Sitting of 19 May 1848

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—1° Administration of Criminal Justice; Maxwell's Restitution.
2° Maxwell's Restitution.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Cork, for Repeal of the Union with Ireland.—By Mr. Vernon Smith, from Northampton, for Adoption of Universal Suffrage.—By Mr. Gardner, from Quorndon (Leicester), for Abolition of Church Rates.—By Mr. William Evans, from the Baptist Congregation of St. Mary's Gate Chapel, Derby, for the Discouragement of Idolatry (India).—By Mr. Christopher, from Donnington (Lincoln), and several other Places, for Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. Adair, from the Presbytery of Ballymena (Ireland), and several other Places, in favour of the Places of Worship Sites (Scotland) Bill.—By Sir H. F. Davie, from the Town Council of Dunbar, for Abolition of University Tests (Scotland).—By Mr. Alexander Hope, from Maidstone, for Repeal of the Duty on Attorneys' Certificates. By Sir R. Peel, from Benjamin Rattray, and Others, for Reduction of Duty on Colonial Sugars.—By Mr. Bright,
1212
from Benjamin Peckett, of Dorton, complaining of Exemption of Woods from Parochial Burthens.—By Lord Ashley, from Ministers of the Presbyterian Church in England, in Synod Assembled, against the Diplomatic Relations, Court of Rome, Bill.—By Mr. Brotherton, from Salford (Lancaster), in favour of Secular Education.—By Mr. Cole, from Enniskillen, for Encouragement to Schools in Connexion with the Church Education Society (Ireland).—From Householders of Dublin, for Facilitating Ejectments.—By Mr. Cole, from Fermanagh, for Alteration of the Imprisonment for Debt (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. Brotherton, from Richard M'Cormick, of No. 52, Devonshire Street, Hulme, Manchester, for Inquiry into his Case.—By Sir H. F. Davie, from Dunbar, for Ameliorating the Condition of the Parochial Schools (Scotland).—By Mr. Sharman Crawford, from Rochdale, for Alteration of, and by Lord Ashley, from Bath, in favour of, the Public Health Bill.—By Mr. Moody, from Yeovil (Somerset), in favour of Remedies against the Hundred Bill.—By Mr. Smollett, from Commissioners of Supply, for Completion of the Survey of Scotland.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
House in Committee on the Public Health Bill.
On Clause 19, which regulates the qualification of electors and scale of voting, being proposed,
CAPTAIN PECHELL objected to the principle of giving an individual a number of votes in proportion to the amount of property possessed by him. He protested against the unconstitutional system of plurality of votes, being incorporated in the present measure.
VISCOUNT MORPETH said, it was true that the principle was borrowed from the Poor Law Act, and he thought it a just one.
MR. HENLEY said, that he had not yet been able to determine what portion of the expense to be incurred under the Act would fall upon the owner of property, and what portion upon the occupier. At present it appeared doubtful whether the sewers rate (which now was a landlord's tax) would not henceforth be a tenant's tax. In that case it would be only fair to give all occupiers a vote. At the same time, he thought it would be desirable to establish a scale of voting in proportion to property, otherwise the poorer classes might defeat the object of the Bill, in order to relieve themselves from the burden of rating.
MR. HUME reminded the Committee that, by this Bill, a poor man was not eligible as a member of the local board, therefore it became more incumbent on Parliament to give him an equal power with his richer neighbour to vote for the election of others; but by conferring a plurality of votes on men of property, the poor man's vote would be rendered valueless. The municipal system which had been adopted had worked

1213
most beneficially and harmoniously; where all persons rated were entitled equally to one vote. The same system should be pursued with regard to sanitary regulations.
MR. GRANGER said, that by this clause, the ratepayers and owners of property of a rateable value amounting to 100 l., and less than 150 l., should have three votes. He would move that the words "one hundred and fifty pounds" be struck out, and the words "two hundred pounds" be inserted.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL observed, that as the chief business of the local boards would be the construction of a sewerage, it was highly desirable that the holders of property should have a potential voice in the matter, because they would take care, for the sake of their own interests, that the money laid out should be expended for a permanent work, and one that would not require to be performed again. If the small occupiers had to decide what works should be executed, they would only do what was necessary to be done at the time. The principle of a plurality of votes was part of the poor-law, of which no complaint had been made, though complaints had been directed against the central authority.
House in Committee.
MR. MUNTZ had heard a great deal about this Bill being a Bill for the benefit of the poor man; but he wished to know why so much pains were taken to keep the management of matters in the hands of the rich?
VISCOUNT MORPETH observed, that although, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, a central board could not be dispensed with, they thought that the local boards might be so constituted as to give as little occasion as possible for interference by central authority. He must say, that although he had received many communications from the country on the subject of this measure, he had not received any remonstrance against this particular clause.
SIR W. CLAY observed, that in corporate towns the boards of health would be elected by single votes, while in towns not incorporated plurality of voting would prevail. Nothing could be more unpopular among the large constituency which he represented than the latter plan.
VISCOUNT DUNCAN opposed the clause as it stood. He saw no reason why persons, under this Bill, should not possess votes in the same manner and upon the same terms
1214
that they did under the Municipal Corporations Act.
LORD J. RUSSELL said, that the noble Lord the Member for Bath seemed to deny that the present measure was a poor man's Bill; but he appeared to forget that the question before the Committee was not one as to political franchise or political voting, but one which was highly important to the public health; and the question which the Committee had to decide was, whether or not there should be a plurality of votes or merely a right of single voting. Now, he did not see it was much to the purpose to state what was the practice in Scotland, but what was likely to work well here. Many hon. Members then present would recollect, that in the year 1817 the existing state of the poor-laws attracted a great deal of serious attention, and that a Committee had been appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the whole subject. Mr. Sturges Bourne was the chairman of that Committee; and the report of that Committee recommended that plurality of votes should be resorted to. The maladministration of the poor-law had been much complained of, and it was considered that the advantage which a plurality of votes would give to property, must have a tendency to correct that maladministration. In the year 1818, Parliament adopted the recommendation made by the Committee over which Mr. Sturges Bourne presided; and from that time forward in every revision which the poor-law underwent, that principle was recognised and acted on. Even the last occasion upon which any change was made—namely, in the year 1844, the same provision was continued which had originally been taken up in the year 1818. It appeared to him that the argument of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had been misapprehended; he argued that persons of property were interested in the permanency of public works; they were interested that works executed on their own properties should be substantial and likely to be durable, but small occupiers having no permanent interest, were indifferent upon such subjects.
MR. BROTHERTON said, his constituents were not interested in the matter, because, being a corporate borough, they were not affected by the clause. He merely rose to state, that the owner would pay at least five times as much as the occupier. If there were a street in any town not sewered or paved, or if a new street were

