Sitting of 29 June 1827

FOREIGN OFFICE.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, he was anxious, if not inconvenient to the House, to take that opportunity of saying a few words respecting the papers on their lordships' table, which he had moved for, relative to the Foreign Office. In making these observations, he felt great diffidence and some reluctance; for it would give him great pain if it were supposed that he had been induced by personal motives to make any observations on those papers. He also felt great reluctance in bringing forward this affair, because circumstances had induced his noble friends, who had given notices of motions in a substantive form, to abstain from pressing them forward. Still, though he felt much reluctance in pursuing, the course he was about to follow, he did not shrink from doing so, because his noble friend opposite had intimated, that touching upon these matters in no specific form was something like faction. Faction was a school he had never been brought up in; and he trusted that he never should be guilty of faction. Whatever he might have to urge in their lordships' House, he should always state openly and distinctly. The government had been formed by manœuvre and intrigue, and fostered by delusion, and could not stand. That was his firm opinion. He wished his noble friends had gone on with the motions of which they had given notice. The sense of the House would then have been long ago taken on them, in such a way as would have placed the noble lords opposite in such a state of embarrassment as would have made it difficult for them to extricate themselves from. He thought the government was formed without any principle at all. The noble lord opposite had said, that they should be the basest of all men if they did not act on the principles of lord Liverpool. A noble lord, who had great weight, had said, that the government was not formed on the principles of lord Liverpool, and he must therefore infer that the
1400
government was formed on no principle whatever. Fortunately for the noble lords, they had nearly arrived at the close of the session. He would now refer to the returns from the Foreign Office. The establishment at home remained much the same as before; but with respect to that abroad, he would state the totals in round numbers. The total expenditure of that office in 1822 amounted to 241,255 l.; in 1826, to 285,827 l.; making an increase of 44,582 l.; which, after admitting the allowance for consuls, which was formerly about 28,176 l., making a clear excess of upwards of 16,406 l. That was certainly not a very great sum; but let their lordships look at the immense increase of patronage in the Foreign Office. The whole expense in 1822 amounted to 241,255 l.; in 1826, 372,439 l.., making an increase of 131,934 l.—The second return was that of the appointments by the Foreign Office; by which it seemed that, to the new states of America there were three new envoys extraordinary, twenty-five consuls and vice-consuls; besides fourteen new consular appointments in France and other European states, making altogether thirty-nine new consular and vice-consular appointments.— The next return was the account of secret service money. By the return it appeared, that the secret service money in 1822, and the preceding years, never exceeded 30,000 l., excepting one year, which might be easily accounted for; but from 1822, down to the present period, it had been gradually increasing, until last year it amounted to 58,000 l. The sum of 35,000 1. was spent at home, and 23,000 l. abroad. Now, without questioning the honour or oath of any one, he must consider the expenditure of 35,000 l. at home a most lavish and monstrous expense. He did not doubt the fact of its being expended; but he questioned the judgment of those who had the disposal of it. Their lordships, however, had heard a noble friend of his, on a former day, state, that he had never known such exactness in the disposal of secret service money as during the time of the right hon. gentleman; and they had heard a eulogium on his merits, that he had never expended a shilling without receiving a quid pro quo for it. He did not know how that might be, but he did hope that foreign secretaries did get a quid pro quo for their money at home. He was anxious to know what had been received for it, for

1401
he was at a loss to know how 35,000 l. could be so expended: perhaps, to be sure, the Spanish Liberals had been subsisted on it. It was clear that the expenditure of the last four years had exceeded the preceding four years by 15,000 l.The next return was the Foreign Office building and furniture account, amounting to 42,147 l.; one item for furniture amounted to 8,000 l.; a sum that he considered enormous. He thought that if the right hon. gentleman was entitled to an expenditure of 8,000 l. for furniture alone, that other great officers of state were equally entitled to a similar sum. He thought that they ought not to object to a large grant to the Lord High Admiral, when such sums had been granted to other individuals. It appeared singular to him, that these various items had come up to them without any observation; but he could only account for that, by reading an account of the way in which the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury had been received in another place; by which it would appear, that he had obtained such a dominion over the minds of certain individuals, as to prevent any animadversion on such expenditure.— The next return was that of the pensions to foreign ministers, on which there was an increase of about 5,000 l. With regard to this return, he must state a case with respect to himself, which, under any other circumstances, he should have been unwilling to mention; but he must distinctly say, that he had been personally injured with respect to this particular return of the Foreign Office. The right hon. Secretary had unnecessarily or wantonly brought forward charges against him which he felt himself bound to repel and deny. For that purpose he had entered into a correspondence with the noble lord opposite; and if the noble lord chose to give that correspondence to the public, or to disclose it in any other shape, he should have no objection to it, and by that correspondence he would be judged. The result of the whole of these returns was,— that in 1822, the expenditure of the foreign establishment abroad amounted to 241,245 l., which, together with the pension list, taken at 30,000 l. and other items, made a total of 324,362 l.; while, in 1826, it had increased to 327,439 l.; added to which the pension list of 58,447 l., the building and furniture account of 43,147 l. with some other items, produced a total of 531,836 l., making an
1402
increase of 207,524 l.; which, after every possible allowance for the new states of America, showed an increase of expenditure of about 70,000 l., during the last year. He wished these facts to be known. He was sure the noble lord would have no objection to their being made public; as he was, no doubt, anxious that a true statement should appear of the state of that office, the patronage of which far exceeded any thing that the noble lord's predecessors had enjoyed.
Lord Dudley and Ward.— Do you intend to make any motion on the subject?
The Marquis of Londonderry.—None.
Lord Dudley and Wardsaid, he thought the noble marquis had adopted a most extraordinary course, after he had called for papers which had been laid upon the table a considerable time.
The Marquis of Londonderry.—The last only yesterday.
Lord Dudley and Wardresumed. The noble lord, after much note of preparation, had come down to the House to make a desultory speech, inculpating a particular department of his majesty's government, without giving any public notice, and without ending with any specific proposition. He felt that, under these circumstances, he was not justified in giving any answer to what he must say (without intending any offence to the noble marquis) must be considered, according to the practice of parliament, unfair remarks. Their lordships would remember, that when the papers to which the noble marquis alluded were asked for, they were moved for with considerable pomp, as if some delusion had been practised—as if they were to preface some important motion—and as if some great discovery had been made. The noble lord said, he wished to place before parliament and the country an account of the vast patronage of the Foreign-office, and to contrast the expenses of that department of the government in the years 1822 and 1826; that was, speaking plainly, to contrast the expenses of the administration of the late marquis of Londonderry with that of Mr. Canning. The papers which the noble marquis moved for had been produced; and what was the result after all? Why, it appeared that there had been hardly any increase of expenditure in the Foreign-office, except that which was satisfactorily accounted for by the increased expense in the consular department℄ an arrangement that had re-

1403
ceived the sanction of the late marquis of Londonderry, though not effected during his administration; the principle of which was, that salaries should be substituted for fees. Their lordships were also aware of the increase in the consular department—an increase at which all parties must rejoice, when it was remembered, that it arose from our extended commerce and increased intercourse with foreign states. He alluded to the expense of our missions to South America—details which would be sufficiently established and explained by documents which had been laid on the table of the other House. Another point to which the noble marquis had adverted was the expense of the house in Downing-street. That House had been purchased for the Foreign Secretary at an expense of 18,000 l.,—a large sum of money he must admit; but if secretaries of state were to have official residences provided for them at all, they should be in some degree suited to the station of those who were to occupy them; and as to the house in question, he would maintain, that it was not equal to the houses in which secretaries of state of other countries were lodged, nor to those of foreign ambassadors, and was not for a moment to be compared with the palace in which the noble marquis had resided at Vienna.—Another topic to which the noble marquis had adverted, and challenged him to lay the particulars before the House, he must also mention. He had understood the noble marquis to say, he had been calumniated and injured by the returns from the foreign-office. He had alluded to a correspondence which had taken place on the subject of a pension to which he conceived he was entitled for his diplomatic services; and had said, that if he (lord Dudley) would lay the papers before the House and the public, he would be judged by them. He must decline adopting that course, but the history of the transaction he would briefly state. The noble marquis made an application on this subject, by letter, to the Under Secretary of State —a gentleman who had long filled that office, Mr. Planta, stating the grounds which, in his own opinion, entitled him to a pension. The letter thus written was, of course, handed to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who, not wishing to take upon himself the responsibility of deciding on such an application, or of setting a value on the services of the noble marquis, transmitted it to lord Liverpool, then
1404
the First Lord of the Treasury. If he mistook not, the application was renewed; and then it was that lord Liverpool shortly after returned the letter to the Foreign office, in which he had made the remark in pencil, which had been communicated to the public through the medium of a newspaper.
The Marquis of Londonderry.— The noble lord had better say "through the medium of the Foreign-office."
Lord Dudley and Ward.— The noble marquis said, it had been made public through the Foreign-office. He should like to know how the noble marquis could know it without a most scandalous breach of trust—a most scandalous breach of duty on the part of some person in that office [hear, hear]. He would repeat— how could the noble marquis have known it, but through a most scandalous breach of duty on the part of that person from whom the noble marquis had derived his information? On the noble marquis's application, lord Liverpool had written, in pencil, the words— "This is too bad." And he had seen them himself. There was no breach of confidence in stating this; he had no motive in so doing; but when he was told, that the noble marquis had been calumniated by the returns from the Foreign-office, he could not allow noble lords to go away under the impression, that something very unjust had been done to the noble marquis. Now, with respect to the breach of confidence, as it had been termed, although the fact must have come from the Foreign-office, yet he protested he had no knowledge by what means, or through what channels, it had reached the newspapers. He was now only speaking of the transaction, as an instance of extraordinary breach of confidence on the part of the individual through whom the knowledge of it had escaped to the public. He did not want to bring any censure on the noble marquis: the transaction itself was one upon which he wished to be understood as expressing no opinion whatever. The noble marquis had adopted a course which he thought was suggested by his duty. How far he was right in so thinking, it was not for him to say. He was bound to suppose that. the noble marquis had acted under a conscientious sense of duty; and he was not attempting to draw down any censure upon the conduct he had thought proper to pursue. The observations of the noble marquis,

