HANSARD'S FIBRARY LIBE Parliamentary Debates During the SECOND SESSION of the ELEVENTH PARLIAMENT in the Fourth Year of the Reign of His Majesty Fourth Volume of the Session, HOUSE OF LORDS, MINUTES.] Bills. Read a second time :-Navy Pay; Petitions presented. By the Earl of ELDON, the Bishops of senting Congregations, for Relief to the Dissenters.-By Laws. By the Duke of HAMILTON, the Earl of CAMPER- Better System of Church Patronage in Scotland.-By the several Places, for Relief, and a Board of Trade.-By the and Earl GREY, from several Places, against altering the Present System of Church Patronage in Scotland.-By the Marquess of BREADALBANE, from several Places, for a Reform of the Established Church.-By the Duke of HAMILTON, from Gulston, against Drunkenness.-By the Marquess of BUTE, from the Directors of the London and Westminster Bank, to be heard by Counsel in favour of the Bill concerning them.-By the Marquess of BREADALBANE, and the Bishops of LONDON, LICHFIELD, and BATH and WELLS, from several Places-for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.-By the Duke of GLOUCESTER, and the Bishops of LICHFIELD, from several Places,against the Claims of the Dissenters. HOUSE OF LORDS, MINUTES.] Petitions presented. By the Earl of ROSEBERY, -By Earl SEPTON, from two Places, for the Better Ob- and Earl SEPTON, from several Places,-in favour of the Claims of the Dissenters.-By the Earl of WESTMORELAND, from Northampton, against the Separation of Church and State. By the Dukes of RUTLAND and WELLINGTON, the Marquesses of BRISTOL and LONDONDERRY, Earls WESTMORELAND and FALMOUTH, Lords PRUDHOE, KENYON, LYNDHURST, and HOWE, and the Bishops of HEREFORD and GLOUCESTER, from a Number of Places, -for Protection to the Established Church against the Claims of the Dissenters.-By Lord DACRE, from a Number of Places, in favour of the London and Southampton Railway Bill. WARWICK BOROUGH.] Lord Wynford expressed a wish that something should be done to accelerate their Lordships' decision with respect to the Bill for regulating the Borough of Warwick. Many witnesses had been examined, and yet they saw no end to the case. The expense was enormous, as those witnesses were very liberally paid. They had as yet made no progress in proving the preamble of the Bill, and they might be going on in this way for three or four months longer, unless some arrangement could be made to bring the matter to an end. The Lord Chancellor could not complain of his noble and learned friend for having brought this subject before the House. That to which his noble and learned friend had particularly called their Lordships' attention-namely, the great expense that was incurred -was well worthy of consideration. For the last week or ten days, very little progress had certainly been made. At the commencement of these proceedings, he felt very great reluctance to appear impatient, or to do B anxious as the noble and learned Lord opposite, or as the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, to bring this matter to an end as soon as possible: therefore he should not oppose any proposition for effecting that object. For himself, he should suggest, that the best mode of proceeding would be to meet early in the morning; and go through with the evidence from the beginning to the end. The Duke of Cumberland was understood to accede to the proposition of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, that the counsel should be requested to confine themselves to material points. It would be most inconvenient to meet in the morning, and he hoped the noble Earl would not make a Motion to that effect. Lord Lyndhurst said, they had now been upwards of three weeks considering this subject, and, from the anxious attention he had paid to the evidence, he could safely say, that the counsel at the bar had made little or no progress in establishing their case. Indeed, during the last three or four days the evidence they had called completely contradicted the main facts on which they rested their case at first. Nearly sixty witnesses had now been examined; and he knew so much of the experience and ability of the learned Gentlemen at their Lordships' bar, that he was convinced, if they failed in making out a case with the assistance of the witnesses who had already been heard, it was but a waste of time to go on with the witnesses that remained. The noble and learned Lord on the woolsack had anything which might look as if he wished to obstruct evidence, and so long as anything was brought forward which bore on the preamble of the Bill, he did not interfere. But still he thought some arrangement ought to be made as to the compass to which the residue of the evidence should be suffered to extend. He had not the smallest wish to cut out evidence, but he would call on counsel to adduce that evidence only which appeared to be really material. It should particularly be recollected, that this was not the only Bill of the kind then before their Lordships. It was, on the contrary, one of four bills; and if they went on with the examination of, fifty-nine witnesses, who were yet unexamined, a prorogation of Parliament would take place before the number was exhausted. If it could be so arranged that the evidence given in this Session should be accessible in the next, some part of the difficulty might be overcome; but it was not very usual to take such a course. It was, indeed, rather to be avoided, and simply on this account: sitting there as a Judge, he should not be doing his duty to their Lordships, if the case having been postponed, he did not sum up the evidence in the following Session; but after such a lapse of time, what chance was there that he would retain the