Commons Sitting of 14 April 1834

MINUTES.
New Writ ordered. On the Motion of Mr. CHARLES WOOD, for Perthshire, in the Room of the Earl of ORMELIE, now Marquess of BREADALBANE.
Bill. Read a second time:—Clerk of the Pipe (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By Sir JOHN WROTTESELEY, from the Friendly Benefit Societies of Wolverhampton, for the Amendment of the Friendly Societies Act.—By Lords MORPETH and PALMERSTON, from several Bodies of Dissenters,—for Relief.—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from several Places,—for the Repeal of the Union, anti against Tithes.—By Sir CHARLES BURRELL, Mr. MILES, and Lord MORPETH, from several Places,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Lord CHARLES RUSSELL, from Watford, for the Establishment of Local Courts.—By Mr. MILES, from a Number of Places, for Relief to the Agricultural interest.—By Mr. CHRISTMAS, from Waterford, for the Reciprocity of Duties Act; and from the same Place, against the Repeal of the Union.

TRADES' UNIONS.—THE DORCHESTER LABOURERS.
Mr. Craven Berkeleypresented a Petition from the inhabitants of Cheltenham, numerously signed, praying that the House would present an Address to his Majesty, to mitigate the punishment of the Dorchester agriculturists for administering unlawful oaths. He did not feel it necessary to enter into the subject, as the men to whom it related had already left the country.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, that it was very hard that men should be punished for a crime which they had ignorantly committed. He thought that conciliatory measures would he much more effectual in suppressing the Unions than such severe measures as had been adopted with respect to the Dorsetshire Unionists. He hoped his Majesty's Ministers would take the case
734
of these unfortunate men into consideration.
Mr. Hardyhad been represented as entertaining an opinion unfavourable to Trades' Unions; but he had stated, as strongly as he could, that he saw no objection to workmen entering into a combination to better their condition by refusing to work under certain wages. He added, that it could not be endured in any country governed by law, that they should compel others, by intimidation and force of arms, as it were, to join them. In 1832, a murder was committed near the town he represented, because a person did not obey the orders of the Union; and although fourteen or fifteen persons were concerned, no discovery of the perpetrators had yet been made, those who it was thought could give information, being afraid to do so. This was the kind of conduct that could not be suffered. At the same time, that he maintained the right of the workmen to associate to benefit their condition, he must say, that he did not think the Unions had done them much good; and those which had been conducted upon the same principle as that at Exeter and some others, had been the ruin of the workmen, who were deluded by the Committee-men and Treasurer into keeping up an agitation by which they profited.
Sir Charles Burrellcontended, that the friends of liberty who upheld the Trades' Unions, who obliged men to leave their employers when they pleased, were acting most unwisely; could there be a greater tyranny than to force men to leave their masters and join bodies that were collecting funds for illegal purposes? It was monstrous that such bodies should be allowed to continue to have such a power as that to which he had adverted.
Major Beauclerkthought Trades' and other Unions were founded in justice, and, it was because he felt so, that he gave them his support. At the same time, he admitted, that nothing could be more unwise, or, indeed, more unjust, than that any Union should act in the way stated by the hon. Baronet. He regretted to find that there were some misguided men belonging to the Trades' Unions; but was that a reason why they should be suppressed altogether? Were there no such things as unions of gentlemen to put down paupers and poachers? He had seen many a poor wretch banished from his

735
home for taking a single hare, by the unions of country gentlemen. Let the gentlemen of the country show, by their conduct, that their feelings were identified with the well-being of the people, and they would find, that the people would not be joining Unions of any kind. He trusted that the Unions would act for their own welfare, without, in any way, interfering with those who might differ from them.
Mr. Baineshad the pleasure to state, that since the conviction at Dorchester, the members of the Trades' Unions had desisted from taking oaths of any kind. While referring to this subject, he could not but observe, that he thought the present Administration would have acted wisely and well, if they had extended mercy towards the Dorchester prisoners. He admitted, that it was criminal, in any man, to force another to take an oath by which he would oblige that other to leave his employer; but still, he thought, there were such features in the Dorchester case as might have induced the Government to visit the prisoners with a milder punishment than had been pronounced upon them; care being taken, at the same time, to intimate that, should there be a recurrence of the offence, the severer punishment would be applied to those who should be guilty of it. The persons who had committed the crime having been, in a certain degree, unacquainted with its extent, and certainly ignorant of the punishment to which it led, it would have been received as an act of favour by the labourers of England, if they had not been punished so severely. He hoped, even yet, it was not too late to recall them; not that he meant to say, that their punishment should be altogether remitted. He believed the Trades' Unions were beginning to be conscious of the risk they were running by interfering with the free exercise of the labour of their fellow-workmen, and in administering illegal oaths to anybody connected with their associations.
Mr. O'Connellhoped the hon. Member who presented the petition from Cheltenham would not stop there, but would follow it up by moving an address to his Majesty. He said this, without having any doubt upon the law—without having any doubt of the case coming within the law, or of the Judge who decided the case being bound to decide it as he did. The recital of the statute related to one particular species of offence; yet the enacting
736
clauses contained the one in question—that of administering an oath not to disclose or give evidence against any confederate in the association. It was a slumbering statute, and had not been carried into effect against many associations who took that oath. The Freemasons came within the statute. They swore not to disclose against any person what occurred in their lodges. The Orange Lodges, too, came under the Act. It was said, that many illustrious persons in this country were at the head of the Orange Lodges, and nobody had thought of prosecuting them. This statute was allowed to slumber from the year 1797, and only now raked up to inflict an enormous punishment on unfortunate men who were wholly ignorant of its existence, and innocent of any moral offence. In proportion, then, to their innocence from moral offence, should the Government mitigate this unjust sentence. Why did the Government rake up this slumbering statute, and, by its application, tear from the bosoms of their families, and banish as criminals from the land, those wretched men? Why, to strike a terror, it seemed, into the breasts of the Trades' Unionists, whose power they deemed to be too formidable. And why, when the country called aloud for a mitigation of this enormous punishment, did the Government lend a deaf ear to the appeal? Because, it seemed, the Government would not yield to intimidation. Was it because some strong language was used at the public meetings in London, the Government refused to mitigate the sentence? Why, if the Government acted justly, should it have anything to fear from the Trades' Unions, or from those persons who expressed themselves, in forcible language, against the gross injustice of this sentence? The Government had nothing to fear from any portion of the community, if its course were that of justice. He trusted the House would interfere and procure a mitigation of this, he would say, atrocious sentence. Was it not manifest that those wretched men did not intend to violate the law? and was it not disgraceful to lay a trap for them; and then, when it had caught them? ignorant and morally innocent as they were, to inflict on them the heaviest punishment which was inflicted, on guilt of the deepest die? It was said, that Trades' Unions had arrived at a formidable point, and that it was necessary to put a stop to them. He

