Sitting of 24 June 1834

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. LLOYD, from several Places, in favour of the Sale of Beer Act Amendment Bill; from some Places, against the University Admission Bill; from one Place, against the Separation of Church and State; and from Wingrave, against the Poor Law Amendment Bill.—By Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL, from several Places, for Protection to the Established Church.

COUNSEL FOR PRISONERS.
Mr. Ewart Mr. Ewart moved, and the House resolved itself into Committee on the Prisoners' Counsel Bill. On the first clause of the Bill being proposed,
Mr. Poulterwas extremely desirous to remove all inequality by which prisoners were affected, under any circumstances. If the hon. member for Liverpool would consent to strike out the last proviso in the clause, every inequality would be removed. The prisoner would be put upon the same footing with the prosecutor, by being left to the exercise of the same privilege the prosecutor possessed of addressing the Court by his Counsel, and thus many of the erroneous verdicts which were frequently returned would be avoided, and the time of the Court of King's Bench not occupied with applications to set them aside. Unless the hon. Member would consent to withdraw the proviso, he (Mr. Poulter) should feel it to be his duty to take the sense of the House upon it. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that all the words after "notwithstanding" to the end of the clause, be expunged.
Mr. Wynnsaid, the clause was objectionable on several grounds. Its effect would be, to prohibit the Counsel for the prosecution addressing the Jury, until after the depositions of the witnesses had been taken. But it must occur to every one at all conversant with the practice of criminal Courts, that in many cases of circumstantial evidence, there would be no possibility of obtaining a conviction, unless the Jury had pointed out to them previously by the Counsel, those strong points in the evidence of the witnesses which bore directly upon the charge in the indictment. He could mention a case where there could be no doubt entertained of the moral guilt of certain murderers, and yet it was impossible any conviction could have taken place, if the clause now under consideration had
822
been the law of the land. On these grounds he was very much opposed to the clause as it stood at present.
Sir William Raesaid, the English law contained a great many imperfections when contrasted with the criminal law of Scotland. He could not understand the principle on which the English form of indictment was maintained. It gave no information to the prisoner of the nature of the offence for which he was to be tried, or stated directly what the charge was, for which he was to be arraigned at the Bar. The form of indictment in Scotland, however, contained a most accurate and minute statement of the crime of which the prisoner stood charged; and the time and place of its committal, together with all the circumstances attending it, were set forth in such simple and clear terms as to be intelligible to every person who read it. All these circumstances were so necessary to be correctly stated in the indictment, that if the evidence adduced in support of it at the trial turned out to be different to the circumstances contained in the indictment, that fact alone would be a sufficient defence on the part of the prisoner to secure his acquittal. The indictment rendered the case as plain as any statement by Counsel could possibly be, and in some cases a great deal plainer. In another part of the criminal law of England, a great anomaly existed, and it appeared very difficult for him to understand why, in a charge for a misdemeanour only, the prisoner should be permitted to address the Court by his Counsel, but that in a case where the life of a prisoner was concerned, such a permission was granted to the prosecutor, and not to the prisoner. Was it right that Counsel should be allowed against a prisoner, and that none should be permitted to address the Court in his defence?
Viscount Howicksaid, it had been stated by the hon. member for Liverpool, that it would be most desirable, in effecting any alterations in the present law, to introduce no new or untried practice, but to let the new form of the proceedings in the trial of criminals be governed by some well-known forms that had undergone fair trial, and were found on experience to operate well. He thought after the statement which the House had just heard from the hon. and learned Member, the object of the hon. member for Liverpool would not be accomplished by the clause now under consideration: there would still be a great discrepancy between the criminal law of

823
Scotland and England. He was of opinion the form of practice which was introduced by the Bill of the hon. member for Liverpool, would lead to very great confusion and inconvenience. He agreed with the right hon. member for Montgomery, that a Jury having nothing to guide them in a long and complicated case, but being called on to listen to the lengthened depositions of a great number of witnesses, would not be able to come to such a sound and accurate conclusion, as they would if a concise and consecutive statement of the chief points of the evidence were made by the Counsel for the prosecution in the first instance. The hon. member for Liverpool had introduced this Bill with a view of getting rid of a great anomaly that existed in the process of criminal proceedings. He was of opinion that this clause, instead of destroying an anomaly, would create one. By far the simplest course would be, to omit the clause altogether, and to substitute a short clause, declaring that the form of proceeding in cases of felony should be the same as in cases of misdemeanour. This he thought would be much better than to meddle with the Law of Evidence. Subsequent improvements might easily be made, founded on experience, without encumbering the present Bill, if the mode of cross-examination now practised, should be found not to be the best mode of eliciting the truth.