1405
not followed up by any motion, were so irregular and of such a nature, that he did not feel himself called on to go through them in detail. The motion, however, which had been made by the noble marquiswith— what object he would not say, because it was not parliamentary to impute motives— had certainly been made with a tendency to throw censure upon the conduct of the right hon. gentleman who had lately been the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but whose great crime was, that he now filled the chief seat in his majesty's councils. It had been made with a hope—a vain hope—of fixing a charge of prodigality upon that right hon. gentleman. Now, when he had heard that charge of prodigality preferred against his right hon. friend, he had thought it right to make some inquiry into the subject, and he found that, during the period of between thirty and forty years, for which the right hon. gentleman had been in the service of the country, and to which service he had brought no slight share of ability and industry, he had received of the public money, a sum of between 60,000 l. and 70,000 l., for his services. On the other hand, he believed that the noble marquis had been in the public service about ten years; and for his services in that period, he had received of the public money 160,000 l. [loud cheers]. He begged not to be understood as casting any imputation upon the noble marquis in stating this fact. He did not mean to say that his services were not cheaply purchased; because he was not acquainted with them, and was therefore incapable of pronouncing a judgment upon them [cheers]. But, when an attempt was made to fix upon his right hon. friend, by implication, a charge of prodigality, he could not help thinking, that he was bound to state these circumstances to their lordships, in order that the public might judge between his right hon. friend and the noble marquis, and say whose services had been most valuable to the country, in proportion to the remuneration which they had received for them. The noble marquis had made some other observations; but as he considered them wholly irregular, and as there was no proposition before the House, he would not occupy any more of their lordships time in replying to them.
The Marquis of Londonderryhoped that he should be excused for again trespassing upon their lordships, after the extraor-
1406
dinary mode of answering his observations adopted by the noble lord. He had alluded to the amount of certain sums of public expenditure, as appeared on the face of the papers on their lordships' table; and in reply to this, the noble lord had thought proper to go into a defence of a personal accusation with respect to a transaction with which it had nothing to do. Since the noble lord, however, had thought proper to mention that transaction, he should not have contented himself with stating only a part of it. He called upon him to state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; instead of which, he had given their lordships a partial and garbled statement. Now, he would not take up the time of the House upon this subject further than to read to their lordships a letter that he had written to the noble lord, which would show what the real facts of the case were. The noble marquis here read the following letter:—
"Holderness-House, May 14, 1827.
"My dear Lord,— Having just read in 'The Times' newspaper of to-day a libel upon my character, in which it is stated, that upon an application of mine for a pension, out of the prescribed form, lord Liverpool had himself endorsed these words—"This is too bad'— I feel persuaded that you will inform me whether, in your opinion, it be possible that, accidentally or otherwise, the office over which you preside can have been accessory to such a statement. If the fact be true, it will show that confidential or official documents are communicated for indirect purposes of personal attack, not where they can be met and answered, but by throwing them into anonymous channels. Whatever may be the character given of my proceedings in parliament, I disclaim any thing but being direct and open against public men and public measures, and I despise any other mode too much to have recourse to it.
"I request, therefore, before I take any further steps, that you will have the goodness to favour me with an answer to the quere I have made, and that you will forward me, as soon as possible, copies of all the correspondence relating to my application for the pension, together with Mr. Canning's letter, as to my services, on my resignation of the Vienna Embassy.
(Signed) "VANE LONDONDERRY."The answer of the noble lord opposite was a complete denial; and he consequently

1407
thought the thing at an end. In eight or ten days afterwards; however, he received a letter from the noble lord, saying that since his former letter, he had discovered that the pencil-mark alluded to did actually exist. Upon receipt of that communication he wrote to the noble lord as follows:—
"Holderness-House, May 23.
"My Lord,—My absence at Chiswick until a late hour last night, prevented my answering your lordship's letter sooner. As it now appears that a private and confidential remark of lord Liverpool's, arising out of my private communication to Mr. Planta, on my resignation of the Vienna embassy (of the existence of which, or any thing like it, I never could have the least intimation), has, after a lapse of six or seven years, been anonymously conveyed to the public from the Foreign-office, and has now been for the first time, officially communicated to me, I think it necessary for me to place all indirect attacks at defiance, and to show— 1st, From the records in the Foreign-office, that all the diplomatic servants of the Crown received pensions, with the exception of myself, who gave up to lord Liverpool's nomination a military government of 600 l. a year for life, without any equivalent, in 1821, the year preceding my retirement from the Vienna embassy; 2nd, To show the estimation in which my humble services, military and diplomatic, were held by my sovereign and superiors, during thirty years' service, and especially during the period I held the situation of his majesty's ambassador at Vienna.
(Signed) "VANE LONDONDERRY."Now, what he complained of was, that an anonymous publication of this description should go forth, for the purpose of injuring his character, after the lapse of time which he had mentioned. With respect to the noble lord, he felt obliged to him for the kindness he had shown him in bringing forward this subject on the present occasion. He was desirous, however, that the whole correspondence which had taken place upon it should be shown to the public; for there was no act of his life, either public or private, of which he had ever felt ashamed.

DISSENTERS' MARRIAGES BILL.
The Marquis of Lansdown,in moving that the House should go into a committee on this bill, said he wished to avail himself of that
1408
opportunity to make some observations on the bill. But before he entered upon those observations, he must remark upon the irregular discussion which had just gone by; not for the purpose of adding anything to what had been said upon that subject, but in illustration of the inconvenience of entering upon the discussion of subjects, of which notice had not been previously given. He adverted to this inconvenience, as it had deprived him of the advantage of the support of the right reverend prelate at the head of the church, who had attended that evening for the express purpose of supporting this bill, but who was prevented from remaining in the House, by the state of his health. Their lordships, who remembered the sentiments of that right rev. prelate on a former occasion, would bear testimony to the spirit of toleration, which he hoped would always characterize the clergy of the Established Church, and by which he was particularly anxious to see the heads of that church distinguished. He was instructed by that right rev. prelate, to say, that his sentiments remained unaltered upon this subject. Bills containing provision for the relief of the Dissenters, had been two or three times sent up to that House from the House of Commons, and rejected by their lordships; but he was happy to say that a very general feeling prevailed amongst those who had formerly opposed those bills, to give some relief to the Dissenters; and he believed he might even say, that the right rev. prelates had expressed an anxiety to adopt some measure, by which the Dissenters might be freed from the necessity of giving utterance, as a mere matter of form, to sentiments which they entertained not at heart; and, at the same time, to avoid that scandal to the church, which resulted from having its creed and its ceremonies prostituted by the calling upon Dissenters, for temporary purposes, to give a feigned assent to doctrines which they declared they did not believe. That was the situation of the Church, and the evil from which the right rev. prelate and other members of the ecclesiastical body wished to be relieved; and, he confessed, it was beyond his power to conceive, how those persons who attached importance to the due observance of the forms and doctrines of time church, could wish to continue a state of things, under which those ceremonies were used for the purposes of extorting a consent, intended to evade, and not to fulfil, the purposes of the

1409
legislature. Under the strong impression of the scandal which the law, as it stood at present, brought upon the church, he could not but express a hope, that their lordships would do something to meet the difficulties which presented themselves. Different modes of meeting these difficulties had been suggested at different times. A noble earl, lately at the head of his majesty's government (lord Liverpool), and who felt deeply the inconvenience which resulted from the state of the laws affecting the Dissenters, had expressed an opinion, that the difficulty might be best met by allowing some alteration to be made in the service of the church of England; but the right rev. prelates thought otherwise, and no attempt was made to carry that suggestion into execution. Different plans had been submitted to their lordships and rejected. The bill now under consideration attempted to reconcile, as far as possible, the jarring opinions which prevailed, and proposed to meet the objections which had been made at various times to the measures which came under their lordships' attention. Its objects were two-fold— that of making the ceremony of marriage a civil security, combined with the strongest attention to those religious ceremonies by which it was sanctioned. In this country, up to the 26th of Geo. the 2nd, these objects had been very imperfectly provided for; but an innovation upon the existing law, commonly called Lord Hardwicke's Act, then received the sanction of the legislature. At the time when lord Hardwicke introduced that measure, it became necessary to exempt two classes of religious believers from its operation—the Jews and the Quakers; but he apprehended that no man could contend, that this exemption was intended to fix any slur upon the marriage of those persons, or to declare that they were not perfectly legal. Some insinuations had, he knew, been thrown out, from an authority of great importance, that the marriage of those opulent and industrious people, the Quakers— a people remarkable for the purity of their lives, and the extent of their good works— could not be legally recognised; but he apprehended, that there could be no doubt upon the subject; and some of the most learned lawyers this country could boast, had distinctly declared their opinion, that the marriage of Quakers was perfectly legal. Sir Matthew Hale had distinctly given his
1410
sanction to the legality of the marriage of Quakers. Burnet, in alluding to the circumstance gives this account of the conduct and expressions of that eminent person on the occasion:— "In a trial that was before him, when a Quaker was sued for some debts owing by his wife before he married her, and the Quaker's counsel pretended that it was no marriage that had passed between them, since it was not solemnised according to the rules of the Church of England; sir Matthew Hale declared that he was not willing, on his own opinion, to make their children bastards, and gave directions to the jury to find it special, which they did."After some observations upon the nature of the case, and the conduct of the parties, the learned Historian goes on to observe, that "if this judge had not been more their friend than one of those they so called, their posterity had been little beholden to them. But he governed himself indeed by the law of the Gospel, of doing to others what he would have others do to him; and therefore, because he would have thought it a hardship, not without a cruelty, if, amongst Papists, all marriages were nulled which had not been made with all the ceremonies in the Roman ritual; so he, applying this to the case of the Sectaries, thought all marriages made according to the several persuasions of them, ought to have their effects in law." The noble marquis, after some observations upon the legality of the marriage of the Quakers being thus clearly proved, proceeded to contend that he was entitled to claim the same right for the Unitarians, and expressed a hope, that the time was now come when persons of that persuasion should no longer be invited to approach the altar with falsehoods in their mouths, or be compelled to subscribe to principles which they could not respect, and at the same time bring into contempt that faith which others hold sacred, for the gratification of mere secular and civil purposes. Adverting to the clauses of the bill, the noble marquis declared that he did not hold himself responsible for their perfection; but he knew that those who framed them had the assistance of some of those, whose experience and information best qualified them for the task. In the first place, the banns were to be published for the security of the public, and then the parties were to go before a magistrate and procure a certificate, that they had complied with certain

