Sitting of 22 June 1847

MINUTES.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. C. Buller and Mr. Rashleigh, from several Persons interested in Copper Mines, against the Reduction of the Copper Duty—By Mr. Pusey, from Owners and Occupiers of Land in Berkshire and Wiltshire, in favour of the Agricultural Tenant-Right Bill.—By Mr. Muntz, from several places, for Regulating the Qualification of Chemists and Druggists.—By Mr. Evans, from Dissenters of Dronfield, against the proposed Plan of Education; and by Lord Harry Vane, from Catholics of Stockton-upon-Tees and Darlington, for Alteration of the same.—By Mr. Hawes, from the Parish of Saint Mary, Newington, Surrey, against the Highways Bill.—By Mr. Hawes and Mr. H. Baillie, from several places, for and against the Medical Registration and Medical Law Amendment Bill By Sir H. Douglas and Mr. Liddell, from London, Liverpool, and South Shields, against the Repeal of the Navigation Laws By Mr. Gisborne, from Derby, for Alteration of the Railways (No. 2.) Bill.—By Sir De L. Evans, from Bradford, for Consideration of the Case of Henry Needham Scrope Shrapnell.—By Mr. Stafford O'Brien, from Farmers and Graziers attending Rye Market, against the Removal of Smithfield Market.

CANADA.
SIR H. DOUGLAS, seeing the Undersecretary for the Colonies in his place, wished to ask whether it was the case that the Governor General of Canada had issued proclamations giving the United States' vessels privilege to enter the port of Montreal, and to use the free navigation of the river St. Lawrence; and if so, whether such a proceeding was not at variance with the navigation laws, and had not been adopted with a view to such further alterations as would permit the products of the United States to he exported through Canada to Great Britain and the British possessions, the same as British products?
MR. HAWESobserved, that the proclamation referred to had not been received at the Foreign Office. he understood, however, that such permission as the gallant Officer had alluded to had been granted to small American boats to go up the St. Lawrence; but it was merely pending the temporary suspension of the navigation laws, and had no reference to the present question of the repeal of those laws.

MESSRS. VILLIERS AND CHRISTIE.
MR. VILLIERSsaid, an occurrence which in some degree concerned him, having taken place last evening, in that House, during his absence, he had to solicit the indulgence of the House for one moment only, while he offered a few words in explanation. If he could have had the most distant notion that there was an arrangement in contemplation for moving an Order of the Day, to enable some hon. Members to engage in a discussion on the proceedings which had taken place before the Andover Committee, he should most assuredly have been in his place yesterday evening. But he had received no intimation whatever of any such arrangement being intended. And under these circumstances he trusted that the House would kindly extend him their indulgence while he now offered to their attention the few remarks which he was unable to address to them on the preceding evening. he could assure the House, that if it were himself only who was concerned in this affair, he should not think of again alluding to the matter. For his own part, he was quite satisfied that those who were desirous to know how the case stood, and to ascertain who were in the right, and who in the wrong, should be left to the ordinary sources of information, and to the official reports which had been laid on the

799
Table of the House; hut there was another person in question, and it was entirely on that ground that he wished to refer to what had occurred. He had said that there was another person involved in this question—he alluded to Sir Frankland Lewis. When he (Mr. Villiers) first brought this matter forward, he explained that he did so simply because, just before entering the House, he had received a letter from Sir Frankland Lewis, who had been a witness before the Committee, in which he communicated a statement which appeared to him (Mr. Villiers) to be entirely at variance with a statement made in that House on a preceding evening. That gentleman (Sir Frankland Lewis) had heard with extreme astonishment that a question put to him as a witness before a Committee of that House—a question which had been distinctly put to him, and which was persevered in, and to which he had given an answer in detail—had been denied by the person who put it as having been put at all. Sir Frankland Lewis was in the first instance deeply impressed with the conviction of the question having been put to him; he had not been shaken in his conviction by anything that had since occurred. He was still convinced that the question had been put, and that he had answered it: and, farther, that lie had been obliged to go into details in answering that question so put and so persevered in; and that with respect to the professed object of the question, that had been made the subject of distinct inquiry, and was also answered. It had been denied by the hon. Member for Weymouth, on his honour as a gentleman, that he had ever put that question. He was aware that it was contrary to the forms of that House to dispute any fact for the truth of which a Member pledged his word of honour; but at the same time it was quite competent for a Member to refer to what was identified with that House—namely, its own journals; and, without doubting the honour of the hon. Member for Woymouth, he might take leave to refer to Number 22,622 of the questions put before the Committee. The simple matter at issue between him and the hon. Member was whether he did or did not. put to Sir Frankland Lewis the question of whether, "when he ceased to be a Commissioner, he did so on an arrangement that his son should succeed him?" He (Mr. Villiers) had believed that he had done so. Sir Frankland Lewis believed it now, and was
800
convinced that he answered the question, and that it was contained in the report of the evidence; and, notwithstanding this very stout denial of the Member for Weymouth that he ever put the question, the House could not doubt that this question did actually appear in the official report of the evidence, viz:—
"When you ceased to be a Poor Law Commissioner, will you inform the Committee whether you ceased upon an arrangement being made that your son should succeed you?"
The hon. Member for Weymouth's commentary on this was, that he explained to Sir Frankland Lewis that the object of the question he put was to ascertain whether Sir Frankland Lewis had cautioned his son against Mr. Chadwick; but the two questions were totally distinct, as was clearly perceived by the Committee. Therefore, when Sir Frankland Lewis had that question put to him, he proceeded to explain how no arrangement of the sort had ever been made:—
"I am anxious to explain to you," said the hon. Member for Weymouth, "that I do not refer to any arrangement which might not have been made with perfect propriety, and without any imputation against either you or your son."
But all that had nothing whatever to say to the real matter at issue. What he (Mr. Villiers) said was, that the hon. Member had no right to put a question as to any arrangement between the father and son. It was not the matter at issue before the Committee, nor was it all in keeping with what the hon. Member declared to be his object—namely, to ascertain whether Sir Frankland Lewis had cautioned his son against Mr. Chadwick. Such was his (Mr. Villiers') statement, and he found in the Journals of the House that this was the question the hon. Member had put. There was no question whether the arrangement was proper or not; but the question was, did he ask Sir Frankland Lewis respecting an arrangement with his son? The report made to the House represented him as putting just such an interrogatory; and the Member for Finsbury was represented as having declared that it ought to be answered. Three questions lower down the hon. Member for Weymouth put the following question: "When your son succeeded you, did you put him on his guard against Mr. Chadwick?" That was the question which the hon. Member declared he had in view in proposing question No. 22,622; but the House would observe, that there was not

