Sitting of 21 April 1834

MINUTES
Bill. Read a second time:—Tonnage of Vessels.
Petitions presented. By Lord ALTHORP, from several Places; and by Mr. HODGES, from Cranbrook, and other Places,—for Relief to the Dissenters; from Bethersden, in favour of a Tithes Commutation.—By Mr. JACOB, from Galway, and other Places, for the Repeal of the Union.—By Mr. GOULBURN, from the University of Cambridge, against the Bill for the admission of Dissenters to the Universities.—By Mr. WOLRYCHE WHITMORE, from Wolverhampton, for the Remission of the Sentence on the Six Agricultural Labourers at Dorchester.—By Mr. LANGDALE, from Beverley, against the General Register Bill.—By Mr. METHUEN, from the County of Wilts, and a Number of Places, against any Alteration in the Corn Laws.—By Mr. FENTON, from Rochdale, for the Abolition of the Corn Laws, Reduction of the Interest of the Debt, and of Public Salaries.—By Sir THOMAS TROUBRIDGE and Mr. INGHAM, from Margate, Ramsgate, and South Shields,—for Exempting Merchant-Seamen from paying Sixpence to Greenwich Hospital.—By Mr. SLANEY, from Drayton-in-Hales, for a Clause in the County Coroner's Bill.—By Mr. FENTON, from Kinloss, in favour of the Connexion between Church and State.—By Mr. SLANEY and Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON, from several Places,—for an Alteration in the present System of Church Patronage in Scotland.—By Sir RICHARD SIMEON, Sir ANDREW AGNEW, and Messrs. BAINES, BARNARD, INGHAM, SLANEY, GOULBURN, MACKENZIE, FINCH, W. WHITMORE, and Sir THOMAS WINNINGTON, from a Number of Places,—for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By. Mr. HENRY GRATTAN, Mr. EDWARD RUTHVEN, Mr. O'BRIEN, and Mr. JACOB, from several Places,—against Tithes.—By Messrs. C. FITZSIMON, JACOB, HENRY GRATTAN, and EDWARD RUTHVEN, from a great Number of Places,—for the Repeal of the Union.—By Lord DARLINGTON, and Messrs. WILKS, FENTON, INGHAM, BAINES, HAWES, METHUEN, and BARNARD, from a great Number of Places,—in favour of Relief to the Dissenters.—By Mr. FELLOWES, and Colonel CONOLLY, from Enniscorthy and Westmeath,—against the Repeal of the Union.

ADMISSION TO THE UNIVERSITIES— CAMBRIDGE PETITION.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that, in presenting the Petition of 259 resident members of the University of Cambridge, he stood in a somewhat novel situation, in being called upon to present a petition, expressing what he believed to be the sentiments of that learned body, which he had the honour to represent, but proceeding from that body not in its corporate capacity. He deeply regretted the necessity which had given rise to the change which had taken place in the established practice of the University;
1010
and he should feel greater satisfaction if the petitions which emanated from the University were subscribed only in its corporate capacity, instead of conveying the private opinions of individual members of that body to that House. While, however, he regretted this departure from the rule which had been hitherto observed, he must admit, that the present petitioners had been guilty of a breach of that rule, and came before the House in their individual capacities, for the purpose of stating the opinions they entertained upon a matter deeply interesting to the prosperity of the University. Had they remained silent on this important occasion, they would have been guilty of a highly criminal neglect of moral and religious duty to the interests they were bound to protect, as well as of the duty they owed to that House. A short time had elapsed since a petition had been presented to both Houses of Parliament, signed by most respectable members of the University imploring the House to interfere, for the purpose of relieving certain individuals from a subscription which had been heretofore required from all persons taking degrees at the University, and which had the effect of confining them to the members of the Established Church. Great weight had been attached to the petition which had been presented on a former occasion by the right hon. Gentleman, the member for the town of Cambridge, as well as by other hon. Members, who, on that foundation, had rested legislative measures, which had already been proposed to Parliament, and would shortly come under discussion. Since, therefore, that House had received an expression of the opinion entertained by a certain part of the resident members of the University, and since the opinion of Parliament had been greatly influenced by the sentiments contained in that petition, it became incumbent on the large majority of the University who dissented from that opinion, and who considered that such an opinion would overturn the moral and religious discipline of the University, to state to the House the views they entertained on the subject. It became still more their duty, when it was recollected, that it had been stated to the House, that a member of the Caput possessed the power of putting a veto on any petition of which that individual member disapproved, and that such a power had been exercised. The petition

1011
he then held in his hand was, in every way, highly respectable, and was eminently entitled to the serious consideration of that House. It was signed, as he stated before, by 259 individuals belonging to the University, who had assembled at Cambridge on Wednesday last; and of that number there were 120 persons permanently resident at the University, and who were personally engaged in conducting the course of education there. He would, in one respect, imitate the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Spring Rice), who had presented the former petition, and analyze the signatures of the petition he held in his hand. To that, then, were attached the signatures of no less than eleven Heads of Colleges; one, who had signed the previous petition, being wanted. All the Masters, also, of the three largest Colleges in the University,—of St. John's, Trinity, and Queen's,—had signed the present petition; only two had signed the petition opposed to it, and they belonged to the small Colleges. If the number of persons were compared who came under the management of the Heads of Colleges and others, who signed both petitions, the discrepancy in point of numbers would be found to be so great, that it would diminish, almost to nothing, the value of the testimony brought forward by the petition on the other side. With respect to the signatures of Professors, he had to mention, that to this petition were annexed the signatures of seven Professors; and among these seven were comprised all the Professors of Divinity in the University. In mentioning Professors, he begged to add, that Professor Scolefield, who was Regius Professor of Divinity, had not signed in person the present petition, because he was the only Professor of the eleven absent when it was signed. That Professor had been called away by an unfortunate calamity, and he had deputed a friend to sign the petition for him. With respect to persons engaged in tuition, since they had been alluded to on a former occasion, he would also now allude to them. The former petition was signed by eleven persons connected with tuition; the present was signed by thirty-one tutors of the University. As far as learning and attainments went, he felt confident it would be found, that the persons whose names were affixed to the present petition were perfectly,
1012
both in mathematical and classical knowledge, on a par with those entertaining different opinions, who had placed their names to the other petition. He would not trouble the House with an enumeration of names, but would simply add, that the number of wranglers' names attached to the present petition was sixty-nine; the number of the signatures of Smith's prize men was very great; and a number of persons, who had attained the highest classical honours, had also signed it. The hour of the day admonished him that he had no time to dwell further on the qualities, attainments, and number of persons who had signed the petition. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to describe the contents of the petition, which deprecated, in strong terms, the abrogation of all religious tests as a criterion of sound knowledge; and declared, that to bestow degrees without such tests, would ruin the University as a place for religious education. The right hon. Gentleman maintained, that, by the statute of Elizabeth, it was required, that the Holy Communion should be administered on the first day of each term, and that all the scholars and sizars of the University were required to attend. When such a provision was established by Act of Parliament, it was impossible to believe, that the law intended Dissenters to be admitted into the Universities; for, if the law had so intended, it would never have made provisions for enforcing the receiving of the Sacrament, according to the forms of the Church of England, on all the students. He hoped that, on another occasion, he should have more time to enlarge upon the subject, and would then conclude by moving, that the petition be received.
It being three o'clock, the Speaker rose. The debate was adjourned.

CHURCH RATES.
The House, on the Motion of Lord Althorp, went into a Committee on Church-rates.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he had taken the opportunity, prior to entering into the ensuing discussion, to present the different petitions which had been committed to his care by several bodies of Dissenters, praying for relief from the peculiar burthens which had been imposed upon them, in order that the petition for redress, and the measures of relief, might come before the consideration of the House as nearly together as possible. He considered that

1013
the Dissenters were perfectly justified in bringing forward the detail of their grievances at this particular juncture, on this particular point, inasmuch as he thought, that there was a great difference, in point of principle, between the payment, by Dissenters, of tithes and Church-rates. Church-rate was a tax laid on at the discretion of others, as far as regarded its amount; and the Dissenters, who were compelled to pay it, felt, that they were compelled to pay for the administration of worship under a system they did not approve. For this reason, in his opinion, the Dissenters had a right to complain of it; and he thought, further, that the Legislature was bound so far to relieve them. But while the system of Church-rates, as the law stood at present, was grievous to Dissenters, it could not be, in any way, satisfactory to the members of the Establishment. The payment of Church-rates had been refused in different parishes; and the remedy given to the Church had not been found sufficient to enforce the demand. For these reasons it seemed to him, that the Legislature was called upon to adopt some measure, not only to remove the grievances of the Dissenters, but to place the maintenance of parochial churches and chapels on a better footing. Different measures had been suggested for that purpose. The first was the recommendation from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which, however, did not profess, in any way, to remedy the grievances of the Dissenters. The sole object of it was, to adopt such a course as would give a more easy and effectual mode of collecting Church-rates. The adoption, therefore, of that proposition would not effect, at least, one of the objects he had in view. Another proposition took a middle course; and whereas the main expenditure of the rates had been upon the internal decoration of the Church, in future to provide in this method merely for the maintenance of the fabric, while other means were found to pay for necessary decorations in the performance of the service. It had been constantly stated in Parliament, by those who advocated the cause of the Dissenters, that it was not so much the amount of which they complained as the principle of compulsion. This second plan, therefore, though it might diminish greatly the sum raised by Church-rates, would not satisfy the object. Another proposition, which would certainly satisfy the object, was,
1014
to continue Church-rates as at present, but to exempt Dissenters from the payment of them. As far as the Dissenters were concerned, this would, of course, satisfy them; but it would be detrimental in the highest degree to the interests of the Established Church. If any person could exempt himself from the payment of Church-rates by saying he was a Dissenter, he apprehended that the number of Dissenters would be greatly and rapidly increased. For this reason, he could not prevail upon himself to bring forward a proposition contrary, as he thought, to the plain principles of justice. Another proposition was that of the hon. member for Exeter, which was to abolish Church-rates, and to substitute nothing for them, leaving the money necessary for upholding and repairing churches to be raised by voluntary contributions. Those voluntary contributions might, or might not, be sufficient—in some cases no doubt they would be sufficient,—but he was far from certain that this would generally be the case. While the Dissenters had a right to call upon the Legislature not to require them to pay money for a Church which was contrary to their principles, the members of the Establishment had a right also to say, that their interests should receive all due attention, and that their principles should be respected. One of those principles certainly was—one of the consequences of having an Established Church was—that means should be provided by the Legislature for the support of the fabric of the Church. On these accounts he could not concur entirely in any of the plans to which he had alluded. In the course of the discussion, he believed, of the Motion of the hon. member for Exeter, statements were made, which he was happy to find concurred very much with the principles of the plan he was about to have the honour to propose. The hon. member for Boston (Mr. Wilks), who might be considered to speak the sentiments of the Dissenters, said, that it was not the amount, but the principle to which they objected; and he defined that principle to be, the compulsory payment of a tax for the express and immediate purpose of supporting the Established Church. In the same debate the hon. Member for Oxford (Sir Robert Inglis) had stated that, in his opinion, it was essential that the Legislature should provide certain funds for the support of the

1015
churches of the Establishment. It had been very satisfactory to him (Lord Althorp) to hear these statements from hon. Gentlemen so well informed upon their different sides of the question, because he was desirous, that the plan of Government he should have the honour to propose should be in accordance with both those suggestions. The plan he had to propose was, that Church-rates should be entirely abolished, and that in lieu of them the sum of 250,000 l. should be annually charged upon the Land-tax, to be applied in the manner he would state ["No no!"]. The hon. Member said, "No, no!" but he would endeavour to show, that his proposition ought to be adopted. The mode in which he suggested, that the sum should be expended was not that it should be applied to all purposes to which Church-rates were now applicable, but merely to the maintenance and support of the parish churches and chapels. For this purpose he would pay that sum into the hands of the Commissioners for building churches,—a body now existing only under a temporary Act, but whom it would hereafter be necessary to render permanent. Under their direction the money was to be laid out, and he apprehended, that it would be amply sufficient for the purpose. By the Returns upon the Table of the House, it appeared, that the sum hitherto yearly expended upon the fabric of the churches was 249,000 l.; but to the sum of 250,000 l. to be derived from the Land-tax might be added about 50,000 l. which was obtained from landed property belonging to the Church. Hence he had no doubt, that the sum he had mentioned would be found amply sufficient; but, in making this arrangement, it was necessary to recollect, that, in a certain number of instances, the Church-rates had been mortgaged, and he proposed that the mortgagees should have the first lien upon the 250,000 l. Yet, he apprehended, it would be sufficient, because the whole amount thus circumstanced and outstanding with the knowledge of the Commissioners of New Churches was 84,000 l. There might, indeed, be other sums—he knew that there were other sums—but they were far from considerable, and would all be covered by far less than the amount of 250,000 l. to be taken from the Land-tax. The House was aware, that as the law at present stood, besides the fabric of the Church,
1016
the rector, or the lay impropriator, in consideration of the great tithes, was bound to maintain and repair the chancel. It was the intention of Ministers to relieve him from this charge by placing the chancel on the same footing as the main fabric of the Church. But while he was relieved from this burthen, it was intended to impose upon him the duty of providing all that was absolutely necessary for the performance of divine service. The amount of these necessaries would not be great; and in making this alteration he did not think that the Rector, or lay impropriator, would be placed in a worse situation than at present. In this way he apprehended he should be enabled to provide for all those expenses at present paid out of the Church-rates. Upon the sum to be paid into the hands of the Commissioners would be charged the maintenance of the fabric of the Church, the repair of the chancel, and of the fences of the Church-yard. The articles to be provided by the Rector, or lay impropriator, he need not enumerate; they would be contained in a schedule to the Act he should introduce; and he did not think that the burthen would be found onerous. Other matters of detail he might briefly advert to—such as the support and preservation of the pews in parish churches and parochial chapels; and he thought it would not interfere with the proposed arrangement, if he made those who used them, also keep them in repair. He was informed that such was, at present, the law with respect to what were called faculty and possessory pews; and if it were the law with respect to the rest so much the better, since no new enactment would be necessary. With regard to the visitation fees, he believed that, legally, they were very small; but, undoubtedly, the attendance of Churchwardens at visitations occasioned a large expense to parishes. As far as he could ascertain, their attendance did not seem absolutely necessary, and he proposed to dispense with it; enabling the parochial clergyman to swear them annually, as was now done at visitations, but not taking from them the power of making presentments. The Committee would feel, that in making this change, it would be necessary to impose some fresh check on the expenditure of the money to be placed in the hands of the Commissioners. The present check had been found very insufficient; it was, that when a Vestry

1017
decided upon the necessity of making some repair, alteration, or improvement of a church, in voting the money for the purpose, they, in fact, taxed themselves, as they were some of the parties who paid. Under his plan, the reverse would be the case; the money would not be paid by the parish, and without some check the expenditure might be too lavish. The first check would be, that the sum of money to be applied to the purpose would be limited. If the Commissioners found that the calls upon them were greater than they had funds at their disposal, they would be under the necessity of refusing and returning the claim; but, in addition to this first check, it was intended to establish a second, of this nature:—That when the Churchwardens and Clergyman of a parish thought any repair of the fabric necessary, the surveyor of the county should be called in to examine the Church, and to decide whether the opinion was well or ill founded. The surveyor would have to report the result of his examination of the Church to the Quarter Sessions, and the certificate of the Quarter Sessions would be required, in order to warrant any advance by the Commissioners. He believed, that the Surveyors in the different counties of England were almost invariably men of high respectability, and it was the interest of the Quarter Sessions, who had the appointment of them, to take care that they were men upon whom they could rely. This control, together with the limitation of the sum, he believed, would amount to a sufficient check upon unnecessary and extravagant expenditure. It might be said, that he had made no provision for organs, for a large number of bells, or for anything of that kind which might be considered a religious luxury. This was true; and it might be urged, that where these luxuries already existed, it was necessary to preserve them; where it was necessary, he had no doubt they would be preserved by voluntary contributions. It was possible, not to say very possible, that the proposition of the hon. member for Exeter, that the whole should be left to voluntary contributions, would be sufficient; but in the present state of the Church of England, and looking at the principle on which it existed, he did not think it would be consistent with that principle to leave the support of the various fabrics merely to voluntary con-
1018
tributions. He knew not in what spirit or mode the proposition he had just opened was likely to be received; he would not admit, that any man was more sincerely attached to the Church than he was; but he was not at all aware in what way such as were more peculiarly to be looked upon as its advocates and supporters would accept this plan; for the same reason he was ignorant how the Dissenters would take it, but he was perfectly confident that it would place the maintenance of the fabric of the Church upon a better footing than that it had hitherto stood upon. Of this he was sure, that if the existing law remained unamended, the greatest difficulties might arise; if, indeed, the consequence were not that ere long the Churches of the kingdom would be without the means of due repair. The Dissenters admitted that they did not object to the amount, but to the principle of Church-rates; they objected to pay money for the support of a Church in the doctrines of which they could not agree. As far, therefore, as both parties had expressed an opinion, this measure would probably be satisfactory to both. Another point not immediately relevant to the question, but which the Committee would not fail to take into view, was, that the effect of the new plan would be, not only to relieve Dissenters from their scruples, but the people of England from a considerable amount of taxation. It was proposed to apply 250,000 l. from the Land-tax; but the sum hitherto annually expended upon churches and chapels in England and Wales, and raised by Church-rates, was between 500,000 l. and 600,000 l.; it was 560,000 l. by the latest return upon the table. The relief from taxation pressing upon the body of the people would thus be important, and would amount to the difference, or nearly so, between 250,000 l. and 560,000 l. The expenditure had, no doubt, been extravagant in many instances, for sometimes the Churchwardens, and vestry, who ought to have guarded the interests of the parish, were benefited by the expenditure. This year a Churchwarden procured an order for something he thought ornamental, with a view to the perpetuation of his name, and next year, perhaps, a tradesman had influence enough to procure some other expenditure which would be to his advantage. For all these reasons, from what-

1019
ever cause proceeding, every person who had looked into the subject with whom he had conversed, was of opinion, that by the new plan, extravagant expenditure would be checked and controlled. He had now explained to the House the course Ministers intended to pursue upon this important subject. What might be the objections of the hon. member for Middlesex, who had in the beginning clearly intimated his dissent, he (Lord Althorp) did not know; he could not imagine what ground of resistance the hon. Member would be prepared to take, especially when the proposition went to relieve the people from a large part of the taxation they sustained, by diverting a part of the money now raised by Land-tax to a purpose to which it had not hitherto been applied. He should wait to hear the hon. Gentleman's arguments, contenting himself, at present with moving the following Resolution:—"That it is the opinion of this Committee, that from and after a time to be fixed, the payment of Church-rates shall cease and determine—that in lieu of them, his Majesty be empowered to grant out of the proceeds of the Land-tax a sum not exceeding 250,000 l. to be applied to the fabrics of the parish churches and chapels in such manner as Parliament may direct."
Mr. Humesaid, that he could not but confess the disappointment which he felt in the proposal submitted to the House by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did not think that the country would feel satisfied with it. Nay, more, he thought that even those who supported the Established Church would not be pleased with the noble Lord's plan. The noble Lord appeared to him to have had the Bench of Bishops for advisers in drawing up his plan; for no layman could have ever proposed that the sum thus to be raised should be put under the control of the Commissioners for Building and Repairing Churches. He thought they had seen enough of that Commission. It had, by its acts, done more to shake the stability of the Church of England than almost any Commission which ever sat. The result of its operations, in almost all parishes, was, that it had created a strong opposition to Church-rates. He protested against continuing the establishment of this new clerical body, as altogether improper, impolitic, and unnecessary. The next question was, why this matter was
1020
brought forward at all? The noble Lord had told them, that the reason was, because the Dissenters objected, on principle, to pay for the support of the Established Church. But had the noble Lord, by his plan, altered that state of things? No; the noble Lord had merely changed the manner in which the payment was to be made. It was merely paying the money out of one pocket instead of out of the other. It was evident, that the Bench of Bishops had been the noble Lord's advisers, from the choice made of a source from which the future revenue for the building and repair of churches was to be drawn. It was to be drawn from the Land-tax—the most secure and least variable of all sources of revenue. The noble Lord had admitted, and he was astonished that the admission should be made, that the greatest extravagance had been practised in the expenditure of the money raised as Church-rates, yet he still proposed to intrust the money to be raised under his proposed Bill in the hands of those very persons who had already, by his own admission, misapplied the funds intrusted to them. He would suggest it, as a more advisable plan, that the clergy should give up the whole of their revenues to the State, and allow the State to provide for them as they ought to be provided for. If they were called on to make a change, he would have a change based on intelligible principles, and not such a mixed proposition as that brought forward by the noble Lord. If the clergy were to enjoy all the revenues which they now possessed, they ought also to build and keep in repair the churches, for those revenues were given to them not for their support only, but also for the support of the poor, and to build churches. He would beg the noble Lord to say, whether the funds left by our ancestors were not sufficient for those purposes? The noble Lord had not stated that they were not sufficient, neither had he stated one sufficient reason why that House should vote 200,000 l. of the public money for the purpose of building and repairing churches, without knowing whether the Church had or had not sufficient funds for the same purpose. This ought to be inquired into before they proceeded to pledge the House to any course. He objected strongly to the source from which the fund was to be drawn, on account of its inequality. The Land-tax fell most unequally on the people, As an

