Commons Sitting of 11 June 1835

MINUTES.
New Writ ordered. For Hull, in the room of D. CARRUTHERS, Esq., deceased.
Bill. Read a first time:—Education (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By the LORD ADVOCATE, from Traders of Edinburgh, against the Imprisonment for Debt (Scotland) Bill; from the Provost and Town Council of Leith, against the Seamen's Enlistment Bill.—By Sir HUGH CAMPBELL, the LORD ADVOCATE, Sir ANDREW AGNEW, Dr. LUSHINGTON, Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON, Captain WEMYSS, the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, General SHARPE, and other MEMBERS, a great Number of Petitions from both, for and against a Grant of Money to provide Church Accommodation in Scotland.—By Colonel GORE LANGTON, from Frome, Selwood, for the Repeal of the Duties on Newspapers.—By Mr. LABOUCHERE, from Cirencester, for further Restrictions on Beer-houses.—By Mr. BRODIE, from two Places in Ireland, in favour of the Church Establishment in that Country—By Lord BRUDENELL, from Axholme and Kettering, complaining of Agricultural Distress.—By Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND, from Keighley, to Repeal the Sentence on the Dorchester Unionists.—By Sir SAMUEL WHALLEY and Mr. HENRY LYTTON BULWER and others, from various Parishes and Places in the Metropolis,—for the Repeal of the Window Duties.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
Mr. Wilkssaid, he had to present a Petition against the grant of public money to the Scotch Church, from the committee appointed by the three denominations of Dissenters in London and its neighbourhood. He thought that after what the petitioners had done, and the Protestant Dissenters with whom they were connected, and whom they represented, to promote the cause of public worship and religious education, they could not be suspected of indifference to those objects. To promote religion and religious worship, and advance religious education, those Dissenters had expended hundreds of thousands of pounds, therefore he was quite satisfied that they could not be accused or suspected of indifference to the subject, nor suspected of resisting any contemplated grant on the ground of the amount. They resisted the proposed grant on principle. They had ever held that the preference of one sect over another was persecution, and they therefore now declared, when it was proposed to make a grant in favour of a peculiar body of professing Christians, that they must protest against any such grant of public money to any body of Christians. They deemed it right to oppose such grants—and they would exert all the power and influence they might possess—to resist any such grants, whether they were to the Presbyterians of Scot-

655
land, or any other body. In consequence of the grant to the Scotch Church having been on the one hand propounded, and on the other hand resisted, it had been proposed to issue a Commission, or to appoint a Select Committee to investigate the subject; but against any such appointment the petitioners begged leave to protest, because, by appointing a Commission or a Committee, they should consider that the principle of the right or propriety to make the grant, should it be found to be wanted, would be recognised. They would sanction no such recognition. It was a principle against which they had protested and struggled, and against which they must continue to protest and struggle, whenever it was directly or indirectly asserted. He regretted, in common with many other sincere friends of religion, that the question involved in the contemplated grant was mooted; but there was consolation in being obliged to resist it, derived from the fact that, though many Presbyterian Ministers might be favourable to it, there was an immense number of the people and Dissenters against it. And they again could not be considered indifferent to the subject—indifferent about the cause of religious education and worship, for they had, within the last century, built upwards of 700 places of worship out of their own funds raised by voluntary means. The petitioners further felt that as Church-rates were abolished in Ireland, and were avowedly to be the object of revision in England, there ought not to be this proceeding, which would in some degree continue as regarded Scotland what had ceased in Ireland and in England, or been much altered. The petition had his cordial concurrence.
To lie on the Table.

OATH OF ROMAN CATHOLIC MEM- BERS.
Mr. Ormsby Gorepresented a Petition from certain persons of the town of Oswestry, in the county of Salop, against the appropriation of any part of the revenues of the Church of Ireland to any other than strictly Ecclesiastical purposes. The petitioners further prayed that the oath now taken by Roman Catholic Members of Parliament on taking their seats might be so altered, that they should be incapacitated from voting on questions relative to the Church. They further urged that by their present oath the Roman Catholics swore not to
656
disturb the property of the Protestant Church in the United Kingdom, as by law established, and that therefore they were precluded from voting on questions affecting the property of the Church.
Mr. William S. O'Briensaid, he really thought that those Gentlemen who, on the presentation of such petitions as these, gave a cheer, and thereby conveyed their assent to the sentiments contained in such petitions, ought to come before the House and propound some resolution respecting the oath taken by the Irish Roman Catholic Members, rather than pursue their present mode of conveying the sentiments of their constituents in that House, on a question of vital importance to numerous representatives. He remembered the Debate on the Roman Catholic Relief Bill in that House, and he also recollected that when a proposition was then made that Roman Catholics should not vote on questions connected with the affairs of the Church, it was scouted; and for his own part, if he were a Roman Catholic, he would not take a seat on those terms. He entreated hon. Gentlemen who avowed their advocacy of them to bring the whole subject fairly before the House.
Mr. Sheil,though he agreed with the Chair that these discussions should be avoided on the presentation of a petition, yet he must, at the same time, as one of the Members of that House to whom this petition referred, express his disapprobation of it, as it conveyed almost an accusation of perjury, upon a large number of the Members of that House, against not less than thirty-five persons, who were exposed to that imputation. He trusted that the House would feel that such indulgence ought to be extended to him, whilst he shortly remonstrated against the course which had been adopted; and whilst he called upon those who assented to the opinions of the petitioners, to take, he would not say a bolder course, but one of a more candid character. He would not be caried away into a state of excitement, or use a tone of language which should display any acrimony; but, in a spirit truly Christian, he called upon hon. Members on the other side of the House, who had recourse to this expedient to excite a feeling against the Roman Catholic body, at once to bring forward a Bill to have the oath taken by the Roman Catholic Members explicitly determined. Will you do so?" said the hon. and learned

657
Member. ["Hear!"] "The hon. Gentleman cries 'hear, hear.' He assents, then, to the justice of the observation as applied to a large portion of this House." When I gave notice of a motion on the Irish Tithe Bill, the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, intimated that he would, when the matter was brought forward, offer an affront to the Roman Catholic Members of that House—(an affront it was, I will maintain)—by moving that the oath taken by them should be read. Let that hon. Gentleman bring in a Bill. "We put one interpretation on that oath, you put a different one on it. And what right have you to brand us with the crime of perjury, because we differ from you in our interpretation of the oath?" The first person who had commenced this charge against the Roman Catholics in that house was the hon. Member for St. Andrew's, and he wished that hon. Gentleman had been as explicit in his threat as he had been in pledges which he had given elsewhere. He repeated that first person who had re-introduced the subject of the Roman Catholic oath, who had put a construction of his own upon it, and had attached a strong censure upon a portion of the Members of that House, was the hon. Gentleman who was then sitting beside him. When that hon. Gentleman came in he was not charging him with a violation of a pledge in which his honour was deeply concerned; but he wished (as we understood) he might explain the oath, though not with the same latitude, but with the same conscientious feeling with which that hon. Gentleman had explained his pledge. He hoped he should be pardoned if he felt excited; he meant it not offensively, but with a view to the truth, he challenged any hon. Member to bring in a Bill.
Sir Robert Batesonsaid, that having been one of those Members who had dared to cheer, as an independent Member, and as a man not ashamed of what he cheered in that House, he must protest against the tone and language of the hon. and learned Gentleman, which were neither courteous nor parliamentary. In his opinion, freedom of language and freedom of debate were alike the privilege of every hon. Member; and he would tell the House, and the hon. Member too, that he had conscientiously cheered, because he agreed in the sentiments which were em-
658
bodied in the petition. He did not contend, nor had he ever said, or presumed to say, how far the consciences of hon. Members were to be regulated; but he certainly was not ashamed to tell the hon. Gentleman his opinion was, that if he took the oath prescribed for Roman Catholics, he should think himself precluded from taking a part in discussions on matters connected with the Established Church, with regard to the appropriation of its revenues, or its management. He might be wrong, but such was his conscientious belief; and such being the case, he had cheered, because he applauded the sentiments of the Petition. He did not nor had he ever charged hon. Gentlemen opposite with perjury. He had never used any such unchristian-like language. It was his wish to be on good terms with all his Roman Catholic brethren.
Mr. Finnasked how it had occurred that this question of the Roman Catholic oath had never been brought under discussion until after the thirty-five Catholic Members decided the fate of the late Administration? On the discussion of the Vestry-cess, no question was raised upon it. But the fact was, that there had been a majority of ten on the Speakership, of seven on the Address to the Crown, and of twenty-seven on the Irish Church Resolution, which caused the dismissal of one Administration and restored another to power; and this was the secret of this animosity. The right hon. Baronet, who conducted the Roman Catholics' Disabilities Renewal Bill, when called upon by Sir Charles Wetherell to exclude Roman Catholics from voting on Church questions, answered that he did not wish to see the Roman Catholics in that House placed on a different footing from others with reference to their power to exercise their opinions and votes upon all occasions; and that right hon. Gentleman had never receded from that declaration; and though he had been taunted with having become a convert to Roman Catholic Emancipation, he had never meddled with the oath. He would mention an instance of the partial manner in which this subject was treated. Mr. Blount some time since published in the Morning Chronicle, an excellent letter on this subject, and that letter, which ought to have set the matter at rest, had never appeared in the Tory papers—such as the Morning Post and the Morning Herald. Such was the honesty of the Public Press.
Mr. Andrew Johnstonhoped, after the personal allusion which had been made to him by the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, the House would allow him to say one word. He had felt it his duty, during the last Parliament, to bring the oath taken by the Catholic Members before the House on two several occasions, and it was reckoned of so much importance, that, if he recollected well, the hon. and learned Member for Dublin brought forward the subject by a special motion on that occasion. He (Mr. Johnston) then stated, that he had the freedom to express his opinion on this very important question, and he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, that if there was any doubt in the matter, the oath ought to be removed from the statute-book, so that no wrong interpretation might be put upon it by the country, or by the Roman Catholic Members of the House. He must, however, make this further observation; he did not admire the taste of the hon. Gentleman in bringing forward a matter in which he (Mr. Johnston) had been concerned. He could not see what reference the one question had to the other. But he would say, if he was to be bearded in that House upon a dispute which he had had with his constituents, he would call upon the hon. Member for Tipperary, if he was to be taunted on every occasion, he would call upon him, as he had called upon hon. Gentlemen opposite, to bring the matter before the House, and he would be ready to give an answer to any accusation which might be made. He had already offered his case to the House, and was quite willing to bring it before the House, if the House would allow him.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he must do the hon. Member for St. Andrew's the justice to state that when he brought this subject forward he did it with courtesy of language, and from a strong sincere religious feeling; he differed from that hon. Member, but both were equally sensible of the solemn obligation of an oath. He (Mr. O'Connell) felt it his duty, then, not to let the matter rest, although the Attorney-General put the same construction upon the oath as he did. He thought it better not to suffer the question to rest, and had brought it before the House, in the shape of a motion to alter the oath. He was met by an almost unanimous declaration of the House, He considered what they
660
had to say; if his interpretation of the oath was a wrong one, he then called upon the House to expel him; he called upon the Government to come forward and say whether he had misconstrued the oath, and to decide the question for ever; for if, indeed, it was such an oath as had been described, he would remain as he had done before for many years beyond the Bar of that House. The hon. Baronet, the Member for Londonderry (Sir Robert Bateson), had mistaken the meaning of the hon. Member for Tipperary. He did not taunt that hon. Baronet with cheering, but for not bringing forward a specific motion, instead of making an insinuation by his cheer. He thought that the hon. Member for Londonderry was not a wise theologian; he doubted his skill on that question. That hon. Baronet seemed angry at the language used towards him, though he did declare his own opinion that were he in the situation of the Roman Catholics in that House, he should think himself perjured; and yet he thought this was perfect Christian charity. The petition stated that the Roman Catholics swore not to use any privilege with which they might be invested for the purpose of weakening or overturning the Protestant Church as by law established. What was the meaning of this privilege? Did it come under the privilege or right to vote? Did it do so on the interpretation of the House? Let that question be decided. He would say, as a lawyer, that it did not. The contrary might be the interpretation of the House; if so, let them have the law clearly defined. The petition went on to say, that Roman Catholics ought not to vote on questions appertaining to the revenues of the Church; that was to say, that revenue and religion were synonymous terms. Such things might be in the opinion of the Londonderry theologians. His opinion was that religion was one thing, revenue another; the one was from God, the other not. Instead of the two being synonymous terms, nothing could be more contradictory. He would ask, would the Protestant religion end, if the revenues of her Church were lessened? But he had too much respect for the religion of many of his nearest and dearest friends and relatives not to spurn the idea that by the Protestant religion was meant pounds, shillings, and pence. If a question arose in that House upon the Thirty-nine Articles of the Protestant Church, upon the pro-