1215
made, all the expenses were laid in the Bill upon the owner. Until the street was completed, it was not looked upon as a highway, and the occupier was not liable to any payments in respect to its sewerage or maintenance.
MR. WAWN claimed the vote of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton) if he wished to maintain his character for honesty. The hon. Member said, this clause did not concern his constituency, because their town was a corporate one; now he called upon him to give the same privileges to the town he represented, which had not a corporation.
CAPTAIN PECHELL wished the House to remember that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had declared that the present Bill was not a poor man's Bill. [Lord J. RUSSELL: I said no such thing.] That was the conclusion naturally to be drawn from the noble Lord's speech. He must deny that the clause was framed on Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act. It was framed on an entirely new principle, which gave the owner double the number of votes possessed by the occupier. Nobody could deny that Brighton, the town he represented, was clean, well-drained, and healthy; and yet that was effected under a system of single voting.
MR. GRANGER would withdraw his Amendment, as it did not seem to meet with much favour from the Committee, inasmuch as it went too far for Her Majesty's Government, and not far enough for his hon. Friends near him. The House had, therefore, better first decide whether it was in favour of single voting or plural voting.
Amendment withdrawn.
MR. MUNTZ could not believe the House saw the position in which it would be placed by this change. In a town not now a corporation, the votes were plural; but what would they do when such a town happened to be made a corporation?
The House divided on the question that the clause stand part of the Bill:—Ayes 113; Noes 38: Majority 75.

List of the AYES.

Abdy, T. N.

Bentinck, Lord H.

Adair, H. E.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Adair, R. A. S.

Brackley, Visct.

Anstey, T. C.

Brooke, Lord

Armstrong, R. B.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Arundel and Surrey,

Buck, L. W.

Earl of

Bunbury, E. H.

Baines, M. T.

Busfeild, W.

Bellew, R. M.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Benbow, J.

Cholmeley, Sir M.

1216

Christy, S.

Marshall, J. G.

Clive, H. B.

Mitchell, T. A.

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

Morgan, O.

Courtenay, Lord

Morpeth, Visct.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Morison, Sir W.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Newdegate, C. N.

Duncuft, J.

Norreys, Lord

Dundas, Adm.

Paget, Lord G.

Dundas, Sir D.

Parker, J.

Ebrington, Visct.

Patten, J. W.

Edwards, H.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Evans, W.

Pigott, F.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Pinney, W.

Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.

Power, N.

Foley, J. H. H.

Price, Sir R.

Fordyce, A. D.

Pugh, D.

Forster, M.

Rice, E. R.

French, F.

Rich, H.

Galway, Visct.

Romilly, J.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W.E.

Russell, Lord J.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Russell, F. C. H.

Granger, T. C.

Rutherfurd, A.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Seymer, H. K.

Grey, R. W.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Guest, Sir J.

Shelburne, Earl of

Halford, Sir H.

Slaney, R. A.

Hawes, B.

Smith, J. A.

Hay, Lord J.

Smyth, Sir H.

Heald, J.

Smyth, J. G.

Henley, J.

Somerville, rt. hn.Sir W.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Spooner, R.

Heywood, J.

Stanton, W. H.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Sturt, H. G.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Sutton, J. H. M.

Hodges, T. L.

Talfourd, Serj.

Hood, Sir A.

Towneley, C.

Howard, P. H.

Tynte, Col.

Hudson, G.

Verney, Sir H.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Vivian, J. E.

Jervis, Sir J.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Ward, H. G.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Watkins, Col.

Lewis, G. C.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Lincoln, Earl of

Wyvill, M.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Mackinnon, W. A.

TELLERS.

Maitland, T.

Hill, Lord M.

Manners, Lord G.

Tufnell, H.

List of the NOES.

Barnard, E. G.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Meagher, T.

Bernard, Visct.

Mowatt, F.

Bowring, Dr.

Muntz, G. F.

Brotherton, J.

Pilkington, J.

Brown, W.

Reynolds, J.

Clay, J.

