Sitting of 27 July 1848

MINUTES.
PUBLIC HILLS.—1° London (city) Small Debts; Clerks of the Peace (Dublin); Smoke Prohibition; Registering Births, &c. (Scotland); Insolvent Debtors Court; Fisheries (Ireland); Loan Societies; Highway Hates; Proclamations on Fines, Court of Common Pleas.
5° and passed:—Payment of Debts out of Real Estate; Salmon Breed Preservation; Ecclesiastical Unions and Divisions of Parishes (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Clements, from the Grand Jury of Leitrim, for an Alteration of the Election and Polling Places (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. Wakley, from Inhabitants of Barrhead, Scotland, for the Adoption of Universal Suffrage.—By Mr. Brotherton, from the Villages of Elvaston, Thulston Amberston, and Boulton, for a Better Observance of the Lord's Day—By Mr. pattison, from Members of the Board of Congregational Ministers, residing in and about London, for the Withdrawal of the Reginm Donum Grant.—By Sir R. Bulkeley, from Members of an Independent Order of Odd Fellows, for an Extension of the Benefit Societies Act.—By Mr. Muntz, from Edmund Tauntun, a Foreign Merchant, for an Alteration of the Currency Act.—By Mr. Wakley, from the Finsbury portion of the National Charter Association, complaining of the Treatment of Fussell, and Others, while in Prison; also from several Tradesmen of the Metropolis, for Closing the Westminster Court of Requests, as regards the Recovery of Debts under Twenty Pounds.—By Mr. Forster, from Guardians of the Berwick-upon-Tweed Union, for an Alteration of the Poor Law Union Charges Bill.—By Mr. Farnham, from the Leicester Chamber of Commerce, for an Alteration of the Law of Rating and Settlement.

POOR LAW UNION CHARGES (No. 2) BILL.
The Order of the Day for resuming the debate on this Bill having been read,
MR. RICEexpressed his regret that hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) was not in his place, as he was anxious to make a few observations upon the objections which that hon. Member had taken to the measure before the House. Those objections were, first, as to the provision for reshifting the burdens on the several parishes of a union by altering the mode

903
of raising the rate; secondly, that the measure would lead to the breaking down of the parochial system; thirdly, that it would lead to the still further measure of a national rate; and lastly, that it was a great measure that would throw on agricultural districts a heavy burden heretofore borne by the towns; and the hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill be read that day six months. With regard to the first objection, that of the mode of rating and the shifting of the burden, the objection was, that the rating, instead of being taken on the three years' average, should now be taken on the rateable value generally throughout the union. He had just received a communication containing the valuation of one of the largest unions in this country, and one of the best managed unions. The percentage on the average of the last three years on the rateable value in the parishes of that union varied from 13 to 14 per cent, to rather less than 1 per cent. The hon. Gentleman said that he thought this proposed alteration was very unjust. He recollected that when Sir J. Graham introduced the Settlement Bill he agreed to an instruction to the Committee proposed by the hon. Member for Malton for enacting what was called a union settlement. On the change of Government, the Bill fell into the hands of the noble Lord at the head of the present Government; and the right hon. Baronet again stated his conviction that if the Bill should be passed into a law without the Amendment proposed being adopted, the greatest injustice and hardship would be inflicted on many parts of the country. The Bill was passed into a law without the Amendment of the hon. Member for Malton being introduced, when during the very first year most convincing proof was given of the entire truth of the right hon. Baronet's prediction. Before the end of that year he presented several petitions from large urban parishes complaining of the ruinous effects of the Bill. The agricultural parishes which surrounded the town of Dover were particularly affected by the law. In one of those parishes a great number of streets were built for the poor people; and the moment the Bill passed the main portion of those poor persons were thrown on the already pauperised parishes in the neighbourhood, so that they were nearly ruined. The injustice of this was so manifest, that at a late period of the Session last year it was felt impossible to avoid providing an immediate remedy of
904
a temporary character for the evil, and accordingly a Bill was introduced by Mr. Bodkin, called the Poor Removal Act, which was passed, and which would expire on the 1st of October next. The effect of the present system of parochial rates and settlement was that the labourers were often compelled to live a long distance from their work; they had frequently to walk home to their meals in the wet, and return to work without having had time to dry their clothes. This was a great hardship, and yet the hon. Member for Oxfordshire had opposed the present measure, which was a first step towards a better system. The next objection of the hon. Member was, that this Bill was a breaking down of the parochial system; but he was surprised the hon. Member could have so much misunderstood the right hon. Gentletleman (Mr. Buller), who announced his decided determination to adhere to the parochial system. He believed they would never have a system which would be just to the ratepayers until they made the rating co-extensive with the union and the jurisdiction of the board of guardians. He was, therefore, in favour of an union rate; but it did not follow, as the hon. Member for Oxfordshire appeared to suppose, that those who were in favour of an union rating and settlement must also be favourable to a national rating. The right hon. Gentleman had truly stated that there was a growing feeling in the country in favour of an union rating; and he would maintain that the agitation in the country must be founded on reason and justice, or else it would not be rife. The hon. Member said that the right hon. Gentleman ought not to have condemned as he did the system of private rating which prevailed in some parishes. Now, he maintained that of all systems that of private rating was the worst. The hon. Member put the case of a man with a large family earning 10 s. a week wages, and said that the poor-law was no test of idleness or destitution to such a man, because he knew that if he went into the workhouse he should cost the parish 18 s. a week for the support of himself and his family. Every man was acquainted with one or two idle men in his parish; but such a case as the hon. Member had alluded to was the exception, and not the rule. Let them give the agricultural labourers anything like fair wages, and there was not one man in one hundred who would not rather earn his own subsistence than lead an idle life in the workhouse.