737
was of opinion, that the Trades' Unions had no more right to tyrannize than had the Emperor Nicholas, or any other tyrant who might be equally ferocious. If, however, they only associated for the purpose of raising the wages of labour, and did not interfere with those who chose to accept lower wages, he did not think that they were acting illegally. But if they tyranranised over and compelled others to enter into their views, he contended that there were laws of sufficient power to punish and prevent such tyranny without recurring to a statute enacted for an entirely different purpose, and which had become a dead letter, and been allowed to slumber in oblivion, until raked up for the avowed purpose of punishing these men. The Government had no need to resort to other laws than those in common use. Again, the Trades' Unions, it was said, sent delegates round the country. Supposing that to be the case, there was a law in existence to suppress them. By that law no permanent body could send delegates, though a public meeting or any other body, pro re nata, as it was called. Why, then, not carry that law into effect, if necessary? There were abundance of means of neutralising any evil effects contemplated by the Unions; and justice could be had on all delinquents against the law. But that justice should be tempered with mercy, and punishment should be inflicted for the suppression of, and not as an incentive to, crime. He thought it his duty to make these few observations, as he considered the extension of the democratic principle the only mode of increasing effectually the happiness of mankind. At the same time that he advocated this extension, he deprecated all interference with property, and all violation of the law, openly or in secret.
Colonel Percevalbegged leave to say, that no oaths were now taken by Orangemen. As an Orangeman himself, he could state the fact, that no oaths had been taken by him or others since the passing of the Act of Parliament, making it penal.
Mr. O'Connellhad alluded to the oaths taken by Orangemen previous to the period mentioned by the hon. Member; oaths which required three separate Acts of Parliament to suppress. Besides, an engagement tantamount to an oath brought individuals within the Act.
Mr. Craven Berkeleywished to say,
738
after the observations of the hon. member for Dublin, as he had presented the petition, that he thought the case of the Dorchester men was not one tit for the consideration of his Majesty's Ministers.
Colonel Evansthought, that the clear statement made by the hon. and learned member for Dublin was sufficient to convince any one that the extreme rigour of the law should not be carried into execution in the case in question. He must remind the House of a revolting case of a child having been lately killed by a severe beating from his master, and for that serious offence only two months' imprisonment was deemed sufficient punishment. He could but consider such discrepancies as greatly injurious to the morals of the people, for the sentence was too lenient in one case, and much too severe in the other.
Mr. Rotchquoted, from "The Trades' Union Magazine," a paragraph respecting the use of oaths in that body, because it was useless to bind by an oath which would not be kept; therefore oaths were discarded, not because the law prohibited them, but of their uselessness. He thought it right that the labouring classes should be independent of their employers, and free from any tyrannous power, but meetings and bodies of men assembling should he prevented. He differed from the hon. Gentleman (for Dublin) who said, that the Statute was a slumbering one. It was not—it was acted upon in another case, as could be ascertained by consulting the Reports.
Petition to lie on the Table.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
The House went into a Committee of Supply.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that when in former years it was his duty to introduce the Miscellaneous Estimates to the notice of the House, he had invariably abstained from any preliminary remarks, because he thought that the effect of such discussions was generally to produce confusion, and that the best opportunity for affording whatever explanations might be required was to be found when each separate vote came before the Committee. He was not now going to depart materially from his former practice, but there were one or two facts connected with those Estimates which he thought would prove gratifying to the House, and, therefore, he should

739
briefly call its attention to them. Under the head of "Miscellaneous Estimates," were contained five classes of expenditure the Treasury Estimates for England, Irish Miscellaneous Services, Civil Contingencies, Ordnance Extraordinaries, and Commissariat. He wished to state the result of the reductions effected during the four years that it had been his duty to propose these Estimates. In the present, as compared with the past year, the saving in those Estimates amounted to 234,000 l.; as compared with 1832, it was 726,000 l.; and as compared to 1831, it was 1,322,000 l. Endeavours had been made by the Treasury to limit the contingent or extraordinary votes as far as possible, considering that they might be made matter of estimate. During the last two years there had been no vote for army extraordinaries. The Committee would bear in mind that a saving of 1,322,000 l. had been effected in three years on a gross estimate of 3,346,000 l., a reduction of more than one-third of the whole. The first vote he should propose was a vote that he would take out of the ordinary course, it being one that related to individuals who had a strong claim on the attention of the House; he referred to the vote for the expenses of Revising Barristers under the Reform Act. Those Gentlemen had rendered the services required by the Act, but had not yet been paid their allowances and expenses. The item in question was No. 14, and it exhibited a reduction of 8,000 l., as compared with last year's estimate; the expense being then, 30,500 l., instead of which it now amounted to 22,500 l. only.
The vote of 22,500 l. for allowances and expenses of the Banisters employed in revising lists of voters, &c. under the Act 2nd William 4th, c. 45, was agreed to.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that the next vote he should propose was for the cost of two pictures purchased for the use of the nation. The question of a National Gallery was one that had been suggested, and, indeed urged, by the House rather than by the Government. He never recollected a feeling so strongly expressed upon all sides as that which prevailed in favour of establishing a National Gallery. It was recommended by all parties, and received the support of Gentlemen most urgent for economy, and such being the case, Government had acted upon what he regarded as the unanimous wish of the House. During the present year two of the finest
740
Corregios in Europe came within reach of the Treasury, he believed he might say two of the finest pictures in Europe, and Government thought this an opportunity that ought not to be missed. The House might wish to know what steps had been taken by the Government in order to ascertain the value of those pictures; and he was happy, therefore, to have it in his power to state that they were purchased at a most reasonable rate. One single fact, indeed, which he would mention would, he had no doubt, be sufficient to satisfy the House that such was the case. They had distinct evidence to that effect before them on the part of the best judges who had inspected the pictures, and they had also distinct evidence before them that a private individual had several years ago, as mere matter of trade and speculation, offered the sum of 10,000 guineas for the same pictures. The value of those pictures, according to the opinion of the best judges, was 12,000 guineas, and the Government had been able to purchase them for the country for 500 guineas under that sum. He would mention the names of the best qualified judges, who had been selected to value those pictures, as authority for what he now stated, were it not that he was afraid a vote of this kind often produced a debate in that House that was not of a generally useful character. The House having already voted the erection of a National Gallery, he trusted that it would give its cordial assent to a vote of this description for the purchase of two such noble pictures for that gallery. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the sum of 11,550 l. be granted for the purchase of pictures for the National Gallery, for the year 1834.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that he had no intention to oppose this vote; on the contrary, he entirely agreed in the opinion expressed by his right hon. friend, that if any pictures should be purchased for the National Gallery they should be such as, like the two pictures in this instance, had obtained a high and well-known character throughout Europe. This vote, he must say, met with his cordial concurrence. He would take that opportunity, however, to express a wish that some information should be laid before the House with regard to the arrangements that were to be made with the members of the Royal Academy, as respected the terms on which a certain portion of the new building was

