Sitting of 13 March 1834

MINUTES.
New Writ ordered. On the Motion of Mr. FRANKLAND LEWIS, for the Borough of Thirsk, in the room of Sir R. FRANKLAND, who has accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.
Petitions presented. By Sir RICHARD VYVIAN, from Derby, against any Measures likely to weaken the Efficiency of the Established Church.—By Sir HENRY HARDINGE, from Launceston, for Relief from Taxation; and by Mr. BEILBY THOMSON, from Bridlington, to the same effect.—By Sir JOHN JOHNSTONE, from the Medical Practitioners of Scarborough, holding Edinburgh Diplomas, for the Repeal of the Apothecaries Act.—By Mr. WILBRAHAM, GUEST, WYNN, and Alderman WOOD, from the Dissenters of several Places,—for Relief.—By Sir HENRY PARNELL and Mr. MURRAY, from Dundee and Leith,—for the Repeal of the Reciprocity of Duties Act.—By Mr. O'DWYER, from four Places, against Tithes; and for the Repeal of the Union.—By Mr. CURTEIS, from two Places, for the Abolition of Slavery.—By Mr. TALBOT, from Glamorganshire, against any Alteration in the Corn Laws; and from the Shipowners of Sunderland, for a Continuance of the Protecting Duty on the Exportation of Coal.—By Mr. BRISCOE, from several Parishes, for the Repeal of the House and Window Taxes.—By Mr. GILLON, from Falkirk, for the Repeal of the Duty on Baltic Timber; and from Fruchie, for the Exclusion of the Bishops from the House of Lords.—By Mr. A. JOHNSTON, from several Places, against the Tithes on Fish levied at Leith and Newhaven.—By Sir H. PARNELL, from the Carters of Dundee, for the Repeal of the Tax on Horses.—By Mr. S. LEFEVRE, from the Coroners of Southampton, for an Augmentation of their Fees.—By Mr. O'DWYER, from Drogheda, for an Inquiry into the State of the Corporation of that Town.—By Mr. CORTEIS, from a Number of Places, against Tithes.—By Colonel LEITH HAY, Sir H. PARNELL, and Messrs. C. FERGUSSON, GILLON, and A. JOHNSTON, from a Number of Places,—for the Abolition of Lay Patronage in Scotland.—By Sir OSWALD MOSLEY, and Messrs. H. HUGHES, and PENDARVES, from several Places,—for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Sir CHARLES BLUNT, Colonel EDWARDS, Sir OSWALD MOSLEY, Sir T. FREEMANTLE, Sir H. VERNEY, and Messrs. PENDARVES, GREENE, BAINES, GROTE, H. CURTEIS, DUFFIELD, POTTER, BRISCOE, FORSTER, TYNTE, THICKNESSE, HARDY, TALBOT, C. BULLER, and Sir GEORGE STAUNTON, from a Number of Congregations of Dissenters,—for Relief.

METROPOLITAN POLICE.
Mr. Claypresented a Petition from the parish of St. George, in the county of Middlesex, complaining of the institution of the me-
126
tropolitan police, as being at variance with the principles of the British constitution. He did not think it right at present to enter into any discussion of the merits of this force. This petition, as well as other circumstances, showed that great dislike for the force prevailed throughout a considerable portion of the metropolis. He believed, however, that there were many parishes in the metropolis where this feeling did not exist to the same extent. It was his own opinion that, with proper regulations, the force might be made a valuable institution, and it had very great advantage over the old watch system, in possessing the power of acting with combined strength. Nothing was more necessary than that a force established for purposes such as these, should have the goodwill, confidence, and support of the community amongst whom they were placed, and for whose benefit and protection they were established. The efficiency of such an establishment must depend in a great measure upon its possessing the confidence of the public.
Sir Samuel Whalleythought it very desirable that the Government should turn its attention to diminish the expense of the metropolitan police. It was an efficient force, and he believed, that the principal cause of the dislike entertained towards it in the metropolis, was the great increase of the parochial expenses since its institution. He was glad to see the noble Lord, the Under Secretary for the Home Department in his place, as he might have an opportunity of removing an apprehension which was very generally felt abroad, that the Committee which had been appointed this Session, to inquire into the constitution, management, and expenditure of the police, was not fairly formed. Neither of the members for Westminster was upon that Committee. Nor was he, although he represented two of the most populous parishes in the metropolis. His learned colleague, indeed, had been put upon the Committee, but that Gentleman had not half the leisure to devote to the inquiry that he had.
Viscount Howickdenied, that there was anything unfair in the manner in which the Committee had been appointed. Last Session a Committee had been named, to which not the slightest objection had been made. The Committee had proceeded to investigate, but were unable to

127
bring their labours to a close; and, in pursuance of the recommendation of that Committee, another had been appointed, and he (Lord Howick) had copied the list of last Session, merely substituting for the names of three or four Gentlemen, who were unable to attend, the names of other persons, who, he had reason to believe, would attend. He thought, therefore, that the assertion of the hon. member for Marylebone, relative to the appointment of that Committee, was unfair and uncalled for. The statement made by the same hon. Member, with respect to the expense of the police force, he must also say, was a little premature, as he could assure the House that that establishment had been managed with the greatest economy. Any person who looked to the services rendered by that body, would at once admit that the money it cost had not been thrown away.
Colonel Evansdid not think the explanation of the noble Lord very satisfactory; but he was bound to thank the noble Lord for not having taken up his time, by putting him upon the Committee. He should not be the less acceptable to his constituents, and especially to the popular party, for not having been appointed by the Government upon a single Committee. There was a Committee last year upon East-Indian affairs, and he was excluded from it, although, there was but one other military man who knew as much of India as he (Colonel Evans) knew. Again, there was a Committee upon the military establishments, and from that also, the Ministers did him the honour to exclude him, though that could not be on account of his want of experience. He had, therefore, to thank the noble Lord for giving him that opportunity of showing that there could be but little reason for the supposition, which he had understood was beginning to prevail, that he was about to ally himself to the Government. But, still he thought that it was, to say the least of it, indiscreet to exclude the metropolitan Members from an inquiry in which the metropolis was so much concerned. However, for his own part, he could only thank the noble Lord for having spared him a duty, to which, if it had devolved upon him, he would have given his best attention. He entirely concurred in what had been said by the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets, and he knew, that throughout the whole of
128
the metropolis, there was a feeling towards the police, similar to that expressed by the petitioners. That feeling was not political—and, it was admitted, that the police was an efficient force. But a great jealousy was felt, that so large a military body, uniting, too, a system of espionage with their military character, should be under an irresponsible control, and at the disposal of the Minister for the time. The expense, too, was a great matter of objection. He did not know what was the object of the Committee. He believed that it had been appointed before he and the hon. member for Marylebone had been returned—but he thought that they ought to have been added to it since. He did not know what was its object; but, he knew that it was the practice of Government, when it wanted to be proved that a strong feeling abroad was unfounded, to form a Committee of persons favourable to the views of the Government. But, from what he had seen of the noble Lord's (Lord Howick's) political conduct, he believed that, if the noble Lord gave his attention to the subject, he would make considerable improvements in the system. He did not believe that any desire was felt to return to the old system of the watch, but to place the police under some local control.
Sir Robert Peelreminded the House that the Committee had been appointed at the suggestion of the hon. member for Middlesex; and, as to its composition, he was sure, there could be no objection to placing upon it either of the hon. Members, or any other hon. Member who expressed a desire to be upon it. But he hoped the House would suspend its judgment, both upon the expense and the administration of the metropolitan police, till the Report of the Committee was made. It was denounced as an expensive force; but the term "expensive" was relative, and, in order to find out its value in the present case, they must first inquire whether the number of the men employed was greater than was necessary to preserve the peace of the metropolis. They must next ascertain whether their dress was too expensive, or the pay higher than it ought to be; or whether it was made a source of patronage, which he was sure it was not, the object being to secure as efficient persons as possible. If it should be found upon inquiry, that efficient men could be secured for less pay, he was sure there

129
could be no desire on the part of the Committee to maintain it at its present amount. At the same time, he must observe, that it was exceedingly desirable that the pay should be such as to preserve them from the necessity of enlisting only scamps into the service. The police ought to be men of respectability, for they were intrusted with the discharge of a very great and most important duty, and were often called upon to exercise considerable discretion. It was essential, he thought, that the Government should be responsible for the direction of the police, which it could not be, if the parochial authorities were permitted to interfere with it. Indeed, if that took place, all the responsibility would be destroyed, for the Commissioners could not be responsible, the Government could not be responsible, nor in times of commotion or turbulence would it be possible to make a number of separate and distinct parochial authorities responsible for not acting together with uniformity of purpose and object. Considering, at the same time, that his Majesty's Government defrayed a portion, and that not a small one, of this force, it was not unreasonable for it, on that score, to claim the control which it possessed. He would, however, suggest to the noble Lord, to place upon the Committee any Gentleman who expressed a desire to that effect, of course not allowing those who had peculiar views to obtain an unjust preponderance.
Major Beauclerksaid, the petitioners did not complain of the efficiency of the police force; they objected to the expense, and they called upon Government to look into this expense. He thought that this was a most reasonable request. They said too, that it ought not to be under the control of the Home-Office, and in that he fully concurred. He contended that it was a most dangerous principle to allow the force to be under the control of the Home Department. He admitted, that, under the right hon. Gentleman's administration, or even under the present Government, it might not be dangerous to allow such a force to be under the control of the Home-Office, but the time might come when it would be most dangerous to allow the Home-Office to have any such powerful control whatever over the metropolitan police. He believed, that a Central Board chosen from all the parishes would be the better course to adopt,
130
giving it full power over the men; and he was sure, that greater attention would be paid to the expense arising out of the maintenance of this force, by a Board consisting of individuals selected from the various parishes, than by the Government. He did not, nor did the petitioners, say that these men were too well paid. On the contrary, he believed that many bad men obtained an entrance into the force in consequence of the pay not being sufficient to induce men of good character to accept situations in it. But he complained, that there were too many men belonging to the police, and the number could be lessened, without the efficiency of the force being in the slightest degree impaired.
Mr. Cayleysaid, that 60,000 l. had been voted last year for the maintenance of a force which was created for purely local purposes. He thought that the country at large ought not to be saddled with a tax from which it derived no benefit. He did not mean to deny the utility of such an establishment in the Metropolis, but he thought the expense ought to be borne by the inhabitants.
Mr. Hawessaid, that the Committee of last year were unanimous in their approval of the manner in which the metropolitan police was regulated, not only in the economical management of the funds appropriated to that service, but also of the excellent system of discipline under which the men were governed. The only improvement which the Committee thought might be effected, was that of giving the sole control of the force to the Commissioners, and taking it from under the control of the Home-Office.
Sir Henry Hardingewas of opinion, that the police corps and the Commissioners should be under the control of the Government; but, at the same time, he thought that the selection of men, and all matters of discipline and internal management, should be under the control of the Commissioners, and not be interfered with by the Government. Indeed, that was what he understood was to be the case when the force was established. In cases of meetings of Trades' Unions and other bodies, from which riots might be apprehended, it was necessary that the Government should have some control over the force, otherwise it would place too high a responsibility on the Commissioners.
Petition laid on the Table.

BISHOPS IN PARLIAMENT.
Mr. Rippourose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for relieving the Archbishops and Bishops of the Established Church from their Legislative and Judicial Duties in the House of Peers. The hon. Member spoke to the following effect:—I am aware than an anneal to the indulgent consideration of this House may be deemed the customary preface of every unpractised Member; but I can truly aver, that looking to the importance of the subject I am about to bring under its notice, and knowing the feebleness of my ability to do justice to its merits, I am Only sustained in my undertaking by a reliance on that generous and impartial feeling, which will not underestimate the worthiness of a measure by reason or the inefficient arguments of its humble proposer. I am not incited by desire of popularity, or love of novelty. I offer this proposition with a sincere and long-formed conviction of its necessity and its justice. I wish to irritate no private feelings. I desire to enlist no party passion. I will endeavour to state my opinions calmly, fairly, and briefly. It is unnecessary at this day to cite authorities showing the propriety of Church Reform, but I cannot for bar calling the attention of the House to the opinions of one for whose Conservative wisdom they will entertain sincere respect—I mean Lord Bacon—who, then addressing his Royal Master on the "better pacification and edification or the Church of England," thus expresses himself;—"I would only ask why the civil state should be purged and restored by good and wholesome laws, made every third or fourth year, in Parliament assembled, devising remedies as fast as time breedeth mischief, and contrariwise, the ecclesiastical state should still continue upon the dregs of time, and receive no alteration now for these forty five years and more?" Two hundred years, Sir, have since passed away, and the Establishment continues "upon the dregs of time;" a revolt has now taken place in the minds of men; the intelligent community loudly demand a reform in the Church Establishment, and it is the duty of this House to examine into that institution. and make it satisfactory to the views of the people. I maintain, Sir, that it is the first duty of Civil Government to afford satisfaction to those by whose voluntary obedience it is instituted and maintained, and never forget the immense importance of timely concession. Observe the signs of growing discontent; reform your system
132
before the period of agitation arrives, for then it may be done with more effect and with a better grace. Remember the Reformation advanced by the determined non-compliance of its supporters, and be assured, that no resistance to national grievance is so invincible as a calm resolution not to obey. I will not fatigue the patience of the House by referring to periods long passed by. I will not consider whether the right of Bishops to sit in Parliament is by prescription, or in respect of fictional baronies. I will not discuss whether they sat in the Saxon Courts as Judges or as Peace-makers. I will not debate the Clerical position, that the Lords Spiritual at this day firm a third and independent estate in the other House of Parliament; I will not search the records of history to discover a precedent for my present measure. Time, Sir, changes the position of circumstances, and it also increases the capacity of the human mind to judge soundly on public affairs; for this reason, therefore, I prefer the judgment of our own age to that of any by-gone period. I must entreat the House to bear in mind this one important fact, that the superior knowledge and education of the clergy in all countries and at all times have enabled them to maintain a delusive influence over an ignorant and superstitions people; and formerly in this country, when the Laity gave little consideration but to feats of arms and hospitality—when nobles were unlettered, and Kings could scarcely sign their names, the Clergy became desirable, if not necessary, adjutors in Civil Government. From the time of Beckett to that of Sir Thomas More, a period of nearly 450 years, the office of Chancellor, or Lord keeper, the highest civil office in the state, was filled almost uniformly by an ecclesiastic, and prior to the Reformation there sat in the other House of Parliament two Archbishops, twenty-four Bishops, twenty-six or twenty-seven mitred Abbots, and two Priors—in all, a body of fifty-four or fifty-five ecclesiastical persons, nearly equalling in their number the temporal nobility of that time. The cause which formerly warranted this practice exists no longer. That which was then desirable is now useless, and if continued will become dangerous. I offer this as a first step in Church Reform. I consider that it is our duty to begin with the heads of the Establishment, and thus show to the inferior clergy our impartiality and our justice; by this means we shall strengthen the effect

