Lords Sitting of 3 July 1832

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Life Annuities Transfer; Ecclesiastical Corporation Lands.
Petitions presented. By Lord SEAGRAVE, from Gloucester, for enlarged Boundaries to that City.—By the Earl of RODEN, from sixteen Places in Ireland, against the Ministerial Plan of Education for Ireland.—By Earl GOWER, from Hartefield, Yorkshire, to substitute Snaith for Thorne, as the Polling Place for the West Riding of that Shire.

FOREIGN RELATIONS.
The Marquess of Londonderry: I confess I see with much pleasure the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government in his place, because I want to put to him one or two questions relative to the state of our Foreign Policy, to which, my Lords, my attention has been more particularly called by perceiving that a Special Mission is about to be sent from this country to the Court of St. Petersburg. I cannot but think, my Lords, that an embassy on which so high a personage as the Lord Privy Seal has been sent, must be of the greatest importance. I see that Thomas Duncombe, esq. is appointed Secretary to the embassy, and, perhaps, when the facts are fully known, we shall find that more of the noble Earl's friends and relations are to accompany the mission. But on that point I know it is not

1265
proper for me to inquire, though our curiosity may be a little excited by the circumstance that some of the noble Earl's friends, in their over-zeal for Reform, were carried, in the other House, a few evenings since, to the length of applying the strongest and most opprobrious epithets to an illustrious Monarch with whom we are in a state of alliance. I cannot help regretting, my Lords, that such language was indulged in, and that so little recollection exists in the other House of past transactions, for his share in which, the illustrious brother of the Monarch now on the throne of the Russias, had so many claims on our admiration and esteem. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord is not going out to add to the irritation such language must produce, but rather that he is instructed to soften it down, and to do away with the unfavourable impression it must create. I do not expect, however, that the noble Earl will inform us of the nature and objects of the expedition; but I beg leave to remark to him, that we are arrived at nearly the close of the Session, and that we have not had from him, as yet, any explanation of the state of our foreign relations, which are, in my opinion, in a most difficult situation—in a situation almost as difficult of arrangement as the Reform Bill introduced by the noble Earl. I am justified in thus speaking of our foreign relations at present, for when I look at the continued possession of Algiers by the French, at the continued possession of Ancona by the same power, and the protracted and almost interminable train of the negotiations between Holland and Belgium, I cannot call to my mind a period when our foreign position was more complicated and perplexed. We have been for nearly two years engaged in the Belgian and Dutch negotiation, without having brought it to a close; and the question I wish to put to the noble Earl, is for the purpose of ascertaining what the five Powers have lately done—whether the five Powers have come to any arrangement on the subject, and whether the ratification has been yet received? I also wish to ask if Holland is the only power that has not yet acquiesced? and whether, if it has, there is any probability of the consent of the king of the Dutch being speedily obtained? I put these questions, because I cannot help thinking, that the embassy to the Court of St. Petersburg arises out of fresh difficult-
1266
ies in bringing the arrangement to a conclusion, and I feel it would be right to satisfy the public mind on the subject. I hope, therefore, the noble Earl will give me some satisfaction on these points, particularly with regard to Belgium, on which question I think the peace of Europe depends. I have put these questions on this occasion, but I hope, before the end of the Session, some noble Lord, better acquainted with the subject than myself, will call the notice of the House to the whole foreign policy of the country. Certainly, if no one else thinks proper to do so, I will; and, so far as Holland is concerned, I declare that I shall be happy to take any opportunity of expressing the high admiration which I feel at the gallantry, magnanimity, and manliness which the king of Holland has shown in resisting the demands of the five Powers.
Earl Grey: My Lords, I should think the noble Marquess must be aware that I cannot answer all the questions he has put. The noble Marquess has expressed a hope that I should afford him satisfaction, but, my Lords, I despair of doing so. It is not the first time the noble Lord has put questions to me, and, numerous as those occasions have been, I feel that I have never been able to answer him to my own satisfaction or to his. The noble Marquess first adverts to a mission, on which a noble relation of mine is about to depart, and says, he will not inquire into the secret of that embassy; but, scarcely has he said so, when he goes on to comment on the reasons which appeared to him to be so important as to call for the mission. The noble Marquess may indulge his suppositions as he pleases, but it must be evident to your Lordships, and to him, that I cannot say anything on the subject at present; and with that remark I must dismiss this part of the noble Lord's observations. The noble Marquess then proceeds to comment on language made use of in the other House, on a late occasion; but I must submit to your Lordships' discretion, that we are not met here to discuss the terms in which a debate should take place in the House of Commons, and, therefore, I have nothing to do with it. Still, I am not sorry the noble Lord has mentioned the circumstance, as it gives me the opportunity of saying that, whatever may be the feelings of any persons on matters of foreign policy, there is a respect due to foreign powers with whom

1267
we are in alliance, which should not be lost sight of in discussions in either House of Parliament. My Lords, I do deprecate all language of that sort, and I think it equally inconsistent with the dignity of Parliament and the interests of the country. It creates difficulties where none exists, and no man can more deeply lament, that language calculated to give offence to foreign Powers has been used than I do. Now, my Lords, with regard to the state of the negotiations between Holland and Belgium, I can only say, that I agree with the noble Marquess when he states, that so long as the question remains open there will be danger to the preservation of the peace of Europe. I have been of that opinion since these negotiations were opened, and I have spared no exertions to bring them to a satisfactory termination, by which the interests of all concerned might be promoted, and the general tranquillity of Europe secured. My Lords, I have to regret that these negotiations are not yet brought to a conclusion. I am very desirous that the moment should arrive when they shall be happily settled; but I cannot enter into the subject more particularly at present, and the noble Marquess must be content with these observations, in reply to the questions he has put. The noble Marquess has thought proper to speak in great admiration of the conduct of the king of Holland. I do not wish to say one word on the subject; but I cannot help remarking, that it is a little extraordinary that the noble Lord, not knowing all that has passed in the course of the negotiations, has taken upon himself to state, that the adverse party—if the king of Holland is to be considered the adverse party, which I do not now pretend to determine—to those Powers, of whom Great Britain is one, has been always in the right, and that the five Powers, Great Britain among them, have been always in the wrong. Whether that resistance be justifiable or not, remains yet to be proved; but it is rather strange that the approbation of the noble Marquess should alone be given to that course which his own Government has been hostile to.
The Duke of Wellington, who was imperfectly heard at the bar, was understood to say, that with respect to the conduct of the emperor of Russia, he regretted the noble Earl had not given some fuller explanation, in order that the absurdity of
1268
charges brought against that illustrious monarch should be exposed. For his own part, he must pronounce his entire conviction that his Imperial Majesty had performed every article of the treaty to which he was bound, as far as he (the Duke of Wellington) was able to judge.

GRAVESEND PIER BILL.
The Earl of Darnleybrought up the Report of the Committee on the Gravesend Bill. He regretted that the Bill had met with a similar fate, since its re-committal, as it had before. He must, however, complain of the conduct of noble Peers, in voting against the Bill, without hearing the evidence, from a mere perusal of it, and also that many noble Lords had attended at different periods of the Committee, who were in favour of the Bill, and yet who did not attend to vote. If the votes of each individual Peer who attended the Committee on its different days of sitting, had been registered, there would have been for the Bill fifty-five, and against it only twelve. On the first branch of his complaint, he alluded particularly to a noble and learned Lord, whom he saw opposite. He presumed that the next thing the noble and learned Lord did, would be, to bring in a Bill to enable Juries to give their verdicts on a mere perusal of written testimony, instead of hearing the examination of the witnesses. He was quite sure that noble Lords could not be aware of the great injury which they had inflicted on the town of Gravesend by throwing out the Bill. He was but a young Member of their Lordships' House, but he certainly did not expect to find, that business was settled in the Committees of that House above-stairs in the manner in which he found it to be.
Lord Wynfordhad been so distinctly alluded to, that he could not help rising. He, however, was not one of those who had depended entirely on a perusal of the evidence, for he had attended the Committee two days, and examined and cross-examined the witnesses; but he certainly declined to give his vote until he had made himself a perfect master of the evidence, which he could do only by perusing it. He certainly should not think of bringing in a Bill to enable Juries to decide on written testimony, because a Jury sat only for a few hours; but a Committee sat for a long time, and it was not reasonable to expect noble Lords to attend the business of a Committee, day after day,

