Sitting of 21 March 1834

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Spring Quarter Sessions.—Read a third time:—Consolidated Fund; Smuggling Act Amendment Indemnity.
Petitions presented. By Mr. EWART, from Liverpool; and Mr. TOOKE, from Chelmsford, &c.,—for preventing Children being Employed in Sweeping Chimneys.—By Mr. BAINES, from the Hand-Loom Weavers of Tildesley, for Relief, and for a Board of Trade.—By Messrs. PHILPOTTS and BELL, from Hexham, &c.,—for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. PIGOT, from Albrighton, for the Repeal of the Malt Tax.—By Lord HENNIKER, Captain WINNINGTON, and Messrs. COTES, WILKS, and BAINES, from a Number of Dissenting Congregations for Relief to the Dissenters.

FREE TRADE—LIVERPOOL PETITION —ADJOURNED DEBATE.
The Order of the Day for the adjourned Debate on the Liverpool Petition having been read,
Mr. O'Reillyrose to offer a few observations on the very important subject before the House. The argument which he thought had been urged with most force for the continuance of the present system was, that the repeal of the Corn-laws by lessening the means of the agricultural capitalists, would have the effect of limiting his power to give employment to the same number of labourers as he employed at present. The produce of the laud of Ireland had been quadrupled

523
in value by the labour of the people, and not by the expenditure of money capital, within these forty years. The same effect would follow in England if the large farms were broken up, which they would be if it ceased to be the interest of large capitalists to hold large tracts of land. Let the Corn-laws be repealed, and there would be plenty of employment for agricultural labourers by the breaking up of large farms. It was the desire to consolidate farms which occasioned the destruction of life and property so much to be lamented in Ireland. There were no Poor-laws in that country; so that when the poor peasant was turned out of the little farm which had yielded him and his family subsistence, the unhappy man only thought of taking what he considered a just vengeance on his oppressors. Another argument which had been urged against the repeal of the Corn-laws was, that the capital already employed in the manufacture of land would be left unprotected; but he would ask hon. Gentlemen who argued in this way was this capital at present protected? Did the Corn-law ensure such a price to the cultivator of land as could be considered a protection? But it was said, that we were in a state of transition, and that things would yet improve. Why we had been in this state of transition for the last seventeen years, and yet this promised improvement had not taken place. The price of corn had been declining year after year, slowly he was free to admit, but yet it was gradually and speedily diminishing, and still the farmers were told that, although the preceding year had not been so productive, yet that the next would compensate them for their losses. This was the language used by the landlords, who affected to despise the argument of political economists. The decline in the price of corn could not be attributed to the influx of foreign corn, because none had been admitted within the last three years; neither could it be attributed to the non-employment of the manufacturers, because never was there a period when this class of the community were more fully employed than at present. There was, then, a sufficient home demand. To what, then, was to be attributed the low price of corn? The fact was, that the protection afforded to corn, instead of benefiting the agricultural labourer, was positively injurious to him. This view of the case would be borne out by a reference to Ireland. He was about to refer to the protection afforded to the linen trade in Ireland. That trade was carried on to a great
524
extent, and flourished in Ireland, but not in large towns, or through the medium of large manufactories. It flourished in the hands of men who were partly agriculturists and partly manufacturers. They first sowed the flax, they then pulled it, and subsequently with their own hands manufactured it. These men, then, called for protection from the Irish Parliament, and they received it. Their trade was especially protected, because it was the staple trade of the north of Ireland, which was considered the most civilized because it was the most Protestant part of that country, and was therefore looked upon as the link between England and Ireland. But the consequence of protection was the destruction of the trade, and the linen-weaver was driven to seek employment in England and Scotland, where the importation of foreign yarn was not prohibited. At length the protection was removed, free trade was established, and the manufacture of linen cloth was revived. As soon as the importation of foreign yarn was permitted, that trade received so great a stimulus that it became profitable to sow flax where, five or six years before, corn and potatoes were grown. So that it had been found that the moment the linen-trade was relieved from all restriction, it had returned again to the place from which it had previously departed, and was now likely to prove prosperous as before. The plain deduction from all this was, that those restrictions called "protective" were no protection at all; but, on the contrary, a great injury to every interest, and especially to the agricultural. Besides, they never did, and never would, support a remunerative price for corn; and they were, moreover, fatal to the best interests of the country in all its social relations. The last argument he should touch on was one on which the supporters of the Corn-law restrictions mainly relied. This was the supposition that to take away the inducements which agriculturists had to grow corn, which would be the effect of a repeal of the restrictive laws on the importation of corn, would be to make this country entirely dependent for a supply of the prime necessary of life upon foreign countries. Nothing could be more preposterous than this. That a great manufacturing country like England could ever be independent of foreign countries was not to be thought of; at least that she should not be able always to command a sufficient supply. What was the situation of the country at present? Had the quantity of corn in-

525
creased? He held that it had not, and as a proof he would only adduce one fact, that when wheat brought 120 s. the quarter, as much of it was grown as had been since it varied from 48 s. to 50 s. per quarter. It had been proved by the failure of the joint-stock companies started a few years back, that such large bodies could not compete with the private trader. Neither could a large farmer, employing the labour of others for wages, compete with the man who tilled a small farm himself with the assistance of his family. This was established by the experience of Ireland, where land let in small portions always yielded the landlord more than that let in large farms. For his own part he had no interest that was not bound up in the prosperity of the land, but he thought the landed interest mistaken in supposing, that they derived any advantage from the present protection, as it was called. That protection was really injurious both to the agricultural labourers and to the landed proprietors.
Mr. Cobbettrose to expose a few of the grave mistakes which Gentlemen fell into when talking upon this subject. The hon. member for Lambeth had on a former day referred to America as illustrating the blessings of free trade. He said, that if we took American corn they would take our manufactures; but let them see the example which America had set them. In that free country, where Congress really represented the bulk of the people, a duty of twenty-five per cent was imposed on the Winchester bushel of wheat. Now twenty-five cents. was one quarter of the price of wheat in America. Indeed he had rarely known wheat continue long at a dollar per Winchester bushel. Fifteen cents was the duty imposed on oats, which, as the oats there were very bad, except when raised from English seed, was one-half of their price. They went further than this, however, for they imposed a protecting duty on seeds, which seeds they could not do without. The duty on seeds of all sorts was twenty-five per cent ad valorem, including flax and hemp seed, as also flax and hemp themselves. The duty upon cheese was, in English money, as much as 3½d. per lb.; and on butter he believed, but he spoke only from memory, it was about 4½d. per lb. On bacon and hams the duty was 3d. per lb., on pork 1d., and on wool fifty per cent ad valorem. Now, this free Government of America, which, it was admitted, consulted the real interest of the whole community, imposed a duty of fifty per cent
526
on foreign wool; and not a word of complaint was heard from any party against that protecting duty. Why, therefore, was all this outcry about the duties which were enforced in this country for the protection of the land, and which, after all, was no protection at all? The facts which he had stated ought to be known to the right hon. member for Manchester, and to the right hon. Secretary to the Treasury, and the latter Gentleman ought to be in his place to explain or refute them. A little publication called The Quarten Loaf, had been put into his hands as he came down to the House, and he believed that it had also been put into the hands of every other Member. At the head of this paper was a picture or ornament having as gross a falsehood as ever was invented annexed to it. There was a picture of a quartern loaf, and on it was inscribed, "Flour and baking 4d.; landlord's tax, 4½d.; Total 8½d." Now, he denied, that there was any truth in the assertion that the landlords had a clear profit of 4½d. out of them. The fact was, that for rent and cultivation, the landlord, the farmer, and the labourer, had no more than that 4½d. divided between the whole of them. The rest was—what? Why the rest was added by the miller and baker. He did not charge the bakers with extortion; nothing like it. Look to the year 1792. What did the four-pound loaf cost then? Why, 6d. It was now 8½d. Why? Because we had the fundholder to pay. Had we then the Malt-tax, or the Window-tax? No; in 1792 we had only 13,000,000 l. of taxes; now we had 50,000,000 l., or nearly. So that the landlord and farmer had nothing whatever to do with the increase in the price of bread. If the petitioners were rational persons, they would not have asked for cheap bread; they would have asked for a reduction of those taxes that caused the bread to be so high. Cheap corn! Why, they had it. An hon. member from Scotland told him the other night, that they could have in Scotland the best flour at 27 s. the sack. This, however, he knew, that they could get wheat from Ireland of the very best quality yielding sixty pounds of flour, to the bushel. at 35 s. the quarter. Corn was not so cheap in 1792, or ten years previous, as it was now. He did not know but he ought to vote for the repeal of the Corn-laws, upon account of their foolishness, their utter absurdity, and inefficiency. He explained all these things to his constituents, who were just as fond of a cheap loaf as the people of Liverpool,

527
or any other place. He said to them, "Don't go to the landlords to ask for cheap bread, because they cannot give it you. Go to the Government, and tell them to take off the taxes, that the baker may be enabled to give you cheap bread." This was the language he addressed to his constituents. He recollected perfectly well when this Corn Bill was first brought forward he gave it his most strenuous opposition, not because he objected to the principle of the Bill, but solely because he conceived it would be wholly inoperative—that it would not in fact enable the farmer to get 10 s. a bushel for his wheat. In 1822 wheat was down so low as 46 s. a quarter, although there was not a handful of wheat imported for three years before. Therefore it was quite clear that this Corn-law was no protection to the farmer. He would, therefore, as he said before, be almost disposed to vote for the abolition of this law on account of its inefficiency. To be sure the repeal of the Corn-law would be attended with great injury for a time, but it would have some good effects; it would compel the landlords to hold their purse-string tighter, and might prevent them from sending their surplus rent abroad.
Mr. Lambertagreed with the hon. member for Oldham, that the Corn-laws did not afford a sufficient protection to the agricultural interest. It appeared also to him that those who advocated free trade and the removal of all sorts of restrictions in that House confined themselves to abstract theories, with the most magnanimous disregard of practice or precedent. He would ask the advocates of the system of free trade, was it on that the prosperity of England was founded? No person would have the hardihood to answer in the affirmative. The prosperity of England had been founded on a system of commercial laws mainly restrictive. These were he admitted now-a-days considered defective; yet England had arisen to undoubted prosperity under them. But the free-trade theorists, in reference to the decaying state of the country since the restriction on commerce had been removed, would no doubt say, "If it be not prosperous, it ought to be so." And to those who suffered by the change, they would say, "Console yourselves, you ought to be prosperous." That was very poor consolation, and not at all that with which he would be satisfied. He did not like such consolation. The perseverance in these theories would, he was convinced, have the effect of causing a continuous bankruptcy
528
of the national resources, and the reducing of this great country to the condition of a third or fourth rate political power in the scale of European nations. He did not consider the present Corn-laws a sufficient protection to the agriculturists. He had voted for them because they were the last bulwarks between the country and a social convulsion. It might be said out of doors, by those who had nothing to lose, but much to gain, "If convulsion be necessary, let it come: why struggle to avert it?" To this, however, he would answer, "It is not necessary, in the first instance; and, in the second, I have some property left to lose, which I am not at all anxious should pass out of my hands yet awhile." There was a subject to which he would advert briefly; that was the evidence taken by the Committee on Agriculture last year. In that evidence, Mr. Jacob, than whom there could be no higher authority, had stated that if there were such another harvest as that of 1816, there would not be corn for the people of this country in all Europe. He (Mr. Lambert) knew perfectly well, that the theory of cheap bread was a very attractive one to the multitude; but he denied, that cheap bread, unless the means to purchase it were also given, would be a boon to the poorer portion of the community. But the removal of restrictions on trade would have the effect of reducing wages commensurate with the reduction of the price of corn; and consequently the poor man could not then purchase the same amount of bread at a proportionate share of his wages as he did before these restrictions were removed. He therefore would much rather have the quartern loaf 2s. while the labourer had 6s. per day, than 6d. when the labourer had not sixpence in his pocket wherewith to purchase it. There were measures at work which, if not counteracted, he asserted, would end in the destruction of the country. One of these was the currency alteration. He was fully convinced that it was quite sufficient to point at any one in that House, and say, "That is a currency man," to have him marked out for general odium: but he (Mr. Lambert) would not shrink from denouncing that measure as one of the most unjust, impolitic, and profligate pieces of legislation ever achieved. He attributed to it all the evil consequences which had flowed, and were likely to flow, to the total destruction of this great country. He wanted a just and satisfactory measure to arrest the progress of

529
ruin. In calling for such a measure he would not allow himself to be told that he looked for public plunder. His property had been taken from him to the amount of fifty per cent, and the measure by which that spoliation was effected was as dishonest a transfer of property as one effected on the highway at midnight, and designated a robbery.
Mr. Harvey:More wholesome, though not in all things palatable, truths, have been uttered in the debates of the last three mornings, as to the real state of the country, than fell from hon. Members, when this subject was recently before the House, two of whom consumed five hours in propounding their conflicting nostrums. If I were called upon to define the meaning of a deliberative assembly, such as I have now the honour to address, I should say, it means "a body of men who decide without reason, and reflect afterwards." It would seem, that senators are of the feline breed—it is a long time before their eyes are opened, and things can be clearly discerned. We only appear just to have stumbled upon matters with which the public out of doors have long been familiar. We might continue to delude ourselves a little longer, but the time to delude the people has passed away. It is, indeed, admitted, that some difficulties exist; but they partake more of the character of inconvenience than of positive evil. Of this tone of feeling, was the King's speech. Manufacturers were congratulated upon a state of prosperity, which no one, except wealthy capitalists, like the hon. member for Ipswich (Mr. Morrison) could discover, while the agriculturists were expected to be abundantly satisfied and gratified with the assurance that the royal mind was deeply afflicted by their privations; at the same time, his Majesty's Ministers gravely told the farmers, they had no other comfort to offer them. But my chief object in rising is to revert to a numerous class of persons who seem to be entirely overlooked. We abound in champions of free trade, and corn monopoly—but not a word is uttered as to the national creditor except here and there a startling sound is heard, which, if carried out to its consequences, would instantly occasion a fall in the funds of at least twenty per cent. Much has been said about the land, but not one word about the two hundred and eighty thousand persons who are the creditors of the country, and are constantly receiving their half-yearly dividends at the Bank. Some gentlemen have talked of the burthen of the
530
debt, and others have alluded to the private incumbrances of the landowners. But, with respect to the latter, those who have mortgages on their estates, as they received the money when the mortgage was made, it is rather strange, to say the least of it, for them to complain that they are doubled taxed in having to pay both principal and interest. As regards the public debt, I must say the landed interest are beginning to be somewhat ungrateful, particularly in my own county. It has been my lot occasionally to address large assemblies in the county of Essex, where I have endeavoured to explain the real state and condition of the country. But I have always been met by the charge of ingratitude. I have been reminded that though the debt is great, and the interest inconvenient, yet that the sum of 800,000,000 l. and the annual payment of 30,000,000 l., are of little moment compared to the mighty benefits which that outlay has secured—a splendid Church establishment, and an invaluable system of civil government—and what can we want more?—a Church abounding in religion, and a State overflowing with revenue; yet, in the midst of so much delight, there is much of delusion. We have been repeatedly assured, during this discussion, that the interests of the landlords and the tenants are identical—that they are one and the same person—both committed to the same boat, and must sink or swim together; and, moreover, the farmers have been assured, in all sincerity, that rent has very little to do with their inconveniences. Now, both these positions I venture humbly to deny. It has been said by some hon. Gentlemen, and by the hon. member for Oldham among the rest, that rent is of little consequence to the farmer; that lessening its amount will be no relief; that when a farmer takes two hundred acres of land, and calculates his outgoings upon it, rent is an item of which he makes little account. It is singular to observe how successful the landowners has been in inculcating this doctrine upon the farmers who, when spoken to upon the subject, repeating this lesson admirably, say, "Oh, sir, if we were to pay no rent at all it would be no relief." Let them now see the amount of absurdity in this argument. The agricultural mind is intent at the present moment upon the relief which a modification of the Poor laws will afford. The outside amount of this burthen upon the land is 6,000,000 l.