133
of our future measures in regard to them, by evidence of our sincere and honest course in respect of the hierarchy. I ask this House, Sir, to consider and decide whether it be meet and useful that the heads of a Christian Church, whose duty it is to retire from the world, not meddling in affairs of State, whose profession is humility, whose denouncement hath been the pomps and vanities of this wicked world—is it proper, that such should be made agents in political affairs, and clothed with temporal splendor?—is it right to impose legislative duties upon those who are set apart from the rest of the people for the service of God, whose proper business is the care of the churches committed to their charge? What are the crying evils of the present system?—Pluralities, non-residence, and unequal distribution of wealth. You create a plurality of duties by placing political power in the hands of spiritual teachers. You cause non-residence by requiring the absence of the overseer from his diocese to attend his duties in Parliament; and by the same act you afford an excuse for the unequal apportionment of wealth; by the ever ready plea of extraordinary expenses created by this political abduction; you bring them, bedizened with the splendor of title, to mix in the amusements of a metropolis—to mingle in the plots and jobs of Government intrigue; you tempt them to gratify pride, avarice, luxury, and indolence; you shower wealth and splendor upon them; you forget they are but men. Before I proceed further with my objections, I will, with the leave of the House, examine the merits of that argument ever employed in defence of the practice of Bishops sitting in the House of Lords, that by so doing they represent the Clergy, and thus watch over the spiritual and temporal interests of the Church. In the first place, let me ask, are the Bishops chosen by the Clergy? No, they are ordained and virtually appointed by the Crown. How then can a Bishop be called the representative of his Clergy, when they have no voice in his election—when he is, in fact, a mere State-made Father in God? Have they any veto in ecclesiastical questions? Can they enjoin one rite or ceremony? Can they establish or annul one article of faith? No, Sir, all power and jurisdiction relating to these matters is lodged in the bands of the King and Parliament. Is it not then preposterous to suppose that thirty united voices in an assembly of more than 400 persons can have any controlling influence? Does not
134
reason assure us, that all just and proper measures for the government of the Church, which might be recommended by the Bishops out of Parliament, would be received with equal attention by both Houses of Legislature, and by the people with less suspicion and distrust than when advocated in the Senate by interested parties, to whom public feeling is frequently adverse? Besides, be it remembered, the Clergy, equally as the members of our other institutions, enjoy the right of voting as free-holders in respect of their property for the election of representatives in this House; and if the advice or opinion of the Church upon ecclesiastical matters were required in another place, let the Bishops be summoned in the same manner as the Judges. The only advantages that I can discover in the present system, if such the friends of the Establishment deem them to be, are these—that the Church obtains a share in Civil Government, and the Chief Magistrate has control over spiritual concerns. Thus one usurpation is balanced by another. The power of appointing to the Episcopal Bench is placed in the hands of a minister, and we know that private interest, political intrigue, and courtly favour, have sometimes offered stronger recommendation than pious worth. The system of translation makes them, in a certain degree, dependent on ministerial favour, and subjects them to the trying temptation of yielding their integrity to their interest. But, Sir, we must take another view of this question. It is proper to consider political tendencies—to reflect whether it is not the interest of certain men to maintain things as they are, to resist innovation, and prevent the diffusion of political truth—to consider whether the possession of State patronage, which both enriches and exalts, must not necessarily create an adverseness to that change, by which its wealth and eminence may be diminished; and it is right to review the past conduct of parties, and see whether private pretensions have not frequently been preferred to national advantage. Now, Sir, I will take upon myself unhesitatingly to assert, that the tendency of all Church Establishments connected with the State has been, and must be, to oppose political improvements; they are aware that no change can possibly increase, but may possibly diminish the wealth and advantages of the Establishment; they know that the bonds of ecclesiastical delusion which have bound the powers of human reason for past centuries, are now

135
burst asunder—that public judgment, now judging set free, will exercise its powers in judging for itself, in discovering the truth; therefore, to maintain themselves as they are, they will resolutely oppose any change in the forms of that government by which their supremacy is upheld, lest political reformation might weaken or endanger it. To review the past conduct of parties, turn to the page of history. The Church maintained the despotism of the Louis in France, of Ferdinand in Spain, of Miguel in Portugal; and though, as I am aware, the Clergy of our own country refer with triumphant exultation to the conduct of our Bishops in the time of James 2nd, still, be it remembered, this instance of departure from their usual practice affords the strongest confirmation of the rule; for their support of the executive power was only withdrawn when James had disclosed his purpose of substituting Popery for Protestantism, and therefore their fears were at best of a mixed character, for religious truth and for their civil immunities, for the supremacy of their Church, and for the preservation of their Church Establishment. I need not refer to that period when the rejection of the Reform Bill in another place brought this country to the brink of revolution. The facts of that time and later periods are sufficiently well known to every one here present to enable them to form a correct judgment whether the political power of the Bishops in Parliament has been employed in support of pure and good measures, such as would probably increase the public content and welfare, or whether they have been the mere partizans of their respective political creators. I have trespassed too long on the time of the Houe. It has been my desire to show that the plea of exclusive learning which formerly might have justified the employment of the Clergy in civil government is no longer valid and admissible. I wished to demonstrate how important it is, that example be afforded to the heads of the Church that they should evidence a zeal for the cause of religion; that they should be above suspicion of self-interest, ambition, or worldly gain; that they should be, in conduct as in name, successors of the Apostles. The ministry of the Word afforded sufficient employment for the Apostles, and so it would for their successors; for who can believe, looking to the extent of jurisdiction given to Bishops in this country, that sufficient employment for their time may not be found within their respective dioceses.
136
I ask yon to consider with what grace can you require the village pastor to reside amongst his flock when the spiritual overseer, whose duty it is to watch over hundreds of parishes and hundreds of pastors, is removed far away from the scene of his duties, mixing in the contention of Senates, or moving in the splendor of Courts? I bid you remember, that the placing of political power in the hands of those whose interested leaning must ever be adverse to popular Government, is a practice dangerous to the liberties and welfare of the community. The Church, as a spiritual community, has no concern with secular Government; the Establishment has property, and that being a temporality, should be represented in Parliament, but not by Christian officers, for these are servants of that Lord and master whose kingdom was not of this world, who did not delegate to others a greater power than he himself received from God; they are the stewards of his mysteries, and no employment should take them from their proper business to preserve religion, the immediate purpose of which is to promote purity of worship, the ultimate one, salvation of souls. I call upon all friends of religion seriously to consider this momentous truth, that men too often associate their ideas of religion with the conduct of its teachers—their respect for the one is often regulated by their respect for the other—the political conduct of the Bishops in Parliament has lowered their character in the eyes of the community, and whatever tends to create irreverent ideas of religion, diminishes its influence in the human mind. Let the property of the Church be sufficiently represented in Parliament, but make not a high religious office the qualification of a political office; take away the splendor of title, that remnant of a vicious practice, alike insulting and disgraceful to the Christian shepherd—derobe them from this political livery, that it be seen that they accept not the oversight of the flock for filthy lucre or worldly gain, but "of a willing mind." Let the head of the State be supreme over all persons, Civil and Ecclesiastical, merely as citizens, and let no Ecclesiastical ruler enjoy political power by virtue of his office. Thus the Christian Prelate, turning his eyes from every thing political, may rest his hopes and fears upon religion alone—may exert his undivided efforts to maintain (that which alone should concern a Christian Church) its purity and its usefulness. I move for leave to bring

137
in a Bill "To relieve the Archbishops and Bishops of the Established Church from their Legislative and Judicial Duties in the House of Peers."
Mr. Gillonrose to second the Motion of his hon. friend, the member for Gateshead. He felt it to be a subject which commanded much of the public attention, and one which it behoved the Legislature to take into their earliest—their most serious consideration. He should not conceive it necessary, in support of the Motion, to go back to very remote periods of history. He would at once admit, that as far as ancient usage or precedent went to establish a rule, that usage was all on the adverse side of the question. In the earliest periods of our history, we find the clergy taking a part in the Legislature of the kingdom, and before Parliaments existed, conferring with, and advising the Princes of the country, and forming a component part of the Councils of the nation. This was easily accounted for in earlier ages, for, besides the great power and wealth which they possessed, and the influence winch superstitious men imparted to them, they were, in fact, in these early times, the only educated portion of the community, and the power which they had thus acquired, and which was so acceptable to them, they endeavoured to continue, by perpetuating the ignorance of the people. But he considered antiquity to be no plea, for that which was by experience found to be hurtful, the more cause there was to remove it. He would, however, very briefly notice two periods in our history, which more immediately bore on the point now in view. In the discussions which took place in 1641, on the Bill for restraining Bishops and others from intermeddling in secular affairs, the arguments of those who maintained the rights of the Churchmen to sit in the other House of the Legislature, and of Lord Newark in particular, resolved themselves into three points,—1st, the antiquity of the custom—with that he should not further interfere: 2nd, that it would remove them only for a month or two from their spiritual vocations once in three years: 3rd, that by diminishing the dignity, it would diminish the respect paid to the Church. As to the second point, it was one which could not be brought forward in the present day. The House had been gravely told in the last Session, by the right hon. member for the University of Cambridge, of the importance of the superintending care of the Bishops to the well-being of the Church,
138
so much so, that it was gravely proposed to add to, instead of diminishing, their numbers—a proposition which he hardly expected that House would entertain. But, if these functions were so essential to the well-being of the Church, and to the advancement of religion, the main end, as he ventured to think, of the institution of the order of Bishops, would they not be much more efficiently discharged, were those right reverend Prelates released from an onerous attendance on the business of the Legislature, which must occupy more than a half of their whole time. As long as they continued Members of the Legislature, it was their duty to make themselves acquainted with all matters of State policy—with all the complicated and extended subjects of legislation—a matter in itself enough to absorb the whole man. When we considered at the former time the high importance of the holy office of these reverend Prelates—the deep and eternal responsibility entailed upon them—the millions of Christian souls who were to look to them for exhortation and example, instead of adding to their spiritual duties the intolerable load of legislation, he was rather inclined to exclaim, "Who is sufficient for these things?" As to the third point, that by diminishing the dignity of the members of the hierarchy the respect paid to them would be at the same time diminished, he was inclined to believe, that the very reverse of this proposition was the fact. It was this grandeur, which, separating them a by a broad line of distinction from the generality of men, and calling their attention from spiritual to worldly affairs, impaired their usefulness, and caused them to be regarded rather with jealousy and suspicion, than with that order and reverence befitting the sacred nature of their office. Did the Apostles of old live in gorgeous palaces? Did they arrogate to themselves the feudal dignities? (for it was as Barons that the Bishops held seats in the other House of the Legislature), or did they intermeddle in State affairs? No! and in all time, in proportion as Churchmen had intermeddled, in proportion as they had mixed the character of teachers of the Word with that of busy intriguers and crafty politicians, had they lost that respect, which the conscientious minister would at all times command. These things might give them cap and courtesy, but they lost them in the consciences of men. He could not here avoid quoting the eloquent words of that noble patriot, Lord Say and Sele, whose memory

139
he regarded with much veneration. Lord Say and Sele said, "While they kept themselves to the work of their ministry alone, and gave themselves to prayer, and the ministry of the Word, according to the example of the Apostles, the world received the greatest benefit from them; they were the light and life thereof; but when their ambition cast them down like stars from heaven to earth, and they did grow over to be advanced above their brethren, I do appeal to all who have been versed in the ancient ecclesiastical stories, in modern history, whether they have not been the common incendiaries of the Christian world? Never ceasing from contentions one with another about the precedency of their Sees and Churches, excommunicating one another, drawing Princes to be parties with them, and thereby casting them into bloody wars. Their ambition and intermeddling with secular affairs and State business, hath been the cause of shedding more Christian blood than anything else in the Christian world." Had not the same scenes, so strongly pourtrayed, disgraced the present times? Was not Ireland made it theatre of warfare and contention in order to maintain the dignity of an anti-national Priesthood? Was not a peculiar creed forced on that unhappy land by the power a the sword and military violence? And was not the blood of innocent victims made an unholy offering on the altar of a God of mercy and of love? He would only allude to the discussions which took place in that House on the Bill of 1801, for excluding persons in holy orders from having seats in it. It was argued by Mr. Fox and Mr. Grey, that all the arguments which applied to excluding men in holy orders from this Assembly applied with equal or greater force to the right of the Bishops to hold seats in the other House of the Legislature. Mr. Fox asked, "Was it, not true of the Bishops who sat in the House of Lords as of the inferior clergy, that it was their duty to devote themselves to the duties of their sacred character?" He thought, as was then contended, that by that measure an act of injustice was passed; for while he should willingly concur in excluding all endowed Clergy from either House, on the broad ground, that they could not efficiently discharge the duties of both offices, he was inclined to think, that, when a clergyman chose to separate himself from his holy calling, and to devote himself exclusively to secular offices, it was unjust to him, and to the constituency of the coun-
140
try, in a Reformed Parliament, that he should be incapable of becoming one of the Representatives. He was happy to observe, that the hon. member for Cambridge intended to bring forward a Bill on this subject; it should certainly have his support. Let the House look to what had been passing amongst ourselves. It was argued, that it was fitting that the Bishops should hold seats in the other House of the Legislature, in order to defend the rights and property of the Church. Had their interference been confined, he would ask, to ecclesiastical subjects? Had their intermeddling in State affairs been of that nature pointed out by the Bishop of London? Or had they not taken an active part in all those intrigues and cabals, which would render the present times the most famous (he would not use a stronger expression) in history? Had they not so mixed themselves up with the factions and combinations in this, and the last Parliament, in all which they had been engaged more or less, that they seemed not to content themselves with comments upon spiritual privileges, but had envied other men their civil freedom? He agreed with the reverend "Churchman," Dean Blakeley, who had thus eloquently written:—'If it be admitted that the value of any public station, considered in its own abstract effect, or as it bears on, and is necessarily connected with the general interests of society, be commensurate with its utility, it follows, that every privilege or occupation of the person holding such station, should have an affinity to the essential qualities of his office, and the objects for which it was constituted. If this be admitted, my Lord, what connexion of a useful or moral kind has a stormy midnight debate in the House of Lords with the peaceful tenor of life and manners which becomes an ecclesiastic? Whilst such a temple as the House of Lords is open for the entrance of spiritual men—and such ladders of ambition as from Llandaff to Canterbury, and from Ossory to Armagh, pride will hold its dominion, and exercise it over the hearts of men. If a precedent be wanting for the removal of the Bishops from the House of Lords, behold it in the exclusion of all the Peerage of Ireland, except of the twenty-eight Representatives. And let it be recollected, that their right was hereditary. It is most weakly argued, that the Bishops represent the Church, and refrain from every debate, unless where the interests