661
priety of reducing them to nineteen, as had been done in America, he perhaps might not vote. But why did they encumber the Protestant religion with these revenues? Religion and revenue were separate things, and why should not the Church be rid of such unholy means? Devote the surplus revenue to the purposes of education. What was wanted more than to provide for the spiritual wants of the members of the Establishment? There was now a traffic in things which did not belong to the altar of God. Dr. Boyton had said that those Protestants who did not support the Church Establishment in Ireland were slaughtering the milch cow which supported the younger sons of the aristocracy.
Mr. Charles Russellprotested against hon. Members having motives imputed to them. The hon. Member who had presented this petition had abstained from giving any opinion of his own on the subject; and all he had said was, that he believed the persons who had signed that petition to be highly respectable.
Lord John Russellwas understood to suggest the inconvenience to public business by protracting this discussion.
Mr. Ormsby Goreregretted this discussion, nor did he intend to have said any thing which should militate against the good feeling of the House. He had been taunted for having brought, forward this petition, which was adverse to the interests of Ireland. Ireland was the country of his forefathers; and he would not yield to any one of the 100 Members for Ireland in his attachment to, and anxiety for, the welfare of that part of the kingdom. He would state, which he was sure would not be disputed by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, that in the debate upon the passing of the Catholic question, words relating to the security of civil and ecclesiastical property, which had been proposed to be inserted in the oath, were omitted; and the ground taken by those who opposed their insertion was, that as civil property was guarded, so was ecclesiastical property; and the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), in opposing the proposition of the learned Member who brought forward such a Resolution, stated that it would be raising a distinction between ecclesiastical and civil property. Surely the hon. and learned Member for Dublin would not contend that, according to the words of his oath, he had a right to
662
upset civil property. It was not for his party, nor for those who sat on that side of the House, to explain the oaths taken by hon. Members; it was they who had a doubt upon their minds respecting it who should bring in a Bill. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Kilkenny, he would say, that hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that "they had never heard of the oath until the Catholic Members had been the means of changing the Ministry." He rather thought that such a supposition was contradicted by what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Dublin; and who stated, that he had already called the attention of the House to this subject. This proved, then, that the matter was not for the first time introduced since the late change of the Ministry. He could not sit down without again adverting to what had been said of himself, in reference to his connexion with Ireland. He had various properties in Ireland; and he had Roman Catholics as well as Protestants upon his estates. His tenantry were of both religions, and he defied any human being, whether he was an Englishman or Irishman, to point out an instance in which there had been a difference of treatment exhibited to either of them—where there had been eviction of Roman Catholics to place Protestants in their stead—and where he did not give to the old tenants that which he conceived to be their undoubted right, to remain on that land where their forefathers had been for generations before he was born. He flattered himself that he had as respectable Roman Catholic tenants upon his estate as any Gentleman in that House.
Mr. O'Connell,in explanation, observed it was quite true what the hon. Gentleman had stated with respect to the omission of the words "Civil and Ecclesiastical property" in the oath; but he wanted to know, would it be contended that he had not a right to legislate upon civil property—that he could not give a vote upon the administration of civil property? Was he to be precluded from voting upon tle administration of corporation property—upon fines and recoveries? Why, if he were to be precluded from voting upon civil as well as ecclesiastical property, he could have no business to do as a Member of that House—[Cries of "Spoke."] He had spoken—let them, if they could, answer him.
Petition laid on the Table.

IPSWICH ELECTION.
Mr. Gisbornesaid, that in rising to move that the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report of the Ipswich Committee be now read, he was aware that he had no claim again to address the House, but he hoped that he should be indulged while he made a few remarks, which he should endeavour to make as brief as the nature of the subject allowed.
The Order of the Day having been read,
Mr. Gisbornethought it necessary to make a few remarks in consequence of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel) having, on the previous night, said, that if he (Mr. Gisborne) could come down to the House, armed with the precedents for the plan which he proposed, the right hon. Baronet should not feel disposed to oppose his motion. Now it so happened that he came down, certainly not armed with many precedents, for he had been able to find but one precedent upon this point in existence; and he had to state, that he had come to the conclusion that there was only the one case—not on his own judgment and research alone—but after consulting with several gentlemen who had the best opportunities of knowing if any other precedents existed or not. The fact was, it was well known that in many cases the parties had absconded in order to avoid the Speaker's warrant; but it was a point very difficult to be brought home to the delinquents; and he, with the assistance of those gentlemen to whom he had already alluded, had been able to discover but one single case, and that had been alluded to last night by the right hon. Baronet, which bore directly upon the present case. The case to which he referred was that of Camelford, in which William Hallett was taken into custody on the ground of his having absconded to avoid being served with the Speaker's warrant. That was a case completely in point; and in all its circumstances completely analogous with the case of the parties who had absconded to avoid being served with the Speaker's warrant in the present instance. The difference drawn last night between the cases by the late Solicitor-general and another hon. Member, appeared to be perfectly untenable. They argued that a distinction was to be drawn between the parties who
664
absconded to avoid being served with the Speaker's warrant, and those who neglected to appear after having been served with it. Now he could not see why a difference should be made between the man who was cunning enough to escape without being served with the writ, and the man who was sufficiently clumsy to resort to the desperate expedient of absconding after the writ was served. But upon this subject he begged to call the attention of the House to an authority which must have the greatest weight with that House—he meant the authority of the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman who now filled the Chair. In the case which he (Mr. Gisborne) had alluded to, it happened that William Hallett, upon being taken into custody, alleged as an excuse for not obeying the Speaker's notice, that he had sustained severe bodily injuries which prevented him from doing so, and he alleged also that he had not been served with the Speaker's warrant. When this person was brought up to the Bar of the House, the predecessor to the right hon. Gentleman now in the Chair, addressed Hallett as follows:—"William Hallett, the offence for which you stand committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-arms is of the most grave and serious description, insulting to the dignity and authority of the House, and an endeavour, as far as in you lay, to impede the course of public justice. You allege in mitigation of your misconduct, that you were not served with the order for attendance; this statement is doubtless correct, but you were reported by a Committee of this House, appointed to try the Camelford election petition, as having wilfully ab-absconded with a view to avoid the service of such order. Be not, therefore, misled yourself, and think not to mislead the House by so vain and futile a distinction. It is no extenuation of your misconduct, and no reparation to public justice, that you did not aggravate your offence by open disobedience. I will only add that this is an attempt that never can succeed in attaining the object at which it aims. The only result in which it can terminate, as it has terminated in your case, is in the disgrace and punishment of the individual who is hardy enough to venture upon it."* He was glad to have such authority as that in favour of the views which he (Mr.
* Hansard, vol. xl., p. 1427.

665
Gisborne) entertained upon this subject. The Question before the House was, therefore, simply this:—First, whether the House should take any further cognizance of this subject? and, secondly, whether the House ought to take measures in regard to it immediately, or wait until the evidence taken before the Committee was laid before it? Now, with respect to the first of these questions, he considered that it was absolutely necessary that the House should, without any delay, take some decisive step. He said so the more emphatically, because one part of the argument of the right hon. Baronet last night was, that he did not believe that the parties in this case who had absconded were punishable by the House. It was absolutely necessary, therefore, that the House should settle this Question. It was necessary that it should do so, because it was the only way in which the House could vindicate its power. It was understood that by common law no redress could be had, and it was therefore to be shown that the House could vindicate its undoubted rights. He thought, therefore, that no course was left to the House to pursue, but that, such a report having been made by a Committee of its own Members, they should proceed to ulterior measures for the purpose of vindicating their own power. The second question was, whether they were to wait till the evidence taken before the Committee was before them, or whether, upon the Report made by the Committee, they should at once proceed to take steps to bring those persons to justice? He had no doubt that the former of those propositions was the proper course for the House to pursue. He thought that the resolution of the Committee was sufficient to justify them in proceeding instantly against the parties. It was not to be thought that it was proposed that those parties should be brought up to the Bar of the House by way of punishment. That was not the case; but they should be brought up upon the same footing with Hallet. He was not taken up by way of punishment, but in order to explain the position in which he was placed and to defend himself. That person had been brought to the Bar of the House, where he had been allowed to explain his conduct, and to give the best account he could of himself, as well as to bring what evidence he pleased in his own behalf; but he was
666
not treated as a person guilty of the crimes imputed to him. This was the view which he wished all those Members to take of this Question who thought as he (Mr. Gisborne) did in regard to it. He wished that the evidence taken before the Committee should be left entirely out of view. For his own pan he acted in this matter as if he knew nothing of the evidence taken before the Committee. He based his motion solely upon the report of the Committee, and he hoped that all who agreed with him would do the same; because if they once based die argument upon the evidence which had been taken before the Committee, they ought certainly to wait until the evidence itself was brought before them. He thought, therefore, that the Question simply resolved itself into this—whether they ought to proceed on the report of the Committee, or ought to wait for the evidence? and in his opinion they ought not to wait. There was one point which had been urged by hon. Members, as to whether the parties who were accused of absconding had been represented before the Committee or not. Technically speaking, he admitted that it might be said that they had not been represented; but could anybody say, that with all the evidence produced in favour of the sitting Members—with all the witnesses, counsel, and agents who were before that Committee, that the interests of these parties were not as completely represented as if they were themselves actually and legally before it? Could it be supposed that Sparrow and Clipperton, who were the agents for the sitting Members, and Mr. O'Mally, who was their counsel, were not completely represented? And did any hon. Member who then heard him, doubt that although (as the right hon. Baronet had stated) these persons were not technically represented that the evidence taken before the Committee was as much in their favour as in favour of the sitting Members: and that it was upon the evidence so given that the Committee had found that the one party was guilty of absconding, and the other of bribery and corruption? The Question, therefore, simply was, whether they, acting in the capacity of Judges, ought to bring those persons to the bar of the House; and he had no hesitation in saying, that there never was a case in which they were more called upon to do so. He had promised not to detain the House, and he

