Commons Sitting of 27 June 1839

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Highway Rates; Public Works.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Finch, from Walsal, in favour of, and by Mr. R. Palmer, from a place in Berkshire, against the Government plan for National Education— By Messrs. Hume, and Warburton, Captain Pechell, and Sir B. Hall, in favour of, and by Lords Stanley, Sandon, and Worsley, Sirs R. Peel, and S. Duke, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Cresswell, against the existing Beer Laws.

LAWS FOR THE CHURCH.—PUBLIC BUSINESS.
Lord J. Russellhaving given notice of his intention to move for leave to bring in a bill to continue for another year the Ecclesiastical Appointments Suspension Bill, said, he was aware that with respect to the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill there were many reasons why it was desirable that the measure should not be pressed at so late a period of the Session. The Session was be far advanced that he knew there would be great difficulty in the other House of Parliament in obtaining such an attendance of the spiritual Peers as would secure a full and fair discussion of the bill. It had also been stated on respectable authority, that an impression existed in the minds of some hon. Members of that House, as well as in the public mind, that some modifications would be proposed in the measure, which were not yet prepared,
964
but which when they were brought forward would be likely to secure for the bill the more willing assent of Parliament and of the Church. Now, it was highly desirable that the bill should have the general consent of Parliament and the Church, and therefore he was not unwilling to postpone the measure for a period in order to attain that object. He should, however, be reluctant to consent to any postponement if by that postponement he was to be understood as at all giving up the objects which the bill was intended to carry into effect, or if he was to be considered as abandoning the principle upon which the bill was founded. He thought it highly necessary that a measure applying certain revenues of the Church to the spiritual instruction of the people in those districts where such instruction was much needed should be carried into effect by a Parliamentary enactment. Therefore in postponing the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill, he wished at the same time to introduce the measure of which he had just given notice, and which would suspend for another year certain ecclesiastical appointments which had before been suspended by act of Parliament with a view to carrying into effect at an after period the objects which he had in view for the spiritual instruction of the people. He was aware that this was a course liable to objection, and that it was very inconvenient to suspend those appointments year after year without proceeding to definite legislation. What he proposed was, that the bill of which he had given notice should provide for the suspension of the same appointments as it was proposed ultimately to do away with, and that those appointments which were to be filled up should be filled up in the same order as was provided in the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill. He should therefore postpone the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill for a fortnight, with the view of seeing whether the Suspension Bill which he proposed to introduce was likely to meet with the assent of Parliament and the Church. If that assent was likely to be obtained, then he would give up the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill for the present Session; but if, on the contrary, the Suspension Bill should be opposed, then he should think it necessary to press the former bill, in order to show that he was not disposed to abandon the objects of that bill or the principles upon

965
which it was founded. He should now propose that the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill be postponed for a fortnight.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he could not have a better opportunity than the present of suggesting that it would be very convenient if the noble Lord would, as he had done last year, announce, not then, but on an early day, what the bills were which the Government actually intended to proceed with in the present Session, and what the bills were which it was proposed to abandon. That was a course which had yearly been pursued for some time back, and he was sure it would tend greatly to facilitate the discussion of such measures as were to be proceeded with, if the Government would, as early as possible, make up their minds what bills were to be pressed forward in the present Session, and what bills were to be abandoned. The remarks he had offered were equally applicable to bills whether relating to England, Scotland, or Ireland. He also wished the noble Lord would state when he intended to proceed with the second reading of the Canada Bill, and with a view to the convenience of the House he should avail himself of that opportunity of stating, that when the noble Lord moved the order of the day for the consideration of that bill, he should feel it his duty to object to the second reading. He did not mean to contest the principle upon which the measure was founded, but he did mean to contest the propriety of Parliament deciding on the principle of a union of the two provinces in the present Session, if they were not to proceed to actual legislation when that principle had been affirmed. He was prepared, if Sir J. Colborne had forwarded all the information which could possibly be obtained, and if the noble Lord opposite told him distinctly that it was bonâ fide his intention to legislate in the present Sessions, to assent to the second reading of the bill. But if they were not to proceed to legislation in the present Session, he was not disposed to proceed to the second reading of the bill, because it was impossible to discuss the subject of a legislative union of the two provinces without entering upon many other and most important considerations, and because, in his opinion, the discussion of those important considerations ought to be followed by immediate legislation; for if that discussion was to take place, and
966
the report of their proceedings to go out to Canada, and if they were to do nothing for seven or eight months in the way of legislation, the objects of the Government and of the Parliament might be misunderstood and misrepresented, and the measure for effecting a union might, as the consequence, be prejudiced in the minds of the people of the colony. Not objecting to the principle of a legislative union, he should not directly oppose the second reading of the bill, but he should feel it his duty to make some motion, such "as the previous question," or "that the House proceed to the other orders of the day," in order to afford the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion as to the wisdom of the policy of pledging the House, in the present Session, to the abstract principle of a union, when their were not to proceed to actual legislation till another year. He also intended to pursue the same course with respect to other bills, if it was the intention of Government, with respect to any other measures before the House, to take the second reading in the present Session, and to postpone their further progress to another year, then, as a general principle, he should pursue the same course with respect to those bills, as he had intimated his intention to adopt with respect to the Canada Bill—that was, he should invite the House to refuse its assent to the principle of any measure which it was not intended to carry into a law during the present Session.
Lord J. Russellwould certainly take an early opportunity of stating what bills he intended to proceed with during the present Session, and what bills he proposed to abandon. There were several bills which had already been abandoned, and it would therefore be unnecessary to make any declaration with respect to them. In regard to the statements which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman, with respect to the Canada Bills, he was afraid some misapprehension might exist as to the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman if the matter were not cleared up. There were two bills which the Government had obtained leave to introduce with respect td Canada. There was one which, as he had already stated, it was not intended to proceed with in the present Session, but there was also another, with respect to the powers which had been conferred by Act of- Parliament, upon the Governor and Special

967
Council, which Government intended to proceed with in the present Session. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman's statement did not refer to the last-mentioned bill, because, after what had passed last year with respect to the judges in Canada, he should think it necessary to press that bill before the Parliament was prorogued. He would not then enter into the question whether it was politic or impolitic to ask the House to consent to the second reading of the bill for effecting a union of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada in the present Session, and would reserve his opinions upon that point till the subject was regularly before the House.
Sir R. Peelwas quite aware the noble Lord had introduced two bills relative to Canada, and he had distinctly understood that with respect to one of the bills it was the intention of the Government to proceed to effective legislation in the present Session. With respect, however, to the bill for effecting a union of the two provinces, he had understood the noble Lord to state, that it was not his intention to proceed to actual legislation in the present Session, and that he would only call upon the House to pronounce an opinion upon the principle of a union. His objection did not apply to the first of those bills, and his present impression was, that the principle of that bill would not be opposed, and that it would be allowed to be read a second time. Of course he would reserve himself as to the details of the measure, and he would not pledge himself, that some of the minor provisions of the bill would not be opposed. It was the second of the Canada bills which he objected to, not on account of the principle of the measure, but because he contended that it was neither wise nor politic to call upon the House to affirm the abstract principle of a union in the present Session, when they were not to proceed to actual legislation, till some after and indefinite period. That was the ground on which he should resist the bill for effecting a union of the two Canadian provinces.

NATIONAL EDUCATION CHARITIES.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he wished to hear from the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) whether he intended to take the sense of the House upon the Report of the Committee of Supply in regard to the education vote.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he had attended in
968
his place for the very purpose of answering that question; it was merely the accidental circumstance of a House not being made yesterday that prevented him from giving that public notification which he would have given at the earliest possible moment. It was his intention to state, that as the House seemed to consider that the subject had been exhausted in point of debate, he had no wish to resume it; and as the question upon the report would be identically the same with that which had been decided in committee, and as he had ascertained that every Member of the House had voted upon the subject except twenty-four, he deemed it unnecessary to trouble the House by a division on this second question. He did not, therefore, propose to take the sense of the House on the report, and he had no objection to its being received now, if the noble Lord wished it to be brought up.
Report brought up.
Sir Eardley Wilmotwished not to enter into a discussion upon the subject, but to call the attention of the noble Lord to a subject intimately connected with it. The noble Lord was aware, from the report of the Charity Commissioners, that there was an immense fund applicable to the purpose of education which was almost wholly squandered away. There were grammar schools of extensive foundation in almost every town in England, which were perfectly useless and inoperative. In his own town there was a grammar school, of which he was a trustee, and in which there was a gentleman who had a house to live in, and emoluments amounting to 400 l. a-year. But as, according to the decision of the Lord Chancellor, a grammar school was intended as a place in which Latin only was to be taught, there had been only one pupil in that school for many years, and he stuttered so abominably that nobody could understand him. For some time past there had not been more than four or five pupils in the school, and they were the sons of gentlemen in the neighbourhood. The House would recollect that an order had been issued by the Lord Chancellor to establish another scheme of education in the grammar school at Birmingham, and the funds were now so applied that more masters were engaged, and many children were instructed there in very branch of education. What he would suggest to the noble Lord was, that he would bring in a

