Lords Sitting of 24 June 1834

Preamble
MINUTES. Petitions presented. By the Earl of DURHAM, from Oldham, for the Separation of Church and State.—By the Dukes of WELLINGTON and NEWCASTLE, the Marquesses CAMDEN and LANSDOWN, the Earls of WARWICK and WINCHILSEA, and the Bishop of EXETER, from a Number of Places,—for Protection to the Established Church, and against the Separation of Church and State.—By the Bishop of CARLISLE and Lord ROLLE, from four Places,—against the Claims of the Dissenters.—By the Earl of DURHAM, from several Bodies of Dissenters, for Relief from Church Rates and other Grievances.—By the Marquess of WESTMINSTER, from Salford, against the County Coroners' Bill—By Lord WYNFORD, from Chester, against the Chimney Sweepers' Regulation Bill.

DISSENTERS' ADMISSION TO THE UNIVERSITIES.
The Bishop of Llandaff, in rising to present a number of petitions against admitting Dissenters to graduate in the Universities, begged leave to observe that he was not, neither were the petitioners, actuated by any hostility towards the parties against whom the petitions were directed. He did not wish those parties to be deprived of any advantage which they could fairly claim; he did not wish that they should be marked by a stigma of any kind. It was merely on the ground of self-defence that the petitioners came forward, feeling that the constitutional liberties of the country were intimately connected with the system which at present prevailed in the Universities. He, for two reasons, concurred in the prayer of the petitions. In the first place, after long studying the subject, he was clearly convinced, that there was an essential and indissoluble union between the Universities and the Established Church, and he feared that the concession which the Dissenters called for, could only he granted at the expense of that union. Religion was the
806
first and principal object to which the attention of Government should be directed, and the first ground which he took against allowing Dissenters to take degrees in the Universities was, that it would necessarily sever those institutions from the national Church. The second ground on which he relied, was stronger even than the first. It was, that religion was an essential part of education, and the admission of persons, without looking to the tenets which they professed, would be destructive of religious education. The greater part of his life had been spent in the performance of clerical duties, and he had thus been taught how important it was, to preserve this principle—the principle of religious education. If they lost that essential branch of education, they must confine themselves to matters of far less importance. It was not from his own experience alone that he had arrived at this conclusion. Several noble and learned individuals then present had lent their aid in founding an academic institution in this metropolis, and he believed, that in doing so they felt an anxious desire to make religion one branch of education. Such, doubtless, was their sincere and heartfelt purpose. With that feeling they had met and deliberated on the subject, but their deliberations all proved abortive, and they were unable to adopt any scheme of religion which could be studied at the same time with the various branches of science. On these two grounds—namely, that the connexion between the Universities and the national Church was, and ought to be, essential and indissoluble, and that religious instruction at the Universities could not be imparted as it was at present, if persons of all religions were indiscriminately admitted— therefore it was, that he was opposed to the measure now in progress for compelling the Universities to admit Dissenters to take degrees. It had been asserted, that though the students were called on to sign the thirty-nine articles, they were not required to understand them. Now, he could assure their Lordships that there was no laxity on this point. The invariable practice of himself and others was, to explain to the students what was the object of their signing the articles. They were signed for the purpose of satisfying certain authorities that the students were members of the national religion, a fact which they were bound to ascertain.
The Petitions were brought up.