801
the smallest possible connexion between the two questions, and they had, in fact, been put separately. He (Mr. Villiers) was bound to believe what the hon. Member asserted upon his honour; but he had been misled by reading the evidence as taken in shorthand, and as officially reported to that House, and to which the hon. Member was himself a party. As to giving notice to the hon. Member of his intention to allude to the matter on a former night, he begged to say he had conferred with a Member of the Committee (the hon. Member for Finsbury), who gave it as his opinion that if the official report of the evidence bore out his (Mr. Villiers') statement, made the night before, the House would be satisfied with that explanation, and with the grounds on which that statement had been made. He accordingly went up to the library, and finding the official report there, he brought it down, and used it to prove the accuracy of what he had said. He begged to say that he did not attach any importance whatever to the point of whether the room had been cleared by the hon. Member for Weymouth: as soon as the hon. Member asserted that it was he who had caused it to be cleared, he rested satisfied, and did not dispute the point, for it was quite unimportant. The fact was certain that the question put was an improper one, and that the room was cleared. It seemed that it was a part of the arrangement last night that some hon. Members friendly to the hon. Member for Weymouth were to come down to support his character, and speak in favour of his conduct.
VISCOUNT INGESTRErose to order. The hon. Member was carrying his explanation to too great length in referring to other Members. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would perceive the propriety of abridging this proceeding, and bringing the matter to a close.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Gentleman ought certainly to confine his remarks to a justification of himself.
MR. VILLIERShad not intended to trangress the rules of order, but would, of course, at once bow to the decision of the Speaker. He could only say that he was not on the Committee himself; but when witnesses described the manner in which they were treated, they were entitled to be heard, and, if respectable, believed. He (Mr. Villiers) founded his statements on the authority of the witnesses themselves, many of whom, notwithstanding the evi-
802
dence which had been borne in favour of the hon. Member for Weymouth by his friends, complained grievously of the conduct of that Member towards them, and of the character of the questions he put to them. He could name several who complained at the time. Sir Frankland Lewis complained at the time, and had repeated his complaint to the noble Chairman of the Committee since the inquiry had ceased, of the manner in which the inquiry had been conducted. It should have been remembered that Sir Frankland Lewis was an old Member of that House, and from his position in society was entitled to be treated with respect. Mr. Westlake also—[Cries of "Order!"] He (Mr. Villiers) thanked the House for the indulgence with which they had heard him, and would not further trespass on their attention.
MR. CHRISTIE: Sir, I am quite satisfied with the manner in which the House received my distinct denial of the charge last night; and I consider it would be beneath me to again deny it after the solemn pledge which I have already given of its injustice. After the honourable testimony borne to my conduct by many hon. Members, and amongst others by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury, who saw and heard me daily, I am sure I properly interpret the feelings of the House when I believe it to be averse to the prolongation of the discussion.
The matter dropped.