Salwey, Col.

Clay, Sir W.

Sidney, Ald.

Crawford, W. S.

Strickland, Sir G.

Duncan, Visct.

Stuart, Lord D.

Fergus, J.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Fox, W. J.

Thompson, Col.

Freestun, Col.

Thompson, G.

Frewen, C. H.

Thornely, T.

Greene, J.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Wawn, J. T.

Hall, Sir B.

Wood, W. P.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Henry, A.

TELLERS.

Humphery, Ald.

Hume, J.

Kershaw, J.

Pechell, Capt.

Clause agred to.

On Clause 29, the duty of the Local Board of Health, from time to time, to appoint fit and proper persons to be surveyor, inspector of nuisances, treasurer, &c., the appointment of the surveyor to be subject to the approval of the General Board of Health,
MR HENLEY objected to the latter provision. It would be much better not to divide the responsibility, but to leave the entire matter of the appointment of the surveyor in the hands of the local board. He could not understand what good result would follow from enacting that the appointment should be subject to the approval of the central board.
MR. HUDSON said, the local authorities were permitted to appoint their town clerks and other officials; and why should the local boards of health not have the full control of such an officer as a surveyor?
VISCOUNT MORPETH observed, that he had already given up to the local boards many of the appointments of officers. His own opinion was, that in the cases both of the surveyor and of the inspector of nuisances, it was desirable that a power of approval should be retained in the hands of the central board. The inspector, from the very nature of his office, was liable to become the object of petty local jealousies, because of the faithful discharge of his duties; and on that account it was highly desirable that he should be enabled to fall back for protection on the central body. He (Viscount Morpeth) was willing to concede to the local boards unreserved authority in the case of the surveyor; but he hoped the Committee would not press him to deprive the officer of health of the shield which was afforded to him by that enactment of the Bill which provided that he should, in some degree, be under the authority and protection of the general board.
MR. HUME was sorry that the noble Lord had given way even to the extent he had. He had seen sufficient of local officers, appointed exclusively by local boards, to be sensible of this fact, that they had great difficulty in acting with justice and firmness when the proper discharge of their duty happened to come in collision with the interests of the board; and it was, therefore, highly expedient that they should be protected as much as possible. It was desirable that the officers should be appointed by the local boards; but they should be at least subject to the superintendence of the general board.
MR. HENLEY asked, how the hon.
1218
Member for Montrose would feel, if, acting, for example, as a commissioner of sewers, he was to find the appointments of the commission controlled by a superior power in the metropolis? He did not see why the inhabitants of such towns as Manchester and Birmingham were not as much to be trusted in the election of office-bearers as the commissioners of sewers.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 31, having reference to the preparing of a map of the sewerage, being proposed,
MR. HENLEY said, he hoped the noble Lord would consent to expunge this clause. The clause provided that the local board should send to the general one for approval a map and plans, showing how it was proposed to drain the district; and that if the general board gave their sanction, it should then be the duty of the local board to carry out the plan. Supposing, however, that the latter body did not wish to do anything at all, they might send up plans which they knew would not be approved; these plans would be sent back as insufficient. In two or three months after, other insufficient plans would be forwarded, and also returned; and thus the inhabitants of the neighbourhood would be taxed for the preparation of useless plans. Under these circumstances, there would be no power of compelling the local board to take any steps. On the other hand, as regarded parties who were disposed to do what was necessary, it could not be supposed that such towns as Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, and York, would be unable to find persons skilful enough to give advice in such matters. If they left the matter to local boards, very imperfect plans would be sent up. He hoped the clause would be struck out of the Bill.
VISCOUNT MORPETH hoped a general system would be carried out as proposed. He wished, however, to go as far as he could to promote a system of encouragement, instead of one of punishment. He therefore intended to propose that the latter part of the clause should be struck out, and that a proviso should be inserted to the effect that local boards should propose plans for general drainage of the respective towns.
Clause agreed to.
In Clause 50, relative to furnaces being so constructed as to consume opaque smoke, the insertion of the words, "mines and works for the manufacture of bricks and other articles of clay," with a view to