impression which that evidence, at the moment, had made on his own mind--what chance was there that their Lordships would retain the impression which the evidence, as given in their hear ing, had created in their minds? Evidence might be made to appear credible or in-called on counsel to state the points to which credible on paper. It might be made to appear just the reverse of what it seemed at the time when it came from the witness's mouth. The expense was unquestionably very great, and ought, if possible, to be avoided. The subject was, however, beset with difficulties, and he wished that he could see his way clearly through them. He had merely thrown out these observations for consideration, leaving it to others to point out what they might conceive to be expedient. Some rule might, perhaps, be adopted by the learned counsel (and no men were more able to discharge their duty to their clients) by which they could confine themselves to those points of the case on which they thought they could confidently rely, while, for the present at least, they dispensed with everything that did not appear to be absolutely necessary. The Earl of Durham said, he was as they intended to direct their examination. He approved of that suggestion; and he had attended to hear the statement of Mr. Harrison. It was, he might say, a statement of the most vague description that could be imagined; and he left the House with pretty much the same degree of information as it possessed when he entered it. What did the learned counsel say he would endeavour to prove? 1. Some few instances of bribery. 2. Acts of treating to a considerable extent before testing the writ, and many afterwards; and he stated, that he would connect the treating before testing the writ with the treating after it. The third proposition was, that he should prove, that frauds had been committed, names having been placed on the registers that should not have been there; and lastly, he stated, that he should prove the existence of great violence and tumult. With respect to the first point, even if they gave the utmost credit to the witness' Mac Calcutta for Trial by Jury in Civil Cases; also for some donough, still not more than ten or twelve Legislative Measure relating to Real Property in India. cases of bribery were proved. With respect to treating before testing the writ, and treating after it, it had been proved, during the last two or three days, it was wholly unsanctioned by the candidates. With respect to the argument as to improper registration, it was one of the most extraordinary reasons that ever was given for such a measure as this. It was an attempt to prove, that because persons unconnected with the Borough, and having no right to vote there, had got their names improperly inserted on the registers, therefore their Lordships were called on to disfranchise those who had, by law, a right to vote. To attempt such a thing as that was quite unexampled. As to the riots, it appeared that, in 1831, men had been hired to protect the real voters, and to enable them to vote, in consequence of hostile attempts which had been made by members of the Birmingham Union. It was, in fact, a matter of self-defence. He was willing to rest the case on the statement of counsel at the bar, and even then it could not stand. In conclusion, the noble and learned Lord adverted to the great expenditure, which, in the end, must amount to many thousand pounds, if they proceeded in this manner. The Lord Chancellor objected to proceeding with the Bill in the morning. If he and other of his learned friends were obliged to attend to hear the evidence, justice, both in law and equity, would be to a considerable extent suspended. Lord Wynford said, it would be very desirable to hear from the counsel at the bar what more evidence they could adduce to support the charge of bribery. The persons who had absented themselves from this inquiry might have done so in conse. quence of their poverty, and not from any feeling of contumaey. He doubted, however, whether they could be arrested under a royal proclamation. He thought it was necessary that those who attempted the arrest should be armed with a warrant from that House. Counsel were called in, and their Lordships proceeded with the Bill. By Messrs. Hughes, Egerton, Dugdale, Cartwright, and R. PALMER,-against Admission to the Universities; and by Sir JOHN TYRELL, and Messrs. HALL, DARE, CARTWRIGHT, BARING, HALFORD, and BELL,-from a great Number of Places,-against all the Claims of the Dissenters.-By Lord GRIMSTON, Sir J. TYRELL, Sir J. D. ASTLEY, Messrs. HALL, DARE, Halford, Bell, Baring, and DUGDALE, from several Places,- for Protection to the Established Church.- By Lords GRIMSTON and HENNIKER, Sir G. MURRAY, Sir EARDLEY WILMOT, Sir H. CAMPBELL, Sir B. W. GUISE, and Mr. BAILLIE, from several Places, against Drunkenness.-By Lord GRIMSTON, Sir WILLIAM FOLKES, and Mr. SAUNDERSON, from five Places,-for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.-By Lord GRIMSTON, Sir JOHN TYRELL, and Messrs. HEATHCOTE and HALFORD, from several Places,-against the Sale of Beer Act.-By Sir ALEXANDER HOPE, Sir GEORGE MURRAY, and Messrs. LISTER, ROBINSON, PHILIPS, BOLLING, INGHAM, JAMES OSWALD, BAILLIE, and PALMER, from a Number of Places,-against the whole or parts of the Poor-Laws Amendment Bill.-By Colonel LEITH HAY, from Borrowstowness, for Protection to the Church of Scotland,-By Mr. HUTT, from Hull, against Corporation Abuses.-By Mr. BLAMIRE, from Stapleton, against the Punishment of Death for Offences against Property.-By Messrs. PHILIPS and DAWSON, from several Placos,-against Church Rates.