531
a-year, which, if abolished to-morrow, would recoil upon the farmer to the extent of one-half at least, in the shape of increased wages. But, presuming it to be otherwise, and that the farmer would reap the full benefit of the relief to the extent of 6,000,000 l., would he not feel its effect in the increased rent he would be called upon to pay? Is not a tithe free farm worth all the difference between the amount of the tithe and no tithe at all? But concede if you will, that no advance is made in rent—in what way, I ask, can the repeal of the Poor-rate assist the farmer more effectually than a remission of rent? Each is a money payment, and whether it goes into the belly of the pauper, or the pocket of the landlord, it must be much about the same thing to him who pays. If the repeal of the Poor-rate of 6,000,000 l. is to work such wonders, I will ask whether a repeal of half the rents, which now exceed 30,000,000 l., will not work greater? I do not adduce this fact to show that rents ought to be done away with as well as Poor-rates, but to show the absurdity of the assertion, that the amount of rent is of no consequence to the farmer. No mistake can be greater than to suppose that the interests of the tenants and the landlords are the same, for they are diametrically opposed to each other. The landlords have had their day of prosperity—their Pitt and Church and State system; but the day of retribution is now at hand. It is idle for them, now that they are called upon to pay, to say, that if they suffer, the fundholder will not be paid. If the landowners were all swept away to morrow, it would be nothing to the fundholders unless they could carry the land with them. Let them not receive a farthing of rent, the fundholder, the creditor of the country, who has lent the country money in its time of need, will not be the worse off. Every acre of land in this kingdom, everything above and below it, the mines, the forests, are mortgaged to the public creditor; and when the landowner can no longer pay the interest of the mortgage, the fundowner will be in the position of a private mortgagee; he will walk in, and the landlord walk out. I repeat, that every acre of land in this country is mortgaged to the fundholder, and to that, as a Liberal, or Radical, I would keep the landlords. The radicals are constantly, taunted with wanting to rob the fundholder, to shrink from the payment of that debt, which was con-
532
tracted with their eyes open for what the gentlemen on the opposite side contended were great national advantages; but I am not one of those, and am prepared to maintain, that when it shall appear that the interest of the debt can not be paid—that the 30,000,000 l. a-year can not be paid—they must let those who, advanced the principal money into possession, unless they can do what it is for them to propose, and which I think it would be wise in the fundholders to accept, viz. come to an equitable adjustment. Gentle-men seem to startle with horror at the bare idea of national insolvency; but did none of them ever hear of private insolvency? My professional experience has supplied many instances, and I have often smiled at the shifts and vagaries which the pride of debtors suggest; but reflection soon tells them that a speedy settlement is the most satisfactory, and I appeal to the merchants and tradesmen around me, whether, in these days of declining business, a dividend of 10 s. in the pound is not considered a very handsome composition? To be sure it would be a motley and mighty meeting to see 280,000 dowagers and housemaids, peers and benefit societies, men and minors, of all ages and countries, brought together to take into consideration the amount of a great National Debt. I should like to be present to watch the faces of the opposite parties. I wonder who would first break silence. However, this and all such matters will be easily arranged. At present the suggestion is novel—but these discussions will work marvellously. They will have the effect of opening the eyes of the people to their true condition. It is impossible to prescribe with effect until we are acquainted with the origin, as wall as character, of the disease. At present the people feel as some of my country-folks feel who live in the marshy regions of Essex—low spirits—shaking limbs—something that is indescribably oppressive—some call it ague—others intermittent: and all sorts of quackery are suggested, in which nothing appears certain but death. But we must go to work with cool heads and fixed resolution, and then, take my word for it, this fine country may yet be prosperous and happy. But, before all things, we must throw away delusion: there has been too much of that. Tenants must be made to understand their own real interests, and not be hood-winked at the tables and in the halls or their landlords. It has been insinuated that landlords are a race of men peculiarly

533
tardy in their intellects. I do not think so—no men better understand their own interests, or pursue them with more success. Let us trace their history. In 1814, the landlords and tenants both agreed that a remunerating price was indispensable, and as this could only be obtained through an Act of Parliament, that measure was obtained, and 80 s. a quarter was the protecting price. Here the delusion began. The farmers thought that a clause meant corn—that an enactment meant price—as if consumers could pay without means—as if a law and its realization were the same thing. Well, with the Act of Parliament in their hands, the farmers did not find 20 l. a load in their pockets, and some of them, bolder than the rest, said as much at the great rent-audit. The landlords or their agents rebuked them for their impatience, in expecting that an Act of Parliament could work wonders in one year; seasons and the grub had something to do with it; yet with patience, and under Providence, the thing wood work well. And by way of quieting their fears, and above all to generate a spirit of independence, the landlords tossed them back 10 l. per cent of their rents, with the gratifying assurance that the times would mend. The next year arrived without the promised blessings, and 5l. per cent was returned, which, making 15 l. per cent, it formed a very pretty paragraph of lordly munificence in the provincial journals. At the same time the kind-hearted yeomanry were assured the thing would have been better but for the unprincipled clamour of the Reformers, who were throwing every thing into disorder, and who had the daring to talk of the corruption of the Church—to denounce tithes as a nuisance, and even to propose the abolition of pensions and sinecures. While the farmers were thus deluded, the landlords were chuckling, and squeezing the last shilling of the impoverished tenantry. I believe, that the landlords understood the state of things very well; but it would not do for them—for men who could look back upon a long line of ancestors—to make the first movement. They must get humble men like myself to be their pioneers—to grope the way for them—to be their feelers. "They left it to men like me to tell the world that something must be done. In fact, the thing can not be denied, that the aristocracy of this country are destined to be saved by the Radicals in the House of Commons. It so happened, on the other night, I voted for an inquiry into the
534
present Corn-laws, which is the first vote I ever gave on that subject, because, though my views upon this subject have ever been the same, I could not conceal from myself the peculiar relation in which my constituents stand to this great subject. Colchester is the metropolis of a large district of country, peculiarly agricultural. The farmers feel, and justly, that with the present amount of burthens—among which I will maintain rent is the heaviest—that they cannot compete with the foreign grower—while the tradesmen feel, that if the farmers, who are their customers, have no money, they must stand in their shops, full indeed of goods, but empty of buyers. Free trade to them, unaccompanied by suitable arrangements, must be their destruction. All farmers under covenant must have the option of vacating their leases. But of this both farmers and tradesmen may be assured, that things cannot go on as they are—without substantial relief, their little properties will melt away—farmers will become labourers—labourers will become paupers—paupers must become criminals. However, I am glad to see that the eyes or the people are open. A meeting has been lately held in the county of Suffolk, for petitioning against any alteration in the Corn-laws. This meeting was attended by the aristocracy of the county, and persons of all classes agreed to merge their political differences to promote their common object. A shoemaker from Ipswich, however, moved the adjournment of the meeting, and the entire aristocracy of the great county of Suffolk dispersed at the beck of the shoemaker. Before I sit down, I may be allowed to say a few words as to the landlords, and the effects of a free trade upon them. For the man of moderate income—those whose estates vary from 500 l. to 2,000 l.—great suffering is at hand, especially where the income is largely anticipated by incumbrances; but the men of mighty incomes—those who have 100,000 l. a-year—will be able to weather the storm, if they can condescend to live upon half that amount. Men must adapt themselves to events which their madness has made inevitable. It is of no use to deny it. The lords of the soil have had their day. For more than thirty years they triumphed over and trampled upon every body, and every thing, and they must be prepared for that day of retribution, which, in this world, as well as the next, awaits him who does wrong. In my humble judgment, the reckoning is not distant.
Mr. Baineswas surprised to hear the hon. member for Oldham say, that the Corn-laws had not been of any benefit to the agriculturists; if so, they ought to be wiped from the Statute-book, for assuredly they were of no use to any body else. The right hon. member for Tamworth certainly made a most able speech on this subject; but although he admired the right hon. Baronet's speech, he could not arrive at his conclusions. An hon. Baronet, the member for Shoreham (Sir C. Burrell), said, that the debate ought to have concluded at the end of the right hon. Baronet's speech. No doubt the hon. Baronet thought so, but it would not have been well for the ends of truth and justice that the debate should have ended there. The right hon. Baronet said, that in discussing this question, they ought not to lose sight of Ireland. In this statement he agreed, for his opinion was, that the more consideration was given to Ireland the more likely were they to make this country happy and prosperous. The right hon. Baronet observed, that a free trade in corn would be utterly ruinous to this country. His opinion was exactly the reverse of that. Previous to the establishment of the Corn-laws, the landlords and farmers were comfortable and happy, and now they were in comparative distress. What gave prosperity at one period was calculated to give it, at least in a degree, at another. He admitted, that the debt had been increased since the imposition of the Corn-laws; and it might be said to be a drag on the prosperity of the country; but a very large proportion of that debt had existed in 1810, previous to the passing of the present Corn-laws, and yet the country, particularly the agricultural portion of it, was then prosperous. The agricultural depression at the present period was unexampled; and yet the corn-trade of the country had been cumbered with protection laws since 1815. With respect to the debt itself, he was not in favour of any equitable adjustment of the claims of the State creditors. As the debt had been contracted, it ought to be paid; and he was sorry to hear any doubts expressed on the subject by any hon. Member of that House. No man could be more averse than he had been to contracting that debt—no man could be more opposed at the time to the causes which led to it; but now no man would more strenuously oppose any undue or improper interference with it than he would. He would repeat, as the debt had been contracted, so
536
should it be honourably and fully discharged; and he would resist to the last any attempt to interfere between the State creditor and the payment of his just demands. Another of the arguments of the right hon. Baronet opposite, which had been well replied to by the hon. member for Oldham, was, that in other articles as well as corn, departure had been made from the principles of free trade. He admitted that. But, because we had done wrong in some instances, and in some descriptions of merchandise, were we to do so in all? The argument was good no further than that, and therefore it was not good at all. He was sorry that the hon. member for Oldham had adduced the example of America, and held it up for the imitation of England. Was it because America did so, we should do so? Should not England be the example held up to America—the example which America should follow rather than the contrary, as he was surprised to hear the hon. member for Oldham assert? It was impossible to expect prosperity in the country until a metallic currency and free trade were fully and firmly established. The principles of free trade were the principles of sound legislation, though he did not assert that we ought to begin with corn, and we ought to encourage every nation to trade with us by receiving their commodities on such terms as would be mutually beneficial.
Sir John Tyrellthought it an unfair statement of the case to represent the agriculturists as enjoying an exclusive protection. The fact was, that they were by no means as much protected as the manufacturers. The right hon. member for Tamworth read yesterday a numerous list of articles which were taxed from twenty-five to fifty per cent for the protection of the manufacturers. When the latter, therefore, came to the House to complain of the protection given to the agriculturists, they ought to come with "clean hands." If the protection were to be taken away from the land, it ought not to be continued to manufacturers; and he believed that, if both were exposed alike to foreign competition, the capital of the manufacturer would be swept away, whilst the agriculturist would outlive the struggle, and his property be as fixed and endurable as the oaks which were planted by his ancestors. He was glad, that the hon. member for Leeds did not agree to what was called an equitable adjustment, but what he called an iniquitous appropriation. The

537
hon. and learned member for Colchester had perhaps stated correctly what had occurred at the meeting in Suffolk. But he remembered a meeting in the county of Essex where the Whigs and Tories were assembled to consider their common grievances, and where the hon. and learned Member, with that talent which always distinguished him, succeeded in misleading the multitude, persuading them that all their distress was attributable to tithes and the Church. He did not think, that Gentlemen met the question in the most satisfactory way, when they argued about the currency, the poor-rate, tithes, and the national debt. It would be much better to bring the question before the House in a distinct and definite shape, than to raise a desultory discussion upon the presentation of petitions. He would say, in conclusion, that the principal part of his income was derived not from land but from houses, and the greatest relief that could be given to him was the repeal of the House-tax; but he felt it to be his interest, in common with the rest of the nation to protect the argriculturists.
Lord Hennikerrose to correct an error into which the hon. and learned member for Colchester had fallen. The meeting in Suffolk was not adjourned in the manner which that Gentleman had represented. A petition, not against the Corn-laws, but praying for relief to the agriculturist, was seconded by the very respectable person to whom the hon. member for Colchester had alluded, who certainly was a shoemaker, and was carried unanimously.
Mr. Peasehad the most unshaken belief, that no amount of duty would serve as an adequate protection to the agriculturists. There was a power in other countries to inundate England with corn at prices which had never yet been boldly stated in that House. There was a great confusion of opinion out of doors upon this subject; but he believed, that the discussion which had taken place the last two days, had done a great deal to correct the errors which prevailed. He was quite certain that the constituency which he represented, and which was as much interested as any other in the kingdom in the cheapness of corn, was satisfied that if the incomes of the landlords and farmers were reduced, they themselves would have empty shops, as well as the people of Colchester. They all agreed with him as to the necessity of protecting the agriculturists, and they all knew that corn could
538
not be sold cheap unless it were grown cheap. If he were to agree to the abolition of the Corn-laws he must be content to see a great quantity of land in his neighbourhood go out of cultivation. In what state, then, would the manufacturers be if the agricultural labourers were thrown upon them for support? He was a manufacturer, and he could truly say, that the manufacturers did not want an increase of hands. Why, they were constantly inventing machinery to reduce manual labour; and how could it be expected that manufacturers should be anxious for more hands? He would conclude by stating, that he was satisfied that the destruction of the landed interest was going on with the greatest certainty that its most bitter enemy could wish: and if the slight protection which it yet enjoyed were withdrawn, that interest would be ruined, and the Constitution overthrown.
Mr. John Maxwellsaid, that no argument which the hon. Gentleman could adduce would satisfy the people that a monopoly should be upheld for the benefit of one class to the injury of another. He hoped, therefore, that his Majesty's Ministers would make some alteration in the present system. He did not call upon them to repeal the Corn-law, but he did call upon them to try the experiment of a fixed duty upon some one description of corn—barley, for instance. Let them do this, and watch the effect it would produce; then, and then only, could they be able to arrive at anything like a correct view of this important question. The hon. member for Colchester had taunted the landlords with a desire to break faith with the public creditor. For his part he did not think this a question between the landholder and the fundholder, but it was a question between the fundholder and the people of England, between the fundholder and his poor constituents, who were working for 10 d. a-day. He should be opposed to the public creditor so long as justice was not rendered to the public debtor.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodsaid, that Locke had long ago pointed out the evils of a contraction of the currency. He compared a nation suffering under such a contraction to five children lying in a bed. No sooner did one little fellow pull the clothes than he uncovered another; and so they went on squabbling till their father enlarged their covering. That was the state of this country at present; the farming interest was calling out for a free trade in goods,