Mr. Wynnwas of opinion it would be a much more judicious course to leave it to the discretion of the judges to decide in what cases counsel should be heard on the part of the prosecutor, and also on the part of the prisoner.
Mr. Eardley Wilmothad supported this Bill from feelings of humanity to the prisoner and justice to the public, and he could not help saying, that he considered this clause injurious to both, and on that ground he should oppose it. He had seen some thousand prisoners convicted in the course of twenty-eight years' experience, and he had never witnessed any conviction in which he believed the prisoner to be innocent. If this clause were permitted to pass, the time of the Court would be taken up with long speeches upon the indictment of every pickpocket who was brought before the Court; the feelings and passions of the jury would be appealed to, and a decision given that was not founded upon justice. He believed if the Bill passed in its present shape many innocent prisoners would be found guilty by the
824
Jury, and many guilty persons would escape.
Mr. Pollockstated, that Mr. Wilde informed him that during seven months of his shrievalty he had saved seven convicts from an ignominious death on the ground of their innocence alone. If this had been the case in seven months, it was alarming to consider what a number of innocent persons must have suffered in the course of years. The fact was, the prosecutor and the prisoner were not on a par. He thought if the Amendment of the noble Lord were adopted, without some check upon the counsel, the prisoner, instead of being benefitted, would be injured. Counsel had the power of placing a case much more strongly before a jury by means of an artful cross-examination in some cases, than by a regular address to the jury. He believed that justice would not be done to the prisoner unless he were allowed a reply upon the whole case, after the counsel for the prosecution should have observed upon the evidence on the part of the prisoner; and this was the opinion of a high legal authority. He did not think, if this was permitted, so much time would be occupied in making the speeches as was already consumed in the cross-examination of witnesses.
Mr. Ewartsaid, that one great object of the Bill was, to give the prisoner a reply on the prosecutor; let there be speech for speech, but not two speeches for one, and let the judge be merely an arbiter between the parties. He would propose an Amendment which would have this effect, allowing the statement of counsel to take precedence of the evidence, and this he thought would meet all the wishes that had been expressed.
Sir George Greyexpressed his full concurrence in the principle of the Bill, and was of opinion, after giving the subject his best consideration, that the most efficient way of carrying that principle into effect would be by the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord Howick). He considered the Amendment just proposed by the hon. member for Liverpool quite useless, as it must be evident to every one acquainted with the proceedings in criminal cases, that there was a very wide difference between the opening speech for the prosecution, and the speech which a counsel would make on the behalf of a prisoner.
Mr. Hillconcurred in the general principle of the Bill, but thought justice would not be done to the prisoner in a criminal

825
case unless he had a right of reply upon the speech of the counsel for the prosecution.
Sir George Stricklandthought, that it was most desirable that as little change should take place in the existing forms as possible in carrying the Amendment into effect. If an opening speech was allowed to the counsel for the prosecution, he agreed with the hon. member for Liverpool, the prisoner should enjoy the privilege of answering that speech by means of counsel. Great injury would be done to the prisoner by allowing the counsel for the prosecution a right of reply. Why, he asked, was the House so niggard of this trifle of mercy to the prisoner? For many years past, instances had continually occurred of the execution of innocent men. Would the House consent to the continuance of such lamentable occurrences? He attended a trial himself, and left it with a full conviction of the man's innocence. Had a counsel addressed the jury in his behalf, he must have been acquitted, but he had been a witness of that man's execution. Such dreadful consequences he wished to arrest, and therefore he should vote with the hon. member for Liverpool.
Mr. Bernalapprehended it was impossible to make a mathematical equalization of the right of addressing the Court by Counsel in every case. The case was surrounded with difficulties; but if an equal advantage could not be given to both parties, it became the duty of the House, if a preponderance must exist, to let it fall on the side of the accused. They ought not to lose sight of the old maxim, that it was better to let ten guilty men escape than to make one innocent man suffer.
Mr. Charles Bullerwas of opinion that the effect of the suggestion of the hon. and learned member for Huntingdon, that counsel should make two speeches, would render them very desirous to avoid making any.
