Sitting of 2 July 1834

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord NORREYS, from Denton, against granting the Claims of the Dissenters—By Mr. HUME, from Auchtermuchty, against the Corn Laws; from Brechin, against the Church Rates Bill.—By Captain ELLIOTT, from the Parochial Schoolmasters of Kelso, for an increased Stipend; from three Places, for the Separation of Church and State; from Kelso, against Drunkenness; from Galashiels, in favour of the Leith Harbour Bill.—By Mr. BAINES, from Jamaica, for Compensation for Chapels destroyed during the Riots.—By Lord MORPETH, from Leeds, for the Repeal of the Duty on Olive Oil.—By Mr. HODGES, from several Places, for Protection to the Church of England.

REGISTER OF BIRTHS.
On the Motion of Lord John Russell the House went into a Committee on the Register of Births Bill.
Clause 1 and 2 were agreed to. On the 3rd Clause being read, Mr. Finch objected to proceeding with the Bill until explanation were given. He wished to know why the Dissenters could not establish a system of Registration without breaking up the system established by the Churchmen and without handing them over to the tax-gatherers.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that a Registration of Births of Dissenters was necessary even to Churchmen and to all persons who had or who might be left property. Without a proper and legal registry of births, marriages, and deaths it would be in many cases, and in cases where members of the establishment, and of every sect might be concerned, very difficult to decide in a Court of Law to whom property belonged. In the course of his practice he had seen in Courts of Law forgeries and many other expedients resorted to to obtain property, all of which would have been prevented if there had existed a full registry of births, marriages, and deaths.
Lord Sandonobjected to that part of the proposed measure which enjoined a penalty even on the poor man unless it was found that he registered within a certain period. Besides this pecuniary punishment, he considered it harsh that a family should be disturbed at a time when death had brought them under affliction, and that they should be put to the cruel inconvenience that would result from this Bill.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the Bill was brought in because the present mode of registration was extremely defective. The principle of it would be to cause the collectors of taxes to receive the registers, which were to be supervised by the surveyors of taxes, and transmitted by them to a general Registry-office. It seemed to him, that this mode of registration might answer. He saw no reason whatever why the machinery of the Bill should not work well, and he considered, that this was the best mode which had been yet suggested for the purpose of the registration of births.
Colonel Daviesagreed in the importance of the Bill, but did not object to proceeding with the discussion of it at that time. He should have preferred it if the duty of keeping the parish register had been thrown on the clergyman or the parish clerk than on the tax-gatherer. He thought, that by this means the register would be taken greater care of, as it would be locked up with the other documents belonging to the parish.
Mr. Bainesthought, that there would be many objections to such an arrangement as was proposed by his hon. friend (Colonel Davies). One of the chief objections to the arrangement proposed by

1075
the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was, that it created an appearance of dependence on the Church.
Dr. Lushingtonhad not expected that the Bill would have been proceeded with during the present Session. He agreed with the Attorney-General as to the absolute necessity of some general registry of births and marriages. He could state, from his own experience, that the present system was productive of the greatest inconvenience, and he was, therefore, willing to lend his assistance to any measure which would remedy the defects of it, so that there should be a complete register of births, marriages, and deaths. At the same time, he was bound to state, that it appeared to him that the question was replete with difficulties, and it required the greatest deliberation on the part of the House, both as to its principle and details, before the House could deal with it. He doubted whether the present measure would attain the ends in view. If, however, his Majesty's Ministers and the House thought there was time in the present Session to frame the Bill in such a way as to overcome all the difficulties which might arise, he would concur, and would render every assistance for the purpose of carrying it into effect; but it would be most objectionable to attempt to carry any measure which was not satisfactory. He thought it most desirable that they should have a registry to refer to in cases of difficulty; but the present Bill admitted the registry as evidence in cases in which he believed that it would not be altogether prudent. He was afraid, also, that the machinery contemplated by the Bill would be too expensive, and doubted whether the consequence would not be the keeping a number of registers, and thus diminishing the security. He would not oppose proceeding with the Bill, but would wait till it came out of Committee, when he should be able to judge whether the measure was sufficiently improved to be carried into effect. Though the advantages of a registry were very great, he never would agree to a measure for the purpose, unless it could be easily carried into effect, and at the same time afford security.
Sir John Wrottesleywas most anxious that the measure should be carried into effect. He thought that the tax-gatherer was the best person who could be selected in each parish to keep the registry, as he
1076
was generally an intelligent man. He would be in constant intercourse with the collector, to whom he could refer in case of difficulty, and the collector would be able to refer, if necessary, to the Board.
The clause was agreed to, as were the clauses to 12 inclusive.
On clause 13 requiring occupiers or owners of houses to give notice of births, &c.,
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, he wished to ask the hon. and learned promoter of the Bill, how it was possible to reconcile clause 11 with the clause now under consideration? There was nothing in this Bill which could enable the registrar to ascertain the fact of either birth or death with positive accuracy. As the clauses stood, the foundation of the entry in the registry would be no better than hearsay evidence, and as such evidence could not be received in a Court of Law, it followed that a registry so conducted would be of no possible advantage. He had not been aware that it was intended to press this measure through during the present Session, or he should have examined its provisions with greater care; but the House ought not to agree to this clause as it stood. He was told that a clause was to be introduced to correct the defect to which he had alluded, and all he could say was, that in the framing of any such clause great care should be taken to provide that the entry in the registry should only be made on the information of a party who had means of ascertaining the fact, stated positively and beyond all doubt.
Lord John Russellsaid, that he felt the full force of his hon. and learned friend's observation. The defect which he pointed out was one that ought to be remedied, and therefore he hoped that his hon. and learned friend would assist in framing such a clause as would meet the difficulty to which he adverted.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that in the case of births it would be extremely difficult, as they all knew, to obtain such information as could be relied on; and the same observation would apply to the case of deaths, though not perhaps with equal force. As far as related to the members of the Church of England, he was inclined to believe that the existing system of registration would be preferred to that now proposed. The present system of registration kept up the spiritual connection which ought to subsist between the Mi-