539
and the manufacturing interest for a free trade in corn; but if they were to have all these things without a change in the Money-laws, it would only be giving up the land, the manufacture, the capital, the industry of the country, into the hands of the monied interest. It was the monopoly of the monied interest which had scattered so much ruin amongst the agricultural, commercial, and manufacturing classes of the country; but the day was approaching when that system would fall under the pressure of the ruin it caused. It was the interest of all these classes to unite for their common security against the common enemy. He would remind the House of the fable of the lion and the bulls. Three bulls grazed in rich pastures; they were fat, sleek, and rich, and the lion felt anxious to devour them; but whilst they remained united they were powerful, and the lion durst not approach them. The lion called to his aid the fox (a cunning little fund-holder), and he went amongst the bulls and sowed dissension and distrust amongst them, so that each looked upon the other with suspicion. They separated, and each retired into a different corner of the field, remote from each other, until the lion came upon them thus weakened, and at his mercy, and devoured them at his leisure. It was the combination of monopolists that produced those evils which the country was now suffering. They had made a grand mistake in the Bullion Report of 1810, and they had obstinately persevered in endeavouring to prop up that mistake ever since. It was this system that affected all classes of the country, and from which all but the monopolists were suffering. A great many of the monied interest were always ready to do anything which would break down the landed interest. Both had a morbid pleasure in the degradation of each other. The manufacturers and merchants he knew entertained that feeling; they felt a delight at the degradation and want of prosperity among the agricultural interest; and he believed the landed interest was not at all behind hand in reciprocating the feeling. He attributed the passing of the present system of Money-laws in 1819 to two causes; first, the selfishness of certain individuals; and, secondly, the wish of the monied and mercantile interests to degrade the landed interest. With respect to the Corn-laws and free trade, the hon. member for Liverpool would forgive him for saying that he was surprised and sorry to see among the many petitions on these subjects
540
sent forward by the Gentlemen of that borough, none for breaking down the monopoly of money, the monopoly of taxes, rents, pensions, mortgages, &c. If monopoly was to be broken down in one case it should be broken down in all, for the very circumstance of its being so broken down was an assertion of the principle of its inutility and injuriousness to the community. If the land in this country were to be brought down to the continental level, so also should all other contingent sources of expense to the country. He was certainly of opinion that the Corn-laws should be abolished, and he should support the abolition for two or three reasons. They were inefficient for the protection of the agriculturist, and injurious to the country; but his principal reason he should confess was, that he believed them to be co-existent with the Monetary-laws, and consequently that the destruction of one necessarily involved that of the other. The cause of the Corn-laws lay deep in the Money-laws. In 1815, when there appeared at the peace a very great prospect of a decline of prices in all agricultural products, certain individuals having an interest in the continuance of things as they then were said to themselves, "How shall we keep up prices at their present rate? Time taxes protect our dividends in the funds, how shall we protect our rents?" The consequence of their consultation was the Corn-laws; a measure which created a general state of starvation throughout the country, that a few rich landholders might continue to receive the same amount of revenue as they enjoyed before. He should have thought the proper way of keeping up remunerating prices was by increasing consumption. Gentlemen must remember there were two ways of keeping up prices; one was by diminishing production, and the other by increasing consumption. Doing the latter, increased the comforts and gratifications of the mass of the people, and allowed them to multiply indefinitely; but to cause a rise of prices by means of an artificial famine was only to scatter misery and discord through the nation, at the same time it dug the ground from under its own feet. But although the people might be stinted in their food by the Corn-laws, the latter would not keep up prices unless they were accompanied by a law to compel gold and silver to come to this country, and afterwards another law to compel them to remain. If he were a landowner; he should wish to get rid of the Corn-laws as fast as he could.

541
They hurt the landlords; but they had been the ruin of hundreds of thousands of farmers who had trusted in them, and the same delusion was still going on, as far as could be judged from the agricultural associations formed in different parts of the country to keep up prices. All the Corn-laws in the world would not bring gold in this country nor keep it here so long as a premium was given for gold to be kept out of the country. He wished the Corn-laws to be abolished, because the consequence would be the abolition of the Money-laws, and thus new prices would be obtained by the landlord, the farmer, and the agricultural labourer; and, what was of more importance, full and complete labour would be given to all classes of persons. An hon. Member said, that they should be content to pay their just debts. He had no objection to this, but he objected to their paying three times the amount of their debts, as they were now doing. They were now giving three bushels of corn instead of one, and three yards of Manchester goods where they ought only to give one. He wanted an honest debt. But he was told that they had contracted to pay this debt in the present standard of value. This he most unequivocally denied, and he had on former occasions, by referring to the various Acts of Parliament on the subject, proved this argument unjust. Lord Liverpool, in bringing in the Bill on this subject, said, that it was a matter of national convenience; but the fact was, that the passing of the Bill led the country to its own destruction.
Mr. Ewart, in reply, said, he would promise two things—first, that he would not speak five minutes; next, that he would confine himself closely to the point. He must begin by thanking the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) for having virtually supported the petition from Liverpool. The whole tendency of the right hon. Baronet's arguments merely went to show that other monopolists existed, as well as landed monopolists. He had proved, not that they were not monopolists, but that they were not the only monopolists. The Liverpool Petition prayed for relief from monopolists generally, as well as for especial relief from a monopoly of the supply of food. The general principle, therefore, of the right hon. Baronet's speech was favourable to the case of the petitioners rather than to the landed interest. But besides, he apprehended that the right hon. Baronet had erred in detail. In the table
542
of duties to which the right hon. Baronet referred, the number of items was 1,149. Of these about 800 were for food and raw materials, intended either for purposes of revenue, or for the protection of the landed interest. Of the 349 remaining items, fifty-eight were for distinct manufactured articles (the rest being varying duties on the same kind of article.) Of these fifty-eight items, the greater part were not protections of British industry. In the staple articles of cotton, wool, silk, and iron, we wanted no protection. The rest might be consolidated in one term, which he (Mr. Ewart) would borrow from the right hon. Baronet, and call "the walking-stick interests." The hon. member for Beverley had said, "By altering the Corn-law you will not diminish our burthens, you only shift them." The advocates of repeal answered, "We may not lessen your burthen, but we may increase your power of bearing it; we may not at once reduce your debt, but we may better enable you to pay it!" With respect to the other arguments advanced on behalf (as it was erroneously said) of the landed interest, he (Mr. Ewart) would adopt a quotation already made on the other side, and say, "The land has bubbles, as the water has, and these are of them."
Mr. Walkerwould not delay the House for more than two minutes; the question had been so fully discussed he would not touch on its merits; he merely rose as an Irish Member, fully persuaded that a repeal of the Corn-laws, without a corresponding remodelling of all the other interests in this kingdom, must bring certain destruction on Ireland; and he also believed on the landed interest of England. Many of the supporters of this measure admitted that all men of moderate fortune must be annihilated by it; that none but the overgrown proprietors could stand it; and that it must be accompanied by a cancelling of all existing contracts between landlord and tenant. Were Members really prepared to agree with that proposition? He was anxious to state the reason so few Irish Members had taken part in this debate. It was not owing to their not taking a deep interest in the question; it was solely caused by their being unavoidably absent, attending their several assizes; and he could assure the House that the majority of the Irish Members, and the majority of the Irish people, felt that the repeal of those laws, under present circumstances, must destroy their only means of existence, the agricultural interest of Ireland.
Petition laid on the Table.

SUPPLY—ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.
The House went into a Committee of Supply.
Colonel Maberly, in rising to bring forward the Ordnance Estimates, was happy to state, that he had been able to effect reductions even beyond the most sanguine expectations which in the last Session he had expressed to the House. The apparent saving, as compared with the Estimates of last year, on the sum to be expended, was 257,000 l., and on the sum to be voted the apparent saving was 295,000 l. He said apparent saving, because a part of it consisted of a transfer to the Army Estimates amounting to 175,000 l. The real saving on the sum to be expended was 82,000 l., and that on the sum to be voted 120,000 l. He believed that this would be deemed satisfactory by the House, when they took into consideration all that had been previously done. In the Ordnance Estimates of 1829, as compared with those of 1820, there was a reduction of 600,000 l. The saving effected in this department by the previous Government was 370,000 l.; and, from 1830, when the present Government entered office, there was a still further reduction of 335,000 l., notwithstanding the pruning adopted by their predecessors. The first point he would refer to was the Irish survey. The Estimate for this survey had been formed on insufficient data, and the consequence was, that the vote for effecting it was now exhausted. It was, however, the opinion of his Majesty's Government that the survey ought to be proceeded in. Indeed he did not see how this could be avoided, because Government had almost pledged itself to the Irish Members that the survey should be completed. Without a breach of faith, therefore, it could not be relinquished, and an additional vote was rendered necessary. This survey was of the greatest importance to Ireland. It was an agricultural country, and the first step to all beneficial reform, whether as regarded tithes, Land-tax, County or Grand Jury cess, was an accurate survey and valuation of the land. The taxation, for want of a good survey, had hitherto proceeded on insufficient and very unsatisfactory data. This gave rise to much trouble and heart-burning, and the only way to set this at rest was by having an exact survey. Such being the case, he trusted the House would not object to the expense necessary for prosecuting this important work. Another point to which he wished to call the attention of the Com-
544
mittee was the agency of the Ordnance Board. Government was pledged to some alteration in this branch of the Estimates, and an alteration was in contemplation; but it was not considered an effectual one. The agency was 7,000 l., of which 1,000 l., was paid by the officers themselves, and 6,000 l. by the Government. An establishment with a charge of 3,000 l. would be necessary, and, therefore, Government set about devising some other means of saving this expense. The payment of the Chelsea pensioners was undertaken by his noble Friend, the Paymaster of the Forces, and thus a saving of 2,700 l. was effected. It was now proposed that the agency of the Ordnance also should be transferred to his noble friend's department, and thus a saving would be effected of 3,000 l. a-year. The last point to which he should refer was the removal of the dépôt from Tooley-street to Woolwich and the Tower. The great accumulation of stores was a subject of complaint last Session, and in this way he trusted that ground of complaint would be removed in future, and a saving effected of 4,000 l. a-year. A plan was in contemplation for a more effectual check on the issue of stores, which, he trusted, when brought into operation, would be productive of much good. He would not trespass further on the attention of the House than merely to remind them that in judging of these Estimates they should consider them as the Ordnance expenditure of one of the greatest and most powerful nations in the world. He proposed, "That a sum not exceeding 70,562 l. be granted for the salaries of the Master-General and the Officers of the Ordnance, and for payment of the salaries of clerks in Woolwich, Pall-Mall, and Dublin."
Mr. Humecommenced by observing, that when the Ordnance survey of Ireland was originally proposed, he had opposed the granting of so large a sum as 300,000 l. for that purpose. That money it appeared was now expended, and he begged to call the attention of the Committee to the fact, that when it was originally voted, it was voted on the express condition that the Irish counties should provide the remainder of the expense occasioned by so minute a survey as was then intended. Now, he asked the late right hon. Secretary for Ireland whether the Irish counties had yet been called upon to pay any portion of that expense; for though the present estimate was only 30,000 l. above the original estimate, it ought not to be forgotten that one-third

545
of Ireland yet remained to be surveyed. The people of England had nothing to do, and ought to have nothing to do, with surveying the baronies and fields of Ireland for the mere purposes of local taxation; he therefore repeated his question, whether every county in Ireland had been called on to pay its portion of the increased expense of this survey, for he hoped that the gentlemen of Ireland, no less than the Government of England, would be found willing to redeem the pledges into which they had entered on this subject. With respect to the item of agency, he was satisfied that that arrangement, by which it was proposed to take from Cox and Greenwood the payments of that money which they had so long controlled, would be found inconvenient and would be attended with additional expense. The gallant Officer seemed to think, that because there was now a reduction in the Estimates below their amount in the years 1829 and 1830, the Committee was therefore bound to stop there. The reduction of 82,000 l., as compared with the expenditure of last year, on the sum to be expended by the Ordnance Department, was made up of stores and work. The actual reduction was, in point of fact, 8,493 l.; he considered that sum so small as to be scarcely worth notice. Indeed, the whole amount of these Estimates appeared to attract very little of the attention of the Committee, for he believed, that there was only one more Member now present than was necessary to constitute a House, and to prevent anybody from counting it out, although it was proposed to vote away 1,300,000 l. for the Ordnance Department. Not many years since, all the expense of the Ordnance did not amount to 500,000 l., and therefore he should object to the whole of the establishment. He considered both the civil and military parts to be extravagant and uncalled for. No wonder that our military establishments cost the immense sum of 13,000,000 l. sterling annually, when the Ordnance Estimates formed so large an item. He approved of the removal of the department from Tooley-street; indeed, he should approve of selling off all the perishable stores, both at the Tower and at Woolwich; for the old system of keeping such stores had led to the loss of millions. Of the 1,300,000 l. now proposed to be voted for the Ordnance, upwards of 590,000 l. passed through the hands of Cox and Greenwood, and there was no necessity, therefore, which he could comprehend for keeping up so large a pay-office establishment. The
546
pay of the engineers and military establishment of the Ordnance, which stood now at 592,000 l., did not amount in 1792 to more than 159,000 l. In this point, then, the Ordnance Estimates were raised to three times their amount in 1792. There was no necessity for keeping up at present 8,000 artillerymen connected with the military branch of the Ordnance, when 3,000 artillerymen were deemed sufficient in a former peace. He had stated his objections to the numerical amount of that force last Session; but as the Committee had not adopted his opinions at that time, he would not give it the trouble of dividing again upon them. He would merely protest against the whole of this military establishment. It was such that no circumstances connected with Great Britain or the world would warrant us in having 8,000 artillerymen. He protested against having to provide 373,000 l. for the pay of the artillery and engineers. He objected to having to pay 26,000 l. for the hire of carriages on the march, and for sundry other objects, which he considered as entailing upon the country an unnecessary and an immense expense. He objected also to the item of 10,000 l. for the expense of the medical establishment. With the pensions which were given for services performed, the Committee could do nothing but wait for the gradual diminution of their amount in the course of time. He contended that the keeping up a Director-General in the Royal Laboratory, with his assistant officers, and the keeping up of a "Director-General of Artillery Department," with assistant, inspectors, clerks, and modellers; and that the Royal Carriage Department, were all expenses which, judging from the report of the Commissioners in 1808, ought to be dispensed with. They did not amount to much more than 5,000 l.; the expense was but small, but still it was unnecessary, and one expense only begot another. As to the item for works, amounting to 189,481 l., it was a large sum. Then, there was an item of 81,146 l. for artificers, labourers, and various other services; together with an item of 87,597 l. for repairs; making an aggregate of 168,473 l. What he objected to here was, that, besides this sum of 368,224 l. for works, we had also to pay for the salaries of clerks in the Tower, and Pall-mall. No establishment that he knew of paid more than five per cent for superintendence, exclusive of the salary of the Clerk of the Works; but he was prepared to show, that we paid eighteen per