An Amendment was moved by Mr. Pollock to the effect, that in all criminal cases the party accused shall have the liberty to defend himself by counsel, provided, that if evidence should be given on the part of the defence, and the prosecutor's counsel should reply upon such evidence, then the defendant's counsel should have a right of addressing the Court upon the whole case. Agreed to.
Sir Eardley Wilmot Sir Eardley Wilmot moved that a proviso be added to the clause, that unless the
826
counsel against a prisoner shall have made a speech for the prosecution, the counsel for a prisoner shall not address the Jury in his defence.
The Committee divided—Ayes 25; Noes 32; Majority 7.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Colonel Williamsrose to complain of a breach of privilege. "This morning," said the hon. Member, "as I was coming hither, I was interrupted in my progress and prevented from obtaining entrance into the House by troops in the streets and by a party of police blocking up its principal avenue. I endeavoured to get by the soldiers, and went down a little way below the door of the House, thinking that out of courtesy they would leave an opening for a member of Parliament. I was obliged, however, to return, and I returned along the line of soldiers and police, hoping and expecting that I should be able to come here. I found no means of getting here save through the lines of the police. As I was attempting to pass through, one of the police constables stopped me, and said, that I should not pass. I told him, that I must pass, as I was a member of Parliament. The constable replied 'It don't signify, you can't pass here.' This created some disturbance among the people round, and excited the attention of a person whom I take to have been a superintendent of police. I represented to him that I was a member of Parliament, on which he immediately said 'You must be permitted to go—you can cross here.' I cannot help thinking that it is an obstruction which ought not to be allowed—namely, the lining with troops the principal avenues of entrance to this House. Why are we to pass through a bristle of bayonets, and why, in avoiding them, are we to be exposed to the truncheons of the constables? I very much wish to know whether such practices are not unconstitutional. I think they are. I know no justification for assembling troops in this manner before the House. I know the reason why they were assembled to-day; but I think the troops are ordered out on such occasions too often. I would remind those in high situations of the saying of that glorious Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth, who declared that her subjects were her best guards. I shall end my complaint, by a Motion for an address to the Crown, which I trust will elicit the information whether an opening was ordered to be left this day for

827
members of Parliament to enter this House. I should also like to know by whose orders it was, that the avenues were obstructed."
Mr. Henry L. Bulwer, in rising to second the Motion, said, that he did not consider it one of peculiar interest. It was not, however, useless to call the attention of the House to the conduct of the police that day, which he must say had been brutal and disgusting. The hon. member for Ashton was stopped by them; he had himself been stopped by them twice, very insolent and brutal language had been employed by them towards him, and such conduct ought not in his opinion to pass without notice from the House. Without entering further into the arguments of the hon. member for Ashton, he would observe, that it was as necessary and of as much importance that members of the House of Commons should come down without obstruction to that place to do their duty to the people, as it was that any other person, be his rank or dignity what it might, should go without obstruction on a party of pleasure. He thought that the Speaker, and every gentleman then in the House, would see the necessity of preserving the importance of the House in the importance of its humblest members. He concluded by seconding the Motion of Colonel Williams.
Lord Howicksaid, that he had heard with great regret, that the hon. member for Coventry had that day been exposed to ill-treatment from the police. Still he thought that those who were responsible for the management of the police had reason to complain of the course pursued by the hon. member for Coventry. If, instead of making a formal complaint to the House, the hon. Member had first complained to those who were responsible for the conduct of the police ["Oh! oh!"]. Hon. Gentlemen might exclaim "Oh! oh!" but he thought that they would agree with him, that it was almost impossible to prevent a case of individual misconduct from occurring sometimes among so large a force. He was sure, that the House at large—and still more, that the Members of the Committee now engaged in examining into the constitution of the police of the metropolis—would agree with him, when he stated, that there was every disposition on the part of the authorities to check in the most decisive manner every case of misconduct on the part of the police. Brought before the House as the case had been by the hon. member for Coventry, the House could
828
have no opportunity of hearing what was to be said on the other side. If the hon. Member had only favoured him with a statement of his complaint, he would have taken care to learn, for the information of the House, what could be said on the other side. At all events, it would have saved the time of the House if the hon. Member had made his complaint to the Commissioners of Police, by whom it would have been immediately investigated, and by whom, if any case of misconduct had been discovered, the individuals guilty of it would have been instantly dismissed. As to the inconvenience which had that day been suffered by Members of Parliament coming down to the House, he had learned it, he must say, with surprise. He had himself come down to the House within twenty minutes after his Majesty had first gone by, and had found no difficulty whatever in getting into the House. This was all that he now found it necessary to state; but of course a proper examination would be instantly commenced into the subject matter of this complaint.