141
of that Church are concerned. This, we well know, is not always the case; and it is objected that they can vote on all occasions. Where the affairs of the Church require the assistance and sanction of Parliament, can it be doubted that they would be received with respect, and treated with favour, by that Parliament, upon a formal representation of the Bishops, rather than by a Parliament, perhaps exasperated by the opposition or advocacy, no matter which, of spiritual men, of some public measure, which had been the subject of debate amongst men of the first-rate talents, with their passions excited by a contest for victory. When I use these arguments, I mean no invidious application; the moral, I again say, grows out of the obliquity of human affairs. I verily believe, that there are many Bishops of sanctified hearts, singleminded, and of just conduct. Yet do I think, that all such should be far removed from suspicion; and that vanity and arrogance would be imputed to them, were they animated by the zeal of St. Paul, and adorned with the simplicity of "the disciple whom Jesus loved," and on whose gentle bosom he leaned.' The pride, pomp, and circumstances of worldly grandeur, befitted not the followers of a humble and lowly master; a heated and angry debate in the House of Lords accorded but ill with the meekness and charity which should distinguish a Christian minister. The arena of political disputation was no place for the presence of a messenger of peace. He would remove these right reverend Prelates from a scene so unbefitting their presence; from the frivolities of a court, and the temptations of a capital; and would enable them, by devoting themselves to the duties of their sacred calling—by the preaching and practice of Christian charity, to make themselves truly respected and beloved. One point more he would allude to, and he had done. What justice was there, that there should be in one House of the Legislature the representatives of one Church and one sect alone? Why, were they to be more favoured than the Established Church of Scotland, or, than the tens of thousands, the millions, who, in every part of the empire, conformed not to the favoured creed? The House might undervalue this argument—the country would duly prize it, and would see, in the presence of those reverend Prelates in the Upper House, a barrier to their acquiring their just rights
142
and privileges. What course his Majesty's Ministers might adopt in regard to this Motion, he knew not, but it was easy to guess. The measure being carried, which they had looked to as a means of annihilating their political rivals, formerly in power; their motto seemed now to be, "Thus far shalt thou go, and no further." No one measure of efficient and satisfactory Reform had met with their concurrence. The Church and the Aristocracy were taken under their especial protection, while the people, on whose shoulders they were carried into power, were forgotten. But the great tide of truth and justice would roll on, fertilizing as it flowed, and would obliterate even the vestige of the paltry expedients by which temporizing politicians would seek to stop its majestic course.
Lord Althorpwas understood to say, that he did not believe that many Gentlemen were inclined to support the Motion. If he thought so, he might have been inclined to discuss the question; but, in deference to the strong expression of feeling in the House, he thought he might fairly be excused from entering into any discussion on its merits.
Sir William Ingilbywould not occupy their attention for five minutes. He dissented from the course adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The consequence of not allowing a question of the kind to be discussed in that House, was to make it more eagerly discussed in the country. Fur his own part, he would rather that question was debated in Parliament than out of Parliament. All questions connected with the Church were most important, more especially a question which involved a charge of sacrificing spiritual duties to political pursuits. Whence arose the great body of Dissenters in this country but from the neglect of the Church? All classes of Dissenters concurred in one common sentiment—that dissent arose from the neglect of the Churchmen. Those who wished well to the Church would think with him, that they had better suffer these discussions to take place within the walls or that House than beyond them.
Mr. Tennysonagreed with the hon. Member that this was a question of infinite importance to this country—a question involving no ordinary results, and which, therefore, ought not to be disposed of in the summary manner which the noble Lord recommended. He agreed with his hon. friend who had just sat down, that this mode of settling the question would create

143
great excitement in the country. ["No, no."] Hon. Gentlemen might cry no, no, but those who were in habits of communication with large bodies of men, knew that it was a question uniformly propounded at the meetings of those bodies, and he, therefore, thought it but respectful to the people that the grounds on which that House came to the conclusion at which they proposed to arrive should be made known. For these reasons he was anxious to state why he should vote against the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. He was a determined supporter of Church Reform, but he did not think the advocates for that measure would exhibit much impartiality towards the Establishment, if, as a preliminary step, they endeavoured to deprive it of its supporters in the House of Lords. After the promise held forth on this subject by his Majesty's Government, he thought it would be but fair to ascertain what their sentiments were, as no doubt they were prepared to bring forward some measure. He perhaps, might be permitted to suggest that the measure should provide for some diminution in the emoluments of the Bishops, as well as some limitation in the number of Bishops; which would render their presence in the House of Lords less objectionable. A large portion of the country, particularly the dissenting classes, thought it a very great grievance, that whilst they had no Representatives, the Protestant Church should be represented so largely. He certainly did not see any reason why so large a body of Bishops should be assembled in the House of Lords. As a member of the Church of England—as a friend to the Establishment—as one who wished to maintain that Establishment—he declared his conviction that it could only be maintained by making such a change as was consistent with the principles of justice, and of sound and enlightened policy. At no distant time large changes must take place; and perhaps with regard to the Bishops, the introduction of the system of representation would be the most expedient course. The presence of twenty-six English Bishops in the House of Lords was more than he wished to see. A system of rotation like that pursued with regard to the Irish Bishops would even be more satisfactory. The interposition of Bishops in secular affairs, so far from being an advantage to the Church, was a great evil; yet it was impossible for men of enlightened minds, as they certainly all were, to be present in the House of Lords, and not exercise the
144
functions of their situation. It was not in human nature to refrain from doing so; and, indeed, as long as those functions were imposed upon them, so long was an interference in secular affairs a duty incumbent upon them. Nothing, however, did the Church more injury in the eyes of the people of England than such an interference, while the absence of all the Bishops from their sees cast discredit on the Establishment in the minds of the people. He hoped, therefore, that the measure of his Majesty's Government would reduce the Bishops to a much smaller number; that they should rigidly watch all matters connected with the Church Establishment; but that they should not be permitted to throw the weight of their influence into the scale of civil affairs.
Mr. Jamessaid, the conduct of Government on this occasion convinced him that they had no satisfactory answer to give to the Motion. He should not hesitate to support it.
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, the observations with which he should venture to trouble the House on this occasion, would be very few and very short. Indeed, after the manner in which the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had met this Motion, and the attempts that had been made to stifle all discussion on this subject, it required no small degree of confidence to present himself to the House at all. That confidence, however, he derived from the strength of his convictions, as to the justice of the cause, and on this ground alone did he rise to express his entire concurrence in the proposition of the hon. mover. It appeared to him that there were usually three tests by which all measures introduced into tins House were judged—the first was, whether the public at large felt strongly on the subject and expressed those feelings in any marked manner:—the second was, whether there were any vested rights or large pecuniary interests at stake:—and the third was, whether, supposing the measure to be completed, any public satisfaction could be given, or any public good be produced. Now, judging the present question by each of these tests, he felt persuaded that it ought to be seriously entertained, and seriously met, and, therefore, he could not but regret the manner in which it had been treated as of no public importance whatever. As to the first, the noble Lord, and those who formed ins colleagues in the Cabinet, might believe, that the community at large took no interest in

145
the matter. But in this he would take the liberty to assure them that they were entirely mistaken. Mingling as they did, only with persons of their own rank and class, they had not the same opportunity that humbler individuals possessed of knowing the feelings and sentiments of the great bulk of the people. But, as far as his experience might qualify him to pronounce an opinion on this subject, he could assure the noble Lord that in every part of England that he had yet visited, he had found the majority of the intelligent part of the population strongly in 0favour of the measure proposed. It must be evident that the entire mass of the Catholic population, and the whole of the Dissenters, must desire its accomplishment on principle: since the sitting of the Bishops in the House of Lords was one of the great marks of the dominant supremacy of the State Church, and the exclusion of the heads of every other sect was a badge of their inferiority. But if there should be added to all these a large number of the most pious and devout communicants of the Church itself, who desired to see the Establishment purified of those temporal, and secular, and political appendages, which in their estimation impeded and obstructed its religious utility, and who thought the Bishops would be more spiritually employed in attending to the care of their respective dioceses—if all these were taken into account, they would no doubt form a numerical majority of the whole population of the kingdom. Judging the measure then by this first test, it ought, undoubtedly, to be entertained. As to the second, there were no vested rights or large pecuniary interests at stake that need make the House pause in entertaining it, as no proposition was now made for abating the incomes of the Bishops, or interfering in any way with their revenues; but simply to relieve them of those political duties, which, as Bishops, they could not adequately or usefully fulfil, without a neglect of those more appropriate and more important religious duties which they had solemnly undertaken to perform. The last test, that of the affording public satisfaction, and accomplishing public good by the passing of the measure, was one, by which the question could only be judged of, through discussion; and that it appeared that his Majesty's Ministers were either unable or unwilling to afford it. He believed, however, that notwithstanding this attempt to stifle and suppress the debate, the noble Lord would find, that he had greatly under-
146
rated the numbers of those who would support this measure, within the House as well as without; and he, therefore, begged to express his earnest hope that the hon. mover would not withdraw Ins Motion, but press it to a division, in order that it might be seen whether or not the proposition was approved, and by whom—when, he had no doubt, though they might form but a minority, it would still be not so small as the noble Lord evidently anticipated when he assigned, as a reason for not replying to the question, his belief that no number of persons in the House would be found to support the Motion before them.
Mr. O'Reillysaid, it had been stated in a recent debate, that there were questions upon which hon. Members of the same religion as himself could not give a vote on account of the oaths which they had taken at the Bar of that House; but as he (though a Roman Catholic) was resolved to vote upon this question, he was anxious to trespass on the attention of the House for a few moments, while he stated the grounds of his vote. He felt that by that moral compact, to which the right hon. member for Tamworth had so forcibly alluded on a former evening, he was not only bound not to injure the Protestant Establishment as now existing by law, but that he was also bound to afford it—not, indeed, as a religion, for from its religion he conscientiously dissented, but as an institution which the State thought necessary—that support which the members of it deemed essential to its security and preservation. Recollecting that an hon. and learned Member who spoke with great authority had denied that any moral compact had ever been entered into by the Catholics on the subject, he felt himself called upon as a Catholic to state, and he did state it most explicitly, that he recognized distinctly the existence of that moral compact. He cared not whether that recognition rendered him popular or otherwise, for, as an honest man, he felt bound to make that declaration. It might not make him popular among a population which was smarting and suffering from the oppression which it had sustained under too many members of the Establishment; but he was certain that, in making that recognition, he was expressing the opinion of every honest, conscientious, and independent Catholic in the country from which he came. He was particularly anxious that the grounds upon which he was going to

147
vote that evening, should be understood both in and out of that House, and he would, therefore, state, once for all, that, until the Legislature pointed out to him what line he ought to take upon that oath, he should follow the dictates of his own conscience, and those dictates only.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that in considering this question, he considered it as a question affecting the political influence, and not the religions functions, of the Bishops. In his opinion, there was nothing of religion involved in the Motion then before the House. If it were a question whether the continuance of Bishops was or was not an advantage to that form of religion which they professed, he should not interfere in it; but he now interfered in it because he considered it a question as to whether the Bishops injured or served the body politic of the State. If it could be shown to him that the seats which the Bishops occupied in the other House of Parliament had ever been made instrumental to the advancement of our rights, to the amelioration of our institutions, to the reduction of our burthens, and to the extension of the prosperity and liberty of the people, he would readily vote for the continuance of the enjoyment of them by the Bishops, but on looking back upon the events recorded in our history during the last 130 years, he could not find a single occasion on which the Bishops had taken a part favourable to liberty, or to the amelioration of the prospects of the country, or to the emancipation of the Catholics and other Dissenters. They made a negative quantity in legislation—they were always found at the wrong side, and never on the right, and, therefore, he should support the present Motion.
Mr. Harveysaid: It is often repeated of this House, that every order of the community is fairly represented, and that there is no feeling or wish which can be entertained by any rational class of the country which may not find expression, and even advocates in this House; and, owing as I do, my seat in this House mainly to the kind and disinterested exertions of a large portion of persons known as Protestant Dissenters, and never shrinking from the unprofitable avowal of my participation in their sentiments, I should feel, that upon tins trying occasion, so deeply affecting their interests, I was deserting their cause, and disappointing their just expectations, if I were to permit this Motion to be smothered in the manner it is attempted to be. It is true, it is not my intention to
148
enter into this subject at present, as I, at first, intended, and for which I trust inquiry and conviction have in some degree prepared me, but for which, it would seem, there is now no occasion, because the advocates of the Motion are, at least, so fur complimented, by the fact, that no one has ventured openly to oppose it. The Bishops, it would seem, are deserted by the Ministers, and have no private friends. But, it is said, that this Motion is undeserving of support, or even of discussion. Unlike some of those stirring subjects which enlist all our feelings, and our interests, such, for instance, as a repeal of the tile-duty, or a commutation of tithes; or, when with a view of relieving the distress which bears on agriculture, it is gravely proposed to allow the farmers to drive to and fro in untaxed carts, provided they be without springs—then, indeed, the Government and their friends are eager for the fight; but, because no question of this grave importance is before us, no one is to speak without being exposed to the taunt of silence—to contumely and reproach. Whatever degree of importance may attach to that reproach, I am prepared to take my share. At least, we shall be appreciated elsewhere, for, however little it may be known or heeded in this House, or however unpalatable the declaration, there is no subject which enters so deeply into the feelings of the intelligent portion of the community of this country, or which, in spite of every attempt to smother it, is so rapidly advancing, and that to a perfect triumph, as the subject of this Motion. There is, indeed, a principle at work beyond these doors which will at no very distant time render the question, whether the Bishops shall be in the House of Lords, none other than whether you shall maintain an endowed establishment. There is, indeed, at this moment, a concessionary spirit among the Dissenters, which might induce them to forego much as the price of peace. It is a foul calumny upon this great and enlightened body of persons to say, that they covet the revenues of the Church, and desire to seize them for their own purposes. But this, I will say, that if the Dissenters, looking at the paramount importance of separating the Church from the State, cannot obtain this great object through the fair and legitimate channels of open discussion, they must effect it through those means of influence which it would seem appeal far more powerfully to the selfish interests than to the purer feelings

149
of mankind. Strip the Church of England of her temporalities, and she must fall, a sure and melancholy testimony of her worldly character. Hon. Members seem most strangely to confound a Church, established and endowed by law, with a Church based upon the simple principles of Christianity. They confound things essentially different. They regard tithes and theology—dogmas and doctrines—discipline and duty, as one and the same thing. The Church of England, delineated in its doctrines and liturgy, I apprehend is dear to the great portion of the people of this country, whether they be within or without the pale of the Church. If you were to divest the Church to-morrow of its gorgeous array—if you were to strip your Bishops and the whole of your hierarchy of their temporalities, the Church of England, as a Christian Church, would not only stand, but would increasingly flourish. You would discover in its principles its purity—you would read in its professions its faith. But nothing so much tends to disparage the simple principles which 1,800 years ago were proclaimed from the heights of Sinai, than that you should see the Bishops belying the simplicity of their creed, in the gorgeousness of their worldly appearance. There is no kindred feeling between the appearance of the towering teachers of your religion and the lowly spirit which it professes. It is these things which give force to the shafts of infidelity, and give point to the sword of scepticism. To those in this House into whose minds the genius of Christianity enters with its softening spirit, I would say, there is no mode by which they can more effectually advance the religion which they adorn, than by turning the Bishops from the House of Lords, and sending them to those scenes of rural utility in winch their example may inspire confidence, and create admirers. Many things have been advanced by hon. Gentlemen who have spoken this evening, which, in the hands of the dexterous debater, might be turned to the prejudice of those who advocate this Motion. It cannot be imputed to them, that the Motion is supported by pre-arrangement, and is the result of perfect concord of opinion. One of my hon. friends does not object to the appearance of some Bishops in the House of Lords, but thinks there are too many. Now, this concession destroys the whole principle. If spiritual Bishops are to be tolerated in the Lords at all, it is to me a matter of indif-
150
ference how many. I argued that point on the discussion of the Irish Church Temporalities Bill, and I still hold, that in the degree, if at all, that religion is to be advanced by the agency of episcopacy, it is important that the number of Bishops should correspond with the vast objects of their appointment. This matter requires to be clearly understood—what I quarrel with, and what the Dissenters quarrel with is, the alliance of the Church with the State, illustrated as that alliance is, by the appearance of Bishops in the House of Lords, as a part of a sect exclusively endowed with immense revenues and domineering distinction. Again, when it is said, that the Church ought not to have its Bishops in the House of Lords, because other sects have no Bishops there, is it to be supposed, that the Dissenters are envious of Bishops, and only require to be represented by their own? Strange ignorance or infatuation all this! Of all libels that would be the greatest, even surpassing that which imputes to us that we wish to divide the revenues of the Church. The Dissenters disclaim all connexion with the State, both as regards its honours and its riches. They are of opinion—an opinion which the experience of 1,800 years has confirmed—that Christianity not only requires no aid from the civil power, but that such aid impedes its progress. During the first three centuries of the Christian era, Christianity was enabled to stand against and triumph over powers far more formidable than belong to the refinements of the present day to oppose to it. It overcame the powers of Paganism—it humbled the pride of the Cæsars. Nothing in the pomp of Rome—nothing in the pride of courts, could resist its simple and sublime dignity; and, however seductive may be the influence of fashion in the present day—however much of profit, by being subservient to courts—however brilliant and alluring the regalia of monarchy—whatever splendor may belong to crowns—or whatever there may be in the sanctity of mitres—in the strength of sceptres—in the reverence of croziers,—Christianity rests on imperishable principles, and all that the Protestant Dissenters ask is, that you will not interfere, but let Christianity stand on its imperishable and inherent pretensions, simple and mighty in its power and beauty.
Mr. Humewas sorry that he had not been present at the commencement of this debate; but he could not permit it to con-