The Lord Chancellorfelt it necessary, after what had fallen from the right rev-

807
erend Prelate, who had alluded to the London University, to trouble the House with a few remarks. A body of highly respectable individuals had founded King's College, London, on the principles adopted in the Universities—on the doctrines and discipline of the Established Church. Now, nothing could be more proper or more justifiable, than that the individuals who founded that establishment, who were all members of the Church of England, and all of whom agreed in the doctrine and discipline of that Church, should make it part of their system, if so inclined, that no student should be admitted to that University, unless he professed that religion to which they were themselves attached. Therefore, no harm whatever was done, if they exacted from the student a strict conformity with the Established Church. But it did not by any means follow, that the same plan which was applicable to King's College and to members of the Established Church, should also apply to the London University, or to any other establishment founded by persons who did not agree to the principles of the Established Church, and not three of whom perhaps agreed to any one of them. When individuals exclaimed, "But why do you set about founding an University excluding religious instruction?" He would ask them to consider and see how it was possible to found a University open to all, and yet to preserve a certain system of religious education. Was it meant to be said, that they ought not to have founded that University? Would any one get up at that time of day and say, "you have no right to found a University for Dissenters?" Would it be asserted, because Oxford and Cambridge kept them out, that it was therefore intolerable to found an establishment to which they might have free access? He should like to see, at that time of day, a specimen of such a reasoner, a specimen that would assuredly be fitter for a situation in the museum of a college than in its halls. He should like to see a specimen of the animal bipes et implume, possessing the voice and figure, but no other attribute of humanity, who would get up in his place and contend that it was criminal, irreligious, impolitic, and unfair, to found a University for Dissenters. Why? Because they were debarred from going to colleges that were established by the law of the land. [The Bishop of Llandaff—I advance no such doctrine.] It certainly was the custom on the other side of the way (Westminster
808
Abbey, where a musical festival was held), where he and the right reverend Prelate had been that morning, for several individuals to perform together. There they had trios and duets; but on this side of the way it was found more convenient, though perhaps not so harmonious, for only one to speak at a time. By taking that course, the arguments of noble Lords were shorter and more intelligible. He should now take an opportunity of saying one word relative to King's College. He had already adverted to the principle upon which it was founded. He, as Lord Chancellor, was visiter of that college; but, from a feeling of delicacy, as a promoter of the London University, he did not exercise his visitorial functions. King's College had, however, his most hearty good wishes, and he recommended it to all persons, members of the Established Church, who felt objections to the London University. If a parent did not like to send his son to the London University, he said to him, "Then let him go to King's College." For his own part, he thought that those who objected to the London University on account of religious principle, ought to have a college in accordance with the tenets of the Established Church. But it would be said, "Oh! you might find some certain system of religion, to which all Dissenters would agree." They however, but little knew the human mind, who thought that any system could be laid down, and with reference to which all the Dissenters would agree. Many of those sects differed as much from each other as they did from the Church. He believed that some of them would rather come to the Church than agree with their brother sectarians. The law which regulated religious controversy, was very like the law which regulated gravitation—namely, it operated in the inverse ratio of the distance; and the nearer the theological disputants approached in their doctrines—the less they were divided from each other—the stronger was the power of repulsion. Those who founded the London University, were very anxious to teach Church history, biblical criticism, and all those branches upon which it, was supposed that the different sects of the Church itself agreed. But they found that it was impossible to do so; for the Church would not agree with the sectarians, and the sectarians would not agree with each other. They had found zealous promoters of the University amongst men of different religious professions. Mr. Goldschmid, a Jew, had lent 7,000 l. to the

809
University. That sum he had advanced to enable them to purchase land. A Dissenter had advanced as much, a churchman as much, and another, a fourth gentleman, a sectarian, as much. Of those who had raised this sum of 28,000 l., no two could agree to any plan of religious education. When this was found to be the case—when they found that no common feeling existed on the subject, those who were chiefly concerned in founding the University said, "Then, as you cannot agree with us who are of the Church, and as you cannot agree with each other, it is better to exclude this species of education altogether." This was not a matter of choice, it was the result of a controlling, of an overruling necessity. Secular matters might be compromised, but it was impossible to compromise that which was connected with religious feeling. It was, therefore, determined that the students should, in this respect, be taught at home, by persons of their own persuasion. With respect