1411
forms specified in the act; that certificate was then to be carried to the clegyman for the purpose of being registered. Some objections, he understood, were made to imposition of this duty upon the clergyman; but he, for one, thought it was one of those inconveniences which could not be avoided. The Registry act had been passed in the time of William the 3rd, as a tax, for the purpose of raising money to carry on the war which was then waged against Louis the 14th; but so beneficial had it since been found, and so important was it, in every point of view, for the interests of the public, that if the bill now before the House did not contain a clause to make that registry imperative, he could not possibly consent to give it his support. The registration of one of the most important acts of a man's life was, in every point of view, of such infinite importance, that he thought the bill must prove inefficient, unless the clergyman was called upon to register the certificate.
The Earl of Eldonregretted the absence of the right reverend prelate on this occasion, because it was his misfortune to differ with him in the view which he took of this subject. He wished, in the first place, to separate from the consideration of the question every thing which had been said with regard to the Jews and the Quakers. In his opinion, the state of the Jews had no possible connection with the subject before their lordships. It might, perhaps, be different with regard to the Quakers; and he would here take leave to make an observation upon what had fallen from the noble marquis, when he spoke of a doubt having been thrown out respecting the validity of a Quaker's marriage. If that doubt related to any thing which had fallen from him, he must have been completely misunderstood; for he had distinctly given it as his opinion, that the marriage was perfectly valid. He was the more anxious to say this, because he was aware that doubts might have been raised, from the nature of the law on that subject. In 1661, they would find that the result of a proceeding at law admitted the validity of such marriages. In 1730, in another proceeding at common law, A doubt was cast upon the legality of a Quaker marriage, although its validity was afterwards confirmed upon a rehearing of the cause. The 7th and 8th of William and Mary contain, however, a clause which decides
1412
the question; and by which, for the purposes of taxation, all persons living together are held as married persons, whether they have been married or not according to the established forms. With respect to the marriages of Jews, a question arose in the court of Chancery as to their validity so lately as the time when , lord Rosslyn was chancellor. A man claimed a legacy as due to him, on the ground of its having been left to a person whom he called his wife. The persons were a Jew and a Jewess, and the question in this case was whether the legatee was his wife. The lord Chancellor directed this question to be tried by the Ecclesiastical court, and the case came on before the present lord Stowell. Lord Stowell, and also sir W. Wynn, who afterwards affirmed the judgment of lord Stowell, expressed their surprise that this case should have been sent to the court of Chancery; inasmuch as the lord Chancellor had just as much right as an Ecclesiastical court to decide incidentally on the validity of a Jewish marriage, as on that of a foreign marriage. They decided, however, that a marriage of Jews was to be considered as a marriage of foreigners out of the country. Now, the validity of a foreign marriage must be decided by the lex loci; but it was a maxim of law, that the Jews, who were every where, were in fact, no where. As the Jews, therefore, have no place in this country, as they have no locality, no lex loci can apply to their case; but the validity of their marriages must be determined by their conformity with their own peculiar laws. Whatever the legislature had done with regard to the marriages of Jews and Quakers, and whatever it might be disposed to do with regard to the marriages of Dissenters, he trusted it would never assent to any measure, the effect of which would be to degrade the Church of England in the public estimation. With respect to the marriages of Quakers, he was certainly of opinion, that their marriages might be considered legal, under the exception in the 26th George 2nd. But let their lordships consider at what period of the session it was, that they were called upon to decide this most important question. He had given the greatest attention to this bill; he had weighed every sentence and line in it; but he found it utterly impossible to assent to the passing of it without a great number of alterations,

1413
Now if, labouring as he had done, with a view to make this bill better than it was, he had been unable to accomplish his object, he did think that no time or labour their lordships could bestow upon it would enable them to execute their work as it ought to be executed. Besides, if their lordships introduced amendments, the amendments of this most important bill would go down to the Commons on Friday, and on that very evening the other House must decide upon the propriety of them; for their lordships were perfectly aware that no other opportunity would be afforded for considering them. The time, therefore, at which this measure was brought under the consideration of their lordships, was a sufficient ground for not passing it, even if the objections to it were less strong than he believed he should be able to satisfy the House they were.— It had been argued, that it was but just to do for Dissenters of this description what the legislature had done for Jews and Quakers. Bat admitting that the marriages of Jews and Quakers were valid, under the exception in the Marriage act, he begged to ask their lordships, whether the Church of England had ever been called in to assist in those marriages? In the time of the Commonwealth, when men were married, as it was now proposed, before justices of the peace—a measure adopted for the express purpose of degrading the clergy—the clergy were called upon to aid and assist in their own degradation. If their lordships should think it right to do that for Dissenters generally which had been done for Quakers, let them do so; but then they must do more than was proposed to be done by this bill. He begged to call their lordships' attention to what this bill did, and to what it did not. In the first place, he should be glad to know who the persons were whom this bill proposed to relieve? What an Unitarian was had never yet been explained. He had taken occasion last year to ask a right reverend prelate, who was now unfortunately absent, what was an Unitarian, and he could get no answer. Since that time, he had received a sermon, preached by a minister before an Unitarian congregation, and the first words were— "The lord Chancellor asks what is an Unitarian?" This was, certainly, rather a singular commencement of a sermon; it was, however, a very good sermon, as far as he could understand subjects of that
1414
kind. The sole reason which led him to ask the question—and if their lordships should go into the committee, he should ask it again—was, that it might be recorded upon the face of this bill what a Unitarian was. Was a Unitarian a person who denied the divinity of our Saviour? He should be exceedingly glad to get a definition of a Unitarian. He did not know what distinction there was between Unitarians and the Free-thinking Christians, who entertained these scruples about marriages. He begged their lordships to look at the language of these petitioners, that they might judge of their claims to the special interposition of the legislature.—The noble earl proceeded to read some passages from the petitions of the Free-thinking Christians, in which the petitioners stated, that the religion of the Established Church had no higher date than that of Popery, and that its laws had no higher authority than that of acts of parliament. What was the complaint of these Free-thinking Christians? Their children were baptized according to the forms of the Established Church; they were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and he did not hear that these dissenters made any objection to the baptismal ceremony. With respect to the marriage ceremony, what was objected to was, he understood, the mention of the Godhead under the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, when the clergyman at the end of the ceremony prayed the blessing of God upon the man and his wife. The calling upon God to bless them under the terms of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost—and every Christian of common honesty and integrity, when he said God bless you, meant the Godhead in its Christian acceptation—was what these persons deemed so great a hardship. It was on such grounds that their lordships were called upon to make a law, not for the benefit of Dissenters of all denominations, but for this particular class of Dissenters, which according to all the evidence of history, held doctrines of a more offensive description than any other class. In his opinion, the best security for a religious establishment was a religion of the purest form, with a large and liberal toleration. Such was the spirit of the toleration granted in the act of the 53rd of the late king; and he was perfectly ready to admit, that the acts of the 7th and 8th

1415
of William and Mary enacted penaltie on account of religious opinions, which ought never to have been thought of. By the provisions of the bill now before their lordships, the clergy of the Church of England were called upon to publish the bans, on the declaration of the parties that they were Dissenters of this description. The clergyman was to certify, that he had published the bans to a justice of the peace, and the justice of peace was to appoint some time and place where the marriage ceremony, such as it was, was to be performed. A question had been raised, whether it might not be necessary to substitute the words "reputed justice" for justice; and in point of fact, when the noble lord who held the Great Seal had had as much experience as he (lord E.) had had—and he trusted that he would hold it as long, and longer than he had done—he would find that cases might frequently arise where, in consequence of certain informalities, it was questionable who was or was not a justice of the peace. The bans having been published, the justice of the peace was to give a certificate, that the parties had gone through certain forms before him; and upon this certificate the clergyman was to be called upon to register the marriage. Now, he would put it to their lordships, whether a clergyman of the Church of England was not degraded and dishonoured, by being compelled to act as a sort of clerk to a justice of the peace; and whether the lay magistrate of the Church of England was not also dishonoured, by being concerned in such a transaction. Suppose the clergyman— as must frequently be the case—to be himself a justice of the peace; was he to go through the species of marriage ceremony, as a justice of the peace, which he could not possibly perform without a gross violation of his duties as a conscientious clergyman? Was it contended, that the scruples of those Dissenters who denied the divinity of our Saviour were to be respected, because they could not in their consciences allow a clergyman of the Church of England to say to them, at the end of the marriage ceremony, "God bless you, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost," and that they might then turn round upon the clergyman, and say, " You have published our bans; but you are also a justice of peace; and we choose you, in despite of any thing you may urge on the score of your conscience,
1416
to perform our marriage ceremony in that capacity?" He was perfectly satisfied that their lordships would not suffer the clergy of the Church of England to be so degraded and dishonoured. Did the act contain any clause which required the observance of what was necessary to be observed, with respect to licenses, and with respect to the Canon law? Was there any clause with reference to felony, without benefit of clergy; he meant the clause which related to forging registers, making false entries, and similar offences? It would be necessary to guard against clandestine marriages; and yet all which this bill did for that purpose was to call upon the parish clergyman to publish the bans. Quakers and Jews were generally married in full assemblies of their connexion and friends; but, by the proposed bill, the greatest door was opened to frauds. A person had nothing to do but to pretend to be a Unitarian, to have his bans published, and then proceed to the private room of any justice of the peace, who would give him his certificate. He might put this certificate in his pocket, if he chose to run the risk of a penalty of 20 l., which a justice might reduce to 5l. Nobody could then prove the marriage under the act; because the party was not, in fact, a Unitarian, but had only pretended to be one.—He not only objected to the bill because it was intended to put the Unitarians on the same footing as Quakers, but he would go further and say, that if the House did intend to adopt the principles of the bill, its enactments were not calculated to carry those principles into effect. If the House thought that the bill ought to pass, he still objected to its passing in the present session. It would want so many amendments, so many serious alterations, to make it a bill such as it ought to be, that it would be impossible to get through with it in the present session, and he should feel himself bound to move, that it be read this day three months. He thought it was a material objection to the bill, that it imposed upon men the necessity of giving direct evidence to a fact which they did not know to be true. At present the register of a marriage was taken as evidence in a court of justice, because the marriage act required the clergyman who celebrated the marriage to sign the registry. This was making the clergyman certify what he knew to be true. The same principle applied to