1269
without intermission. And it appeared to him, that this Committee was formed principally for the purpose of bearing down poor men, who were nearly ruined by the length of time which had been spent by the Committee in discussing this question. It was said that the town of Gravesend would be ruined unless the Bill were passed; why, he asked, how had it existed ever since it had been built, up to the present time? And, even if it were so, he would say, that it was better the town of Gravesend should be ruined, than that the Bill should pass; for it could not pass without exposing the lives of his Majesty's subjects to imminent danger. It might put money into the pockets of a few tradesmen and others in the town; but it would send a number of poor and industrious people to the parish. This was clearly proved by the evidence, and he had only done his duty by giving his conscientious vote against the Bill.
The Marquess of Salisburytook a similar view of the case with the noble and learned Lord; and the noble Earl opposite must remember, that an adjournment was moved in the Committee, for the express purpose of giving the noble and learned Lord time to consider the evidence. He protested against the doctrine that they ought not to vote upon written evidence. The re-committal of the Bill had been a severe oppression upon the labouring classes who were interested in opposing it, many of whom had sacrificed five days out of the week to attend the Committee.
Lord Bexleythought that, after the expense to which the parties had been already put, this matter ought to be decided upon without further delay.
Lord Wharncliffehoped that the House would not consent to throw any slur on the majority in the Committee on this Bill who were opposed to it. He, for one, should be exceedingly sorry if the doctrine were to go forth, that because any Peer who was on a Committee had not attended during the whole of that Committee, he was not entitled to vote upon the bill they were considering. How often was it that the Committee on a bill lasted for ten days, or even for two or three weeks, and was it to be made imperative on all who were opposed to such a bill to attend the Committee every day it sat? The evidence in the case of the Gravesend Pier Bill had been printed, and he was
1270
of opinion, that any noble Lord who made himself master of that evidence was as well entitled to vote as any other, and he thought that great good was often done by such votes. He knew many cases in the House of Commons, as the noble Lord near him would also testify, where persons who had not attended Committees on bills, but who had made themselves acquainted with the evidence before those Committees, had voted on bills, and those votes had proved to be of the greatest importance. The Bill had already received so much consideration from their Lordships, that he thought it could not, with any advantage, be re-considered now that the proceedings on it were closed.
Viscount Strangfordsaid, that he went to Gravesend for the express purpose of ascertaining and examining the facts of the case, before he gave his vote on the Pier Bill, and for the purpose of judging, from what he there saw, of the cause of so great a difference of opinion on the Bill. Having taken that trouble, he certainly considered himself as well entitled to give his vote as any noble Lord who had stayed at home at ease. He certainly would admit, that the pier would be a great convenience to the steam-boat passengers, and that a large proportion of the inhabitants of Gravesend were favourable to the Bill; but it was admitted on all hands, that the convenience could only be purchased by the entire ruin of the watermen, and he must say, he did not feel prepared, when called upon to give his vote on the Bill, to pass a measure which would sentence to destruction so large a portion of the industrious classes of Gravesend. One argument in favour of the Bill was, the safety to the passengers from the pier, but, on inquiring into the number of accidents which had happened by the present mode of landing them by boats, he could only find one within the last six years, and that was a jovial gentleman who, on going off in a boat after dinner, had suffered that fate from which their Lordships' House had had so narrow an escape recently, that, namely, of being swamped. He considered that he was pretty sure of being correct, when he acted on the opinion of such men as Sir George Cockburn, Sir Byam Martin, and Captain Bullock. He understood that it had been necessary to remove an obstruction of rubbish which had existed at Woolwich, although the removal was

1271
attended with an expense of 150,000 l. Their Lordships might judge, when that collection of rubbish had formed so material an obstruction, what would be the effect of an obstruction such as this Pier would be. It was averred at Gravesend, also, that the watermen were living on short allowance, for the purpose of saving money to enable them to support the expenses of opposing this Bill. The parties who promoted it were 7,000 l. in debt, and, by way of paying that debt, they had come to their Lordships' House and asked them to pass this Bill.
The Earl of Darnleyadmitted, that the noble Viscount had represented the case of the watermen of Gravesend very fairly, as constituting the main feature of the objections to the Pier Bill. He was not disposed to press for the recommittal of the Bill, having simply discharged his duty, as Chairman of the Committee, by bringing up the Report.
Report ordered to lie on the Table.

MINISTERIAL PLAN OF EDUCATION (IRELAND).
The Earl of Belhavenrose to present the Petition to which he had referred, during the course of last week, as being in his possession, from the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, wherein that body stated their approval of the National Plan of Education adopted by the Government for the instruction, as well religious as otherwise, of the poorer classes of Ireland, both Protestants and Catholics.
The Archbishop of Armaghobserved, that if he understood the petition rightly, the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland approved of the plan of education for Ireland, because it was understood by that Assembly, to be identical with the plan of education which was pursued towards the same class of people throughout the whole of Scotland. If otherwise, that Assembly would be surrendering the great principle of their religion, namely, that the Bible was open to all. How such a misconception had gone forth amongst the persons who composed that Assembly, as that the plan proposed for Ireland was the same as that which was followed in Scotland, he did not know, but all he could say was, that they were totally mistaken upon that point, and did not rightly understand the nature of the plan of education proposed for Ireland. He was not, at that time, however, going to enter into a detail of the differences between
1272
the two systems of education, nor to state his objections to that proposed for Ireland: even were he to do so, he could add nothing to the force of those arguments which had already been brought against it. What the Prelacy and Protestant clergy who were opposed to this plan complained of was, not that the Catholics were at the disposal of their priests with respect to their study of the Bible, but that, they being so at their priests' disposal in that respect, the Protestants were deprived of the Bible, and prevented from an unrestricted study of it. He, and those who thought with him, would never consent to teach Protestants that it was proper to keep out of view any portion of the Scriptures; neither did he assent to the necessity for giving them a special license, to study out of school hours that volume which formed the basis of all human happiness. If it was true, that the General Assembly had come forward, fully understanding, at the same time, that the Bible was forbidden during school hours, and addressed the petition before the House in favour of the plan, he could only lament the circumstance, and set it down as an evil sign of the times. But he consoled himself with the thought, that the petition did not embody any such sentiments. The plan of education was at variance with the opinions of most of his brethren of the Irish Church. Of the Prelates of Ireland, eighteen were opposed to it; the clergy were also opposed to it; and it was also deprecated in numerous petitions from all classes, but more particularly from the Presbyterian Dissenters, not only of Ireland, but also of Scotland and England. He saw no reason for making the sacrifice which they were called upon to agree to, nor why, if the Roman Catholics objected to the Bible, it should, on that account, be taken from the Protestants. Allusions had been made to the opposition which the Irish Prelacy had fostered amongst their respective clergymen to this plan, and it had been said, if the clergy were left to their own judgment they would approve of the plan. Now he begged to assure their Lordships, that so far from the Bishops in Ireland being obliged to invite the clergy in their respective dioceses to object to the plan, they were obliged, very frequently, to exert themselves to repress their feelings, and to keep down the ebullitions their warmth when expressing their objections to the plan. He himself had been

1273
at the pains, in his own diocese, to prevent meetings from being held having in view an opposition to the plan, and he was glad to say, he had been successful in his efforts. The noble Lord (Lord Plunkett), in his observations last evening, had stated the increase in the number of applications for schools on the plan, and had cited Mr. Carlyle as a testimony to the fact; but the noble Lord ought, whilst laying so much stress on this circumstance in favour of the plan, to have stated how those applications were got up, in order that their Lordships might judge of the value of those applications. For himself, he could say that he had seen letters, wherein were exposed the delusions which were practised upon the Protestants with respect to the plan of education, and it was under those delusions that they had made their applications for schools. The most reverend Prelate here proceeded to read a letter from the Bishop of Ferns, in support of his allegation, and concluded by expressing his conviction, that the sentiments of the people generally were to be ascertains more correctly from their petitions, than by any reference to the number of applications for schools under the Government plan.
The Duke of Wellingtonfelt no surprise at the sentiments expressed in the petition of the Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland; and he admitted, at the same time, that there was no body of persons in the kingdom better calculated to form a just opinion upon the subject of their petition, than that from which it had proceeded. But he must, at the same time, beg leave to say, that he concurred entirely in the opinion of the most reverend Prelate who had just spoken, namely, that the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland was not accurately informed upon the subject of the new plan of education for Ireland, at the time that the assent of that body was given to the petition. He knew that there was, in general, no time so uselessly spent in that House as in discussing the way in which petitions were got up; but, in the case of the present petition, there had been a considerable misapprehension on the part of the General Assembly, and his attention having been drawn to it, he deemed it necessary to bring it before their Lordships. It appeared that at the meeting of the General Assembly, at which the resolutions upon which the petition was founded were proposed
1274
and agreed to, the Solicitor General for Scotland, who is a member of that Assembly, as well as an officer of the Government, got up and stated, that he had received certain official letters from a gentleman who was also in the service of Government, and who was in a situation where he was most likely to be possessed of accurate information on the subject of Ireland—he meant the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. It appeared that hitherto the General Assembly had only possessed that knowledge of the plan of education which was possessed by their Lordships, the House of Commons, and the public at large. The letter to which the Solicitor General referred, as having been officially received, purported to be from the Chief Secretary of Ireland, and he would refer to the proceedings in the Assembly, in order to show that that body was not before aware of the real plan of education, if even they could be supposed to be so after they had heard the contents of that letter. The noble Duke here referred to the proceedings of the General Assembly, as reported in one of the Scotch papers. An Elder, of the name Dr. Duncan, asked the Solicitor General to explain the nature of the plan of education, as he did not mean to foreclose himself from expressing his dissent from it. The Solicitor General then explained, that one part of the plan, as stated by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, was, that he (Mr. Stanley) saw no objection to the establishment of a Bible class in every school which was conducted on the Government plan; that class to be held once a day, for the express purpose of reading the Bible, and at which the Protestants were to be compelled to attend, but the Catholics were not to be forced to give their attendance. The Solicitor General then said, that he wished the General Assembly to understand, that this explanation of the plan did not rest upon one, but upon several communications from the Chief Secretary of Ireland. Now, after the Solicitor General had given this information to the General Assembly, a resolution was proposed by Dr. Cook, which was founded on that communication of the Solicitor General, and which would be found embodied in the petition to the House. Thus it appeared, that the approbation of the plan of education, by the General Assembly, was solely obtained in consequence of their belief that there were to be Bible classes in every Government