969
bill to enlarge the scheme of education in the grammar schools of this country, subject, if he pleased, to the fiat of the Lord Chancellor, or any visitors he might think proper to appoint; so that instead of the teachers receiving large emoluments and nothing to do, the sons of the trades people and others in the respective neighbourhoods might be instructed gratuitously, and instead of the schools being attended by only one or two children, hundreds might be admitted to the advantages of education. He thought this was a subject worthy of the attention of the noble Lord, and he hoped he would listen to the suggestion.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he had had a good deal of conversation with the Lord Chancellor on the subject; and it would be remembered that in the course of last year a bill was brought in by Lord Brougham, who had turned his attention to the subject. It certainly deserved consideration, and the attention of the Lord Chancellor would naturally be directed to it, with a view to some measure.
Mr. C. Bullerthought the House was much indebted to the hon. Baronet for calling the attention of the House to funds which might suffice, if properly applied, for the education of the whole population of England, but which were now totally misapplied. He would state one fact as a specimen of their misapplication. A gentleman, who had been engaged in the duties of the Charity Commission, had informed him that in going over three parishes of Lincolnshire he found that what were called general charities were frittered away by giving away shillings and halfcrowns out of their respective funds, which, so far from being beneficial to the poor, only served to keep up a kind of pauperism among them. Now, the whole expense of education in those parishes might be defrayed out of the funds of those charities. If the Government really had at heart the education of the people of England, this was one of the first subjects to which they should direct their attention.
Mr. Brothertonsaid, in order to show the importance of this subject, he would mention that there was a grammar school in Manchester, the revenue of which was 6,000 l. a-year. Up to a late period there were not more than 200 children instructed out of those funds, and at the present moment there were not 300. If the
970
funds were properly applied, all the children in Manchester could be educated gratuitously.
Mr. W. T. Egertonbegged to state, that the hon. Member was somewhat in error. The funds of the school in question, according to the original design, were not intended for the benefit of Manchester alone, but for all England. The trustees had for many years been acting under a decree of a Master in Chancery, according to a scheme approved of by the Lord Chancellor. Two schools were opened, and in accordance with the design of the original testator, in one of them a classical education was given; and the other was open to the whole population of the country, as well as to that of Manchester. He believed the hon. Member was in Chancery at that moment against the trustees, and he thought it rather unfair, while the trustees were in that situation, he should come forward and make statements which were not consistent with the facts.
Captain Pechellsaid, there might be some difference of opinion between the two hon. Gentlemen as to the manner in which the school they referred to was managed, but he thought every one must agree that the system pursued at another school, that at Great Berkhamstead, was most monstrous, for there a positive prohibition against receiving scholars was in force.
Mr. Alstonmentioned the case of another school, at Willoughby, Lincolnshire, the master of which lived in a house rent free, his son was the usher, and the emoluments received were very great, while the public gained little or no advantage from the charity.
Sir E. Sugdensaid, that nothing was more improper on such an occasion as the present, than to bring forward statements which bore, in some degree, the character of accusations against individuals, which could not be denied nor proved. He hoped, that no scheme for the establishment of an education commission would be set on foot; he hoped, that no tribunal for educational purposes would be set up in this country. There was too much disposition to fritter away the ancient practices and establishments of the land. The hon. and learned Member for Liskeard would have the money belonging to general charities taken away and applied to the purposes of national educa-

971
tion; while the Poor-law Commissioners would have it applied in aid of the poor-rates—a proposition which he had strenuously opposed, and they being convinced that they were not entitled to seize upon those funds, gave up their claim. He ventured to say, that he should, on all occasions, object to gifts being taken away to be applied to general purposes. Let hon. Gentlemen not forget that the grammar schools of this country had been established solely for the purpose of classical education. The masters were appointed as classical masters, and to ask them to teach little boys reading and writing, was one of the most unreasonable things in the world. But he was one of those who thought, that the fulfilment of the design of the founders of those grammar schools was not incompatible with a plan of general education; but he would never consent to have these institutions broken into so far as not to leave sufficient means for classical instruction. He hoped, therefore, that, whatever might be done, the noble Lord would have a particular regard to the design of the founder as well as to what the new state of society demanded.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, he for one should most decidedly object to any attempts to divert the funds in the possession of the grammar schools of the country from the objects and purposes for which they were originally given by the testators, or others bequeathed or gave them, and he trusted no motives of expediency would induce the House to interfere with or violate the right of every person to dispose of while living, or to bequeath after his death, his own property as he thought fit.
Sir Eardley Wilmot, in explanation, said, he did not wish to convert the funds of the grammar schools in the way the hon. Baronet seemed to suppose. The fact was, that in some instances the property which originally did not produce 50 l., now realised 500 l. per year, and therefore he thought, education might be given not only in classics, but in all the other branches. This was done now at Harrow, Rugby, and Birmingham.
Sir R. Peelsaid, it was hardly fair to enter further into this important question until some measure was brought forward. There was, however, one point connected with, grammar schools to which he wished to call the attention of the Attorney-general. There were many cases in which the
972
trusts, by deceases and other causes, had become vacant; and though there were many individuals who were willing to undertake the trusts, yet the vacancies were not filled up in consequence of the expense attending an application to the Court of Chancery in order to get a valid appointment. The expense, he believed, would amount to 70 l. or 80 l. Now, if it were possible, in cases where there was no dispute, to frame a summary form for the reconstruction of those trusts without incurring so great an expense, it would be very desirable. He knew schools where the trusts were vacant, the funds so small as to make it impossible they could bear the cost of an application to the Court of Chancery, and if means could be provided for the valid reconstruction of the trusts in a summary way, it would tend greatly to the advantage of those schools.
Lord J. Russellsaid, the point to which the right hon. Baronet had called the attention of the House, was certainly one in which an improvement might be made, and he would consult his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-general, as to what could be done with respect to it. This subject was one of the largest, the most important, and he would add, one of the most difficult questions which could be brought forward; and he was glad to hear the opinion upon it of the right hon. and learned Member for Ripon, who, besides his general knowledge, had gone practically into it by having attended, at his request, on the commission on trust charities. It was very difficult to say in what authority the power of dealing with those trusts ought to be placed, and how far the will of the original founders, in conformity with the changes which by time had taken place, and the opinions of the present day, might be departed from. He could not, however, but think, that in the present day there might be most beneficial departures from the wills of original founders, and he could not, like the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, follow literally those intentions: if so, what would become of the gifts, the large sums of money and extent of lands given to the University of Oxford, with express directions that masses should be said for the souls of the donors and founders.
Sir R. H. Inglisobserved, that if his noble Friend was prepared to bring in a bill to repeal an act brought in by a certain Lord Russell three centuries ago,

973
making it unlawful to leave money for the purposes of masses, he should be prepared to discuss the question with his noble Friend.
Report agreed to.

BEER BILL.
On the order of the day for the House to resolve itself into a committee of the whole House on the Sale of Beer Bill, and on the question that the Speaker now leave the chair,
Mr. Humeobjected to the House proceeding further with this bill. On its first introduction, the hon. Member who brought it forward (Mr. Pakington) had been asked to make out a case, in order to induce the House to after the existing law; but instead of making out the case, the hon. Member had been obliged to confess that the applications made to the House in favour of the proposed alteration had arisen in consequence of the circular the hon. Member had addressed to the different counties of England, calling the attention of the authorities there to the provisions of this bill, and urging them to petition. The hon. Member had urged in support of his bill the irregularities of which the keepers of beer-shops were constantly guilty; he stated that those irregularities were greater in the beer-shops than in the public-houses. Now, he had obtained returns which altogether refuted that allegation, and in fact showed that there was greater regularity in the conduct of the beer-shops than in that of the public-houses. The House had been told that robberies were concocted in the beer-houses, and that by those houses crime was encouraged. That argument would have held good if the hon. Member could have shown that before the passing of the Beer Act there had been no robberies or thefts, but when it could be proved that there were fewer robberies and thefts since beer-shops were established than before, the argument failed. Had the people who carried on the beer-shops showed themselves hostile to the law? If the hon. Member would look to the returns before the House, he would find that the beer-shop keepers were really the innocent parties, and that those whom he would befriend, the licensed victuallers, had been guilty of tenfold the crimes and offences of their competitors. The hon. Member had referred on a former occasion, to anonymous letters to support his views; but what was anonymous in-
974
formation to authentic returns? It appeared from the returns which had been moved for by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that in the year 1835 there had been 129 licensed victuallers convicted for adulterating beer. In the following year there had been 146 convictions for the same offence; and of these, 144 were licensed victuallers, and only two beer-shop keepers. In 1837 there were forty-eight convictions, and would the House believe that of this convict class only one person was a beer-seller, while there were 47 licensed victuallers? So much for the offence of adulteration. He had taken the trouble to ascertain the state of things in London in respect to irregularity, and he had returns, beginning from the year 1830, of the number of publicans and beer-shop keepers summoned before the magistrates for irregularities. From those returns it appeared, that in the year 1830 there had been 123 licensed victuallers summoned, of whom 109 were convicted, and fourteen escaped; in the same year only four beer-shop keepers had been summoned, and all four informations were dismissed. In 1831 there had been summoned 169 licensed victuallers, of whom 143 were convicted, and twelve dismissed; while in that same year only ten retailers of beer had been summoned. In 1836 the number of licensed victuallers summoned was 357, of these 333 had been convicted, and twenty-four dismissed; and in the same year the number of beer-shop keepers summoned was 194, whose offences in the majority of the cases were for opening a few minutes too early, or keeping open a few minutes too late. In 1837 the licensed victuallers summoned were in number 546, of whom 519 had been convicted and twenty-seven dismissed. In the same year the number of beer-shop keepers summoned was 241, and of these 217 were convicted, and 24 dismissed. In 1838 the number summoned was 655 licensed victuallers, of whom 603 were convicted, and fifty-two dismissed; 349 beer-shop keepers, of whom 320 were convicted, and twenty-eight dismissed. The result was, that during the whole period which the returns covered there had been 2,519 licensed victuallers brought before the magistrates, while there had only been summoned 1,008 beer-shopkeepers. On the whole the hon. Member opposite had made out no case