DUTY ON COPPER.
MR. MUNTZ MR. MUNTZ moved—
"That the House do resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Duties upon the Importation of Copper, with a view to their Reduction or Abolition."
It was not necessary to make many remarks on the Motion, because both the late and the present Government had acceded to its principle, and had only refrained from carrying it out from fear of diminishing the revenue. The hon. Gentleman read from several documents an account of the quantities of copper imported in different years from Chili and other places. He showed that the operation of the duty was disadvantageous to the English manufacturer, as it exposed him to competition with foreigners, who got the metal at a lower rate; articles were even imported, and superseded his in the home market. Copper was now almost the only instance of a raw material being taxed. Why

803
should they protect one interest at the expense of others?
MR. EWARTseconded the Motion. Manufactures were advancing in countries where they could command foreign copper, as in Chili, in Belgium, and, above all, in the United States. The principal places of export for English copper were France and India. The exportations to France and to India had been gradually falling off, and the result had been most ruinous to our trade. The Government would naturally resist the proposed reduction in the duty on copper; but the same rule which had been applied in other cases would apply to this, and he did not see how the retention of what amounted to a prohibitory duty on this article could be at all defended. The object of their legislation should be to increase their trade and commerce everywhere, and they should endeavour, as in the instance of other trades, to make Great Britain the emporium of the copper trade. If they allowed the foreign copper trade to leave this country, they would inevitably injure the total trade of the empire. On these grounds he seconded the Motion of his hon. Friend.
SIR C. LEMONwas anxious to press upon his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to commit himself to any opinion on this subject until it had been fairly inquired into by the House. He had always been willing that a Committee should be appointed, and that the whole question should be thoroughly investigated, with a view to future legislation. With respect to the principle involved, he was prepared to admit that no duty whatever on any article should be imposed or maintained merely on the ground of protection; at the same time, he thought that if a duty was found to work well and beneficially to all parties concerned, it would be most unadvisable to abandon it simply because incidentally such a duty did act as a protection. He hoped that before any change was made, the Government would give the House an opportunity of examining in detail into the subject, and of ascertaining the exact facts.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he had early in the Session declared that the state of the national finances was not such as to permit him proposing any reduction in the duty on this article; and he was sorry to say that nothing had since occurred to render his situation in any degree improved, or to make him ready to sacrifice any portion of
804
the revenue, even though, as in this case, in amounted only to 50,000 l. a year. Having so early in the Session made that statement, it could not be expected that he could now accede to the Motion of the hon. Member; and under the circumstances he thought he would be perfectly justified in complying with the request of the hon. Baronet behind him (Sir C. Lemon), and in abstaining from giving any opinion whatever on the subject. It was therefore his duty to state, without going at any length into the question, that he must oppose the Motion.
VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that though the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he was not in a position to take off the duty, in some measure precluded any discussion; yet, as he was greatly interested in the subject, he could not allow the debate to pass without offering one or two observations. It was a great peculiarity in this trade, that, while the principle of free trade had been adopted in regard to everything else, with regard to this article alone, the principle of protection, as it was called, was still maintained. There had been a consequent increase in the importation of the raw material of every other article; and there had been a very serious retrogression in the importation of copper ore. The right hon. Gentleman clung to this small duty with a not unnatural tenacity; but he might rest assured that, as the amount of the revenue derived from that duty had decreased to a great extent within the last few years, it would shortly, if he persisted in continuing the prohibition, become altogether insignificant. It was perfectly obvious that, if they imposed an exorbitant duty on a heavy article which, when manufactured here, was exported to places where the same manufacture was carried on without any duty on the raw material, the trade would decline, and the competition would completely fail. He could not, therefore, forbear entering his protest against this question being shelved from year to year. Its importance had been lost sight of by the Government; and, as no one defended the duty, the vexed question could only be settled by that reduction which the hon. Member now called for. The question did not solely respect the copper trade; it affected every branch of a variety of trades, and each would be proportionably benefited by an increased importation and the decreased price of the article. On these grounds he trusted that in a future Session