1077
nister and his congregation; and he should object to any measure the tendency of which would be to discontinue that connection. There was another point on which he thought the promoters of this Bill were bound to furnish the House with information, and that was as to the probable expense which would be incurred in carrying this measure into effect. Day after day Committees of that House were employed in cutting down the public and local expenditure of the country, but how could the county rate, or any other rate be reduced, if Bills of this description, imposing new burthens, were continually multiplied? On principles of toleration, the Protestant clergy should be suffered to keep the registries which they were now bound by law to keep, if they were willing to do so, and if the members of the Established Church were satisfied with the present mode of registration, it would be unfair to fix new burthens upon them. He was convinced that the mode of registration proposed by this Bill, would not be half so satisfactory to the members of the establishment, as that which existed; and therefore, although he attached very great importance to a general registry of this nature, he must object to any measure which might have the tendency of undermining the registries kept by the clergy of the Church of England. He was satisfied, that no persons belonging to the communion of that Church would avail themselves of the new law, even if enacted.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that the Bill was intended not only for the relief of Dissenters, but of the whole community. When he introduced it, he stated that it was not meant to interfere with the registries kept in churches, or the fees consequent upon those registries payable to the clergy. This was apparent in the first clause. There was no intention whatever to disturb the existing law relating to the registration of baptisms and burials: on the contrary, the Act of the 52nd of Geo. 3rd, under which such registries were kept, would remain in operation. At present there was no record of births and deaths, and the great object of this Bill was, to supply that defect, which was severely felt in cases of title and other cases involving property. He thought that such a record would be a great benefit to the community at large, and therefore he hoped the Committee would agree to the clause.
Sir Robert Peel—Then it would seem that the statute of the 52nd of Geo. 3rd was to continue in operation, notwithstanding this Bill passed into a law. This fact in itself created an almost insurmountable difficulty. By the 52nd of Geo. 3rd, the clergy of the Church of England were bound to provide books in which the registries were to be kept, and that being the case, where was the necessity of this double expense? But there was something, he must say, very anomalous in having two sets of registries. The registry of baptisms and burials was to be kept by one party, while that of births and deaths was to be kept by another, but would not such a system lead to endless complexity? The person who made a search would have to consult two distinct authorities, and if those authorities happened to disagree, or did not tally exactly with each other, what would be the consequence? In such a case, and it was one likely enough to happen, where would be the advantage of either registry? Such a mode of registration would, to say the least of it, be a most cumbrous proceeding, and therefore, however willing he was to admit, that there ought to be a record of births and deaths as well as of baptisms and burials, he could not give his assent to that which, even if adopted, could lead to no beneficial result.
Mr. Baringobserved, that the whole merit of a registry of births would depend upon the fact of the child being named in the entry; for without the name the entry would be unintelligible. What information, for instance, would an entry furnish which stated that the child of Henry Thompson and Mary Ann, his wife, was born on such a day? The registry of birth, and the baptism of the child must, to be worth anything, be contemporaneous acts, and parents must have their children baptized almost as soon as born.
Mr. Peasesaid, that although he belonged to a body who would not give up the mode of registration which they had adopted for any other, he still thought that a correct record of births and deaths was desirable. The 17th clause would remove the difficulty which had been raised with respect to the name of the child.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that a double registry was calculated only to embarrass the investigations of titles. Evidence of birth derived from one source and of bap-

1079
tism from another would involve titles in such difficulties that it would be impossible to get over them; but if the registry was to be kept by the same party the objection to which he alluded might be got over.
Lord John Russellsaid, the registry, as at present made, only noted baptisms and burials, not for civil purposes. For these purposes it was absolutely necessary that there should be a registry of births and deaths. This registry would be best effected by using the machinery of the Tax-office, and the expense incurred by using this machinery, would not be above 60,000 l. or 70,000 l.—an expense which he was satisfied the House would not consider too great for accomplishing so important a national object.
The Attorney Generalcertainly wished to see one general measure of registration established. The one proposed he did not look upon as perfect; but it could not be denied, that it was a great improvement on the existing practice. It was a measure which would, so far from injuring, be of great service to the members of the Establishment; for as their registries at pres nt stood, baptisms and burials were of no avail in courts, as Judges could not receive such registries in evidence. The expense which it would entail on members of the Established Church ought not to be urged, when it was remembered that Dissenters were frequently taxed for purposes purely connected with the Establishment.
Dr. Lushingtonthought it would be wrong to continue the old mode of registry concurrently with the new one. It would only involve double expense, and the old system gave not what was desired—a registry of births and deaths, but of christenings and burials.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that if, on the faith of an untried experiment, they were at once to abolish parochial registration, they would create the greatest alarm throughout the country. If his hon. and learned friend had read the evidence, he would have found, that there were many persons who seriously believed it would endanger the Church. A large number of persons were interested in it, for they derived large emoluments from it. As a practical man, he wished to ascertain that the new system would work well before he abolished the old one. Old London bridge was not pulled down till
1080
the new one was built, and its stability proved.
Mr. Pollockknew, that the present system, imperfect as it was, had conferred many benefits on the country, and he thought it desirable to have more than one means of obtaining correct evidence, especially as reasonable doubts might be entertained in many cases whether the provisions of this Act would be strictly followed. It would be hard to refuse to the professors of the Church of England the privilege they now enjoyed, if they thought proper to desire its continuance. He hoped that in what his hon. and learned friend had said, he did not mean to attribute interested motives to those persons to whom he had alluded.
The Clause, with verbal Amendments, was agreed to.
On arriving at the 17th Clause, enacting that "a penalty be imposed on any person registering a child in one name, and baptising it in another," it was proposed to fill up the blank with the sum of twenty shillings.
Mr. Goulburnconsidered the penalty too large—a smaller sum would answer every purpose.
Mr. O'Connellthought that they lived in rather changeable times, and ought to allow a little variety in one matter as well as in another. For instance, if a man registered his child as John Russell, and afterwards, altering his mind, baptized it as Robert Peel, it was only following an example which was frequently set him, and why should he have to pay 20 s. for that change in his opinions, which others paid nothing at all for.
Mr. Estcourt Mr. Estcourt moved, that it be reduced to half-a-crown.
The House divided on the original Clause:—Ayes 73; Noes 55; Majority 18.
The penalty was subsequently fixed at five shillings, and the clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The remaining Clauses of the Bill were agreed to, and the House resumed. The Report to be brought up, on a future day.

CUSTOMS' ACTS.
On the Motion of Mr. Poulett Thomson the House resolved into Committee on the Customs' Acts.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid it was merely his intention to propose certain resolutions, embracing the alterations in the

