HANSARD'S PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES, DURING THE SECOND SESSION OF THE THIRTEENTH PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, APPOINTED ΤΟ MEET AT WESTMINSTER, 5TH FEBRUARY, 1839, IN THE SECOND YEAR OF THE REIGN OF HER MAJESTY QUEEN VICTORIA. FOURTH VOLUME OF THE SESSION. HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, June 6, 1839. MINUTES.] Petitions Presented :-By Earls CAWDOR, STAN- BARHAM, and a number of other noble LORDS, from many places, for a Uniform Penny Postage. By the Extension in Scotland.-By the Marquess of Downshire from places in Ireland, for redressing the Religious Earl of CAWDOR, from a place in Sutherland, for Church Grievances of Presbyterian Soldiers.-By the Bishop of other places, against running the Mails on Sundays. By By Lord BROUGHAM, from St. Mary's Newington, in favour of the Government Scheme of National Education. Abolition of the Colonial Legislature in Newfoundland. By Viscount LORTON, from Sligo, for inquiry into the appointment of Sheriffs. -By the Earl of ABERDEEN, from one place, for the He felt it right to say a few words on the rather unusual occurrence of presenting two petitions on the same day, from the same individual, and on the same subject, to their Lordships. The petitioner called for inquiry into her statement, which clearly could only be effected through a Committee of that House. When a committee was sitting last session, to investigate certain complaints connected with the Poor-law, it was impossible for them to investigate all the cases in time, as Parliament was prorogued, and it was obvious, that he could not present those petitions at an earlier period. They came from a woman of the name of ——, who resided in the union, and she, in the first petition, complained that she had been compelled to dispose of her dwelling, that relief had been refused her, and that she had been turned into the street, where she had been, for some time, exposed to the inclemency of the weather, night and day. She also complained, that her husband had been unjustly condemned to imprisonment for three months, in the county gaol of Cambridge. In the second peti B tion, from the same party, she complained that she had been sent backwards and forwards, no less than 52 miles, before she could procure relief,and that she had been obliged to sell some of her clothes, for the purpose of procuring food. She, therefore, earnestly prayed for inquiry. Now, no man, who was at all acquainted with the noble Earl, could, for a moment, suspect that he would, in any shape, tolerate cruelty. The noble Earl was, however, Chairman of the Board of Guardians, and he (Earl Stanhope) felt that he had only done his duty, in thus giving the noble Earl an opportunity of explaining the matter. The Earl of Hardwicke said, he would endeavour, as briefly as possible, to answer the statement of the noble Lord. He was sure their Lordships would always receive, with proper attention, petitions from the humbler classes of society, and when such petitions, in any way, concerned one of their Lordships' body, it would, he believed, rather increase than diminish their desire to investigate the matters referred to. Their Lordships would recollect that, last year, a similar petition was sent to that House, from the husband of the present petitioner. He believed, that some individuals were induced to make an unworthy attempt to excite prejudice against the law, rather than to point out real and tangible grievances, That petition alleged, that certain oppressive acts had been perpetrated by the Earl of Hardwicke and the Guardians of the Thaxton Union. Allegations were made, in the present petition, either under a mistake on the part of the petitioner, or with a wilful intention, with respect to the Board of Guardians, impugning their conduct very unjustly. So far as regards the Board of Guardians, no reference was made to any acts committed by them that were not perfectly justifiable. It was made a matter of complaint in the petition, that these parties were incarcerated. But what was the fact? They were in very great distress; and, fortunately for them, there was a workhouse ready to afford relief. Into that house they were received, and they were, of course, amenable to its rules. It was further alleged, as a grievance, that the husband was sent to prison. The cause of his imprisonment was this:He was permitted, by the Board of Guardians, to go out and seek for employment. He did so, and he was then called on to support his wife, which he was obliged to do by that act of Parliament which provided that individuals should be compelled to support their families, if they were able to do so. The man refused. His offence came within the notice and jurisdiction of the magistrates, who visited his offence with imprisonment. The Board of Guardians had nothing whatever to do with the matter. The second petition complained that the petitioner was obliged to travel a certain number of miles, for the purpose of receiving relief. Of that, he knew nothing. But he was certain that, if the petitioner had made the Board of Guardians acquainted with the conduct of the relieving officer, and that that conduct appeared to have been improper, he would confidently answer for it, that strict and prompt justice would have been done in the case. He was very sorry, that this complaint had not been sent to the Secretary of State, because, in all cases of this nature, where complaint was so made, Commissioners were sent down to inquire into the alleged grievance. They investigated the matter carefully, and they examined witnesses judicially, on oath. Thus, they got at the true facts of the case; and, in every instance, he believed, strict justice was administered. He should be exceedingly glad if an investigation took place with respect to this, or other complaints of a similar description. He thought, that the committee of last session might be beneficially renewed, since its labours were useful in disabusing the public mind, with respect to the operation of this measure. He