1275
school. Now, he (the Duke of Wellington) understood that Mr. Stanley had not arranged the system on the plan stated to the General Assembly, nor was he aware that there was any intention to do so, and yet it was on that statement that this petition was founded. He certainly agreed that all comments on the petition had better be avoided, but his attention having been excited by the document to which he had just referred being put into his hands, he thought it but just to the General Assembly to give this information to their Lordships. The subject, to be sure, was a most important one; it was no less than the education of a whole people, and the Board of Education had solemnly declared, that no system could be a proper one, as a plan of national education, that was not founded on the whole of the Scriptures as the rule for doctrine and morals. It was not the meaning of the General Assembly that the Scriptures should he taught out of school hours. Its meaning was, that the schoolmaster should teach the Scriptures in the schools, and that the Protestants should be obliged to read the Scriptures. It was not to be a matter of choice, but of obligation, and that was the meaning of the petitioners. They had an Established Church, and the clergy had the care of the national education, and that education ought to be founded on the Scriptures, and the whole Scriptures. But, in the new system, the reading of the Scriptures as a whole was prohibited.
The Earl of Belhavensaid, he did not rise to answer for the proceedings of the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, or to give an account of what passed there, for he was not a member of that body, and, consequently, could not state what took place on the occasion to which the noble Duke alluded. It appeared to him, however, that the noble Duke was in error when he averred that the Solicitor General stated himself to have received a communication from the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He believed the Solicitor General said no such thing; he alluded to a letter which had been received by another individual, a member of the Assembly; but he did not at that time say it was an official letter, and he simply stated the contents of that letter, in order that they might serve as an inducement, or rather a foundation, for some of the proceedings of the General Assembly that day. The letter merely stated, that the Government had no
1276
objection to the formation of Bible classes in the schools; and the petitioners, adopting that principle, agreed in the propriety of granting to the Protestants the fullest liberty in the use of the Bible, and also in its being daily read in the classes. The letter, therefore, nowhere stated that compulsion was to be used to form those classes, nor could the noble Duke make out that the General Assembly entertained any idea that the schoolmasters were to use compulsion towards forming these Bible classes. There were no Catholic schoolmasters, and, although a Catholic might attend those classes if he liked, still he was very sure no schoolmaster in Ireland would ever think for a moment to enforce upon any Catholic, an attendance at a class where the Bible was indiscriminately read. He understood the Chief Secretary to say, that the Government had not any objection to the formation of Bible classes in the schools, but that those classes were not to be formed during school hours—they might be held either before or after, but were to form no portion of the common duties of the school. That arrangement would be satisfactory, so he understood it, and so he believed the General Assembly understood it; and if such should be the general impression in the minds of the persons composing that body, he certainly saw no objection to the Government encouraging the establishment of those classes in the schools in Ireland.
The Bishop of Exeterbegged to trespass for a short time upon their Lordships' attention. He had been authorised by more than one member of the General Assembly to state, that the impression under which they had drawn up a petition was, that there would be a Bible class established within the schools. The petition then before their Lordships was the result of an amendment, moved upon a resolution of the Solicitor General, by Dr. Cooke, of which amendment the Solicitor General said, that it was so identical with his own resolution, that he begged leave to withdraw his own motion, and to second that of Dr. Cooke. It appeared, therefore, that the petition had the full weight of the Solicitor General's authority; and, to do justice to that authority, it was right that he should state to their Lordships what, he was authorised by a most respectable member of the General Assembly to say, was the purport of that learned gentleman's declaration. "Certain communi-

1277
cations, it was said by the Solicitor General, had lately been made to him, as well as to many other gentlemen, by his Majesty's Secretary for Ireland, from which it appeared, that Mr. Stanley had no objection whatever to the establishment of a Bible class in these schools, for the express purpose of reading the Bible every day, at which all Protestant children should be compelled to attend, and the Catholic children permitted and encouraged, but not forced to attend. This statement was made by Mr. Stanley, a member of the Cabinet, not only in one, but many letters, and to many gentlemen equally in Mr. Stanley's confidence as he (the Solicitor General) was, and he was not more certain of his own existence than that that virtual obligation would be honestly and regularly fulfilled." After that declaration, the General Assembly understood that they had received an assurance, that a daily Bible class was to be established in all the schools under the Board of Education in Ireland. Had not this been their full and confident persuasion, a petition of a very different tenour would have been sent to that House. But, to the astonishment of the petitioners, it had since appeared that the Solicitor General was unauthorized in giving the assurance. Mr. Stanley had denied having given any pledge or promises to the effect stated; and it seemed that, not only was the statement of the Solicitor General denied, but the object of the petition was refused. There was, it appeared, to be no Bible class in these schools. He could tell their Lordships, on the authority of one of the most respectable ministers of the Church of Scotland, that very strong feelings were entertained by that Church with respect to the course pursued by his Majesty's Government upon this question. He was authorised to read a letter received by an hon. friend of his, a Member of the other House of Parliament, from that gentleman. To any member of the Government he was ready to show the letter; but there were some strong phrases in it which he certainly would not read, were it not necessary to make their Lordships acquainted with the impression which had been made on the Scotch Church:—the writer said, 'My object was, to put you in possession of another document, showing the impression of the members of the Assembly on the subject of Irish education, and of the Solicitor General's trickery. I presume
1278
the member of the Assembly you allude to, as giving you the true state of feeling in the Assembly, was my acquaintance, Mr.—.His impression is entirely the same as my own, and as that of every member of that Court with whom I have had an opportunity of communicating. A clergyman of the highest respectability in Edinburgh, in writing to me the other day, says, "I cannot tell you how I am grieved and mortified, and even ashamed, to see in the votes of the House of Commons Petition of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, in favour of the Government system of education in Ireland.' I think it incumbent on every honest-hearted Presbyterian to reiterate these neglected and misrepresented petitions which have already been sent, and to add double emphasis and force to what has been already too faintly and feebly expressed. The trick perpetrated by the friends of Government here entails on them indelible disgrace." I do confess to you, that I am much of the same opinion, and I am inclined to think, that the trick, as my friend calls it, will recoil on those who were guilty of it. I think it likely that, unless Government give a pledge of some kind that they will carry into bona fide effect the assurances of the Solicitor General, petitions embodying these assurances will pour in from Presbyteries in every quarter of Scotland. I may confess to you, my dear Sir, that I feel more deeply on this subject, as I have all along been as strenuous a supporter of the cause of Reform, and of the present Ministry, as my clerical character permitted; that is, I gave them my good wishes and my prayers; and, for some influential individuals among them, I entertain a personal friendship which can only end with my life. The disgrace, therefore, which attaches to this transaction, I feel in some degree reflected on myself.' Such, was the language of one of the most respectable ministers of the Scotch Church. It confirmed what he had said of the petition being adopted in error, and not doing justice to the feelings of the General Assembly. The petition was different from those which had been presented to the House from the various Presbyteries in that part of the United Kingdom. They all, without exception, breathed a warmer and more earnest spirit than was evinced in the present petition. He would beg leave to

1279
quote part of one to their Lordships:—'It is not the only objection of the petitioners to the exclusion of the Bible as a daily class-book, that it exposes the children who attend the schools, and more especially the children of the Protestants, to the privation of Christian instruction: however this might be compensated on separate, days, or by special arrangement, the petitioners still confess their strong repugnance to such a proscription of the Bible by British law; and that, not because of its literary unfitness for the purposes of education, but because of its religious unfitnes, in the eyes of Roman Catholics, for the free use and indiscriminate reading of the people; the petitioners do not object to a book of Scripture extracts for the purely educational object of easy reading or of adaptation to the gradual advancement of the scholars, but only such a compilation when given, not as a specimen of the whole, but as a substitute for the whole. However indefinitely near in spirit and substance the proposed abridgement can be brought to the original Bible, the petitioners regard it as a serious infringement on right principle, that the one should be made exclusive of the other—that a message intended by God for every creature under heaven should be altered in the least, with the view of making it palatable to any priest, or to any people. The difference is a vital one when the sacred lessons of each day are drawn from a book admitted into schools because priests have sanctioned it, instead of being recognised as drawn from a book which neither priests nor people might dare to meddle with.' That was an extract from the petition of the Presbytery of Edinburgh, and it was understood to have proceeded mainly from the pen of that distinguished man, Dr. Chalmers. The petition stated, that the petitioners having had their attention directed to the proposed system of national education for Ireland; and having been led to expect that a modification of that system would be adopted, they hoped that it might he such as would authorise the use of the Bible as a daily school book, in all the schools under the control of Government. The right reverend Prelate referred to several petitions, reading short extracts from them, to substantiate his assertion, that the General Assembly had proceeded upon a misundsrstanding, and that
1280
the petitioners generally, from all parts of the country, were opposed to any scheme of national education which excluded any parts of the Bible. After entering at considerable length into these petitions, the right reverend Prelate said, he trusted he might then be allowed to recur to some observations of a noble and learned Lord, and of the noble Marquess, and he confessed he had heard them with some degree of surprise. The noble Marquess had said, that the children would learn, by the unrestricted study of the Bible in schools, all the objectionable parts of the Bible. He (the Bishop of Exeter) assented to the correctness of some part of the remarks of the noble Marquess, but to the adoption of the phrase "objectionable parts" he could not agree, because he thought it impossible to allow that any thing contained in it embodied any impropriety. He presumed, however, that the noble Marquess did not imply that any part of the Scriptures were objectionable in themselves, but only objectionable to the Roman Catholics. [The Marquess of Lansdown assented.] He was only doing justice to the noble Marquess by making that remark, but he must be permitted to add, that the noble Marquess was mistaken in supposing that a Scriptural education would be given under the new plan. It must be borne in mind, that moral and literary education was to be bestowed on the scholars during four or five days of every week, and that, during these days, Scriptural instruction was not to be combined with the moral and literary education. It was true that a volume, or a part of a volume, had been prepared for the use of the scholars, of which, by the courtesy of the noble Duke at the head of the Board, he had a copy in his possession. It was compiled from the Scriptures, but was not exhibited in the original form, it was neither according to the authorised, nor the Douai versions; other matter was mixed with the Scripture; and it was especially provided, that it should not be given to the children as the Scriptures, because that would be opposed to the great principle of the Roman Catholic Church, according to what the Roman Catholic Prelates themselves had sworn. Dr. Kelly, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tuam, said, in his examination before the Commissioners of Education Inquiry, in 1825, "Every thing given as Scripture from a version not authorised by us would be objectionable." Dr. Curtis, Roman