975
for a further legislative interference. Indeed, if anything was done, it should be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should place the beer-shops on an exact equality with the public-houses. He could not see on what principle it was that beer-shops should be shut while the gin-shops were allowed to remain open. It appeared to him, that this bill was wholly uncalled for, and therefore he should move, that the House resolve itself into a committee upon this bill on this day six months.
Mr. A. Sanfordthought the vast number of petitions which had been presented from all classes praying for an alteration in the present Beer Act afforded sufficient reason for the House taking the present bill into its consideration. He must say, that those who had seen the working of the existing law were more competent to judge of it than those who formed their opinions from returns which were made to that House. That a superintendence by the magistrates had formerly been necessary, was shown by the legislation which had taken place so long ago as the year 1494, again in 1562, and again in 1787. In 1787 the Secretary of State issued a circular to the Magistrates cautioning them against the system that prevailed in issuing licences. He thought it absolutely necessary that some plan should be adopted for licensing these houses different from the present. All that was necessary now was to obtain the certificates of six householders of the neighbourhood; but if the excise officer by whom the licence was granted took care to ascertain that the person applying was a man of good character and respectability, much of the present evil would be done away with. He thought the measure would be one of very general utility, and he hoped there would be no objection to going into Committee on the bill.
Viscount Dungannonsaid, that he had never listened to a more monstrous proposition than that of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, for stopping the progress of the bill. He would, however, give the House the returns for the Borough of Liverpool, which would show what the proportion was between the offences of the two classes of houses; in 1830–31 the number of convictions was—licensed victuallers 80, beerhouses 106; in 1831–32, licensed victuallers 82, beer-houses 81; in 1832–33, licensed victuallers 88, beer-houses 77;
976
in 1833–34, licensed victuallers 72, beerhouses 95; in 1834–35, licensed victuallers 67, beer-houses 179, in 1835–36 licensed victuallers 193, beer-houses 312 in 1836–37, licensed victuallers 39, beerhouses 87; in 1837–38, licensed victuallers 83, beer-houses 135. That, he thought, was a fair criterion of the two classes of houses. He believed, if the hon. Members made inquiries among the clergymen and magistrates from one end of the country to the other—from Northumberland to Cornwall—he would hear that a great portion of the vice and immorality existing among the agricultural classes was to be attributed to the establishment of beer-houses. As a county magistrate, he could state, that most of the robberies—not those of a trifling, but many of a much graver character, were concocted in the beer-houses, whose proprietors were, in most cases, men of no capital or property. He hoped the motion would be carried by a large majority.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas not prepared to oppose the measure at its present stage, and therefore he could not support the hon. Member for Kilkenny's amendment, by which the House would refuse to consider the bill. The arguments of his hon. Friend should rather have been directed against the second reading of the bill than against the bill in its present stage, and above all, after the understanding that was come to when it was last before the House. When the bill was read a second time, he then took the opportunity of stating, and he thought, with the approbation of many Members, that on going into committee he should endeavour to induce the House to assimilate and equalise as much as possible the laws respecting licensed victuallers and beer-shop keepers. If he failed in his attempt to do this, he would join with his hon. Friend in voting against the bill on the report or on the third reading. What was the state of public opinion on this subject? It appeared by the returns on the Table, that 77 petitions had been presented for the repeal of the Beer Act, and these were signed by 6,420 persons; against the repeal nine petitions had been presented, signed by 20,757 persons. But for carrying into effect the principles for which he contended, namely, for equalising the law between the licensed victuallers and beer-shop keepers, he found that, independently of the numerous petitions presented that evening, petitions had been presented

977
signed by 248,000 persons. He trusted, therefore, that they would go into committee with a view of considering the clauses of the bill. In recommending that course he was bound to say, that he entirely repudiated the doctrines of the noble Lord; for if they were correct, the House ought not to be satisfied with the bill of the hon. Member for Droitwich, but should insist on the total repeal of the Act of 1830. He should take the liberty of refuting some of the very extraordinary statements of the noble Lord. It was assumed in the first place, that all the beer-shops were disreputable places, that their owners were men of no character or property, and that they were all hotbeds of vice. He would show that there was no ground whatever for these general statements. The House would hardly believe that the property invested in these houses was very considerable. He held in his hand a letter from one party, who stated that he had invested 4,000 l. in the establishment of a beer-shop. It might be said, that that was only an individual case, but he had a return of 360 beer-shops, and the total amount of the rental was 8,226 l.; the amount of capital invested was 74,210 l., and that was but a small proportion of the 40 or 50,000 houses for which they were called upon to legislate. He would now give the noble Lord another instance, and he would take a case from the metropolis. There was a beer-shop in Mile-end, the property of an individual owner, the value of the house and fixtures was 1,500 l., the stock 1,325 l., and that was one of the class which the hon. Gentleman opposite represented as persons without property, and in many cases without character. [Viscount Dungannon had alluded to beerhouses in agricultural districts.] The noble Lord and those hon. Members who had discussed the question, had brought the arguments as against the whole body, and he, for one, could not allow them to back out of their assertions in that way. The next case he would quote was that of a beer-shop in Ratcliffe-street. The value of the house was 600 l., and of the stock 500 l. Then with respect to residence, which was an excellent test of character, there were instances of 8, 6, 10, 16, and even of 23 years constant residence in one house, the parties paying rates and taxes, and contributing to parochial and other dues during all that time, and yet they were told, that these men were wholly without capital, and altogether devoid of respectability. There was another point
978
to which he wished to call the attention of the House. In stating the amount of capital embarked in that trade, he had not taken into account the amount of capital embarked by brewers, and if that were added to the capital of the beer-house keepers, it would form a sum total which would much astonish hon. Members. He would take the number of licensed brewers before and after the passing of the Beer Bill, and he would begin two years before the passing of the Act. In the first year, the number of licensed brewers, was 27,161; in the year after the passing of the Bill it was 36,284; but in the following year the number was 42,976; and in the one following that 43,087. Therefore there was an addition of capital, as represented by the increase in numbers, from 27,161 brewers to 43,087, the number of licensed brewers in the last year, and he wished hon. Members, and more especially landed proprietors, to recollect that it was these brewers who furnished a market for their barley, and formed a great addition to the demand for the agricultural produce of the country. He was merely applying himself to the arguments that there was no capital embarked in these beer-houses. He held in his hand another return of a very extraordinary nature, and to which he would call the attention of hon. Members opposite. Nothing was more easy than to say that the licensed victuallers, as a class, were all men of wealth and independence; while the keepers of beer-shops were men without capital. He had procured a return from the Excise officers of the number of public-houses and beer-houses within the respective collections extending over the whole of England. It appeared by that return, that the number of public-houses was 55,513, and the number of beer-shops licensed to sell beer to be consumed on the premises, 36,054. Now of these 55,000 public-houses, the owners of which were supposed to represent so much wealth and capital, there were 18,379 who rented houses under 10 l. yearly value. And it should be remembered, that the value of the house was increased by the licence, so that the 10 l. did not merely represent the natural but the fictitious value of the rent Amongst the beer-shops there were houses under 5l. in value, 1,858; and above 5l. in value, 34,196. That, however, might not be considered a fair mode of comparison, and he would take the question in another point of view. There were of publicans inhabiting houses under