should only further observe, that if, in this instance, any inquiry were instituted into the conduct of the Board of Guardians, he was convinced they would come fairly and honourably out of it. Petitions laid on the Table. TITHE COMMUTATION.] Lord Ashburton asked whether it were the intention of Government to bring forward, shortly, any measure for the explanation or amendment of the Tithe Commutation Act. There were various parts of the act which required one or other of these, and at this advanced period of the Session, he thought no further delay ought to take place. The Marquess of Lansdowne said, that a measure of the sort was under the con - sideration of the Government; but, in | unwillingly, to consent, that part of the the course of their communications with church namely, the tower should be the commissioners on the subject, so many pulled down for such a purpose; but he new points, for the most part of minor was not willing to consent to give power importance, had arisen, that the produc- to the Governor and Company of the tion of the measure had been inevitably Bank of England to traffic with consecrated delayed. This was the sole cause, as the ground, and to appropriate it to such a Government were anxious that something purpose, as that of making a Sun fire ofshould be done. fice. He believed, also, that an alteration to such an extent would be perfectly unnecessary, as a space of 40 feet could be given without destroying the church, which was also wider than many of the thoroughfares of the city. He had been told in the House, that the bill, as it stood, had the consent of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and of the Bishop of London. He admitted to the House, that no one could feel more strongly than he did the merits of the Bishop of London; but though he had confidence in the present Bishop, as to this measure, he could not have the same confidence in the Bishops of forty years hence. A great number of persons would be deprived of their place of worship by this measure. It was, also, a very Lord Portman was anxious that something should be done with regard to the mode of rating, not only tithe, but other property. In consequence of a late judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, there was no one rate in the kingdom which could be maintained, if it were to be contested. That judgment had the effect of reviving a principle which had never been acted upon since the time of Elizabeth. It affected not only the poor-rate, but the way-rate, which is founded on the poorrate. The judgment, in fact, imposed an income tax. Something should be done, and he thought a separate legislative measure would be necessary. Lord Wrottesley said, that the practice of taxing profits to the poor-rate was un-interesting church to this country, Sir satisfactory, and always had been unsatisfactory. The best mode of settling these cases was by private compromise. Lord Ashburton agreed, that the judgment spoken of by the noble Lord went to effect a complete revolution in the mode of rating. By the law, as it now stood, the profits of the farmer were liable to be rated. LONDON BRIDGE APPROACHES BILL.] On the motion that the Bill be read a third time, Sir R. Inglis objected to the bill, and to the circumstances under which it was introduced to the House. His objection was not to its title; but by clause 71 of this bill, power was given to the Governor and Company of the Bank of England to destroy a church attended by not less than 700 persons, and in which there was also service four times a-week, and 700 persons had attended it last Tuesday morning. He was ready, though Miles Coverdale, the first translator of the Bible, being buried in it. In the course of the last ten years, three churches had been pulled down in improving the approaches to London Bridge, and in the course of the last century, twenty other churches for the same purpose. The former great desecration was no ground for asking for powers for further desecration. He, therefore, moved, that the words in the preamble of the bill, giving power to pull down the whole or part of St. Bartholomew's Church, be altered, by leaving out the words, "whole," and retaining only" part," and that the 71st clause, be omitted. Mr. Herries was not surprised at the opposition of the hon. Baronet, knowing, as he did, the interest which he took in every measure connected with the Established Church. But he could assure the hon. Baronet, that the committee on the bill had sanctioned the bill in its present shape, with the best feelings towards the Church. His hon. Friend had, however, overrated the importance of the particular church in question as a place of worship. He doubted not that 700 persons attended divine worship there on Tuesday last; but usually the numbers who frequented it were about fifty or sixty, and indeed, extremely limited. The leading considera tion that determined the committee was, | of adding to the public convenience. He that the bill gave an alternative power to should be acting contrary to his conscience pull down the church, or only part of it, if he should allow such a bill to pass, and, as circumstances might require; that the therefore, moved as an amendment, that Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop it be read a third time that day three of London were appointed trustees, and months. the church could not be removed, unless these reverend Prelates saw that such a step was unavoidable. He would not Viscount Dungannon said, the church to which this bill applied was one of long standing, and he entirely concurred with the views expressed by the hon. Baronet. The precedent sought for was of the most dangerous nature. object to the removal of the tower; but it was too much to ask for the demolition of the whole of the sacred edifice, and he should support his hon. Friend in any amendment, to shew his feelings upon the subject. Mr. Sheppard said, that the pulling down of a church for such purposes as those contemplated by this bill, would be attended with the ruin of the