Commons Sitting of 4 May 1837

MINUTES.
Bills Bead a flat time:—Custody of Infants Sabbath.
Petitions presented. By several hon. MEMBERS, from various places, for the better observance of the Sabbath—By several hon. MEMBERS, from various places, for the proposed Measure; and by other hon. MEMBEBS, FROM various places, against the proposed Measure for the abolition of Church-rates.—By Mr. JERVIS and Sir RICHARD VIVIAN, from various places. for repeal of, Window Tax; and from natives of Wales, against the alienation of the revenues of St. Asaph and Bangor to the see of Manchester.—By several hon. MEMBERS, from various places, for repeal of the Duty on Fire Insurances.—By Mr. EATON, of Soham, for a more speedy recovery, of small Debts—By Mr. H. T. HOPE, from Gloucester, for alteration of system of Bonding Warehouses.—By Mr. T.S. DONCOMBE, from various places, for equalisation of Land: Tax.—By Mr. WAKLEY and other hon. MEMBERS, from various places, for amendment of Factories' Act.—By Mr. CHARLES BULLER, and other hon. MEMBEBS, from various places, for Municipal Corporations (Ireland),—By Mr. CHARLES

503
BULLER, from Creeve and Clooncreff West, for abolition of Tithes (Ireland).—By Lord WORSLEY and Sir OSWALD MOSLEY, from various places, for amendment of the Highway Act.—By Mr. AGLIONBY, from Kendal, for a new writ, on account of the loss, by illness, of the services of their representative.—By Sir RICHARD VYVYAN and Mr. PENDARVES, from various places, against the monopoly enjoyed by the Post-office Shipping List.—By Mr. EATON, from Grantham, for establishment of Local Courts.—By Mr. COWPER, from Hertford, for repeal of the duties on soap, sugar, tobacco, glass, and bricks.—By Sir ROBERT INGLIS, from clergy of Oxford, against the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners affecting cathedral Churches; and from various places, for Metropolis Improvement Bill.—By Mr. EATON and other hon. MEMBERS, from various places, for amendment of Poor-law Act.—BY Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, from various places, for rating owners instead of occupiers of small tenements.—By Mr. HUME, from Bradford (York), in favour of Household Suffrage.

WINDOW-TAX.
Sir Samuel Whalleybelieving that the surplus of public revenue at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer exceeded two millions sterling, deemed it the duty of each hon. Member of that House to bring forward and press upon the attention of the House (however unpleasant it might be) his peculiar views with reference to the best method of disposing of that surplus. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would give him their attention for a short time, as he meant to take the sense of the House on his motion; and he thought it had a very prejudicial effect upon the House, and was a very great dereliction of a Member's duty to bring down hon. Members to support any particular proposition, and afterwards to close the discussion without giving those Members an opportunity of expressing and recording their opinions. He wished to press this question to a division for another reason also, which was, that he believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be mainly guided in disposing of any available surplus revenue by the number of Members who might vote in favour of any particular method of disposing of it; and it was with great satisfaction he observed, that, of 137 who supported him, when last he brought forward this question, in the year 1833, only seventeen had been unseated at the general election; a circumstance which went to bear out his statement of the interest felt on this question by the public generally. Moreover, that supplied a proof, as a reference to the list of names of the 137 would show, that large constituencies were not the fickle bodies they were sometimes described to be; and that, if an honest and consistent man once obtained the confidence of a large constituency, he might retain it all his life. It was only when he deserted his duties and
504
abandoned those principles on which he first received the representation, that he became a melancholy spectacle in his latter days. He trusted he should never be placed in so sorry a condition; he hoped he should retain the confidence of his constituents to the end of his life. Having thus shown the steadiness of large constituencies, he begged to point out to the House a most material feature of this tax, namely, its tendency greatly to diminish the constituencies sending Members to that House. The repeal of this tax, he contended, would, to a very considerable extent, enlarge the constituencies; and he was fully convinced, that such enlargement would operate to the enlargement of the liberal views by which that House would be guided and conducted. There had been several schemes proposed for the disposal of the surplus revenue. The hon. Member for Finsbury and the hon. and learned Member for Bath, were anxious that the last penny of duty should be removed from newspapers; the hon. Member for Liverpool urged the repeal or reduction of the duty on tobacco; another hon. Member of that on soap, and so on; but he hoped to be able to convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the claim he was then putting forward, was the best founded and the most pressing; and he must add, that he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give him credit, when he stated that he believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer was no less desirous than himself, to relieve the people from the pressure of burthens which fell with peculiar weight upon them. Let it not be forgotten, that the Window-tax was the only remaining tax that was paid, almost exclusively, by the middle classes. There could not be a worse tax in such a country as this. Under the genial heaven of Spain, or in the pure atmosphere of Italy, such an impost might be palliated; but here, where we saw the sun so seldom, and then through a mist, it was too bad to tax the light of heaven; it was too bad to refuse to our poor, if we could not give them food and clothing, the free enjoyment of the common air. The reports of the Poor-law Commissioners declared, that the poorer classes were brought to the lowest state—that meat Was a luxury which they could taste; that tea, and such little comforts, were almost beyond their reach; and he thought that, under these circumstances, they ought at least to have the free and untaxed enjoyment of the air and light of heaven. While the occupiers of

505
large houses had received material relief from the repeal of the house-tax, very little relief had been given to the occupiers of small houses. The hon. Member concluded, by expressing it to be his intention to take the sense of the House on the subject of his resolution, and then moved—"That it is the opinion of this House, that the duty on Windows should be repealed."
Mr. Humeseconded the motion, and contended that the tax was not only oppressive on the poorer classes of occupiers, but was extremely prejudicial to the public health, preventing, as it did, the dwellings of the poor from being properly ventilated.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, as the hon. Member for Marylebone intended to divide the House on this occasion, it became necessary to go more at length into the subject than he otherwise should have done. In the first place, the hon. Member called upon the House to dispose of 1,200,000 l. of the public revenue, without his being aware, or the House being aware, of what was the actual surplus with which they had to deal. He begged to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the great fallacy into which he had fallen. The hon. Gentleman had assumed that, upon the general quarter, there was a surplus of 2,000,000 l.; but the hon. Gentleman really did not understand the nature of a surplus. A surplus, for the purposes for which the House had to deal with it, meant an actual surplus of income over the expenditure; but the surplus to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, was merely the surplus of one quarter of the year over the corresponding quarter of the year preceding. It was impossible the hon. Gentleman could know what the surplus of income over the expenditure was, when the financial statement of the year had not yet been laid upon the table. The hon. Member had informed the House, that there was to be an immediate dissolution of Parliament; but upon what information that declaration was founded, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was at a loss to conceive. But why was this argument addressed to the House? Were they to adopt any particular measure, not on account of its own merits, but for the sake of obtaining a false and ephemeral popularity? If the measure were a just one, it ought to be supported, whether there was to be a general election or not; but if it were an unjust measure, then the statement made
506
by the hon. Gentleman ought not to influence their votes, but the proposition ought at once to be rejected. If the hon. Gentleman would look to the financial statement up to the 5th of April, 1837, he would not find that there was a surplus of income over the expenditure at the present moment, equal to the amount of the tax he proposed to repeal. What, then, was his proposition? It was not only that the whole of the surplus should be appropriated to the repeal of the Window-tax, but that an actual deficiency in the revenue of the country should be occasioned by the repeal of that tax. But was the Window-tax the most proper one to be selected as a subject on which relief was to be afforded? He thought not. The primary object in repealing any tax, was to afford relief from taxation which would give greater development to the productive industry of the country. He conceived, that the industrious classes at all times, and more particularly at the present time, were those who had the greatest claims on the liberality of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman had introduced political views into this question, and had said, they ought to repeal the Window-tax, because they would thereby increase the elective franchise. But he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would not argue the question upon that ground. If the franchise ought to be increased, let it not be done by indirect means, but in a bold and avowed manner. Was it, however, certain, that the hon. Gentleman would be affording relief to the persons whom he wished to serve, if the Window-tax were repealed? There were 2,800,000 houses in England, of which only 377,000 contributed at all to the Window-tax, and those were the houses of the wealthier classes; so that the poorer classes who inhabited the 2,400,000 houses paid no Window-tax whatever; and yet the proposition of the hon. Gentleman was to apply the whole existing surplus revenue to the relief of the persons occupying the 377,000 houses, leaving the inhabitants of the 2,400,000 houses without any means of relief by the reduction or repeal of any other tax. The inhabitants of great houses in the large towns, who contributed towards the Window-tax, were not that class of persons who had the first claim on Parliament for relief; but those by whose industry and active enterprise the wealth and commerce of the country were created and sustained. It must also be obvious to every one, that relief ought, in the first

507
instance, to be given where the least relief had hither to been afforded. This argument particularly applied to the present case; for already had the house-tax been repealed to the amount of 1,200,000 l. It was true the hon. Gentleman now declared, that great injustice was done by the repeal of the house-tax, but who, at the time, were so loud for the repeal of that tax, as the hon. Gentleman and his Friends? If the Window-tax were to be repealed, there would be the same inequality of relief as was now made the ground of objection to the repeal of the house-tax. He objected to the hon. Gentleman's proposition on principle, and because he thought it bad in itself; and he should, therefore, give it a distinct negative.
Captain Pechellstated, that, although he as well as his constituents placed great confidence in his Majesty's Government, he felt bound on that occasion to support the motion of the hon. Member for Mary-la-bonne. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had intimated any intention of giving partial relief by modifying this tax, he would have abstained from voting; but under the circumstances of the case, he felt bound to support the motion.
The House divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 206:—Majority 158.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Leader, J. T.

Attwood, T.

Lees, J. F.

Barnard, E. G.

Lewis, David

Blunt, Sir C.

Lushington, Dr.

Bowring, Dr.

O'Connell, M. J.

Bridgeman, Hewitt

O'Connell, Morgan

Brotherton, J.

Parrott, J.

Clay, W.

Pattison, James

Darlington, Earl of

Poulter, John Sayer

Dennistoun, Alex.

Robinson, G. R.

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Ruthven, E.

Dick, Q.

Strickland, Sir G.

Divett, E.

Thompson, Colonel

Duncombe, T.

Tooke, Wm.

Elphinstone, H.

Turner, Wm.

Ewart, W.

Wakley, T.

Fector, J. M.

Ward, Henry George

Fielden, J.

Wigney, I. N.

Fitzroy, H.

Wilks, John

Grattan, Henry

Williams, W.

Grote.G.

Williams, Sir J.

Hall, B.

Wood, Alderman

Hawes, B.

Hindley, C.

TELLERS.

Hotham, Lord

Pechell, Captain R.

Hume, J.

Whalley, Sir S.

List of the NOES

Acheson, Viscount

Ainsworth, P.