-By Captain WINNINGTON, and Messrs. HUMPHERY and TYRELL, from several Dissenting Congregations,-for Relief to the Dissenters.By Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, Mr. HUTT, and Mr. CHAPMAN, from several Seaports, for the Repeal of the Reciprocity of Duties.-By Mr. HEATHCOTE and others, from several Places, for re-enacting the Labourers' Employment Measure.-By Mr. BAILLIE, from the Master Sweepers of London and Westminster, against the Chimney Sweepers' Bill.-By Mr. GASKELL and. Mr. BAILLIE, from Wakefield and Bristol,-for removing the Civil Disabilities of the Jews.-By Sir GEORGE MURRAY, from Perth, for an Alteration of the Game Laws.-By the same, Mr CUTLAR FERGUSSON, and Sir H. CAMPBELL, from several Parochial Schoolmasters, for an increased Stipend. By Mr. DUGDALE, from the Debtors in Warwick Gaol, for abolishing Imprisonment for Debt; from the Coal Miners of Warwick, for exempting such Mines from the Payment of Poor Rates.-By Sir WILLIAM GUISE and Sir B. W. FOLKES, from two Places,for Relief to the Agricultural Interest. By Mr. HUTT, from Merchant Seamen, and others, at Hull, against the Payment of Sixpence to Greenwich Hospital; and by Mr ROBINSON, from the Seamen's Hospital Society, for applying such Sixpences for the Benefit of the Widows.By Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON, from one Place for a Better System of Lay Patronage in Scotland. CHURCH LANDS (IRELAND).] Colonel Butler presented a Petition from the parish of St. John, in the city of Kilkenny, very numerously signed, in which the petitioners stated, that they were by no means hostile to the clergy of the Established Church being fairly remunerated for their services, but, as they were convinced the landed property of the church, if fairly let at anything like its real value, would amply afford to the Government the means for so providing for them, they prayed for a total abolition of the odious impost of tithes, as they were the constant source in Ireland of misery, outrage, and too often of bloodshed, in the rigorous exaction of them. He perfectly agreed with the petitioners in every respect, and most par ticularly so as regarded the shameful mismanagement of the Church-lands in Ireland; and he should take the liberty of trespassing on the patience of the House, while he quoted an authority on the subject in proof of what the petitioners stated -an authority that certainly could not be suspected of any desire to exaggerate the said mismanagement; on the contrary, he verily believed, that great care was taken in the document in question to conceal as much as possible the manifold instances of the monstrous misappropriation of the property which actually existed. The authority to which he alluded was the first report of his Majesty's Commissioners on ecclesiastical revenue and patronage in Ireland, dated, Council Chamber, Dublin Castle, March 1st, 1833. Colonel Butler then proceeded to read the following extract from the said report:-"That the general mode of regulating the renewal fines according to the most approved tables, appears to be nearly at one-fifth of the profit rent of the land, after deducting the rent paid by the lessees to the Archbishops and Bishops, and not debiting the tenants with the value of their buildings. The tenants, however, under the see of Armagh are charged one-eighth, instead of one-fifth of the clear yearly profit, after deductions; and it is observed by the Lord Primate, that were his Grace to adopt the same mode of renewal as that practised in other dioceses, it would have the effect of increasing the annual income of the see of Armagh by the sum of 6,2601. 14s. 5d. The mode of calculation is taken from the Bishops' returns." Among the signatures affixed to this report, were those of two Archbishops, three Bishops, the right hon. member, the late Secretary for the Colonies, the Irish Master of the Rolls, and half a dozen highly influential gentlemen, who, acting as Commissioners, must have been fully informed on the subject. Thus, then, it was proved, that in the see of Armagh seven-eighths, and in all the other dioceses in Ireland four-fifths of the rents of that property, paid by the occupying tenantry, which ought alone to be appropriated to Church uses, were actually in the possession of private individuals, owing, as he understood, to an Act, certainly not of the reformed Parliament, which allowed the right reverend guardians of it the power to receive what are called fines for renewing leases, at so gross an undervalue, that it rendered the rents of their lands in point of fact merely nominal; yet it was a power generally acted upon, and often he was sorry to say, in a manner that was very discreditable to the highest dignitaries of the established religion. He had made a calculation from the report to which he alluded, on the admitted principles as regarded the rate of the amount of the renewal fines, on six cases in the see of Armagh, and sixteen in other dioceses, in which property is so held on Bishops' leases for one and twenty years, containing from two to twelve thousand acres each and he found that, in the first six cases, an income was extracted out of the lands by these lessees or middlemen, of no less a sum than 13,500l. per annum, and in the latter sixteen 32,753l. 7s. 5d. per annum, the total amount being 46,2531. 