1281
Catholic Archbishop of Armagh, being asked by the Commissioners, "Would it not be possible, that on both sides we should agree on a certain paraphrase, which should alter the text very little, and possibly keep up the spirit, which should not be, in the opinion of either Protestants or Roman Catholics, the Scriptures, but a paraphrase, as close as possible?"—answered, "Anything more than a paraphrase, in which we all agree, cannot be admitted without offence." Thus their Lordships would perceive, that even extracts of Scripture, if offered as such, were inadmissible. But no books were yet provided. The Board had been in existence for nine months, and had produced this small fraction of a volume. The Commissioners, indeed, were required to pursue a very different course. In Mr. Stanley's letter, which explained the foundation of the Board, and prescribed its duties, it was implied, that the Commissioners were to devise a system of instruction suitable to all sects. That had not been done, and the only book which had issued from the Board, beside the fraction of a volume he had referred to, was a new edition of the Decalogue, which, to his astonishment, was required to be stuck up in every school; for, though it proceeded from a Protestant Government, it was not framed according to the interpretation of the Protestant Church. In this new edition of the Decalogue the Second Commandment ran, instead of, "Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image," &c., the version ran, "graven thing." Now, it might be well to have had a version of the Commandments written agreeably to the Roman Catholic doctrines, and another in conformity with those of the rules of the Established Church of England, but it was most improper to depart from the authorised version of the Church. Again, in this Decalogue, the Commandments were not divided—the children were allowed to make the division as they pleased. This Catechism, then, was the last amongst the achievements of the modern liberals. They had retrenched the Bible, and reformed the Decalogue. The noble Duke at the head of the Board had praised the facilities afforded for religious education by setting apart separate days for that purpose. But there were no teachers provided for that purpose; it was left to the clergy, and, if he understood rightly, the condition of Ireland, the want of roads, and the distance
1282
the clergy lived from one another, placed physical obstacles in the way of their doing this duty. If, however, it were once conceded that it was, or ought to be, a leading feature in any system of education, that religion, or the free use of the Bible, should form the fundamental principle upon which that education should be based; it was then necessary that teachers should be appointed to afford that instruction, which must the more indelibly impress religious feelings on the minds of the children. The late Archbishop of Dublin had said, that he could not see how far opinions so differently amalgamated could be brought to reconcile the religious feelings of Protestants and Catholics, in respect to a system of combined education. Supposing, however, that a number of those schools were established in every parish in Ireland, and that it was admitted, in the first instance, that the clergymen were the fittest persons to superintend the religious instruction of these children (and he was quite sure that, if they did so undertake the task, they would perform their duty most conscientiously); allowing this to be the case, he would then ask, how would it be possible for the clergyman to attend all the schools, in widely-spread parishes where every parish would contain a number of schools? In some parishes there were eight or ten schools, and how could one clergyman attend them all? The thing was impracticable; for their Lordships must recollect the great disproportion of the number of parishes in Ireland as compared with those of England. The proportion of parishes in Ireland in respect to England was one in ten, and that, he repeated, placed insuperable obstacles in the way of the clergymen teaching religion at those schools. He saw no means of accomplishing that object but by following the recommendation of the Commissioners of 1824, and appointing a Protestant and a Catholic teacher to each school. The noble and learned Lord said last night, that he congratulated the House and the country upon the opposition which had been made to this measure. That noble and learned Lord had said, that such was the success of the plan adopted by his Majesty's Government, that it bore down all opposition. He had informed their Lordships that 600 applications had already been made, and that a great number of these applications were made from Protestants, and many also from Roman Catholics.

1283
Now, what the real fact was would soon be made to appear. He trusted he should have some opportunity hereafter of calling the attention of their Lordships to this part of the subject, as certain returns had been moved for, nearly a fortnight since, respecting these very matters, which would have given much further information. He regretted the circumstance, but, at the same time, he meant to impute no blame to any person. But it appeared from the documents which he had seen, that the applications for schools did not amount to 600, but to 452, of which number only twenty-seven were from clerical persons, or rather persons called clergymen. He said "called clergymen," because the term had been adopted in respect to all teachers, whereas he contended that the term clergymen applied only to those who were the ordained clergy of the Established Church of England and Ireland, or Scotland, or Roman Catholic priests. Of the class of clergymen of the Established Church, not more than seventeen had applied; of which number, some of the parties were not connected with the parishes for which they applied. But with respect to this system he would make some further observations. One of the main objects of the system was, to unite all the children of the different persuasions that existed throughout Ireland. This scheme, consequently, related to parishes in which there were clergymen to take charge of the education of the poor, and the Board, if it could in any place get but one signature of a clergy: man, might apply for a national school to be established in every parish in the kingdom. The only object and principle of the Board would be to get the funds of the country, in order to apply them to the instruction of the children of Roman Catholic parents. He was desirous of pursuing the subject further, for it was one of the highest importance, and it pressed immediately upon the best interests of the United Kingdom; but as the present was only the occasion of presenting a petition, he would refrain from trespassing any longer on the time and attention of their Lordships. He could not, however, refrain from saying, that it was a most alarming crisis, a truly tremendous symptom of the times, when a national system of education could be founded upon a plan of separating the literary, and even the moral, instruction of the people from a knowledge of their religious obligations.
1284
He would only beg leave to ask, what was meant by the moral instruction of the people? He conceived that moral instruction not only ought to impart a knowledge of every man's duty to his fellow-beings in this world, but a deep feeling as well as a knowledge of his relation to the Supreme Being, and of his hopes of a future state. He would ask, could any such instruction be true which was not founded upon the basis of God's words—upon the basis of the will of the Supreme Being? And where could this be known if instructors would not look at the Word of God with which he had inspired the holy men of old? In what utter ignorance of all such important truths would the people of Ireland be brought up, if, in the system of national education, there were not the essential characteristics of the Christian scheme, by which all men knew, and most thankfully acknowledged, that their relations to God were not merely the relations of a finite creature to its Creator, but likewise the relations of a fallen creature to its Redeemer, and of a corrupt creature to its Sanctifier. How, he would again ask, were the poor to be taught these great and sacred connexions, if the word of God itself were to be excluded from the system of education, as far as Protestants were concerned, whilst with respect to the Roman Catholics, they were to be consigned to those whose principle it was, that it was a bad mode of teaching religious duties to teach them by the Holy Scriptures? He would trouble the House but briefly with an extract to show what were the opinions of Dr. Doyle upon the subject. Dr. Doyle had said, that he considered that the children of the Irish peasantry would be much better instructed in the morality of the Gospel, by giving them religious books than by giving them the Scriptures themselves to peruse; and that he did not consider the teaching of the Holy Gospels of Christ to the poor to be one of the highest and most valuable distinctions of the Christian religion. Dr. Doyle had added, that he conceived that the poor would be best taught by religious books, and not by the book of the author of their religion. "I prefer," said Dr. Doyle, "books of morality, in which the rules of life are explained and inculcated, to the Holy Gospel itself, and such hooks I have endeavoured to circulate in my diocese." These, he begged leave to remind the noble Lords, were the sworn

1285
statements of the opinions of a Roman Catholic Bishop of Ireland, statements given before a Commission appointed by the Sovereign to inquire into the mode of instructing the poor of Ireland. As the subject before the House was only the presentation of a petition, he would not further trespass upon their Lordships, but he had felt himself called upon by a sense of duty to bring before the House the facts and observations to which he had called its attention.
The Earl of Haddingtondid not rise with any design of occupying, except for a short time, the attention of their Lordships, but he could not refrain from making a few observations upon one part of the case, on which there appeared to prevail much misconception, and which, from circumstances he was enabled to clear up. He had been within the last fortnight in Scotland, and he had, consequently, had an opportunity of informing himself correctly of all that had passed in the General Assembly when the subject of the present petition had been brought forward. He felt, therefore, that, it was no more than just and fair to the noble Duke, that he should add the corroboration of his testimony as to the correctness of the statement which the noble Duke had made to their Lordships. It was a fact, that when the plan or system of his Majesty's Ministers, for establishing a scheme of national education in Ireland was first made known in Scotland, it occasioned a very strong excitement throughout the General Assembly in that kingdom, and it was intended to move a set of Resolutions, similar to those which had been moved and carried in other Clerical Courts in Scotland, and which condemned the whole design and plan of his Majesty's Ministers. When, however, his Majesty's Solicitor General for Scotland had made the statement which he had that night in the House been represented to have made, the excitement was certainly calmed, and it entirely subsided. It became the opinion of the General Assembly that if in each school there were established a daily class of scriptural instruction for the Protestant children, from which the Roman Catholic children should not be excluded, but to which they should not be compelled to attend, there could be no possible objection to the present petition being presented to Parliament. Dr. Cooke had, therefore, moved the resolutions upon which the present
1286
petition had been signed. But the petition was an approbation of a plan totally distinct from that which his Majesty's Ministers now wished to carry into execution, and on this ground the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was censured. The views of the General Assembly had been strictly in conformity with the Act which they had passed in the year 1794, and an extract of which be world now beg leave to read to their Lordships:—'All parochial schoolmasters and other teachers of schools shall cause the Holy Bible 'to be read as the regular exercise of the school, and the Ministers of the different parishes shall visit the schools, and there shall likewise be regular Presbyter visitations throughout the year.' When the General Assembly had been led to believe, by his Majesty's Solicitor General, that it was the intention of Government to establish such daily Bible classes in the national schools, it was not at all surprising that the excitement which had previously existed in the General Assembly should be calmed, or that the Assembly should agree to the petition which had that night been presented to their Lordships' House. It was not possible, by any contrivance, to construe the petition into an approbation on the part of the General Assembly of Scotland, of the plan of national education which Ministers were now carrying into effect. If the General Assembly had not been entirely misled and deceived by the speech of his Majesty's Solicitor General, they would have sent up a very strong and decided petition against the plan of Government. He had occupied the time of their Lordships to a greater length than he intended, but he certainly did feel very desirous that the opinions entertained upon the subject by the General Assembly of Scotland, should not be so mis-stated and misrepresented as they had been in that House.
Lord Plunkettwould repeat the statement which he had made upon a previous evening, that the applications in favour of the Government plan from Ireland had already exceeded the number of 600. Already were there 125,000 boys in progress to receive education in the national schools about to be established by his Majesty's Government, and this number exceeded what had been taught by the Kildare-street Society for many years. He entirely and cordially concurred in the principles laid down by the noble