547
cent for the superintendence of these works, exclusive of the establishment in Pall-mall and elsewhere. If all private bodies could get works superintended for five per cent, it was clear, that it the Government paid eighteen per cent, its operations were open to great reduction. The next was a very heavy item the charge for the barrack department. The amount was 272,000 l. Now, when he saw barracks rising up like palaces in all directions, and especially when he went along the Birdcage-walk, and saw a palace erected there for the soldiery, finer than an other public building in England, he could not help asking where was the economy so much boasted of by the Ordnance Department? Again, when he looked to the barracks erected at Windsor, he thought, that it became the House to consider whether the rate at which lodgings for the military were supplied, was not greater than we ought to continue. This proved, that the conduct of the Board of Ordnance was perfectly inconsistent with its pledges of economy. By a return which was now on the Table, it appeared that we had barrack room for 120,000 troops; but that we had never had more than 57,000 troops at once in this country. Was not, therefore, the building of new barracks at the present time inconsistent with the claim of credit for economy, which the gallant Officer had put in for his department? At Portsmouth, where the dépôts of two or three regiments were stationed, he understood that the Government was now paying rent for mess-rooms for the officers, although the Ordnance barracks were totally unoccupied. If the plan which he was going to state before he sat down were adopted, we should get rid of the jealousy which existed between the Ordnance Department, and the Horse Guards. There was no other country but England, in which the Ordnance Department was not under the control of the Commander-in-Chief; and in which the barracks did not belong indifferently to the artillery, and the ordinary military force. In fact, our whole system ought to be simplified; and the different departments should act in concert with each other. Instead of erecting new barracks, we might to pull down the old ones; for they appeared to him to be of little other use than to create pay for barrack-masters, and barrack-sergeants, which amounted to 37,000 l. a-year. This was a monstrous state of things in a country which was incessantly calling for a reduction of tax-
548
ation. The next item was one of great importance, for under the plea of stores, all the establishment of the Ordnance was kept up. Those who had not paid much attention to the subject would, on looking at the Estimates, find that it was divided into two parts—one part military, the other relating to stores. Now, the whole of it should be under the control of the Commander-in-Chief, as in other countries; but the stores should belong to the Ordnance. We had a board in Pall-mall, casting the country 70,000 l., which ought to have nothing to do but to take care of the stores and to audit the accounts. He asked whether we ought to keep up stores to the amount of 55,000 l. for the sake of keeping, up an office called the office of Old Stores. What did these stores consist of? There was 12,700 l. for great coats for his Majesty's forces, including the artillery. Now, these great coats might be provided by contract, when they were wanted, without the intervention of any board whatever. There was 18,400 l. for bedding, bedsteads, &c., for the barracks. These were partly in store in Tooley-street, where they had been kept to perish. There was not a single article among those which this sum of 18,400 l. was to provide, that might not be delivered at the barracks as wanted, without the intervention of any store at all. There was also an item of 19,700 l. for artillery clothing at Woolwich. There was no reason why this should not be provided by contract as wanted. These items of great coats, bedding, &c.; cost the country 55,000 l. The plea for having these stores was, to keep up the Ordnance establishment, with a master-general, a surveyor-general, and various other principal officers and clerks. In point of fact, there was as much paid for the management of this store-department of the Ordnance, as for all the Exchequer of England. The expense for maintaining labourers and artificers in the Tower, for managing the stores, amounted to no less than 6,629 l. The expense for the labourers at Woolwich was 5,402 l. The total expense connected with the Store-office there was 8,859 l. The total charge for the management of the stores in the Tower, Pall-mall, Woolwich, and Dublin, was no less than about 38,000 l. annually; that was, 100 per cent more for stores than ought to be charged. He had already shown, by a reference to the contract system adopted in supplying the army, that stores could be obtained

549
much cheaper, and in a much better manner than they were at present, for the Ordnance. He would ask any hon. Member if that could be said to be an economical mode of proceeding? On the contrary, it appeared to him to be a complete waste of the public money. Hon. Members would recollect the battle which he had to fight, to put down the office of Storekeeper-general of the Ordnance. He was obliged to contest the point for three years, and at length he succeeded in getting the office put an end to. Among the expenses, there was upwards of 100,000 l. for those stores, which were not wanted, and all of which, when they were wanted, could be provided by contract, without the enormous expenditure now incurred for watching them, keeping them in repair, turning them, &c. He had insisted at the time, when the office of Storekeeper-general (now abolished) was under discussion, that every store which was perishable should be destroyed—in fact, that it would be better for the country to throw them into the sea than to burthen it with the expense incidental to the keeping of articles which every day became deteriorated, until at length they would be totally valueless. He had now to state to the House the lamentable result of continuing the practice of keeping a quantity of those perishable articles in store. Last year he moved for a return of the amount of stores, and of all perishable articles in store, particularly leather, and other articles of a similar nature. He would now state what was the result of that Return. The Return, it was to be borne in mind, gave the amount of the stores now on hand. He had had each of the stores valued according to their prime cost, and the calculation of what the whole amount actually cost was 158,084 l. Now, the simple interest on those stores, totally unconnected with the charge for maintaining them, would amount to 154,000 l. The consequence, therefore, was, that the stores in the Ordnance—office, up to the 10th of July, 1833, cost the country no less than 313,000 l. Now, if to that they were to add the expense of taking care of those stores, from the period when they were provided, up to the period when the Return was made—namely, in July, 1833, that expense could not have been less than 200,000 l. It would be seen, therefore, that those stores had actually cost the country upwards of 500,000 l. sterling. What a lamentable result for the country
550
to contemplate! He held in his hand a catalogue of a sale of Ordnance stores, and, comparing the price for which they sold with the price for which they were originally bought, and the expense with which they had been kept, it would be seen what an immense loss was continually incurred. The whole of the stores disposed of at this sale were in fact perfect trash; there was not one of them fit for service; and they could have been thrown into the sea, instead of being retained for years in store, greatly to time public advantage. On opening the catalogue at the third day's sale, he found such articles as collars, harness, saddles, &c., there enumerated. No man in his senses would think of keeping such articles in store. To select one instance, lot 1. The original cost of the lot was 684 l. To that they were to add the interest on the money—17,000 l., and 1,000 l. the expense for keeping those stores. The whole of that lot sold for 37 l.; and when from that sum were deducted the charge for agency, and the cost of sale, it would be found, that it fetched the public only 25 l. Such was a specimen of the manner in which the country lost by the way in which this department had been managed. In the year 1828, being anxious to put an end to such a system, he moved for a Return of the actual amount of stores then in store. That Return was printed; and he would just trouble the House with a few of the extraordinary details which it contained. The House would be, no doubt, surprised to hear, that of muskets and carbines, there were no less than 926,850 in store. It appeared, from the Return, that the average annual expenditure of muskets did not exceed 20,000, so that here was a supply in store, calculated to last for fifty years. He believed, that some of them had been sold, since; and he only wished that the greater portion of this supply for fifty years to come, could be got rid of. Every one knew, that great improvements had been of late made, especially in France, in the construction of the musket. If, therefore, a war should take place now with France or any other Power, they would be provided with the new and improved muskets, while we should have to fight them with our old-fashioned and comparatively bad ones. He was given to understand, that the improvement in the construction of the musket which had been lately introduced in France, had been submitted to the Board of Ordnance in this country; and that they refused to adopt

551
it, in consequence of having such an amount of muskets already in store. He would advise, that those muskets should be sold for old iron. The respective Governments had gone on in the same way ever since the peace, adding to the store, instead of diminishing it, though he had been repeatedly hammering at them to make them put an end to the mischief. With such a store of muskets, if a war should break out, and we came in contact with the French improved muskets, we should be, as he had already said, left behind. We should get rid of them at once; of pistols there were 50,000 of swords 154,000; and there were already provided in store 287,353 sets of accoutrements. Each accoutrement consisted of a pouch-box, a bayonet, and a belt; and the average cost was 14 s the set. Would the House believe, that since the termination of the war, such a vast amount of accoutrements were continually kept in store, with all the expenses of storehouses, persons for keeping them in order, &c.; and that at last, being totally unserviceable, they were sold for 1s. per set? If the members of the Board of Ordnance had had to pay the expense out of their private pockets, it would have attracted their attention, and a remedy would long since have been applied to the abuse. He would just state a fact eminently illustrative of the utility of keeping up such a store of perishable articles. We had an African corps on the coast of Africa, which we supplied with accoutrements. Now, so bad were the accoutrements in store, that the Ordnance was obliged to enter into a contract for the supply of accoutrements for this African corps. He did not charge the persons at present at the head of this department with the fault of this arrangement. He believed, that they were very properly selling them by wholesale almost for nothing, In the present circumstances of the country, it was absurd to keep up such an amount of stores. Before 1793 there might have been a difficulty in suddenly providing stores. But since that time there had been such a great increase in our manufactures, and there had been such a demand from foreign countries, that the workshops at present existing here would be able to supply with arms and accoutrements more men than England would want in a hurry. He condemned the whole system, and looked upon it as ruinous to the finances. There were also 60,000 blank cartridges, and 279,000 barrels of powder in store. It appeared,
552
that the average annual expenditure of powder was 6,000 barrels; so that here we had 40 years' consumption of a perishable article in store—an article that became good for nothing in five years. We had, at this moment, Government manufactories going on, making a quantity of powder every year, although we had already more than we could use during 40 years. We had as much powder, at this moment, on hand as was sufficient to supply the whole world, and besides 12 private establishments making powder, we had the Government manufactories of Feversham and Waltham Cross. A great and useless expenditure was incurred in maintaining these establishments. The whole powder manufactory should be put an end to. [An Hon. Member: Blow it up.] "I wish," said Mr. Hume, "I could blow it up, I would do so with pleasure. I went down to it last year, and they would not let me see it." He was then told, the hon. Member continued, that no one was admitted except on business. As in a former case, a poor man at Woolwich had been nearly dismissed for allowing him and Mr. Benett to see the establishment there, he did not wish to get any other person into similar danger. He was told, that the establishment at Feversham was kept up for the purpose of growing willows. With a store of powder sufficient for the consumption of 40 years, we went on making 20,000 barrels every year, while the average annual consumption was only 5,000 or 6,000 barrels, and we afterwards sold the powder which we made at half-price. Of other articles in store, we had, of iron guns,30,000; of howitzers, 20,000; of carriages, 18,000, &c. &c. What would the House think of there being 12,000 ship-gun carriages in store? Every one knew what a gun-carriage was worth after it had gone through 12 or 13 years' service, and, in fact, most of those carriages were good for nothing. This was a fine exemplification of the of the whole system of the Ordnance. He would tear up the whole establishment, root and branch. He would break up the Board, and annex it to the office of Commander-in-Chief, and he would get rid of the whole of those unnecessary stores. Of sheeting there were in store 1,680,000 yards. There were 15,000 wheelbarrows, and they were all rotten. The average annual consumption of wheelbarrows was 1,466, and we had, therefore, a thirteen years' supply of wheelbarrows; of blankets there were, 99,000, of rugs, 40,000, of

553
sheets, 112,000. Now, there was not a single article amongst the whole of those, that could not be supplied cheaper and better by contract, and as speedily as the Government could possibly on any occasion require them. There would be this much gained, too, in that case, that they would not have to pay storekeepers for taking care of rotten stores. Surely it was unnecessary for him to say more to demonstrate the folly of the proceedings that had for years been adopted by the Board of Ordnance. Although the Finance Committee did make a favorable Report as regarded the Board of Ordnance, it should be recollected, that it was only as compared with other Boards, which were ten times worse. The Finance Report only said, that of three or four departments, the Ordnance was the best administered, being under the management of one responsible individual. He (Mr. Hume) certainly concurred in that part of the Report, being of opinion, that having one responsible person at the head of a department was the best. He had shown the bad policy—indeed the folly, of keeping on hand such large stocks of perishable articles. The whole cost was a pure loss. Why keep up such a quantity of muskets, when it would be much better to dispose of them as old metal? If a contract were offered for keeping all the stores that would be necessary, he would engage, that warehousekeepers would be found in England who would undertake to keep the whole of the stores, and give a detailed account of them every week, for the sum of 10,000 l. a-year. Amongst the Miscellaneous Estimates, he found 45,000 l. for salaries. Now, he begged to say, that they should form no portion of the Ordnance Estimates. They should constitute a civil charge. The miscellaneous Estimates of the Ordnance amounted to 78,000 l., from which this item of 45,000 l. should be taken. He found one item, 4,500 l., for packing and for freight, and carriage of stores. If stores were provided by contract, the contractors would defray the whole of this charge for packing, &c., as the contractors for the army did at this moment. Then there was an item of 4,830 l. for keeping up the establishment at Feversham in time of peace. It formerly cost 16,000 l.; it was then reduced to 12,000 l.; then to 8,000 l.; and now it cost 4,000 l. It should be given up altogether. There was an item of 2,850 l. for the purchase of lands, which he hoped the gallant officer would explain. He found, that the
554
law expenses amounted to 2,000 l. Then there was 10,000 l. for the medical establishment. These were enormous expenses. There was an item of 1,747 l. for Exchequer fees; altogether, as he had said already, the miscellaneous Ordnance Estimates amounted to 78,000 l., from which sum he was free to admit 45,000 l. should be deducted, as being paid for salaries, and not being an item that should be included in those Estimates. He had still, however, a greater subject of complaint to advert to than any he had yet mentioned, he meant the sum laid out on the civil department of the Ordnance, for superintending the expenditure. It consisted of the following officers, with the following salaries: Master-General, 3,000 l. a year; Surveyor-General, 1,200 l. a-year; Clerk of the Ordnance, 1,200 l. a-year; Principal Storekeeper, 1,200 l. a-year; Treasurer, 1,000 l. a-year; Secretary to the Master-General, 1,000 l. a-year; Secretary to the Board, 1,400 l. a-year; altogether amounting to 10,000 l. a-year. The clerks' salaries at Pall-mall and the Tower amounted to 50,000 l. a-year. Besides that, the clerks' salaries at Woolwich 3,069 l.; the clerks' salaries in Dublin, 10,550 l.; the clerks' salaries in the different out-stations throughout England, 15,237 l.; the clerks' salaries in the different out-stations in Ireland, 2,167 l.; and the clerks' salaries in the different out-stations abroad, 24,831 l. A great portion of this enormous cost was incurred by reason of our keeping up stores. Was it not monstrous, that the clerks of the Ordnance at the Tower and Pall-mall should cost more than the whole Exchequer of England? That was a crying evil, and the House ought to endeavour to remedy it. The whole of the contingent expenses of this establishment amounted to 128,757 l., which was enormous. He said, therefore, that the public was not done justice to. The establishment could be kept up at one-tenth of the expense and in equal efficiency. He did not see the necessity for continuing the Pay-office. He thought that the different items of expenditure might be paid by warrants direct from the Bank, or upon Cox and Greenwood, or any of the other army agents. He formerly laboured under the error of supposing, that the expense of the army agencies was extravagant. He now believed there was no mode of paying the army so economical and so certain as that adopted in the instance of army agencies. The Army Board in