667
would, therefore, at once state, that with its leave, he would propose to alter the proposition which he had submitted to its consideration last night. He proposed to alter his resolution, by leaving out the words, "for the said several and respective offences," which would do away with any appearance of the case of those persons having been prejudged. Being called upon suddenly to make a Motion upon this subject, he had taken the words of former precedents, but he admitted that it might be an improvement upon his Motion, if no difference was made in the cases of those persons who were reported by the Committee; he saw no reason, therefore, as the House was to act not upon the evidence taken before the Committee, but upon the Committee's Report, why any difference should be made between their case and that of the others who were reported. He would therefore move, that the names of J. B. Dasent, and John Pilgrim, be added to those whom he had formerly moved should be taken into custody, as he saw no reason why, in this view of the case they should be omitted.
Mr. Patrick M. Stewartsaid, that, with regard to what had been said by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, as to its being usual for any Member, placed in the situation which he (Mr. Stewart) had the honour of occupying—that of Chairman of the Committee, to institute proceedings against parties implicated, he hoped it would be in the recollection of the House that on the previous night he had declined making any Motion, on the ground of his having no instructions upon the subject from the Committee, and that he left the subject to the determination of the House, and would abide by its decision. He had now to state that he would abide by the Report of the Committee, and that he had no doubt that every Member of the Committee was also ready to abide by it, and vote in favour of the Motion of the hon. Member.
Lord John Russellthought that his hon. Friend, the Member for Derbyshire, had shown a sound discretion in leaving out the words which he had excluded from his Motion. He thought that it had been shown that the House had done well in taking a day to deliberate upon the subject, not only in order that they might have an opportunity of referring to former precedents, but that they might show that
668
they had a sufficient regard for the case of the individuals; and he thought that the House was justified in taking those witnesses who absconded to avoid the Speaker's warrant into custody, as well as witnesses who neglected to obey the summons after it had been served upon them. If witnesses were allowed to get out of the way, justice would be impeded and the powers of the House would be ineffectual. On these grounds he thought that the House was justified in agreeing to the hon. Member's Motion, which was conformable to precedent, and therefore he cordially gave it his support.
Sir Robert Peelrejoiced at the delay which had taken place in coming to a decision upon this Question, and he was sure that there was no one in the House who would more sincerely rejoice at the delay than the hon. Member for Derbyshire himself, as it gave him the opportunity of making two important alterations in his Motion. He had contended that the House ought not to prejudge the case of these persons; and the hon. Member, acting upon that feeling, had omitted from his Motion the words "for these their alleged offences," thereby as far as possible avoiding the appearance of prejudging their case. Another alteration which the hon. Member had made was, that he did not now except any of those persons who were mentioned as guilty in the Report of the Committee from the effect of his Motion, but very properly included the whole. In both these points he thought that the hon. Member had materially improved his Motion. In the case of Camelford no charge was specified in bringing Hallett to the Bar; and the hon. Member, therefore, was in exact conformity with that precedent in omitting the words to which he had alluded. Considering also the terms in which the Speaker had addressed Hallet—and the Speaker was undoubtedly a high authority—he considered that the hon. Member was also justified in the course he had followed in that respect. Yet he could not help thinking, upon the whole, that it would be more satisfactory if the House heard the evidence before they ordered those persons into custody. And they had a precedent for that course. In the Grantham case, when a Motion was made that upon the Report of the Committee the person who absconded in order to avoid being served with the Speaker's

669
warrant should be taken into custody, in that case the House did not order that the parties should be taken in custody upon the Report of the Committee, but it followed a course which he considered more conformable to justice. The House first heard the Report of the short-hand writer's note of the evidence taken before the Committee at the Bar of the House, and then it ordered the parties into custody. He thought that the same course should be followed in the present instance, as it would be more satisfactory, in a case where the loss of the liberty of a subject was involved, that the evidence should be heard. If the course now proposed was not simply preliminary, but assumed the offence charged, he thought the precedent of the Grantham case ought to be followed, and there was yet sufficient time for the House to adopt that course. He therefore repeated that he thought they ought to hear evidence at the Bar of the House. The hon. Member had alluded to the difference which he (Sir Robert Peel) had drawn between a person absconding before being served with a summons, and refusing to obey the summons after it had been served. He (Sir Robert Peel) could conceive a case where absconding was as criminal and dangerous as refusing to obey the summons when served; but the House ought to recollect that there was one manifest difference between the two cases. In the one case clear and undoubted evidence of the fact could be brought home to the individual, but the other was more difficult to be established. He admitted that where there was a conspiracy formed to abscond to avoid the Speaker's summons, the parties ought to be punished, but at the same time he felt bound to say that there ought to be evidence of the animus with which the act of absconding was performed; and all he contended for was, that evidence should be produced to show not only that the parties absconded, but that they absconded for the purpose of avoiding being served with the Speaker's warrant. If it were the opinion of the House that they should at once order these persons to be taken into custody without reading the evidence, he would not oppose the proposition; at the same time he thought that it might be as well to have the evidence read at the Bar. Before he sat down, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Derbyshire whether he intended to
670
proceed against the Magistrates for a breach of privilege?
Mr. Gisborneobserved that he had stated last night the course which he intended to pursue with respect to those magistrates, and with the permission of the House he would repeat what he had then said. He hoped that the House would agree with him that the case of the Magistrates was very different from that of the persons whose names were included in the resolution he had proposed, and that hon. Gentlemen would not oppose the present motion in consequence of the course he intended to pursue with respect to the Magistrates. He did not intend to propose that the same course should be pursued with respect to the Magistrates as to the other persons implicated by the Report of the Committee. The only reason which induced him to make this variation in the course of his proceedings, was that there was a difference in the words of the Committee with regard to them and the other persons. The Report directly implicated the conduct of the persons named in his resolution, but it stated that the Magistrates appeared to the Committee to be guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House. The Committee did not say that it was an actual breach of privilege, or in what degree it was a breach. Now he did not intend to propose that the course which he thought was unavoidable with regard to the other persons—namely, that they should be taken into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms—should be pursued towards the Magistrates, but the Magistrates should be called to the Bar to explain their conduct in this matter. He belived that this would remove the objection of the right hon. Baronet.
Sir Robert Peelwas by no means satisfied that the House would be justified in calling upon the Magistrates to attend in this way. The hon. Gentleman might have some precedent for the course which he intended to pursue. He, however, wished to know, on the authority of the Chair, whether there was any instance in which the House had allowed any other tribunal than itself to judge or decide what was a breach of privilege.
The Speakerremarked, that it was competent for a Select Committee appointed to inquire into the merits of a petition, in an election, to report to the House that certain parties had in its opinion

671
been guilty of a breach of privilege, but the House was not found, by the Act of Parliament under which the Election Committee was constituted, to take up or act upon any of the suggestions or recommendations of the Committee as to a breach of privilege. The House always examined for itself as to whether or not the conduct of persons involved a breach of privilege.
Sir Robert Peelsaid the point then was, whether the House should pay so much regard to the opinion of this Committee as to act upon it in this case? He would not, however, mix this with the other case. They ought to have something like a primâ facie case before they proceeded to act.
Mr. Montague Chapmanbegged to remark, as a member of the Committee, that it did not give a decided opinion on the subject, but merely stated that it appeared to the Committee to be a breach of privilege. If it were not a case of breach of privilege, it at least was a case of gross negligence and inattention to the orders of the House. The conduct pursued had occasioned great delay and inconvenience to the Committee. There certainly was a difference in the amount of guilt of the persons named in the resolution. Two of the persons, namely, Dasent and Pilgrim, had given evidence before the Committee. The former individual had come forward to give evidence after some delay before the Committee, while the latter, who had given the most important evidence, had been taken into custody. He trusted that the House would not pursue these persons with the same measure of severity as they did the others.
Mr. Gisborneobserved, that after what had been stated, he would not propose to proceed against the Magistrates before the evidence was printed.
The Solicitor-Generalagreed with the right bon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) that it was becoming and necessary in every proceeding like the present to act only upon the very best evidence which could be got. But for that very reason he thought it was better in the present case to depend upon the Report of the Committee, who heard the evidence orally delivered, and had an opportunity of observing the demeanour of the parties, than to trust to the mere reading of the short-hand notes taken by the reporter at those proceedings. This opinion was strictly in accordance with the
672
practice of the Courts, which always preferred an opinion founded upon evidence orally delivered, than upon a mere hearsay report of it. With respect to the case referred to by the right hon. Baronet, where it appeared the House caused the evidence taken before the Committee to be read to it, before it adopted any proceedings on the subject, he thought, though he would confess that he was not aware of the fact, yet he thought that it would very probably be found that the reason for the House's acting so in that case was this, that the Committee had actually made no report upon the subject, and that the proceedings before them were still pending. Therefore it was, perhaps, that, having no adjudication before them, the House was obliged to have recourse to the best testimony they could procure, namely, the report of the evidence taken before the Committee. He would observe that, as a lawyer, there were no proceedings which he viewed with a more unwelcome eye, or which the country more reluctantly took up, than cases of contempt. At the same time, however, he must express his opinion, that if ever there were a case of the kind which called for visitation it was the present one. There were five or six individuals, aided and abetted by the agents and solicitors of the parties engaged in the contest, and also, he was grieved to say, by a gentleman belonging to the honourable profession of the Bar, charged with avoiding, he would almost say by conspiracy, the service of the Speaker's warrant. The case was such that did it not actually come within the reach of a criminal indictment for conspiracy, it only escaped doing so by reason of some legal technicalities, the existence of which he regretted.
Lord Stanleyagreed with the right hon. Baronet that the proceedings proposed to be adopted in the first instance by the Member for Derbyshire were not borne out by the case he had quoted as a precedent. The House, certainly, in the case of the Grantham Election, had proceeded to hear the evidence read over before they ordered the parties to be taken into custody; but, as the right hon. Baronet admitted, they had the case of the Camelford Election which exactly bore on the matter before the House. He felt bound, therefore, under all the circumstances of the case, to agree to the resolution moved by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, but he would not have done

673
so if the hon. Gentleman had not consented to strike out the words implying the assumption of the guilt of the parties named; he did not think, however, that there would be any serious objection to the amended Motion. In the case of Grantham, referred to by the right hon. Baronet, there was this material difference from the present case. It was reported from the Committee to the House that although due diligence had been used to reach the person to be summoned, yet that the attempts had not been successful. A Motion was therefore made, to take the party into custody. That Motion was, after some discussion, withdrawn, and the short-hand writer who attended the Committee was called in and ordered to read the evidence taken before the Committee on the subject of the serving of the Speaker's warrant on Sir William Manners. It was then ordered that Sir William Manners be taken into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms. Subsequently, on the persons sent by the Serjeant-at-Arms failing in their endeavours to arrest Sir William Manners being reported to him, that officer and his assistants were called in and examined, and the result was, that the House came to the resolution—"That it appeared to the House that Sir William Manners had absconded in order to avoid being taken into custody pursuant to an order of the House: therefore that an humble address be presented to his Majesty that he will be graciously pleased immediately to issue his Royal Proclamation, with such reward as his Majesty shall think proper, for discovering, apprehending, and detaining the said Sir William Manners. * This person was afterwards apprehended and committed to Newgate. There was this difference between this case and the one before the House, namely, that in the former the Committee had not come to a resolution on the subject, but had merely ordered that the absence of the witness should be reported lo the House. The parties, too, in the present case had gone out of the way so as to prevent their being taken into custody. There was, therefore, a broad distinction between the two cases; but the course now proposed to be pursued was completely borne out by the proceedings in the Camelford case. If it had not been for the precedent furnished by the case he had just
* Hansard (New Series) vol. ii. p. 292.
674
named, he would have agreed with the right hon. Baronet as to the propriety of having the evidence taken before the Committee on the subject read at the bar.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that he had been called upon last night by the right hon. Baronet to give his opinion as to the relative guilt of persons absconding from the service of the Speaker's warrant, and those who had had it served upon them and yet had not obeyed it. He remarked, on the spur of the moment, that he saw little difference in the magnitude of the offence. At that time he was not aware of the Camelford case, and of having the high authority of the late Speaker to support his opinion. In the matter now before the House, a prima facie case had been made out, and he was satisfied, from the reflection he had been able to bestow on subject since yesterday, that the parties were precisely in the same situation as persons against whom a Bill had been found by a Grand Jury, and were therefore in a situation which would justify their being deprived of their liberty. There was an analogous course of proceeding in Westminster-hall against persons who refused to obey the order of the Court. An attachment was issued, addressed to the sheriffs of counties, directing them to take the parties into custody, and when taken they had to appear before the Court to explain their conduct, and were liable to commitment to prison for contempt.
Mr. Jerviswished, before the question was put, to say a few words respecting an hon. and learned Gentleman who, by the decision of the Committee, was no longer a Member of the House, and, therefore, was unable to answer for himself. Many allusions had been made to a Speech delivered by Mr. Kelly before the Committee, but he was authorized by that Gentleman to say, that when he then spoke he appeared merely as an advocate, and he wished it distinctly to be understood that he only addressed the Committee in that capacity. He felt bound to say thus much in justification of the Gentleman he had alluded to, and he did it the more readily as they were political opponents.
Mr. Patrick Stewartalso wished to remark, that, as the Chairman of the Committee, he had always understood that Mr. Kelly appeared as a lawyer, and not as a party in the case.
The Motion as amended, was agreed to.