1417
baptism. But, by the present bill, a person might put the marriage certificate in his pocket, and, defying proof, might tell the female that he was not married, and that her children were not legitimate.—It was not necessary for him to give any opinion upon the principles of the bill; the only thing to consider was, the necessity of having time to consider how to make the bill upon its own principles, effective. He trusted that their lordships would feel in favour of the old law of the land, and let the present bill stand over till next session. If it were said, that the parties aggrieved by the present law ought not to be allowed to continue so long under the injury they suffered, he would ask, whose fault was that? Year after year, this bill had been proposed to the House— the same objections had been urged against it, and yet its authors continued to press the measure. Those who did press it in its old form were alone to blame if the relief they sought was deferred. As the questions of repeal of the Test and Corporation acts, the Corn-bill, and other measures, were to be postponed till next session, he saw no reason why this bill, also, might not be warehoused and bonded like the rest till next session. When that time would arrive, he would contribute his exertions to make the measure as perfect as possible; but should move at present "that the bill be committed that day three months."
Lord Calthorpesaid, he was inclined to think that the great practical grievance was what the church itself laboured under, as long as the law continued in its existing state. With reference to the arguments used by the learned lord about the bill being a measure of partiality to the Unitarians, as a sect distinguished from all other Dissenters, he had overlooked, that no distinction existed between the Unitarians and all other religionists, except, perhaps, the Jews. Upon this ground alone, the Unitarians might not have any claim upon the consideration of parliament; but the public had strong claims that the legislature should relieve the established church of the blasphemy committed by its ministers in being called upon to pronounce, in the most solemn manner, the doctrine of the Trinity, to persons who did not believe in it, and to exact from such persons an assurance of faith which they did not possess. He did not imagine that human ingenuity could
1418
conceive a more certain means, in the present state of society, of making the church degrade and pollute itself by mixing profaneness with its most sacred service. He thought the House owed it to the honour and dignity of the church, not to allow the present law to continue another year. The Unitarians were stated by the learned lord, to be asking of parliament what was not granted to Jews or Quakers; but the fact was, that neither of the two latter sects were obliged to submit to the marriage ceremony of the Church of England. The church was, therefore, bound to carry on the imposition with respect to Unitarians; whilst it was relieved from the degrading duty with respect to Jews and Quakers. Was it a proof of the high reverence of the church for the sacred doctrines of the Trinity, which was the vital principle of her faith, that she should call upon her ministers to declare her doctrines, and to oblige individuals to repeat them, who were known not to entertain such tenets? It would be most disadvantageous to the church itself to suffer another session to pass, without putting an end to the existing state of things with respect to Unitarian marriages. No one had a deeper sense than he had of the religious errors of the Unitarians; but, in the practice of the moral precepts of Christianity, he believed, they might bear a comparison with the most orthodox Christians; and, for the sake of the church establishment itself, as well as for their sakes, the grievance of which they complained ought to be redressed.
Lord Farnhamsaid, he was ready to grant as much relief to the Unitarians as was consistent with the interests of the established religion; but their lordships should proceed in this measure with caution, as it was, he believed, the first attempt made to divest marriage of the solemnities of religion. The relief which he was inclined to give to the Unitarians would be to allow them to be married by clergymen of their own persuasion. To the present bill, however, he had that objection, which must be made to all bills on important subjects introduced in the last week of the session, that it could not at that period be hurried into a law, without containing many defects.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that it was with considerable diffidence he addressed the House, after the very able

1419
speech of his noble and learned friend. But he was apprehensive that it might be thought that he did not do his duty, if he remained wholly silent. But, if he understood his noble and learned friend correctly, his objections applied, not to the principle, but to the clauses, of the bill; and they were now considering the principle. He hoped, therefore, that their lordships would allow the bill to go into the committee, and then, if in considering the bill clause by clause, the objections should appear to be insuperable, he would subscribe to the course proposed by his noble and learned friend, and agree to the postponement of the measure till next session. But their lordships ought not, in his opinion, to abandon the bill in its present stage. If he thought that the measure would degrade the clergy, or injure the church establishment, he would be zealous against it; but when a right rev. prelate, who had been alluded to, had said that he was not averse to the principle of the bill, he could not think that it was in the slightest degree calculated either to degrade the clergy or injure the church. With their lordships' permission, he would advert briefly to the history of the law of marriage. Throughout the whole of Christendom there was no religious ceremony connected with marriage, till the time of the Council of Trent; and still, in the countries which did not acknowledge the authority of that Council, no religious ceremony was essential to marriage, and none was essential in this country, till the passing of the Marriage Act. He stated this not merely on his own authority, but on the authority of a most eminent judge; he meant lord Holt, who had held, in two cases, that a marriage might be constituted without any religious ceremony. He might refer to another noble and learned lord (Stowell) who was a light and an ornament to that House, and whose profound erudition was graced by his elegant and classical taste. That noble and learned lord had proceeded on the ground which he had stated in his judgment in the case of Dalrymple and Dalrymple; in which he had set out the authorities, and mentioned the case of lord Fitzmaurice in 1730, where a marriage per verba de presenti was held to be valid, without any religious sanction; so that the parties could not by their own consent render it of no effect. Such was the law here before the Marriage Act, which, as judge Blackstone had said,
1420
had so far altered the law of England. If the noble and learned lord (Stowell) to whom he alluded, had thought that this bill had any tendency to degrade the clergy or injure the church, he would have been here to oppose it, and his absence was an argument that he was not adverse to the measure. The Quakers had been excepted from the operation of the Marriage Act; and their marriages stood on the same footing as marriages did before the passing of that act; and if the Unitarians had then existed in the same way as they now existed, would they not also have been excepted? The principle of the exemption was, that this was a matter of conscience, and that to force the Quakers to go through the ceremony as appointed by the act, would be a profanation of the rites of the Church of England: and, upon the same principle, the Unitarians should be exempted. A right rev. prelate had said, that it was a solemn mockery, or something to that effect, to make the Unitarians perform the marriage ceremony according to the rites of the church of England; and would they not then have been exempted from the Marriage Act, if they had existed in a legal form as they did now? They had not, at the time of passing the Marriage Act, a legal existence; since, by a statute of king William, they were subjected to penalties; and, in nine years after, additional penalties were enacted against them; and thus matters stood with respect to them at the passing of the Marriage Act, and they were not exempted, as they were marked out by law as objects of punishment. But in the 19th of the late king, the laws against them had been repealed to a certain extent, and in 1813, they were entirely exempted from the penalties. They ought now, therefore, to have the benefit of exemption from the Marriage Act; since that would be quite in the spirit of that act. As to the principles of this sect, it was said that they were christians, believing in the New Testament, but not drawing the same conclusions as we do from a part of the New Testament. They did not object to the ceremony of baptism, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; nor did they object to these words in the marriage ceremony; but they did object to the blessing— in the name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. That with them was no trifling objection, but one which went to the very essence of