555
Chelsea Hospital charged 1l. 14 s. 6d. upon their payments, whereas Cox and Greenwood, or any other army agent, would do it for one-third of the sum. In Fact, Cox and Greenwood would make the whole of these Ordnance payments for one-third of that charge; and thus the whole of that cost might be got rid of, that at present was incurred in the Pay-office. There was 590,000 l. already paid by Cox and Greenwood, and they only charged 16 s. 8d. per cent commission. He had already shown the enormous expense incurred by this branch of the Ordnance. Why, he would ask, should not that department be regulated upon the same plan here, as in every other part of the world? He would refer for example to India. There the artillery and the engineers were directly under the Commander-in-Chief, as they were in Germany, France, and every other country but this, and for the whole of India (with an army in Bengal of 150,000 men) the whole Ordnance did not cost so much as one single department or the Ordnance in this country. The matter was arranged in this way; there were distinct points of reference, rules were laid down for the guidance of the officers in the different districts, officers were appointed for carrying them into effect, and the whole was under the superintendence and control of the Commander-in-Chief. What was done in India might be done in this country. A system of the same kind was pursued, for instance, at Gibraltar, where the officers met together; each stated what was wanted in his different department, and their requests being transmitted here, the Board at home carried them into effect. The whole business, might, in fact, be done at the Horse Guards without any additional expense beyond a few clerks, and thus we should get rid of the whole of the Ordnance Department, for the maintenance of which, for no purpose, the country now paid an enormous sum. He knew the difficulties which men had to encounter who succeeded others in office; he was well aware how they were trammeled by prejudices and forms, but he believed that the present Government would do well to exert themselves to get rid of the useless stores, as they saw equally with him the expense and inconvenience of keeping more than we wanted. It was his intention to have submitted a resolution to the House on this subject, he thought there were very few Members who would not concur with him in the opinion that the Ordnance was
556
an unnecessary and an enormous establishment, and that it ought to be reduced. Understanding, however, that it would be inconvenient to move such a resolution while the House was in Committee, he should, when the Report was to be brought up, submit to the House a proposition grounded on what he had laid before the Committee, and he trusted it would meet with the support of the majority of that assembly.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, great credit was due to the hon. member for Middlesex for the searching inquiry he had made into these Estimates. For himself, he must say, he had not patience enough to go into any such details; but he should still make an observation or two to the House. The expense of the Ordnance during the last peace had been overstated by the hon. member for Middlesex, for it did not exceed the sum of 367,000 l. per annum. The hon. Member asked when the time would arrive that soldiers would be no longer lodged in palaces; and he would tell him—when the labouring people of this country were once more in comfort, and not before. Not before, he dare assert. When that House voted 15,000,000 l. or 16,000,000 l. a-year for taxes, instead of 50,000,000 l. or 60,000,000 l. then these barrack-palaces would be done away with; for then the people would be comfortable and thriving, and happy and contented, and there would be no soldiers wanted to keep them down. He was far from finding fault with Ministers for keeping up these palaces. It was not their doing that they were kept up. It was the fault of that House. As long as the House voted 50,000,000 l. of taxes—as long as the people were burthened in this way, Ministers could not help themselves—they must keep up a standing army, and they must maintain these garrison palaces. He knew he should be charged with making ill-natured observations. Let him be so charged. He did not care; for he was speaking truth, and the House could not deny it. If these soldiers were not kept to frighten the people, what, he asked, were they kept for? Here we were in the twentieth year of peace—not one of which had passed without his Majesty solemnly assuring us, on his royal word, that there was no danger of war—aye, and if that terrible word "war" was ever uttered in that House, there were loud and vociferous cries of "no," "no," "no," "no,"—here we were in the twentieth year of peace and no chance of war—and what

557
then, he asked, were these barracks and these soldiers kept up for? The blame, he repeated, was to that House, and not to Ministers—to that House then nearly empty, when such large outlays were under consideration—to that House, in which there were not fifty Members present when a sum of 1,300,000 l. was being voted away. He would say no more just then, on some other items he should have something to address to the House, particularly as to the enormous amount of the dead weight, as it was called—the pension part of this business, and more particularly still as to those fifteen Generals of the Ordnance Establishment, who were in the receipt of half-pay.
Colonel Maberlysaid, that the hon. member for Middlesex had mixed up the charges for the various departments in such a manner that he (Colonel Maberly) found it extremely difficult to reduce them from the chaos in which they had been involved, into intelligibility and order. The whole sum to be voted was alma 1,346,000 l, which was divided either into Ordnance Service, Barrack Department and Buildings, Military Stores, and Superannuation. He would not attempt to follow the hon. Member through all his observations; but would merely advert to a few points under each of these heads. The hon. Member, in the first place, alluded to the large establishment kept up, and the great number of soldiers in the artillery. It was obvious, on reflection, that it required a much longer time to train an artillery soldier than one for the line, as the former must necessarily receive something of a scientific education. It was necessary to drill him as a cavalry soldier, and in the use of military weapons; and it was also necessary that he should be made, in some degree, acquainted with laboratory practice. He believed, that it was not possible to instruct a recruit, to make him an efficient artillery soldier, in less than three or four years. If the artillery were not properly drilled, it would hardly be possible to send out an expedition with a chance of success, however it might be called for. He would appeal to any man at all conversant with military matters, whether it was not necessary that the artillery corps should be placed on a different footing from the troops of the line? The troops of the line, in case of need, might be replaced by the militia; but that could not be the case with the artillery. He thought that, if the honour of the country was to be maintained, a compara-
558
tively large corps of artillery must be kept up. As it was, England did not keep up nearly so large a force of artillery as other countries. Even America, in proportion to her military establishment, had a much larger artillery than England. In the United States, he believed that there were four battalions of artillery, and only six battalions of the line. The corps of artillery was much below what would be considered sufficient in any Continental State in which a large army was kept up. The hon. Member had complained that the artillery corps was paid by the Ordnance Office, and not by the army agents. This was done because the storekeepers were necessarily obliged to perform a great part of the duty of agents. The hon. Member said, that the payment of the corps was the only thing to look to; and they ought to consider the cheapest mode in which it could be done. The object, however, in the present mode of payment was to see that the artillery were not paid more than they ought to be. There were between seventy and eighty clerks in the War-office, who were occupied in checking the pay of the army; and it was deemed necessary that a similar check should be kept up by the Ordnance. One-third of the civil establishment of the Ordnance was kept up for this purpose. The hon. Gentleman, therefore, was wrong in saying, that the civil establishment was kept up for the stores alone. The next point to which he came was the barracks. He would not enter into a long discussion of the question as to whether it was more advantageous to keep troops in barracks, or quarter them on the inhabitants of a place. He believed that the excellent discipline of the British army was owing, in a great degree, to the barracks. The expense, certainly was great; but it was not near so much as formerly. He felt assured, that, if an attempt were made to quarter soldiers on the inhabitants of towns, it would lead to constant complaints; and the Government would be very soon compelled to return to the system of barracks. No military man, who had the interest of the army at heart, would wish to do away with barracks. The question then was, what should be the cost of the barrack establishment. He was prepared to show, that, within the last few years, great reductions had been effected in this department. In 1814, when the charge for barracks was transferred from the Army Estimates to the Ordnance, the amount of the Estimate was 270,000 l.; and in 1834, the charge was 196,000 l.; thus

559
making a saving in the barrack establishment in 1834, as compared with 1824, of no less than 96,000 l. He, perhaps, could not do better than read to the House a statement of the reductions that had been made in this department. In 1824 there were 157 barrack-masters, eight deputy barrack-masters, and 284 barrack-sergeants. In 1834 there were 103 barrack-masters, three clerks, and 244 barrack-sergeants; thus showing a reduction in the years of fifty-four barrack-masters, five clerks, and forty-two sergeants. In Ireland the establishment was not above one-third of its extent in 1824. He thought that the Ordnance Department were entitled to credit for the reductions they had effected. The next head he came to was the Ordnance expenditure; and he was prepared, if necessary, to show, that it was less, as compared with that in the golden time of the hon. Member, namely 1792. At that time, also, the Ordnance had not to defray the charge of the Ordnance survey, or the Ordnance sea-service. He would not, however, enter into details, though it ought to be recollected, that the Ordnance had to superintend the building and repairing of forts and barracks in almost all parts of the world; and it was absolutely necessary that the utmost care should be taken to see that the work was properly done. He ought previously to have observed, that the Ordnance had determined, for the future, to have as much work performed by contract as they safely could. In that case, however, it would be absolutely necessary to keep up many officers to superintend the buildings, and see that good materials were used, and that the work was properly done, and also that the articles furnished by contract were of the proper quality. The hon. Member had made several observations respecting stores, which he could scarcely class in any order. The hon. Member complained of the large stock of stores kept on hand. Undoubtedly, there was a large stock; but the Ordnance were taking steps to reduce it. There was then sitting at Woolwich a Committee to inquire into the subject, with a view to determine the quantity of stores that should be retained, and what should be disposed of. With respect to the manufacture of gunpowder, when they had such a large stock in hand, he would only observe, that not more than one or two thousand barrels were made in the year; and it was considered desirable that this manufacture should be continued, for the purpose of having a number of persons well
560
acquainted with the manufacture of the article; and also that scientific experiments might be tried as to the manufacture. With respect to the establishment at Feversham, the hon. Member was in error, as it had been done away with three years ago. He had already admitted, that the quantity of stores on hand was very large; but it would not do to get rid of the whole stock, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman. He was sure that the House would agree with him, that the Ordnance would be guilty of a great neglect of duty if they did not keep up sufficient stores to be prepared for hostilities. His Majesty's Ministers had fully concurred in the recommendations of the Committee, of which his hon. friend, the Storekeeper of the Ordnance, was Chairman, respecting the keeping of stores. The Committee recommended, that there should not be an accumulation of stores for more than a consumption of three or four years; and also that a great part of the surplus stores should be disposed of. The Committee likewise recommended, that many articles now manufactured should, for the future, be purchased by contract. His hon. friend, the Storekeeper-General, had acted upon the suggestions of the Committee; and he would not do mere than refer to what had been done since the Committee made their Report on the 29th of July, 1833. It was found, on examination, that no less than 13,050 various articles were in the dépôt in Tooley-street, and the Military Committee had struck out those articles which they thought should not be kept. In 1833 the number of articles in store was 13,056. There were then only fifty-eight articles in store in Tooley-street. He was, therefore, justified in saying, that they had succeeded in making great reductions in the store department, on which the hon. member for Middlesex had said so much. He trusted that he had shown, to the satisfaction of the House, that the Ordnance Establishment was not larger than was necessary.
Vote agreed to, as were the several other votes, and the House resumed.

POLISH EXILES.
Sir J. Graham Sir J. Graham moved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Exchequer of Receipt Bill.
On the question, that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
Lord Dudley Stuartsaid, he would take that opportunity of putting a question to the noble Lord (Palmerston) opposite. A

561
statement had appeared in some of the public papers in which it was said that a communication had been made by the Court of Russia to the several Governments of Europe requesting that those governments would not receive or give any protection to those Polish refugees who had been exiled from their own country for political causes. If such a communication had been made, it was most cruel and tyrannical, and was quite in keeping with the other acts of tyranny which had been practised on those unfortunate exiles. He wished to know from the noble Lord, whether any such communication had been made from the Court of Russia to this Government?
Lord Palmerstonhad no objection to answer the question put by his noble friend. No such communication as that mentioned by his noble friend had been made by the government of Russia to his Majesty's Government.
The House went into Committee on the

EXCHEQUER RECEIPT BILL.
On the first Paragraph being read,
Mr. Herriessaid, that as Chairman of the Committee in which this Bill had, he might say, its foundation, he felt it necessary for his own sake, and for the sake of those with whom he then acted, to offer a few remarks on the Bill. To the general principle of the Bill he was as ardent a friend as the right hon. Baronet; but though he agreed in the principle, he differed from the right hon. Baronet as to some of its details, and his object in thus adverting to it was with the view of making the Bill as perfect as he thought it might be made. One part of it on which he differed from the enactments of the Bill was that of having two persons of equal authority at the head of the department, each to act in the absence of the other, but for this absence there was no regulation, as neither of those parties were to be under a higher authority. This, he thought, would be productive of inconvenience, inasmuch as it tended to bring about a practice which it was a professed object of the Bill to avoid—of having the duties of principals done by deputies. He was of opinion that the Clerk of the Pells might be retained under some other name, if it were thought proper, but as a recorder of the acts of other officers. If two officers were appointed, they should be a check upon each other. The Comptroller-general should undoubtedly have an opportunity of being occasionally absent, provided it were without de-
562
triment to the public service; but he was afraid, if the Assistant-comptroller were to be permitted to act, not pro hac vice, but in all cases for the Comptroller-general, this office would degenerate into a sinecure. The assistant should be permitted to act for the principal only under the special authority of the Exchequer. In case of the unavoidable absence of the Comptroller the chief clerk might be authorized to act for him. He (Mr. Herries) objected to the appointment of two officers to the same situation. He should reserve other observations on several of the clauses of the Bill; he thought he could offer some suggestions in order to carry into effect the objects of the right hon. Baronet.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that he listened with the utmost deference and respect to the suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman, who combined with a knowledge of these details much practical experience. He (Sir James Graham) was anxious to continue the ancient system of the Exchequer so far as it was found effective; he was desirous that the control of the present day should be at least as efficient as the former control. The subject of dispute between him and the right hon. Gentleman was, whether the present double check was more efficient than the single check provided in the Bill before the House. He (Sir James Graham) had stated his reasons already for thinking that the single check, as provided in the Bill, was most efficient. It was to be recollected, that this single check was an entirely independent officer. He proposed that the offices of Comptroller and Assistant-comptroller should not be filled by persons holding any other appointment from which they were removable by the Crown. Another objection of the right hon. Gentleman was, that the office of the Comptroller-general might degenerate into a sinecure. But he proposed to insert, in the second clause, that the assistant should exercise the powers of the Comptroller only in the event of the illness or occasional and necessary absence of the Comptroller; he also proposed to provide that the Comptroller should exercise his functions in person, and that both officers should be removable by an Address from either House of Parliament. These, he thought, would be found sufficient precautions for preventing the principal office degenerating into a sinecure. If there were a double check, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, there must be a provision for the occasional absence of both

563
officers, by the appointment of two assistants, and, therefore, there would be four officers instead of two.
Mr. Herriesreferred to the nature of the appointment of Lord Auckland, as Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital, by Act of Parliament, which expressly stated that it was to be during his Majesty's pleasure; and he contended that this would disqualify him for the office of Comptroller-general.
Sir James Grahamreplied, that the effect of the appointment of Lord Auckland in Greenwich Hospital was during life.
Mr. Herriesmust still insist, that as the object of the right hon. Baronet was to keep the Comptroller-general from the influence of the Crown, if the Act of Parliament stated that the office in Greenwich Hospital was to be held during pleasure, it did not remove the individual from the influence of the Crown; he was, therefore, incapable of holding the office of Comptroller.
The several clauses of the Bill were agreed to, as verbally amended, and the House resumed.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Juries (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By the Earl of ALBEMARLE, from the Western Division of the County of Suffolk, for Relief to the Agricultural Interest.—By the Bishop of LONDON, from Wethersfield, for Protection to the Established Church.—By the Duke of NORFOLK, the Earl of DURHAM, and Lord POLTIMORE, from a Number of Dissenting Congregations,—for Relief to the Dissenters.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from several Places, for Renewing and Extending the Labour-Rate Act.—By the Duke of NORFOLK, the Earl of DURHAM, and the Bishop of CHESTER, from a Number of Places, for the Better observance of the Sabbath.—By the Earl of DURHAM, from Ceres, for a Separation between Church and State.