905
And the poor man had no fairer claim than that of a, fair day's wages for a fair day's work. In the county to which he belonged (Kent), the labourers were receiving 15 s. a week wages, when in other counties they were only receiving 7s. Now that wheat was at 44 s. or 43 s. a quarter, the rate of wages in Kent was 12 s. a week, while in the west of England it was only 7s. or 8s. The rate of wages in Kent varied from 10 s. to 18 s.; but with wheat at 35 s. a quarter the farmers never thought of reducing wages below 10 s. It would he much better if other counties made an attempt to pay their labourers after the same rate. With regard to vagrancy, the hon. Member for Oxfordshire said it might become a national question, and he was in favour of a national payment for vagrancy. But he (Mr. Rice) thought the administration of the law with regard to vagrancy would be much better under this Bill, because it would give the poor-law guardians an interest in seeing that their officers looked sharp after the vagrants, He did not think that the objections of the hon. Member for Oxffordshire would be successful in this instance. The present measure was absolutely necessary; and he hoped that the hon. Member would not seriously oppose its going into Committee, but that he would confine his opposition to an endeavour to amend the Bill in Committee. He supported the Bill because it was both necessary and just to the ratepayers, and at the same time merciful to the poor.
MR. ROBERT PALMERsaid, the object of the Bill was to meet two grievances; in the first place, the vagrant question; and, secondly, that of the irremovable poor. With respect to the charges fur vagrancy, there was no person who would not agree that a grievous burden should not be thrown upon any particular parish because the union workhouse happened to be built in that parish. He would agree that this charge should be made upon the union instead of upon the particular parish where the relief was given. But with respect to the general question of vagrancy, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be of opinion that the suppression of vagrancy rested with the administrators of the law rather than with, the Legislature itself; and the right hon. Gentleman said that vagrancy ought to be kept down, He would agree that it ought; but the question was how to keep it down. It was a very difficult thing for the relieving officer to say what cases he would relieve,
906
and what he would reject. If he refused relief to a wandering beggar, such cases were reported and got before the pub-lie in a variety of ways; and very harsh, and often, he knew, very erroneous statements were published with regard to the relieving officer. If the right hon. Gentleman could suggest any means by which the relieving officers in unions could exercise their judgment in respect to cases of vagrancy, so as to reduce the system of vagrancy and the amount of these charges, he would confer great service, not only upon those persons themselves, but also upon the ratepayers. With respect to the irremovable poor, it was proposed to throw the expense of maintaining them upon the union at large instead of upon the parish in which they happened to reside. He had opposed the last law, which put the poor who had resided five years in towns upon the footing of irremovability, because he believed it would be a heavy burden upon the towns; but now that it had been enforced, and the Committee had reported their opinion to be that the principle of the law should be continued, the House would not be inclined, he thought, to repeal that law; and it would be better to put parishes upon the footing proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. He should not object to go into Committee upon the Bill, unless on the ground that it was brought forward at so late a period of the Session; and that it was desirable that more time should he given for its discussion. But the charges for vagrancy and irremovability stood upon a very different footing from the other portion of the Bill, which proposed to place the establishment charges of unions upon the new footing of a general rate on the property of the union. One of the arguments alleged in favour of placing all the union charges upon the same footing was, that it would be very inconvenient to have two rates levied on two different principles. The right hen. Gentleman had, however, himself proposed in the Bill to have two modes of assessment, because, although be wished to place the establishment charges, and also the vagrancy and irremovable poor charges, upon the general relateable property of the union, he proposed to continue the old assessment where there was a debt on the parishes to be paid. He thought the new charges ought to be left upon the same footing as the old. The right hon. Gentleman had asked whether it was right that the establishment charges of unions should he borne in the same proportions

907
as the pauperism of parishes, and stated that the chief establishment charges were for building and maintaining work-houses and the salaries of officers. He should have thought these charges were fairly assessable according to the amount of pauperism, as originally settled on that basis, because otherwise they would fall exceedingly hard upon some parishes, particularly small parishes, where the property was in the hands of one or two proprietors, or even a single occupier, where the population was necessarily small, and the whole of the persons legally settled in the parishes were employed by that occupier. Such parishes required no union workhouse, no salary of officers, and were liable to no establishment charges of their own. But these parishes had been brought by the poor-law into the unions, and it would be unfair to overturn the arrangement by which they paid the proportion of their former outlay on these charges, and to place these establishment charges on the general rating of property in the union. The right hon. Gentleman had instanced the salaries of medical officers as a branch of the establishment charges which ought to be paid by the union generally; but it struck him that if there was any one officer whose salary might fairly be paid by parishes according to the proportion of their pauperism, it was the medical officer. If they took the case of a large parish with 100 paupers, and a smaller parish with ten, it was fair to presume, cœteris paribus, the healthiness of both parishes being alike, that the larger parish would require ten times more medical attendance than the smaller parish. There was, therefore, no reason why his salary should not be paid in proportion to the pauperism as well as the rest of the establishment charges. The House ought to consider what the effect of altering the mode of rating would be on the value of property in parishes held in fee or on lease. He knew an instance where a man occupied the whole area of one parish; and he paid a very considerable increase of rent to the landlord in consequence of the poor-rates upon the property being remarkably low. If the rates in some parishes were 2s. in the pound, and in others in the same union 4s. or 5s., it would reduce the value of property in the former, and increase it in the latter parishes, if they equalised the rates. And those who had taken leases and purchased property in parishes where the rates were low, would find that the Legislature
908
had made a serious alteration in the value of their estates. He would support the Motion for going into Committee, although he doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman would be able to pass his measure as it stood during the present Session.
CAPTAIN PECHELLthought, that under all the circumstances the right hen. Gentleman might fairly postpone the consideration of this Bill for the present Session. It appeared, that on the 12th of July, in the Court of Queen's Bench, Lord Chief Justice Denman differed entirely from the Attorney and Solicitor General as to the residence of five years. The hon. and gallant Member read the judgment of Lord Denman in the case "Regina v. the Inhabitants of Salford," in which it was laid down by the learned Judge that the pauper having been fifteen months in a prison not situated within the removing parish, a residence of five years within the meaning of the Act 9 and 10 Victoria, c. 66, was not made out, and a rule absolute was granted accordingly. If there was any doubt upon the point, now was the time for the Attorney or Solicitor General to clear it up. To show the effect of this Act, he would mention one case. Since it became law, 579 families, or 1,611 persons, not belonging to Brighton, had become chargeable to the parish. Of those, 1,562 had received relief at an increased weekly cost of 136 l. 12 s. 7d., as compared with the preceding year. Of the 1,611 persons who had become chargeable, only 126 could be properly fixed upon Brighton, as those persons had resided there five years without relief, and were consequently irremovable. Of the remaining 1,485, with the exception of the few whose parishes had agreed to reimburse the relief, the parish had submitted to the expense from motives of humanity rather than inflict the cruelty of removal upon the unfortunate poor. The House was now told by the right hon. Gentleman that the whole expense of these persons was to be thrown upon the union fund; and that the guardians were to levy a rate upon the basis of the county rate; and if they were not satisfied with the mode of valuation, they were to be empowered to order a fresh one; which latter provision, he thought, would be very objectionable. He was of opinion that there was an inconsistency in the Bill as regarded the exclusion of the universities, inns of court, and other extra-parochial places. He approved of private rates, which the right hon. Gentleman had condemned