805
the subject would receive due consideration; and he hoped that, in the mean time, nothing would arise to induce stronger measures than those hitherto adopted to be taken in Chili in resistance of our hostile and most ruinous policy.
MR. RASHLEIGHwould take that opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the petition which he had that night presented from the working classes of Cornwall on this subject; and he would state that his only reason for opposing the Motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham was, that, if carried, it would be detrimental to the best interests of the people of Cornwall. Neither he nor his family had ever received a single farthing from copper mines in Cornwall. His only reason for opposing the Motion was, that he thought they were bound to give encouragement to British industry, and to improve to the best of their ability the condition of such men as the copper miners of Cornwall.
MR. SPOONERhoped the House would bear in mind that the Chancellor of the Exchequer rested his refusal of the Motion of his hon. Friend simply on the ground of revenue. The right hon. Gentleman said he was not in a condition to lose a revenue of 50,000 l. at the present moment. Now, he would just call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact, that in 1844 the revenue from copper was 75,000 l., while in 1846 it had diminished to 54,000 l. This proved that, as a source of revenue, it was very precarious; and the House might rest assured that this decrease in the revenue would not be the only evil, but that a new and opposing trade would be established. They might depend upon it that copper would be exported from Chili and smelted; and if they refused to allow it to be smelted in this country, it would be done abroad. A large establishment had been raised at the mouth of the Elbe for that purpose. To refuse to admit the copper of Chili into this country, was to insure a certain market for it in Germany, and at the same time to insure in Chili a certain market for German manufactures. Yet, to save a revenue of 50,000 l.., the Chancellor of the Exchequer would impose all this loss upon our manufactures. He could not see that the right hon. Gentleman was so hard pressed that in a case where justice so clearly demanded this small concession, it could not be granted. There were many articles of manufacture of which copper formed the
806
chief basis, and which used to be exported from this country, which were now imported, and successfully competed with us in our own markets; and were they to be told that the miserable sum of 50,000 l.. a year was to stand in the way of remedying an evil like this? They had been told that it was their duty to protect native industry; but he saw a large amount of native industry which was fast being destroyed here and transferred to other countries. They protected the industry of the miners of Cornwall; but they destroyed the industry of the manufacturers. He had no doubt that people might be thrown out of employment in Cornwall; but they would, at the same time, allow him to plead for the manufacturers. It was an act of gross and cruel injustice to say to the one class, that they would relieve them of the competition of foreign copper; and to say to the other, that they must suffer by that foreign copper being refused. All they wanted was free competition; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer might depend upon it that this was not the only question on which his principle of free trade would be brought to bear. This was pressing only on a small part of the community; but he would yet find that it would be absolutely necessary to alter the whole system of our financial arrangements in this country.
LORD G. BENTINCKwas very sorry to be opposed on the present occasion to his two hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, who, pro hac vice, would appear to be Gemini. The Member for East Cornwall thought this was not a proper opportunity for taking the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject; but he (Lord G. Bentinck) thought, on the contrary, that there could not be a better time than on the eve of a general election to know from the right hon. Gentleman what he meant to do on a subject so important in the new Parliament. He thought the hon. Member for East Cornwall and the hon. Members for Birmingham would be very well pleased to be assured of the course Ministers intended to take in the next Parliament; and he hoped they would elicit from the Government some declaration of their intentions in this respect. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon) thought that the maintenance of this duty could not be supported upon any principle whatever. If this had been the proper time, he should have been prepared to defend the principle of exacting a revenue duty, so long as it did not

807
exceed 10 per cent ad valorem, on all articles of foreign produce, with the view of being enabled to reduce the duties of excise. With regard to the present case, he thought the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) had given a good reason against his own Motion, when he told them that the manufacturers could obtain copper 10 per cent cheaper from the foreigner than they could from the home producer. If that were so, he thought they might well afford to pay the duty. Another reason for maintaining the duty had been alluded to—the fact of Englishmen having embarked their capital in foreign mines. He had not so much sympathy for Englishmen who invested their capital in foreign countries as for those who invested it at home. He perceived it had been stated at a meeting of the Cobre Mining Company, that they could only divide 2,000 l.. this year, inasmuch as the tax of 10 per cent on copper ore had eaten up 12,000 l.. or 15,000 l.. of their profits. That was a proof that the tax on copper ore came out of the profits of the foreign miner, and not out of the pockets of the manufacturers of this country.
MR. TURNERthought the hon. Baronet the Member for West Cornwall had put the question on the only footing on which it ought to rest, when he observed that there should be a Committee of Inquiry. The question was not well understood either in that House or in Cornwall, and he thought it was their duty to have every possible inquiry made into the subject. If it was shown that the abolition of this duty would be injurious to the people of Cornwall, then care ought to be taken that sufficient inducements were held out, not only to employ the labourers in that county, but to discourage the investment of capital in foreign mines. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion to a division, but follow the course recommended by the hon. Baronet the Member for West Cornwall, and move in the next Session for a Committee of Inquiry.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, as he had the misfortune to differ from the hon. Member for Birmingham on this subject, he thought it only right to explain the vote which he meant to give. They saw one section of its native industry cutting the throat of another; and he had made up his mind to do nothing which would hasten the mangling. It might be true that the inhabitants of Birmingham suffered from foreign competition; but when he was asked,
808
in a time of distress like the present, and with the existing high prices of provisions, to vote for a measure which would infringe on the comforts of another large class of the people, with a view to relieve the manufacturers of that town, he should say, that he thought a change of the kind would be very precipitate and uncalled for.
SIR G. CLERKsaid, he should give his vote against the Motion upon the ground stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that at the present moment it was impossible to spare a revenue of 50,000 l.. a year by the remission of this duty. He hoped, however, that the present Government would do as the late Government had done, namely, watch the trade in copper ore, and if they found that the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Birmingham were well founded, and that there was a danger of the smelting trade leaving the country, that they would seriously consider the inconvenience and the danger which threatened the commerce of the country thereby.
MR. G. PALMERshould vote for the Government, and against the Motion, because he believed that the duty was not only an object of revenue, but that it operated as a protection to the miners of this country.
The House divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 59: Majority 40.

List of the AYES.

Ainsworth, P.

M'Carthy, A.

Baine, W.

Martin, J.

Boyd, J.

Moffatt, G.

Browne, hon. W.

Morris, D.

Buller, E.

Sandon, Vist.

Crawford, W. S.

Stuart, Lord J.

Duncan, G.

Thornely, T.

Escott, B.

Vivian, J. H.

Ewart, W.