151
clude without repeating the sentiments which he had often expressed elsewhere upon this subject. He considered the sitting of Bishops in the House of Peers, in every respect indefensible—Bishops, to promote the interest of religion, should never be placed in situations where they might be called upon to act in opposition to the feelings of the people. He had no hesitation in saying, that after their proceedings on the Reform Bill, the Bishops had rendered themselves odious to the people of England. He admitted, that having seats in the other House of Parliament, they had a right to give their votes as they pleased; but their exercise of that right had led the people of England to this conclusion—that to render them beloved by their flocks, they should be deprived of the power winch brought them into collision with the people. He was sure, that in the opinion of, at least, three-fourths of the people of England, there was no difference on this subject. The Motion, so far from deserving to be treated as one not worthy of discussion, was, in point of fact, perfectly irresistible. Ministers, therefore, acted wisely in saying nothing against it. He hoped, that they felt with him, that political power was never mixed up advantageously with religious functions. It was no defence of the Bishops' seats in Parliament, to tell him that they had been held for centuries, for he had no regard for anything ancient unless it was also useful. Considering the junction of political power with religious functions to be quite incompatible, he had great pleasure in giving his support to the present Motion.
Mr. Sheilrose to express his own opinion upon this Motion rather than to invite Ministers, for such invitation he knew would be in vain, to express their sentiments upon it. He also rose, because he thought, that it would be pusillanimous, on his part, as an individual, not to record his opinions on a question so generally interesting. He could not help thinking that a large change of opinion with respect to the Bishops had taken place in the Ministry since no very remote period. Did not hon. Members recollect the menace uttered against them in another place, when they were significantly warned to "set their houses in order?" The times, however, were changed; and his Majesty's Ministers now felt retrospective indignation for the indignities winch these reverend personages formerly suffered. It appeared as if a declaration was now wanted from
152
the House, that this question was not worthy of discussion. Now, he implored the House to recollect what had been done on the Bill, not for the reform of the Church of Ireland, for there was no Church of Ireland, but for the reform of the united Churches of England and Ireland. If they had made no scruple to sacrifice twelve Irish Bishops, why was it to be deemed sacrilegious to propose the reduction of some little incidents attached to the dignities of the English Bishops? It must be manifest to any man who reflected on the proceedings which occurred shortly before the carrying of the Reform Bill, that it would have been much better had the Bishops never interfered against it. It was said, that no such thing would ever occur again; but what security could the public have of that? He wished Ministers would attend more regularly at the morning sittings, for they would then hear the petitions of the Dissenters, in which were contained propositions much more alarming, and much more inimical to the existing establishments, than the present Motion. Those petitions represented the opinions of 9,000,000 of persons in the two islands. And what would they say, when they heard that Ministers refused to discuss this question? It had been said, that the heads of the Church ought always to be in Parliament; but his answer to that assertion was, "Look at the Church of Scotland, built on the rock of poverty, and unadorned by dignity and wealth." He was convinced, that for any loss of power which the Bishops might sustain in consequence of being deprived of their seats, they would find more than ample compensation in the increased confidence and gratitude of the people.
Mr. Ewartsaid, that he agreed with the hon. member for Tipperary, that the independent Members of the House should not be driven into a pusillanimous silence on this occasion. It might be well for his Majesty's Government to maintain a mysterious reserve; in them such a course ought be prudent, or expedient. But he (Mr. Ewart) held, that the independent Members of the House were justified in acting on more general principles, and of taking a long-sighted view of important questions such as this. They must consider what in the main, and with a comprehensive view of the future, was the wisest and most reasonable course. He entertained the conscientious opinion (and, entertaining it, he was bound to express it) that it would be better for the interests of

153
the Church—it would be better for the cause of religion—it would be better for the permanent good of the State—that the Bishops should not mingle political with religious duties. With this brief declaration of his reasons for supporting the Motion, he should, at present, be content. But he felt, that he could not, with self-satisfaction, have given a silent vote on this occasion.
The House divided: Ayes 58; Noes 125—Majority 67.

List of the AYES.

ENGLAND.

Wood, Alderman

Adams, E. H.

SCOTLAND.

Aglionby, H. A.

Gillon, W. D.

Attwood, T.

Hay, Col. L.

Baines, J.

Oliphant, L.

Bewes, T.

Oswald, R. A.

Blake, Sir F.

Oswald, J.

Buckingham, J. S.

Pringle, R.

Buller, C.

Steuart, R.

Chaytor, Sir W.

Wallace, R.

Codrington, Sir E.

Wemyss, Captain

Ewart, W.

IRELAND.

Faithfull, G.

Blake, M. S.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Evans, G.

Fielden, J.

Jacob, E.

Grote, G.

O'Connell, D.

Guest, J. J.

O'Connell, M.

Harvey, D. W.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Humphery, J.

Ruthven, E. S.

Ingilby, Sir W.

Ruthven, E.

James, W.

Sheil, R. L.

Kennedy, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Leech, J.

Walker, C. A.

Lister, E. C.

PAIRED OFF.

Parrott, J.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Pease, J.

Bowes, John

Philips, M.

Hall, B.

Potter, R.

Fleming, Hon. Adm.

Richards, J.

Lynch, A. H.

Rider, T.

Marjoribanks, S.

Roebuck, J. A.

O'Connell, M.

Romilly, J.

Palmer, General

Russell, Lord

SHUT OUT.

Sebright, Sir J.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Staveley, J. K.

TELLERS.

Warburton, H.

Hume, J.

Whalley, Sir S.

Rippon, C.

Wilks, J.

OMNIBUSES AND CABRIOLETS.
Mr. Alderman Wood, in introducing his Motion for leave to bring in "a Bill to regulate the plying, driving, standing, places of arrival, and departure of stage-coaches, omnibuses, cabriolets, and other hackney carriages, and also the passing and repassing of other carriages used for the conveyance of goods, within the city of London, and within twelve miles of the General Post-
154
office," said, that though, on his first calling the attention of the House to the subject, he had limited his Motion to the city of London alone, he had now found reason to extend its operation, so as to include all the short stages. The number of vehicles of this description passing through Cheapside in one day was not less than 1800; and the magnitude of the subject was, in itself, sufficient to show, that it deserved the attention of the Legislature. He would not enter into any detail of his plan, but would merely mention, that one of its features would be the licensing of the drivers, instead of the proprietors of omnibuses and cabriolets.
Mr. Roebuckhoped the diminution of the number of the vehicles in question would not form a part of the proposed measure. Their number could scarcely be too large, for if they exceeded the public necessity, they would, of themselves, diminish. He could only say, that with respect to the omnibuses, they were of great convenience to the citizens of London, and he should be sorry to see any measure introduced which might have the effect of checking a free trade in vehicles. Great caution was requisite in interfering with such a subject, for if the competition in omnibuses and stage-coaches were to be impeded, those persons who contrived to live a few miles out of London, with incomes of from 100 l. to 70 l. a-year, would be put to great inconvenience.
Mr. Humethought, after paying considerable attention to the subject, that licensing the drivers instead of the proprietors of omnibuses and cabriolets would be productive of bad consequences. It would be contrary, too, to the recommendation of the Committee which had sat on the subject, and which concluded, that it would be better to subject the proprietor, who had something, to the responsibility, and not the drivers, who had nothing but their weekly wages.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he should be extremely sorry if, in giving his vote for the Motion, he should be supposed to do anything detrimental to free-trade. He did not think he should be doing so; on the contrary, he thought some legislative enactment on the subject would be of great public advantage. It was certainly desirable that instances of gross misconduct on the part of the driver, such as had been frequently before the public, should he put an end to.
Mr. O'Connellwas decidedly of opinion,

155
that it would not be a good plan to license the cabriolet drivers, for no set of commissioners would have so strong an interest in procuring good drivers as the owners of the vehicles.
Mr. Grotesaid, great inconvenience was now sustained in the city of London by the stoppages caused by omnibuses. It was so bad at times, that it was almost impossible to cross the streets. He hoped the Bill would be allowed to be brought in, for certainly a more strict police regulation with regard to those vehicles was requisite.
Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

HANGING MURDERERS IN CHAINS.
Mr. Ewart Mr. Ewart moved for leave to bring in a Bill to take away from Judges the power of directing criminals, in certain cases, to be hanged in chains. From what had fallen from the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, on a former evening, he believed, if he had understood the right hon. Member rightly, that Government would be willing to abolish this odious practice of hanging murderers in chains. It was unnecessary for him, therefore, to enter into the question, and he should only submit his Motion, to the judgment of the House.
Mr. Littletonsaid, that the House was, of course, aware, that he had given notice of a Motion with a view to abolish the practice in Ireland, and it would seem very strange to pass two Bills, one for each country, on the same subject. He thought one Bill might comprise both objects, and he had no objection to postpone his Motion in order to allow the hon. member for Liverpool to bring in a general measure upon the subject.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in the object of the Motion of which he had given notice, for, instead of being to take away the power of hanging in chains from the Judges, it was expressly to give them that power—["No, no," from Mr. Littleton]. He would say, "Yes, yes." A doubt had existed as to whether the Judges possessed the power, and the Bill the right hon. Gentleman had given notice of, declared that they had such power. The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, did not intend this, for they were all agreed, that this horrible practice should be done away with.
Mr. Shawsaid, the Act of 10th George 4th, not only gave the power to the Judges, but imposed upon them the necessity of directing that all criminals convicted of murder should either be dissected or hung
156
in chains. Subsequently, the hon. member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton) brought in his Anatomy Bill, by which he took away from the Judges in England the power of ordering the bodies of murderers to be dissected, and substituted the power of directing them to be buried within the precincts of the prison. [Mr. O'Connell:—Or to be hung in chains] No, the power of ordering them to be hung in chains existed before. The hon. and learned Gentleman had fallen into the same mistake as some well-intentioned persons, by whom, at a meeting recently held in London, the right hon. Gentleman's measure was denounced as an anatomical and a gibbeting Bill. It was no such thing. The Judges already possessed the power of directing murderers to be hung in chains; nor was it an anatomical Bill, because the power of ordering the body of the criminal to be dissected was taken away from the Judges. It did neither more nor less, than give the Judges the power of ordering the body of a murderer sentenced to be hanged to be buried within the precincts of the gaol, instead of being dissected. There could be no objection to the hon. member for Liverpool abolishing the practice in Ireland; but his enactment would not obviate the necessity for the introduction of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill; because, unless that passed, the Judge must order the body to be dissected—he had no alternative: he had not the power of ordering it to be buried within the precincts of the gaol. He was sorry the hon. member for Bridport was not present, because his great object was to do away with this power. It would be proper for the right hon. Gentleman to proceed with his Bill, which did not give the Judges the power of ordering murderers to be hanged in chains. He was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Dublin, entertained an opinion that it gave the power. The Judge had the power already: and if there were not one word in the Bill on the subject of gibbeting, that power would remain the same. To show the necessity of the measure, he would mention, that only the other day a Judge in Ireland ordered the body of a murderer to be dissected. He considered it preferable to hanging in chains, and he knew that he must make either the one order or the other. He had omitted to state one thing. There was a question whether or not the Bill of the hon. member for Bridport extended to Ireland. He expected the opinion of the House would be, that it did not;

157
because, while it expressly repealed the English Acts, it did not, with regard to Ireland, repeal that provision which gave the Judges the power of directing the bodies of criminals either to be hung in chains or to be dissected. It certainly would be very desirable to remove any doubt that might exist on this point. He apprehended the object of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill simply was—to assimilate the law of Ireland, in this respect, to that of England.
Mr. Littletonsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, was most likely to be correct with reference to the point to which he had just alluded, and, therefore, he (Mr. Littleton) would not argue it. All which would be requisite for the hon. member for Liverpool to do, would be to enact that, both in England and in Ireland the power of directing the body of a criminal to be hung in chains should be taken from the Judges; but a further enactment would be necessary for Ireland, empowering the Judges to order murderers to be buried within the gaol yard.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that all the hon. member for Liverpool had to do, was to enact, that throughout England, Ireland, and Scotland, in all cases whatsoever where the Judges had the power to order the body of a criminal either to be anatomized, or to be hung in chains, that power should be taken away, and, instead thereof, the Judges should order the body to be buried privately in the gaol or elsewhere. A more simple Act it was impossible to devise. He was happy to say, that it was one on which the whole of that House appeared to be unanimous; and their opinion, he was fully convinced, was in perfect conformity with the feelings of the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland, which was only another proof of the increased intelligence and civilization of this nation.
The proposed title of the Bill having been Amended, leave was given to bring in a Bill to regulate the disposal of the bodies of all criminals sentenced to be executed for murder within the United Kingdom.

