that, speaking of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as a public board, he thought they had not performed their duty in such a manner as to give general satisfaction to the public; and he was not singular in that opinion. The Board was composed of upwards of fifty individuals, comprising many of the dignitaries of the Church; and the opinion of the public was, that while they had limited the rights of patrons, and had imposed restrictions on the working clergy, when their own affairs had been concerned they had not adopted any measure which had not had the effect of increasing their own wealth, of augmenting their own power, and of adding to their own patronage. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulburn) had stated that, on a former occasion, he (Mr. Horsman) had made charges against the Commissioners which were founded on incorrect information. He (Mr. Horsman) must say, if such were the case, he was greatly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, or some other member of the Ecclesiastical Commission who occupied a seat in that House, had not at once risen to impugn his statements. He (Mr. Horsman) certainly thought it would have been more fair if the right hon. Gentleman had contradicted the statements at the time they were made, than to come forward now with a sweeping assertion that a speech which he (Mr. Horsman) made during the last Session of Parliament, six months ago, contained many inaccuracies,
1120
which the right hon. Gentleman then allowed to pass without notice. The object which he (Mr. Horsman) was desirous of accomplishing was to place the ecclesiastical revenues under a better system of administration. He must express his surprise at the epithets which had been applied by the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary to Gentlemen who, in their endeavours to effect this object, were only carrying out the principles which that right hon. Gentleman himself professed before he came into office. If he (Mr. Horsman) could entertain any hope that Government would take up the subject, he would most willingly leave the matter in their hands, and would at once withdraw his Motion. He might add that he was quite ready to adopt the suggestion which had been made by the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood).
SIR G. GREYobserved, that the hon. Gentleman had wholly misunderstood him. What he (Sir G. Grey) had said two or three years ago referred exclusively to the constitution of the Commission. He had stated that he thought the constitution of the Commission required alteration. Since he had been in office, a Bill had been introduced with a view to effect that object; a Committee of the House had been appointed during the last Session to consider the matter; and he believed the hon. Member for Malton had given notice of a Motion for renewing that Committee.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman) seemed to think it extraordinary that on a former occasion no hon. Gentleman had risen at the moment to correct the errors contained in the hon. Gentleman's statements of figures. He might observe, that the hon. Gentleman had to-night reserved for his reply an entirely new set of statements, to which, if they had been made at an earlier period of the evening, a satisfactory reply might have been given.
MR. BROTHERTONconsidered that the House ought not to sanction the continuance of any abuse in the administration of the Ecclesiastical Commission; but he thought it was impossible for the House to affirm the resolutions of the hon. Member for Cockermouth, unless they were as well acquainted with the subject as that hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Brotherton) considered that the House ought not too hastily to pass a vote of censure upon the Commissioners, and he certainly could not give his support to the resolutions.
MR. HORSMANdid not wish to press those portions of his resolutions which implied a censure upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
MR. GLADSTONEconsidered it his imperative duty to object to the adoption of the change in these resolutions suggested by the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood). He did so on the ground that if that suggestion were adopted, the question would assume a completely new form. He also considered that the resolutions were objectionable on general principles; for they would pledge the House to an opinion respecting the revision of the Ecclesiastical Commission, before hon. Gentlemen had the slightest idea of the manner in which that revision was to be carried out.
Previous question negatived on the two first resolutions.
DR. BOWRING DR. BOWRING moved that the words in the third resolution, "have not been carried out according to the intentions of Parliament," be replaced by the words "require the consideration of Parliament."
MR. HORSMANwithdrew his resolution, and the amended resolution was put as a substantive Motion, upon which the House divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 130: Majority 65.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

M'Gregor, J.

Alcock, T.

Marshall, J. G.

Baines, M. T.

Martin, J.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Matheson, Col.

Berkeley, hon. G. F.

Mitchell, T. A.

Bright, J.

Moffatt, G.

Brotherton, J.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Muntz, G. F.

Clay, J.

O'Connor, F.

Clay, Sir W.

Pearson, C.

Cobden, R.

Peto, S. M.

Crawford, W. S.

Pilkington, J.

Duff, G. S.

Pinney, W.

Duff, J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Duncan, G.

St. George C.

Evans, J.

Salway, Col.

Ewart, W.

Scholefield, W.

Fordyce, A. D.

Seeley, C.

Forster, M.

Sidney, T.

Gardner, R.

Smith, J. B.

Grattan, H.

Spearman, H. J.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Stuart, Lord D.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Tancred, H. W.

Hastie, A.

Tenison, E. K.

Heywood, J.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Hodges, T. T.

Thompson, Col.

Hume, J.

Thompson, G.

Humphery, Ald.

Thornely, T.

Keating, R.

Wakley, T.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Langston, J. H.

Wawn, J. T.

1122

Williams, J.

TELLERS.

Wilson, M.

Horsman, E.

Wood, W. P.

Bowring, Dr.

List of the NOES.

Abdy, T. N.

Jervis, Sir J.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Jervis, J.

Alexander, N.

Keogh, W.

Bailey, J.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Baillie, H. J.

Ker, R.

Baring, H. B.

Knox, Col.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Barnard, E. G.

Lewis, rt. hn. Sir T. F.

Bellew, R. M.

Lewis, G. C.

Bentinck, Lord G.

M'Naghten, Sir E.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

M'Tavish, C. C.

Blackall, S. W.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Boiling, W.

Mahon, Visct.

