The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-15 00:00:00

standing orders be ? They would be a perfect
nullity, and if these statements were to be
allowed to pass unnoticed and uninvestigated,
the House itself would become a party to these abomin-
able scenes, they would encourage them from ono end
°f the kingdom to the other, and it would be tantamount
to an invitation to wealthy men to come forward and
interfere with the rights of the electors, who were in-
vit( d to return Members to discharge the duties of that
house. He said therefore that the allegations of these pe-
titionerswere entitled to'their calmandserious deliberation ;
and as the Noble Peer had no objection to an inquiry, he
begged leave to move that the petition be referred to
Committee of Inquiry. Some Hon. Members might
.ash, " Suppose your find the Noble Peer guilty, what
Will you do with him ? What punishment can you
Inflict upon him when you have no power
to inflict any ?" He did not know what
punishment the House had power to inflict,
but this he did know, that public opinion, in these cases,
was seldom appealed to in vain, and if they had no
power to inflict a punishment, the Noble Peer might
be left to be dealt with by public feeling and public
opinion.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. MUNTZ seconded the motion.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, after a short pause,
rose and said, he had been anxious to ascertain what was
the opinion of the House upon this subject before he
related the result of his inquiry into the matter; but as no
Rom Member seemed disposed to address the House on the
subject he was anxious to point out the difficulties they
Would get into if' they adopted this motion. Now,
if he understood the motion, it was founded
Upon what was alleged to be a breach of the
priviliges of the Ilouse, which privileges
Were established by the standing orders passed at idle
commencement of each Parliament. Now the first
'vine he found on the books of this nature occurred so far
back as 1780, when a petition was presented complaining
td the interference of the Duke of Chandos with the elec-
tion of a Member of the county of Northumberland. That
rptition was very properly referred to the Committee of
ivileges, who subsequently reported their opinions to
the House on the subject, when a motion was made and
carried, to the effect that the consideration of the report
he adjourned sine die.—(liear, hear.)
Mr. WAKLEY—That was before the Reform Par-
Lament.—(Hear, and laughter.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL continued—The next
ewe took place in the same year, and was reported in
Paige 530. It was a similar application against the
Duke of Bolton for interfering in the election for the
county of Southampton. The question was re-
ferred to the Committee of Privileges, but
the House, warned by the former case, took no further
.steps in the matter. On the same page he found a
"motion instructing that Committee to report upon the
matter ; but it was subsequently withdrawn.
There was a farther motion respecting the
interference of a Bishop in the same election, but the same
aourse was taken. In 1841, an application of a similar na-
ture was made in consequence of the interference of Lord
Cawdor in the Carmarthen election, through the agency of
his steward. The then Member for Bridport (Mr. War-
burton), a great supporter of the privileges of the
house was
a member of the Committee, and he and
the Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J.
Graham) and the Noble Lord. (John Russell)
.
a part in the discussion, but it resulted, in
Ito motion being made. Since that time several cases
lad occurred. On the 4th of April; 1845, an applica-
tion was made against the Duke of Marlborough. on
the strength of a petition from Woodstock ; no mo-
tion was made. In September, 1845, a petition was
Presented, complaining of the conduct of the Marquis of
Salisbury; the petition was printed, but it led to no
result. In 1833 and in 1838 similar petitions were pre-
sented against the Duke of Marlborough, praying for
inquiry, with the same result; and such was the case with
respect to a petition against the Marquis of Hertford in
1820. The House felt that it had no remedy in its
hands, and nothing was done in either case.
Mr. WAKLEY—You may dismiss Earl Fitzhardingo
from the lord-lieutenancy.—(Hear. hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was coming to that
Part. If the facts alleged were true, the Earl could be
Proceeded with in a court of justice—(Hear)—and look-
ing at the precedents he had quoted, it appeared to him
that an inquiry by a Committee would be prejudicial to
the ends of justice. It was not stated that he was
guilty of the conduct complained of in his capacity of
Lord-Lieutenant of the county.—(" Oh, oh I") If he had
persuaded his tenants to withdraw their support from
his brother, the captain of the militia, as their land-
lord, and not as the Lord-Lieutenant, it could not
Ise said that he had departed from the duties of his
office, but if he had done so it would be a ground for
proposing a recommendation to the Queen to dismiss
aim. He wished simply to set the House right on
taw law.