TRADE OF COOPERS.
Mr. Humerose to move for copies of the correspondence between the master coopers and the Lords of the Admiralty, pursuant to a notice which he had given in consequence of the statements lately made by the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) on the subject of a dispute between the journeymen and the master coopers. In 1824, the House of Commons, acting upon his Motion, sub-
158
mitted the whole question of the Combination-laws to a Committee up-stairs, which recommended that all the laws which had subsisted for 300 years in relation to masters and workmen, should be repealed; the condition of the repeal being, that neither party should resort to threats or coercion against the other. The law which was passed in 1824, and reconsidered in 1825, placed masters and workmen on a footing of equality; labour was the commodity of the men, as capital was that of the masters, and both were to be allowed to obtain the best terms they could. It was thought that the workmen should be allowed to get the best price in their power in the free market of labour, by fair means, and without violence or intimidation. Fully approving of this principle, he viewed all interference between masters and men with disapprobation, and he regretted to hear from the right hon. Baronet, that, in a dispute between the masters and journeymen coopers, he had stepped in and taken part with the masters. He thought it much to the credit of the working coopers, that the engagement entered into with the masters had continued, without material alteration, from 1825 to the present time. The right hon. Baronet's statement, that the men had struck for all increase of wages, was not altogether correct, the fact being, that they struck to prevent a diminution of wages. The work which the men were required to do for the same wages was gradually increased, and they naturally asked for an allowance in proportion to the additional weight of the casks on which they were employed. Nothing could be fairer than their conduct. The question was, whether the workmen were to be at liberty to reconsider their agreement with the masters? He understood that twelve or thirteen masters (the trade was very limited in point of number) had agreed, upon the representation of the men, to act as was required, when Government stepped in, and the Victualling Department offering to provide the necessary casks, the arrangement between the journeymen and their employers was abandoned. As to the average earnings of the workmen, he believed that they, by no means, amounted to such a sum as the right hon. Baronet appeared to suppose,—(from 2l. 4s. to 2l. 10 s. a-week), and that, taking in to account slack times, and workmen of different degrees of skill, they would not be found to exceed 20s. a-week. It was unfair to reckon wages by what a man might gain in one week; the average ought to be

159
taken. But, supposing the wages to be as high as had been stated, was not a man at liberty to obtain 3l. a-week instead of 2l., if he could do so by fair means, and without using threats or violence? A law existed to punish every attempt at force or violence, and it was the duty of masters to enforce that law if necessary. He regretted, that the House should have been led away by the right hon. Baronet to believe that the workmen bad acted improperly, but he trusted he had shown that they had not. He frequently heard objections taken to the word "union;" but he could not see the force or justice of the objection. Why should not workmen have clubs as well as any other class of persons? Why were not poor men to have their unions the same as rich men had theirs in St. James's-street? His Majesty's coopers at Deptford were making up casks at 1s. 8d., the usual price of which was 2s. 4d.; being 8d. a cask less than ordinary. He also understood that the hoops used for these casks were marked with the broad arrow, so that persons stealing the casks would be liable to a more severe punishment than in an ordinary case. He was told, that the workmen were able to rebut the allegations made against them, and, assuming that to be the case, he thought the interference of Government unwise and uncalled for. He was most desirous to know why the Admiralty had taken the part they did—upon what grounds they could justify themselves—what plea they could advance in their favour. To ascertain that, he thought the best way would be, to have the correspondence between the Government and the master coopers laid before them. It might afford the clue which he, and he hoped the House, were so anxious to obtain. The interference was a most unwise one on the part of official authorities, and therefore its reasons should be probed to the bottom. Before he sat down, he could not refrain from saying a few words on the constitutions and governing principles of the Unions. Much good had resulted from their formation; and for one that then existed, two were in active operation before 1824. This great and gratifying difference was certainly between them, before and subsequent to that year. All that was done at the present moment was acted in the face of day; the eyes of the world might be on them, and they cared not—they met under the sanction of the law. They knew they were amenable if they transgressed; their proceedings were
160
under its control—they met under its sanction. Before 1824 they were ashamed to show themselves—they assembled in secret, and were almost conspirators. Now they congregated to support the weak, the aged, and those out of work. They put forth regulations which all might read, and they were exposed to the minutest inquiry. One of the regulations, it was true, was to induce an adherence to a system which would tend to prevent a reduction of wages, in order that they might be enabled to live and adequately maintain their families. This had created much clamour out of doors, and they were severely blamed for so doing. He was indifferent to such clamour. He considered they had a right to look for the advice of each other, and if 100,000 assembled together for such purposes, he should be glad to know by what law they could he put down? The men were in a far different position from the masters; they had not the power to contend against the capital which was arrayed against them, and consequently there was an imperative necessity for adopting some regulations. What protection would they have against masters such as those in Derby, sending 15,000 or 16,000 out of employment, without making any provision to relieve the mass of misery which was thus created? How were men, then, to be blamed for seeking to prevent such frightful occurrences? He felt the justice of their case, and he should be ever prepared to defend it. There was not a Trades' Union in the country that did not possess a letter of his; and he would defy a single line to be found in them that did not inculcate obedience to the law, and deprecate any proceedings that were not equitable and just. If they violated the law, they were punished; and if an unsuccessful strike be made, its results would have a most salutary effect. Both masters and men ought to be permitted to go on of themselves, without being set against each other by official interference. They would then proceed harmoniously together, and contentions, bickerings, and an exhibition of hostile demeanour, would not have to be witnessed and deplored. Again, he would say he considered the interference of Government unwarrantable, and that the men ought to have their case inquired into. He (Mr. Hume) would be the last person in that House to encourage them in lawless violence; and would also be found among the first to see that they suffered no unjust or unnecessary hardship.

161
In bringing forward the present Motion, he was only giving the right hon. Baronet an opportunity to explain his reasons for interfering in the case in question. He naturally felt anxious with respect to a matter connected with the repeal of the Combination-laws in 1824, a measure which he approved mid advised. He disapproved of the right hon. Baronet's interference in the present case, on the ground that the law, and not the Government, should step in if any interposition were required. The hon. Member concluded by moving in the terms before mentioned.
Sir James Grahamhad listened with particular attention to the speech of the hon. member for Middlesex, and could assure him that he courted investigation, and was rejoiced the subject had been brought forward, as he should thereby be enabled to state the reasons that influenced Government in the course they had thought proper to adopt. He admitted the truth of the general principle laid down by the hon. Member, that it was not advisable to interfere in disputes between masters and workmen, but, in the circumstances of this particular case, he considered the conduct of Government justifiable. At the commencement of his observations, he was desirous of saying, that the hon. Member had not disappointed his expectations in stating his peculiar anxiety on the subject, the hon. Member having pressed the repeal of the Combination-laws in 1824—a repeal which at the time he (Sir J. Graham) thought questionable in theory, and, in point of practical prudence, extremely doubtful; but in reference to which, he was satisfied that the hon. Gentleman's motives were perfectly pure. He was convinced, that the hon. Member was the last person who would have any connexion with acts of violence. The hon. Gentleman had laid down the principle which should govern the proceedings of workmen with perfect correctness. It was true, that the workman's labour was his commodity, for which he was entitled to obtain the best price he could, without having recourse to force or intimidation. He was glad to have the hon. Member's authority for this, because, if this salutary rule had been violated in the present instance, it would probably be thought that Government was justifiable in interfering in support of the masters, in opposition to the workmen, who attempted to enforce an act of injustice by means such as the hon. Member would scarcely defend. The
162
hon. Member stated, that workmen would soon learn from the result of unsuccessful strikes that their own interests were concerned in abstaining from such proceedings; consequently, if the present strike failed, through the assistance afforded by Government to the masters, that salutary effect to which the hon. Member referred would be accelerated. The hon. Member had stated, that the number of master coopers was small (not exceeding fifty), but he should recollect, that the number of workmen was also small, consequently combination was easy, and their power over the masters proportionately great. If, as the hon. Gentleman said, the masters had attempted to increase the weight of certain descriptions of work without altering the wages, and had thereby, in effect, endeavoured to lower their men's wages, that would have been a fair ground of complaint; but the reverse of this was the fact. He found, that although, prior to 1825, an alteration in the weight of casks furnished to brewers did take place, no change in any other branch of the business had occurred for a long period, and that since 1825 no alteration was made in brewers' casks. In 1825 a rise of price was agreed to by the masters, it having been demanded by the men on the ground of the alteration in the weight of the article mentioned. He held in his hand statements from five of the principal brewing establishments on this subject, and would read them if the hon. Member chose. [Mr. Hume expressed a wish to have the documents read.] He believed that he disagreed with the hon. Member as to the article increased in weight, and that they had both referred to brewers' casks. [Mr. Hume: Yes.] The principal cooper at Messrs. Barclay and Perkins's stated, that the casks received at that establishment had not increased in heaviness or stoutness during the last ten years; from Messrs. Truman, Hanbury, and Buxton's it was certified that the casks now received were not stouter nor heavier than those used for the last seven years; and the principal foreman at Messrs. Whitbread and Co.'s made a like statement, extending over the last five years. He had similar statements from the houses of Hoare and Co., and Taylor and Co.; but it was needless to read them. With respect to the amount of earnings of the working coopers, he could assure the hon. Member that, so far from viewing the sum with jealousy, no circumstance afforded him such unmingled satis-

163
faction as to see workmen well paid for their labour. He had not referred to the earnings of these individuals from any jealousy of the amount, but as an ingredient in considering the nature of the strike, it being necessary to ascertain whether the men so striking were aggrieved or not, and what were their circumstances. He had before him returns of the average weekly earnings a working coopers in seven yards during the years 1832 and 1833. From these it appeared that the average weekly earnings (taking not the best workmen alone, but the best and middling artisans and boys, and allowing two boys for one man,) amounted to 2l. 6s. 1d. actual money payment on the books. This sum was made up in the following manner:—Wages, 2l. 1s. 7½.; allowance for beer, 3s. 5½d.; clippings, 1s.: total, 2l. 6s. 1d. [Mr. Hume; Were the men employed all the year round at this rate?] These were the earnings of men in full employ, and he understood that they were employed all the year round. The real question was, had the working coopers since 1825 attempted by force or intimidation to prevent the masters from procuring a sufficient number of workmen? He was informed; that since 1825 the Unions had laid down laws which were rigidly enforced, with respect to the supply of labour in the trade. The masters felt a natural anxiety to increase the number of workmen, by training apprentices to the business, with the view to lower the wages of labour. The men had resisted this attempt. They told t ale masters—"We will not work if you employ a larger number of apprentices than we are willing to agree to." The maximum of apprentices allowed by the men was two, or occasionally three, when business was conducted not by an individual but by a firm. This was the rule laid dawn and adhered to, whatever might be the number of men employed in the yard. There was a particular firm, the name of which he could mention if necessary, which did take an additional apprentice. The consequence was, that the men struck, and the house was unable to carry on its trade. The moment for the strike was judiciously chosen, when a pressing demand existed for the article, and the party would have been rained if the orders could not be executed. The terms upon which the workmen is offered to return to their employment were these—the dismissal of the apprentice, payment of the full amount of wages, 30 l.) which the men might have earned during
164
the time they, continued out of employment, and the master to beg pardon of the workmen in a body. The party was compelled to submit, and did submit to these conditions. Talk of tyranny! what greater tyranny than this? Here was not only oppression but extortion; it deserved a harder name—a point gained, and money obtained under the influence of threats, and by violence, which might amount to an indictable offence. Since 1825 the trade had been compelled to submit to the law laid down by the workmen, and rigorously enforced with respect to apprentices. A firm having added five men to fifteen, the number which it had previously employed, thought that in equity it was entitled to add to its number of apprentices. But no, the law was rigidly adhered to by the workmen, and the firm was required to dismiss the supernumerary apprentice. The master argued, that upon every principle of justice, the increase in the workmen would bear out an increase in the apprentices. The man admitted the force of the argument, but replied thus—"Our law is framed on general principles, and peremptory in its nature—we cannot relax it in favour of a special case—you must dismiss your apprentice." He did not object to the men taking all fair and just means to obtain a proper price for their labour; but the system that was in operation in this instance, and which pervaded almost all the trades in the country, was indefensible upon all just and equitable principles. The effect of the law which had been introduced by the hon. member for Middlesex was, that it rendered it extremely difficult now to punish an offence which was clearly a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the statute-law, and, as he (Sir J. Graham) thought, a violation of the common law of the land. The House was aware that, under the law of this country, nothing was so difficult to prove as a conspiracy; and yet here was a conspiracy, a manifest conspiracy, for the purpose of controlling and overawing the masters. How did a combination of the kind, while the men committed no violence, but kept within the letter of the law, carry its purposes into effect? In this way: the body deputed certain members to watch the house of a master who had refused to accede to the terms of his workmen, and whose workmen had accordingly left his employment. His house was accordingly surrounded. He could not move a step without having certain parties, connected with the body, fol-

165
lowing him, dogging him wherever he went, and placing him in a situation of difficulty, anxiety, and alarm; thus, in fact, though no menaces should be resorted to, no violence committed, overawing and intimidating him in all his transactions, and effectually preventing him from taking other men into his service. He had been confidently informed, as regarded the secretary of the master coopers, that this plan of intimidation had been adopted with success. Now, if those things which he had stated, were facts, and he was confident that they could be substantiated upon inquiry, he submitted, that they took this case out of the rule laid down by the hon. member for Middlesex, and that they clearly established it to be a violation of the letter as well as of the spirit of the existing law. It was because he thought, that the example would be salutary, and because in this particular case the Government had it in its power to defeat a combination which he considered indefensible, that Government had come to the determination to uphold the masters where they thought they were justified in resisting a combination of the coopers—a combination that was in its objects illegal, and contrary to the law of the land. It was upon these grounds that the Government had interfered. For the present the amount supplied had been only fifty butts, and 200 hogsheads, from the stores at Deptford. It should be borne in mind, that this was a matter of primary importance—especially to the foreign trade of the country, for if, through the success of such au illegal conspiracy as this, articles necessary for our shipping should he unduly enhanced in price, we should have to encounter foreign commercial competition under considerable disadvantages. If, in fact, through such a conspiracy the supply of our shipping should be suddenly stopped, we should have to meet foreign shipping upon unequal grounds, and under the disadvantage of wanting a great many articles indispensible for some portion of the shipping. It was with a view to prevent such consequences that. the Government had interfered in this instance, and doing so was not without precedent on former occasions. A precisely similar line of conduct had been under analogous circumstances adopted by Mr. Huskisson, who, be it recollected, had supported the reasonings and arguments of the hon. member for Middlesex for repealing the former Combination-laws in 1824. In 1825, Mr.
166
Huskisson advised the adoption of exactly such an expedient, to meet a combination of the shipwrights on the Thames, who, just as the Spring trading ships were about to prepare for their departure, refused to work, and struck for an advance of wages. The Government, then, acting upon the advice of Mr. Huskisson, allowed the merchant vessels to be refitted in the King's ship-yards. The remedy was simple, and it was completely successful. The present case was quite analogous to that one; and the facts connected with it proved that it fell within the exceptions to the general rule which had been laid down by the hon. member for Middlesex. He had no hesitation in laying before the House the Correspondence which had taken place between the master coopers and the Board of Admiralty on this subject, and no hesitation in saying, that pending the decision of the House, the Government should not proceed further in the matter. In the interim he trusted that the master coopers and their men might come to a satisfactory agreement. He had stated the facts of the case—he had stated the course which the Government had followed—and he would conclude by repeating the opinion which he had already expressed—an opinion deliberately formed; that under the circumstances of the case that conduct was strictly justifiable upon the principles he had mentioned.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that in his opinion the Government had adopted an unjustifiable course of conduct in this instance. He was ready to admit, that this was not the first case where the Government had interfered in favour of the masters. When did they ever interfere in favour of the men? A bad precedent would not justify such conduct. Admitting, for the sake of argument, that the men had been guilty of illegal conduct, the Government should not have interfered in this manner. The province of the Executive was to carry the law into force, and supposing that the men had been guilty of illegal conduct, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the Law Officers of the Crown, were responsible for having them prosecuted. But there was no prosecution; so that if the acts done were illegal, the Government had neglected its duty. The interference of the Government in this case was a commercial interference. The Executive had no right to take part in such a dispute. But he denied that anything illegal had been done by the men in this case. One of their objects was to prevent the masters