909
in so signal a manner, and was sure that if a private rate had been established in the Andover union, such a report as had emanated from the Committee on the case of that union would never have been laid upon the table. It had been said that there was less agitation on the subject of the poor-law since the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Buller) had assumed his present position; and it had been also said that the right hon. Gentleman had done nothing. He (Captain Pechell) wished, however, to give the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of his labours. When the late Commissioners went out of office—and they had been thrown out solely by the exertions of the Andover Union Committee, which had made a clearance of Somerset-house—and the right hon. Gentleman succeeded them, he found an order consolidating certain rules and regulations, which he confirmed; and of some of those rules he (Captain Pechell) much approved. The gallant Officer referred to several minor regulations adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, and concluded. He was willing to give the right hon. Gentleman his due share of praise for all that he had done since he had been in office; but with respect to the Bill before the House, he thought it ought to be delayed until another Session, for the question was of great importance, and there was not time to consider it.
MR. HENRY DRUMMONDagreed with the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, that this was a tinkering measure; but as that hon. Gentleman had not given a definition of what a "tinkering" measure was, he (Mr. Drummond) would endeavour to do so. He meant by "tinkering," a bad mending of a bad thing; and that, he thought, was a natural and inseparable part of the now poor-law system, and whether they got in the small end of the wedge or the large end of the wedge mattered not. The measure itself was bad from the beginning. It was a measure they had never been able to work, and the whole practice of it was directly in the teeth of the professions and statements that were made on proposing it. But he had never been, nor would he be now, a party to any agitation upon this or upon any other question. Say what they would of it, agitation was an appeal to men's passions when yon know you could not convince their reason. The repeal of the corn law was carried by agitation; and this very measure of the poor-law, which he very much disliked, was
910
produced by agitation. In this country, however much a law was disapproved of, efforts were made to carry it out honestly; but over the water, in the sister country, the rule was agitation—and no matter what law was passed, high and low, rich and poor, exerted their utmost ingenuity to drive a coach and six through it. As to the clearance system, to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, he had only heard of one such case, which he would not now name, in which a proprietor had, many years ago, pulled down the cottages on his estate. But, what proprietors certainly did not do was to build cottages at a dead loss; for it was perfectly impossible to build them in any way that should repay the outlay. There were well-managed parishes which had been stigmatised with the name of close parishes; but the system in them might be very advantageously compared with that which prevailed in other places called open parishes, where an individual or individuals ran up a few cottages, let them at an enormous rent to the poor, then supplied the inmates with goods—no matter of what quality—from their own shops, and finally sold up every article of furniture the poor people possessed. That was the open parish system; and now the Government were going to make the so-called close parishes pay the rates of the parishes in which paupers were so recklessly introduced. That was the avowed intention. The private rates which the right hon. Gentleman had stigmatised arose out of those circumstances. The great fault of the whole Somerset-house system was that they treated men like abstractions. They thought that all the poor were alike, and all labourers alike. That was what they did at Somerset-house, though. In all cases they spoke of the labourer as one fixed quantity. Now, if there were 100 labourers in a parish, ten of them perhaps were first-rate, and the remainder bad, arising in some cases from infinity, in others from age, or from other causes. What the hon. Member for Oxfordshire said was true, although it had been denied by the hon. Gentleman opposite, that on 10 s. a week a man would support his wife and six children. If that man was thrown out of work, he went into the poorhouse. Yes; but there he was separated from his wife and children. There you came to abstractions again. Did not the House think that a man would do anything rather than submit to that? They talked of the workhouse test; but it was a

911
mercy for the farmers and gentlemen of the county to meet in the autumn and apportion out the work among them so as to keep the labourers out of the poorhouse. That was the reason for a private rate. Was it meant that it was of no advantage if the owners of land and farmers met together and said, "We will employ the poor, although at this time it is not profitable to us, and, to a certain extent, the labour is unproductive?" But in some cases it was not unproductive. If a man was employed at 10 s. a week, and he kept his whole family upon those wages, but only gave the worth of 5s. a week in his work, it was surely a greater advantage than to send that man with his wife and six children to the poor-house, where they could not be supported for less than 2s. 6d. a day. The truth was that they had never been able to carry out the new poor-law practically and consistently; for the returns showed the great amount of outdoor relief that was granted. By this new poor-law they had dried up all the sources of private charity; and this effect of the law they were now going to increase. It was the interest of every gentleman to keep the poor around him, without exasperating them; without exacting from them rent they could not pay; and without putting them in the workhouse, which they abhorred; and so long as parishes could keep themselves clear, so long they would. But the moment they were joined to a neighbouring parish which was deluging the country with paupers, that became a hopeless case. He had 200 cottages, and he would give them to any one who would keep them in repair. As to the scheme of union rating, there was no intelligible principle in it. There was a principle in universal rating, but none in union rating, and they could not by talking substitute a no principle for a principle, even if a bad one. There being a principle in universal rating, he would, hating it as he did, vote for it at once, rather than go on in this way by degrees towards it. The advantage of the old system was, that all the people meeting together every Sunday at their parish church knew one another, knew their mutual distresses and wants, and could assist the overseers in detecting imposture. Moreover, the clergymen were by law the overseers and guardians of the poor, and they, he thought, had shamefully abandoned their charge in never demonstrating against the now poor-law as
912
they ought. They had abandoned the poor, and now the poor were abandoning them. But, instead of the feelings and principles which were bound up with the old system, it was now made a mere matter of geography, and it mattered not whether the compasses were struck in one place or another. Under the new state of things, there was no person in the union whose heart was drawn out towards the poor; and it was nothing but a vile system of money saving on one side, and of cheating on the other. He disliked this Bill very much; but if the right hon. Gentleman persisted in pressing it, he must go into Committee and endeavour to render the measure as good as it could be made.
MR. V. SMITHsaid, that the hon. Member who had just sat down, had, while deprecating agitation on any question, used the language and the terms of agitation as regarded what he had called the Somerset-house system of treating man as an abstraction. Whatever rules and regulations had been adopted in respect to the administration of the poor-law, Parliament were as responsible for as the Commissioners themselves. He (Mr. V. Smith) could not support the Motion of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire; for there were three or four principles contained in this Bill which were deserving of consideration in Committee. He would not say he did not entertain doubts with respect to some of them; but the whole subject was difficult and complicated, and required the most careful consideration. But, although he was not prepared to vote with the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, he was at the same time convinced that the Bill would not pass this Session; and, after the opinions which had been given by Gentlemen who were so well acquainted with rural affairs, he was almost disposed to recommend his right hon. Friend to withdraw the Bill for the present. For some five Sessions of Parliament the House had been attempting to deal with that important question, the law of settlement, but without producing any advantage, because, instead of grasping some great principle at once, they had been trying to effect their object bit by bit. Although he gave great credit to his right hon. Friend for his ability, and thought that his exertions had been of great utility, he still thought that the Bill now introduced was not of so ample and comprehensive a character as to be considered a final settlement of the question. There were four questions