Mr. Henry Lytton Bulwerhoped, that he might be permitted to say a few words in explanation. He thought, that before the noble Lord who had just sat down had made such a speech as that which he had just delivered, he should have known what had been said by those to whom he was professing to give an answer. The complaint against the police had not been brought forward by him, but by another hon. Member. On that complaint being brought forward, he had stood up to state what he had seen and experienced himself in the course of the day. He hoped that he might be permitted to make another observation, though it was not strictly in the way of explanation. He did not think it consistent either with the dignity of that House, or with the dignity of its Members, that they should go up and down hunting out the noble Lord as a receptacle for their complaints, when the insult of which they complained was not so much an insult to themselves personally, as an insult to the House.
Mr. Warburtonobserved, that the noble Lord had told the House, that he had come down to it shortly after his Majesty had arrived at the Abbey. Now, he (Mr. Warburton) had come down to it about ten minutes before his Majesty's arrival at the Abbey, and, like the noble Lord, he had met with nothing in the shape of obstruction. This, however, after the positive evidence

829
of two hon. Members, was not sufficient to prove a negative. It was therefore possible that obstruction had been given to two hon. Members, upon whose evidence he begged it to be understood that he did not mean to cast the slightest doubt, though obstruction had not been given to the noble Lord or to himself. He must however tell the noble Lord, that the course pursued on this occasion by the hon. and gallant Officer, the member for Ashton, was by no means singular, for many Members would recollect that a noble Lord, not now a Member of this House, but formerly member for Yorkshire (Earl Fitzwilliam) on meeting an obstruction from the Guards of his late Majesty in Pall-mall, as he was coming down to the House, made a formal complaint of it to Parliament. He must say, with their Standing Order staring them in the face, that the avenues to both Houses of Parliament should be kept clear. The proper place for any Member who had met with an obstruction to make his complaint in, was before the Speaker in the House of Commons.
Mr. O'Connell: Are we to appeal to the Commissioners of Police when we meet with obstructions as we come down to the House to perform our public functions? and are not you, Sir, the fit protector of the privileges of the Commons of England, when they are obstructed in the discharge of their duties? This music-shop which is opened over the way, is not to be an impediment to us ["Oh! oh!"] I don't care for your crying "Oh! oh!" It is not a ceremony belonging to the State—it is not a prerogative attached to the Crown—if it were, we should all be ready to protect and attend it. We have now before us the unequivocal evidence of two Members of Parliament, who were impeded by the soldiery and police in coming down to the House; and it is inconsistent with the Constitution, that we should make our complaints on that score to any noble Lord, however high in office, or to any Commissioners of Police, however well paid. It is your province, Sir, as I know it is your wish, to vindicate our privileges; and we are not to be turned round to a Police Commissioner, when a Breach of Privilege has undoubtedly been committed.
The Speaker: Having been so distinctly appealed to by the hon. and learned member for Dublin, I must premise by stating, that I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not wish—for he could not expect—that I should give an opinion upon
830
the merits of this complaint. The hon. and learned Gentleman states very distinctly, that the privileges of the House are to be maintained by the House. The Speaker is the servant of the House; and if the hon. and gallant member for Ashton had not thought proper to save the Speaker the trouble of noticing this matter to the House by complaining of it himself, it would have been the duty of the Speaker to have mentioned it to the House. But as to expressing an opinion upon the course to be pursued by the House in consequence of the complaint, that is a duty which the House has never yet devolved upon the Speaker, and I hope that so heavy a burthen will never be devolved upon me so long as I have the honour of filling this Chair. The hon. and learned Member, no doubt, adverts to our Sessional Order, that the avenues to this House are to be kept clear. That Order having been made, it is incumbent upon the High Constable of Westminster, and upon all his subordinate officers of police, to see that it be carried into execution. As to any particular case in which that Order has been infringed, whether it be in the case of hon. Members who have been obstructed by parties not knowing them, or by accident, that is matter of inquiry for the House. Hon. Members do right in bringing their complaints here; but, having said that, I am sure that there is not one man now present who would not object to the Speaker's rising to give his opinion upon the merits of them.