Adam, Sir C.

Alford, Viscount

508

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Graham, Sir J.

Bagot, hon. W.

Grey, Sir Geo. bt.

Baillie, H. D.

Grimston, Viscount

Baines, E.

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Balfour, T.

Guest, J. J.

Barclay, David

Hale, Robert B.

Baring, Francis

Halford, H.

Baring, T.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Barneby, John

Hanmer, Sir J.

Beckett, Sir J.

Harcourt, G. S.

Bentinck, Lord W.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Bethell, Richard

Hardy, J.

Bewes, T.

Hay, Sir A. L. bart.

Blackstone, W. S.

Hayes, Sir Edm. S.

Blake, M. J.

Heathcoat, J.

Bramston, T. W.

Hector, C. J.

Buller, Sir J. B. Y.

Heneage, E.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Henniker, Lord

Burton, Henry

Heron, Sir R. bart.

Byng, George

Hillsborough, Earl of

Canning, rt. hon. Sir S.

Holland, Edward

Cartwright, W. R

Houstoun, G.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Howard, P. H.

Chaplin, Colonel

Hurst, R. H.

Chapman, M. L.

Ingham, R.

Chisholm, A.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Clerk, Sir G. Bart.

Irton, Samuel

Clive, Edward Bolton

Jones, Wilson

Colborne, N. W. R.

Jones, Theobald

Collier, John

Kerrison, Sir Edward

Collins, W.

Knight, Henry Galley

Conolly, E.M.

Knightley, Sir C.

Corbet, T.

Labouchere, H.

Dalmeny, Lord

Law, hon. Chas. E.

Denison, J.

Lawson, Andrew

Dillwyn, L. W.

Lefroy, A.

Donkin, Sir R.

Lefroy, T.

Duffield, Thomas

Lemon, Sir C.

Dunbar, George

Lennard, T. B.

Dundas, hon. T.

Lennox, Lord G.

Dundas, J. D.

Lennox, Lord Arthur

Dunlop, J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Eastnor, Viscount

Lister, E. C.

Ebrington, Viscount

Loch, J.

Edwards, Colonel

Long, W.

Egerton, Sir P.

Longfield, R.

Elley, Sir J.

Lowther, Col. H. C.

Ellice, E.

Lowther, J. H.

Elwes, J.

Mackenzie, T.

Estcourt, T. G.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Estcourt T.

M'Taggart, J.

Feilden, William

Mangles, J.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Manners, Lord C.

Fergusson, R. C.

Marsland, Henry

Finch, George

Martin, J.

Folkes, Sir W.

Maule, hon. F.

Follett, Sir W.

Maunsell, T. P.

Forbes, Wm.

Maxwell, H.

Forster, C. S.

Methuen, P.

Freemantle, Sir T. W.

Miles, W.

Gladstone, T.

Mordaunt, Sir J. bt.

Gladstone, Wm. E.

Moreton, A.

Gordon, R.

Morpeth, Viscount

Gordon, hon. W

Mosley, Sir O.

Goulburn, H.

Murray, J. A.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Musgrave, Sir R. bt.

509

Nagle, Sir R.

Somerset, Lord G.

Neeld, Joseph

Stanley, E. J.

Nicholl, Dr.

Stanley, Lord

North, Frederick

Stanley, W. O.

O'Brien, Cornelius

Stuart, Lord J.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Stuart, V.

Oliphant, Lawrence

Sturt, Henry Chas.

Ossulston, Lord

Talbot, C. R. M.

Parker, M.

Thompson, Paul B.

Patten, John Wilson

Thorneley, T.

Pease, J.

Tracy, Charles H.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R,

Trelawney, Sir W.

Peel, W. Y.

Trevor, hon. G.

Pendarves, E, W.

Tulk, C. A.

Perceval, Colonel

Vere, Sir C. B.

Philips, Mark

Verner, Colonel

Ponsonby, W.

Vernon, Granville H.

Ponsonby, J.

Vesey, hon. Thomas

Powell, Colonel

Wall, C. B.

Power, James

Walpole, Lord

Price, Sir Robert

Welby, G. E.

Pryme, George

White, Samuel

Pryse, Pryse

Whitmore, Thomas C.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Wilbraham, G.

Richards, R.

Wilbraham, B.

Ross, Charles

Williams, Robert

Russell, Lord John

Wodehouse, E.

Russell, Lord Charles

Worsley, Lord

Ryle, John

Wortley, J. S.

Scott, J. W.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Scourfield, W. H.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Seymour, Lord

Young, G. F.

Shaw, F.

Young, J.

Shirley, E. J.

TELLERS.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Baring, F. T.

Smith, R. V.

Parker, John

UNIVERSITIES.
Mr. Prymerose to move that an address be presented to his Majesty to issue a Commission to inquire into the state of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and the respective colleges therein. It was essential that full inquiry should be made into these institutions, with a view to the removal of those defects which so greatly impeded their utility. A Committee of this description had been appointed during the administration of the right hart. Member for Tamworth in reference to the Scotch universities, and in consequence of the report of that Committee, Several reforms and alterations had taken place in those universities. The grounds on which he now Sought for an inquiry into the two great English Universities was that, having been instituted in days of less civilisation and less knowledge than the present, they were not so much adapted to the knowledge and studies of the present time as they might and ought to be. A Commission to inquire into these universities was no novelty. Commissions had been issued for this purpose in the reigns of Henry 8th, of Edward 6th, of Mary, and
510
of Elizabeth; the result of which Commissions had been alterations in the regulations and proceedings of the colleges constituting both universities. One of the most objectionable features in the government of the universities was the caput, a body composed of six individuals, having each of them a veto upon all measures before they came before the senate for discussion. The consequence was, that the sense of the university could not be taken upon any question if one of these individuals chose to put his veto on it. The non-admission of Dissenters he should touch very lightly on. At Cambridge they allowed much greater latitude than at Oxford. In the course of last year a Jew was second in the examination. He remained at Cambridge, unable to take his degree, and the point to which he would invite the attention of the House was the oaths which prevented him from taking his degree. The members of the universities were obliged to take a number of oaths; and he would appeal to those individuals, many of whom he knew to entertain strong religious feelings, and ask them, was it right that a man should call God to witness he would do an act which he never intended to do, and which he knew would never be done by any of those who were around him? He would ask his hon. Friends behind him, if they had not sworn that they would remain five years at college assisting in presiding in the Schools and teaching there? The Duke of Richmond had brought in a Bill to dispense with many of these oaths; but the heads of the universities were so enamoured of them—they were so in love with these oaths, which though they took they never observed—that they petitioned Parliament not to be exempted from them. There were upwards of one hundred statutes which the members of the college could not have knowledge of, and which, therefore, it was impossible for them to observe. At the end of each term the vice-chancellor pronounced absolution in favour of all those who had violated their oaths. Though he Was not personally acquainted with them, he believed that there existed as great anomalies at Oxford as at Cambridge, of which he had been speaking; and he hoped that some hon. Gentleman who belonged to the University of Oxford would come forward and state what there was requiring reform in that university. Some alterations had been made in the regulations there, and they had been objected to in an article in The dinburgh

511
Review; but he must say he did not agree in opinion with the writer of that article. The fact, however, of the existence of a difference of opinion on so important a subject was, he contended, one reason in favour of the appointment of a Commission of inquiry. The examination for a master of arts' degree was rather a singular one. The candidate appeared in the school; some trifling question was proposed to him—often a pun on the individual's name; he gave a short answer—for instance, his reply would be "Nescio," or something equally witty, and then he went and took his degree of master of arts. Another regulation was that no man should teach grammar (he was speaking of Cambridge) in any of the colleges except Jesus College. Grammar was afterwards extended to Trinity and to King's Colleges; but to what part of King's? Not to the students, only to the chorister boys there. He objected also to the restriction of giving fellowships only to men of particular counties. At St. John's College the restriction had been removed on petition to the King; at Trinity there was no restriction of the kind. A tutor of a college in Oxford, in a communication he had received from him, expressed his belief that there existed three times as many of those restricted fellowships in Oxford as at Cambridge. He stated that at his University they could not make the fellowships available for any good or profitable purpose; a number of Gentlemen were appointed fellows by virtue of their connexion with certain families, towns, or counties, without regard to their talents industry or knowledge. And it was from bodies thus constituted that the heads of colleges, that the public officers of the Universities, that the executive Government were derived. For individuals so qualified were the dignities and emoluments of tutors and examiners reserved. The result of this system was, that one-half of the classical examiners were Gentlemen who had not themselves reached the highest honours. Then he was informed that the lectures were so imperfectly or rather so abstrusely given, that the student was unable to follow them without the assistance of the private tutor. The public tutor played into the hands of the private tutor, and the consequence was, that the student, to enable him to follow the lectures, was obliged to have a private tutor, at an expense of 40 l. a-year. The tutors had now formed a division of labour, and the same tutors would not, as they did in his time, teach
512
mathematics, whence it followed that the student was put to an expense of 80 l. a-year. If it were asked, was there a demand in the Universities for a change in the present system, he could answer that there was. He was most willing to admit that many improvements had taken place, but still many more were wanting He trusted that as an inquiry had been granted into almost every other body in the kingdom, whether they were charitable institutions or corporations, that one with respect to these Universities would not be refused. Considering the connection that he had the honour to hold with one of those Universities he believed it would not be supposed that he was influenced by any hostility towards them. He had spent, with the exception of four years, his whole life in connexion with an university. He was influenced by the strongest feelings of attachment to the universities, and he brought forward his present motion actuated by an anxious desire to improve them, and to remedy the deficiencies which arose from the arbitrary statute of Elizabeth, and from the foundation being laid in ages less adapted than the present to promote study, and in which the habits of study were different from what they were now. Both at Oxford and at Cambridge there were many, persons, he observed, receiving large salaries, and who did no duty. He concluded by thanking the House for the attention which hon. Members had bestowed on him, and by moving, that an humble address be presented to his Majesty, requesting him to issue a Commission to inquire into the state of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and the respective Colleges therein.
Mr. Edward Lytton Bulwer: I will first ask, are our universities national establishments?—and if they are, can we improve them? What is the gist of the motion? If we can answer both questions in the affirmative, I see no possible reason why we are to exempt the universities from that inquiry which has been granted with respect to other corporations in this country. I believe very great misapprehension exists on this question, and I do not consider that my hon. and learned Friend has removed it in his very able speech. My hon. Friend has not sufficiently pointed out the distinction between the universities and the colleges; and all the reforms that are required depend upon that distinction being kept in view. I will not occupy the House more than a minute and a-half in pointing out that distinction. In the first place,