1081
Customs-laws he thought advisable. They might be afterwards discussed. It was well known to many hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the expediency of reducing the duty on the importation of dried fruits was pressed on the Government by the hon. member for London, who made a Motion for the reduction of the duty on currants. He opposed that Motion, because, he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not spare the sum which the duty on currants brought to the revenue; and because he conceived that it was not desirable to take any measures with respect to any particular article; but that the better course was to deal with the whole class to which that article belonged. He therefore did not think it right to touch the duty on currants without, at the same time, touching the duty on other fruit; but he told his hon. friend that the attention of Government was turned to the subject, and in the present Session, if possible, a reduction of the duty on fruit generally would be proposed. He therefore had considerable pleasure in informing the Committee, that one of the resolutions which it was his intention to propose would declare, that the duty on currants should be reduced to the extent of one-half of its present amount; and part of that Resolution would embrace a proportionate reduction of the duty on raisins, prunes, and other fruits, belonging to the same class. One of his resolutions would apply to an article for the reduction of the duty on which the noble Lord (Lord Morpeth) the member for Yorkshire, had given notice of a Motion,—he meant olive oil,—which was much used in machinery, and was of the greatest importance to enable the consumer to obtain it at as cheap a rate as possible. The Government could not reduce the duty on that article without acting on the same principle it had laid down with respect to the duty on fruit, and reducing the duty on articles of a similar description. He accordingly proposed to reduce the duties on cocoanut oil and palm oil. The Government had been pressed to remove all the duties from these articles; but however much he was disposed in all cases to make the raw material obtainable at as cheap a rate as possible, he was bound to look to the state of the revenue, and he was also bound to consider whether it would be fair to take the duty off those articles entirely without at the same time removing it from
1082
other similar articles. But though he did not propose to repeal the duty entirely, by reducing it one-half on those three articles, he was conferring a benefit on the manufacturing interest; and doing every thing which, under the circumstances, could be expected. He had, however, to state, with respect to the reduction of the duty on olive oil, that it would not take effect on that article which was the produce of the Two Sicilies, unless his Majesty in council should otherwise direct. He would state the reasons which had induced him to make this exception. For some time past, negotiations had been carrying on for the purpose of establishing greater freedom of intercourse between this country and the Two Sicilies; but he was sorry to say, that the Government of the latter state was not so well disposed as he had expected, to allow the commodities of this country to enter his dominions on paying moderate duties. During the pending negotiations, therefore, it was not thought advisable to reduce the duty on articles which were the produce of that state. For though he was prepared to contend, as he ever had done, that we ought to look solely to the interests of our own consumers (let other countries adopt what measures they pleased), still he thought that, under the peculiar circumstances which he had described, this country ought to retain the power of withholding from the produce of the Two Sicilies those advantages which she conceded to the produce of other countries until she obtained from the Government what she had a right to expect. In the resolutions there would be included some minor articles, not involving any very material amount of duty, the produce of the West Indies. The reduction of those duties, in order to encourage the produce of the West Indies had been much pressed upon him, but, in consequence of the reductions which it had been his good fortune to carry into effect since he joined the Government very little remained to be done on this head; at the same time there were one or two articles of minor importance, such as plantains, liqueurs, pimento, &c., the reduction of the duty on which would, by increasing the sale, give employment to the population in the West Indies. It might appear that the proposed reductions of duty were trifling; but he was bound to consider what amount of revenue his noble friend, the Chancellor

1083
of the Exchequer could spare. By the reduction of the duty on fruits, and on currants especially, there would be an apparent sacrifice of revenue to the amount of 150,000 l.; and he would not have Gentlemen suppose, because some of the articles, the duty on which he proposed to repeal might appear of trifling importance, or because some of their names even might be unknown to many hon. Members, that therefore, the reduction would not be of any benefit. He could refer to many articles with respect to which scarcely any loss had been occasioned to the revenue, notwithstanding that the duty on them had been reduced from an amount almost prohibitory. The traffic in some of them, which had been very limited before the reduction of the duty, had since become exceedingly large, to the advantage of the shipping and commerce of this country. He would instance two or three articles, the duties on which were, at his suggestion, reduced in 1831 and 1832, in confirmation of this observation. In 1831, he was, to use a vulgar expression, a good deal quizzed for submitting to the House a long list of articles, a great number of which were only known to most Members of that House as medicinal drugs, though they were of great importance in different manufactures. He was sneeringly asked what signified it whether senna was a halfpenny a-pound cheaper or not? Now, he would show the House that, by the reduction of the duty on many of those articles, the trade of the country had been increased, while, at the same time, the manufactures in which they were used were carried on at a cheaper rate, without any sacrifice of revenue. Boraic acid was one of the articles, the duty on which was reduced in 1832. The quantity imported in 1831, amounted to 300,000lb. The duty was reduced from 4d. per lb. down to 4s. per cwt.; and the consumption had increased in two years to 775,000lb., while the loss incurred by the revenue was trifling. Zaffir was likewise an article greatly used in manufactures, but up to 1832, its importation had been checked by a duty of 1d. per lb. At that period, the duty was reduced to 1s. per cwt., and the consumption had increased from 266,000lb. to 329,000lb. Similar remarks might be extended to the articles of quicksilver, bitter almonds, and cocoa, in all of which an increase in the amount of importation
1084
had taken place, after the reduction of the duty. The amount received by the revenue on account of the duty collected on all the various articles previous to the reduction was 63,000 l.; after the reduction, 33,000 l., making a loss of not more than forty-five per cent., while the reduction of the duty on each article varied from 5–6ths to 7–8ths, and in some instances, to 15–16ths. He stated these facts in order to deter gentlemen from sneering when they saw such articles as dried pears and apples in the list which it would presently be his duty to place in the hands of the chairman. His resolutions would chiefly apply to the reduction of duty; but there was one duty which it was his intention entirely to remit, and that was the duty on the exportation of coal. The hon. member for Bridport shook his head at this statement; but he confessed that he did not share the hon. Member's apprehensions, that after a period of 1,400 years, the stock of coal the country would be exhausted. He believed, that the remitting of the duty would afford very considerable benefit to the shipowners of this country; for it was notorious, that a great proportion of the coal which went abroad was carried in British ships, and it was not his intention to remove the discriminating duties on foreign ships with respect to this article. It had been thought that, by placing a less duty on small coal than on round coal, its exportation would increase, and that the necessity for burning it away on the ground would cease. That object had not been attained, for the exportation had not, in fact, increased. In 1830, the amount exported was 240,000 tons, and at present it was 235,000 tons. It was not to be expected, therefore, as long as the duty continued, that this coal would be exported. Besides, as other commodities were permitted to be exported at one-half per cent., it would not have been fair to refuse to the owners of this particular commodity permission to export it on the same terms. There was another article included in the schedule to which he trusted no objection would be made—he alluded to books printed abroad. The present duty on the importation of foreign books was 5l. per cwt. It was impossible to take off that duty entirely, so long as there existed in this country an excise on paper; but he proposed to reduce the duty, taking pre-

1085
cautions at the same time for the protection of copyright, to 2l. 10 s. per cwt. This reduction would, he thought, afford very sensible relief to those who imported books into this country; but he wished it to be understood, that books, the first edition of which appeared in this country within fifteen or twenty years ago, would not be allowed to be imported. The first article in the schedule was animal oil, the duty on which he proposed to reduce to 1s. 3d. per cwt. The duty on palm oil and cocoa nut oil he proposed to reduce from 2s. 6d. to 1s. 3d. The duty on these oils amounted, in 1833, to 27,000 l., and consequently the loss by the reduction would equal 13,500 l. He proposed to reduce the duty on olive oil from eight guineas per tun to four guineas. It was not, however, his intention to go through the whole list of articles, but there was one alteration for which he trusted he should receive the sanction of the House at the proper time; he alluded to the power which it was proposed to give to inland towns to place goods in bond. The revenue would be benefitted by the payments which would be made by those towns which chose to take advantage of this regulation, and care would, of course, be taken to guard against smuggling. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following resolutions:

1.—That instead of the Duties on Customs now payable upon the importation of the following articles, the several Duties herein set forth in respect of the same respectively, shall be made payable; that is to say,—

Apples—dried, the bushel

0

2

0

Books—being of editions printed in or since the year 1801, bound or unbound, the cwt.