1287
Duke, that no system of education could be considered as a national system if it were founded upon abstract principles of morality, without reference to the principles of revealed religion. He would even go further than the noble Duke had gone, and lay down as a first principle, that in this country no scheme of national education could benefit the people if it did not include the doctrines which gave them the opportunity of being made acquainted with the duty which they owed to their Creator, and the knowledge of which was to be acquired by a study of the Gospel. He would maintain, that in every system or scheme of national education, let it emanate from whom it might, religion, according to the essential doctrines of Christianity, must be brought in aid of the principles and precepts of morality. But still, notwithstanding this, no man was more firmly convinced than he was, that it was most desirable to have a system of national education which could include every class and persuasion of subjects throughout the United Kingdom. In that part of the kingdom where a vast majority of the people were of the Roman Catholic persuasion, it appeared to him obviously essential, not to introduce into the schools any elements which should have the effect of excluding the Roman Catholic children from the benefits of the education, which those schools were intended to diffuse for the safety and welfare of the kingdom in general. No man could deny, that to the people of a country situated as Ireland was, great would be the benefits of a moral education, and great likewise would be the advantages of literary instruction, and these would be infinitely enhanced if they could be taught consistently with the religion of each of the Christian sects, so that no denomination of Christians should be repelled from the national schools. It must be the wish of every well meaning and sensible man that the national system should be made the foundation of national concord, and the means of bringing a hostile and inflamed people within the pale of civil society. Was it not a most fearful thing to say, that you could not give the people the benefits of the Scripture, unless you closed against them the book in which were introduced the extracts from the Gospel? The reverend Prelate did not appear to complain of the book of extracts itself, and he (Lord Plunkett) had received copies of
1288
the books to be used in the national schools, and he found that not less than nine of them had been adopted from the books which had been actually approved of and used by the Kildare-street Society. Books circulated in the Roman Catholic schools had likewise been used, and he was happy to say, that the Roman Catholic teachers had cheerfully submitted to every alteration which had been suggested or proposed by the Protestant Board. With respect to the opinions which might be entertained of the national schools in Scotland, he must be permitted to observe, that the circumstances of Scotland and Ireland were totally different. The one was a country altogether Protestant, whilst in the other the great majority of the population was of the Roman Catholic persuasion. In one country the different sects were in harmony, whilst in the other they had long been divided; and it was now the general wish to unite them in habits of social concord. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Haddington) had acknowledged, that the General Assembly of Scotland would consent to the scheme of national schools upon one condition, namely, that in each school there should be established a daily Bible class. He would only observe to the noble Earl, that every member of Government was of opinion that the Bible might be taught in each school every day out of school hours. They concurred that in the common school hours all should have the benefit of common scriptural instruction, whilst at other hours each sect should have afforded to it every means of scriptural instruction, according to its own wishes, principles or notions. With respect to the observations which the right reverend Prelate had made against the Roman Catholic teachers, he (Lord Plunkett) was able to speak positively on the subject, and he would assert, that they formed an assembly of as respectable teachers as any in the empire. Another objection had been made, that in one of the books of extracts, in the quotation of the Commandments from the Book of Exodus, the word "Thing" had been substituted for the word "Image." So far from this being any stumbling-block, it had been agreed that three boards might be put up in the schools, one with the word "Image" and one with "thing" and the third containing an account of the difference between the two religious creeds on this subject. When such was the case,

1289
he saw no objection whatever to the expression.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that he did not object to the form in which the Commandments were drawn up of itself, but only because it professed to be according to the formula of the Church of England.
Lord Belhavenexpressed his firm belief that his learned friend, the Solicitor General, had not been guilty of the conduct which had been imputed to him.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the observation just made by his noble friend almost superseded the necessity of his saying a single word; for his only object in rising was, to vindicate his learned friend from the charge brought against him, not by the right reverend Prelate, but by his correspondent, whose letter he had read extracts from. The long polemical discourse with which the right reverend Prelate had indulged the House, after the attack upon his learned friend, might, perhaps, have drawn the attention of the House from that circumstance. He could not help thinking, that of all the persons who heard the right reverend Prelate's speech, not one, even of those who most approved of its contents, could entirely approve of the time which he had selected for its delivery; and he could not help thinking, that no noble Lord would feel inclined to follow the right reverend Prelate's example. With respect to the author of the letter from which the right reverend Prelate had read some passages, he would take upon himself to say, that if he were of the respectable character described by the right reverend Prelate, he would be disposed to lament, rather than to rejoice, at the use which had been publicly made of his most hasty, ill-advised, and utterly inaccurate expressions. The right reverend Prelate said, that the author of that letter gave the Government his prayers; if so, he bestowed them in private, whilst he commissioned another to vent his slander against them in public. Every one who was acquainted with the high character of his learned friend, the Solicitor General of Scotland, must know that he was utterly incapable of the conduct which had been imputed to him. The Solicitor General was celebrated at the Scotch Bar for the exact accuracy of his statements. He was, indeed, over-scrupulously accurate. This circumstance alone was sufficient to convince him, that his learned friend had never made the statement respecting the
1290
letter attributed to Mr. Stanley, because Mr. Stanley never wrote any such letter. Perhaps he had stated enough to show that the charge brought against his learned friend was unfounded; but it fortunately happened, that the charge having already been ventilated in the public prints, some high legal authorities in Scotland, who were present on the occasion referred to, had written to him to state, that the Solicitor-General made no such statement as that which had been attributed to him. He was, fortunately, able also to confirm his own statement by the written communications of persons who were present. He therefore took it to be absolutely certain, that, on no better authority than an erroneous report in a newspaper, in a country where, be it observed, reports were not so correct nor accurate by a great deal as they were in this country, where reporting was more of an art, better practised, and better understood, and more skilfully exercised than in Scotland—where, instead of debates every night, as their Lordships knew to their cost was the case here, there was merely a discussion in the General Assembly three or four times in one mouth only during the whole year—upon no better authority, he repeated, than a report taken under these circumstances, was the charge founded, that his learned friend had attempted to practise a trick. He could have wished that, before the right reverend Prelate brought forward a charge of that nature, the right reverend Prelate would have profited by past experience. The right reverend Prelate, or rather his correspondent, had attributed to the Solicitor General a trick, in order to accomplish a particular object. Not many months ago, the right reverend Prelate charged some member of the Government with having been guilty of a very gross abuse of official duty, in betraying the confidence reposed in him by, he would not say how high a personage, and with having given for publication in a newspaper, a confidential letter, written by a noble Duke to the King. That charge was indignantly denied; it was indignantly denied by every member of the Government then present in the House. It turned out, however, that not only no member of the Government who had a seat in that House published the letter—not only that it was not published by any of their colleagues in the other House, nor that they were not cognizant of its