APPEALS IN THE HOUSE OF PEERS.
Lord Ellenboroughin rising to move that a return relative to appeals should be amended so as to distinguish Scotch from Irish appeals, wished for a moment to draw their Lordships' attention to the returns which had been laid upon their
494
Table. Those returns had been drawn up by the Clerk-Assistant, and it would have been more satisfactory to him if sittings on Scotch as well as English and Irish appeals had been noticed, It was not, he was certain, the intention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to produce an impression on the House with respect to the conduct of his predecessors which would be otherwise than correct; but, looking at the Return then laid on the Table, he found, that during the period in which the noble and learned Lord had presided on the Woolsack he had sat 156 times, and had been assisted by other noble Lords forty-four times; while, in a shorter period, Lord Lyndhurst had sat 160 times, and had been assisted by other noble Lords nineteen days. He stated this as a fact, in justice to Lord Lyndhurst, in consequence of what had been asserted the other night. In the course of one session Lord Lyndhurst had sat sixty-five days—a greater number of days than had been devoted to judicial matters by any other individual whose name appeared on the face of the Return. Lord Eldon, in 1821, sat fifty days; in 1822, fifty-two days; in 1823, fifty-eight days; when undoubtedly his labours were assisted by Lord Gifford. He had, however, in 1824, sat forty-four days; in 1825, forty-six days; and in 1826, fifty days. This ought to be known, lest a wrong estimation should be made of the labours of the noble and learned Lord's predecessors. No one imputed to the noble and learned Lord any laxity in the discharge of his duties: yet it was but right that the public should know, that the noble and learned Lord's predecessors had exerted themselves to as great an extent as he had done.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that when on a former evening he had addressed the House on this subject, he had no intention to make any invidious comparison of his labours with the labours of others. But when he found individuals twitting him, or accusing him with being remiss in the performance of his duty, his object merely was, to state his own case in a plain manner. No such intention entered his mind as that of bringing himself into that sort of comparison, which, God knew, would be disadvantageous, and not advantageous, to him. He had no object in view, except in so far as to show their Lordships that he had not been inattentive to his duties. He had not seen the Re-

495
turns, excepting for about a minute, and therefore he could not speak confidently about them. He had, on a former evening, made a comparison between the two Sessions, when Lord Gifford assisted the then Lord Chancellor, and those in which he had had the honour to fill the situation which he now held, and he said, that he did not shrink from a comparison of his labour with the business which had been gone through in the time which he had specified. He thought it would be found that in the first year, in which he sat in that House in his present situation, he had sat not fewer days than Lord Gifford had done in the year to which he had most particularly referred. He believed, that he had sat an equal, if not a greater number of days. In the glance which he took over the Return, he might have mistaken the column of causes for the column of days of sitting; that was possible; but assuredly he meant to institute no invidious comparison whatever. During the time which he sat on appeals, he did not rise, as had been customary, at 3 or 4 o'clock. He frequently renewed his sittings after the political business was at an end. Frequently he sat till 9 or 10 o'clock at night, and that, too, be it observed, from 10 o'clock in the morning. It was not his intention to impugn the great and valuable services which the country had derived from the exertions of his immediate predecessors, and which he himself, when at the bar, had an opportunity of witnessing and appreciating; but what he stated was, that he had not had the benefit since he presided in that House, of the assistance of any actual judge. He had not had the aid of the Master of the Rolls, as Lord Eldon had; neither had he the assistance of the Chief Baron, of which Lord Lynhurst had very properly availed himself. It was true he had had the able assistance of his noble and learned friend, the late Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, without which he could not have gone through so much business. He must observe, before he concluded, that there was a fallacy in the manner in which the Returns were drawn up. It gave the arrears at the end of the Session, and the number consequently depended on the question whether the Session was long or short. In 1830, the Session began in November; the appeals, therefore, could only be entered up to November. In this year it
496
began in February, so that there were three months and more for appeals to be entered. The comparison, therefore, would be between the appeals entered in ten, and entered in thirteen months. Yet what was the result at the beginning of this Session? There were eighty-four appeals, or ten fewer than at the beginning of the Session of 1831.
The amended Return was ordered.

LIVERPOOL FREEMEN DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved the first reading of this Bill, and, stated, that the course he meant to pursue was this.—He should move, that a Message be sent from that House to the House of Commons, requesting a copy of the Report of the Select Committee of that House which had sat on this subject in 1831, and the Report of the Select Committee of the last Session. He hoped, that noble Lords would look at these Reports, and would be satisfied with the account of the evidence there given without requiring a further examination at the Bar of that House. He should move the second reading on Monday, the 28th of April.
Lord Wynfordnever could consent to pass such a Bill merely on the report of evidence given before a Committee of the House of Commons. He hoped, that this House would never depart from the ancient practice of examining witnesses themselves, especially, as the noble Earl had said the other night, when they had judicially to decide on the disfranchisement of a borough. He was the last person in the world to wish to defend corruption, but he would not consent to act upon evidence taken in another place. However, to show, that he wished to throw no impediments in the way of this measure or to interrupt the business of the House, he was ready to consent that the evidence should be taken before a Committee up stairs. He, therefore, gave the noble Earl notice, that when the second reading was moved, he should move as an Amendment, that the parties be heard at the Bar of that House.
The Marquess of Salisburyhad the greatest respect for the noble and learned Lord, but he must say, that he objected to to any proceeding before a Committee up stairs, the evidence before which was to be a ground for the House to act in a judicial manner. He thought, it was not

497
expedient to depart from the precedents which had hitherto governed the conduct of their Lordships.
Lord Ellenboroughdid not mean to say anything on this question, but suggested to the noble Earl, that as the second reading of the Warwick Bill was fixed for the 24th, and it was not likely that the House could dispose of it by the 28th, the second reading of the present Bill ought to be fixed for some other day, so that the House might proceed from day to day with one, and then take up the other.
The Earl of Durhamsaw no reason whatever why the House should agree with this proposition. For once in his life, he agreed with the noble Marquess opposite, that there ought to be no delegation to a Select Committee sitting with closed doors. He wished to ask the noble and learned Lord opposite, what he meant by a Motion that the parties should be heard at the Bar? Did he mean that the parties who promoted the Bill should be heard at the Bar whether they wished it or not? They had not petitioned to be heard. Did the noble and learned Lord mean to conduct the examination?
Lord Wynfordadmitted the objection to having the witnesses before a Committee up stairs. To obviate that, and not interrupt the business of the House, he was ready to consent that they should be examined in the morning. In answer to the noble Earl, he said, that what he meant was, that there should be an examination of witnesses in support of the allegations of this Committee. If these allegations were not proved, the Bill would fail. He certainly did not mean to conduct the case. From what he had already seen of this Bill he was satisfied it ought to fail.
The Bill was read a first time.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PETITION.
Earl Greysaid, he had now to present to their Lordships a Petition which appeared to him to deserve their most serious and attentive consideration. The petition came from a number of members of the University of Cambridge, who, although members of the Established Church, prayed that their Lordships would relieve the Dissenters from one of those grievances which, in their petitions to Parliament, the Dissenters had described as one with which their interests were deeply connected, and which they anxiously wished
498
to be removed. In the prayer of that petition he need not state to their Lordships, to whom his opinions were well known, his entire concurrence. That petition had been put into his hands by most respectable individuals, and he was happy to bring it before the House, praying, as it did, for an object which appeared to him to be just and reasonable in itself, and which, if agreed to, would, in his opinion, prove eminently conducive to the interests of the Established Church. It was signed by sixty-three members of the University of Cambridge—a number bearing a most respectable proportion to the whole number of members of the senate generally resident in that University. The number generally resident, he was told, was somewhere between 170 and 180. The number of persons by whom it was signed amounted, therefore, to more than one-third of the usual residents. He believed that, from the resident members of the senate, there must be deducted several who, from age, infirmity and other causes, seldom took part in the affairs of the Senate, and he had also to observe, that several members of the Senate, who had not signed the petition, to the number of eight or ten at least, were favourable to its prayer. He had, therefore, to state, and he would state it with confidence, that a very considerable proportion of those members of the Senate who took part generally in the affairs of that body were favourable to the prayer of this petition. But he felt still greater satisfaction in stating, that it was signed by men who were highly respectable for their moral worth and their extensive attainments. It was signed by two heads of Houses, by nine professors, and by eleven tutors of colleges, comprising some of the most eminent members of the University. He need not state to any one who was at all acquainted with the University of Cambridge the high character of those by whom the petition was signed, when he mentioned the names of Professors Airy, Sedgwick, Musgrave, Lee, and many others, than whom there were not persons in the University more eminent for general knowledge, more eminent for science, or for the excellence of their moral conduct in life, and all of them were well known to be zealously attached to the interests of the Established Church. Amongst the tutors they found the names of men equally celebrated. It was only

499
necessary, in proof of this allegation, to mention the names of Messrs. Peacock, Bowstead, and Thirlwall. The last-named gentleman was considered one of the most eminent scholars in Europe, and no body of men could be more estimable for their moral character, for their extensive acquirements, or for the enlightened and honest zeal which distinguished their attachment to the Established Church. Amongst others whom he might particularly notice was the reverend Mr. Hughes,—a gentleman who was highly distinguished in the University, and who, he believed, was examining chaplain to the Bishop of Lincoln. It could not for a moment be supposed that such individuals as these could harbour any design against the interests of the Established Church. He might, perhaps, be asked how it happened, that an application of this kind had been made to their Lordships, when it might have been made to the senate of the University? The reason was short and satisfactory. It was merely this—that under the existing system the petitioners had it not in their power to proceed in that manner with any probable chance of success. According to the constitution of the senate, as probably most of their Lordships were aware, it was in the power of the Caput, and not only of the Caput, but in the power of every individual of that body, to put a veto on any proposition that might be made. On two occasions, attempts were made to bring the case of the Dissenters before the Senate. Professor Parish endeavoured to bring it under consideration in Michaelmas term last. His proposition was at once met by a positive negative. It was afterwards introduced by Professor Hewitt, in Hilary term last, and it was again met by a positive denial. The petitioners found that they could proceed in no other way, and therefore they had come to this House. They had no chance of succeeding where such a power existed; for if nine-tenths of the University of Cambridge were in favour of any particular measure, though it might appear to be for the interest of the University or of the Church, yet any one member of the caput might, by exercising this prejudicial veto, put an end to the proceeding. Such was the reason which induced the petitioners to come to that House. Having explained the origin of the petition, he wished to state to their Lordships the object of the petition; and
500
he could not acquit himself better than by reading a portion of the petition itself, which was admirably drawn up, its premises clear, and its deductions conclusive. It set forth,—'That your petitioners are honestly attached to the doctrines and discipline of the Church of England, as by law established; and are well persuaded of the great benefits it hath conferred, and is conferring, upon the kingdom at large. They beg leave, also, to declare their sincere attachment to the University of Cambridge, grounded upon its connexion with the Established Religion of the country, and upon the wholesome effect it hath produced on the learning, piety, and character of the nation. Strongly impressed with this conviction, they would humbly submit to your hon. House their belief, as Protestant Christians, that no system of civil or ecclesiastical polity was ever so devised by the wisdom of man as not to require, from time to time, some modification from the change of external circumstances, or the progress of opinion. In conformity with these sentiments, they would further suggest to your hon. House, that no corporate body, like the University of Cambridge, can exist, in a free country, in honour or in safety, unless its benefits be communicated to all classes as widely as is compatible with the Christian principles of its foundation.' He entirely agreed in those general expressions of feeling,—he concurred in the general views contained in the petition then before the House, coming as it did from members of the Established Church, who felt an ardent desire to promote its interests, and whose duty it was to support its welfare by all the means in their power,—coming from individuals who, to use their own emphatic words, "were honestly attached to the doctrines and discipline of the Church of England," and whom, therefore, no application could induce, if such by possibility could be made, to lend themselves to any project that could, in the slightest degree, militate against the principles which they professed. The petitioners proceeded to say,—'Among the changes which they think might be at once adopted with advantage and safety, they would suggest to your hon. House the expediency of abrogating, by legislative enactment, every religious test exacted from members of the University, before

501
they proceed to degrees, whether of Bachelor, Master, or Doctor, in Arts, Law, and Physic. In praying for the abolition of these restrictions, they rejoice in being able to assure your hon. House, that they are only asking for a restitution of their ancient academic laws and laudable customs. These restrictions were imposed on the University in the reign of King James 1st., most of them in a manner informal and unprecedented, and grievously against the wishes of many of the then members of the Senate, during times of bitter party animosities, and during the prevalence of dogmas, both in Church and State, which are at variance with the present spirit of English law, and with the true principles of Christian toleration.' Many of their Lordships might suppose, that what this petition prayed for was not consistent with the original institution of the University of Cambridge. But such was not the fact: the petitioners sought to remove restrictions which were imposed on the University long subsequent to its foundation, and under the circumstances which were stated in the petition. Perhaps their Lordships would allow him to advert, very shortly, to the constitution of the University of Cambridge. The bye-laws of the University, or Statuta Antiqua, took their rise under Acts of Parliament passed in the time of Henry 8th, Edward 6th, and Mary. A Statute, passed in the 12th year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, had embodied nearly all the former Statutes and constituted thus the general rules by which this society was originally governed. In these rules there was no mention whatever made of those restrictions which were now the subject of complaint; and though oaths were prescribed, there was nothing in them which looked like religious tests. In those worst times of the Reformation, when the persons at the head of the Church were as zealous as any that now lived for its security, there was no such thing as a religious test introduced. It was not till a subsequent period, that these restrictions were introduced, namely, in the early part of the reign of James 1st. In the year 1604, the Convocation framed a Book of Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical; but the articles that were now the subject of discussion were introduced in consequence of a letter from the King. In that letter, it was required, that no person should have permission to gra-
502
duate as a Bachelor of Divinity, Doctor of Divinity, of Law, or of Physic, unless he subscribed to the third article of the 36th Canon. This letter of the King was afterwards adopted and confirmed by a Grace, by which Bachelors in Divinity, and Doctors in Divinity, in Law, and in Physic, were not to be admitted to degrees, without subscribing to what was contained in the third article of the 36th Canon, which, containing the 39 Articles of the Church of England, of course operated to exclude Dissenters. This, however, it would be observed, did not extend to Masters of Arts, which degree appeared, so far, to be still open to all; but they were afterwards excluded from that in the following singular, and, as the petitioners described it, informal manner. The manner was so informal and unusual, that it might almost be a question on what sufficient authority the exclusion now rested In the year 1606, another document, signed J. R., was sent to the University. This document was stated to be the substance of what had passed between the King and certain members of the University of Cambridge, and in it the King desired, that in future no degree whatever should be granted, except as before stated; but that no person whatever should be admitted to take any degree whatever who had not first subscribed to the 3rd Article of the 36th Canon. This was all that had taken place on this subject. There had been no confirmation of this second document by a Grace; but this letter, which was written from Newmarket, where the King was then attending the races, was the sole authority on which the exclusion of Dissenters from all degrees whatever now rested. The directions contained in the letter was well known to be against the opinion of many Members of the Senate at that time; and it was but fair to presume that as the letter of the King, which had been previously forwarded, had been confirmed by a Grace, that this last letter was not so confirmed—because, if proposed, it was not likely that it would have met with that formal and necessary ratification. But be that as it might, in practice these restrictions had been adopted up to the present day, probably in consequence of that negative possessed by the Caput, by which the granting of a degree might be refused, if the conditions were not complied with, These orders and regulations