1219
except them from the operation of the clause, was moved by Mr.
FOLEY.
DR. BOWRING said, that he scarcely thought that the Amendment went far enough. He considered that collieries ought to be also included among the excepted works.
VISCOUNT MORPETH said, that considerable uneasiness had been created among some trades as to the application of the clause as it originally stood. It was stated that there were certain processes in the manufacture of glass and metal in which the smoke could not be consumed; and the Government had accordingly agreed to omit from the provisions of the clause glass works, metal works, and potteries. He was willing to extend the exception to other works similarly circumstanced, including brickworks and limeworks. In fact, wherever furnaces were used, it was difficult to apply the enactment; but this difficulty did not apply to any works in which a steam-engine was used. Steam-engines were universally used in collieries, and he could not, therefore, consent to extend the exception to these works. He might add, that he was himself interested in collieries, as his father was a considerable proprietor of coal fields.
MR. HUDSON said, that he thought coke works ought to be excepted from the Bill.
An HON. MEMBER observed, that, if the Bill had been passed as it had been originally introduced, the effect of it would have been to cause the employers in the manufacture of coke and many other articles to dismiss all their men. As the clause at present stood amended, some of the objections to it were removed; but he could tell the noble Lord that the master manufacturers put very little faith in the amendments which had been introduced.
SIR J. WALMSLEY said, that the iron manufacturers in the country would find the utmost difficulty in carrying out the provisions of the clause. In Staffordshire, where there were important manufactories of coke, it would be found highly objectionable to enforce the clause. It was very necessary for the House to consider whether such important manufacture should be disturbed.
MR. BAILEY thanked the Government for bringing in the measure, the principle of which he recognised to be highly beneficial; he must say, however, that he considered the clause to suppress smoke would be exceedingly injurious in the manufac-
1220
ture of iron. He had been in the habit for many years of burning 1,100 tons of coal a day, and he had tried many methods for the consumption of smoke. But he had not been successful further than to save himself from heavy penalties. If the coal was bituminous it was impossible to prevent a great degree of smoke. He would be very happy to support the Government in anything which was practicable, but he considered that it would be impossible to enforce this clause.
MR. HUTT said, that the clause had excited great alarm in the northern districts. To forbid smoke was virtually to forbid the manufacture of coke, for the latter was made by the smoke.
VISCOUNT MORPETH: Considering the strong opinions which have been been expressed upon this subject, I think it will be more expedient to agree to the clause at present. I will take the objections into consideration, and state my intentions upon it upon the bringing up of the report.
SIR EDWARD BUXTON said, that the firm with which he was connected had made various experiments for the consumption of smoke, and had incurred very heavy expenses in endeavouring to attain that object, in which they had not succeeded. There was no expense to which they would not be willing to go could they but succeed. The subject was most difficult, and very comprehensive; and he was of opinion that the present state of knowledge upon the matter was so defective that there was little room to hope for success.
CAPTAIN HARRIS hoped that the Government would not abandon the clause, but would endeavour to carry it out, at least as far as it was practicable.
MR. EDWARDS: I perfectly coincide with the opinions of the hon. Member who has just addressed the House, and I trust the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests will not again be induced to give way. Having myself seen the experiment tried for more than two years, I can speak with perfect confidence to its practicability; and I am perfectly satisfied, that in all cases where a steam engine is employed—by the use of a proper furnace, and due attention on the part of the fireman—no opaque smoke need issue from the chimney, and the saving of fuel is very considerable. The great difficulty to contend against is in overcoming the scruples and prejudices of the stoker, who, independent of the little extra trouble he may have in feeding his furnace, has no

1221
particular inducement to abate the evil. On the contrary, I have great reason to believe that the man is generally remunerated by certain parties in proportion to the quantity of coal he consumes. Living as I do in the centre of one of the most beautiful, and at the same time one of the most populous, districts of England, I deeply deplore this growing evil, being quite alive to the monstrous and most intolerable nuisance; which, besides being most obnoxious to the feelings and comfort of the inhabitants, is acknowledged by all to be most deleterious, and prejudicial in the highest degree to animal and vegetable life. I must again urge upon the noble Lord the desirability of adhering to the clause as it now stands, although I confess that, as far as the consumption of smoke is concerned, I infinitely prefer the original to the amended Bill—which, to my sorrow, I find is partly burked by the words "if practicable" being smuggled into it.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses to 56 agreed to.
The House resumed. Committee to sit again.
House adjourned at half-past Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—Reported.—Assignment of Ecclesiastical Districts.
3a and passed;—Insolvent Debtors (India); Maxwell's Restitution.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Bishop of Winchester, from the Clergy, Gentry, and Others, of Thursley, Ampfield, and other Places, against the Jewish Disabilities Bill.—By the Marquess of Lansdowne, from the Members of several Lodges of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Manchester Unity, for an Extension of the Benefit Societies Act to that Order.—From the Subscribers and Managers of several Charitable Institutions in Leeds, to be relieved from the Payment of Legacy Duty on Bequests made to them.—By Earl Grey, Lord Hatherton, and the Bishop of Durham, from a great number of Places in Northumberland, Cumberland, and Yorkshire, in favour of the Jewish Disabilities Bill.—By the Earl of Yarborough, from the Members of the Wesleyan and Primitive Methodists of Louth, Carlton, and several other Places, against the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays.—By the Earl of Haddington, from the Magistrates and Town Council of Dunbar, against the Test required from Professors in the Universities in Scotland; also for Improvement of the Present System of Parochial Education, Scotland.—By Lord Stanley, from the Clergy and Laity of the Church of England, for an Alteration of the Law respecting Confirmation of Bishops.—From the Magistrates and Town Council of the City of Edinburgh, for a Revision of the Excise Laws.—From the Ministers and Elders of the City of Glasgow, and from the Parochial Board of Govan, in the County of Lanark, against the Marriage (Scotland) Bill.—From the Same, against the Registering Births, &c. (Scotland) Bill.—From the Commissioners of Supply, of the County of Renfrew, for a Trigonometrical Survey of Scotland.—From the Manufacturing Districts of South Lancashire, in favour of Vote by Ballot and Extension of the Suffrage.