913
which the discussion on the present Bill necessarily raised, and one of these was vagrancy; it certainly appeared to him, that throwing vagrancy on the unions did not meet the cases which it was necessary to meet in the manner in which it was desirable to meet them. This question of vagrancy was not perhaps so clear as it was generally supposed to be. If roads went through a parish, and vagrants frequented those roads, though the parish might suffer from the vagrants, it gained from the roads. He would put it to hon. Members to say, did not such a parish so circumstanced derive compensation from the existence of the roads, and on account of its position? A parish might suffer under the apparent ill-luck of having a railway running through it; but it had likewise many advantages from that circumstance. He thought that parochial tithes were burdensome, and that it would be much better to have their range extended over a wider area. Parochial tithes and parochial rates had the effect of preventing men being employed out of their own parishes; and such was the strength of this feeling that, generally speaking, the people at large were too ready to consider that the interests of the parish were the first thing to be attended to, and thus the employer was crippled in his operations, while the poor man found it difficult to obtain employment. From such causes resulted a slovenly mode of doing work, and insufficient payment even for inferior labour. Looking then both at tithes and payment for the poor, he should say that there ought to be a wider area of rate-ability; though he wished to see settlement put an end to, he by no means desired a national rate, because he thought that the effect of a national rate would be to remove all efficient supervision. As to the present measure, it could not be regarded otherwise than as a temporary matter; and even at best Ministers could hardly consider it one of great urgency, for they must be conscious that it could not pass in the present Session; and he hoped that in leaving it to a subsequent Session they would produce a Bill that would deal largely with the questions to which he had referred.
MR. BANKESsaid, whether or not Ministers thought proper to endeavour to proceed with the other stages of the Bill, it was a measure which could not pass in the present Session. The Bill was one of considerable importance as regarded the
914
ratepayers, but it was of much greater importance as regarded the poor, for it involved the question of the parochial care of the poor. In his opinion they would never arrive at a satisfactory result till they altered the size of the unions, and he thought the original Poor Law Commissioners were guilty of a great mistake in making so many of the unions most inconveniently large. Doubtless small parishes might be so combined as to render one union of not greater size than a large parish. On the present occasion he felt indisposed to press upon the attention of hon. Members any argument on the one side or the other, for he thought not only that the Bill ought not to pass in the present Session of Parliament, but that it ought not to be discussed in so thin a House as the present. Considering, then, the period of the Session, he must ask them should the Bill proceed further during the present year? Something had been said—indeed, much had been said on the subject of union rating—that was a largo question, and might lead to the still larger question of national rating; a species of rating which he did not hope the farmers and yeomanry would oppose. Of course, if there were to be a national rating there would he an attempt to subject funded property to the expense of maintaining the poor. Before he sat down he wished distinctly to say that he could not give his consent to the Poor Removal Act being made permanent. Now, at the end of two years, there did not appear the same utility in its provisions that there might have been in the first few months after it passed; at the same time, though he did not wish it to exist as a permanent measure, he did think it might be advantageously continued for another year, when the people in the towns would have had sufficient experience of it. He might further add, that the Bill appeared to him to create a very extraordinary tribunal, which might or might not act, and to which an appeal might or might not be brought. Against this part of the Bill he entertained very strong objections, and for the various reasons which he had stated, he should act with his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire in case the Bill should get beyond the next stage. Debate again adjourned.

STATE OF IRELAND
Mr. MONSELLbegged to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department

915
relative to the rumours which had reached the metropolis that day. He would only ask what accounts the right hon. Gentleman had received from Ireland?
SIR G. GREYhad great satisfaction in stating that he had every reason to believe that the alarming accounts which appeared in the late editions of the morning papers, and which were transmitted by electric telegraph from Liverpool, of an insurrection having actually broken out in the south of Ireland, were totally destitute of foundation.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that if in the present state of Ireland any partial outbreak should unfortunately occur, it was reasonable to suppose that very great excitement would prevail everywhere; and, under these circumstances, it would be the imperative duty of every loyal subject connected with Ireland to place himself at the disposal of the Government for the purpose of rendering himself useful either in opposing insurrection or tranquillising the minds of the community. He therefore asked whether it was the wish of the Government that Irish Gentlemen, and particularly Irish Members of Parliament having influence in Ireland, should leave this country and go to their own respective districts; and, if so, what course the Government would then propose to take with respect to Irish business in that House?
SIR G. GREYreplied, that several Gentlemen connected with Ireland had called on him in the course of the day, and expressed their willingness, in consequence of the accounts which had been published, to proceed immediately to Ireland, and render all the service in their power for the maintenance of tranquillity. Though he believed that the information transmitted by the telegraph was totally destitute of foundation, yet in the state of the country where this insurrection was reported to have broken out, he thought that Irish gentlemen of property, influence, character, and weight, could not do better than proceed to Ireland, and in their respective neghbourhoods exert themselves for the maintenance of order. Under these circumstances he was authorised by his noble Friend to say that the Government would not immediately proceed with Irish business.