2

10

0

Currants—the cwt.

1

2

0

Figs—the cwt.

0

15

0

Grapes—for every 100 l. of the value

5

0

0

Oil—from and after the 10th Oct. 1834, namely:—

Animal Oil—the cwt.

0

2

6

Cocoa-nut Oil—the cwt.

0

1

3

Olive Oil—the tun

4

4

0

—the produce of, or imported from any part of the dominions of the King of the Two Sicilies, the tun

8

8

0

imported in a ship belonging to any of the subjects of the King of the Two Si-

2. That no abatement of the Duties of Customs be made in respect of goods saved at sea, and sold for the payment of salvage.
3. That no Abatement of the Duties of Customs be allowed in respect of any drugs imported from foreign parts on account of any damage received by the same during the voyage.
4. That the exemption from Export Duty in respect of Woollen Manufactures exported to places within the limits of the East India Company's Charter be repealed.
5. That the Duty of Exportation upon coals, culm, and cinders, exported in British ships, be repealed; and that the duty of exportation on all coals, culm, and cinders, exported in foreign ships, be 4s. for every ton of the same.
Mr. Robinsonapproved generally of the alterations proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, observing, that the revenue arising from currants would not, after the present year, be so unproductive as might be supposed from the reduction that had been announced. There was one alteration, the reason of which he confessed he could not see—namely, the reduction on, fruit, the produce of Spain and Portugal,

1087
because the duty on that of our own colonies was reduced. He thought it would be wise for the Government to keep the power of reducing that duty in its own hands, so that it might be used to obtain from those countries a reduction of duties on our commodities. He hoped that when the President of the Board of Trade had time, he would direct his attention to a list which he could lay before him, of at least fifty articles, the aggregate duties on which scarcely amounted to 40,000 l. a-year.
Mr. Warburtonalso approved of the greater part of the changes which the Government proposed to make. The article of coals, however, was one of the exceptions to his assent. He was borne out by the authority of Mr. Ricardo, in saying, that the removal of an export duty from such an article as coals was most impolitic. In all the manufactures in which that article was used, the effect of the removal would be to put our foreign rivals upon the same footing as ourselves. He regretted to find himself under the necessity of saying, that the change made appeared to have proceeded rather from the influence of some members for northern places, than from any strong conviction that the alteration was based upon a sound principle.
Lord Althorpsaid, the fact was, the producers of coal were in distress and wanted relief. He concurred in the principle laid down by Mr. Ricardo, but the question was, whether the article in question could continue to be exported at all under the existing duty. There was no revenue worth talking of derived from Holland for coals; the effect of the duty was almost altogether to prevent the export.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonasked what rate of duty was to be laid on coals carried in foreign ships?
Mr. P. Thomsonsaid, the present rate of duty was 6s. 8d. per ton on round coals, and 4s. on small coals carried in foreign ships, while the duty on round coals carried in British ships was 3s. 4d., and that on small coals 2s. He now proposed that 4s. should be the duty on all coals carried in foreign ships, without distinction between the round and small coals.
Lord Morpeththought, that the duty on olive oil should be reduced to 3l. 3s. or 3l. 2s. per ton, as recommended by Mr. Macculloch.
Mr. Groteregretted, that the duty on barilla was not to be removed; it would soon be no longer imported into this country. The present imports of that article did not amount to half what they were three years ago.
Mr. George Frederick Young,in reference to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman opposite on the subject of permitting inland towns to bond goods, could not help saying, that that was such a change of magnitude and importance that it ought not to be brought forward at that late period of the Session.
Mr. Brothertonsaid, the proposed reduction of duties would be beneficial to the manufacturing interest, and give great satisfaction to the country. The allowing of bonded warehouses in inland towns would be a great advantage to Manchester and other places. He felt some doubt as to the policy of allowing the exportation of coals.
Colonel Torrenswas sure that the exportation of coals would be injurious to our manufactures.
Sir Matthew White Ridleythought there need be no apprehensions entertained with respect to the export of coals; Russia, Prussia, Holland, France, and other parts of the Continent, were now in possession of coals, and we no longer possessed a monopoly.
The Resolutions were agreed to.

MERCHANT SEAMEN'S WIDOWS.
Mr. Lyall Mr. Lyall moved the Order of the Day for the House going into Committee on this Bill.
Mr. Robinson Mr. Robinson moved, that it be an instruction to the Committee to appropriate a portion of the revenues to be raised under this Act to the support of the Merchant Seamen's Hospital. The revenues would be 20,000 l. per annum, and he would propose that one-twentieth of that sum be appropriated to the purpose he had stated.
Mr. Humeseconded the proposition, but it was withdrawn; and the Bill went through a Committee.