1021
instance of that, he would merely state, that in the county of Lancaster, one of the largest and wealthiest in England, the Land-tax amounted to only 12,592 l., while in the county of Norfolk, a county far inferior to the former in wealth and importance, it amounted to 69,792 l. In Warwick it amounted to 25,000 l.; while, in Somersetshire, it was no less than 48,000 l. This showed the inequality of the tax, and he would, therefore, put it to the House whether they could adopt that part of the noble Lord's proposition? In his opinion, the plan proposed would not give satisfaction to any class. So far would it be from tending to satisfy the Dissenters, that it would show them there was no intention of relieving them of the burthens of paying for the support of the Established Church; but, on the contrary, that the intention was, to lay heavier taxes on them; for, undoubtedly, the effect of the noble Lord's plan would be, to oblige the Dissenters to pay more towards the Church than they had hitherto paid. A local would be converted into a general tax. He firmly and confidently hoped, that while Episcopal England would decline the proposition of the noble Lord, Catholic Ireland and Protestant, Scotland would each enter its protest against being called on to pay a proportion of the expense of a Church with which they had nothing to do. He was convinced that there might be found means by which the funds necessary for this purpose might be raised without levying any additional burthen on the country. They might abolish those sinecures with which the Church abounded. He saw no reason why the sinecures of the Church should be protected and kept up, while those in the civil and military establishments of the country were in the course of being abolished. And what were the Deans and Chapters but a nest of sinecures, whose existence was in no way necessary to the well-being or security of the Church? If these and other sinecures were done away with, the revenues which they now enjoyed would be amply sufficient for the purposes of the measure proposed by the noble Lord. If that plan were not approved of, let the clergy then give up all their revenues to the State, and trust to the liberality of the country for their support. In doing so, they would only follow the example of his Majesty, who gave up the whole of his hereditary revenue; and he saw no reason
1022
why the Church should not do the same. On these grounds, he considered the plan proposed by the noble Lord to be most inconsiderate. He was glad when he heard, that the Government meant to bring forward a proposition for the abolition of Church-rates; but he could not deny, that he hail expected a plan totally different from that which had then been laid before them. He had expected a plan by which Dissenters would he relieved from the burthen of supporting the Church; but being disappointed in that, and finding that Ireland and Scotland, both of which had formerly been exempt from this burthen, were now to pay their share of it, he could not but say, that the proposition was to him most unsatisfactory, as he had no doubt it would be to the country at large. The question then was, what they were to do with the Resolution proposed by the noble Lord? He observed, that by the first part of it it was declared, "that it is the opinion of this Committee, that from and after a time to be fixed, the payment of Church-rates in England and Wales shall cease and determine." To that part of the noble Lord's Resolution he gave a cordial assent; but to the last part, which stated that, "in lieu of them, his Majesty be empowered to grant, out of the proceeds of the Land-tax, a sum not exceeding 250,000 l., to be applied to the repair of parish churches," he was as decidedly opposed. He would, therefore, simply move, as an Amendment, "That it is the opinion of this Committee, that from and after a time to be fixed, the payment of Church-rates in England and Wales shall cease and determine."
Mr. Gisbornethought, that the feeling as to the necessity of a Church Establishment for the propagation of religion, was most erroneous. They might as well propose a national medical establishment, and oblige every one to pay for its support. Whether sick or well, all would then be called on to pay the State Physician. If that was an erroneous principle, as regarded a medical establishment, he was prepared to show, that it was not more so than that on which they now supported a national Established Church. The question before the Committee now was merely one as to payment, and what they had to consider was, whether that payment was just or not? It was evident to every one, when the Government made a gift of the Church

1023
Rates to the people of Ireland, that the people of England would not be satisfied until they were similarly favoured. That had turned out to be the case, and the only thing they had now to look to was, whether the measure proposed for England was similar in its effect to that which the Irish had obtained. To him the proposition, as explained by the noble Lord, appeared to be a mere trial of the gullibility of the Dissenters. It was like one of those plans of finance somehow propounded by ingenious statesmen, the object of which was to make the people believe that when they did not pay money directly out of their pockets, though the same amount was raised indirectly from them, they did not pay it at all. Now, what did the Dissenters complain of? They complained, that their money was taken out of their pockets to support the Established Church of England. Would the noble Lord's plan relieve them of that payment?—No.—The money was to be taken out of the general bulk of taxation, to which the Dissenters paid their proportion, and the consequence would be that they should have to pay just as much towards the support of the Church after this measure was adopted as now. This proposition was but a second edition of the Dissenters' Marriages' Bill, which the noble Lord who promoted it said, was to have given satisfaction to the whole body of Dissenters, but which turned out unsatisfactory to all. He agreed with the hon. member for Middlesex, in approving of the first part of the noble Lord's Resolution, which simply declared that the payment of Church-rates should cease; and he thought that the best course which the noble Lord could have pursued, would have been to have brought in a Bill for that purpose; and that henceforth churches should be supported by those only who used them. He totally differed from those who thought that this would be offering a premium for dissent. Either the church should be supported by those who used it, or funds should be raised for that purpose out of the revenues of the Church itself. It was generally admitted, even by the supporters of the Church Establishment, that there were several useless sinecures in it which might be abolished without impairing the sufficiency of the Church itself. The Deans and Chapters, for instance, might be abolished; and he was convinced that,
1024
however much the destruction might interfere with the festivities of the clergy, it would not affect the real object, nor impair the utility of the Church Establishment. From this source, then, an ample fund for the repair of Churches might be derived. It could not be said, that the revenues of the Church were too small, and could not afford this burthen on them. There were some thousands of clergymen in the Church wholly without employment, and it was clear, that the revenues must be large which would draw so many more than the necessary number of labourers to the same vineyard. There was another view of the subject, which showed the wealth of the Church, namely this: that for a man of average abilities, the Church was a better speculation than any other. If he had a stupid son—which he thanked God, he had not—with whom he did not know what he should do, he did not know how he could lay out 3,000 l. or 4,000 l. for his benefit, better than in the purchase of a presentation to a Church living. It was therefore evident, that the revenues of the Church itself were sufficient not only for the support of the Clergy, but also for the other expenses connected with the Establishment. He regretted that the noble Lord had not brought forward a proposition to which he could have given a hearty assent. He might have brought forward a measure which would have given satisfaction to all parties; but instead of that, he had thought proper to bring one forward which he might predict, without claiming the merit of being a prophet, would be rejected by the House and the country.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, that before entering upon the question, he wished first to understand clearly the nature of the noble Lord's proposition on one important point. In the Resolution, it did not appear whether the vote which the noble Lord recommended of 250,000 l. to be charged upon the Land-tax was to be a permanent allocation of that sum, not requiring the annual vote of Parliament, or whether it was to be an annual grant to that amount. He believed, that the former was to be the case, and, if that were the principle upon which the arrangement was proposed, his objections to it would be considerably modified. He owned, that the noble Lord was placed in a situation of some difficulty, in having to answer objections which would come, as it were,

1025
at the same time from the north and the south; for while those of the hon. member for Middlesex might be represented as coming from the north, his would certainly be of the most opposite and contrary character that could be conceived. At the same time, he was bound to say, that his objections to the measure were not so serious as he had expected them to be. He objected to the proposition; but yet he gladly saw in it a principle which he was most happy to find adopted by the noble Lord, namely, a recognition of the great and paramount duty of the State, as undoubtedly it was of all States, to supply a public provision for the worship of Almighty God. He hailed the presence of that principle with deep satisfaction; and he was desirous of saying so in the outset, because, however little his Majesty's Ministers might value any approbation coming from him, yet they had acted so contrary to his expectations, in making this recognition, which he conceived to be a high part of their duty, that he should not feel that he was doing justice either to himself or to them, if he did not tender his acknowledgment of their having done so. This, he regretted to say, was the full extent of the approval he could conscientiously bestow upon the measure; for, although the Ministers gave this amount of the public revenue for the support of the Church, yet they could not so fetter the future Acts of that House, or of any other House of Commons, as to place the rights and claims of the Church upon so secure a foundation as that upon which it now rested. He did not believe, moreover, that any benefit would be derived from the measure in the way of conciliating those who had been loudest in the outcry against Church-rates, because their chief objection to the payment was not on account of the amount, but of the principle. ["Hear, hear."] He understood the cheer of the hon. member for Boston to mean, that it was not the amount, then, which created the objection. He would undertake to prove that disapprobation had no honest or just foundation. He would ask the hon. Member to tell him, whether any Dissenter had ever purchased or taken a lease of a house, without the charge of Church-rate having been taken as an element in the calculation of its value, as much as the Land-tax, or Poor-rate, or Water-rate, or any other charge whatever? And, he would then ask him, if that were
1026
so, whether that person paid the Church-rate as a Dissenter, or as the owner or occupier of number 10 or 12 in such or such a square? It was precisely and strictly as an element of charge upon his property, as he had bought it, that a Dissenter, as well as every other man, was called upon to pay his proportion of Church-rates. If the amount had been raised by a poll-tax, then the Dissenters might have complained of being included in its operation; but he could not understand, how any person upon the principles of honesty, as between man and man, he having purchased a house or land, with certain liabilities calculated in its value, could come forward and claim to be relieved from those liabilities, upon the ground of holding certain opinions upon points, on which he had, perhaps, changed his mind since the period of making his purchase. He thought those remarks disposed of the question of right and justice. He contended, that the Church-rate was a tax upon property, not upon individuals, and that the Dissenters acquired their property liable to the payment. Another argument on which the noble Lord had rested the necessity of a change was, the spirit of resistance which had been manifested against the making of rates. The noble Lord had not stated what was the extent of this resistance. He should like to ask him how many instances of successful resistance to Church-rates had occurred within the last half-year? From a statement which he had seen, and which he had great reason to believe was a true one, there were not more than fifty parishes in which Church-rates had been successfully resisted within that period. He would ask the House, therefore, to compare these cases with the 12,000 other parishes in which the rate had not been resisted, or where the resistance had been unsuccessful, and then he would ask them whether this was such a manifestation of public opinion, as called for any change? Then, as to the amount paid by the Dissenters, he did not believe that it could amount to anything which could so press upon their resources, as to be deemed a grievance on that account. The whole amount raised by Church-rates in England and Wales, was 566,000 l. a-year. He would ask any Gentleman, whether the Dissenters' share of this payment could be estimated at more than one-twentieth of the sum? He was sure

1027
he might safely say, it was not more than a fortieth. He had very strong reasons for believing, that, whatever proportion of Dissenters might be in the towns, the very great preponderance of the number of the Church throughout all the rest of the population, would give that difference. The Church-rate amounted to about 3d. in the pound upon the whole landed rental of the kingdom; and, he would ask any one, whether the Dissenters could be supposed to pay more than one-fourth of a farthing in the pound upon the rental? Why, then, if the amount they were called upon to pay was so trifling, he came again to the position, that the objection of the Dissenters was not to the pecuniary burthen, but to the necessity of their supporting the Church. This being so, how, he asked, would their case be changed by the proposition of the noble Lord? The only difference it would make to them, would be, that instead of paying the Churchwarden, they would have to pay the tax-collector. Instead of being relieved in point of amount, he believed that they would have to pay more; but whether they paid more or less, the burthen on the conscience would be just as heavy as before. For refusing to admit this claim of conscience, he gave the noble Lord full credit. He admitted the doctrine, that no man's conscience ought to be bound by the conscience or views of another. But, on the other hand, he held that no doctrine was so subversive of public and social justice, as that one man's conscience should be allowed to limit another man's rights. He would ask, then, what right of conscience could the Dissenter put forward as a justification of his refusal to pay that charge, which he had agreed to pay, when he purchased his house or his lands? This charge of Church-rate upon such property was one of the most ancient upon record. It was a custom of the Saxons in the time of King Ina, when Church-scot or Church-rate was levied by law. This was a title as good as any Statute could make it; and, until he was taught that fourteen centuries of possession was not a good title to property, he should continue to say, that the Dissenters were bound in conscience, as well as in law, to pay Church-rates. But the hon. member for Middlesex said, that there was another point, besides that of conscience, which hurt the Dissenters, and that was, that they were called upon to pay for uphold-
1028
ing an institution from which they derived no benefit, and that he considered to be an unjustifiable act. Why, did the hon. Member mean to say, that no man in the State should be called upon to pay for what conferred upon him personally no benefit? If the hon. Member deliberately abided by that proposition, he would only ask him, whether he meant to contend, that no man in London ought to be made to pay for the police in London, but the thieves in London? He assured the hon. Member he meant nothing personal by the illustration; but to put it more directly, he would ask if the hon. Member would have no persons pay towards the expenses of our Law Courts, who never went to law. He really believed it to be a fact, that in point of numbers, whatever might appear to the contrary, in any particular towns or districts where the principles of Dissenters prevailed, the vast majority of the population of England had been bred up, and were living in communion with the Established Church. He begged it to be understood, that he did not use the word "communion" in an ecclesiastical or sectarian meaning. He meant merely to assert, that a preponderating number of the population of this country professed the religion and doctrines of the Established Church. That there were towns in which Dissenting principles appeared to predominate was certainly true. He would mention, however, only one instance, to show, that these formed the exception and not the rule. It appeared, by a Return upon the Table of the House, that the total amount of Lancashire was 1,056,000 persons; of whom only 255,411 were Dissenters, including members of the Church of Rome. The members of the Church of Rome were 144,244, and the Dissenters, or persons not members of the Established Church, 111,167. Another point in the question was, the amount of incomes of the two classes. Upon this point, though he was fully prepared with evidence and arguments, in case of necessity, he did not wish to enter, unless called upon so to do. His firm conviction was, that both in respect to numerical amount and civil condition, the Dissenters of this country were a very inconsiderable portion of the aggregate community. With such conviction upon his mind, he could not but think that the extent of the grievances complained of had been grossly exaggerated,

1029
In conclusion, however, he would unfeignedly thank the noble Lord, for the principle which he had admitted, that the people should be called upon to pay for the support of the Church Establishment of the country.
Mr. Divettsaid, that he believed, contrary to the remark of the hon. Baronet who had just taken his seat, that the evils of the existing system were much under-rated. As to the proportion of Dissenters to Churchmen, he would only say, that though nominally there were more Churchmen than Dissenters, yet a greater number of Dissenters than members of the Establishment attended divine worship. For his part, he thought it was most unjust to compel persons to contribute to the support of a Church from whose doctrines they dissented. He was not a Dissenter himself; but he was bound to say, (and he knew that he was speaking the sentiments of his constituents) that he could not agree to that part of the noble Lord's plan which went to provide the substitute. He admitted, that his noble friend evinced a desire to relieve the Dissenters, but his noble friend had failed in realizing his own wish. But he was quite convinced, that the Dissenters would feel themselves aggrieved by the small part of the Church-rates which the noble Lord had allowed to remain. The hon. Baronet who spoke last, understated the number of cases in which a successful resistance had been made to the levying of Church-rate, but taking the case upon his showing, was it not to be deplored that a contest of this nature should be continually going on between Dissenters and the Church? It was, in his opinion, much to be regretted, that in the whole matter of the Church-rates, there should be any thing of compulsion, and nothing of voluntary contribution. He was sure it would be far more advantageous to the Church, and more satisfactory to the great body of the people, if an opportunity were generally afforded them of doing something similar to that which he had recently witnessed in a country parish, where it was most gratifying to observe the manner in which the call made under the King's letter was responded to—he alluded to the recommendation on the subject of building additional churches. He regretted, that the proposition of the Government was such as to impose upon him the necessity of supporting the amend-
1030
ment of the member for Middlesex, which, under the present aspect of the question, ought to be supported on the broad ground that no individual ought to be compelled to pay for the maintenance of a Church from which be conscientiously dissented. He begged, however, that it should be distinctly understood, that the vote he intended to give, was not the result of any hostile feeling towards the Church, but merely from a sense of what, in fairness, was due to the Dissenters.
Mr. Wilksconsidered it quite a mistake to view the present as a question exclusively affecting the Protestant Dissenters; and he might be allowed to say, that the members of the Church themselves were deeply interested in the proper, equitable, and satisfactory settlement of that long-contested question. Moreover it was not a question between mere classes of religionists; it was one of great national importance, and should not be taken up on any narrow or limited ground: it was not only a matter of the highest moment in a national point of view, but in one of morals and religion; for what could be more destructive to the right moral and religious feeling of the people at large, than that the body of men from whom they were to derive spiritual consolation and instruction, were to stand towards the people in the light of tax-gatherers? He sincerely regretted, that a more liberal proposition had not been brought forward by his Majesty's Government—that some principle was not recognized, according to which Dissenters might be exempted from contributing to the expenses of a worship which they never attended, and the support of a Church whose doctrines they did not acknowledge. There was, as almost every hon. Member knew, the greatest exaggeration practised with regard to the members of the Established Church. He had means of knowing how the matter stood in the principality of Wales; and he could testify how indignant the feeling was with which the inhabitants there viewed the impost. No fewer than three-fourths of the inhabitants of Wales dissented from the Established Church; and, in the course of the present century, they had established not less than 1,560 places of public worship, every one of which was raised at their own expense, though they endured all the while the grievous burthen of maintaining a Church to which not only they

1031
did not belong, but from which they openly dissented. He would ask, upon what ground of justice or expediency could the country be called upon to pay such a sum as 250,000 l. for maintaining, building, and repairing Churches? He objected to such a burthen upon the nation, but he objected to it, not alone because the people were already severely taxed, but on account of the nature of the burthen. It was not merely the amount, but the principle to which he took exception. He was surprised to hear the hon. Baronet remark, that the tax would not amount to one-fourth of a farthing in the pound. But what would be the amount of the grant to Maynooth? Not the twentieth part of that fraction of a farthing; and yet the hon. Baronet was one of those hon. Members, who, on a former night, resisted the grant to the College of Maynooth, conscientiously considering that it was at perfect variance with the principles which they conceived it their duty to support. It was not the amount of the tax, but the principle of taxation, which lost England her American colonies. It was not the amount of ship-money, but the principle of extortion, which Hampden resisted. On similar grounds, he should say, that whether the sum were 560,000 l., or 250,000 l., the Dissenters were equally called upon to resist the payment. As conscientious men, the Dissenters were called upon to refuse contributions to a Church from which they were in their religious capacity as much separated as it was possible. In no point of view could this question of Church-rates be presented, in which it did not appear as a grievous and distressing impost—as an infringement of religious liberty—for the restraint was the same whether it presented itself in the form of a pecuniary payment, or of personal imprisonment. The principle for which the Dissenters contended was, "that every man has a right to worship his God according to his own conscience, and that he cannot be required, consistently with justice, to contribute a do it to the support of a form of worship which his conscience condemns." And if any Dissenters did not act on that principle, they deserved the respect neither of the Established Church, nor of those to whom they professed to belong. And why should the Government, why should this House, why should those attached to the established religion require, even under
1032
this modified aspect, any contribution from Dissenters? It was said that to assent to the principle of voluntary payments for the support of religion, would be the destruction of all religion; and that there would be no pious homage to our Creator, if extorted contributions should cease. The best practical reply to that was the fact, that upwards of 3,000,000 l., within the last century, had been contributed by Protestant Dissenters, to rear their own places of worship, and maintain their own ministry. Though they might be as destitute of wealth as the hon. Baronet had assumed, and he admitted that they had no sinecures, nor cathedrals, nor palaces; but still they had been able to provide for the worship of their Maker. Nor was the present race, increasing in numbers, less attentive to this. The Dissenters were at this time paying annually from 300,000 l. to 400,000 l. to support their chapels, to maintain their ministers, to educate the poor, to circulate the Scriptures, and to diffuse Christianity on earth. They were rich in the brightest glory; and in that wealth he trusted they never would decline. But it was not by this comparison, to which he had been provoked by the challenge of the hon. Baronet, the member for the University of Oxford, that he would advocate the cause of the Protestant Dissenters, nor urge his objections to the second proposition of the noble Lord. Even if they were less numerous, less wealthy, less united, less pious, and even if they rendered less assistance to freedom and the laws, and took less interest in the instruction of the people, yet ought they not to be compelled to contribute to the churches of an establishment to which they objected. The present proposition must rather increase than lessen their complaints. Now they had power in vestries to interfere and could often prevent the charge; but of that right, by the proposed boon of the Government, they would be deprived. They objected to an alliance of the Church and the State, which this boon would render firm, and rivet for ever. But the hon. member for the University of Oxford alleged, that the Dissenters' applications against Church-rates were as unprincipled and dishonest as would be a resistance to tithes—that both were charges on property acquired with a knowledge that such charge must be borne. Between tithes and Church-rates the distinction

1033
was clear and palpable. Tithes were bad enough; but Church-rates were far more indefensible and harsh. They were imposed in a manner that opened the door to every abuse. No purchasers of property could calculate the amount that, by waste or extortion, they might be bound to provide. They were levied too by an annual vote of Churchmen, and were peculiarly irritating, because the persons taxed derived no benefit from the burthen. Only this day he had presented two petitions on the subject: one was from the town-ship of Over-Darwen, in Lancashire, five-sixths of the industrious inhabitants of which belonged not to the Church. Within the last twenty years they had erected several places of Dissenting worship, and had raised annually many hundred pounds for the maintenance of their own ministers, the instruction of the young, and for benevolent and missionary purposes; and yet this humble, laborious peasantry, distant from the Church, had had, within the last ten years, to contribute 2,500 l. towards a new Church at Blackburn; and one of the petitioners alone had paid 350 l. The other petition came from the borough of Saffron Walden. There the Dissenters were the most numerous; they paid at least half the Church-rates, and had recently been compelled to meet their portion of a charge of several thousand pounds, towards the erection of a new and needless steeple, determined on at a vestry, in spite of their remonstrances, by a majority of one. With such examples, who could wonder that Church-rates were unpopular, and that Dissenters complained? Nor when the hon. member for the University of Oxford blamed Dissenters for resisting Church-rates, let it be forgotten, that they had on many occasions, evinced such liberality as few Churchmen would evince, and allowed first 1,000,000 l. and afterwards 500,000 l., to be voted without any remonstrance on their parts, by the Parliament, for the erection of new churches. Far different methinks would be the conduct of those who blame Dissenters most, if they were compelled like them to vote such monies, or pay annual charges towards the building and keeping in repair the chapels and meeting-houses in which their dissenting fellow-countrymen offered their sincere but simple worship to their God. He hoped the Government would not press that part of the measure which would probably occasion it to be repudi-
1034
ated with disdain. Let them abolish Church-rates entirely. It had been stated by some hon. Members, that there were ample funds belonging to the Established Church appropriated to no salutary purpose, and out of which this 250,000 l. might be raised. To their suggestions he would add, there were upwards of 13,000 or 14,000 parochial churches and chapelries served by clergymen, and attended by members of the Established Church, and supposing the sum of 250,000 l. to be raised—then if each clergyman paid his proportion of the aggregate amount, all that he would pay would be annually 15 l. or 20 l.; and so would be a sufficiency provided without violating the feelings and principles of Dissenters, and imposing on the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland, the payment of this new and objectionable tax. Nor did he believe that even that fair arrangement would be required. Why should he believe the members of the Established Church inferior to Dissenters in liberality and sacred zeal? It were a libel contradicted by experience to make the imputation, and he believed, from the examples he had seen at Brighton and other places, that if the members of the Church were relied on, their voluntary zeal would supply all that was requisite. He saw, therefore, with great pain, the proposition then before the House, by which a measure received the sanction of his Majesty's Government, the introduction of which their friends must ever deplore. He regretted, that the Ministers had pursued a course which made it necessary on the part of the Dissenters to manifest resistance, and consequently, however reluctant, he must give his support to the Amendment proposed by the hon. member for Middlesex.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that the King's Ministers found themselves placed in the painful and embarrassing situation of vindicating a measure assailed by a sort of double opposition, each opposing party at the same time entertaining views diametrically opposite; it would be therefore no easy task for him to shape his arguments so as to meet and answer both. He should begin by observing, that he did not hesitate to say, that the Motion of his noble friend was introduced with the view of affording to the Dissenters a measure of liberal and substantial relief, which no man was more ready than himself to acknowledge they were fairly and justly