PRESENTATION TO CROWN LIVINGS.
The BISHOP of LLANDAFF rose, in pursuance of the notice he had given, to move—
"An humble Address to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to consent to the Introduction of a Bill for limiting the time during which Church Benefices in the Gift of the Crown may be kept vacant."
In presenting himself before their Lordships to call their attention to a subject
1200
which he deemed of very great importance, he would beg to remind their Lordships that he had not often ventured to address them. He mentioned this circumstance, not in order to waste their Lordships' time by claiming their indulgence on that account, but in order that their Lordships might judge, by the infrequency of his appearance before them, of the great importance which he attached to the subject to which he was about to direct their Lordships' attention. He brought this matter before their Lordships in the performance of an important duty which devolved upon him from the station in which he was placed; and he felt he should be derogating from that duty if he did not lay the subject before their Lordships. The matter to which he wished to direct their Lordships' attention was the delay which by law was now permitted to take place in the presentation to livings in the gift of the Crown. Those presentations might at present be delayed for an indefinite period—this was the privilege, and it was by no means an enviable privilege, which was now exercised by the servants of the Crown, and of the exercise of which he had to complain. He was happy to say, that the case which he was about to bring before them involved no charges either of unsound doctrine or of improper or immoral conduct; but it was nevertheless one which deserved their Lordships' most serious attention. The rev. gentleman, to whose case he was about to direct their Lordships' attention, was a gentleman of sound doctrine, of amiable character, and of good life; and the only reason he had for objecting to the presentation was, that the rev. presentee did not possess a sufficient knowledge of the Welsh language. His diocese included the whole of Monmouthshire and a good part of Glamorganshire. Now, in Monmouthshire the Welsh language had nearly died out; but such was not the case in Glamorganshire—at least not in the whole of the county. In many parishes the English prevailed greatly over the Welsh language, consequently there could be no difficulty as regarded language with respect to the presentation to those benefices; in many parishes both languages were spoken; and in a few parishes, situate in the hilly districts, the Welsh language exclusively prevailed. There were also many parishes in which the use of Welsh partially prevailed. The use of the two languages existed in various parishes in every conceivable degree, so that no gene-

1201
ral rule as to the knowledge of the Welsh language required in a clergyman to be presented to a parish could be laid down. Each parish must be a rule to itself. The only possible method by which it could be ascertained whether or not an individual presented to a Welsh living was qualiied to take charge of it, was by consulting with persons conversant with the country, as to the language spoken in the district, and then by examining the presentee as to his knowledge of the language. In those districts in which Welsh was the vernacular language, a mere grammatical knowledge of Welsh was not sufficient to enable the presentee to perform the duties of a pastor. With a merely grammatical knowledge of Welsh it would be impossible that he could exercise that influence over his flock which every clergyman ought to exercise. It would be ridiculous for a foreigner, possessed of a mere grammatical knowledge of English, to attempt to address an English rustic congregation; and it was equally ridiculous for a person possessed of a mere grammatical knowledge of Welsh to attempt to address a Welsh rustic congregation. The case which he had to submit to their Lordships was the following:—In the month of June last, the parish of Llanilid, in Glamorganshire, the gross annual value of which had been returned at 250 l., became vacant. The population amounted to 300 souls. He soon afterwards was informed that Mr. Taynton, one of his clergy, who had resided some time in his diocese, and a gentleman whom he much esteemed, had been appointed to this living by the Lord Chancellor. He knew that Mr. Taynton was not a native Welshman, but that he had preached occasionally in Welsh; and in announcing to him (the Bishop of Llandaff) that he had been presented to the living by the Lord Chancellor, he reminded him that he had delivered Welsh sermons, and expressed a hope that on that account he should be considered qualified. But this parish was situated in the hilly district, and he therefore wrote to Mr. Taynton, informing him it would be necessary that he should be examined as to his knowledge of the Welsh language. He then requested the rural dean to go to the parish, and make inquiries, and to report whether or not he thought that a person not versed in the Welsh language could take charge of that parish with effect. He had received the report of that gentleman, and he found, as he expected, that a colloquial knowledge of the Welsh language was absolutely ne-
1202
cessary to a proper performance of the duties of the parish. That gentleman, in his report, distinctly stated that he considered it a clear case for examination. Simultaneously with that a memorial was sent to him from the parish, drawn up by the churchwardens, and numerously signed, expressing their anxiety to have a clergyman acquainted with the Welsh language. He, in consequence, informed Mr. Taynton that it would be necessary for him to submit to an examination as to his knowledge of Welsh. Mr. Taynton wrote to him, expressing a hope that, as he had heretofore preached in Welsh, under the authority of the bishop, that would be deemed sufficient; private circumstances, however, could not be permitted to sway his opinion. He seemed to be much disappointed and distressed, and requested to be allowed some days to consider whether or not he would submit to the examination. He afterwards proposed an arrangement. Mr. Griffiths, a Welshman, the incumbent of a parish in which English was generally spoken, proposed that his patron should give to Mr. Taynton his living, if the Lord Chancellor would present Mr. Griffiths to the living to which he had presented Mr. Taynton; to this arrangement he (the Bishop of Llandaff) had given his full concurrence; he waited for some time, but after finding that the consent of the Lord Chancellor had not been, and could not be obtained to this arrangement, he, in the month of October last, took the liberty of writing to the Lord Chancellor on the subject. No notice whatever was taken of that letter; he had not even received an acknowledgment of the receipt of it from his Lordship's private secretary. He had then communicated with Mr. Griffiths and Mr. Taynton. A long correspondence ensued, but no consent was given by the Lord Chancellor to the proposed arrangement, which would have satisfied all parties, and would have been highly beneficial to the vacant parish. It had been kept vacant now nearly a twelvemonth. No respectable curate could be appointed under this uncertainty, as he would be liable to be turned out as soon as the vacancy might be filled. Thus the greatest possible injury was inflicted on the Church; and as the law now stood, there was no remedy, for the appointment depended absolutely on the will of the Lord Chancellor. In this district, too, the delay became an enormous evil, for there the prevalence of dissent was so great, that it required the greatest efforts