to the explanation which the right reverend Prelate had given as to the subscription of the thirty-nine Articles at the University, he would make one or two brief remarks. It had been heretofore stated, that this was a mere form—that it was intended that the student should not know what he subscribed. He was to learn that at a future time. The test was to be swallowed first, and to be digested afterwards. He signed in the first instance, and was afterwards to make up his mind on the subject. Now, however, the right reverend Prelate told them, that explanation was given at the time; that the person subscribing must have some understanding (more or less) on the subject; and that the meaning of his subscription was, that he thereby signified himself to be a member of the Established Church. Was it not, however, natural to inquire—"Why do you prefer the Established Church to other religions? Why do you subscribe to its doctrines and discipline?" To answer this, demanded an exercise of the understanding, and surely those who were called on to subscribe should, in the first instance, be examined. If he were asked to sign the thirty-nine Articles, such a proceeding could only be founded, and ought only to be founded, on the supposition that he understood those articles. But how could it be expected that a lad of twelve or thirteen years, could be able to understand them? Many noble Lords in that House did not understand them. He forgot the hundred points of metaphysical theology that might be, and had been,
810
raised on these articles. He would not give his own opinion, nor trust to his own observation on this subject, but he would refer to one of the most learned and celebrated divines—he alluded to the Bishop of Carlisle—with respect to the complicated nature of the topics included in these articles. That right reverend Prelate had stated, that there were 100 points in these articles which required the deepest attention and consideration. He who agreed with them admitted this, but very many doubted much that was contained in the articles; yet they must be at once signed by every young man who went for his education to one of the great seats of learning, where, too, he was called upon to study theology. Yes, he who was called on to study theology—who was expected to plunge inter abyssos theologiœ—began with this conclusive declaration before he had studied at all. But if he merely signed his name, to signify that he was a member of the Church of England, did not this imply that his mind went with the contents of that which he had subscribed? Was it not to be supposed that he had exercised his thinking powers on the subject, and that having done so, he agreed with the doctrines and subscribed to the discipline of the Church of England? Could he subscribe those articles and not impose on himself a tie that would operate in future? He could not sign these articles, de bene esse, intending to understand them hereafter, and then to retain or reject them as he might think proper. If he did so, and chose to become a Dissenter, all the college, and all the quadrangles of the college, would re-echo with a word sounding very like "apostate." It would be said "Here is a man who signed the Thirty-nine Articles, and he now goes to a meeting-house."
The Bishop of Llandaff, in explanation, said, that observations had fallen from the noble and learned Lord, which he could only attribute to the imperfect attention that had been paid to himself while he spoke, or to the imperfect manner in which he had expressed himself. He bad never alluded to King's College, on which the noble and learned Lord had made some observations; and with respect to the London University, against that institution he had certainly brought no charge. He was contending for the absolute necessity of some form of religious instruction being adopted for the benefit of those who partook of the general advantages of education, considering religion as the most essential branch of education; and in order to confirm his

811
argument, he adverted to the conduct of the Council of the London University, who endeavoured themselves, though ineffectually, to introduce some scheme of religious instruction. He had stated distinctly, that he gave those individuals full credit for the sincerity of their intentions. He had said nothing that could possibly be supposed to imply a charge against them. He entertained no such feeling.
The Duke of Wellingtonobjected to the practice of entering into a discussion of important questions on the presentation of petitions. The noble and learned Lord (said the noble Duke) has himself admitted the inconvenience of such a practice, and that questions of such importance as that to which this petition refers ought to be made matters of separate and deliberate discussion, and not to be introduced thus incidentally. But, my Lords, if I was surprised at the noble and learned Lord's departure from the general and more convenient practice of the House in this respect, I was much more so at the tone of his remarks. My Lords, the University of Oxford, or King's College, ought to expect from the high station of the noble and learned Lord, that he would have defended them from any attack, instead of attempting to put them down on this occasion by mis-statements respecting their practice. My Lords, it is not true, that the student does no more at his admission than in fact stating that he is a member of the Established Church; but on taking a degree he is obliged to sign the Articles, to show his knowledge of, and adherence to, the doctrines of that Church. The noble and learned Lord knows this much better than I do; and I must again say, that instead of making such statements as he has just now made, it was to be expected from the high station that he holds, that he should have been found amongst the defenders of the Universities, that he should not attempt to pull them down by statements with a view to their injury.