503
remained in abeyance from the year 1641 until the restoration of Charles 2nd, when they were renewed, and had been continued to this day. In 1777, an alteration was made: Bachelors of Arts were not called on to subscribe the articles contained in the 36th Canon, but they were required to sign a declaration, stating that the applicant was a bonâ fide member of the Church of England. With that single exception, he did not know, that there was to be found in the records or statutes of the University anything confirming or acknowledging the exclusion which had been established. The operation of that alteration was, to admit to the degree of Bachelor of Arts all persons subscribing the declaration which he had mentioned, but leaving the practice, as it had prevailed from the year 1616, of subscription to the three articles of the 36th Canon, in other respects undisturbed. The operation of the whole was, to exclude all persons, not being members of the Church of England, from taking degrees; and it was this exclusion, so justly complained of as a grievance by the Dissenters, that the petitioners, watchful over the interests of the University—anxious for the security of the Church, but, at the same time, desirous of removing what they considered as no less detrimental to the particular class which it more immediately affected, than to the University and the Church,—earnestly prayed their Lordships to re-consider—to revise a regulation introduced in the manner which he had described, which they believed to be at variance with the principles both of justice and policy. He did not think, that any danger was likely to result to the Established Church by adopting such a course. On the contrary, he was of opinion that it would be productive of great and manifold benefits. He could not imagine, that the admission to university honours of individuals of high character and great learning, though differing from the Established Church in their religious tenets, could be productive of any ill effect. Those individuals having the benefit of a learned education, having reaped the fruits of that instruction which the University afforded, when they arrived at that period when they naturally wished to apply for those distinctions to which they were entitled, ought not to be stopped short in their honourable career. He could not conceive that any danger either to the Church or to the University could or
504
would result from acceding to their application. In his view of the question, it would be more really conducive to the true interests of the Church and to the true interests of the University if that course was adopted which would bring members of the Church of England and Dissenters more closely together,—which would tend to soften angry feelings, to obliterate the marked line of distinction which now existed between the two bodies, and to do away with that animosity which a sense of injury and of exclusion necessarily engendered. This, in his opinion, would be truly beneficial. This was not his own opinion merely. In stating it, he expressed the opinion of many wise and good men. The illustrious Duke opposite (the Duke of Cumberland) had asked him on a former occasion, whether this petition came from members of both Universities; and he informed the illustrious Duke in reply, that it emanated only from the University of Cambridge. The reason of this was, that there existed, as their Lordships were aware, a most material distinction between the rules and regulations of the two Universities. At Cambridge a Dissenter of any denomination might be admitted to the advantage of a learned education without subscribing any declaration whatever, and many were now obtaining education there who were not members of the Established Church. This was not the practice at the other University, where the students, on matriculation, took the oath. Now, he would ask, had any evil or any disadvantage whatever been experienced by the Church of England from the practice which prevailed in the University of Cambridge? Far from it. He believed, that instances could be adduced where Dissenters who were educated at Cambridge had become members of the Established Church. If Dissenters were admitted to all the previous advantages of education in the University,—if they studied there for three years, (the time necessary to elapse before a degree could be conferred)—when they had been suffered to go so far, was it, he demanded, expedient,—was it just,—could it be useful to the Church, to stop short at the period when they had by study and by long residence a right to expect, in reason, that they should receive the well-earned fruits of their care and industry? Was that the time to shut the door against them, and to refuse them the liberty of profiting

505
by those advantages which their education at the University had enabled them to possess? Why should not a Dissenter educated at the University be allowed to assume those academic honours which gave importance to professional men? Many of the Dissenters educated at Cambridge had evinced abilities of the highest order. He had heard of a Quaker there who had distinguished himself greatly at his examinations. Was it, he again asked, fitting, after a residence of three years,—after having received all the benefit of an enlightened education—that the Dissenter should be told, that he must stop short—that he should be deprived of that which was the object of his most anxious desire? It those individuals were, by these means, deprived of those advantages which they ought to derive from a great civil establishment, would they not struggle hard in order that they might be allowed to attain them by the formation of other establishments? That was a consideration which he thought it was very natural the Dissenters should suffer to influence their conduct, for assuredly if they were not admitted to the full benefit of the two Universities, it could not be expected that they should not seek those honours elsewhere; and it would be both impracticable and unjust to prevent them from obtaining the same advantages which they vainly looked for in those Universities, conformably with their own views and feelings. Both the profession of law and of medicine was rendered more difficult of access to them than to members of the Establishment. If a Dissenter wished to become an attorney, he must act as a clerk for five years; but if he could have taken a degree, that would reduce the term by two years. So, if he wished to become a barrister, however excellent his education might have been, still, as he had not taken a degree, which his religious scruples prevented, he was obliged to remain on the books for five years before he could be called: while, if he were admitted to take a degree, three years would be sufficient. The Dissenter might arrive at the honour of a licentiate of the College of Physicians or of Surgeons; but, without a degree, he could not become a fellow of either. This was a serious civil injury; and he saw no reason why the Dissenter should not be placed on equal terms with those who, in point of education, had only the same advantage as himself. He would
506
state as a strong argument in favour of his views that, in the University of Dublin, Dissenters of all denominations could obtain degrees. They were admitted in the year 1793, about the time when the first concessions were made to the Roman Catholics, to the privilege of taking degrees in arts and medicine; and the concession of this privilege was made with the entire consent, concurrence, and support of the two members for the University of Dublin, then sitting in Parliament; it being objected to by nobody, he believed, but by a person whose name was celebrated in the annals of religious controversy, the late Dr. Duigenan. He was not aware that any disadvantage of any kind had been incurred, either by the University of Dublin or by the Established Church, in consequence of the liberal, just, and wise grant of that privilege. On the contrary, he believed it had been most beneficial in its effects, and so far from producing, what he supposed was apprehended by some persons would be the result of pursuing a similar policy with respect to the English Universities,—anything like schism or dissent in the University, or weakening the influence of the Established Church,—he did not know a single instance of a conversion being effected among persons professing the established religion in consequence of the concession of degrees to Dissenters, though he did know that many individuals who once dissented had become members of the Church of England. Believing as he did in the superior purity and excellence of the doctrines and tenets of the Established Church, he certainly did think that the most likely effect of conceding what was asked for in the petition to which he was now calling their Lordships' notice, would be to bring over to the Established Church many persons who did not at present belong to it. He thought, therefore, that he had stated sufficient reasons for inducing their Lordships to inquire carefully into the expediency of complying with the prayer of the petition,—a prayer founded, as he conceived, in justice, and supported on grounds entirely consistent with the most earnest desire, which in all these discussions ought to be professed and entertained, for the security and welfare of the Established Church. It was, in his opinion, unnecessary for him to state anything further on these points before he proceeded to read the remainder of the petition, to

507
which he was desirous of calling their Lordships' most serious attention. He believed, that he had satisfactorily shown that the petition asked for nothing inconsistent with the original constitution of the University. It proposed, that Dissenters should be admitted to the privilege of obtaining degrees—a concession which could be in no wise dangerous either to the University or the Establishment, and would at the same time relieve from disabilities, of which they justly complained, a class of persons who, on account of their general attachment to the liberties and constitution of the country, were as much deserving of the attention of that House as any class of his Majesty's subjects. He professed himself to be a sincere and ardent well-wisher to the success of their claims whenever they were supported by justice; but whenever they were pushed to an unreasonable length, and pressed forward in combination with declarations which, if acted on, would, he thought, be destructive of the Established Church, he should not fail to oppose them. He lamented that a want of moderation should have been shown by any portion of the Dissenters, for he thought that it could be productive of no other result than deep injury to their cause; but he conscientiously believed that the great majority of those who dissented from the Church disapproved very much of the proceedings to which he alluded. They were, indeed, entirely disclaimed by several members of that respectable body with whom he had had that day an interview, and who stated, that, though not as Dissenters, but as members of the community, they might entertain the opinion, which had been maintained by some men attached to the doctrines of the Church of England, that the existence of any Established Church whatever did not tend to the advantage of religion; yet they were not willing to press that question on the Legislature, being desirous of confining their complaints to those grievances of which they could fairly complain, and from which he would most, anxiously and earnestly endeavour to relieve them, whenever he had an opportunity of successfully bringing forward a measure for that purpose. He would now read the concluding paragraphs of the petition; and he begged to state, that he entirely concurred in the view taken by the petitioners of this part of the subject:—"Your petitioners" the noble Earl read,
508
"conscientiously believe, that if the prayer of this petition be granted, the great advantage of good academic education might be extended to many excellent men who are now, for conscience sake, debarred from a full participation in them, though true friends to the institutions of the country; and your petitioners are convinced that this is the best way at once to promote the public good and to strengthen the foundations of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Establishments of this realm. The University is a body recognized by the law of England as a lay corporation, invested with important civil privileges, anti on that account resting on no secure foundation which is not in harmony with the social system of the State. Your petitioners therefore humbly beg leave to suggest, that as the legislative bodies of the United Kingdom have repealed the Test-act, and admitted Christians of all denominations to seats in Parliament, and to places of dignity and honour, they think it both impolitic and unjust that any religious test should be exacted in the University, previously to conferring the civil privileges implied in the degrees above enumerated. Lastly, your petitioners disclaim all intention of hereby interfering, directly or indirectly, with the private Statutes and regulations of individual colleges, founded as those colleges are on specific benefactions, and governed by peculiar laws, of which the respective heads and fellows are the legal and natural guardians. To the several clauses of this petition the consideration of your honourable House is humbly but earnestly entreated, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray." He had stated all that appeared to him to be necessary in support of the very just and excellent prayer of the petition; and having done so, he would only say, that he thought the names attached to it would prevent all reasonable men from apprehending that any measure was contemplated which could at all be dangerous to Church or State; and he, therefore, as a friend to the Dissenters—as a friend to the Universities of this country—and above all, as a friend to the Established Church—offered the petition to their Lordships, requesting them to give it their most attentive and serious consideration.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that he had intended to follow on this, the course which he had usually pursued on similar

509
occasions, viz., to avoid entering into any discussion of the question raised by the petition. Bit the importance of the subject, the importance attached by the noble Earl himself to this petition, the formal notice which he gave of his intention to bring it forward, the attention with which it had been received in that House, and the general attention which it was likely to excite in consequence of the noble Earl's speech, called on him to address at least a few words to their Lordships on the subject. He could not, however, help lamenting that the illustrious Duke, the Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, should not be present upon this occasion, as he would have been so touch better able to have stated to their Lordships the peculiar circumstances connected with the University of Cambridge, to which this petition referred. It certainly could not be expected that he should be much acquainted with matters of this description relating to either of the Universities, and much less so in relation to the University of Cambridge than to the University of Oxford. But what must their Lordships think of the prayers of this petition, when, from the statement of the noble Earl himself, it appeared that this University was a corporation? That it was a corporation with the power of judging and deciding on the matters referred to in this petition—a corporation, invested not only with the power of judging, but also perfectly capable of judging, on these subjects. What, then, was the case? Sixty members of this corporation; sixty most respectable individuals he would admit—and he was sorry the illustrious Duke was not present to bear testimony to their respectability—these sixty individuals came to their Lordships, and desired them to interfere in their legislative capacity, in order to overrule the regulations of this corporation. Here was a primary objection. The noble Earl had stated to them, doubtless with great accuracy, the history of these regulations, and had, on the demand of these sixty individuals, called on their Lordships to alter them. He did not know, that it was the duty of their Lordships to enter at all into the regulations of these Universities, at all events without the consent of the Senate. There were between 200 and 300 members of the Senate resident at Cambridge. [Earl Grey: Only 180.] Be it so. There were 180 members of the
510
Senate resident at Cambridge, and there were about 4,000 non-resident. If the House were to act on the petition of these sixty individuals, what would they be doing? Why, when the subject came to be regularly discussed before the Senate, it would be found that these sixty individuals did not comprise more than a fiftieth part of the whole number, and that all the remainder of the corporation would be opposed to the noble Earl. These gentlemen, then, proceeded to say, that whether there were or were not a majority in the Senate, the subject could not be ascertained, because the Caput of the Senate had refused to allow the subject to be brought forward. That House could not enter into the question whether the Caput was right or wrong in coming to this determination; but it was clear, that if the disposition to interfere with their regulations were as strong as it was apprehended by these gentlemen, it would have been only necessary for something like a majority to have proposed it, and it would have been carried into execution.
Earl Grey: It was twice proposed to the Caput for discussion, but they would not permit it to be discussed.
The Duke of Wellington: And why should they, when there was so great a majority as 4,000 against sixty? Under such circumstances, it was the duty of the Caput to make the objection. He really thought it would become the House to consider well, in all these questions relative to the Dissenters, who they were and what they were. Many of them differed in a very slight degree from the Established Church, objecting only to one or two articles. There were others who did not agree with the Established Church on any one point; others who denied altogether the existence of the Trinity; and others who were complete Atheists. It was highly important for their Lordships to look to this variety of opinions, and to consider well the probable effects of the removal of these restrictions before they adopted any such measure as the present. The regulations of the University of Cambridge were different to those of the University of Oxford. The noble Earl had said, that Dissenters might go to Cambridge and receive their education till they came to the degree of Bachelor of Arts. But the Dissenter would not, under the existing regulations, receive his degree unless he signed certain articles. These articles were

511
neither more nor less than the Articles of the Established Church; that was to say, after receiving the education of the Establishment, they were required to sign these articles, being articles of Christians—the articles of their education as Christians—and it was on their refusal only to sign these articles, that their degree was refused them. Surely it was not on such a point as this that their Lordships were to interfere. It was said, that persons not obtaining the degree were liable to certain disadvantages in the professions of medicine and law. It was perfectly true, that in the profession of medicine a certain education, received at the University, did give certain advantages in the way of promotion and in the way of time. This was likewise the case with barristers and attorneys. Gentlemen who had obtained this degree, had the advantage of being called to the bar at the King's Inns, he believed, two years earlier than those who had not. But this did not arise from any rule of the Universities; the rule was laid down by the Benchers of the Inns. They could not call on the Universities to alter this rule, for the Universities had nothing to do with it. The alteration of that regulation was quite a different question; but he entreated their Lordships not to interfere with an institution like the University of Cambridge, at the instance of so small a minority of its members; nor, at their demand, compel an alteration in its bye-laws, which would so seriously affect its government.
Lord Ellenboroughwas of opinion, that no question could be brought before their Lordships more important, or more interesting to large classes of his Majesty's subjects, than that which had been introduced to the notice of the House by the presentation of the present petition. In considering this subject, he apprehended there would be felt not merely difficulties in principle, but practical difficulties, which even if the difficulties in principle should be surmounted, the Legislature would not be able successfully to encounter. Undoubtedly the objections mentioned by his noble friend who had just sat down to interfering by parliamentary enactment, with the charters and privileges of the University of Cambridge were not small. He must confess, that he felt the greatest disposition to acquiesce, if practicable, in the wishes of the pe-
512
titioners. He saw great advantage to the public in providing for the joint education of all classes of his Majesty's subjects, though entertaining different religious opinions, in an establishment where the Ministers of the Established Church received their instruction. He considered that such unions formed in early life for the purpose of education, would be productive of great advantage to the Established Church, and of very great advantage to the community. Moreover it could not be considered in any other light than as a great disadvantage to cause any persons professing a particular religious belief to entertain the feeling, that they were harshly treated by the laws of the country, and excluded from benefits solely on account of their religious opinions. Undoubtedly there could not be any objection, on principle, to extending to persons dissenting from the Church of England, all such advantages resulting from the conferring of degrees in the Universities as might place them on an equal footing with their fellow-subjects who were members of the Church of England in the profession of medicine and the law. But he must, at the same time, declare, that nothing should induce him to consent to persons dissenting from the doctrines of the Church of England, exercising power and authority in the Universities, which, though they might be lay corporations, he could not but consider as being practically, intimately, and essentially connected with the Established Church. Here he drew a distinction, from which nothing should induce him to depart. Any advantage which the Dissenters required to enjoy at the Universities, and which it would be consistent with principle, and practically possible for their Lordships to grant, let them have it in common with their fellow-subjects of the Established Church; but he would grant them nothing which, by possibility, could lead to their obtaining any power or authority from which injury might result to the Church of England. He would do nothing which could injure the Church of England. He stated that distinctly, as the principle by which he should be guided, if he should be called on to give any vote on this deeply interesting and important subject. At present he was ready to do anything in his power, whatever his private and personal feelings might be on the question, for the purpose