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
On the Order of the Day for going into Committee,
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he considered this a most partial measure, inasmuch as the city of London and other boroughs, the constituencies of which were amongst the most corrupt in the country, were exempted from its operation; and he would therefore oppose the Bill clause by clause. It was not unusual, he believed, for hon. Gentlemen holding high situations—Under Secretaries of State, for instance—to promise electors situations in the Customs or Excise for their sons, and situations as necessary women or dressers for the female members of their families. If this Bill received the sanction of Parliament no man would be secure from the charge of corrupt practices, although he might be perfectly innocent. He was aware that he might be charged with offering a factious opposition to the measure; but he considered that he was justified in opposing a Bill of this nature by every means in his power. He (Col. Sibthorp) begged to move as an Amendment that the Bill be committed that day three months.
The SOLICITOR GENERALthought that the greater part of the observations of the hon. and gallant Member would be more in place in Committee on the Bill. He trusted, therefore, that they would be allowed to go into Committee on the Bill, as the hon. and gallant Member would have other opportunities, at future stages of the Measure, of persevering in his opposition to it, should he then think fit to do so.
MR. ANSTEYsaid, that the objections to the measure were not objections of detail, but of principle and substance; and no more amendments in Committee could set right a Bill which was open to opposition on such grounds. How could it be said that boroughs—and such were included in this Bill—could be guilty of corrupt practices, when Committees had reported of the Members for them that they had merely been guilty by their agents of treating? He admitted that treating might be carried on upon so large and costly a scale as, in some cases, to amount to bribery; but acts of that kind answered for themselves. Harmless acts of treating were not illegal at common law; but they were now considered wrong, because prohibited by an Act of Parliament. Why, this was poisoning morality at its very source. But if harmless treating was to be designated as "corrupt practices," what designation was to be given to the bribery of the Whigs of Derby, and of the

917
Radicals of Leicester? But boroughs were introduced into the schedule attached to this Bill, with respect to which Committees of that House had reported that further inquiry was necessary; others, with regard to which it was not reported that such inquiry was necessary; and others, in reference to which Committees had reported that further inquiry was not necessary. The hon. Member showed that this was the case, by reference to some of the boroughs named in the Bill. The Bill, too, was an ex post facto law. What course should Parliament take? Was it intended that the decision of the Commissioner should be upheld and acted upon, unless a strong-ease was made to the country? His objection to the Bill was not on account of its details, but of its principle. The second section gave such plenary powers to the Commissioners that it removed them entirely from the jurisdiction of the House. The fourth section empowered the Commissioners to revise the decisions of Election Committees. Those who had borne the inconvenience and enormous expense of a contest before an Election Committee, were to be afterwards subjected to the annoyance of having a decision in their favour reversed. The third section empowered the Commissioners to inquire not only into the mal-practices of electors, but whether such practices were in conformity with the customs of the place. The Commissioners had first to inquire what was custom; and this would involve them in such antiquarian researches as, at five guineas a day, would be the source of no small profit to the learned Gentleman engaged in the inquiry. This mischievous Bill would prove a fertile source of expense to the country, and also cause a delay of justice. A suffcient number of learned and competent men could not be found to act as Commissioners. The deficiency would have to be supplied by the appointment of parties who were unsuccessful in their profession; and these men would have to decide on the character of Members of that hon. House. A few unknown barristers, in whose selection the House had no voice, would be invested with the power of inflicting the severest pains and penalties on their fellow subjects. While the Speaker was to authorise parties to prosecute an inquiry into an election, no provision was made for hearing the parties interested. This was very disgraceful indeed. It was disgraceful for those who always had the name of liberty on their lips, and who, when they
918
sought to oppress the weak, did it in the name of human progress—it was disgraceful for them to cause such interruption. The eleventh clause gave absolute power to the Commissioners to summon witnesses, and examine them without any of those restrictions which the constitution had interposed to prevent breaches of faith and personal honour. The spiritual relation of clergyman and penitent, and also that of lawyer and client, were to afford no protection to the witness. He was hound to answer every question, or be subjected to such penalties as were inflicted by the superior courts of Westminster Hall on persons refusing to give evidence. The second clause gave an indemnity against future prosecution for bribery, perjury, &c, to all who might come forward and give evidence under this Bill. [An Hon. MEMBER: Divide, divide!] No, the House shall not divide; and I speak in the spirit of prophecy when I say so. This Bill offered a direct premium to guilty men to come forward and give evidence, not of the truth, but of such facts as they might think fit to adduce; and then it was enacted that, after they had once satisfied that condition of giving evidence, right or wrong, true or false, it mattered not to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. Then, forsooth, they were to be exempted from all liability to prosecution—not only for acts to which their evidence related, but for all practices whatsoever, however guilty in character, or however openly proved against them in the existing courts of criminal jurisdiction, which might in any manner relate to the previous election. So that if, for instance, in the case of Horsham, the guilty party came forward and said, "I am the party that bribed—I bought and sold the electors," it would then be impossible to prosecute him. No notice was to be taken of the truth or falsehood of the evidence. He (Mr. Anstey) was justified, therefore, in describing this measure to be but a servile copy of the Bill of the hon. Member for the Flint boroughs. Clause seventeen referred to the expenses of the inquiries; it provided that every Commissioner under this Act should be paid at the rate of 5l. 5s. every day that he should be actually employed in conducting any inquiries under the Act, over and above his travelling and other expenses. The Commissioners would have to lay before the Treasury a statement of the number of days that they had been employed, together with an account of