979
10 l. in yearly value, 18,379; and beer-shops under 10 l. yearly value, 15,318. It should besides be borne in mind, that the value of the public-houses was increased by the licence, which was not the case with the beer-houses. What, then, became of the exaggerated statements of the wealth of the one class, and the absence of capital of the other, which had been put forward by hon. Members opposite. He would lay these papers on the Table of the House, because he thought they would go far to dispel the delusion that existed on this subject. He, did not, however, think it would be wise to continue the license to houses rated under 5l.; with that exception, he contended, that there ought to be a totally free trade in beer, subject only to such police regulations as were considered to be necessary. The deputation of beer sellers, who had had an interview with him had thought that instead of good police regulations being any hardship they would be a protection to their trade, and had assented to the proposition. They stated, that it was the want of police regulations in small places that had raised the storm against them, and they were perfectly willing to acquiesce in the proposed modification. He had now disposed of that part of the case which related to the value of the property; and he had shown the contrast between the one class and the other was founded on entire delusion. He now came to an important question, that which referred to crime; and the assertions that had been made on this subject were just as gratuitous and unfounded as they were on the other. The opponents of that measure had two facts to establish—first, that the amount of crime had increased, and, secondly, that such increase was to be attributed to the Beer Act. Now, as to the first of these points, he had procured from the Home-office some tables, the accuracy of which there was no reason whatever to doubt. Before he stated the conclusions he drew from these tables, he would remark, that since the Municipal Corporation Bill had been in operation, there had existed a more active system of police, greater facilities for bringing offenders to conviction, than those which existed before the passing of that Act. In addition to this, since the year 1834, three or four large classes of crime, such as common assaults, riots, and breaches of the peace, had been included in the criminal returns for the first time. On both these accounts, it would by no means follow that there had been an increase of crime, even if the re-
980
turns showed a greater number of commitments, after the passing of the Beer Act, than there appeared to have taken place previously in equal periods of the time. It might, however, with certainty, be assumed that a decrease in the number of commitments was proof of the decrease of crime. But what were the facts as they appeared upon these tables? He would take four years before the passing of the Act and four years afterwards. In the period from 1826 to 1829 inclusive, the average ratio of increase of crime had been 7½ per cent. What was the ratio of increase in the four years after the passing of the Act? Why, 2½ per cent. only. What became, then, of the allegations that there had been an increase of crime? It was, however, said, that although the total amount of crime had not increased, there had been an augmentation in the agricultural districts. What was the fact? Why, in twenty of the largest agricultural counties, there was a decrease in commitments altogether, and particularly a decrease in the commitments for serious offences. Allusions had repeatedly been made to sheep-stealing and cattle stealing, as if these crimes had almost originated since the establishment of beer-shops but on referring to the returns of the commitments, as well as of the offences, he found a great decrease in both these classes of crime, as well as in maliciously wounding or maiming cattle. It appeared, also, that since that period, the offences against the Game-laws had diminished forty-five per cent. In spite of these facts, they were repeatedly told that crime had increased in consequence of the existence of beer-shops; but previously to the establishment of the latter trade, almost all the offences that were committed were imputed in argument to the public houses. There was then a general outcry against the licensed victuallers, which had been transferred to the beer-shop keepers. For his own part, without lending himself to the propagation of reflections on any class of persons, he might be permitted to observe, that he thought that crime might rather be imputed to indulgence in ardent spirits than in beer. Certainly it was the opinion of most moralists that crime was more likely to be engendered by habits of spirit drinking than by taking beer. This, indeed, seemed to be the general feeling; and one of the greatest moral instructors that this country had produced, namely, Hogarth, had furnished an admirable illustration of this in his two celebrated pictures.

981
of "Beer-street," and "Gin-lane." He would entreat the House to approach this subject with the most serious deliberation. If there was one thing more calculated than another to lessen the House in the opinion of the country, it was a want of consistency in its legislation. The interest now in question was created under a well-considered and thoroughly-debated measure, and after full inquiry, and the very point now more particularly raised was raised then; evidence was taken on the subject, and that evidence supported the passing of the measure, and negatived the assertions which were then and now made. The measure was a very bold, but a very effectual financial reform, and the Government which carried it through merited the best thanks of the country. The question was again discussed in 1834. A committee sat on the subject—evidence was taken, and the House legislated restrictively upon it, but not to the effect which the hon. Member now proposed, and still less to the effect of destroying the trade. He trusted the House would not impair its character with the country by the injustice and inconsistency of destroying an interest which it had only just raised. He should vote for going into committee for the purpose of proposing his amendments; and if he did not succeed in inducing the committee to adopt them, he should certainly oppose the third reading of the bill.
Lord Eliotcould not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in taking property as a test of respectability, which was the same principle as that adopted by a witness once, who defined a respectable man to be one who kept a gig. The whole of the right hon. Gentleman's address had been a panegyric on beer-shops; but the magistrates with whom he had communicated in different parts of the country had taken a very different view of the subject. But he admitted that a great part of the evil might be attributed to the inefficient control over the beer-shops. With a rural police, a great many of the evils might be remedied. He should vote for going into committee, but he did not think the bill of his hon. Friend best calculated to effect the object he had in view. He was opposed to the principle of making property the test of respectability.
Mr. Warburtonthought the returns referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, most
982
satisfactory. It ought also to be remembered, that whenever beer-sellers exceeded the hour prescribed by the Act for keeping their houses open, they fell under a description of offence from which licensed victuallers were exempt, and that therefore the number of convictions of these different classes of individuals did not offer a fair comparison of the mischiefs arising from the two sorts of establishments.
Captain Woodsaid, he thought it right to state, that in the London district, while the licensed victuallers were 4,300, the beer-shops were only 1,560; so that the convictions were two to one, and the numbers as three to one.
Lord Worsleysaid, as a county magistrate, he felt bound to make a few observations. He certainly did not attribute the increase of crime to the beer-shops exclusively. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, that crime had decreased. Now, that might be the case in large towns, but, in the country, he was afraid that the efficiency of the town police had but tended to drive bad characters into the rural districts. Certainly he much doubted if crime had really diminished so much as 45 per cent. At all events, that was not the case in his own county, where the depredations upon the farmers had greatly increased. The farmers, indeed, generally complained most grievously of the existing law, stating that their servants had thereby great facilities for drinking, and that their conduct had, since the passing of that law, become much worse. Of one thing he was convinced, that the state of the country would never become thoroughly improved until an efficient paid constabulary was established. He hoped the bill would be allowed to go into committee, though he was by no means so sanguine as to benefits to be expected from it, yet he felt that some alteration in the law was imperatively called for.
Mr. Pakingtonsaid, he was not prepared for such a discussion upon the committee, which, he thought, would have better taken place upon the second reading. He must observe, that a great part of the speech of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer was against a bill now before the House—a bill for entirely doing away with the beer-housse. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had said, that no case had been made out for the

983
present bill, an observation which he (Mr. Pakington) would not take the trouble to refute. The capital alleged to be invested in the beer-houses was very unequally distributed; and the proposal, that they should be such as were rated at 10 l. or 15 l., would secure respectability. As to the argument drawn from the returns of the London district, it was sufficient to observe, that the licensed victuallers were to the beer-houses as five to one. No one could be more desirous than himself of putting down all the misery and vice connected with spirit houses; but because such misery and vice were connected with the spirit houses, were the evils associated with the beer shops to go unremedied? It was in evidence before the committee of 1834, that the sale of spirits had been increased by the competition consequent upon the passing of the Beer Act. If it had been proved, that the public houses were the haunts of vice, they would have been equally condemned; but no such complaint had been made. Besides, the licensed victuallers' houses were directly under the control of the magistrates, which was not the case with these beerhouses. Now as to the question of crime, he admitted, that was most important— and that unless he could show, that the beer-houses were haunts of vice, and injurious to the working classes, he had no right to ask the House to restrict them. But the right hon. Gentleman had not established any case in their favour by merely stating from general statistical returns, that crime throughout the country had not increased. The real question was, whether it had not been established, that the beer-houses were the haunts of crime, that therefore they were strongly objectionable, and the ground of just and general complaint? Now he contended, that this had been abundantly proved. He would refer emphatically to the numerous confessions of men who had been executed under sentence of the law. Surely hon. Members would not disregard the declarations of dying men, as to the causes which had led to their unhappy fate. And he could cite many such declarations of men upon the scaffold, that their crime and their misery were attributed to beer-houses. He could also quote many confessions of those who had become the inmates of gaols, through the evil associations which they had formed in the beer-houses. From
984
thirty-one counties, the magistrates had almost unanimously petitioned against the existing law. When the Act was under consideration in the House, the debates were long, and the division very narrow; and it was really remarkable to observe how accurately the predictions of those who had then opposed it had been fulfilled. Undoubtedly this was no party question. The Beer Act had been proposed by the party with whom he had the honour usually to vote. But the great man who had been then at the head of the Government had now been the foremost to avow that the measure had failed, and had since recorded his vote for the repeal. It had been said, indeed, that in 1834, legislation had taken place upon the subject, but it was legislation abortive and miserable. The present bill was founded upon the report of the Committee in 1834; and the proposal for a 10 l. qualification was in reality lower than the 10 l. proposed in 1834, as 10 l. rating then would be equivalent to 15 l. now, owing to the local Assessment Act, which had since passed; with regard to the hours, he must say, that the licensed victuallers had been hardly dealt with, and he would agree to the principle of the clause suggested in this respect by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though he thought it was very loosely worded, and would be difficult to frame accurately, especially in regard to travellers. Believing that the bill was intimately connected with the morals, welfare, and the happiness of the people, he hoped the House would not be led away by the statistical statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reject it.
Mr. M. Phillipsconcurred in requesting his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, not to persist in opposing the bill going into committee. He regretted, that this bill, which had been introduced so long ago as the 7th March, should now be under discussion. He wished the subject had been referred to a select committee, which might have inquired into the different charges against both the beer-houses and licensed victuallers, and might have made a report, on which legislation would perhaps have been more satisfactorily founded than upon the discussions in that House. Upon one point he thought there could be no difference of judgment—that some legislation upon the subject was imperatively required. He hoped the hon.