513
the universities existed before there were colleges at all. The pupils residing in the towns and neighbourhood had the advantage of public lectures and degrees of instruction given in the universities. How, then, did the colleges spring up? In the tenth century, when Canute came into the nation, a great passion for letters sprang up; and that passion had increased so much in the twelfth century, that charitable persons provided the means of instruction, and established lodging-houses for the residence of poor scholars. To the advantage of lodgings, board and a small pecuniary allowance were also sometimes added. As the pupils who at that time attended at the universities were much younger than the pupils of the universities in the present day, it was necessary to subject them to discipline and control; and at each of these houses graduates presided. Such of these houses as were endowed were called colleges. At first they were exceedingly few, but as the pupils became more numerous, it was found necessary to have a greater number of other lodging-houses, which were called halls or inns. In the sixteenth century, it was understood that all the pupils lodged at one or other of these houses; and let us mark the distinction that existed between the system at that time and the present. No new colleges can now be created without the consent of the chancellor; and at that time whoever pleased could have a lodging-house, with a graduate at the head of it, and a hall was established. Neither the chancellor nor any other authority could prevent the existence of a hall; and at that time no religious test was imposed, and, owing to the great competition amongst the colleges, they were much less expensive than they are ow. In the sixteenth century, Oxford was a great Catholic college, of which the country boasted. How, then, did the colleges usurp the authority of the universities? There are various causes to be assigned for this result—the civil war,—the Reformation,—the abolition of the monasteries;—all these tended to diminish the resort to the universities, and, as the great halls were in possession of large endowments, an important academic revolution at length took place. Every difficulty was thrown in the way of the establishment of new colleges; and at length there appeared the decree of the Earl of Leicester, who, being chancellor, declared that no new halls should be endowed without the consent of the chancellor. From that time the monopoly
514
of the colleges has existed, and the universities were then turned from the national object for which they were intended. Then it was that the universities established religious tests, and that the national endowments were taken from the people, to be diverted to the purposes of a particular sect. I do not think that my hon. Friend has rested sufficiently upon this distinction. It must also be observed, that originally the universities were governed by an almost democratic constitution. The House of Convocation consisted of all the resident members of the university; but when the colleges assumed the plan of the university, it was thought best to have a college instead of an university legislature. Accordingly, by a decree, the popular House of Covocation was dissolved, and the power they possessed placed in the hands of a miserable oligarchy. Since then, the House of Convocation can entertain no proposition that has not the consent of the college oligarchy. As the colleges usurped the legislative functions of the universities, so, naturally, the universities glided out of view. The colleges possessed the honorary distinctions of an university, while they claimed all the exemptions of private corporations. They perceived, then, that universities were distinct from colleges. The universities stood open as if for all comers, while the colleges were intended only for the better classes. If to-morrow the colleges were all sunk in the Cam and the Isis, we should still leave the universities existing; and we should still, too, have that which has been usurped, and which is the property of all classes and all religions. My hon. and learned Friend has pointed out the great abuses which have existed in the colleges. Although, as my hon. and learned Friend has stated, some improvements have been effected, many abuses still remain. At Oxford and Cambridge it is the same; one is as defective as the other. But there is this difference between Oxford and Cambridge: at Oxford the test of subscription to the thirty-nine articles is imposed at matriculation, in Cambridge not until graduation; so that Dissenters can have the benefit of three years' education at Cambridge, but not at Oxford. What evil has arisen from this practice at Cambridge? No complaint has ever been made that Churchmen have sought to make proselytes of Dissenters; no fear is entertained that Dissenters make converts of members of the Church of England. Here, then, is proof that the test could be done

515
away with at Oxford. Why not abolish it then, and all the other superfluous oaths at the same time? This would tend to the advancement of religion; for can anything be worse than to call the Deity to witness that which is never intended to be performed? I suppose it will be contended, that we have no right to interfere with the colleges. I am not certain that the House has a right to interfere with the colleges; but it certainly is competent to interfere with the universities. The reigns of Elizabeth, James 1st, and Charles 1st, have shown examples of that right having been exercised. It has been said, that the admission of Dissenters ought to be refused, because religious tuition is given in the universities. This argument, however, cannot hold good, if, as Blackstone and Mansfield have asserted, and all lawyers still assert—if, as the Parliament of Paris has declared of the college of Paris, the model of all others, the colleges are not ecclesiastical, but secular, corporations, But with respect to the religious instruction, the only religion properly taught is the heathen mythology. Scholarships, fellowships, ay, and bishoprics, are given to those who are best acquainted with this. The loves of Venus and Adonis are the Study in which they are best versed; while of the Christian religion they are persuaded to study the Greek Testament merely, and Paley, that most shallow of theologians] while they are permitted to remain in ignorance of the stately literature of the Protestant Church of England. What reasonable argument can be adduced against the proposition of my hon. and learned friend, I am utterly at a loss to conceive. Can it be contended, that an inquiry into the truth of the alleged existence of such abuses can be injurious? or are hon. Gentlemen desirous of again raising up that spirit of bigotry and intolerance which three centuries ago gave birth to Protestantism? The question before us is simply this—are those institutions which are the ancient seats of learning, the only ones which are to be exempted from the improvement which the present advanced state of civilisation in society demands? Are these the only institutions which are to remain encumbered and weighed down by all these errors and abuses? The time is fast approaching when these institutions will no longer be perverted from the purposes for which they were originally intended. The time will soon arrive when the political advantages of a citizen will no longer
516
be guaged by the measure of his theological opinions; and, believing that the time has arrived in which this improvement should be commenced, I feel great pleasure in seconding the motion of my hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Poulterbelieved, that oaths had been employed solely for the purpose of coercing the illegal and arbitrary acts of the colleges. He did not see that a case had been made out which would warrant the House in addressing the Crown. He would support any Bill for the admission of Dissenters, any Bill which would substitute declarations for oaths; but he did not think a commission necessary. He objected also to the proceeding suggested, as it would be an act of hostility against the Universities, antecedently to proof that they failed in performing their duties. As to the term "indigent persons," it was difficult to point out the individuals designated by that phrase; but he thought that it alluded to persons intended for the ministry, persons who, having acquired the rudiments of knowledge, were without means adequate to enable them to attain perfection. He thought the term "pauperes" signified personally poor; and he thought the class of men he had described were personally poor. An improvement had been going on progressively for many years. He thought that the mode of holding fellowships might be altered to advantage; he thought an alteration with regard to property might be introduced; he thought, also, that the disqualification on account of marriage might safely be changed, as it was in violation of a great natural principle. The proceeding recommended to the House was violent and unfair towards the Universities, which were performing the best national services. When he saw, as he did, the means of education honestly provided for by the two Universities, he could not bring himself to accede to this motion. If they looked to the schools and the exhibitions connected with the Universities, they would find in them the means of raising men of the very humblest rank, totally destitute of friends and property, to the very highest situations. He would relate a circumstance in his own knowledge, which would place this fact in a very striking point of view. About a-year ago he had a man servant, who had considerable taste for classical learning. He himself paid considerable attention to his progress, and procured an exhibition for him at the University, and he had the pleasure of seeing him cease to be his man-servant, and become a com-

517
moner of Magdalen-hall, Oxford, and in the road to honour and improvement, He considered that there was no instrument in this country which could he compared to the two Universities in providing means, where there were minds capable of improvement, for elevating men who were without other resources to situations of profit and honour. He had no objection to permit the Dissenters to establish halls in the Universities; he would vote for a measure which would abolish the taking unnecessary oaths; he would reform any great and recognized abuses; but, looking at the two Universities as seats of national education, he would not consent to injure and insult them by agreeing to this motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould not entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member who had last spoken. It was but just to his hon. Colleague (Mr. Pryme) to cast aside the supposition that this motion was brought forward out of any hostile feeling to the Universities; The main question was, whether inquiry was necessary, and whether this was the proper mode of prosecuting it? This was the practical question, He considered that the Universities were public institutions of national establishments which it was competent to the House to inquire into It Seemed to him that the whole question turned upon this. He should be sorry to think that any number of sane men should maintain that these were not national establishments, and that if even a proper case Were made out it was not fitting or proper for the House to institute an inquiry. Could it for a moment be maintained that that House had the right to legislate on that subject, and yet that they had not the sight of inquiry? That House had legislated on the subject. One of the most important statutes that had ever been passed, the l8th of Elizabeth, c. 6, had reference to this subject. Surely, it never could be maintained that the Legislature had the power to act, and that they had not the power to inquire into the subject matter of their legislation. It could never be maintained, after the issue of the Scotch com-mission, that that House had not the power to inquire if a case of inquiry were made out, and the necessity of the inquiry proved. The effect of a contrary proposition would be to give that House the power of action without the power of deliberation. He thought that there were certain points in the Universities that called for immediate inquiry. He did not make this assertion
518
in any thing like an adverse spirit. He had always spoken and acted towards the University of which he was a member with the utmost respect and gratitude, and he always would. But, at the same time, because he was a member of the University, because be knew their effects, because he valued their institutions, he was anxious that they should receive that reformed improvement which they required. The whole of the category of oaths demanded immediate inquiry. Could it be said when Parliament was taking steps to relieve all persons from taking unnecessary oaths, even the lowest parochial officers—could it be said or was it consonant with religion and morality, that the Members of the University should alone be precluded from inquiry as to the numerous oaths which they were compelled to take? He protested that if the Universities were open to all classes of Dissenters, he should still think that their original institution was such as to call for inquiry. He knew very well that there were many matters to which the oaths of the Universities referred which had now become obsolete, and were necessarily neglected; and he knew also that those who took these oaths Were not held to the strict observance of those matters to which they so pledged their faith. But was it not a mockery to impose an oath and, at the same time, to give a means of mental reservation whereby to evade it? But this was not all. He did not allude merely to such laws as that forbidding the students to play at marbles at St. Mary's; but, if he was not mistaken, he believed that there were several rules amongst the statutes of these Universities which might be enforced at the present day, but which were still wholly neglected. He believed, but he spoke under correction, that the original intention in the foundation of one of the colleges at Oxford was to pray for the souls of those who fell at Agincourt. It could not be said, that this was a regulation applicable in the slightest degree to the present time. Yet these provisions still existed; and he believed that in many colleges, of which the King himself was visitor, even he had no power to alter or abolish any of them. With respect to the propriety of instituting a commission, into this subject, with the powers proposed to be given to them, he held in his hand a copy of the instructions to the commission instituted into the Scotch Universities, by a Government who certainly had no design for overthrowing the church, or of favouring