919
their travelling and other expenses; and then the Treasury was to make an order for the payment of the same. Now, there was no provision in the Bill that the "travelling and other expenses" should he properly and necessarily incurred—no limit was assigned to what might be a wasteful and profligate expenditure; not that he attached very much importance to any such limitation. The eighteenth clause prevented the appointment of any counsel for the defence. The inquiry might be, and probably would be, exparte. If it were to be so, then there would be a consistent tenor of injustice, whereat hon. Members who valued uniformity over and above every thing else, would no doubt rejoice. This Act would, notwithstanding any declaration in itself to the contrary, be a private and not a public Act; and the result would be a series of actions at law, and conflicts of the Judges with that House, such as they had witnessed when, amid the cheers of Members occupying seats on the Ministerial side of the House, it was proposed to summon to their bar, and commit to the Tower, the venerable Judges of the land for having duly administered justice. He concluded by saying that he would go with his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sibthorp) into the lobby against the further progress of this Bill
MR. HUDSON, having taken part with his hon. and gallant Friend in opposing this Bill when it was last before the House, begged to say that, on the present occasion, he would altogether abstain from voting upon it. As he found that, in offering his opposition to this Bill in its present state, he differed from those hon. Gentlemen with whom he was in the habit of acting, he felt that he had no right any longer to obstruct its progress. But his objections to the principles of this Bill were as strong as ever. He was perfectly satisfied that this Bill would confer no benefit upon, whilst it would introduce into, all the boroughs to which it related scenes of unpleasantness and heartburnings. It was impossible for it to produce any good effect. He thought the hon. and learned Solicitor General would have acted wisely had he listened to the few observations which fell from his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lincoln, who suggested that, rather than look for any practical and beneficial results under this Bill, he should apply his legal mind and judgment to the amendment of the law, which had been found inefficient in its operation,
920
and endangered the seat of every Member in that House. If he had set about some such definite measure as that, he was satisfied that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have accomplished the object which he had in view, viz., the prevention of practices which no one in that House could justify. A long inquiry had taken place before a Committee of that House with regard to his (Mr. Hudson's) own election for the city of York. And what was the result? The production of a large blue book. With regard to the evidence given therein, no proceedings were afterwards taken. The effect of that inquiry was to spread dissension throughout the city of York. Men were fetched from York, who reported private conversations held with him—a practice which the Solicitor General himself would be the first to reprobate. And he (Mr. Hudson) saw no protection against similar mal-practices being suffered to take place with regard to the boroughs named in this Bill. Private conversations at the dinner table, and elsewhere, were reported to the Committee on the York election; his banking book—nothing was too sacred to be exposed to the world through the medium of the Election Committee. If they wished to put an end to corrupt practices at elections, let them bring forward some measure embodying a definite and general principle. Why should they seek to visit a few boroughs with punishment, and allow corruption and bribery to have full play throughout the rest of the kingdom? He could not see with what fairness, or semblance of fairness, the right hon. Gentleman could push on this Bill. In London it was alleged that corrupt practices took place at the last election; and surely London, too, ought to form one of the names in the schedule of the Bill. It was the poor and miserable—"the runners," as they were called—men who followed the candidate about, and were obliged to cheer whether the Members made a good speech or a bad one—that would feel the penalties of the Bill most. If they did not allow refreshments to the poor voters, the practical effect of the Bill would be to disfranchise all but the wealthy voters, for the poor man would not walk a long distance merely to give his vote, unable, as he often had been, to provide refreshments for himself. The Bill did not grapple with the influence, the unjust influence, of the opulent, and the noble, and the powerful. Their legislation was entirely directed against the poor man. It was well known that the hon. Member

921
for the West Riding and his friends had resorted to the system of creating faggot votes, by first buying a piece of land, and then dividing it; and by this means they had carried several elections. This fact showed that it was not by giving refreshments only that many elections bad been overborne. It was a system which influenced the votes, not in a legitimate, proper, and constitutional manner. Again, he could name boroughs in his own neighbourhood, the representation of which was really vested in a noble Lord. Was not this a greater violence to the constitution than the receipt by a poor man of his refreshments? The object, however, was to disfranchise the poor freemen, by whom the Reform Bill had in reality been carried, through the means of a specious inquiry. And what would be the practical result? The Solicitor General had not ventured to answer this question; but he ought to do so, and not quite depend upon his majorities. What would the hon. Gentleman do with Horsham and Derby? What would be the practical effect of it in these boroughs? It would have been fairer to the House if the Solicitor General had told them what would be the real result of the proposed inquiry? People could not be made pure by Act of Parliament, He would conclude by again Raying, that he objected to the provisions of the Bill, although, after the majorities which had already maintained it, he would not now vote upon the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend.
MR. URQUHARTcalled upon the Attorney General to answer two questions. The first was, whether it was in the power of the House of Commons to delegate its anthoriy to a second body; and whether a Committee of this House to which such power would be delegated, could again delegate that power to a third body, a Commission? The second question he had to ask was, whether this Bill was a private or a public Bill; and whether or no it would not be treated as a private Bill in courts of law; and further, if the decisions of the courts of law might not by this Bill be brought into collision with those of this House? He regarded the measure as partial, insidious, and hypocritical, and it was his determination to support the Amendment.
The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 96; Noes 2: Majority 94.
[It will be sufficient to insert the Noes.]

List of the NOES.

Hodgson, W. N.

Urquhart, D.

TELLERS.

Sibthorp, col.

Anstey, T. C.

House in Committee.
On Clause 2,
MR. HENLEY MR. HENLEY moved as an Amendment the omission of the words "empowering a Committee to examine sitting Members, Candidates, and their Agents." It was not fair, under such circumstances, to subject Gentlemen to severe cross-examination.
The Committee divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question;—Ayes 110; Noes 22; Majority 88.
[We give only the Noes.]

List of the NOES.

Anstey, T. C.

Henley, J. W.

Bankes, G.

Hood, Sir A.

Beresford, W.

Mullings, J. R.

Berkpley, hon. H. F.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Carew, W. H. P.

Packe, C. W.

Christy, S.

Sandars, G.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Urquhart, D.

Dodd, G.

Waddington, H. S.

Farnham, E. B.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Floyer, J.

Godson, R.

TELLERS.

Gwyn, H.

Sibthorp, Col.

Hall, Col.

Hobhouse, T. B.

MR. ANSTRYsaid, that as it was then twelve o'clock, and as there were fifteen other Orders of the Day to be gone through, he begged to move that the Chairman do now report progress.
The Committee divided:—Aves 2; Noes, 117: Majority 115.

List of the AYES.

Anstey, T. C.

Gwyn, H.

TELLERS.

Sibthorp, Col.

Urquhart, D.

After some further conversation, House resumed. Committee to sit again.
House adjourned at a quarter past Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Highland Roads and Bridges (Scotland); Charity Trusts Regulation.
Reported.—Prisons; Ecclesiastical Patronage Suits Compromise (Ireland)
3a and passed:—Public Health; West India Islands Relief.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Guardians of the Barnet Union, in favour of a more Extended System of Emigration.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
LORD CAMPBELL LORD CAMPBELL moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
The BISHOP of LONDONcould not allow this Bill to pass without expressing his great satisfaction at the result of their Lordships' concession to the wishes of several Members of their Lordships' House in referring this Bill to a Select Committee. That Select Committee had laboured assiduously and fulfilled the promise which was given to their Lordships, that there should he no unnecessary delay in submitting an improved measure to their Lordships. He considered they had improved the measure in many important respects; and that it would go down to the other House in such a form as that no reasonable objection could be made to it. He considered, indeed, that a Bill more important to the welfare of the public had not been passed for many years. He could not help alluding to one amendment—which, he trusted, he might be allowed to call an improvement—which he himself had the honour of proposing to the Select Committee, and which had met with their concurrence—he meant an amendment to the effect that in certain cases, where it should be shown, by comparison with past periods, that a more than average rate of mortality was taking place, the General Board might interfere without any application

895
being made to them. He thought that when it was their wish to improve the sanitary condition of the country, the introduction of such a clause was a decided improvement to the Bill. In his opinion, the present might be called the Poor Man's Bill. He had always held that in any regulations for the improvement of the sanitary condition of the country the welfare of the labouring part of the population ought to receive especial attention, for in those matters the rich would take care of themselves. He was therefore thankful to their Lordships for having passed so important and salutary a measure.
Bill read 3a and passed.