1035
entitled to, and at the same time it was not less an object with his Majesty's Government to bring forward a measure calculated to afford perfect security to the rights of the Established Church. He should very much regret if the statements which the House had heard from the hon. member for Boston were to be received as evidence of the prevailing sentiments amongst the great body of the Dissenters throughout the country. Highly as he might respect the authority of that hon. Member, he could find better authority—namely, the petitions of the Dissenters themselves—for saying, that they did not desire the severance of the Union at present subsisting, between Church and State, and it was of the very essence of that union that the State should, out of the public funds, defray the expenses of the religion it established. If there was anything more than another which constituted an established religion, it was that. He was perfectly ready to admit such maintenance of an Established Church ought to be conducted upon principles and in a manner the least irritating and offensive to other parties, both as respected the amount and the mode of collection. He was equally ready to acknowledge that Church-rates, as they stood, formed to the Dissenters a serious and substantial grievance. To afford them real relief from that grievance was the object which his Majesty's Government had in view, but his hon. friend, the member for Oxford, objected to the proposed measure as endangering the security of the Established Church. Now, so far was he from participating in the fears of his hon. friend respecting the security of the Established Church, it was his full persuasion that no step could be taken better calculated to fortify its true interests than the proposed measure of his noble friend. His hon. friend appeared quite to mistake the temper of the times when he supposed that the people of England were not decidedly adverse to Church-rates in their present form. His hon. friend had said, (and he appeared to attach considerable importance to the statement,) that it was only in fifty or sixty parishes that anything like successful opposition had been offered to the levying of Church-rates; but his hon. friend had not stated in how many instances opposition had been put down for a time in order to be renewed at a future opportunity, should no proposition
1036
be brought forward by the Executive, and submitted to Parliament for the relief of Dissenters and all parties upon whom that burthen might unjustly press. His hon. friend forgot to tell them how many hundred parishes there were waiting to follow the example of those which had successfully resisted, should the decision of the Legislature give them no hope of relief. He would ask his hon. friend what would have been the spirit of disappointment, the effusion of bitterness, with which the news would have been received throughout the parishes of England, if the payers of Church-rates were to be told that Parliament, acting under the advice of his noble friend, had not only determined to adopt no remedy, but were resolved to uphold the original form of Church-rates to their full amount, with all that was vexatious and oppressive in their mode of collection, or unnecessary in their amount? Did his hon. friend think, that the best mode of advancing the true interests of the Church was by maintaining every one of its abuses? Did any man suppose, that those interests were to be promoted by a profanation of the Church itself year after year—by a desecration of the House of God by a squabble about Church-rates at each succeeding Easter? But though he addressed those arguments to his hon. friend, he was by no means prepared to go the length of agreeing with the hon. member for Boston, in not only relieving the Dissenters, but in abolishing Church-rates totally. He was not prepared to leave the Church without the means of defraying those expenses hitherto supplied by the rates. He was not prepared to sacrifice the Established Church: neither did he believe that the great body of Dissenters required any such sacrifice. His wish was (and he persuaded himself that a very large proportion of the Dissenters participated in that sentiment), to have the Church maintained, not in splendour or luxury, but with a decent and becoming convenience suitable to the religious feelings of the people. It was perfectly true that hon. Members objecting to the Motion had dwelt more on the principle than on the amount; but nevertheless, even the amount appeared to be a fatal objection with the hon. member for Middlesex, who talked of the proposition as one imposing an additional burthen on the people. Now, instead of its being an

1037
additional burthen, it was a relief to the extent of 310,000 l. The present amount of Church-rates was 560,000 l., while 250,000 l. was the sum which his noble friend proposed in their stead, leaving, as he observed, in favour of the public a balance of 310,000 l. But there was not only an actual relief to that extent, but a very considerable diminution, or, he should rather have said, a total removal of all that was irritating and offensive in the mode of collection. The speech of the hon. member for Boston was in its tendency and effect decidedly opposed to the whole system of the Church: and when he urged his objection to the existing rates, the hon. Member aimed obviously at the total separation of Church from State. The representation that the plan of his noble friend afforded no relief was anything but borne out by the fact. Was there no relief in removing the specific charge on individual parishes and spreading the expense over the nation at large? With what consistency did hon. Members who supported the grant to Maynooth College—who agreed to 25,000 l. for the Presbyterian clergymen of the north of Ireland—who consented to the support of the academy at Belfast—with what consistency did they come forward and say that the State should contribute nothing in lieu of the rates to be taken away from the Church of England? The hon. Member for Boston seemed altogether to overlook the circumstance that the local and specific grievance was removed by the contemplated plan. He would illustrate his view of the matter by reference to a particular instance. At the present moment the inhabitants of Dublin paid a small fraction in the form of customs, excise, or stamp, towards the 10,000 l. or 8,000 l. grant to Maynooth, and of that slight burthen they never made the slightest complaint; but let the tax-gatherer come to their doors and tell them—tell the Protestant inhabitants of Dublin—that they were exclusively taxed so much in the pound on the value of their houses for the benefit of Maynooth College, and there would soon be as great a disturbance in Dublin as there was now in England on the score of the Church-rates. The man who before that, thought nothing of the contribution to Maynooth, or if he did think of it did not estimate his contribution at more, perhaps, than the hundredth part of a farthing upon any
1038
article paying duty at the Custom-house, would become indignant at the idea of paying so much in the pound on the value of his house for the maintenance of Maynooth College, and he would naturally complain and clamour against maintaining an exclusively Catholic establishment. That, be it remembered, was the species of grievance from which the measure of his noble friend proposed to relieve the country in the matter of Church-rates. That burthen, which before was really a grievance, would now be scarcely felt. If the present proposition should unhappily be rejected, let the House remember, that by such rejection they would be practically refusing to do away with an immense amount of vexation that was found in almost every parish of the land. In rejecting such a proposition, let them remember the immense amount of responsibility which they assumed, the quantity of ill blood and heart-burnings which they perpetuated as well as the annual desecration of the House of God Easter after Easter. He entreated them to consider well before they arrived at any such conclusion. He knew not what others might think on the subject; but if the proposition of the hon. member for Middlesex were adopted, his Majesty's Government could not assume the responsibility of carrying to its conclusion any such measure as the present, for they could in no shape be parties to taking away the only provision which the Church had for a certain description of expense, and leaving it without any substitute. The Government had brought before the House the present plan, because they considered it rational and sober, and such as ought to give satisfaction to the great body of Dissenters as well as to those who were connected with the Established Church; and he trusted there were on the one side and on the other liberal and enlightened men, who, taking a sober and dispassionate view of the question—looking to the manner in which Government had dealt with it—seeing in it an earnest desire to remove practical grievances and real abuses, and to limit the amount contributed by the State to that which was sufficient only for the decent and fair maintenance of the celebration of the worship of the State—(he meant the worship of the Church supported by the State)—whose establishment he considered as founded upon and essentially connected with the

1039
interests of religion in the country;—it was to be hoped, he repeated, that regarding the present measure with those feelings, it would receive the sanction and approbation of all enlightened and liberal friends of existing institutions. Sincerely and in every point of view was he anxious to grant to the Dissenters of the country every reasonable concession, and remove every real ground of complaint; but if unhappily they rejected proposals brought forward mainly to conciliate them, and to remove their well-founded objections, the Ministers, at all events, would have the satisfaction of feeling that they had performed their duty by propounding what they considered a fair and reasonable measure, and which ought to have led to the re-establishment of peace and harmony between persons of different sects and persuasions.
Mr. Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House has made an appeal to our sympathy in alluding to the peculiar position in which the Administration, of which he forms so distinguished a member, might be placed, or rather in which it stands. He tells us, on the one hand, that Government have to contend with those, whom he rather insinuates than asserts to be the enemies of the Church; and, on the other hand, with those who are presumed to be the uncompromising advocates of the Church in the whole integrity of its power and resources, and that between these two evils the Government have at length proposed a measure, the result of much reflection, and of which they call on the House and the country to pronounce an opinion of absolute approval. It is the duty of every Member of this House, however painful it may be to him—and of all situations it is probably one of the most painful—that, with every disposition to support the general principles of the Government, he is sometimes placed in the position of appearing as its enemy, by the oft-times false position which the Government so frequently assumes—by making experiments to substitute small stratagems and smaller details for great and enlightened principles. The right hon. Gentleman has stated, that he, he emphatically says "he" is prepared to concede to the Protestant Dissenters all reasonable grounds of complaint. What is, let me ask; the ground of complaint of the Protestant Dissenters of England?—
1040
Of those generous and disinterested men, to whom the present Government mainly owe their power? What are the objections raised by those individuals? It is not to the paltry payment of the Church-rate, taking the amount to be full 600,000 l., aggravated as their objection to it is by the extravagance of its amount and the profligate manner in which it is expended, but because, as Christians, taking the Bible as the sole source of their faith and hope—as Protestant Dissenters, they are called on to support a Church, from the doctrines or discipline of which, each or both, they conscientiously, disinterestedly, and unequivocally, dissent. I call on hon. Members, whether they be the immediate advocates of the Church, or members of the Government, to stand forth boldly and fearlessly, and grapple with this proposition—as Christians and as Protestants let them do so; for we should ever remember that we are a Protestant country; and what, I ask, is the interpretation of Protestantism? The right of every man to think for himself in matters of religion, taking the Bible as his sole interpreter. On what ground do the Protestants of the Church of England dissent from the Roman Catholics, but as claiming the inalienable right of private judgment in matters purely spiritual? In that respect members of the Established Church are Protestant Dissenters. Or do the Protestants of the Church of England stand on numbers? Are they prepared to say that religion is a mere question of articles, in which all points of faith, doctrine, and discipline are to be tried and settled by the test and voice of numbers? If so, on what principles can you rest your defence of your conduct towards your fellow-citizens in Ireland, whom you compel to support a Church from which, in grave essentials, nine-tenths of them dissent? It would be a gross insult to the understanding and the heart to treat the religion of any man as a mere matter of numbers. The honest profession of any religious opinion, however erroneous in the view of others, cannot fail to impart comfort and consolation to the mind, and for which opinion man is not, and never can be, amenable to any human power. Every human being has within him an altar—the altar of the heart—on which he delights to offer that incense to the Supreme Being which he believes to be the most acceptable—the homage of a

1041
grateful spirit to that unerring power to whom he owes his being—to whom he bows in reverence—by whose hopes he is inspired, and by the fears of whose displeasure he guides his course. This is, indeed, a paramount principle; and whenever you depart from it, that moment you cease to be Protestants, and assume the power claimed and exercised by the Church of Rome to impose articles of faith on the human conscience. Concede this doctrine, and what is the next step? If you establish a religion by law, by law you ought and must sustain it, and it then becomes as much a violation of law to dissent from that religion which is established by law, as to violate any other statute whatever that passes the Legislature as a guide for our social or individual conduct. It is loudly asserted, that the Protestant Dissenters of England are enemies to the doctrines of the Established Church. This charge greatly surprises me, especially in this House, the great majority of whose Members, not only from education, but conviction, profess the doctrines of that Church. Let me inquire of these hon. Members whether they are members of the Church of England merely because it is a Church established by law, or because they believe its doctrine and discipline to harmonize with the spirit and injunctions of the Gospel? Am I to understand, that if this House were to dissolve the connection now existing between Church and State, the Church would cease to be an object of your reverence and affection, and that the cessation of that connection is to work the immediate extinction of your attachment—that your religion would fall still-born to the ground, the baseless fabric of your apostacy and desertion? I will not think so meanly of the disciples of your Church. The objection urged by the Dissenters to the Church of England is not its principles, as the hon. member for Boston (Mr. Wilks) most justly says—by far the greater proportion of the Dissenters of this country are essentially of that faith professed by the Church of England, and significantly designated evangelical—but they are opposed to an alliance with the State which they conscientiously consider not only to be unholy and unsanctioned by any scriptural authority, but which they also regard as highly detrimental to the progress and triumph of true religion. I am addressing many hon. Gentlemen to whom it is well
1042
known, that some of the most distinguished ornaments of the Established Church—men who have enriched the pages of our literature, and adorned their profession by their lives—have been of opinion, that the alliance of the Church with the State was one of its least envied attendants, and that they should be well pleased to witness its dissolution. But to come more directly to the plan of the noble Lord. Stript of all details, what is it? It is a proposition, if not directly to tax the people to the extent of 250,000 l. a-year, at least to take away from the available resources of the country a sum of money to that amount. The right hon. Secretary of the Colonies, in the course of his speech paid a sort of suspicious compliment to the hon. member for Middlesex. and seemed to underrate very much the intelligence of those persons who treated the plan of his noble friend as a financial plan. The noble Lord, in his statement of his budget, said, that he had reserved a surplus of 500,000 l. wherewith to meet probable contingencies; but now he takes away from this sum 250,000 l., to be deducted from the Land-tax—a tax, be it remembered, which constitutes a part of the ways and means of the country as certainly as any other item. But there are other objections to this plan. Is it not one of the most insulting propositions that could possibly be made to the Protestant Dissenters of this country? For it proceeds upon the degrading supposition, that the Dissenters only desire to be relieved from the name of the tax—that they only wish to have their property exempted from the Church-rate, but are ready to support the Church by any more general measure of taxation. This is cruel mockery. Whatever name the tax bears, or however raised, if raised to build Churches, and support clergymen, the objection is equally strong and decisive. If we are to have an Established Church, it must be supported; for the idea of an Established Church without revenue is as unintelligible and absurd, as the idea of an Established Church without clergymen. But we are not on the present occasion called upon to say, whether there ought to be any Established Church. What we say is, that you have a revenue more than sufficient for the support of the Church and its ministers. An hon. Gentleman who preceded me (the member for the University of Oxford), and who is re-

1043
garded as one of the most earnest adherents of the Church, and who is most cautious in making concessions to those who differ from him—so that any thing coming from him as a concession, must by us be taken as little less than a canon—observed, that the State ought to furnish no more for the support of the Church than was necessary. But what do you now propose to do? You now propose to give, by way of tax, a quarter of a million a-year to the Church, keeping us all the while in the dark as to what the resources of the Church really are. Before we can be in any sense called upon to appropriate a portion of the revenues of the country to the maintenance of the Church, it is only decent that we should be informed of the amount of the real available property of the Established Church. And I cannot think, that the noble Lord is acting a friendly part, or evincing the attachment he professes, when he leaves the amount of ecclesiastical revenues as a matter entirely for speculation. I firmly believe, as the result of much laborious inquiry, and from the examination of various documents and testimonies, open to every gentleman, that the revenues of that Church to which the noble Lord proposes we should vote 250,000 l. per annum, cannot be any thing short, if fairly valued, of 5,000,000 l. per annum. If this be so (and the calculation is warranted by the silence of the noble Lord, and by the absence of those returns which would set the matter at rest) are we to be told, that this Church, which does not gather under its wings one-half of the population of this country—a Christian Church, moreover, the basis of which is, if not the abhorrence, the disdain of all worldly grandeur—whose boast it is, as proclaimed by her ministers, that the kingdom they teach and practise is not of this world. To them the unhallowed attractions of the world have no allurement—that they disdain all those vain and artificial distinctions which are thrown around the paths of worldly-minded men—that their views are directed to things which are unseen and imperishable—that they are ever and meekly tending to that state in which piety and goodness will find an enduring reward—that they drink at that fountain whose waters are deep, pure, and heavenly. If, I say, this be the spirit of the Established Church, can any man stand up and say—will any man
1044
honestly assert—that it is impossible to sustain a Church whose ministers are thus inspired, at an annual cost of less than 5,000,000 l. a-year? Oh! what a humiliating avowal is this!—the bare declaration is fatal to the Church. If this, indeed, be true, there must be something in the principles of that Church too political to have any connection with that pure and unearthly faith which disdains and denounces the hypocrisy of pride, while it speaks peace, and hope, and joy, to its meek and lowly followers. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Secretary Stanley) did not attend to some of the suggestions of my hon. friend, the member for Boston, when he said, that by the extinction of Church-rates we should abstract 300,000 l. from the service of religion. I would ask by what means the Dissenting Church and its ministers are supported? They have no compulsory rate—they have no distress for tithes—they appeal to the voluntary contributions of those who worship within temples erected and endowed by their own freewill offerings. When the hon. Baronet, the member for the University of Oxford, made his comparison between the two bodies, he endeavoured to show, that the Dissenters were, in point of numbers, insignificant, and in point of wealth beneath consideration—yet we find these persons, so beggarly in resources, so insignificant in numbers (statements, indeed, altogether at variance with facts, when contrasted with the Church of England) raising amongst themselves 1,000,000 l. sterling per annum, for the support of their own places of worship, and the maintenance of learned persons, freely chosen by themselves to administer sacred things amongst them. Yet we are to be told, that the Church of England, embodying the pure essence of Christianity, would, if left to itself, and not supported by compulsory provisions, crumble beneath the weight of its own corruptions,—a mighty ruin, unknown to Heaven, and abandoned by man! Where, I ask, is the Attorney-General of England? Where, I ask, is the Solicitor-General, that he is not present to receive instructions to wield that popular instrument of his authority, a criminal information, against the unsanctified being who dares to utter this blasphemous libel against the Established Church, that its pure Christianity—its sound doctrines—its sacred forms—its

1045
decent discipline—its comprehensive creed—would all become matters of contempt beneath consideration, while its ancient fabrics, which now adorn the country as monuments of ancient piety, would become crumbling memorials of your impiety and desertion? It is said, that the Dissenters will find themselves relieved by this plan. So they will, in common with all those who now pay Church-rates, and viewed simply as a measure of finance; but it is only to have a new tax, in another name and form, imposed and perpetuated. Yet this is denied. Let me ask, if you were to extinguish tithe to-morrow, and substitute for it a payment of 5,000,000 l. annually out of the Consolidated Fund, would not this be a clear and direct dealing with the finances of the country? By either, or both of these measures, you will relieve property at the expense of the people; and thus be doing that which, on former occasions, I have ventured to say we show too ready a disposition to do—namely, relieve ourselves at the expense of others. It was well said by the hon. member for the University of Oxford, that the Church-rate was not less a charge upon property than tithe. This is no fallacy. The Church-rate affects property in the same manner as any other charge. The other day I was called upon to pay 14 l. for my house in Great George-street, for the repair and maintenance of a neighbouring Church. Now, if I were to sell my house, would not the purchaser inquire after the Church-rates as well as the Parish-rates, the Sewers'-rates, and all other charges affecting property; and having taken them into consideration, would not the amount of them influence the price? This charge of Church-rates, then, you propose to take from property, and lay it on the people—on the poor—on those who are already bearing nearly all the burthens of the country—and this, too, be it remembered, for the sake and in aid of religion—of that religion which was mercifully designed to relieve, and not to rob the poor. I am anxious to impress upon the Government this fact, that, however much they may attempt to disguise it—however much they may hope to reconcile the Dissenters to it, by telling them that they will now only pay 10 s. in the pound, by substituting 250,000 l. for 500,000 l.—they will see, in spite of the change of name—in spite of the chicanery
1046
of the contrivance—that it is a charge avowedly to create a fund expressly for the support of a Church, from whose legal establishment they conscientiously dissent. As far as I am acquainted with the feelings of the Dissenters, and I consider myself to be so, I regard it as my duty to tell the Government that the provisions of this measure will kindle stronger feelings of dislike and resentment than even their odious Marriage Bill. It would be far better to let Church-rates alone. The evil would work its own cure, and that at no distant day. Government ought not to deal and dabble in these inconsistent and paltry contrivances; they are beneath them. As to the suggestion thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley), that the Government had to contend with the opposition of the Church, as represented by the hon. member for the University of Oxford, I will observe, that he could not do otherwise than appear a little adverse to the plan. Decency required this, because the measure has the semblance but not the reality of an attack upon the Church; but if we could enter into the conclaves of the Church, I would venture to say, that we should find the right reverend gentlemen assembled there greatly puzzled to suggest anything against it of which they did approve, but not more cordially than it would be opposed by its authors were they now out of office. This scheme, if successful, is in truth a Godsend to the clergy, for the Church-rate could not last above a year or two at the utmost. The hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Inglis) says, that there has been no general expression of hostility to Church-rates, although, certainly, in some forty or fifty places, some discontent had been expressed. He enumerated Nottingham, and a few other towns, as having manifested some dissatisfaction, but continued to observe, that as to the country generally, it was as much pleased with Church-rates as with Tithes, and that there was no marked discontent with either. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman is waiting till the Dissenters form themselves into some union, and parade down Parliament-street, and pass over Westminster-bridge, in bodies of 40,000 or 50,000, before he believes in the existence of discontent, it may not be very long before he is thus gratified. Indeed, he himself must know very well that the storm has only been hushed—that the good sense of the Dissenters has induced

1047
them to wait and see what the Government would do for them, for they have been told "Government are your friends—tarry a while until you see what its wisdom and benevolence will offer for your relief—their intentions surpass your expectations—prepare yourselves to praise and bless them for their kindness!" And what is their plan, so long withheld, so eagerly sought? Here we have it—the thing is proposed to us to-night, and a precious thing it is. Never was a scheme in which good intentions were so perverted, and the wishes of those sought to be pleased so little appreciated or understood. We are cautioned, night after night, not to work willing men to death—that the Government does all it can for us—that we must wait a little longer—that Ministers have only been in office four short years—that they have had many things to effect—that they have yet more in store—that if we will be patient, they will try and do something for us. But surely it would have been better for them to have come forward at once and said, "We are of opinion that the same principles which we have applied to the Church of Ireland ought to be applied to the Church of England; at the same time we are firm and decided friends to the Establishment, and are averse to the experiment of dissolving its connexion with the State." These feelings, honestly expressed, would have been understood and respected by Dissenters, who would have been prepared to make great concessions, and the adoption of the sound principle of making the Church in England, as in Ireland, support its own fabric, would have accumulated upon them the affections and attachment of the Dissenting body. It is true that they would have had to encounter the powerful and unbending resistance of another party, yet this need not have been heeded. All they would have had to do would have been to throw themselves upon the good sense and good feelings of the people. When I speak of the people, I speak not of their physical or numerical pretensions, but of the intelligent and well-informed people of England. These were, in days gone by, their mainstay in a trying hour—through them they triumphed over faction and secured Reform, that great measure, through the success of which they obtained power, and through the possession of which, not only the Dissenters, but all honest people in the country were expecting to derive, and
1048
I trust are yet destined to derive, large and liberal benefits. What if Government had found a power out of this House—for I will not presume its possibility in this House—too mighty for them, would they have been afraid to meet it? Do they wish it to go forth to the country that they find office so attractive—that office is to them a bed of roses—that to occupy those Benches is so full of secret delights and solid benefits that they are not prepared to bring forward any measure which may in any way entangle them? If they be not so attached to office, which I will not insinuate—why will they not act a straight-forward and manly part—why will they not be honest to the people? At all events relieve us from suspense. It would be better to know the real state of things than for us to be continually calculating on measures of improvement which are never to be accomplished, raising hopes only to dash them with bitter malignity to the ground; making propositions without principle—disturbing everything—settling nothing—and thus pursuing a course which disappoints all hopes and confirms every species of apprehension.
Lord John Russellsaid, he felt it incumbent on him to declare his opinions in opposition to those of the hon. and learned member for Colchester, and to the hon. member for Middlesex. They said, it would give them pleasure, if instead of opposing the measure brought forward by his Majesty's Government, they could have given it their support, which they might have been able to do had it been founded on some broad principle. There were, no doubt, some measures on which the hon. member for Colchester, and the members of his Majesty's Government might agree; yet he should be wanting in candour, if he did not state, that the reason why the hon. and learned Gentleman, and his hon. friend, were continually disappointed at the proceedings of Government, was this: there was a difference of principle between them. The wish of the latter was to preserve and reform; it never would be their object to destroy. The hon. member for Middlesex stated his difference at once. He did not think this a question simply affecting Church-rates. He did not disguise his views, but declared, that if the opinions of the people were prepared for such a change, he would at once bring forward a measure for the separation of the Church from the State.