Bourke, R. S.

Maitland, T.

Bowles, Adm.

Matheson, A.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Bramston, T. W.

Monsell, W.

Bremridge, R.

Morgan, O.

Broadley, H.

Morpeth, Visct.

Brockman, E. D.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Busfeild, W.

Newdegate, C. N.

Cabbell, B. B.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

O'Brien, J.

Cardwell, E.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Carter, J. B.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Packe, C. W.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Paget, Lord C.

Clive, Visct.

Palmer, R.

Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B.

Palmerston, Visct.

Codrington, Sir W.

Parker, J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Peel, Col.

Cubitt, W.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Deering, J.

Prime, R.

Disraeli, B.

Raphael, A.

Drummond, H.

Rendlesham, Lord

Dundas, Adm.

Repton, G. W. J.

Dundas, Sir D.

Ricardo, O.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Farrer, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Russell, F. C. H.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Sandars, G.

Forbes, W.

Seymer, H. K.

Fox, R. M.

Sibthorp, Col.

Freestun, Col.

Smythe, hon. G.

French, F.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

Stanley, F.

Glyn, G. C.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Godson, R.

Stuart, H.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Talfourd, Serj.

Grace, O. D. J.

Turner, G. J.

Greene, T.

Urquhart, D.

Grenfell, C. W.

Vane, Lord H.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Verney, Sir H.

Haggitt, F. R.

Waddington, H. S.

Hall, Col.

Ward, H. G.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Watkins, Col. L.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Westhead, J. P.

Hay, Lord J.

Willcox, B. M.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Herbert, H. A.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Wyld, J.

Hildyard, R. C.

Wyvill, M.

Hogg, Sir J. W.

Hood, Sir A.

TELLERS.

Hope, Sir H. T.

Tufnell, H.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Hill, Lord M.

House adjourned at Eleven o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—Several Lords.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Railways.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Aberdeen, for Revision of the Currency Laws.—By Lord Brougham, from Chepstow and Goaforth, against the Admission of Jews into Parliament—By Lord Stanley, from Bridgnorth and Chepstow, for the Punishment of all Roman Catholic Priests who shall Denounce Persons from the Altar.

CASE OF H. A. BROWN.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he had to present the petition of a gentleman of the name of Anderson, of the city of Dublin, solicitor. He ought to state to their Lordships that he had been informed by those who knew this gentleman that he was of the highest respectability, that the party who was his client was also a person of great respectability, and the head of one of the banks in Dublin. He knew nothing whatever of the parties. The facts were wholly unknown to him, except upon the statement of the petition. In the year 1844, Henry Augustus Brown intermarried with the daughter of a Mr. Copeland, and went abroad with his wife; but some time afterwards the father-in-law, Mr. Copeland, discovered that Brown had been previously married to another person, of the name of Mary Downes, in 1842. Upon Mr. Brown returning to Ireland, therefore, he caused him to be arrested upon a charge of having intermarried with his daughter, as his second wife, his first wife being still alive. Upon this charge Mr. Brown was arrested, committed to prison, brought to trial, and
1046
convicted; his defence upon the trial being twofold—first, that he was a minor at the time of his former marriage; and, secondly, that his former marriage was invalid, inasmuch as he had discovered that the first wife had been herself previously married to a person of the name of Fitzgerald, who was alive at the time of his marriage with her. In support of this he produced no evidence whatever; and to rebut the defence as to his having been an infant at the time of the first marriage, there was produced against him his own affidavit upon obtaining the license under which the marriage was had, in which affidavit he had sworn that he was of full age. According to that statement, there being no evidence whatever of his being under age, the jury, under the direction of the learned Judge who tried the cause, without hesitation found him guilty; and on the 11th of April, 1846, he was convicted, and on the 23rd of that month sentenced to seven years' transportation. He had been originally committed to the county gaol, and continued there, occupying the master debtors' apartments, till the 8th of February, 1847. Now, one complaint of the petitioner was, Brown being allowed to remain so long in the Kilmainham county gaol, and in the master debtors' apartments, the usual course being immediately after conviction to transfer the party to Smithfield, in Dublin, which was a government prison. But his opinion was, that there was an answer to that statement arising from the circumstances, which operated the other way, and against the complainant. Previous to the conviction of Mr. Brown, which took place on the 11th, and pending the proceeding against him, viz., in the month of February, a suit was commenced of nullity of marriage, and that suit being prosecuted, there was afterwards a decree of nullity of marriage on the 23rd of April. It was commenced by Mr. Copeland, to set aside the second marriage, on the ground of his having been convicted of bigamy. Upon sentence of nullity being pronounced, Mr. Brown entered his protest, meaning to take the case before the Court of Delegates. They entered very fully into the subject, and pronounced their judgment, affirming the original sentence of nullity on the 5th of February, 1847. He (Lord Brougham) had stated to their Lordships, that the 8th of February was the day when Brown was taken from Kilmainham gaol to Smithfield prison. He was retained until three days after the sen-