985
Member for Kilkenny would consent to withdraw his motion, and not interfere at present with the hon. Member.
Mr. Humesaid, that concurring in much of what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should withdraw his amendment.
House went into Committee.
On the first clause being put,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it would be most convenient if the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool would bring forward his amendment on the first clause.
Viscount Sandonagreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be better to dispose of his amendment (a clause for prohibiting the consumption of beer on the premises) at once. He had many objections to beer-houses, and could adduce the testimony of clergymen (Roman Catholics as well as Protestants) in Liverpool, Manchester, and other populous towns, that beer-houses were the resort of the worst characters, and had been productive of a great increase of crime. He contended, that the consumption of spirits was not diminished, but rather increased, by the multitude of beer-houses. The evidence of the deputy constable for Manchester slated, that such were the temptations the beer-shops held out to the lower classes, especially the Irish, to distil illicit spirits, that the revenue lost 50,000 l. a year in that town alone. The objection against the system was almost unanimously strong amongst the best informed and the least prejudiced persons. The grand juries of Essex, Oxfordshire, Huntingdonshire, Surrey, the Western Circuit, and many other important districts, were all against it. He, therefore, would move the insertion of the following clause:—
"That from and after the commencement of the act, it shall be lawful for the commissioners of excise or other persons duly authorised, to grant a licence for the sale of beer, ale, porter, cider, and perry, under the authority of the said recited act (the former Beer Act), to any person applying for the same; but that such licence shall not authorize the sale of beer, &c, to be drunk or consumed in the house of the person specified in the licence."
The Chairman was of opinion, that the amendment which was a new clause could not be put.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought it would be better that the question should
986
be raised upon the postponement of the clause.
Amendment postponed.
On the question, that the blank in the first clause be filled up with the words "ten-pounds,"
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas glad the twelve month's previous residence was abandoned. He thought, however, the other provision equally unreasonable. The result of adopting it would be that 15,518 beer-houses, which at present were rated under 10 l. would be disqualified. It would be also manifestly unjust, as it would continue 18,379 public-houses, which were all rated under 10 l. Nothing could be more unjust, and he would add more untenable, than such a proposition, and he should most decidedly oppose it. He should also object to the principle of twelve months' previous residence, inasmuch as it would be a bar to the application of capital, and capital in its most beneficial state, arising from the occupation of houses of an improved construction, and built for the purposes of that trade. In the clause which he intended to substitute, he proposed that where the population of the district was under 5,000, the qualification should be 5l.; where it was above that number, the qualification to be 10 l., and a house rated at 15 l. to be the qualification within the bills of mortality. That would exclude about 1,800 houses existing under the present system, but he thought it would be productive of good, inasmuch as in the existing small houses they could not have good police regulations. On these grounds he would object to the clause.
Sir E. Knatchbullwas not quite sure, that the rates proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be successful, but he was anxious to allow a trial of the experiment. The whole responsibility ought to be thrown into the hands of the Government, and, if the experiment failed, the House could afterwards take the matter up.
Mr. Slaneyreminded the Committee, that a vast amount of property had been invested in the trade which was the subject of the bill. In the towns, the beer-shops had been in many cases productive of much good. He should prefer the rating between the two propositions, but, as that could not be obtained, he would recommend the adoption of the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Pakingtonwas deeply impressed with the necessity for legislation respecting beer-shops, and having taken up the subject at an early part of the Session, and from the most disinterested motives, he could not abandon the measure which he had brought forward, at least till the House had by a division expressed its opinion. He could not consent to adopt the non-consumption clause which had been proposed by the noble Lord near him, neither could he agree to the scale of 5l. 10 l. and 15 l. which had been recommended by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The non-consumption clause would certainly diminish the number of beer-shops, but it would take away the best class and leave the worst remaining. He should, therefore, if the clause was pressed to a division, vote against it. By the scale proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 15 l. was to be the rate for the metropolis, and he must say he thought that the proposal was unfair, for the beer-shops in the metropolis were the least objectionable, and yet they were to be rated highest. If he could not secure the principle, that no house should be licensed as a house of entertainment unless it was of the annual value of 10 l. he would rather abandon the bill altogether.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, the Committee was placed in an extraordinary position by the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had brought in what he called clauses, a proceeding for which he believed there was no precedent. The bill of his hon. Friend consisted of a few clauses, and what his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had introduced under thebumblename of "clauses" was a bill three times as long as that of his bon. Friend, and it seemed rather unfair to his hon. Friend to take that course. He hoped his hon. Friend would not abandon his original determination.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he had taken that course which he considered fairest. He had given full notice of the clauses he meant to propose, and had them printed. The question was as to the 10 l. qualification, to which he objected, because upon the best information he had been able to procure, he believed, the effect of that qualification would be to crush the beer-house keepers in many parts of the country. And he believed, that so long accustomed as the people had
988
now been to these houses, it would be impossible to prevent the beer from being sold. It would be really monstrous to put down 15,000 beer-houses under 10 l. and to allow 15,000 licensed victuallers' houses under 10 l.
Mr. Parrottsaid, he thought the Beer Act one of the best measures that had been adopted, and hon. Members who supported this bill, seemed to look rather at the few evils which were said to have arisen under the present system than at the many benefits it conferred on the labouring population.
The Committee divided on the question, that the blank in the first clause be filled up with the words, "ten pounds": —Ayes 76; Noes 103: Majority 27.

List of the AYES.

Attwood, W.

Jermyn, Earl of

Bagge, W.

Kemble, H.

Baker, E.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Knight, H. G.

Bethell, R.

Lascelles, W. S.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Liddell, H. T.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Lowther, Colonel

Buck, L. W.

Lowther, J. H.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Lygon, hon. General

Chetwynd, W.

Mackenzie, T.

Clerk, Sir G.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Codrington, C. W.

Manners, Lord C.

Cole, Viscount

Marton, G.

Darlington, Earl of

Miles, W.

Dungannon, Viscount

Miles, P. W. S.

Du Pre, G.

Noel, W. M.

Eastnor, Viscount

Packe, C. W.

Egerton, W. T.

Palmer, R.

Egerton, Sir P. G.

Plumptre, J. P.

Estcourt, T. S. B.

Polhill, F.

Evans, W.

Pusey, P.

Fellowes, E.

Rolleston, L.

Filmer, Sir E.

Rushout, G.

Fleming, J.

Sandon, Lord

Gore, O. J. R.

Sanford, E. A.

Gore, O. W.

Shaw, F.

Greene, T. G.

Shirley, E. J.

Grimsditch, T.

Teignmouth, Lord

Halford, H.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Verner, Colonel

Hector, C. J.

Waddington, H. S.

Heneage, G. W.

Walker, C. A.

Hodges, T.L.

Welby, G. E.

Hope, hon. C.

Williams, W. A.

Hope, G. W.

Wodehouse, hon. E.

Hughes, W. B.

Worsley, Lord

Hurt, F.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

TELLERS.

Irton, S.

Pakington, J. S.

Irving, J.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Attwood, T.

Alcock, T.

Baines, E.

Alston, R.

Barnard, E. G.

989

Benett, J.

O'Connell, J.

Bewes, T.

O'Connell, M. J.

Blake, W. J.

Palmer, C. F.

Bodkin, J. J.

Parker, J.

Bowes, J.

Parnell, Sir H.

Briscoe, J. I.

Parrott, J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Pechell, Captain

Brotherton, J.

Philips, M.

Bulwer, Sir E. L.

Pryme, G.

Burroughes, H.

Rice, E.

Busfield, W.

Rice, T. S.

Cayley, E. S.

Rickford, W.

Clay, W.

Roche, Sir D.

Collier, J.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Collins, W.

Rundle, J.

Dashwood, G. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Salwey, Colonel

Duke, Sir J.

Scholefield, J.

Ellis, W.

Scrope, G. P.

Evans, G.

Slaney, R. A.

Ewart, W.

Smith, B.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Fenton, J.

Stock, Dr.

Finch, F.

Strickland, Sir G.

Fleetwood, H.

Strutt, E.

Gibson, T.

Sudden, Sir E.

Gillon, W. D.

Tancred, H. W.

Goulburn, H.

Thornley, T.

Grey, Sir G.

Townley, R. G.

Hall, B.

Troubridge, Sir T.

Hawes, B.

Turner, E.

Hawkins, J. H.

Verney, Sir H.

Hinde, J. H.

Vigors, N.

Hindley, C.

Villiers, C. P.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wallace, R.

Horsman, E.

Warburton, H.

Hoskins, K.

Ward, G. H.

Howard, P. H.

White, A.

Howick, Lord

Wilde, T.

Hume, J.

Wilkins, W.

James, W.

Williams, W.

Jervis, J.

Wilmot, Sir E.

Langdale, hon. C.

Wilshere, W.

Lushington, C.

Winnington, T.

M'Leod, R.

Winnington, H.

Marsland, H.

Wood, C.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Yates, J. A.

Morris, D.

TELLERS.

Murray, A.

Baring, hon. F.

Muskett, G. A.

Steuart, R.