519
ultra-liberal opinions, and which empowered them to "make inquiries into the mode of granting degrees of teaching, and to inquire narrowly into the rentals and revenues of universities and colleges, and also as to their mode of taking elections, with further power of framing a code of laws and regulations on the subject." This last was a power which, if this motion for a commission were to be adopted, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would not consent to repose in their hands; the remedy for any proved abuses being the province, as he considered, of Parliament alone. The hon. Member for Lincoln in his speech to-night, and particularly in reference to the religious instruction at the Universities, had drawn a picture which might have been true to a certain extent when he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was at college; but in which he was glad to be able to say, from the experience of his subsequent visits to the University to which he belonged, a considerable alteration for the better had manifested itself of late years. The hon. Member had then, in the same breath, condemned Paley as the shallowest of theologians. Now, he would not contest the point with him; he would leave the two statements to go together for as much as they were worth. He knew that certain transcendental philosophers had arisen of late years, but for his own part he confessed he was rather of the English than the German school on these subjects. He should like to refer to Paley, if it were possible, on this very question before the House, and he would venture to predict that if they did so, they would find no man less ready to defend the obsolete statutes of the English Universities than Paley himself. Whilst, however, he came to the same practical conclusion on this matter with his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, he was bound to say that he did not think this motion a necessary step towards the attainment of it. The Crown had already ample power to inquire into the management and affairs of the Universities; in the words of the Scotch Universities' Commission, it had "an undoubted right" to institute a commission on the subject if it thought proper, and an ample and absolute right to direct the course of its inquiries. If, therefore, his hon. Friend would allow him to offer a suggestion, it would be that the Crown should be left to act upon its own sense of public duty, without the interposition of the House. Under these considerations he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his motion to a division; if he did, he (the Chancellor of
520
the Exchequer), agreeing as he did in its objects, should not meet it with a direct negative, but should nevertheless feel it to be his duty to move the previous question as an amendment.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that as the question was to be got rid of, he should not have risen to address the House, had not some points arisen in the course of the debate, which, if left unanswered, might give occasion to a supposition that the imputations which had been thrown upon the Universities, were deserved. His right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had done his duty as a Minister of the Crown and a member of the University, by declaring his determination to resist the motion, and therefore he was not called on to say how far there was such a power in the Crown. The Government would, in these respects, act upon their own responsibility; but he hoped there would be no violation of rights which, granted under charters from the Crown, sanctioned by the authority of Parliament, and confirmed by the decisions of the courts for several hundred years, stood upon a basis not easily to be shaken. He must observe, that when motions of inquiry had been made before, the Gentlemen who brought them forward, or those who supported them, had felt themselves bound to prove, that abuses did exist; but instead of that, it was acknowledged, that the Universities were in a state of progressive improvement, and fulfilling better than at any former period, the duties which they owed to society at large. His right hon. Friend said, that there was no harm meant, no injury intended, by this inquiry. It was said, that the Universities would come out of it with honour. Why, was he to be tried for an offence, because, when he was put on his trial, he was sure of an honourable acquittal? Was he to have his whole life inquired into, upon an imaginary accusation; and would his right hon. Friend console him by saying, "You will be put upon your trial, but then you will have the glorious satisfaction of coming out of the inquiry with an unspotted character, and of publishing to the world that you are as virtuous as you were supposed to be vicious?" Would that be any compensation to him? Great, however, as would be the annoyance which an individual would suffer from this proceeding, the inconvenience in the case of public bodies would be much aggravated. He should like to know, too, how discipline

521
was to be maintained in these collegiate establishments, when parties who were engaged in tuition might be examined ten times a-day, in reference to complaints adduced against them by persons who, knowing nothing of the statutes, would be liable to fall into every kind of misconception. Then, as to the Scotch Commission. Did his right hon. Friend mean to say, that the legal power of the Crown to inquire into the state of the Universities, stood on the same grounds in England as it did in Scotland? Was it not a notorious fact, that the King was the visitor of the Scotch Universities; and that that which in England was the exception, was in Scotland the rule? Moreover, did his right hon. Friend forget what the alleged reason was, for the inquiry instituted into the Scotch Universities? Did he not know, that it was the irregularities, disputes, and deficiencies, which were said to exist therein, and the necessity of applying some remedy to cure them? If his right hon. Friend had any doubt as to that fact, he would remove it by reading an extract from the commission of inquiry itself. It was as follows:—"Our Sovereign Lord the King, considering how necessary it is that Universities and colleges should be provided with good laws, statutes, and ordinances, and being informed that certain irregularities, disputes, and deficiencies have occurred in the Universities of Scotland, calculated to impair the utility of those establishments; and considering, also, that it is his Majesty's undoubted right and prerogative to name visitors and commissioners to inquire into such irregularities, disputes, and deficiencies, and to remedy the same,"—names and appoints certain individuals to institute such inquiry. Having disposed of that point, he would now proceed to another charge which had been made by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge, against the Universities. That charge was, that they did not accommodate themselves to the circumstances of the times—and how was it that his hon. and learned Friend proposed to remedy this inconvenience? By going back to the state of things existing in the time of Philip and Mary—that is to say, he who complained of the Universities for adhering too rigidly to the practices of antiquity, would have them go back to a period of still more remote antiquity, to render their rules and regulations more applicable than they were at present, to modern usages, His hon, and learned
522
Friend had next spoken of the necessity of modifying the oaths now taken in the Universities, and had argued that the oaths to observe the statutes, which the change of times and circumstances rendered no longer observable, ought to be altered. His right hon. Friend had also said, that, as we had recently regulated the oath taken by custom-house officers, by parish officers, and by other public functionaries, so ought we to regulate the oaths taken by students and graduates in the Universities. It was true, that for the oath formerly taken by custom-house officers and others, we had recently substituted a declaration; and he recollected that, at the same time, the propriety of substituting a declaration for the oath taken in the Universities was brought under the consideration of Parliament. Parliament then came to this decision, that "it shall be lawful for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and for all other bodies corporate and politic, and for all bodies now by law or statute, or by any valid usage, authorised to administer or receive any oath, solemn affirmation, or affidavit, to make statutes, by-laws, or orders, authorising and directing the substitution of a declaration in lieu of any oath, solemn affirmation, or affidavit, now required to be taken or made. Provided always, that such statutes, by-laws, or orders, be otherwise duly made and passed according to the charter, laws, or regulations of the particular University, other body corporate and politic, or other body so authorised as aforesaid." It was evident, then, that the point raised by his right hon. Friend, had been under the consideration of Parliament, and that Parliament, being of opinion that confidence ought to be reposed in those learned bodies, had given them power, if they pleased, to substitute a declaration in lieu of an oath. But when his right hon. Friend adverted to the impropriety of administering oaths, to observe statutes which were no longer observable, he could not help asking him how he got out of the impropriety by substituting declarations in lieu of oaths? He understood, at the time when that Act of Parliament was passed, that the declaration was to be as binding as the oath; so that, if there was a violation of any declaration on a subject where a violation of the oath would constitute the offence of perjury, there would be little benefit accomplished by making the alteration recommended by his right hon. Friend. In point of fact, his alteration would be good for nothing.

523
He admitted, that if he took a declaration and violated it, he did not fly in the face of the Divine authority so openly as he would do, if he took an oath and broke it; Still, as an honest man, he must say, that the substitution of a declaration in lieu of an oath, would not relieve the Universities from the difficulties in which, according to his right hon. Friend, they were placed. It appeared to him, that great misapprehension, not to. say ignorance, prevailed respecting the paths taken in the Universities; and, though he should not have been purposed at a stranger sharing in that misapprehension or ignorance, he was surprised to find his hon. and learned Friend, who was himself a distinguished member of one of the Universities, participating in the general error. Beyond all question, there were many things in the statutes of the different colleges which had now fallen into desuetude. In construing those statutes, he was, therefore, bound either to depart from their literal construction, or from the details which the founders had laid down to carry their objects into effect. He thought, that he ought to pursue their main objects in the mode best calculated to make them efficient, even though he threw overboard the details which they had laid down for accomplishing them. He would exemplify what he meant by an instance taken from the college to which he himself had the honour to belong. He had with him the statutes of that college in Latin; but, as it might be more convenient to the House to learn their substance from a translation, he would state, in plain English, that the object of its establishment was to fit men for the uses of the State, and to render them in various ways serviceable to it. A solemn prayer was inserted in the Statutes at their end, calling upon God to give the college his blessing, so that it might bring forth the ripe fruits of piety and science. In those statutes, it was made imperative upon the students to read carefully the topics of Aristotle, the inventions of Radulphus Agricola, the intelligibilia of Porphyrius, and the works of the learned John Setoun. With the exception of the first, not one of these productions, once so celebrated, was known—he would not say read—at the present time. The college, in working put the object of the original statutes, had banished those obsolete works from the course of study, and had substituted for them the best productions of modern literature and science. He contended, that in such a deviation from
524
the plan laid down by the founder, the college authorities had been guilty of no violation of their oaths; and in confirmation of his opinion, he quoted the authority of Dr. Paley. That eminent writer on morals had a short chapter on the subject, which illustrated his meaning so well, that he could not refrain from reading it to the House. "Members of colleges in the Universities, and of other ancient foundations," says Dr. Paley, "are required to swear to the observance of their respective statutes, which observance is become in some cases unlawful, in others impracticable, in others useless, in others inconvenient. Unlawful directions are countermanded by the authority which made them unlawful, Impracticable directions are dispensed with by the necessity of the case. The only question is, how far the members of these societies may take upon themselves to judge of the in-conveniency of any particular direction, and make that a reason for laying aside the observation of it. The animus imponentis, which is the measure of the juror's duty, seems to be satisfied, when nothing is omitted, but what, from some change in the circumstances under which it was prescribed, it may fairly be presumed that the founder himself would have dispensed with. To bring a case within this rule, the inconveniency must—I, be manifest, concerning which there is no doubt; 2, it must arise from some change in the circumstances of the institution; for, let the inconveniency be what it will, if it existed at the time of the foundation, it must be presumed that the founder did not deem the avoiding of it of sufficient importance to alter his plan; 3, the direction of the statute must not only be inconvenient in the general, for so may the institution itself be, but prejudicial to the particular end proposed by the institution; for it is this last circumstance alone which proves that the founder would have dispensed with it in pursuance of his own purpose. The statutes of some colleges forbid the speaking of any language but Latin within the walls of the college; direct that a certain number, and not fewer than that number, be allowed the use of an apartment amongst them; that so many hours of each day be employed in public exercises, lectures, or disputations; and some other articles of discipline adapted to the tender years of the students, who, in farmer times, resorted to Universities, Were colleges to retain such rules, nobody now-a-days would come near them. They