1203
of the Church to make head against the stream. Again, in the parish of St. Andrew, a vacancy having occurred, he wrote to the Lord Chancellor relative to the appointment of a person capable of preaching and conversing in Welsh; and some time afterwards a gentleman from Kent called upon him to know if he would institute him to the living. He (the Bishop of Llandaff) held some conversation with the gentleman, and he found that he had never been in the country before, and that he knew nothing of the Welsh language, except what he had learned from his dictionary. He (the Bishop of Llandaff) told him that if he would submit to a viva voce examination in the Welsh language, he would abide by the decision of the examiners as to his fitness on the score of language. The gentleman observed, that he would employ a curate who understood the Welsh language, and, in the meantime, endeavour to master it himself. However, that course was contrary to the principle which he (the Bishop of Llandaff) had laid down for his guidance—viz., never to institute a person to a living who was incompetent on any ground to perform the duties. The clergy of his diocese certainly did not bask in the sunshine of the Crown pleasure. When there was a vacancy in a Crown living in that diocese, the Minister of the Crown might easily learn from the bishop, whether it required a pastor conversant with the Welsh language; but here the Lord Chancellor, even when informed of the fact by the bishop, took no notice of the information. He seemed to regard the patronage as a perquisite of office, to be exercised in gratifying a friend or a political adherent, without the slightest regard to the improvement of the people. Instead of being an auxiliary to the bishop, he became an adversary. He (the Bishop of Llandaff) did not bring this conduct as a charge against all the dispensers of Crown patronage: the benefices at the disposal of the First Lord of the Treasury were, he believed, generally given with a view to the benefit of the parish, and to reward deserving clergymen, recommended by him to the Crown, and awaiting the sanction of the Crown. But in these Chancellor's livings, no such communication took place. It was an arbitrary act of the Chancellor alone, irresponsible, and uncontrollable. It seemed to him an anomaly that, whilst in all the other appointments of the Crown there was some sign of the Royal pleasure,
1204
such as either the sign-manual attached to the document, or the Privy Seal, in the presentation to what are called Chancellor's livings there was no mark of the sort, no signature, no evidence whatever of the Royal pleasure having been taken. The whole thing was done by the Lord Chancellor, in the name indeed of the Queen, but without even consulting her; for he felt perfectly sure that the honoured Mother of a Prince of Wales would never give her sanction to any measure which offered an indignity to a bishop of Wales, or an insult to the Welsh people. It was a grievance most galling and mortifying to the clergy of that country, where the livings were generally poor, that if anything a little better than ordinary fell vacant, it was given to a stranger, instead of being bestowed as a reward to some one who had laboured long and well in that impoverished Church. The object of his Motion was to guard against the recurrence of the evils of which he complained, and to correct, as far as possible, those which at present existed. If some remedy were not speedily adopted, the whole country would ring with the complaints of the manner in which the Church patronage of the Crown was dispensed in Wales. Should any opposition be made by the noble and learned Lord to his Motion, he would not press it; but certainly in his view of the case—which view he had endeavoured to impress on their Lordships —the matter of which he complained was a great and growing grievance, that loudly called for some remedy, though what that remedy should be he did not take upon himself to say.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that in the notice which the right rev. Prelate had given, and in the Motion he had made, he proposed to remedy what he stated to be an inconvenience in the present state of the law arising from the Crown not being limited within a certain period of time to present to livings in its gift. But the right rev. Prelate's speech had nothing whatever to do with that subject. It related entirely to the more or less degree of knowledge of the Welsh language possessed by persons instituted to livings in his diocese. The right rev. Prelate then referred to vacant livings in his diocese, which he complained of not having been filled up. But the first vacancy to which he had referred occurred in June last; and in July a party presented to this living had applied to him to be instituted. In that case, then, the vacancy