The Lord Chancellor(who rose at the same moment with Earl Grey) said: My Lords, my noble friend (Earl Grey) to whom I would otherwise give way, was about to bear testimony to your Lordships of my utter innocence of the charges which the noble Duke has so illogically, for I must say, that the noble Duke has not improved his logic since he has been at Oxford, and so very unjustly, brought against me on this occasion. The fact is, my Lords, that the noble Duke either did not hear, or, having heard, he did not do
812
me the honour to attend to, what I did say. He seems to think that I said something against the University of Oxford or King's College, whereas I never said one word in disparagement of either. My Lords, on the contrary, I did distinctly admit, that the Established Church had as much right to set up a college on a principle exclusively confined to the Church, as the Dissenters had to establish one on a principle of universal admissibility. There was nothing in this against Oxford, or against King's College. But, my Lords, this shows the little attention with which the noble Duke honoured me. It shows how little attention is paid to legal men in this House. My Lords, I do not mention this want of attention as any ground of complaint, but I do think I have some reason to complain of it when it is made the ground of building up a charge against me, not only for what I did not say, but for the very reverse of what I did say. Having thus re-stated what it was I had said, I hope I may stand acquitted of this charge which the noble Duke has urged, and to which I shall again advert by and by. Another charge which the noble Duke has brought against me, is that of getting up discussions and making long statements on the presentation of petitions. My Lords, nothing was further from my intention than to introduce any such discussion on this occasion. If the noble Duke did not hear me, and I must take it for granted that he did not, I now inform him, that I was replying to the right reverend Prelate. The right reverend Prelate was replying to some observations of mine made on a former occasion, and quoting the very words which I then used. The noble Duke did not honour me with his attention, and it now appears that he had not honoured the right reverend Prelate with a much greater share of it than he had bestowed on me. If he had heard me, I am sure he would not have made this charge; but this, my Lords, is one inconvenience of not hearing what is said, and of making accusations on what has not been uttered, and this is what I complain of with respect to the noble Duke. My Lords, I myself did not hear the words of the right reverend Prelate. They were heard by my noble friend at the head of the Government, who came over to me, and said, "Attend—the right reverend Prelate is referring to what you said on a former day, and quoting your words,"—for shortness sake, my noble friend used the words "attacking you," though that, perhaps was too strong an expression for the

813
course which the right reverend Prelate was taking. Now, if the right reverend Prelate did not intend to use my words, I must say that the words "Jesuitism," "casuistry," and "traps for men's consciences," were terms which called for some remark on my part, and I ask, my Lords, was I to sit and listen to the whole of this, and not offer any reply? Some reply I felt I was bound to snake, and having done so, I trust, my Lords, I shall stand acquitted of the charge of raising discussions on the presentation of petitions. Now, my Lords, let me again advert to the noble Duke's charge of my wishing or attempting to pull down the Universities. I would ask the noble Duke to point out any one word or expression, or sentiment of mine, which can bear such a construction; not, my Lords, at the same time, that I would refrain from any censure or condemnation of the Universities, if I thought they deserved it. My Lords, I am not bound to the Universities by any allegiance. Individually I owe them nothing—the country, no doubt, is greatly their debtor; and, no doubt, the country is disposed to acknowledge the obligation. I never hissed them. My Lords, I sat and took a part in a meeting connected with the London University, of which I have long been a friend, and to the institution of which—I hope that I may say it without vanity—I in some small degree contributed, though I do not stand in the same relation to it in which the noble Duke stands to the University of Oxford. The meeting to which I allude was on laying the foundation-stone, and it was afterwards followed by a dinner in celebration of that event. At that meeting there was present a very numerous assemblage of the patrons, supporters, and friends of the Institution, and of its students of every age, down to boys of the age of fourteen. We were honoured on that occasion by the presence of a royal Duke. I do not mean the illustrious Duke (the Duke of Cumberland) now present,—his Royal Highness attends only to Dublin meetings, and certainly my appearance at the late installation at Oxford would not have excited more surprise than the presence of his Royal Highness on the occasion to which I have just alluded. I do not mean by this to insinuate that the royal Duke now present was unfriendly to our institution; he may differ from us on many points, but I am sure we have his good wishes, as far at least as his conscientious support of education will permit. At this meeting there were, also, present my
814