525
are laid aside, therefore, though parts of the statutes, and as such included within the oath, not merely because they are inconvenient, but because there is sufficient reason to believe that the founders themselves would have dispensed with them, as subversive of their own designs." He hoped, that it would not be supposed that either he or the University which he had the honour to represent, felt any indisposition to review the statutes of that University, for the purpose of removing any anomalies which might be found therein. On the contrary, the leading authorities of that University were at present engaged in the consideration of its statutes; and he knew that those individuals, anxious as they were to guard themselves against the unjust imputations upon them which had been made in another place, and which, he was sorry to say, had been repeated in that House this evening, were equally anxious to remove those parts of the present system which were inconsistent with the modes and habits of the times, and which in themselves were either inexpedient or impracticable. He would next proceed to notice an objection which had been raised respecting the governing body of the University. It had been said, that the caput, because it was not appointed by popular election, was not fit for the government of a learned body. He denied that the election of the caput was in the exclusive nomination of the Vice-chancellor. If his right hon. Friend would take the trouble of reading the statutes of the university to which they both belonged, he would find that a double list for the caput must be presented by the Vice-chancellor to the senate, and that from those two lists the members of the caput must be appointed. However antiquated his notions might appear, he must confess, that he doubted whether it would be advantageous to the interest of science, even supposing the Crown had power to make the alteration, and to vary the constitution granted to that University by Act of Parliament, to have the time which ought to be given up to the studies of the place occupied in canvassing a large body of seats in the caput. They were wise founders, who, knowing how much the absence of agitation was conducive to contemplation and study, made an arrangement: of this kind which preserved the University from popular disturbance by banishing to a distance the elements of civil confusion and discord. The next charge which he should notice, related to the oath
526
which he and others had taken as masters of arts. It was true that by the statutes every master of arts was to preach once in five years at St. Paul's-cross. He must confess, that although he had been a master of arts for more than twice five years, he had never yet preached his initiatory sermon. He had never felt any obligation to perform that duty, nor should he feel it, if St. Paul's-cross, instead of being demolished, were now in existence. The regulation had been made when none but clergymen were admitted to the degree of master of arts, and ceased as soon as laymen became admissible to it. Another reason which had been urged for instituting this inquiry was the limitation in certain colleges of the number of fellows to be elected from particular counties. It was very singular, that in the whole course of his speech his hon. and learned Friend had scarcely mentioned a single grievance which he did not at some other part of it show to be remedied. This was especially the case in the present instance. His hon. and learned Friend had stated, that limiting the number of fellowships was an evil. Well, the fellowships had been limited in two of the largest colleges in the University of Cambridge—he meant at Trinity and St. John's. Did the governing body of either of those colleges seek to continue the limitation? No, quite the reverse. Having the power in themselves, through the medium of their visitors, those learned bodies had of their own accord relieved the fellowships of their colleges from the shackles which had been imposed upon them, and had opened them to all the world. Indeed, his hon. and learned Friend had mentioned the case of a Swiss gentleman (the late rev. Mr. Tavell, once fellow and tutor of Trinity) who had entered at one of them, had raised himself by his talents and exertions to the highest honours which the University had to bestow. He repeated, that in two of the largest colleges in his University, and he believed in several others, this limitation of numbers had been got rid of by the friendly exertions of the Crown and of the heads of houses. If those friendly exertions were to continue, and if Parliament were to afford every reasonable facility to the heads of houses, the colleges would require no commission to make the necessary alterations, but would make them readily of their own accord. There was another charge to which he must advert, as it affected a large number of gentlemen for

527
whom he entertained the most sincere respect. His hon. and learned Friend had said, that the system of private tuition was a great abuse. He would ask his hon. and learned Friend whether he wished to get rid of that system? Did he wish to restrict the exertions of men who were anxious to gain knowledge as well as those of men who were anxious to communicate it? Would he say to students of high rank in the Universities "You have fortune—you have wealth—but you must not employ it in gaining information from those best calculated to give it you—you must not employ it in obtaining a knowledge of the arts which embellish and dignify human life—you must be kept down to the same level with the poorest man in the University, lest you gain some undue imaginary advantage over him?" For his own part, he would much rather that a young man should be employed with a tutor during the whole of the long vacation, than that he should be spending it, as his hon. and learned Friend proposed, in idleness, which was likely to disqualify him for the resumption of his studies when he returned to the University. [Mr. Pryme: I never said one word of the kind.] He appealed to the House whether his hon. and learned Friend had not stated that the system of private tuition was an abuse. [Mr. Pryme: No.] Whether he had not stated that it was a forced payment of 40 l. a-year, and that it gave an undue advantage over those who—[Mr. Pryme had neither said nor meant any thing of the kind.]—"As his hon. and learned Friend said that he had misconceived his meaning upon this point, he would not push his argument on this part of the subject further." He hoped, however, that he had not mistaken his hon. and learned Friend upon another point of his argument. He understood his hon. and learned Friend to say that private tutors were necessary, because the public tutors gave their lectures so abstrusely that it was impossible for a young man to understand them without the assistance of a private tutor. He denied the fact; he asserted that the public lecturers of the different colleges did not give their lectures in so unintelligible a style. In Trinity College especially, the public tutors gave their lectures in a manner which rendered them easy to be understood by every man of ordinary comprehension; and not only did they give them thus clearly in public—they were accessible at all times in private to those students
528
who wished for further explanation. He could mention numerous instances of men who had not had the means of obtaining private tuition, and who had yet acquired the highest honours of the University by their mere attendance on the public lectures. The hon. and learned Gentleman had also made a statement reflecting on the professors of the University. He did not know how far that statement was true, but the hon. and learned Gentleman had himself been a professor and might know from experience how far it was true that the professors did not teach publicly the sciences which they professed, or, teaching them, how far they were unsuccessful in procuring an audience among the students. Supposing the lecture rooms of some of the professors to be unattended, that might arise from no indisposition on the part of the professors to give lectures, and from no indisposition on the part of the students to profit by them, but from the ardour with which they were led to pursue the ordinary studies of the place under other professors. It had been said, that the cause of divinity suffered whenever a person oppressed by age and infirmity filled the professorship without being able to discharge its duties. He admitted that such an occurrence was unfortunate; but even when the professor of divinity was unable to discharge his functions and give lectures, there was no want of theological instruction in the university. The theological instruction which the students received in their respective colleges comprehended all the important parts of the Christian faith. He could not agree with those hon. Members who had described the subscription to the thirty-nine articles required from all persons who required admittance into the University as a barrier erected by interested parties for the avowed purpose of preventing the general dissemination of that know-ledge which was taught in the Universities. He had opposed the admission of Dissenters into them not upon that ground, but because he felt that, the Universities having been instituted and maintained for the support of the religion of the state, it was incompatible with that object to place the government of them in the hands of those who entertained opinions hostile to that religion. He would not detain the House any longer, especially as it appeared that the Government was not inclined to support this motion. He repeated, the universities were ready to act on their own responsibility, and to male such regula-

529
tions as the change of circumstances required. They must, they ought to do so; for a contrary conduct would withdraw from them the confidence of the House and of the country, and raise up against them a mass of hostility, which he thanked God did not at present exist. The country was well aware of their value as means of extending knowledge. It saw their, value not only in the individuals whom it sent to that House to be its lights and ornaments., but also in those individuals who in other places were the guides, instructors, and servants of the Government. It saw their value in the important fact, which could not be denied, that those who were opposed to them in matters of religion when they had to elect a seminary for the education of their children chose the Universities, the eyes of the land, as the places to which they would send them. There was nothing to justify the commission of inquiry into the state of those bodies, and he claimed for them exemption from any such unnecessary interference.
Mr. Prymein reply, said, that after the speech of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the question had taken a different aspect from what it had at first. His right hon. Friend agreed with him in the principle that some reformation was necessary, but he thought that it would be better to leave to the Crown the power which it had of interfering if it should seem necessary. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) seemed to think that he (Mr. Pryme) had intended to make an attack on the Universities, but he appealed to the recollection of hon. Members whether he had said anything of the kind. He admitted that great improvement had of late been made in the system of both Universities, but he wished to have that improvement on some fixed principle. What he complained of was, that some colleges had so given their instructions as to render a private tutor necessary, which in many cases was a hardship. Having made this explanation, he would now, with the leave of the House withdraw his motion, in the hope that Ministers would take the necessary steps in these matters on their own responsibility.
Mr. Estcourtsaid, that after the statement of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goulburn), he should not detain the House by more than one remark, which was, that of late years an improvement had taken place in the Universities, particularly in that of Oxford, which had gone far beyond what
530
the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge had stated.
Motion withdrawn.

FIRST FRUITS.
Mr. Bainesrose to make his promised motion with respect to the First Fruits. The ground on which he rested that motion was, that at present those funds were grossly misapplied, and he hoped to be able to show that a reform, and an important reform too, was called for in their administration. The first fruits were as ancient as tithes. In the year 1290, a valuation was made of livings for the purpose of ascertaining the value of first fruits and tenths, and the consequence was, it was recorded that the first fruits and tenths were of the full value of the livings of that day. At the time of the Reformation—in the reign of Henry 8th—these funds came into the possession of the State, were applied to the uses of the State, and at that time also amounted to the full value of all the livings. At that time, therefore, and at all preceding periods, the amount of the revenue, instead of being extremely small and insignificant, as at the present day, was of a very large and important description. He did not wish to weary the House by entering into unnecessary details; but he held in his hand the directions given by Henry 8th, for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of first fruits and tenths; and at that period, as he had already stated, the sum amounted to the full value of all the livings. So that, supposing a bishop to enjoy a living of 1,000/. a-year, it was necessary that he should pay to the First Fruits-office the full amount of that sum for the first year, and for every succeeding year one-tenth of it. In this state the law continued until the time of Philip and Mary, when the act of Henry 8th was repealed; but the very first act of Elizabeth was to re-enact the law, and with so much strictness that the full amount of the livings under the valuation of Henry 8th continued to be collected and paid during the whole of her reign, and down to the time of Queen Anne. In the reign of the last-named sovereign a statute was passed which would be remembered long in this country, and which entitled the name of Anne to great veneration and respect—he meant the statute known generally under the name of Queen Anne's bounty, by virtue of which the first fruits theretofore applied to the uses of the State were transferred to the support of the poorer clergy. How far the obligations

531
impesed by that act had been discharged he should prove to the House by reading a very short statement, the object of which was to shew, that instead of the first fruits and tenths being applied, as was originally intended to the full amount of the livings, they had been applied only in such a manner as to leave the. poorer clergy of the country in a state, pf the most deplorable destitution; and it was the object of the motion with which he should conclude to endeavour to place the poorer clergy upon such a footing as should enable them to enjoy the. full benefit that the statute of Anne intended them to enjoy. He found

An account of the sums pf money paid on each induction for First Fruits into the fund for the augmentation of the maintenance of the livings of the Poor Clergy by the Archbishops and Bishops of England and Wales, and of the real annual value of the revenues of the Archiepiscopal and Episcopal Sees, as returned by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners appointed by his Majesty to inquire into ecclesiastical revenues in England and Wales dated in 1835.

Archbishops and Bishops.

Net Annual Value of Sees as returned by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

Amount paid as first Fruits rated in the King's Bench.