167
from taking more than a certain number of apprentices; and how did they propose to accomplish that object? Not by threatening, the lives of the masters—not by menacing the destruction of their property,—but by declaring, that if they would not agree to their terms, they (the men) would leave off work. They had a perfect right to do that. Every man had a right to say that he would not consent to give his labour except upon particular terms. The master coopers could have canvassed the British dominions, Europe and America, for men to supply their places. If their places had been filled up, and that they had menaced those who had come to work in their stead, then indeed their conduct would have been illegal, and they could be indicted for it. But in this instance, he would repeat, the conduct of the men had been legal, legitimate, and within the law of the land. As long as the men were innocent, why should the Government punish them? [Sir James Graham: No punishment was inflicted.] This was a punishment. It was a punishment to interfere between them and the market fur their labour. The right hon. Baronet said, that in this case the workmen were unreasonable, and that the master coopers were reasonable. That was a question, not for the Government, on the showing of the master coopers, but for the law to decide, the Government taking care that they kept within the limits of the law. The master coopers were perpetual combinators; not, indeed, in public houses, but in their own parlours. As to the Common-law, which the right hon. Baronet said the Bill of the hon. member for Middlesex had repealed, he had merely to observe, that the Common-law was what the Judges said was the Common-law. The average of wages which the right hon. Baronet had quoted, was not for the whole year—it was for only a part of the year, and for the men then employed. He understood that if the average wages of all employed throughout the year were taken, it would amount only to 20 s. a-week, instead of 2l. 6s. 1d. as had been stated by the right hon. Baronet. If the wages were really so high in London, there would be an abundant influx of coopers from Ireland in search of employment. As to the certificate from the master brewers, he could state, upon the information which had been given to him, that the men who had signed that certificate had been compelled to do so by the master brewers. The right
168
hon. Baronet had no doubt acted from the purest motives, but he was acting most mistakenly.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that having assisted with his colleagues at the Board of Admiralty in making a minute inquiry into the facts of this case, he entirely agreed in the determination at which they had arrived. He was fully ready to admit, that it required a strong case, and very peculiar circumstances, to justify the Administration of the country in interfering in so delicate a matter as a contest between masters and men; but in the present case the state of our foreign trade, and the state of the merchant shipping, made it an imperative duty on the part of the Board of Admiralty to render that assistance which was required to prevent any injury being inflicted on the trade. It appeared to him, on a careful consideration of all the facts, that a stronger case of what was called combination, though steering within the limits of the law, could not be made out. The hon. and learned member for Dublin had asked, "Why did not the master coopers seek for other workmen throughout the country?" They did do so; and what was the consequence? Why, that in a few days, such was the complete system of espionage on foot, the employment of the new men was discovered by the combination, and they were obliged to join the opponents of the masters. It was said, that the Board of Admiralty had decided on an ex-parte case laid before it. The Board did not decide as to the step they should take until they had applied for information to a quarter the purest and the most impartial. They went, as had been already stated by his right hon. friend, to the great brewing houses for information on the subject. He must own, that he was astonished to hear the hon. and learned member for Dublin insinuate, that the signatures of the head coopers to the certificate obtained from the brewers had been procured by compulsion. It was only necessary for him to state the names of the firms against whom such an insinuation was made—the names of Barclay, Perkins, and Co., Truman, Hanbury, and Co., Whitbread, and Co., Hoare, and (70., and Taylor and Co.—to refute at once in the opinion of the House such an insinuation as that the head coopers in those establishments had been forced to sign the document in question. It was the imperative duty of the Government to interfere as it had done in this case, and he was confident when the whole Correspondence was brought forward

169
that the House would arrive at the same conclusion.
Mr. George Frederick Youngsaid, that in such an important matter, he should not, however he aught expose himself to obloquy and popular odium, be deterred from expressing his sentiments. There were certain points laid down by the hon. and learned member for Dublin, which he (Mr. Young), not looking at them as a lawyer, but as a man of plain common-sense, considered open to refutation. It was quite true, that the acts of those men had been so admirably conducted as to be kept within the present law, but the consequences of those acts would be so injurious to the commerce of the country that it was the imperative duty of the Government not to interfere between the masters and the men, but to take measures to prevent the trade and commerce of the country from being suspended or greatly injured. A species of moral intimidation had been resorted to in this case for which the law did not provide a remedy, and for which, therefore, extralegal remedies were required. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that every man had a right to dispose of his labour as he thought fit. Nobody disputed that principle, but that very principle was outraged by such a combination as this, which, with the most wanton tyranny, interfered with individual labour, and prevented each individual from using his labour as he wished. No one, surely, would defend the wanton and despotic tyranny exercised by these bodies. He must altogether deny the allegation of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, that the masters were in a perpetual combination. He could state, upon the best information, that there was no combination at all amongst the master coopers, and that there had been no Association of the Masters since 1825 up to the present strike. The hon. member for Middlesex had said, that there had been no disputes between the coopers since the repeal of the Combination-laws. The reason was this—that the masters were placed in such extreme dependence on the men, they dared not encounter them until the circumstances occurred that had given rise to the present dispute. He held in his hand an account of the wages which had been actually received by the coopers in one of the establishments in this metropolis. The account was for the last year, and the average for each individual was 2l. 2s. per week for the whole year round, exclusive of beer
170
which was 1d. in the shilling, and chip-money, which would not be less than 2s. per week, and one-fourth of the men in this establishment averaged sixty years of age. One individual workman there actually received out of the counting-house during the year 139 l. 17 s. 10 d. It was at such prices that the men were standing out, This, however, was not a question of wages. If the men could get 5l. a week by proper means, there ought to be no objection to it; but he was sure that if the House instituted a rigorous investigation into the facts, the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty would be completely borne out. It would be found that a system had been acted upon, which if continued would be destructive of the interests of commerce, Which, in principle, was a most odious and execrable tyranny over private judgment, and would be final to social order. As regarded commerce, it would render us incapable of competing with foreigners, it would indeed effectually suspend all commercial transactions, for this was an evil for which it was impossible to provide a remedy on the spur of the moment. It was the tyranny of one set of men over their fellow men—an offence which could neither be too severely reprobated, nor too vigorously opposed. It was a fact, that men were not allowed to work except under regulations which were prescribed by these men. The hours of work were fixed—they were not allowed to work for more than twelve hours, nor even for this time unless adequate wages were obtained. What was the effect of these restrictions? In the general market labour existed redundantly, and we had various schemes of emigration to take off the superabundant labour. The Government were not stepping in between the masters and their workmen, but between one class of his Majesty's subjects and another, to relieve them from oppression. He had stated his opinions freely, feeling that he was the best friend of the poor man who boldly and fearlessly told him the truth.
Mr. Fryersaid, that he was decidedly opposed to trades' unions though he was a Radical Reformer, and for this reason, that they would do the workmen no good. It was impossible for them to raise the wages beyond what the masters could give them, and the combination of the masters was ten times worse than that of the men. The combination which he wanted was a combination against the right hon. Baronet—a combination against the Corn-laws. Then the

171
men would be satisfied with what the masters gave them, for if the Corn-laws were repealed, the masters could pay them well. He repeated, that those men who combined against the masters should combine against the cursed Corn-laws. He would resist a combination against the masters, because the masters could not give more money. He employed from 200 to 300 men. Within the last eight months they had twice thought they would benefit themselves by working no more with him, and they accordingly stopped. He told them that they might do so if they pleased, for that they could not compel him to give them more money, as he had not the means of doing so; but that, instead of con shining against him, they should join with him in resisting the cruel combination of the landlords, and getting those accursed Corn-laws repealed; that then their masters would be enabled to pay them properly, and to give them three barrels of good American flour instead of two. The remedy for all these complaints was for the masters to join with the men, and the men to unite with the masters, against the cruel Corn-law.
Mr. Bainesremembered on a very recent occasion that an application had been made to Government to interfere On behalf of the masters against a most formidable trades' union. To that application the Government had in his judgment given a most judicious answer—namely, that the law gave the applicants sufficient power, that the Government would therefore not interfere, and the matter must be settled by the parties themselves. Such was the reply which had been given to the application of the master cloth-workers in Yorkshire some time since; that reply was most sensible and judicious, and had been hailed as such by all parties. The Government had in that instance done well to abstain from interfering, and especially in avoiding to join with trio strong party against the weak. He was at a loss to conceive any reason why the coopers of London should have been interfered with any more than time cloth-workers of Yorkshire. Though it had been urged that the combination complained of would have had the effect of stopping the course of commerce, and that the ships for the Russian and other trades could not have gone to sea, yet he most unhesitatingly said, that the Government, by the course which had been taken, had placed themselves in a most awkward and disad-
172
vantageous situation. They had arrayed the feelings of the great body of the labouring population against then by their interference in this matter. Anxious as he was that the present Government should on all occasions act in such a way as to conciliate the public confidence, and assured as he felt, that no body of men were better qualified to administer the public affairs of this great nation, he could not but regret extremely that they should in this instance have placed themselves in a situation so much at variance with their own principles, and so totally incompatible with the commercial freedom of the country. As to the argument which had been employed to justify the course pursued by the Government—namely, that the law was defective and insufficient to meet fully the peculiarities of the present case, his answer was, reform the law, but do not bolster it up, and place the relative position of masters and workmen in so critical a situation, by such an interference as had been made in the present case. He entertained a firm conviction that the Government could never act better or with more strict propriety, than by saying to the masters, on a similar application, "This a business of your own, deal with it as you think best; you shall have all the protection we can give you in enforcing the law, but we will not otherwise interfere between the conflicting parties." The adherence to this principle would be productive of satisfaction to all, whilst its violation would be a reproach to the Government of the country.
Lord Althorpsaid, the subject which had been brought before the House was one of importance, involving as it did a great general principle. He was read to throw aside the question of amount, and to admit, that the labourer was justly entitled to sell his labour at the highest price. He concurred with the hon. member for Leeds that the Government ought not to interfere in questions raised between masters and workmen, unless, he must add, very particular reasons on a particular case were assigned. What, then, was the present case? It stood thus: that the working coopers combined not only for the purpose of obtaining an increase of wages, but also to decrease the supply of workmen from other quarters, and though the combination had not been guilty of, or resorted to, any act which could be strictly called illegal, yet he (Lord Althorp) did think that a combination to prevent employers having free scope in the market of labour,

173
and free power to hire what workmen they pleased, could not meet the approbation of any person who deliberately and dispassionately would consider the subject. But it would be found, that the combination in this instance was not merely against masters but also against men, against workmen who claimed (and justly claimed as had been argued) to sell their labour at the best price. Their fellow-workmen had, however, combined to prevent them carrying this object, and though the combination thus directed had clone nothing that could be strictly termed illegal, yet it must be admitted it was a mode of action severely to be deprecated. The hon. member for Leeds had argued that the proper manner to meet this state of things was for the Government to propose an alteration of the law as at present existing. For himself he did not think any such alteration necessary; for he believed that if the Government did their duty by upholding the masters when contending for their just and legal rights, such a system of combination as that to which he had last alluded would be put down. The peculiarities in the present case were not limited to the two objects he had already stated, but went also to prevent the instruction of apprentices. [Mr. Roebuck: Such was common in every trade in England.] Such might be the case; but he knew enough of the hon. Gentleman's opinions to believe that the hon. Gentleman would think such an interference most improper. The combination in question had produced the effect of putting the master coopers entirely under the control, not only of those whom they were ready to employ, but also under that of a minority of the working classes. It was, then, under these circumstances, that the master coopers took that course which every hon. Member had admitted was justifiable—namely, to bring up workmen from the country, who from not entering into the views of the combination, in a very short time found their situations so disagreeable that they soon expressed a desire to return home. Such was the system of tyranny pursued—tyranny not merely upon the masters, but on the labourers who were willing to take the employment which was open to them. The application was made to his right hon. friend (Sir J. Graham), and the course which had been pursued was in his judgment perfectly justified under all the circumstances. That course had not been followed upon the decision of his right hon. friend alone, for he (Lord
174
Althorp), in conjunction with his colleagues, had agreed that this was a case in which the Government were called upon to act. He did not put the case as one of precedent, but relied upon the case itself; and he repeated that in an instance when the combination operated both against masters and workmen, the Government were justified in giving that assistance which they had afforded. He regretted exceedingly that a system prevailed in this country by combinators of picking, as it was called, or in other words of setting spies upon workmen, who dared not venture to enter a manufactory against which the combination was directed. That system was productive of much greater intimidation to the men than the masters. He (Lord Althorp) had agreed with the hon. member for Middlesex in repealing the Combination-laws, but he must say, that if such a system was persisted in, it was impossible the law could be allowed to remain as it at present stood, or that the price of labour should be allowed thus artificially to be raised.
Mr. Roebucksaid, that this was not a question merely of trade; it concerned the whole form of society. The course pursued by Government might rouse a spirit now slumbering in the country, which, in a few months hence, might be in a condition differing very much from that in which it was at present. He denied the peculiarity of this case. Most trades refused to allow more than a limited number to be instructed in the business. He might instance tailors—and attorneys, who were prevented by an Act of Parliament from having more than two articled clerks. In his opinion, labourers were perfectly justified in entering into those combinations, as long as they avoided violence or intimidation. But now the Government came in to the assistance of the more powerful party, which had other means to evade such combinations, besides counter-combinations—namely, their capital. There was a manifest injustice in this; for if the hands of the labourer were to be bound up—if he was not to be allowed to obtain the greatest value in his power for his labour, he would no longer be on an equality with his master. The interference of the Government was, therefore, a breach of that equality which ought to be held between the master and labourer, and was not justifiable by any arguments that could be brought in its support. He had observed from an illegal newspaper which was published, notwithstanding the Stamp-law of

175
the noble Lord opposite, and was called the Trades' Union Newspaper, that the trades had now come to an understanding, deprecating the mode in which all former strikes had been made, and stating them to have been a total failure, and that they had now resolved to try a new method by which to effect their object—namely, that instead of maintaining idle the labourer out of work they should themselves employ him. By these means it would be seen the Trades' Unions would become capitalists, and being so would thus keep up the rate of wages. But there was one thing which he would venture to press upon the noble Lord and on the Government, and that was, that there was a better mode of conveying to the labourers a sense of the truth of that fact, than by direct interference on the part of the Government. It Would be a much better and more effectual mode of making them sensible of their error, to discuss the matter with them in such language as would come home to their understandings; and the best means of doing so was, by rendering accessible the ordinary channels of instruction. If the public Press were accessible to all classes, they should be able to convince the labourer, through its means, of the justice of that perfect equality which ought to exist between the master and the labourer, and with which the Government now so strangely attempted to interfere. If the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Admiralty were to take that mode of putting all parties in the proper position, he would find it a more efficient and more respectable mode than that which he had adopted. He admitted, that violence, threats, and intimidation had been used by the trades' unions; but he contended that those threats, and that violence and intimidation, were in consequence of the influence of the Combination-laws, and that they had decreased since the repeal of those laws. He regretted, that the noble Lord had ever mentioned the possibility of the re-enactment of the Combination-laws. Those laws had been repealed after much clamour and excitement; but, by to-morrow morning, millions would hear that the noble Lord had stated from his place in that House, that circumstances might call for their re-enactment. He (Mr. Roebuck) considered that nothing could be more dangerous to the country at large than the bare suspicion that such a project should be in contemplation. As to that intimidation which had been spoken of as "moral inti-
176
midiation," he did not think it could be called intimidation at all. It was only an exercise of that right which they were undoubtedly entitled to exercise, of using all peaceable means of obtaining a just equivalent for their labour. The hon. Member concluded, by hoping, that the necessity of enlightening the people upon this and other subjects, would be an inducement to the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for repealing entirely the Stamp-duty on newspapers.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodthought it highly imprudent on the part of the right hon. Baronet in thus throwing himself into the breach on the present occasion. These combinations were not confined to any particular trade or any particular locality; the principles extended throughout England and Ireland, as well as Prance and other parts of the Continent. Government were, therefore, premature in making war upon the poor journeymen coopers, and would have acted a more noble part if they had turned their arms against the Emperor of Russia, as they ought to have done. The hon. Member knew, that, since the present Combination-laws, there had been a general fall of prices all owing to the change in the currency. The workman had as good a right to keep up his paper wages as the First Lord of the Admiralty had to take his paper salary or paper rents in gold, or as the fund holders had to their paper dividends being paid in the same metal. He knew, from his own inquiries, that in Birmingham, in 1822, when meat was 3d. a-pound, and bread cheap in proportion, that the wages in paper money were about double what they had been in 1792. Yet the workmen would not consent to receive lower daily wages, and would work sometimes only three days in the week at full prices rather than take employment for the whole week at a reduced daily rate. He knew very well, that masters could not afford to pay these wages, yet he could not blame the workmen for trying to keep them up. were quite justified in combining for the sake of their families, provided they used no improper acts of violence or intimidation. If the masters found themselves aggrieved, let them come hand in hand with their workmen to the noble Lord (Lord Althorp), and demand that free circulation of the currency, and that relief from burthens to which they were fairly entitled, and without which the country could not much longer go on. It was better for the noble Lord at once to seek refuge from the crowd-