1047
tence of the Court of Delegates; but as there was a possibility that the sentence of nullity would be set aside, he (Lord Brougham) did not think there was a sufficient ground of complaint against the authorities for having kept him in the master debtors' wards. He had then a conviction, a sentence, an imprisonment under that sentence, a suit of nullity of marriage, a sentence pronounced of nullity, an appeal from that sentence, a confirmation of the sentence, and therefore decree of nullity of marriage, finally pronounced; and there was the judgment delivered by the Court of Delegates, most respectable judges, who formed a very strong opinion, not only in respect of Mr. Brown's marriage, but of the defence which he had set up. Mr. Brown himself thought fit to become the prosecutor of the first wife for bigamy, upon the ground that she had deceived him, and made him believe that she was a single woman, and he thought that if this prosecution ended in conviction, it might assist him in obtaining a pardon, for he did not prosecute her for bigamy till after his own conviction. The cause came on for trial, and to the surprise of all present she pleaded guilty, although most satisfactory evidence could have been produced that she was not guilty, and she was sentenced to two months' imprisonment. This was one of the main grounds for the censure passed on Mr. Brown's conduct. The same sentence condemned Mr. Brown in the payment of the whole costs, amounting to somewhere between 2.000 l. and 3,000 l. to Mr. Cope-land, the prosecutor of the suit for nullity, and defendant on the appeal. He was now about to state how Mr. Copeland had been deprived of that sentence, and how another creditor of Mr. Brown had also been deprived of the judgment which he had obtained; for by various pretences Mr. Brown had succeeded in obtaining a loan of 200 l. from a banker, who prosecuted the suit against him through Anderson, his attorney, and obtained judgment and sued out execution on the judgment. Mr. Brown being then in Kilmainham county gaol, Mr. Anderson, as the attorney acting for this gentleman, lodged a detainer with the sheriff of the county of Dublin, to prevent Mr. Brown from escaping, when he should, by the expiration of the sentence or by pardon, be liberated from gaol. It was so lodged; but soon after, Brown was transferred to Smithfield gaol, in the city of Dublin, being the common gaol. Now,
1048
although Kilmainham gaol was under the sheriff of the county of Dublin, Smithfield gaol was not under the sheriff of the city of Dublin, although situate within the bailiwick, and the sheriff could not execute any process whatever in the gaol. Mr. Anderson wrote to the Government, and wished to lodge a detainer; he found that it was useless to lodge a detainer; he then applied to the Secretary's office, there being a report that a pardon was expected for Mr. Brown, and some correspondence took place, the substance of which was, that Mr. Brown's removal from Smithfield to Kilmainham was for the benefit of his health, and that his being brought back to Smithfield was for a reason which had no reference to the fact of execution for debt; that he had been pardoned on certain conditions only, and in consequence of the precarious state of his health, it having been ascertained, after careful investigation, that his life would be endangered by further confinement. The answer of the Secretary's office concluded thus:—
"He has been released upon conditions: when those conditions shall have been complied with, he will at once be discharged from custody."
Mr. Anderson, reasoning upon this, of course took his measures, as the Secretary's office gave no other assistance; these measures being to watch his discharge by a sheriff's officer, and also by again lodging the execution in the county gaol. The first execution having expired by lapse of time, he obtained a second, and lodged a second execution. Immediately after that, Mr. Brown was removed from Kilmainham gaol again to Smithfield. The petitioner stated, that as Mr. Brown, on account of his health, had been removed from Smithfield to Kilmainham for the benefit of the air, Smithfield gaol being unwholesome, they did not well see how it happened that he was removed back again from Kilmainham gaol to the unwholesome gaol of Smithfield. He should give the remainder of the case in the words of the party himself. Now, all the steps were completed, and the whole might have been perfected on Thursday, the 16th of September; but instead of that, the completion of the document was suspended till Saturday, the 18th of September; the patent for the pardon was sealed on that day. In the ordinary course of business it should have been brought to the Rolls Office for enrolment; it could not have been perfected till the following Monday; but by extraordinary exertion the patent was en-