The Archbishop of Canterbury

£19,182

£2,682

The Archbishop of York

12,629

449

The Bishop of Carlisle

2,213

478

The Bishop of Chichester

4,229

609

The Bishop of Exeter

2,713

450

The Bishop of Hereford

2,616

691

The Bishop of Richfield and Coventry

3,923

503

The Bishop of Llandaff

924

139

The Bishop of Norwich

5,395

834

The Bishop of Peterborough

3,100

373

The Bishop of Rochester

1,450

322

The Bishop of St. David's

1,897

383

The Bishop of Salisbury

3,939

1,246

The Bishop of Bangor

4,464

118

The Bishop of Bristol

3,351

294

The Bishop of Worcester

6,569

929

The Bishop of Lincoln

4,542

828

The Bishop of Oxford

2,648

343

The Bishop of St. Asaph

6,301

168

The Bishop of Bath and Wells

5,946

479

The Bishop of Gloucester

2,282

283

The Bishop of Chester

3,261

378

The Bishop of Winchester

11,151

3,873

The Bishop of Ely

11,105

1,921

The Bishop of London

13,929

900

The Bishop of Durham

19,066

1,638

These were the first yearly payments made by the bishops after entering upon their sees—payments which, according to the Act of Henry 8th, ought, for the first year, to have been equal to the full amount of their livings; and for every successive year equal to one-tenth. But they had failed to pay either the full amount of their first fruits or of the tenths; for instead of contributing for the latter a
that the archbishops and bishop? instead of paying the full amount pf the. first fruits and tenths, paid now only in this proportion:—; the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose revenue, as stated by the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, appointed to inquire into the revenues of the Church, amounted to 19,182 l, instead of paying the whole of the sum for the first year to the Board of First Fruits, paid, only 2,682 l. The following table shewed the actual incomes of the archbishops and bishops, and the sums paid by them respectively as first fruits:—
tenth of the full amount pf their incomes, they paid only a tenth of the diminutive sums he had mentioned. So that the poor clergy, of whose interests the bishops should be the guardians, were by these very bishops deprived of a great portion of the funds which ought to be applied to their support. He was prepared to admit, and he made the admission most readily, that some degree of doubt had been thrown

533
upon this subject by an expression in the sixth section of the Act of Queen Anne, in which it was said, that the payment was to be made according to the rating as that rating had theretofore existed. He knew it was net always acceptable, either in that House or elsewhere, that there should be a defender of the poor clergy; but that was one of the motives by which he was actuated, because he knew that they were in a situation of great difficulty, and could not with propriety make their complaints known in that House. He thought it incumbent upon the House, therefore, whenever the subject was brought forward, to keep an open ear to the complaints of the poor clergy, and to give to them the credence to which they were entitled. Whilst he was upon this subject he would quote the real value of ten livings in the diocese of Chester, together with sums paid by them to the Board of First Fruits:—

Real Value.

Sums paid.

Middleton Rectory

£l,070

£36

3

11

Aldingham

1,092

39

9

2

Prestwich

1,230

46

4

9

Ashton-under-Line

1,407

26

13

4

Lancaster

1,709

41

0

0

Rochdale

1,730

11

4

9

Standish

1,874

45

16

8

Wigan

2,230

80

10

8

Winwick

3,616

102

9

9

Manchester Coll. Church

4,025

53

6

8

After that statement coupled with the previous statement in reference to the contributions made by the bishops, he hoped he should have for his motion the support pf the hon, Gentlemen opposite, who were so zealous for the interests of the poor clergy, and of the noble Lord, the Home, Secretary, whom, he had heard express the benevolent wish that every poor clergyman in the country should have a living at least equal to 150 l, a-year; and which every poor clergyman certainly would have but for the mal-administration of these funds. He believed, indeed, that the first fruits and tenths, properly collected and properly applied, would not only afford a competence to all the clergy, but would furnish a considerable sum towards the erection of new churches where they were required, He begged to ask the House whether, supposing the value of livings had declined nine-tenths, the bishops and persons interested in the disposal of those livings would not have come down to Parliament, and made a. representation that it was unfitting to pay the first fruits and tenths according to the valuation of Henry
534
8th? Why, then, should they not now be compelled to pay according to the real value instead of the nominal value of livings. He appealed to the House and the country upon these facts, and he felt satisfied he should not make the appeal in vain. In this question he had no personal interest whatever. He took it up because he had no interest in it. If it had been taken up by a person of a different per? suasion, it might have been supposed that it was done for some particular purpose; but he stood in no such situation. He did not wish to make use of it for any sectarian or hostile purpose, but simply to raise the incomes of the poor clergy up to the standard they ought to attain, and to compel the higher clergy to pay their equitable proportion, as originally required by the statute. He had another paper in his hand which he begged to offer to the consideration of the House, because it placed this matter in a very strong point of view. It appeared from the Return of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that the revenues of the Church amounted to 3,507,591 l. The Commissioners there stated:—

"The amount on which first fruits are payable, excluding the discharged livings, 2,450,000 l.

Taking each induction at an average of fifteen years, the yearly payments of first fruits would be

£166,266

The amount on which tenths are due is estimated at 2,600,000 l., on which the annual tenths would be

260,000

Amount produced by first fruits and tenths annually, if paid upon the full amount

426,266

Amount actually paid for first fruits and tenths on an average of years

13,000

Paid less, than the full and entire amount (yearly)

£413,266

These were facts that spoke to every man's mind—facts that could not fail, he imagined, to arrest public attention. There was another circumstance of which he complained in the administration of these funds—the want of economy. He complained that more than the whole revenue of the first fruits was absorbed to pay the expenses incident to its administration. He complained that the first fruits did not yield more than 4,000 l, a-year; he complained that upwards of 5,000 l. a-year were spent for the purpose of dis-

535
tributing the first fruits according to the provisions of the benevolent statute of Anne. These were subjects that required to be brought under the consideration of Parliament; subjects to which great weight ought to be attached. A new valuation of Church lands and Church revenues having of late been made, he wished to know, why that valuation should not be acted upon in reference to first fruits, instead of the old and obsolete one upon which the statute of Anne was founded. The object of his motion was, to obtain a Committee to investigate the subject; and after the statement he had made, he thought the House would have no difficulty in acceding to that proposition. He should be disinclined in Committee to take any retrospective view of the subject. He would rather look forward than backward. He was not very much inclined to say, that those who had paid these small sums, instead of the larger sums which were due from them, should be subjected to litigation: he was only anxious that for the future more adequate payments should be made. His motion, therefore, would be so modified, as to apply only to the future. Before he sat down, however, he would just state the position in which the poor clergy stood. To show that this was not a motion without its proper use, he would state what were the revenues of the poorer clergy, as deduced from the Reports of the Commissioners on ecclesiastical revenues. There were eleven livings under 10 l. a-year, nineteen under 20 l., thirty-two under 30 l, sixty-three under 40 l., and 172 under 50 l.—making an aggregate of 297 livings under 50 l. a-year; and yet Queen Anne's bounty, a bounty for which she was extolled to the skies at the time she instituted it, had been in operation for 130 years. Then there were 350 livings under 60 l. a-year, 307 under 70 l., 254 under 80 l., 352 under 90 l., and 400 under 100 l.—making an aggregate of livings betwixt 50 l. and 100 l. a-year, amounting to 1,628. Then there were livings from 100 l. to 150 l. a-year, amounting to 1,602; and there were livings from 150 l. to 200 l. a-year, amounting to 1,354. So that there were 4,882 livings, after Queen Anne's bounty had been in operation for 130 years, under the amount of 200 l. a-year, exclusive of 5,230 curacies, averaging 81 l. each, but many of them not amounting to 50 l. each. He hoped that a case had been made out sufficiently strong to induce the House to consent to the Committee; and he hoped that the result
536
of the investigation would be to increase the value of the small livings. For if the livings had only paid the tenths, and not a shilling had been paid for the first fruits, every one of these 4,882 livings would have been advanced to a sum exceeding 200/. a-year. It was high time, therefore, that some measure should be adopted upon this subject. It had been too long delayed, and he too, reproached himself for not having before brought it under the consideration of Parliament. But he hoped he had now-exhibited it in such a way as to arrest the attention of Parliament. He relied on the good feeling of the House to pass the resolution which he should submit to its consideration, leaving it, with perfect confidence, in its hands. He begged to move, that a Select Committee be appointed "to inquire whether the full amount of the first fruits and tenths have been paid by the several. persons who now are archbishops, and bishops, deans, canons, prebendaries, rectors, and vicars, in England and Wales, in respect of the several archbishoprics, bishoprics, deaneries, canonries,. prebends, rectories, and vicarages, which are now possessed or have been possessed, or how much less than the actual and full amount of such first fruits and tenths have been paid by them; and whether any and what proceedings should be taken to obtain the payment of the full value of the first fruits and tenths which shall hereafter become due, in respect of such archbishoprics, bishoprics, deaneries, canonries, prebends, rectories, and vicarages, or any of them."
Lord John Russell: The motion of my hon. Friend rests, as I conceive, upon two grounds: the one is with respect to the full amount of first fruits and tenths which ought to be paid by the archbishops, bishops, and the rest of the clergy; and the other is, as to what shall be done in future with respect to the question of first fruits and tenths. I rather expected from some part of my hon. Friend's speech, that with respect to the former part of this question, he was not going to propose a Select Committee, to inquire into that part of the subject; but it seems that he now proposes to inquire, what is the full amount that ought to have been paid, although he does not intend to propose that, after ascertaining that amount, those who have paid the customary amount of first-fruits and tenths shall be obliged to pay the increased amount retrospectively. But he proposes that an inquiry shall be made as to what proceedings shall be taken with