1291
publication—not only that it had not come from the Treasury, whence it was hoped that it might be traced to proceed, nor that the Foreign Office was polluted with the stain of breach of trust to the Sovereign—nor that it had found its way into the paper from the Admiralty, nor from the Exchequer, nor from any other department of the Government; nor even from the Lord Chancellor himself (he thanked his noble friend for reminding him that he had forgot to protect a place nearer home), but that, actually, nobody had published it at all—that there was no corpus delicti, as the lawyers said—that the offence had never been committed by any body—that there was no principal, because there was no offence—no accessory, because there was no principal—no privity, because there was nothing to be cognizant of. When the letter which appeared in the newspaper, was compared with the letter that was written—and he could assure their lordships that it was most carefully compared within twenty-four hours after the charge made by the right reverend Prelate, because, from the confidence of the assertion of the right reverend Prelate—from his statement, that the letter was copied verbatim—Ministers were led to suspect, that what was known to have happened before had occurred again, namely, the trick (it might, indeed, be so called) of using a Cabinet key to open a Cabinet box. When people heard such assertions confidently made, they could not suppose that there was no foundation whatever for them; and that the right reverend Prelate might as well have dreamt of the circumstances which he had stated, for all the truth there was in them, for no facts ever happened corresponding to the right reverend Prelate's assertions. But, after these assertions, it could not be believed that not a line, nor half a line, nor even a single word of the original letter—for the communication of a single word would have been as much a breach of confidence as the publication of the whole letter—had ever been published, or was contained in that letter which appeared in the newspaper. Upon the most minute investigation it turned out, that there was not a shadow of foundation for the right reverend Prelate's charge. The writer of the letter in the newspaper came forward, and declared publicly, that he had no more knowledge of the letter, than he had obtained in conversation in society, and that he knew
1292
nothing of its substance, and much less of its words. He was really quite happy that the right reverend Prelate had afforded him an opportunity of refreshing his memory with respect to this notable passage in his Parliamentary life, short though it had been. The right reverend Prelate would excuse him for telling him, that if his Parliamentary life should be extended to as great a length as he himself could desire, it would never furnish a more remarkable passage. He had thought it necessary to say thus much, in vindication of a learned person who was absent.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he had thought it his duty to state what he had stated, and nothing he had heard had at all shaken his opinion.
The Bishop of Exeter: In the matter referred to by the noble and learned Lord, he had not given his own opinion; he had only said that such things were stated. The noble Duke not then in his place, (the Duke of Buckingham) got up in his place, and said, that the statement was correct, and, having only mentioned it as stated by others, he did not conceive himself responsible for it.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the right reverend Prelate might have stated only what he heard, but he should have made his statement with more caution. The right reverend Prelate had distinctly stated, that there had been a breach of confidence in some office of Government, by the publication of a letter from a noble Duke (Buckingham), which that noble Duke had said was published verbatim. He was inclined to think, that the noble Duke had been led into the mistake by confidence in the authority of the right reverend Prelate, and he (the Lord Chancellor) had merely suggested that he ought to be set right.
The Duke of Cumberlandsaid, that he had sat by the noble Duke upon the occasion referred to, and, the noble Duke, to the best of his recollection, had said that it was "almost verbatim," and that no copy of the letter had been given to any one, and it had been shown only to two individuals. That was what had been stated by the noble Duke. He must say, that he thought the right reverend Prelate was justified in what he had said.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that if ten noble Dukes repeated ten times, that the letter published was a verbatim copy of the letter addressed to the King, he (the

1293
Lord Chancellor) must contradict the statement. He had compared the letter himself with the publication; others had compared it, and there was not the slightest pretence for saying, that the person who had written the letter in the newspaper had ever seen the letter addressed to the King. The author of the newspaper letter, who signed himself "Radical" was well known, and he had come forward afterwards, and distinctly stated, that his information was derived from ordinary society, and from a consideration of the general course of events at that time; and that he had no communication whatever on the subject, with any member of his Majesty's Government. He repeated, that there was not a tittle of the real letter published, and that the writer of the newspaper letter had no possible access to the letter addressed to his Majesty.
The Duke of Cumberlandbegged it might be understood, that he had not himself stated that the published letter was almost verbatim a copy of the real letter. He had merely stated that his noble friend (the Duke of Buckingham) had said so.
The Marquess of Lansdown, having been one of those who assisted at the comparison of the real with the published letter, could distinctly declare, that there was not, in the slightest degree, the resemblance implied; and the comparison did not afford the slightest reason to believe that any breach of confidence had been practised.
The Duke of Cumberlandmust again remind their Lordships, that he had only repeated the words of his noble friend.
The Lord Chancellordisclaimed any intention of imputing to his Royal Highness that he had made any such statement. It was the noble Duke, the writer of the original letter, who had been misled by the confident assertion of the right reverend Prelate.
The Bishop of Exetercomplained of the incorrect manner in which the noble and learned Lord had described his conduct. He had never made any confident assertion on the subject. He had merely said, that he had heard that such a circumstance had occurred, and had asked the noble Duke, if he would permit him to inquire if it was true, and the noble Duke had answered that it was true.
Lord Suffieldsaid, that the right reverend Prelate had mentioned the date of the letter, before the noble Duke spoke.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, it had been publicly stated, that the letter had been published verbatim in the newspaper, by means of a breach of confidence in some one of the Ministers, but, on examining the newspaper, it was actually proved that the letter was not given, nor even professed to be given, in the newspaper. The newspaper contained only a general commentary upon a supposed letter.
Earl Greysaid, he had understood the right reverend Prelate, on the occasion alluded to, to assert that a particular newspaper contained, on a particular day, in a letter to the Editor, a copy of a confidential letter written to his Majesty by a noble Duke, which the writer of the letter to the Editor of the newspaper could not have obtained without a gross breach of duty on the part of some one of his Majesty's Ministers. He (Earl Grey) had heard the charge with indignation at the time, and had declared, that he believed it to be utterly unfounded; and that it certainly was so as it might be supposed to affect himself. On a subsequent comparison of the real letter with the letter signed "Radical," it appeared that there was not in the former, one passage which bore the slightest resemblance to the latter.
Lord Hollandsaid, that it had been said that the paper was to be proscuted. What for? For having said, that it had heard what was the contents of a supposititious letter. But the right reverend Prelate now defended himself for having brought a foul charge against his Majesty's Government, upon what he had heard. Equal justice should be dealt out to all; and when a person, for stating at public meetings, or for writing in a newspaper, certain things as supposititious, which were not true, were called foul and calumnious, libellous and slanderous assailants; when a man was so assailed for having said so much, their Lordships would, he was sure, agree with him, that it did not suit the dignity, and was not becoming the character of that House, that upon a mere light hearsay, a Member of the House should make a foul allegation and charge against his Majesty's Government.
The Earl of Eldonsaid, that he had not called the newspaper libellous or scandalous. He had noticed it; but the noble Lord knew that there was a difference between noticing a paper and prosecuting it.
Lord Hollandwas content with the question us it had been stated by the

1295
noble Earl. The notice was taken of the paper in that House in the way he had mentioned.
The Earl of Eldonreplied, the noble Lord was well aware, that there was a great difference between a notice in that House, and a prosecution.
The Bishop of Exeter, having been charged with misrepresentation upon hearsay, for having said, that a certain letter, published in a newspaper, could not have been obtained without a breach of confidence, he begged to state, that he had said no such thing. He had only put a question. Their Lordships would recollect, that what they were talking about occurred three months ago; and it became no man to be confident of the extreme accuracy of his recollection. He would, however state with confidence, that he believed he had qualified all he had then said. He had never said, that he believed it himself but he had said that it was believed by other persons, that there was a connexion between that paper and the Government, and that belief gave to the opinions expressed in that paper a peculiar weight. He had stated that he believed the contrary, but that such was the belief of others, and that belief his Majesty's Government had indignantly repelled.
Earl Greysaid, that the right rev. Prelate had, at the same time, given as a proof of the connexion which he said existed between a certain paper and the Government, that it had published what it could only have obtained from persons in the Government. The right rev. Prelate disliked insinuations, but he stated what he believed, and all the venom went forth with the thin veil which the right rev. Prelate cautiously spread over it. He felt only disgust at the time, and now he felt nothing but contempt.
The Marquess of Salisburycalled upon the House to mark the language of the Prime Minister. The charge he had made was not very suitable to the dignity of the House. The noble Earl had, for the first time, he believed, said he felt contempt for a member of the right rev. Bench. He called upon the House to protect the right rev. Bench. The right rev. Prelate had only stated his belief, and that belief was confirmed at the time by the statement of the noble Duke (Buckingham). He thought the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had very unfairly attacked that noble Duke in his absence.
The Bishop of Exeterentreated their Lordships not to pursue this discussion. He was sorry to have been the cause of raising this excitement. Whether his public life had been such as to justify the expression of contempt on the part of the noble Earl, he must leave to those who had observed his conduct. He would say nothing further, than that he trusted to his character to protect him against such a remark.
The Lord Chancellorhoped the noble Marquess (Salisbury) would excuse him if he did not confess himself wrong. He had originally replied to a charge, and that which was a defence the noble Marquess had converted into an attack. He would not confess himself wrong, because, with all respect to the noble Marquess, he believed himself right. The noble Duke referred to, he believed, was at the time under a complete mistake, or he never could have said, that a letter appeared verbatim in a Newspaper, which never appeared at all.
The Petition was laid on the Table.

DIVISION OF COUNTIES AND BOUNDARIES OF BOROUGHS.
The Duke of Richmond moved the Order of the Day for the House going into Committee on the Division of Counties' Bill, when—
Lord Wynforddid not apprehend much opposition to the Motion which he rose to make; but, if he met with any, it must come from some of his noble friends, who, notwithstanding the change which had taken place in the Constitution of the country, still retained an attachment to nomination boroughs. The course their Lordships were then called upon to pursue was quite at variance with the usual practice of the House—never to legislate upon any question depending upon circumstances to which each Member of the House had equal access, without previously obtaining all the information possible. It was one of their Standing orders, that, in matters of trade, no new law was to be introduced till it had been referred to a Committee, because their Lordships were not supposed to be so well acquainted with trade, as to be enabled to judge of the propriety of making alterations in the laws concerning it. He begged to ask, what new measure could possibly be submitted to their Lordships, containing so many local details, which all the Members of that House could, by no possibility,