CHARITIES.
Mr. Harveyrose for the purpose of moving that, "a Select Committee be appointed to examine and consider the evidence, in the several Reports presented to this House, from the Commissioners appointed to inquire concerning Charities in England and Wales, and also the measures which may be most effectually adopted to complete, at an early period, the inquiry relative to uninvestigated Charities, to report their opinion by what mode the Charity-funds may be most efficiently, promptly, and economically administered." Those who had upon other occasions, had the good fortune to hear the subject of Public Charities discussed, and the vast importance of dispensing useful instruction to all classes of the community, enforced in the rich embellishments of language and the persuasive charms of oratory, by the distinguished man who had first brought the subject before Parliament, would easily understand the feeling which induced him to disclaim an appeal which required the aid of resources to which he had no pretensions. Nor was it his purpose to emulate, however much he admired, those schemes of universal benevolence in which the learned author of the Commission, into whose labours he proposed to examine, had repeatedly, and even of late largely indulged. His aim was far less aspiring, yet he would fain hope, not less useful. His object was to pass from learning to labour—from speculative fancies to facts—from reveries, to things which had been revealed. It was, indeed, time that something should be known of a Commission, the labours of which were spread over seventeen years, and that a practical character should be given them. It was full seventeen years since the distinguished individual to whom he had alluded—an individual who had merged the powers of a patriot in the accidents of a peerage—brought under the notice of the House the state of Public Charities in England and Wales, and procured the appointment of a Commission, into the successive Reports of which it was his object, or one of his objects to examine. Unfortunately that Commission was crippled in its cradle, and its efficacy was to a lamentable degree impaired. Even in this House the measure staggered under the blows of a concealed hostility; but in another House the seeds of derangement, and well high of death, were sown. It was
676
originally intended that the Commission should inquire, not only into all the Charities in the kingdom, but into the state of education amongst all classes; but it suited the wisdom of the hereditary council of the nation to pare down the most useful provisions of the measure, by restricting the inquiry to those Charities only which had immediate reference to the education of the poor—taking especial care to exclude from investigation all those institutions and endowments, whose profligate perversion and mismanagement—criminal in some, and censurable in most—originally suggested and justified the inquiry. At early periods of our history, the state of the education of the people, and the large endowments bequeathed for that object by the piety and beneficence of our ancestors, attracted the attention of our rulers and the Legislature. In the 43rd year of Elizabeth, an Act was passed which invested the Lord Chancellor with power to issue Commissions, from time to time, giving the most ample authority to inquire, not only into the state of public education generally, but also into the resources which were applicable to that object, and to administer prompt and efficient redress for existing abuses. In the time of the Commonwealth, there were upwards of eight-hundred Commissions issued under the Act of Elizabeth; and it appeared, that vast endowments had been devoted to the instruction of the people—the comfort of the aged and infirm—to whatever enlarges the boundaries of human knowledge, and contracts the range of human sorrow. Of those princely testimonies of the generosity of our sleeping sires, little remained save the slumbering records that such things were. From that distant period to 1786, scarcely any effort appeared to have been made by Parliament to rescue the offerings of charity, from the grasp of selfishness. In 1786, Gilbert's Act was passed, directing the parochial authorities to make returns of all the charities within their respective districts; but, whether by design or accident, it so happened that no compulsory provision was included in this Act, and the consequence was, as might have been expected from such a neglect, that many returns were sent in, but many more omitted, and that, of those which did come in, not a few were useless, from the omissions and inaccuracies which they exhibited. Things went on

677
in this way till 1818, when the Act was passed to which he had previously referred. This Act, however, was crippled in its useful powers in the other House of Parliament, by the introduction of a clause prohibiting all inquiry into Universities and Public Schools to which visitors were attached. In 1831, another Act, founded on the Report of the Committee of 1818, was brought in; but here also the same fault of exclusion was continued, and the endowments of Universities and other Public Schools which had visitors were exempt from its operation. It would be well that, as in the natural world, they should also in the moral world have their harvest and seed time; as the seed of the Public Charities, by the bounty of the original founders, was sown many centuries ago, so it was right that the country should now expect to reap some fruit from them. There was one Report, voluminous beyond reason, drawn up with great labour and skill, submitted to the House on this subject: there was no subject of any great national interest that was not submitted to Committees of that House; and there was no part of the present Question that had not been sifted before them. That man formed but a poor estimate of the labours of a Member of that House, who judged of him by his exhibition on its floor as a speaker—who would barely consider the number or quality of the speeches reported for him. If he were barely to trace him to the threshold of the House, and take his measure from his exhibition there, he would judge of him most incorrectly. Tle Member who was often the most useful was the least ostentatious, as, in place of figuring in public, making speeches, his days and nights were devoted to the scrutiny of public questions, which required much research, much patience, and discrimination. His services were frequently unknown, unacknowledged, and unappreciated, while he was shedding the light of philosophy on questions of high national import, and exerting the force of his own intelligence for the benefit of his countrymen. The consequence was, that there was scarcely any subject respecting which a youthful Member of the House could not obtain more information by reading the Reports than he could expect to gather from the most finished oration of the ablest individual amongst them. Whether the Reports on Charities, as
678
compared with some others, would exhibit a greater proportion of labour and expense than of worth, it belonged to those to determine who had read them. The inquiries commenced in 1818, and continued down to the year 1834, thus extending over a period of time unexampled in parliamentary history for an inquiry to last, and presenting a body of information, at least so far as they could be determined by the number of volumes, he might say altogether without precedent. He believed the result was, that these efforts, vast as they appeared, were yielding at present little or no return. Already was on the Table of the House the 28th volume, which consisted of about 800 folio pages. The expense of the Commission might be ascertained from a return which had been recently made of the amount of money actually advanced for the purposes of the Commission by the Treasury. According to this return, the sum so advanced was 210,000 l. In answer to an inquiry which had been made of the printer of the Reports, he was told that the expense of printing each volume averaged 600 l. or 700 l. The printing of the Reports alone, then, cost the country something like 20,000 l. Speaking in round numbers, it might be said that the Charitable Commission had cost a quarter of a million sterling. To ascertain whether it had been productive of a corresponding benefit, or whether it might be made so productive, was one of the objects he contemplated in the appointment of his proposed Committee. Wishing to confine his observations within, as short a space as would render them intelligible, he would proceed at once to state what was the real result of the labours of the Commission. So great was the mismanagement, and above all the profligate plunder of the property belonging to the poor, as testified in those Reports, that it presented a lasting monument of the utter incapacity of our Courts to do them justice. He referred particularly to the Huntingdon Charity. Long prior to the year 1818, that Charity had been brought under the consideration of the Court of Chancery. It might be supposed, that the notice which had been taken in Parliament of the proceedings had somewhat accelerated them. What was the result? At this moment, the case was to be found in the Master's office. He would next refer to the Pocklington Charity, the original grant of which, for

679
the instruction of the poor boys, amounted to the small sum of 1l. 4s. 10 d. Lands of sufficient value at that time to secure this maintenance for those qualified, were devised to the Fellows of St. John's College, Cambridge. The value of the property, however, had increased to upwards of 600 l. a-year, and it had been claimed that the boys should have a more suitable provision made for them. The trustees, however, whose profession was the education of the people, were not less alive to their own interest, and they contended that the miserable sum of 1l. 4s. 10 d. was all that the Pocklington boys should still receive. The rest was appropriated by the Fellows of the College. An appeal had been made to the Court of Chancery; a deed was pleaded, and a demurrer allowed; consequently, the College of St. John, Cambridge—the learned divines, who would not suffer false sentiments of humanity to give interpretation to a question of law—enjoyed the 600 l. a-year, but were quite ready to receive into their arms any lad who should apply for admission, thinking that he could manage to defray his yearly expenses out of the 1l. 4s. 10 d. The next case he would mention was that of the Croydon Charity, which was brought under the notice of the House and the public by the noble Lord. He began by alluding to that case, which, flagrant as it was, was to this hour unredressed; the master was still receiving his salary without giving any labour for it: there were no pupils. Part of the funds were originally intended to be given to the poor of the parish; there were a few nominal paupers now receiving a stipend from the funds, which, from 2s. or 3s. a-week, grew, from the increased value of the property, to 28 s. or 30 s. a-week to each individual, so that they could now drink the health of the donor, and close their evenings in joyous potations. The next case was that of the Winchester Charity, which yielded little less than 14,000 l. a-year, and which was to be applicable to the education of the poor. The terms of the grant were these, that no boy should be admitted on the foundation whose parent was a possessor of an annual property to the amount of 3l. 6s. 8d.; and there was a provision which stipulated that if, while any boy was on the charity, any circumstances occurred by which he became possessed of property of the value of 5l. a-year, he should be excluded from all benefit of the
680
institution. Now he begged the House just to contrast the construction put on the grant in this case with that in the case of the Pocklington school to which he had adverted. It had been interpreted that 3l. 6s. 8d. of the day when the grant was made must now be considered to mean 66 l. 13 s. 4d.; and the consequence was, that the sons of persons who, from their station, ought to be sent elsewhere and to be paying for their education, were reaping the benefit of this splendid institution, which was originally intended for the instruction of the poorer classes alone. The number of scholars on this foundation was only seventy, so there was a sum of 12,000 l. or 14,000 l. a-year applicable to their education exclusively. The next case was that of Brentwood; but, as that was in the course of inquiry, he would not now further allude to it than to state that any reference to the Court of Chancery would prove a very inadequate remedy for the abuse which prevailed in that institution. He would next proceed to state to the House the results of the inquiry, so far as the documents before the House enabled him to ascertain. In some respects that information was most gratifying, not only as regarded its value, but also as affording the House an opportunity of judging how rapidly education was now advancing in this country. The charities of twenty-eight English counties had been inquired into, and the reports, so far as these charities were concerned, had been completed. It appeared that these twenty-eight counties contained—and the Reports gave a description of them—no fewer than 26,751 charities or endowments, having property of various descriptions connected with them. There were six other English counties, the charities of which had been partially investigated, and they amounted to 1,734. Such was at this moment the result of the labours of the Commission. Adding the 26,751 charities fully investigated in the twenty-eight counties to the 1,734 charities partially inquired into in the six counties, they found that there were 28,485 charities that had been brought under the consideration of the Commission. In twenty-four counties (those counties being twenty-four out of the twenty eight in which the investigation was perfected) the actual amount of the charitable incomes arising from land and houses was 331,703 l. a-year. In connexion with these charities, confined to these twenty-four counties,

681
there was actually money in the funds, on mortgages, and in various convertible securities, amounting to 2,228,030 l. Now, when he stated that there was such a sum devoted to charities in twenty-four of the counties of England, excluding Middlesex, he thought he made out a case calling for the attention of the House. There were, besides, twelve Welch counties, of which he would say nothing; six of them had been examined, and six remained to be. From the facts he had already enumerated, it might be inferred that there was a sum of 700,000 l. a-year arising from these charities, and that the amount of property in strict connexion with charitable objects; was little short of 5,000,000 l. It further appeared, not by a Report of this Commission, but by a Return made to this House, in pursuance of a well-digested Motion of the hon. Member for Calne, two volumes of which, out of the three to be furnished, were already on the Table of the House, and were printed; and the third was promised; it appeared by that Return that in thirty-three counties there was a population of 10,000,000 persons; and in those thirty-three counties there were 2,277 infant schools, 28,311 day schools; and there was elementary information imparted at the day schools to 982,744 children. It would be most gratifying to the House to hear, with regard to religious instruction, to which general instruction should be subordinate, that there were in these counties 1,062,810 who were regular attendants at Sunday schools. It had been contended by the most sanguine calculators, that one in nine ought to receive instruction; but they now found that the number acquiring the elements of humble knowledge was one in ten, though they received it not from endowed schools, but chiefly from the gratuitous schools. The inquiry that he was about to ask the House to institute was a most important one. It was said knowledge was power. So it was, but it was a frightful power if not properly directed, if not tempered by judgment, if not guided by the moral and social wants of the community, if not turned into a channel, and, in place of being made subversive of, rendered auxiliary to the public weal. It might be said that there were remedies at law for the abuse of these trusts; so there were, in name. Too many of these cases were brought before the Court of Chancery; and there they were, many of them waiting for redress,
682
and no less than eighty-eight cases had been already submitted to the Court of Chancery. He thought that one of the good effects of the Committee would be to dispel a delusion now very generally prevalent, that at length we were arrived at such a pitch of legal perfection, that it was only to knock at the door of the Court of Chancery for it to be opened; that the present practice contrasted in the strongest possible way with that of the time when they were led to believe that every thing was wrong, and that we only wanted the spirit of Reform to be set to work for every thing to be made right. He would call the attention of the House to some cases which the Commission had submitted to the attention of his Majesty's Law Officers. He found that the first case which the Commissioners brought under the notice of the Court of Chancery was in the year 1820; and really for so dry a subject, it was very entertaining to read the rise, progress, and history—he would not say the termination—of a suit in that Court. It was unfortunate that the first information filed in that Court under the authority of the Commission contemplated so small an object; but no doubt he should be told that justice ought to be done, though the amount were comparatively trifling. It appeared that there was a sum of 7l. which had been in arrear for several years, and which was chargeable on an estate in a distant county. It was for the recovery of these arrears that the information was filed; and it might have been supposed that the course to be pursued would be simple, that the case would be brought to a decision in a short time, and that the whole matter would be disposed of at a small outlay. Now, when this information was filed in 1820, he did not know whether the present Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General had been long enough in office to know the different cases which were brought forward in their official names; but he found it described as "The Attorney-General at the relation of John Adams, John Small, and others." The information was laid for the recovery of the arrears he had mentioned, issuing out of a close in Walsall, called Whitebread-piece. The whole amount of the arrears for which the Attorney-General, the Commission, and the powerful machinery of the Court of Chancery were employed, was 42 l. He did not complain of the smallness of this amount, but he did hope to show that the Court of Chancery,