ADMISSION TO THE UNIVERSITIES.
Mr. George Wood Mr. George Wood moved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Universities' Admission He wished the Bill to be committed pro formâ in order that certain Amendments might be inserted and printed.
Sir George Murraysaid, that before the Bill went into Committee, he was desirous to make a few observations. He was as anxious as any man to remove as much as possible every grievance which pressed upon any class of his Majesty's subjects on the ground of religious distinctions. His whole conduct through life had been marked with this principle—he had voted for the abolition of the Corporation and Test Acts, and had given his assent to the removal of the disqualifications affecting the Roman Catholic subjects of the realm. After his accession to the office of Secretary for the colonies, he had extended the principle of non-exclusion to the Universities of York, in Upper Canada, and of Montreal, admitting thereto every religious sect without any inquiry whatever. With these proofs of his opinions, it could not be denied, that he was a friend to religious liberty. He thought, that the hon. member for South Lancashire, who had brought forward the present measure, had failed to show the practical application of the principle to the object which he had in view; and, without meaning any disrespect to the hon. Member, he must say, that the Bill appeared to him to be unintelligible and contradictory. Such a measure was much too extensive an undertaking for any individual member of the Legislature, and he should rather have wished that his Majesty's Government would have themselves taken up this important subject, and based a measure for the adoption of the House upon the terms of the petitions which had been presented to the other House of Parliament by the Prime Minister, and to this House by a right hon. Gentleman, now Secretary for the Colonies, from certain Members of the University of Cambridge, in favour of the admission of Dissenters into that and the other University. He thought, that the difficulty in the matter arose from the necessity for religious instruction in the University, which course of instruction must necessarily be confined to the established religion of the country. From this circumstance arose the practical difficulty of applying in this instance those liberal principles which he had ever entertained, and was anxious to adopt. As a member of the Church of Scotland, he stood himself in the situation of a Dissenter in this country, and therefore it could not be doubted, that he was desirous that the
1090
privileges of the English Universities should be opened to his fellow-countrymen in common with other Dissenters, and he should be glad if degrees could be attained by them as a matter of honour; but he certainly was not willing that Dissenters should obtain a power in the internal government of the Universities, which power, in his judgment, ought to rest with the members of the Established Church. He should also be glad if it were possible that Dissenters and members of the Church of Scotland could be admitted to them for the purposes of education, and at the same time their scruples relieved by a dispensation with the necessity for their attendance in chapel, and upon the college course of religious instruction; but he was at a loss to know how this could be effected consistently with the constitution of the Universities of this country. The subject was one of great difficulty, and if it were to be interfered with, it ought to have been taken up by his Majesty's Government, in the same manner as the equally difficult question of Roman Catholic Emancipation had been taken up by their predecessors in office. If they had adopted that course, and had taken the opinions of such members of the Universities as were in favour, as well as of those who were opposed to the admission of Dissenters, a measure acceptable to all might by modifying those opinions have been framed. If he could bring himself to think, that the present Bill could by possibility be converted in Committee into such a measure, his objections to it would be at once removed. He, however, should not impede the House now going into Committee on it, and he trusted the hon. Gentleman who had introduced it, would see that he (Sir George Murray) could not dispense with this, the first opportunity afforded him, of taking away a supposition that had gone forth, that he wished to obstruct the removal of the disabilities under which, in this respect, the Dissenters laboured. The statement which he had made elsewhere on this subject, had been founded upon the supposition, that the Government contemplated the introduction of a measure of relief to the Dissenters—a supposition which owed its origin to the fact of the presentation of the petitions to which he had adverted by the Prime Minister and the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies.
The Lord Advocatesaid: "I have listened with feelings of pain and regret to the speech of the right hon. member for Perthshire. He has said, that he has considered himself as a Dissenter, as all Presbyterians of the Scotch Church must do in England, although they are members of the Established Church in Scotland, and yet that he voted against the Bill for the admission of Dissenters into the English Universities, for reasons which, although they have been detailed at very considerable length, no person could have expected to hear come from an hon. Member who avows himself to be a Dissenter, and a person most anxious to remove all religious distinctions. Every observation which the hon. Member has made, justifies those Members from Scotland who voted for the second reading of this Bill; while even, if agreed to in their full extent, they make a vote given by a Scotch Presbyterian Member against the second reading of the Bill more difficult to explain. By voting for the second reading, the House does no more than approve of the principles of a Bill. Has the right hon. Member stated, that he disapproves of the principles of the Bill in any respect, or that he did not understand it? All his observations tend to the strongest approbation of the principles of the Bill. He says, he approved of the Cambridge petition. It is not surprising, that those Members who opposed so strongly and so eloquently all the sentiments contained in the Cambridge petition, should vote against the second reading of the Bill; for the principles of this Bill differ in no respect from that petition. The details of the Bill may differ in some respects. That was the strongest reason for voting for the second reading, and for allowing the Bill to go into Committee. All the supporters of the Cambridge petition will then have an opportunity of proposing such alterations as will make the provisions of the Bill agree with their views of that petition. But the House has been told, that a Bill brought in by his Majesty's Ministers, founded on the principles of the Cambridge petition, would have received the support of the right hon. member for Perthshire. This is carrying regard for his Majesty's Ministers very far indeed. This Bill was introduced in the month of April by my hon. friend, the member for South Lancashire. It could not be brought forward by any Member more entitled to the re-
1092
spect and regard of the House, whether holding office or not. So far from being opposed by his Majesty's Ministers, it is supported by them, and the second reading was carried by a large majority. No person can accuse the right hon. member for Perthshire of undue deference to Ministers, yet it would surely amount to that to vote against a Bill the principle of which Dissenters were bound to support, because Ministers did not introduce it. According to that, a measure, however good, and however much it accords with the feelings of Members of this House, is to receive a direct negative because it is not brought forward by Ministers." He (the Lord Advocate) was unwilling to detain the House at that hour, and he trusted that the Bill when reprinted, would have undergone such alterations as would remove even the more minute objections which had been urged against it, which it was not unreasonable to expect might come from zealous members of the Church of England. Their support it was most important to obtain. Their opposition might arise from the most honourable and conscientious views, deeply imprinted upon their minds by early education; but he trusted there would not be many Representatives from Scotland who regarded themselves as Dissenters here, as the right hon. member for Perthshire said he did, who would oppose the Bill on such grounds.
The House resolved itself into Committee on the Bill.
Mr. George W. Wood Mr. George W. Wood moved the insertion of certain Amendments pro formâ.
The Speakersaid, that before the Amendments which had just been proposed by the hon. member for South Lancashire were put to the Committee, he was sure the Committee (feeling that he as yet had had no opportunity afforded him for expressing the sentiments he entertained with respect to this Bill, and being also aware, that this would be his only opportunity) would favour him, even at the late hour which had now arrived, with its attention on the present occasion. The observations which he wished to make had no reference to the Amendments proposed by the hon. Member, and upon them he would give the Committee no trouble. His objections, he fairly confessed, were not to the Amendments merely, but to the principle of the Bill. That principle could not be carried into effect without leaving

1093
his objections unaltered and unalterable. He believed, the principle would be destructive to the two Universities as they now stood, and would be useless for any good purpose to the Dissenters themselves. He could not but feel convinced, that if this Bill was rendered efficient for the purpose it had in view, it would destroy the whole system at present prevailing in the two Universities, and would introduce either utter religious indifference, or constant acrimonious religious strife. With those feelings pervading his mind, the Committee would not be surprised when he stated that he entertained an unconquerable objection to this Bill. It was but due to the University he had the honour to represent and to himself, that he should avail himself of this the only opportunity afforded him of giving expression to those feelings; and though, perhaps, he might in the judgment of many hon. Members, be thought to be committing an act of imprudence by the course he had pursued, yet he thought it more manly to declare on the present occasion the sentiments he entertained. He was relieved from the necessity of going further into the subject by being able to express his full and entire concurrence in the sentiments which, on a former occasion, had been conveyed to the House in the speech of his right hon. colleague, and in the speeches of the other hon. Members who represented the other University. Having said thus much, he had to thank the Committee for the attention with which they had listened to him, and to repeat that he felt he should not have done his duty either to the University or to himself, if even at this late hour (four o'clock) he had not endeavoured to impress upon the House what was his conscientious opinion of the measure now under its consideration.
The Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill went through Committee pro formâ
The House resumed.

OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.
Mr. Poulter Mr. Poulter moved, that the Report on the Lord's-day Observance (No. 2.) Bill be brought up.
Mr. Ruthvenbegged to move as an Amendment, that the House do adjourn.
Mr. Philip Howardshould support the Motion of the hon. member for Shaftesbury (Mr. Poulter) and trusted
1094
that the hon. member for Dublin (Mr. Ruthven) would not persevere in his intention of retarding the progress of the Bill, by moving the adjournment of the House. The Bill under consideration was not open to the objections of those formerly introduced. It did not trench on the liberty of the subject; whilst it was required as an homage to public opinion, and as a tribute to the zeal and Christian-like feeling of a large body of the Community attested by the vast numbers and respectability of petitions which daily covered the Table of that House. The reasons he had had the honour to state, the anxiety he felt to set the question at rest, to satisfy and promote the exercise of well-regulated piety, induced him to give his warm support to this Bill. He (Mr. Howard) could assure those hon. Members who were opposed to all further legislation affecting the observance of the Lord's Day, that without a reasonable concession to the strongly and generally expressed wishes of a large class of the community, they would find it difficult to oppose other and less temperate measures, which, failing this, would be without ceasing, pressed for adoption, on the House.
The House divided on the original Motion:—Ayes 30; Noes 7; Majority 23.

List of the AYES.

Baines, E.

Murray, Rt. Hon. J.

Baring, F.

Pease, J.

Brotherton, J.

Peter, W.

Cayley, Sir G.

Philips, M.

Cayley, E.

Sheil, R. L.

Ewing, J.

Sandon, Lord

Fenton, J.

Shaw, F.

Forster, C. S.

Stewart, R.

Gisborne, T.

Sullivan, R.

Gladstone, W. E.

Talbot, J.

Harland, R. H.

Thomson, Rt. Hn. P.

Hughes, W. H.

Wason, R.

Inglis, Sir R.

Wallace, R.

Langdale, Hon. E.

Littleton, Rt. Hon. E.

TELLERS.

Macleod, R.

Poulter, J.

Marryatt, J.

Howard, P.

List of the NOES.

Blake, M. J.

Warburton, H.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

TELLERS.

O'Connor, F.

O'Reilly, W.

Aglionby, H.

Ruthven, E.

Ruthven, E. S.

Vigors, N. A.

The Report was brought up. At half-past four the House was counted out.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord FARNHAM and the Bishop of LONDON, from several Places,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Marquess of SALISBURY, the Earl of HAREWOOD, Lord ROLLE, the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, and the Bishop of LONDON, from a Number of Places,—for Protection to the Established Church of England and Ireland against the Admission of the Dissenters to the Universities, and against the Separation of Church and State.

OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.
The Bishop of London,in presenting a petition to their Lordships on the Observance of the Sabbath, said, he regretted to observe, as he thought he had, the growing inattention to the subject, and he feared he must add, from what had passed in another place, the growing disinclination to yield even to the increasing importunity of the people any legislative protection for the better observance of the Lord's Day. It was from no motive of affected sanctity, from no spirit of Puritanism, but from a feeling of humanity, of charity, and of the soundest policy, that he made such an observation. He was one of the last persons in the world who was anxious for the mere statutory enforcement of religious duties, being fully convinced, that that was the most unlikely way to obtain the object he had in view, and being well assured, that any such attempt must in the present state of the world be unsuccessful; but the observance of the Lord's Day was placed under different circumstances. There was no Christian country in which that day was not solemnly observed; and it was the duty of a Christian community to afford to all classes of the people the means of observing it, consistently with their own religious tenets. He was not one of those who wished, by the force of an Act of Parliament, to make people go to Church and say their prayers; the Legislature should take care that every person had the opportunity of doing that. Their Lordships were bound to see, that every man had the means of discharging his religious duties, and they ought to protect him against any encroachment upon those
1064
means; they should protect from interruption all those who were anxious to observe the Lord's Day by an attention to religion. That day had been wisely instituted as a day of rest; man's body required relaxation from usual labours one day in seven, and on that day his mind might, without injury to his necessary calling, be devoted to religious exercises. At all events, the Legislature should take care that individuals were not compelled to have this day—which not only Divine Law had established as a day of rest, but which medical science had discovered to be absolutely necessary for the preservation of man's health—broken in upon by worldly employment. At present many of the lower classes were compelled to work for the benefit or the pleasure of the higher classes—such as the fishmonger, the baker, the poulterer, and others whom he might mention. He wished to provide against this abuse, and for that reason he was anxious to see the Bill pass which was on their Lordships' Table. He did not wish to restrict, but to benefit the poor; he had just borne testimony against the labour which the higher classes imposed upon some of the lower classes on a Sunday; and he assured the House that his chief object was, to prevent the recurrence of that evil in future. He knew that those who supported the side of the question which he was advocating were often called uncharitable, and were accused of a desire to curtail the amusements of the poor. The accusation was unjust. He desired no such thing, for he knew, that the question of the amusements of the people must be left to the good feeling of the people at large. The petitioners prayed their Lordships to amend in some respects the Bill now upon their Lordships' Table, they approved of some parts of the measure which the noble and learned Lord (Lord Wynford) had introduced, but they objected to some of the details, as those details appeared to give a legal sanction to the continuance of certain trades on the Sunday-a matter which, in the opinion of the petitioners, ought to be avoided, The right reverend Prelate presented Petitions from places in Derbyshire; from Shrewsbury, and Burslem, in favour of a measure for the better observance of the Sabbath.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that after the difficulties which he had already met with in endeavouring to pass this Bill