1421
their faith. It was the point on which their faith turned. It had been said, that they were not called upon to repeat these words; but then they were present when they were pronounced, and were supposed to assent to them, and they could not protest against them, without being guilty of an infraction of the law. This solemn mockery ought to be got rid of, for the sake both of Dissenters and of the church. Now, he thought the bill could properly be defended upon the principle of a law now in existence, he meant the Marriage Act. Since the year 1813, when, by act of parliament, the Dissenters became a tolerated body, and were exempted from penalties to which they had before been liable, they might be considered as forming a new class in the country. He was of opinion that their lordships were bound to follow up the principle of that bill, which they might now do in a very necessary and important point, by going into a committee on the bill under consideration. It was supposed that the publication of bans, required by this act, would be offensive to the clergy of the established church. He really did not conceive in what manner they could be offended by it, especially when it was recollected that, by the present practice of the church. notices of all sorts, even of the most trifling descriptions, were regularly promulgated during the intervals of divine service. What was it that could offend the clergy in the publication of the bans of marriage between persons so respectable as were the members of this class of Dissenters? Was it possible for their lordships to say that a class, some of the members of which were legislators, were so little respectable, that the publication of their bans of marriage would degrade the clergyman who made the publication? Again, his noble and learned friend had complained of the clause in this act which required the entry in the registry of the marriage. Now, it seemed to him that the duty thus imposed upon the clergyman was one in which the whole country was interested. It was not a matter that regarded individuals alone, it was, in fact, a public duty. Was it not, he would ask, a matter of public convenience, that all the registers of marriage should be kept in one place, in order that all questions of legitimacy might be easily determined? Were not all parties interested in the decisions of such matters, even in a pecuniary
1422
point of view? Was it no advantage to the country to secure the means of a quick and necessary method of settling those disputes? He felt the force of the objection made by the noble and learned lord to that part of the bill which related to the marriage before the justice of the peace. He knew that that objection, and others of a similar kind, originated in no party feeling, but were the result of an accurate consideration of the bill. Still, he thought, that they ought not to hesitate to give their sanction to its principle, leaving its details for discussion in the committee. When it had arrived at that stage, he should certainly use his utmost endeavours to get rid of the difficulties which had now been presented to their lordships; and, if those difficulties were found to be such as could not be disposed of in the present session, he would agree to give up the bill for a time, satisfied with having established the principle of the measure. If the principle of the bill was once established, he thought there would be no difficulty in mastering its details. If he was right in what he had stated, he saw no reason why the bill should not be committed. It seemed to him, that the respectable body of Dissenters to which he had alluded were entitled to this promise of relief; and indeed that not only they, but the members of the establishment, might claim it at the hands of the legislature; for it would be a relief almost as much to the church as to the Dissenters.
The Earl of Eldonin explanation, said, that his noble relative, lord Stowell, was disabled by illness from attending the discussion. Inadvertence alone had prevented his noble relative from attending by proxy against the measure; so strong was his aversion to the bill.
The Bishop of Chestersaid, he felt himself bound to offer a few words in support of the bill, in conformity with the pledge he had given. He agreed with the learned earl opposite, that some alterations were necessary; but he thought with the learned lord on the woolsack, that those alterations could be easily made in the committee. He would not go at length into the details of the bill; but he thought their lordships would do wisely to acknowledge its principle, by which they would give satisfaction to a numerous body of Dissenters, by shewing them that the legislature was ready to afford them all the assistance compatible with the integrity of the church,

1423
and with the safety of the constitution. The marriage ceremony was the only portion of the service of the Church of England to which it was compulsory on every person to conform. In some cases, it was not only the wish of persons to marry, but, in a political sense, marriage might be called a duty. Now, by the law as it at present stood, no Dissenters from the church, except the Quakers, could enter into the marriage state, without appearing to agree to doctrines from which they strongly dissented. The main part—almost the essence of marriage—consisted in the consent of the parties; but the state properly claimed some power in the regulation of that important ceremony. There were two points on which the state grounded its right of interference; first, as it regarded public good in the preservation of the means of ascertaining the legitimacy of children, in order to determine the titles to property; and secondly, to assist in preserving public morals, by giving a greater degree of solemnity to the act. With the first of these the church had nothing to do; and with respect to the second, he could not avoid expressing his serious doubts whether the solemnity of the ceremony was increased when two persons were compelled to do that which seemed to amount to an acquiescence in doctrines from which they really dissented. He agreed, that marriage was a contract which ought to be considered as sacred; but he feared that it did not gain much in sacredness of character, by the laws now regulating the practice of the Church of England. Although he was convinced that matrimony was, in the language of the church, a holy state not to be entered into without the observance of religious forms and ceremonies, yet he could not forget, that, in the 25th article of the church, it was stated, that there were "not any visible signs or ceremonies ordained of God." He thought, therefore, they were not bound to compel the Dissenters, in contracting marriages with each other, to perform religious ceremonies to which they so strongly objected. With respect to the publication of bans, he thought that part of the objections raised to the bill had been sufficiently answered by the learned lord on the woolsack; but, .if he might add any thing to that answer, he would say, that the clergyman was only required to perform a public duty in notifying the existence of a magistrate's
1424
certificate, which was required by the law of the state for the purposes of the state.
Their lordships divided: For going into a committee 61; Against it 54; Majority. 7.—The bill went through the committee.

FREE PEOPLE OF COLOUR.
The Earl of Harrowbyrose for the purpose of presenting a petition from the Free People of colour in Jamaica. If this petition proceeded from that class of persons which generally addressed their lordships, calling their attention to the common topics to which it had been usually directed, he should not think it necessary to say a single word on the subject of the petition, and would leave it to speak for itself. But, in presenting this petition from a class of persons who had never before appeared before their lordships, and with the peculiar circumstances of whose situation he believed many of their lordships were unacquainted, he should feel it necessary to request their indulgence while he stated the present situation of the petitioners, and the nature of that which they desired. The petitioners were entitled to the attention of their lordships on account of their number, their wealth, and their good conduct; and the petition itself was entitled to attention, from the temperate terms in which the petitioners described the grievances they laboured under, and the moderate nature of the requests which it contained. These persons were the offspring, in different degrees of remoteness, of the black and the white population. It appeared from Mr. Edwards, that, at the time he wrote his History of the West Indies, the population consisted of 30,000 white people, 240,000 slaves, and 10,000 free people of colour. What was the state of the population at present? The number of whites from 30,000 had diminished to 25,000; the number of free people of colour was 30,000—10,000 of whom were blacks; and the number of the slaves from 240,000 had increased to 320,000. The petitioners were, therefore, as far as number was concerned, sufficiently numerous to attract attention. A population of 30,000 complaining of one common grievance, deserved to have that, grievance considered. They were persons, however, who had been under a singular state of degradation from not being allowed to in-

1425
herit, and from various other oppressive laws; but, in consequence of a relaxation of those laws, their property was now not less than 3,000,000 l. The fortunes of four persons, he understood, amounted together to 700,000 l. The class was in possession of the whole of the pimento plantations, and were masters of 50,000 slaves. With respect to wealth, they were, therefore, entitled to consideration. Their conduct was spoken of in the highest terms by Mr. Edwards, who wrote his History in 1793. Subsequently to that period, their conduct in very difficult circumstances—in the Maroon war, for instance—was eminently loyal; and it procured, at different times, some important relaxations of the severity of the laws against them. They had subsequently received the public thanks of the Assembly for their loyalty; and he need say no more, than that of the militia, of 10,000 persons, one half was composed of free persons of colour. There could not, therefore, be any distrust of their loyalty.—He now thought it necessary to state for what those persons petitioned, and what it was that they wanted. There were different wants that applied to different classes. The wealthy wanted the possibility of attaining that degree of consideration to which wealth and talents were, in other parts of the world, entitled. These people were not eligible to serve in parish vestries, or in the General Assembly: they could not act in any office of public trust, not even in the subordinate situation of constable; though agricultural labourers, employed upon their own property, could fill that situation. They could not hold commissions in the black and mulatto regiments; and they were further disqualified from serving as jurors. In the militia, when disabled, they had only one third of the provision that was allowed to the whites. With respect to schools, if not absolutely excluded, obstacles were thrown in the way of their admission. When relieved by poor-rates, they only got one half the allowance given to whites. In church, where one would suppose all distinctions would be laid aside, with respect to seats, there was a complete line of separation. For the last fifty years, between forty and fifty whites had been executed, while only four persons of colour had suffered. The degradation to which the petitioners were subjected, was the result of that odious state of slavery, which not only corrupted every thing it touched with
1426
its plague-spots, but tainted every thing within its atmosphere. But he might be asked, for what purpose he brought forward this petition? Did he mean to propose any measure? At that period of the session, he knew it was impossible for any measure to be introduced; but he wished to be understood as stating, that, from the extreme difficulty and complicated nature of the subject, if ever it should be taken up by parliament, with a view to a measure of relief, its introduction must be committed to the hands of an individual of far more ability than he could pretend to. He was satisfied, from the respectful nature and moderate terms of the petition, that its prayer must, one time or other, be granted. It was something for the petitioners to know, that the individuals of that unfortunate and degraded race were considered, by the peers of Great Britain, as their brethren.
Lord Ellenboroughsupported the prayer of the petition, though he understood that the lower class of the petitioners were not in a situation to enjoy the civil rights they prayed for.
Lord Seafordsupported the petition, and bore testimony to the respectability and good conduct of the petitioners. Still he thought it would not be wise to interfere with the subject at present. It was a case of great difficulty, for which there was no parallel in the history of the world. The noble lord, after taking a review of the different measures which, at various times, had relieved the petitioners from several of the disabilities under which they laboured, concluded by stating, that the colonial legislature were now more favourably disposed to them, and he was therefore anxious that the question should be left in its hands, lest the agitation of it should produce a re-action.
Lord Calthorpewas not disposed to place the same confidence in the local legislature that his noble friend did. He thought it incumbent on their lordships to attend to the prayer of the petition.
Ordered to lie on the table.

DISSENTERS' MARRIAGES BILL.
The Marquisof Lansdown moved that the report of this bill be brought up.
Lord Tenterdensuggested the introduction of some verbal amendments; which, after a desultory conversation, were agreed to.
The Marquis of Lansdownmoved, that

1427
the bill be read a third time that day fortnight.
The Bishop of Chestersaid, he had been assured, that the clergy of the church of England had no objection to the principle of the bill. They were quite willing to publish the bans and to register the marriages when the certificates were sent to them, provided they were exempted (as this bill would exempt them), from the painful duty of assisting personally at the performance of the ceremony.
The bill was then, pro forma,ordered to be read a third time this day fortnight. It consequently stands over till next session.