TELLERS.

Fielden, J.

Muntz, G. F.

Humphery, Ald.

Spooner, R.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Anson, hon. Col.

Forbes, W.

Baring, rt, hon. F. T.

Gladstone, Capt.

Barnard, E. G.

Granger, T. C.

Bellew, R. M.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Grogan, E.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Hamilton, G. A.

Blake, M. J.

Hawes, B.

Borthwick, P.

Heathcoat, G. J.

Buller, C.

Henley, J. W.

Burke, T. J.

Howard, P. H.

Carew, W. H. P.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Lemon, Sir C.

Courtenay, Lord

Lindsay, Col.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Monahan, J. H.

Dundas, Adm.

Morison, Gen.

Ebrington, Visct.

Newdegate, C. N.

809

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Stanton, W. H.

O'Conor Don

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Palmer, G.

Thompson, Ald.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Plumridge, Capt.

Turner, E.

Powlett, Lord W.

Vivian, J. E.

Rashleigh, W.

Vyvyan, Sir R. R.

Rice, E. R.

Ward, H. G.

Russell, Lord J.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Rutherfurd, A.

Young, J.

Scrope, G. P.

TELLERS.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Tufnell, H.

Spry, Sir S. T.

Wysc, T.

WASTE LANDS (IRELAND).
MR. P. SCROPErose to move the following resolution:—
"That the Waste Lands of Ireland offer an available resource for the immediate employment and future maintenance of a part of her population, now apparently redundant; and that it is expedient to apply them to this great national object, making equitable compensation to their present proprietors."
The hon. Member addressed the House in support of his Motion; but before he had proceeded far, the House was counted out, and adjourned at half-past Seven.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Police Clauses; Royal Marine Service; Corn, &c. Importation.
2a Westminster and part of Middlesex Sewers.
Reported.—Van Diemen's Land Company; British American Land Company; Out-Pensioners (Chelsea and Greenwich); Collection of Duties (Port Natal); Destitute Persons (Ireland) (No. 2).
3° and passed:—Trust Money Investment (Ireland); Naturalization of Miens; Newfoundland Government; Loan Societies; Prisoners' Removal (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Leeds and several other places, for the Enactment of Sanitary Regulations.

BISHOPRIC OF MANCHESTER, ETC. BILL.
On Motion, that this House do now resolve itself into Committee,
The BISHOP OF EXETERwished to observe, that he should he most anxious to support the Government in carrying this Bill in its main provisions, but felt a strong objection to one part of it, as it stood at present. The first clause stated that Her Majesty had issued a Commission for an inquiry into the state of the several bishoprics in England and Wales
—"with special reference to the intentions therein graciously declared by Her Majesty, that a measure should be submitted to Parliament for continuing the bishoprics of St. Asaph and Bangor as separate bishoprics, and for establishing forthwith a bishopric of Manchester; and also, so soon as conveniently might be, three other additional bishoprics; regard being had to the circumstance, that Her Majesty did not contemplate the issue of Her writ to the new bishops to sit and vote as Peers of Parliament, except as vacancies should from time to time occur among the bishops of England and Wales, now so sitting and voting."
Now, there was a grave doubt whether that was consistent with the law, and the privileges of the House. Lord Coke and Sir M. Hale laid it down that the Crown was bound, ex debito justitiœ, to issue a writ of summons to Parliament to every bishop quâ, bishop, not only in the case of bishoprics already existing, but of every one that might exist. Under these circumstances, he felt bound to say non-content to going into Committee, for regularity sake; but should not at the same time persist in any opposition to the committal of the Bill.
LORD BROUGHAMconcurred in the right rev. Prelate's objection to the expression brought under the notice of the House; but, nevertheless, he did not think that the mere recital of what had been wrongfully done, would taint the enacting-portions of the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLORexplained, that the recital had only reference to the