noble friends, the noble Marquess opposite (Lansdowne) and the noble Viscount (Melbourne), the Secretary for the Home Department, and several other distinguished individuals, the advocates and supporters of education. I have already said, that there were in the assembly youths of every age, down to boys of fourteen. I had occasion in the course of the proceedings to mention the name of Oxford and of Cambridge. They were received with unmixed applause. I spoke in praise of them, and there was not on that occasion, even during the greatest hilarity of the evening, one expression of censure which could in any way refer to those learned bodies. But, my Lords, they order things differently on the banks of the Isis. In the cool retreats and shady bowers which the muses haunt along the margin of that classic stream we have recently had a very different exhibition. There we heard expressions of feeling, not in the hilarity of the evening, but in the cool of the morning, when the head was free from every kind of vapour, save that which might remain from theological controversy, of feelings not restrained by the presence of royal and illustrious dukes, noble peers and senators, archbishops and bishops, heads of colleges, and reverend doctors of divinity. I say on that occasion there was kept up an ancient, and I may add an infinitely harmless custom, of showing their respect or the contrary for certain names or authorities, which were proclaimed in the ebullition of the moment. My Lords, I do not blame this, I think it harmless that certain names should have been put forth to excite the approval or disapprobation, as the case might be, of those present. I was placed among the latter, but of that I do not complain, for I feel that I was in very good company, and among others, in the company of one who is as great an ornament to the University of Oxford as he is to that right reverend Bench. I repeat, my Lords, that I consider all this very harmless, and I mention it only to show that I am not bound by any allegiance to Oxford. At the same time, I have not said any thing against it, nor any thing which could bear the interpretation that I have a wish to pull down the Universities. My observations were directed, and my objections were made, to the mode of subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, and to the interpretation put upon that subscription by the right reverend Prelate. I commented upon it, as your Lordships will recollect at the time; and upon that comment the right

815
reverend Prelate having thought proper to introduce again to your Lordships the same doctrine, I thought it my duty to reply. This, then, is my answer to the charges of the noble Duke, who accuses me of getting up a debate on the presentation of a petition, and of attempting to pull down the Universities.
The Petitions to lie on the Table.

CASE OF CAPTAIN ATCHISON—MILITARY DISCIPLINE.
The Earl of Winchilsearose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to present two petitions complaining of the practice of requiring Protestant soldiers on foreign service to take a part in religious ceremonies in Catholic countries, and praying also for some compensation to two officers who were dismissed the service by sentence of Courts-martial, for conscientiously refusing to take a part in such ceremonies, and sending a remonstrance to their commanding officer against being called on to take a part in such ceremonies. On the subject of the first part of the prayer, he would say, that Catholics having been exonerated from attendance on Protestant worship, he thought that the same principle ought to be extended to Protestant soldiers. He must also say in the outset, that no one felt more than he did the necessity of strict military obedience, and he must also admit, that the Houses of Parliament were nut the fit places to review sentences of Courts-martial. Still he thought there were circumstances in this case which might fairly come under the consideration of the House. The noble Earl then stated the particulars of the case of Captain Atchison and another British officer who were in 1823 tried and dismissed the service for disobedience of orders in refusing to attend some Catholic ceremony at Malta, (for which see Hansard, vol. xix. 783—third series). It was not, he said, his intention to found any Motion on these petitions. He would leave the matter in the hands of Government, and he hoped it would receive due consideration.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that as he was the Master-general of the Ordnance at the time the officers alluded to by the noble Earl were dismissed from the service, he was anxious to make a few observations on the subject. On the 6th of October, 1823, he received a Report from Malta, informing him that two officers on duty there had disobeyed orders conveyed to them by the Commanding-officer; and on the 8th of the same month he sent back a
816
letter, directing the two officers who had so acted to be arrested. He then communicated with the Duke of York, at that time Commander-in-chief of the army, and he inquired of his Royal Highness whether the proper course to pursue would be to strike the names of those officers out of the Army List, for a deliberate Act of Insubordination, if not of mutiny, or to direct that they should be tried by a Court-martial. His Royal Highness, who entirely approved of the steps he (the Duke of Wellington) had taken, recommended him to advise his Majesty at once to dismiss the officers from the service. His conduct in this affair had also been approved of by another Superior-Officer, the Commander-in-chief in the Mediterranean, General Sir Thomas Maitland. That officer arrived at Malta on the 5th of November, 1823, and without any previous communication with him, or his Royal Highness the Duke of York, published an Order of the Day expressing the opinion he entertained of the behaviour of the two officers in