1297
be acquainted with, as the measure now before them? Noble Lords might be acquainted with particular boroughs—they might know the state of property in and near them, and might be aware of all the circumstances entering into the consideration of prescribing the boundaries of those boroughs; but they could not possibly be otherwise than merely partially acquainted with all the boroughs in the kingdom—they could not have such a knowledge of all the boroughs, as to be enabled to say what were the proper boundaries for each. Their Lordships would perceive, that a constituency of a given number, which might in one place be independent, might, from a different state of property, in another place, be such as to make the other place a complete nomination borough, and render it unfit to possess the right of sending Representatives to Parliament. Without going any further, he had shown, he thought, that it was impossible to pass this Bill into a law, without making inquiries as to the state of property, the extent of the constituency, and the condition of the country in and immediately adjoining all the small boroughs. He did not say, that a similar inquiry was necessary for all, and he should, therefore, limit his Motion to those boroughs, the state of which, appeared to him, to render that inquiry necessary. To great towns, such as Manchester, Birmingham, and others, his proposition did not apply, for they possessed a constituency such as to render it impossible that they should become the instruments of any one person; or that any one individual, or any set of individuals, should be able to prevent the exercise of an independent choice of Representatives. But in places, possessing only 100, 200, or 300 voters it would depend on the state of property in the districts, whether they could exercise a free and unbiassed choice. Suppose, for instance, a place of 300 constituents, every one of whom rented property from the same person, would that place not be a nomination borough? He hoped therefore that their Lordships, before they proceeded to legislate, would appoint a Committee to inquire whether the different boroughs could exercise a free choice, and if, in any case, a borough could not, whether the boundaries prescribed to it, should not be altered and extended, so as to render the inhabitants of that town or district independent of any particular individual, In the six vo-
1298
lumes upon their Lordships' Table, they would find a statement of sixty towns, the constituency of which was under 300. He was sure that their Lordships who were anxious that the great measure of Reform should, now that it had become the law, be carried into full effect, would feel it necessary, that, with respect to every one of these sixty boroughs, there should be instituted an inquiry, such as he had adverted to. But there was another class of places to which he wished to draw their attention; those which, at present might contain more than 300 occupiers of premises of the value of 10 l., which boroughs, in the year 1831, were returned as not possessing 300 inhabitants, who occupied premises rated at 10 l. Their Lordships were aware that the principle of rating had been since departed from, and that, as the criterion of qualification, the supposed annual value of the premises had been taken instead; in consequence of which, several places were now represented as containing 300 persons, occupying houses of the yearly value of 10 l. which were not included in the list previously prepared. In many cases, the Commissioners appeared to have proceeded on a principle which was hardly satisfactory, and had altered the position of some of these towns, in consequence of the yearly value being the criterion of qualification, from that in which they stood before, when the rating was the principle which guided them. Take, for instance, Evesham, which just contained the requisite number of houses to entitle it to the right of sending Members to Parliament, including the parts adjoining. The Commissioners had inquired as to the number of houses of the annual value of 10 l.; and ascertained that there were five or six above the requisite number. But from whom did they obtain this information? From persons who were, doubtless, desirous that the borough of Evesham should have the privilege of sending Members to Parliament, who were willing to make the number of houses of the required value as large as possible; the Commissioners contented themselves with asking the Churchwardens and overseers of the town; according to whose statement it appeared, that the number of qualified houses exceeded 300 by a small number, without any addition from the country adjoining. This was a case which demanded inquiry it was fitting that their Lordships should

1299
know whether the representations of the Churchwardens and Overseers were correct, and whether, from a desire which they might possibly feel to retain the right of returning Members to Parliament, they might not have raised the value of this place a little higher, perhaps, than it ought to have been, were it impartially examined. He had no wish to deprive Evesham of its Members; all that he desired was, to render it independent, and make it worthy of exercising the trust to be reposed in it. There was another point to which he was anxious to call their attention. It appeared by the books and plans which had been laid before their Lordships, that the boundary lines of the small boroughs had been drawn in a most arbitrary way. There seemed no reason why, in some cases, the whole of one parish should be included, and the whole of another excluded; and in other cases, why a part of this parish should he taken in, and a part of that left out. He had no doubt that the Commissioners had exercised their judgment honestly and conscientiously, and that they had done that which they thought right, but that judgment was liable to error; and it was a principle of the Constitution, that no man's judgment should, in a case affecting the rights of another, be conclusive. He desired that the Commissioners should have an opportunity of proving that they had acted correctly, and had selected those boundaries most fit for the different boroughs. In none of their reports had the Commissioners, given any reason why the line was drawn differently now from what it was at first. If their Lordships looked at the reports they would find, that some of the Commissioners had taken in large tracts of uncovered country, because, they said, it might hereafter be built upon, while other Commissioners, in similar cases, had not taken in any additional territory. The Commissioners might, in both instances, be right; but the country was not bound to acquiesce in these arrangements, without knowing the grounds upon which the judgment of the Commissioners had been formed. Their Lordships would recollect the case of the borough of Arundel, to which was added Little Hampton. Having presented a petition on the subject, he proposed that Little Hampton should not be included in the borough, because that would convert Arundel, which was now an open, into a close borough. A noble Duke
1300
said, he was misinformed upon every one of the facts, and the noble Duke was sure, that, in justice to the Commissioners, he (Lord Wynford) would admit, that the course taken by them was perfectly correct. But how did the case turn out? The Bill went into the House of Commons with Little Hampton included in the borough of Arundel. A similar objection was made to it as that made by him; the question was referred to a Committee, and the result was, that part of Little Hampton was excluded from the borough. He proposed to refer the Bill to a Committee, to ascertain if the boundaries in other cases were correctly laid down; and, if it were right in the House of Commons to make an inquiry in the instance he had mentioned, it was equally right to institute an inquiry in other cases. He had no doubt that justice had been done to Arundel; but justice would not have been done if that inquiry had not been made. In all the smaller cases there were grounds for inquiry; but he would mention only three cases in which an inquiry was necessary. The general principle was, that no place should send representatives to Parliament which had not 300 10 l. houses; at least the departures from that principle in this Bill were only the exceptions; the rule was still the same; and in all cases where it was possible there ought to be 300 houses, that being considered a number likely to establish an independent constituency. Now in the borough of Wallingford there were 206 10 l. houses. The Commissioner acted in this case upon a right principle. He said "this is not enough;" and accordingly, other places had been added, some situated on the other side of the Thames in the county of Oxford, to the borough, by which means a constituency of 400 had been created. He approved of that. The borough had not been particularly remarked for the pure manner in which it had exercised the elective franchise, and he hoped there would be an improvement at Wallingford, by taking in more of the country. The Commissioners however acted upon a different principle at Wareham in Dorsetshire. That borough contained only 130 10 l. houses; and the Commissioners ought to have taken in as much of the surrounding country as possible, for the purpose of raising the constituency. There were many places in the neighbourhood, Corfe Castle, for example, which would, if added, have almost

1301
made up the number of 300; but what had the Commissioners done? They had taken in a little bit of territory, which had raised the 130 to about 160; and the borough was left with a constituency of 160. He was sure that this could not be right, and that this borough could not be independent. If their Lordships left boroughs in this state, they would soon have another schedule A, and, instead of having settled this question, it would very soon be again brought under the consideration of Parliament, for the purpose of further purifying their system which then Lordships professed to bring by this Bill, to a state of the most perfect purity. There was also the borough of Tavistock, which had considerably less than 300 electors; and in that case the arrangement was a complete departure from the principle upon which the noble Lord who introduced this Bill in another place professed to act. He knew it had certainly upwards of 300 electors; but in 1831, it had considerably less than 200 electors. By a return in 1832, it was made to contain 230, or thereabouts; and now, by a late inquiry, and by a difference between the rating and valuing (though how the Commissioners ascertained the value of the houses was not stated), they had raised the constituency of Tavistock to 300; and thus confined the constituency to the parish of Tavistock, without taking in any part of the surrounding country, as was done in the case of Wallingford. But that was not all; there was a part of the parish of Tavistock, the inhabitants paying to the church and poor, called the manor of Cudlip Town, and he had reason to believe that it did not belong to the same person who owned all the other property it the parish of Tavistock,—this place was excluded from the boundary of the borough of Tavistock. Every one connected with that borough, must be desirous that that circumstance should be explained, and that it should be shown what impassable barrier there was lying between Cudlip Town and the other parts of the parish which rendered it impossible that its inhabitants, who went to the parish church should go to the poll for the borough of Tavistock on the days of election. The principle of scot-and-lot was, that those who paid scot and bore lot, should have the advantages of any privileges belonging to the place. Why then should the inhabitants of Cudlip town, who paid Parish
1302
and church rates, be shut out from the privileges enjoyed by all the other inhabitants of the parish of Tavistock? The Commissioners, said, that though Cudlip Town was part of the parish of Tavistock, yet it was separated from it. He wished they had described how it was separated, or, by some map, had shown its situation, and what were the circumstances which prevented its being, for all the purposes of an election, part of the borough of Tavistock. This, however, they did not tell. In all cases, the Commissioners had so drawn their plans, that it was impossible to say what other places ought to be added to any of the boroughs. The places they had added were mentioned, but not those they omitted. It would have been as well if they had given a sketch of the places within a few miles of each borough; so that the reason for preferring one place to another might have been at once explained. It would, too, have been no other than fair if the Commissioners had also stated to whom the different properties belonged, which would have enabled their Lordships to judge whether, by the addition of a place, a borough was likely to have an independent constituency. There was one other place he must refer to, Northallerton; which being an agricultural borough, to have acted consistently, the Commissioners should have preserved its agricultural character, particularly as there was a sufficient agricultural population around it to have allowed of their doing so. In other cases, the Commissioners had apologized for having added an agricultural population to a manufacturing town. And why, then, did they not act on the principle they thus acknowledged, when they had an opportunity of doing so, in the case of Northallerton? To that, however, they had added a weaving district, not because the weavers were rich, and the agricultural district poor—a case by no means uncommon in the present day—but because, as the Commissioners themselves stated, the parish of Bandon, which they had added to Northallerton, had a very poor population, all of whom were dependent upon two or three master manufacturers. Was it possible that these Commissioners could have acted rightly, and according to the spirit of the instructions they received, when, having an agricultural district at hand to annex to an agricultural borough, they passed over that, and annexed a district of an en-