537
respect to the future. Such being the statement of my hon. Friend, I must observe, that the question of what shall be the full payment of first fruits and tenths, is merely a question as to what is due by law; and for that purpose, in order to ascertain that amount, it is certainly not necessary to have a Select Committee, unless, indeed, it shall be found, that there are very great doubts as to the construction of the statute. The words of the statute of Queen Anne, in the sixth section, say that the first fruits, as well as the tenths payable by the clergy, "should be paid according to such rates and proportions only as the same were usually rated and paid." Now, I conceive that, as a question of law, these words are quite decisive, and that they fix the certain rates and proportions which are to be paid from that time henceforth, by the persons liable to the payment of them; in the same way as the Land-tax Act of William 3rd ascertains and defines the proportions of land-tax to be paid in future. I am stating this as to what I apprehend to be the law upon the subject, if that question shall be raised; but I believe my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has no doubt whatever that that is the proper construction of the statute, and that, therefore, what has been paid by the archbishops, bishops, and the rest of the clergy, is that which was legally payable by them, and that no other sum can be required of them. I shall therefore say, as to the first part of the motion, that it certainly is not necessary, neither can it be proper, for the House of Commons to appoint a Select Committee, to inquire whether the person who has to pay the customary first fruits and tenths has paid the sum which is legally due. I do not think that there is ground enough shown by my hon. Friend to raise the presumption that the sum legally due has not been paid by those from whom it was due. Then, as to the second question which my hon. Friend has raised, namely, as to the condition of the poorer clergy—that, I conceive to be entirely distinct from the first. My hon. Friend has said, that the poorer clergy are very insufficiently provided for, and that it will be right that a larger sum should be paid in the nature of first fruits and tenths; and he further stated, that by such means a sum exceeding 100,000 l. may be obtained from the payment of first fruits, and a sum of 350,000 l. in the shape of tenths. Now, if that were a question of law, we should have nothing else to do
538
than to enforce the law upon the subject; but, not being a question of law, I can look upon the proposition as no other than a proposition to raise a certain tax upon the clergy different from that to which they are now liable by law. With regard to the force of that proposition, I am not going to deny that my opinion is, that, among other modes of raising the incomes of very small livings in this country, I do think that a fair and rateable proportion to be paid by the clergy, would be one means not unadvisable to be taken. But, at the same time, I cannot found that payment upon the assumption that they are now legally liable to it. If I were to support any proposition for such a charge being imposed on the clergy, I could only support it upon the ground of its being advisable to lay such a tax upon them, as a tax to which they are not now liable, but which it were expedient upon general grounds of policy to impose on them. But that is a grave question, and one connected with the question of the revenues of the clergy, the increase of small livings, and the spiritual instruction of the people; but it is not, in my view of it, a question which ought to be referred to a Select Committee. If it be proper to impose such a tax on the clergy, let a motion, at the proper time, be made to that effect, and let the House deal with that motion as it shall seem fitting to them to do: but I cannot consider it at all useful, in order to assist such a motion, that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire whether such a tax ought to be imposed or not. With respect, then, to the question of law, it is clear and decided, that there is no need of a Select Committee to assist in ascertaining that point; and with respect to the question of policy, in imposing a tax on the clergy, it is not a fit subject for a Select Committee to inquire into. It may be a fit subject for consideration. I do not deny that it is a fit question for Parliament to entertain, but it is not one for deliberation or inquiry before a Select Committee. My hon. Friend has said, as another ground for a Select Committee, that the administration of these funds has been subject to great abuse. With respect to the general expense of the Boards alluded to, I believe there is a Select Committee already sitting; so that, with respect to the expense of the Board of Queen Anne's Bounty, and of the Office of First Fruits and Tenths, the House will soon have some information that will enable them to legislate, if necessary, upon that

539
subject. But no specific abuse has been assigned, with regard to the payment of the first fruits and tenths. My hon. Friend has stated no specific grounds, or any fact to induce the House to believe that there has been any specific abuse. My own belief, if I were required to state it, in opposition to my hon. Friend, is, that the Board of Queen Anne's Bounty conducts its affairs With great integrity and great consideration for the wants of the poorer clergy; and that, although there have been great mistakes and errors in the former administration of that bounty, I do not think at present,—without saying it may not be improved in some particulars,—that there is a sufficient case of abuse made out to require the interposition of this House. Therefore, seeing that there is no sufficient ground to entertain any doubt as to the law upon the subject, and seeing that there is no foundation, in point of policy, to appoint a Select Committee on a question of this grave and solemn importance, I certainly must give my negative to the proposition before the House.
The House divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 171: Majority 108.

List of the AYES.

Attwood. T.

Lister, E. C.

Bernard, E. G.

Lushiagton, C.

Bewes, T.

M'Leod, R.

Blake, M. J.

Martin, T.

Bodkin, J. J.

Morrison, J.

Bowring, Dr.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Bridgeman, H.

O'Connell, M.

Brocklehurst, J.

Parrott, J.

Brotherton, J.

Pattison, J.

Buller, E.

Pease, J.

Bulwer, H. L.

Philips, M.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Pryme, G.

Cayley, E. S.

Ramsbottom, J.

Chalmers, P.

Rippon, C.

Codrington, Admiral

Rundle, J.

Collier, J.

Scholefield, J.

Collins, W.

Stanley, W. O.

Crawford, W. S.

Stuart, Lord J.

Duncombe, T.

Thornley, T.

Etwall, R.

Tooke, W.

Evans, G.

Turner, W.

Fenton, J.

Villiers, G. P.

Fielden, J.

Wakley, T.

Fort, J.

Warburton, H.

Grote, George

Wason, R.

Hastie, A.

Whalley, Sir S.

Heathcoat, J.

Wilbraham, G.

Hector, C. J.

Wilks, J.

Hoskins, K.

Williams, W.

Humphery, J.

Williams, Sir J.

Hutt, William

TELLERS.

Jervis, J.

Aglionby, H. A.

540

List of the NOES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Harcoutt, G. S.

Alsager, Captain

Hardy, J.

Ashley, Viscount

Hawkes, T.

Balfour, T.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Barclay, D

Heathcote, G. J.

Baring, T.

Henniker, Lord

Barneby, J.

Herbert, Hon. S.

Bateson, Sir R.

Hogg, J. W.

Beckett, rt. hon. Sir J.

Houstoun, G.

Bell, M.

Howard, R.

Bethell, R.

Howick, Viscount

Blackburne, I.

Hughes, W. H.

Blackstone, W. S.

Hurst, R. H.

Bonham, R. F.

Jackson, Serjeant

Borthwick, P.

Ingham, R.

Bowles, G. R.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bramston, T. W.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Bruen, Colonel

Johnston, A.

Bruen, F.

Jones, W.

Campbell, Sir H.

Jones, T.

Campbell, Sir J.

Irton, S.

Chandos, Marquess of

Kearsley, J. H.

Charlton, E. L.

King, E. B.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Knatchbull, rt. hon. Sir E.

Chichester, A.

Chisholm, A. W.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Clerk, Sir G.

Law, hon. C. E.

Codrington, G. W.

Lawson, A.

Cole, hon. A. H.

Lefevre, Charles S.

Cole, Viscount

Lefroy, rt. hon. T.

Compton, H. C.

Lennox, Lord George

Copeland, W. T.

Lennox, Lord Arthur

Curteis, H. S.

Leveson, Lord

Dalmeny, Lord

Lewis, D.

Darlington, Earl of

Lincoln, Earl of

Dillwyn, L. W.

Long, W.

Dowdeswell, W.

Longfield, R.

Duffield, T.

Lopes, Sir R.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Lowther, Colonel

Eaton, R. J.

Lowther, J. H.

Egerton, Sir P.

Lygon, hon. General

Elley, Sir J.

Mackenzie, T.

Elwes, J. P.

Mahon, Viscount

Estcourt, T.

Maunsell, T. P.

Estcourt, T.

Miles, W.

Farrand, R.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Fector, J. M.

Morpeth, Viscount

Feilden, W.

Mosley, Sir O.

Fergus, J.

Neeld, J.

Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C.

Nicholl, J.

Finch, G.

Ord, W.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Packe, C. W.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Parker, J.

Folkes, Sir W.

Parry, Sir L. P. J.

Forbes, W.

Pechell, Captain

Forster, C. S.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Geary, Sir W.

Perceval, Colonel

Gore, O.

Pigot, R.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Plumptre, J. P.

Goulburn, Serjeant

Polhill, F.

Greene, T.

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Grey, Sir G.

Poulter, J.

Hale, R. B.

Praed, W. M.

Halford, H.

Price, S. G.

Halse, J.

Pusey, P.

541

Reid, Sir J. R.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Trevor, hon. A.

Richards, J.

Twiss, H.

Richards, R.

Tyrrell, Sir J. T.

Rickford, W.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Verner, Colonel

Ross, G.

Vernon, G. H.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Vesey, hon. T.

Russell, G.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Russell, Lord J.

Walpole, Lord

Russell, Lord C.

Whitmore, T. C.

Ryle, J.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Scourfield, W. H.

Williams, R.

Seymour, Lord

Wilson, H.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Wood, Colonel T.

Sheppard, T.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Shirley, E. J.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Young, G. F.

Somerset, Lord G.

Young, Sir W.

Stanley, E. J.

Stanley, E.

TELLERS.

Strutt, E.

Smith, V.

Sturt, H. C.

Steuart, R.

OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.
Sir A. Agnewrose to move for leave to bring in the two Bills of which he had given notice. The first was one for restraining all open desecration of the Lord's Day, and for extending to all classes of his Majesty's subjects the opportunity of resting thereon, according to the commandment. The other was to enable local authorities, under certain restrictions, to remove Saturday and Monday fairs and markets to other days. The subject had been so much canvassed already, that he would not go into any details upon it. He would only ask for a fair hearing on the subject, which had had so many petitions sent to the House in its favour. All he would ask was that the House would allow the Bill to be brought in and go to a Committee.
Mr. Plumptreseconded the motion. A great many persons in this country were of opinion that some measure of the kind was necessary, and the House ought therefore to inquire whether it would not be right to adopt some legislative measure to provide against the desecration of the Sabbath. Much of the prosperity and happiness of the country depended on the maintenance and dissemination of religious feelings, and, as Christian Legislators, they were called upon to see that the Lord's Day was not desecrated, and that all classes should be allowed aft opportunity of rest, as directed by the Divine command.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that from the few observations of the hon. Baronet, he could perceive that the present measure differed in no material point from those of former
542
Sessions, which went to establish one law for the rich, and another for the poor. He objected to the Bill, however, on more general grounds. He denied that of late years there was a less strict observance of the Sabbath than formerly; on the contrary, he maintained that the Sabbath was more strictly observed at present, not only by the wealthier, but poorer classes, than he remembered it to have been ten or twelve years ago. He therefore called upon the House to negative the motion of the hon. Baronet.
Mr. Hardyobserved, that the hon. Member for Bridport had blamed his hon. Friend for bringing forward the same measure that he had proposed to the House on former occasions. Now, he would have been very much Surprised had his hon. Friend acted otherwise, because on no previous occasion had he attempted to bring in a Bill which he did not think was such a one as that House ought to pass. His principles were now the same as then, and his conduct on the present occasion was in perfect conformity with those principles. Let the House enter upon the consideration of the provisions of the Bill, and if they should be then of Opinion that any of them went too far, or not far enough, it would be for hon. Members to modify them in any Way they might think proper. Every petition that had been presented, contained a prayer that the House would permit the Bill to go into Committee, in order that all its provisions might be duly canvassed. The hon. Member for Bridport need not flatter himself that this Bill would interfere with the poor, for it was they who had come forward and signed those petitions.
Mr. Trevorsaid, he should certainly feel it his duty to vote that the hon. Baronet's Bill be laid upon the table; at the same time he was bound to declare, that should that Bill, like former Bills on the Same subject, enact one law for the rich, and another for the poor, should it prevent the poor man, who was confined during the whole week, from the enjoyment of a little rational amusement on the Sabbath-day, while it did not preclude the wealthier man from that enjoyment, and in driving his carriage wherever he pleased, he should feel himself compelled in the further stages of the Bill, to give his decided opposition to the adoption of such a principle.
Mr. Wardshould support the proposition of the hon. Member for Bridport, being firmly convinced that it was utterly impossible for the House, to any good or