The Chancellor of the Exchequerassured the House that he had brought forward his amendments in perfect good faith, and not with a view to lead to the abandonment of all legislation on the subject: if such had been his intention, he should have opposed this bill on its second reading. But after the decision the Committee had come to, what course was now to be pursued? He would not call upon the Committee now to discuss the clauses he had to propose, but would suggest that those clauses should be brought up and agreed to pro formâ, and that the Chairman should then report
990
progress, and ask leave to sit again. In making this proposition, he was aware he laid himself open to the observation, that by this mode of proceeding he was substituting an entirely new bill for the one now before the House; but he was not without a precedent, for a similar course had been pursued by the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon some sessions since. He, however, was in the hands of the Committee, but at present he should propose to negative this and the remaining clauses, to bring up his own clauses, and that the Chairman then report progress.
Mr. Cayleyrecommended the hon. Member for Droitwich to leave the measure in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was the only course that could now be pursued.
The first and remaining clauses negatived.
Viscount Sandonthen moved the clause above noticed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeropposed the clause, on the ground that it would open the door to endless frauds. The beer-shop keepers would evade the law by allowing the beer to be drunk in their gardens or their neighbours' houses, and the whole country would be one scene of litigation.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 146: Majority 61.

List of the AYES.

A'Court, Capt. E.

Fellowes, E.

Alford, Viscount

Filmer, Sir E.

Attwood, W.

Fleming, Admiral

Baker, E.

Gore, O. J. R.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Gore, O. W.

Bethell, R.

Greene, T.

Broadley, H.

Grimsditch, T.

Burr, H.

Grimstone, E. H.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Hale, R. B.

Cantilupe, Lord

Halford, H.

Cayley, E. S.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Chetwynd, Major

Hector, C. J.

Codrington, C. W.

Heneage, G. W.

Cole, Lord

Henniker, Lord

Cresswell, C.

Herbert, S.

Darlington, Earl of

Hillsborough, Earl of

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Hope, C.

Dungannon, Lord

Hope, G. W.

Du Pre, G.

Hughes, W. B.

Eastnor, Viscount

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Egerton, W. T.

Irton, S.

Egerton, Sir P.

Irving, J.

Estcourt, T. S. B.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

991

Liddell, H. T.

Round, J.

Lowther, Colonel

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Lygon, Colonel

Shaw, F.

Mackenzie, T.

Sheppard, T.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Shirley, J. E.

Mahon, Lord

Sibthorp, Colonel

Manners, Lord C.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Maunsell, T. P.

Stanley, E.

Miles, P. S.

Talbot, C. R.

Neeld, J.

Teignmouth, Lord

Noel, W. M.

Thomas, Colonel

Norreys, Lord

Thornhill, G.

Packe, C. W.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Palmer, G.

Vernor, W.

Parker, M. E. N.

Waddington, H. S.

Parker, R. T.

Welby, G. E.

Pease, J.

Winnington, T. E.

Plumptre, J. P.

Worsley, Lord

Pringle, A.

TELLERS.

Richards, H.

Sandon, Lord

Rolleston, Colonel

Palmer, R.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Fenton, J.

Ainsworth, P.

Finch, F.

Alcock, T.

Fleetwood, Sir H.

Alston, R.

Gillon, W. D.

Attwood, T.

Gordon, R.

Bagge, W.

Goulburn, H.

Baines, E.

Grey, Sir G.

Baring, H. B.

Harcourt, G. G.

Barnard, E. G.

Hawes, B.

Beamish, F. B.

Hawkins, J. H.

Benett, J.

Hayter, W. G.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Hinde, J. H.

Bewes, T.

Hindley, C.

Blackstone, W. S.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Blake, M. J.

Hodges, T. L.

Blake, W. J.

Hodgson, R.

Blennerhassett, A.

Horsman, E.

Bodkin, J. J.

Hoskins, K.

Bowes, J.

Howard, P. H.

Bramston, T. W.

Howard, Sir R.

Bridgman, H.

Howick, Lord

Briscoe, J.

Hume, J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Hurt, F.

Brotherton, J.

James, W.

Buck, L. W.

Jervis, J.

Buller, C.

Johnson, General

Bulwer, Sir E. L.

Kemble, H.

Burroughes, H. N.

Langdale, hon. C.

Busfeild, W.

Lowther, J. H.

Callaghan, D.

Lushington, C.

Clay, W.

M'Leod, R.

Clements, Lord

Marsland, H.

Collier, J.

Martin, T.

Collins, W.

Maule, hon. F.

Darby, G.

Mildmay, P. St. John

Dashwood, G. H.

Miles, W.

Douglas, Sir C.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Duke, Sir J.

Moreton, hon. A. H.

Ellis, W.

Morris, D.

Euston, Earl of

Murray, A.

Evans, G.

Muskett, G. A.

Ewart, W.

O'Connell, J.

Fazakerley, J. N.

O'Connell, M. J.

992

O'Ferrall, M.

Surrey, Earl of

Oswald, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Paget, F.

Thompson, Ald.

Pakington, J. S.

Thomson, C. P.

Palmer, C. F.

Thornely, T.

Parker, J.

Troubridge, Sir T.

Parnell, Sir H.

Turner, E.

Parrott, J.

Verney, Sir H.

Pechell, Captain

Vigors, N. A.

Philips, M.

Villiers, C. P.

Pryme, G.

Walker, R.

Redington, T. N.

Wallace, R.

Rice, E. B.

Warburton, H.

Rice, T. S.

Ward, H. G.

Rickford, W.

Westenra, hon. R.

Roche, Sir D.

Westenra, J. C.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

White, A.

Rundle, J.

White, Colonel H.

Russell, Lord J.

Wilde, T.

Rutherford, A.

Wilkins, W.

Salwey, Colonel

Williams, W.

Scholefield, J.

Williams, W. A.

Slaney, R.

Wilshere, W.

Smith, J. A.

Winnington, H.

Smith, B.

Wodehouse, E.

Standish, C.

Wood, C.

Stanley, E. J.

Wood, Captain

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Yates, J. A.

Stuart, Lord J.

Stock, Dr.

TELLERS.

Strutt, E.

Baring, F.

Style, Sir C.

Steuart, R.

Clause rejected. House resumed.

REMOVAL OF ELECTORS.
Mr. Gibsonmoved the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Electors' Removal Bill.
Mr. Baggemoved as an amendment, that the bill be read a third time that day three months, inasmuch as the proposed measure went to destroy the 10 l.. clause in the Reform Bill.
Colonel Sibthorpthought the bill extremely objectionable. It appeared to him to be merely a bill to bring in parties who had no qualification, to vote with those who had a qualification, and he should certainly oppose it. He seconded the amendment.
Mr. Ewarthoped the House would not be led away by the eloquence of either of the hon. Members opposite to reject the bill.—[Cries of "Oh!"] If hon. Members who did him the honour to interrupt him would only attend to what he had to say, he was satisfied they would, when they collected their sober senses, find that he was right. If the House would only consider what was taking place every day in Election Committees they would be convinced that some change in the present system was necessary. It was pain-

993
ful to any person attending the Carlow Committee now sitting to witness the interminable disputes as to residence.
Viscount Mahonrose to order. The committee had not yet given in its report to the House. Any allusion, therefore, to its proceedings was irregular.
The Speakersaid, that no hon. Member was at liberty to refer to the proceedings of any election committee before it had reported to the House.
Mr. Ewartcontended, that if they allowed the present system to continue much longer, the public would lose all confidence in the decisions of that House. He should give his cordial support to the bill.
Mr. Blackstonestated, that he had voted for the second reading of this bill. He had, however, a serious objection to the bill, since it admitted out-voters at borough elections. A person habitually resident on the continent might claim to vote under it. He had suggested, that a clause should be introduced into the bill to this effect—"Provided such person be a rated inhabitant of such town." If this clause were not introduced, he would vote against the third reading.
Mr. Warburtonsupported the bill. It was necessary, in order to prevent voters who might change their residence, between one registration and another, from being deprived of their right to vote. He feared, that if they adopted the limitation of the hon. Member who had just sat down they would open the door to all the litigation and expense which the bill was calculated to do away with.
Viscount Sandonremarked, that no species of bribery was more common than that of paying the expenses of out-voters coming to the poll. He was, therefore, strongly opposed to the bill.
Viscount Dungannonconsidered the proposition embodied in this bill to be a perfectly monstrous one. The inconvenience of having out-voters was not to be permitted, and the expense of bringing up voters from a distance would be extremely heavy. He could not conceive any measure calculated to give rise to greater abuse. Some such measure as this, if kept within the bounds of prudence and common sense, might perhaps have been useful, but if the bill were to pass as it stood, he thought it would prove one of the most noxious measures that had been passed since the Reform Bill.
Mr. O. Goresaid, that the principle of representation, as he understood it, was this, that those who were sent to the House of Commons were sent by persons having an interest in the place for which they were sent as Members; but the interest ceased the moment that the individual left the place. He could not understand on what principle it could be asserted, that an individual who had gone to the extremity of the kingdom, after having parted with all right of property in Ipswich, or any other borough, should still retain the right of voting for that borough. It was not common sense. Again, suppose that such a man went away from a borough, his name still remained on the register, and for anything that the bill enacted, if no objection was made to him, he continued on the register, and continued to vote, and so might continue to vote in infinitum, as long as he lived, although he had no property whatever in the borough. Certainly, the House could not, without stultifying itself, agree to such a bill, repugnant as it was to the whole principle of the Reform Bill.
Mr. Brothertoncould state from experience, that in a borough constituency of 2,000, there would be 200 removals in twelve months, while very probably not more than ten of the 200 would quit the town. A person might be rated to a 10 l. house, which he might afterwards quit in order to take a 20 l.. house, and yet at the election he might not be a rated inhabitant of a 10 l. tenement. The question really was, whether they would agree to disfranchise the 190 because ten perhaps quit the borough in the year. As to what the hon. Gentleman said about remaining on the register for life and voting all the time, it was perfectly impossible that any such, thing should occur, because the overseers made out the registry every year, and the premises would be returned either as vacant or under the name of the new occupant. He hoped the House would pass the bill, because he believed its operation would be just to both parties.
Sir G. Clerkwished to make a few remarks on the bill, which he regarded as a measure of considerable importance. At any rate, it was deserving of some discussion, and the more so as it had hitherto passed to its very last stage without any discussion whatever; ["No, no !"] at least, then, with but a short discussion. As to the probable effects of the bill, he did not