1303
tirely different description? They had added, not only persons of an entirely different description to those of Northallerton, but persons who were dependent upon two or three master manufacturers. There was a larger class of boroughs in the arrangements, concerning which there were circumstances requiring examination. In the case of Barnstaple there was something very extraordinary. The Commissioners reported that the constituency was sufficiently large to support its independence, and, therefore Barnstaple did not require any addition; and they consequently, recommended, that the boundaries of the borough should remain as before. Notwithstanding this, however, there had been added to Barnstaple a considerable rural district consisting of one or two manors, lying entirely out of the ancient boundary of the borough. In the absence of all reasons for this course, it certainly was somewhat strange. The borough of Barnstaple did not happen to be the purest in the country; if therefore, it had not a sufficient number of voters, and if an addition had been made, with a view to introduce a new spirit of freedom and purity of conduct and disposition into the borough, he should have approved of it; but the voters of Barnstaple were so numerous, that they would completely swamp the new constituents, who instead of infusing into the old constituencies a purifying principle, would be acted upon by the corrupting influence of the borough. It was, therefore, unjust to cut off these voters from the county, and merge them in the corruption of a borough, which possessed in itself a constituency sufficiently large to preserve its franchise. Huddersfield was another place to which he would allude, which was a new borough. It was undoubtedly, a large town, and had it been an old borough, he should not have thought of enlarging its boundaries. But Huddersfield had no right to send Members to Parliament, except under this Bill; and if new boroughs were to be made, and there were any place in the kingdom equally entitled to send Members to Parliament, that place ought to have been selected instead of Huddersfield. He was prevented by illness, from attending the House when Huddersfield was placed in schedule C or he certainly should have endeavoured to substitute some other place for it. Though they could not prevent
1304
Huddersfield sending Members to Parliament, still it was in their power to regulate its boundaries. The Commissioners stated, that every house in Huddersfield except one, belonged to the same gentleman; but they were, notwithstanding, of opinion, that the ancient boundaries of the town ought to be the boundaries of the newly-created borough. No reason had been, nor could any be, given for this. If a Select Committee were granted they might add to this town a district which would remedy this evil. It occurred to him, that one reason assigned why this borough would be independent, notwithstanding it was the property of one individual, was this:—that all the houses in the town were held on long leases. The same thing was said of little Hampton; and the noble Duke opposite would no doubt, recollect the answers given to that argument at the time. It was very true, that the houses were granted on leases, but in every one of their leases there was a covenant which restrained the tenant from under-leasing or assigning, without the consent of the landlord. That circumstance gave a sufficient power to the landlord to command the votes of his tenants. A man must be very strongly pressed indeed to act in opposition to his landlord, when under such a, covenant. If he were anxious to have a nomination borough, he should desire no more effectual means to enable him to enslave his voters than the power of making such leases. This was a case which required examination. It was their duty to make Huddersfield an independent borough, and that would be acting in entire accordance with that principle of the Reform Bill. He had to apologize to their Lordships for having occupied so much of their time; but he felt it his duty to call their attention to this question. No time was lost that was devoted to making this measure, which was intended to be permanent a perfect one. But he was sure this measure could not be permanent, unless the whole of those anomalous cases he had referred to were examined and remedies applied to them. He had stated to their Lordships that the mode of inquiry he now proposed was consistent with the practice of Parliament; and had been adopted with success in the House of Commons in regard to this very Bill. He was sure, that the noble Lords opposite, who were so anxious to get rid of all nomination boroughs, and which

1305
could not be done unless those cases were examined into, would perceive the necessity of an inquiry. The only possible objection which could be made to his proposition was as to the time the inquiry would occupy; but, no time so employed could be lost. It was not, however, his wish that a general examination into all the smaller boroughs should take place. He was willing to confine the inquiry to the few boroughs he had mentioned. A few mornings devoted to the subject, the Committee making a report from time to time would enable their Lordships to legislate satisfactorily; without that information they could not legislate satisfactorily; on the contrary, instead of destroying nomination boroughs, they would create them. The people would at length discover, that their Lordships had not taker those precautions which were necessary to ensure the benefits expected from the measure of Reform. Whether that measure was calculated to produce those benefit he would not say; it had become the law of the land, and it was his duty to bow with respect to the opinions of the Legislature. But, unless an inquiry was instituted, such as he proposed, the public would soon find that the result of all those mighty preparations was merely a change and not an improvement—putting an end to some boroughs, and creating others; and transferring political power from certain individuals to others no better entitled to it. He begged leave to move that all the words after the word "that" be left out, and, that there be inserter instead, the words, "the returns and reports of the Commissioners on the boundaries of such boroughs as by the Report of 1832 are stated to contain less than 300 10 l. houses, as also the borough of Barnstaple and Huddersfield, be referred to a Select Committee, to examine persons, papers, and records, and to repot from time to time their opinions as to what boundaries will secure to those respective boroughs independent constituencies."
The Duke of Richmonddid not feel necessary to follow the noble and learned Lord through his speech. The present was not the fit and proper occasion for discussing the questions relative to the different boroughs which the noble and learned Lord had introduced. He felt satisfied that the effect of such a Committee that which the noble and learned Lord
1306
had moved for, would be, either to extend the present Session of Parliament to a most inconvenient length, or to get rid of the Bill altogether, which he could not think was the object of the noble and learned Lord, who had said his object was to get rid of the nomination boroughs. The noble Lord might banish his fears on that subject, for he could assure the noble and learned Lord, that not one nomination borough would be left. The noble and learned Lord said, that the Commissioners had not given sufficient information, and he wanted information as to the properties of individuals connected with boroughs. But, if the noble and learned Lord meant to legislate with a view to a balance of interests, in reference to property which was continually changing hands, he would introduce a principle of never-ending change. He was also sure, that if the noble and learned Lord had been present on a former occasion, when this subject had been somewhat discussed, he would not have brought forward this Motion. He (the Duke of Richmond) would only add, not wishing to take up the time of their Lordships at the late hour which had now arrived, that he was ready at the proper opportunity, namely, when the boundary of each several borough came under consideration, to defend any alteration from the returns and reports of the Commissioners which had been made by the Government.
Lord Rollecomplained of the deviation from the Report of the Commissioners, with respect to the boundaries of the borough of Barnstaple, particularly as to including some of his property in the borough. He required that the Report of the Commissioners on this point should be read, which being done, and it stating, that they recommended the ancient boundaries to be preserved, he insisted that he ought to be informed why that Report was departed from.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that the boundaries of Barnstaple had been changed because the Commissioners had omitted to extend them equally on all sides of the town. It was found necessary to include Bolton on one side, and then it became proper to include Newport on the other.
Lord Wynfordwas surprised at the manner in which an answer, or rather no answer, had been given to the observations he had offered on behalf of his Majesty's Government. He, however, was deter-

1307
mined the country should know that his Motion had passed away on no better opposition being offered to it. He would maintain, that Tavistock and some other boroughs, would henceforth be as complete nomination boroughs as ever they had been, and Tavistock never had returned anybody but the members of one certain family. After refusing his Motion on such insufficient grounds, the people would begin to suspect that there must be some particular reason why there should be no inquiry into the subject. He would not go to a division; it was sufficient for him to show that the Government had resisted his Motion for such inquiry.
Earl Greymeant to oppose the Motion, for the simple reason, that it would not afford any benefit, and would only tend to produce delay. The case of Tavistock and of all the boroughs comprised in the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, would severally come before their Lordships for consideration, and if any inquiry was found necessary in any instance, the noble and learned Lord could then move for it, and therefore he felt that the whole of the present discussion was occupying the time of their Lordships unnecessarily, and was preventing the House from coming to a decision, which it was important should be made with as little delay as possible.
Motion negatived without a division.
On the original Question being put, "that the House do now resolve itself into Committee,"
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, he thought the present a fitting opportunity to offer an observation on the subject of the English Reform Bill, now passed into a law. He did not doubt but that the noble Lords opposite considered that Bill as the perfection of human wisdom, and therefore, perhaps, it was, that they had omitted the usual clause or provision, which Legislators of greater humility were accustomed to insert in Acts of Parliament—namely, that the Bill might be amended during the then Session of Parliament. The omission
1308
of such a clause was important, and was, he regretted to say, without remedy; for great inconveniences had already arisen in respect to the registration by Overseers of parishes. In some parishes there were no Overseers, and in such case the Bill had provided, that such parish should be added to the next smaller parish, for the purposes of registration. He would mention as an instance the case of the Forest of Dean, containing a population of 7,000 persons, and 8,000 acres of land, and the inhabitants of the small parish of Plaxley would, under the provisions of the Reform Bill, be obliged to sustain all the burthen of the registration of that district, as the Forest of Dean was extra-parochial. The parish would be unable to bear such a burthen. That was a part which required amendment.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that the inconvenience in question might be remedied by a provision in the Boundary Bill.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that great difficulties and much scandal in legislation might occur, if at a late period of the Session, it was in their power to alter bills passed in an early period of it, and which did not contain a provision to that effect.
Earl Greysaid, that the case put by the noble Lord should receive his careful attention, and he was sure that some means might be found to remedy the evil with regard to the parish to which the noble Lord had alluded.
Lord Hollandbelieved, that a specific Act of Parliament, now in existence, rendered it unnecessary, for the purpose of amending a Bill in the same Session that it was passed, to introduce a provision into it to that effect, which was formerly the parliamentary usage, when the whole Session of Parliament was, according to a legal fiction, considered to be one day.
The House in Committee. Several Clauses of the Bill read and agreed to.
The House resumed—the Committee to sit again.