question, and directing, for the purpose of preventing the recurrence of a similar Act of disobedience, that they should, until further notice, be relieved from all duty. On receiving a copy of this order, he sent a letter to Sir T. Maitland, desiring him to order the officers to be tried by Court-martial; and on the verdict of the Court-martial the officers were cashiered. The noble Earl had said, that one of these officers was dismissed his Majesty's service because he would not ring a bell. That was not a correct account of the matter; for the charge preferred against him before the Court-martial was, not that he had declined to ring a bell, but had refused compliance with a general order, not the order of a Catholic priest, directing certain guns to be discharged. The noble Earl had argued, that those officers ought to be excused obedience to the orders which had been conveyed to them, because Roman Catholic soldiers were relieved from the necessity of attending the service of the Church of England. But their Lordships should bear in mind, that the Act which these officers were ordered to perform was no act of divine worship, but one which fairly fell within the scope of the military duty of officers stationed in foreign countries to execute. It was of the greatest importance that troops, on going abroad, should not be allowed to show any disrespect to the people of the countries to which they were sent; and with reference to Malta, it was provided by

817
treaty, that respect should-be paid to the inhabitants. To the prayer for compensation, with which the petition concluded, he thought their Lordships ought not to pay any attention. These officers belonged to the artillery, and officers in that branch of the service never purchased their Commissions. Therefore, if on leaving the service, they were to receive remuneration, they would receive money for the loss of a Commission for which they never paid any money. In fact, to grant remuneration to these officers would be to hold out a premium for disobedience to orders.
Earl Grey, knowing who was at the head of the Ordnance Department, and who was at the head of the army, at the time the transaction brought under the notice of the House took place, could feel no doubt that full justice had been administered in the case; and this was the conclusion at which he had arrived after a full investigation of the facts. The offence of which these officers were found guilty was a breach of military discipline of the most serious importance. These officers were not called upon to participate in the religious ceremonies of the Roman Catholics at Malta, in such a way as implied any belief on their part in the doctrines of the Church of Rome. He was of opinion that the sentence passed on these officers was a just one.
The Petition to lie on the Table.

PENSIONS—CIVIL OFFICES.
On the Question that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Civil Office (Pensions) Bill,
Earl Greysaid, that when the Bill was read a second time by their Lordships, no statement was entered into of its principal provisions; he should therefore trouble them with a few words before they proceeded with the Order of the Day. The noble Earl stated an outline of the Bill. He was sure the House when they looked at the previous power of the Crown, limited as it was—when they looked at the great services which the officers he had mentioned usually rendered to the State—would agree with him in thinking that the Bill did not invest the Crown with undue power. If anything, he should say that the Bill did not enable the Crown sufficiently to reward those functionaries.
The Duke of Wellingtonreferred to the preamble of the Act of 1817, for the purpose of showing, that the arrangements then made were in the nature of a bargain, by which, when the sinecure offices were
818
abolished, pensions were to be instituted for them. It was to be specially observed, that out of twenty-two pensions which might have been granted, only eleven were; and really it was not too much to expect that the Crown should be invested with the power of making adequate recompense to its servants, the more particularly as now the expense and difficulty of getting into Parliament had so much increased, and when the emoluments of the bar and other professions stood so high, that it would he no easy matter to secure an efficient support in the public service if suitable rewards were not given. It was also to be borne in mind that the increased and increasing power of the House of Commons had rendered a measure of that nature necessary—it was fitting, that the power of the Crown should be sufficient for the purpose, and that the Crown alone should possess the right of rewarding its servants. He was the more led to make this observation from what had occurred in another place, where the reward to be given to the services of a gallant Officer was taken into consideration against the wish of the Ministers of the Crown. There, were, however, some clauses to which he should move Amendments when they went into Committee.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he must have closed his eyes to all that had been passing around him for several years, and particularly during the four last, if he were to say that he entertained the same view of the power of the Crown as formerly. However unpalatable the statement might be, he certainly must declare, that the power of the Crown was now so fenced round, and its patronage so cut down, as to be no longer objects of apprehension. This was the result of various economical reforms, of some of which, when a Member of the other House, he had been a promoter. We were not now living in such times as those in which Mr. Dunning submitted his resolution, that the power of the Crown had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished, or as in 1822 (he thought it was, but at all events it was in the last year of Lord Londonderry's life), when he (the Lord Chancellor) made the same Motion. It was impossible any longer to advance the proposition that danger was to be apprehended from the power of the Crown. God forbid, however, that there should be any deficiency of jealousy or watchfulness on the part of the people through their Representatives, or if they would, without their Representatives, against any encroachment on their li-