683
instead of being a protection against wrong, was the champion of injustice. He had stated that the case to which he had adverted was first brought before the Court of Chancery in 1820; let the House now mark its progress. In 1828 the return was—the answer not yet put in. Thus eight years had elapsed and no answer. In 1829, when, no doubt, official zeal was a little sharpened by the inquiries that had been instituted, the report was—answer put in, bill amended, proposals made but not acceded to. He should have stated, that from the first return it appeared, that the amount of money paid by the Treasury for the bill filed without an answer, was 36 l. 7s. 4d. In 1829 the business was still further accelerated, and the House would determine whether or not this could be reasonably attributed to an apprehension that periodical returns were likely to be called for. For eight years the case had slumbered, and now it might be thought prudent to exhibit a corresponding activity to make up for the previous loss of time. In 1829 there was a further charge paid of 23 l. 7s. 10 d. In 1830 the cause went to issue, and there was an additional charge of 3l. 19 s. 6d. In 1831 there was a similar return. The costs were prior to the year 1831, 46 l. 14 s. Again, prior to the 23d of November, being eleven years after the original bill had been filed, an order was made, making the children of the party defendants to the suit. There the matter now rested. But he would pass from this case to that of Brentwood School, which was of great importance, and which had been most pointedly alluded to by the noble Lord when this subject had been formerly under consideration. Estates had been devised some two centuries back by Sir Anthony Brown for two purposes—for the education of the children of the inhabitants of Brentwood and the twelve neighbouring parishes, and also for the support of five aged persons in that and the adjoining parishes, who were to receive eighteen pence per week. At the time of the devise the property corresponded with the objects to which it was devoted—it yielded perhaps 100 l. a-year; but at present it yielded from 1,200 l. to 1,500 l. a-year. It had been contended that after provision had been made for a certain number of boys to be instructed in grammar—that is to say, Latin and Greek—and for the five aged persons who were to receive eighteen pence a week, the whole of the remaining
684
produce of the property rightfully belonged to the owner of the estates. The Attorney-General, however, had disputed, and properly disputed, the points. An information was filed in 1823 against the Master and Wardens of Brentwood School. The costs at that time amounted to 164 l. 8s. 8d. In March, 1828, the return was, that the cause had been partly heard, and that it was to be further heard in the next term. In the Easter Term of that year the cause came on for further argument, but a reference was made to the Court of King's Bench, the costs being 197 l. In 1830 the case which had arisen for the opinion of the Court of King's Bench was avowed to be set down for hearing at an expense of 108 l. more, it having been in preparation the year before. After some further proceedings of a similar character, it was reported in 1835, that negotiations were going on, and still pending, and that the matter was to be settled by Parliament, if necessary. He would ask the Government and the House if a Court such as that before which those matters were thus brought were not a libel on the very name of justice? He might allude to other cases, but he had said sufficient to show the House what had been done by the Commissioners, what remained to be done, and the necessity which existed that attention should be called to some mode by which these charity funds might be more properly administered. He had now, he trusted, placed the House in possession of the three prominent points. He had apprised the House of what had been done by the Commission, what remained to be finished, and (what was the most important) he suggested that the attention of the Committee should be called to some mode by which those funds might be preserved, the rights of parties attended to, and justice speedily, cheaply, and impartially, administered; and though he had a plan of his own, which upon the Committee he should not fail to unfold, but which at present might be thought premature, he would say, that what the country wanted was a permanent Commission of public instruction to uphold the dignity of the law, and to be actuated entirely by principles of equity and justice. He might be allowed also to say, that for that object they need incur no expense. They had no fewer than three ex-Lord Chancellors, in the full vigour of intellectual accomplishment, and he remembered that Mr. Brougham had said in that House, that he

685
attached such importance to that object, that even when he was the distinguished ornament of that House, having before him those bright honours and distinctions which he had since earned, he would willingly, said Mr. Brougham, give up his seat to be placed in connexion with that inquiry; and he could not fancy that that noble Lord might find subjects more worthy of him than the superintendance of those charities; and with the feelings which naturally accompanied the sense of receiving 5,000 l. per annum without any equivalent, he would be pleased to give his gratuitous services to that object. He had no doubt that in the great work of benevolence Lord Lyndhurst might be made his compeer; and then if there was any difficulty from the prevalence of irritable feeling, there would step in the benignant temperament of a Sugden; so that they would thus have three ex-Chancellors enabled so essentially to serve their country. "And," continued the hon. Member, "though I make it no matter of complaint against the Ministers, knowing how they are at present burdened with the great objects of Municipal and Church Reform, which they appear to be carrying out in a spirit of great sincerity, knowing how intensely the feeling of the country is ebsorbed in that important subject, I will not express any regret, though I know that the object of my Motion is worthy of all acceptation, that their labours have not been specially directed to the education of the people, and the protection of these funds; but permit me to say, that at the time when Government is making strenuous exertions to confer upon the people the principle of self-government, when we are about to intrust many millions with Municipal authority, to whom is confided the trust and administration of these great properties—allow me to express my conviction, as one of their sincere and ardent, though unconnected supporters, that there is no subject which ought to be dearer to their hearts, which will reflect higher honour upon their Government, and shadow their future life with greater admiration than that they should expend their best abilities on the moral reformation and intellectual improvement of the people. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving, that a Select Committee be appointed to examine and consider the Evidence in the several Reports presented to that House from the Commissioners appointed to in-
686
quire into the several Charities of England and Wales; and also measures which might be most effectually adopted to complete at an early period the Inquiry relative to the investigation of Charities, and to Report their Opinion as to the mode by which the Charity Funds might be most efficiently, promptly, and economically administered.
Mr. Wilkswas happy to second the proposition, which embraced a subject to which he had for some time thought it would be his duty to call the attention of the House. There was evidently a necessity for the appointment of a Committee pledged—not indeed to act, but certainly to consider whether there might not be some summary proceeding by which parties would be enabled to obtain justice in the matter in question.
Lord John Russelldid not rise to offer any opposition to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he thought it calculated to forward the object which was so desirable, of rendering the funds of charities more applicable to the purposes for which they were originally intended. It was undoubtedly the case that after the lapse of so many years from the time when attention had been directed to the subject, they yet seemed to be far from attaining the object which they had in view. With reference to the second part of the Motion—that which referred to a more wise and economical administration of the funds—he would observe that although that was undoubtedly an important object, he wished to guard himself against being supposed to imply that by the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman's resolution the House would be understood to have agreed to any general plan at all inconsistent with the original will of the founders of the various charities which were in existence. He was glad on the whole that the hon. and learned Gentleman had brought forward his Motion. The hon. and learned Gentleman had shown sufficient grounds for its adoption, and for inducing him to give it his cordial support.
Mr. Wysesaid, that although not so nearly connected as the hon. Mover and his hon. Seconder with the subject under consideration, he must express his sympathy with them under the circumstances connected with the Motion. The great evil was not only the misapplication of the funds, but the encouraging a system of education totally inadequate to the present state of knowledge. It was obvious

687
from the returns of 1818 that of the greater number of schools included in it, scarcely one-fifth were at present appropriated to the general purposes of education, but were restricted to the mere teaching of reading and writing, thus degrading the schools so that respectable persons refused to profit by the schools, and were obliged to remove their children. Not only was it necessary to propose to the Committee that they should see the funds properly applied to the purposes which the original donors intended, but suggestions should be offered to the Committee by which, without compromising the real interests of the charity, or offending against the original intention of the founder, means might be devised by which they might be made useful to the present generation in every purpose to which education could be applied. The middle classes of the country were especially deficient in education, and abundant means having been provided for improving that education, it was a great violation of the feelings of the people of England to allow those funds to be misapplied. He agreed also in another suggestion, viz. that it was impossible for any system of education in this country to be formed on a large scale without its being formed under the sanction of Government, or of some Board of Public Instruction. He hoped that hon. Gentlemen agreed with him in thinking that education should not remain in the hands of individuals alone, but should receive something like national existence, by putting it under the sanction of the State. The hon. Member concluded by expressing his acquiescence in the motion and his congratulations to the country on the probability of recovering considerable funds which might be devoted to promote public education.
The Attorney-Generalconsidered that, from the nature of his office, it might be expected that he should offer a few words on the subject of the Motion of the hon. Member opposite. He entertained no feelings of difficulty in expressing his entire satisfaction in the course pursued in moving for the appointment of the Committee. The seed was sown, and it should not be for want of any exertion on his part that the country failed to reap the harvest. During the labours of the Commission that had issued upon the subject of charities, he had used all his influence to bring in Bills as the inquiry pro-
688
ceeded, to amend the abuses that were exposed. Such Bills, brought in by him, had become the law of the land. The Committee about to be appointed, he would remind the House, would have two objects in view. The one would be to provide a means more summarily, economically, and effectually, to correct existing abuses. And here he would observe that those abuses not having been corrected, must not be imputed as a matter of blame either to him or his predecessors in office. The fault was not with them, but with the system. But to return. The other object the Committee ought to have in view should be the improved application of the funds of these charities. He did not concur in all the suggestions thrown out by the hon. Gentleman opposite as to the method hereafter to be adopted for their application. But he was most decidedly of opinion, that the Committee should bear in mind the change of time and circumstances, the increasing "march of intellect." This he considered, without acting adversely to the laws of equity or jurisprudence, or without infringing the true spirit of the wills of the donors, might be done, and a system of popular education be established, and carried on with the greatest success. He rejoiced that the Motion had been made, and was gratified at the reception it had met with.
The Motion was agreed to.
Mr. Harveysaid, that the success of the inquiries of the Select Committee must materially depend upon the impartiality of the Members composing it. He should, therefore, defer the proposition for their nomination until he had consulted the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) on the subject.
Nomination of the Committee postponed.