1049
rolled on the same day, the enrolment having been engrossed by anticipation the day before, so that the patent should be sealed, and no delay might intervene; and he added, that after the assurance that the fulfilment of the conditions of Mr. Brown's pardon rested entirely with Mr. Brown, and that it consequently was impossible for the Government to give him notice of Mr. Brown's discharge, he was somewhat surprised to find that the preparation of the patent, the delivery at the Hanaper-office, the directions for sending an enrolment, and every part of the duty in connexion with it, was done by the sanction and by the servant of the Government, and the order for Mr. Brown's discharge was sent direct from the Chief Secretary's office to the governor of the prison in which Mr. Brown was confined. The pardon was received at four o'clock on the Saturday, and the governor kept him in prison till next morning, when he could not be arrested, so that Mr. Copeland and Mr. Anderson were deprived of their costs. The noble Lord said that he would make no observation whatever upon the case, but leave it for his noble Friends to require an investigation of the facts.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, he had no fault to find with the manner in which his noble and learned Friend had brought this case before the House; but he could assure their Lordships that no unfairness or partiality had been shown by the Government in the transaction, and that no attempt whatever had been made by them to shield Mr. Brown from his creditors. The reason that that individual was left so long in Kilmainham gaol was, because an eminent barrister had given it as his opinion that the" conviction of the first wife amounted to an acquittal of Brown, and that he ought not therefore to be confined in a convict gaol. He remained in Smithfield prison, and was treated in all respects as a convict for some time; but at length the surgeon of the prison reported that his health would suffer mateterially by his continuing there longer. Upon this being reported, he was sent back to Kilmainham; in fact, removed from one convict depot to another convict depot for the benefit of his health. But his health continuing very bad, application was again made to the Lord Lieutenant, who did not act upon the report of the medical officer alone, but directed an inquiry into the state of this gentleman's health; because, on account of his family connexions, his
1050
former position in society, and the extraordinary nature of the case, which had become notorious, the Government were anxious that there should not be the least ground for suspicion that they had exercised any partiality in his favour. Brown was pardoned upon the condition that he should absent himself from Her Majesty's dominions in Europe for the space of seven years, and provide securities for his observance of the conditions to the amount of 5,000 l. Now, these securities he was not able to get until Tuesday the 14th of September; but on that day, the Crown Solicitor reported that satisfactory security had been found, and the conditions complied with. This report went in to the Secretary on Wednesday the 15th, and the Lord Lieuteuant signed a pardon and sent it back that evening. On Thursday the 16th, it was in the Secretary's office again, and was sent by him to the Crown Solicitor. On Friday the 17th, the Crown Solicitor had it enrolled—in other words, had the necessary forms perfected—and it was returned to the Secretary's office in the natural course of business—of course with no delay, because it would have been highly improper if delay had taken place—on Saturday the 18th. And accordingly, in the ordinary hours of business on Saturday afternoon, Sir W. Somerville, having the papers before him, wrote the usual form of order to the governor of the gaol to discharge the prisoner. At what hour that order was received by the governor, he could not say; but he could assure their Lordships that, as far as any Member of the Irish Government was concerned, the proceedings went through the usual course; and the only question was, whether the Government ought to have given the petitioner notice, so that he might have been ready to arrest the man immediately upon his discharge. It was for their Lordships to say whether it would have been right had the Government done so. For his own part, he was of opinion that the proper course would have been for Mr. Anderson to move in the Court of Queen's Bench. He would only say further, that the Government had taken as straightforward a course with reference to this convict as they would have done in the case of any other, and without exhibiting the slightest favour; and there was no ground whatever for attributing partiality to them.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid a few words in explanation, and the petition was ordered to lie upon the table.

MILITARY AND NAVAL MEDALS.
The DUKE of RICHMONDrose, pursuant to notice, to ask when it was probable that the medals intended as rewards "would be given to the Peninsular officers and soldiers? and if it was intended to extend the grant of such medals to other officers, soldiers, and sailors who served in the late war?" Her Majesty had been graciously pleased to order that medals should be struck and given to those who had been engaged in particular actions during the Peninsular war; also that medals should be given on account of other actions by sea and land during the war generally. He had asked whether there was any intention of extending those rewards to persons engaged in other parts of that great contest? The reply which he received was, that the Government could give no pledge, but that the subject was under consideration. Though he felt anxious that medals should be given to the Peninsular army, yet he never contemplated, while the Government was performing that act of justice, that they intended to exclude the officers and men who fought under Abercromby in Egypt, or who achieved the victories under our great naval heroes. Besides, there were officers and men who served in the Peninsula, who, though not present at any great action, yet had performed deeds well deserving the approval of the Crown; their services, he thought, ought not to be put aside. Many of them had lost limbs—many of them had been severely wounded without having been present at a great action—many, in consequence of sickness, were deprived of the gratification of being present in action. He felt most obliged to his noble Friends opposite for giving those medals; but he confessed he should not be satisfied if he did not think that they intended to give those rewards much more extensively than had at first been stated. It was his opinion that they ought to be given freely to the officers and soldiers who fought during the late war; and it would be difficult, he thought, to distinguish the merits of men who fought in general actions from those who displayed equal valour in skirmishes—the one class of men were quite as worthy as the other. He also wished to know whether or not it was the intention to postpone the issue of any medals till all the claims were disposed of—whether the better course would not be adopted of issuing them month by month according to the number of claims which might be investi-
1052
gated and dealt with in those periods. He feared that if the issue of the medals were delayed, their value would be much diminished, and that they would never reach the hands of those who had fairly earned them.
EARL GREYreplied, that with reference to the rewards for particular actions, an order had been issued on the 1st of June, specifying the actions for which medals were to be granted, and stating that they should be limited to officers and soldiers who had fought in actions for which medals had already been given to the officers who commanded in chief on those occasions. With respect to the Army, he was not aware that any further distribution of medals was in contemplation than was specified in the order so issued. As to the Navy, it did not appear to him that the rule applied with equal fairness: medals were not given to commanding officers of ships in the same proportion that they had been awarded to military officers. As many as 2,000 claims had already been allowed, and 400 rejected; he was therefore warranted in saying that the process of investigating those claims was proceeding rapidly, although there were a great number yet to be disposed of. He had further to state, that the designs for both the medals had been approved of; but the artist engaged for the purpose of executing them, had lately had a narrow escape from losing his life. That was the reason the medals were not now ready; but he hoped they would be prepared within two months. There was no objection on the part of the Government that the medals should be issued as rapidly as the claims could be proved.