177
ing demands of the people in the regions of paper money, and no longer advocate a system that must spread discontent and confusion throughout the country.
Mr. Robert Grantsaid, that he had been charged to present a petition from a large majority of the master coopers of the Metropolis—a petition which was signed by about nine-tenths of the whole of that body, and he regretted that the forms of the House had prevented him from presenting it before the debate began. With regard to the arguments used by the Gentlemen who spoke on the other side of the question, he considered that they were all based on an obvious fallacy. Hon. Members talked as if the Government had used, or were about to use force, to oblige the workmen to come into the terms proposed by the masters. But was that the case? Had the Attorney-General taken any steps on the part of the Government to punish those labourers who refused the terms offered? or had the Government called out the military to the assistance of the master coopers, to force the workmen to work for such wages as they chose to offer? No such steps had been taken; yet it was on this misconception that the whole of the arguments of the hon. Gentlemen opposite were founded. It had been argued that the labourers had a right to exact the best price they could obtain for their labour. He admitted that; but if labourers had, on the one side, the right to ask a full equivalent for their industry, surely the masters were entitled to a like privilege, and, if aggrieved, were entitled to seek assistance from individuals or from corporate bodies, from the public or from the Government. He did not mean as Government, hut in their capacity as traders; and if they, the masters, could legally ask the assistance of the Government, it was a solecism to say, that what they could legally ask, Government could not legally grant. Yet that was the whole of the argument of his right hon. friend. He was satisfied, that, in the petition which he held from the master coopers, they stated mulling that they could not substantiate; and if, as he found from it, the workmen could, without illegality, form a combination to reduce their hours of labour from sixteen to thirteen hours, and subsequently to twelve hours, mid yet demand the same amount of wages for the shortest period which they hail for the longest, he would say, that the masters had just as much right to form a combination among themselves to bring down wages as the men
178
had to keep them up. The object of both was legal, and each had a right to pursue it in his own way. He (Mr. Grant) was always opposed to the old Combination-laws, and nothing would induce him to support the re-enactment of those laws. But his noble friend did not say, that it was the intention of Government to re-enact them. All his noble friend said, was, that such was the state to which those combinations were bringing the country, that if it continued, the masters might have it in their power, with some colour of reason, to call upon the House to re-enact those laws which had been repealed, and which he should be sorry to see re-enacted. It was a painful duty which devolved upon him to make this statement, as it might have the appearance of opposition to the working classes, but he made it on the ground of justice to all parties. He had such confidence in the good sense and feeling of justice of the operative classes, that he felt sure they were not capable of those excesses, which would make it necessary either for Government or Parliament to express any opinion on the subject of the Combination-laws; and as long as they continued as they at present stood, any interference would be unnecessary.
Mr. O'Reillysaid, that under the present system of combination, there was no such thing as free trade for the industrious and hottest artisans of the country. Combination met the free exercise of industry at every turn. He would, by way of illustration, state the case of the master shipbuilders of Dublin. They were forced to employ old and comparatively useless men, because the young men who were brought within the vortex of combination, would not, or dared not, work for them. If a ship required repairs, she could not be repaired in Dublin, but the ship-owner was obliged to send her to England or Scotland, there to be repaired by Irish artisans, perhaps, who could not find employment at home. In his own parish, consisting chiefly of a fishing population, the fishermen could not get their boats mended by giving wages common to carpenters all round the country. There were a few persons there who monopolized the ship-carpenters' business, and they required double wages. There was no one more unwilling than he was to revive the Combination-laws. But if threats and combinations were carried to a successful point by the labourers, then he hoped there was a moral power in the country, or in the Government, to offer a

179
successful resistance, and that no master would be prevented from employing as many labourers or apprentices as he pleased.
Motion agreed to.

PROSECUTION OF THE PILOT.
Mr. O'Dwyer Mr. O'Dwyer moved for a return of the amount of costs payable to the Crown Solicitor, and the sum to counsel engaged for the Crown in the case of the King v. Barrett, tried in the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, in Michaelmas Term, 1833; with a specification of the various occasions, whether on motions, arguments, opinions, consultations, trial, or otherwise, counsel received fees; describing when counsel appeared in Court, the number of counsel employed or consulted on each occasion, and a statement of the rank of all counsel employed, and their names, and the amount of fees paid to each on the several occasions, and in the aggregate. The single prosecution against Mr. Barrett cost 700 l. Such an enormous sum should be accounted for. It was known that 50,000 l. had been expended by the Government in criminal prosecutions in Ireland, and the country ought to know how so much money was expended, There was one peculiar feature in the late prosecution, and it was, that an eminent barrister, who was never employed in that department of the bar, but who might have been employed by the traverser, was retained by the Government; and the object was to buy him up. He did not wish to impugn the motives of the Attorney General; but then he was a member of the Privy Council, and advised prosecutions which he was afterwards to conduct. He would not say, that the Attorney General advised prosecutions to pocket the fees, yet he should say, that it was not advisable to give a lawyer an interest in prosecutions. He wished to direct the attention of the House to the very imperfect manner in which the return of the correspondence between the Government and the Stamp-Office, relating to the suppression of the Pilot newspaper, had been made. The return did not set forth the letter written by the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, directing the attention of the Stamp Office to the Act of Parliament, as it should have done; the way to explain this, as certain advocates of the Government bad tauntingly defied any attempt to show that the Irish Government bad interfered, or that the proceeding, which had excited so much condemnation, was not the work of the Stamp
180
Office alone. He was certain that the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, would not hesitate to give every explanation on the matter, in order that the credit or discredit attaching to it should be appropriated to the right quarter.
Mr. Littletonbegged to say, in reply to the call made upon him by the hon. member for Drogheda, that he had already twice or three times over, in reply to the hon. Gentleman himself, explained the transaction. He now begged leave to repeat a communication which had been addressed to him by a person in Ireland, whose name he did not feel himself called upon to disclose, directing his attention to the clause of the Act of Parliament which applied to the case. It was not in his department to deal with this information; and he, as was customary in official matters, desired his private secretary to transmit this letter, addressed to him, to the department to which it referred. He had reason to believe, however, that before he had sent the communication made to him, the Stamp-office department had determined to adopt the course which they ultimately did. He had no objection to the production of the bill of costs, but then he hoped that the House would be put in possession of the particular expenses incurred in the several stages of the prosecution. The ordinary expenses of the prosecution would be undoubtedly light, and the additional expenses arose from the delays, vexatious he would not say, and the opposition caused. As to the number of counsel employed, he would say, that as many had been employed in criminal prosecutions in England—Sir James Scarlett employed as many. It was usual, in Ireland, to employ the Serjeants and the senior King's Counsel in such prosecutions, and, in case any accident might occur to prevent their attendance, to give retaining fees to counsel to fill their places. Now it so happened, that the Solicitor General, Serjeant Pennefather, and Serjeant Perrin, were absent from Dublin, and the Attorney General directed that Mr. Holmes, the Gentleman to whom the hon. Member alluded, should be employed in their absence. That was the cause why so many lawyers were employed; eight, or even seven, were, perhaps too many, but he had stated the reason for employing eight. He would tell the House, that the Attorney General, though a member of the Privy Council, was not consulted about those prosecutions. He had neither

181
voice nor influence in directing them, and from that learned Gentleman's well-known liberality in pecuniary matters, of which he had some knowledge, he was far above encouraging prosecutions for the sake of making money. The right hon. Secretary then moved an amendment, to the effect that the return of costs should distinguish the proportion of costs in the several stages of the prosecution.
The Motion, as amended by Mr. Littleton, was agreed to.

LEAMINGTON PETITION.
Mr. Tancredrose to move for the discharge of the order appointing a Committee to investigate an imputed breach of privilege in the affixing of false signatures to a petition from Leamington Spa, praying for the extension of the elective franchise to that town. He did so on the ground that there had been no petition complaining of injury presented. When the Motion was made by the hon. and learned member for Dover for the Committee, the noble Paymaster of the Forces had objected to it, on the ground, that there was no petition of complaint before the House; upon which the hon. and learned Member had said there was, and the opposition of the noble Lord was at once withdrawn, and the Committee agreed to. Now, upon examination, it appeared that there was no petition as stated by the hon. and learned Member. Of course the hon. and learned Member had been mistaken, and had conceived a petition presented by a noble Lord (Eastnor) to be one of complaint; whereas its only prayer was, that the franchise should not be extended to Leamington. Such being the case, he trusted that his Motion would not be opposed; and if it were, he should feel himself bound to persevere in the Motion which he had submitted yesterday, and which was, that the petitioners signing the petition complained of, and who had petitioned to be heard before the Committee by their agents or Counsel, might be so heard. He moved to discharge the order for appointing a Committee on the Leamington Spa petition.
Mr. Hughes Hughesseconded the Motion. He did so chiefly on account of the great and useless expense the Committee would occasion should it be continued. He must remark, that the Leamington petitioners appeared to be very unfortunate. The noble Lord, the member for Reigate, had presented a petition the other evening purporting to come from above 500 of the
182
householders rated at above 10 l. in the town of Leamington. Now, that was the third petition which had been presented; and he was informed that one-half of the signatures attached to it were not those of 10 l. householders, that fifty were the signatures of females, that forty were names signed twice over, a few names were signed three times, and one four times. He thought that the hon. and learned member for Dover, seeing the error he had been led into in stating there was a petition of complaint when there was none, would not offer any opposition to the Motion.
Mr. Halcombefelt confident, he could satisfy the House, that there were no grounds for the Motion of the hon. member for Banbury. A petition had been presented to the House, signed by 757 out of 850, time total number of the 10 l. householders of Leamington Spa, praying that that place might not be included in the boundaries of the borough of Warwick. Some time after the Warwick borough Committee published a report, in which they stated, that the petition to which he had just alluded had been referred to them as well as another petition numerously and respectably signed by inhabitants of Leamington in favour of the extension of the franchise to that town. When this report was known at Leamington, it excited time utmost astonishment amongst the inhabitants, because, as he had before said, out of the 850 10 l. householders in Leamington, 757 had signed the petition against the proposed junction of the two places. The petition to which the Committee referred in their report in favour of the extension of the franchise to Leamington was cunningly worded, for though at the commencement it was described as the petition "of the undersigned inhabitants of Leamington," it concluded by praying "that the boundaries of Warwick might be extended to Leamington, in order that your petitioners may vote at all future elections for members for that borough." This was intended to convey the impression, that the persons signing the petition were 10 l. householders, because no other description of persons would be entitled to vote in the event of the Warwick franchise being extended to Leamington; 418 signatures were affixed to this petition, of which he would undertake to prove, on the authority of most respectable persons, no less than 281 were fictitious. The most diligent inquiries had been made in order to ascertain whether the 281 signatures attached to the pe-

183
tition were those of inhabitants of Leamington, and the result was, that only seventeen were found to be so, but all the seventeen whom those names represented had signed the petition against the extension of the franchise to Leamington. The house might form some idea of the manner in which the petition had been got up from the circumstance which he was about to mention. One of the witnesses examined before the Committee which had been appointed upon his Motion stated, that he and his father-in-law were sitting in a public-house in Leamington, when two mechanics entered with the petition, and asked them to sign it. They refused, stating, that they had signed the counter-petition. The mechanics, however, in defiance of their objection, signed their names to the petition. The Committee would have ended its labours ere this, had it not been for a mistake on the part of the hon. member for Banbury. The hon. Member entered the Committee on the last day of its sitting, and introduced Mr. Joseph Parkes as agent for some persons who had petitioned the House, praying that they might be heard by their counsel or agents in support of the genuineness of the petition which was complained of as being spurious. He asked the hon. member for Banbury whether the House had ordered the petitioners to be heard by their agents, and the hon. Member answered in the affirmative; but it turned out that the House had made no such order, but merely referred the petition to the Committee. In consequence of this interruption, the labours of the Committee had been suspended, and the witnesses detained in town. The hon. member for Banbury now appeared to think, that it was improper that the Committee should proceed with the inquiry, because no petition had been presented from any of the persons whose names were alleged to be signed to the spurious petition; but he thought, that this argument was untenable. Could it be maintained, that a Member acquainted with a breach of privilege was not at liberty to institute an inquiry into the subject? Was he to stand in a worse situation, in this respect, than a person out of doors, who might present a petition? It was said, that he was not the party aggrieved; but the House was the party aggrieved, and was bound to vindicate its own honour. The course which he had pursued was not without precedent. In the Journals of the House, vol. 84, page 187,
184
(anno 1829), was the following entry:—"Complaint was made to the House, that one of the names annexed to the petition from certain Protestant inhabitants of Kilrea, against the Catholic claims, was a forgery.—Ordered, that a Committee be appointed to inquire into the facts of the case, and to report the same, with their observations thereon, to the House." The Committee was accordingly appointed, with powers to send for persons, papers, and records: and the petition to which the fraudulent signature was affixed was referred to it. The transaction was thus described in Hansard's Debates:—
Mr. Dawsonread a letter which he had received from the Rev. Mr. Waddy, of Kilrea, who stated, that having seen in the newspapers a report, setting forth the presentation by Sir George Hill of a petition from that parish against the Catholic claims, to which his name was said to be subscribed, he felt it his duty to notify, that the signature of his name must be a forgery, as he never signed, or authorised the signing of, his name to such a petition. It was singular enough, too, that this very petition dwelt with particular force upon the gross artifices which were imputed to the Catholics to create perjury and immorality. He meant not to proceed further than to expose the grossness of this forgery.
The Speaker: I hope that the House, when circumstances so strongly affecting a most valuable right of the subject, and so deeply affecting the dignity and character of this House, are stated to them, will not fail to do their duty. If they do not, I will venture to say this is the first time when such a proceeding was passed over. If the hon. member should decline to proceed, some hon. Member will, I am sure, take the matter up.
Sir George Hillsaid, that as he had presented the petition in question, the House would naturally expect some explanation from him. All he could say was, that the petition was enclosed to him by Mr. Digby, a Magistrate of the neighbourhod, who apprised him that it was most respectably signed. Mr. Digby and Mr. Waddy were both most respectable gentlemen; and it surprised him that the latter did not at once require from the former some explanation of the matter. It puzzled him altogether, and he knew not what to make of the business. He should not, of course, oppose any investigation.
Mr. Humesaid, he would make a Motion upon the subject if no other Member gave notice of one.
Mr. Dawsonsaid, that having been the person who brought the matter forward, he should not shrink from prosecuting the inquiry, and would therefore move for a Committee to inquire into the facts of the case.
A Committee was accordingly appointed.*
* Hansard (new series) xxi. p. 22.