995
think it would act upon one party more than another; therefore, they were to look upon it in regard to its intrinsic merits, and with reference to the principles of the Reform Act. For himself, he would say at once that he was not prepared to defend the case of persons who, on removing to another tenement in the same borough, were deprived of their vote. Parliament, he thought, were bound to find some remedy for this evil. But the bill went much further than this, for it went to admit the principle that a person who removed to the further end of the kingdom should be still entitled to vote in the borough he had left. This, as had been well observed, was wholly opposed to the principle of the Reform Act. The noble Lord had said the other night in reference to that Act, that there was nothing to which he was more opposed than to a system of petty legislation on the subject of that great measure. He hoped the noble Lord would adhere to the sentiments he then expressed. At all events, he was convinced that the Government ought not to let this bill pass into a law. The learned Attorney-general had some little time back brought in a bill for the better registration of voters, the same nearly that he had brought in before, but as the Government contemplated a larger measure, which would embrace the whole subject, the learned Gentleman thought fit to withdraw his bill. Now, he did say, that when the Attorney-general of the Crown was obliged to withdraw his bill, because it was understood that the Government had in view a more comprehensive measure, it was too bad that this bill should be allowed to pass. He was aware, however, that there might be circumstances which rendered this bill more agreeable to hon. Gentlemen opposite than if it had proceeded from other hands. But there was another point: the legislation for Scotland on the subject was wholly inconsistent with this bill. The Registration Bill for Scotland took away the right of voting, except the person resided within seven miles of the place for which he claimed to vote. This bill was brought in by the Lord Advocate, the Attorney-general, and the Under Secretary of State. It excluded, too, those from voting who had removed from the borough. So that this bill was directly opposed in principle to a bill then before Parliament, and introduced under the immediate auspices of
996
the Government. On these grounds, he did hope that the noble Lord would join with him in voting against the further progress of this measure.
Lord Ingestriesaid, the bill was one which called for a distinct expression of opinion on the part of her Majesty's Government. Hon. Members on his side did not object to any person voting in the same borough, though he had removed from one tenement to another; but what they did object to was, that a man should have a vote for the borough when he went to another part of the country. He thought this was quite contrary to the principle of the Reform Act. He thought too that the measure would have exhibited to better advantage the good taste of its author if it had come from the other side of the House. The hon. Member who was the author of it seemed to be fitly called a Conservative-Radical. For his part he thought this bill trenched upon the principle of the Reform Act, and he would oppose its further progress, though he had always considered the Reform Act as fraught with danger to the country, an opinion which time had given him no reason to alter.
The Solicitor-Generalthought that this bill was the most practical bill that ever had been introduced into the House, because it was directed against an evil pressing equally on both sides of the House, and which all the constituencies in the country must wish to see removed. But the hon. Member for Stamford said, that this bill was inconsistent with the Registration (Scotland) Bill. Now, there was no analogy between the two cases. In Scotland the registration was not renewed annually. As to the objection that this measure might bring in a great number of out-voters, he was really astonished to hear it urged gravely. He did not believe that it would make more out-voters than there were at present. There were now at every election a great number of out-voters absent. The objection that under the bill a certain number of electors remaining on the registry would for the current year—for it was only for that time—have a vote who by the Reform Act were not entitled, was too minute to require notice.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, this was not a party question, and ought not to be discussed as such. However, the principle of the bill was entirely opposed to the principle of

997
the Reform Act, and his great objection was, that it removed this principle in boroughs and cities without doing so in counties. If it were just that persons without qualifications should vote in boroughs and cities, he thought that electors in counties ought to have the same privilege.
Mr. Gibsonwas very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say, that this was no party question, because he hoped that the noble Lord would take that remark as a gentle reproof for having said, that the author of the measure would have shown better taste had he sat on the other side of the House. Such a remark as that could only have been dictated by the spirit of party. As to the appellation of Conservative-Radical, he really did not know what it was; he could only say, that the party who supported him at his election for Ipswich had, through their leaders, most strongly requested him to bring forward this bill. The hon. Member for Worcestershire (Mr. O. Gore) had expressed a hope that the House would not stultify itself by passing this bill. Now, the hon. Member, as others did, spoke as if the bill were an entirely new measure. But, in fact, a similar bill was introduced a short time back, when, if he was not mistaken, the hon. Gentleman was a Member of the House, and he earnestly hoped, that he did not omit the opportunity of registering his vote in opposition to a measure to which he had just now so solemnly declared his objections. The House having entertained the former and similar bill, he hoped they would not stultify themselves by refusing to pass this bill.
The House divided on the original question—Ayes 137; Noes 122—Majority 15.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Blake, W. J.

Ainsworth, P.

Bodkin, J. J.

Alcock, T.

Bridgman, H.

Archbold, R.

Briscoe, J. I.

Attwood, T.

Brocklehurst, J.

Baines, E.

Brotherton, J.

Bannerman, A.

Buller, C.

Baring, F. T.

Busfield, W.

Barnard, E. G.

Callaghan, D.

Beamish, F. B.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Cayley, E. S.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Clay, W.

Bernal, R.

Clements, Lord

Bewes, T.

Collins, W.

Blake, M. J.

Dashwood, G. H.

998

D'Eyncourt, hn. C. T.

Pigot, D. R.

Duke, Sir J.

Pryme, G.

Duncombe, T.

Redington, T. N.

Ellice, W.

Rice, E. R.

Euston, Earl of

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Evans, G.

Roche, E. B.

Evans, W.

Roche, Sir D.

Fenton, J.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Finch, F.

Rumbold, C. E.

Fleetwood, Sir H.

Rundle, J.

Gillon, W. D.

Russell, Lord J.

Gordon, R.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Salwey, Colonel

Hall, Sir B.

Scrope, G. P.

Hawes, B.

Smith, B.

Hawkins, J. H.

Standish, C.

Hayter, W. G.

Stanley, E. J.

Heathcoat, J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Hector, C. J.

Steuart, R.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Stuart, Lord J.

Hodges, T. L.

Stuart, W. V.

Hoskins, K.

Stock, Dr.

Howard, P. H.

Strickland, Sir G.

Howick, Lord

Strutt, E.

Hume, J.

Style, Sir C.

James, W.

Talbol, C. R. M.

Jervis, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Johnson, General

Thomson, rt hn. C. P.

Lambton, H.

Thornely, T.

Langdale, hon. C.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Lascelles, hon. W.

Turner, E.

Lushington, C.

Verney, Sir H.

Macleod, R.

Vigors, N. A.

Marsland, H.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Maule, hon. F.

Walker, R.

Mildmay, P. St. John

Wallace, R.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Warburton, H.

Moreton, A. H.

Ward, H. G.

Morpeth, Lord

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Morris, D.

Westenra, hon. J. C.

Murray, A.

White, A.

Muskett, G. A.

Wilbraham, G.

O'Connell, J.

Wilde, Sergeant

O'Connell, M. J.

Wilkins, W.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Williams, W.

Oswald, J.

Williams, W. A.

Paget, F.

Wilshere, W.

Palmer, C. F.

Winnington, T. E.

Parker, J.

Winnington, H. J.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Wood, C.

Parrott, J.

Worsley, Lord

Pease, J.

Yates, J. A.

Pechell, Captain

TELLERS.

Philips, M.

Gibson, M.

Philips, G. R.

Ewart, W.

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Bethell, R.

A'Court, Captain

Blackstone, W. S.

Alford, Viscount

Blennerhasset, A.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Bramston, T. W.

Attwood, W.

Broadwood, H.

Baillie, Colonel

Brownrigg, S.

Baker, E.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Baring, F.

Buck, L. W.

Baring, H. B.

Burr, D. H. D.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Burroughes, H. N.

999

Burrell, Sir C.

Kemble, H.

Calcraft, J. H.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Cantilupe, Visct.

Knightly, Sir C.

Clerk, Sir G.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Codrington, C. W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Cole, Viscount

Lowther, hn. Colonel

Cresswell, C.

Lowther, J. H.

Cripps, J.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Darby, G.

Mackenzie, T.

Darlington, Earl of

Mackinnon, W.

De Horsey, S. H.

Mahon, Lord

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Manners, Lord C.

Dungannon, Viscount

Maunsell, T. P.

Du Pre, G.

Meynell, Captain

East, J. B.

Noel, hon. W. M.

Eastnor, Viscount

Norreys, Lord

Egerton, W. T.