THE COURT OF ROME—THE EARL OF MINTO.
LORD STANLEYsaid: I rise, pursuant to the notice which I have given, for the purpose of calling your Lordships' attention to the continued absence from this country of the Lord Privy Seal; and I acknowledge that I have no intention of concluding with any Motion, unless the rules of order observed in this House should render it necessary for me to submit to your consideration some distinct proposition or other. In the first place, my Lords, I have to observe, that the mere absence from England of any person holding so high a situation as that now occupied by the Earl of Minto, is of itself a sufficient ground for the observations which I am about to make. But it cannot have es-

1053
caped the notice of every one who hears me, that that necessity is very much increased by the existing condition of this country. The absence of Lord Minto would, I think, call for animadversion, even if the state of the United Kingdom had not been such as to have rendered it necessary to call Parliament together at an unusual season of the year. In the opinion of most men, that occurrence alone would have entitled us to expect that every Member of Parliament would have endeavoured to be at his post during the present Session, and most especially that a Cabinet Minister would have been at hand to give the benefit of his assistance and support. Although under ordinary circumstances the office of Lord Privy Seal is not an onerous office; although the duties appertaining to it are neither numerous nor distressing; although no very great public inconvenience is likely to result from the fact that the noble Earl who holds it does happen, when things are proceeding in their usual course, not to be at home; yet still the office is one of no inconsiderable importance; it is one of high authority, and one, I should say, demanding pretty constant attention—attention which, even under present circumstances, is probably given by some person, though I am not aware that the Government have for that purpose made any arrangement whatever—I do not know that any provision of any kind has been made for discharging the duties of Lord Privy Seal during the absence of Lord Minto. Doubtless some steps have been taken on the subject; and I trust the noble Marquess opposite may be able to inform us what they have been, for I can scarcely suppose that any of your Lordships unconnected with the Government possess any knowledge of any description relating to the matter. I am perfectly ready to admit that, upon an occasion of this kind, I should have been much less anxious regarding the matter under consideration, if it were limited merely to the absence of Lord Minto; but I feel a specific anxiety, not so much about his absence from this country, as about his presence in Italy. Your Lordships are, of course, quite aware, that there exist a general expectation and belief that the Government intend to establish diplomatic relations between the Crown of England and the See of Rome; and the persuasion also that the mission of Lord Minto to Italy is intimately connected with that intention. Now, I request it to be understood that I express no opinion as
1054
to the difficulties which, in point of law, ought to be removed, for the purpose of enabling the Government to establish diplomatic relations between this country and the temporal Sovereign of the Roman States. I repeat, that I express no opinion; but I say this, that I see Parliament assembled, and I find it reported that a noble Lord who has a seat in the other House, and who is entrusted by Her Majesty with the conduct of Foreign Affairs, has stated that the Earl of Minto has not been entrusted with any diplomatic mission to the Court of Rome. What I understand that answer to mean is this, that Lord Minto has not been sent to the Court of Rome as the accredited Minister of England, and that he has not been invested with any diplomatic functions. The belief in this country is—no matter whether the report be true or false—the belief here is, that though Lord Minto may not be engaged in any direct negotiation, yet that one portion of his business in Rome is to ascertain what the feeling of that Court is with respect to the contemplated establishment of diplomatic relations between the Crown of England and the Pope. Although the opinion which I have stated is the prevailing sentiment in England, on the Continent I believe that a very different opinion is generally entertained. I think, looking at the circumstances of the case, I may assume that Lord Minto is not a casual traveller in Italy—that he is not going about the Continent merely for his own amusement. I will not suppose that he is absent on account of pleasure; for that would be to suppose that he is culpably neglecting his duty. It is impossible to doubt that he is at the present moment, in some capacity or other, the representative of the British Government. Now, I ask of that Government—that which Parliament has a right to ask—if a necessary office of high rank is to be allowed for months to continue vacant? If we find that the nominal holder of that office, who does not discharge its duties, be absent from this country at a time like the present, Parliament has a right to ask what are the missions with which he is entrusted, and what are the functions which he is supposed to perform? It appears to me that the aspect of affairs in Italy is at present peculiarly important; and I think it would be satisfactory if we had some statement of the views and intentions with which the Government has sent Lord Minto out. I am not very particularly acquainted with the

1055
existing condition of Italy; I am not prepared to go into any minute details respecting the state of affairs in the north of Italy; but this I believe is pretty generally understood, that, under the auspices of the Sovereign Pontiff and of other important personages in that country a state of extreme disquiet and of extraordinary political movement now prevails; that the consequences of this are exaggerated hopes in some quarters, and exaggerated apprehensions in others. The whole country is therefore considered to be in a state of ferment. It is natural, therefore, that in England we should feel strongly anxious. We all know that under the guidance of the present Pontiff various schemes of political change are afloat, to which some persons in that country give their assent more or less reluctantly—more or less willingly. What may be the objects or ultimate intentions of those parties, it is not for me to say. If the object of these changes be directed to what is called the independence of Italy; and if all the facts could be brought fully under our view, we might be enabled to form some judgment—so far as they have taken place, and so far as they are confined to alterations in the internal administration of affairs in that country—whether by an increase of the sovereign or the popular authority, so far as that movement goes, it seems to me to assume a purely internal aspect, which condition wholly and in every possible respect removes it out of that class of political events with which this country can in the slightest degree interfere. But it is also supposed that for various purposes a general federal union is contemplated amongst the different States of the north of Italy for purposes partly political, partly commercial. If any such project exist as that, or if there be any project afloat which could in any degree affect our commercial interests, there can be no doubt whatever that such a project ought to be most attentively watched by the Government of England—it is their duty; but that that duty is justly performed by such a mission as that of Lord Minto, I utterly deny. If there be a confederation going forward with ulterior political views, that also may demand the serious and anxious attention of the Government; but I should think that the last course which a British Ministry ought to pursue would be to give to such projects any support or encouragement whatever. We hear of the "independence" of Italy—if that means that no
1056
foreign Power at present removed by geographical situation from the confines of Italy should or ought to have any concern in the affairs of that country—I say that that is a principle which ought to be steadily resisted. As far as I know, Lord Minto has not been sent out as an accredited Minister to the Pope, or to any Sovereign Prince in any part of Italy; yet being the representative of the British Government he may compromise this country by his acts, by his words, by his general conduct. I think, therefore, we have a right to inquire what are his functions and what are his instructions. The public journals have supplied me with all the information which on this subject I possess; and I learn from them that upon more than one occasion, and, more especially, that during a procession at Rome, at which great numbers were assembled with flags and banners emblematical of the independence of Italy, the British Minister being called upon by the people who stopped in front of his hotel, did appear in answer to their cries; that he was by them called on on and recognised, not as Lord Minto in his private or personal capacity, but as the re-representative of the British Government; that he did present himself at the balcony; that he took off his hat and waved it, shouting vivas for the "independence of Italy." I trust the noble Marquess will be able to state that there is no foundation for this report. If Lord Minto had been a private person travelling for his own amusement, even then such a course of proceeding in any British subject would have been an imprudent and impertinent intermeddling. But in this case it was quite different; he was ostensibly and avowedly the agent of the British Government, and the proceeding was taken as conveying the sentiments and opinions entertained by his Colleagues, by the Government, and by England. For a man in his circumstances to take any part whatever in the movement that was going on, but above all, to lend the sanction of his name, and still more the sanction of his Government, to a cry for the "independence of Italy," appears to me a matter requiring, on the part of the Government, an unequivocal denial; or, if denial is impossible, I hope we shall hear from the noble Marquess that the proceeding was inconsistent with the instructions that have been given to Lord Minto, and the views Her Majesty's Government entertain of the duty of a person placed in the situation in which Lord Minto now