741
to be appropriated for their use. So far from the building now in progress being too extensive for the purposes of a National Gallery, he thought that from the large donations that, might from time to time be made to it, the space already appropriated for it, would soon become too small, and that all the ground would be required for it alone. He feared, in fact, that under such circumstances, though the building would be amply sufficient for a National Gallery of pictures of the ancient masters, it would not be sufficient for a gallery for the Royal Academy. He wished, therefore, to know what terms had been made with the Royal Academy, and whether it was to be understood that the space which was to be given to the Royal Academy in the National Gallery would be given up by them, if it should be hereafter wanted for the purposes of the National Gallery itself. He thought that the Government should retain in its hands the power of taking possession of that space of ground hereafter if it should be wanted.
Mr. Spring Ricewas very glad that his hon. friend (Mr. Warburton) had put that question to him. He trusted that the observations of his hon. friend with respect to the donation of pictures to the gallery would be fulfilled, and that they would not have to look for pictures for their gallery, but a gallery for their pictures. If anything were necessary to justify what had been stated by the hon. member for Bridport, it was the fact that since the last grant for the purchase of pictures there had been given to the nation pictures to the value of upwards of 60,000 l. If any hon. Gentleman felt a difficulty in voting for the grant, he would refer to the fact, that while private individuals had given pictures to the value of 60,000 l., Parliament was only called upon to vote 11,500 l. He thought that the addition of such pictures to the National Gallery as it was proposed to purchase, might induce other individuals to follow the liberal examples that had been set. His hon. friend (Mr. Warburton) had asked whether any arrangement had been entered into between the Government and the Royal Academy respecting the apartments which it was proposed to grant to the latter body in the building erecting for a National Gallery. An arrangement had been entered into which he supposed his hon. friend would approve of, namely, that the Royal Academy should only obtain the use of the
742
rooms, but that the property of their should rest in the public; and that if the resumption of these apartments became desirable, the Academy should resign them. He was satisfied that the House would agree with him that, so far from the temporary use of these rooms by the Royal Academy being objectionable or inconvenient, it would be attended with advantage, as there would then be the National Gallery composed of pictures of the old masters on the one side, and the Royal Academy exhibition on the other.
Sir Robert Peelwas anxious to say one word in support of the Royal Academy. He did not dispute the right of the public to take the apartments in question from the Royal Academy, should the number of pictures in the National Gallery be so increased as to render it desirable to do so; but if the Royal Academy were deprived of the apartments in question, the members of that body would have a strong claim for rooms elsewhere. It ought to be recollected that they were to be divested of very valuable rooms which they held at Somerset House, and which were hereafter to be devoted to the public service. So far, therefore, ought there to be a deduction from the estimated expense of the building now erecting; and if the whole of the building should be required for a National Gallery, the least that ought to be done would be, to provide apartments for the Royal Academy in some other public building. He believed that the number of pictures in the National Gallery would be greatly increased by presents, and he trusted that ere long the building would be filled with them. He gave his cordial support to the vote, and believed that nothing would be more hailed by the public than grants of money for such purposes as the present. The public had already gained much by the purchase of pictures for the National Gallery, and he had no doubt that many other valuable presents would be made to it. He happened to have some knowledge of the pictures in question, and he could state that a sum much larger than 11,500 l. had been offered for them a few years ago. He did not think that it was necessary for him to say an thing with respect to the high character of these pictures; it was enough to observe, that Gentlemen possessed of valuable pictures would Le proud to exhibit them in a collection in which were such pictures as those it was proposed to purchase,