1205
had only lasted one month; in the second case the vacancy had occurred in January last, and in the month of April following the party appointed to the living applied to the right rev. Prelate to be instituted; but the right rev. Prelate had not said that he had instituted those parties. But what had that to do with the proposal to limit the period of time within which the Crown could appoint to livings in its gift? By an extraordinary combination of error, the right reverend Prelate had at once invaded the prerogative of the Crown, and thrown overboard the privileges of Parliament. He proposed that the Crown should be limited as to the period within which it was to make a presentation, and for that purpose he proposed an address should be presented for a Bill. For what—in what respect—he had not told their Lordships. It was the prerogative of the Crown to present to these livings; it was the prerogative of the Crown if a Bill were brought in, to dissent from the proposition of the Bill; but by a happy contrivance of the Parliament and the law, it was the prerogative of the Crown, that the Parliament and the Crown should not come in collision. There was an Act that a Bill touching the interests of the Crown should not proceed to a determination without the consent being given by the Ministers of the Crown. It was obviously to avoid the privileges of the Crown being invaded. Any person might lay a Bill on the table, and proceed without the consent of the Crown. With reference to the charge of the right rev. Prelate, that too long a period had been suffered to elapse between the occurrence of a vacancy in and the presentation of a living, he could assure their Lordships that upon an average no more than three months had been allowed to expire in such cases. There were between 700 and 800 livings in the gift of the Crown, the patronage of which was exercised by the Lord Chancellor; but of that number between 300 and 400, or quite one-half, were under 200 l. a year. With respect to the larger livings, vacancies occurred the least frequently; but in the case of the smaller, the first moment that the clergyman could get appointed to a better preferment a vacancy would occur, and, in consequence, the smaller livings were continually falling vacant; thus the recurrence of the necessity of finding a person to fill up these livings was much oftener than in the case of the larger livings. But the history of two particular livings had been brought under their Lord-
1206
ships' notice by the right rev. Prelate, though he had not received the slightest intimation that it was the right rev. Prelate's intention to do so. He was not taken by surprise when the right Prelate gave notice of a Motion for a general measure applicable as well to his noble and learned Friend with regard to the Duchy of Lancaster as to him (the Lord Chancellor); but from the right rev. Prelate, he had never, directly or indirectly, received the slightest intimation that he intended to bring under the consideration of the House either of the two cases to which he had referred. If the right rev. Prelate had sent him the information, certainly it had not reached him. The opinion which the right rev. Prelate had expressed upon these cases was quite contrary to that which had been pronounced by the Commissioners who had investigated the state of education in Wales. It had been usual with him, in making a presentation to a vacant living, to communicate with the bishop of the diocese, and receive his advice and assistance; and whenever he found that a strong impression pervaded the mind of the bishop that the patronage of the Crown ought not to be exercised without his superintendence and control, then he felt that it became him to be a little cautious how he acted in putting the prerogative of the Crown in force. The noble and learned Lord then alluded to the letter which had been written by Mr. Griffiths, and to that gentleman's representation that Mr. Sampson, who had been presented to one of the two livings in question, was a relative of his (the Lord Chancellor's). Now that statement was totally and entirely false. The fact was, that Mr. Sampson possessed a living in Kent; that he had a family of ten children; and as there was no house for his accommodation there, he naturally felt anxious to be
removed to a living where he could be provided with a house. The rev. gentleman was recommended to him by some friends; and accordingly he (the Lord Chancellor) desired his secretary to write to him, and say that if he were willing to chancre his living, he was ready to present him to one in Wales, provided the bishop found him competent to instruct the people in the Welsh language. He should be sorry, indeed, to make any attack upon Mr. Griffiths, if there were any real grounds for what he had said; but with regard to his asserting that Mr. Sampson was a relation of his, it was a pure invention. As to Mr. Sampson

1207
being unacquainted with the Welsh language, all he could say was, that that gentleman offered to be examined in the presence of the bishop by a schoolmaster who was a Welshman; but the right rev. Prelate had refused. The right rev. Prelate stated that he had made a private communication to him (the Lord Chancellor) that he would bring him before the House of Lords—the right rev. Prelate seemed to forget, however, that in bringing him before the House of Lords, he would be under the necessity of coming there also himself—and the question now was, whether his coming there was more to the disadvantage of the patron, or to the disadvantage of the right rev. Prelate? Then, with regard to the other, which was a still more extraordinary case. A small living—smaller than the other—became vacant in June last year. In July he presented a party to it, whom he had never known before—one who was highly recommended to him by Lord James Stuart and some other parties, who said he was perfectly capable of performing the service in the Welsh language. He (the Lord Chancellor) offered Mr. Taynton the living. It was accepted; but he soon found that there was some great difficulty in the way. The right rev. Prelate insisted upon the presentee undergoing an examination in Welsh. Now, he held in his hand a letter written by the right rev. Prelate in 1838, in which, after saying that a knowledge of the Welsh language was most desirable, in order to keep the people attached to the Church, he highly praised Mr. Taynton for his voluntary exertions in preaching to the people in the parish where he was curate, in the Welsh language, during a period of three years. So that while the reverend gentleman was a curate, his knowledge of Welsh was not questioned; but when he became an incumbent, the right rev. Prelate insisted upon his undergoing an examination in that very language his proficiency in which he had formerly praised. In March he was informed that the determination of the right rev. Prelate was final; that the presentee must submit to be examined—the contest had been going on ever since; but he had nothing to do with it. He did not know up to that hour whether the reverend gentleman had resigned his presentation or not. He had laid these two cases, in all their circumstances, before their Lordships; and he trusted they would see in them no reason for altering the law upon the subject, and
1208
imposing a restriction upon the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown.
The BISHOP of ST. DAVID'S said, he need not apologise for addressing their Lordships upon this question; for he felt that he should be wanting in his duty if he did not express his opinion upon some of the points which had been referred to, and which came within his own knowledge. He should not enter into the noble and learned Lord's explanation of his conduct towards his right rev. Friend. It would be for his right rev. Friend to say whether it was satisfactory to his mind, or not. Not only, however, did he entertain no doubt of the noble and learned Lord's intention to perform this part of his duty in the most upright manner; but his own experience of the noble and learned Lord's exercise of his office in this respect tended to confirm this belief. It happened very lately that, in his own diocese, a very small parish had, for some time, been vacant; and he applied to the noble and learned Lord to know why the vacancy had not been sooner filled up. The noble and learned Lord informed him the only reason of the delay was, that he was not fully satisfied whether the parish was in such circumstances as to require the incumbent to possess a knowledge of the Welsh language; and the noble and learned Lord requested him to obtain information upon that point before he decided. This he believed to be an example of the rule by which the noble and learned Lord was governed in the exercise of the powers entrusted to him. He was surprised, however, to find the noble and learned Lord had thought proper to mix up the question which had arisen in this case with another of a much more comprehensive nature, which, as it seemed to him, were entirely unconnected. He could hardly explain to himself how there happened to be any connection between the subject now under discussion, and the larger topic of whether it was desirable or otherwise that the Welsh language should be abolished. The noble and learned Lord said this was a question upon which there existed great differences of opinion; but he lay under a singularly great mistake, when, having mentioned the existence of two opposite parties upon the subject, he represented his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Llandaff) as the champion of that which contended for the continued existence and preservation of the Welsh language. Probably he (the Bishop of St. David's) was more entitled to that