CAPE OF GOOD HOPE—CONDUCT OF LORD CHARLES SOMERSET.
Mr. Wilmot Hortonpresented certain papers relative to the Cape of Good Hope, pursuant to the order of the House.
Lord E. Somersetimmediately proceeded to address the Chair; but the place from which he spoke, being directly under the gallery, rendered it impossible to collect his observations. The first sentence of his lordship's speech which reached our ears related to a Letter concerning certain proceedings that had taken place at the Cape which had been recently published, and which reflected on the conduct of Parliament. He did not rise to propose that the author of that letter should be called to the bar of the House for a breach of its privileges; but he adverted to it, for the purpose of showing the invariable system of misrepresentation which existed with respect to subjects connected with the Cape of Good Hope. His noble relation had, for a considerable time, been subject to the grossest abuse, which was circulated not only through the public papers, but through every channel that could be employed for that purpose. Two years had now elapsed since the petition of Mr. Bishop Burnett had been presented to the House. That petition contained charges against the conduct of his noble relation, of so serious a character, that he deemed it necessary to come to England for the purpose of meeting his accusers, and of justifying himself in the face of his country. A voluminous report had been made by the commissioners appointed to inquire into the proceedings at
1428
the Cape; and, with respect to the nature of that report, he begged leave to refer to the declaration lately made by the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Brougham), who had presented the petition of Mr. Bishop Burnett to the House. That hon. and learned gentleman had stated, that the report of the commissioners was generally satisfactory to him. The hon. and learned gentleman had, on a former occasion, alluded particularly to one part of the petition, which he had very properly described as containing a charge of a most serious nature. He would now ask the hon. and learned gentleman, whether, since he had made that observation, he had not been induced to conclude, from the best information, that the charge was groundless? He felt the most decided conviction, that his noble relation would be able to refute, not only satisfactorily, but triumphantly, every accusation which had been brought against him. Amongst other publications, a letter, proceeding from an officer of rank (sir Rufane Donkin) had been sent forth, which contained calumnies with respect to the warrants issued for the pay of the salaries in the colonial department. He did not hesitate to say, that those statements were capable of the most complete refutation. This was not the proper time to go into the whole case; but when the particular charges were specifically brought under consideration, the most ample refutation would be given to them. His noble relation had come on purpose to this country to repel those charges, and he had always been ready and anxious to meet them. The hon. member for Arundel (Mr. Lombe) not now in his place, had given notice, before the Easter recess, of his intention of bringing this subject forward; and he thought the House must regret that the hon. member had abandoned his post, without giving any opinion on the question, or bringing it forward in any way whatever. The course which the hon. gentleman had thought proper to adopt was not that of an individual who really wished to have the question set at rest. After the anxiety which his noble relation had manifested to have the subject thoroughly discussed, and after the abandonment of the motion of which the hon. gentleman had given notice, he conceived that his noble relation had a right to consider himself as freed from all imputation. His noble relation had tendered his resignation; but,

1429
in taking that course, he was not actuated by any fear of consequences; he was not induced to do so by any dread that his character would suffer from inquiry. On the contrary, he was convinced, that the more his conduct was inquired into, the more it would be proved to deserve praise. The proceedings which had been adopted against him were the acts of individuals, who had conspired together to effect their own private objects. He begged pardon of the House for having taken up so much of their time; but he was sure gentlemen would excuse him, when they recollected the delicacy of his situation. In conclusion, the noble lord called on his right hon. friend (Mr. W. Horton) to state the opinion which his majesty's government entertained with respect to the proffered resignation of his noble relative.
Mr. Maberlydeprecated an incidental discussion of this sort. He begged, however, to state, that the gallant officer to whom allusion had been made, was ready to come forward and to prove every one of his assertions, whenever his majesty's government thought it necessary to have the statements made by him inquired into. It was unfair to assert, that the gallant officer had published a series of calumnies, when he was anxious to come forward and substantiate his statements. When such was the true state of the case, he was not ready to join in an acquittal of the noble lord whose conduct had been impugned. There was, in his opinion, much to be inquired into. It was the imperative duty of parliament to investigate closely and narrowly the charges that had been made. He denied, in the most decided manner, that they were calumnies which his gallant friend had sent forth. He had nothing to do with the motives which had induced the hon. member for Arundel to let the motion, of which he had given notice, drop. It was a question of a most serious nature; and he did not think it was just towards the noble lord for the hon. member to have abandoned the motion.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he could only observe on this occasion, as he had had the satisfaction to observe on a former one, that nothing could be more proper than the spirit, the temper, and the amiable feeling, which had been manifested by the noble lord, whenever the painful charges against his noble relative had been alluded to. It was certainly true, as the noble lord had stated, that he was the person
1430
who presented the petition of Mr. Bishop Burnett two years ago; and it was equally true, that he then observed, that, while the several charges were more or less important, there was one of them so infinitely more serious than the others, that it called for the most pointed attention. It was no less than a charge of direct judicial corruption against the noble lord, in his capacity of Judge of Appeals at the Cape of Good Hope; for taking, in an indirect way, a sum of money, to give a particular decision on a question which was to come before him in his judicial character. This, he had stated, was a far more gross charge than any of the others; and he had further declared, that if he believed it to be well-founded, he should himself feel it to be his duty to impeach that noble lord, on the ground, the incontestable ground, which never had been denied to all the Commons of England, and which gave to each member of that House, without the concurrence of the House—without even the formality of a seconder to his motion—the right to impeach individuals filling important situations in the state, of high crimes and misdemeanors. He admitted that the noble lord had an equal right, after the lapse of two years—after abundant time had been afforded for inquiring into this charge—to ask him, whether or not he had made such an inquiry; and, if he had, to declare what the result had been, according to the best of his judgment. That was all the noble lord required; and he willingly conceded that which the noble lord had a right to ask. He was bound to state his I opinion—the House had a right to expect it—but above all, it was due to the near relation of the noble lord, whose character and honour, not merely as an officer in the public service, but as a man and a gentleman, were deeply affected by this charge. He felt himself bound, therefore, to answer the call of the noble lord. He believed he had stated, on a former occasion, why he abstained, at that time, from bringing forward any proposition on this subject. When he introduced the petition of Mr. Bishop Burnett, he could no more vouch for the facts which it contained, than any gentleman who presented an ordinary petition could do. He had, however, taken the precaution to ask Mr. Bishop Burnett certain questions on the subject; and he consistently and satisfactorily answered those questions. He

1431
(Mr. Brougham) soon afterwards found himself professionally retained, for or against (he did not know which) one of those parties whose case had been before lord C. Somerset at the Cape. In what he was now about to say, as to the acquittal of lord C. Somerset on this particular charge, he wished to state, that his opinion rested, not on argument or inference, but on dates. It appeared that a person at the Cape, named Sewell, having an appeal case pending, which was to be decided by lord C. Somerset, was told, in an indirect way, that he had better buy a horse from the governor. He said "I don't want one." Oh," said his adviser, "You had better buy the animal." It was alleged, that the horse was, in the end, bought for 10,000 dollars; which at the rate of 5s. the dollar, would amount to between 2,000 l. and 3,000 l. It was further stated, that lord C. Somerset took the money, and kept the horse in his stable. It was a blood horse—a stallion, and lord C. Somerset was accused of having kept the animal till he died, after he had received the money. The purchaser did not, it was said, get the horse; but he got what was more valuable — his cause. Such was the matter of imputation. Now, in the first place, as to the horse having been purchased for 10,000 dollars, it should be observed, that the value of the dollar at the Cape was 1s. 6d., instead of 5s., and at that rate the price would be only upwards of 700 l. which, according to report, was considerably under the price at which a horse of that kind could be exported for from England. This made him look further into the circumstances stated in the petition. He then found, that lord C. Somerset had sold the horse for the season, and had given it up for that period. Afterwards, according to the bargain, he took it back; it being a condition that he should provide for it during the other eight months of the year. Lord C. Somerset gave this individual another horse, and advanced him 100 l. in money, to enable him to go on with a certain speculation in which he was engaged. This bargain, whatever it might be, was made on the 1st of September, and the sentence was given by lord C. Somerset on the 30th of May preceding. But, What was of still greater importance, that sentence was given against the purchaser of the horse, and not in favour of him [hear, hear]. He had thus perfectly satisfied his mind, that
1432
there was no necessity for him to exercise his individual prerogative, as a member of that House, by proceeding to an impeachment; nor was there any reason for him to call on the House to go up with an impeachment against the noble lord, when the circumstances of the case were of the nature he had described. When he found the charge so utterly groundless, he, as a matter of course, abandoned the proceeding which he had at first contemplated. He should have stated this before, but it was not until lately that he had an opportunity of verifying the dates; for he saw something so gross in the difference between the dates and the statement contained in the petition, that he thought some error was lurking below, and therefore he was anxious to investigate the charge thoroughly. He had, however, seen documents, which convinced him, that for this charge at least there was not a shadow of foundation. The noble lord, however, could hardly expect him to go so far as this—that because one charge against lord C. Somerset had been found to be manifestly, he might almost say, ludicrously; groundless, he was therefore to assume, that all other charges, and amongst others those preferred by a gallant officer, were equally destitute of foundation. All that he meant to say was this—that so often as a very gross and heinous charge was brought against any one, be he in public or in private life—be he of high or of low character in the country—he was ready to do that person what he considered but bare justice; namely, when such charge so preferred had signally failed, to incline to view his case quoad cœtera—as to any other charges not yet inquired into—with more favour, than on general principles he would be disposed to shew. He must join with those who thought it hard that charges should be allowed to hang suspended over a public officer; and he sincerely wished, for the sake of public justice, that some one who had time to devote to the object would at once bring them forward. Though he could not agree with the noble lord (E. Somerset) that sir R. Donkin was a calumniator; and, though he could not acquit lord C. Somerset from every charge because one had proved to be groundless, yet he was of opinion, that nothing could be more unjust than to wait till the end of two years; and then to say, that sir R. Donkin was ready to bring forward his charges.