1065
through their Lordships' House—after the resistance which he saw offered to another measure in the other House of Parliament—and after finding that those who approved of the principle of the Bill objected to some of the details, he almost despaired of being able to pass the Bill he had introduced. Considering all these things, it would be as well for him at once to declare that it was not his intention to go further with the present Bill, but rather to wait for that which was now in its progress through the other House of Parliament.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—MORNING POST.
Lord Wynford Lord Wynford moved, that the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the petition of Thomas Bittleston be read.
The Order of the Day and the Petition were read.
Lord Wynford Lord Wynford moved, that Thomas Bittleston be brought to the Bar of the House in custody of the Usher of the Black Rod; and that, having acknowledged his offence, and expressed his regret for it, he should be reprimanded by the Lord Chancellor, and discharged, on payment of his fees.
The Motion was carried.
Mr. Bittlestonwas brought to the Bar in the custody of the Deputy Usher of the Black Rod.
The Lord Chancelloraddressed him in the following terms:—Thomas Bittleston, you have acknowledged that you are the publisher of a composition which this House has unanimously pronounced to be a gross violation of its privileges. You have acknowledged that you had the superintendence and control of the paper in which the publication of that composition was made, and that you could have prevented its publication, or have altered its composition, if you had so thought fit. You have since presented a petition to this House expressing your regret for the grave offence you have committed, and you have thrown yourself on the mercy of this House, praying that in administering the justice due to itself, and due to the King's subjects at large—for its privileges are the privileges of those subjects—it would be pleased to temper that justice with mercy. The House has listened to your prayer, and has directed me to reprimand you at the Bar of the House, and to order that you be discharged from
1066
the custody of the officer on the payment of your fees. If any other person than myself had been the individual against whom the violation of the privileges of this House had been committed, I should have been disposed to dwell at greater length on the unparalleled enormity of this offence; nor am I to be deterred by a false delicacy from giving that offence its proper appellation, merely because I was the individual against whom it was directed. It was an offence directed not against the man, but against the office—not the office of a Peer in his Parliamentary capacity, but against a Peer in the exercise of his judicial office—the highest office which any of the King's subjects can exercise; and if such an offence could be passed over without animadversion and due punishment, there would be an end to the judicial authority which this House administers to twenty millions of the King's subjects living within the United Kingdom, being the highest Court of Justice in this kingdom. Nevertheless, enough has been said to express the unanimous feeling of reprobation entertained by this House with regard to the composition of which you have acknowledged yourself the publisher; and let neither you nor any other person who hears of this, flatter himself, that if such an offence is repeated, the lenity of this punishment will be suffered to form any the slightest precedent for visiting again with the same lenity any after offence of a like kind. You are hereby discharged from the custody in which you now are, on the payment of your fees.
Mr. Bittleston retired.

POOR LAWS' AMENDMENT.
Mr. Elliceand others from the Commons brought up the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill.
Earl Grey Earl Grey moved, that the Bill be read a first time, and stated that it was his intention to move the second reading on Monday next.
The Earl of Malmesburyfelt it impossible to avoid making a few observations on this important Bill in the present stage. Their Lordships were in the sixth month of their sitting, and they were now called on to consider a measure which yielded to none in importance that had ever occupied the attention of Parliament—not even the Reform Bill: for it was impossible for any mart to foresee what would be the result of the present Bill, if ever it should be

1067
carried into operation. He looked upon it—and he trusted he was right in doing so—as not being a party measure; but he most deeply lamented the course which his Majesty's Government had been pleased to follow with respect to it. The Bill embraced three distinct subjects—viz., relief, settlement, and bastardy, which, in his opinion, it would have been much better to have dealt with in three separate measures. If this plan had been adopted, he was aware that the Bill relating to relief must of necessity have originated in the other House, but the other two Bills might have been introduced in the House of Lords, and have been disposed of before the present time; for since Easter their Lordships had had little else to do but to listen to the tedious proceedings connected with the Warwick Bill. The Bill which had just been brought up contained not less than ninety clauses, and it was reasonable to suppose, that their Lordships would devote a long period to its consideration. On the 17th of April last the Bill was brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it had consequently remained under discussion in the other House for no less a period than seventy-six days. If their Lordships should devote the same time to its consideration, the Session would be prolonged to the middle of the month of September; and even then there would remain other very important questions for deliberation. He thought it would be a far wiser and more just proceeding as regarded the poor, whose interests were involved in the present measure, to let it stand over till next Session, and thus an opportunity would be afforded, which had not as yet been given, for the proper understanding of the proposed enactments. He admitted, that great abuses prevailed in the mode of administering relief to the poor, but he had always thought that those abuses arose more from the mal-administration, than the defect of the existing law. He was sure, that every one of their Lordships who had paid any attention to the subject would admit, that within the last three years a very great improvement had been made in the administration of the Poor-laws. A diminution in the amount of the poor-rates of three and a-half per cent had, in fact, taken place during the last year. He was aware that that diminution might in part be attributed to the fall in the price of provisions; but he would appeal
1068
to their Lordships, whether a change in the administration of the existing laws had not worked wonders as respected the condition of a vast number of parishes, both in the country and in this metropolis? He was confident, from the knowledge he possessed of the mode of transacting business in that House, that justice could not be done the Bill, if their Lordships should determine to begin the consideration of its various enactments in the month of July. He, for one, should not be able to be present during the discussions in Committee, and he thought that the attendance of any great number of Peers was not to be expected at so late a period of the Session. There was no part of the Bill to which he could give his unqualified approbation. He could neither give his assent to the enactments relating to relief, settlement, nor bastardy in particular. He could not help calling their Lordships' especial attention to this last subject, and he trusted they would legislate with respect to it as men. He appealed to their feelings as men, and he asked them, whether they would throw upon the unfortunate seduced woman the whole burthen of maintaining her child, and allow the seducer to stalk abroad with perfect impunity? He repeated, that at the present period of the Session the Bill could not meet with proper consideration, and he saw no imperative necessity for its passing in the present year. A great improvement had already taken place in the administration of the existing law, and he had no doubt that a still further improvement might be expected in the course of the ensuing year, in consequence of the suggestions of the Commissioners and the example of well-regulated parishes. Under these circumstances, would it not be better to allow the matter to rest until next Session, instead of passing such a mass of enactments as was contained in the Bill on the Table, and with not a word of which were their Lordships as yet acquainted? And let them bear in mind, that all these various and complicated enactments were to be put into operation under the direction of a set of Commissioners possessing no local knowledge, and who would cut off all communication between the lower and higher classes, and deprive the poor man of the privilege he now possessed of appealing to the rich man against the decisions of a grinding overseer. He spoke feelingly on this