543
practical purpose, to take upon itself the task of Sunday Legislation. This had been admitted by the right hon. Member for Tamworth, on the occasion when the modified Bill of the hon. Member for Shaftesbury was proposed, and he therefore called upon the right hon. Baronet for his vote against the present proposition. There was a growing feeling throughout the country, which would bring about the declared objects of the hon. Baronet and his Friends in a much better, and more effectual way, than any coercive legislative interference possibly could.
Colonel Woodbegged to say, in reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member who had just sat down, that Acts for the better regulation of the Sabbath were to be found on the statute book at present. It was a subject, too, upon which he would remind the House, a vast number of persons had petitioned, who were of opinion that that House not only could legislate, but were bound to legislate upon it. He had himself presented six petitions praying the House to pass the Bill brought forward by the hon. Baronet.
Dr. Borvringobserved, that in those places where there was least legislation respecting the Sabbath, was the Sabbath most strictly observed, and instanced Holland and Switzerland as examples. With regard to the number of petitions that had been presented on this subject, perhaps the House would be surprised to find, that according to the last report, forty-one petitions only had been presented, and that the average number of signatures attached to each was only eighty-two.
Mr. G. F. Youngsaid, that the hon. Member had totally omitted the fact, that the great bulk of the petitions in favour of this measure, had been presented that evening. There was no subject whatever, with the exception he believed of the abolition of slavery, on which so large a portion of the people of this country had expressed their opinions, as upon this very subject. He repeated, none whatever. It was strange, therefore, that the opposition to this Bill should come from those, who, upon so many other occasions, were the first to impress upon the House the imperative nature of the duty which devolved upon them to pay respect to the petitions of the people.
Mr. Villierssaid, that as the hon. Member for Tynemouth had proposed to test the philosophy of the Ministerial side of the House by their conduct upon this motion, he would judge the sincerity of the opposite
544
side of the House by the same test; and first he would ask the hon. Member for Tynemouth whether he would, after his advocacy of this measure, be ready to make the sacrifice himself that would give it effect; and supposing he was connected with any interest—say, the shipping interest, for instance—whether he would be ready to enforce upon those who were engaged in that interest, to abstain from employment on the Sabbath-day, and prohibit any vessel from leaving any port on the Sunday; or if they had quitted the port n any day of the week, he would compel them to cast anchor on the Sunday? And if he would not, what he meant by prescribing to others, what he would not do himself? He wished also to put a question to the hon. Member for Bradford, who had expressed an anxiety for the fate of this measure, on account of its provisions, and, therefore, he supposed he was acquainted with them, which question was, whether there was any provision for compelling iron-masters to put out their furnaces on the Sabbath-day, and, if not, whether he considered the Bill perfect without it? He had heard that the hon. Member for Bradford was connected with that interest, he therefore concluded that that subject had engaged his attention. If the Bill contained no such provision, would the hon. Member introduce one?
Mr. Hardyreplied, that after many trials, he had succeeded in having all the iron furnaces with which he had any connexion, put out nine hours on every Sunday, in order to allow the men to go to church.
Colonel Thompsonsaid, he tried to put nobody down by clamour, and he treated nobody with contempt; but he was in the other situation alluded to by the hon. Member for Tynemouth; he had been urged by constituents, with some of whom he had a long, and he might call it, an hereditary connexion, to take the side of the hon. Baronet, the mover of the Bill. But he had been constrained to reply to them, that he had been born among the supporters of religious liberty, and among them he meant to die; and that by the same right by which our fathers protested against the doctrines and practice of an ancient Church, so he would protest, and if he stood alone in the House, he did not stand alone out of doors, that the Judaical observance of the Sabbath was not only not directed in the Scripture, to which all parties professed to look to for authority, but was absolutely

545
prohibited. Why did not hon. Members trouble us about meats and drinks, and keeping the new moon and holidays; for all these were prohibited in precisely the same passage with Sabbath days?—Why did they allow the open sale of such food as pork and sausages? Why did they not propose, that on the assembling of a new Parliament, the Sergeant-Surgeon should attend upon the Speaker, and every hon. Gentleman be circumcised as he came to the table to be sworn? Why did hon. Gentlemen impose one burthen on their neighbours, and evade the other in their own proper persons? And why could they not content themselves with the full enjoyment of their own religious opinions, in which nobody would be more ready to protect them than himself, without loading their neighbours with burthens too heavy to be borne? He was the more earnest to make this declaration, because there were many hon. Members of great weight in the House, who had displayed a disposition to protect the just rights of the people on this subject from political motives, and who possibly might not have given attention to the fact, that the question of authority was really as he had stated.
The House divided:—Ayes 199; Noes 53: Majority 146.

List of the AYES.

Alsager, Captain

Chandos, Marquess of

Ashley, Viscount

Charlton, E. L.

Baillie, H. D.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Baines, E

Chichester, A.

Balfour, T.

Chisholm, A. W.

Barclay, D.

Clerk, Sir G.

Baring, F. T.

Codrington, C. W.

Barron, H. W.

Cole, hon. A. H.

Bateson, Sir R.

Cole, Viscount

Beckett, rt. hon. Sir J.

Collier, John

Bell, M.

Compton, H. C.

Bethell, R.

Crompton, S.

Bewes, T.

Darlington, Earl of

Blackburne, I.

Dowdeswell, W.

Blackstone, W. S.

Duffield, T.

Bonham, R. Francis

Buncombe, hon. W.

Borthwick, P.

Dunlop, J.

Bowles, G. R.

Eaton, R. J.

Bramston, T. W.

Egerton, Sir P.

Brocklehurst, J.

Elley, Sir. J.

Brotherton, J.

Elwes, J. P.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Estcourt, T.

Bruen, Colonel

Etwall, Ralph

Bruen, F.

Farrand, R.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Fector, J. M

Campbell, Sir H.

Fielden, W.

Campbell, Sir J.

Fenton, J.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Fergusson, rt.hn. R. C.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Finch, George

Cayley, E. S.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

546

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Nicholl, J.

Folkes, Sir W.

Palmer, G.

Follett, Sir W.

Parker, M.

Forbes, W.

Parry, Sir L. P.

Forster, C. S.

Patten, J. W.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Geary, Sir W.

Perceval, Col.

Gordon, Robert

Pigot, Robert

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Plumptre, John P.

Goulburn, Serjeant

Polhill, Frederick

Green, T.

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Grey, Sir G.

Poulter, J. S.

Hale, Robert B.

Praed, W. M.

Halse, J.

Price, S. G.

Hawkes, T.

Pringle, A.

Heathcote, G. J.

Pryme, G.

Herbert, hon. S.

Pusey, P.

Hindley, C.

Reid, Sir John Rae

Hogg, J. W.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Hoskins, K.

Richards, John

Hotham, Lord

Richards, R.

Houldsworth, T.

Rickford, Wm.

Houstoun, G.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Howard, R.

Ross, Charles

Hughes, W. H.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Humphery, J.

Russell, C.

Hurst, R. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Jackson, Serjeant

Russell, Lord C.

Jervis, John

Ryle, J.

Ingham, R.

Sanderson, R.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Sandon, Viscount

Johnstone, Sir J.

Scholefield, J.

Johnstone, J. J. H.

Scourfield, W. H.

Johnston, Andrew

Shaw, right hon. F.

Jones, W.

Sheppard, T.

Jones, T.

Shirley, E. J.

Irton, Samuel

Sibthorp, Col.

Kearsley, J. H.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Kirk, P.

Somerset, Lord G.

Knatchbull, right hon.

Stanley, E. J.

Sir E.

Stanley, E.

Law, hon. C. E.

Stanley, W. O.

Lawson, A

Steuart, R.

Lefevre, C. S.

Strangways, hon. J.

Lefroy, right hon. T.

Sturt, H. C.

Lennox, Lord G.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Lennox, Lord Arthur

Thompson, Ald.

Lewis, D.

Tooke, W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Trevor, hon. A.

Lister, E. C.

Twiss, H.

Long, W.

Tyrrell, Sir J.

Longfield, R.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Lowther. J. H.

Verner, Colonel

Lushington, C.

Verney, Sir H.

Lygon, hon. General

Vernon, G. H.

Mackenzie, T.

Vesey, hon. T.

Maclean, D.

Vivian, J. E.

Macleod, R.

Walker, R.

Mactaggart, J.

Whitmore, T.

Marsland, T.

Wilbraham, G.

Martin, T.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Maunsell, T. P.

Wilks, J.

Miles, W.

Williams, R.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Williams, Sir J.

Morpeth, Viscount

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Mosley, Sir O.

Wilson, Henry

Neeld, John

Winnington, H. J.

547

Wood, Colonel T.

Young, Sir W.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

TELLERS.

Young, G. F.

Agnew, Sir A.

Young, J.

Hardy, J.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hutt, Wm.

Angerstein, J.

Leveson, Lord

Anson, hon. Colonel

Marshall, William

Biddulph, Robert

Marsland, Henry

Blake, M. J.

Milton, Viscount

Bodkin, J.

Mullins, F. W.

Bowring, Dr.

O'Connell, J.

Bridgeman, H.

O'Connell, M.

Buller, E.

Pallison, J.

Bulwer, H. L.

Pechell, Captain

Chalmers, P.

Philips, M.

Codrington, Admiral

Ramsbottom, John

Collins, W.

Rippon, Cuthbert

Curteis, H. B.

Rundle, J.

Divett, E.

Ruthven, E.

Duncombe,T.

Seymour, Lord

Dundas, hon. T.

Speirs, A.

Ellice, right hon. E.

Stuart, Lord, T.

Evans, G.

Strutt, E.

Fielden, J.

Thompson, Col.

Fergus, J.

Thornely, T.

Fort, J.

Tulk, C. A.

Grote, G.

Turner, W.

Hawes, D.

Wakley, T.

Hawkins, J. H.

Wason, R.

Hay, Sir A. L.

TELLERS.

Hector, C. J.

Warburton, H.

Heron, Sir R.

Ward, H. G.

FAIRS AND MARKETS.
Sir A. Agnewalso moved for leave to bring in a Bill for enabling local authorities, under certain restrictions, to remove Saturday and Monday fairs and markets to other days, but after a short conversation withdrew it.