743
He would venture to say, that there were hardly twenty pictures of a higher character in the world. By purchasing works of this description, individuals would be induced to make presents to the gallery, which would thus become possessed of a superior collection. With a view to obtain the best information as to their value, the opinions of the artists of the highest character in the country were consulted, as well as those of picture-dealers, and other persons well acquainted with pictures; and, in addition, he happened to know that if the purchase had not been made when it was, not many months would have elapsed before the pictures would have been sent out of the country. He most cordially concurred in the vote, and nothing could be more satisfactory to his mind than the liberal spirit that had been displayed by the House and the Government on the occasion.
Mr. Ewartwas anxious to know what was the title under which the Royal Academy held the rooms at Somerset House. He admitted that that body had done much for the fine arts in this country; but there was much that was objectionable in the constitution of that body. He was anxious to make some observations with reference to that body, but he thought it would be better to do so when they arrived at the vote for the building the National Gallery. He had, indeed, given notice of a Motion on the subject, and was anxious to bring the matter forward. He did not agree with the right hon. Baronet with respect to the tenure upon which the Royal Academy should hold their rooms; for that body should have them subject to such regulations as had been alluded to by his hon. friend the member for Bridport. If the Royal Academy claimed rooms from the Government for their exhibitions, he thought that it was only just and reasonable that some control should be exercised with reference to their exhibitions. As it was, almost all the pictures were portraits, and in consequence of this, it often happened that historical or poetical works of great merit were excluded from the exhibition. By the present system of exhibiting portraits, our exhibitions were disgraced in the eyes of all Europe. He concurred with the right hon. Baronet with respect to the present vote, but when they came to the vote for the National Gallery he should renew the subject of the Royal Academy.
Sir Matthew White Ridleycould not let the observations of the hon. member for Liverpool pass without reply. The hon. Member was completely mistaken with respect to the exhibitions of the Royal Academy. No historical or other pictures were excluded from the Royal Academy for the purpose of exhibiting portraits. The hon. Member seemed to think, that there was something unfair in the present mode of receiving the pictures; but such was not the case. The matter was left to a Committee of Royal Academicians, called the Hanging Committee. If they excluded pictures of merit for the purpose of exhibiting portraits, they might have some claim to the title. He believed, however, that nothing could be done with greater impartiality than receiving and placing the pictures in the Royal Academy. Of course it occasionally happened that an artist was dissatisfied with the place in which his picture might he hung; but where the space was confined, it was impossible that all could have equally eligible situations. The Royal Academicians were generally the first artists in the profession, and as vacancies occurred in the body they were filled up by the most eminent artists. With respect to the principle adopted as regarded the exhibition of pictures at the Royal Academy, he believed it was customary to select the best pictures, and to place each as near as possible just above the horizontal line of persons entering the room. Care was also taken to place the other pictures in situations according to their relative merits. The hon. Gentleman complained, that by far the greater portion of the pictures exhibited at the Royal Academy were portraits; but this circumstance did not arise from any fault in the Academy. The public had a greater inclination to portraits than to historical pictures, and the consequence was, that the talents of the artists were directed to the former description of pictures. He was satisfied that if inquiry were made, it would be found that there was no partiality exhibited by the Royal Academy, but that the best works were always placed in the best situations. Undoubtedly they might occasionally hear complaints by an individual artist, that his picture was not hung in a good situation; but it must be obvious to every one, that such complaints were unavoidable. He was happy that the Government had been induced to apply for the grant, and

745
he gave the vote his most cordial support. He could confirm what had been said by his right hon. friend the member for Tam-worth, that had not these pictures been secured for the nation at the time when they were, they would have been sent out of the country. He knew, that an agent of the King of Bavaria in this country was authorised to give 1,000 l. more than they had been purchased for. Pictures like those, would be sought for by all civilized nations; and although they cost apparently large sums, they were inestimable.
Mr. Ruthvencould not consent that the people of England should be called upon to give 11,500 l. for the purchase of two pictures. When their constituents were complaining of distress, it was not a time for such a lavish expenditure on works of art, however excellent they might be. When the Army Estimates were before the House, the Government refused to continue the vote to the Military School at Dublin, on the ground, that it was necessary, from the distressed state of the country, to make every practicable saving. They took away the paltry pittance from the orphan of the soldier, and voted the public money for such purposes as the present. He should oppose the vote, and was surprised that it had been so far received with satisfaction.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, with respect to the observations that the hon. Gentleman had made on the impropriety of having votes like the present, when there was so much distress amongst the labouring classes, he would only repeat the answers that had been made to similar objections when urged on former occasions, namely, that it could be unanswerably proved, that no persons could be more interested than the labouring classes in matters of this nature, by which an improved taste for the fine arts would be spread throughout the country. Similar objections had been made to the purchase of Sir William Hamilton's collection of Etruscan vases; but what was the consequence of purchasing them? Everybody knew, that at least one branch of the manufactures of the country received a great impulse from the purchase of those invaluable remains of antiquity. With respect to the Royal Academy, he wished to observe, that he never intended to say, that if they took the rooms in the National Gallery from the Royal Academy, they were to leave that body without apartments; on the
746
contrary, they must be provided with accommodation elsewhere. The chief object of the building was, that there should be an adequate place as a National Gallery of pictures, and at the same time to afford accommodation to the Royal Academy; but, if it were necessary, the Government would be at liberty to resume the possession of the rooms granted to the Academy.
Mr. Roebuckwas satisfied that no portion of the community would be more willing that the public money should be voted for the purchase of pictures of great merit, than the labouring classes. He supported the vote, because the money was to be laid out for the public advantage. He was well acquainted with the character of the labouring classes, and he was sure that they would regard with pleasure the purchase of these valuable works of art.
Mr. Ewartdiffered from the hon. member for Dublin (Mr. Ruthven) with respect to this vote. It was one, he was sure, that would meet with the general approval of the people. There was nothing more wanting in this country than a National Gallery for the cultivation of design. He could not agree with the hon. Baronet opposite as to the impartiality of the "Hanging Committee" of the Royal Academy. He would again repeat, that they gave the best places to their own pictures. He thought that it would be desirable to have a copy of the bye-laws of the Royal Academy laid before the House, and it was his intention to move for such copy, if there should be no objection to such production.
Mr. Roebucktrusted, that when the National Gallery was opened, it and other similar public institutions would be put under such regulations as not to exclude persons from admission to them because they were in the dress of artisans. Such a regulation existed in several public institutions at present. He trusted that it would be done away with, and that the public would be admitted, as they had a right to be, indiscriminately, to institutions supported by the public money.
Sir Matthew White Ridleysaid, he could bear testimony that such a regulation as that just alluded to, did not prevail in all public institutions. He happened last year to be looking at the pictures in Pall-mall, when two sailors, dressed as usual, came in to view them; on looking