Captain BERKELEY sought the indulgence of the
house for a few moments. He could not do better to
'how that the charge was trumped up than to read the
'Nerds of his noble relative. (The Gallant Gentleman
Produced a letter.) He stated that the charge was the
'vilest falsehood that ever disgraced any set of men ; as
be had never interfered in any way with his tenants, or
with any other person, with respect to the election in
syestion. He (Capt. B.) firmly believed this statement,
le hoped the House would deal with his noble relative
tis it thought fit. As for himself be should withdraw
:from that discussion.—(The Hon. and Gallant Member
:hurriedly walked out of the House.)
Mr. G. BERKELEY deeply regretted the painful po-
21ition in which he was placed on the present occasion ;
but he was anxious to say a few words as regarded the
petition, the respectability of the names attached to it,
and the allegations which it contained. With regard to
the assertion just made, and which touched him more
nearly: btcauso he was the captain of the troop of yeo-
manry alluded to, he could assure the House that he
bad in his possession (and if the House granted the
Committee be would produce them) the letters of the
tenantry who had served in his troop, telling him they
'would not have left if they had not been coerced to do
50 by their landlord. When he returned the muster-
roll of his troop, he had reported in the printed column
for remarks the fact that many of his best men had
sinsultatit ously deserted the troop ; and, lest it should
he thought that this had arisen from any errors on his
Part, he had distinctly reported that they had so left in
,consequence of the coercion exercised by the Lord-
-Lieutenant. He had, however, not been permitted
to send the muster-roll to the War-office with these
Words in it, and, therefore, in obedience to his com-
manding officer, and after consulting with an Hon. and
Gallant Friend as to what ho should do, he had erased
the words, and made no remark in the muster-roll.
he should say Lie more, nor should he attempt to fore-
stall the decision of the House ; indeed, but for the re-
taarke of his Hon. and Gallant relation, who had quitted
'the House, he should not have said a word upon the
"nkiect.
Sir R. H. INGLIS proposed to direct the attention of
the House to the petition without reference to the party
amt, inst whom it was directed, and to ask the House to
ellolider whether it was necessary to adopt the course
the house had proposed. The Hon. and Learned At-
"aftey-General had found that there were means in the
courts of law by which redress could be sought if any
Il'ong had been committed, and there were other
which ought to be exhausted before the House
"Rata called upon to enter upon the discussion of the
tltlestiow now before it. It might be a doubtful question
bow
far it was right, session after session, to face the
Standing order which made the House subject, he would
;lot say to mockery and insult, but, at any rate, to ridi-
cule, but still it was matter for calm consideration whe-
ther a resolution of the House was sufficient to disfran-
chise any of their fellow-subjects whether a Peer :or
'"a commoner. Every Peer had a right to interfere, as a
freeholder of 40s. value, and there were many Peers
?vow living who had exercised the privilege of voting at
~.„e election of Members to serve in Parliament, and the
irJuZce of Norfolk, within the last forty years, had voted
it a at „least half a dozen boroughs in which he had into-
teat, an.d knowing all this, he thought the House would
*Xtreise a wise discretion, in no longer having recourse
C that .6 brutum fultner which was hurled every year
14 the shape of a standing order at the Peers of the
,'es lin. On the whole, he thought that the Hon. Mem-
"Jet for Finsbury had laid no adequate grounds for the
sane Lion, and, under such circumstances, if pressed to a
die ision, be should vote against it.
l!elr. HUDIE said that several years ago he had en-
d es %vouredi to persuade the House not to persist in the
to as ntenance of the standing order in question. There,
he, never, it remained, and hence the awkward position
of -'the House on the present occasion., He dissented
how the.Honourable Baronet, the Member for Oxford,
and t hought that ample grounds had been laid for the
Ilona to vindicate its own resolution. He thought the
House ought not to stultify itself by refusing the in-
spiry- a-ought, and on these grounds he should support
the 'notion.