7s. 5d., not taking into calculation the value of buildings, which, in many cases, might amount to thousands of pounds, and which, no doubt, when added, would bear out the general impression on the subject, namely, that the Bishops, and other high dignitaries of the Church, did not receive more than one-fifth or onesixth of the actual value of their lands. He concluded by saying that, as he had a motion on the book on the subject for the 1st of July, he would not at present enter into further particulars; at the same time he would request hon. Members, and particularly his Majesty's Ministers, carefully to peruse the authority which he quoted; for if they did, he had no doubt they would not sanction the present almost total perversion of Church property, whether or not the same was hereafter to be appropriated to the uses of the Church or State. Both of them might have a strong claim on it; but certainly there was no claim to it, founded upon any principle of common sense or justice on the part of private individuals further than the residue of their existing leases, to which he was willing to admit they were entitled, but only entitled as a vested right for that period, and not one hour longer. As for dealing with these lessees for a perpetuity of leases so obtained and held heretofore, no matter for what length of time, under such a corrupt system of renewal, he considered that it would be a fraud on the Church and the people of Ireland generally. On the Church, as it would deprive it of the most legitimate means of providing for the clergy of the Establish ment; on the people, as it would destroy | declaration of the tutors, and the concurthe only way in which a total abolition of rence of their feelings and opinions with tithes could be effected, without endanger- those which were so seasonably and suiting the complete overthrow of the Pro-ably expressed in such declaration, had testant religion in that country, which God increased to 1,830. The Vice-Chancellor, forbid should ever take place. Heads of Houses, and Proctors, had also signed a declaration of their deliberate and firm opinion that the Bill in question, if passed into a law would violate their legal and prescriptive rights, subvert the system of religious instruction and discipline so long and so beneficially exercised by them; and, by dissolving the union between the University and the Church of England, impair the efficiency and endanger the security of both. Fully agreeing in opinions entitled to so much weight, he would add only one remark with reference to an observation of the hon. and learned member for Bath, one of the principal advocates of the Dissenting body. The hon. and learned Gentleman had broadly asserted, that religion was not taught in either of the Universities. Now he (Mr. Hughes Hughes) held this to be a gross calumny; but admitting, for the sake of argument, that it was true, how happened it that the Dissenters were so anxious for the admission of their children and connexions into colleges, in which, their organ said, the principles of religion were not inculcated? Petitions to lie on the Table. ADMISSION OF DISSENTERS.] Mr. Hughes Hughes rose to present three Petitions from the Ministers, Churchwardens, and Inhabitants, of the several parishes of St. Peter-in-the-East, St. Aldate, and Holywell, in the city of Oxford. All the petitioners stated, that should the measure sought by the Universities' Admission Bill (the second reading of which had been fixed for that evening) receive the sanction of the Legislature, the most serious consequences would ensue; that it would be an infraction of the ancient rights of the Universities, an innovation of their discipline, would lead to schisms amongst the students, to the overthrow of those regulations which time had proved were so essential to the promotion of learning and the advancement of the great and solid interests of the country in Church and State, and eventually to the subversion of the established religion; and that the union which had so long and so beneficially subsisted between the Universities and the Church of England (deeply felt by the petitioners) would virtually become extinct; but, beyond what the petitioners had thus submitted to the consideration of the House, there was another fundamental objection to the Bill, viz. that it proposed to admit, not only persons of every or any religious persuasion, but to allow men destitute of all religious principle whatever, to matriculate and take degrees; and, so privileged, they would go forth to the world with all the force and effect which learning could confer, to forward and accomplish their mischievous designs. He had on a former occasion, when presenting a similar peti-ject of the appropriation of Church property. tion, unanimously agreed to by the Corporation of Oxford, read to the House the declaration of all those immediately connected with the instruction and discipline of the University of Oxford, to the effect that it was their determined purpose, to the utmost of their power, to maintain inviolate their present system of religious instruction. Since that time, the number of Members of Convocation and Bachelors of Civil Law, who had signed a declaration, expressive of their approval of the CHURCH OF IRELAND-ADJOURNED DEBATE-SCHISM IN THE MINISTRY.]* The former debate on this subject was adjourned, at the request of Lord Althorp, because, as it was understood, some of his colleagues nad resigned. In the interim it was known, that Mr. Stanley, Secretary for the Colonies, Sir James Graham, First Lord of the Admiralty, the Duke of Richmond, PostMaster General, and the Earl of Ripon, Lord Privy Seal, had resigned their offices, because they differed from their colleagues on the sub the Colonies, Lord Auckland First Lord of the Mr. Spring Rice was appointed Secretary for Admiralty, the Marquess of Conyngham Post Master General (without a seat in the Cabinet), and the Earl of Carlisle Lord Privy Seal. The following is a list of the Cabinet as it was formed, or was immediately afterwards modified : Earl Grey - - - First Lord of the Treas. - Lord President. |