1057
stands. The questions I wish to put to the noble Marquess are these: in the first instance, if any and what provisions have been made for the discharge of the duties of the Lord Privy Seal during the absence of Lord Minto? next, on the assumption that Lord Minto is in Italy upon a mission from the Government, charged with some important instructions to carry out its views, we ought to be distinctly informed what is the object towards which his instructions point; whether he is accredited—not to the Pontiff, for that would be contrary to the law, and has been denied—but to any of the States of Italy, and what are the precise functions and limits to the authority assigned by the Government Lord Minto? I wish to ask further, Whether the Government is prepared to state, on the part of England, that it has no desire to interfere—I do not mean actively or by force—but by its influence and its emissaries or agents, in the slightest degree, with the internal affairs of Italy, and that form of government which each particular State has thought fit to adopt?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: I shall be very glad to give to the noble Lord the explanations he has asked for relative to the important subject respecting which he has put some questions, and added some observations. The noble Lord appears anxious to know, in the first place, upon what grounds the noble Earl, occupying the high situation of Lord Privy Seal in the Administration, is absent from this country, and has not attended in his place in Parliament during the present short Session. I might refer the noble Lord, before I answer the question, to other times and other circumstances, in which Cabinet Ministers, holding high official situations, have been sent abroad upon temporary missions, which have been attended with advantageous results. I think, however, the noble Lord must be sufficiently aware of the nature of the duties of the Lord Privy Seal to know that, although undoubtedly it is a high office, yet, in the ordinary and practical administration of affairs, it is not attended with any species of difficulty, requiring the constant presence of the individual nominally entrusted with its duties. Ten or twelve years ago, at the time the noble Lord was connected with the Government, a searching inquiry took place into offices which had no duties annexed to them, and which might, therefore, be dispensed with; many such offices were absolutely abolished, but the office of
1058
Lord Privy Seal was retained upon grounds and considerations entirely alien to its necessity, for the discharge of the particular duties nominally attached to it. It is, undoubtedly, of great importance to have a high officer in the Cabinet unencumbered with duties which occupy the time of the rest of its members. Under these circumstances, if it became important to send a high officer abroad, upon any important mission, no choice for the purpose could be so natural as that of the Lord Privy Seal. This choice, as your Lordships well know, was made at a time when no immediate expectation was entertained of the assembling of Parliament at so early a period. But, my Lords, the objection, if it be an objection, implied by the noble Lord in his questions, does not extend merely to the individual selected, or to the office held by him, but to the nature of the mission which he was selected to fulfil. Why, my Lords, it was the very nature of that mission which made it peculiarly desirable that the noble Lord, entirely possessing the confidence of his Colleagues, and perfectly acquainted with all the recent transactions in Europe, should have been selected for the purpose. And I have no hesitation in saying, after what I have heard the noble Lord state to-night with regard to the affairs of Italy, that in my view the importance of the transactions taking place in that country—leading, as they must, to consequences of the greatest importance, to consequences highly advantageous in themselves and conducive to the prosperity of each Italian State, but possibly also to consequences of an unfortunate nature, such as must involve the relations of Italy with other countries—required some degree of interposition. The circumstance of an agitation and a movement prevailing in that country which could not be condemned, because its professed object in each individual State was to carry into effect reforms and alterations which had not only long been desired in Italy itself, but which had frequently been urged upon the Italian States by some of the great and friendly Powers, as necessary to the welfare of the people, and as tending to preserve the peace of Europe, perhaps required that advice should be offered; but when, after those reforms had long been resisted and avoided, a moment had arrived when a simultaneous spirit of reform—temperate it might be, happily, but liable from its character to become intemperate—had manifested itself in every part of the country, there could not