185
In that case only one signature was forged, but in the present case 281 were alleged to be so. He held in his hand a petition from some of the parties, who were prepared to prove that their names had been signed to the petition without their knowledge and against their wish; but he had not presented it, because he wished the case to stand as it was.
Mr. Tancred:What is the date of that petition?
Mr. Halcombe:A petition has no date.
Mr. Tancred:When did the hon. Member receive it?
Mr. Halcombewould answer the hon. Member presently. The hon. Member's present Motion could have no other object than to stifle inquiry. The whole of the seventeen persons whose names had been falsely affixed to the spurious petition would have signed the petition which he held in his hand, had it not been for a notion which prevailed that if they did so they would be precluded from giving evidence before the Committee, and, therefore, in order to be on sure ground, he recommended that no more than two persons should sign it. He had put his name down to present the petition two days ago, but on reflection he thought it better to leave the case as it stood. When he first stirred in the matter, he stated that he acted on his own responsibility, and by that declaration he was prepared to abide. He had undoubtedly made a misrepresentation, but the hon. member for Banbury was good enough to do him the justice to say he was convinced the misrepresentation must have been unintentional. He had made this statement upon the authority, or rather he should say upon the supposed authority, of the noble Lord on his right, who presented the petition. When he moved for the Committee, it was opposed by the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces. He was annoyed at the moment, that the measure before the House should be thus hindered from going on, and the noble Lord said there was no petition. He asserted that there was a petition. He believed so at the time; he had received a communication from the parties, who stated, that their desire was, to address the House, and he afterwards received a letter adding, that the petition was to be intrusted either to him or to the noble Lord, and this without delay. Several days elapsed; he looked to the precedent he had already quoted; and he thought it better to state what he
186
had to submit to the House upon his own authority as the ground for a future Motion. He heard that the noble Lord on his right had presented a petition from the inhabitants of Leamington, referring to the former petition, and this petition he at once believed to be the petition which was expected, and which had been on the road directed to him or to the noble Lord. In conclusion, he protested against their now stopping short in the inquiry, for the purpose of screening somebody. The Committee had called on the hon. member for Banbury to declare from whom he had received the petition. The hon. Member declined to do so,—a course which he should not have felt himself justified in pursuing. The hon. Member had, by this refusal, thrown all manner of difficulties and inconveniences in his way.
Mr. Hughes Hughesobserved, that a regular hoax had been practised on the hon. member for Dover. Seventeen men with similar names to those inscribed on the petition had very truly sworn that they had not authorised the signatures, or themselves affixed them; but the fact was, the seventeen men who had actually signed were ready to come forward and swear that they had done so.
Lord Eastnorsaid, that in presenting the petition to which the hon. member for Dover alluded, he had stated, that it referred to the petition of last year. He was extremely sorry that there had been any misunderstanding on the subject. He could not vouch, of course, for the correctness of each and every signature to the petition; but he had spared no pains to ascertain their authenticity; and he had been assured by a man on whose veracity be placed the fullest reliance, and who had collected the greater number of the signatures, that they were perfectly genuine. He begged to say, that he should be inclined to dissuade the hon. member for Dover from pressing for an inquiry to prove a negative with respect to all the names, on account of the inconvenience and expense which it must necessarily occasion. He would prefer having the inquiry limited to those who described themselves as 10 l. householders.
Mr. Abercrombysaid, that as he meant to concur in the Motion of the hon. member for Banbury, he wished to state the grounds upon which he did so. He certainly did not support the Motion with a view, either directly or indirectly, to suppress inquiry. He begged utterly to dis-

187
claim any such feeling. He conceived that the question which the House had to decide was, whether it was fit and proper to appoint such a Committee as that which had been granted, simply upon the assertion of an individual, without any petition for inquiry. The case which the hon. member for Dover had quoted, proved any thing but a case in favour of the position which he sought to establish, because, in that instance, the statement made was supported by the letter of an individual addressed to an hon. Member, and that hon. Member read that letter in his place in the House. That authority was equivalent to any other authority which the House would demand. The hon. Gentleman had adverted, in terms not the most courteous, to the name of Mr. Joseph Parkes. He had the authority of that Gentleman to state, that he was as ignorant of the petition to which the hon. Member had referred, until it was submitted to the House, as either the hon. and learned Gentleman or himself could be. He begged to state this upon the authority of Mr. Parkes himself, a gentleman who was as incapable of misleading him or any man as any hon. Member in that House could be; and therefore upon his authority be spoke with perfect confidence as to the accuracy of his information.
Lord Granville Somerset: As a member of that Committee which the hon. and learned member for Banbury had designated as one from which justice could not be obtained, he now called upon him to consider the nature of the imputation he had cast upon the Committee, and he asked him to come forward and declare what act of the Committee, or of any member of it, had given fair ground for such an imputation. The only mistake made by the Committee arose from a mis-statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. That hon. and learned Gentleman assured the Committee, that the House had come to a vote to which it had not come; and in consequence the Committee was thrown into difficulty as to obeying the orders of the House, and at the same time conducting the inquiry with justice and impartiality. He did not accuse the hon. and learned Gentleman of wilful mis-statement; but when he was so prompt and eager to make charges against others, it was well for him to be reminded, that even so learned a Member as himself was sometimes liable to act incorrectly. He trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman would now see reason to withdraw the
188
charge he had made, when it was thus put to him. Now, as to the reasons upon which he would ground his vote. If the hon. Member had used the same arguments on the question that a Committee be granted, that he had urged that night, they might have been valid, and made the House pause before they granted an inquiry; but it was now too late, after a Committee had been appointed, witnesses brought forward, and expense incurred. There was, if not great doubt respecting the signatures to the petition, at least great irregularity concerning it; and he considered, that at the present stage, the inquiry should be suffered to proceed, which perhaps the House would originally have been justified in refusing. It was his opinion, that if the inquiry went on, the accused parties would have an ample opportunity of exculpating themselves, if they possessed the evidence necessary for that purpose, which he was far from saying they did not. Of one thing there had been the strongest assertion, and it was therefore well worth inquiring into further—namely, that many of the signatures had been most improperly obtained; and he confessed, for that, as well as for other reasons, that he did not see how the Committee could be stopped in its present stage; for if he were the most eager partisan of the persons accused, he should still think a continuance of the inquiry would be for their advantage. Surely nothing could be more unfair to their characters than to stop the inquiry after five or six witnesses had been heard. The only apprehension he had arising from the possibility of the proceedings being abruptly stopped was that he felt a strong anxiety to deliver, as it were, a just verdict; and that, of course, he could not do on imperfect testimony. It would now be inconsistent with the most obvious principles of justice to arrest the progress of the inquiry. At the commencement of all inquiries, it might be very necessary for the House to be extremely cautious how they set anything of the sort on foot, but the case was widely different when they came to deal with proceedings not only entered on but considerably advanced. It might be said, that the continuance of the inquiry would cost a certain number of pounds, and that, upon economical grounds, it ought not any further to be pursued. To that he had only to reply, that he hoped the House, however attentive to economy, would pay some regard to justice.
Lord John Russellwished, that the House could have the advantage of hearing from the Chair what the usual practice in such cases had been.
The Speakersaid, that, as well as his experience and recollection prompted, the usual practice was, that the Committee was appointed on the complaint, and at the instance of some person or persons interested, made in some shape or other, but generally in the form of a petition. A case had been referred to, which had been brought before the House not in that form. It was true there was such a precedent; but then the complaint was made in a written letter, which gave it some sort of formality, and was read by the hon. Member to the House, which thereupon granted the Committee. In adopting this course, he (the Speaker), believed the House was influenced by the consideration that a letter had in some sort the effect of a petition, and inferred a responsibility. The House would, in this instance, exercise its own discretion, but the practice was, to take care that the grievance complained of should be substantiated by the assurance and responsibility of some party aggrieved, and therefore to require something more than a mere statement. On this practice, and believing that some person aggrieved was accessory to the complaint, the House granted the Committee. Many hon. Members and he were of opinion that a petition existed, which afterwards turned out not to be the case, as no petition had been forwarded. The Committee had been appointed, and had made some progress in their inquiry, when this was discovered to be the case, and under these circumstances the noble Lord put the question whether it would be more regular to proceed with the inquiry, or to discharge the Committee. He did not think it would be irregular to discharge the Committee. The House vas at liberty to reconsider its vote upon the matter, and if it believed it more conducive to the ends of justice to discharge the Committee, the House certainly had it in its power to do so. But if the matter had already proceeded so fir that there would be a difficulty in retracing its steps, and if by the inquiry, as hitherto proceeded in, matters appeared greatly involved, the House should then be guided by circumstances, and resolve accordingly.
Lord John Russellobserved, that when a statement was made, not in the form of a petition, but in that of a statement through
190
an hon. Member, the details ought, in his opinion, to be brought minutely and distinctly before the House. Having heard from authority the practice of the House in such cases, and bearing in mind the obvious inference to be derived from it, they ought, in his opinion, to be governed by that.
The House divided—Ayes 55; Noes 9—Majority 46.
The Order for the Attendance of the Committee was accordingly discharged.

List of the NOES.

Eastnor, Lord

Stormont, Lord

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Willoughby, Sir H.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Pringle, R.

TELLER.

Shaw, F.

Halcombe, J.

Skipwith, Sir G.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Borough of Warwick.—Read a second time:—North American Postage.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Doncaster, to have the Accounts of Trustees of Turnpike Roads made Public.—By Viscount MELBOURNE, and another NOBLE LORD, from two Places,—against the present System of Church Patronage (Scotland).—By Lord LYTTLETON, from Sedgeley, against the Sale of Beer Act.—By the Bishops of LONDON and ROCHESTER, and Lord DUNDAS, from several Places,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Lords BEXLEY, POLTIMORE, DACRE, LVTTLETON, and DUNDAS, from a Number of Dissenting Congregations,—praying for Relief.

COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS.
The Earl of Durhamwished to call the attention of the House to a Petition of which he had given notice, and which he conceived to be well deserving of their Lordships' serious consideration. It was a Petition from the Physicians practising in London under the title of Licentiates. As he should move, that the Petition be read at length, he should only state in general that it complained of the bye laws of the College of Physicians, which excluded Licentiates from their share in the government of the College, in the emoluments of it, and in the privileges attached to it, and prayed for a general inquiry into, and remedy of, the existing bad state of the law relating to the medical profession. He had also a Petition from the practising Surgeons and Apothecaries of the Metropolis on a similar subject, which he should present on a future occasion. The Petition he now held in his hand was signed by seventy-six Licentiate Physicians, being more than one-half of those who practised in London. In the College-list of 1832, there were 126 Fellows of the College and 272 Licentiates. Of those, sixty-five Fellows and 138 Licentiates were in London. These together made up a number of 203, and out of that number 180 only practised in London and within seven miles round it, in which the population amounted to 1,500,000 persons. With a view of forming some opinion on the subject, it would be curious to know the proportion of Physicians in Berlin and Paris, as compared to the population of those cities, and then to see whether the opinion was borne out, that the effect of the bye laws of the College of Physicians was to prevent London from enjoying a sufficient supply of medical men of the first rank and class. The propositions were these:—In Berlin, where there was a population of 249,000, there were 228 Physicians. In Paris, where the population amounted to 935,000, there were 925 Physicians; while, in London, where the population was 1,500,000, there were only 180 practising Physicians. Again, in Berlin there were 174 surgeons and apothecaries; in Paris there were 159; and in London 2,000. It was not now a question whether there were too many surgeons and apothecaries, but whether the demand of the people for medical aid of the first order was fully complied with, and whether the bye laws of the College of Phy-

123
sicians did not compel the people to have recourse to an inferior grade of practitioners. There were throughout the rest of the country 150 Physicians who were members of the College; and twenty-five Licentiates for the whole of England and Wales. The complaints against the laws now regulating the medical profession were, that no person could practise in London unless he had passed an examination at the College, and that no person could pass an examination there unless he had graduated at Oxford or Cambridge, where the medical schools were of an inferior kind; that the College did not possess the power of protecting those whom it licensed, for that its Statutes were not penal; that any person whatever might practise as a surgeon; that with respect to that branch of the profession, there was required an Act similar to that passed in 1815, with regard to apothecaries, in which branch great improvements had taken place since the passing of the Act in question. The petition went on to state, that the Charter was granted in the tenth year of the reign of Henry 8th.; that the restrictions imposed on that Charter were proper enough at the time it was granted, but that the bye laws which had since been made were of such a nature, that the original intention and object of the Charter were evaded. The result of these bye laws he believed to be, that the bulk of the medical men of the highest skill and attainments had been excluded from those advantages and privileges, the enjoyment of which was unjustly confined to a very small number. In consequence of this exclusion, dissensions had arisen in the medical profession, and the people were deprived of enjoying all the benefit that the advanced state of medical science ought to be able to confer upon them. In the 300 years during which the Charter had been in existence, the College of Physicians had only published eighteen volumes of their transactions, while on the Continent the Medical and Chirurgical bodies answering to our College of Physicians, had, during the last thirty years, published eighty volumes of transactions. It was only on public grounds that he had brought this subject under the consideration of their Lordships, for in private he knew and esteemed some of the members of the College of Physicians, in whose hands these bye laws placed the enjoyment of
124
what he conceived to be unjust and improper privileges. He thought there ought to be a less restricted right of admission to all the privileges of the College, and a power of exercising a superintendence over its management, and that there should be added to the list of its privileged members a sufficient supply of the best and purest names of the profession. He moved that the Petition be brought up and read.
The Petition having been read,
Viscount Melbourne, without giving any opinion on this subject, owed it to the medical body at large to say, that he was satisfied that a general inquiry into the laws of the medical profession was highly expedient, and that considerable advantages might be expected from it. He did not, however, sec that there was any actual necessity for their Lordships to enter into such an inquiry, since a Committee had been appointed in the House of Commons to take the whole matter into consideration. If, however, his noble friend was desirous of embarking in an inquiry of the same kind, and would himself undertake the task of conducting it, he should offer a Motion for appointing a Committee, no opposition.
The Earl of Durhamdid not know whether the medical body would or would not be satisfied with the inquiry established by the House of Commons. When they came to him to ask him to present this petition, he stated the fact of the appointment of a Committee in the House of Commons, but they did not on that account withdraw their petition to the House of Lords, but desired that their case should be brought under the consideration of their Lordships' House.
Lord Ellenboroughhad no objection whatever to the appointment of a Committee, but, from the statement made by the noble Lord opposite, it appeared to him that this grievance was rather of an individual, than of a public nature; but he must, in justice to the medical profession of this metropolis, say, that whether chiefly composed of men of the higher or the inferior classes of the profession, they appeared to be more successful in their treatment of diseases than the medical professors of the cities with which they had been compared, for the average mortality in London was much smaller than in either Berlin or Paris. The aver-

125
age mortality in London was supposed to be one in forty; in Paris it was one in thirty-two, and in Berlin one in thirty-five.
The Earl of Durhamobserved, that if the argument of the noble Lord was pushed to its full extent, the whole of the medical profession ought to be composed of apothecaries.
Lord Ellenboroughwas happy to say that he was not competent, from his own experience, to form an opinion on the subject, as he had never consulted a Physician in his life.
The Petition was laid on the Table.