THE STATE OF IRELAND.
LORD BROUGHAM: My Lords, I wish to ask my noble Friend opposite a question. Your Lordships must be aware that in times like the present, when every sort of subterfuge is resorted to to excite public curiosity, and to practise upon the public credulity, every well-thinking party of the community has a right to expect from our hands that we should protect them from the effects of those alarms which it is the principal object of such speculators upon public curiosity and credulity to create. Now, my Lords, I saw an account to-day which I believe there is no foundation whatever for, as to what is said to have taken place in Ireland. I must, however, say I was not very much alarmed myself, because the statements were so overdone, and so grossly exaggerated, particularly in respect to the accounts of the troops being defeated, and of their not having done their duty. I knew very well that there could be no foundation whatever for them—that it was quite impossible they could be There. There were circumstances connected with those statements which utterly discredited the whole story. Looking to the date of this intelligence, it is quite clear that if this news was known in Dublin yesterday—of course if that were the case, Her Majesty's Government would be in possession of the information quite as early as any which could be received from the disseminators of the news. I hope my noble Friend will excuse me for asking whether I am not quite correct in that opinion, and whether this intelligence has not been grossly exaggerated, if not altogether an unfounded story? I am afraid of the mischievous consequences of gathering together the materials of disorder and discontent. An outbreak might thus at any moment
896
occur. I should not be alarmed at any such outbreak taking place, however much I might lament the consequences. I hope, however, that the public will not be alarmed if even there be some little foundation for this alleged outbreak.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that his noble and learned Friend was quite right in stating that very great ingenuity was manifested at present in the invention and propagation of rumours. With respect to the reports to which the noble and learned Lord had referred, as to outbreaks in Ireland, he had the satisfaction to state that there was a probability—amounting almost to certainty—that they were altogether unfounded, or that at least they rested on the slightest possible foundation. He assured the House that the Government were in possession of a despatch from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, dated three o'clock yesterday afternoon, which came to them by a special messenger, and which contained nothing relating to any outbreak. He might also mention, that subsequent to the arrival of that messenger they had received a letter, dated six o'clock—[Lord BROUGHAM: From Dublin?] Yes, from Dublin—and that letter was equally silent with respect to such an event. He, therefore, confidently believed that nothing of the kind, at least to the extent stated, had up to that moment occurred. He was sorry he could not state to his noble and learned Friend that there was not great probability of outbreaks occurring in the particular quarters to which rumour had already attributed them. It was known that the leaders had left Dublin and betaken themselves to those quarters; and it was also known that they were delivering treasonable and inflammatory speeches, calling upon the people immediately to rise and stand by what they called the cause of Ireland. It was very probable, therefore, that there might be some outbreak; but he trusted it would be attended with consequences far different from what had been reported.
The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRY, as an Irishman, begged to say that he did not go along with certain observations which had been made on that (the Opposition) side of the House, as to the delay on the part of Her Majesty's Government in bringing forward severe measures for Ireland. He thought they had been perfectly right in exercising, up to the last moment, every kind of leniency, with the view of bringing the deluded people back to a sense

897
of their duty. The noble Lord at the head of the Government of Ireland had, he thought, conducted his administration with great prudence and dexterity. He had wisely given these unfortunate people rope enough; and had, up to the present moment, it appeared, found means to arrest their violent proceedings. When other portions of Ireland were in a disaffected state, they could, at all events, derive some consolation from the fact that at least the north of Ireland was loyal, and could be well depended on. Even should they be deluged in civil war, the north would be found well attached to British connexion, and would save this country from anything like foreign interference. He thought, however, the Government had incurred great responsibility in consenting to the repeal of the Arms Act in Ireland; for he believed that if that Act had continued in force, the country would not now have been in its present condition.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: Perhaps the House will allow me to state that I have just received information dated seven o'clock, Dublin, an hour later than the former communication to which I have referred; and this letter states that nothing whatever has as yet occurred of an outbreak. It is, therefore, totally impossible, my Lords, that these events so rumoured could have taken place.
LORD BROUGHAM: I have been speaking to a friend who came over from Dublin in the last packet, and he had beard nothing of the kind alluded to until be arrived in Liverpool.

THE LAW OF MARRIAGE.
The BISHOP of LONDON, referring to the Report of the Commission on the Law of Marriage which had been laid upon the table of the other House, begged to ask the noble Lord the President of the Council, whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared to sanction the introduction of a Bill into either House of Parliament on that subject during the present Session; or whether they would not rather deem it expedient at once to delay the consideration of the question till next Session? If delayed till next Session, the Bill ought then to be brought in as early as possible, because it would necessarily give occasion to a deal of discussion, there being much difference of opinion on it among the clergy and laity. At all events, it was a question of the gravest importance, and ought not be discussed at this late period
898
of the Session, when Parliament had more business on hand than they could well dispose of.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that this question had not been taken up by Her Majesty's Government at all, but by a learned individual, a Member of the other House of Parliament (Mr. S. Wortley), entirely unconnected with the Government, but who was well qualified by his learning and talents for dealing with this difficult subject. That right hon. Gentleman had, he understood, given notice of his intention to introduce a measure on the subject; and he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) was not prepared to say that Her Majesty's Government would refuse their assent to the introduction of such a Bill even in the present Session of Parliament, although he agreed with his right rev. Friend that in the present state of public business, and with the multitude of Bills now before Parliament, it was very undesirable that it should be passed, or even discussed, in the present Session.