Lord John Russelladmitted, that in any case where the privileges of the House had been infringed in the person of an hon. Member, that Member had a full right to make his complaint in the House. The only question in this particular instance was, as to the course which the hon. Member might think it best to pursue. His own opinion was, and he knew nothing more of the case than what he had heard from the hon. Member, that time should be allowed for inquiry, whether the interruption had been caused through ignorance, by some policeman totally unacquainted with his duties, or whether it took the appearance of an intentional, and therefore a grave infraction of the privileges of the House. He thought it right that inquiry should be made into the subject, but he also thought it right that the hon. and gallant member for Ashton should refrain from making any Motion upon it, or should adjourn the Motion which he had already made, until a state-

831
ment had been received as to the circumstances under which the interruption had been given by the police. If it should turn out that there were one or two individuals who from ignorance had offended, the hon. Member would take the course which he might think proper; but if it should turn out that there had been an intentional infringement of the privileges of Parliament, it would be the duty of the House to take it up.
Mr. Robinsonstated his belief, that the obstruction which arose this morning, and which might occur again on the three subsequent days if steps were not taken to prevent it, had been occasioned by a file of soldiers stationed on each side of the street opposite to the House. There was no occasion for having soldiers stationed nearer the Abbey than Bridge-street, and he thought that if the duty of preserving order was left to the police there would be no ground of complaint.
Mr. Henry Lytton Bulwerexpressed his belief that there had been no intentional obstruction or infringement of the privileges of Members, and recommended the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion.
Colonel Williamsinformed the noble Lord, who appeared to mistake the hon. member for Coventry's share in the question for his, that he was the Mover of the Resolution. Although the noble Lord might be known and allowed to pass, he had been impeded. He repeated that he had experienced obstruction; he had stated the facts roundly, and explained to the House his whole progress, downwards and upwards. He did not attempt to break through the ranks of the soldiers; on the contrary, he very submissively walked in their rear, till he came near the House, and then the outrage took place. The obstruction was unjustifiable. There was no occasion for having any street, particularly that leading to the House of Commons, lined with bayonets. He was willing to accede to his hon. friend's suggestion and withdraw the Motion. He hoped, however, that the matter would be taken into consideration. His object was, to get at the parties who had given the improper orders.
Viscount Howickcertainly did pay rather more attention to the hon. member for Coventry than to the gallant Mover, because it appeared that the statement of the former Gentleman was more serious, as involving the use of brutal language to Members of the House. It seemed that as
832
soon as the superintendent came up, way was made for the hon. Member. If any policeman had mistaken his orders, or misconducted himself, no doubt he would be reprimanded. He promised that inquiry should be made into the subject.
Motion withdrawn.

EAST-INDIA PRODUCE.
Mr. Ewartrose to bring forward his Motion, relative to the duties on East-India produce. This was the second time he presented himself to the House for the purpose of pressing on them the justice and the necessity of removing that inequality of duties which now affected their fellow-subjects in the East Indies. If the Motion should not be assented to now, he would bring it forward Session after Session, until justice should be done to the natives of India, and to the manufacturers and consumers of Great Britain. Several inhabitants of Calcutta presented a Petition to that House, praying that the duties on sugar and rum should be equalized; and this petition was supported subsequently by a petition from the East-India Company itself, and recommended by the Committee of their own House which sat two years back on trade and commerce. The Report of that Committee recommended five things; first, the opening of the China trade; secondly, that the East-India Company should cease to act as a trading Company; thirdly, that the transit duties should be repealed; but their principal recommendation was, that the duties on sugar, rum, tobacco, and coffee, the produce of the East Indies, should be equalized. The first duty, that on sugar, was, however, by far the most important. It amounted to 32 s. a-hundred, while the duty on West-India sugar was only 24 s. This article might be successfully cultivated throughout the immense territory of Hindostan, but was comparatively neglected in consequence of so onerous a duty. The capacity of the country to produce this article had been abundantly proved before Committees of that House, and the inhabitants only wanted encouragement and civilization to produce it to any extent. Their machinery for pressing the cane was at present, from want of encouragement, of the worst description. This boon could not be much longer refused, now that Englishmen were at liberty to settle in India. The cultivation of sugar there was stationary since 1810; while in the Mauritius, in consequence of the equalization of the duties with those on West-