1049
The Ministers acted on a totally different principle. They were of opinion, that the Church was conducive to the promotion of morality, to the maintenance of good order, and to the advancement of civilization: and, moreover, that the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England were consonant to the feelings of the people of this country. In consenting, therefore, to the measure proposed by his noble friend affecting Church-rates, he consented to it on a different principle from those professed by the hon. member for Middlesex and the hon. and learned member for Colchester, who would prepare the way for the abolition of the Church Establishment. He, by removing the grievances in connexion with the Church, desired to maintain the Establishment, which, when adequately Reformed, as he trusted it would be before many years passed over, would, he believed, be again, as it had before been, and as it still was, though not to the extent he desired, conducive to the general welfare of the State. The hon. and learned member for Colchester stated it as his opinion, that if there was a Church Establishment, there must be certain doctrines laid down to which members of the State should conform. This was in effect saying, that in the opinion of the hon. and learned member for Colchester, there could not be a Church Establishment without intolerance. Certainly such was the case with the Church of Rome in former times. In his opinion, however, the reverse was the fact; and he believed it practical to favour one religion, and tolerate every other, as in truth it took place in England. He maintained, that there might be a Church Establishment in the State, supported too by compulsory payments, and yet there might be the most perfect religious freedom. While all contributed towards the support of the Church Establishment, it could not be fairly said, that it benefited one class alone, viz.—that which belonged to the Establishment, but the whole community derived advantage from it. At the same time, he would refuse to enter into the sanctuary of men's consciences: and every man for his belief should be left to his own heart. Every man, too, should be allowed the free performance of those religious observances, and the free profession of that faith which his conscience told him were the best. He would go
1050
along with the Dissenters in their efforts to get rid of restrictions on account of their religious belief, so long as they had any such grievances to get removed; but he could go no further. He certainly could not go to the extent of the hon. and learned member for Colchester; and he must express his regret, if in going as far as he was prepared to go—if in removing grievances to the extent to which he was ready to remove them—the Dissenters wished him to proceed further, he must part from them. If he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman, he would not be satisfied with any principle in which an Established Church was recognized; and in that he must at once declare he could not concur. The proposition now before the House was that of setting aside a certain sum out of the Land-tax of England and Wales to be applied to the support of the Church. The funds were to be applied to the keeping of the Church in repair. He did not think that there was in this arrangement anything connected with Divine Worship to which Dissenters could object. Where Dissenters' places of Worship were built, there were invariably congregations in want of them; if the congregations were to fall off, the chapel or meeting-house would be allowed to go to decay. The subscriptions diminishing, the place of meeting would sometimes be removed to some other part of the country. With regard to the Churches of the Establishment it was very different; they were the ancient edifices of the kingdom. The people would be sorry to see their parish Churches falling into decay; yet such would in the majority of cases occur, unless some provision were made for keeping them in repair. The Churches in towns would probably be repaired out of sums that would be raised from private individuals, but in parishes where the population was small, a sufficient amount could not be obtained, and such he believed, would be the regret of Englishmen to see their public buildings perishing, that applications would probably at last be made to that House for votes to supply the necessary funds. The hon. member for Middlesex had offered to the House an argument which, on examination, would be found to be perfectly inconsistent. He said, that the measure would not satisfy the Church: the hon. Gentleman also alleged, that it had the approval

1051
of the Bench of Bishops, whose proposition it might, indeed, be considered. Now it must be apparent, that if the Bishops were its authors, and if it had their approval, it was morally impossible that it should not satisfy the Church. But the fact was, that it did not emanate from the Bench of Bishops; there had been no concert—no communication with them on the measure. It was brought forward with the view explained by his right hon. friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, viz., to do away with the perpetual and increasing strife and disputes in parishes, and at the same time to preserve that which his Majesty's Government wished to preserve—the Established Church. He and his colleagues had, of course, little reason to expect the support on this occasion of the hon. member for Middlesex and others, whose object was to destroy; but they did hope to have the support of those who with themselves wished to see the Church maintained, at the same time that they entertained the desire to see its abuses reformed, and all the practical grievances of the Dissenters removed.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonwished, before he consented to the Motion, to know the amount of the Church property, and to ascertain if that were not sufficient to maintain the sacred edifices without having recourse to the general revenue of the country. If that inquiry had been made, and the property had been found deficient, he might not have objected to the measure; but, according to the Statute-book, the Church property ought first of all to provide for the maintenance of the fabric of the Church. He could not agree to the principle of the Motion. He would ask, was the Church-rate charged on the land? By the present measure they would give that to the proprietor of land, or whoever paid the rate to which he was no more entitled, by the argument of the hon. Baronet, the member for Oxford, than he was to tithes. The Government ought to take care that these rates fell on the property which bore them at present; but, instead of so doing, they were about to charge them on the revenue of the country; and they would thus be imposed, not on the people of England only, hut, also, on the people of Ireland. The latter had lately been relieved from the Church cess of their own country, and now they were to have imposed upon them a portion of the Church cess of England. In that there was great
1052
inconsistency. The measure was said to be confined to England and Wales; but it would affect Scotland also, which country already paid for the maintenance of the fabric of the Scotch Church, and was satisfied with the manner in which that burthen was collected. Why was the Church of Scotland to be saddled with part of the expence of maintaining the English Church? The revenues and property of the Church ought to pay for its support. The effect of the proposition would be to relieve those who had been subject to the tax heretofore, and to place it on those who had never been subject to it. He should support the Amendment moved by the hon. member for Middlesex.
Mr. Gillonprotested against the measure as one of robbery and confiscation on the people, especially of Scotland and Ireland. He could not but characterize it as a contemptible juggle; while they had professed to relieve Ireland of Church-cess, they now called on her to contribute towards that of England. The plan of the noble Lord would impose a substantial tax on Scotland for the purpose of maintaining a dominant Church already gorged with wealth, revelling in the spoils of a former establishment, and supported by unwilling contributions exacted from overburthened and conscientious men, who disapproved of her doctrines, and could not submit to her discipline.
Mr. Wynnfelt disposed to give his support to the resolution proposed by the noble Lord opposite; but at the same time he wished not to be understood as expressing any decided approbation of the ministerial plan. He reserved to himself the right of pronouncing an opinion upon it until he had an opportunity of examining its details when embodied in the shape of a Bill. He admitted, that the noble Lord had laid sufficient grounds for the House to entertain the consideration of the measure; and it was only by the previous adoption of a resolution, such as that now before the Committee, that the Bill could be laid before the House. He agreed with the noble Lord in thinking, that the disputes which had arisen on the subject of Church-rates, in different vestries, were likely, if allowed to continue, to prove prejudicial, not only to the peace of particular parishes, but to the general interests of religion. It was, indeed, said by his hon. friend, the member for the University of Oxford, that

1053
the resistance to the payment of rates was confined to forty or fifty parishes; but could any one doubt, that the same spirit, when inflamed both by religious animosity and personal pecuniary interest, would progressively spread itself to a much more formidable extent? Another motive for altering, or at least regulating, the mode of imposing these payments, arose from the abuses which had notoriously grown up, and the improper charges which had been included to swell out their amount. For instance, the parish of Christ-Church, Surrey, had been in the habit of voting an augmentation to the income of the minister out of the Church-rates, to the amount of 400 l. a-year. If that were an augmentation consented to by all the parties who paid Church-rates in that parish, it would be highly meritorious and commendable; but if, on the contrary, it should be imposed merely by a majority in opposition to the wishes of the minority, he could conceive nothing more calculated to create irritation and resistance, particularly if that minority were Dissenters from the Established Church. It was obvious, that if such an allowance could regularly be voted, there were no limits to which it might not be carried. He, therefore, felt that it would be desirable that the subject of Church-rates should be considered by the Legislature; and, at least, some provision made to prevent their being applied to other purposes than for the decent and proper performance of divine service, and for the repair of the Churches themselves. There were parts of the plan of the noble Lord that he did not distinctly understand. In the first place, he did not understand how the sum of 250,000 l. was to cover not only the repairs to which the Church-rates were now applicable, which considerably exceeded that amount, but, also, the repairs of the chancels. The last expense at present fell upon the rectors and proprietors of great tithes, whether lay or ecclesiastical; and he could not discover on what grounds they were in future to be exempted from the charge, and instead of it be made liable to a small demand for providing the articles strictly necessary for the performance of divine service, such as the sacramental wine, the minister's service, and the books for the reading desk. Neither did he understand how the fund upon which it was intended to charge the repair of Churches could be considered as perpetual or permanent. The Land-tax
1054
was liable to redemption; and a large proportion of it, considerably more than one-third, had been redeemed. The high price of the funds had latterly interrupted the purchases, but a renewal of war, or any other cause which depressed the value of stock considerably below that of land, would cause purchasers to recommence, and the land-tax might be completely extinguished, or at least diminished, below the amount now proposed to be charged on it. These, however, were details which might be much more advantageously discussed when the Bill was before the House; there was a question, however, of great importance to be decided by the vote of the House to-night. In consequence of the Amendment which had been moved, that question was,—is it fit, that any man should be called upon to pay towards the support of a particular form of worship in which he does not participate? He answered that question in the affirmative. He said decidedly, that it was fit. It was absolutely necessary, if it was intended to preserve an Established Church—and without an Established Church, he believed it would be impossible to maintain religion in the country—that some fund should exist for the purpose of defraying the charge of repairing the Churches and of providing for the decent administration of divine worship. This object could not, in his opinion, be attained, if it were allowed to individuals to exonerate themselves from any payment in support of the Establishment on becoming followers of Joanna Southcote, professors of the St. Simonian religion, the doctrines of which were at variance with the first prrinciples of society, or adopting any other form of dissent. It was upon this principle, and not because he was a member of the Established Church, that he advocated the connexion between Church and State; for if he were living in a Catholic country, he would willingly contribute to the maintenance and support of the clergy, who taught the doctrines to which the large body of inhabitants adhered. He did not intend to enter into a discussion respecting the comparative amount of the members of the Church of England and the Dissenters; but he wished the House to bear in mind, that the number of dissenting places of worship ought not to be taken exactly as an index of the number of Dissenters. Many dissenting chapels, where the form of worship was not directly at variance

1055
with that celebrated in the Established Churches, were frequented by members of the Establishment. He knew this to be the case in Wales, in which part of the empire the Wesleyan chapels, in many instances contained a mixed congregation of Dissenters and members of the Church of England. He certainly was of opinion, that it was the duty of the State to supply to those, whose poverty prevented them from procuring it for themselves, the blessing of religious consolation.
Mr. Robinsonbelieved, that the ministerial proposition had been brought forward with a sincere desire to relieve the Dissenters from the grievances of which they justly complained; but he was afraid it would not be attended with that desirable effect. He admitted, that the new plan, as far as it went, was an improvement on the existing system, yet it could not be denied, that its chief effect would only be to make the Dissenters pay indirectly, though not to so great an extent, a tax to which they objected on principle, and which they now paid directly. He concurred with the noble Lord, the member for Devonshire, in thinking, that, for the general good of the Protestant interest throughout the country, the maintenance of the Established Church was desirable, and it was with the view of supporting the Establishment, that he wished to see the Dissenters relieved from every grievance. He should, therefore, give his vote in favour of the Amendment proposed by the hon. member for Middlesex, but not for the reasons which had induced that hon. Member to recommend its adoption to the House. If the House should decide, that Church-rates should be abolished, it did not follow, that some other substitute than that proposed by the noble Lord opposite might not be discovered. He objected to calling on the population of Scotland and Ireland, and many thousands of persons in England, to contribute to a rate towards which they at present paid nothing.
Sir Matthew White Ridleythought the noble Lord's plan the least objectionable that could be proposed. It was not to be denied, that, at the present moment, there existed in the country a strong feeling of discontent against the Established Church; and he, therefore, felt it his duty, as a member of that Church, to assist its support, without infringing on the rights or offending the feelings of his Dissenting
1056
brethren. He could not agree with those who thought the ministerial plan ought not to be proceeded with because it did not give entire satisfaction to the Dissenters. Willing and anxious as he was to conciliate them, he was bound to consider, on the present occasion, not what was most agreeable to their feelings, but what was best calculated to remove their well-founded complaints, and at the same time maintain the Established Church in its efficacy. He thought it necessary for the good government of the country, that there should be an Established Church, and he believed, that the separation of the Church and State would tend to weaken the Government and destroy the best institutions of the country, and its pernicious effect would be felt as much by the Dissenters as by the members of the Establishment. He would not, however, throw on the community at large those charges which were incurred for the exclusive benefit of members of the Church of England; and, believing that the plan of the noble Lord would relieve the Dissenters from those grievances of which they complained with justice, while it provided for the maintenance of the Established Church, with which the prosperity of the country and of every institution in it was deeply connected, he should certainly give it his support.
Mr. Wallaceentered his protest against the ministerial plan, which he said was an insidious attack on the privileges and rights of those who belonged to the religion of his country. He considered the admission made by the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the people would not pay for the support of the Church of England unless compelled,—though not very complimentary to the Established Church, as very valuable, inasmuch as it showed with what sort of feeling the Establishment was regarded by the inhabitants of the country. He was sure, that the noble Lord would be unable to carry his plan into execution, and he prophesied, that a general resistance would be manifested throughout England, Scotland and Ireland, to the collection of the tax which the noble Lord had proposed to levy.
Mr. Bainesdeclared, that the Government plan would not be acceptable to the great portion of the Dissenting community, and believing, as he did, that the Ministers intended to give satisfaction to the Dis-

1057
senters, he regretted exceedingly, that such a measure should have been brought forward. The Dissenters possessed at present, to a certain extent, a control over the Church, which the proposed plan would take out of their hands by converting the Church-rate into a charge on the general revenue of the country. He wished to know how the Quakers were to be induced to pay the Land-tax, when it was incumbered with another tax for the support of the Established Church? He should certainly vote in favour of the Amendment.
Lord Althorpsaid, that one of the main objects of the Government in bringing forward the present proposition was to give satisfaction to the Dissenters; and he confessed that the mode in which it had been received by those Dissenters who had seats in that House had greatly surprised him. The proposition which he had the honour to submit to the Committee had been treated as if it gave no relief to the Dissenter in point of principle; but he believed there was one class of Dissenters at least, who would not regard it in that light: he alluded to the Quakers. It was well known, that they would not on any account contribute towards defraying expenses incurred specifically for the maintenance of the army, and yet when the army was supported out of the general taxation of the country, he had never heard that they objected to contribute their share. He was well aware, that if Church-rates were converted into a charge on the general revenue of the country, the Dissenters must pay a certain proportion: but he always understood, that the principal grievance of which they complained consisted in being called on to pay money specifically intended for the support of the Established Church. He could not concur with those who said that the plan proposed by him would have the effect of increasing the burthens of the country. In his opinion it would have an entirely contrary effect. It was true, that 250,000 l. would be added to the Land-tax, but the country in general would be called on to pay 310,000 l. less than it had hitherto paid. It had been objected by the Representatives of Scotland, that by the plan of Government the people of that country would be called on to contribute indirectly towards the support of the Church of England; but the gentlemen coming from that part of the
1058
kingdom ought to recollect, that considerable sums were paid out of the general revenues towards the support of the Scotch Established Church, and that an annual grant was voted for the purpose of increasing the revenues of the smaller livings in Scotland. He was ready to admit, that the plan proposed by him would, to a certain extent, diminish the means at the disposal of Government for the reduction of taxation; but the principal argument used that evening was, that no contribution ought to be made by the State for the purpose of maintaining the places of worship belonging to the Established Church. Now, he entirely agreed with his right hon. friend, the member for Montgomeryshire, that it was the absolute duty of the State to provide places of worship for the poorer classes of the community; and he believed it would be found that, in all Dissenting chapels, the poor were accommodated gratuitously. It had been observed, with some sarcasms, that the members of the Establishment were not so willing to contribute to the support of their Church, as the Dissenters were, to maintain their places of worship. He believed that this statement was not correct; but, at the same time, some inconvenience might naturally be expected, if the people of this country were to be called upon for the first time to meet by voluntary contributions what had hitherto been a legal charge. For the purpose, then, of maintaining the Established Church, and on the higher principle of providing places of worship for the poor classes of the community, he thought that some substitute for the Church-rates ought to be found. He was anxious to remove the grievances of the Dissenters, but he would only do so on one condition—which in his conscience he felt bound to impose on himself—that he did not go so far as to destroy the Established Church. He had always been a sincere member of that Church, and he should regret its separation from the State, not merely from religious feelings, though principally on that account, but also for political reasons. He thought it essential to the existence of the Church that places of worship should be provided for the administration of its rites; and though he was aware that by his proposition he had left a great deal for private and voluntary contributions to effect, yet he had nevertheless maintained the principle, which he contended ought

1059
to be maintained, of the connexion between the Church and State. On these grounds, hoping that the measure would not be received by the Dissenters out of doors in the manner in which it had been received within that House, he should persevere in bringing it forward, and, with the permission of the Committee, submit it to the consideration of the country. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. member for Worcester, he really thought that the hon. Member was bound, if he considered that a substitute ought to be found for the Church-rates, not to leave the thing to chance, but to point out what he considered a proper substitute.
Mr. Hume, in explanation, denied that he had advocated the separation of the Church and State, or expressed any wish to have the Churches demolished. His argument was, that it did not become the House of Commons to apply the public revenue to maintain places of worship belonging to a Church possessing ample funds for that purpose.
Mr. Stanleyadmitted, that the hon. Member had not advocated the separation of Church and State at the present moment, but he had pretty significantly intimated what his views and intentions would be if he were able to carry them into effect. The hon. Member had observed, that the Church possessed ample means of meeting all its expenses. Now, he begged to observe that if the whole revenues of the Church were equally divided among the ministers of the Church, the income of each would not exceed 300 l.
Mr. Humesaid, that all he had observed with respect to the separation of Church and State was, that the present was not the proper time to discuss that question. He intended to press his Amendment; and if it should not be agreed to, he should propose a resolution to the following effect—"that it would be inexpedient to take into consideration any proposition to provide means for the maintenance of the edifices belonging to the Established Church, until the amount of the funds belonging to that Church should be known and found to be inadequate to meet that and other charges."
The Committee divided, on the original Motion—Ayes 256; Noes 140: Majority 116.
Mr. Wilks Mr. Wilks moved, that the Chairman report progress, upon which the Committee again divided—Ayes 136; Noes 263: Majority against the Motion, 127.
The Resolution proposed by Lord Althorp was agreed to.

List of the AYES on the first Division.

ENGLAND.

Foley, J. K. H.

Althorp, Lord

Foley, E. T.

Anson, Sir G.

Forester, Hon. G. C. W.

Ashley, Lord

Forster, C. S.

Astley, Sir J.

Fort, J.

Astley, Sir J. D.

Fox, S. L.

Bankes, W. J.

Fox, Lieut.-Col. C. R.

Barham, J.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Baring, A.

Gaskell, J. M.

Baring, F. T.

Gladstone, W. E.

Baring, H. B.

Gordon, R.

Barnett, C. J.

Goulburn, Rt. Hon. H.

Beaumont, T. W.

Graham, Sir J. R. G.

Bell, M.

Greene, T. G.

Benett, J.

Grey, Hon. Colonel

Bentinck, Lord G. F.

Grey, Sir G.

Bethell, E. R.

Grimston, Viscount

Blackstone, W. S.

Gronow, Capt. R. H.

Blunt, Sir C. C. R.