best interests of the country. It Mr. Estcourt considered that it was a most monstrous proposition, to call upon the House to sanction the destruction of a church upon such inadequate reasons. had been said that 5,000l. had been subscribed to replace it by a new church, but that was to be erected in a different parish, and would, therefore, be of little or no avail, to those who frequented the existing one. Parliament, the public, and the Bishop of London, had declared there was an alarming want of church accommodation in the metropolis, yet power was sought by this bill to destroy one church. He must oppose any such mea sure. Sir R. Inglis, after the explanation given by his hon. Friend who had moved the third reading of the bill, would not press his amendment to a division, although he certainly was not by any means reconciled to the measure. The House divided on the original question; Ayes 82, Noes 33:-Majority 49. List of the AYES. Abercromby, hn. G.R. Bailey, J. List of the NOES. Viscount Dungannon was exceedingly sorry to trouble the House, by calling for division on this bill, particularly after Acland, T. D. the withdrawal of the amendment by the Alsager, Captain hon. Baronet; but he considered the pre-Ashley, Lord cedent which would be conveyed, by its passing to be of so serious a character, that he should deem himself to be neglectful of his duty, if he did not press for the sense of the House. The bill proposed to disturb the remains of the dead, on the plea Bagge, W. | De Horsey, S. H. Duffield, T. Grimsditch, T. Hale, R. B. Jackson, Mr. Sergeant James, Sir W. C. Pakington, John S. Palmer, G. Perceval, Colonel Inglis, Sir R. H. Dungannon, Ld. Visc. Bill read a third time and passed. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS.] Sir R. Inglis wished to put a question to the noble Lord connected with a subject which he (Sir R. Inglis) considered of some importance. The House was aware that a certain address had been presented to the high sheriff of the county of Mayo, the first name to which was that of the Lordlieutenant of the county. The next, as reported in the Freeman's Journal, was "John Archbishop of Tuam." He would take no notice of the third signature, and would give no opinion upon it; but he wished to ask whether the noble Lord had instructed the Attorney-general for Ireland to take any proceedings in consequence of the assumption of that title, in reference to the clause in the Roman Catholic Act which prohibited Roman Catholic prelates from assuming the titles of Protestant dignitaries? Lord John Russell had not seen the requisition to which the hon. Baronet had alluded; but in answer to the question put to him, he would state, that the Government had not given any directions to the Attorney-general, nor had they communicated with the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland on the subject, and unless there was an absolute necessity for so doing, he should not think it proper to take any steps in reference to it. On one occasion, when an application was sent to him by a person acting on behalf of Dr. M'Hale, asking that certain petitions should be laid before his late Majesty, that individual had taken the title of Archbishop of Tuam, and he had immediately written to him, stating that he could not present the petition to his Majesty, as he had assumed a name to which by law he was not entitled. Therefore, whenever it came before him officially, he should entirely deny that Dr. M'Hale had any right to assume that title; but he could not agree in the propriety or expediency of instituting prosecutions on such a subject. Mr. O'Connell did not know whether the noble Lord was aware that there was no such clause in the Roman Catholic Relief Act as that stated by the hon. Baronet. The clause prohibited others from giving any Roman Catholic that dignity, but it did not prevent him taking it himself. Lord John Russell replied, that in the case to which he had alluded, the title was not given by another to Dr. M'Hale. Whether or not there was that default in the Act mentioned by the hon. and learned Member, he did not know. Mr. O'Connell observed, that there was no such Protestant dignitary as the "Archbishop of Tuam," at the present time. There was a Bishop of Tuam, but no archbishop. Sir R. Inglis said, in consequence of the statements of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, he had obtained a copy of the Roman Catholic Relief Act, and after perusing it, was convinced that he (Sir R. Inglis) was right, and the hon. The hon. and learned Member wrong. Baronet then read the 24th section of the Act, from which it appeared "That if any person, after the commencement of this Act, other than the person thereunto authorized by law, shall assume the name, bishop of any bishoprick, or dean of any deanstyle, or title of archbishop of any province, ery, in England or Ireland, he shall for every such offence forfeit and pay the sum of one hundred pounds.” Mr. O'Connell, after reading the Act, admitted that the hon. Baronet was right, and that he (Mr. O'Connell) was wrong. Any person in or out of that House might call another the bishop or archbishop of any place, but the individual was not at liberty to assume the title himself. The CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.] House resolved itself into a Committee on the Controverted Elections Bill. The Chairman read clause 22, which had reference to the appointment of the general committee by the Speaker, that were to select the sub-committee to try election petitions. Lord Mahon entertained considerable doubt as to the practical working of this clause. The committees to try petitions were to consist of seven Members, to be chosen by the general committee of selection. Now in what manner would this committee of selection be able to proceed? Six Members, indeed, they might choose without difficulty-three from one side of the House and three from the other-but he (Lord Mahon) did not understand in what manner the seventh Member of the committees could possibly be selected so |