Lord VUDLEY STUART thought that the motion
having been made, it was due to the electors of the
cometry at large to grant the inquiry. It was the duty
of the House to protect the electoral body from undue
Influence being exercised by any individual, whatever
his rank and statiOn. This measure would have a ten-
the
• towards that end, as marking the reprobation of
Lae House for these .improper practices. Supposing the
house unable to reach the offender, he might be reached
by publio opinion; and ho w could public opinion be fixed
but by a proper iuquiry? The report of a Committee
Would enable this to be dons'. The inquiry ought to be
Wanted in justice to the Noble Lord, the petitioners,
and the country. The House must be pained by hearing
t 4. the differences in the Noble Lord's family, who, during
▪ long life had been a steady and zealous supporter of
feral principles. On that ground, be rejoiced that the
"notion had come- from his side of the House; there could
the less suspicion of any party motive. It behoved
~,„"a Rouse to show that they were not indifferent to these
titters; and this could only be done by the appointment
',a Committee.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he did not agree with the
Member for Montrose, that, because a certain re-
solution had been passed by that House against the in•
terference of Peers at elections, they were therefore
hound, on every occasion of complaint, immediately to
;"(.')istitute an inquiry, or else to rescind their resolution.
ll the contrary, he conceived it was completely in the
discretion of the House, having passed such a resolution,
,
aPply it or not to the cases brought before it.—(Hear,
sr.) There might be a case in which the House
Mould unanimously agree to an inquiry; there might be
tl in which it would not think inquiry advisable; and
Hon. Member for Montrose had not held out a very
153Pting prospect when he said, that if a Committee was
a?Pointed, and the charges were found to be proved,
~
Lien the prudence of the House might come in, and no
that
an advisable course h to pursue.n The discretion to be
"sereised depended very much on the allegations in the
Petition. One allegation, to which an Hon. Member of
_l4_* House (Mr. G. Berkeley) had lent the weight of his
Zhority, was, that Lord Fitahardinge had induced cer-
,—aL"tt Members of a troop of yeomanry to withdraw from that
troop
because the Hon. Gentleman was the captain of

that troop; and it was alleged he had done that in virtue
o! his power as Lord-Lieutenant. But this was not, on the
one band, an exercise of his power as Lord-Lieutenant;
nor, on the other, was it an interference with the elec-
tion.—(Hear, hear.) It might ho that it was the exer-
cise of a very wanton and oppressive power as against
the Hon. Gentleman the captain of the troop; it might
have shown a feeling not at all honourable; but it was
not a matter into which the House could inquire, with a
view to take any proceedings. The next allegation is as
that the Noble Lord had endeavoured to induce a candi-
date, who wished to be a Member of that House, to
withdraw his pretensions. Even if it were proved that
he had paid money for that purpose, he (Lord J. Rus-
sell) did not know whether it would bear the character
of a corrupt proceeding, so as to bring it within the pro-
vince of any law relating to elections. A further allo-
cation and a grave one was, that Lord Fitzhardinge
" had caused to be paid a large sum of money for pur-
chasing and treating voters, and by an extensively or-
ganized system of personal violence, gross immorality,
bribery, corruption, and intimidation, had endeavoured
to influence the election for West Gloucestershire." But
that was an allegation which might have been inquired
into in the mods which the House had appointed by sta-
tute, had the petition been presented within fourteen
days after the meeting of Parliament.
Mr. WAKLEY was understood to dissent.

Lord J. RUSSELL said if this allegation was inquired
into, it ought to be before a Committee appointed under
the Act passed two years ago, rather than by a general
Committee of the House. As it was, the matter would
come before the Committee which had been regularly
appointed, by the Act of Parliament, for inquiring into
the return. It did not appear, therefore, in this parti-
cular case, that there was any reason for appointing a
Committee for the purpose. His Right Hon. Friend
behind him (Sir G. Grey) had just informed him that
the petition against the return was not on the ground of
bribery, but on the ground of want ofqualification.-
(Hear, hear.) If so, that would make a difference as to
the means of inquiry before that Committee.—(Hear.
hear.) Certainly, if there were no means for inquiring
into this matter before an Election Committee, that might
be a ground—whether Lord Fitzhardinge was a Peer of
Parliament or not—for appointing a Select Committee.