513
of maintaining, if it were possible, religious harmony in this country. The preservation of religious peace was the object of the noble Duke who had just sat down, in forwarding the two great measures of relief which passed during his noble friend's tenure of office. In the attainment of that object, he (Lord Ellenborough) would be ever ready to assist; and he confessed, that at the present moment he saw nothing more likely to prevent its consummation, than the adoption of a course by the Legislature which should have the effect of associating with that difference in religious opinions which they might not be able to overcome a sense of oppression arising from political distinctions; and by uniting both in one deep feeling of animosity, of inflicting on this country one of the greatest curses with which any community could be visited.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he had heard with the greatest satisfaction, many of the sentiments to which the noble Baron had just given utterance. The expressions which had fallen from the noble Baron, of toleration and of friendly regard towards those who conscientiously dissented from the Established Church, and the wise counsel which he had given to the members of the Establishment, to follow the path of peace and conciliation, as being the most likely to lead to the security of their own Church, had caused him (the Lord Chancellor) great satisfaction; and he could not help thinking, that they came with peculiar and appropriate grace from the descendant of one of the most eloquent, learned, and, without desiring to institute any disparaging or invidious comparison to any of his brethren now living, one of the most tolerant and enlightened prelates that ever adorned the Episcopal Bench. He repeated, that it was highly grateful to him to find such sentiments entertained by the noble Lord, with whom he also agreed in thinking that it was hardly possible to overrate the importance of the subject under consideration, as it would be difficult to overrate the difficulties attending it. In his mind there did not exist any difficulty in point of principle, but merely as to the details of the measure, and the manner in which it might be thought expedient to carry it into effect. Whether, for instance, any guards or restrictions should, on mature consideration, be deemed necessary (and if they were not necessary, they were
514
most inexpedient) in carrying into effect the great principle of civil and religious liberty, which this question jointly involved. That there might be difficulties besetting their path, in seeking the best mode of acting on these principles, he was as ready as the noble Baron to admit. But he must say, that he considered this to be no speculative question; it was no visionary or fancied grievance of which the Dissenters now complained; it was not a matter merely of abstract principle, as many of the subjects lately taken up by that highly respectable and most virtuous and enlightened body of men appeared to him to be; but it was a practical evil—a grievance which met them in the ordinary transactions of life, and which imposed a burthen on them in the way of disqualification, from which the rest of their fellow subjects were free—free, he repeated, only because they conscientiously adhered to the doctrines of the established religion of the State, and conformed to its rules and discipline, and from which the Dissenters were not free, only because they as conscientiously dissented from the Established Church, and would not conform to its discipline. By the same rule as he claimed for himself, and for the bulk of their Lordships, the undeniable and imprescriptible right to have a Church which they approved of, and to follow the principles which they professed—by the same rule, and by the parity of the same reason, was he compelled (but he did it cheerfully, and, therefore, should not say that he was compelled) at once to grant to all Dissenters the right, as high and imprescriptible on their part, to worship their Creator according to the dictates of their own conscience, without being degraded in their own eyes or those of their fellow-subjects for so doing. He would not, however, weary their Lordships by insisting on truisms, for be believed no person would be found hardy enough to remain adverse in principle to the propositions which he had just stated. But though universally admitted in principle, they were yet denied in practice, and there was no denial of them which created a greater practical grievance to the Dissenters than their actual exclusion from all academic distinctions. Their Lordships would not, he believed, admit (at least he would not) that it could be possible to maintain this exclusion much longer,

515
whether by the law or practice of the country, or by the University statutes, royal ordinances, or academical rules. That it should continue much longer in these our days he held to be a thing utterly impossible. If any man were asked to point to the country, and the age in which it was inconceivable that such an exclusion existed, he would, if he were ignorant of the fact, at once point to England as the country, and to the nineteenth century as the era. If a man wished to follow the medical profession, being desirous to devote his faculties and time to that most useful employment, painful to many individuals, but useful beyond almost all other professions to the community at large, he might, it he belonged to the Established Church, be enabled to pursue the profession by going to the university at Oxford or Cambridge, by residing within his own country, and by obtaining his education there; not, however, his medical education, be it observed, because, though the two Universities were the only two bodies having the power of granting medical degrees, they were also the only bodies which at once had the monopoly of the privilege, and of the incapacity to teach. They at once claimed for themselves the exclusive power of making doctors, and, at the same time, loudly admitted, for they proclaimed their incapacity, that they could not teach medicine. They could only make doctors, not qualify them. They could make a man a master of arts by teaching him mathematics and the classics; but he must learn medicine elsewhere; and after qualifying himself by seven years' study in another part of the world, return to the bosom of his alma mater for the purpose of obtaining a degree. But if the same individual happened to be a conscientious Dissenter, he could not go to Oxford at all. He would, to be sure, be admitted at Cambridge, but even there he could not be able to obtain a mathematical or doctor's degree. For the purpose of obtaining a degree in medicine, he must quit his home, his family, and friends, and must go to a foreign country, He must repair to Paris, to the Dutch universities, as formerly used to be the case, or to the Scotch universities, or he might study in London, where a knowledge of the medical art might be acquired, but where, though it was the emporium of science as of commerce, a degree was not to be obtained. It should
516
be borne in mind, that the law of Scotland was very different, in many respects, from the law of England; and he (the Lord Chancellor) knew of many parents who had been deterred by that very circumstance alone from sending their children to that country for the purpose of medical education. Still, however, the Dissenter had no choice; he might go abroad and remain there for three or four years, at great expense, receiving instructions in medical science, and he might return again and find himself just in the same situation, as far as concerned the means of obtaining a degree, as when he first left. Why was he subjected to this hardship? Simply because he conscientiously differed from the religious opinions of the majority of his fellow-subjects in this part of the country. That was the reason, and the only reason of the grievance under which the Dissenter now laboured, and under which he justly, and not one note louder than he ought, now complained. The noble Duke (Wellington) had, to be sure, an easy method of disposing of all objections on this as well as on most other questions. The noble Duke had asked what great evil was there in allowing students at the Universities to proceed with their education, taking care, before they obtained their degrees, to make them sign the articles of Christianity, as he called them. But the noble Duke ought not to forget that these articles were the articles of Christianity, adopted by one particular Church; and, however much the noble Duke and himself might venerate its form of worship, the pure and rigid Presbyterian considered it to be scarcely removed from what he regarded as little better than Paganism—namely, Popery. It must have been quite evident to the House, that the noble Duke dwelt with much satisfaction upon the circumstance, that the present petition had been signed only by sixty of the resident members of the Senate of the University; that they bore no proportion to the whole number, and, therefore, a preponderating majority must be considered as opposed to the prayer then addressed to their Lordships. Now, he would suppose, that a large body of the non-resident members took a different view of the subject from that adopted by the petitioners, still he should say, that the assumption of the noble Duke, that there existed a preponderating majority against the prayer of the

517
petition was perfectly gratuitous. He begged their Lordships to recollect, that the petition was signed only by resident members of the University; and if any portion of that learned body could be supposed to feel a hankering after such opinions as those of which the noble Duke was the advocate, it would be rather members who resided, than those who might be scattered about the kingdom, and living in unreserved communication with their fellow-countrymen. The House must know, as well as he did, that the question was never fairly put before the members of the Senate; but he hoped the time was at hand when that learned body might seriously reflect upon the importance of that which then engaged the attention of their Lordships, though they might not have the opportunity of doing so in a collective capacity. He did sincerely wish to see the time, when, by the consent of the Universities themselves, the great grievance now complained of by the Dissenters would be effectually and graciously removed; and the great blot which the present practice occasioned, wiped off from the constitution of the Universities—a blot which no friend of learning, of religion, or of the well-being of the State, could regard otherwise than most detrimental to the true interests of the Universities, and an almost insurmountable barrier to their extensive usefulness and prosperity. As he had already said, and to that he begged especial attention, the question had never been fairly put to the Senate; for the veto of the Caput put a chance of that sort beyond hope, inasmuch as every decision come to by those six lords of the articles required perfect unanimity. In future, as in times past, they might expect that no opinion would ever be pronounced by the assembled Senate; and, for the simple reason, that whenever a proposition of that nature was laid before the Caput, there was always found some one dissentient, and, therefore it was, that the question never reached the Senate. For aught, therefore, which their Lordships could know, the great majority of the Senate might be in favour of the prayer of the petition, since the question which it involved could never come into discussion. That, beyond all dispute, was the ground upon which the petition then stood before their Lordships. There were, it was clear, certain difficulties in coming at the real sentiments of the members of the University;
518
that he was not averse from acknowledging; but in what manner the disabilities under which the Dissenters laboured were to be removed—and that they ought to be removed could not be doubted—formed a totally different question. But though there were doubts and difficulties, also, as to the proper mode of removing those disabilities, he had no doubt that the University would seriously and sincerely apply itself to the task of investigating the question, with a view of devising the best mode of overcoming all those difficulties. In his judgment, it would be the greatest of all slanders upon that learned body to suppose them capable of shrinking from the fullest inquiry into their whole system and management—their rights, privileges, and correlative duties. There was not a man, he was sure, in the whole community, who would insinuate a whisper, conveying the idea that they entertained the slightest reluctance to undertake the urgent and imperative duty of meeting the present demands in the spirit which the state of public feeling on the subject required. From such an inquiry he anticipated the happiest results; and he had no doubt that the conversation of that day would have the effect of calling the attention of the University of Cambridge to the fair and just demands of the Dissenters, and to the fitness, the safety, and the expediency of losing no time in turning a careful and scrutinizing eye on the growing importance of that great question.
The Earl of Durhamadverted to the regret expressed by the noble Duke, on account of the absence of the illustrious Field-marshal, the Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, from whom he might have had some assistance in the present conversation; but it was to be recollected that there was still present another illustrious Field-marshal, the Chancellor of the University of Dublin, to whom the noble Duke might well look for that concurrence and support, of which, in the other instance, some accident, no doubt, had deprived him. The noble Duke certainly regretted the absence of that illustrious personage, but that was not the only misfortune which befel him in the course of his advocacy of that which he was pleased to describe, as the real sentiments of the University. The laws of the University, as the House was well aware, excluded Dissenters from the advantages of degrees with a view to the practice of

519
the lay professions. Now, with the permission of the noble Duke, he would ask him this,—when he was the Commander-in-Chief of that gallant and conquering army which sustained the glory of the British name through so many campaigns, and brought a very doubtful contest to a conclusion full of triumph,—he would ask that noble Duke, whether he thought it was likely he should have brought that war to so glorious a conclusion if he had been compelled, in his selection and employment of officers, to inquire, in the first instance, whether they had subscribed the thirty-nine Articles of the Church? He hoped that their Lordships would not attach any importance to the argument founded upon the assertion, that the effect of the changes which the petitioners sought would be to overwhelm all Corporations. The present petition had been considered as an attack upon Corporations; but he was sure noble Lords would feel, that that was anything but a faithful representation of the matter, for the petitioners did not complain of any act done by the Corporation. But if they had, it would not have been a complaint uttered for the first time, as the history of that, as well as the history of other Universities, fully testified. He would just beg their Lordships' attention to a short extract from Dyer's Academic Unity, in which that writer stated, that "The preface to the statutes made in his (Edward 6th's) reign rightly begins with declaring 'that the ancient Statutes are obscure, unintelligible, semi-barbarous; and that others, more intelligible, fashioned more according to the condition of the times, and to the practice of the new learning, became requisite.'" His noble friend had referred to the well-known letter of James 1st; but it should be recollected in all references to that communication, that the first of the Stuarts was a monarch in no wise celebrated for his attachment to liberty. He was adverting briefly to the various topics which had been touched on in the course of the discussion, for it did appear to him a matter of the highest importance that every light should be thrown upon a question of such moment; and for the purpose of letting in that light as effectively as possible, he did not scruple to appeal to the illustrious Duke opposite, to state, as he might be able to do, from his long residence in Germany, whether it were not the case that, in the Universities of that country,
520
there were no religious distinctions or tests whatever, and in no Universities were the sciences, and every branch of learning more successfully cultivated. This was the case even with theology, for the learned Dr. Parr had declared, that he obtained more theological knowledge from a very short study in Germany, than he had acquired during many years in England. When, therefore, all these circumstances were considered, it would be wise for the heads of the University to reflect, whether, the restrictions imposed by them might not ultimately have the effect, in a great measure, of superseding themselves. He perfectly concurred in the gratification expressed by his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, at the liberal tone of the speech of the noble Baron opposite, who had so ably expressed his opinions in favour of the principle of the measure; and he was equally ready with his noble and learned friend to bear his humble testimony to the toleration and wisdom of the learned and illustrious Prelate from whom the noble Baron had proved himself to be a worthy descendant. That noble Baron, however, was afraid to carry his principles into complete practice, on account of some presumed danger to the Church Establishment. But, he would ask the noble Baron, what possible danger could arise to the Church of England from acceding to the just claims of the Dissenters? It surely was not intended to be insisted on, that the Established Church could not exist unless it was propped up and supported by exclusive privileges. All he, as an advocate and admirer of that Church would ask was, a clear stage and no favour. Indeed, in his opinion, these exclusive privileges inflicted more injury than they conferred benefits on the Establishment, as they permitted those who enjoyed its honours and dignities, to leave to others the performance of those duties which should be exercised by their own personal exertion. From the high eminence on which they were placed, they unfortunately overlooked the efforts of those low, but zealous labourers, who sowed a seed, of which the abundant harvests were now exhibiting themselves, and, by their unremitting exertions, placed themselves in a position so powerful, that that House, even if it had the will, had not the capability to overcome them. It could not be supposed, that if these privileges were refused to the Dissenters, they

521
would still willingly continue to submit to the degradation. It was impossible that any man in his senses could believe they would. No, the contest would still continue; the struggles of the Dissenters to free themselves from degrading disabilities would go on; they would be arrayed against the Established Church in a strife which would never cease until that which justice demanded was acceded to by an enlightened toleration. Concession to the claims of the Dissenters had been founded on an argument, the announcement of which was most impolitic. It had been said, that granting their just claims, doing justice to them, would be incompatible with the safety of the Establishment. He had read this ground of opposition over and over, in pamphlets and newspapers. He would not contend, though he had the impression, that such a ground of opposition had been taken in that House; but he was confident it had been frequently made; and, he would simply ask, was it safe, was it politic, was it advantageous to the Establishment? The noble Duke appeared to think that Dissenters were not as united as they might be—that there were shades of difference in the extent to which they urged their claims; but, all must admit, that they were powerful in wealth, in intelligence, in number, and in activity. Was it policy thus to array such a body, so powerful in appliances, in a contest with the State authorities, and make them hostile to our institutions, civil and religious, by continuing their disabilities? But they were recommended to wait until a proposition for improvement proceeded from other quarters—till the heads of the Church of their own free will, and as the spontaneous result of their liberality—proposed that, of which the Dissenters had now so reasonably and so justly required the concession. He feared that they would wait long if they waited for the operation of reason alone—an apprehension in which he found himself strengthened by the opinion of Archdeacon Paley, in his defence of Bishop Law. It bore with so much force on the present question, that he could not refrain from reading it to their Lordships:—"As the man who attacks a flourishing establishment writes with a halter round his neck, few ever will be found to attempt alterations, but men of more spirit than prudence, of more sincerity than caution, of warm, eager, and impetuous tempers;
522
that, consequently, if we are to wait for improvement till the cool, the calm, the discreet part of mankind begin it, till the Church governors solicit, or Ministers of State propose it, I will venture to pronounce that (without His interposition with whom nothing is impossible) we may remain as we are till the renovation of all things." Concurring in that opinion, he conceived the present course adopted by the Dissenters to be most laudable; and he hoped that they would not relax in their exertions, till they had obtained that which would do equal honour to all, the full concession of those rights they demanded.
The Duke of Cumberlandconcurred with the noble Duke near him in everything that he had said that night, and, though he was himself the Chancellor of the University or Dublin, it did not follow that he should maintain the applicability of the laws of that learned body to the government of the English Universities. He lamented as much as the noble Earl opposite, the absence of his illustrious relative—an absence he was sure occasioned by nothing less than sickness.
Petition to lie on the Table.