CHARITY TRUST REGULATION BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLORthen moved the Second Reading of the Charity Trust Regulation Bill. The object of the measure was to remove some acknowledged inconvenience and difficulties which bad arisen in the administration of charitable trusts. When the Municipal Corporation Reform Bill was carried, Parliament decided that charitable trusts previously administered by those municipal bodies should be removed from under the control of the corporations. Then the difficulty was felt with respect to the authority to which those trusts should he transferred; a contest arose as to who should appoint trutees for the administration of those charities. It was necessary that a proposition should be made to meet the difficulty. The trustees who had been appointed had in the meantime ceased to act in consequence of death or of removal; and the necessity had arisen for making application to the Court of Chancery for the purpose of filling up the number of trustees in a variety of cases. As the law at present stood, there was no means of filling up those vacancies except by the very expensive process of applying to the Court of Chancery. It seemed expedient, then, to found some jurisdiction which should exorcise the power of nominating trustees without incurring the necessity of applying to the Court of Chancery. Another

899
evil was, that there were a great many very small charities which could not afford to come to the Court of Chancery. It was necessary that these should be subjected to a certain supervision for the purpose of ascertaining whether the funds were applied to the purposes for which they were intended. The law afforded those charities no protection at present. Of charities under 30 l. a year, equivalent to a capital of 1,000 l. in the funds at 3 per cent, there were 23,746; but it might be said that there were 28,304 which could hardly be said to have any remedy at all in regard to the appointment of trustees. Now, the attention of the Government had been directed to the judges of the county courts. By the County Courts Act, sixty local judges had been appointed. The operation of those courts had been most beneficial—beneficial, indeed, to an extent which nobody had expected. The experience of the last year had been more favourable than that even of the first year. From November, 1846, to November, 1847, the sixty judges had disposed of 429,415 suits; and when it was recollected that, for the great majority of these suits, there was no other practical remedy—for the parties were virtually debarred from appealing to the higher courts—their benefit would be at once admitted. The sum received during the same period amounted to 600,559 l., including fees and sums payable by the losers of suits. The fees alone amounted to 203,318 l.—a sum such as made it the duty of those who had the jurisdiction, namely, the Lords of the Treasury, very much to reduce those fees. The increase, comparing the last year with the first, had been such that it appeared quite possible to reduce the fees one-half. The object, then, of this Bill was to provide that charities under 30 l. a year should be subjected to the jurisdiction of the judges of the county courts, without altering the law which was applicable to those charities at present. The greater part of the clauses applied to that object; but there were other objects for which it had been thought proper also to make provision. One of these was, to get rid of the difficulty arising from the absence of legal estate, and to provide that, by order of the county court or the Court of Chancery, the legal estate should be vested in the treasurer of the county court. It was proposed that the report of the Charitable Trusts Commissioners, which contained a statement of the value of the different charities,
900
should be conclusive as to the charities which should come under the operation of the measure. There was also a clause enabling the judge of the county court or the Court of Chancery to transfer stock in the name of the treasurer of the county court. It would also be provided that the parties administering charity funds should annually bring their balance-sheet to the clerk of the county court. It was also proposed that small trusts for educational purposes should be under the jurisdiction of the county courts, but subject to appeal to the Educational Committee of the Privy Council. He had now stated the provisions of the Bill, which, as he had already observed, would provide a remedy for many anomalies and evils that now existed in the administration of trusts amounting only to a small sum; and he would therefore move that the Bill be read a second time.
LORD REDESDALEhad no other objection to the second reading of the Bill beyond what arose from the time at which it had been brought forward. He regretted that a measure of so much importance should not have been introduced at an earlier period of the Session; it had been laid on their Lordships' table only on the 13th of July. What hope was there that a Bill dealing with so great a variety of interests could now be satisfactorily proceeded with? The number of charities under 30 l. a year was very great, and existed all over the country; and therefore he hoped that a measure involving questions so varied and extensive would not be persisted in this Session. As to the charitable funds for educational purposes, he must say that he did not think the parties to whom their management was to be intrusted by the Bill were well adapted for such a duty. He thought also that any single individual having the power to appear before the judge and calling for inquiry, would have the effect of involving these small charities in greater expenses than they were able to bear. The whole question, however, was one which, no doubt, called for the deepest consideration; and for that very reason he hoped the noble and learned Lord would not attempt to pass the Bill during the present Session. The Bill might have been brought in at the commencement of the Session, and therefore they had a right to complain that it had not made its appearance till July. He thought this was a good constitutional ground of objection, and therefore, if he had no other reason,

901
this would warrant him in objecting to the measure being proceeded with this year.
The BISHOP of LLANDAFFthought the Bill in its general purpose would he found to be beneficial; and as he believed that small trusts would be bettor managed under its provisions than they now wore, he hoped it would meet the umanimous concurrence of his right rev. Brethren, He must say, however, that, considering what the noble and learned Lord had said as to the importance of the Bill, they had a right to ask how it came to pass that it had so long been delayed? He would not now enter upon the general question; but he must say that he cordially approved of the appeal to the Committee of Privy Council with reference to the small charitable educational trusts. He believed it would be found that the greater part of those trusts were left by the donors for educational purposes in accordance with the principles of the Church of England; and it was desirable that the Committee of the Privy council should see that they were administered in accordance with those wishes.
The EARL of HARROWBYconsidered it an object of great necessity that some such Bill as the present should be carried; but at the same time he must concur in the observations made by the noble Earl, that it was unfortunate the measure should have been so late in being introduced. The clause having reference to educational trusts was, in his opinion, by far the most important in the Bill; and considering that the subject of education was one upon which the greatest difference of opinion existed, and looking to the difficulty of consulting the feelings and interests of those who would be affected by the measure, he was afraid they were not likely, at this period of the Session, to come to any satisfactory result. They must bear in mind that these small trusts for educational purposes were spread all over the country, and that the question would be a very difficult one indeed to settle.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, a Bill containing the greater part of the provisions in the present measure was brought in by him last Session, and therefore there had been time to consider it for the last twelve months. No objection was then made to the Bill, and he did not anticipate that there would be any on the present occasion. Indeed, he had heard no objection to the general principle of the Bill; and the only point on which there appeared
902
to be a difference of opinion was on that relating to the educational trusts. The noble Lord (Lord Redesdale), though be appeared to differ from the proposal laid down in the Bill, did not suggest any other course which ought to be followed. There was no doubt that the educational question was one of extreme importance, and beset with difficulties, and yet it was one they must deal with. It had been said these charity funds were spread all over the country; but he regarded that as a reason why they should be as speedily as possible dealt with, and why a remedy should be applied for their better regulation.
Bill read 2a.
House adjourned.