1433
The only way to settle the question was by a motion in that House. Sir R. Donkin had no opportunity of bringing the case forward. He could do nothing more than state his charges in the form of a pamphlet, which might lead to proceedings in a court of law; but that would only lead to a clumsy and unsatisfactory decision of the question. Until the subject should be fairly brought before parliament, they were bound in common justice to the noble lord accused, to suspend any rash construction as to what might be stated against him. Nothing at present was proved against the noble lord. The inquiries of the commissioners were satisfactory as to the minor charges, and the grave charge was disproved by dates. If sir R. Donkin was ready to accuse lord C. Somerset, he was ready to listen to his accusation. That was all he could, consistently with his duties as a member of parliament, concede. He had not read the pamphlet published by sir R. Donkin, because, having no opportunity of inquiring into the truth of the charges which it must be supposed to contain, he thought it his duty to abstain from reading it. Before he sat down he wished to allude to a circumstance connected with the administration of justice at the Cape of Good Hope and other colonies. Some little doubt and alarm had lately prevailed amongst English barristers, owing to the circumstance of the government sending out to some of the colonies, and the Cape amongst others, persons as judges who were not English lawyers. He must protest against such a practice, except under very extraordinay circumstances indeed. It was not safe to send out as judges, even to places where the civil law was administered, any persons not practised in the English law, or not habituated to trial by jury and the English law of evidence. It was impossible that any person educated at the Scotch bar could obtain a competent knowledge of the civil law. He knew well that a knowledge of the civil law did not exist at the Scottish bar. It was proved, at the late trial at Lancaster, that the examinations in the civil law at the Scotch bar were a mere farce. The way in which the thing was done was this: a young man went on the night before the day appointed for examination, and asked in what page he was to be questioned. If government would send out persons embued with English law principles, and
1434
with a knowledge of trial by jury, and the English law of evidence, they would have better judges than they could hope to obtain by sending out individuals conversant with civil law only. But then if they would have civil lawyers, let them take them from Doctors Commons, and not go to Scotland for them. To look for any knowledge of civil law there, was quite absurd.
Mr. Wilmot Hortonobserved, in reference to what had fallen from his hon. and learned friend, that government had not lost sight of the principle of sending out persons to administer the law in the colonies, who were thoroughly imbued with the principles of English law. On a recent occasion, two of the judges sent out came precisely within the description of those persons whom his hon. and learned friend was desirous of seeing placed in such situations; but it was at the time thought necessary, and, indeed, it was recommended by the highest authorities in this country, to send out a gentleman acquainted with the practice of the civil law; it being likely that questions might arise, in which his knowledge of that branch of jurisprudence would be of the greatest utility. Now, with respect to the question immediately before them, the House must be aware, that the case of the noble lord had now been before it for two years; that paper after paper had been laid upon the table; and that extreme expense had been incurred by retaining commissioners at the Cape, to sift into the charges preferred against the noble lord. It must also be in the recollection of the House, that the hon. member for Arundel, after pledging himself to bring forward a specific accusation, had, for reasons with which he was utterly unacquainted, abandoned that intention. The House, likewise, would not forget, that on two separate occasions he had appealed to the hon. member for Arundel on the principles of justice and courtesy, to inform him what were the charges which he intended to prefer against lord C. Somerset, in order that the noble lord might be prepared to defend himself, and that he (Mr. W. Horton) might be enabled to collect the information which might be necessary for that purpose. The session had now approached its termination, and the hon. member for Arundel had neither brought his charges forward, nor communicated the nature of them. Without implying that

1435
the free will of any member of that House should be fettered, or that he should not be at liberty to make or refuse to make a motion as he pleased, he must contend, that it was unjust that a charge should longer be allowed to hang over the noble lord. In all the charges which had been brought against lord C. Somerset, he had been accused of corruption, of tyranny, and of every thing which was disgraceful to a man in his situation. If any person took the pains to read the petitions which had been presented, they would be found to contain accusations of that description. The parties making those accusations had not ventured to follow them up by proof; and therefore it was but fair to consider the noble lord acquitted with respect to them. Having been called upon by the noble lord to state what was the opinion entertained by government with respect to the case of his noble relative, he could declare that the noble secretary for the colonies saw no reason to consider any one of the charges preferred against him as in the slightest degree substantiated, which affected his character as a man of honour and a gentleman. He did not think it necessary to go into further detail at that moment, and would therefore conclude with declaring, that in his opinion the House must, when they considered the many opportunities which had been presented of making out a case against lord C. Somerset, and the manner in which those opportunities had been neglected, be convinced of the impropriety of suffering charges to hang any longer over the noble lord.
Mr. Humesaid, that having been one of those who had presented to the House petitions impugning the government and conduct of the noble lord (Somerset), he felt called upon to defend the petitioners against the imputations cast upon them. So far from these petitions having been the work of combination or conspiracy, no set of persons in the colony were more detached from or independent of each other, than the different bodies from whom these petitions had emanated. Each had separate and serious complaints. For his part, he regretted as much as any man that no inquiry had taken place. It ought to be recollected, that the report of the commissioners had only been laid before the House during the present session. His opinion was, that it was the bounden duty of government to institute
1436
an inquiry on the subject the first thing in the next session.
Mr. F. Palmersaid, he understood that sir R. Donkin had stated to the head of the colonial department, that he had a charge to make against lord C. Somerset, and that lord Bathurst declined to entertain it. He had himself seen a letter, signed by the right hon. secretary, telling sir R. Donkin that lord Bathurst did not wish him to bring forward his charge. That fact ought to be set at rest. He spoke in the presence of the right hon. secretary, who could contradict him if he stated that which was incorrect. As the character of sir R. Donkin was, in some degree, affected by what had passed, it might not be immaterial to put the House in possession of the fact, that he had filled the office of governor of the Cape for two years all but five days, in such a manner as to obtain for him the thanks of his majesty, of every public department at the Cape, and of the inhabitants of the Cape generally. These marks of approbation were bestowed upon sir R. Donkin not at a time when he was in power, but when he was out of office, and had left the colony. Whilst sir R. Donkin acted as governor he effected some extensive improvements. Amongst other things, he reduced the expenditure to the extent of half a million. When he left office, the expenditure was 300,000 rixdollars; and in 1823 it was augmented to 1,300,000. He could not consent to give a general verdict of acquittal in behalf of lord C. Somerset, because one charge had proved to be without foundation. He had hitherto seen only one report from the commissioners; but he understood there were nine. Was he to suppose that because the first report contained heavy matter against the noble lord, the remaining eight would acquit him of all blame? It was indispensably necessary that the whole case should be fully inquired into. One thing was clear; namely, that the inhabitants of the Cape and the people of England would not acquit his lordship, until an investigation had taken place. He would say one word in the way of apology for the hon. member who had not brought forward a motion, in reference to this subject, of which he had given notice. It had been stated from good authority, that so long as there was a prospect of lord C. Somerset's return to the Cape, the inhabitants of the colony would be afraid to come forward to substantiate any charge

1437
against him, but would rather submit to the evils they endured, than provoke his lordship's further severity, by appearing as witnesses against him. That appeared to him a sufficient reason why the hon. member alluded to had not proceeded with his motion. He would conclude by asking the right hon. secretary whether he intended to lay the further reports of the commissioners on the table?
Mr. W. Hortonfelt it necessary, in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. member, to repeat what he had said on a former evening. Sir R. Donkin stated in the first instance, that he could make disclosures which would cover lord C. Somerset with ruin. That declaration was very naturally construed into a charge by lord Bathurst; and he thought the House would be of opinion, that when one public man spoke in such terms of another, it was not forcing the meaning of the English language to put that construction upon them. Sir R. Donkin, however, disclaimed the intention of bringing forward a charge against the noble lord. He said, he meant nothing of the kind, That being the case, lord Bathurst told him finally, that as he did not mean to bring forward any charge, the colonial department would not call upon him for any further information, because they had other means of arriving at a knowledge of the facts of the case. He left it to the House to decide whether sir R. Donkin had not retracted his charge. With respect to putting the House in possession or all the reports of the commissioners, he must say that he could undertake to do no such thing. Many of the reports would refer to local points wholly unconnected with the subject under discussion. If it should appear proper to lay any of the future reports upon the table of the House, he would do so; but he would not pledge himself to any precise course. It was sufficient that government acted on their responsibility, and would be prepared to defend themselves when called upon.
Mr. Baringsaid, he could not conceive a graver responsibility than that incurred by any hon. gentleman who put his name upon the order book of the House to bring forward a serious charge against an individual, and who afterwards left it uncompleted, as had been done by the hon. member for Arundel in the present case. No doubt that hon. member might have
1438
weighty reasons for the course he had pursued; but he thought that the hon. member was bound, as well from courtesy to the House, as in justice to the noble lord who was most materially concerned, to state the grounds of his proceeding. For his own part, he gave the noble lord an entire and unqualified acquittal, so far as related to those charges which affected his private character as a gentleman and a man of honour. He felt bound to acquit the noble lord of the gross charges of personal corruption which had been brought against him; but he could not help considering his government a misfortune to the Cape.
Lord F. L. Gowersaid, that after so long a time, and such ample opportunities had been suffered to pass by, the noble lord had a right to be absolved from all personal charges which had been made against him and abandoned. His intimate conviction was, that all such charges were utterly groundless. He would be the last man to stand in the way of what might be conceived to be improvements in the government of the colony, but there were questions upon which every gentleman and man of honour had a right to constitute himself a judge; and on these points he was satisfied that there was no ground for imputation against lord C. Somerset.
Ordered to lie on the table.

EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL—PETITION FROM BIRMINGHAM.
Mr. Lawley"Sheweth;—That your Petitioners have observed with grateful satisfaction the introduction into your Honourable House of a Bill for enabling the town of Birmingham to return Representatives to Parliament.
"That your Petitioners conceive such extension of Representation in Parliament will be of great advantage to the populous and increasing town of Birmingham, and cannot fail to be beneficial to the extensive manufacturing interests with which it is connected.
"That it appears to your Petitioners that such Representation is especially desirable, not only on account of the great

1439
and increasing population of the town, and of its important manufacturing and commercial interests, but also on account of the various and complex character of its manufactures, all worked up by human labour from the native products of this country, and rendering it peculiarly important, that Representatives, possessing local knowledge, should make known the interests of the town to the Legislature of the country.
"That your Petitioners rely on the wisdom of Parliament for a due regulation of the Elective Franchise for the town of Birmingham, with adequate securities against the tumult, delay, and expense occasionally attendant upon protracted elections in populous towns.
"Your Petitioners do therefore humbly pray that the said Bill may pass into a law, with such modifications and regulations as to the wisdom of your Honourable House may seem expedient. And your Petitioners will ever pray."
Mr. Littletonsaid, it was not Birmingham only that was interested, but the neighbouring towns which engaged in manufacture. The population in that neighbourhood was exceedingly numerous, and possessed strong claims to have the elective franchise conferred on them.
Mr. Tennysonsaid, that those great manufacturing towns were by no means indifferent to the right of returning representatives. In order to show this feeling in a strong light, he wished to have the petition read at length. It was his intention, at the commencement of next session, to move the renewal of that bill which had been read a second time in that House.
Ordered to lie on the table. Mr. Tennyson afterwards moved, "That this House will not order any warrant to be issued for a new writ for electing Burgesses to serve in parliament for the Borough of East Retford, until the expiration of the next session of parliament." The motion was agreed to.

CASE OF MR. GOURLAY.
Mr. Humesaid, he had to present a petition from an individual from whom he had frequently presented petitions before; he meant Mr. Robert Gourlay, now a prisoner in ColdBath-fields prison. The hon. gentleman then re-stated the case of this individual, and said, he considered it a very hard one. Mr. Gourlay had been in prison three years on the charge of an accuser whom
1440
he did not know. He had been accused of madness, and he only wanted an opportunity of having that question put to the test, by means of a commission.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that what had fallen from his hon. friend made it necessary that he should trouble the House with a few words respecting an individual whom he always thought to be mad, and whom he believed now more than ever, after hearing this petition, to labour under insanity. There never could be a doubt as to who was Mr. Gourlay's accuser. His accuser was the Home Department—the department of the Police.
Mr. Hume.—Mr. Peel has denied this.
Mr. Brougham—Well, then, the police themselves must have been his accusers. At all events, the assertion that he was the person who had charged Mr. Gourlay at the Police-office was utterly groundless, absolutely and altogether false. So little ground was there for such a representation, that when he was sent for, to go and appear against this poor man, he had refused to have any thing to do with him. But, whether interference could fairly be charged upon him was quite of another description. He had applied to Mr. Maule, the solicitor to the Treasury, who informed him that this poor man could procure his own enlargement upon offering the slightest amount of surety. This was all that was necessary—this was what the magistrates must require—this was what would be exacted from any one of the fourteen million of subjects of these realms, if he committed, or—as was the case in this instance—if he attempted to commit, a breach of the peace; for the poor man really did no more than shake his cane or whip, or whatever it was he held in his hand, over his (Mr. B's.) head in the lobby. A person so trespassing could not, in fact, be let off by a magistrate without surety. The law was peremptory, and the magistrate would violate his duty, who let a man off so circumstanced, without the necessary amount of security. But it was a mistake to suppose that Mr. Gourlay was charged publicly with madness. That he laboured under mental derangement he firmly believed, not only from what he knew of Mr. Gourlay himself, but from the opinion of two physicians, the most experienced in cases of lunacy of any in London, one of whom was sir George Tuthill. He had even asked Mr. Gourlay's counsel what he thought of him, and that gentleman had

1441
decidedly told him that it would not be safe to leave him at liberty for five minutes. The poor man had uttered terrible threats against the judge; and it was proved that a pistol was purchased. Indeed, there could not be the slightest doubt in the mind of any one of the derangement of this person—at least that was his impression ever since the day when the poor man attacked him in the lobby, shaking his cane or whip, or whatever it was, over his hat, and exclaiming, "Let the dead bury their dead! Is not a living man better than a dead missionary? " And this had evident reference to the case of Mr. Smith, the missionary, which excited a memorable debate in that House. This was the sane man—the rational being of his hon. friend the member for Aberdeen. He knew perfectly well that his hon. friend did not believe poor Gourlay to be insane; and he likewise knew, that the more any person endeavoured to convince his hon. friend of the error of any opinion which once entered into his head, the more certain that person was of having that opinion more obstinately confirmed. This, right or wrong, would surely be the case. His hon. friend was, therefore, quite consistent in asserting that this unfortunate man was sane. Now, he had seen, perhaps, five hundred madmen, who could talk as rationally as his hon. friend upon some points; and the physicians said the same, but then their experience suggested the mode of striking the key of the disorder. That was the way in which madness was detected, but of which his hon. friend did not seem to be aware; and he sincerely hoped his hon. friend would never know more of the matter than he did at that moment. He must again declare, that he was no party to this man's detention. Indeed, the moment after he was taken in the lobby of that House, a gallant friend of his (general Fergusson) had been told by the man himself, that he had no complaint to make against Mr. Brougham, who had always behaved to him like a gentleman, and shaken hands with him upon parting after he had delivered his last petition. Now, he had had the curiosity to look into the votes to see what was the nature of the petition about which Mr. Gourlay had complained; and he found that, so far from its having had any reference to the petitioner's own grievances, it solely related to the education of the poor—a subject in which he (Mr. B.) had been very
1442
much engaged, and upon that account had he been selected for the presentation of this very petition. As to the poor man's own case of suffering, he had heard it distinctly from him: he had been badly used in Canada—that is, he had been tried and punished, when he ought not to have been tried at all; for he was clearly under a calenture at the moment, and a fitter subject for a lunatic hospital than a court of Justice; and this calenture had been sorely aggravated by the trial and subsequent imprisonment. The petitioner had been bred a gentleman, but during his aberrations he had permitted himself to fall so low, as to be a parish pauper in Wiltshire, and to break stones on the road for his sustenance. Why allow his supposed resentment to have slumbered for more than three years, and then have endeavoured to commit an assault in the presence of a hundred people, in so public a place as the lobby of the House of Commons, where he knew he must be interrupted; and then, not upon any personal ground, but because of what he called a debate upon "a dead missionary?" The whole act was that of a lunatic, and rendered, if possible, more evident, by the letters which he had written to the Speaker; for in there he said, that he was a loyal man, but there was no disloyalty in pulling the king by the nose; which he illustrated by adding, that if the king fell into a well, would not any loyal subject be justified in pulling him out by the nose, to save him from drowning? And again, if our Saviour was right in chasing the money-lenders from the Temple, was he not right in endeavouring to drive the knaves from the senate? In fact, if ever there was a clear case of aberration of reason, it was in this instance. The poor man was not an object of reasonable denunciation. What was his own statement? He said, "I have selected you, Mr. Brougham, as the object of my attack, because you are a well-known, or (as he said) a distinguished person, and I cannot have a surer way of bringing myself into conspicuous notoriety." In charity he must suppose such a person insane, for if otherwise could the human mind conceive a more atrocious crime, than that of one man seeking another's life, and putting his own in jeopardy for the mere purpose of personal notoriety? But his conduct, then and since, clearly showed his mental delusion: he did not quarrel with Mr. Maule of the Treasury; he did not bring his case

1443
before any of the proper public tribunals; but it was used as a stalking horse for a certain class of people to deal in slander and calumny. By these he was charged with a want of personal courage, because he did not fight this lunatic. Yes; he was so charged in a filthy publication of the day, in which he had recently seen a poem, which set forth this accusation. It was the production, he believed, of a set of persons who wrote very pretty poems, but whose lines were very immoral; who devoted themselves to slander and destroying reputations? Amongst them, he was sorry to say, were clergymen of the Established Church—men who thought that, by running down characters, they would recommend themselves to patronage; but not one of whom, he sincerely hoped, the present government would ever make the object of promotion. They kept themselves in darkness. From the hiding places in which they lurked, they issued their poison; and endeavoured by their malignant interposition, to set one set of men to cut the throats of another. His hon. friend had asked, why his accuser had not come forward. Why! the law was his accuser, and required sureties for his good behaviour. Why did not his hon. friend, if he believed him to be sane, come forward, he being a rich man, and become his surety? No; he prudently refrained from such a step, because he doubtless apprehended, that when Gourlay was released, he might be exposed to personal attack in his next paroxism, and told as the people in the lobby were, "let the dead bury their dead." If the sureties were once given, the man must be enlarged, and the public must take their chance with him. But he must again, once for all, protest against being considered either his accuser or detainer.
Mr. Hudson Gurneyprofessed himself not satisfied with the statement of the hon. and learned gentleman, as to the mode in which this man had been detained in custody; and, as he understood, by the order of that House.
Mr. Broughamrepeated, that there had been no detention of this man by the authority of that House.
Mr. Percevalsaid, he understood that the hon. member for Aberdeen and other persons were willing to give the necessary security for this individual, but that he refused to accept it, until a commission had been appointed and made their report.
1444
He thought that the lesson which should be drawn from the petitions of this individual was, that when a man obstinately refused to conform to the practices, and to obey the regulations of the law, he ought to suffer for his indiscretion. He thought that the hon. member for Aberdeen would behave in a much kinder manner to this individual, if he refused to present any more of his petitions. The petitioner seemed to think that it was practicable to get out of confinement by other means than those which the law prescribed; and, as long as members continued to present his petitions, so long would this delusion continue.
Lord Palmerstoncould not help thinking that the refusal of the offer of the hon. member for Aberdeen indicated something very like mental aberration in the petitioner.
Ordered to lie on the table.