789
intention of Her Majesty in issuing the Commission; and the second clause of the Bill provided the power of carrying that intention into effect. Therefore it was not contemplated that this arrangement should be made without the sanction of Parliament.
House in Committee. On Clause 2, enacting that the number of Lords Spiritual shall not be increased, being read,
LORD REDESDALE LORD REDESDALE moved the omission of the clause for the purpose of inserting the following clause:—
"And whereas Doubts may arise whether Bishops of the new Sees to be established under the Powers of this Act, may not demand as of Right Writs of Summons to Parliament, be it enacted, pursuant to the Declaration of Her Majesty hereinbefore recited, That until Her Majesty shall be graciously pleased to summon to Parliament any Bishop holding One of the said Sees, no Bishop holding that See shall be entitled to demand as of Right a Writ of Summons to Parliament."
He was induced to make this Amendment, both in reference to the prerogative of the Crown, and the privileges of the Peerage of that House. He thought it not right that the Crown should be deprived for the future of a power exercised by all Hoi-Majesty's predecessors; and, the right of issuing writs of summons being with Her Majesty alone, he wished to leave the Sovereign's prerogative untouched. With respect to the Peerage of this country, this was the first time it had ever been proposed to interfere with the right conferred by it. That House, it was true, had been at one time abolished altogether; but it had never been at any other period denied, that where the Peerage was conferred, there the right to a summons existed. There were precedents, undoubtedly, of parties guilty of offences, attainted, for instance, being excluded from the House; and there was an early instance of a Peer not being allowed to attend the House on account of poverty. But in these instances it was supposed that there existed some personal disqualification against the holders of the Peerage exercising their right. The second clause, however, of the present Bill proceeded upon a totally different principle. Supposing Her Majesty were to declare that the number of Temporal Peers in the present House was large enough for all purposes, and supposing it was proposed to enact by Bill that the number of Lords Temporal should not be increased, what would be thought of such a proposition? Yet it was quite as justifiable to restrict
790
the number of Temporal Peers as the number of Spiritual Peers. He thought the precedent dangerous to the Peerage of the country. On these two grounds he had the strongest possible objection to the clause proposed by the Government. With respect to the addition to the number of bishops in that House, he believed that these four bishops might have been added to the number already in the House without the risk of incurring objections of any strength. He considered that those bishoprics which had been represented in their Lordships' House for many years ought not, under any circumstances, to be deprived of that right. The Bill, in its present form, would establish a most dangerous principle; and he hoped their Lordships would be of opinion that no restriction should be placed on the power of the Crown, and that they would assent to his proposal.
The MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEopposed the Amendment, the effect of which would be to alter most materially the character of the Bill. The object of the Bill was to enable the Crown to create a new bishopric of Manchester; but it was provided that in consequence of such creation the number of Lords Spiritual, who held seats in that House, should not be increased. The Bill would not deprive the Crown of any prerogative, for Her Majesty would still continue to issue writs of summons to the same number of archbishops and bishops as at present. He contended that it was open to Parliament to regulate the conditions upon which any now see should be created; and that the practice established with regard to Irish and Scotch Representative Peers was a precedent for the course Her Majesty's Ministers now proposed to take with reference to the Lords Spiritual. The second clause of the Bill provided, that when there was a vacancy among the Lords Spiritual, by the avoidance of any of the sees of Canterbury, York, London, Durham, or Winchester, such vacancy should be supplied by the issue of a writ of summons to the bishop who should be elected to the same see; but that if such a vacancy was caused by avoidance of any other see in England or Wales, such vacancy should be supplied by the issue of a writ of summons to the bishop who first did homage for his see, or for any other see in England or Wales, of those who had not previously become entitled to such writ. The Bill, therefore, would not interfere in the slightest degree

791
with the prerogative of the Crown; and he hoped their Lordships would not sanction the alteration proposed by the noble Lord opposite.
LORD STANLEYobserved, that the Government had announced their intention of proposing to Parliament an addition to the number of bishops; and they now proposed the creation of one new bishopric, and the number was ultimately to be increased to four. But the noble Marquess opposite had stated that he considered it essential that the number of Lords Spiritual at present occupying scats in that House should not be increased. He (Lord Stanley) doubted whether it was essential to the success of this measure that no addition should be made to the number of Peers in that House; but, even if that were the case, he could not but think that the Government had pursued a most objectionable course. The limitation of the number of Lords Spiritual which it was proposed to establish by this Bill, was not only an infringement of the prerogatives of the Crown, but he also considered that it was a dangerous invasion of the rights and privileges of all the Members of their Lordships' House, temporal and spiritual. he thought that if any large addition was made to the number of bishops, it must be by constituting bishops circumstanced very differently from those who now held that important office. If any very considerable increase in the number of bishops were contemplated, it would be absolutely impossible to act upon the principle laid down by this Bill; for, if a large increase were made in the number of bishops, and at the same time all the bishops except twenty-four were excluded from that House, they would probably exclude, for a considerable period at least, many of the younger and more diligent and active men. But if no large increase in the number of bishops were contemplated, if the total addition was not to exceed four, then he (Lord Stanley) said that the objection which might possibly be raised to so small an increase in the number of Lords Spiritual was of infinitely less weight and importance than the disadvantage of introducing the great practical anomaly of a certain number of bishops holding seats in that House, and a certain number—exercising in all respects the same functions, possessing precisely the same authority—being-contradistinguished from their brethren by the fact of their not having seats in their Lordships' House. Although the noble
792
Marquess had said that this Bill would not affect the prerogative of the Crown, because the Crown had now only the power of calling twenty-six bishops to that House, yet it would clearly so far invade the prerogative of the Crown as that, by Parliamentary vote, it would prohibit the Crown from summoning an additional number of Lords Spiritual to sit in Parliament without the express sanction of Parliament in each individual case. He considered, however, that the Bill was most objectionable, as affecting the rights and privileges of their Lordships. The principle the Bill laid down was this—that while at the present moment every Lord Spiritual, as well as every Lord Temporal, had a right to demand a writ of summons, that right was, in the case of all bishops hereafter appointed, to be taken away. Why, they might as well deprive the sons or successors of any Lord Temporal of the right to sue out a writ or summons, and to demand a seat in that House, until the Peers had been reduced by deaths or other causes to a certain number. He (Lord Stanley) protested against such an infringement of the prerogatives of the Crown, and such an invasion of the privileges of the Peerage.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the noble Lord had objected to many parts of this scheme, but their Lordships had not heard what plan he would substitute for it. The noble Lord objected to the exclusion of the new bishop from the House; but as it was granted that the number of bishops should exceed the number of the episcopal seats in the House, it was absolutely necessary to make the rule of exclusion in some instances. But the present proposition would not go to exclude the bishop from the House at all. It merely provided that he should not be admitted till there was a vacancy for him. The noble Lord had told them that this proposition was a breach of the privileges of the House, and, more astonishing still, an infringement of the privileges of the right rev. Bench and of the House. There was no question that when a bishop was appointed to a new see, he was entitled as a right to receive a summons to the House; but that case did not hold good with respect to a new bishop; and it rested with the Crown to call him to a vacant seat when it occurred. He could not see, therefore, how the prerogatives of the Crown or of the Bench could be interfered with; nor could any precedent be drawn from the case of the Irish bishops. A new bishop was not a