Guise, Sir B. W.

Bolling, W.

Halcombe, J.

Brodie, T. B.

Halford, H.

Bruce, Lord E.

Handley, W. F.

Brudenell, Lord

Hanmer, Sir J.

Bulteel, J. C.

Hanmer, Colonel H.

Burrell, Sir C.

Hardinge, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Burton, H.

Byng, Sir J.

Hardy, J.

Calcraft, J.

Hawes, B.

Carter, J. B.

Heathcote, J. J.

Cartwright, W. R.

Henniker, Lord E.

Cavendish, Hon. Col.

Herbert, Hon. S.

Chandos, Marquess of

Hodges, T. L.

Chapman, A.

Horne, Sir W.

Chaytor, W. R. C.

Houldsworth, T.

Chaytor, Sir W.

Hope, H. T.

Chetwynd, Capt. W. F.

Hawkes, T.

Childers, J. W.

Hughes, W. H.

Clive, E. B.

Irton, S.

Clive, Viscount

Inglis, Sir R.

Clive, Hon. R. H.

Jermyn, Earl

Cooper, Hon. A. H. A.

Jerningham, Hon. H. V. S.

Crawley, S.

Curteis, H. B.

Johnstone, Sir J. V.

Curteis, Captain E. B.

Jolliffe, H.

Crawford, W.

Keppell, Major G.

Darlington, Earl of

Kerrison, Sir E.

Duffield, T.

King, E. B.

Dugdale, W. S.

Labouchere, H.

Duncombe, Hon. W.

Langston, J. H.

Durham, Sir P. C.

Lemon, Sir C.

Eastnor, Viscount

Lewis, Hon. T. F.

Ebrington, Viscount

Lincoln, Earl of

Egerton, W. T.

Littleton, E. J.

Ellice, E.

Lopez, Sir R.

Edwards, J.

Lowther, Colonel H.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Lumley, Viscount

Etwall, R.

Lushington, Dr.

Fazakerley, I. N.

Lygon, Colonel H. B.

Ferguson, Gen. Sir R.

Lyall, G.

Feilden, W.

Maberly, Colonel

Finch, G.

Manners, Lord R.

Fitzroy, Lord J.

Marjoribanks, S.

Fleetwood, P. H.

Marsland, T.

1061

Methuen, P.

Wood, G. W.

Milton, Viscount

Wood, Colonel T.

Morpeth, Viscount

Wall, C. B.

Mosley, Sir O.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Miles, W.

Ward, H. G.

Neale, Sir H. B.

Warre, J. A.

Nicholl, J.

Waterpark, Lord

Norreys, Lord

Watkins, J. L.

North, F.

Watson, Hon. R.

Paget, F.

Wedgwood, J.

Palmer, C. F.

Weyland, Major R.

Palmer, R.

Whitbread, W. H.

Patten, J. W.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Pechell, Sir S. J. B.

Wynn, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Peel, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

Yorke, Captain C. P.

Pendarves, E. W.

Young, G. F.

Pepys, C.

SCOTLAND.

Peter, W.

Adam, Admiral C.

Philips, C. M.

Agnew, Sir A.

Phillpotts, J.

Bannerman, A.

Pigot, R.

Bruce, C.

Pollock, F.

Callander, J. H.

Price, R.

Campbell, Sir H.

Ramsden, J. C.

Elliott, Hon. Capt. G.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Ferguson, Capt. G.

Rickford, W.

Grant, Right Hon. C.

Rider, T.

Hay, Sir J.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Hay, Colonel A. L.

Rolfe, R. M.

Jeffrey, Right Hon. F.

Ross, C.

Johnston, A.

Russell, Lord J.

Loch, J.

Russell, C.

Mackenzie, J. A. S.

Ryle, J.

Murray, J. A.

Scrope, C. P.

Rae, Sir W.

Sanderson, R.

Sinclair, G.

Sandon, Viscount

Stewart, Sir M. S.

Sanford, E. A.

Wemyss, Captain J.

Scarlett, Sir J.

IRELAND.

Scott, J. W.

Bateson, Sir R.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Belfast, Earl of

Sheppard, T.

Browne, D.

Simeon, Sir R. G.

Carew, R. S.

Skipwith, Sir G.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Slaney, R. A.

Christmas, J. N.

Smith, J.

Cole, Lord

Smith, R. V.

Conolly, Col. E. M.

Somerset, Lord G.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Spankie, Mr. Serjeant

Corry, Hon. H. L.

Spencer, Hon. Capt. F.

Daly, J.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. E.

Dobbin, L.

Stanley, E.

Forbes, Lord

Stanley, E. J.

Hayes, Sir E.

Strickland, G.

Hill, Lord M.

Tayleure, W.

Howard, R.

Taylor, Rt. Hon. M. A.

Lefroy, Dr. T.

Thomson, Rt. Hn. C. P.

Macnamara, Major W.

Throckmorton, R. G.

Macnamara, F.

Tower, C. T.

Martin, J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Maxwell, H.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Mullins, F. W.

Verney, Sir H.

O'Callaghan, Hon. C.

Vernon, Hon. G. J.

O'Reilly, W.

Vivian, Sir H.

Perceval, Colonel

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Perrin, L.

Wilbraham, G.

Stawell, Colonel

Williams, T. P.

Talbot, J.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Tennent, J. E.

1062

White, S.

Tancred, H. W.

PAIRED OFF.

TELLER.

Rice, Hon. T. S.

Wood, C.

List of the NOES on the first Division.

Adams, E. H.

Ingham, R.

Aglionby, H. A.

James, W.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Jacob, E.

Baines, E.

Jervis, J.

Baldwin, Dr.

Kemp, T. R.

Barnard, E. G.

Kennedy, J.

Barron, W.

Lambton, H.

Belew, R. M.

Langdale, H.

Bewes, T.

Leech, J.

Bish, T.

Lister, E. C.

Blackney, W.

Lloyd, J. H.

Blake, M. J.

Locke, W.

Blamire, W.

Lynch, A. H.

Bowes, J.

Martin, J.

Briggs, R.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Briscoe, J. I.

Nagle, Sir R.

Brocklehurst, J.

O'Brien, C.

Brotherton, J.

O'Connell, M.

Buckingham, J. S.

O'Connell, C.

Bulwer, E. L.

O'Connell, J.

Butler, Hon. P.

O'Connor, F.

Cayley, E. S.

O'Conor, D.

Cayley, Sir G.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Chapman, M. L.

O'Ferrall, M.

Clay, W.

Oliphant, L.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Ord, W.

Dalmeny, Lord

Oswald, R.

Dashwood, G. H.

Parrott, J.

Davies, Col.

Pease, J.

Divett, E.

Phillips, M.

Ellis, W.

Pinney, W.

Evans, G.

Potter, R.

Evans, Col.

Pryme, G.

Ewart, W.

Richards, J.

Ewing, J.

Rippon, C.

Faithfull, G.

Robinson, G. R.

Fellowes, Hon. N.

Roche, W.

Fenton, J.

Roche, D.

Fergusson, R. C.

Roe, J.

Fielden, J.

Romilly, J.

Finn, W. F.

Romilly, E.

Fitzgerald, T.

Ronayne, D.

French, F.

Russell, Lord C.

Fryer, R.

Russell, W. C.

Fitzsimon, C.

Ruthven, E. S.

Fitzsimon, N.

Ruthven, E.

Gaskell, D.

Staveley, J. K.

Gillon, W. D.

Stewart, J.

Gisborne, T.

Strutt, E.

Godson, R.

Sullivan, R.

Grote, G.

Sharpe, General

Guest, J. J.

Scholefield, J.

Gully, J.

Sheil, R. L.

Hall, B.

Seale, Colonel

Handley, Major

Smith, Hon. R.

Harvey, D. W.

Tennyson, Rt. Hon. C.

Hawkins, J. H.

Thompson, Alderman

Hodgson, J.

Todd, J. R.

Hudson, T.

Tooke, W.

Hutt, W.

Torrens, Colonel

Hyett, W. H.

Trelawney, W.

Hill, M. D.

Turner, W.

1063

Tynte, C. J. K.

Whalley, Sir S.

Talbot, J. H.

Whitmore, W.

Vernon, G.

Wigney, N.

Vigors, N. A.

Wilks, J.

Vincent, Sir F.

Williams, W.

Vivian, J. H.

Williams, Colonel

Walker, C. A.

Winnington, J. H.

Wallace, R.

Wood, Alderman

Walter, J.

Yelverton, Hon. W. H.

Warburton, H.

TELLER.

Wason, R.

Hume, J.

HERTFORD BOROUGH.
Mr. Bernal Mr. Bernal moved the third reading of the Hertford Borough Bill.
Colonel Evansrose for the purpose of proposing an Amendment to the Bill. He objected to the mode in which the large addition was to be made to the constituency of the borough of Hertford. It was proposed to add a large agricultural district to the present borough; and he had heard no reason assigned which could justify such a mode of proceeding. He was convinced, that adding agricultural districts to boroughs would be found to be highly inconvenient. By the Reform Bill an arrangement was made as to the number of Members to be returned by the several classes of the community. They had in some instances made additions of the adjoining agricultural districts to boroughs; but the principle was objectionable. It had made a great change in the constituency of many boroughs, and, in point of fact, had given a great additional influence to the agricultural interest. It was proposed by the Bill to add the twelve adjoining parishes to the borough of Hertford; but eight of those parishes had no connection whatever with the borough, and their population was purely agricultural. If it were necessary to increase the constituency of that place, they might do so by adding a town constituency; but it would, in point of fact, be giving the complete control to the landed interest to carry the Bill in its present shape. He also found that there was no ground for supposing that they would be able to get anything like a good and independent 10 l. constituency from the eight parishes he had alluded to. He also objected to the Bill on the ground that it would open the door again to that species of influence which had been so much complained of in this particular case, and which it was the ostensible object of the Bill to avoid, namely, to get rid of the ascendancy of the great landed proprietors. It was generally supposed, that one great landed
1064
proprietor had exercised an improper influence in the elections of the borough of Hertford, and which had led to so many complaints. He had no objection to the addition of Hoddesdon and Ware to the borough of Hertford, and so much of the intermediate ground as was necessary to connect them; but he protested against the addition of extensive districts, which were purely agricultural. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving as an Amendment, "that a Select Committe be appointed to consider the expediency of making a new boundary for the borough of Hertford."
Mr. Tennysonsaid, that he had not heard anything in the original statement of the hon. member for Rochester on introducing that Bill, nor in what had since taken place in the House, to induce him to agree to make such a boundary for the borough of Hertford as was proposed in the Bill. In point of fact, such an addition would be a complete destruction of everything like independence in the borough. The freemen and 10 l. householders had not been guilty of those acts of corruption which were stated in the Bill; on the contrary, they were specially exonerated in the Report of the Committee. He thought, that the first clause of the Bill was all which ought to pass. It would place the borough of Hertford on the footing contemplated by the Reform Bill. It had been clearly shown by his hon. and gallant friend, that there were not any grounds for making such a preposterous, and he must say even ludicrous, addition as was proposed, to the borough of Hertford. To make such an addition to the borough would at once place it under the control of the agricultural interest. If it were desirable to make such a change it, should have been done under the Reform Bill, but to do so now would be highly objectionable. Those who framed the Reform Bill, and, above all, his noble friend the Paymaster of the Forces, adjusted the representation to the state of the different interests in the community. This adjustment would be destroyed if they proceeded in such an off-hand manner to throw large agricultural districts into boroughs. He agreed to the proposition of the right hon. member for Tamworth on a former occasion, and he regretted much, that it had not met with the approval of the House. He had no objection, however, to extend the constituency of Hertford, if he could find any

1065
persons of the same class as the present voters for that borough in the immediate neighbourhood. On that ground, therefore, he did not object to add Hoddesdon and Ware to Hertford, and give the ten-pound householders of these places votes for Members of Parliament. By the latter course, as their interests were the same as those of Hertford, he did not destroy the arrangement made under the Reform Bill, but rather promoted it, by adding to the constituency without swamping the town voters in the borough. That Bill, however, would increase the influence of that interest which it had been repeatedly asserted had already too much influence. It was stated, that there were at present only a very few voters in some of these agricultural parishes. It might be the case; but what was there to prevent the landowners dividing their land into a number of small tenements as had been done elsewhere, for the purpose of making voters? It had been stated in a petition presented by the hon. Baronet, the member for Buckingham, that 18,000 acres had been added to that borough by the Reform Bill. A noble Duke, the owner of land in that neighbourhood, had made a great addition to the number of voters in the borough by dividing a large piece of land. He had built cowhouses, sheds, and other small buildings, and had thus made voters, all of whom were his own tenants-at-will. In the present case, however, not less than 32,000 acres were to be added, and he would ask whether it would not open a door to the exercise of the most improper influence? Would it not enable the landed proprietors in the district to swamp or sluice the town voters? It might be said, that the only additional voters the agricultural interest would get for these eight purely agricultural parishes was eighty-nine, while the number of new voters for the other five parishes would be one hundred and seventy-six, and that, therefore, a much greater number of town than country voters was made to the constituency of Hertford. Admitting that to be the case at present, what was there to prevent the number of voters in the former parishes being increased to almost an indefinite extent? The Bill of his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Bernal) went, in point of fact, to amend the Reform Bill, without any cause having been shown. If they agreed to that Bill, any Member might rise in his place and propose an addition to the voters of a borough, with-
1066
out assigning any reasons, or having any Committee. If the principle proposed to be acted upon in the case of the borough of Hertford were acted upon, the smaller boroughs would, in point of fact, become little counties for the purposes of representation, and would be under the sway of the landed Gentlemen of the neighbourhood. Under the Reform Bill there were fifty boroughs which had an addition made to their boundaries, and there could be no reason for increasing that number. The motion of his gallant friend (Colonel Evans) was made with the view of arresting the progress of such proceedings; and he (Mr. Tennyson) trusted, that the House would see the expediency of supporting the Amendment, and consider what would be the consequences if such propositions as the present were acted upon.
Sir Robert Peeldid not intend to support the Amendment of the gallant Colonel, but thought that some advantage might result if he proceeded to state the course he intended to pursue, and the nature of the Amendment he intended to propose. The House had better know, before they came to a decision on the present Amendment, that other propositions would be submitted to them with respect to that Bill. He particularly requested the attention of the House and of his Majesty's Government to the question now to be decided. His Majesty's Government did not, on former occasions, express any opinion on the judicial question connected with that case, because they did not wish to influence the question by the expression of their opinions, or by the exercise of their influence, but to leave the matter to the decision of the House. That state of things had ceased, and they were now called upon to decide on the general question, and he begged their attention to the statement he was about to make. He agreed in much that had been said by the gallant Colonel; and although he could not vote for the Motion of the gallant Officer, the gallant Officer might vote, with the greatest consistency, for the proposition which it was his intention to submit to the House. If his proposition went to exempt the guilty from punishment, there might be a strong objection to it; but he had no such intention. He was opposed to referring the matter to the consideration of another Committee, because, in point of fact, it would be postponing the matter to another Session, when probably the House would be engaged in other business of great importance, and

1067
thus the details of the subject would be forgotten, and Hertford would be left as it was, and those who had been guilty of corruption would escape punishment. What he desired was, that an example should be made in that case. From the large attendance of Members, he was sure, that many hon. Gentlemen were present who knew comparatively little of the nature of the question. He would, therefore, proceed to state, very briefly, the state of the case. The borough of Hertford had its boundaries extended upon the recommendation of the Commissioners who fixed the boundaries under the Reform Bill. They determined a new boundary for the borough; and his proposition was, that the House should respect the boundary then fixed for the borough. Why reverse that decision which had some presumption in its favour? The bill, however, proposed to add a large contiguous district to the town, and annex a rural population to the county town. He was convinced, that the best mode of establishing the influence of the agricultural or landed interest in the borough would be by adding the proposed district to the town. It was very possible that a great portion of the town was in very few hands; but it was of the greatest importance that the townholders should not have land in the adjoining districts. He did not think, that any one would dispute the advantage that would result to those who had property in the neighbourhood by the proposed change. The adoption of the principle would, in point of fact, make the borough purely agricultural; it would cease to have the characteristics of a borough, and would become a little county. He begged the House to recollect that it was proposed to give that addition to the county of Hertford which was purely agricultural. The Members for the borough would be returned by the same influence as the county Members. The effect would therefore be, to give this agricultural county five Members, three for the county, and two for the large agricultural district. He objected to destroying the character of the constituency, and his votes in the Committee on the Reform Bill showed, that he did not think that the influence of agriculture should be increased by adding large rural districts to the boroughs. If they wanted to destroy the balance which existed between the commercial and manufacturing and the landed interest in that House, he knew no readier mode of doing so than by throwing into the boroughs large surrounding dis-
1068
tricts. The borough of Hertford had three classes of voters. The first class was the inhabitant housekeepers; this class of voters was between 300 and 400 in number. It was sufficient to pay scot-and-lot to constitute the right of voting. This class of voters, amounting to between 300 and 400, together with the freemen, constituted the old constituency of the borough. The freemen were less than 130; he believed 124 or 125. Then there were the 10 l. householders, which was the constituency added by the Reform Bill. A Committee of that House had been appointed to examine into the course of conduct pursued by these three classes of voters at the last election. With respect to those called the scot-and-lot voters—although that was not the exact name which should be applied to them, as they ought rather to be called the class of voters occupying houses under 10 l.—the Committee reported an almost unqualified condemnation of their conduct, saying, that such general corruption prevailed amongst them at the last election that they ought to be disfranchised. Those who supported the Bill were anxious to punish the corrupt voters. He also agreed that those who had been guilty of corruption should be punished; but he begged the House to recollect that there were two other classes of voters, namely, the freemen and the 10 l. householders. The Committee, the Report of which he was about to refer to, was presided over by the hon. and learned member for Rochester, in whom the House had so much confidence as to make him as it were their Deputy Speaker, as he presided over their proceedings while in Committees of the whole House. The Committee on the Hertford Election had, he believed, every desire to arrive at the truth, and to act with the utmost impartiality, and that impartial tribunal made this Report to the House on the conduct of the freemen and the 10 l. householders. "On the other hand your Committee have not been able to discover, that the general body of freemen or the 10 l. householders, except perhaps in some few cases, have been at all affected by or concerned in corrupt practices." That was as complete an acquittal as could possibly be pronounced by this impartial tribunal. They acquitted the whole of the freemen and 10 l. householders, with the exception that he had stated, of indulging in corruption. Surely the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, should be gratified that the new constituency which he had

1069
given to the borough by the Reform Bill had passed through the ordeal with impunity. They had seen the general prevalence of corruption amongst one class of voters, and although inducements were held out to them they escaped without imputation. Their integrity being proved, he called upon the noble Lord to protect them. Now what was the number of these untainted voters? On the next election not less than 500 voters, if the corrupt voters were disfranchised and the boundary of the borough not extended, would exist in the borough. There would be 124 freemen, and the remainder would be 10 l. householders; just such a constituency as the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) contemplated, as the final and permanent constituency for the borough of Hertford. They all agreed to shake off the guilty class of voters, but he trusted that the House, seeing that there was a sufficient constituency left, would consent to leave the borough as he proposed. It should be recollected that the class of freemen would gradually die off, and the election would then be in the single class of 10 l. householders. Now there was little doubt that if the boundaries of the borough were not enlarged the number of the latter class of voters would be at least 500. He (Sir Robert Peel) would ask the House to compare this with other towns, and to recollect that there were not less than thirty boroughs left untouched by the Reform Bill, and having fewer voters than Hertford. There were 500 voters in Hertford who were qualified under the Reform Bill. They had been exposed to temptation, and had passed through the trial without a stain. They, therefore, stood on higher ground than untried voters; they, therefore, ought to have the franchise intrusted to them. The charges against them had been submitted to a severe tribunal, which thoroughly investigated the matter, and acquitted them. He, therefore, put it to the House, with confidence, to say, upon what principle they ought to be punished. He did not wish to enter into any details on the subject; but he was extremely anxious to state to the House the real question under consideration. It was not a judicial but a political question, and he trusted that the House would only regard it in that light. Under the Reform Bill the boundaries of the borough of Hertford had been fixed; and, as no charge had been proved against the permanent constituency of the borough, therefore there could be no necessity for the
1070
large addition to the borough. He was satisfied that the hon. and learned Gentleman was proceeding on an erroneous principle; and he begged the House to recollect the objections that existed against making the smaller boroughs, as it were, agricultural districts. He trusted, after what he had said, that he should induce the House to adopt his proposition. He entirely concurred in the proposition to punish the guilty, but it would make the measure more generally acceptable to the country if they excepted the innocent from punishment. The Amendment he should propose was, that the remainder of the Bill, after the first clause, should be struck out. He should not then press his Amendment, but he intended to do so that evening. He repeated, he was as anxious as any one to punish the guilty, and if they did so they would leave the borough of Hertford with a constituency of not less than 634 persons, who had been put to their trial and found to be incorrupt.
Mr. Waltersaid, that having been a Member of the Committee, whose proceedings were so well known to the House, he felt it his duty to say a few words on the present occasion. With respect to the change of boundary, he had no particular objection to it, except that he thought it would not answer the intended object. It would present such a tortuous and disputable outline to the constituency, as could hardly ever be settled; and the constituency which would be excluded, consisting of persons who lived in the country, bore so very small a proportion to those in the towns, that it was not worth while to exclude them. He did not deny, however, that the principle against which the hon. Gentleman wished to legislate prevailed in too many boroughs. With respect to the Bill before the House, if its object had been to disfranchise the borough of Hertford altogether, he did not know that much could be said against it; as it was clear from the evidence that the corruption, though not universal, was so general as to render the influence of the untainted electors altogether unavailing. The object of the Bill was to render the constituency of Hertford less within the means of any individual to corrupt; and to give to the old independent and honourable electors, allies of the same character with themselves in the new constituency. He would not enter into the subtle and superfluous question whether the House was acting judicially or legislatively, but he knew what were the facts of