WINDOW-Tax.
Sir Samuel Whalleyrose, pursuant to notice, for the purpose of moving a resolution declaring it to be the opinion of the House that it was expedient to repeal the Tax on Windows. In submitting the grounds upon which he brought forward the present Motion, he would begin by observing, that though there was no greater surplus expected in the present year than 250,000 l., yet applications for as much as the repeal of 5,000,000 l. of taxes had already been made to the House, and he saw no reason

689
why those who were interested in getting rid of the Window-tax, should not likewise put in their claims for relief. He had not the slightest difficulty in declaring his full confidence in the good intentions of his Majesty's Government, and he was perfectly convinced that they would carry into complete and practical operation every principle of sound and useful economy, and thereby relieve the country as much as possible from the pressure of taxation; besides, he was also convinced that the strong claims of the middle classes to relief would obtain from the present advisers of the Crown a just share of consideration, and that so soon as a surplus could be realized, it would be applied for the advantage of that important portion of the community. It was most gratifying to observe how rapidly they had proceeded since the passing of the Reform Bill, and if they were now only allowed a little breathing time from political agitation—if they could only rely upon the establishment of a secure and permanent Government, there could be no doubt that their advancement would be still more striking and apparent. At no period was the country so contented, so peaceful, so wealthy, so powerful abroad, and so happy at home, as since the passing of the Reform Bill. Notwithstanding the ironical cheers of some hon. Members opposite, he would continue to affirm what he had said, and to add further, that he was sure he carried the majority of the House with him, when he said, that a great degree of contentment did prevail throughout the country, and especially amongst the middle classes, who now entertained a hope of good and economical government and in consequence of that expectation, did strenuously apply themselves to the prosecution of their individual interests, which it was their habit before occasionally to neglect for the sake of those objects which they considered themselves to have attained when the Reform Bill became the law of the land. Of all the various taxes of which the people had a right to complain, there was not one which more severely pressed upon them than did those direct taxes, amongst which the Window-tax stood prominent. It was a severe, almost an intolerable, pressure upon that which, to the middle class, formed one of the first necessaries of life. It was well known to hon. Members that the Hearth-tax was amongst the causes
690
which led to the expulsion of the Stuarts, and one of the most popular acts of the reign of William 3rd. was when that monarch proposed its repeal to that House through his Chancellor of the Exchequer. He could scarcely call to the recollection of the House a fact which more strikingly exemplified that, than did the influence exercised upon the minds of the people, by the pressure of, or the relief from, direct taxation. It was reserved for Mr. Pitt, so distinguished for the imposition of taxes, to lay upon the community the great and grievous burthen of the Window-tax in its most oppressive form. In the year 1784, that Minister came down to the House, and entered into a calculation in which he estimated the amount of tea consumed in every class of house; he then told Parliament that the duty on tea was a most inconvenient and objectionable impost, at least to the extent to which it was then levied; that it led to smuggling, and on the whole he thought it ought to be materially diminished. He then told the House of Commons, that he proposed to make up the deficiency likely to arise from the reduction of that duty, by imposing one upon windows, in such proportion upon the several classes of houses as would be equal to the advantage they might be severally supposed to derive from the reduction of the duty upon tea. But the compact thus entered into was not adhered to, though it ought to have been most religiously observed. The feeling on the subject, at that time was unusually strong, and amongst other modes of exciting popular indignation one wag stopped up several of his windows, inscribing upon the first, "Pitt's Works, vol. I.;" on the second, "Pitt's Works, vol. II., and so on. He would remind the House of the well-known anecdote of two great men of antiquity, one of whom thought himself much greater than the other, and condescendingly inquired what he could do to oblige him—the philosopher replied, "Stand aside, and let me enjoy the sunshine." Now, the House of Commons stood between the people of England and the sunshine—they deprived them of the light and air of heaven—enjoyments almost as necessary as food and clothing. It was much to be regretted that there should continue to remain any ground for the feeling which very generally prevailed out of doors, that the effect

691
of all fiscal regulation was to oppress the poor and middle class, and to protect persons of rank and property. Every effort should be used on the part of the Legislature to obviate the effects of such a feeling, and, if possible, to unite the whole community in one bond of kindness. The repeal of the Window-tax would only involve a sum of 1,200,000 l., and that deficit he trusted could be easily made up by economy and retrenchment. The farmer had been relieved from burthens to some extent, and he would ask why should not the shopkeeper be relieved also? He wished all this to be taken gravely into consideration by the Ministers of the Crown, in whose wisdom and justice he reposed the fullest confidence. He relied upon them because he knew that a liberal Government depended altogether upon the will of the people. In that he felt assured that the present Administration was strong, for if they were not strong in some such support they could never have borne up against the formidable opposition on the other side of the House, and the incessant plottings to which they were exposed in a different quarter. The hon. Member concluded by moving a Resolution to the effect, that in the opinion of that House it was expedient to repeal the tax upon windows.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that when he considered the speech and the Motion which the House had just heard, he could not but feel that the hon. Mover came forward rather for the purpose of discharging a duty which he might conceive due to his constituents and to his own consistency, than from any expectation that that which he proposed could be agreed to, or that any sacrifice to so large an amount could, under present circumstances, be made. In the present Session any further reduction of taxation was utterly impracticable. At an early period of the present Session the right hon. Baronet, who was his predecessor in the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, had told the House, that there was no reason to expect a surplus of more than 250,000 l. Now, really, with such a prospect, it was too much to expect a reduction of 1,200,000 l. He need only to call the attention of the House to that fact, for the purpose of showing that it would be impossible to give the slightest encouragement to the present application. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Mem-
692
ber for Mary-le-bonne would not think his Motion invidiously dealt with, if the same answer were given to it which had been used in reference to similar applications for the repeal of taxes—namely, that a compliance with such a demand greatly exceeded the powers of the Finance Minister. Applications, as the House must remember, had already been made for the repeal of the Malt-tax, the Assessed-taxes affecting agriculture, the duty on glass, the stamps on newspapers, and now the taxes on windows were to be repealed, and the additional duty on spirits. Those demands were so easily made, and they were so gratifying to constituents, that it became no matter of surprise that hon. Members should be forward in making them, but the House must be well aware that to resist the remission of any tax was always the most painful duty that a Chancellor of the Exchequer had to perform. It would be exceedingly gratifying, if it were practicable, to repeal all existing taxation. It would be impossible, however, to remit taxation to any amount at the present moment without endangering the public faith; and he was perfectly persuaded that the middle classes (to whom the hon. Member for Mary-le-bonne had principally alluded) were the last persons who would benefit from endangering the public faith. On these grounds he felt it to be his duty to ask the hon. Member for Mary-le-bonne to withdraw his Motion; otherwise he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must oppose it. He begged the attention of the House to one or two facts which he could not doubt they would consider material in the present discussion. Considerable reductions had taken place in the Window-tax. In the year 1820 it amounted to 2,578,000 l.; at present it amounted to only about 1,100,000 l., being a reduction of 1,478,000 l. The number of houses in Great Britain was 2,850,000. Of that number, the number in charge to the Window-duty was only 380,000; so that 2,470,000 houses were exempt from the tax. The number of houses in charge to the Window-duty in 1820 was 968,000; the number at present in charge was, as he had already stated, 380,000; so that since 1820, the number of houses relieved from the Window-tax was 588,000. To this was to be added the consideration, that in 1832, the House-duty amounted to 1,491,000 l., was totally repealed. He thought, therefore, it was

693
evident that the interests of the class on whom the taxes in question principally fell had not been wholly neglected. In considering the expediency of repealing any particular tax, it was not the interest of one class that was to be considered, but that of the community at large; such was the answer that he felt bound to give in reference to the demand for relief on behalf of the agricultural body, and that remark he conceived to apply equally to the present case. He was not disposed further to encroach upon the indulgence of the House than to observe, that he was sure if the hon. Member for Mary-le-bonne would have the goodness to repeat to his constituents the reasons then assigned for resisting the repeal of the tax, they would be themselves the first to acknowledge the unreasonableness of further pressing the Motion.
Colonel Evans,although he concurred in the objections to the tax which had been stated by the hon. Member for Mary-le-bonne, yet, after what had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, hoped that he would withdraw his Motion. At the same time, he trusted, that if the right hon. Gentleman could concede any benefits, however small, to the class of householders, he would not fail to do so.
Mr. Robinsonhad objected to the repeal of the House-tax, because it tended to relieve some of the wealthy classes. For the same reason he objected to the repeal proposed at present, the effect of which would be to relieve some of the wealthiest inhabitants of the parishes of St. Mary-le-bonne, St. George's, and St. James's, who at present paid much less than they ought to do.
Dr. Lushingtonhad endeavoured that day to present to the House a petition upon the subject then before it, in which his constituents, though favourable to the Motion, did not think it proper to press it upon Ministers in the present advanced state of the Session, and under other existing circumstances. His constituents only wished that their claims to relief should have a fair consideration with those of other classes of the community. They wished that Ministers would take off those taxes that pressed the most on national industry, and hoped that they never would be induced to invalidate the national credit.
Mr. Fectorobserved, that the people would now see who their friends were. As art independent man—no man was
694
more independent than he was—he should feel it his duty to take up this Motion if it should drop from want of zeal in those who ought to support it.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodobserved, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that he could not afford to give up the Window-duty. The right hon. Gentleman should first see if his victims could afford to pay it. He rather ought to borrow money than continue such a duty. As to national faith, he did not believe that the repeal of the duty would be inconsistent with national faith; and was not the national faith pledged to the tradesman and the farmer as well as to the fund holder? National faith!—he called it public plunder. National faith!—he called it national shame and disgrace. If justice were not done to the people on that subject by the House, the people would do it for themselves. Others besides the fund holders were entitled to the protection of the Legislature; but neither the farmer had been protected, nor the labourer. Neither had landowner been better off, although he had been deluded by one corn-law after another, which had all ended, instead of protecting him, in swindling him out of his estate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer miglt be assured that he could better afford to abandon the tax than the trades-people could afford to pay it.
Mr. Ruthvenwould not leave the Government in the lurch by voting against it on this occasion; and although this tax was bad, others that might be substituted for it would be worse.
Captain Pechellsaid, that although Brighton was the fifth town in the kingdom in the amount of the Window-tax it paid, he was sure his constituents had too much confidence in Ministers, and too little in their opponents, not to wait with patience for the relief which could be afforded them. He should, therefore, vote against the Motion.
Sir Samuel Whalleythought the gratitude of the inhabitants of Mary-le-bonne would not be so warm towards the hon. Member for Dover, when they learnt the party to which he belonged, as it otherwise might have been; and, notwithstanding that hon. Member's support, he trusted he should be allowed to withdraw his Motion.
A division, however, being insisted upon, the House divided—Ayes 16; Noes 204; Majority 188.

List of the AYES.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Scholefield, J.

Bulwer, H. L.

Turner, W.

Fielden, J.

Wakley, T.

Fleming, J.

Whalley, Sir. S.

Humphery, J.

Walker, J.

Halse, J.

Williams, W.

Hotham, Lord

Lewis, W.

Tellers

Richards, J.

Attwood, T.

Rundle, J.

Fector, M.

THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
Sir William Raerose to move that the several Petitions which had been presented respecting the Endowment and Extension of Churches in Scotland be referred to a Select Committee. He assured the House that this subject had produced a very great sensation in Scotland. The petitioners felt it their duty to appeal to the Legislature with regard to it, finding from the silence hitherto observed that his Majesty's Government were not inclined to take it up. The right hon. Gentleman observed, that the number of the petitions (upwards of 300) was a proof of the interest taken in the subject, in that country. He himself had all along felt a most anxious desire for the discussion of the subject; and, so far as he could, he had given his poor aid and advice, to bring the matter under the consideration of the House. He thought he was not the less qualified to do so, as he happened not to be a member of that Church; and, therefore, in Scotland, a Dissenter, his anxiety thus would be free from any suspicion. The petitions which had come from Scotland were not the only circumstances, however, which proved the deep interest taken in that country for the success of the motion. In addition to their unexampled number, the petitioners had proved their attachment to the Church by the unexampled subscription of 65,000 l. They came with that sum in their hands to the Government of the country, and said, "you are bound to keep up the Established Church, so as to furnish, to every person of its inhabitants, the means of religious instruction." But all they wanted of the country was, to assist them with an endowment, and for what object?—for that most important object—to secure such an income to the Church as might provide to all persons connected with the Church means of attending that Church. That was the real prayer of the petitions; and it was to be seen, whether the Legislature would be disposed to throw cold
696
water upon those petitions which came forward in the shape in which he was about to lay them before the House. The right hon. Gentleman then adverted to the two different sources from which means were at present derived for dispensing religious instruction in Scotland: first, the Endowments of the Establishment made at the time of the Reformation, and which, from the great increase of population, had become totally inadequate; and, secondly, the voluntary associations of individuals who had erected numerous chapels all over the country, but whose assistance must, he observed, be confined necessarily to the higher orders of society—those who could pay for their seats—since it was impossible for those persons to build Churches and endow them too, without some aid to their voluntary efforts, which could only be afforded by the assistance of Government, and there lay the key of the whole Question. In Scotland, by the great increase of population, &c, a great number of persons were excluded from the Churches because they could not afford to pay the seat-rents. He was prepared to prove that in every town of importance in Scotland there were numbers who actually, for that reason, could not attend church. He would call the attention of the House to only two cases. The first was that of Glasgow, with a population, in the city and suburbs, of 224,000, of which one-half, about 112,000, were under twelve years; and he would ask the House, whether it was fit that the whole population under twelve years should be excluded from the means of religious instruction? But, leaving out altogether the one half, as children, for the other portion consisting of 112,000 persons, there were (Established and Dissenting) 77,000 sittings, leaving 35,000 people who could not attend Church however disposed, even supposing that the whole number of sittings were occupied. But then the seat-rents were 13 s., and the poorer classes could not afford to pay at such a rate for themselves and families; the consequence of which was, that they were ousted from all seats, and ceased to attend any place of worship. He knew it was sometimes said, that half the seats were empty. True, but how did that arise? From the people being ousted from the seats through their inability to pay the rents. It was plain, then, that the only mode of reclaiming them would be the establishing ministers in the crowded districts, who would visit the sick and aged, and instruct them pri-

697
vately; and thus by exerting a proper influence over the community, induce them to attend the chapels. In the city of Edinburgh not one-eighth part of the population attended the Churches, though there were numbers of seats unoccupied, till a voluntary association, whose petition lay upon the Table of the House, had built a Church with free accommodation for the poor, which was speedily filled through the influence of religious instruction diffused over the population. There was not a large town in Scotland which could not be proved to include a vast number who never attended Church at all, being excluded from the Church by the high seat-rents, whereas, with a minister to visit them in private, and instruct them in private, with free accommodation, a large congregation would soon be collected from all parts of the district. But the system of inducing people to become church-goers was unknown in Scotland; and the consequence of the deficiency in religious instruction was the vast extension of vice and crime, in proof of which he begged the attention of the House to the following returns, showing the number of persons committed for criminal offences in Scotland, for the four years previous to the years 1811 and 1835 respectively. It was as follows:—In

1807

67

1831

3,950

1808

77

1832

1809

86

1833

1,898

1810

112

1834

2,711

The number of commitments was 342, average 83; for the four last years prior to 1835, the number was 8,559, averege 2,139, being an increase of no less then twenty-fivefold. Let the House now look at the state of crime in England for the same period; for the first four years, the average number was 4,419, for the second period it was 20,179, showing an increase of fourfold. So that while in England the increase of crime in twenty-five years was fourfold, in Scotland, for the same period, it was nearly twenty-five fold. Whence did that difference arise? It could not be owing to the increase of population, for in England it was nearly double, nor to the state of the law, for though severe in Scotland, the number of respites in that country was one-fourth, while in England it was only one-fourth of the number of convictions, yet had crime increased twenty-fivefold in Scotland. With such results apparent to the Legislature, he would ask the House if it was prepared to refuse a
698
remedy—that remedy being (as he was prepared to prove) the increased means of religious instruction. The petitioners who had addressed the House upon this subject had been numerous, and had also shown their perfect disinterestedness by the voluntary offer of aid from their private resources in furtherance of these views. They had come forward to endeavour to awaken a spirit actively on the subject, and in their efforts they had been assisted by the most eminent clergyman of the church of Scotland:—the reverend Dr. Chalmers had dedicated the noble powers of his powerful mind to the service, with a zeal almost unprecedented, contributing of his private fortune to the funds, while by his writings and his preaching he had roused all Scotland. The demands of the petitioners were so moderate, and the offer of assistance they had made to carry into effect their object, so laudable, that it was impossible any government could resist their entreaties in behalf of their poorer fellow-subjects in Scotland. The boon was small; all they asked was to increase the accommodation, and the number of free seats in these churches. They came forward for what? Why to ask a sum of somewhere about 10,000 l., to assist them to secure free accommodation in every crowded isle, in which a minister might be induced to settle. The scheme, as suggested by the petitioners, and supported as it was by the reverend Dr. Chalmers, might fail in its object, but he firmly held the opinion that complete success would follow its adoption. The scheme had met the approval of the general assembly of the Church of Scotland. Upwards of forty churches, by the exertions of these individuals, were now in progress of erection, and would the House withhold from them that small boon which he contended they had a right to ask? He maintained the country was bound to provide them with church room at its own expense; if they were to have an establishment at all, it must be formed so as to afford room to the poorest that walked. But that was not the extent to which they went in asking aid; all they asked was, that the House would assist them with endowments to a certain extent, that the debts of the churches might be reduced, and be made come-at-able to those persons who, they trusted in God, might be induced to become church-goers. He had proposed a Committee, as the only competent shape in which he could put his Motion. It was almost too great a concession

699
to say he would yield so far as to submit the inquiry as to the facts he had stated to a Committee; yet even that he would embrace rather than the petitioners should be defeated in their praiseworthy object. Why the churches had been unfrequented by the lower orders, contrary to their former national habits, he would not stop to inquire. It was sufficient that he should prove, as he knew he could, that they did not go to church. He had hoped the Government would have seen that there was no necessity for an inquiry into facts so notorious. They had evidence stronger than any inquiry could produce, in the fact of individuals subscribing, at their own expense, large sums for the building of churches: it was clear they would not do so if not convinced of the real urgency of the case; and in his judgment, the case was so clear that he almost felt ashamed to ask for any inquiry, though from that inquiry he would not shrink. The question for the House to consider was not what seats were filled and what empty; but what number of people went to church, and how they might be induced to go who never went at all. And if a claim could be made out before the Committee, he would be among the first to give up the whole Question to them. He could assure that body of individuals, the dissenting interests of that country, that he bore them every good will for what they had done, and if it could be made out that they could accomplish the object, he would wish them well with all his heart. But he knew they could not; and that the country could never, by their exertions, be split into fractions, and each district provided with a minister and free sittings in the way which he proposed. The only object of the petitioners was accommodation for the poor, and that would be accepted with gratitude. He hoped sincerely, no attempt would be made on this occasion to get rid of the Motion by a side wind. He would appeal to the gentlemen of England not to throw overboard the religious instruction of the poorer classes of the people of Scotland, and he would remind all, that Scotland had fully contributed 1,500,000 l. of the sums which had been charged upon the United Kingdom for the purpose of erecting churches in England. He could not believe that any gentleman of that country would think that the expenses of one country ought never to be borne by another; remembering particularly what sums had been voted to the Irish Church, it
700
was only 10,000 l. a-year for Scotland, which paid one-tenth of the whole revenues of the kingdom; that was the sum which had been trumped up to something "enormous," in order to deceive the people of Scotland. He was convinced that, when they saw the real facts of the case, there would not be an individual in that country who would not blush to be an opponent of a measure so called for, and so necessary to the well-being of his country, and he was confident that all the respectable portion of the inhabitants of that country would join in the prayer of the petitions. It behoved the members of the Established Church of England in that House, to remember that they had already incurred a moral obligation to the people of Scotland, and that this was the fitting opportunity to discharge that obligation. It would redound to their honour, and prove a blessing and a source of security to society at large. Scotland would then once more stand forth as a model to the world for piety, honesty, and sobriety. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving, "that the petitions presented to the House relative to the building and endowing of places of worship connected with the Established Church of Scotland, be referred to a Select Committee, and that such Committee shall inquire, and report how far the building and endowing such places of worship is required for the moral and religious instruction of the lower orders of the people in Scotland."
Mr. Pringlerose to second the Motion. He said, that he felt that Scotland was entitled to ask that endowment which was proposed, on account of its important relation to this country; on account of the passage in his Majesty's Speech, which had been met by a desire on the part of that country to come forward with repeated subscriptions and meet the case. He trusted the cause would be very dear to Parliament. It was not often that Scotchmen pressed their affairs upon the attention of the House, and he assured the House that there was no subject which had ever come before it which was attended in that country with so much anxiety. It was of great importance that the House should know the amount which was asked. They maintained that it was the duty of every government to take care of the religious instruction of the poor. Now, the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Rae) had shown that, in Scotland it was greatly deficient. They were willing to allow for that deficiency which the neglect of centuries had occasion-

701
ed: the sum of no less than 65,000 l., which had been gained by voluntary subscriptions. And all they asked of the House was, to allow an endowment for the clergymen who were inducted into those chapels which they themselves had built: not to place them in ease and affluence, but to enable them to fill those chapels in which they were bound to provide accommodation for the poorer classes, in those districts in which the parishes were of enormous extent. Church-accommodation was not accessible to many parishes because of the distance, and in these situations it was impossible to accomplish their object without the aid of Government. That was, therefore, the whole of their claim. At the Reformation the parochial superintendence of Scotland was adequate to the population, and a sufficient number of ministers provided, who were resident in their localities; but from the great increase of population, it had been since rendered impossible; the churches, even where there were any, were inaccessible to any but the rich; and that country which was once distinguished for its high moral character, had been rapidly diminishing from the diminution of religious instruction and the want of parochial superintendance. How was that defect to be met? It was only to be met by going back to the original principles, and providing the same parochial superintendence which was formerly provided. The experiment had been made, and had completely succeeded. He acknowledged the great benefits conferred upon the country by the seceding churches, but they could not do all that was needful, there was no provision to be made by them in the more remote parts of the country, they could do nothing without remuneration, which the poor could not give; for instance, in the county of Sutherland, a large and popular district, there was not one voluntary church. In all the chapels, Established or Dissenting, the seat-rents were much higher than could be afforded by the lower classes; they necessarily, therefore, absented themselves, and all that was asked was endowments to make these evils not to destroy the exertions already made, but to meet the object which all had in view. He maintained that the Established Church of that country was a part of the system of government: the established relation between England and Scotland was part of the law of the land, and it was the duty of the Government to provide religious instruction for all the inhabitants of the country.
702
He trusted, therefore, that he should have the assent of the present and of every other government to that principle. They came not for those who could pay, but for those who could not, and who were entitled to ask of the rich to enable them; he therefore, cordially seconded the Motion.
The Lord Advocatesaid, that after the statement of crime in Scotland, made by his right hon. and learned Friend, and after the opinion he had given of the importance of supplying the people of Scotland with buildings for religious instruction, it was surprising that he had not brought forward the subject long since. If it was of such a pressing nature, why did he let the first, second, or third week of the Session pass over without introducing his Motion, instead of waiting until the present time to do so? His right hon. Friend had said, that the opinion he had given was the result of long thought, and yet he had not introduced the subject before; but expressed his surprise that his Majesty's Ministers, after so many petitions had been presented to the House, did not come forward with some measure. Why had not the right hon. Gentleman come forward with the Motion before the present Ministers came into power? The right hon. and learned Baronet had dwelt with great pride and satisfaction upon the number and respectability of the petitions which had been presented to the House relative to the building and endowing of places of worship connected with the established Church of Scotland, and had urged that as a reason why the petitions should be referred to a select Committee. Now, to that he would reply, that considering the extraordinary exertions which had been made in every pulpit in Scotland, he was surprised that, instead of having 382 petitions on the subject, they had not had presented to them as many petitions as there were parishes in that country. It ought also to be recollected that there was a great number of petitions on the other side, which came from persons differing from the members of the established Church of Scotland, not in doctrine or in morals, but only in Church Government, and that that circumstance introduced no small difficulty into the decision of the question, whether a pecuniary grant ought to be made for the purposes advocated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He did not deny the importance of the Question which the right hon. and learned Baronet had raised: but how was it to be de-