793
Member of the House at all. He did not see, therefore, how there could be any interference with the rights of the Episcopal Bench, or of the individual bishop. It had been attempted to draw an analogy between the members of the right rev. Bench and of the temporal Peerage, but it could not be maintained. Every Peer of the realm had a right to all the privileges of the Peerage, not only for himself but for his successors; and if any attempt were made to exclude him, he had a right to claim his rights for his successor; whereas you take nothing away from the bishop by depriving him of his seat. The whole question for the House to decide upon was, if the new bishops should all have seats in the House without any limitation as to numbers. The want of bishops was severely felt in every district; and it was for their Lordships to consider whether they should not supply that want without adding to the numbers of the episcopal seats in that House. It would he very injurious to introduce a system establishing a distinction in this respect between members of the same body; and the only plan they could adopt, as it was decided that the number of bishops should be greater than the number of seats, was, that the newly-chosen Prelates should he summoned to their Lordships' House as vacancies occurred in the Episcopal Bench. There was no resource but to adopt the present method. And was it the first time of adopting it? Not by any means. They had the precedent of Ireland before them. It was said that the practice there was established by compact; but this was a compact too. On every ground he thought this plan more free from objections than any other that could he devised, and he hoped their Lordships would look upon it in the same light.
The MARQUESS OF BUTEaltogether objected to the second clause of the Bill. He did not see why any bishop should be excluded from a seat in the House; and if the contrary principle were established, it could not fail to affect the privileges of their Lordships' House; for it was a matter of notoriety that when the cry was raised some years ago against the bishops sitting in the House, there was coupled with it some hints that their Lordships' House might also he represented by members of their own body. In the year 183G that House voted an Address to the Crown to admit the Bishop of Manchester to a seat in that House; and they were now
794
about to advise Her Majesty to keep him out.
The BISHOP of EXETERsaid, he understood the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) to say that Her Majesty could not call to that House more than twenty-four Prelates, inasmuch as that number had never been exceeded, and that the authority of the Crown was bound by that practice. He ventured to affirm that such a declaration with respect to the prerogative of the Crown would be difficult to sustain; and he apprehended that the prerogative and the duty of the Crown, on the choice of any bishop, would be to issue a summons to him to take his scat in the House; it would in fact he an interference with the prerogative of the Crown to prevent the issue of that summons. Sir M. Hale expressly said that the right to a seat in their Lordships' House belonged as an inherent part to the office of a bishop, and that he was entitled to a seat in the great Council of the nation.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEexplained that what he had stated was that in point of practice the bishops never exceeded a certain number, and that it was not in the power of the Crown to add to that number without obtaining the authority of Parliament, because it required the power of Parliament to create any new bishop.
The BISHOP of LONDONsaid, he was prepared to share the responsibility of the framers of this Bill, and was ready to give it his support. He could not but think that the right rev. Prelate who spoke last (Bishop of Exeter), arguing with his accustomed ingenuity, not to say subtlety, had furnished an irresistible weapon wherewithal to demolish his own argument, and that of the mover and supporters of the Amendment. The real question before them was, was this measure an infringement on the prerogatives of the Episcopal Bench? But there was as great an invasion made on the rights of the episcopacy by the Amendment as by this Bill. The right rev. Prelate contended that every bishop was entitled to a seat ex debito justitiœ in right of his office. It was then an invasion on that right for the Amendment to say, if the new bishop were made, that he should not at once take his place in the House on Her Majesty's summons. He thought it fair to say, however, that there was considerable weight in the objections stated by the noble Lord opposite to the mea-

795
sure as it was now introduced; but he conceived, that under the circumstances of the very great difficulty attending the case, all they could do was to make a choice of those difficulties and select the least. It was most desirable that the number of bishops should be increased, without increasing the number of Spiritual Lords. If the number of bishops in the House of Lords was greatly increased, and the new bishops, on their call to the Upper House, voted on any question with the Government, it would lay them open to the charge of political subserviency. It was certainly a collateral advantage that the bishops should live for a considerable time in their dioceses, and be well acquainted with the clergy before being called upon to spend a great portion of the year in London. He doubted whether the Church could be adequately represented with a less number of Spiritual Peers than they had at present; but still he did not think it would conduce to the interests of the Church that the numbers should be increased. He was therefore prepared to give his support to the Bill as it stood.
Their Lordships divided on the question that the clause proposed to be left out, stand part of the Motion:—Contents 44; Not-Contents 14: Majority 30.