1209
office than his right rev. Friend; but he had never expressed any opinion upon that point, and he had studiously avoided doing so, because it had no relation whatever to any practical question; and because it was one which ought never to influence his judgment in the exercise of the duties of his office. The question whether the duties of a parish should be discharged in Welsh—Welsh being the language of the greater part of the population—could not be affected by any opinion whether it was desirable or not that the Welsh language should be abolished. None of their Lordships would think it right to sacrifice the spiritual welfare of the existing generation to the attainment of such an object at some remote period. He might, however, go further and say, no means could be devised less likely to accomplish that end than to attempt to force a foreign language upon the people. Such a policy might have been pursued in former times; but the result had not been to contract, in the slightest degree, the prevalence of the Welsh language, nor to bring the period nearer for its abolition. The result, however, had certainly been to produce weakness and disorder in the Church, to drive the people out of its communion, and force them to seek spiritual nourishment and consolation within the pale of some sect. Dismissing, then, this question as entirely irrelevant he had simply to add his testimony in confirmation of the general statement made by his right rev. Friend, of the extreme importance of the rule, that the parochial ministry of the Welsh population should never be permitted to one not thoroughly conversant with the Welsh language. It was by no means sufficient that the person to whom such a charge was entrusted should possess a superficial or mere literary acquaintance with the language, for that would not enable him to discharge the more important part of his duties; it was necessary he should possess such a familiarity with the colloquial language of the country as would enable him to hold the freest and the fullest intercourse with every one of his parishioners. There could be no doubt of this in that small class of cases where Welsh was decidedly the predominant language of the parish, or where there were few of the parishioners acquainted with any other. There was another class of cases, where the language of the population was nearly equally divided between English and Welsh. This was the largest class, and it had often come under his no-
1210
tice in different forms. Applications had frequently been made to him, where Welsh was the language most familiar to one portion of the parishioners, from the English portion of the parishioners to suppress the use of the Welsh language in the services of the Church altogether. No doubt there was great temptation to take such a step as that, in the relief it gave to the minister, who would otherwise be obliged to provide two services for two distinct congregations. Still he had always felt it to be his duty to resist every such application, although backed by numerously-signed memorials or petitions from the parishioners themselves. At the same time he agreed with the noble and learned Lord that it was by no means necessary for the performance of religious services that the persons entrusted with them should be invariably Welshmen. Whether that were so or not, his right rev. Friend thought this was a case in which the services could not be left to be performed by any person, Englishman or Welshman, who did not possess entire familiarity with the language. He therefore expressed his entire assent to that part of the statement of his right rev. Friend which referred to this qualification of persons entrusted with the services of the Church in Wales; and his conviction that among all the causes which had tended to the depression of the interests of the Establishment in Wales, there was not one which had operated so powerfully and so injuriously as the opposite policy to which he had alluded. He must own, however, that the case which his right rev. Friend attempted to make out, even if he had succeeded, would not have been a sufficiently strong ground for the measure he proposed. Still he had felt it his duty to add whatever information could be derived from his testimony upon those points, to the necessity of which his right rev. Friend had referred.
The BISHOP of LLANDAFF, in reply, stated that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had scarcely touched upon the real groundwork of the application to their Lordships, which was strictly confined to the interest of the Church, where the Welsh language in any degree prevailed, and where no positive line could be drawn, but each case must be decided by its own circumstances. He had entered into a variety of irrelevant details, into which he would not follow him. He had distinctly informed Mr. Taynton that he would consent to his institution, if upon

1211
examination he was found qualified. Mr. Taynton shrunk from examination. The delay did not originate with the Bishop. It was entirely caused by the Lord Chancellor, who would not even consent to an arrangement which his own nominee desired, and which the Bishop approved as the best thing that could be done for all the parties. The Bishop read part of a letter from Mr. Taynton, complaining that "he had been kept by the Chancellor in a state of harassing suspense more than eight months." That suspense still continued. He had acted throughout wholly from a sense of duty, and certainly without harshness towards the gentlemen concerned, and he hoped that this discussion would not be without beneficial effects; and also that he would be acquitted of the charges that had been made against him in reference to his treatment of the two gentlemen who had lately been presented to livings in his diocese. He wished, moreover, to guard against the imputation of withdrawing this Motion because he had not sufficient grounds for sustaining it. He had been told by the noble and learned Lord that he had his remedy at law if he required it; but he must say he was not satisfied upon that point. His only remedy lay in appealing to public opinion, with the hope that such a maladministration of a sacred trust would, when exposed, be universally condemned, and thus lead to the correction of such abuses in future. He would not, therefore, press his Motion, and he begged now to withdraw it.
Motion withdrawn.
House adjourned.