1069
subject; he spoke on behalf of the poor population in the southern part of this country; and he trusted that their Lordships would hesitate long before they passed into law a measure only inferior in importance to the Reform Bill; if indeed, considering the general application of its provisions, it could properly be said to be less important than any subject whatever which had hitherto occupied the attention of Parliament.
Earl Greyentirely agreed with the noble Earl in thinking that the Bill just brought up, was less than any other, a party measure; and he trusted that it would not be so considered. The Government had, as in duty bound, bestowed the most careful and deliberate attention on this most complicated, difficult subject; affecting, as the noble Earl had most truly stated, most extensively the interests of the people, and involving more important consequences than almost any other measure ever submitted to Parliament. Such being the character of the Bill, he hoped their Lordships would consider it maturely and deliberately, without reference to its being in form proposed by his Majesty's Government, but with reference only to the effect which its application was likely to have on the country in general. That such a Bill required mature deliberation he admitted, and he regretted, in common with the noble Earl, that it had not been brought up to that House at an earlier period of the Session; but when he directed their Lordships' attention to the character of the Bill, and to the interests which it affected, he was sure they would acknowledge that the subject to which it related was one of no easy adjustment; and they, therefore, perhaps, would not wonder that the Bill had not found its way sooner to that House. He did not, however, think that their Lordships would, as the noble Earl apprehended, come to the discussion of this question in an unprepared state, when he recollected how long the able report of the Poor-law Commissioners, in which the whole subject was developed with great ability and accuracy, had been before the public, and when he also recollected the long discussions which the Bill had undergone in its different stages in the other House of Parliament, and more particularly in the Committee. Those who had attended to these discussions, and had watched the
1070
changes which had been made in the Bill, must be prepared to take the measure into consideration at the earliest opportunity; and he was of opinion that the pains bestowed on the investigation of the subject by the Commissioners, and by the other House of Parliament, would be found greatly to facilitate their Lordships' deliberations. Such being his opinion, he could not give his assent to the noble Earl's proposition, that the passing of the Bill should be deferred to another Session, believing as he did, that so far from any advantage being gained by such a proceeding, much inconvenience was likely to arise from the sort of agitation which might be excited. The noble Earl had stated, that the Bill ought to have been divided into three separate measures, two of which might have originated in that House. He could assure the noble Earl, that the expediency of dividing the Bill into separate enactments had not escaped the attention of Ministers; but after the most mature deliberation, it seemed advisable to them, that the whole subject should be taken together as one system, and that all its parts should be combined in the same Bill. He, however, understood from very good authority, that the noble Earl was misinformed as to the power of Government to originate any measure in that House, either relating to bastardy or settlement. Under these circumstances, he must press their Lordships to proceed to the consideration of the present Bill with as little delay as was consistent with its mature consideration, and with the due performance of the ditty which now devolved on them, of concurring with the other House in the settlement of this important question, which had been under discussion ever since he first entered Parliament, now nearly half a century ago. During that period the abuses and evils which had arisen from the Poor-laws, chiefly perhaps from their defective administration, had formed the subject of constant discussions and propositions; and now that a new system was submitted to Parliament, formed after the most careful deliberation, and which, if carried into effect, would, he believed, be attended with great advantage, he did trust that their Lordships, even if they should be obliged to extend their sittings to an unusal period, would apply themselves diligently to the consideration of the Bill, so that it might be

1071
passed into a law during the present Session. The remarks which the noble Earl had made relative to some of the provisions of the Bill were in his opinion rather premature; but to the principle of the Bill generally he did not understand that any objection was likely to be offered. Indeed, the evil arising from the present state of the Poor-laws was so generally admitted, and he believed not denied by the noble Earl himself, that he did not see how their Lordships could absolve themselves from the duty of making some attempt to remove or diminish it. It might be true, that that evil arose in a great degree from the mal-administration of the Poor-laws; and he was ready to admit that in parishes where they were well administered great improvements had been introduced. But he was sure, that when their Lordships looked to the state of the Poor-laws themselves, when they considered the different principles upon which those who had to administer those laws acted, and how difficult it was, to introduce improvements which had been effected in one parish into another where different notions and strong prejudices prevailed, they would not be indisposed to take into their deliberation a measure which was proposed with the view of putting an end to those inconveniences, to which the circumstances he had alluded gave rise. Considering the length of time the Report of the Commissioners and the Bill itself had been before the public, he did not think he was acting unreasonably in fixing the second reading of the Bill for as early a day as possible. After the second reading he should not object to some time intervening before carrying the Bill into the Committee, if any noble Lord should make a proposition to that effect.
The Marquess of Salisburywished the noble Earl to postpone the second reading to a later period than Monday next.
The Duke of Richmondwas inclined to agree with his noble friend, that it was right to take an early day for the second reading, else they would never get it into Committee. It should be recollected that the Bill did not go so far as the Commissioners proposed, and the second reading only pledged them to the principle of the Bill. He himself should not give his consent at once to every part of the Bill, but should wait till it got into Committee, and there form his opinion upon it, but he could not think that the consideration of
1072
it should be indefinitely put off. The second reading merely went to the principle of the Bill, and that principle was, that the Poor-laws should be amended, so that the honest and industrious labourer should be protected against maintaining the idle and dissolute. It was their duty to do all they could to reinstate the labourer in that situation in which he trusted to his honest exertions and industry, and did not apply on every occasion for parish relief.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, that his object was not what the noble Duke seemed to suppose, namely, to postpone the Bill indefinitely. He wanted more time given for its consideration. There were a number of clauses that showed that the principle of the Bill was nothing more than to institute a Central Board of Commissioners, and to take the management of the poor out of the hands of their natural guardians, and to give it to these Commissioners. More was proposed to be done than was necessary for the advantage of the poor, and an immense patronage was to be created, which was not required.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the chief point involved in this Bill was whether their Lordships should retain their properties or not. It was the opinion of the Commissioners, and in that opinion he concurred, that if this measure, or a measure similar to it, were not speedily adopted, the property of this country would shortly change hands. He did not think that this question ought to be made a subject of attack upon Ministers, or for divisions against the existing Government. He hoped the question would be taken into unbiassed and serious consideration by their Lordships, and that without delay. He trusted that it would not be allowed to stand over till next winter, or till any future Session of Parliament, nominally that their Lordships might have time to consider the subject, but actually in order that it might be made to answer the views of jobbers in vestries and local agitators in the country. If it were with a view that the question should be properly understood that the Motion for postponement was made, he should be the last man to oppose it, but as the delay was not necessary for that purpose, he hoped his noble friend would not consent to withdraw his Motion for the first reading of the Bill.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that al-

1073
though the Bill might not be calculated to alleviate all the evils of the present system of Poor-laws, yet the principle on which the measure was founded, undoubtedly was to reinstate, as far as possible, the labouring classes, in the condition which they enjoyed some few years ago. He was wrong, however, in saying a few years—for the object was, to bring them into the situation in which they were found about half a century ago. Such was the principle of the Bill as it left the hands of the Commissioners, and although it was altered in the other House of Parliament so as, in some manner, to impair its efficiency, yet he could not help thinking that the noble Earl had mistaken both the principles and machinery of the Bill. The Commissioners had recommended nothing but what had stood the test of experience, and which had been tried in large and important parishes, and been found to answer beyond the expectation of its most sanguine well-wishers. He, therefore, felt assured, that if the main principles of the Bill were adopted by their Lordships, they would do that which was consistent with the best principles of humanity, and the truest and soundest principles of economy.
Bill read a first time, and Tuesday was fixed for the second reading.