—(Hear.) He confessed he was not sufficiently aware
whether there were the means for so inquiring or not ;
and therefore he should suspend his opinion on the
question.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND said he believed the liberties
et the country were most endangered by the assumption
of extraordinary powers on the part of that House.
Sir F. THESIGER said be hardly understood what
course the Government meant to pursue, the Noble Lord
having stated, after receiving-the correction of his Right
Hon. Friend, that ho should suspend his opinion on the
matter.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Attor-
ney-General had objected to the inquiry on the ground
that it would be utterly fruitless—that the House could
not reach the Noble Peer even if he were pronounced
guilty ; and he had industriously collected precedents
in proof of this. But even if no result could be arrived
at such an inquiry ought not to be stifled.—(Hear, hear.)
It would be perfectly idle in the House, having passed
this standing order only a fortnight ago, as soon as a
petition of this kind was presented, the allegations of
which were very strong, to admit that this order was
utterly powerless, and -a waste of words. This petition
concerned not only a Peer, but a Peer who held the re-
sponsible office of Lord-Lieutenant of the county.—
(Hear, hear.) The Attorney-General said ho had not
acted as Lord-Lieutenant in coercing the yeomanry, but
only being Lord-Lieutenant—(Hear)—consequently
the standing order could not be' enforced against him.
But most certainly, if the standing order had been vio-
lated, it ought to be enforced in this case. There was
one case decidedly in point. In 1701, the Bishop of
Worcester, who was almoner to the Queen, interfered
in the election for Worcestershire, not as the Queen's
almoner, but being the Queen's almoner.—(Hear, hoar.)
A petition was presented, on which the House reported,
and addressed her Majesty for his dismissal, which was
granted, her Majesty declaring that she would put some
one else in his off.ce.—(Hear.) Without entering into
the merits of the petition, he must contend that it would
be trifling with the standing orders not to inquire into
this case. It was said it might be loft to the ordinary
course of law, by which acts of bribery might be pro-
secuted. This showed that the House had a power of
punishing the Noble Earl if he were guilty, by directing
the Attorney-General to pros-cute, as had been done in
many former cases.—(Hear, hear.) Should the peti-
tioners be able to prove what they alleged, it would be
the exalted and important duty of the House, on account
of the high station of the individual, to pursue the course
it had taken against humble individuals in other cases.
—(Hear, hear.) The House was clearly not so helpless
as the Learned Attorney. General had represented.
Sir G. GREY said he was not at all prepared to deny
that some inquiry ought to take place : but the House
should be cautious in adopting the motion that had been
presented to it. The petition did not subject the par-
ties to any recognisances by stating the petitioners to
be electors. The allegation as to bribery charged Lord
Fitzhardinge with paying and causing to be paid money
for purchasing and treating electors. By the Act 5
and 6 Viet., cap. 102, a tribunal was expressly provided
for investigating charges of this nature, when they
could not be heard before an Election Committee ; and
to this tribunal was referred all petitions presented after
the period for presenting election petitions—that tribu-
nal being the General Committee of Elections, who
were empowered to report upon such petitions. The
case before the House was thus expressly provided for.
Let the petitioners allege themselves electors, aid
enter into recognisances, and then their petition
might be entertained.—(Hoar.) He had only just
looked into the case ; and if there was any doubt he
thought it would be better to adjourn the question
for a day or two. The petition, in reciting the order
of the House, referred to the Noble Lord acting as Lord-
Lieutenant ; but there could be no doubt this order re-
ferred to acts done by Noble Lords by virtue of their
office as Lords-Lieutenant. He would move that the de-
bate be now adjourned.—(Hear.)
Sir R. PEEL said it was the practice of the House, in
such cases, to institute immediate inquiry ; but this
ought not to be done without consideration. A tribunal
for examining thus charges bad been expressly provided,
recognisance. being required from the complainants ;
and if these preliminaries were dispensed with, it would
go far to break down the existing provision. Such was
the importance of the subject that there would be a great
tendency to present similar petitions if it could be done
without recognisances. The House would act most
wisely to take 24 hours, at all evenW, to consider what
ought to be done. He, therefore, most heartily seconded
the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. WAKLEY expressed his readiness to consent to
a short adjournment.