703
cided? A difference of opinion existed upon it in almost every parish in Scotland. He would take one of the petitions, presented by the hon. Member who seconded the Motion, from Selkirk, and this was signed by about 300 persons, while there was another petition on the Table which had been since presented which denied all the allegations in the first petition, and this was signed by nearly 600 persons. Now, how was the House to determine which petition was right? One party said that Church accommodation was necessary, while the other party declared it was not at all called for, but that it was matter of surprise to them that it should be asked for. And the same was the case with regard to most of the petitions; for most of them stated circumstances which were denied by other petitions. How could this question be investigated by a Committee up stairs? One of the inconveniences complained of in the petition was the situation of many of the parish Churches in Scotland; for instance, that they were placed in one corner of the parish. This, however, could not be ascertained or remedied by a Committee. According to the present law, the heritors were bound to keep the parish Churches in repair, but wherever situated, or however small, provided they were in repair, that was sufficient. The right hon. and learned Baronet said, that there was no remedy for the mischiefs which the present system generated, except by a grant of public money, but to whom, he would ask, was such a grant to be made, and from whose pockets was it to be taken? Would any man say, that the attendants on the worship of the established Church of Scotland were not as numerous and wealthy as those who composed the congregations which dissented from its doctrines? The right hon. and learned Baronet had cheerfully admitted the great aid which those dissenting congregations had of late years afforded to the cause of religion. If then such was the case, ought not the House to be reluctant to take money from the public purse in aid of a Church which the Dissenters said it was unjust to call upon them to support? The House was bound to respect the feelings of such men, for they had strong grounds for urging to the Established Church that they ought not to be called upon, contrary to their opinions and their consciences, to give to it that pecuniary aid which it was admitted that they gave at present in another way
704
to the cause of religion. The fact was, that even among the Members of the Established Church of Scotland much difference of opinion existed upon this question. Many Members of the Establishment, who at first had signed petitions in favour of a grant of public money to the Established Church, had since seen sufficient reasons for changing their opinions, and had in consequence signed petitions against the grant, which at one time they were so anxious to obtain from Parliament. The House he repeated, ought not to forget that which had been so frankly admitted on the other side—namely, that the cause of religion had been advanced by the Dissenters from the Church of Scotland. He maintained that that Church ought to stand unimpeached in the face of the country, and that it ought not to take any measures which were likely to offend those who, though they differed from it in Government, did not differ from it in creed and morality. A grant of this kind, if given, ought to be given upon the urgency of the case; but how was the urgency of the case to be ascertained by a Committee? The House ought to deliberate well before it came to the conclusion of his right hon. Friend, especially as 79,000 Scotchmen had already remonstrated against it. The feeling in Scotland against such a grant was quite as strong as the feeling in its favour. Instead of yielding to the proposition of his right hon. Friend, the measure which he should propose would be a Commission to inquire into the whole subject. He should, therefore, move that "an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire into the opportunities of religious worship, and into the means of religious instruction, afforded to the people of Scotland, and especially to the poorer classes of the community, whether they belong to the Established Church, or be of any other religious persuasion; and into the state of the law for repairing or building Churches; and into the funds which may now be, or which may hereafter become, applicable to that purpose." He was aware that to the issuing of Commissions it was objected that they were productive of delay and attended with expense. The objection to the expenses of a Commission could be easily refuted. Little reflection would show to Gentlemen that the Commission would be attended with far less expense than an inquiry before a Committee of that House. The Commission

705
would have to inquire into facts; its duty would be to inquire into the means of religious worship and of religious instruction, whether belonging to the Established Church or Dissenters. The inquiry too should be directed to a point of importance omitted by right hon. Gentlemen opposite and that was, to the state of the law, as connected with the repairing and building of Churches, and which, in many parts of the country, was a pregnant source of evil. Another point of inquiry would be as to any funds applicable to the purposes of the Established Church. It was as a friend to the Church that he took the present course for he did not wish to see that Church excite an acrimonious opposition on the part of those with whom hitherto he had been on the best terms. It was his opinion that the inquiry he suggested would be attended with the best results, and would be conducive to the promotion of good feeling.
Sir George Clerksaid, he had listened with great attention and with much disappointment to the speech of the learned Lord. With respect to the taunt thrown out against his right hon. Friend for not having brought forward a measure on this subject, the learned Lord had totally forgotten that this subject had formed one of the topics of his Majesty's Speech. His right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) had submitted a variety of measures to the House, which had met with a favourable reception; and in the Address to the Crown the House had pledged itself to take into consideration the state of the Church of Scotland, and the necessity of increasing the opportunities for religious worship to the poorer classes in Scotland. Could there be any ground, then, for the taunt of the learned Lord? The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had communicated many of his intended measures of Reform to the House, and he appealed to the House whether, if he had been prevented from proceeding in them, and from introducing others, by the great mass of business before the House, and by the loss of time occasioned by desultory conversations, the blame, if there were any, did not rest on the Gentlemen on the opposite benches. This was not the first time the subject had been brought before the House. In 1818 and in 1824 grants to the Church of Scotland had been proposed, though for certain reasons they had fallen to the ground. He regretted the tune of the learned Lord respecting the Established Church of Scotland, for the tone of his argument was fatal to the existence of all
706
establishments. It had been said that meeting-houses had been built by Dissenters in Scotland; but, however praiseworthy might be the efforts of individuals, they did not absolve the State from the obligation of providing adequate means of worship for the people. He remembered an argument of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Dr. Lushington), when grants for building of churches were opposed on that ground; he had said it was not to be endured that members of the Church of England were to be indebted to Dissenters for the means of public worship; and the same argument applied to the Church of Scotland. He (Sir G. Clerk) objected to this new mode of governing the country by means of Commissions. If a Commission of Inquiry was conducted without party spirit, he did not decry it; but coupling the speech of the learned Lord with the Motion to which it led, he could draw no other inference than that it was intended to hang up the question for a number of years. Some of the facts proposed to be inquired into, did not need inquiry at all; for example, the law of building chapels. If there was any doubt upon that subject, why did not the learned Lord introduce a Bill to explain it? He still trusted that the House might have some hope from the noble Lord, the Home Secretary, and that the Government did not adopt the sentiments of the learned Lord.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that the county he represented was unanimous in favour of the grant, and he coincided in their opinion, deeming it fitting that a grant should be made. The support of religion in a country drew after it the necessity of supporting an Establishment; and the principle of this Motion involved the question between those who were for a Church Establishment, and those who were against it. He should vote in favour of the Amendment, not for the purpose of throwing cold water on the subject; but as the facts of the case were disputed, they must be decided to the satisfaction of the country; and he was convinced they could not be so decided by means of a Committee of the House of Commons. He thought that the appointment of a Commission would be a better mode of arriving at the truth.
Mr. Wallacesaid, he had never been so much surprised as when he saw the notice of the right hon. Baronet for a Committee of Inquiry, as the intention was thereby evident of wishing to prevent the information being obtained for which the Returns

707
he (Mr. Wallace) had moved for, and which had been ordered by the House. These Returns would show the real extent of the accommodation in the Established and Dissenting Churches, and therefore ought to be had before a Committee could enter on the question. Another important point was, the amount of unappropriated teinds, or tithes, and this was a subject which no Committee of this House could investigate properly. He had to tell the House distinctly, that a large amount of Church property in Scotland, was still in the hands of the landed interest, who, along with their forefathers, had had the good sense not to make over for Church purposes more than one twenty fifth part instead of one-fifth part, which they were hound by law to do, if it should be required, for the Church. He himself held Church Tithes still unappropriated in two parishes, and he would disdain to put his hand into the public purse while he had unapplied Church property in his pocket. Would the hon. Members opposite subscribe to the same rule. The right hon. Baronet had endeavoured to prove that the increase of crime was attributable to want of Church accommodation in Scotland, and to prove the increase he had quoted the number of commitments at two different periods, to this he had to object. In the first place he ascribed the difference in the habits of the poorer classes in large towns, to the distress and destitution brought on them by Tory misrule for half a century, which had reduced them to such a state of poverty as to be without proper clothing to go to church in; and it was a well-known fact, that Scots people would rather stay at home, even from church, than be seen of a Sunday without proper clothing. As to commitments, they partly arose out of the same cause, and very considerably from the greatly increased activity and zeal in the department over which the learned Lord had so long presided. This activity had been attended with an immense expense to the country; and however profitable it was in certain quarters, the few convictions which took place as compared with the commitments, would prove how wasteful the system was. He did not mean to accuse the learned Lord of any peculiar harshness in the administration of his office. It was the office and not the learned Lord he complained of; being ready to admit, with the exception of a certain period of a peculiar character, the office had been mildly administered by the right hon. Baronet. In speaking of Commissions, he could not
708
but declare his conviction that no office in the State required more the supervision of a Commission than that of the Lord Advocate. He said this with perfect respect for his learned Friend who now so ably filled the office. He would not longer detain the House than to repeat his conviction of a Commission being the proper and only competent means of making an inquiry, especially into the teinds, of which a large amount would be found where least expected, and especially amongst the most wealthy of the titled Aristocracy, some of whom, although liable, contributed little or nothing at present to the maintenance of the Church.
Mr. Gillonsaid, he could not assent to the appointment of either a Committee or a Commission to inquire into this subject, without giving up a great principle, which he was by no means inclined to surrender. He conceived it to be utterly un-Christian in principle, and unjust in practice, to burden the members of one persuasion for the advancement either of the spiritual doctrines or the worldly emoluments of those of another. He was, therefore, inclined to meet the question by a direct negative. The right hon. Baronet had stated a deficiency of 30,000 in church accommodation at Glasgow; but in this statement he had altogether omitted the mention of 35,000 Roman Catholics, who would not accept of Protestant ministrations were they offered to them. When they were deducted, an actual surplus of accommodation would appear in Glasgow. After alluding to similar statistical returns regarding Edinburgh, he observed that he was far from denying that too many absented themselves altogether from the ordinances of religion; but how was this evil to be met? By sending Missionaries to instruct and convert the people, not by building more churches, while those already built were standing empty. But it was said that you must have more parishes and more endowed clergymen. In his opinion men, provided with endowments, were the least likely to display that zeal and diligence which ought to be the distinguishing characteristics of a Missionary in such a cause. The fact was, the clergy of the Established Church, who, from the mode of their appointment by patronage, and a degree of remissness on their part, had become unpopular, were now jealous of the progress made by Dissenters, and this was an attempt to put them down at the public expense. To show that this was the animus by which the Churchmen were actuated, he could mention that he had re-

709
ceived accounts of various places in remote districts, where the Dissenters had erected churches, or preaching stations, which places, whatever might have been the amount of their previous spiritual destitution, had been totally neglected by the members of the Established Church. No sooner, however, had the Dissenters effected a settlement in these places than an attempt was made to dislodge them by building Chapels of Ease, or sending down Ministers provided out of the Royal bounty to oppose them, thus showing that the uprooting of dissent, and not the propagation of religion, was the object in view. But a great regard was professed for the spiritual interests of the poor. Every one knew that hitherto the Dissenters had been almost exclusively the instructors of the poor. Besides, the first use to be made of this grant of money, if obtained, was to endow the existing Chapels of Ease; thus relieving the richer classes of a burthen for which they were now responsible, instead of employing it in the instruction of the poor. In his opinion it would be better to apply all the existing endowments to this object, leaving the richer members of the Establishment to build and endow churches for themselves, than to tax the community, in order to increase the wealth and influence of a dominant sect, without regard to justice or reason. Would the Government listen to their friends, or would they attempt by weak concessions to conciliate their bitter enemies? The Clergy of the Established Church were inclined, almost to a man, to use their influence to undermine the present Government; they had been the enemies of all Reform. The Dissenters, on the other hand, had been the tried and consistent friends of public liberty. They ask no grant of money, not even to be relieved of the pressure imposed on them by the existing Establishment; they only ask to be protected against injustice and oppression. You may by such grants alienate the affections of the latter—by no concessions, however large, could you hope to conciliate the former. The Churchmen, instead of cultivating peace and good will among men, had lighted up the flames of religious discord in Scotland, which were now blazing with a force almost incredible. It was because he considered that an inquiry would only tend to perpetuate this rancour, that he conceived it better to oppose the Motion altogether.
The debate was adjourned.