1071
this case, and how the present Bill, if left unmangled and suffered to perform its duty, would remedy the mischief complained of. It would be tedious to repeat all the corrupt practices which had taken place at the late election, and which had been detected since its close; but considering the opposition now made to the Bill, he could not help fearing that, from the length of time which had elapsed since the subject was first brought forward, Gentlemen were beginning to forget their enormity. However innocent what was called "polling-money" might have originally been, as described on a previous night by a former Representative of the borough, yet it had of late years ceased to be so, both because the amount had been more than doubled, and because the whole election depended upon it. In truth, the neglect of this payment would have been considered a violation of the rights of the electors. The House would not forget the clubs which were instituted three-quarters of a year before the election, and which were finally merged in one of greater consequence and extent, held at what was appropriately called "Rats' Castle." Hither all the tools and agents of the more monied party resorted to hold their orgies: hither the Mayor of the corporation resorted, and showed the exuberance of his joy at the liberality of certain candidates and their supporters, by dancing and indulging the electors with assurances of another such festivity, in the event of their friends succeeding. The object of these meetings was expressly declared by the chief agent to be the giving that gratification to the electors which another candidate was unable to give them. "What," said this agent, "has Duncombe ever done for the borough? You (the electors) have only got by him a Bill which will send you to the poll with long beards and empty stomachs." This fault, however, of leaving the electors to hunger was not to be imputed to the party to which this agent belonged, for the House would recollect that during the long period he had mentioned, a host of minor agents were employed in scattering a species of note called "Refreshment Ticket," but which ticket was applicable to many other purposes besides that of procuring refreshment for the stomach. It might be exchanged at any shop in the place, or sold for apparel or any article of domestic use that might be wanted. It had been, indeed, asserted by the chief agent that these practices were not sanctioned by him after the writ was
1072
issued; nevertheless, the same proceedings continued, and rather increased in activity and expensiveness, though at least a dozen innkeepers and alehousekeepers had the confidence to assert upon oath before the Committee, that they did not know who was to pay them. In deciding this case, the House would have to deal not only with bribery and corruption, and the more awful crime of perjury, but also with menaces applied to the electors. Several cases of threats to turn out people from their habitations were stated before the Committee, and if the evidence was untrue, the agent of the noble Lord who possessed the property, and from whom the threats issued, ought to have been produced to contradict it. They had also heard of the fourteen days' leases granted by the same noble Lord to tenants who were electors—a circumstance so novel that it might be said to form an era in the history of electioneering, and unconstitutional interference. The House had been told, that these leases were applied only in the cases of the scot-and-lot voters; but what was there to prevent them from being hereafter applied to voters above 10 l., if no counterbalancing power were raised to impair the corrupt influence of that noble Lord whose name was so familiar during the election? One argument mainly relied on by two right hon. Gentlemen, who had spoken against the Bill, appeared to him rather to impugn than support their opinion. They had asserted, and he believed correctly, that the 10 l. constituency would be still about 600: the only inference he could draw from this assertion was, that the preponderance of the borough would still remain very great under the increased constituency, and that the change, therefore, was the more lenient, and would be the less felt. Upon the whole, he conceived that the House would appear to wink at what had occurred at Hertford, unless with a view to check the crimes which he had enumerated they adopted the measure now before them. It was impossible that the old condition of Hertford could be longer tolerated. The necessity of a ballot would follow, unless intimidation were rendered fruitless by introducing to the elective franchise those who were beyond the sphere and range of it. The elections must always be carried, as in the late instance, by corruption, unless the number of electors was increased and their character raised, so that corruption could not reach the majority. He trusted, therefore, that the House would feel, that no

1073
satisfactory remedy could be applied short of that which the Committee had recommended.
Lord Granville Somersetcould not help making a single observation, in answer to the remarks of the hon. member for Berkshire. The hon. Member had spoken of the treating at Hertford; but neither he himself, nor his friends in Berkshire, seemed, during the last election, to have been afflicted with empty stomachs. The hon. Member's observations on Hertford were much to the point; but the voters of that borough would be sufficiently punished for their corruption, even if the Amendment of his right hon. friend (Sir Robert Peel) were adopted, for by that four or five hundred of them would be disfranchised. That, however, was not the case with the constituents of the hon. member for Berkshire, not one of whom had been subjected to the slightest penalty. There was a Bill in its progress through the House, which had been introduced by the noble Paymaster of the Forces, the object of which was, to punish all the voters in boroughs who might be guilty of any sort of corruption. He (Lord Granville Somerset) was sorry that the provisions of that Bill did not extend to counties as well as to boroughs, in order that it might include the constituents of the hon. member for Berkshire, and other county constituencies, many of whom were as corrupt as any borough constituency in England, Scotland, or Ireland. He could not but think, that a county constituency which misbehaved ought to be subject to punishment as well as the constituency of a borough. The question before the House, at present, however, was, not whether there had been corruption in the borough of Hertford. The real question was, whether they should punish the innocent as well as the guilty in that borough. A Committee had sat on the subject, who reported to the House, that the general body of the freemen of Hertford were not, in any way, connected with the corruption which had taken place; yet now they were called on to punish those freemen, who, by the Report of the Committee of that House, were declared guiltless. He (Lord Granville Somerset) would willingly consent to the punishment of the guilty, but he would never consent to the punishment of those who had been acquitted by the Committee appointed to investigate the case. As the honesty of the general body of the electors was admitted, he hoped that the House would not allow them to suffer; and that,
1074
in a proper anxiety to punish the guilty, they would not be unjust to the innocent.
Mr. John Stanleysaid, that the noble Lord had called on the House to pass judgment on the constituents of the hon. member for Berkshire, whom he had presumed to call guilty, though they had not been put upon their trial; yet he declined to punish the electors of Hertford, who had been proved to be guilty of the grossest corruption. All that he, and those who acted with him, wanted, was the punishment of the guilty,—the punishment of those who had been found guilty of bribery. He would ask the hon. member for Cambridge, whether they wished for the punishment of any others? The Bill went to punish the lower class of voters in Hertford: he knew not in which way it went to punish any others. It went to punish the dependents of a great aristocratical proprietor. The House was first called upon to act judicially, but now it was called upon to act legislatively, and to remove this borough from the domineering influence of a great landed proprietor. He would ask whether, under this Bill, the Marquess of Salisbury's voters would vote in favour of the county or the town? How were these dependents of the noble Marquess created? Was there no punishment, no slavery in their fourteen days' leases? Did not these dependents, up to the last moment of the Reform Bill, nay, after it, suffer with the greatest severity? Much had been said by the noble Lord about treating, but had they it not in evidence, that, in Hertford, the port wine was sent in casks, that the voters drank it out of quart pots, and that one man actually died of intoxication on his way home? After these orgies, the gipsies and bullies were brought in, and the whole party were drilled and marshalled by the fugleman of Lord Salisbury's corps. Was it not notorious that the noble Marquess took an active part at the election, in spite of the entry of a resolution in their Statute-book against the interference of Peers at elections? Would to God that that Resolution were erased from their Journals, rather than be made the laughing-stock of every electioneering Peer in the kingdom! Was it not notorious that, in spite of all this, the noble Marquess appeared at the election wearing the colours of his own candidates, with a convicted thief placed on one side of him and a returned felon on the other. It was true: it had been

1075
proved on oath before the Committee. It was necessary that steps should be taken not to allow the borough to remain under such influence; but, by the infusion of a better class of voters, to give it that independence which all constituencies ought to have.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that if the object of the hon. Member's speech was to cast imputations he had succeeded; but those imputations, which the hon. Member presumed to cast upon Lord Salisbury might, with equal justice, be directed against Mr. Thomas Duncombe, for he was equally guilty with the noble Lord. As to the Bill before them, what did it do? The first clause punished those guilty of corruption; and that clause he did not mean to oppose; but the second clause punished the innocent as well as the guilty, and it was to that clause he objected. By the second clause the whole of the 10 l. voters would be swamped. It was said, that the enlargement of the constituency was no punishment to the present electors; but he considered it a species of disfranchisement. What was the punishment inflicted upon Aylesbury and Crick-lade? A large agricultural population was taken into the borough, so that it could not be argued that this addition to the constituency was not intended as a punishment to the present voters. As to the circumstance of one person having the greater portion of the property of the borough, it had been decided in the case of the new borough of Huddersfield, where the whole parish belonged to one proprietor, that that was no objection to its obtaining the right of sending a Member to Parliament; and that could, therefore, not be objected to in the instance of Hertford. The Members of that House were then sitting in their two fold capacities as Judges and Legislators. Acting in their judicial capacity, it would be unjust if they were to punish the innocent in order that the guilty might not escape; and, in their legislative capacity, they could assign no reason why they should adopt the present Bill, when, in the case of Huddersfield, they had determined that the property of a borough belonging to one person was no reason against its enfranchisement. It could not be said, that it was necessary to extend the constituency on account of the smallness of that constituency; for at Blackburn it had been thought entitled to enfranchisement, although the number of voters in it was only
1076
626, which was not more than the present constituency of Hertford. In Tavistock, too, the constituency was only 247, so that, in point of numbers, the constituency of Hertford would appear, even according to the principles laid down by the Reform Bill, to entitle it to remain as it was at present. Was it right or proper that the constituency of Hertford should be extended to the number of at least one thousand voters, while Tavistock, Malton, Calne, Kendal, and a variety of other small boroughs, were to retain their franchise without addition? He contended that it was not; and if the House wished to establish a character for injustice throughout the country, they could not adopt a better course than by giving their sanction to the present measure. If, however, they were to carry this Bill into a law, the people, they might depend upon it, would go to any tribunal to seek justice, rather than to a Committee of that House.
Mr. Bernalsaid, he really did not know what proposition they were entertaining, whether it was that enunciated by the hon. and gallant member for Westminster, or that suggested by the right hon. Baronet.
Colonel Evanssaid, that as he understood his Amendment would prevent the Bill from being carried through this Session he would not press it.
Amendment withdrawn. The Bill was read a third time.
Colonel Evans then moved, by way of rider, a clause providing that, at all future elections for the borough of Hertford, the votes should be taken by ballot.
Upon this Motion the House divided: Ayes 82; Noes 182—Majority 100.
Sir R. Peelthen moved the omission of the second clause, with a view to omit the remainder of the Bill.
On this Motion the House divided: Ayes, 109; Noes 143—Majority 34.
Colonel Evansthen moved—"That the boundary of the borough shall only comprehend the present borough of Hertford, together with the towns of Ware and Hoddesdon, and the intermediate tract bounded by the high roads connecting the latter towns with each other and with Hertford, including 100 yards exterior of those high roads throughout the whole length of the said roads."
The House again divided: Ayes 19; Noes 117—Majority 98.
The Bill was passed.

List of the AYES on Colonel Evans's Motion to take the Vote by Ballot.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lloyd, J. H.

Attwood, T.

Lynch, A. H.

Baines, E.

Moreton, H.

Barnett, C. J.

Mullins, F. W.

Biddulph, R.

Ord, W. H.

Bellew, R. M.

O'Connell, C.

Bish, T.

O'Connell, Morgan

Blake, M.

Parrott, J.

Blackburne, J.

Pease, J.

Bouverie, Hon. D.

Penleaze, J.

Briggs, R.

Phillpotts, J.

Brotherton, J.

Philips, M.

Buckingham, J.

Potter, R.

Clay, W.

Pryme, G.

Chaytor, Sir W.

Rider, T.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Rotch, B.

Dawson, E.

Roche, D.

Divett, E.

Ruthven, E.

Dykes, F. L. B.

Ruthven, E. S.

Etwall, R.

Russell, Lord

Faithfull, G.

Seale, Colonel

Fenton, J.

Sinclair, G

Ferguson, Sir R.

Scholefield, J.

Fitzgerald, T.

Stanley, E. J.

Fitzroy, Lord

Sullivan, R.

Fleming, Admiral

Tennyson, C.

Gaskell, D.

Throckmorton, R.

Godson, R.

Tooke, W.

Grote, G.

Torrens, Colonel

Gully, J.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Hall, B.

Vincent, Sir F.

Hardy, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Hill, M. D.

Wallace, R.

Hodges, L.

Warburton, H.

Hutt, W.

Wason, R.

Hyett, W. H.

Watkins, J. L. V.

Jacob, E.

Waterpark, Lord

Jervis, J.

Wigney, N.

Kemp, T. R.

Wilbraham, G.

Keppell, Major G. T.

Williams, Colonel

Langdale, Hon. C.

TELLERS.

Lister, E. C.

Evans, Colonel

Locke, W.

Bulwer, E. L.

List of the AYES on Sir Robert Peel's Amendment.

Ashley, Lord

Cooper, E. J.

Ashley, Hon. H.

Chetwynd, Captain

Attwood, M.

Corry, Hon. H.

Baring, A.

Cole, Lord

Baring, F.

Castlereagh, Lord

Bankes, W.

Campbell, Sir H. P.

Blackstone, W. S.

Calcraft, G.

Brudenell, Lord

Cartwright, W.

Bruce, C.

Coote, Sir C.

Bell, M.

Chandos, Lord

Bateson, Sir R.

Chaplin, J.

Bethell, J.

Conolly, Colonel

Bruce, Lord E.

Daly, J.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Duffield, Thomas

Bolling, W.

Darlington, Lord

Chapman, A.

Dugdale, W. S.

Clive, Lord

Duncombe, Hon. W.

Clive, Hon. R.

Evans, Colonel

1078

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Lowther, Hon. Col.

Egerton, W. T.

Lygon, Hon. Colonel

Eastnor, Lord

Martin, Thomas

Fox, S. L.

Miles, William

Foley, E.

Maxwell, H.

Ferguson, G.

Mandeville, Lord

Finch, G.

Manners, Lord R.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Nicholl, J.

Forester, Hon. C.

Neale, Sir H.

Gladstone, W. E.

Norreys, Lord

Gladstone, J.

Pollock, E.

Gaskell, J. M.

Peel, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

Goulburn, Rt. Hon. H.

Palmer, R.

Grimston, Lord

Price, R.

Glynne, Sir S.

Pigott, R.

Gronow, Captain

Perceval, Colonel

Gordon, Hon. W.

Reid, Sir J.

Hanmer, Colonel

Ryle, J.

Hanmer, Sir T.

Stewart, J.

Holdsworth, Thomas

Saunderson, R.

Halcombe, J.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hardinge, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Stanley, E.

Hayes, Sir E.

Scarlett, Sir James

Hay, Sir J.

Stewart, E.

Henniker, Lord

Tennyson, Rt. Hn. C.

Herbert, Hon. S.

Tyrell, Sir J.

Hawkes, T.

Trevor, Hon. G. R.

Hodgson, J.

Vivyan, Sir R.

Hope, H.

Walsh, Sir J.

Halford, H.

Welby, E.

Irton, S.

Wynn, Rt. Hon. C.

Inglis, Sir R.

Wall, C. B.

Joliffe, Hon. Colonel

Williams, T. P.

Jermyn, Lord

Yorke, Captain

Kerrison, Sir E.

Young, J.

Lincoln, Lord

Lefroy, A.

TELLERS.

Lefroy, Thomas

Ross, C.

Lyall, G.

Lewis, Rt. Hn. T. F.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—Exchequer Offices.
Petitions presented. By the Dukes of CLEVELAND and RICHMOND, the Earls of FITZWILLIAM, SUFFIELD, RADNOR, DURHAM, and Lord HOWARD OF EFFINGHAM, from a Number of Dissenting Congregations,—for Relief to the Dissenters.—By the Earl of RADNOR, and Lord TEYNHAM, from several Places,—for the Repeal of the Union.—By the Duke of CLEVELAND, the Bishop of EXETER, Earls MORLEY, ROSEBERY, FITZWILLIAM, Lords BEXLEY and WHARNCLIFFE, and another NOBLE LORD, from a Number of Places,—for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from the Hand-Loom Weavers of Perth, for a Board of Trade.—By the same, from the Rate-Payers of Lothbury and other Places, to be relieved from the Performance of Statute Duty.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, Earl FITZWILLIAM, and Lord WYNFORD, from several Places, for Protection to the Established Church.—By the Earl of ROSSLYN, from the Provincial Synod of Fife, against, and by the Earl of ROSEBERY, from Kirkcudbright, and other Places, in favour of, an Alteration in the present System of Church Patronage in Scotland.—By Lord TEYNHAM, from Aughagoure, against Tithes.

CAMBRIDGE PETITION—AGAINST THE DISSENTERS.
The Duke of Gloucestersaid, that in pursuance of the notice which he had given on Friday last, he now rose to present to their Lordships a Petition signed by 258 members of the Senate of the University of Cambridge now assembled in the University, praying that their Lordships would not agree to the prayer of the petition signed by sixty-three of the resident members of the University, which was presented to their Lordships on the 21st of March. In anything which he might have occasion to say with respect to that petition, he assured their Lordships that he meant nothing unkindly towards those gentlemen who had signed it, most of whom he knew to be most eminent men, and with some of whom he had the pleasure of being acquainted. He always wished to observe the practice of their Lordships' House with regard to not making speeches upon petitions, but he must, on this occasion, shortly call their Lordships attention to the circumstances under which this petition was presented. Of the first petition he had never heard until Wednesday, the 19th of March, when he learnt from the newspapers, that such a petition was to be presented. He immediately wrote to the Vice-Chancellor, expressing his astonishment, and desiring
980
to know the contents of the petition, by whom it had been signed, and particularly to know whether he conceived, that the sentiments of the University were changed on this most important subject. On the Friday following, he received a letter, in which the Vice-Chancellor said, that he could not apprise him (the Duke of Gloucester) of what he did not know, and that there had been so much secresy about the matter that he himself, could not tell by whom the petition had been signed, and he merely gave some names; but the Vice-Chancellor added, that with respect to the sentiments of the University, he could assure him, that they should be communicated as soon as he had an opportunity to collect the opinions of the whole body. Under these circumstances, he had abstained from saving anything on the subject when the other petition was presented, as he considered that it would be a more proper thing for him to address that House when he should be able to communicate what were the true sentiments of the University of Cambridge on this subject. It was impossible for him to ascertain their opinions at the moment the former petition was presented. Every exertion was made to collect their sentiments upon the subject, but in consequence of the adjournment of Parliament on the 26th of last month, it was impossible to procure from them an expression of their opinions. It was only, therefore, on Wednesday last, that they had time to frame and agree to the petition which he then held in his hand. This petition was presented to the Caput, but, as their Lordships knew, by the laws of the University, any member of the Caput had the power of throwing out a petition, so as to prevent its being a petition from the Senate. On the occasion of the present petition being proposed, that power had been exercised by a professor of Downing College. It was rare that such a power was exercised with regard to a petition, for it did so happen, that no petition had been thus thrown out for a very long period until the present instance. Two graces, he would admit, had recently been rejected by the Caput; but they were for a complete alteration in the constitution of the University, and therefore, bore no analogy to a grace for a petition. He was ready at the same time to say, that he wished those graces had passed the Caput, for he was sure that they would then have been thrown out by a great majority of the Senate; and he also regretted, that the

981
grace for allowing this petition had not passed the Caput, for as it now stood, it did not come from the Senate. That it was signed by 258 Members of the Senate who had signed it within two hours after knowing that it had been thrown out by the Caput, was a fact that showed pretty well what were the sentiments of the members of the University. He regretted, however, chiefly that this petition did not come from the Senate as a body, because, from that circumstance, he had not been able to put his name at the head of it, though he should have been most proud to have been able to do so. They had been told, that all the Dissenters asked was, to be able to take degrees at the University. Now, what did that amount to? Why it amounted to giving them the right to a place in the Senate—to giving them votes as to all alterations of the laws of the University—as to all the offices there—and as to the disposal of the general patronage of the University. But, then, it was said that Dissenters received their education in the University; and that if they were admitted to receive their education, there could be no harm in admitting them to take degrees. He denied that this was a just conclusion. Dissenters were not acknowledged by the Charter—by the wisdom of our ancestors, who had founded the University—by the wisdom of the Sovereign who had sat on the Throne! What laws were enacted with respect to the young men who entered the University? They were obliged to take only two oaths, the object of which was, to maintain the discipline of the University, and to be faithful to the King. They were obliged to take the Oath of Allegiance, and an oath of obedience to the Charter of the University, and all authorities created by it. Into the hearts of men the University could not look; but it required the students to attend the chapels of the University. It had, however, been decided by the wisdom of our ancestors that when they were to receive degrees, they should conform to the Church of England for the safety of the Church and the best interests of the State. But the moment the Legislature said, the University must admit Dissenters, it could no longer oblige the under-graduates to attend chapel. The whole system must be altered. Was the University to have Socinian professors, Unitarian professors; Jewish professors, Mahomedan professors, and Hindoo professors? or was it no longer to instruct the youth committed to its
982
charge in any religion;—for one or the other must be the result? Were the tutors and divinity professors (whose professorships were endowed to teach the sublime doctrines of our Holy Church) to refuse to instruct the British youth in those divine truths upon which their happiness here and their future prospect of felicity depended? When a youth arrived at College to be educated for the Church, was he to be told that the Universities would teach him every branch of learning and science, but could not instruct him in that profession for which he was destined? It was said that Dissenters had been freely admitted till the time of James 1st.; and it was now made matter of blame that they had not been admitted since that period. That was in the year 1614, a period of no less than 220 years ago. If he wanted a defence for the exclusion, he might rest upon that. The University had prospered during that time, and during that time some of the greatest luminaries of science in the world had been educated there. During that time Newton, who possessed the greatest mind that ever man had, and other men of great eminence, had been reared within the walls of the University. Since the beginning of that period, too, the Revolution had happened, when all the institutions of this country were reviewed, and necessary changes introduced into them; and if any change was thought necessary in the University, that was the time at which it should have been introduced. The principle on which the University of Cambridge was founded, and by which it was guided, was that it was for the education of persons of the Church establishment, and especially for the education of those who were destined to be the clergy of that establishment. Almost the whole of the great offices of the University—the whole of the preferment of the University—was in the Church. The preferment was all clerical; out of seventeen colleges, only two or three could have lay masters. In Trinity College, where there were sixty Fellows, there were only two lay fellowships. Would, then, the members of the Church of England, who happily formed the great majority of the population of this realm (however respectable the Dissenters might be, of whom he wished to speak with the greatest respect), be satisfied to send their sons to an University, where religion was not taught, and where those intended for the Church could not be instructed in that profession? He thought not; and