747
at a sea view, with a vessel sailing, one of them expressed his admiration of the picture in rather an emphatic manner, and employing a word which, perhaps, he ought not to repeat in that House, "d—n it," he exclaimed to his comrade, "d—n it, jack, see how well she sails."
Mr. O'Connellsuggested, that a couple of hours should be set apart in the afternoon of Sundays, for admitting the people to institutions of this description.
The vote was agreed to, as were several others, without a debate.
On the Question that 8,000 l. be granted to defray the charge of the new buildings in the British Museum,
Mr. Warburtonwished to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact, that the reading-room of the Museum was closed in the evening. Now, a great many individuals were employed the whole of the morning, and the only opportunity they had for reading was in the evening, when the reading-room of the Museum was closed against them. If the object was, as was stated, to prevent the chance of the books being burnt, why not erect a separate room, detached from the main budding, and rendered fire-proof, where those persons who were employed in business during the morning, might have an opportunity of reading in the evening? Why, he would ask, should the Museum be closed for a certain period in the long vacation? A worse period for closing it could not be selected, as it happened that it was just the time when foreigners and other persons, who wished to consult rare books, were in the habit of visiting this country. As the Treasury held the purse-strings, it had only to issue its directions to the managers of the Museum, and any alteration that it might suggest would be at once carried into effect.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that this question had been discussed before on former occasions, and the effect had been the securing to the public a greater facility of access to the Museum, of which the public had taken every advantage. It would be seen by any person who visited the Museum, that such was the case. Indeed, by inspecting the returns that had been laid before the House, it would be found that an extraordinary number of persons visited the Museum for their gratification and amusement in the course of the year. He would say, that even the number that visited it in a single day was extraordina-
748
rily great. As to the hon. Member's suggestion for opening the reading-room in the evening, he was of opinion that it was one that ought not without a great deal of consideration, to be adopted. He was sure that the trustees were anxious to afford every reasonable extent of access to the public. He agreed with his hon. friend, that the long vacation was, of all others, the most inconvenient time for closing the Museum. The matter was one that he had no doubt would meet with the attention of the trustees. The trustees were most anxious for the fullest inquiry into the rules and regulations of the institution. He had seen a notice early in the Session, for a Committee of Inquiry on the subject. He would say, that such a proposition would meet with no opposition from the trustees, for they had no object, and the officers of the institution could have no object, but to make it as useful as possible to the public at large.
The Vote was agreed to.
On the question that 13,000 l. be granted on account of the expense of erecting a National Gallery.
Mr. Ewartwas anxious to make a few observations before the Vote was agreed to. A portion of the building proposed to be erected was to be devoted to a gallery of modern art. He agreed that every facility should he given for the exhibition of the pictures of our artists; but he thought, that it behoved the House, before it made a grant for such a purpose, to ascertain that the regulations for the exhibition framed by the Royal Academy were not objectionable. The exhibitions of that Academy had a bad character on the Continent, in consequence of the great number of portraits they always contained. He contended, that at present there was a species of monopoly with the Royal Academicians, as they were entitled to exhibit a certain number of pictures, and they selected the best places for their own works. Many of them exhibited large portraits, which led to the exclusion of works of greater merit. He thought, that it was of importance that greater facilities should be given to the exhibition of paintings of a higher character of art than portraits. He recollected seeing in a German literary paper, a statement of the number of portraits exhibited in England, as compared with the same number annually exhibited in the exhibitions in the various cities of Germany. The state-

749
ment was made with a view of sneering at the state of the arts in this country. Was it not most ridiculous to see in a public exhibition a large picture exhibiting the features of some dowager Marchioness, or of some—
"Lord Mount-Coffee-House, the Irish Peer,
Who killed himself for love—with wine—last year?"
He would not oppose the exhibition of portraits altogether; but it might be done in a much better way than it then was. There ought to be two things regarded in an exhibition of pictures: in the first place, the encouragement of the artists; and, secondly, the diffusion of a taste for the fine arts amongst the people. With these objects in view, they were called upon to give a Gallery for the exhibition of modern works of art. But in such a Gallery the works should be classified. One room should be devoted to historical painting, another to poetical subjects, another to architectural designs, and another to portraits. This was the only way of doing justice to the artist. What could be more objectionable than the way in which the sculpture was exhibited at the Royal Academy? No attempt was made to classify the subjects; and no person could form anything like a just estimate of the merit of the works from seeing them there huddled together. With respect to the other part of the subject, namely, the diffusion of a taste for the fine arts amongst the people, he would only observe, that to attain that object, he thought that it would be desirable to throw open the Royal Academy to the people, instead of charging a shilling, as at present. The exhibition of modern pictures should be free to the public as well as that of ancient pictures. The examination of the one was as much a matter of interest, as that of the other, and, therefore, he could see no reason why, in either case, the payment on admission should not be abolished. The cultivation of the arts was of the utmost importance to the country; he, therefore, was desirous of taking away from the Royal Academy the power of exacting money for admission.
Mr. Sinclaircould not understand the grounds upon which the hon. member for Liverpool complained of the management of the Royal Academy. Indeed he could not help thinking, that the hon. Gentleman's complaint was groundless, for he never visited the exhibition at that establishment without being inconceivably
750
delighted with the portraits. He did not see why they should not have as prominent a place as any other class of pictures; and certainly the portrait of such a man as the Duke of Wellington was more interesting to the public at large than the portrait of some Burgomaster though painted by Rembrandt, or some cardinal though it were the work of Titian. In his opinion, the Royal Academy conducted the exhibition under their control with the utmost impartiality.
Sir Robert Inglisobserved, that the pictures exhibited at Somerset House belonged to private artists, and were not the property of the Royal Academy; and such being the case, the charge for admission was perfectly reasonable.
Mr. Roebucksaid, that British artists had attained a greater excellence in water-colour drawing, than the artists of any other country, and yet the Royal Academy excluded pictures in water colours from the exhibition at Somerset House. This was unjust. He knew of no advantage which the arts had gained from the Royal Academy, and he certainly could not understand why they should be permitted to make a charge for admission to an exhibition that ought to be open to the public.
Mr. Spring Riceadmitted, that it was true, as the hon. member for Bath had stated, that water-colour drawings were not admissible into the exhibition at Somerset House. The water-colour artists had, however, an exhibition of their own; and as they took money for admission at their doors, he saw no reason why those of the public who visited the exhibition at the Royal Academy should not pay for the gratification afforded to them by the inspection of the works of another class of artists. If there was no such thing as a Royal Academy such exhibitions would, he was satisfied, be supported by voluntary contributions; but when the hon. Member declared the institution to be useless, he surely could not have recollected the lectures of Sir Joshua Reynolds, Mr. Opie, and other eminent individuals connected with it, by whom the arts of painting and sculpture had been promoted, and by whose examples they were now encouraged. He (Mr. Spring Rice) could speak personally to the usefulness of the establishment, having had repeated opportunities of witnessing the kind and fostering care by which the so-