Packe, C. W.

Egerton, Sir P.

Palmer, R.

Ellis, J.

Palmer, G.

Estcourt, T.

Parker, M.

Estcourt, T.

Parker, R. T.

Farnham, E. B.

Plumptre, J. P.

Fellowes, E.

Polhill, F.

Fleming, J.

Prinze, A.

Gordon, Captain

Rae, right hon. Sir W.

Gore, O. J. R.

Richards, R.

Gore, O. W.

Rickford, W.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Rolleston, L.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Round, J.

Grimsditch, T.

Rushbrooke, R.

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Sandon, Lord

Hale, R. B.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Halford, H.

Sheppard, T.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Shirley, E. J.

Heneage, G. W.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Henniker, Lord

Stanley, E.

Herbert, hon. S.

Stormont, Lord

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Teignmouth, Lord

Hillsborough, Earl of

Thomas, Colonel H.

Hinde, J. H.

Thompson, Alderman

Hodgson, R.

Thornhill, G.

Hope, hon. C.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Hope, G. W.

Verner, Colonel

Hotham, Lord

Vivian, J. E.

Howard, Sir R.

Waddington, H.

Hughes, W. B.

Welby, G. E.

Hurt, F.

Wodehouse, E.

Ingestrie, Lord

Wood, T.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Young, J.

Irton, S.

Irving, J.

TELLERS.

James, Sir W. C.

Sibthorp, Col.

Jermyn, Earl

Bagge, W.

Bill read a third time and passed.

REGISTERS OF BIRTHS.
Lord John Russellmoved, that the report on the Registers of Births Bill be brought up.
Mr. Goulburnwas anxious to avail himself of the present occasion to make a few observations to the House. He had observed at the time that the bill passed, that it would afford facilities to clandestine and illegal marriages, and he was sorry to find that his anticipation had been fulfilled
1000
to a certain extent. In the other House he found, that a very remarkable case of this kind had been brought under notice, and his must have made a great impression on all that had listened to it. He had also before him a number of cases of almost a similar nature, and it appeared, that when persons could not get married by bans, in consequence of the degree of consanguinity existing between the parties, that they went before the registrar and succeeded in their object. He had learned also from some of the officers of the ecclesiastical courts, that there was a much greater number of illegal marriages brought before those courts than was formerly the case. He had had cases before him, in one of which a man had married his late wife's sister's daughter. In the first instance, an application being made to the rector to marry the parties, he objected to do so on the bans being published, in consequence of the affinity of the parties: he also informed the registrar of the circumstance, and prevented the marriage taking place before him. Some time afterwards the rector of the parish went out of town, and on his return he found that a fresh application had been made to the registrar, and the marriage had taken place before him. There was also another case in which the minister of a parish had refused to marry a man to his late wife's sister; but he found that a short time afterwards the parties got married in a Dissenting chapel, although their offspring would, of course, be illegitimate. He also complained that the present system of registering births was most imperfect, and had tended much to interfere with the baptisms in the Church. In the large parishes in the country this was found to be particularly the case. For instance, in Bury, in Lancashire, in 1836, the year before the bill came into operation, there had been 806 baptisms while in 1838 the number was only 579, shewing a diminution of upwards of 200. He also complained, that in some instances in the metropolis, the rule had not been adhered to of appointing persons to offices under the bill that had kept aloof from political agitation. He would instant a case in the parish of St. Giles, London, where a man had been appointed who had taken a most prominent part at a public meeting against the Church. He contended also, from the documents on the Table, that, so far from there being a more complete system of births, deaths, &c, than formerly, that

1001
it was directly the contrary, and more particularly so in the metropolis. Thus, in the returns for last year for the metropolis, he found, that the number of registered births amounted to 37,735, while the number of deaths amounted to 53,511. Such was the return from the Registrar-general's office; and if this return were correct, all the parishes in the metropolis must be in a state of gradual depopulation. He believed, however, that the fact was, that there was an increasing population by births in most parishes. Taking, again, the proportion of births to baptisms, the latter greatly exceeded the former. In the parish of St. George, Hanover-square, the Registrar-general's return gave the number of births during the last year at 878, while the parochial returns gave the number of baptisms at 1,306. He might be told, that children were brought from other parishes to be baptised here, but he was not aware whether this was the case or not. At any rate, it was an extravagant disproportion between the births and baptisms. Again, in the parish of Marylebone, according to the returns, there had been 2,500 births last year, while in the same time there had been 3,700 deaths. According, then, to this return, a larger proportion of the parish was dying off every year. The same observation applied to the parishes of Hackney and St. Pancras. The chief ground upon which the Government introduce the Register Bill was to afford a remedy for the inaccuracies of the registers kept by the parochial clergy. He did not think, that the object had been attained. If this new system of civil registration were to go on, it was of the utmost importance that it should be strictly accurate. Up to the present moment, he must say, that so far from having given any additional security, the new system had only added to the embarrassments which existed previous to its adoption.
Lord John Russelldid not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Registration Bill had greatly disappointed the public. The disappointment could not have been greater than might naturally have been expected, especially when it was recollected how exceedingly defective the old system was. Even though baptism may have been duly registered in their respective localities, the returns were not sent to the diocese, or to any other fit place, to be enrolled. In attempting the
1002
new system, it was proposed that the Act should be made compulsory, but Parliament would not agree with the Government, and it was made voluntary to a considerable extent. However, there had been, on the whole, considerable accuracy, making allowances for the difficulties of a beginning and the obstructions of prejudices, as might be seen on referring to the Registrar-general's Report. It was stated, that the proportion of deaths was one in forty-five, and the probable number of deaths during the year, 340,549. The right hon. Gentleman stated the number to be 335,968; the accounts of the Registrar-general made it 335,926, making a difference of about 5,000 between the probable numbers and the calculations of Mr. Finlaison. He (Lord John Russell) would admit, that in the registration of births there had been a very considerable deficiency, but not more than might have been looked for. He was sorry to say, that one fact, which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) did not allude to, accounted for this in a great degree. This was the effort that had been made by a great part of the clergy to induce their flocks not to comply with the law—by exhortations, and by printed circulars. No wonder, therefore, that a great difference should appear between the number of births and that of baptisms registered. He found, that the number of births registered for the quarter ending March 31, 1838, was 113,815; in June 30, 1838, it was 121,281. The average number of births for the whole year was 480,000. The number of baptisms registered for the whole of the year 1838, was 444,589. The people were now gradually conforming to the law. The deficiencies arising from the religious scruples of parents, who were averse from baptism altogether, and the feelings of those who put off baptising until the children were five or six years old, would be remedied by the operation of the present Act. The opposition of the clergy to the measure, proved what he had often deplored before, viz., the want of religious education amongst the people. No doubt there had been several clandestine marriages under the present system. He had heard of one illegal marriage of which no notice was given within his own personal knowledge; three such marriages had come to his knowledge altogether, and of course there might have been others. These were matters which, in

1003
such a large population, would of course take place, and had happened in former times, owing to ignorance on the part of the clergymen of the circumstances of the case. These points had, moreover, been particularly noted by those who were desirous of finding fault with the operation of the bill. With regard to the persons who had been appointed by the Registrar-general, he had no means of satisfying the right hon. Gentleman, as the names of those persons had never come before him. He was willing to allow, that there were some defects in the bill, which it would be very desirable to remedy; but he thought it would be better to watch the working of the bill for a little longer, and thus obtain a knowledge of what was really required for perfecting the measure. But on the whole, he saw no reason to after the opinion he had expressed on first introducing the bill, that it was advisable to establish a civil registration with an office in London, to which copies of the registry might be transmitted, and where they might be referred to. This was an advantage that no other civilised nation was deprived of, and he thought it was very desirable that we should do all in our power to improve and extend this system.
Mr. Goulburnapprehended, that the noble Lord had construed into an opposition to the law the exhortations which the clergy had fell themselves called upon to issue to their flocks, to urge on them the necessity of baptism for their children.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, the case was not, as supposed by the right hon. Gentleman, and he regretted exceedingly that in many instances the clergy had set themselves in direct opposition to the law. He wished the right hon. Gentleman would enlighten their minds on the subject, and make them understand that the law of the land must be obeyed. A case had come before him the other day, in which a clergyman had actually refused to marry a couple on the certificate of the superintendent registrar. Now, for such a disobedience to an Act of Parliament the clergyman was clearly liable to indictment. He had not advised that course to be pursued; he hoped it would not become necessary; but if the clergymen continued openly to defy the law, some measures must be taken for its enforcement.
Sir Robert Ingliswished to-know, if the learned Gentleman considered an Act of Parliament imperative on every priest to
1004
administer the sacrament of marriage on the certificate of a superintendent registrar. Did he mean to say, a priest of the Church of England was the only person subject to legal infliction for disobeying this law? He really wished for his opinion on this subject, although on this occasion he should expect it without the usual fee.
The Attorney-Generalwas of opinion, that if an Act of Parliament called upon a priest of the Church of Rome, or of the Church of England, or any other person, to do anything, that person was bound to obey the law. In the case alluded to, the clergyman was not only liable to ecclesiastical censure, as he would have been before the passing of this Act, but he had been guilty of an indictable offence.
Report agreed to; Bill to be read a third time.