983
another petition he had to present after this was laid on the Table, would demonstrate the feelings of the members of the Church of England. This morning an under-graduate came to him, and requested, in the names of the under-graduates of Cambridge, that he would present their petition. He said "Young man I disapprove of under-graduates sending petitions to the Legislature—but as the example was last year set by a Minister of the Crown, I cannot refuse—admiring as I do the religious feeling that has actuated the bachelors and the under-graduates—to act upon the zeal with which I am urged, and the peculiarity of the case. I have been an under-graduate myself, and I am now your Chancellor, and I will advocate your cause, and present your petition." But would the Dissentters be content with what the first petition proposed to grant them? Certainly not. In 1829 he voted for the Emancipation of the Roman Catholics, and reflected with much satisfaction on that vote. But would those noble Lords who were now Members of that House, and would the hon. Gentlemen who had seats in the other House of Parliament, would they have been satisfied with the declaration that they should have seats, but should never hold office, nor be capable of conferring office? They would have scouted such a proposition. And noble Lords might be assured, that if ever they granted to Dissenters the right to be admitted to take degrees in the University, they must grant them all those rights which now followed upon the taking of degrees. They must have a share in the power of altering the laws, and of disposing of the patronage of the University. If that fatal event should occur, he was convinced that the interests of the Church could not expect any longer to be safe. And why was all this to be done? Because some Gentlemen, who dissented from the Established Church, and who wished to practise the law, were now unable to come to the Bar without studying two years longer than was required from Gentlemen who had taken degrees at the University; and because Gentlemen, who were Dissenters, and who wished to become members of the faculty of medicine, did not receive from the faculty of Physicians all those advantages which were granted to those who had taken degrees at the Universities. Was it for such matters as these that legislative interference was called for in a way that could not be granted without injury to the interests of the Established Church?
984
But he said, it the grievances were so great, the Inns of Court and the College of Physicians should be called on to apply the remedy. Let him, in the name of the University where he had received his education, let him in the name of the University which twenty-three years ago had done him the honour of putting him at its head, when he swore that he would defend its rights—let him, in the name of that University which had rendered such important services to the country by the education of the British youth (for so many centuries he had almost said, but) for so long a period in the doctrines of the Church of England—which had furnished that Bench (the Bench of Bishops) with so many of the ornaments he now saw upon it, and with many, in former times, who had been among the brightest ornaments of that Bench—which had put forth so many men eminent, not only in religion, but in science; let him, in the name of that University, ask their Lordships not to do that which must compel that University to refuse to teach religion to the British youth. He prayed their Lordships not to call on the University to alter that system which had brought them to that proud, high, and most useful pre-eminence (he must be allowed to say so, though he was their Chancellor, and ought perhaps for that reason to be silent) on which they now stood. He moved, that the petition he now held in his hand be laid on the Table. He should afterwards present another on the same subject. It was from the under-graduates of the University. He confessed that he was not an admirer of under-graduates presenting petitions to either House of Parliament, but, after the example which had been set on the other side, he felt, that he could not refuse, when 755 out of the 1,100 under-graduates had signed a petition (and more would have signed it had there been time), and sent a deputation to him, calling on him as their Chancellor to present it. He begged to add, that the petition from the members of the senate which he now presented was signed by eleven heads of houses, by eight professors, and twenty-nine tutors of colleges.
Earl Grey Earl Grey rose and said, it was not his intention at the present period to enter into the general question of the propriety of opening the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge to the Dissenters. He would not be provoked into argument, he should merely notice a few topics that more immediately referred to the petition then be-

985
fore their Lordships. The petition related to a subject of the greatest importance to the people in general, but, if possible, of still more moment to the Universities themselves. He should take a different course from that pursued by the petitioners themselves. Future occasions would occur, other opportunities must present themselves, when the question could be discussed with better hopes of viewing it upon its broad, its full, and unquestioned merits. He, however, must be permitted to state, that he emphatically denied, that such results would take place from the admission of Dissenters into the Universities as those contemplated by the illustrious Duke who had presented the petition. The illustrious Duke would impute to Dissenters a desire to subvert the Establishment, to prostrate the privileges of the two learned bodies into which they then prayed for admission. They sought for no such power; they only prayed to be absolved from oaths, not to be obstructed by religious tests. That was the extent of their application; and, in making that appeal, they were willing to be bound by the laws, and governed by the statutes of the Establishments. They were already admitted to take academic distinctions in the Dublin University, or they might even enter the Cambridge Colleges; but although they might cross their portals—although they might participate in the advantages which they were likely to confer on the young, ardent, and aspiring mind—yet they were debarred from taking those degrees which would advance their further career in life. Thus far they might go, but no further. Against this barrier of exclusion they complained—against this denial of collegiate honours they petitioned: they humbly, respectfully, but energetically protested. Nothing, however, was further from their intention than to endanger the discipline, or attempt to undermine the fundamental principles of the Universities. Having said this much, he (Earl Grey) hoped he had said enough to remove the impressions which the speech of the illustrious Duke was intended to make upon the minds of their Lordships respecting the actuating motives of the Dissenters. He should, however, reserve for himself, the privilege of again meeting the question when it came next under discussion. The Dissenters, he contended, deserved the immunities they claimed. They ought to possess them, in fairness and justice; and, if possible, more par-
986
ticularly in regard to the interest of those learned bodies from which the illustrious Duke would for ever exclude them. There were other points in the illustrious Duke's speech on which he found himself called upon to offer a few remarks. The illustrious Duke spoke of those petitioners as forming a majority, when contrasted with the number of resident members who had signed the former petition. The number of petitioners in the present instance was 258—a number which far exceeded the whole number of residents in that University. He might be mistaken, but, he believed, that a great deal of pains had been used to obtain a large attendance of Members of the Senate, with a view to passing the grace which had been proposed in opposition to the former petition. The persons who attended were not, however, resident members of the University. They were there collected for this particular purpose; and being so collected, it was not extraordinary that the petition should be numerously signed in the short space which the illustrious Duke had stated. If, however, they looked closely to the subject, they would find that the matter stood thus:—There were 193 members of the senate resident in the University; of these sixty-three had signed the former petition, and, at least, seven who had not signed, were decided friends to the prayer of the petition, and there were several who took no part one way or the other. Now of those who had signed the present petition, and who were decidedly opposed to the prayer of the former petition, about 108 could not be called resident members; and, deducting 108 from 193, their Lordships would see that there was not a very large comparative majority of those who were decidedly opposed to the petition amongst the resident members. He thought it right to state this fact; but he did not feel any wish to enter into the merits of the respective signatures. The illustrious Duke had done justice to those who had signed the former petition; and he was sure, that in his capacity of Chancellor of the University, before all men, the illustrious Duke would admit, that amongst those signatures were to be found the names of individuals who had done the greatest honour to the University by their learning, by their talents, by their extensive acquirements, by their exemplary morals, and by their honest devotion to the interests of the Established Church. Amongst them were to be found many

987
gentlemen who were most actively employed in the education of the youth who were students in that University; and was it to be believed—was it to be credited for a single moment—that individuals placed in such a situation, and necessarily influenced by the considerations connected with that situation,—was it to be supposed, that they would concur in signing a petition, a compliance with which would be calculated to produce the disastrous effects that had been described? Was it to be imagined, that those gentlemen, who were amongst the most considerable persons in the University, and who took a large share in the education of the students—was it to be believed, that they would sign a petition which went to destroy the system of education according to the religion of the Established Church—to overturn, in fact, the principles on which the University was founded—and, finally, to lead to the dreadful consequences which the illustrious Duke had described—namely, the subversion of our most valued and venerated institutions? He entertained no such apprehensions. On the contrary, he felt, that if the proposition embodied in the former petition were opposed, it would lead to those evils which a noble Lord on the other side of the House had formerly alluded to. He had but one word more to say. He admitted, that there had been an unusual exercise of the power of the veto in preventing the adoption of the grace to which the illustrious Duke had referred. The illustrious Duke had, however, in adverting to the unusual exercise of that power, stated, that in two recent instances, a similar course had been adopted—yes, on two occasions, a grace had been proposed to the Caput in accordance with the prayer of the former petition. That effort having, however, been defeated, was it unreasonable—was it unnatural—was it improper, that one of those persons who proposed that grace, should exercise his privilege against that which was afterwards brought forward in opposition to the prayer of the first petition? He stated this in vindication of those who had supported the former petition. If he had been led further, in what he had said, than the general merits of the petition, he had to apologize to their Lordships for having done so. He certainly did not think, that this was the fit occasion for entering into a discussion of the question; and he should, therefore, content himself with referring to the opinions which he had formerly expressed on
988
the subject—opinions which he had since seen no reason to change. He still entertained a conscientious conviction, that, instead of endangering the security of the Established Church, the effect of the prayer of this petition, if it were admitted, would be to remove prejudice, to destroy animosity, and, by so doing, to impart strength to that Establishment which it was the most anxious wish of them all to uphold and support.
The Duke of Wellingtoncould not avoid making one or two observations on what had fallen from the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government, with respect to the petition presented by the noble Earl himself, on the 21st of March. The noble Earl stated, that the prayer of that petition was not to obtain for the Dissenters a participation in the honours and privileges mentioned in the petition that night presented by the illustrious Duke, but that its only object was, the removal from the Dissenters of certain disabilities under which they now laboured in acquiring degrees and other advantages, in the medical and legal professions. Now, it was perfectly true, that such was the apparent object of the former petition; but the noble Earl had kept out of sight one circumstance stated by the illustrious Duke—namely, that when the desired degrees were obtained by the Dissenters, those persons would become governors of the corporations in question, and would thus be placed in a situation which the noble Earl himself did not pretend that they ought to hold with respect to the education of the youth of the Universities. The noble Earl said truly, that the object of the petition presented by him on the 21st of March was, to obtain for Dissenters certain advantages in law and medicine; but there were other modes which might be resorted to in order to enable the parties to obtain the advantages desired, and the illustrious Duke had pointed out those modes. He must object to the mode proposed by the first petition—a mode which, upon the principles professed by the noble Earl, must be objectionable to the noble Earl himself, the ground of objection being, that the method referred to did give the Dissenters a share in the government of the Universities. That was the main difficulty which occurred to his mind when considering the subject. However, the House would have the question raised

989
in a more satisfactory manner when a measure, lately introduced into the other House of Parliament, should be fairly before their Lordships; and seeing that another opportunity would occur for discussion, he should not now enter upon it; but if indeed that measure should ever be adopted by the House, which God forbid, their Lordships must at once take leave of that important object which the noble Earl stated himself anxious to maintain—the union of Church and State, if indeed the existence of Christianity itself would not be endangered. On that ground he had opposed the prayer of the petition presented by the noble Earl, and he supported the petition now brought before their Lordships by the illustrious Duke.
The Lord Chancellorfelt with his noble friend, at the head of his Majesty's Government, and the noble Duke who had just spoken, that a more convenient opportunity would present itself, when the general question could be discussed upon better and juster grounds, than at present—when it could be entered on with a greater certainty of coming to correct conclusions, than at the period to which they had then arrived. There was a Bill before the other House of Parliament, which, in all probability, would come before them, and therefore place this question in a more correct and tangible shape. He (the Lord Chancellor) was anxious to follow the example set him, and to be most brief in the remarks he had to make. There were, however, one or two points which he could not refrain from applying himself to for a few moments. The illustrious Duke who had introduced the petition had done so with a degree of ability, a strength of argument, and an impressiveness of purpose, that must have struck every one who had heard that illustrious Duke speak. The impression made by the illustrious Duke, he was perfectly aware, must have been considerable. He therefore felt more inclined to trespass for a few minutes on their Lordships' attention. In the first place, he did entirely approve of one line of argument or observation taken both by the illustrious Duke who presented the petition, and the noble Duke who followed, and taken consistently with their peculiar opinions on the subject,—the sort of tertium quid, if the noble persons who so worthily represented two Universities
990
would allow the phrase; they being not only gallant but learned officers,—that third or middle course which he was pleased to find proceeding from an individual of such deserved weight in the House, and who was a special and peculiar authority on the subject, holding the highest station in the University of Cambridge. Why visit, said the illustrious Duke (as if the proposition were a penalty against the Church, and not simply a relief to Dissenters)—why visit punishment on a party who was not an offender? And then said the noble Duke, following up the same train of ideas, the illustrious Duke pointed out other modes, besides those of degrees obtained on condition of subscriptions, by which means relief might be afforded without injury to the Universities. Now, the plain English of this was, that other modes of gratifying the wishes of the Dissenters might be pointed out, without having recourse to degrees from Oxford and Cambridge—other modes of qualifying Dissenters for the bar without requiring a longer standing than three years at the Inns of Court—other modes of conferring the privilege of Doctor of Laws, and other modes of entitling men to medical degrees, besides the mode pointed out at the Universities. That was neither more nor less than this—"Give the power of conferring degrees to other bodies besides the Universities." ["No, no."] He dared to say some noble Lords did not so read it, but if those noble Lords rejected his gloss, his interpretation of the matter, they had the text itself before them, from the learned characters who pronounced it. He had offered his simple commentary; but if others had a more recondite sense in view, they were at liberty to reject what he said, and he hoped, that an explanation of the better and more approved gloss would be furnished. But he could not mistake the matter; he perfectly understood the illustrious Duke, who said plainly enough, "Why go to the two Universities and visit them with penalties, for insisting upon subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles as a condition on receiving degrees?—why not go to the College of Physicians and compel it to grant degrees in medicine to persons who had not qualified at the Universities?" Now, that was the very thing that was sought to be obtained by more than one public body at present. The London University asked for such a

991
privilege, and petitions had been referred to the Privy Council on the subject, and a deliberation would shortly take place in reference to it. The two Universities had petitioned against the London University, and thus, unhappily, the authority of the collegiate heads of both bodies was not quite consistent with the better and sounder view put forth by their Chancellors. He agreed with the noble personages in question in their view of the subject; but if it were not taken in other quarters, mark the situation in which the learned bodies stood—a situation of gross and scandalous and unreasonable injustice, if they said, "We will not make Dissenters doctors; and, moreover, we will not allow them to be made doctors elsewhere." Could the wit of man imagine anything more unjust than this? "We won't make you doctors, and no one else shall—we have the power, but we do not choose to exercise it; nobody else shall have the power, lest they should exercise it. We object to making Dissenters doctors, because they don't worship God as we do—we won't make doctors of them; and you of the London University, who don't differ from the Dissenters about the worship of God, and are willing to make them doctors if you had the power—you shan't have any such power." What was this but the grossest and most unreasonable injustice—the acme of collegiate monopoly? He revered those respectable and venerable establishments as much as the illustrious and noble Dukes possibly could. True it was, he had not enjoyed the advantage which they had enjoyed of drinking at the fountains of science which were opened to all who resorted within the walls of the Universities; but having pursued without those walls such studies as he was able to embrace, they had led him to venerate still more those estimable establishments, and to admit, with a readier acquiescence, their claims to respect. It had been truly stated by the illustrious Duke, that one of the greatest men that ever adorned the human race—it was scarcely necessary to name Sir Isaac Newton—had studied at Cambridge; but he did not find in this fact any very precise or demonstrative proof of the propriety of subscription to certain articles of religious belief, albeit the illustrious Duke had been more successful in that respect. He apprehended, that at the period when Newton entered the Uni-
992
versity, subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles was not very strictly enforced. Sir Isaac Newton was born in 1641 or 1642, and his entrance at college, at the age of sixteen or seventeen, would bring his matriculation within the period of the Commonwealth, when the Thirty-nine Articles, he apprehended, were not very regularly subscribed by all who matriculated at the Universities. Though his veneration for the Universities yielded to none, he did not feel any great degree of alarm at opening their gates as regarded a participation in honours, or as regarded collegiate and University privileges themselves: but the noble Duke thought it out of the question to allow any Dissenters access to the Universities, because he was persuaded that the Church would be thereby endangered. How endangered? In this way—the Universities had many ecclesiastical privileges; most of the fellowships were not lay, but ecclesiastical, and then, independently of the care of education, which rested upon the fellows and tutors, it was not to be denied that, directly and indirectly, there was much Church patronage—the disposal of collegiate livings—within the power of the fellows; and, assuming all this, (said the noble Duke), the Dissenters, if allowed free access to the privileges of the Universities, will possess themselves of these powers. Now, this might be very well said, and might be all extremely true, as the law formerly stood; but the thing was quite different at present. In fact, the noble Duke and the Universities were here "straining at a gnat," while they "swallowed a camel;" for to take an instance within his own knowledge, there was no head of a college or head of a house—nay, there were no three colleges that had half so much Church patronage as the person who filled the office which he now unworthily held; the Lord Chancellor had 800 or 900 livings and eighteen or twenty cathedral stalls within his gift; but must the individual who administered all this Church patronage subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles? He never did. His predecessor might have subscribed to them at Cambridge, but he never did so as Chancellor; neither did Lord Erskine subscribe as Chancellor, nor Lord Loughborough. Lord Erskine belonged to one of the best known and most respected Presbyterian families that ever took the solemn league and covenant in Scotland.

993
There was no doubt of that—he came of a good Presbyterian stock. But it was sufficient to remind their Lordships, that a man by the present law might be Lord Chancellor, and distribute all the enormous Church patronage mentioned, and be a Dissenter of any denomination whatsoever. The law required no subscription, no test; the Lord Chancellor need not be a member of the Established Church. After this, the idea of being alarmed at half a dozen Dissenters voting in the Senate-house, and one, in the course of perhaps half a century, becoming a fellow of a college, and indirectly sharing in the Church patronage of the college livings, while the Lord Chancellor, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, or the Prime Minister himself, might be Dissenters—this did appear to him to be a most disproportionate, unreasonable, and very inconsistent degree of apprehension. He felt, that the Church and Universities had interests which would be best consulted by the course now recommended; that their foundations would be rendered most solid, and the superstructures raised thereon most secure, by fixing them in the affections and confidence of the country. "In conclusion (said the noble and learned Lord) I would wish only to be guided by the wise and tolerant policy which distinguished the Administration of the noble and gallant Duke. That noble and gallant Duke did much to advance the cause of civil and religious liberty; and if I wished to refer to a bright period in the history of the country, I would point to the time when that noble and gallant Duke perfected the greatest of his great achievements. Happy has it been for Ireland, and happy for the Church of Ireland, that he did so. By it he gave safety to the one and protection to the other. He saved a nation—he immortalised himself."
The Duke of Wellingtonthought, that the noble and learned Lord had diverted the debate from the present petition to certain other petitions presented to the Privy Council, to which that now before the House bore no relation whatever. Besides, the noble and learned Lord had mis-stated the facts of the case: the Universities, in the petitions before the Council did not object to other bodies granting degrees; all they desired was, that such degrees should not bear the same titles as theirs, in order that there might not be a
994
fraud committed upon the world and those learned bodies. There was no objection, whatever, to Dissenters having all the advantages that could be conferred by degrees in courts of law or in the medical profession; but they ought not to be permitted to share the privileges and advantages of other degrees granted by the Universities.
The Bishop of London, entirely coinciding, as he did, with the noble and learned Lord, and the noble Earl who preceded him, as to the inconvenience of entering at length into this important subject on the present occasion, still could not resist the impulse which he felt to address to their Lordships some few observations, especially as it might appear extraordinary if the discussion were suffered to pass without one of that bench connected with the University in question rising to offer an opinion on the subject. He felt, that he should not discharge his duty to that University to which, under Providence, he owed all his success in life, if he did not offer a single observation when he found the interests of the Established Church so deeply concerned, and on an occasion when, as it appeared to him, the right line of argument had not been pursued. He had been in the habits of intercourse with Dissenters, and was so fortunate as to preserve a good understanding with them, and he would here observe, that he hoped noble Lords would not confound violent and intemperate men, who heaped opprobrium on the Church, with the large body of moderate and reasonable Dissenters. He was satisfied, that the large body of Dissenters did not seek admission to the Universities by the door now open, and he doubted, whether they wished to widen the entrance. If Dissenters could by possibility be educated with members of the Established Church, he did not dispute, but it might be well, and he feared not lest Churchmen should become Dissenters from the intercourse, but thought, on the contrary, that many Dissenters might become members of the Church; and, therefore, if there were any prospect of each class being educated together without risk of infringing the ancient privileges of the Universities, he should be well contented; but he could not flatter himself with any favourable result from an experiment such as he had mentioned. He apprehended an infraction of the privileges of the Uni-

995
versities. If, however, (and he was not without hopes of some such arrangement at no distant period) Dissenters could be admitted in larger numbers to the advantages of education and some of the privileges of the Universities, it might be well; but the decision upon this question ought to be left to the Universities themselves; and if they determined against an alteration, the Legislature had no right to compel it. It was stated, that many of the Dissenters enjoyed an academical education. He rejoiced that they did. He had associated with many of them who were ornaments to society. But let their Lordships see how the matter stood. So long as Dissenters enjoyed the benefits of a collegiate education by consent of the Universities, difficulties were not likely to arise; but if you gave them a claim to degrees as a matter of right, was it to be supposed, that conscientious Dissenters would, for any length of time, submit to the rules of the Universities in the matter of religious instruction, unless that instruction were so diluted and neutralized, and kept clear from vital differences of opinion between Churchmen and Dissenters as no longer to deserve the name? His own rule had been, cheerfully to co-operate with Dissenters in all things short of religious instruction, but not in that, because where the attempt was made, the result had been, either that the religious instruction given hardly deserved the name, or that the scheme altogether failed, and both parties receded from it, content in future to communicate religious instruction to members of their own communion. It was impossible to steer clear of controversial topics; nay, it was the duty of the Church of England instructors not to steer clear of them. Academical instruction could not and ought not to avoid such topics, because they involved points of vital interest. But, from the moment you gave Dissenters a right to University privileges, they would refuse to attend academical religious discipline. That discipline, he was sorry to see very much under-rated of late. People talked in a heedless way of the uselessness of requiring young men to attend at a Church-service, which was merely a matter of form, but he was convinced, that even that was productive of regularity of conduct. Changes might be made for the better, it was true, and improvements had already been effected; he could speak for his own college (Trinity)
996
where the sacredness of the duty of religious worship as a part of the academical discipline was impressed upon young men as much as possible. However, from the moment Dissenters were admitted as a matter of right, religious discipline must be given up, and that was the chief ground which caused him to think it impossible thus to infringe the privileges of the Universities. If they were infringed, we should be deprived of the glory and honour of having in the Universities able instructrices of the youth of the country in the doctrines and discipline of the Church of England. He meant no disrespect to the Dissenters, and was heartily desirous of seeing their grievances removed; but must persist in excluding them from privileges which belonged solely to the Established Church. In conclusion, he agreed with the illustrious Duke, that there were easier remedies for the difficulties under which Dissenters laboured with respect to degrees, than would be found in infractions of the rules and privileges of two learned bodies, which their Lordships ought to be the first to uphold.
The Bishop of Gloucestersaid, that he only rose to correct what had been said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack with reference to Sir Isaac Newton. It was well ascertained, that that distinguished man did not go to the University of Cambridge until after it was restored to Protestantism by the Reformation, and, that he had actually subscribed the Thirty-nine Articles. This point was not left to doubt or surmise, but was well authenticated. On the occasion of the only attempt made, from the period of the Reformation till the present, to procure degrees without subscription—he referred to the case of Albyn Francis, a Roman Catholic, recommended to the University by James 2nd, for a degree—on that occasion a Committee was appointed by the University to maintain its rights in the discussion with the Crown; and Sir Isaac Newton was the most prominent member of that Committee. With respect to the petition before the House, he must observe, that the individual who put his veto upon the grace proposed to the caput, by which means the petition was prevented from coming before the Senate, was no doubt actuated by honourable motives, but such obstructions were extremely rare. The first instance of the kind which he recollected was in the case of an ad-