819
berties or the renewal of old abuses. With respect to the existing system, which was established by Mr. Bankes's Bill in 1817, and which the Bill now before their Lordships proposed to alter, he doubted whether it was not one of the widest departures from the principle of the Constitution, ever made. It was true that sinecure places existed; but in their inception they were not so. They were originally working offices, though in process of time they had become sinecures, and were used as endowments for public men, whom there was no other means of rewarding. Mr. Bankes, on bringing forward his Bill, contended that when such offices were abolished, it would be necessary to provide other means of rewarding men who had been in the public service, and he used a catching argument for those who might be called ultra-liberals—those who were most decidedly opposed to the extension of the monarchical principle, and the greatest haters of pensions,—namely, that if such means were not provided, none but men of fortune would devote themselves to the service of the State, and that thus the Aristocracy would obtain a monopoly of the Government. Now, it was not consistent with the practice of our Constitution that there should be any profession or trade of politicians. Lawyers, merchants, and even divines in one way, took part in the strife of Parliament; but there was no particular class who followed the trade, as it were, of politician. It was said, that by abolishing sinecures without providing a substitute for them, men of talent but no fortune would he excluded from the public service. Now he could name six or seven statesmen, the most eminent men of their time, who were totally devoid of private fortune, and who never obtained a sinecure office. These were, the first Lord Chatham, the first Lord Holland, the two Lords Liverpool (he would take them as one only) Mr. Sheridan, Lord Grenville, Mr. Addington, Mr. Canning, and Mr. Perceval. Indeed, with the exception of Sir Robert Walpole, Mr. Pulteney, Mr. Pelham, and the present Premier, there had been hardly a Prime Minister, during the last or present century, who was not destitute of private fortune. The noble Duke near him (the Duke of Wellington) was no exception, for he was a professional man like himself. [Some noble Lords here mentioned the names of several other Ministers, amongst which we heard those of Lord North, the Marquess of Bute, and the Duke of Grafton.] Of all the Ministers he had mentioned,
820
scarcely any but those of the rich class obtained sinecure offices. Lord North had a sinecure, but Mr. Canning had none. Mr. Pitt had the wardenship of the Cinque Ports, and he was almost the only brilliant Minister who obtained a sinecure. He, therefore, did not attach much weight to the argument, that the withholding of pensions and sinecures would prevent men of small fortunes, or none at all, from entering the public service. If, as was alleged, persons of this description were enticed into the service of the State by the hope of obtaining sinecure offices, they were very dishonestly treated, for they seldom had that hope realized. He asked their Lordships, whether they ever heard of a sinecure or pension being given to men who performed their duty to the State by attacking the Government, and opposing the prerogative of the Crown when it was overgrown? Mr. Dunning might have gone on for ever moving that the power of the Crown had increased, and ought to be diminished, without getting a sinecure. [A Peer reminded the noble and learned Lord that Mr. Dunning, when Lord Ashburton, held the office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.] Very well; but he did not think that office was a sinecure, and it was given to Mr. Dunning in consequence of his having abandoned his profession for the service of the State. In order to obtain the reward of a pension, it was not necessary merely that a man should apply himself to the service of the public by becoming a Member of Parliament. He must also take office—he must recommend himself, not to the public, but the Minister, and must pass through the usual routine of offices, until he obtained a seat in the Cabinet. Talk of "midnight oil" and the "sweat of the brow!" A man might waste all the oil in his cruets, and sweat till he could sweat no longer, and then he would have to go to the poor-house, for aught the present system would do for him, unless he ingratiated himself with the Minister, and obtained a place. The getting into office, however, would be of no use, unless the individual resolved to agree with the Minister in every thing; for if he differed from him upon any point of conscience he would lose his place, and, of course, his chance of a pension. It was therefore necessary that he should put his conscience under a bushel for three years before he could be entitled to a pension. This was a bad system, and he would support the present Bill, because it would, to a certain extent, correct it.
The Bill passed through a Committee. Their Lordships afterwards heard further evidence in the case of the Warwick Borough.