751
ciety encouraged the progress of young and deserving artists.
Mr. Wynnwas surprised to hear the hon. member for Bath make such an assertion as, that the Royal Academy had done nothing to promote the success of the arts. He could know little of the history of that institution, or he never would have hazarded such a declaration. Somerset House was a Royal residence, and the exhibition-rooms, and other apartments occupied by the Society, were granted by the King for the encouragement of the arts, and the success which attended their exertions was beyond all expectation. They had established schools, which could not be looked at without inspiring pride and satisfaction; and he, therefore, felt that it was due to the character of the Royal Academy to say, that under the auspices of that great national institution—for so it was to be regarded—the arts had attained very considerable perfection.
The vote was agreed to, with several others.
On the Motion, that a sum of 2,600 l. be granted to defray the charge of the salaries and allowances granted to certain Professors in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge—
Mr. Roebuckopposed the vote on the ground that Dissenters were excluded from participating in the advantages of those national establishments.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that no individual either in that House or in the country concurred more heartily than he did in the justice of allowing the Dissenters a full participation in the advantages to be derived from a University education; nor was there any one who would co-operate more cordially to procure for them a free admission into the two great national establishments. It was on this very account that he should be unwilling to see the present vote rejected, considering, as he did, that one of the strongest arguments in favour of the concession was, that the State did actually contribute to the support of the Universities.
Mr. Roebuckwished to see the Universities thrown open to all classes first, and the grant for the support of the lectures voted after. It might be true, that the payment of the grant by Dissenters was an argument for admitting them to the Universities; but he did not like paying 2,600 l. for a good argument.
Mr. George Frederick Youngagreed in the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman, and had no doubt that a short time would see the same privileges of admission to the lectures which prevailed at Cambridge extended to Oxford.
Mr. Ewartsaid, that he wished to see a certain time given, as a sort of locus penitentiœ, to the Universities; but, if measures expected by the country from those bodies were not speedily adopted, he trusted that the grant would be taken from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and given to the London University, or some other more liberal institutions.
The Vote agreed to.
On the Question, "That a Sum not exceeding 15,563 l. be granted to his Majesty, to defray the Charges of the Penitentiary at Millbank—"
Mr. Spring Rice Mr. Spring Rice in reply to an objection raised by an hon. Member, said the number of prisoners in the Penitentiary was increasing, and would probably increase. With regard to the salaries of the officers belonging to the establishment, an investigation was going on; and if it were found that they were disproportioned to the services performed, there would be every disposition on the part of the Government to reduce them to a proper scale of remuneration.
Mr. Roebucksaid, that the Penitentiary was a complete failure, that in fact it was nothing more than a prison, and that the system of discipline which was there pursued did not produce any good effects.
Sir Thomas Fremantle, as one of those Commissioners who served gratuitously at the Board of this establishment, was bound to state, that there was every wish on the part of the Board to reduce the expenses necessarily incurred by the Penitentiary. The hon. member for Bath had asserted, that the system of discipline observed at the Penitentiary was a complete failure, and that no good effects from it were discernible. Now, on this point he must differ with him, for he had known many convicted felons, who had been sentenced to transportation, restored to their friends as useful members of society. It was the custom of the Board to give a small gratuity to such felons as could produce testimonials of good behaviour after an imprisonment for twelve months; and he was glad to state, that one-third, if not one-half of the prisoners confined there

753
became entitled to it. He doubted whether in any one of the different county gaols, one-twentieth part of its inmates would be able to obtain similar testimonials. The Board was most anxious to do their utmost for the welfare of the establishment, and if any improvement could be shown to be practicable they would be happy to act upon it.
Mr. Roebucksaid, that the Penitentiaries of England were badly conducted, particularly when contrasted with those in America. He did not see why the prisoners should not be compelled to make stores for the Government, or perform some other useful work.
Viscount Howickconfessed his surprise, that so distinguished a political economist as the hon. Member who had last spoken should not perceive the difference in the relative situation of the two countries, which would more than account for any difference between the relative expenses incurred by both respectively in maintaining the convicted felons. The hon. Member might have remembered, that the price of free labour of every kind was far higher in America than in this country. It was therefore impossible that convict labour could be employed to so much advantage in the old as in the new country. While he was on this head, however, he was bound to observe, that even in America, in many instances, a great mistake had been committed in the management of their boasted Penitentiaries. The end of imprisonment had been altogether neglected and lost sight of, and the Penitentiaries had, in many instances, degenerated into mere manufactories. With respect to the employment of the convicts in the manufacture of stores, by which he presumed the hon. Member meant clothing, he would observe, that the great contractors of this country were enabled to furnish the supplies required at so cheap a rate by the employment of free labour out of doors, over which their interest induced them to exercise an unwearied vigilance, that the produce of convict labour could not be put into the scale of competition.
Vote agreed to.
On the Vote of 95,486 l. for the expenses of the Consular Department,
Mr. Huttsaid, that he considered this vote monstrously extravagant, and that many of the items were wholly superfluous. He therefore moved as an Amendment, "That the Vote should be reduced by
754
12,800 l. which would reduce it to what it was in 1830."
Mr. Grotesupported the Amendment. He looked upon the amount asked for as most exorbitant. The hon. Member also strongly commented upon the monstrous discrepancy in the amounts of salaries, for it appeared that those Consuls who did least were paid most. Our Consuls in America, who probably had twice as much to do as other Consuls, were not paid half the amount, received by Consuls in other places, who did little or nothing. For instance, the Consuls at New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and several other places, where the amount of business was very arduous, were only paid 500 l. a-year; while the Consul at Lima, where there was little or nothing to do, received 2,000 l. a-year for himself, and 700 l. for an Assistant Consul. Our Consul at Lisbon had but 600 l. a-year; at Genoa, but 400 l.; at Havre the Consul was equally ill-paid, while, at other places in Europe, there were Consuls at treble the salaries, whose posts were mere sinecures. As it appeared, however, that for the lesser sums Government was able to procure the services of efficient Consuls, he saw no reason why any larger sums should be paid.
Mr. Roebuckthought, there was a total absence of any principle by which the salaries given to Consuls were regulated. For example, the expenses of our Consulate Department at Egypt compared to that of the United States, were out of all proportion to the commerce of Egypt and the United States. The hon. Member referred also to Hamburgh and Amsterdam, and asked why the expenses should be so much greater at the former than at the latter place, the difference not being capable of justification by a reference to our commercial relations. The existing arrangements were full of such inconsistencies, and appeared to him to be quite ridiculous.
Colonel Evanswas of opinion, that the salaries to Consuls ought to be regulated to a certain extent by the amount of the commerce. Our commerce with Spain was not in a very flourishing state, and yet there was a long list of appointments for that country. The expenses for the Levant amounted to not less than 10,000 l.; for Greece they were 2,000 l.; they were above 2,000 l. for Egypt; for Syria the sum was about the same; and for Constantinople it was still more; making in