The debate was accordingly adjourned till Friday.
THE. ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.

Mr. HORSMAN said he need offer no apology for
bringing under the notice of the House the proceedings
of the Ecclesiastical Commission, at a moment when
both clergy and laity were roused to great activity, and
when all eyes were directed to the proceedings of the
board by whom the ecclesiastical revenues were ad-
ministered. The board was invested with very high
authority, its powers were most extensive, and it would
be sure to command the sympathy of the House in its
proceedings. Every generous mind must give them
credit for discharging their duties with scrupulous
fidelity. Nevertheless, he brought torward this motion,
not only without reluctance, but without fear. The
whole case lay in a very small compass, and, in order to
make it clear to the House, he had embodied it in the
resolutions. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners had to
carry into effect the provisions of the Act of 1836; they
were to carry certain reductions in the episcopal incomes
into effect upon the avoidance of the sees. Last year an
important provision of the Act of 1836 was repealed,
and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners stated, in the
other House, that they thought the Act of 1836 went
too far. He thought the privoso that the changes
enacted in 1836 were only to come into operation
oa the avoidance of the sees was very objectionable;
for how would those suggestions come before the public?
The Archbishop of Canterbury said that he thought the
revenues of his see much too large, and they ought to be
reduced to 15,0001. a year; and the Bishop of London
thought 10,0001. a year enough for his see; but they
both persisted in retaining their present revenues during
their lives—they would not allow their incomes to be
diminished, although they admitted that they were too
great, and ought to be curtailed. When the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners proceeded to the discharge of their
duties they were guided by a return of the episcopal in-
comes for three years, ending in 1831, and by the pro-
bable incomes in future years made by the several bishops.
Some of these returns were so extraordinary, that it
looked like a desire to keep the public in the dark on
the subject. The Archbishop of Canterbury returned his
income at 22,2161. gross, and 19,1821. net; but Dr. Lush-
ington the year before, in 1830, said that the average in-
come of the archiepiscopal se• was 32,000/. Taking, how-
ever, the average of three years, ending with 1831, it
seemed,according to the Archbishop's return, to have fallen
to 22,0001.; but the Most Rev. Prelate said his future income
would be diminished to 17,0001., and the Commissioners
so took it. When he (Mr. Horsman) looked, however,
to the next return of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners,
showing the average of seven years, ending with 1843,
the net income of the Archbishop
_of Canterbury had
risen to 21,0001., and the gross income to 28,0001. Next
came the return of the Archbishop of York, who made
his income to be 13,0001. gross, and 12,000/. net, and
added that a decrease of at least 201. per cent. must be
expected. Accordingly his future income was set down
li
at 10,6001. ; but the return made by himself in 1843
showed that his income had risen to 14,5501., an increase
of 40 per cent. over the calculation which he had made.
He now came to the case of the Bishop of London, who
returned his income at 13,900/., and stated that there
must be a decrease, in accordance with which his future
income was estimated at 12,204/. It had risen, however,
by the return of 184.3, to 14,5521. The Right Rev.
Prelate said in 1831 that the whole prospect of his see
was one of diminution. Now many lion. Members
must be aware of the Bishop of London's Pad-
dingtou estate, flanked by the Edgware-road on
the one side and the Uxbridge-road on the other,
upon which an immense number of buildings had
risen up. Was it possible to believe that in
the year 18.81, when a return was deliberately made that
ell the prospects of the see of London were decrease of
income, au idea of all these buildings rising up did not
fit across the mind of the Right Rev. Prelate ?—(Hear.)
Five years before there had been an Act of Parliament
obtained for the express purpose of promoting them.—
(Hear, hear.) The report of the Ecclesiastical Com-
missioners on the 17th of March, 1845, after they had
been erected, reiterated the statement that a diminution
was to be expected, although a great many of the houses
in llytie-park-terrace and the neighbourhood were in-
habited at the time, and others were in the course of
being built.—(Hear, hear.) Terraces were springing up
in every direction, and a mine of wealth was thus
secured to the Bishop of London which he was almost
. afraid to calculate ; it had, however, hem estimated