1059
have been a time when it was more important that the friendly advice of England should be given; not an interference directed to any particular object, but that general interference which was calculated to encourage at once both the Governments and the population of Italy in the course in which they are engaged. So far as that course is limited to one object, namely, the internal improvement of each individual State, there cannot be a state of things in which it is more material that England should be represented in Italy, and in which the state of Italy should be made known to England, through the medium of a person of the highest authority, from the situation he held, as well as of the highest capacity to obtain information which was so desirable. I have therefore, my Lords, no hesitation in telling the noble Lord, if he is still ignorant upon that subject, that the Earl of Minto was not a mere traveller in Italy during the past month, but that the noble Earl left this country accredited to all the States of Italy with the exception of one, to which, undoubtedly, by the law of this country, as that law is understood, he could not be legally accredited. The Earl of Minto, my Lords, was instructed to proceed to Italy, to communicate with each State respectively to which he was accredited, and to offer to them the most friendly advice—to confine that advice to objects connected with the internal improvement of each State, and further to advise a course of prudence which should prevent circumstances advantageous in themselves to those States individually, and to Italy at large, from exciting the apprehensions of other Powers. I hope I have answered this question distinctly. I think the noble Lord will understand that not only the Earl of Minto, but Her Majesty's Government, are deeply sensible of the importance of preserving treaties with other Powers inviolate. Being sensible of the importance of that object, they are most anxious to avert any collision between the States of Italy at this moment, arising out of the excitement now prevailing there, which excitement might possibly be liable in its success to occasion those collisions abroad which the noble Lord deprecates, and which I deprecate as much as he. Under these circumstances, the Earl of Minto has communicated with the Italian Sovereigns; and I am justified in. stating that those Sovereigns have expressed the most cordial satisfaction—amounting almost to gratitude
1060
—at having had the opportunity of hearing from so authentic a source the advice of England, and of making their sentiments known to England. I am persuaded that the presence of the Earl of Minto in Italy has tended to prevent any disposition to excess which may have existed in that country, and, above all, to maintain that which it is so desirable to observe—a good understanding and a concurrent affection between the different Governments and the people whom they govern, directed to one common object, to which it is most essential their views should be limited, and not be led to those which would have been attended with danger at home and difficulty abroad. The noble Lord has adverted to Lord Minto's residence at Rome. On this subject I will say, that although Lord Minto could not be accredited to the Court of Rome, owing to the law to which I have alluded, it would have been a great omission if, being in Italy, and the circumstances occurring which did occur at Rome to connect the State of Rome with the condition of other States to which the noble Lord was accredited, he had not made himself acquainted with the temporal Sovereign of Rome. Undoubtedly the noble Earl has resided at Rome; and I can state to your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government have derived the most useful information from his presence there—information which they could not have obtained through any other source. But the noble Lord goes further, and asks me whether I think it desirable that a communication with the Court of Rome should be established consistently with the law. The noble Lord has his own opinion upon that subject. [Lord STANLEY: The noble Marquess is in error. I did not ask him that question.] I beg the noble Lord's pardon. The noble Lord did incidentally observe that he was not about to give an opinion upon that point; but he did say it was desirable that I should state whether in my opinion it would or would not be advantageous. The noble Lord introduced it into his speech for the purpose of avoiding an opinion. I introduce it now for the purpose of giving an opinion. I think it most desirable that this country should be represented at the Court of Rome. In my opinion it is monstrous that, while this country is represented at, and has the means of procuring the best information through the most authentic channels from, every Court and Government in Europe, in America, and in Asia—in all climes and in all quar-

1061
ters—there is a Court in the very centre of Europe where we have no means of procuring information, where we have no means either of communicating information or giving advice. There is not a Court in the world, I believe, in which it would be more useful to the British Government to be enabled to explain the nature of its own transactions, and to lay open to it the peculiar sort of influence it possesses. That cannot now be done by law; I admit it cannot be done. I think it but fair, however, to be frank, as the noble Lord called upon me to state directly what I think we ought to do. Having said so much, my Lords, there remains but one point in what the noble Lord has said, on which I feel myself called upon to remark. The noble Lord has referred to a statement which has appeared in the newspapers, to the effect that Lord Minto has expressed some sentiment on some occasion denoting sympathy with some popular feeling. I do not know what the circumstances were; I have received no authentic account of them, and I really cannot give any answer. But I am sure that on any occasion, if any such sympathy has been expressed by Lord Minto, it could only have referred to the internal proceedings of that individual State, and not in any way to the establishment of a new system of government of the whole of Italy. From its very nature the report cannot be contradicted. I presume Lord Minto was present on some public occasion when cries of different kinds were uttered. I do not know with what qualification the noble Lord did or did not sympathise with those cries; but of this I am sure, if any authentic statement of the fact can be procured, that any intimation of opinion given by Lord Minto was founded on a desire to promote, by friendly and conciliatory means, the improvement of each State of Italy; and above all, to cement the alliance between the Government and the people, by showing them the importance of acting with due consideration towards each other, in order to prevent any interference from without which might endanger existing treaties, the maintenance of which the great Powers have guaranteed. I hope I have answered distinctly all the questions put by the noble Lord. [Earl GREY here made a communication to the noble Marquess.] I am reminded by my noble Friend that I have omitted one question; the noble Lord appears to feel some apprehensions as to the mode in which the du-
1062
ties of the Lord Privy Seal have been discharged during his absence; I may state that in virtue of a commission the noble Lord left in England, all those duties have been discharged in his absence without detriment to the public service.
LORD BEAUMONTdid not wish to continue the discussion, but he could not avoid expressing his gratification at the manly assertion of the opinion of the Government by the noble Marquess. Were the law altered he had no doubt that many things brought before their Lordships as subjects of complaint would be no more heard of.