755
all 20,000 l. a-year nearly for the Ottoman Empire.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that the hon. Member who had just spoken had referred to the difference that was to be found in the amounts paid to our Consuls, and had particularly referred to those in the Ottoman Empire and in Egypt; but he thought, that any attempt to reduce these allowances to a fixed scale would fail. There were some special circumstances connected with Egypt, to which he begged to call the attention of the House. As regarded Alexandria, we had no Minister, no diplomatic agent there of any kind, and it consequently devolved on the Consul to act in the capacity of diplomatic agent, in addition to the discharge of his ordinary duties, To estimate the labour of the Consul, then, by comparing the trade of Alexandria and this country with our trade with any other port, was to take a very erroneous view of the matter. We must adapt our establishments in other countries to the nature of our connexion with those countries. In investigating the anomalies of salaries, it would be found that there were other anomalies of situation and circumstances which justified the former. If we sent persons to distant countries, must we not pay them according to the peculiarities in the society, according to the badness of the climate, or according to the rate of living? At Hamburgh we had no diplomatic representative, which would account for the difference observed in the amount of pay to our Consul there, as compared with the amount paid to our Consul at Amsterdam.
Mr. George Frederick Youngwas glad to see the right hon. the First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir James Graham) taking his seat, because he (Mr. Young) wished to call the attention of the Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member, to the fact, that in 1830, the right hon. Gentleman, in a Motion which he then made, did attempt to lay down some general principle, to the effect that the salaries of British Consuls should not exceed the sum of 1,000 l. a-year, except in the cases of such as were sent to South America, in favour of whom a difference was to be made in consideration of the greater cost of living in that country. The explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke, would not be found satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman had accounted for the large salary
756
paid to our Consul at Hamburgh by saying, that we had no diplomatic agent resident there. He could not in the same way account for the remuneration given to the British Consul at Constantinople. In Constantinople we had an Ambassador; yet we had there a Consul in the receipt of 1,600 l. a-year, and a Vice-Consul to whom was allowed 700 l. a-year. In his opinion the whole matter ought to be referred to a Committee.
Mr. Ewartsaid, that the salaries to the Consuls ought to have proportion to the amount of British shipping frequenting the port. He approved of the suggestion of the hon. member for Tynemouth to appoint a Committee, and would support a Motion to that effect if one were made.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that since he came into office, it had been in his power to effect reductions in the Consular Department to the extent of 29,000 l. That was about one-third of the whole amount, and might, be thought, be taken as a fair earnest of the disposition of the Government to make all possible reductions consistent with the efficiency of the public service. He had reduced all the Consuls-General, except, in those few instances, where the public service required that such officers should be continued, and, in every single appointment, some reduction was made of the salaries of Consuls and Vice-Consuls; indeed, very strong representations were made to him from all the parties whose salaries were thus reduced, setting forth the hardship of the reduction; and he felt it necessary to reply to them by a general circular, in which he declared the necessity of the reductions, and his inability to revise them in any case. It was objected, that there seemed no fixed principle or scale in effecting those reductions, and that the salaries were not proportionate to the amount of the tonnage of shipping at the particular places where Consuls were appointed. To this he must say, that, in the first place, the amount of shipping, in any given place, was no adequate criterion of the duties of the Consuls, for the attention to shipping formed only a part of the duties of a Consul. He had various others to perform, such as attending to the complaints of British subjects, and seeing that justice was done to them in the several states where they resided; and it was well known that, in the South American States, this formed a heavy part of

757
the Consul's duties. The Consuls had likewise many returns to make to the Foreign Office, some of a statistical nature, and others relating to commerce and to the produce of grain, which imposed upon them a considerable degree of labour. Then, again, in many places, the Consuls had political duties to perform, which would account for the large salaries of some of them as compared with others. As to the larger amount of salaries in different places, where nearly the same amount of duty was to be performed; for instance, in Marseilles, as compared to Bourdeaux, it would be explained by the fact, that, in some places, the reduction had been made when the office of Consul became vacant, when a much larger reduction could be made than from a party who had already held it. Much also would depend on the reduction of salaries, or the amount of fees which some Consuls received as compared with others. As to the plan of reducing, or rather raising, the salaries of Consuls-General to 1,000 l. each, he would observe, that it would not be a sound course. It would be establishing a general rule where no general rule could apply. Each case must be considered according to its peculiar circumstances. There were only three Consuls-General in Europe, whose salaries exceeded 1,000 l. a-year. There was the Consul-General at Hamburgh, who had 1,500 l. a-year; but it should be considered, that we had no diplomatic agent at the Hanse Towns, and that the Consul-General at Hamburgh was called upon to perform duties as our diplomatic agent for those towns. With respect to the Consul-General at Alexandria, he had, as had been already observed by his right hon. friend (Mr. Spring Rice), most important political functions to exercise, and his salary ought to bear some just proportion to the nature of those functions; but he must add, that the salary of the present Consul was less than that of his predecessor, Mr. Salt, and was as low as he conscientiously believed ought to be given for such duties. An hon. Member had objected to the high salaries given to our Consuls in the South American states. He had already adverted to the onerous nature of some of their duties, but, let him add, that though the nominal amount of those salaries might be high, that amount ought to be considered with reference to the quantity of the necessaries of life which it would purchase.
758
Now, it was well known, that where the precious metals abounded, the value of money was greatly diminished in its relation to the necessaries of life, as compared to places where those metals were not so abundant. The salaries of the Consuls to the South American states, therefore, though larger in nominal amount, were not, in effect, greater in relation to what they could purchase there than numerically smaller salaries in other places. The noble Lord referred to several items in the Consular List, which had been already touched upon by the right hon. member for Cambridge, and contended that, in every case, reductions had been made to as great an extent as circumstances would admit. It would, he added, be idle to make a rule-of-three question of each case, and to contend that each Consul should be paid according to the tonnage of shipping at each port. No general rule could be laid down applicable to every case.
Mr. Peasesaid, he had no doubt whatever, that the greatest reduction of the salaries of Consuls might be made where there existed the greatest amount of trade. Looking to the advantages which accrued to commercial men (which could not arise to others) from these appointments, he thought great changes might be made. He must, indeed, add, that these appointments were of considerable importance to the shipping interest, and only those who understood that subject should be appointed to fill the office.
Mr. Claythought, that the speech of the noble Lord (Palmerston) was the best ground for referring this matter to a Select Committee, for though the noble Lord had shown that no general rule could be applied to all classes, he had failed to answer or explain some of the anomalies which had been pointed out. He had not explained why, in some places, there was a Consul-General, but no Vice-Consul, or why both Consul General and Vice Consul were kept up in other places where we had a resident diplomatic agent. Thus, in Lisbon, he found we had a Consul at 600 l., and a Vice-Consul at 300 l.—whilst, at St. Michael's, we had a Consul-General at 400 l., and a Vice-Consul at 100 l. And yet, in places of greater consequence, in Rotterdam, &c., he found the services of the Consul alone were considered sufficient. To these anomalies no sufficient consideration was or could be given in the Committee,