833
India produce, it had increased five-fold within the same period. The amount of sugar now produced all over the East-India possessions was not more than four times the quantity of beet-root sugar produced in France alone. The West-India sugar was decreasing in quantity. They could not send sufficient to this country. These duties operated most mischievously on the sugar-refining business. The sufferings of the sugar manufacturers were great, and the sugar-refining trade was migrating to other countries, where it met with no restrictions, but, on the contrary, received protection. Many sugar manufacturers had stopped their work during the last year, and the number of pans employed in sugar-refining had considerably diminished even since Christmas last. Our machines were going to the United States of America. where they would be employed for the benefit of that country, and to the disadvantage of this country. He really did not know how long the Government meant to refuse to intercede in favour of the sugar-refiners. The next article on which there was a restrictive duty was the important article of coffee. The duty on East-India coffee was fifty per cent higher than that produced in the West-India colonies. The duty on West-India coffee was only 6d. per pound, while a duty of 9d. per pound was levied on coffee the product of the East-Indies. In fact, for fifty years East-India coffee had to pay a duty of 2s. He trusted, that the time was fast approaching when such a system of injustice would be done away with. Coffee the produce of Jamaica, which was consumed by the rich only, paid a duty of seventy per cent, while on Ceylon coffee, which would be consumed by the poor, a duty of no less than 260 per cent was levied. Was that right or just? What was worse, the West-India colonies did not produce sufficient coffee for the consumption of this country, as was admitted last year by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade. When such was the fact, why should those restrictive duties be continued so long? In the countries where such duties did not exist, the consumption of coffee had materially increased. In the United States it had doubled within the last five years, and it might be said, that an inhabitant of America drank four times as much coffee as an inhabitant of Great Britain. This was to be attributed to the different scale of duties. East-Indian coffee was of inferior quality to West-Indian, and
834
yet it was loaded with a heavier duty; so that the tax was greatly prejudicial to the poor, who, but for it, might be able to purchase the cheaper article. He would suggest, that the duty on the low-priced East-India coffee should not be higher than that placed on the superior coffee of the West-India colonies. It was difficult to discriminate the different kinds of tea, yet he saw with surprise that an attempt was made in the late Act to discriminate them, in order to apply a graduated ad valorem duty to each different kind. It would be much easier to discriminate the different sorts of sugar and coffee, and common justice called for such a distinction being made. The next article on which there was a discriminating duty was tobacco. On East-India tobacco there was a duty of 3s. per pound, whilst on that imported from the North American colonies the duty was only 2s. 9d. a pound. He could not see the necessity of this difference in duty, since tobacco came exclusively from the United States, so that there were no colonies to protect by this duty. The same might be nearly said of East-India cigars, since the duty they paid was the same as that imposed on Havannah cigars, and this when cheroots were of an inferior quality to Cubas. He would now come to the articles of pepper and pimento. The latter was a West-India production, the former came from the East Indies. The same duty ought to be placed upon both articles, yet the duty on pepper was ls., while that on pimento was 5d. A reduction had taken place lately in the duties on both articles, the consequence of which was, that the consumption of them had increased. The same thing had taken place with respect to rice since the duty on it had been reduced. If the duty on coffee were reduced, the consumption of it would likewise increase. The next article on which there was a discriminating duty was rum. The duty on West-India rum was 9s. per gallon, whilst East-India rum was subject to a duty of 15 s. per gallon. That was one of the articles referred to in the petition from Calcutta to which he had alluded in the beginning of his speech. If the people of those countries were encouraged to produce such commodities, why in the name of justice was not a market afforded to them? He thought that the West-Indians would have been a little more grateful for the generosity of this country in granting them 20,000,000 l., and that they would have ceased their complaints,

835
and been willing to abandon their monopoly. He hoped that this would be the last time he would have to appeal on this subject to the House; that Government between the present and next Session would take the subject into their consideration, and sweep away all those discriminating duties. The hon. Member concluded by moving—"That the rates of duty imposed on articles the produce of our Eastern possessions ought, with the least possible delay, to be reduced to an equality with the rates levied on articles the produce of the other possessions of Great Britain."
Mr. O'Connell Mr. O'Connell moved, that the House be counted, and the House was counted out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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