List of the CONTENTS.

The Lord Chancellor

VISCOUNT.

DUKE

Falkland

St. Albans

BISHOPS

London

MARQUESSES

St. Asaph

Lansdowne

Salisbury

Clanricarde

Norwich

Westminster

Lincoln

Winchester

EARLS.

Bangor

Ducie

Llandaff

Morley

LORDS.

Fortescue

Camoys

Clarendon

Montfort

Auckland

Sudeley

Grey

Dunally

Minto

Campbell

Devon

Mostyn

Kingston

Wrottesley

Cowper

Portman

Granville

De Mauley

Chichester

Colborne

Stradbroke

Beaumont

Scarborough

Kenyon

Powis

Bolton

Spencer

Walsingham

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

DUKE.

Bandon

Richmond

Malmesbury

MARQUESS.

Mountcashel

Bute

VISCOUNTS.

EARLS.

Strangford

Nelson

Hereford

796

BISHOPS.

LORDS.

Exeter

Stanley

Oxford

Redesdale

Bath and Wells

Ashburton

Paired off.

FOR.

AGAINST.

Duke of Bedford

Earl of Ellenborough

Earl of Yarborough

Marquess of Exeter

Lord Byron

Lord Saltoun

Marquess of Donegal

Viscount Canterbury

Earl Camperdown

Earl Egmont

Earl of Eldon

Earl Delawarr

Lord Wenlock

Earl Orford

Lord Lilford

Lord Bradford

Earl of Ilchester

Viscount Beresford

Bishop of Durham

Earl Brownlow

Lord Denman

Lord Brougham

Earl of Effingham

Earl of Wilton

Lord Stratford

Earl of Eglintoun

Lord Foley

Viscount Sidney

Bishop of Worcester

Bishop of Gloucester

Resolved in the affirmative.
On Clause 3 being read,
The BISHOP of SALISBURYsaid, be had an Amendment to propose, the object of which he should state shortly to their Lordships. In all cathedrals there were two foundations, old and new, the latter commencing in the reign of Henry VIII., and the former consisting of those which were not suppressed by the effect of the Reformation. A Bill had been passed some years since, the effect of which was, that while the Dean of York was reduced from 3,000 l. to l,000 l. a-year, the Dean of Norwich would be left in possession of his salary of 1,500 l; that the Deans of Wells and Leicester would be respectively reduced to 1,000 l. a-year, while those of Worcester and Rochester, being on the new foundations, would be left in the possession of the whole of their emoluments. While he presided over the diocese, a vacancy occurred for the deanery of Wells, and a Committee of the Ecclesiastical Board decided that 1,500 l. a year—about the same salary as his predecessors enjoyed—was the allowance which he ought fairly to enjoy. This decision was adopted by a full board of Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and though the law officers of the Crown dissented from it, he still thought it the most just manner in which the reductions in ecclesiastical incomes sanctioned by the Act of Parliament to which he had referred could be carried out. He should, therefore, put it to their Lordships, as a matter of justice, that the recommendation of the Committee of the Board should be embodied in this Bill.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEreplied.
Amendment withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed, and adjourned.
The following Protest was entered on the Journals against the Retention of Clause 2 in the Bishopric of Manchester, &c, Bill:—
DISSENTIENT—

1. Because when Parliament declares that the interests of the Church require an increase in the number of the bishops of England and Wales, it is an ungracious interference with the prerogative of the Crown as enjoyed by Her Majesty's predecessors to annex to the creation of such bishoprics the condition that the number of bishops sitting in Parliament shall not be increased, and to take away from Her Majesty, her heirs, and successors, the power of summoning to Parliament all or any of these bishops at any future period, if it should become Her or their wish to do so, thus permanently limiting the royal prerogative, under the pretext that Her Majesty has been pleased to declare, that, as at present advised she does not contemplate the issue of her writ to the new bishops, except as vacancies shall from time to time occur among the bishops of England and Wales now sitting in Parliament.

2. Because by this clause the writs of summons to Parliament, to which the bishops of the ancient sees of England and Wales are by law entitled, are to be suspended as each see shall become vacant, and as the right of the successive holders of such sees to such writs of summons is as much inherent in their sees as that of the Lords Temporal in their respective Peerages, the above-mentioned enactment constitutes a dangerous precedent, at variance with the principle of an hereditary Peerage, and contrary to the privileges as well of the Lords Temporal as Spiritual.

REDESDALE.

STANLEY.

H. EXETER.

BUTE.

R. BATH and WELLS.