997
dress to the Crown on the assassination of Mr. Perceval, and to meet with a similar occurrence they must go back to the year 1715, when an address on the then late rebellion had been obstructed in a like, but, as was then stated, in an unprecedented manner.
The Bishop of Exeterspoke as follows:*—Not having the honour of being a member of the University from which this petition emanates, I should have been desirous not to have taken any part in the present discussion, but should have been glad to leave it in the hands of the eloquent individuals who have just addressed your Lordships, and particularly of my right reverend friend (the Bishop of London) near me, who has shown, as he always does, great earnestness and ability in enforcing what he believes to be the truth. But there was one part of his address which has compelled me to obtrude myself on your Lordships' attention. In almost all that the right reverend Prelate said, I fully concur, and I thank him most heartily for having expressed so well what I myself feel as strongly as he, though I could not have stated it so eloquently to the House. The right reverend Prelate, however, intimated an opinion, or wish, or even more than a wish, an expectation, of some mode being devised by which the admission of Dissenters to the Universities might be made consistent with the best interests of those institutions, so that Dissenters might be educated there together with those who went thither with the avowed design of being instructed in the principles of the Church of England. My Lords, I do not presume to say, whether any such mode can be ingrafted on the education given by the University of Cambridge; but this, my Lords, I will say, that if it be possible to devise such a mode, by no one is it more likely to be devised than by my right reverend friend; for by no one, who might exert himself in such an attempt, would a more zealous and devoted regard for the religious interests of his University be manifested, than by him. But, my Lords, while I give no opinion of what is, or is not, possible to be done with the system of Cambridge—as a member of the University of Oxford, which, although not brought into this discussion by name, has more than
* Reprinted from the corrected edition published by Murray.
998
once been alluded to, or been included in the comprehensive term of "the Universities of England," I must not conceal my own full and deep-rooted conviction, that it is utterly impossible to introduce any measure for the admission of Dissenters into that University, consistently with what is due to the conscience, and to the oaths, of those persons who now administer its government. The University of Oxford differs from the University of Cambridge in one very material point—that no one can be even matriculated into it without subscribing the Thirty-nine Articles. I am aware that this provision in the Statutes of Oxford has been spoken of as ridiculous, and a learned Gentleman is reported to have said, that it is no better than "a solemn mockery" to call on young men of sixteen to sign Thirty-nine Articles containing a multitude of propositions about many of which able and learned persons have materially differed. My Lords, I should agree in that view of the matter, if the subscription to the Articles at that early age implied that the persons subscribing them did in fact say, "We have informed ourselves and have examined the various propositions which these Articles contain, and believe them from examination, to be true;" but such, my Lords, I submit, is not the case. The bare subscription made by boys of this early age is simply tantamount to a declaration that the subscribers belong to the Church of which these are the Articles, and accept them as true on that authority. I see that the noble and learned Lord intimates his astonishment at this statement, but I hope he will hear with patience the grounds on which I make it. By a very early statute, passed soon after the Reformation, the University of Oxford determined that no one should be matriculated without subscribing the Thirty-nine Articles. Another statute afterwards declared, that although simple subscription was all that was necessary on matriculation, something more was requisite on taking the degree—namely, a declaration that the party believed the whole of these Articles to be agreeable to the Word of God. In the first instance, parties are not under the necessity of making this or any declaration, or of doing more than subscribing their names; but the statutes expressly require that the individual who applies for a degree should do much more. The

999
statutes require, that during his undergraduate state, he shall be thoroughly instructed in the Articles which he has thus subscribed; and when he takes his degree, he must solemnly declare, that those Articles which in the first instance he professed to hold, merely because the Church to which he belongs hold them, he now knows and approves for himself—that he believes them to be agreeable to the Word of God. Your Lordships will therefore see, that it is an essential part of education at Oxford, that the undergraduates shall be instructed in the Thirty-nine Articles. The tutors are required by the ancient statutes to give that instruction; and when, by the corruption and negligence which grew up in the course of ages, this duty of the tutors had been grossly and shamefully neglected, the University itself undertook the Reform of its own institutions, or rather reduced again to practice what was before the letter and the spirit of those institutions. Accordingly, thirty-four years ago, a new statute of the University not only made it imperative on the tutors to instruct their pupils in the Thirty-nine Articles, but also made a knowledge of the meaning, and the proofs, of those Articles to be an essential and preliminary part of the examination of every candidate for a degree. In truth, my Lords, it would be more accurate to say, that at Oxford no person can be admitted to examination for his degree without its first being ascertained that he has been taught the principles of the Thirty-nine Articles; for if it is found that he is not well acquainted with them, his examination is not suffered to proceed. Now, from this it is clear, that the University of Oxford cannot admit of any plan for combining the education of Dissenters with that of Churchmen, since a knowledge of the Articles of religion is an essential part of its education; and no man can be admitted to partake of that education, who does not, by subscription, declare his acceptance of those Articles, and his readiness, in consequence, to be fully instructed in them. My Lords, I have known more than one instance of men, highly distinguished in after-life, who when they presented themselves to be examined for degrees, were turned back because they were found to be not duly prepared for an examination on the Thirty-nine Articles. There is one right hon. Gentleman who has borne a
1000
high office under his Majesty, and another who is one of the most distinguished in an important branch of philosophy—a gentleman of great authority with many Members of both Houses of Parliament on certain branches of political science—both of whom were thus turned back, and both of them showed the blessed effect of that regulation; for they returned to their colleges, and having made due proficiency in the most important part of knowledge—the knowledge of true religion—again presented themselves to be examined for their degree, and were then admitted to the highest honours for literature and science which the University could bestow. My Lords, I am proud of belonging to a body, which has pursued so useful and honourable a course. I have a high gratification in reflecting on these things. They prove that the University of Oxford long ago has had the wisdom and magnanimity to correct the abuses which, in the lapse of ages, had gathered round its institutions; has shown itself both able and willing to achieve the reformation of itself, without waiting for any impulse from without; to return, in short, to the true spirit of the best and wisest institutions of our forefathers. My Lords, I do not wish, nor intend, to trespass long upon the attention of your Lordships; but there are one or two particulars which I would beg leave most especially to submit to your consideration. I apprehend that the application which has been made to Parliament, to force Dissenters into the Universities, is not so much an application to remove disabilities from the Dissenters, as an application to persecute the Church of England. My Lords, I say deliberately, it is to persecute the Church of England. The word is not too strong for the occasion. For, what does this application amount to? That it shall not be in the power of the wisdom and munificence of any individual, or bodies of individuals, to establish any institution which shall. give to the Members of the Church of England the best possible education and instruction in the principles of their religion; because, when established, and when its success is most signally manifested, it must of necessity be such as shall exclude those who do not belong to the Church; but who from envy, or from whatever other motive, may be anxious to intrude themselves into it. My Lords, I scruple

1001
not to call this measure, if it be adopted, direct persecution; I will further venture to say, with the utmost respect for the noble and learned Lord, (the Lord Chancellor), that such a proceeding would be contrary to every principle of law and equity, which the jurisprudence of this country has hitherto recognized. I affirm in short, that Parliament has not the right, however it have the power, to order it. But that power Parliament, I am sure, will never exercise; because it will never permit itself to do that which it has not a right to do; and confident as I am that Parliament has, in this instance, not the right, I must protest against the exertion of the power. My Lords, it is, I apprehend, an admitted principle, that where a Corporation has received its Charter for a specific purpose, the law of England repels, and the Legislature of England has hitherto repelled, every attempt to break in upon that corporation, except on an allegation either that its members have omitted to perform the duties for which they were incorporated, or that the purposes for which they were incorporated, were originally, or has been declared by subsequent enactments, to be illegal, immoral, or superstitious. Such, I will venture to say, is the principle of the law of England in respect to Corporations; and even if a lawyer could devise any plea in derogation of it, I am quite sure, that there is no Englishman, of plain understanding, who would not proclaim his assent to the reasonableness of that principle. Now, is it, can it be, alleged, that either of the Universities, or that any of the Colleges within them, have violated the duties of their corporate character, or that they have abused the powers intrusted to them for the performance of those duties, or that the purposes and object of their incorporation are illegal, immoral, superstitious, or otherwise condemnable? My Lords, no man has ventured, nor will any man venture, to say any of these things. On what pretence, then, could Parliament dare—forgive the word, my Lords: when a man feels strongly he will not, scruple to speak strongly; but your Lordships will not, I am sure, think the word needs an apology, for you would not dare to do what is wrong—on what pretence then, I ask, would Parliament dare to set a precedent, which would destroy every thing like the principle of property as connected with cor-
1002
porations, and would violate all the sacredness that belongs to oaths—aye, my Lords, the sacredness of oaths? I say this, because it must not be forgotten, that the members of the University of Oxford have sworn, that they will obey their statutes, and I doubt not they will keep that oath inviolate. Parliament may have the power to destroy these bodies, but Parliament has not the power—and, if such a thing shall be attempted, Parliament will find, that it has not the power—to make these illustrious bodies faithless to the sacred duties which they have sworn to discharge. My Lords, the University of Oxford I know well—many of my happiest years have been passed within it—and from that knowledge of it I speak, when I proclaim my firm conviction, that if both Houses of Parliament shall pass the Bill, which has been brought into the other House, and if his Majesty shall, unhappily, be advised, and shall yield to the advice, to give to it the Royal Assent,—you will not, at Oxford, find a man—certainly very, very few men,—who would not submit to be pennyless and homeless, to be outcasts on the world, rather than do that which they now, it seems, are to be required to do—to be parties to the desecration of what they hold to be most sacred, and to the destruction of what they deem to be most valuable in this life, because it is connected with the interests of the life to come. My Lords, one thing has occurred this evening for which I was not prepared, but which has given to me the greatest pleasure,—I mean the presentation of the second petition, which the illustrious Duke has laid upon your Lordships' Table. Like that illustrious Duke, I am not disposed, generally, to encourage young persons, in a state of pupilage, to express to Parliament their opinions on matters of legislative consideration; but, my Lords, when their own best interests are involved—when their religion, which, thank God, they feel to be their dearest, as all must admit that it is their most valuable possession—when their religion is thus openly assailed, I rejoice to see them stand boldly forward, and call on Parliament to protect them. I rejoice at this, as one of the best symptoms that could present themselves; I rejoice at it as one of the few redeeming points amidst the many lamentable indications which mark the hapless times

1003
on which we are fallen. My Lords, when I contemplate this display of the noble zeal of the educated youth of England in the cause of their religion, I cannot forbear applying to it the language of a heathen poet, but with feelings, permit me to add, of which no heathen could be conscious:—
Dii patrii, quorum semper sub numine Troja est,
Non tamen omninò Teucros delere paratis.
Cùm tales animus juvenum et tam certa tulistis Pectora.
The Lord Chancellorcould not refrain from expressing his astonishment at the speech which had been delivered by the right reverend Prelate who had just sat down. He did not intend to follow the right reverend Prelate into his casuistry, for it was so refined, that he was not certain he understood it. But if subscription did not mean what it professed to mean, but anything into which casuists might be pleased to convert it—if the person signing might disbelieve any part or parcel of that which he proclaimed his readiness to believe at all hazards,—if he might begin by subscribing to certain articles, and afterwards be at liberty to learn what those articles meant, all that he would observe was this—that if such was the true and precise meaning of subscription, a more clumsy invention was never struck out by human brain, lay or clerical, academic or barbarous, than to make a man who was only called upon to state his belief of one article swear that he believed in thirty-nine other articles. If this were the veritable and orthodox doctrine of subscription, then he would say, that he did not like subscription before, and, that now he disliked it ten thousand times more than ever he did. He had always thought it a cloak for hypocrisy. He had always thought it a measure of jesuitism and casuistry. He had always thought it a trap for tender consciences. He had always thought it a desecration of the holiest objects. But it now reared itself before his eyes as a degree of desecration, as a refinement of subtilty, as a device of jesuitism and casuistry, as a cloak for hypocrisy of the vilest and coarsest nature, as a—
The Marquis of Salisbury The Marquis of Salisbury rose to order. The noble and learned Lord was only entitled to offer explanation of observations of his own; he was now wandering far beyond it—it was not only replying to, but attacking observations of other noble Lords.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that it would be a good rule if noble Lords, before they called others to order, would just condescend to catch some glimpse, some faint glimmer, of the meaning of those whom, they interrupted. He was stating in explanation of what he had already stated. He would move an Amendment. He would move it at that part of his speech that he thought fit. He had a right to be heard in continuation of his explanation; when he had concluded it he would move his Amendment.
Lord Wynfordand another noble Lord rose and spoke together. We only heard the observation of Lord Wynford, who was contending, that, at this stage of the debate the noble and learned Lord had no power to move an Amendment.
The Lord Chancellor. —Well, then, I will finish my explanation.
Lord Wynfordagain spoke to order. If the intention of his noble and learned friend had been to move an Amendment, he ought to have moved it at the conclusion of his first speech. The time for moving it was now gone by. He appealed to his noble and learned friend, as the great doctor of order, to see, that the orders and regulations of that House were observed.
The confusion in the House was here very great.—At length
The Duke of Richmondobtained a hearing, and spoke to order. His noble and learned friend on the Woolsack had been personally alluded to in the speech of the right reverend Prelate who had preceded him. When a Peer was thus alluded to, it was usual for that Peer to rise in his place, and to speak upon that allusion, although not strictly in explanation. This had been done already that evening by the noble Duke opposite, who had spoken twice already. He was merely anxious to let his noble and learned friend finish his explanation. Before he sat down he must set the noble and learned Baron right, who had inadvertently fallen into a very singular mistake. The noble and learned Baron had called his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack the great doctor of order in that House. Now in that House, neither the Lord Chancellor nor any other speaker had any greater claim than any other of their Lordships to take upon himself the enforcement of order. To put the matter right, he would move that the House do adjourn.
Several of their Lordships again attempted to obtain a hearing, but
The Lord Chancellorinsisted, that he must, in point of form, put the question. The question before this House stands thus:—The original question before this House is, "that the Petition do lie upon the Table;" since which it has been moved, "that this House do now adjourn." Whilst he was putting the question, his Lordship resumed his former place on the floor.—"I have now, my Lords, in point of form, the most ample right to enter upon the whole question, and to inflict upon your Lordships as long a speech as your patience will permit, in explanation of my former speech, and in refutation of the right reverend Prelate's argument. But, however, I do not mean to exercise the right of reply, which I now undoubtedly possess, for I trust, that I have already said sufficient to explain the profound astonishment into which the right reverend Prelate flung me by his extraordinary explanation of what he meant by subscription. I must, however, congratulate your Lordships on your having lived to see the commencement of a new and more prosperous era dawning upon the orders of the House. Till this night, though I have now had the honour of a seat for more than three years and a half in your Lordships' House, I never found any noble Lord attempted to be hampered in the latitude of his explanation. In this House an explanation is always a privileged second speech. I hope, therefore, that in future noble Lords will confine themselves strictly to explanation. With regard to what has fallen from my noble and learned friend, I have only to say, that I have exercised no power over the orders of the House since I have been on the Woolsack. When my noble and learned friend obtains that high honour which he so merits, and which, perhaps, he covets as well, he will not find me treating him, as he now treats me, as the doctor, or, I should rather say, the tyrant of order."
The Duke of Wellington. —The noble and learned Lord has argued, that not only to-night, but on former occasions, I have made second speeches—I say I never did. I grant I was bordering on it this evening, but knowing the bad precedent that might be set, I immediately stopped myself. I again deny the statement of the noble and learned Lord.
The Lord Chancellor: It does not follow, because the noble Duke denies what I say, that he is not guilty of it. I have often heard persons deny things very strenuously, that it afterwards appeared they had constantly been in the guilty practice of. Explanation, in my view, is not replying to what an opponent says, but explaining, putting in a clearer and more defined form, what you have yourself said.
The Duke of Wellington: What I said was, I never, in explanation, made use of a new argument. Again I say I never did, and again I deny what the noble and learned Lord says.
The Bishop of Exeter: I feel it necessary to trouble your Lordships with a few words, in order to explain what has been most grievously misunderstood by the noble and learned Lord—misunderstood, I repeat, for I am quite sure that if the noble and learned Lord had accurately heard my words, he would not have exhibited them in the very extraordinary manner in which he has thought proper to exhibit them. I said that subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, by a boy, at the early age of sixteen, could not in common sense, be understood to imply a belief founded on full consideration and accurate examination of them—but belief founded on the authority of the Church of which he thus proclaimed himself a member. To that statement I adhere. Subscription to the Articles at the age of sixteen could, in common sense, mean no more than this, and would he understood to mean no more, even if there was nothing else to be taken in the account. But when we remember what the Statutes of the University further enjoin,—namely, that the persons who had so subscribed, should be afterwards taught the meaning, and the proofs, of the Articles which they had subscribed, that, before they were allowed to take a degree, they should be examined in their knowledge of these Articles, and in their ability to prove their truth; that at the time of taking their degree, they were required again to subscribe the Articles, but with the important addition, that they now declare them to be agreeable to the word of God.—when all this is borne in mind, it is plain that the first subscription, that made at their matriculation, is merely a declaration of their belief of the Articles, on the authority of the Church. It is just as children

1007
are taught to say their creed. When they say it, it cannot be seriously supposed that they have duly considered and examined, or even accurately understood, the several propositions contained in it: they only believe it to be true on the authority of their teachers. But will any rational person, therefore, condemn the practice of children saving their creed?
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, he must complain of the discourteous conduct of the Lord Chancellor throughout the evening, and particularly of the denial which he had given to the statement of the Duke of Wellington, which was one of the most uncourteous things he had ever heard of.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that if the noble Marquess intended to produce a quarrel between two Chancellors, he would unquestionably fail. The noble Marquess had misunderstood him, as much as the other noble Marquess near him. He had not denied any fact asserted by the noble Duke. He had distinctly said, that he believed that the noble Duke fancied that he had gone no further than explanation, but he had said as distinctly, that, in his opinion, the noble Duke had gone further. The noble Duke and himself had lived too long not to know that there was a wide difference between a denial of fact and a denial of opinion. The first is discourteous and worse than discourteous; but the latter amounts only to a difference of opinion.
The Bishop of Durhamsaid, he was unwilling to prolong the present discussion; but he rose to confirm what had been said by a right reverend Prelate near him, respecting the practice of the University of Oxford, in requiring subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, on the matriculation of its members, as well as on their taking degrees. The distinction which the right reverend Prelate made, as to the kind or measure of assent to those Articles, in the one case, and in the other, appeared to him just and well-founded. The assent given at matriculation could hardly be supposed to mean more than that the person so admitted professed himself to be a member of the Established Church, and received those Articles upon the authority which prescribed them, until he could be further instructed in them, as a standard of Christian doctrine and discipline. His subsequent subscription, on taking a degree, undoubtedly implied a
1008
more perfect acquaintance with them, and a more unqualified assent to them. This obvious distinction tended to do away the main objection usually urged against the practice of the University of Oxford in this respect. In regard to the petition itself, one chief ground of objection, as he conceived, to admitting Dissenters to the privilege of degrees in the Universities was, that the granting of that privilege would necessarily lead to their having a participation in the Government of the University. It seemed impossible to withhold the one, if the other were granted; and the consequences of this to the whole body, was the point, above all others, to be deprecated. With respect to the alleged illiberality of the Universities, (and stronger expressions of vituperation than this had been used on the present occasion) in not only refusing degrees to Dissenters, but preventing their obtaining degrees elsewhere, he did not see that they were fairly open to that censure. It surely rested not with the Universities to point out other means by which that object might be attained through other channels. Neither did he perceive the force of the noble and learned Lord's observation, that persons holding the high station in which he was placed were not required to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles as a qualification for the office. Possibly, it was presumed, without such evidence, that the person whose office constituted him keeper of the royal conscience would be a member of the Established Church. But, without entering upon that point, the case appeared to him wholly irrelevant to the matter before them, which involved the subject of public education, as affecting the religious interests of the community. But he would forbear, and go no further into the subject. Should it unfortunately be brought before their Lordships in a more substantive form, (which he hoped it would not) he might feel it his duty to express his sentiments at greater length.
The Duke of Gloucestersaid, that his noble and learned friend (the Lord Chancellor) had understood his noble friend (the Duke of Wellington) and himself looked for a remedy to the grievance complained of, by allowing another University to grant degrees; but they meant no such thing; they said, that to the College of Physicians, and to the Inns of Court, who framed their regulations very long after

1009
the laws of the Universities were made, should the Dissenters look for the remedy. He should be most willing to see the College of Physicians give degrees in medicine. His noble and learned friend was under a mistake respecting Sir Isaac Newton; he was admitted in 1660, and took his degree in 1664, and subscribed the Thirty-nine Articles.
Petition to lie on the Table.