759
and, therefore, the whole ought to be referred to a Committee above-stairs. He would not say, that the noble Lord might not be able to give a satisfactory explanation of every item in the list to a Select Committee; but as such details could not be well entered into in that House, he thought it would be a just ground for the House to refuse the vote until some such preliminary inquiry had been gone into.
Mr. Huttthought, that after the turn the Debate had taken, he should best consult the object he had in view, if he withdrew the suggestion he had made, with the view of making a Motion for referring the whole subject of our Consular Establishment to a Select Committee, which he would do on the bringing up of the Report; for, it was perfectly clear, that cases of great anomaly and gross extravagance in the expenditure of the public money existed in many of those appointments, and, on this ground, he did look for the support of the House and of the Government in the Motion which he intended to make. He would not then follow the noble Lord into the details to which he had gone; but he feared that neither in that House nor in a Select Committee would the noble Lord be able to convince him of the propriety of giving 2,000 l. a-year to one Consul at Lima, and only 6,00 l. a-year to another at Marseilles. Neither could he concur in the large salary of 1,500 l. a-year, and as much more in fees, to our consul at Hamburgh, when he found that the Austrian and American consuls at that town had each a salary not exceeding 500 l., and he had never heard of any complaint being made by the merchants of either of those countries that every attention had not been paid to their business. But, said, the noble Lord, the Consul-General was to be regarded not as a commercial but as a diplomatic character also. This Consul-General received, perhaps, 1,500 l. a-year in fees in addition to his allowance. In short, the whole system was vicious; it was a part of the system of Toryism and sinecurism, which he had hoped would have been annihilated by the Reform Bill.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that what the hon. Gentleman meant by the system of "Toryism" he could not comprehend; but with regard to the term of "sinecurism" he certainly understood that; and he begged to assure the House that if there was any set of men to whom this term did not apply,
760
and who did not deserve this censure, it was the Consuls appointed by this country. They were always at their posts, or if absent from it upon any occasion, they were bound to appoint some person to act for them, and the expense thus incurred was cut off from their salary. With respect to the observations of the hon. Gentleman as to the salary to the Consul-General at Hamburgh, he wished the hon. Member to suspend his judgment until the dispute which existed on the part of his constituents touching the conduct of this Consul-General were settled, they having made a charge of inactivity against that Gentleman.
Colonel Evansbegged to ask where the Consul-General for Austria resided, to whom a salary of 1,000 l. was given? Did he reside in Bohemia?
Viscount Palmerston, in reply, stated that he generally resided at Milan.
The Vote was agreed to.
On a vote of 20,000 l. being proposed to enable his Majesty to issue money for the erection of school-houses, in aid of private subscriptions for that purpose, for the education of the poorer classes in England,
Major Beauclerksaid, that he entirely agreed in the principle of the vote, and he heartily gave it his support.
Mr. Hawessaid, that the House and the country ought to be grateful to the Government for the manner in which the money had been distributed. The grant of this sum of 20,000 l. had had the effect of inducing private individuals to subscribe, and no less an amount than 60,000 l. had been raised in that way.
Lord Morpethbelieved, that no public grant of so limited an amount had ever been productive of so much good.
Mr. Ewartsuggested the propriety of instituting normal schools, after the plan adopted by the Prussian Government.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that it was gratifying to him to learn, not only that the vote itself was approved, but also the principles upon which the money had been administered. The Government had been told, when this vote was first proposed, that if they did not give away the money unconditionally, the object they had in view would fail. They had not, however, so acted, for they required all parties applying to Government for the establishment of schools first to put down some of their own money for that purpose.

761
They also paid over the fund to the two societies to whose care its distribution was intrusted in such a manner as to excite competition and rivalry between them. The result was, as might be seen from the returns on the Table, that by the grant of 20,000 l. of the public money an expenditure of 48,111 l. had been insured, and permanent means of instruction provided for 30,366 children.
Mr. Murraycomplained of the exclusion of Scotland from the benefit of the proposed grant.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that the reason why Scotland was not included in the grant was, because the vote was in the first instance neither more nor less than an experimental vote, though he was free to confess, that it now assumed somewhat of a different character.
Mr. George F. Younghoped, that Government, in consequence of the favourable disposition evinced by the House with regard to this vote, would be induced to bring forward a proposition for a moderate extension of the grant, in order to its application to Great Britain generally.
Mr. Grotewas of opinion that Government ought to extend the vote, but, with the limited means in their hands, they had certainly done as much as could well be expected of them during the last year. He hoped they would be animated to still greater exertions in future.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, as there were several notices on the books with respect to the general question of education, there would be other and more fitting opportunities for discussing the subject; but there was one proposition which had been thrown out, and which deserved the greatest possible attention—he alluded to the establishment of normal schools, which he had no doubt would be of the greatest possible advantage, inasmuch as they would tend materially to improve, not only the schools to be built, but also those which were at present in existence; and he hoped his noble friend would authorize him, before the close of the present Session, to make some proposition to the House upon the subject.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the reason why it had not been originally extended to Scotland was, its being understood that some provision already existed in that country to a considerable extent, while at the same time it was thought advisable that the experiment, to have full justice,
762
should be tried in England, where no such system had been in operation. As to the extension of the vote, he could not at present positively pledge himself; but he should probably call the attention of the House to the subject at some future time.
The vote was agreed to. The House resumed.