THE AFFAIRS OF SWITZERLAND.
LORD BEAUMONTrose to put a question to Her Majesty's Government respecting the proposed mediation of the Five Powers in the affairs of Switzerland. The federal compact of the cantons of Switzerland was agreed to in the year 1815, and it now formed the basis of their government. By it the sovereign independence of each canton was guaranteed; each canton was to be represented in the Central Diet; the Central Diet was to be a legislative body, and its acts carried out by the whole Confederation. Each canton had a great council and a small council, the great acting as a legislative body, and the smaller as the executive. Each of these councils sent a deputy to the General Diet; and by the federal compact all affairs relating to the foreign relations of the country, or anything dangerous to the general peace of the Swiss Confederation, were to be left solely and entirely to the decision of the Central Government. There could be no doubt that for many years a party had existed in Switzerland, called the Radical party, who objected to a portion of the compact, and by whom there had been much agitation, in order to obtain a modification of it. At one time, indeed, the Diet was inclined to adopt some alteration. A league of five cantons was formed, with the avowed intention of opposing the federal compact; but the combination being illegal, it was afterwards dissolved. During the time these struggles were going on between the Radicals on one side, who wished to alter the federal compact, and the Conservatives who wished to maintain it, certain parties, who were no doubt connected with the Jesuits, raised up a kind of religious contest. The Jesuits of Friburg, who had been unmolested by the Diet, thought proper to interfere in poli-

1063
ties, by endeavouring to obtain a majority in the general council of the canton of Valais. In that attempt they succeeded in some degree. The Diet, as well as the general councils of several cantons, thought the general peace of the Confederation was in danger from this interference. Still the ramifications of the agitation extended, and the Diet called upon the general council of one of the cantons to which they had spread to put down the agitation. The Diet proceeded in every point according to the constitution. Lucerne, however, in conjunction with six other cantons, formed a confederation which was called the Sonderbund. This confederation was infinitely more illegal than the last, because it was in direct opposition to the 5th and 6th Articles of the Federal Compact, which stated that if any difference arose between the cantons they should abstain from all acts of violence, above all from the use of arms, and conform to the decision of the Diet; also that the different cantons should not form compacts between themselves, or raise arms for war. Under these circumstances, the Diet proceeded to consider what was to be done with the Sonderbund. They first invited it to abandon the Confederation, and separate from the League; also to banish the Jesuits, as having been the cause of the disturbances. The Diet alleged that the Jesuits had made this commotion among the Swiss Confederation; but they did not declare that the Jesuits should be banished. According to the constitution of Switzerland, the Diet having decreed this, it became the duty of the Vohort to execute the decree. The cantons, however, instead of complying with the request, proceeded to arms. They recalled their deputy from the Diet, and took measures for hostilities. They formed themselves into independent governments, and assumed powers and authorities which, according to the federal compact, had been originally given solely to the Diet. The Vorort, therefore, determined to proceed to arms to put down the illegal combination. They put forth enormous power, so enormous that the Sonderbund, like Falstaff, thought discretion was the better part of valour, for, instead of fighting, as they had professed to do, the campaign was over within a week. The Jesuits had previously gone off with the whole of the revenue, leaving the people of Lucerne to fight the battle as they best could. Under these circumstances, the great Powers thought their authority would be required,
1064
and France and Austria proposed an intervention. Mediation was proposed by the remainder of the Five Powers. A note was consequently delivered, after the dissolution of the Sonderbund, on the part of the Three Powers, proposing a conference; and it appeared that at the conference a representative of the Sonderbund was to appear on exactly the same footing, and to be viewed in the same light, as the representative of the Diet. This was to acknowledge rebellion—to acknowledge the legality of the body that had given rise to these disturbances. Previously to the commencement of hostilities it might have been advisable to have had a communication with the Sonderbund, to see whether that body might send a representative to the conference to negotiate peace; but there was no Sonderbund in existence now, and therefore he wished to know whether it was intended to adhere to the terms of the conference by which a representative of the extinct Sonderbund was to be present at the conference. The question he had therefore to ask was, whether or not this country had joined in the proposal that a conference should now be held at which a representative of the Sonderbund should be present?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he would give a very brief answer to the question put by the noble Earl. Undoubtedly, although this country had never proposed to establish a conference of mediation in the affairs of Switzerland, still, when it was proposed by other Powers for this country to be a party to such a conference, his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Department did consent, under certain limitations—the effect of which limitations would have been to prevent us from being involved in anything like hostility, still more in anything like an armed interference in the affairs of Switzerland—to be a party in a conference for the purpose of tendering to all the parties, in conjunction with the other Powers, our mediation in settling the affairs of that country. When, however, it was found that there were no longer two parties in the field, then mediation, or rather proposals for mediation, terminated altogether. Since then, without any porticipation in the proceedings of other Powers, or any active intervention in the affairs of Switzerland, Sir Stratford Canning, who was well acquainted with the affairs of that country, had been instructed to place himself, when passing through Switzerland, in communication

1065
with the authorities there, and to tender to them that advice which they might be disposed to receive from him.
House adjourned.